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.…

The third witness is, Chamyer, Tom. 5. l. 20.4.5 affirming that arbitrary vows are worship of God not per se, of themselves, but by accident, and for some other thing, ⟨p. 147⟩where to omit the translation of per se, of themselves, which should have been by themselves betwixt which there is a great difference, (as betwixt a body living of the soul, and by it self.) Chamyer in that very place, if his whole sentence be expressed (which neglect, if it had been the Repliers, we should have heard outcries, proclamations and invective accusations enough) I say •his whole sentence is contrary to the Rej.: His words in sum are these: To vow, ¹and to perform are elicited acts of religion, because by themselves and properly they appertain to religion, but the actions that are vowed, are imperated by religion, and belong unto worship, not properly, but by accident, those formally, these materially. He doth not speak of vows, in that part which the Rej. quoteth, but of things vowed, nor doth he acknowledge these worship, otherwise then the matter of an action, is an action: It were not far from his meaning, if one should say, this bakers bread, and that uynters wine, is a Sacrament materialiter and per accidens. Lastly he doth not speak of any worship elicitus per accidens, such as immediate Ceremonial worship is, but only imperatus ordered and directed, such as service to ones father or friend may be, and is not this then a worshipful testimony for Ceremonies, invented by man and made formal, immediate reductive worship.

The third witnesse is, Chamyer, Tom. 5. l. 20.4.5 affirming that arbitrary vowes are worship of God not per se, of themselves, but by accident, and for some other thing, ⟨p. 147⟩where to omitt the translation of per se, of themselves, which should have beene by themselves betwixt which ther is a great difference, (as betwixt a body living of the soule, and by it self.) Chamyer in that very place, if his whole sentence be expressed (which neglect, if it had beene the Replyers, we should have heard outcryes, proclamations and invective accusations enough) I say •his whole sentence is contrary to the Rej.: His words in summe are these: To vow,