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.…

4. The Fathers practise (saith the Rej.) interpreted their rules touching the perfection of Scripture, and purity of Gods worship, to be understood of necessary doctrine, and proper worship. The contrary whereof appeareth, partly by the fore-mentioned place of Augustine, where he complaineth of the Ceremonies which he practised, as disagreeing from the Doctrine of the Gospel which he taught. Beside, (because proper worship hath been discussed in its proper place) it would be inquired, what the Rej. meaneth by necessary doctrine? If he meaneth only that doctrine which is absolutely necessary to salvation, it is a poor commendation of Scripture-perfection: because that is found in every good Catechism; and Bellarmine himself doth not deny that perfection to Scripture. I cannot guess at his thoughts, by his words: because (to my remembrance) this distinction (betwixt necessary, and unnecessary doctrine) is [Greek or Hebrew], in this place only let fall. But for the interpretation of doctrine, by practise, if the Rejoinder will have this hold in the ancient times, what reason can he give that it should not also hold in our time? If so, then why is not our argument good: Calvin, Bucer, Beza, the Divines of Helvetia, France, Netherland, &c. have in their practise, banished Cross, Surplice and kneeling, Ergo, their doctrine is against them?

4. The Fathers practise (sayth the Rej.) interpreted their rules touching the perfection of Scripture, and purity of Gods worship, to be vnderstood of necessary doctrine, and proper worship. The contrary whereof appeareth, partly by the fore-mentioned place of Augustine, where hee complaineth of the Ceremonies which he practised, as disagreeing from the Doctrine of the Gospell which he taught. Beside, (because proper worship hath beene discussed in its proper place) it would be inquired, what the Rej. meaneth by necessary doctrine? If he meaneth onely that doctrine which is absolutely necessary to salvation, it is a poore commendation of Scripture-perfection: because that is found in every good Catechisme; and Bellarmine himselfe doth not denie that perfection to Scripture. I cannot gesse at his thoughts, by his words: because (to my remembrance) this distinction (betwixt necessary, and unnecessary doctrine) is 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, in this place onely let fall. But for the interpretation of doctrine, by practise, if the Rejoynder will have this hold in the ancient times, what reason can he give that it should not also hold in our time? If so, then why is not our argument good: Calvin, Bucer, Beza, the Divines of Helvetia, France, Netherland, &c. have in their practise, banished Crosse, Surplice and kneeling, Ergo, their doctrine is against them?