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.…

But 1, If this had been a clear explication, yet seeing we meet with it, and handle it in a hundred several places, before, and after, little reason had the Rejoinder to suspect advantageous craft, in passing by the same terms in this one place. 2. There is no clearness at all in heaping up terms, without any explication of them. 3. When these terms, proper, essential, necessary worship are now expounded, by the Rejoinder to mean nothing else but worship specially commanded of God, the sense is so absurd, that it was for his advantage, ⟨p. 159⟩if they were omitted. For what answer is this: men appointing Ceremonies of their own making, do not say that they are specially appointed of God?

But 1, If this had been a clear explication, yet seeing we meet with it, and handle it in a hundred severall places, before, and after, litle reason had the Rejoynder to suspect advantagious craft, in passing by the same termes in this one place. 2. Ther is no clearnesse at all in heaping up termes, without any explication of them. 3. When these termes, proper, essentiall, necessarie worship are now expounded, by the Rejoinder to mean nothing else but worship specially commanded of God, the sense is so absurde, that it was for his advantage, ⟨p. 159⟩if they were omitted. For what answer is this: men appointing Ceremonies of their own making, doe not say that they are specially app•inted of God?

2. The argument was thus formed by the Repl. Those Ceremonies, which have the kind, nature, and definition of worship belonging to them, so that they want nothing but a right author, to make them true worship, those are in their imposition and use, worship, and for want •f a right author, false worship. But our Ceremonies are •uche. Ergo. Here the Rejoinder first complaineth again, that the term Real. is left out of the assumption, into which it was put by the Def. But 1. who gave licence to the Def. for to put new terms into our arguments? It is not true, that he put any such term into the assumption, but only mentioned in the title of this section. 3. Except such a ridiculous sense be put upon this term Real, as was even now observed, of proper essential, necessary, it may be understood both in the proposition, and in the the assumption also. For if the kind, nature, and definition of worship do agree to our Ceremonies then they are not only verbal worship, in some fashion of speech (as the Rejoinder distinguisheth, but real worship.