In the answer brought to Heb. 3 2, we have this distinction given us: some points concerning religion are doctrinal, and some merely ceremonial. The former are sufficiently revealed in Scripture: but the latter are left to the liberty of the Church. But 1 why is that denied here by a distinction, which passed without denial or distinction in the former section? 2 what kind of distinction is this, which doth not distinguish of any term which is in the objection? 3 the Defendant should have done well to have explained and confirmed his distinction. For doctrinal opposed to ceremonial in the formal signification of these words, I never heard of before that I remember: and sure I am no sound reason vvill allow. Ceremonial is opposed to Moral, and sometime to substantial; but to doctrinal it cannot properly, because there is ceremonial doctrine as well as moral or substantial. 4 To which of these points vvill the Def refer the Hierarchy of Bishops? or are they no points of Religion? For the negative part of this answer, that ceremonial points of Religion are not revealed in the Scripture, but left to the liberty of the Church: it is too too nakedly set down for to bear any colour of truth with it. For 1 was this true before the coming of Christ? then all the ceremonial law is Apocryphal. 2 is this true universally (as it is here set down) in the new Testament? then water in baptism, and bread and wine in the Lords Supper, are no ceremonial points of Religion. 3 the caution that is given Deut. 4. 2 and such like, did they not contain in them ceremonial points of Religion? then it was lawful for the Jews, to add, detract, and alter the ceremonies according to their pleasure; and doth not that law bind us as well as the Jews? then we do the Papists wrong, in putting them to so much trouble as we do in finding out shifts to avoid the dint which such places give them.
In the answer brought to Heb. 3 2, vve haue this distinction given us: some points concerning religion are doctrinall, and some meerly ceremoniall. The former are sufficiently revealed in Scripture: but the latter are left to the libertie of the Church. But 1 vvhy is that denyed here by a distinction, which passed vvithout deniall or distinction in the former section? 2 vvhat kind of distinction is this, vvhich doth not distinguish of any terme vvhich is in the objection? 3 the Defendant should haue done vvell to haue explained and confirmed his distinction. For doctrinall opposed to ceremoniall in the formall signification of these vvords, I never heard of before that I remember: and sure I am no sound reason vvill allow. Ceremoniall is opposed to Morall, and sometime to substantiall; but to doctrinall it cannot properly, because there is ceremoniall doctrine as vvell as morall or substantiall. 4 To vvhich of these points vvill the Def referre the Hierarchie of Bishops? or are they no points of Religion? For the negatiue part of this answer, that ceremoniall points of Religion are not revealed in the Scripture, but left to the libertie of the Church: it is too too nakedly set down for to beare any colour of truth vvith it. For 1 vvas this true before the comming of Christ? then all the ceremoniall law is Apocriphall. 2 is this true universally (as it is heere set down) in the new Testament? then vvater in baptisme, and bread and wine in the Lords Supper, are no ceremoniall points of Religion. 3 the caution that is given Deut. 4. 2 and such like, did they not conteyne in them ceremoniall points of Religion? then it vvas lawfull for the Iewes, to adde, detract, and alter the ceremonies according to their pleasure; and doth not that law binde us as vvell as the Iewes? then vve doe the Papists wrong, in putting them to so much trouble as vve doe in finding out shifts to avoide the dint vvhich such places giue them.
