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.…

Upon supposition (which now appeareth true) that the Def. could not show his distinction out of Chemnitius, he was desired, at the least, to show, that there is some worship, which is not necessary: because otherwise he must needs sink under Chennitius his charge To this the Rejoinder answereth, 1. that Chemnitius understandeth by will worship, whatsoever of mans device, is imagined necessary. 2. that there is some external worship, which is not in the particularities of it necessary. For the first of which, enough is said, in the 7. s. of the manud. Yet here I may add, that it is so far from trueth, (no will-worship can be without imagination of necessity) that on the contrary, whosoever doeth take upon him, for his will sake professedly to appoint any worship, cannot possibly imagine it absolutely necessary, but acknowledging there hath been worship, without his addition, he professeth to add something, not simply necessary to the being, but only to the better being of it. As for the second, In Gods own ordinances, which were substantial, and essential, by the Rejoinder his confession, the particularities were not always absolutely necessary Levit. 5. a lamb, or two turtle doves, or two young pigeons. ⟨p. 139⟩And this answer may serve for all that is further rejoined about Chemnitius. For it beareth wholly upon perpetual necessity of the same particularities. The expressions which he instanceth in, are natural gestures, such as kneeling, lifting up of eyes, or hands to heaven etc. which have as manifest impressions in them, of Gods will, without mans institution, as the offering of doves or pigeons ever had, and in their particularities upon occasion carry as much necessity with them. What is this to such unnecessary worship, as Cross and Surplice?

Vpon supposition (which now appeareth true) that the Def. could not shew his distinction out of Chemnitius, he was desired, at the least, to shew, that ther is some worship, which is not necessarie: because otherwise he must needs sincke under Chēnitius his charge To this the Rejonder answereth, 1. that Chemnitius understandeth by will worship, whatsoever of mans device, is imagined necessarie. 2. that ther is some externall worship, which is not in the particularities of it necessarie. For the first of which, enough is sayd, in the 7. s. of the manud. Yet here I may adde, that it is so farre from trueth, (no will-worship can be without imagination of necessitie) that on the contrarie, whosoever doeth take upon him, for his will sake professedly to apoynt any worship, cannot possiblie imagine it absolutely necessarie, but acknowleging ther hath been worship, without his addition, he professeth to adde something, not simplie necessarie to the being, but onely to the better being of it. As for the second, In Gods own ordinances, which were substantiall, and essentiall, by the Rejoynder his confession, the particularites were not allways absolutely necessarie