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.…

To which I answer, that according as Ramus showeth, about distribution, sometime adjuncts of a thing may (in a large sense) be called parts, and yet they cannot have the abstractive name of that subject attributed unto them: because the adjuncts of a man cannot (with any sense) be called men. The consequence •herfore of this argument is rotten at the root.

To which I answer, that according as Ramus sheweth, about distribution, sometime adjuncts of a thing may (in a large sense) be called parts, and yet they cannot have the abstractive name of that subject attributed unto them: because the adjuncts of a man cannot (with any sense) be called men. The consequence •herfore of this argument is rotten at the root.

But such a reason, as that from the adjuncts of a man, to a man, was thus propounded by the Repl. the cross is annexed to a Sacrament. To this the Rejoinder answereth, that the Cross is not annexed to the Sacrament, but only to the solemnity of the Sacrament, and so it is not a part of the Sacrament, but of solemnity.

But suche a reason, as that from the adjuncts of a man, to a man, was thus propounded by the Repl. the crosse is annexed to a Sacrament. To this the Rejoynder answereth, that the Crosse is not annexed to the Sacrament, but onely to the solemnitie of the Sacrament, and so it is not a part of the Sacrament, but of solemnitie.

Now here let any man of reason judge, 1. If the ⟨p. 157⟩Cross in Baptism, be not so much as a circumstance a Ceremony, or Rite (which all Papists, Lutherans, and our Conformists ordinarily, acknowledge) annexed unto Baptism? Common use of speech calls that annexed, which is joined unto another thing, as an adjunct. Now who can doubt, but the Cross is so joined to Baptism?