A93091:708
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. We are still enforced to clear our answer from mistakes, for it seems the answer left it doubtful, whether we do not hold the position affirmatively, and in practise require such a promise as a part of our Church Covenant of all that are admitted, and therefore to clear the case more fully we shall first mind the Reader with the true meaning of the answer, and then add what is needful to take away the scruples; and first the answer saith, that we judge it expedient and most according to rule, that brethren ⟨p. 178⟩should not forsake fellowship, &c. but in removals approve themselves, &c. Now this is far short of what the position affirms; for first, that none are to be admitted without such a promise, includes a necessity; the answer speaks only of expediency and agreeableness to rule, not to break off abruptly. Secondly, the Position affirms the necessity of a promise; the answer speaks only of the case in practise, as in many cases besides, for the watch of the Church reacheth to such particular acts of which we make no promise express in the entrance. Thirdly, the Position speaks of the Churches leave, the answer acknowledgeth only that brethren removing should approve themselves to do that which is lawful, and take counsel in such weighty affairs. By all which it appears that we do not own this position, in judgement nor practise, and therefore in effect our answer doth deny the same, and is negative. Secondly, if the words of the answer be not full enough: (because we see our brethren here run upon it as a question if such a promise be required, and Mr. Rutherford and others take it up as a confessed practise) we do therefore clearly and plainly deny the position and affirm that we do not think that none are to be admitted without such a promise; neither is there any such practise in our admissions of members to require such a promise; we only count such removals (especially of families) an action amongst many others whereunto the watch of the Church doth extend, to prevent sin where there is any just ground of suspicion thereof, and to further the best good of such as are under our charge by counsel, prayers, &c.
Answ. Wee are still inforced to cleare our answer from mistakes, for it seemes the answer left it doubtfull, whether wee doe not hold the position affirmatively, and in practise require such a promise as a part of our Church Covenant of all that are admitted, and therefore to cleare the case more fully wee shall first minde the Reader with the true meaning of the answer, and then adde what is needfull to take away the scruples; and first the answer saith, that wee judge it expedient and most according to rule, that brethren