A30189:529
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 2 › ANSWER.Chapter 3 › Section 2 › 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.
Your former reasons out of Mr D. I pass over, because they have been answered already, and are here thrust in to no purpose, but only to cover the insufficiency of your reply. His answer was, the want of discipline, though an integral part, is no sufficient ground of separation. This zyou offer not to disprove by any substantial reason, but with railing ⟨p. 41⟩and reproach to disgrace, wherein whether you more wound your own conscience, or hurt your adversary, be judge your self. aYou say truly, It is a Christian part not to render rebuke for rebuke, and a thousand times better were it, to sustain even a legion of reproaches, than for a man by turning (though but one) to give cause of suspicion, that evil hath got some part of conquest over him. But if you look into your own writings, you shall find them stuffed with insolent boasting, scornful taunts and reproaches, unbeseeming your place, person, and a good cause. I dare say, all the Nonconformists that ever wrote in the cause of discipline, never went in practise so much against their Principles, as you in this one particular, go against your profession in the foresaid passage, and a good conscience.
YOur former reasons out of Mr D. I passe over, because they have been answered already, and are here thrust in to no purpose, but onely to cover the insufficiency of your reply. His answer was, the want of discipline, though an integrall part, is no sufficient ground of separation. This zyou offer not to disprove by any substantiall reason, but with railing ⟨p. 41⟩and reproach to disgrace, wherein whether you more wound your own conscience, or hurt your adversary, be judge your selfe. aYou say truely, It is a Christian part not to render rebuke for rebuke, and a thousand times better were it, to sustaine even a legion of reproaches, than for a man by turning (though but one) to give cause of suspition, that evill hath got some part of conquest over him. But if you looke into your own writings, you shall finde them stuffed with insolent boasting, scornfull taunts and reproaches, unbeseeming your place, person, and a good cause. I dare say, all the Nonconformists that ever wrote in the cause of discipline, never went in practise so much against their Principles, as you in this one particular, goe against your profession in the foresaid passage, and a good conscience.