A30189:493
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.
It is objected once more against us; If our sign of the Cross be an Idol, then our Ministers that do make it be Idolaters, and our Church Idolatrous also. This follows not neither. For denomination being from the form, and the cross not being formally an Idol amongst us, but materially (I speak in comparison of the Popish Cross, in regard whereof we may be said to use that which is an Idol, but we do not use it idolatrously;) therefore as Dr Fulke cconcludes of the Lutherans for having Images in their Churches, the same must be said of all those Protestants, that will retain crosses, they sin against the two first Commandments, through Idolothisme, not directly through Idolatry, and therefore they may not be termed Idolaters. Howbeit, by way of reduction, Idolothisme is in some sort guilty of Idolatry, as showeth the dApostle, who in stead of saying, Fly from Idolothisme, saith, Fly from Idolatry. This Idolatry by reduction what is it else, but Idolatry by participation; as doth appear by the 18.20. and 24. verses following. But this participation is not in our Cross (will our opposites say) who first least haply they should mistake us, we desire to recount the ancient edistinction; Plus est communio, quàm participatio; nam ad hanc satis est partem habere, sed ad illam requiritur ut prorsus uniamur, atque totum percipiamus, quod nobis proponitur. This being premised, that we charge the Cross not with a total communion, but with a fparticipation in part only, we do thus bring in our evidence against him. Thus Mr Parker. Now consider how many ways you falsify his testimony, and whether you did it willingly or no, let your conscience judge? Mr Parker saith, The Cross is an Idol materially but not formally, that is, amongst the Papists it is an Idol essentially, and so the use of the Cross, is the use of that which is an Idol, but not used idolatrously amongst us. You make him to say, because we must fly from Idols, therefore we cannot communicate in the worship of God ⟨p. 25⟩where the Cross is used without sin. He saith, Men must keep themselves pure from Idolothites, and not partake in the use of them, but not separate from the Church or ordinances of grace, because such rites or ceremonies are used in the administration: