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.…

Now 1. This is a certain, infallible rule: what essence soever is found in any general, that must needs be in every special, contained under it. There is no essence in an element generally taken, which is not both in the fire, and water, none in colour so taken, but is both in black and white, none in the notion of a creature, which is not in man and beast. From hence therefore it necessarily followeth, that if Order and decency in general, be essential worship, every true special of them must needs be so.

Now 1. This is a certain, infallible rule: what essence soever is founde in any generall, that must needs be in every speciall, conteyned under it. Ther is no essence in an element generally taken, which is not both in the fire, and water, none in colour so taken, but is both in blacke and white, none in the notion of a creature, which is not in man and beast. From hence therfore it necessarily followeth, that if Order and decencie in generall, be essentiall worship, every true speciall of them must needs be so.

2. It is not of, or for nothing, that the Rejoinder doeth so waver in his speech: contrary Ceremonies serving to comeliness, and edification, contrariety of orders, contrariety of formalities of comeliness, and means of edification. For this means, all his answer is at least put out of comely order serving to edification. For that which serveth to comeliness, and order, all formalities of them, and all means are not specials, under the genus or general of decency, order, edification, but under the general ⟨p. 112⟩of means, formalities, etc. So that the whole distinction is confounded, by this wordy explication of it. 3. Contrariety of orders he confesseth, and yet denieth them to be contrary to Order: As if order contrary to order, were not contrary to order! He will say no, not to order in general. But then that order in special, must have some specific difference, not contained in the general of order, making the contrariety: which should (if it could) have been declared. By the same proportion, also as he acknowledgeth contrary orders, he must also acknowledge contrary decencies, and edifications: and this hath need of declaration, because it is a new invention not to be trusted, before it be tried. 4. By order, in this place, must needs be meant good order, otherwise, it were as well order, to set the cart before the horse, as the horse before the cart. Now in good order, the things ordered may be someway contrary, as black and white horse set before the cart, and yet the order one and the same: and so in decency. Edification is only an end. But good order, and decency of the same things, in their particular or individual use, can be no more contrary to any good order, & decency of the same things in the same use, than black to black & white to white. 5. The plain trueth is, that order and Decency (as they pertain to our question) do arise out of the outward disposition and temper of things, as health doeth out of the inward disposition and temper of the body, and therefore doeth admit no more contrariety, then good health doeth.