5. Zanchius was cited by the Defend. to prove, that this abolishing is not the universal remedy for all abuses ⟨p. 399⟩of Ceremonies (he meaneth) unto Idolatry. And because the Replier could not find the place, we are by •he Rejoinder directed to the later edition, pag. 678. where I find these words: This rule is to be observed: that things grown to abuse & defiled by superstition, 1if they be indifferent may, yea oftentimes ought, to be taken away. Here (I hope) is nothing against our proposition. And yet the Def. hath nothing else to catch at, nothing else (I say) but •hose words: they may be removed, as signifying, that •hey may also not be removed: As if every thing that may •e removed, may also not be removed! The Rejoinder •ddeth, that he admitteth of some Feast-days, as tolerable. I ••ant, he speaketh something favourable of them: but •herin, he neither speaketh to our question directly, nor •heweth how that which he saith may be accorded with •is own rule. But pag. 800. (saith the Rejoinder) he restraineth the consequence to things manifestly Idolatrous, not to indifferent Rites. So do we also: But the rejoinder as it seemeth, maketh Solomons Idols, (if •hey be for a time neglected) indifferent rites, which •anchie never did. N•y Zanchie pag. 649. from this example of Hezekiah, reproveth those that keep in secret •he monuments of Superstition, though out of Churches. True (saith the Rejoinder) but betwixt such Monuments, and indifferent Ceremonies, he distinguisheth. And •o do we, in some sense: but that things otherwise indifferent, may by becoming monuments, prove unlawful, Zanchie never denied. To Zanchie, were added (in the Abridgement, pag. 24.) as witnesses of our consequence from Hezekias his example, Augustine, ⟨p. 400⟩Calvin, Martyr, Wolphius, Lavater, Sadeel, Jewel, Bilson, Fulke, Rainolds, Andrues, and Perkins. To all these it was unseasonable (saith the Rejoinder) to answer at full, in this place. We must therefore wait (though in vain) for a place which will seem seasonable.
5. Zanchius was cited by the Defend. to prove, that this abolishing is not the universall remedie for all abuses ⟨p. 399⟩of Ceremonies (he meaneth) unto Idolatrie. And because the Replier could not finde the place, we are by •he Rejoynder directed to the later edition, pag. 678. where I finde these words: This rule is to be observed: that •hings grown to abuse & defiled by superstition, 1if they be indi•ferent may, yea oftentimes ought, to be taken away. Heere (I hope) is nothing against our proposition. And yet the Def. hath nothing else to catch at, nothing else (I say) but •hose wordes: they may be removed, as signifying, that •hey may also not be removed: As if every thinge that may •e removed, may also not be removed! The Rejoynder •ddeth, that he admitteth of some Feast-days, as tolerable. I ••ant, he speaketh something favorable of them: but •herin, he ney•her speaketh to our quaestion directly, nor •heweth how that which he sayth may be accorded with •is owne rule. But pag. 800. (sayth the Rejoynder) he •estrayneth the consequence to thinges manifestly Idola•rous, not to indifferent Rites. So doe we also: But the •ejoynder as it seemeth, maketh Salomons Idols, (if •hey be for a time neglected) indifferent rites, which •anchie never did. N•y Zanchie pag. 649. from this •xample of Hezekia, reprooveth those that keep in secret •he monumens of Superstition, though out of Chur•hes. True (sayth the Rejoynder) but betwixt such Mo•uments, and indifferent Ceremonies, he distinguisheth. And o doe we, in some sense: but that thinges otherwise inifferent, may by becomming monuments, prove unawfull, Zanchie never denied. To Zanchie, were added (in the Abrigement, pag. 24.) as witnesses of our consequence from Hezekias his example, Augustine,
- 1Tenenda est haec. regula: Quae in abusum venerunt, & superstitionibus •ontaminata fuerunt, sisiat adiaphora, tolli•a prorsus possunt, & sape etta• debent.
