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…

You undertook to prove the necessity of Separation from the Nonconformists Principles: But here you reject their Principles with disdain, and build your responsive conclusions, as you call them, upon your own foundation, which you know doth not accord with their Principles.

YOu undertooke to prove the necessitie of Separation from the Nonconformists Principles: But here you reject their Principles with disdaine, and build your responsive conclusions, as you call them, upon your own foundation, which you know doth not accord with their Principles.

The Nonconformists hold discipline necessary to the wellbeing of a Church, the safety of Religion, the preservation of ⟨p. 33⟩Gods ordinances from contempt. They compare it to the ^uwall of a City, hedge of a Vineyard, fence of a Garden, and bounds of an Orchard: but never said it to be of absolute ^wnecessity, that there could be no City, Vineyard, Garden, or Orchard without it. But this in your judgement is broken-stuff, not worthy any answer. For where do they read, say ^xyou, in Scripture, that this power which Christ hath given to his Church, is compared to a wall, or hedge, &c. But rather it may be likened to the power of the body, which receiveth food, and thereby excrements are purged, and avoided, the want whereof were in nature prodigious, neither could the body possibly subsist and live. In the same page you take up Dr Laiton roundly after your manner, for saying, that the ^ywant of an integral part of the whole is no sufficient ground of Separation. He speaks, you say, as a man most ignorant of the nature of Church-power; for were he able truly to define it, he should see that it is of such necessity as a people cannot constitute themselves in the right order of the Gospel without it, as we have before expressed. Expressed it may be, but not proved by Scripture or reason, drawn from Scripture. How palpably you abuse Dr Ames testimony is showed before, and it makes as plainly against your reason as a thing can be spoken. But that is broken-stuff which pleaseth you not, and he is ignorant that applauds not your dictates. To be taunted and reviled, is answer sufficient to be given to us simple poor ignorants, who know not truly to define what Church-power is. But whether this stuff be broken, or the Nonconformists ignorant what Church-power is or no: this is evident, your inferences in this point are not correspondent to their Principles, nor can be deduced from them, as in the beginning you promised: And then upon what bottom doth this reason stand, or by what prop is it underset, but your own bare affirmation, which is much too weak to bear so great a weight. Whosoever means (