A30189:514
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 3 › Section 1 › ANSWER.Chapter 3 › Section 1 › ANSVVER.
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.
For otherwise men must give no trust unto his words, or if they do, it must be unadvisedly. And what think you then, if men upon your bare word, give credit unto this argument, is it not unadvised? You bid aprove the contrary, if any man be able. But that is not to ground the conscience upon Gods truth. If your assertion be not taught in holy Scripture, it is an unwritten tradition, an humane invention, a dream of your own, in your conceit, false worship, and flat Idolatry, though your opposites be able to say nothing against it but this, that it is not taught of God.
For otherwise men must give no trust unto his words, or if they doe, it must be unadvisedly. And what thinke you then, if men upon your bare word, give credit unto this argument, is it not unadvised? You bid aprove the contrary, if any man be able. But that is not to ground the conscience upon Gods truth. If your assertion be not taught in holy Scripture, it is an unwritten tradition, an humane invention, a dreame of your owne, in your conceit, false worship, and flat Idolatry, though your opposites be able to say nothing against it but this, that it is not taught of God.
- aBilson difference, part. 1. pag. 20. What we say without proof, reject you without answer. If that rule may stand we need no further confutation of the rest of your Apology, for there (besides taunts & terms) I see nothing.Bilson difference, part. 1. pag. 20. What we say without proofe, reject you without answer. If that rule may stand we need no further confutation of the rest of your Apologie, for there (besides taunts & termes) I see nothing.
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,