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.…

SECT. 20.21. Concerning Reasons against the Negative Argument from Scripture.

1. The Def. his first reason is: Whatsoever is unlawful is a transgression of some law revealed in the word. Ergo against it. Ergo not only beside it. The Repl. granteth all: and showeth, that it is a mere fantasy, before confuted, as a cavil, in the Reply, and long since, by Mr. Cartwrights, 2. Rep. p. 56. not agreeable to the very words of the Argument, to which it is opposed. Upon this the Rejoynd. poureth out words He turneth head: O strange! a Babe owned from the birth, suckled by many Scriptures, an ill favoured faced brat, absurd, contradictory, when he is taken in a snare, he saith he is mistaken. And what reason hath he to back or bear out all these words with? If the Scriptures (saith he) condemn what soever is done not only against, but beside t•e direction thereof, then doeth it condemn something as unlawful for being only beside it, and not any way against it. To which I answer, that it doeth not follow: because a thing may be only beside the word some way, and yet some way against it. Only beside the particular prescript of it, and yet against the general command of it.

1. THe Def. his first reason is: Whatsoever is unlawfull is a trangression of some law revealed in the word. Ergo against it. Ergo not onely beside it. The Repl. granteth all: and sheweth, that it is a meer fantasie, before confuted, as a cavill, in the Replie, and longe since, by Mr. Cartwrights, 2. Rep. p. 56. not agreable to the very words of the Argument, to which it is opposed. Vpon this the Rejoynd. powreth out words He turneth head: O strange! a Babe owned from the birth, suckled by many Scriptures, an ill favoured faced brat, absurd, contradictorie, when he is taken in a snare, he sa•th he is mistaken. And what reason hath he to back or bear out all these words with? If the Scriptures (sayth he) condemne what soever is doen not onely against, but beside t•e direction therof, then doeth it condemne something as unlawfull for being onely beside it, and not any way against it. To which I answer, that it doeth not follow: because a thing may be onely beside the word some way, and yet some way against it. Onely beside the particular praescript of it, and yet against the generall command of it.