The last place of Scripture handled in this Argument, is Ere. 7. 31. the force of which, as it pertaineth to the purpose in hand, is in the last words, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. The reason lieth thus (to take honourable Calvins interpretation upon the place) seeing God under this title only condemneth that which the Jews did, because he had not commanded it them: therefore no other reason need be sought for the confutation of superstition, then that they are not by commandment from God. Now the Defendant answereth, that this was a thing forbidden, and in that sense was said not to be commanded. What is this to the purpose? therein lieth the strength of our argument: that not to command in things that pertain to worship, is all one with forbidding. But you collect (saith he) that this was not against, but only besides the word. It is not our collection but his own vain conceit. Our argument is drawn from the form of speech here used. See Mr. Cartwright in his Reply p. 48. fully clearing this point. When I read this objection first (saith he) I wondered that in distinguishing besides the word and against it, you symbolized so well with Bellarmine, in his distinction of mortal and venial sin. He was as it seemeth, in a wondering humour. But 1. why doth he not wonder not only at our late Divines, but at Chrysostom also, as symbolizing with Bellarmine, when he in Gal. 1. 8. doth so distinguish betwixt teaching contrary to the Gospel, and beside the Gospel? Why doth he not wonderingly also accuse Junius for symbolizing with Bellarmine, while he refuteth Bellarmine by this distinction, contr. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an. 10? it were easy, if needful, to produce other honourable partners in this fault: but we need no other then persuaders to subscription, who have drawn divers into this net, by telling them, that though the things they stand upon be beside the word, yet they are not contrary thereunto, and that only is affirmed by subscribers. 2. We are not the authors of this distinction, but they which thereby excuse humane inventions in Gods worship. We are constrained to follow and ferret them in their own holes. See Mr Cartwr. Repl. p 36. 3 yet if need were, there might be showed though not a real, yet a rational distinction betwixt these two. 4.
THe last place of Scripture handled in this Argument, is Yer. 7. 31. the force of which, as it pertaineth to the purpose in hand, is in the last vvords, which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart. The reason lieth thus (to take honorable Calvins interpretation upon the place) seing God under this title onely condemneth that which the Iewes did, because hee had not commanded it them: therefore no other reason need be sought for the confutation of superstition, then that they are not by commandement from God. Now the Defendant answereth, that this was a thing forbidden, and in that sence was sayd not to be commanded. What is this to the purpose? therein lieth the strength of our argument: that not to command in things that pertaine to worship, is all one with forbidding. But you collect (sayth he) that this was not against, but onely besides the word. It is not our collection but his owne vaine conceit. Our argument is drawne from the forme of speech here used. See Mr. Cartwright in his Reply p. 48. fully clearing this poynt. When I read this objection first (sayth he) I wondred that in disting•ishing besides the word and against it, you simbolized so well with Bell•rmine, in his distinction of mortall and veniall sinne. He was as it seemeth, in a wondring humour. But 1. why doth he not wonder not onely at our late Divines, but at Chrysostome also, as symbolizing with Bellarmine, vvhen he in Gal. 1. 8. doth so distinguish betwixt teaching contrary to the Gospell, and beside the Gospell? Why doth he not wondringly also accuse Iunius for symbolizing with Bellarmine, while he refuteth Bellarmine by this distinction, contr. 3. l. 4. c. 17. an. 10? it were easie, if needfull, to produce other honorable partners in this fault: but we need no other then perswaders to subscription, vvho haue drawne divers into this net, by telling them, that though the things they stand upon be beside the word, yet they are not contrary thereunto, and that onely is affirmed by subscribers. 2. Wee are not the authors of this distinction, but they which thereby excuse humane inventions in Gods worship. Wee are constrained to follow and ferret them in their own holes. See Mr Cartwr. Repl. p 36. 3 yet if need vvere, there might be shewed though not a reall, yet a rationall distinction betwixt these two. 4.
