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…

Secondly, You produce Mr Bates, saying, That bare presence argues approbation or yielding in show to Ceremonies, I cannot say, you deal with Mr Bates, as you have done by Mr Parker and others, for I have not seen his Book. But if any such passage be found in him, it is his private opinion, not the judgement of the most learned and zealous Inconformists: It is a bare assertion, not confirmed by Scripture, or backed with reason, as is meet and convenient, when it is the main thing in question, and might easily be opposed by the testimonies of Scripture, approved practice of the Saints in all ages of the Church, the judgement of the godly learned, sound reason, and the consent of all States that ever upheld or maintained Christian Religion. If bare presence be approbation, I desire to know, how you can reconcile your self to your self. When Dr Ames allegeth, that every Church is not to be left, which hath something in it by participation Idolatrous. ^gYou answer; I know no man holds the contrary: therefore I cannot tell for what end he speaks it, much less why he puts a schismatical conceit upon the Rej: whose words, if they be well rectified, have substance and weight in them. But if bare presence be approbation, how ⟨p. 26⟩can we hold communion with that Church, wherein any thing is left, which is by participation idolatrous, when this is that which the Nonconformists impute to the Cross among us, that it is by participation idolatrous in them that use it. And if the reason following be well weighed (though in it self it hath neither weight nor substance) it will overweigh this: For if bare presence be approbation, why should not the personal sins of the Minister hurt the people! or why are they not guilty of his personal sins by participation, when they communicate with him in the worship of God where they are practiced, as in prayer, preaching, administration of the Sacraments, reading the Scriptures, &c. Presence in the Idol-Temple at Idol-worship is sinful, though in heart men pretend to detest Idolatry: vain, needless presence where Idolothites are used, as to eat of things sacrificed to Idols in the place of their Idol-banquet, or to sit down, though he do not eat, is scandalous and offensive:

Secondly, You produce Mr Bates, saying, That bare presence argues approbation or yeelding in shew to Ceremonies, I cannot say, you deale with Mr Bates, as you have done by Mr Parker and others, for I have not seene his Booke. But if any such passage be found in him, it is his private opinion, not the judgement of the most learned and zealous Inconformists: It is a bare assertion, not confirmed by Scripture, or backed with reason, as is meete and convenient, when it is the maine thing in question, and might easily be opposed by the testimonies of Scripture, approved practice of the Saints in all ages of the Church, the judgement of the godly learned, sound reason, and the consent of all States that ever upheld or maintained Christian Religion. If bare presence be approbation, I desire to know, how you can reconcile your selfe to your selfe. When Dr Ames alledgeth, that every Church is not to be left, which hath something in it by participation Idolatrous.