A reply to Dr. Mortons general Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the…A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the…

AT length we are come to Reason. But if this reason were sound and certain, I see no cause why it should not have had the upper hand of humane testimonies.

AT length vve are come to Reason. But if this reason were sound and certaine, I see no cause vvhy it should not haue had the upper hand of humane testimonies.

1 The first reason is grounded on the Defendants fantasy merely. For it supposeth that we hold some points of Religion to be only besides the Word, and no way against it: which not only I have confuted before as a cavil, but M. Cartwright long since in his Reply, p. 56: the very words also of this argument which the Def. here opposeth do show that we hold such things condemned by the Scriptures, and therefore against the general rule of them, though only beside their particular prescription.

1 The first reason is grounded on the Defendants phantasie meerly. For it supposeth that vve hold some points of Religion to be onely besides the Word, and no vvay against it: vvhich not onely I haue confuted before as a cavill, but M. Cartwright long since in his Reply, p. 56: the very vvords also of this argument which the Def. here opposeth doe shew that vvee hold such things condemned by the Scriptures, and therefore against the generall rule of them, though onely beside their particular prescription.

2 The second reason concludeth nothing which we will not grant, in the sense formerly expressed, viz. that by those some ceremonies be meant circumstances of mere order, and by man• invention, be understood mans particular determination. Otherwise ⟨p. 15⟩the assumption is palpably false. Beside the proposition also is untrue, if [Greek or Hebrew] a thing indifferent, be taken in such a general sense as some time it is found used in by Divines. Vide Sopingii Apologet. respons. ad lib. anonym. p. 166.