( 348 ) by the unwarrantable Impofition of things, not lawful for us to obferve, both in Church Order and Worfhip nor is it candid in any to deny it, though they are o- therwif minded as unto the things themfelves. His fecond exception is unto a Paying which I Qoted out of Juftice Hobart! Reports, who faith, We knowwell that the `Primitive Church in itsgreat fi purity was but vo- luntary Congregations of`believers, Jirbmitting themflves to the ,,Ipoflles andother Tailors, to whom they did minifler oftheir temporals as Goddid move them. Hereunto with a Reflecîion on a dead man, I know not why, he replies, that this is not to the purpofee, or rather quite overthrows my h)pothe1/s. But why fo ? He will prove it with two Ar- guments, The firfc is this, Thofi voluntary Congregations over which the .flpofiles werefit, were no limited Congregations of any one particular Church, tut thafé Congregations over which the Apofiles were fit are thofi ofwhich juflice Hobart !peaks, and therefore it is plain hefpal¿e of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apofiles, which he calls voluntary Congregations. ,f°nfzr. r. Whereas this Argument feems to be caf} in- to the formof a Syllogifine, I could eafily manifeíf how ofIlogiflical it is, did I delight to contend with him, or any elf. But 2. The Conclufon which he infers is dire&ly what I. plead for, Namely, that all the Churches under the care ofthe Apoftles were Voluntary Congregations. 3. There is a Fallacy in that Expreffion, no limited Congregations ofany oneparticular Church ; no fuch thing is pretended, but particular Churches are Congregations. Such
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=