A30189:182
An answer to two treatises of Mr. John Can, the leader of the English…An answer to two treatises of Mr. Iohn Can, the leader of the English…
An answer to two treatises of Mr. John Can, the leader of the English Brownists in Amsterdam the former called, A necessity of separation from the Church of England, proved by the Nonconformists principles : the other, A stay against straying : wherein in opposition to M. John Robinson, he undertakes to prove the unlawfulness of hearing the ministers of the Church of England ... / by the late learned, laborious and faithful servant of Jesus Christ, John Ball.An answer to two treatises of Mr. Iohn Can, the leader of the English Brownists in Amsterdam the former called, A necessitie of separation from the Church of England, proved by the Nonconformists principles : the other, A stay against straying : wherein in opposition to M. Iohn Robinson, he undertakes to prove the unlawfulnesse of hearing the ministers of the Church of England ... / by the late learned, laborious and faithfull servant of Jesus Christ, John Ball.
London: printed by R.B., 1642
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Two passages of Scripture are rightly alleged by you (the rest are mustered up merely to make a show, and argue your great inconsiderateness in citing Scripture) against will-worship, and superstitious rites, or empty shows of Religion. For the soul of Religion, is to do acts with relation to Gods Commandment, and where there is no Commandment or Institution, there can be no conscience of worship, no expectation of a blessing. In this sense therefore the proposition is to be admitted. But in a matter of such importance, so much insisted upon by your self, it became you to deal distinctly, and prove substantially what you affirm, and not to confound things that differ, confidently to affirm what you can never ⟨p. 54⟩make good, and heap up Scriptures and Authors to no purpose.
Two passages of Scripture are rightly alledged by you (the rest are mustered up meerely to make a shew, and argue your great inconsideratenesse in citing Scripture) against will-worship, and superstitious rites, or emptie shewes of Religion. For the soule of Religion, is to doe acts with relation to Gods Commandement, and where there is no Commandement or Institution, there can be no conscience of worship, no expectation of a blessing. In this sense therefore the proposition is to be admitted. But in a matter of such importance, so much insisted upon by your selfe, it became you to deale distinctly, and prove substantially what you affirme, and not to confound things that differ, confidently to affirme what you can never ⟨p. 54⟩make good, and heape up Scriptures and Authors to no purpose.
You say, it is a certain rule (as Logicians teach) Things are really to be distinguished; which in themselves are to be separated each from other. But the rule is, That all things are really distinguished, which may be separated each from other, as the body is really distinguished from the apparel, because the garment may be separated from the body, & the body from the garment. How truly you understand, or fitly apply that Maxim, it is needless to examine further: but what you observe in your Pistoler (as you stile him) that is most true in your self and some others, that ignorance or neglect of distinguishing things that differ in this matter of Gods Worship, is one main cause of great error and going astray.