5. The Repl. his last, was, that those which the Def. ⟨p. 114⟩calleth accidental parts of worship, have not (by his own express confession, in this sect.) so much communion with the essential, as the hair of the body (which is but an excrement) hath with the body, and therefore cannot be accounted a part of worship. The Rej. here. 1. answereth, that they are in deed no part of essential worship, but of the complement of worship, as garments are of mens external honour. So that now we are come to have that expressed, which before was implied, the Ceremonies may be called worship, as a Bishops Rochet, or other Bishoply garment may be called a Bishop. Though it might be also further inquired, if Ceremonies be parts of the complement, what the other parts of that complement may be? Certes he that divided worship into essential and accidental parts, did not mean worship, and the complements of worship, much less, parts of essential worship, and parts of complement. If he did, his speech, and meaning, do not well agree together. 2. He taketh great exception against the term of excrement, as not well appliable to the hair of ones beard, savouring of a spirit full of rancour, to be judged of God as a reproach, tending to breed scorn and abhorring of these Ceremonies, in the minds of ignorant men. At all which a man might have laughed, if Gods name had been spared, in so frivolous a matter. All Philosophers, that ever I I heard, or read, heathen, and Christian, call and define the hair of mens bodies, an excrement. All Divines, when they speak of hypocrites in the Church, compare them to the hair of a mans body, under the term of excrement. I therefore would not be loath to hear one call ⟨p. 115⟩the hair of my beard, an excrement. Neither can I smell any savour of a rancorous spirit, or any reproach, in that phrase. As for breeding of scorn in the minds of ignorant men, one would think, it should not be objected by him, that a little before spake of Parish-omnipotency, and stuffeth his book with such terms, as I am loath (for his sake) to repeat, but that they cannot be more gently refuted, then by bare repeating, after the occasion of them is discussed.
5. The Repl. his last, was, that those which the Def. ⟨p. 114⟩calleth accidentall parts of worship, have not (by his owne expresse confession, in this sect.) so muche communion with the essentiall, as the haire of the body (which is but an excrement) hath with the body, and therfore cannot be accounted a part of worship. The Rej. here. 1. answereth, that they are in deed no part of essentiall worship, but of the complement of worship, as garments are of mens externall honour. So that now we are come to have that expressed, which before was implied, the Ceremonies may be called worship, as a Bishops Rochet, or other Bishoply garment may be called a Bishop. Though it might be also further inquired, if Ceremonies be parts of the complement, what the other parts of that complement may bee? Certes he that divided worship into essentiall and accidentall parts, did not mean worship, and the complements of worship, muche lesse, parts of essentiall worship, and parts of complement. If he did, his speache, and meaning, doe not well agree together. 2. He taketh great exception against the terme of excrement, as not well appliable to the hair of ones beard, savouring of a spirit full of rancor, to be judged of God as a reproche, tending to breed scorne and abhorring of these Ceremonies, in the mindes of ignorant mē. At all which a mā might have laughed, if Gods name had beē spared, in so frivilous a matter. All Philosophers, that ever I I heard, or read, heathen, and Christian, call and define the haire of mens bodies, an excrement. All Divines, when they speak of hypocrites in the Churche, compare thē to the hayr of a mans body, under the terme of excrement. I therfore would not be loath to hear one call ⟨p. 115⟩the hayr of my beard, an excrement. Neyther can I smell any savor of a rancourous spirit, or any reproche, in that phrase. As for breeding of scorne in the mindes of ignorant men, one would thinke, it should not be objected by him, that a litle before spake of Parish-omnipotencie, and stuffeth his booke with suche termes, as I am loath (for his sake) to repeate, but that they cannot be more gently refuted, then by bare repeting, after the occasion of them is discussed.
