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.…

2. It was secondly answered, that those, Feasts, which the Primitive Church is said to have observed, were not by Canonical imposition, but voluntary accommodation to the infirmity of some, as appeareth by the variety of their observation, and Socrates his testimony. Mark now, what a Rejoinder is given? 1. He telleth us of a strange conjecture of his, even from this answer▪ viz. that the Churches held, it not only lawful, but also convenient, to impose upon themselves such Feasts. As if occasional accommodation, were all one with imposition, or voluntary joining in action for the good that is in it, were always a certain argument of holding that opinion which others do affix unto it. But if they had thought them so convenient, yet that Arg. would be of little force. For many Ceremonies were thought then convenient, which long since are universally thought otherwise of, & therefore left off, though no reason of inconvenience can be showed, which did ⟨p. 83⟩not agree to those times as well as to succeeding times, except further abuse: which cannot be denied of our Ceremonies in question, as religious use of milk, honey, & abstaining from washing ones hands for certain days after Baptism etc. 2. That which was mentioned of infirmity occasioning this accommodation, the Rej. (after his manner) crieth down as a fiction, boldly delivered, without proof, or colour, merely for opposition sake: Whereas notwithstanding it is so clear, that the infirmity of men newly converted from Judaism, and Gentilism, did bring into Christian Churches customs like unto those in use among Jews and Gentiles, that Cardinal Baronius, from that ground maintaineth many Ceremonies.¹ What wonder if the grown customs among the Gentiles (and we may add the Jews also) were such as from which, tho they were converted to Christianism, they were yet so hardly taken, that it might seem impossible to putt them quite off, what wonder I say then if the most holy Bishops have granted them place in the worship of God?

2. It was secondly answered, that those, Feasts, which the Primitive Churche is sayd to have observed, were not by Canonicall imposition, but voluntarie accommodation to the infirmitie of some, as appeareth by the varietie of their observation, and Socrates his testimonie. Marke now, what a Rejoynder is given? 1. Hee telleth us of a strange conjecture of his, even from this answer viz. that the Churches held, it not onely lawfull, but also convenient, to impose upon themselves suche Feasts. As if occasionall accommodation, were all one with imposition, or voluntarie joining in action for the good that is in it, were always a certaine argument of holding that opinion which others doe affixe unto it. But if they had thought them so cōveniēt, yet that Arg. would be of litle force. For many Ceremonies were thought then convenient, which longe since are universally thought otherwise of, & therfor left off, though no reason of inconvenience can be shewed, which did