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. The second thing brought out of the abridgement, is about the punishment inflicted for omission of our Ceremonies, greater then for breaking of Gods law, in perjury and adultery. Now this hath formerly been handled. In this place therefore, it shall suffice, to set a few notes, upon the Rej. his answers. 1. He distinguisheth ⟨p. 204⟩betwixt punishing, and punishing as a sin. As if punishment in the internal nature of it, were not of sin! 2. He distinguisheth betwixt internal peace of the Church, consisting more in observance of Gods commandments, and the peace of her external policy, impeached by the neglect of her constitutions. Whereas he should have made the distinction betwixt one consisting, & another, or betwixt one impeaching, & another.

7. The second thing brought out of the abridgement, is about the punishment inflicted for omission of our Ceremonies, greater then for breaking of Gods law, in perjurie and adulterie. Now this hath formerly been handled. In this place therfore, it shall suffize, to set a few notes, upon the Rej. his answers. 1. He distinguisheth ⟨p. 204⟩betwixt punishing, and punishing as a sinne. As if punishment in the internall nature of it, were not of sinne! 2. He distinguisheth betwixt internall peace of the Churche, consisting more in observance of Gods commandements, and the peace of her externall pollicie, impeached by the neglect of her constitutions. Wheras he should have made the distinction betwixt one consisting, & another, or betwixt one impeaching, & another.

And yet both the consisting and impeaching of the Churches peace, doeth principally depend on the keeping of Gods commandments: which is all the Repl. affirmed. 3. He distinguisheth betwixt an offence every way less, and in it own nature less, whenas the question is not, whether the neglect of our Ceremonies, be not only in it own nature a less offence, but also in all the circumstances of it. The Def. and Rejoinder themselves confess, that this neglect, in the nature of it, is no offence at all. 4. Because such answers were termed Sophistical evasions, the Rejoinder twice crieth out of railing: forgetting (without doubt) how often he had abused the same term against the Repl. and that in the next former section, he had maintained the Def. his accusing a plain popular argument, not only of Sophistry, but even of dull Sophistry. For the Rejoinder certainly will not confess himself a railer. The rest is not worth repeating, that paper should be twice blotted with it.