A93091:131
A treatise of liturgies, power of the keys, and of matter of the visible…A treatise of liturgies, power of the keyes, and of matter of the visible…
A treatise of liturgies, power of the keys, and of matter of the visible church. In answer to the reverend servant of Christ, Mr. John Ball. By Thomas Shepherd, sometimes fellow of Emanuel-College in Cambridge, and late pastor of Cambridge in New-England.A treatise of liturgies, power of the keyes, and of matter of the visible church. In answer to the reverend servant of Christ, Mr. John Ball. By Thomas Shephard, sometimes fellow of Emanuel-Colledge in Cambridge, and late pastour of Cambridge in New-England.
London: printed by E. Cotes for Andrew Crooke, 1652
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
First, concerning the Liturgy it self, if you respect the matter and form, or manner of it, it would be too tedious to rip up, what for matter hath been objected by the godly Reformers. Consider but two things objected strongly by Mr. Cartwright against the form or manner of it. First, that it is taken out of the Popish Mass-book, concerning which he affirmeth, that although there were nothing in it unlawful, or against the Word of God, (which saith he) I wish there were not, yet no Word of God, no reason, nor example of the Ancient Churches, Jewish or Christian, will permit us to use the same forms and ceremonies (viz. with Papists) being neither commanded of God, nor such as there may not be as good as they, and rather better established, yea considering how near the Papists live amongst us, it were more safe to conform to the Ceremonies of the Turks that are far off. And this he speaketh of the form of Liturgy, as well as Ceremonies, Cartw. reply to Whitgift's answer to the admonition to the Parliament, pag. 131, 132. And although you seem to make ⟨p. 46⟩light of this objection, after page 15. end, yet in a like case, when Whitgift had said, it is not material that Deans, Canons came from the Pope; Cartwright replieth thus; It is as if he had said, it skilleth not, if they came out of the bottomless pit; for whatsoever cometh from the Pope, who is Antichrist, comes first from the Devil, Cartw. Reply, pag. 204.
First, concerning the Liturgy it selfe, if you respect the matter and forme, or manner of it, it would bee too tedious to rip up, what for matter hath been objected by the godly Reformers. Consider but two things objected strongly by Mr. Cartwright against the forme or manner of it. First, that it is taken out of the Popish Masse-book, concerning which hee affirmeth, that although there were nothing in it unlawfull, or against the Word of God, (which saith hee) I wish there were not, yet no Word of God, no reason, nor example of the Ancient Churches, Jewish or Christian, will permit us to use the same formes and ceremonies (viz. with Papists) being neither commanded of God, nor such as there may not bee as good as they, and rather better established, yea considering how neare the Papists live amongst us, it were more safe to conforme to the Ceremonies of the Turks that are farre off. And this hee speaketh of the forme of Liturgy, as well as Ceremonies, Cartw. reply to Whitgifts answer to the admonition to the Parliament, pag. 131, 132. And although you seeme to make ⟨p. 46⟩