A93091:166
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.
Answ. First, we distinguish not here between personal and ministerial faults, but object against the personal act of him that joins with that whole Liturgy, and so in the corruptions of it, as he must needs do, that joins with the whole, not only saying Amen to them, but as is known he takes his share in those shreds of prayers, Responds, &c. which in Mr. Cartwrights judgement is so absurd, as makes a man seem out of his wits. And therefore his personal, actual conformity must needs carry guilt, and therefore there is more then simple presence in this case, as is clear to any understanding.
Answ. First, we distinguish not here between personall and ministeriall faults, but object against the personall act of him that joynes with that whole Liturgie, and so in the corruptions of it, as hee must needs doe, that joyns with the whole, not onely saying Amen to them, but as is knowne he takes his share in those shreds of prayers, Responds, &c. which in Mr. Cartwrights judgement is so absurd, as makes a man seeme out of his wits. And therefore his personall, actuall conformitie must needs carry guilt, and therefore there is more then simple presence in this case, as is cleare to any understanding.
Secondly, it is not all one whether the faults be known, or not known before hand, as appears plainly, 1 Cor. 10. 27, 28, 29. where we see, if a man come to a feast, and know not they eat with reference to the Idol, nor that any take offence, he may eat without asking any question: but if he know such things, he may not eat.
Secondly, it is not all one whether the faults bee knowne, or not knowne before hand, as appeares plainely, 1 Cor. 10. 27, 28, 29. where wee see, if a man come to a feast, and know not they eate with reference to the Idoll, nor that any take offence, he may eate without asking any question: but if hee know such things, he may not eate.