Review and Examination of the Doctrine, Part 3 · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
The Informers answer to the Doubters argument anent separation from a corrupt Church, and the retorted charge of schisme upon Conformists, examined.
OUr Doubt-Resolver will seem ingenuous in offering an answer to some chief objections against the owning of Conformists, and therfore puts into the mouth of his personat Doubter, some more arguments, in such a mould as he supposes is for his best advantadge, which I shal now consider, and deal faithfully with him and his supposed Doubter, in presenting these arguments, (which he hath disguised) in their genuine strength, and shall examine his answers, which when weighed in the scripture ballances and according to the true state of this question will no doubt be found as empty and insignificant as any of the preceeding.
The Doubter hath another argument [that we are warranted by the word to separat from a corrupt Church.] This objection he curtly and advantagiously propones, making his Doubter suppose 1. a confessed separation in this practice, from a Church to which we are bound to adhere, which this new advocat has not as yet made good. 2. That any corruptions generally, or such as may denominate a Church in some measure corrupt, will warrand a separation, which is a principle we do not owne. We acknowledge a Church may be joyned with Lawfully wherein there are great corruptions, and this with Mr Durham and others on that subject. But as to corruptions, we say, if the contraverted joyning be in that which is clear and necessary duty in the present circumstances, there can be in this joyning no stain, but in so far as a concurrence with that which is duty out of that complex case, cannot be performed without a direct complyance with, or stain of these corruptions, then a proportioned separation is needfull in so far as suitable to that exigence; and yet even in this case we assert that other duties in the fellowship with that same Church may be owned: and that fellowship is not intirely to be broken off (upon the preceeding ground) in these things wherein there is no such hazard. But now what sayes he to this argument, 1. He tells us, we are mistaken if we think the Bishops a corruption, and that this will not be granted. Ans. I hope I have made it evident that they are a corruption, and therefore to be disowned. The 2 answer is, that its a mistake to think that for corruptions, and even great corruptions, a Church is to be separat from. Then he tells us, of the corrupted of the Church of Galatia; that in the Church of Corinth an article of the creed was denyed, that there were great faults in the Asian Churches Rev. 2. 3. and of the great corruptions that were in the Church of Israel, as is evident in the books of the Kings and Prophets, yet the people of God were not commanded to separat as long as the substance of the worship was not corrupted, as it was by Ieroboams calves. Ans. 1. What if Presbyterians shall borrow this argument from him, and from these instances of not separating from a Church, notwithstanding of great corruptions, shall plead for all professors in Scotland their adhering to Presbyterian Ministers and this Presbyterian Church, as having a worship not substantially corrupted, whatever other personal faults, or corruptions they may be lyable unto, that yet they are a true Church as to the main, and that therfore they ought to be joyned with, as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia (wherein there were great corruptions) were still adhered to by professors. What will he say in this case? I know he will say that its ridiculous for such a party of Schismaticks to call our selves the Church of Scotland. But what if we return this answer to him again, that according to the Reformation and principles of our Church (out of which Prelats were ejected, vows against them universally taken on, and Presbyterial government compleatly setled therein) Its ridiculous to call a party of Prelats and their adherents the Church of Scotland, or for them to usurp her name, who have thus overturned her Reformation. So that untill he make good the above mentioned hypothese: or suppositions, viz. that Conformists are the true organick Church of Scotland, that this our practice is a separation properly such; that its meerly because of Conformists personal faults that we withdraw; that we are under prior obligations to adhere unto Curats with all their corruptions rather then our Presbyterian Ministry and Church, which is both free of them and contending against them; untill these and such like suppositions be made good, his argument from the preceeding scripture Iostances as to joyning with a Church that hath corruptions, is a meet petitio principii, and will not help his cause in the least. Which will be further evident if we consider in the 2d place, that the case of these Churches and professors therein was far from ours in relation to corruptions. For
1. The Doctrinal corruptions of Galatia as to the legal Ceremonies, (by the bad influence of judaizing teachers) tho they were of a large, yet the Informer will not prove they were either of such an universal spread and tincture, or strengthned by such an universal acknowledgment, as to make the state of that Church correspond with his hypothesis in this argument. 2. That error in the Church of Corinth in relation to the resurrection, appears not to have been owned by their teachers and Church officers, far less publickly avowed and obstinatly and presumptuously maintaired by them or any considerable number of hearers, which makes their case wide from ours, wherein so many preachers who call themselves Pastours of this Church, & many others, obstinatly and avowedly maintain our abjured corruptions; the Church of Corinth was in capacity to censure any handfull that owned this error, & to purge out this leaven, but so is not our Church in this case as to the mantainers of Prelacy and its other corruptions, so that there is here no remedy but for the sound part to keep themselves pure from their contagious and destroying course. The account of both these Churches in the point of corruptions, which is exhibit by Pareus in his Comment. …n the 1 Cor. is considerable to this purpose, upon the 12. verse of the 15. chap. he tells us that the Apostle accuseth not them all, but some only, freeing the rest of this crime. Neque enim accusat omnes sed quosdam inter eos. Reliquos igitur a culpa li…erat. Neque enim paucorum culp▪ omnibus est imputanda. Therafter he shewes that some do judge that this was Hymen…us and Philetus, others, some of the Jewishs Saduces or Heathen Philosophers who had instilled this poyson about the resurrection. And a little after answering Bellarmines cavill, [that because of these Churches their corruption in doctrine, therefore pure doctrine is not the marke of a Church] as the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were without the faith of the resurrection, and sound faith as to justification. He answeres by denying this assertion. Neque enim (saith he) tota Ecclesia Corinthiorum negabat resurrectionis fidem: sed aliqui tantum, quos redarguebant alij. Idem de Galatarum Ecclesia sentiendum: qui nec omnes, nec tam … errabant in fundamento, nutabant saltem, utrum fides Christi ad salutem sufficeret—dicit enim ibidem, ut & Corinthijs: modicum fermenti fermentat totam mass…m. Ergo fermentum, non erat omnium sed aliquorum tantum: a quibus tamen omnibus imminebat periculum, quod Apostolus tentat ab eis avertere. That is, this whole Church of Corinth denyed not the resurrection, but some only who were opposed by others, the same we must judge of the Church of Galatia, who did neither all, nor so hainonsly err in the foundation, but by the persuasion of false Apostles were hesitating, whether the faith of Christ was sufficient to salvation, or if the circumcision was also needfull, for he sayes in that same place as also to the Corinthians, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Therefore this leaven was not of them all but of some only, by whom notwithstanding all were in hazard, which the Apostle endeavours to prevent. The Dutch annot upon the same place [How say some among you &c.] observe that this error was not common of the whóle Church, but of some only whose names are not exprest, as 2 Tim. 2. 17. that by shaming them he might not fright them from conversion. And upon Gal. 5. 9. they shew that this little leaven spoken of, may be either understood of the false doctrine it self, or the men who promoted this doctrine, who although they were few yet did much hurt,—and therefore were to be eshewed. Now, how disproportioned for extent and infection, these corruptions were unto these of our Church about which our debate is, is obvious to the meanest reflection, and consequently the Lameness of our Informers similitudinary argument from the one to the other. Which will be yet further evident, if we consider. That
3. He cannot make appear, that in any of these Churches there was a formal legal Iudicial enacting authorizing and commanding of these corruptions, and endeavours used, to exclude and root out all who would not submit to them, by Barbarous violence and persecution, particularly faithfull Ministers for testifying against the same. Nor can he prove that adherence to these erroneous corrupters in their Worship, was appointed and enjoyned as an express Test and badge of owning their errours, and renouncing the truth, and all the sound party adhering thereto, which is so casting a difference, that it quite invalidats these Instances as to any argument against our practice, for this destroying backsliding Innovating party of this Church have laid down courses either to engadge to a formal owning of their corruptions, especially the faithful Ministry of this land, or else to exterminat and root them out & all sound professours together with their Testimony.
In a word whatever concurence in duty these corruptions he mentions may be consistent with, it is certain that the sound professors were called to keep themselves free of the contagion thereof by all means, and the Church was to use all endeavours to purge out and rid her self of these corruptions and corrupters too if obstinat, Paul wished they were cut off who troubled the Churches of Galatia, that is censur'd and laid aside as rotten members who were in hazard to grangrene the whole body. The Officers of the Church of Corinth are commanded to purge out the old leaven, since a litle would quickly leavent the whole lump. And the Apostle reprehends them for not casting out the Incestuous man, & enjoynes the sound professors in that Church to come out from among the unclean and be separat, as they exspect to be received of God. And our Lord reprehends the Church of Pergamus for not casting out them that held the Doctrine of Balaam, and the Nicolaitans—and the Church of Thyatira for suffering Jezabel to seduce and infect with scandalous errors and practices the Lords servants. Now the scope of these precepts will say, that when the case is so circumstantiat, that the Church and sound part can have no access for removing and censuring destroying corrupters, especially while by violence endeavouring (after they have departed from a pure Church her sworn Reformation and constitution) to force all to a concurrence with them, or exterminat the impolluted remnant, that this sound Church (I say) are to keep themselves free of their contagion, to follow their duty in opposition to them, and mutually to strengthen one another therein; which is enough to Justifie our practice in this case. In like manner, the many commands of the Prophets to abstain from the pollutions of the time, and threatnings for accession thereto, will by proportion infer this our practice mentioned, and that when a case is such that no concurrence can be had with Innovators in their worship without the stain of their sin, and when they are persecuting all that will not concur with them, a non-union and forbearance is most necessary. Had any corrupting treacherous Prophets or others of the Church of Israel in concurrence with persecuting Rulers, enacted universal complyance with some gross corruptions, and ejected all the faithfull non complying teachers priests or prophets, admitting none to officiat except these corruptions had been formally acknowledged, Let any say what would have been the faithfull prophets decision in this case, and whether upon the same ground on which they so oft dehort from the least complyance with any sin, they would not have allowed and commanded the faithfull prophets and members of that Church to oppose them, and cleave unto their respective duties, and unto one another in the following thereof. As for what he adds, that there was then no command to separat from the worship while it was not substantially corrupted. I wonder if he will charge a corruption of the worship it self, or in the substance thereof upon the duties now owned and performed by Presbyterian Ministers and professors, from whom he notwithstanding thinks its duty to separat, so that untill he prove (as I said) Conformists their better claim to officiat as Ministers of this Church, then Presbyterian Ministers, this argument lights heavy on himself, and the censures put upon Novatians and Donatists falls upon their dividing and destroying party. The case of these Schismaticks being as far from ours as east from west; were Novatians or Donatists first cast out by a violent backsliding party for not concurring in a course of backsliding, in overturning a Churches sworn reformation, and were they enjoyned & commanded, to owne the course of these backsliders? I think the Donatists & Novatians their violence against adherers to the union of the true Church, is a fit emblem of the present practice of Conformists, how can this Man say, that there were then greater corruptions them now. Can there be greater corruptions in government then a papacy of the highest degree, as is their premacy and hierarchy? can there be greater corruptions in practice, then perjury and such grosse prophanity as Conformists are blotted with for the most part? greater corruption in principles, then Popish Arminian errors &c.
The Doubter objects, [that if we may not separat from a corrupt Church, what mean these scripture commands enjoyning separation, such as 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16. 1 Cor. 5. 11 2 Thes 3. 6 Rev. 18. 3] We have already said that he deals deceitfully in making his Presbyterian Doubter assert that we may separat from a corrupt Church in every case, but this we say, that in whatever case, and in how far soever; we cannot joyn with a corrupt Church without the contagion and stain of its corruptions, in so far and in that case, a separation is necessary, and falls within the compass of these scripture commands. And that in this our case, the demanded conformity as to Presbyterian Ministers and professors cannot be yeelded, without the stain of prelatists their sin, is above cleared. So that he needs not tell us here, that every corruption is not a sufficient ground of separation. For we have heard our Informer acknowledge that a Church may be in that degree corrupted, as will render a separation warrantable; yea and necessary. I could wish he had condescended upon that degree of corruption, and showen us here the maximum quod sic, & minimum quod non, as to the ground of this separation, and how far these corruptions may strike at a Churches vitals, and yet her life and essence as a Church subsist. And here I would close in a litle with this Man, and enquire, that since a Churches corruptions will (with him) in some cases render a separation necessary, upon what ground is it necessary, and from what prior principle is this concluded? sure it must be upon this ground, left union with that Church blott the soul, and make us share in her sin. So that in this case, we are not obliged to hold union and fellowship with her when it is infectious, as is most clearly imported in that command 2 Cor. 6. and if separation be upon this ground allowed, whether the corruption be lesser or greater, eatenus or in so far, we are obliged to separat, for Majus & minus non variant speciem rei. Next, I infer that a non-union to a corrupt party who cannot be called the Church, or at lest whose being the Church is magnalis & sub judice, will be a fortiori warranted, and upon lesser grounds then separation which supposes an anterior obligation of union, and actuall union out of this case, and abstracting from it.
But for these scriptures mentioned, he sayes they will not prove our point, and to that of 2 Cor 6. 14. he answers, that our Lord is speaking of separating from ungodly fellowship with Idolaters, not of withdrawing from christian assemblies. But doth he not enjoyn that separation because of the hazard of Infection by their sin, and why not also from christian assemblies where there is the same hazard of this Infection? did he not acknowledge that the case of a Church or christian Assembly may be such, as will render even a separation necessary. Now if in this case the tender separater should plead this text, and that corrupt Church or assembly of Christians give our Informers answer, viz. that it pleads only for separating from fellowship with Idolaters, not of withdrawing from christian Assemblies, how will he extricat himself, and reconcile this answer with his concession. But for these texts 1 Cor. 5. 11. and 2 Thess. 3. 6. he sayes, they are meant only of needless fellowship in privat converse with scandalous persons, but allowes not to withdraw from the publick worship because of the presence of such scandalous ones, as if this did pollute the worship, though it may be the fault of Church guides not to keep them back. Ans. The ground here is the same (and acknowledged by him) whatever be the withdrawing which is more immediately enjoyned, viz. lest their fellowship prove contagious, scandalous or in any measure sinfull, & so if fellowship with a Church in her Assemblies be thus infectious, these scriptures do enjoyn a separation upon the same ground; and by necessary consequence from what he hath acknowleged: And therefore this answer is nothing to the purpose, unless he will retract his concession, that there may be corruptions in a Church and her assemblies, which will render a separation necessary. Next, as for what he adds, that ordinances are not polluted by the presence of scandalous ones. It is not for him, nor against us; since he acknowledges, there may be a Lawfull yea necessary separation from a Church & her assemblies in worship, tho not upon this ground of the ordinances their pollution by the presence of scandalous ones: because of the reason which we have already heard; and we do also upon other grounds then this of a pretended pollution of the ordinances by their scandals, maintain our disowning Conformists in their worship to be a duty (as we have heard) even that they are forcing all to a sinfull complyance with them, in a schismatick departing from the unity of this Church and perjurious overturning the work of reformation, and will neither suffer Ministers nor professors to joyn with them in worship, but with an express aknowledgement (in the intent of our Laws) and owning of this defection. Sure we are commanded to withdraw from every Brother that walks disorderly, (which our Informer pleads as a sufficient ground to disowne Presbyterian Ministers & withdraw from them because of their supposed disorder and schism, tho the ordinances in their hands are not polluted with their supposed guilt,) and from all fellowship with scandalous brethren, which is contagious and may pollute us, Now, are not they walking disorderly & cross to the doctrine, discipline, & Reformation of this Church? are they not consequently schismaticks? are not their scandals infectious, when they will suffer no Ministers to possess their charges, or officiat either with, or without them, or people to enjoy ordinances among them, without direct owning their defection, and overturning our Reformation, and a professed submission to their abjur'd prelacy, as is clear in the acts enjoyning Ministers preaching, and peoples hearing in conformity to prelacy and the supremacy.
For that of Rev. 18. he sayes, that it enjoyneth a separation from Rome's corrupt doctrine and Idolatrous worship, but warrands not a separation from a Church where no such corruption is. I answer, The ground of the command is the danger of Infection by Rome's sins, as is expressed in the text, which will consequently hold wherever this danger is, whatever be the the particular sins from whence this danger flowes, for (as I said) majus & minus non variant speciem and we may add, that other Known rule, a quatenus ad omne valet sequela. In whatever case an union is unwarrantable and infectious, a proportioned separation is upon this ground enjoyned. Nay, if the conjunction have but mali speciem or be inductive to sin only, the command of eshewing, every appearance of evill, will reach this withdrawing, unless the conjunction be on other grounds an indispensible duty. Now our Covenant obligations, and our Reformation as itstood established being duely pondered, it will be clear that Conformists are schismaticks and destroying Innovators, and there is no prior obligation to joyn with them, but rather to disowne them in this course. Sure this man holds that fellowship with Presbyterian Ministers in their assemblies for worship is contagious, and that people are obliged to leave, and come out from them, tho he dare not lay Idolatrous worship nor corrupt doctrine to their charge, and so he must acknowledge, that this and such like commands will warrand a separation upon the general ground here intimat, abstracting from that special case of Romes Idolatrous worship and corrupt doctrine. Its very sophistical reasoning from the denyall of the special ground and nature of Romes contagion, from which christians are called to separat, to deny a separation upon any other contagion to fall within the compass of that precept, which is to reason from the denyall of the species to the denyal of the genus.
His Doubter in the next place retorts his charge of separation upon himself, and alledges [that we have better ground to charge Conformists with schism because of their departing from the government of this Church, to which we are still adhering, so that they have gone out from us, not we from them.] We proved this charge already from the constitution and Reformation of this Church as it stood established, and our universal vows of adherence therunto, so that such as have overturned this work of Reformation, (not Presbyterian government only) they are properly the first dividers and deserters.
But let us hear how he acquits himself of this charge. 1. He sayes that their submission to prelacy is in obedience to the commands of superiors, whom we are bound to obey in things not sinfull, So that their obedience is duty, and Presbyterians their non submission is disobedience to authority, and Schisme from the Church. But 1. His Doubter alleadging that Presbyterial Government is the Government of this Church, and inferring thereupon that departing from it is Schism, and that Prelatists have gone out from Presbyterians, not they from them, which is a very clear consequence, and will clearly infer the departers to be Schismaticks upon any description of Schism which he can assigne; And moreover, this being the great ground upon which this man and his fellows do charge Presbyterians with Schism, viz. That they are separat from the present Prelatick constitution, since he offers no formal answer either to the antecedent or consequent of his Doubters argument, what will the interposed command of Rulers signify to alter the Nature of Schism, or to make that practice which is Hactenus upon Scripture grounds Schismatical, to be no Schism. This I must say is strange divinity, but like enough to that of these men who make the Magistrate a Pope over the Church, her ordinances, and over sacred Oaths and vows. 2. We have proved that their submission and obedience in this point, is a high rebellion against God, in disowning at mens arbitrary command, the Government of his house appointed in his word, and embracing an abjured Hierarchy contrary to it, and against which all the nations were engadged. So that our practice is obedience to God, and a keeping of the union of Christs body, and theirs is both perjury and Schism.
He tells us, that he hath proved in the first conference Episcopacie to be the only Government left by Christ, and practised by his Apostles: So that our disowning it is Schism from the Scripture Church Government, and that of the primitive Church, as well as from them. To this I only say, that I hope we have made the prelacy he pleads for, appear to be a stranger both to Scripture and antiquity. Again he tells us, that in this charge of Schism, he means it not only or mainly in respect of Government, but of separating from their Assemblies for Worship, which is Schism tho the Government were wrong. I answer 1. If he acknowledges that separating from the Government is Schism, why answers he not our countercharge, that their party did first separat from the Government of this Church, and that therefore the Schism lyes first and principally at their door; for that which he sayes of the Magistats command, is (as we have heard) utterly insignificant to wipe of this charge. 2. This charge of the first Schism on his part standing good, for any thing he hath said, that which he here adds of our being Schismaticks, because of our separation from their Assemblies for Worship, is like wise naught. For upon this ground of his Doubter, which he cannot disprove, viz. That they have made the first breach and separation, they are Hactenus Schismaticks, and so are to be disown'd in their worship upon that very account and ground, upon which he pleads fot disowning Presbyterians Assemblies for Worship tho he can lay nothing else to their charge, or alleadge any substantial corruption of the worship. And so the recocted crambe which he here presents to us again anent the Scribes and Pharisees, Simeon and Anna their attending the Temple Worship, Zacharias and Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary their not separating there from &c. Pleads as much for his Presbyterian Doubter in relation to the owning of our Presbyterian Assemblies for Worship (and much more) then for him. Since he dare not say that they are more corrupted then the Church of the Iews was at that time, and so we may echo back his alas how will you justify this separation of yours, with an enquiry how he and his party will justify their separation from the true Ministry of the Church of Scotland? What if a party of corrupt Priests and Levites had risen up and pursued a course of defection, tending to raze and ruine all Gods ordinances, casting out all such Priests and Levites as would not concurr with them, and had appointed an acknowledgment of and concurrence with their wicked defection, to be the only condition upon which they will admit either priests or people to share in the ordinances? In the mean time a great body of Priests and people adhering to Gods ordinances, and contending against them, had been keeping their possession of the temple Worship as long as they could? I dare refer to our Informer to give judgment in this case and shew, what Simeon and Anna, Joseph and Mary would have done, and to which of the parties they would have adhered? And let our cause be judged by this.
His Doubter in the next place objects [that Conformists lecture not, & therefore may not be heard.] Here he but trifles to insinuat that this is solely lookt upon by us as a ground of not owning them. But in so far as in this our case its a piece of their apostacy from our establisht reformed Worrhip, and an expresse badge of conformity to prelacy, and in both these respects, flat perjury and breach of Covenant, we look upon it as having its own influence with other grounds to warrand a non-union to them while standing in a stated opposition to faitfull Ministers mantaining, this with other pieces of our Reformation. To this objection our Informer answers, 1. That some Conformists lectured, and ye… were separat from. And so might all of them be upon the forementioned grounds thus disowned and separat from, Altho they had keept a form of this, but I beleeve they are for signs and wonders among them who keep the lecture, or owne it at all. Next he tells us, of the ancient reading of the Scripture in the Jewish Church, and of Moses and the prophets in the Synagogues, Acts 13. 15, 27. and 15. 21. and likewise in the Christian Church. But what then? who denies this, why, they have (he tells us) the Scriptures publickly read in their Churches. But I trow the reading is the better of expounding, and he might have found, that the Levites (Neh. 8. 8.) read the Law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused the people understand the reading; And he dare not say that the ancient publick reading of Scriptures among the Jews was by Gods appointment a dumb reading without exposition. Why gave God prophets and teachers unto his Church if not for this end? and faith comes mainly by hearing the Word preach't. Why then grew his reverend Fathers and their conforming Sons, so angry with this Churches laudable practise of giving the sense together with the reading (comprobat by that ancient Practise of the Jewish Church, which he pretends) since otherwise the Text read ane 100. times is still like a kernell under a hard shell. Nay but he sayes, if we separat upon this ground we would have separat from the Church in all ages. Sure not from that Church where the law was expon'd and its sense given, as well as read, beside that our non-union to our prelatick Innovators, (or withdrawing too if he please) hath this as an appendix with other grounds, that Conformists in withholding our former lecture or expository reading from the people, and substituting a bare reading in its place, discover themselves to be teachers who are keeping close and not opening the seals of Gods book, & are afraid that their hearers should learn too fast.
In the 3d place, he tells us a tedious storie, anent the disuse of our first authorized method of Lecturing, which was at first only to read one chapter in the old testament and another of the New with brief explication of occuring difficulties, but that thereafter we held with one chapter, then with a part of one, and raised observations—making it a short sermon, so that its all one to separat for this, as to separat for shorter sermons, which are, caeteris paribus, thought better then a long. Then he tells us further (to cloak this their laziness) that variety of purposes are hardly retained, and procures a wearying, and that one thing puts out another &c. But what fruitless talke is all this? If our Churches appointment was of this nature at first to open up difficulties upon the reading, did she therefore intend to cut off the exercise of that gift anent practical observations, which is found in experience so eminently edifying as himself acknowledges in the next page, and the method of preaching abroad, to which method we are beholden for some excellent commentaries upon the Scripture, which would probably have been by this time Intire through the whole bible according to the design and mould projected by the Reverend brethren and Ministers of this Church, If our Prelats lazy reading tribe, had not invaded the pulpits of the Lords faithfull labourers. Again, suppose there was as to this method some deviation from the first appointment, yet since our Church gave a tacit approbation & universally used it, his censure is too critical & saucy; beside, to plead from the variation in the practice to a total disuse, is dull reasoning; and whatever the lecture was at first this is certain, that this universal practice and eminently edifying piece of publick duty, owned by our Church, was presently disused and discharged by prelats, and its disuse became one of the badges of conformity, and a part of their mark upon their creatures, and therefore eatenus in all reason it ought to have its own weight with other grounds, as to disowning them, in their present state and circumstances. The experience of all the true seekers of God can disprove sufficiently what he adds, of a tedious nauseating as the issue of variety of purposes; variety rather taking off, then begetting tediousness whence the Scripture is composed for this end of such a sweet variety of purposes and methods. His story of Pembo's defiring to hear one word or sentence at once, and no more till after a long time, is calculat well to patronize a reading or non-preaching Ministry; but the many scripture precepts given to christians anent growth in Knowledge, and leaving the first principles, and not to be alwayes children in understanding, and likewise the scripture precepts straitly charging and enjoyning Ministers to be instant in season and out of season preaching, exhorting with all long suffering and doctrine, sufficiently discovers the …diculous tendency of this story.
4. He tells us, that suppose it were a fault, every fault will not warrand separation. We say not that every fault, nay nor this simply considered, will warrand separation, but that this with many others presumptuously maintained and avowed, will warrand a non-union unto a schismatick party of Innovators destroying and overturning a well reformed Church, and rooting out a faithfull remnant of adherers thereto. As for the want of the circumcision and the passover for sometime in the Iewish Church, which he next pleads as that which did not cause a separation, not to stand upon the particular impediment of circumcision while in the wilderness or an inquiry into what speciall lets might have had an influence (or a sinfull influence) upon the disuse of the passover, yet Conformists case, who are but a schismatick unsound part of this Church, rejecting an approved ordinance and duty, in complyance with and subserviency unto a perjurious course of defection, is so far discrepant from this, that any may see the disparity. As for that of 2 Kings 23. 22. That there was not holden such a passover (as that of Josiah) from the dayes of the Judges that judged Israel, nor in all the dayes of the Kings of Israel, nor of the Kings of Judah. Its only spoken comparativly in respect of the spirituality and s…lemnity of that passover, and doth not suppose ane absolute disuse of this ordinance through all that time. A learned Interpreter upon this passage doth paraphrase the verse thus, that there was no passover celebrat with so solemn care, great preparation, and universal joy, the greater because of their remembrance of their miserable times under Manasseh and Amon.—And that from the dayes of Samuel the last of the Judges, as its exexpressed 2 Chron. 35. 18. None of the Kings had with such care prepared themselves, the Preists and people to renew their Covenat with God as Josiah now did. And as he will not be able to prove that out of the case of persecution, invasion, dispersion or captivity, and the inevitable necessity flowing from these, there was a warrantable disuse of these holy ordinances, so professors their not separating from that Church even upon a sinfull disuse; will never come home to his purpose, as is already oft cleared 5. He adds, that upon this ground we would separat from all other Churches, and from our own Church before the year 1645. And then he would please us again by telling us, that he could wish all sermons were as Lectures, the chief points of a long text being propounded, which would be more edifying, then when they rack thè text and their brains (a native and kindly character of his party, and their preaching) to seek matter from their text to hold out the time. But we have oft told him that its not this defect only, or without the circumstances of our present case, that we plead as a ground of disowning them. And if he account the Lecture-method of preaching the more edifying, with what conscience have they deprived Gods people of this exercise & method of preaching, upon my Lord Bishops orders? It seems his ipse dixit is the first rule of edification with our Informer and his fellows, a principle well suited to lawless and Lordly prelacy, which must have all ordinances mancipated to its arbitrary commands. So that our Informer giving the supreme Magistrat a papal power over Church-Government, and solemn sacred Oaths and vows, in the preceeding Dialogue, and the Bishops a dominion over Worship in this, puts pityful fetters upon Christs glorious bride; and as in this point and most of his reasonings, in begging the question, he but skirmishes with his own shadow, so in thus wounding our Church, by his dangerous laxe principles in his pretended healing, but truely hurtfull and trifling Dialogues, he shewes himself to be a physician of no value.