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. IIII.

THE third proof in the Abridgement standeth thus: the equity of these commandments is thus set down in Scripture: 1 the detestation which the Lord our God being a jealous God beareth unto idolatry, and all the instruments and tokens thereof, as unto spiritual whoredom, Exod. 20 5 6, Deut. 7 25 26. 2 that we cannot be said ⟨p. 61⟩sincerely to have repented of the idolatry or superstition whereby we or our forefathers have provoked the Lord unless we be ashamed of and cast away with detestation all the instruments and monuments of it, 2 Chron. 33 15, Es. 1 29 & 2 20 & 30 22 2 Cor. 7 11, Call. in Deut. serm. 52 ep. 86 p. 166 167. 3 that we shall be in danger to be corrupted. Ex. 34 12 15, Deut. 7 4. 25. 26, Jud. 2 13, Gal. 2 5. 4. We shall harden Idolaters, Ezech. 16 54 1 Cor. 6 10. 5. There is more danger in Popish ceremonies, because the Pope is Antichrist, and we converse more with Papists then with other Idolaters.

THE third proofe in the Abridgement standeth thus: the equity of these commandements is thus set down in Scripture: 1 the detestation which the Lord our God being a jealous God beareth unto idolatry, and all the instruments and tokens thereof, as unto spirituall whoredome, Exod. 20 5 6, Deut. 7 25 26. 2 that we cannot be said ⟨p. 61⟩sincerely to haue repented of the idolatry or superstition whereby wee or our forefathers haue provoked the Lord unlesse we be ashamed of and cast away with detestation all the instruments and monuments of it, 2 Chron. 33 15, Es. 1 29 & 2 20 & 30 22 2 Cor. 7 11, Cal. in Deut. serm. 52 ep. 86 p. 166 167. 3 that we shall be in danger to be corrupted. Ex. 34 12 15, Deut. 7 4. 25. 26, Iud. 2 13, Gal. 2 5. 4. Wee shall harden Idolaters, Ezech. 16 54 1 Cor. 6 10. 5. There is more danger in Popish ceremonies, because the Pope is Antichrist, and we converse more with Papists then with other Idolaters.

Now of all these reasons and allegations the Def. answereth directly to nothing, but only to those words see Calvin: and yet not to them neither as they are cited in the Abridgement. For there it is, see Calvin in his 52 serm. on Deut. and ep. 87. Now on these places the Defendants eyes would not serve to look: or at least, his heart would not suffer him to give answer, they are so pregnant. If we have any drop of good zeal in us, it must needs vex and grieve us to see the marks and signs of idolatry: and that we must to the uttermost of our power deface them, &c. nothing upon pretence must be tolerated in the Church, which came either from Satan or from Antichrist. Yet the Def. saith, he hath seen Calvin upon Exod. 23 & 24, and Numb. 23 and Deut. 7 12, and findeth that Calvin holdeth these precepts of destroying Altars and Groves, to bind the Jews only, not Christians: and he biddeth us see Calvin on these places. Surely I have looked and could find no such thing. If there had been any thing worth the knowing, for maintenance of the ceremonies, we should have heard of the words of Calvin; whereas now Calvin is brought in expressly affirming that we may use temples which have been defiled with idols: which is nothing at all to the question of unnecessary ceremon. But if the Def. would discuss this point out of Authors, whether the laws alleged out of the old. Testament against the monuments of Idolatry, do not bind Christians, why doth he not answer to the testimonies of Calvin, Martyr, Grineus, Wolphius, Visinus, Maccabeus, Zanchius, Simlerus, Zepperus, Fulk, & our book of homilies alleged to this purpose in the Abridg. p. 24.

Now of all these reasons and allegations the Def. answereth directly to nothing, but onely to those words see Calvin: and yet not to them neither as they are cited in the Abridgement. For there it is, see Calvin in his 52 serm. on Deut. and ep. 87. Now on these places the Defendants eyes vvould not serue to looke: or at least, his heart would not suffer him to giue answer, they are so pregnant. If we haue any drop of good zeale in us, it must needs vexe and grieue us to see the markes and signes of idolatry: and that we must to the uttermost of our power deface them, &c. nothing upon pretence must be tolerated in the Church, which came either from Satan or from Antichrist. Yet the Def. saith, he hath seen Calvin upon Exod. 23 & 24, and Numb. 23 and Deut. 7 12, and findeth that Calvin holdeth these precepts of destroying Altars and Groues, to binde the Iewes onely, not Christians: and he biddeth us see Calvin on these places. Surely I haue looked and could finde no such thing. If there had been any thing vvorth the knowing, for maintenance of the ceremonies, we should haue heard of the words of Calvin; whereas now Calvin is brought in expresly affirming that we may use temples which haue been defiled vvith idoles: which is nothing at all to the question of unnecessary ceremon. But if the Def. would discusse this poynt out of Authors, vvhether the lawes alledged out of the old. Testament against the monuments of Idolatry, doe not bind Christians, why doth he not answer to the testimonies of Calvin, Martyr, Grineus, Wolphius, Visinus, Machabeus, Zanchius, Simlerus, Zepperus, Fulk, & our book of homilies alledged to this purpose in the Abridg. p. 24.

SECT. V.

IN one place of Scripture yet, viz. Dan. 1 8, the Def. thinketh he hath some advantage; because Calvin interpreteth it otherwise then of ceremonial pollution. But therein the Abridgement followed that interpretation which is most generally, received: for which see Junius in his Commentary upon the place. And suppose that pollution was not ceremonial or idolatrous, yet I hope the Def. vvill not say but if the meat had been so ⟨p. 62⟩polluted Daniel would have abstained from it.

IN one place of Scripture yet, viz. Dan. 1 8, the Def. thinketh he hath some advantage; because Calvin interpreteth it otherwise then of ceremoniall pollution. But therein the Abridgement followed that interpretation which is most generally, received: for which see Iunius in his Commentary upon the place. And suppose that pollution vvas not ceremoniall or idolatrous, yet I hope the Def. vvill not say but if the meat had been so ⟨p. 62⟩polluted Daniel vvould haue absteyned from it.

Take therefore some other testimonies to prove your assertion, saith the Def. So confidently as if he knew of no testimonies which he had not answered. What can one say to him that vvill not take that which is thrust into his hands, and yet calleth for more, as if he could find none?

Take therefore some other testimonies to proue your assertion, saith the Def. So confidently as if he knew of no •estimonies vvhich he had not answered. What can one say to him that vvill not take that which is thrust into his hands, and yet calleth for more, as if he could finde none?

SECT. VI.

THE last thing which the Def. vvill take knowledge of, as alleged out of the Scriptures, in this point, is the example of Hezekiah 2 King. 1• in breaking down the brazen Serpent. This example is so famous, that he could not omit it: yet he knoweth not well what to say unto it.

THE last thing vvhich the Def. vvill take knowledge of, as alledged out of the Scriptures, in this point, is the example of Hezekiah 2 King. 1• in breaking down the brazen Serpent. This example is so famous, that he could not omit it: yet he knoweth not vvell what to say unto it.

First, he giveth five reasons for the abolishing of the brazen serpent. As if any of us doubted, but that Hezekiah had reason enough for that he did: Or, as if there could not be reasons enough alleged, and those almost the very same, for abolishing of our ceremonies. Let them be abolished by public authority, and I vvill undertake reasons to justify, the action done, vvill easily be acknowledged even of those that now can see none to persuade unto the doing of it.

First, he giveth fiue reasons for the abolishing of the brazen serpent. As if any of us doubted, but that Hezekiah had reason enough for that he did: Or, as if there could not be reasons enough alledged, and those almost the very same, for abolishing of our ceremonies. Let them be abolished by publick authority, and I vvill undertake reasons to justifie, the action done, vvill easily be acknowledged even of those that now can see none to perswade unto the doing of it.

Secondly, he propoundeth, as very observable, that Hezekiah did not abolish the idols which Solomon suffered to be set up, because they were neglected. But 1 it may well be thought that those idols were destroyed by Hezekiah, and set up again before the time of Josiah, as many other superstitions were. 2 It cannot be doubted but they should have been destroyed, even though they were for the time neglected: because either Hezekiah had as good cause to destroy them as Josiah: or else he might have prevented that cause which Josiah had: and to prevent evil, we are as well bound, as to correct it.

Secondly, he propoundeth, as very observable, that Hezekiah did not abolish the idols vvhich Salomon suffered to be set up, because they were neglected. But 1 it may vvell be thought that those idols vvere destroyed by Hezekiah, and set up againe before the time of Iosiah, as many other superstitions were. 2 It cannot be doubted but they should haue been destroyed, even though they were for the time neglected: because either Hezekiah had as good cause to destroy them as Iosiah: or else he might haue prevented that cause which Iosiah had: and to prevent evill, we are as well bound, as to correct it.

Thirdly, he citeth Zanchius to prove, that this is not an universal remedy for all abuses of ceremonies. The place in Zanchie I cannot find: neither skilleth it much. I grant the conclusion, it is not a remedy for all abuses of ceremonies, viz. for such as Gods appointment hath made necessary to be retained. Besides the words of Zanchie here cited by the Def. do only therefore seem to make for him, because they are not full enough against him. But in other places of the same book Zanchius judgement is plain enough, as p. 649 where from this example he reproveth those that keep the relics of superstition in some holy places; though they have removed them out of Churches. And if about this matter the Def. doth ascribe any thing to the judgement of our ⟨p. 63⟩divines, why doth he not answer the testimonies of Augustine, Calvin, Martyr, Wolphius, Lavater, Zanchius, Sadeel, Jewel, Bilson, Fulk, Rainolds, Andrews, Perkins, alleged to this purpose in the Abridgement, p. 24?

Thirdly, he citeth Zanchius to proue, that this is not an universall remedy for all abuses of ceremonies. The place in Zanchie I cannot finde: neither skilleth it much. I grant the conclusion, it is not a remedy for all abuses of ceremonies, viz. for such as Gods appointment hath made necessary to be retayned. Besides the words of Zanchie heere cited by the Def. doe onely therfore seem to make for him, because they are not full enough against him. But in other places of the same book Zanchius judgement is plain enough, as p. 649 vvhere from this example he reproveth those that keep the reliques of superstition in some holy places; though they haue removed them out of Churches. And if about this matter the Def. doth ascribe any thing to the judgement of our ⟨p. 63⟩divines, vvhy doth he not answer the testimonies of Augustine, Calvin, Martyr, Wolphius, Lavater, Zanchius, Sadeel, Iewel, Bilson, Fulk, Rainolds, Andrews, Perkins, alledged to this purpose in the Abridgement, p. 24?

Fourthly and lastly (which only in deed is to the purpose) the Def. would show us a disparity betwixt the idolatry of the Jews, and that of the Papists. The first is, that that idolatry of the Jews was done publicly, and generally, and in the bowels of the same Church: but the Papists is not so. To which I answer 1 these circumstances are not rendered as reasons of the abolishing in the text, but invented by the Def. 2 private particular idolatry is to be removed as well as public and general: 3 all these circumstances did more then agree to our ceremonies in the beginning of our reformation. And sure they are not grown better since, by any good that they have done.

Fourthly and lastly (vvhich onely in deed is to the purpose) the Def. vvould shew us a disparity betwixt the idolatry of the Iewes, and that of the Papists. The first is, that that idolatry of the Iewes was done publickely, and generally, and in the bowels of the same Church: but the Papists is not so. To which I answer 1 these circumstances are not rendred as reasons of the abolishing in the text, but invented by the Def. 2 private particular idolatry is to be removed as well as publick and generall: 3 all these circumstances did more then agree to our ceremonies in the beginning of our reformation. And sure they are not grown better since, by any good that they haue done.

The second difference which the Def. imagineth, is that there was no other means to cure the idolatry of those times: but now there is. I answ. 1 this is the very question whether there be any other sufficient means to cure the disease of humane ceremonies idolatrously abused beside abolishing. 2 It is a vain imagination whereby this difference is confirmed, and no reason at all. In the Dominions of our Hezekiah (saith the Def.) this disease would be found curable without any such extremity. But the experience of 50 or 60 years show, that hitherto it is not cured neither in Ireland, nor Wales, to say nothing of England. Surely our Prelates are miserable Physicians, that in a disease so easy to be cured, suffer the patients to languish under their hands, unto death. Especially (saith he) in this our most truly reformed Church, which doth most lively express the face and full body of her primitive mother Church. This he hath now 3 or 4 times repeated: as if he did desire to make a question of it: and here propounds it with a doubt, if you will allow. It is not sit here to make a long digression about this matter. In short therefore thus, we allow with all thankfulness, that our Church is to be called a reformed Church in regard of the main points of faith, which are purely and freely taught among us with public approbation: and also in regard that the grossest superstitions are by public authority cast out of our Assembles. But if our Ecclesiastical government be considered, and some ceremonious superstitions, we deny utterly, that we have such a reformation therein, as may represent the face of the primitive Church. Let the Defendant tell us, if ever the primitive Church had such chanting idol service as is every day to be seen in our Cathedral Churches? If there were in the primitive Church Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials under the ⟨p. 64⟩Bishops, which executed the censures of that Church? If he can show any primitive pompous Bishops that had sole authority of ordination & excommunication? If any Minister was called in the primitive Ch. without express consent of the congreg. over which he was set? if Ministers were then wont to go to law for their places? if the Primitive Church ever heard of Pluralists, Non-residents or dumb ministers? If either in primitive or else in Popish Church almost simony was ever so ordinary as it is with us?

The second difference vvhich the Def. imagineth, is that there was no other meanes to cure the idolatry of those times: but now there is. I answ. 1 this is the very question whether there be any other sufficient meanes to cure the disease of humane ceremonies idolatrously abused beside abolishing. 2 It is a vaine imagination vvhereby this difference is confirmed, and no reason at all. In the Dominions of our Ezekias (saith the Def.) this disease would be found curable without any such extremity. But the experience of 50 or 60 yeares shew, that hitherto it is not cured neither in Ireland, nor Wales, to say nothing of England. Surely our Prelates are miserable Phisitions, that in a disease so easie to be cured, suffer the patients to languish under their hands, unto death. Especially (saith he) in this our most truely reformed Church, which doth most liuely expresse the face and full body of her primitiue mother Church. This he hath now 3 or 4 times repeated: as if he did desire to make a question of it: and here propounds it vvith a doubt, if you will allow. It is not sit heere to make a long digression about this matter. In short therefore thus, vve allow with all thankefulnes, that our Church is to be called a reformed Church in regard of the main points of faith, which are purely and freely taught among us vvith publick approbation: and also in regard that the grossest superstitions are by publick authority cast out of our Assembles. But if our Ecclesiasticall government be considered, and some ceremonious superstions, wee deny utterly, that vve haue such a reformation therin, as may represent the face of the primitiue Church. Let the Defendant tell us, if ever the primitiue Church had such chanting idol service as is every day to be seen in our Cathedrall Churches? If there were in the primitiue Church Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials under the ⟨p. 64⟩Bishops, which executed the censures of that Church? If he can shew any primitiue pompous Bishops that had sole authoritie of ordination & excommunication? If any Minister was called in the primitiue Ch. without expresse consent of the congreg. over which he vvas set? if Ministers vvere then vvont to goe to law for their places? if the Primitiue Church ever heard of Pluralists, Non-residents or dumb ministers? If either in primitue or else in Popish Church almost simony was ever so ordinary as it is with us?