A30189:20
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.
But you will say. Object. The other ground of this imputation is more pregnant, for why did he not speak out against the corruptions of the times as others did? Nay, why did he seek to clea• the book of Common Prayer of some things charged upon it?
But you will say. Object. The other ground of this imputation is more pregnant, for why did he not speake out against the corruptions of the times as others did? Nay, why did he seek to clea• the book of Common Prayer of some things charged upon it?
Two things we conceive may fully take off the strength of this objection. Answ. 1. Because it was impertinent here to aggravate or multiply corruptions objected, but rather to show, that as in some things the book by them was overcharged, so notwithstanding all that could be alleged against it, yet separation from our worship could not be lawful, much less necessary.
Two things we conceive may fully take off the strength of this objection. Answ. 1. Because it was impertinent here to aggravate or multiply corruptions objected, but rather to shew, that as in some things the booke by them was overcharged, so notwithstanding all that could be alledged against it, yet separation from our worship could not be lawfull, much lesse necessarie.
2 The state of those times wherein this piece was penned would not brook more plainness in that and such like points; this we could (if it were expedient) abundantly evidence, by declaring with what difficulty it passed the Press, what exceptions were taken at some harmless expressions, and what amendments were exacted in some phrases, which seemed somewhat openly to hint the Authors heart-workings towards that Reformation which in these times is much desired and endeavoured.