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.…

Now for the Tenets, which have been and are about •hese Cerem. the Rej. noted out of T. C. that the old •enet of those, who opposed our Cerem., was to hold •hem inconvenient only, not unlawful, But 1. he showeth no such thing about the Cross: 2. Nay the contrary appeareth in D.B. himself, who pag. 16. confesseth, that 39. years ago, he did at the least doubt, that the Cross was unlawful, and for that cause (not for scandal, as he did the Surplice) he refused it even to Deprivation: He would not have us think, I am sure, that he had then a singular new Tenet by himself, but inclined to the old. 3. Mr. Hooker P. 246. observeth, that the first pleadings of T. C. against other Cerem: either inferred unlawfulness, or nothing. 4. The last rules,¹ and resolutions of T. C. do evidently speak, of unlawfulness, of all significant Ceremonies: Although the Cerem: of Crossing were indifferent and convenient, yet to raise a doctrine of it, is unlawful, for as much as it is not enough, to teach the truth, unless it be truly taught, and that is only out of the word of God. 2. Reply: P. 227. This was his judgment in these, and we have no other Tenet of significant Ceremonies until this day: Now if in the Hypothesis of one or two signif. Cerem. he swerved a little ⟨p. 12⟩there from, out of extrinsical considerations, yet that doth not make his tenet such, as the Rej. would have it, but rather it is to be held, as an occasional declination from his Tenet, which also (he is said) by faithful witnesses to have confessed, as an error before his death: 4. That tenet of inconveniency, or inexpediency was never yet sufficiently explained, and therefore had been fit work for it.

Now for the Tenets, which have beene and are about •hese Cerem. the Rej. noted out of T. C. that the ould •enet of those, who opposed our Cerem., was to hold •hem inconvenient only, not unlawfull, But 1. he sheweth no such thing about the Crosse: 2. Nay the contrary appeareth in D.B. himself, who pag. 16. confesseth, that 39. yeares agoe, he did at the least doubt, that the Crosse was unlawfull, and for that cause (not for scandall, as he did the Surplice) he refused it even to Deprivation: He would not have us think, I am sure, that he had then a singular new Tenet by himself, but inclined to the ould. 3. Mr. Hooker P. 246. observeth, that the first pleadings of T. C. against other Cerem: either inferred unlawfulnes, or nothing. 4. The last rules,