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…

The Def. here meaning to say something against the assumption, setteth it down by halves, or rather by quarters. For the assumption is, Abridg. 26. 27. our ceremonies in question are humane inventions, of no necessary use, and abused to idolatry. He setteth it ⟨p. 69⟩thus down, our ceremonies have been idolatrously abused by Papists. There is great difference, as by and by we shall see. His answer is by a distinction: These ceremonies are either generally or individually and numerally the same that have been abused to idolatry: If generally, then it hindereth not, but they may still lawfully be used, though they have been so abused. If individually, then it is not true, which is affirmed: neither doth it follow from thence, that they must be abolished, because they have been so abused, except they be the same formally: i. in intention and opinion of those that impose and practise them: What miserable shifts is the Def. put to? he told us before, his distinctions were wedges: but this is a very pick-lock, made for to open the doors of Gods• Church into those ceremonies against which by the keys of Gods kingdom they are strictly shut up. For by this means any kind of Popish, Jewish, Heathenish ceremony may come in, so there be new particulars of the same kind, and a new intention used. The first assertion is most gross, viz. that in ceremonies abused to Idolatry, those are not forbidden which are generally the same, but only the same individuals. For by the like reason, of ceremonies instituted by Christ, those only are commanded which Christ individually and numerally did sanctify: not all of the same kind. So also Papists are justified against all the charges of our divines, who accuse them for using of Jewish and Heathenish ceremonies: for they are not the same individually and numerally, but only in kind with those which Jews and heathens used. So the meaning of the scripture, forbidding conformity with the heathen Idolaters, should only be of using the same particular rites and ceremonies with them: as if when the cutting of their heads, & rounding of their hair like the heathen, was forbidden to the Israelites; Lev. 18. & 19.

THe Def. here meaning to say something against the assumption, setteth it down by halves, or rather by quarters. For the assumption is, Abridg. 26. 27. our ceremonies in question are humane inventions, of no necessary use, and abused to idolatry. He setteth it