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. 6. Concerning our Divines judgement about Ceremonious worship invented by man.

Though those three staple sections of the manuduction. 5.6.7. may be sufficient also for clearing of all the materials here extant, yet referring the Reader thither for the main, I must add something, about diverse particulars.

THough those three staple sections of the manuduction. 5.6.7. may be sufficient also for clearing of all the materialls here exstant, yet referring the Reader thither for the maine, I must adde something, about diverse particulars.

1. The Replier said▪ that Worship doeth not vary according to men opinions, but consisteth in the nature of the action it self. This is (saith the Rej.) to speak monsters. If he had said, things to him unknown, it had been enough. For all that he hath not known, are not monsters. But what is his reason of this so deep a censure? because (forsooth) opinion, by error of opinion, doeth make that to be essentially false worship, which without such opinion, were no such worship. Of which I may as well say, that this opinion, by error of opinion, doeth make the reason essentially false. For 1. the question was not here of essential false worship, but of essential, and accidental worship, whether opinion did make the difference? which the Def. affirmeth, the Repl. denieth, and the Rejoynd. declineth. 2. The Rejoinder hath not yet (that I know of) nor can (as I think) define unto us, what is essential false worship, according to his rules.

1. The Replier sayd▪ that Worship doeth not varie according to mē opinions, but cōsisteth in the nature of the action it self. This is (sayth the Rej.) to speake monsters. If he had sayd, things to him unknowen, it had been enough. For all that he hath not known, are not monsters. But what is his reason of this so deep a censure? because (forsooth) opinion, by error of opinion, doeth make that to be essentially false worship, which without suche opinion, were no suche worship. Of which I may as well say, that this opinion, by error of opinion, doeth make the reason essentially false. For 1. the question was not here of essentiall false worship, but of essentiall, and accidentall worship, whether opnion did make the difference? which the Def. affirmeth, the Repl. denieth, and the Rejoynd. declineth. 2. The Rejoynder hath not yet (that I know of) nor can (as I thinke) define unto us, what is essentiall false worshp, according to his rules.