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.…

2. About Ursines testimony, we have such turnings, and windings of words obtruded upon us, as aff•rde no matter capable of sad dispute. It shall be sufficient therefore to note only the passages, which seem to look towards the question. The Rejoinder pag. 179. told us, that the Def. offered to confute, out of Ursine, this proposition: All human Ceremonies which are imposed, and observed, as parts of •ods worship, are unlawful. Now first upon this, the Repl. brought forth the main assertion of Ursin, in the place alleged, viz. that humane Ecclesiastical Ceremonies, not only are not the worship of God, but also they bind not the conscience. To this the Rejoinder answereth, that Ursin in his answer to an objection made against this assertion, saith, that such Ceremonies are not worship in themselves, therefore (addeth the Rejoinder) his meaning is, that there is some true lawful worship, improperly, and by accident.

2. About Vrsines testimonie, wee have suche turnings, and windings of words obtruded upon us, as aff•rde no matter capable of sad dispute. It shall be sufficient therfore to note onely the passages, which seem to looke towards the question. The Rejoynder pag. 179. tould us, that the Def. offered to confute, out of Vrsine, this proposition: All human Ceremonies which are imposed, and observed, as parts of •ods worship, are unlawfull. Now first upon this, the Repl. brought forth the maine assertion of Vrsin, in the place alledged, viz. that humane Ecclesiasticall Ceremonies, not onely are not the worship of God, but also they binde not the conscience. To this the Rejoynder answereth, that Vrsin in his answer to an objection made against this assertion, sayth, that suche Ceremonies are not worship in themselves, therfore (addeth the Rejoynder) his meaning is, that ther is some true lawfull worship, improperly, and by ac•ident.

Which is as if from these words: mans clothes, or armour, are not a man by themselves, one should conclude, that therefore they are affirmed to be a man improperly, and by accident.