A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the surplice, crosse in baptisme, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramentall elements of bread and wine.

SECT. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI.

THE second instance is Salomons altar, 1 King. 8 64, wherein 1 I cannot but marvell at the addition vvhich the Def. ma∣keth unto the Text, vvhen he telleth us out of the Scripture of an altar, and of a brazen Altar, built by Salomon, vvithout spe∣ciall warrant: whereas in the text there is neither mention made of brasse, nor of Altar, but onely of sanctifying the inner part of the Court: he did not surely attend much unto that vvhich hee wisheth to another, sect. 20 in these vvords, I would you had leasure to looke more directly upon the text alledged. But for the matter it selfe, it is vvorth the marking, to obserue by this example vvhat autho∣rity is given unto men in the vvorship of God by our Masters of ceremonies, not onely to appoint accidentall vvorship, but even that vvhich is principall and most essentiall: that which maketh other essentiall vvorship to be holy: For what is this else, vvhen they say man may of his own head appoint an Altar? If they say man may appoint an Altar, but not the offering upon the Altar, let them heare our Saviours answer, Math. 23 19 Yee fooles and blind, whether is greater, the offering, or the Altar that sanctifieth the offering?

As for our answer it is the same vvhich all our divines giue un∣to Bellarmine: as the objection is the very same vvith that which Bellarmine oppose••h to Calvin, de pont. lib. 4 c. 19. 1. this act of Sa∣lomons was by speciall direction of Gods Spirit. So D. Whitakers an∣swereth, de pont. c. 4 qu. 7. ad arg. 7 quicquid Salomon fecit, id Dei authoritate & spiritus sancti nutu fecit. So D. Su••cleife de pont. l. 4. c. 6. But from M. Nic. this answer vvill not be received. The Def. saith it can never be proved. But suppose an altar to haue been built as the Def. vvill haue it, and then I hope the nature of the thing doth sufficiently proue it, as before I shewed: Beside Salomon had not yet declined from the right vvaies of his father David, vvho did attempt nothing about the Temple but according to the vvriting which he received from God, as he told Salomon 1 Chron. 28 19, Neither is it to be omitted, that Salomon at that very time vvhen he did this thing in question, was acted and lifted up extra∣ordinarily in communion vvith God: as appeareth by that divine prayer vvhich he then made for the Dedication of the Temple, vvhich cannot be judged but to proceed from the extraordinary

direction of Gods holy Spirit. Lastly, if that had not been so, yet the high Priest was at hand vvith Vrim and Thummim, by which vvhen it was so easie to haue speciall direction, vvho can thinke that Salomon would venture on such a matter as this upon his own head? But the contrary is proved (saith the Def.) because a reason is rendred in the Text which moved Salomon to doe that he did. As if these two could not stand together, to doe a thing upon some reason: and yet to doe it upon speciall direction from God! see Num. 36.

A second answer is given by some of our Divines, that Salomon did this out of the equity of Moses law: so Iunius cont. 3. l. 4. c. 19. To this the Def. replyes, that this answer overthwarts the former. Which is nothing so. For Salomon might be, and no doubt vvas in speciall manner directed to see the equity of the Law, and specially dire∣cted and authorised also to follow it. The Def. therfore is decei∣ved in that advantage which he maketh of this answer.

A third answer is brought in by the Def. under the name of M. Nic. viz. that God by his visible descending approved of the worke of the Temple, and did authorize Salomon to doe that he did. To whom the Def. vvisheth more leasure, that he may look better upon the Text, vvhere he should not finde that God approved the Temple of Sa∣lomon by any visible appearance, untill the sacrifice was ended. But if the Def. had had both leasure and pleasure to looke better upon the text, before he had censured another, then 1 he would haue seene that God appeared in the Temple before the sacrifice was either ended or begun: 1 King. 8 10 11 2 Chron. 5 13 14. 2 He should haue seene also that Salomon built the brazen Altar, not of his own head, nor upon a suddain which vvas impossible, but by the same direction that he did all the other holy things, 2 Chron. 4. 1. 3. He would not haue talked so loosely as he doth heere s. 20, vvhere no man can gather by his vvords, that he knoweth of any Al∣tar appointed particularly of God, beside the Altar of incense.

A fourth answer is, that vvhich Daneus giveth unto Bellarmine, ••on. 3 lib. 4 c. 19, viz. that this was not a new additament for kinde, but for some circumstance onely; because this Court was sanctified by God, Exod. 27 & 40, and Salomon is said to sanctifie because he put it to that use which was not ordinarie. To this the Def. replyeth nothing vvorth the answering: but onely that he accuseth M. Nic. and so in deed the Divines formerly alledged, of unconstancie & uncon∣sonancie: whereas the answeres that haue been given may very vvell concurre all of them in one action, and one answer. The rest of his talke doth hang upon the hornes of his new found brazen Altar: and there I leaue it.