A30189:484
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.
And put case some private or singular person hath spoken roughly in heat and passion of the Book of Common-prayer, or seemed to disallow the stinted use of a public found of prayer or Liturgy, his speech or position, delivered as his private conceit, (and perhaps not rightly apprehended) must not be interpreted the principle of the Nonconformists, contrary to the tenor of their writing, profession, and practice, much less must his words be racked contrary to his meaning, as if he condemned all stinted Liturgies as falso, de•ised and idolatrous worship, or did lean unto, favour, or uphold the practice of separation from the assemblies, because such Liturgies are in use among them.
And put case some private or singular person hath spoken roughly in heate and passion of the Booke of Common-prayer, or seemed to disallow the stinted use of a publike found of prayer or Liturgie, his speech or position, delivered as his private conceite, (and perhaps not rightly apprehended) must not be interpreted the principle of the Nonconformists, contrary to the tenour of their writing, profession, and practice, much lesse must his words be racked contrary to his meaning, as if he condemned all stinted Liturgies as falso, de•ised and idolatrous worship, or did leane unto, favour, or uphold the practice of separation from the assemblies, because such Liturgies are in use among them.
Howsoever by the grounds of the Nonconformists laid down in the second section, Sect. 3 1separation must necessarily follow from all communion with them in the worship of their Church-service-book, yet to have the point more fully proved, I will here show that every particular thereof, is affirmed of themselves to be idolatrous, false, Antichristian. Touching the Book we may consider two things: First, The distinct services thereof: Secondly, The Ceremonies used in and about the same. We will speak first of their Ceremonies, that is, of the Cross, Surplice, and Kneeling in the act of receiving ⟨p. 20⟩