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.…

7. It was also by the Repl. brought into the Def. his remembrance, that matter, and form do usually make up the essence of things, and that to instituted means, a proper end is also required, but a right efficient cause not so. About this, the Rejoinder showeth himself perplexed. For 1. he answereth, that this notwithstanding, actions have as it were matter, form and essence of accidental, though not of essential worship.

7. It was also by the Repl. brought into the Def. his remembrance, that matter, and forme doe usually make up the essence of thinges, and that to instituted meanes, a proper ende is also required, but a right efficient cause not so. About this, the Rejoynder sheweth himself perplexed. For 1. he answereth, that this notwithstanding, actions have as it were matter, forme and essence of accidentall, though not of essentiall worship.

Where he manifestly separateth the essence of worship, from essential worship, as if the essence of a man could exist without an essential man, 2. He gathereth ⟨p. 176⟩from that which was said of respect to the end, in institutions, that thereby their assertion, is cleared: viz. that Cer. respecting the honour of God mediately, are not properly parts of Divine worship. As if here had been any mention or question, of mediately, or immediately, proper, or improper, and not only of essential. But for so much as the Rejoinder would needs here cite D. Abbot, for his term immediately, I would desire him to consider of the whole sentence in that place pronounced by him, viz. Def. of Mr. Perk. pag. 844. Order and comeliness (saith the popish Bishop) is some part of Gods worship. But (saith D. Abbot.) Who taught him this deep point of Philosophy, that an accident is a part of the subject, that the beauty, or comeliness of the body is a part of the body? Order and comeliness properly and immediately respect men, and therefore can be no parts of the worship of God. If this be not a plain refuting of the Def. and the Rejoinder their assertion, then none is attempted in all the Reply.