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.…

The Replier added, that it doeth not appear out of Tertullian, that he respected opinion of necessity and efficacy, in these Ceremonies. For which, he is charged by the Rejoinder, with offence, against men, simple, and learned, as also against God himself. And why all this? Because (forsooth) Tertullian saith, that such washings and cleansings, as many superstitiously affect, against every prayer, are not true; but those which we have in Christ, and in purification of the heart. But this is no sufficient ground for so deep an accusation. For if now one should admonish a Non-resident, who sendeth a reading Curate, to supply his place, in these words: This is not true fulfilling of your Ministry; but those personal offices, which are in Scripture enjoined; and the meaning of these words being questioned, one should deny, that by them it was implied, that the said Non-resident held it necessary for him, in conscience, to be absent, and send such a Curate for supply; would any man accuse the denier of offending against God and man? It was further observed by the Replier, that the washing condemned by Tertullian, had relation to Christs delivering by Pilate, after washing of his hands, and so like unto our sign of the Cross, in regard of the original signification and use of it. The Rejoynd. answereth many words: but to the purpose (beside repetitions) he saith, that those washers did believe Pilate to have been cleansed by his washing, and so themselves by theirs, from guilt of sin. And this he gathereth from Tertullians ⟨p. 441⟩confutation: We adore Christ, and not deliver him: we should abhor the example of him that did deliver him. But out of these words no such collection can be made; any more then some like invention out of these: we adore Christ, and not crucify him: we should abhor the example of them that did crucify him, and left a Cross in the place, for a sign and memorial that he was crucified. That washing was a sign immediately of Pilats washing, and so of Christs delivering: our Cross is immediately a sign of Pilats Cross, and so of our Saviours crucifying. This is the likeness which the Replier truly noted.

The Replier added, that it doeth not appeare out of Tertullian, that he respected opinion of necessity and efficacy, in these Ceremonies. For which, he is charged by the Rejoynder, with offence, against men, simple, and learned, as also against God himselfe. And why all this? Because (forsooth) Tertullian sayth, that such washings and cleansings, as many superstitiously affect, against every prayer, are not true; but those which we have in Christ, and in purification of the heart. But this is no sufficient ground for so deep an accusation. For if now one should admonish a Non-resident, who sendeth a reading Curate, to supply his place, in these words: This is not true fulfilling of your Ministery; but those personall offices, which are in Scripture injoyned; and the meaning of these words being questioned, one should deny, that by them it was implied, that the said Non-resident held it necessary for him, in conscience, to be absent, and send such a Curate for supply; would any man accuse the denier of offending against God and man? It was further observed by the Replier, that the washing condemned by Tertullian, had relation to Christs delivering by Pilat, after washing of his hands, and so like unto our signe of the Crosse, in regard of the originall signification and use of it. The Rejoynd. answereth many words: but to the purpose (beside repetitions) he sayth, that those washers did beleeve Pilat to have beene cleansed by his washing, and so themselves by theirs, from guilt of sinne. And this he gathereth from Tertullians