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.…

3. In the 27. Sect. the Replier could find no show of reason, beside mere affirmations. The Rejoinder findeth this Argument: If two other ways of reforming Ceremonies, beside Abolition, may be used; then abolition is not the only way. But two other ways, (namely changing or correcting) may be used. Ergo.

3. In the 27. Sect. the Replier could finde no shew of reason, beside meer affirmations. The Rejoynder findeth this Argument: If two other ways of reforming Ceremonies, beside Abolition, may be used; then abolition is not the onely way. But two other ways, (namely changing or correcting) may be used. Ergo.

To this show of reason, the answer is easy: 1. If those two other ways be understood as partial and insufficient, then the Proposition is false: if as sufficient by themselves, without abolition, then I deny absolutely the Assumption, ⟨p. 515⟩as being a mere affirmation of that which is in question, according to the Repliers observation.

To this shew of reason, the answer is easy: 1. If those two other ways be understood as partial and insufficient, then the Proposition is false: if as sufficient by themselves, without abolition, then I denie absolutely the Assumtion, ⟨p. 515⟩as being a meer affirmation of that which is in quaestion, according to the Repliers observation.

2. Either this is understood of all Ceremonies abused, or only of some? If of all, our Reformation is to be blamed, which hath used abolition without any necessity. If of some only, the Defender ought to have told us, which they are, or by what mark we may know them? And omitting this, he saith neither Argumentation, nor certain affirmation in this Section.