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.…

5. The second witness, produced by the Def. for to be answered, is Chemnitius. To whose condemning of all worship instituted without the word, the Def. answered by his wedge, saying, that he meant only that which is ⟨p. 136⟩made essential worship, not accidental. Concerning this distinction, enough hath been said in the 5. and 6. staple sect. of the manudiction, let this only be remembered, that it is all one, as if he should divide worship, into worship, and no worship: for both Def. and Rejoinder often say accidental worship is no worship. They add some time, for explication, that it is no essential worship: but so they may say essential worship is no worship, and then add that they mean no accidental worship. The Repl. therefore justly required, that should be shown, if Chemnitius distinguish will-worship, as he doeth, into lawful and unlawful.

5. The second witnesse, produced by the Def. for to be answered, is Chemnitius. To whose condemning of all worship instituded without the word, the Def. answered by his wedge, saying, that he meant onely that which is ⟨p. 136⟩made essential worship, not accidentall. Concerning this distinction, enough hath been sayd in the 5. and 6. staple sect. of the manudiction, let this onely be remembred, that it is all one, as if he should divide worship, into worsh•p, and no worship: for both Def. and Rejoynder often say accidentall worship is no worship. They adde some time, for explication, that it is no essentiall worship: but so they may say e•sentiall worship is no worship, and then adde that they mean no accidentall worship. The Repl. therfor justly required, that should be showen, if Chemnitius distinguish will-worship, as he doeth, into lawfull and unlawfull.

Upon this occasion the Rejoinder 1. crieth out of a falsehood shameful, and to be blushed at, for saying that the Def. distinguisheth will-worship into lawful, and unlawful. But let any man judge where is the falsehood, shame, and cause of blushing. The question is of worship invented by man, which Chemnitius (with other Divines) call will-worship, whether it be lawful or no? the Def. answereth by a distinction, that some is unlawful, as essential, and some lawful, as accidental. What can be more plain? But (saith the Rejoinder) Accidental worship, be denieth to be properly worship, and therefore denieth it to be will worship, unless it be imagined essential. What a consequence is this, to bear up so weighty an accusation? It is not properly worship, and therefore it is not will-worship. He may as well say: it is not properly worship, and therefore it is not lawful worship. May it not be improper will-worship, though it be not properly worship? Or no improper worship come merely