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 last place of Scripture handled in this Argument, is Ere. 7. 31. the force of which, as it pertaineth to the purpose in hand, is in the last words, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. The reason lieth thus (to take honourable Calvins interpretation upon the place) seeing God under this title only condemneth that which the Jews did, because he had not commanded it them: therefore no other reason need be sought for the confutation of superstition, then that they are not by commandment from God. Now the Defendant answereth, that this was a thing forbidden, and in that sense was said not to be commanded. What is this to the purpose? therein lieth the strength of our argument: that not to command in things that pertain to worship, is all one with forbidding. But you collect (saith he) that this was not against, but only besides the word. It is not our collection but his own vain conceit. Our argument is drawn from the form of speech here used. See Mr. Cartwright in his Reply p. 48. fully clearing this point. When I read this objection first (saith he) I wondered that in distinguishing besides the word and against it, you symbolized so well with Bellarmine, in his distinction of mortal and venial sin. He was as it seemeth, in a wondering humour. But 1. why doth he not wonder not only at our late Divines, but at Chrysostom also, as symbolizing with Bellarmine, when he in Gal. 1. 8. doth so distinguish betwixt teaching contrary to the Gospel, and beside the Gospel? Why doth he not wonderingly also accuse Junius for symbolizing with Bellarmine, while he refuteth Bellarmine by this distinction, contr. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an. 10? it were easy, if needful, to produce other honourable partners in this fault: but we need no other then persuaders to subscription, who have drawn divers into this net, by telling them, that though the things they stand upon be beside the word, yet they are not contrary thereunto, and that only is affirmed by subscribers. 2. We are not the authors of this distinction, but they which thereby excuse humane inventions in Gods worship. We are constrained to follow and ferret them in their own holes. See Mr Cartwr. Repl. p 36. 3 yet if need were, there might be showed though not a real, yet a rational distinction betwixt these two. 4.