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.…

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.

And yet both the consisting and impeaching of the Churches peace, doeth principally depend on the keeping of Gods commandements: which is all the Repl. affirmed. 3. He distinguisheth betwixt an offence every way lesse, and in it owne nature lesse, whenas the question is not, whether the neglect of our Ceremonies, be not onely in it owne nature a lesse offence, but also in all the circumstances of it. The Def. and Rejoynder themselves confesse, that this neglect, in the nature of it, is no offence at all. 4. Because suche answers were termed Sophisticall evasions, the Rejoynder twice crieth out of rayling: forgetting (without doubt) how often he had abused the same terme against the Repl. and that in the next former section, he had mainteyned the Def. his accusing a plain popular argument, not onely of Sophistrie, but even of dull Sophistrie. For the Rejoynder certainly will not confesse himself a rayler. The rest is not worth repeating, that paper should be twice blotted with it.

Against the Def. his distinction, betwixt omission, and contempt, the Reply was 1. that mere omission hath been punished with suspension. Of which the Rejoinder ⟨p. 205⟩