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.…

6. Another place Tertullian (de oratione, cap. 11. & 12.) was objected, where he saith, that Christians might not wash their hands (for a Ceremony) or lay aside their cloaks, before prayer; nor sit upon their beds, after prayer; because the Heathen used to do so. The Def. his first answer being that these Ceremonies were not condemned merely for resemblance with Idolatry, but for opinion of necessity; it was replied, that Tertullian speaketh plainly: therefore it d•servethto be proved in us, because it is observed in the service of an Idol. To which the Rej. opposeth nothing, but that the Heathens might use their Idolatrous Ceremonies with opinion of necessity. Let it be so: yet Christians may be reproved for mere likeness unto them, though either they have not the same opinion, or the consideration of that opinion set apart. Merely doeth not always signify only; nor can it so stand in the Def. his answer. For then thus he should speak: not only for resemblance, but (without any also) for opinion. If he did mean so, we say on the contrary, not only for opinion, but also for resemblance. So far as I can understand the word merely for, it noteth not more, then is implied in Tertullians therefore it deserveth. A deserving cause is merely a cause, or else malefactors are not punished merely for their evil deserts. In the former testimony, out of Tertullian, pag. 484. the Rej. translated meras utilitates, any commodious use. If mere commodities, be all one with any commodities, then merely for resemblance is any thing at all for ⟨p. 439⟩resemblance: and so the Def. denieth Tertullian to have condemned those Ceremonies he speaketh against, any thing at all for resemblance with Idolatry; which yet Tertullian doeth as plainly speak, as ever he spake any thing at all.

6. Another place Tertullian (de oratione, cap. 11. & 12.) was objected, where hee sayth, that Christians might not wash their hands (for a Ceremony) or lay aside their cloakes, before prayer; nor sit upon their beds, after prayer; because the Heathen used to doe so. The Def. his first answer being that these Ceremonies were not condemned meerely for resemblance with Idolatry, but for opinion of necessity; it was replied, that Tertullian speaketh plainely: therefore it d•servethto be prooved in us, because it is observed in the service of an Idol. To which the Rej. opposeth nothing, but that the Heathens might use their Idolatrous Ceremonies with opinion of necessity. Let it be so: yet Christians may be reprooved for meere likenesse unto them, though either they have not the same opinion, or the consideration of that opinion set apart. Meerely doeth not alwayes signifie onely; nor can it so stand in the Def. his answer. For then thus he should speake: not onely for resemblance, but (without any also) for opinion. If he did meane so, we say on the contrary, not onely for opinion, but also for resemblance. So farre as I can understand the word meerely for, it noteth not more, then is implied in Tertullians therefore it deserveth. A deserving cause is meerely a cause, or else malefactours are not punished meerely for their evill deserts. In the former testimony, out of Tertullian, pag. 484. the Rej. translated meras utilitates, any commodious use. If meere commodities, be all one with any commodities, then meerely for resemblance is any thing at all for