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.…

1. IN this section an objection of ours is brought in, without rank or file, in the middle of Examples, forgotten (as the Rej. saith) in the proper place. But nothing of moment is answered thereto, either by the Def. or Rej. which is not sufficiently cleared in the first part of this Writing, Chapter the sixth; except the state which Suarez maketh of the question betwixt us and Papists. This therefore (as being very observable) remaineth here to be declared.

1. IN this section an obiection of ours is brought in, without ranke or file, in the midle of Examples, forgotten (as the Rej. saith) in the proper place. But nothing of moment is answered thereto, either by the Def. or Rej. which is not sufficiently cleared in the first part of this Writing, Chapter the sixt; except the state which Suarez maketh of the question betwixt us and Papists. This therefore (as being very observable) remaineth heere to be declared.

2. The place quoted is in 3. tom. 3. Disp. 15. Sect. 2. The words (as the Replier hath them) are these: The first ⟨p. 310⟩error is, that only those signs which are written, ought to be retained and used in the Church. The second, that no outward worship of God is lawful, but only that which is appointed by God. The third, that the Church hath not power of commanding, and ordaining those things, (he meaneth mystical Ceremonies) which are necessary for convenient celebration of the Sacraments. Of which three points, there is none, wherein Suarez and the Def. do not jump. To this the Rej. first answereth, that Suarez doeth not propounded these three points, as three errors of the Protestants: because he mentioneth not Protestants, but Heretics, which reason is not worth the answering: because he mentioneth Heretics of this time, which phrase is oftener in the Jesuits writings, understood of Protestants, then of any other, as all know that have looked upon them. By the •ame reason, one may argue, that he understood no special Sect, or persons: because he mentioneth not any by name. But it shall appear, that his meaning could be of no other then Protestants.