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. 34.

1. IN this last section, this reason is brought (according to the Rej. his construction) If all Ceremonies (properly so called) must some way be significant; then ⟨p. 303⟩either all Ceremonies are unlawful, or some significant Cer• monies are lawful. To which I answer 1. that all outward actions designed or purposely observed, and done in reference to some other thing, beside the cause or part thereof, which is the Rej. his definition of a Ceremony, Manuduct. p. 29.30. are not mystically significant, by the Rejoinder his own doctrine, ibid. pag. 32.33. Mystical signification, or the want of it, doth not make a Ceremony, or no Ceremony. A character of significancy, maketh a double or treble Ceremony; Relation without signification, maketh a single Ceremony ▪ So, pag. 39. Simple Ceremonies are those, whose use is only for order and decency: Double are those, which serve also to edification, 1. by some profitable signification. 2. If all Ceremonies were significant, yet it doeth not follow, that they all teach a spiritual duty, by their instituted mystical signification: of which kind of signification, all the question is in this chapter, as is to be seen in the first section. 3. If all Ceremonies be significant, then there is no sense in exposing double Ceremonies to significant: because none are, or can be dumb. A•d yet this opposition is made use of by the Def. and Rej. as other where, so in these two last sections.

1. IN this last section, this reason is brought (accordding to the Rej. his construction) If all Ceremonies (properly so called) must some way be significant; then ⟨p. 303⟩