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…

What the Nonconformists will say to this argument you know not, but hitherto they have said nothing, or as good as nothing. It is well you say not both Propositions are theirs, as you do in the former with as little truth, as if you had said it here. But if you had perused their writings against Separation, as you have observed what sharp words they let fall against the corruptions in our Church and Liturgy, you might have known, that they say somewhat, and somewhat to the purpose, not worthy your answer, but what can never be truly answered: First, Discipline, they say, is taken two ways. First, Largely, for the whole order pertaining to the gathering and governing of a Church, the ordering of divine worship, and manner of men. And in this sense, ^bDiscipline is neither the matter nor form of the Church, but an inseparable property, and so there can be no Church without some Discipline. Secondly, It is taken strictly, for the administration of the censures. in which sense, it is not absolutely necessary to the being, but to the well-being and safety of the Church. Secondly, They answer that by divine right the power of the keys is given to every complete, Apostolical Church, but the execution of this power may be wanting, ⟨p. 35⟩either through their negligence, or because they are hindered; as in Sardis, Thyatira, Ephesus, &c. And this is to the purpose, for the Question is of the power to execute the Discipline of Christ, and not of the simple right to execute it. And in your opinion the execution of Discipline is absolutely necessary to the being of the Church, without which it can neither be gathered, nor subsist. Take your own comparison, unless the body do both receive food, and purge out excrements, it is not possible it should subsist and live. If therefore Sardis, Pergamus, Thyatira, &c. continued the true Churches of Christ, when the greater sort would not, and the better could not purge out excrements, or all were grossly negligent, it followeth that the execution of discipline or power to execute discipline, is not absolutely necessary to the being of the Church. Thirdly, The Church of England wanteth not the discipline of Christ for substance either in respect of right or execution, though it be not administered as it ought.

What the Nonconformists will say to this argument you know not, but hitherto they have said nothing, or as good as nothing. It is well you say not both Propositions are theirs, as you doe in the former with as little truth, as if you had said it here. But if you had perused their writings against Separation, as you have observed what sharp words they let fall against the corruptions in our Church and Liturgie, you might have knowne, that they say somewhat, and somewhat to the purpose, not worthy your answer, but what can never be truly answered: First, Discipline, they say, is taken two wayes. First, Largely, for the whole order pertaining to the gathering and governing of a Church, the ordering of divine worship, and manner of men. And in this sense,