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. The Argument was thus propounded in the Abridgement: It is contrary to Gods word, to use (much more to command the use of) such Ceremonies in the worship of God as man hath devised, if they be notoriously known, to have been of old, and still to be abused unto Idolatry, and Superstition, by the Papists, especially, if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church. But our Ceremonies are such. Ergo.

1. The Argument was thus propounded in the Abridgement: It is contrary to Gods word, to use (much more to command the use of) such Ceremonies in the worship of God as man hath devized, if they bee notoriously knowne, to have beene of olde, and still to be abused unto Idolatrie, and Superstition, by the Papists, especially, if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church. But our Ceremonies are such. Ergo.

The Def. his answer was so set down, that (by the Rej. his own confession) no sense could be discerned in it. But the said Rej. (after three patchings of the words, and the distinctions, about abolishing, abused, and necessary) bringeth, for account, this answer, out of all: If by ⟨p. 367⟩abolition, be meant, Abscission, and not Cure, the Proposition being meant of things indifferent, is false. But if in the exception, of things, necessary, be meant not an absolute, but a convenient necessity, the Assumption is false, which saith: that our Ceremonies are of no necessary use in the Church. Here we have three distinctions, betwixt 1. abscission, or cutting off, and curing; 2. things evil in their nature, and indifferent: 3. necessity absolute, and convenient. Now 1. see how they agree among themselves: In the first, the Ceremonies are considered as members of our Religion, or worship, which must be either cut off or cured (for so the Def. explaineth it of cutting off the members by the joints) whereas they were never members jointed to our religion, or worship, but to the Harlot of Rome. In the second, they are considered as no members, but things indifferent; and in the third (at the best) only convenient. 2. For the first, it is well known that they are clouts, which have lien upon the plague-soars of Idolaters, many hundreds of years: and what wise Physician, or Surgeon, was ever known, to go about the curing of such clouts? 3. For the second, it is a mere affectation of casting a mist before the Readers eyes. For both the Def. and Rei. knew well, that the Authors of this Argument, hold our Ceremonies not indifferent, but unlawful in their nature, and yet upon supposed indifferency, undertake to make good their Proposition; as having all sense on their side, namely, that things otherwise merely indifferent, receive some difference, by their notorious abuse to Idolatry. 4. For the last, The Ceremonies are here,