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.…

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.

9. M. Rogers, Martyr, in King Edwards days, would not consent to conformitie in Cap, and Tippet, unlesse the Papists might be constreyned to wear upon their sleeves a Chalice and Hoast. True (answereth the Rejoynder 1.) but other good Martyrs did. Therfor (say I) not they, but M. Rogers was alleged. Yet beside zealous Hooper, with whome after Ridly and others agreed, Heavenly M. Bradford might have been added, whoe in his letters to Erkinald Rawlins, calleth forked caps, and tippers, Antichristian pelse and baggage. He 2. answereth, that the quaestion was for inconveniencie, not unlawfulnesse. But he knoweth well, that M. Hooper, and so (in all likelyhood) M. Rogers stood upon such inconveniencie, as in their learning was unlawfulnesse.

His 3. and 4. answer is of different intentions, in the same materials. But this was in King Edwards days, by all professed: and yet M. Rogers and such could not see it sufficient. 5. M. Rogers would (saith the Rejoinder) allow the same things with some mark of difference. Not allow, but tolerate; not upon every mark of difference, but such as he knew would never be consented unto; that is, not at all.

His 3. and 4. answer is of different intentions, in the same materials. But this was in King Edwards days, by all professed: and yet M. Rogers and such could not see it sufficient. 5. M. Rogers would (sayth the Rejoynder) allow the same thinges with some marke of difference. Not allow, but tolerate; not upon every marke of difference, but such as he knew would never be consented unto; that is, not at all.