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…

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.