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…

IN the title of these two Sections, the Defendant promiseth an instance of a ceremonious instrument belonging unto the worship of God. But he bringeth none save the Altar of the two tribes mentioned, Josh. 22 which he cannot show to have been any instrument of Gods worship: so that he seemeth merely to have forgotten his title. But for the thing it self M. Parker long since p. 1 c. 2 s. 33 hath given this answer. 1 that we may better argue from the Altar of Damascus 2 King. 16 against the cross, then they can from this Altar for it. 2 that this Altar of the two Tribes, was not in state or use religious as the Cross is, which he confirmeth by the confession of B. Babington on the second Come. and by the testimony of Lavater on Jos. hom. 61, 3 that in this our men say nothing which the Papists allege not for their superstitions, and the Lutherans for their images, as probably as they, Masi•• and Chitreus upon this place. To the same purpose tendeth the answer which the Def. hath set down in the name of certain Ministers. Let us here therefore his Reply. 1 He proveth the setting up of this Altar to have been humane, which ⟨p. 47⟩no man that I know ever doubted of.

IN the title of these two Sections, the Defendant promiseth an instance of a ceremonious instrument belonging unto the vvorship of God. But he bringeth none saue the Altar of the two tribes mentioned,