A93091:396
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.
Secondly, though a family no• having complete civill government ⟨p. 110⟩in it self must combine where it stands in a commonwealth, yet never to yield up its family-government over wife, children and servants to rule them in common with other Masters of families, no civill prudence or moral rule taught men ever so to practise; and therefore why in such a case should a Church give up the government of it self to Pastors of many Churches to rule it in common, and not rather as a Classis is over-awed by the Provincial only in common things; so in congregations Pastors should govern their flocks, and only in things common be under a Presbytery. If it be said, That the Classis do act in such things only; for in excommunication of an offender, the offence is common to all. We answer, if so, then why should not the Provincial and National Churches by this reason assume all to themselves from the Classis? for the offence of one is common to all: As also upon this ground, why should not the Classis admit all the members of every Congregation under them? for this also may concern them all.
Secondly, though a family no• having compleat civill government ⟨p. 110⟩in it self must combine where it stands in a commonwealth, yet never to yeeld up its family-government over wife, children and servants to rule them in common with other Masters of families, no civill prudence or morall rule taught men ever so to practise; and therefore why in such a case should a Church give up the government of it self to Pastors of many Churches to rule it in common, and not rather as a Classis is over-awed by the Provinciall onely in common things; so in congregations Pastors should govern their flocks, and onely in things common be under a Presbytery. If it be said, That the Classis do act in such things only; for in excommunication of an offender, the offence is common to all. We answer, if so, then why should not the Provinciall and Nationall Churches by this reason assume all to themselves from the Classis? for the offence of one is common to all: As also upon this ground, why should not the Classis admit all the members of every Congregation under them? for this also may concern them all.