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.…

His second exception is frivolous. His third is this: Chemnitius hath this distinction in substance, though not in terms. For he saith, that right inward worship being supposed, right external expressions will follow of their own accord, and they are external worship, though not acceptable in themselves. Where 1. Mark the partiality of the Rejoinder.

His second exception is frivolous. His third is this: Chemnitius hath this distinction in substance, though not in termes. For he sayth, that right inward worship being supposed, right externall expressions will follow of their owne accorde, and they are externall worship, though not acceptable in themselves. Where 1. Mark the partialitie of the Rejoynder.

In the former answer, he requireth the Repl. to show the distinction which he attributeth to the Def. in his words, or terms, otherwise he may blush for shame. Now, when he is urged to show his distinction out of Chemnitius, he forsaketh words, or terms, and flieth to substance, without once thinking of shame and blushing. 2. This substance is a mere shadow. For first, Chemnitius acknowledgeth no outward expressions to be right worship, but only those, that flow of their own accord, without any institution, from inward worship. And who will say, that the Def. and Rejoinder their accidental worship, of Cross and Surplice, do so flow from internal. Secondly, those external expressions, are as essential to external worship, as profession of faith is to a visible Church. Nay there is no external worship, beside the expressions, and setting forth of the internal. Thirdly, Though those expressions, be not acceptable ⟨p. 138⟩of, or in themselves, being separated from the internal, yet it doeth not follow from thence, that they are in their nature accidental worship, and no ways substantial. For the Rejoinder confesseth, that all Gods ordinances are substantial worship: and yet he will not say that Gods outward ordinances are acceptable unto him, when they are separated from internal worship.

In the former answer, he requireth the Repl. to shew the distinction which he attributeth to the Def. in his words, or termes, otherwise he may blush for shame. Now, when he is urged to shew his distinction out of Chemnitius, he forsaketh words, or termes, and flieth to substance, without once thinking of shame and blushng. 2. This substance is a meer shadow. For first, Chemnitius acknowlegeth no outward expressions to be right worship, but onely those, that flow of their owne accorde, without any institutiō, from inward worship. And who will say, that the Def. and Rejoynder their accidentall worship, of Crosse and Surplice, doe so flow from internall. Secondly, those externall expressions, are as essentiall to externall worship, as profession of faith is to a visible Churche. Nay ther is no externall worship, beside the expressions, and setting forth of the internall. Thirdly, Though those expressions, be not acceptable