A30189:492
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.
First, You quote Mr uParker, That men must fly from Idols and Idolothites: but men when they come to worship God in societies where the Ceremonies are used, they do not fly from Idols, but draw near unto them. But if a man should have sought out a place of purpose to manifest your fraudulent and unconscionable alleging of mens words and sayings, he could scarce have found a second more pregnant. The whole passage in Mr Parker, to which you send us, I will set down at large, because it serves to clear the matter in many particulars, and all men may take the better notice of your fidelity. There is an Idol more strictly taken (saith he) and an Idol of larger sense, which will include the Cross. For the better understanding whereof, we must borrow a distinction from the wSchoolmen, by which a thing may be guilty of Idolatry, Essentialiter, participative, and causaliter: which our doctrine at *home doth back, that is confirmed by act of Parliament, affirming that to be an Idol in Gods service, which hath been or is like to be worshipped. What is worshipped by our selves, that is an Idol essentially; what hath been worshipped or is now worshipped abroad by others, that is an Idol by participation; what is likely to be worshipped, that is an xIdol, causing Idolatry in time to come; In which sense, Gideons Ephod may be termed an Idol quedam modo, and that it may be even before it was adored. And hereby are many objections answered. Our yWriters deny an Image in the Church, say some, to be an Idol, in case it be not worshipped. True, an Idol essentially, but as many of them as desire to have Images thrust out of the Church (of which sort there be a great number) they hold them guilty of Idolatry by participation, and by occasioning, or else why will they thrust them out. A second objection is wont to be made; If the sign of the Cross be an Idol with us, then must men separate from our Church, and from our Baptism; which followeth not. From Idols essentially men ought to separate by the example of the z