Selected quad for the lemma: duty_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
duty_n	bind_v	law_n	moral_a	1,736	5	9.5201	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A86484	A rejoynder to Master Samuel Eaton and Master Timothy Taylor's reply. Or, an answer to their late book called A defence of sundry positions and scriptures, &c. With some occasionall animadversions on the book called the Congregational way justified. For the satisfaction of all that seek the truth in love, especially for his dearly beloved and longed for, the inhabitants in and neer to Manchester in Lancashire. / Made and published by Richard Hollinworth. Mancuniens.	Hollingworth, Richard, 1607-1656.	1647 (1647)	Wing H2496; Thomason E391_1; ESTC R201545	213,867	259

2. Any seperation or division that is of God may be brought about without our own inventions The Christians did seperate them-themselves from amongst the Iews and Heathens and the Protestants in Queen Maries days from the Papists and yet without any such vocal express covenant that we read of 3. If such loo●ness in our Parish-Churches be so great an evil then take you heed you be not guilty of that great evil by making that loosness greater then it is or by Gods law ought to be Is it a greater evil for men that remove their habitation then for those that do not remove it all to depart from their Parish-Church without rendering a reason Is it not a greater evil to add to the commandments of God our own carnal and politick devices and to lay a yoke or covenant on our people which God hath not layd on them for preventing of some inconveniences which Gods law doth not enable us to prevent 2. If there be any local bounds as by Scripture rules hath been shewed there ought to be that inconvenience must necessarily happen but to this I have spoken before Chap. 2. 3. The place in Eph. 2.22 is apparently not meant of a particular Congregation but of the universal Church which is called the City the Houshold the Temple and all the Christians of the particular Church of Ephesus were not the whole City but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fellow-citizens with the Saints not the whole houshold but of the houshold not all the temple or building but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are built together with other Saints and Churches which also are part of the City Temple Houshold building as wel as they 4. in Cor. 12.27 when he had said ye are the body of Christ he corrects himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if he should say ye are not the whole body but members in part of that body and others are part of that body as wel as you for into it both Jews and Gentiles are baptized v. 13. viz. into the universal Church and in this sense these Scriptures do not serve your purpose and therefore you say but not rightly that a particular Church is there compared to a body and an house 5. Your selves I know hold not that Church-membership is as in dissolvable as the members of a natural body are one from another which are not separated without ruine of the part separating if not of the whole body nor can that member be willingly separated from its body or joyned with any good effect to another body CHAP. XIII Whether Deut. 29. or Gen. 17. be presidents of a Church-Covenant Sect. 1. THe Covenant in Deut. 29.1.10 11 12. respects Reply p. 39. principally church-Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law v. 16 17 18. for he warns them of Heathenish worships and would engage them by an holy Covenant to all Gods holy worships of the Passover and all the offerings of Gods prescription which were to be brought to the door of the Tabernacle of the Congregation though a Covenant binding to some duties of the moral law may be made by two or three persons of several Churches and yet not make them members of a distinct Church yet if they Covenant to walk together in the constant enjoyment of all Church-ordinances this would change their state and make them a Church Rejoyn 1. Those verses contain in them Moses admonition and exhortation to the people v. 10. Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God v. 12. that thou should'st enter into Covenant with the Lord thy God and into his oath which he maketh with thee this day c. that they should not serve the gods of Aegypt or of other Nations least there should be amongst them man or woman or family or tribe whose heart turneth away from God but there is not the least mention of Passover or other church-Church-duties which you say that Covenant did engage them to and therefore it doth not appear by those verses that the Covenant more principally respects church-Church-duties more then other duties of the moral law some part of the moral law is mentioned and interpreted viz. the first Commandment but nothing spoken of Church-membership Every particular servant of God ought to take heed of Heathenish worships which is there required and not a Church only I appeal to you may not ought not every man woman family or tribe to use the words of v. 18. make a Covenant with God that he she or they wil not turn away from the Lord to go and serve the gods of the nations as Jacob covenanted for himself Gen. 28.21 and Ruth cap. 1.16 and Joshuah for himself and his house Josh 24.15 May not any two or three amongst us covenant that they wil keep the first Commandment which in this text is paraphrased on Thou shalt have no other Gods before me viz. not the abominations of Aegypt nor their idols v. 17. of some duties sealing their union and communion with the body of the Jewish Church and celebrated when the whole body was assembled I find mention in your book but not in the book of God in the place cited 3. Suppose it true that persons covenanting to walk together in all Church-ordinances which God requires of a Church would make them a Church and change their state yet it is not to the point for the question is whether two or three of several Christian Churches covenanting in the very words of v. 16 17 18. on which you build That their hearts should not turn away from the Lord their God to go to serve other gods or that they would not serve or worship images would this make them one Church together And if it do not how can you say this was a Church-Covenant 4. This was not an express vocal Covenant on the peoples part which you are to prove necessary to the wel-being of the Church for it was made with them that were absent as wel as with them that were present now they that were absent however they were included did not could not if they that were present did make a solemn express verbal Covenant Mr Cottons opinion you shal hear hereafter Sect. 2. When I answer that a Covenant in general doth not make a Church nor a marriage and that Scripture-Covenants are not with appropriation and application to this Pastor or people viz. that they would serve with this people or Pastor rather then with that therefore they are not Church-Covenants You reply page 40. Who ever read or heard of a Covenant in general of duties to be done without application to persons mutually engaged to perform such duties The Covenants in Scripture were no such Covenants they were applied to Israel and to the Gentiles that should joyn to Israel and so they were a separated people from other nations by Covenant Exod. 12.47 48. The Jews by the Covenant of God were to serve God rather with this people then with that Rejoyn 1. You

such there have been besides And it was accounted an high happiness to have liberty to make such a Church but was never accounted by the godly sinful before If assembling constantly together and participating in all the Ordinances that the rest do partake of and contributing with the rest in the maintenance of the Minister of such a place and an adhering rather to such a Minister and people then to any other in affection and action make members of a Church then these persons of other Parishes were members and with the rest made such Churches Rejoynder 1. If all this were granted it is but an humane testimony not divine nor can you though you should produce a 1000 more instances as you might 2 I am informed and in part know that these were not gathered separated Churches for those members of other Churches did not refuse communion in Parish-assemblies they grieved when they were deprived of it for non-conformity they did not exclude all that were not visible Saints much less the known godly of other Churches from their Sacraments they aimed not principally it at all at a purer Church but a better Ministry they possibly having no Ministry at their parish Churches or a bad one and it may be dwelling neerer to those then to their own parochial assemblies and you confess they wanted the vocal Covenant and I suppose also they wanted subscription and signals of their mutual consent that they would be a Church together and they resorted sometimes to their parish meetings and if they had had such Ministers there and liberty of conscience in point of gesture as in other places it may be thought they would not have sought else where 3 Suppose there were such a Church in the days of the Prelates and that it was then lawful too can you thence infer that it is still lawful though Innovations and scandalous Ministers and other offensive things be removed have you as great occasion still of withdrawing as they then had 4 That such a separation was never accounted sinful by the godly before is too large a speech if you mean That the separation which then was used by them that used it and possibly by some others was approved I contend not but that no godly man accounted it sinful ordinarily to frequent another assembly especially if they had a Minister of ordinary parts and piety I cannot think As for your separation many godly did account it sinful yea the most eminent non-conformists yea they which did best affect congregational government yea you two have often told me and others of my godly brethren That you are free in your judgment to baptize my child or the children of any godly Minister or member of our Church or to receive us to the Sacrament amongst you now if you would act according to your own Principles which I should conceive my self bound in conscience to do in this case and would inform your Churches of their duty herein your separation would be less offensive but how you can account admission of us to your Sacraments lawful and yet the denyal of it not sinful I see not Sect. 5. Reply P. 3. Fifthly are not some parish Churches constituted sometimes of members of other parish Churches when many persons have left their own places and removed into other Parishes without any consent Sixthly that a Church may consist of persons that have been members of other Churches if such persons have been orderly dismissed from such Churches and have come away with consent wil be granted of all Rejoynder 1. What then wil you thence conclude that the Apostles taught or practiced to gather or separate some Christians from others c Did your selves ever before call this gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches is this the common acceptation of the words Gathering of Churches or separating Christians into Churches Did your selves dream that was my meaning or the thing I put you to prove Doth remooval from one parish to another imply the forsaking of or separating from the communion of the former parish and refusal to receive the Sacraments with the godly of the former parish If not how doth it can it justifie your kind of separation from all our parish-assemblies And yet you argue thus remooval from one parish to another hath bin judged pious or at least honest therefore your separation is pious and honest and you should conclude therefore the Apostles taught and practised your separation For you know the question is not what is judged pious and honest by men but what is so judged by the spirit of God Truly I might as well argue some separation from our parish-assemblies is sinful as that of the Papists Brownists c. Therefore yours is so And indeed whether your separation be with consent or no it is not much material for it is sinne to consent sent to such a separation and sinne to separate whatsoever consent you have shew that your gathering of Churches with consent or without consent is justifyed by the doctrin and practise of the Apostles and it shal serve your turn Sect. 6. Reply p. 3. Suppose some Ordinances be corruptly dispensed without all hope of redress and that men must partake therein without having any power so much as to witness against such corruptions unless they wil be accounted factions and disturbers of the Churches peace or that by remaining where such corruptions are they be in danger to be leavened with the corrupt lump of such a Church of which they be members what must they now do Doth not that Rule that bids a Church purge out one person that may endanger the leavening of the whole lump when there are no other means to prevent such an evil give warrant to every member that is endangered to be leavened by the lump to withdraw from such a lump because power to purge out the lump they have none when there is no other means to prevent the evil Church-membership is for edification of the members not for destruction Rejoynder 1. These passages and your practise of gathering seperating Churches from amongst us do pass an harsh and heavy censure on our Churches viz. that there are amongst us not only smaller faults but greater corruptions and those obstinately persisted in without all hope of redress and that there is no other means left to prevent the evil but separation a censure so void of truth and charity that it is worthy to be exibilated rather then confuted 2. When there is indeed such a case as you put a particular member may and ought humbly to admonish the Ministers and members plead with the Church Hose 2.2 Bear witness against her sinnes and errors and act to his utmost in his place for her reformation both by exciting quantum inse the power of that particular Congregation and complaining to superior judicatories but not presently to separate The Apostle Paul notwithstanding the incestuous person was in communion with the Church and they were