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…

This reason therefore, that is, for the substance thereof nothing but a new furbishing over of the same broken staff, might well be passed over in silence. But lest the credulous reader should conceit it is slighted, because it containeth some matter of importance, I will in few words lay open the weakness and vanity thereof. First you translate the Schoolmans words (vel cui non debet, vel non eo modo quo debet) very improperly, when divine worship is not exhibited, either to the person it should be, &c. and indeed make his speech absurd or senseless. For it was never imagined to be superstition, not to exhibit divine worship to God, but Atheism or profaneness rather. You say, superstition is that which is done supra statutum, when more estimation is had of a thing, more dignity placed in it than is meet; which is contrary to the not exhibiting of divine honour to God: but this is your common practice. 2. Your reasons to prove it superstition to hear Antichristian Ministers in their false assemblies (as you stile them) are none of the best, ¹though all should be granted which you desire, for though it be no particular ordinance in respect of time or place, yet it followeth not that it is superstition: For if for substance the duty be of God, it may be done without superstition, when it is not in particular commanded. May not the case fall out, that it is free for a man whether he will hear the word at such a time, or follow the duties of his calling? and if he do the one or the other, in so doing he is not to be deemed superstitious? To place opinion of necessity, holiness, or worship, in that which God hath not instituted or sanctified, is superstition. But to do this or that act which is commanded or allowed of God, cannot be called superstition, though in some particular circumstance above mentioned, it be no particular ordinance. You say, ⟨p. 91⟩whosoever takes to himself practice, ²which is not grounded upon Gods word, and is strict therein, he is just overmuch, why do you add, (and is strict therein) if every act simply not commanded be superstition?

This reason therefore, that is, for the substance thereof nothing but a new furbishing over of the same broken staffe, might well be passed over in silence. But lest the credulous reader should conceit it is slighted, because it containeth some matter of importance, I will in few words lay open the weaknesse and vanitie thereof. First you translate the Schoolmans words (vel cui non debet, vel non eo modo quo debet) very improperly, when divine worship is not exhibited, either to the person it should be, &c. and indeed make his speech absurd or senselesse. For it was never imagined to be superstition, not to exhibite divine worship to God, but Atheisme or prophanesse rather. You say, superstition is that which is done supra statutum, when more estimation is had of a thing, more dignitie placed in it than is meet; which is contrary to the not exhibiting of divine honour to God: but this is your common practice. 2. Your reasons to prove it superstition to heare Antichristian Ministers in their false assemblies (as you stile them) are none of the best,