Lev. 18 &c. three kind of things are forbidden, 1 incest, 2 rounding their heads and cutting their flesh for the dead, 3 sowing with diverse seeds, and letting diverse beasts to engender together. The first was a sin against nature: the second was a wicked custom of infidelity; the third did signify adultery: in all which our ceremonies are innocent. He answereth here only unto the places taken out of the 18 and 19 of Lev. concerning which I reply 1 that in the first place the words are general, v. 3 4: howsoever therefore in the following verses they be applied unto foul sins, yet seeing in other places of Scripture the like application is made unto ceremonies, they were therefore mentioned as the general ground, comprehending both kinds in it, and joined unto other places condemning conformity with idolaters even in matters of ceremony. 2 The second and third were no more wicked, nor yet so much in any respect among the Heathen, as our ceremonies have been among the Papists: And therefore in these, M. Calvins collection in Lev. 19 27, is sound, God would have his people to know, that they could not have his favour, except they would in all points be unlike to such, and go as far as they could from their fashions and examples, especially in those rites wherein there was any show of Religion. 3 I would demand whether, if the high Priest, with the whole Synedrion of the Jews lawfully assembled, had with one consent decreed, that whereas the Lord enjoineth, Lev. 19 Ye shall not sow with diverse seeds, nor cut round your heads, nor mar the tufts of your beards: this was only in regard of infidelity, and in respect of an evil signification: but seeing the things are in their nature indifferent, and that it might be convenient for them to use them, they would therefore all from thenceforth use the same, provided that none should use them upon infidelity as the heathen did, not make any evil interpretation of them: I would demand (I say) ⟨p. 60⟩whether such a decree should ever have been lawfully made, or warrantably obeyed? I think the Def. vvill say no. But why? Perhaps because of the express commandment to the contrary; but doth not this commandment then respect some other reason, beside those which by this decree should be now taken away? and may we not collect a further matter from them?
Lev. 18 &c. three kinde of things are forbidden, 1 incest, 2 rounding their heads and cutting their flesh for the dead, 3 sowing with diverse seeds, and letting diverse beasts to ingender together. The first was a sin against nature: the second was a wicked custome of infidelity; the third did signifie adulterie: in all which our ceremonies are innocent. He answereth heere onely unto the places taken out of the 18 and 19 of Lev. concerning vvhich I reply 1 that in the first place the vvords are generall, v. 3 4: howsoever therefore in the following verses they be applyed unto foule sinnes, yet seeing in other places of Scripture the like application is made unto ceremonies, they vvere therfore mentioned as the generall ground, comprehending both kindes in it, and joyned unto other places condemning conformity vvith idolaters even in matters of ceremonie. 2 The second and third vvere no more vvicked, nor yet so much in any respect among the Heathen, as our ceremonies haue been among the Papists: And therefore in these, M. Calvins collection in Lev. 19 27, is sound, God would haue his people to know, that they could not haue his favour, except they would in all points be unlike to such, and goe as farre as they could from their fashions and examples, especially in those rites wherein there was any shew of Religion. 3 I vvould demand whether, if the high Preist, vvith the vvhole Synedrion of the Iewes lawfully assembled, had vvith one consent decreed, that vvheras the Lord enjoyneth, Lev. 19 Yee shall not sow with diverse seeds, nor cut round your heads, nor marre the tusts of your beards: this vvas onely in regard of infidelity, and in respect of an evill signification: but seeing the things are in their nature indifferent, and that it might be convenient for them to use them, they vvould therefore all from thenceforth use the same, provided that none should use them upon infidelity as the heathen did, not make any evill interpretation of them: I vvould demand (I say) ⟨p. 60⟩whether such a decree should ever haue been lawfully made, or vvarrantably obeyed? I thinke the Def. vvill say no. But why? Perhaps because of the expresse commandement to the contrary; but doth not this commandement then respect some other reason, beside those vvhich by this decree should be now taken away? and may we not collect a further matter from them?
