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.…

3. Against the foresaid answer, it was opposed, that by this means, any kind of Popish, Jewish, or Heathenish Ceremony, may come in, so there be new particulars, and a new intention used. To which it is rejoined, that though they be not excluded, upon that sole point, of having been abused, yet they may, upon other just exceptions, be shut out. But the Rejoinder should have showed those just exceptions, which remain, after the particular matter, and the evil intention be removed. For according to the Defender and Rejoinder their grounds, I cannot guess, what they should be. The Rejoinder mentioneth dumb, dark, numerous, burdensome, incorrigible, foolish, ridiculous Ceremonies. But all these exceptions have been discussed before: where we have showed that all these virtues are found in our Ceremonies, as well as in Popish, beside numerousness, which in this place cannot be applied to the purpose: because the inference was of any kind, not of any number. Dumbness in deed is denied to be in significant Ceremonies: but what is there among the Popish Ceremonies, which is not made by Durand of Mystical signification? It is not dark, what men say our Cross doeth signify: but how ⟨p. 479⟩•t can lawfully signify any such thing, is very dark, &c.

3. Against the foresayd answer, it was opposed, that by this meanes, any kinde of Popish, Iewish, or Heathenish Ceremonie, may come in, so ther be new particulars, and a new intention used. To which it is rejoyned, that though they be not excluded, upon that sole poynt, of having been abused, yet they may, upon other just exceptions, be shut out. But the Rejoynder should have shewed those just exceptions, which remaine, after the particular matter, and the evill intention be removed. For according to the Defender and Rejoynder their groundes, I cannot guesse, what they should be. The Rejoynder mentioneth dumbe, darke, numerous, burthensome, incorrigible, foolish, ridiculous Ceremonies. But all these exceptions have been discussed before: where we have shewed that all these vertues are founde in our Ceremonies, as well as in Popish, beside numerousnesse, which in this place cannot be applied to the purpose: because the inference was of any kinde, not of any number. Dumbnesse in deed is denied to be in •ignificant Ceremonies: but what is ther amonge the Popish Ceremonies, which is not made by Durand of Mystical signification? It is not darke, what men say our Crosse doeth signifie: but how