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.…

Concerning Protestant Divines.

This head was passed over by the Defendant, but the Rejoinder undertaketh to clear it: wherein, either his skill, or his confidence, must needs occasion wondering.

This head was passed over by the Defendant, but the Rejoynder undertaketh to cleare it: wherein, either his skill, orhis confidence, must needes occasion wondering.

1. The general Assembly of Scotland (anno. 1566.) writ thus to the Bishops of England. If Surplice, Corner-Cap, and Tippet, have been badges of Idolaters, in the very act of Idolatry, what have the Preachers of Christian liberty, and the open Rebukers of superstition, to do with the dregs of the Romish Beast? And in their Confession: We detest all the Ceremonies and false doctrine of the Romish Antichrist, added to the ministration of the true Sacraments: we detest all his vain Allegories, Rites, Signs, and Traditions, brought into the Church without, or against the Word of God. To the former testimony, the Rejoinder answereth 1. That these words are not the definitive judgement of the Assembly, but only spoken as the Plea of some tender-hearted men, which suffered for refusal of those things. Now if this were so as the Rej. maketh it, yet this we may gather from thence; that the Plea of many godly ministers of England, in those days, ⟨p. 454⟩was, that our Ceremonies are unlawful. For so it is there said: many thousands, both godly, and learned, have their consciences continually stricken, with these sentences: what hath Christ to do with Belial? what fellowship is there betwixt darkness and light? &c. in the words formerly cited. What meant the Rejoinder then, to persuade his Readers, in his Preface, and upon all occasions, that our Ceremonies were not by Non-Conformists held unlawful, but only inconvenient, until of late? If nothing else can, yet this his own (not confession, but) peremptory answer, may so convince him, that he must acknowledge his accusing of us, as dissenting therein from the first seekers of reformation, in the Ceremonies, and so the occasion of his bitter writing, is a mere conceit, built up by desire of putting some colour upon that, which, nakedly beheld, would be offensive. Observe further, that a definitive judgement, is vainly here denied, where it was never sought for. The Ministers of England did not send into Scotland, for a definitive sentence, concerning the use or abuse of things in England. Neither were they of Scotland so simple, as to take that authority of defining upon them. But for their advising judgement, is plain enough to all that read their words with any indifferency. They were not ignorant of our English question: there were among them, that had been at Frankford, as Mr. Knox, Mr. Good-man, &c.