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.…

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 op•nion 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 worsh•p, according to his rules.

3. Every error of opinion doeth not make essential false worship: he should therefore have told us, what error he meant. The Def. nameth opinion of justice, sanctity, efficacy, or divine necessity: and the Rejoinder mentioneth often such and such opinion, held of the Papists, concerning all their Ceremonies. Of this enough is said, Manud. sect. 7. For the present, I deny, that such an erroneous opinion, by it self, and of it self, doeth not make essential false worship. Opinion is but an adjuvant efficient cause of that affective act, wherein the essence of internal worship consisteth: and the external acts of worship, though efficiently differenced by opinion, or faith, are essentially distinguished by their form, and end. A man may have an opinion, that is just, holy, efficacious, and necessary, to perform diverse works of the second Table, nay upon some occasions, to tell a lie, even against the second Table. Yet none speaking properly, will call, that essential false worship, which is a sin directly against the first Table. Hitherto therefore, I see no monster of the Repl. his making. And if we consider his reason well, which the Rejoinder made to it, the mishaping of things will be found on the other side. If (saith the Repl.) worship did vary according unto mens opinions, then a man may go to Mass, conceiving another private opinion to himself, then Mas-mongers use to have: and our Convocation may appoint us the grossest of all Popish Ceremonies, if they set another opinion upon it. The Rejoinder his answers are diverse, and some of them strange ones. 1. His first is, that going to mass may be a