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.…

5. Now of this question in the formal state of it, I find not, that scarce any doubt was among understanding Christians, before this Def. and Rej. being ⟨p. 275⟩urged thereto by direct consequence from their principles, have now found it necessary, to maintain the affirmative part, for defence of our beggarly Ceremonies.

5. Now of this quaestion in the formal state of it, I finde not, that scarce any doubt was amonge understanding Christians, before this Def. and Rej. being ⟨p. 275⟩urged therto by direct consequence from their principles, have now found it necessarie, to mainteyne the affirmative part, for defence of our beggerly Ceremonies.

There was some difference betwixt Hierome, & Augustine, about observing of legal Rites, & in special about Circumcision (as appeareth out of the Epistles which passed betwixt them, yet extant) but both of them agreed on this, that as well to Jew, as Gentile, all religious use of Circumcision, for Ceremony, &c. is now after due publication of the Gospel, unlawful or deadly. All that have written since, agree about the same trueth, except Caietan in one place; who is forsaken & opposed therein by all Papists, the Jesuits themselves not excepted. Our Divines are so confident of this, that from the unlawfulness of Circumcision, they usually dispute against other humane Ceremonies: and the Jesuits in answering, are forced to fly unto this (which must be our Def. and Rej. their answer) that the Ceremonies of the old Testament, are not absolutely abrogated, but only in regard of their special manner, end, & intention. Greg. Valent. tom. 2. disp. 7. quaest. 7. punct. 7. Bellar. de effect. Sacr. l. 2. c. 32. which answer is called by D. Fulke (ag. Sand. of images, pag. 672.) a beastly doctrine.

Ther was some difference betwixt Hierome, & Augustine, about observing of legall Rites, & in speciall about Circumcision (as appeareth out of the Epistles which passed betwixt them, yet exstant) but both of thē agreed on this, that as well to Iew, as Gentile, all religious use of Circumcision, for Ceremonie, &c. is now after due publication of the Gospel, unlawfull or deadly. All that have written since, agree about the same trueth, except Caietan in one place; who is forsaken & opposed therin by all Papists, the Iesuites themselves not excepted. Our Divines are so confident of this, that from the unlawfulnesse of Circumcision, they usually dispute against other humane Ceremonies: and the Iesuits in answering, are forced to flie unto this (which must be our Def. and Rej. their answer) that the Ceremonies of the olde Testament, are not absolutely abrogated, but onely in regard of their speciall manner, end, & intention. Greg. Valent. tom. 2. disp. 7. quaest. 7. punct. 7. Bellar. de effect. Sacr. l. 2. c. 32. whiche answer is called by D. Fulke (ag. Saund. of images, pag. 672.) a beastly doctrine.