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.…

1. This Argument pleadeth, that no humane Ceremonies, appropriated to Gods service, ordained, or instituted, to teach any spiritual duty, by mystical signification, are lawful. About this the Rejoinder threateneth blows. But we have had now such experience of his forceless endeavours in other Arguments, that the fear of his blows is past.

1. THis Argument pleadeth, that no humane Ceremonies, appropriated to Gods service, ordeyned, or instituted, to teache any spirituall dutie, by misticall signification, are lawfull. About this the Rejoynder threateneth blowes. But we have had now suche experience of his forcelesse indevours in other Arguments, that the fear of his blowes is past.

2. The first proof of our proposition was taken from the second Commandment: which the Def. ⟨p. 210⟩omitted in this place, and the Rejoinder will not have any man to take exception against the said, omission: but with what reason, let his reader judge.

2. The first proof of our proposition was taken from the second Commandement: which the Def. ⟨p. 210⟩omitted in this place, and the Rejoynder will not have any man to take exception against the sayd, omission: but with what reason, let his reader judge.

3. A second proof was, that Christ is the only teacher of his Church, and appointer of all means whereby we should be taught and admonished of any holy duty, and all Christs doctrine, with the means thereof, is perfectly contained in the holy Scripture. Here (saith the Rejoinder) the Def. forgot to tell, how absurd this collection is, Christ is the only authentic teacher of his Church etc. therefore they may be no means of teaching or admonishing unto duties, but such as be ordained as necessary. As if it were sufficient for the Def. or Rejoinder to tell us any thing as they please, how little ever it be to the purpose.