( 341 ) The Dr. I fear would call this S'opbifry in another or at lea1I complain that it is fomewhaódly and faintly expreffed. But we thall confider it as it is, (i.) Separation from 'Parochial Churches , becaufe Communion in Ordinances is only to be enjoyed in filch Churches as Chrift hath inflituted, is denied by us ; it is fo in the affertion oppofed by him ; and I do not knowwhether it be laid down by him, as that which we affirm or which we deny. (2.) There is great Ambiguity in the latter claufe ; of feparating from them, becaufe they have things repugnant unto theAli inflitution of Churches. For it is one thing; to feparatefrom a Church becaufe it is not ofdivine in- flitution, that is, not of that kind of Churches which aredivinely inflituted, and another to do fo, becaufeof things pradifed and impofed in it contrary to divine infi- tution, which is the cafe in hand. 4. But he after faith, Is not this the primary. Reafon of feparation, becaufe Chrifi bath appointed unalterable Rules for the Government of his Church, which are not to be ob- ferved in Parochial churches :2 I anfwer no ; it is not fo, for there may be an omit - fion, at leafl for a feafon, in fome Churches of forne Rules that Chrift bath appointed in the Government of his Church, (and we judgehis Rules as unto Right un- alterable) which may not be ajuf caufe offeparation. So the Church of the Jews continueda long time . in the, omiffion of the Obfervance of the feaß of Ta- bernacles. But the principal Reafon ofthe Separation we defend, is the prafifing and impofing Of fundry things in. the Worfnip of the Church, not ofdivine in-, . flitution, yea in our judgment contrary thereunto, and. the framing ofa rule ofGovernment ofmens deviling, to be-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=