er at one blow cuts off all the strength of the
General Assembly's reason against the association with malignants in that
year. There might be some few persons idolaters, but there was no party
and faction such, and yet they can deny association with the English
malignants from those scriptures, yea not only with them but with our own
countrymen that were in rebellion with James Graham, who were neither
idolaters nor foreigners. We need no other answer than the Commission at
that time give to the committee of estates using that same evasion, pg.
10, 11. 2. The ground and reason whereupon such associations are
condemned, is more general and comprehensive. Jehoshaphat was reproved
for joining with Ahab, because he was "ungodly, and hated the Lord," which
is properly in our terms, because he was a malignant and profane man. It
was a strange mocking of scripture to restrict ungodliness, in that place,
to the sin of idolatry. Confederacy with the Canaanites and other nations
was forbidden on this ground, "that the people be not insnared, and learn
not their works." Now, is not the company of, and communion with ungodly
men, of the same general profession, but mockers and haters of the power
thereof, as infectious and insnaring? Nay, it is more apt to insnare
because of the profession. Paul would have as much distance kept with a
brother walking unorderly as a pagan. For such a one as walks contrary to
his profession of the true religion, does evidence more ungodliness and
wickedness, than an ignorant and superstitious papist that walks precisely
according to his profession. There is some principle of conscience
stirring in the one, but it is seared in the other with a hot iron. God
ranks such, who are uncircumcised in heart, with the uncircumcised in
flesh. Ought not his people to do so too? 3. The rule of modelling armies
and purging the camp is most comprehensive, Deut. xxiii. Not only
idolaters and foreigners, but every wicked thing and unclean thing, was to
be removed out of the camp. Now, seeing those examples are transgressions
of this law, what reason is there to make the only ground of reproving and
condemning of them to be, because idolaters were associated with, as if
any other might be joined with, that is not an idolater? 4. That reason
against Amaziah's conjunction with Israel is wrested, by some expounding
it thus God is not with them, is not understood, in regard of a state of
grace, as appears, nor in regard