A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's worship. Or a triplication unto. D.…A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D.…

B. Jewel (said the Replier) doeth urge these Testimonies of Tertullian, merely in regard of resemblance: of others it is not needful to speak. The Rej. answereth 1. that Ivel doeth not urge these Testimonies of Tertullian. But it is to be seen in his Def. Apol. par. 3. cap. 5. div. 1. how he citeth Tertullian de Coron. mil. and de Idol. with which the Rejoinder will not deny, this (de Orat) to consent. 2. He citeth them (addeth the Rej.) not for unlawfulness, but for inconveniency of resembling Idolaters. Concerning this distinction, enough hath been said in the first part. Yet this here is worthy of observation; that both the Def. and Rej. in the first section of this fourth chapter, confessed, that human Ceremonies abused to Idolatry, are therefore unlawful, except they be of convenient necessity, as the Rejoinder speaketh, pag. 406. What reason then had Ivel, or hath the Rejoinder in his name, to confess such Ceremonies inconvenient, and yet make them lawful? But that Ivel understood Tertullian, to speak against such Ceremonies, as unlawful, it appeareth out of these his words: Tertullian disputes sharply therein, that a Christian may not wear a laurel-crown, and that for no ot•er cause, but because the Gentiles did so. ¹I have only the latin edition at hand; and therefore quote it. But either the interpreter failed much, or else Ivel expressly spake there of unlawfulness (non licere) ⟨p. 440⟩and not of other inconvenience. The Rejoinder his next answer dependeth only on that which was formerly confuted, namely, that merely is only.

B. Iewel (said the Replier) doeth urge these Testimonies of Tertullian, meerely in regard of resemblance: of others it is not needfull to speake. The Rej. answereth 1. that Iuel doeth not urge these Testimonies of Tertullian. But it is to be seene in his Def. Apol. par. 3. cap. 5. div. 1. how he citeth Tertullian de Coron. mil. and de Idol. with which the Rejoynder will not deny, this (de Orat) to consent. 2. He citeth them (addeth the Rej.) not for unlawfulnesse, but for inconveniency of resembling Idolaters. Concerning this distinction, enough hath beene said in the first part. Yet this heere is worthy of observation; that both the Def. and Rej. in the first section of this fourth chapter, confessed, that human Ceremonies abused to Idolatry, are therefore unlawfull, except they be of convenient necessity, as the Rejoynder speaketh, pag. 406. What reason then had Iuel, or hath the Rejoynder in his name, to confesse such Ceremonies inconvenient, and yet make them lawfull? But that Iuel understood Tertullian, to speake against such Ceremonies, as unlawfull, it appeareth out of these his words: Tertullian disputes sharpely therein, that a Christian may not weare a lawrell-crowne, and that for no oter cause, but because the Gentiles did so.