A93091:575
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, That we have one approved author so alleging it, viz. Doctor Ames, shall appear in clearing his meaning from your objections. 1. Grant that by men without (according to Doctor Ames his reason) Infidels be understood by the Apostle, yet how shall the signs discerning believers from unbelievers, be confounded by such as join not to some particular Church, if those believers do not in some respect stand without amongst unbelievers? and the consequence is so plain that the own Syllogism whereinto you cast his argument would have concluded so much, if it had been suffered to speak out in the conclusion. For in stead of saying, except such join to some Church, the signs will be darkened and obscured; the reason rightly concluded would have said (fieri non potest) it cannot be but the signs will be confounded: and therefore in his judgement it is unavoidable that such mix themselves with unbelievers, that are without indeed properly in the Apostles sense.
Secondly, That wee have one approved authour so alleadging it, viz. Doctor Ames, shall appeare in cleering his meaning from your objections. 1. Grant that by men without (according to Doctor Ames his reason) Infidels be understood by the Apostle, yet how shall the signes discerning beleevers from unbeleevers, bee confounded by such as joyne not to some particular Church, if those beleevers doe not in some respect stand without amongst unbeleevers? and the consequence is so plaine that the owne Syllogisme whereinto you cast his argument would have concluded so much, if it had been suffered to speake out in the conclusion. For in stead of saying, except such joyne to some Church, the signes will be darkned and obscured; the reason rightly concluded would have said (fieri non potest) it cannot bee but the signes will bee confounded: and therefore in his judgement it is unavoidable that such mix themselves with unbeleevers, that are without indeed properly in the Apostles sense.
Reply. Again, Doctor Ames, lib. 4. cap. 17. speaking of Infants to be received, saith it is required, first, that they be in the Covenant of Grace by outward profession, &c.
Reply. Againe, Doctor Ames, lib. 4. cap. 17. speaking of Infants to be received, saith it is required, first, that they be in the Covenant of Grace by outward profession, &c.