Arrow Against the Separationists, Discourse · Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII. Of ſome other differences.
Hen. Ainſ.TO the other things which I ſignified we miſliked in you: you anſwer in general: that the queſtion betwixt vsus is not about all things wherin we differ, but onelyonly about thoſe things which we hold to be juſt cauſes of renouncing your communion. You ſay, Our ſeparation or ſchiſme is a double iniquitie and an errour of errors, &c. and you would have the axe of our ſeparation layd vntounto the root of your religion, &c. and you account all other differences, to be a wandring from the queſtion.
Herevpon I anſwer, that I am willing to hold onelyonly vntounto the mayn cauſes of our ſeparation, and to let other particulars reſt, til this queſtion be ended. For as you began to write, ſo I gave you to chooſe, & ſtil give you, what things to reaſon of: & I miſlike not your choiſe. For as I would not willingly abide in any error, ſo much leſſe in an error of errors: though I am yet perſwaded: it is your great ſyn ſo to call it: but let the word of God be judge between vsus. Now for our ſeparation, I ſet you down an argument fortified with many ſcriptures & reaſons: againſt which, you have not alleged anyone word of God: let your former anſwer be viewed. So mine errour of errours if ſuch it be, muſt remaine with me ſtil, for my conſcience cannot be convinced but by the word of God. You allege our renouncing of your communion: and that eyther is not (as before I ſhewed you) or it is as you ſtood one with the Church of England in the ſynns thereof, wherin we with you were all once intangled. But God of his grace hath given vsus repentance vntounto life, and we have manifeſted the particulars: you have not ſo doen, therfore (for ought that we know) your ſynns remaine vponupon you. Yea you diſclaime our ſeparation as a ſchiſme, in your pulpit, in private, and in printed works: how can we now give you the right hand of fellowſhip, ſeing repentance from dead works, is one of the aHeb. 6.1.principles of the doctrine of Christ? And for this your particular congregation, here gathered, you cannot ſay we renounce it or ſeparate from it, vvho vvere never of it: but if any ſeparation be, I have before ſhewed it is firſt vponupon yourſelves. I ſhal not need therfore at this time to make any reply vntounto your particular anſwers vntounto the differences propounded. OnelyOnly for the preſent, I put you in minde that you have not as yet alleged any one vvord of God for your feſtival dayes, mariage by the miniſter conſiſtorie, or communion of your members vvith an other Church, vvorſhip, miniſterie, &c. ſo far differing from yours in appearance. But vvhen theſe things ſhal come to diſcuſsing, I hope you vvil not be ſo barren. So for the differences that you allege from vsus, touching mariage vvith the members of the Dutch church, mariages and divorces vvithout authoritie of the Magiſtrate, judging of eccleſiaſtical cauſes on the Lords day, omitting and thruſting out in part ſometimes the adminiſtration of the vvord & Sacraments, and for the miniſters ſet maintenance: in the trial of them, I ſhal by Gods grace manifest, that in the most vve are vvronged: and for that vvhichwhich vve doe h…ld in any of them, vve vvil confirm it by the vvord of God, and reaſons from the ſame, otherweiſe, we vvil reforme it.
Anſwer.
Io. Pa.TOuching 3 other differences betwixt vsus: I noted divers things diſtinctly: vntounto which you make a confuſed and defective reply: vntounto my firſt anſwer, you ſay ſomething vntounto the two laſt, nothing at all. For the firſt, you ſeeme to allow my choiſe, that we hold onelyonly vntounto the maine cauſes of your ſeparation, &c. but I ſpake not of the maine cauſes, but of the juſt cauſes of your ſeparation, whether great or ſmall; ſo that you leave the matter in ſome vncertainty ſtill, not ſhewing me which and how many you hold for iust cauſes, when I had nominated ſundry differences betwixt vsus. You ſay, you ſet downe an argument for your ſeparation fortifyed vvith many ſcriptures, &c. And I have ſhewed the contents of your maine argument, to be beſide the queſtion of our Church: and there is no place of ſcripture which I can diſcerne to be alledged againſt our eſtate in particular, but I have given anſwer therevnto. And for our particular congregation, though you were never of it, yet may we juſtly ſay that you have renounced the communion thereof, and not onelyonly as we agree with England but as we agree with theſe Churches: for you that had ſeparated yourſelf from all the true Churches long before this our particular Church was gathered; and you that do ſtill renounce and refuſe the worſhip of God in ſuch temples as we vſe, (if there were nothing els) do thereby renounce communion with vsus in our ordinary worſhip of God. That we have juſt cauſe to diſclaime your ſeparation as a ſchiſme, I have laboured to ſhew in ſome part in this treatiſe, and will endevour make it yet more plaine, as the Lord ſhall give ſtrength and opportunitie. And if there were nothing els, your allegation of this ſcripture Heb. 6.1. might ſhew vsus your ſchiſme: vvhen having ſpoken of our ſtanding one with England; of your owne repentance for it; of our ſins remayning vponupon vsus, &c. you ſay, how can vve give you the right hand of fellowſhip, ſeing repentance from dead vvorkes, is one of the principles of the doctrine of Chriſt? The ſubſtance of this obiection hath bene twiſe largely fChap. 4. & 6.anſwered before: yet ſince you repeat it againe, I do againe tell you, 1. If it were granted that our communion with Englād were a ſin, yet might we have true repentance though we could not ſee the ſame to acknowledge it. Your contrary plea ſavours of the errour of the perfectioniſts and enclines to familiſme: for if true repentance cannot be without the knowledge of every particular ſin, then do you teach a perfection of knowledge contrary to the g1 Cor 8.2 & 13.9.ſcriptures: If true repentance may be had without the knowledge of of ech particular ſin, then why not without the knowledge of this ſin as well as of others? The Apoſtle ſhewes that repentance from dead vvorkes hHeb. 6.1.is neceſſary to ſalvation, but he doth not deny that to be true repentance, where there is ignorance of ſome particular dead works that are in vsus: this holy ſcripture is therfore abuſed by you. 2, ſuppoſe that we vvere vvithout true repentance, yet vvhere is the ſcripture, that ſhevves our Church ought therfore to be ſeparated from? The ſin of ſome doth not pollute the reſt vvhichwhich approve not thereof. 3, whereas in my ſecond anſwer iPag. 31.before I noted as great differences among yourſelves, as theſe 3. laſt be wherein you differ from vsus; notwithſtanding your vnconſcionable courſe might thereby appeare vntounto all, in holding ſuch communion among yourſelves as you deny in others: yet as if either partialitie were no blot, but a beautifull wart in the face of your Church: or els as if you diſpaired of waſhing away this blot, even ſo do you paſſe by this matter in ſilence without any reply vntounto it.
VVhereas you put me in minde that I have not as yet alledged any one word of God for our feſtivall dayes, mariage by the miniſter, conſiſtorie, and communion of our members with an other Church, &c. I anſwer, that ſeing you are the accuſer, that maintaine a ſeparation from vsus in theſe reſpects, the falt is yours that have not brought any word of God to conclude a ſeparation from vsus vponupon theſe grounds: Though in your Apologie you have pretended ſcripture to ſhew ſome of theſe things vnlawfull, yet have you not directed any reaſons againſt our communion for theſe things: even as in your Apologie you have pretended ſcripture againſt our vſe of the Lords prayer, & yet confeſſe that you would not ſeparate for this. As for our communion with England I have ſayd enough before Chap 4. & 6. ſo far as concernes ſeparation from vsus vponupon ſuch a pretence. As for our conſiſtorie or Elderſhip, I ſhewed in my former writing how you have allowed it yourſelf in communicating therewith, and you have anſwered not a word vntounto it. Now thoſe that refute themſelves on this maner, have no reaſon to call for further refutation, vnleſſe they acknowledge their errours in ſuch practiſes. Beſides ſeing you have not yet anſwered, neither the kExpoſ. of Mat. 18.firſt nor the lChriſtian plea.laſt booke of Mr. Iohnſon wherein he hath written againſt your popular governement, what meane you to call for more? If more be requiſite, you may ſee that I *Pag. 33.promiſed you in my former writing that when I ſhould receive any arguments from you to prove your refuſal of communion vponupon theſe grounds, that I would then give further anſwer vntounto you. The errours which you have publiſhed in your Animadverſion for the maintenance of your popular order, and the enormities which in that order are committed by you in your vnlawfull excommunications and cenſures are ſo many that they require a diſtinct treatiſe for the refutation thereof: of which I purpoſe to ſay more hereafter as occaſion is given. As for the ſtate of the queſtion and what we hold in theſe matters, I have ſet it downe in my former writing, and to this poynt alſo you ſay nothing. Touching the other differences betwixt vsus, which are here ambiguouſly repeated by youand not ſo that the reader might well vnderſtand the meaning thereof, I am ready to manifeſt that I have not done you any wrong in the relation thereof; and that you cannot confirme any of them by the vvord of God: if you will bring any reaſons to conclude a ſeparation from thence.