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. Sadeel's words are: We reject whatsoever remaineth in the Church of Rome, which came either from Jews, or Pagans. The Rejoinder answereth, that Sadeel showeth what Ceremonies the Refor. Churches of France did reject; but not what were necessarily to be rejected of all Churches: He useth also the limitation of Jewish and Paganish Ceremonies. But he clean mistaketh Sadeel's meaning: Jewish and Paganish, are no words of limitation, but of explication by way of reason. Our use of his testimony is 1. thus: Whatsoever Ceremonies they of France have rejected, are in Sadeel's judgement Jewish or Heathenish, which can have no lawful use in Gods worship. But the Churches of France have rejected our Ceremonies in controversy. Ergo. 2. Thus: If Jewish and Heathenish Ceremonies are ⟨p. 467⟩to be rejected; then Popish also, they being in their nature, or kind, Jewish, and having evermore been notoriously abused unto Popish Idolatry.

5. Sadeels words are: We reject whatsoever remayneth in the Church of Rome, which came eyther from Iews, or Pagans. The Rejoynder answereth, that Sadeel sheweth what Ceremonies the Refor. Churches of France did reject; but not what were necessarily to be rejected of all Churches: He useth also the limitation of Iewish and Paganish Ceremonies. But he clean mistaketh Sadeels meaning: Iewish and Paganish, are no wordes of limitation, but of explication by way of reason. Our use of his testimonie is 1. thus: Whatsoever Ceremonies they of France have rejected, are in Sadeels judgement Iewish or Heathenish, which can have no lawful use in Gods worship. But the Churches of France have rejected our Ceremonies in controversie. Ergo. 2. Thus: If Iewish and Heathenish Ceremonies are ⟨p. 467⟩to be rejected; then Popish also, they being in their nature, or kinde, Iewish, and having evermore been notoriously abused unto Popish Idolatrie.

9. M. Rogers, Martyr, in King Edwards days, would not consent to conformity in Cap, and Tippet, unless the Papists might be constrained to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice and Host. True (answereth the Rejoinder 1.) but other good Martyrs did. Therefore (say I) not they, but M. Rogers was alleged. Yet beside zealous Hooper, with whom after Ridley and others agreed, Heavenly M. Bradford might have been added, who in his letters to Erkinald Rawlins, calleth forked caps, and tippers, Antichristian pelf and baggage. He 2. answereth, that the question was for inconvenience, not unlawfulness. But he knoweth well, that M. Hooper, and so (in all likelihood) M. Rogers stood upon such inconvenience, as in their learning was unlawfulness.