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.…

In which two things are observable: First; that he stileth the reply a Pamphlet of a nameless author: ⟨p. 2⟩in disgrace, as clearly appeareth in his second part, pag. 38. where he stileth not only the replyer, but many others, for this very cause, Libellers: But it cannot be esteemed any disgrace,¹ for any writing upon just occasion, to want the name of the author, without involving, many excellent Divines, and divers penmen also of holy Scripture, in the same blame. As for the term Pamphlet, I understand it, as noting a little contemptible writing: But the worth of a writing doth not consist, in bulk and belly, but in sinews, veins, and arteries, which with good blood and spirits, may be couched into a little body: If he mean by Pamphlet the same which after, he expresseth in the term of scurrilous, that is as I take it, full of jesting, without respect of the persons: he hath to deal with. My answ: is: That if the Rep: had written to the convocation house, an Epistle with this Inscription, To the superstitious fathers of the Church of England: as the Def: entitleth his epistle to us, to his superstitions Brethren, (and yet this Rej: is not ashamed to adopt, this scurrility, and make it his own child, by maintaining of it, even against the very nature of D. Burgess) there had been more occasion of such a censure, then now is found, in all the Reply, as after shall appear.