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.…

JUSTINE MARTYR preached the word of God in a Philosophers habit, which was his ordinary garment, such as our students at University and Inns of Court wear, no Surplice nor any such ministering attire. But concerning the Bishops brooch, which M. Jewel saith John the Evangelist did wear, as if he had been a Bishop of the Jews, I take it, it was no material brooch, but a figurative speech only. For Polycrates describing John first by the singular love our Lord bore him, in whose bosom he leaned at his last supper, then of the great holiness wherein this noble disciple excelled, he contented not himself to declare the same properly, but allegorically said of him, [Greek or Hebrew] [which was the Priest that carried the brooch,] not that he ever used any such thing, but that he expressed by his holy conversation the force of that [Sanctitas Jehovae] written in that golden plate, which the high Priest carried in his bonnet. For shall we think John was a Priest, neither of Aaron's family, nor of the tribe of Levi? or were the holy ⟨p. 504⟩things of the Temple not so much as to be seen by the people of the Jews at Jerusalem, now exposed to the view of the Gentiles at Ephesus? Would the Jews have borne this profaning of their holiest mystery, by a man of another tribe, among the heathen, and by a Christian? Besides, the Apostles by common consent had decreed the legal cerem. should not be used by the Christians. Act. 15. And Paul taught Circumcising to be falling from the grace of Christ. Gal. 5.2, Would John then bring a Ceremony of the Levitical Priesthood into the Church? D. Fulke was not of that judgement that the words in Eusebius are to be taken literally, but by that figurative allusion already remembered; Rhem. test. Apoc. 1. sect. 7. This figurative speech therefore should not have been turned into a material brooch, much less into a long Priests garment, as the Rhemists do, who have battered out this [Greek or Hebrew], and shaped it into [Greek or Hebrew]. Apoc. 1.13. These words then make nothing for any garment at all.

IVSTINE MARTYR preached the word of God in a Philosophers habit, which was his ordinary garment, such as our students at Vniversitie and Innes of Court weare, no Surplice nor any such ministringe attire. But concerning the Bishops brouch, which M. Iewel saith Iohn the Euangelist did weare, as if he had bene a Bishop of the Iewes, I take it, it was no material brouch, but a figurative speech onely. For Polycrates describinge Iohn first by the singular love our Lord bore him, in whose bosome he leaned at his last supper, then of the great holines wherein this noble disciple excelled, he contented not himselfe to declare the same properlye, but allegorically said of him, [which was the Prist that carried the brouch,] not that he ever used any such thinge, but that he expressed by his holy conversation the force of that [Sanctitas Iehovae] written in that golden plate, which the high Preist carried in his bonnet. For shall wee thinke Iohn was a Preist, neyther of Aarons family, nor of the tribe of Levi? or were the holy