4. The rest of this 12. section is spent about the Def, his wonderful wondering, at our symbolizing with Bellarmine and other Papists, because that as they distinguish sins into mortal and venial, so we (saith he) make a distinction of against, and beside the word. About which, the Rejoinder granteth that Chrysostom did well use this distinction, in matters of doctrine, yet he saith it is not to be extended unto matters of Ceremony. But (the question being only about the distinction) it is in the Def. and Rejoinder their opinion far more appliable to ceremonies, then to doctrines: because they hold many Ceremonies lawful beside the word, which are not against it, though they hold no such difference of doctrines. Now this distinction ⟨p. 27⟩was used by us, according to their conceit, more then our own. The like is acknowledged of Junius, that he distinguisheth well betwixt beside and against the Word, in the question of traditions devised for divine worship, 1. e. essential worship, particularly determined by God. Which is not so, for in that place, Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an 10. Junius hath no question either about essentials, or worship, or traditions, but only about Ecclesiastical laws, binding the conscience. And if he had, yet that clause particularly determined by God, would spoil all: because in such things there can be nothing either against, or beside the Word. But if it were true, what is the difference, betwixt Junius and us? The Rejoinder saith that we confound rites with worship, and yet confess rites not to be particularly described as the other. Which is neither so, nor so, except he mean those rites, which he calleth double or treble ceremonies: and therein we have Junius so for us, that not only in other places, but also in the words next going before this in question, he saith generally, in divine things to coin new laws is nothing but to decline. 1Yet the Rej. will have it, that Junius in that place cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 10. doeth refute this distinction, as used by Bell. Mark therefore what are Bell. words, which Junius confuteth) viz. Only a prohibition of addition contrary laws is understood.2
4. The rest of this 12. section is spent about the Def, his wonderfull wondring, at our symbolizing with Bellarmine and other Papists, because that as they distinguish sinnes into mortal and veniall, so wee (sayth he) make a distinction of against, and beside the word. About which, the Rejoynder granteth that Chrysostom did well use this distinction, in matters of doctrine, yet he sayth it is not to be extended unto matters of Ceremonie. But (the question being onely about the distinction) it is in the Def. and Rejoynder their opinion farr more appliable to ceremonies, then to doctrines: because they holde many Ceremonies lawfull beside the word, which are not against it, though they holde no suche difference of doctrines. Now this distinction ⟨p. 27⟩was used by us, according to their conceit, more then our owne. The like is acknowleged of Iunius, that he distinguisheth well betwixt beside and against the Word, in the question of traditions devised for divine worship, 1. e. essentiall worship, particularly determined by God. Which is not so, for in that place, Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an 10. Iunius hath no question eyther about essentialls, or worship, or traditions, but onely about Ecclesiasticall laws, binding the conscience. And if he had, yet that clause particularly determined by God, would spoile all: because in suche thinges ther can be nothing eyther against, or beside the Word. But if it were true, what is the difference, betwixt Iunius and us? The Rejoynder sayth that wee confounde rites with worship, and yet confesse rites not to be particularly described as the other. Which is neyther so, nor so, except he meane those rites, which he calleth double or treble ceremonies: and therin we have Iunius so for us, that not onely in other places, but also in the words next goeing before this in quaestion, he sayth generally, in divine things to coyne new lawes is nothing but to decline. 1Yet the Rej. will have it, that Iunius in that place cont. 3. l. 4. c. 17. sect. 10. doe•h refute this distinction, as used by Bell. Marke therfor what are Bell. words, which Iunius confuteth) viz. Onely a prohibition of addition contrarie lawes is understood.2
- 1In divinis rebu• novas leges ferre, nihil ab•ud est quam declinare.
- 2Deut 4 &. 1•. Intelligitur prohibitio solum de addition• legum contrariarum.
