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…

SECT. III.

Because one usual evasion, much esteemed by the patrons of our ceremonies, is, that they had a good beginning: therefore the Authors of the Abridgement to stop that muse, add that even such things are to be cast away, which had a good original and use (if they be not still necessary and commanded of God) when once they are known to have been defiled by idolatry, or abused unto it. For proof whereof they allege Lev. 26 1, and other places more. But the Def. here singleth out this one, and denieth that the titulary pillars of the heathen (which were set up at limits of their grounds) had a good beginning. Suppose that this be true, and that the Authors of the Abridgement were mistaken in this place: is not the same thing sufficiently proved our of 2 King. 18 4, Dan. 1 8, Hos. 2 16 17. But yet it is more then probable, that those titular pillars, were at the first only set up for civill use: because many statues which afterward served only for worship, were at the first only for civill respects, and these had still a civill use for distinction of bounds. But Calvin collecteth, that no statue was here condemned, but that which was erected to represent God. Calvin indeed hath those words: but what kind of representation he meaneth, he showeth sufficiently before, omnes picturas quibus corrumpitur spiritualis Dei cultus: all pictures that corrupteth Gods spiritual worship. And after, quaecunque nos a spiritualie•us cultu abducun•: whatsoever lead us from the spiritual worship of God.