A30189:276
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
Chapter 1 › Section 5 › CAN Stay. Sect. 15. pag 133. › ANSWER.
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.
And so the departure from the faith is not a revolt to Gentilism, 1but a giving too easy heed and attention to some doctors professing, yet indeed corrupting the Christian Religion. As when it is said of Paul, that he taught Apostasy from the Law, the meaning is not that he had revolted to the Gentiles, ⟨p. 83⟩or denied the Messiah, or the Law or the Prophets, but that under pretence of the Messiah he had polluted the purity of the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets. This Apostasy then was small in beginning, increased in time, 2and grew greater and greater, not perceived at first, not opposed by godly men, it possessed the successors of holy Teachers themselves. This corruption of the faith was so brought in by degrees, that the most vigilant could scarce discern it, when it was first sowed. The successors of Godly men received it, and the godly themselves for a great while groaned under it, for it was a clandestine Conspiracy and opposition of the faith, not directly but obliquely, not in express terms but by consequences.
And so the departure from the faith is not a revolt to Gentilisme, 1but a giving too easie heed and attention to some doctors professing, yet indeed corrupting the Christian Religion. As when it is said of Paul, that he taught Apostasie from the Law, the meaning is not that he had revolted to the Gentiles, ⟨p. 83⟩or denyed the Messias, or the Law or the Prophets, but that under pretence of the Messias he had polluted the purity of the doctrine of the Law and the Prophets. This Apostasie then was small in beginning, encreased in time, 2and grew greater and greater, not perceived at first, not opposed by godly men, it possessed the successors of holy Teachers themselves. This corruption of the faith was so brought in by degrees, that the most vigilant could scarce discerne it, when it was first sowed. The successors of Godly men received it, and the godly themselves for a great while groaned under it, for it was a clandestine Conspiracy and opposition of the faith, not directly but obliquely, not in expresse tearmes but by consequences.