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.…

SECT. 22. Concerning Synagogues.

SECT. 22. Concerning Synogogues.

TO this simple instance, the Replier answered, 1. that Synagogues were no significant Ceremonies. 2. That it is most likely, they were ⟨p. 333⟩first founded by those Prophets, which brought in Schools of the Prophets. 3. That in them, there was (of old) no significant humane Ceremony used. To the first is rejoined, that the Synagogues bare some representation of the Sanctuary. But I ask, How? Was this representation in matter, or form, or use? He seemeth to refer it unto use, in resorting to solemn worship. Now let any man consider, whether every place appointed for solemn worship, be a significant Ceremony? If so, then no Anabaptists ever denied significant Ceremonies of man's appointing, which yet the Rejoinder accused them for. But this fond conceit is sufficiently confuted in the first part of this writing, Chap. 4. and 5. Yet suppose the Synagogues had been a representation of the Sanctuary, which was a Ceremony; is every representation of a Ceremony, a new Ceremony? then any man may make more Ceremonies, then there are men in his Parish. The second (about the founding of Synagogues by Prophets) which the Repl. said, is most likely, the Rejoinder maketh a bold affirmation, without proof. But what boldness is, in conjecturing that to be likely, which no man can give any likely reason against? The third (of no humane significant Ceremonies used in Synagogues) is absolutely pronounced false. But no reason of this sentence is given out of the Scriptures, but only that they used there reverend gestures: as if all reverend gestures were significant Ceremonies of mans invention! The rest that he quoteth out of Purchas his Pilgrimage, are wandering Pilgrims, without house or home, and therefore worthy no other answer, ⟨p. 334⟩