SECT. I.
THIS second Argument is taken from the kind, unto vvhich such ceremonies as ours are, doe in their nature belong, viz. that they are parts of divine worship, and therefore (being mans inventions) unlawfull. Heere the Def. comes out with a wedge as he calleth it, distinguishing be∣twixt proper or essentiall parts of Gods worship, and improper or accidentall. But first he should haue done vvell to haue considered the nature and measure of the thing which he vvould cleaue, by the light of a definition. For otherwise he may spend his wedge, his beetle, and all his labour in vaine.
And so indeed he hath, as may appeare by his explication of this distinction. By proper and essentiall parts (saith he) we understand such ceremonies, which are so necessarily required to Gods service, as that the contrarie thereof must needs displease him. By accidentall parts (or ap∣purtenances) such as serue onely as accessorie complements, ordained for the more convenient discharge of the necessarie worship of God, i. e. for decorum and edification. For 1 if all those ceremonies be essentiall parts of Gods worship, vvhich are such as the contrarity of them must needs displease God, then certainely all ceremonies vvhich serue for decorum and edification must needs be essentiall parts of Gods worship: because the contrarie of decorum and edification must needs displease God in his worship. 2 What kind of wedging is this, so to distinguish the parts of Gods worship, as that the acci∣dentall onely, and not the essentiall shall serue for edification? 3 What cleaving or dissolving is this of the parts of worship, where the accidentall parts are rather said to bee appurtenances then parts, and yet granted to be parts? 4 What worship of God