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.…

As if the grossest might not be lawful, if they could be cleansed, or the Rejoinder had showed that we more need the Cross, then those other.

As if the grossest might not be lawfull, if they could be clensed, or the Rejoynder had shewed that we more need the Crosse, then those other.

2. Because the Def. placed so much in opinion of sanctity, the Repl. in the second place, opposed, that Sanctity cannot be separated from such Ceremonies, ⟨p. 129⟩as are proper unto Religion, only used in the solemn worship of God: because they are neither civill, nor profane, and therefore holy. Here the Rejoinder being put to his shifts, as before, answereth that they are in deed holy by application, but not with inherent, or adherent holiness in them, or their use as those which God hath sanctified, nor so as they sanctify the actors, and actions, which is proper to Gods ordinances. Now how many strange things are here? 1. That Ceremony, whose essence consisteth in application and use, is holy by application▪ and yet not by any holiness that doeth adhere to them, or their use. Holiness is an adjunct received by the thing that is holy, and therefore either inherent, or adherent. 2. Is this a good reason: they are not holy truly, as Gods ordinances, therefore they are not by men made holy? 3. Have any outward ordinances of God inherent holiness in them? 4. If God hath no way sanctified our Ceremonies, who can make them holy? 5. Do not Ceremonies teaching holiness, sanctify the actors, actions or spectators, after the same manner, that the teaching word doeth sanctify them?

2. Because the Def. placed so muche in opinion of sanctitie, the Repl. in the second place, opposed, that Sanctitie cannot be separated from suche Ceremonies, ⟨p. 129⟩as are proper unto Religion, onely used in the solemne worship of God: because they are neyther civill, nor prophane, and therfore holy. Heer the Rejoyndr being put to his shifts, as before, answereth that they are in deed holy by applicatiō, but not with inhaerent, or adhaerent holinesse in them, or their use as those which God hath sanctified, nor so as they sanctifie the actors, and actions, which is proper to Gods ordinances. Now how many strange thinges are here? 1. That Ceremonie, whose essence consisteth in application and use, is holy by application and yet not by any holinesse that doeth adhere to them, or their use. Holinesse is an adjunct receyved by the thing that is holie, and therfore eyther inhaerent, or adhaerent. 2. Is this a good reason: they are not holy truely, as Gods ordinances, therfore they are not by men made holy? 3. Have any outward ordinances of God inhaerent holinesse in them? 4. If God hath no way sanctified our Ceremonies, who can make them holy? 5. Doe not Ceremonies teaching holinesse, sanctifie the actors, actions or spectators, after the same manner, that the teaching word doeth sanctifie them?