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.

For the proof of this, that no humane inventions are lawful parts of Gods worship, the Abridgement allegeth Exod. 20 4. Deut. 12 32 Es. 1 12 Mat. 15 9 Col. 2 23, three of which are only mentioned by the Def. and two of the three only answered, or rather put of with miserable shifts? By the precepts of men Es. 29 9 are signified (saith he) such humane ordinances as were expressly contrary to the commandments of God. But 1 if here he taketh the word expressly as opposite unto pregnant consequence, as he doth p. 2 then I hope he will grant that there is the same reason of those humane inventions which are not expressly contrary. If he taketh it largely, as containing such consequence, then he saith nothing to the purpose, because in that sense all Religious worship invented by man is expressly contrary to the commandments of God. 2 Christ himself Mat. 15 9, doth interpret this very place of vvil-worship in general, where for brevity sake, I refer the Def. unto M. Calvin whom he calleth an honourable Witness in this controversy. He after long discourse concludeth thus, fixum ergo illud maneat, fictitios omnes cultus coram deo vanos esse: imo, teste propheta maledictos & detestabiles, i. e. This must be held for certain, that all worships invented by man are before God, vain, accursed and detestable. By adding and diminishing Deut. 12 32 is not meant (saith the Def.) addition of preservation, but addition of corruption. Where 1 the phrase is strange, by adding and diminishing is meant addition. 2 This gloss is clean contrary to the text, for the Lord chargeth that we do not add to the word, that so we may keep or preserve it