(363) to countenance him in his Charge ofSchifnre. But why fhould we contend fruitleily about there things? had he been pleated to read a little farther on thefame page, he would have ken that I affirm the Inflitution itfe/f'to be a plain Command,which confidering the Nature of the du- ties required ofmen in Church Relation, is fufficient to oblige them thereunto, without any new Ievelation un- to that purpofe, which renders all his Queries, Exceptions and Inferences of no ufe. For I do not fpeak in that place of the Original Inflitution of Churches whofe Laws and Rules are Univerfal and 'Unalterable, but our aflual gathering into particular Churches, for which I fay the neceftty ofDuty is our Warrant, and the Inflitutlon it felf a Command. No great Advantage will be made any way offuch Attempts. The like I muff fay ofhis following Difcourfe, p. a4! concerningChurches in private Families, wherewith I am . difmiffed. I dó grant that a Church may be in a Fami- ly. There was fo in the Family ofAbraham before the Law. And ifa Family do confift of fuch Numbers, as may con{titute a Church meet for the Duties required of it, and the Priviledges intrufted with it ; Ifit hath Per- fans in it furnifhed with Gifts and Graces, fit for the Minifterial Office, and they be lawfully called and fet apart thereunto,I fee noReafon why they fhould not be a Church,although they fhould be all in the famefamily.But what is this to the imprifoning of all Religious Wor(hip in private Families, that never were Churches, nor can fo be, with the Admiflion offame other which our Au- thor would juftifie from this Conceffion, I know not. But it is eafie to fee what our Condition fhould álwayes be, ifforcemens Power did anfwer their Delires. But the Will ofGod be done. Z z 2 I fhall
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=