A30189:544
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 4 › Section 1 › ANSWER.Chapter 4 › 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.
ANSWER.
ANSVVER.
IF both parts of this Argument be Nonconformists principles, why do you labour to prove the proposition true, more than the assumption? If it had been a confessed principle, why do you not fight against them with their own weapons, as you pretend to do throughout your Book. He is very dull, that doth not smell somewhat herein. But if it so please you, The proposition is the Nonconformists, and it is not. For if this be the meaning thereof, That all true Churches should consist of visible Saints, not only in their first gathering, planting, and constitution, but also in their after continuance and propagations, the Nonconformists do acknowledge it; for when sin and wickedness springeth or groweth in the Church, the ordinance of God is violated. But if this be the meaning; That the society which consisteth not of Saints only, is not the true Church of Jesus Christ, that the Nonconformists utterly deny. Also it is one thing to ⟨p. 50⟩say, The mChurch is not planted and gathered in all things according to Gods Word; another to say it is no Church at all, which is not planted and gathered in all things agreeable to the Word of God. If then the meaning of the proposition be this; That all true Churches planted and gathered according to Gods Word, consisted of Saints only, because the ordinance of God is violated, and his house polluted; […] notorious offenders are received or tolerated; the Nonconformists will acknowledge it: But if you understand it thus; That it is no true Church at all, which consisteth not of Saints only, because it is not gathered, planted, constituted, reformed in all things agreeable to the Word of God, they never received it. If you could not discern this in their writings, you were very blind and partial. If you did discern it and yet would pass it over, that you might with some colour traduce them as going contrary to their own principles, or beguile others with an equivocation, where was your sincerity? The Nonconformists will not deny, but some things in the gathering and planting, or rather the refining and government of the Church of England was and is done amiss, not agreeable to the Word of God, which they heartily desire and labour might be reformed; but for things done amiss, they dare not condemn the Church, deny the grace of God, separate from her communion, or approve them that do it.