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. Concerning the rest of the third section, all that is rejoined, dependeth only upon the term mere Ceremonial Ceremonies. This term the Replier did not understand (as it seemeth) according to the Authors meaning; neither can the Rejoinder interpret it, but with such sense as was formerly declared. Mere Ceremonies are not only such as the Rejoinder p. 33. called single Ceremonies, for in the same place, he maketh significant rites, having relation to a further worship, such as ours are, double, or triple Ceremonies. So that this mere Ceremony can be nothing else, but a Ceremony which God hath not instituted for his worship: and so the Def. and Rejoinder maintain here only this assertion: those Ceremonies which God hath not instituted, are not instituted by God. Which is so evidently true, that it cannot escape the imputation of idleness, either to dispute for, or against it. Only this I note, ⟨p. 10⟩that by this distinction, God cannot appoint a mere Ceremony in his worship, though man can: for if God appoint any Ceremony, it is (eo ipso nomine) doctrinal, substantial, moral. No marvel therefore if God have not appointed mere Ceremonies, seeing he cannot appoint any such, but man only can do that.

6. Concerning the rest of the third section, all that is rejoyned, dependeth onely upon the terme mereCeremoniall Ceremonies. This terme the Replier did not understand (as it seemeth) according to the Authors meaning; neyther can the Rejoynder interpret it, but with suche sense as was formerly declared. Mere Ceremonies are not onely suche as the Rejoynder p. 33. called single Ceremonies, for in the same place, he maketh significant rites, having relation to a further worship, suche as ours are, double, or triple Ceremonies. So that this mere Ceremonie can be nothing else, but a Ceremonie which God hath not instituted for his worship: and so the Def. and Rejoynder mainteyne here onely this assertion: those Ceremonies which God hath not instituted, are not instituted by God. Whiche is so evidently true, that it cannot escape the imputation of idlenesse, eyther to dispute for, or against it. Onely this I note, ⟨p. 10⟩that by this distinction, God cannot appoint a mere Ceremonie in his worship, though man can: for if God appoint any Ceremonie, it is (eo ipso nomine) doctrinall, substantiall, morall. No merveyl therfor if God have not appointed mere Ceremonies, seing he cannot appoynt any suche, but man onely can doe that.