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.…

Omitting therefore unnecessary repetition, let us hear the reasons of extraordinary dishonesty, 1. Junius ca. 16. n. 86.87. saith only first, that those humane laws are only necessary, in the Church, which tend to this, that all things may be done decently, and in order, 1. Cor. 14.40. Secondly, that these are improperly called laws in the Church, being more properly constitutions, or Canons.

Omitting therfore unnecessarie repetition, let us heare the reasons of extraordinarie dishonestie, 1. Iunius ca. 16. n. 86.87. sayth onely first, that those humane lawes are onely necessarie, in the Churche, which tende to this, that all thinges may be doen decently, and in order, 1. Cor. 14.40. Secondly, that these are improperly called lawes in the Churche, being more properly constitions, or Canons.

Now out of the first saying, the Repl. concluded, that Junius did judge the Apostle to leave no more to the Churches liberty, then to order Gods ordinances in decent manner: And out of the second, he inferred the same conclusion: because any Constitution, above ordering in decent manner that which before was enjoined, is properly a law. What extraordinary dishonesty is here? 2. Jun•u cap. 17. n. 9. saith only that to make new laws in divine things is to decline 1. c. in points of faith or necessary rules of sanctimony. But Junius maketh no mention at all, either of faith, or sanctimony, or necessity, Nor Bell. himself in that place. Neither is the question there handled, of points of faith or things absolutely necessary to sanctimony. All double treble Ceremonies reductively Sacramental, and worship, are by the Rej. his own dictates double sacred: and that is it which Junius meaneth by divine. 3. Bell saith that the addition forbidden Deut. 4. is of laws contrary to the law of God. Whereunto Junius n. 10. answereth, t•at any laws at all, added to Gods laws, are contrary to the law of God, speaking of proper laws, without any backing of Gods law, binding the Conscience, as he showeth cap. 16. n. 86.8. Here 1. the Rej. left out those words of Junius, neither contrary nor beside the word: which if he had translated, then the Readers memory might have recalled, how this place cited before for the defence of that phrase, was but shifted by the Rej. p. 46.2. It is to be marked, that the Def. and Rej. there answer to