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.…

3. Of Joshua 6.19. it was added by the Replier, that ⟨p. 494⟩there is no mention made of things, (much less Ceremonies) appropriated unto Idolatry; and that in probability, the vessels there spoken of, were melted, and only the metal brought into the Lords treasury. The Rej. opposeth 1. That some of this treasury (in all likelihood) was appropriated to Idols. Be it so: for that some there was a double answer given, God special command; and that it was melted, or passed through the fire. But here the Rej. answereth 1. That it doeth not appear, they were to be melted. As if the Defendant his Argument did prove well his proposition (as he saith it doeth) if confutation of it doeth not appear in the text he allegeth! surely proofs should be fetched from that which at least appeareth, and not from that whose contrary doeth not appear. But it doeth appear, that this was the order appointed for such things, Numb. 31.22.23. and from thence Interpreters gather so much of these things, Joshua, 6. So Tostatus, They did melt all metals that could be melted, ¹they were melted by fire, and turned into the mass. 2. If this be granted (saith the Rejoinder) melting did not make them other things. Yes surely by the Defend. his Learning brought to illuminate our judgements (as he speaketh pag. 562. in this Rej.) be sound, namely, only form giveth the being to every thing, as natural; to natural; artificial, unto artificial; ceremonial, unto Ceremonial. For by this reason, melting of the vessels, made them cease to be the same things either artificial, or ceremonial. And hereby the Def. his instance falleth to the ground: as not proving any Ceremonies abused unto Idolatry, to have been by Joshua retained.

3. Of Ioshua 6.19. it was added by the Replier, that ⟨p. 494⟩there is no mention made of things, (much lesse Ceremonies) appropriated unto Idolatry; and that in probability, the vessels there spoken of, were melted, and onely the metall brought into the Lords treasury. The Rej. opposeth 1. That some of this treasuy (in all likelyhood) was appropriated to Idols. Be it so: for that some there was a double answer given, God speciall command; and that it was melted, or passed thorow the fire. But heere the Rej. answereth 1. That it doeth not appeare, they were to be melted. As if the Defendant his Argument did proove well his poposition (as he sayth it doeth) if confutation of it doeth not appeare in the text he allegeth! surely proofes should be fetched from that which at least appeareth, and not from that whose contrary doeth not appeare. But it doeth appeare, that this was the order appointed for such things,