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. IN this section, the Def. beginneth a confutation of the fore-proved Proposition: All humane Ceremonies, being appropriated to Gods service, if they be ordained to teach any spiritual duty, by their mystical signification, are unlawful. His Scripture confutation (for want of rule or precept) is only by Examples.

1. IN this section, the Def. beginneth a confutation of the fore-proved Proposition: All humane Ceremonies, being appropriated to Gods service, if they be ordeyned to teache any spirituall dutie, by their mysticall signification, are unlawfull. His Scripture confutation (for want of rule or praecept) is onely by Examples.

Now to omit words of no weight, his first example is Abraham's directing his servant, to put his hand under his thigh, when he did swear. Gen. 24.2. Against this, the Replier first excepted, that in probability, Abraham was not the appointer of this Ceremony. The Rej. answereth, that this is not material to the point, what man appointed it, so that it was not of Divine appointment. So that their first proof of Ceremony appointed by man, is from an example appointed they know not by whom: only begging of us to grant, that it was not appointed by God, which they ought to have proved. Yet the ⟨p. 305⟩Replier for citing Calvin and Junius, as leaving it most probable, that is, was an ancient custom before Abraham (which any man looking upon their interpretations, may see to be true) is called by the Rej. a false man in all his allegations. But let that go.

Now to omit wordes of no weyght, his first example is Abrahams directing his servant, to put his hand under his thigh, when he did swear. Gen. 24.2. Against this, the Replier first excepted, that in probabilitie, Abraham was not the appointer of this Ceremonie. The Rej. answereth, that this is not materiall to the poynt, what man appointed it, so that it was not of Divine appointment. So that their first proof of Ceremonie appointed by man, is from an example appointed they know not by whome: onely begging of us to grant, that it was not appointed by God, whiche they ought to have proved. Yet the