A30189:487
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.
From all which, 1this argument may be framed: That worship in which a man cannot possibly communicate without sin, he is bound necessarily to separate from. But that worship in which these Idols are made and used, viz. the Cross, Surplice, and Kneeling, a man cannot possibly communicate without sin. Therefore from that worship, wherein these Idols are made and used, a man is bound necessarily to separate. The proposition is certain, and by Doctor Ames in his cases of Conscience acknowledged. Although (saith ⟨p. 21⟩nhe) we may join to that Church, in which many defects are to be tolerated, yet not to that in which we cannot but necessarily partake in sin. The Assumption is assented unto by as ojudicious and zealous Nonconformists as ever held that cause, and they have brought good proofs, for it. First, because men must fly from Idols and Idolothites: But when they come to worship God after the order of the Congregation where these things are practised, they do not fly from them, but draw near unto them. Secondly, Their bare presence argues their approbation, and yielding in show to Ceremonies. Thirdly, pThough the personal sins of the Minister do not hurt the people, yet his ministerial and public sins do hurt, which he performs for the people to God, and so their joining with him is unlawful. Fourthly, What example can be brought where the holy men of God have communicated with such things. The Author of the dispute upon communicating at their confused Communions, affirms confidently, that the sitter is accessary to the sin of the kneeler, and he gives many reasons for it, whereof we shall have a fit occasion hereafter to speak.
From all which, 1this argument may be framed: That worship in which a man cannot possibly communicate without sinne, he is bound necessarily to separate from. But that worship in which these Idolls are made and used, viz. the Crosse, Surplice, and Kneeling, a man cannot possibly communicate without sinne. Therefore from that worship, wherein these Idols are made and used, a man is bound necessarily to separate. The proposition is certaine, and by Doctor Ames in his cases of Conscience acknowledged. Although (saith