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.…

They have provided, that all men shall kneel in the receiving of it, for a Cabinet, like to the former.

They have provided, that all men shall kneel in the receyving of it, for a Cabinet, like to the former.

3. Cardinal Cajetans interpretation, was (by the Repl.) alleged addition is forbidden even with the pretext of keeping the commandments of God, as more judicious,¹ and religious. The Rej. answereth, that Cajetan doeth ⟨p. 118⟩allow the distinction, of additions, into corruptive, and preservative, in Thom. p. 3. q. 6. a 8. and that in the alleged words, meaneth additions corrupting, though pretended for keeping. Now this is as true an interpretation of Cajetans meaning, and ours also, as can be invented: only that is wanting, whichCajetan (with us) intended, that all additions for preservation, are but pretences. But as for Cajetan his allowing this questioned distinction in 3. q. 60. (for 6. was an error) whosoever will look upon the places, shall find, that neither in Thomas, not in Cajetan, is any mention of addition preserving, which here is the only question. They speak in deed of adding words, to the form used in Baptism, and note, some words do corrupt the sense, and some do not: but not a word of adding Ceremonies preservative. The wordy additions, which they speak of, are as Thomas hath it, I Baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, (and the Virgin Mary:) or as Cajetan hath it: I baptize thee (Sexton what is a clock) in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. If these be additions of preservation let any Christian, that regardeth Baptism, judge.

3. Cardinal Cajetans interpretation, was (by the Repl.) alledged addition is forbidden even with the pr•etext of keeping the commaundements of God, as more judicious,