A Little Stone Found to be Counterfeit, Treatise · Part 1 · Appendix
APPENDIX, Wherein is Examined ſo much of that Letter Written by theſe of ABERDENE, who lately have ſeparated from this Church upon the INDEPENDENT grounds, as relateth to the preſent Queſtion touching the neceſſary qualification of Viſible Church-members.
section 1 LAſt Summer ſome perſons, Miniſters, and others in Aberdene, did Write a Letter of the date, 24. of May, to ſome Godly men in the South, declaring their ſeparation from the communion of the Church of Scotland, upon two points of Controverſie between us and theſe of the Independent way, viz. the conſtitution of the Viſible Church, and the Government thereof, contrary to their ſolemn Vowes made to Almighty God in two Covenants, the Nationall Covenant of this Kirk, and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Kingdomes, and undertaken with ſo▪lemn declaration of their conviction in Conſcience of the truth of Religion, profeſſed in this Church, and under the pains of Gods everlaſting wrath, and of infamie and of loſſe of all honour and reſpect in this world if they ſhould ever make defection from the ſame; which curſe, I pray the God of all grace avert from them, granting unto them Repentance and forgiveneſſe of their great ſin, through Jeſus Chriſt.
section 2 It is not my purpoſe here to write an Examination of that whole Letter, knowing ſome Godly and able men have done that ſufficiently already to themſelves, whoſe pains I heartily wiſh, the Lord may be pleaſed by his bleſſing yet to make effectuall upon the hearts of theſe men, to reduce them from their errour, into unity with this Church in his Truth, from which they have departed; I mind only to conſider what new appearance of reaſon they bring touching theſe two points, the qualification of Church-members and form of Government, and ſhall ſpeak to the former in this Appendix, to the latter in another after our ſecond Part of Mr. Lockiers Examination. The cauſe why I do this, thus apart in Appendices, is partly becauſe I was loath to interrupt ſo much, the threed of Mr. Lockiers Examination: Partly becauſe it was long time, and I had gone on a great way in that Examination, ere a Copy of this Letter came to my hands. Come we then to conſider here what they ſay upon the firſt point.
section 3 Their Theſis is this. To us it ſeemeth, for ought we can ſearch in the Word, that none ſhould be admitted conſtitute members of a Viſible Church: But ſuch as with a profeſſion of the truth, joyn ſuch blameleſſe and Goſpel-like behaviour, as they may be eſteemed, in a rationall judgement of charity, beleevers, and their children. On which I would repreſent theſe animadverſions. 1. A little before, they expreſſe a reſtriction of this to Goſpel Churches. 1. As I conceive Churches of the New Teſtament, for ought we underſtand (ſay they) the reall conſtitution of Goſpel Churches, &c. Now as to this, we deſire theſe things propounded upon the ſame reſtriction made by Mr. Lockier before, Sect. 2. may be conſidered. 2. When as they ſpeak of the members of a Church, and not of the Church, I would know whether they do acknowledge the being and unity of an Univerſall Viſible Church, or not. If they acknowledge the being and eſſence thereof, then why do they not define the qualification of members in relation to it; but in relation to a Church, i. e. a particular Congregation? Is the neceſſary qualification of a member of the Viſible Church Univerſall, one thing, and the neceſſary qualification of a member of this or that particular Congregation, another; and may one be fit to be a member of the Univerſall Viſible Church, and yet not qualified to be a member of a particular Congregation? If they deny the being and unity of the Univerſall Viſible Church (which may be, p…obably, they do) then I deſire them in the fear of God, to conſider and, if they can give us ſatisfactory anſwers to the weighty reaſons from the Word of God, brought by ſundry late Divines, particularly theſe of the Judicious and Learned Mr. Hudſon, in his late Treatiſes on that purpoſe, to prove the being and unity thereof. Which I am perſwaded nor they nor any living man ſhall ever be able to do. 3. When as they ſpeak not ſimply, of members, but diſtinctly, of conſtitute members (none ſay they are to be admitted as conſtitute members of a Viſible Church) I would aske them what is the other part of the diſtinction? What other members are there of the Viſible Church, unto which theſe conſtitute members are contradiſtinguiſhed? How are they called in their ſpecification? And what is their neceſſary qualification? 4. When as they ſay that none are to be admitted conſtitute members, but ſuch as with a profeſſion of the truth, joyn ſuch blameleſſe and Goſpel-like behaviour as they may be eſteemed in a rationall charity beleevers. i. e. true gracious beleevers with a ſaving faith. 1. I would ask here why do they omit that part of the qualification required and made a part of the ground of eſteeming perſons beleevers, by others of that way they have taken themſelves to? viz. a declaration of the experimentall work of effectuall vocation upon their heart, and only mentioned the behaviour or converſation. 2. Why have they not defined that blameleſſe and Goſpel like behaviour which is requiſite to be a ground of eſteeming perſons beleevers, what at leaſt is requiſite and muſt concurre to make it up, and leſſe then which will not ſerve? That ſo we might have the generall determinat rule, whereby cognition is to be made and eſtimation to be paſſed upon all profeſſours of the truth, that they are beleevers, or otherwayes. For certainly while as they ſay, but indefinitly, ſuch a blameleſſe and Goſpel behaviour, and tells not what is requiſite to make up ſuch a behaviour, they leave the mater in a miſt of uncertainty, and for ought we can ſee, devolves the weight of that eſtimation upon mens apprehenſions without a rule. If they ſay they were writing an Epiſtle to friends, and could not therein ſay all that is to be ſaid in the mater. I Anſwer, that, if they could have told it, it might been ſaid in ſhort bounds, and it was as neceſſary for clearing their mind, to have been told as the Theſis, they have ſet down, it ſelf. But yet let them point us to ſuch a rule in the Word, if they know where it lyeth. For my part, I profeſſe humbly, I could never yet ſee in the Word of God, an univerſall definite rule whereby judgement may and ought to be paſſed upon all and every profeſſour of the truth, by others, that they are to be held for true beleevers or otherwiſe. 5. When as in the deſignation of the perſons that are fit to be admitted members of the Viſible Church, they with Parents, joyn their children. I do heartily acknowledge their Orthodoxy in this, beyond others of that way, who have omitted wholly that addition, and wiſhes they may continue in that point of truth, conſidering how eaſie it is, as the Authors of that Epiſtle themſelves may perceive by experience in others that went off with them firſt, by that ſtep they have gone on to ſlide into that other of excluding the Infants of beleevers from the Viſible Church. But now I would know whether they acknowledge ſuch Infants members compleatly, I mean in actu primo, or not? If they ſay the former, they are at a diſagreement with others of the Independent way. If they ſay the latter, then we muſt have another diſtinction of conſtitute members and ſo many ſorts of members of the Viſible Church, and ſo alſo, we muſt have many ſorts of qualifications of members.
section 4 But now take the mater of the Theſis as it is, that the neceſſary qualification to make one (of years) fit to be admitted a member of the Viſible Church, is, together with profeſſion of the truth, ſuch a converſation as may make a man to be eſteemed, i. e. poſitively judged a true beleever or Regenerat perſon. I ſhall not here adde any new reaſons to what I have brought before: But ſhall come briefly to conſider if theſe preſent Authors have brought any new ſtrength of reaſon for that Tenet: Only I would deſire them in the fear and love of the truth, to conſider if they can find in the Word of God, amongſt all theſe many, whoſe admiſſion into the fellowſhip of the Viſible Church of Chriſt, is mentioned therein; any inſtance of perſons or one perſon, who after their firſt profeſſing Chriſtian faith and Religion, was, what ever their behaviour and courſe had been before to that very time, delayed of their admiſſion to be Church-members untill they ſhould be ſeen and found, with that their profeſſion, to joyn ſuch a blameleſſe and Goſpel-like behaviour, as the Authors requires; many of them, no doubt, untill that time had been of a very blameable and un Goſpel behaviour and courſe of life: And certain it is, that to be ſeen joyning with profeſſion of the truth, an unblameable and Goſpel-like behaviour requires ſome delay and length of time. For my part I could never yet ſee any inſtance of this kind, but on the contrary; finds, that perſons, as ſoon as they once embraced the profeſſion of the Chriſtian faith, albeit to that very time their behaviour had been moſt blameable, were forthwith baptized and ſo admitted members into the Chriſtian Church. Conſider this, I beſeech you dear brethren, if ſo ye will yet ſuffer your ſelves to be called and exhorted by me.
section 5 But now we come to the gr…nds of confirmation of their theſis. Such (ſay they) were the Churches founded by the Apoſtles (which ought to be paterns to us) as appears by the title given to them. Saints, ſanctified, juſtified, waſhed by the blood of Chriſt. For Anſwer, we refer to what we ſaid before, to that ſame inductive Argument in Mr. Lockier, now in a word only, to make this Argument good, it muſt be alledged and made out, not only that all and every one of the Churches founded by the Apoſtles (at leaſt ſuch as are mentioned in Scripture) were actually and defacto conſiſting of ſuch members as were all and every one Saints, juſtified, &c. in the poſitive judgement of charity: But alſo were in their gathering conſtitute of all and every one formally conſidered and taken in under the notion of ſuch upon tryall found and judged to be ſuch; But 1. 'Tis not ſo much as alledged by the Authors that they were ſo gathered and conſtituted, nor can theſe titles, let them take them as they will import any thing of this. 2. Nor ſuppoſe theſe titles ſhould import that the Church… to which they are given were eventually conſiſting of ſuch members, as were all and every one ſuch: Does it follow, that all and every one of the Churches founded by the Apoſtles, were ſo; I mean even ſuch of them as are mentioned in Scripture: Becauſe theſe titles are not given unto all and every Church founded by the Apoſtles or Apoſtolicall men, in the Apoſtles time: We give inſtance of the Churches, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Laodicea, nay had the Authors duely conſidered what is ſaid of theſe Churches, Revel. 2, and 3. I think they could not in reaſon ſaid, what they ſay here. Nor, 3. Doe theſe titles import neceſſarily that the Churches to which they are given, did de facto, and eventually conſiſt of all and every one ſuch. Theſe titles may and muſt (at leaſt of ſome of them) be underſtood of their viſible body ſynecdochically, by a denomination taken from the better part, as I would rather ſay of the body communiter & confuſe, not univerſaliter.
section 6 The Authors of the Epiſtle touches not at the two former exceptions (which yet are ſufficient to overturn this Argument, and I doubt not, but one of the Authors, he that, as I conceive, has been the Penner of this Epiſtle, a man well enough acquainted in Argumentation, and able to diſcern what may be alledged to be defective in an induction, might well perceived) but only labours to infring the third. We cannot (ſay they) acquieſce to the common Anſwer that theſe expreſſions are to be understood of the better part. Anſw. Yet as good, and as judicious as you, the whole ſtream of Interpreters, untill Anabaptiſts, and Separatiſts did ariſe, have given, and acquieſced in, that Interpretation of theſe titles. But if you can bring ſolid reaſon to prove they muſt be underſtood otherwiſe, we ſhall yeeld as to this; We give more aſſent to one ſolid reaſon, then to an hundred Authorityes of meer men. Come we then to ſee what reaſon is brought to prove they ought to be underſtood otherwiſe. 1. For that (ſay they) they are to be underſtood of them all according to the judgement of charity: The Holy Ghoſt has clearly ſaid, Rom. 1. 7. To all that be at Rome, beloved of God, called Saints. And again, verſ. 8. I thank my God for you all. This the firſt, then they ſubjoyn another. We hope when the Apoſtle ſaith, 1 Cor. 6. 18. flee fornication, none will deny but he ſpeaks to the whole Church: Yet to the ſame perſons he immediatly addes, verſ. 19, 20. Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghoſt which is in you, you are not your own, you are bought with a price, this is an Argument taken from the condition of the perſons whom he exhorteth thus. But the exhortation is to all the Church of Corinth. Therefore they were all ſuch as the Apoſtle judged in charity the redeemed of the Lord. Anſw. Remember what we have ſaid before, that tho all were granted that is here alledged, yet the main point in Queſtion touching the conſtitution of theſe Churches is not proven. The main point in Queſtion is upon what formall conſideration only, the members of which theſe Churches did conſiſt, were received and admitted into the conſtitution thereof. But the moſt that can be made out of what is alledged here, let it all be granted, is, that all the members were ſuch de facto and eventually; this being remembered, to the preſent purpoſe. 1. Suppoſe it were granted, and that the reaſons alledged did prove, that theſe titles, as given to the Churches of Rome and Corinth were to be underſtood as the Authors will, of all and every one in theſe Churches, that they were judged by the Apoſtle in charity, the Redeemed of the Lord, truly ſanctified, &c. It is hereby clear and evinced that ſo theſe titles, muſt be underſtood alſo, when they are given to the other Churches founded by the Apoſtles? I know the chief Author of the Epiſtle has more skill (however it be with others of them) in Logick, then to think ſo, and hopes he doth not ſo deſpiſe others that have any tolerable knowledge that way, as to think they would take ſuch a thing off his hand, and therefore wonders, that having undertaken to prove that all the Churches founded by the Apoſtles, were conſtitute of ſuch members as were all poſitively judged in charity, Redeemed and Sanctified, becauſe of the titles of Redeemed and Sanctified given to them: And then that theſe titles given to them, muſt not be underſtood ſynecdochically by a denomination taken from the better part; but of all and every one of them: In the proof of this he brings in two of them, without ſo much as one word of aſſay to prove the like of the reſt. If it ſhal be ſaid that if that be proven of one or two, it is proven alſo by conſequence of the reſt. I deny it, for the Queſtion being about the ſenſe wherein a title aſcribed to ſeverall particular Societies, whether, viz. it be aſcribed to them univerſally as competent to all and every individuall contained therein; Or only by a denomination taken from a better part of theſe individualls? To prove that is to be ſo or ſo underſtood of one or two of them, is not ſufficient to conclude, that ſo it is to be underſtood of the reſt: If yet it ſhall be replied, that there is no reaſon why it ſhould not be ſo underſtood of the reſt of theſe Churches, as of theſe expreſſed. I anſwer this much at leaſt ſhould have been alledged (which is not) to have made the Argument in appearance, at leaſt, to have ſome force for the main point intended. But what if, tho it ſhould be granted that theſe titles are attributed to the two Churches expreſſed here, are to be underſtood as ſpoken of them univerſally: yet it ſhall be ſhown that in ſome other of theſe Churches founded by the Apoſtles, there were perſons to whom theſe titles could not be applyed? We conceive this hath been done before in our anſwer to Mr. Lockier particularly of the Church of Epheſus, and that the 2 and 3. of the Rev. hold the ſame clearly forth of ſome others. But 2. as for that brought for the Church of Rome we refer to what we have anſwered before to M…. Lockier, in that ſame purpoſe. 3. As to the Argument brought to prove that the title of Redeemed (and conſequently the reſt) is given to all and every one of the Church of Corinth, it lyeth thus in form as propounded by the Authors themſelves. The Apoſtle exhorting the Corinthians to flee fornication, taketh an Argument from the condition of the perſons whom he exhorteth (to wit that they were Redeemed) but the exhortation is to all the Church of Corinth. Therefore they were all ſuch as the Apoſtle judged in charity to be Redeemed of the Lord. Anſw. I wonder exceeding much, that ſuch a looſly formed Argument ſhould have come from the hand of ſuch a Philoſophe, as I take to have been the principall Author of this Epiſtle; for take it as it lyeth here, it looketh not like a peece of arte, a ſyllogiſm conſiſting of three terms: but ſeemeth to have ſome more. But to take it in the moſt candid way, I conceive it may be reſolved into thoſe two proceſſes to make it formall, the firſt may be thus, all theſe to whom the Apoſtles exhortation to flee fornication there is directed, are by him called Redeemed: And ſo were at leaſt to his judgement of charity. But to all the Church of Corinth is that exhortation of the Apoſtles directed. Therefore, &c. The other is for proof of the major or firſt propoſition of that, thus: Theſe perſons who are exhorted to flee fornication by an Argument taken from Redemption as their condition are called Redeemed by the Apoſtle: But all theſe to whom that exhortation is directed are exhorted by an Argument taken from that condition. Therefore, &c. Now then to Anſwer. 1. I think the aſſumption of the firſt ſyllogiſm may well be denyed; viz. that exhortation is directed to all and every one in the Church of Corinth, the Authors prove it not; Only they think it ſo evident, that none will deny it. But for what reaſon they are ſo confident of this I know not, unleſſe it be this, that flying fornication was a duety incumbent to them all and every one of them. But this reaſon is not conſtringent; for why may not a duty, which is in a common obligation incumbent to all, be preſſed upon ſome peculiar perſons by an exhortation particularly intended and directed for them? I can ſee no circumſtance in the Text here, why we may not conceive this exhortation, tho to a duty of common obligation, yet particularly intended and directed by the Apoſtle to the elect and truely redeemed amongſt them, not diſtinctly by the head and name pointing them out, but confuſè, in the Viſible Society they were amongſt. 2. Paſſing that aſſumption of the firſt ſyllogiſm: the aſſumption of the ſecond which is brought to prove the major of the firſt, is as looſe, viz. that all theſe perſons to whom the exhortation is directed, or are exhorted to flee fornication, are exhorted by that Argument taken from redemption as their condition. This may well be denyed, for why may not an exhortation to a common duty, directed to a whole ſociety mixed of perſons of different ſpirituall conditions, be preſſed upon all by ſome Arguments common to all (ſuch as that whereby this exhortation is preſſed, verſ. 18.) and upon ſome, by ſome ſpeciall Argument relating properly to them. There can be no circumſtance of the context alledged to prove, why it may not be conceived to be ſo here, ſuppoſing that the exhortation is directed to all? But, 3. To beat out the bottom of this Argument, I prove from the very Text it ſelf that the Apoſtle here ſpeaking to the perſons, whom he calleth redeemed, ſpeaketh of them as ſuch in the verity of the thing or object, i. e. as truly and really redeemed and conſequently cannot be conceived to ſpeak it of all and every one in the Church of Corinth, as the Authors themſelves will confeſſe, I doubt not. I prove it thus, theſe whom the Apoſtles calls Redeemed here, they are ſuch as might and ought themſelves to know, and be aſſured that they were Redeemed, and had the Spirit of God dwelling in them. But only ſuch as are in real…ty and the verity of the thing, Redeemed, &c. may and ought to know and be aſſured of this of themſelves. Therefore the ſecond Part of this Argument is clear, becauſe otherwiſe a man might and ought to know and be aſſured of a lie, concerning his eſtate, which is deluded preſumption. The firſt part is alſo clear from the Apoſtles words, v. 19. What? know ye not that your bodies are the Temples of the Holy Ghoſt, &c. That know ye not ſo frequently uſed by the Apoſtle, eſpecially in theſe Epiſtles to the Corinthians, and in this very Chapter five times, imports a certain aſſurance of the thing he is ſpeaking of, and therefore here the Apoſtle imports that theſe whom he is ſpeaking to as redeemed, and having the Spirit dwelling in them, they are ſuch as may and ought to be aſſuredly ſenſible that they were redeemed. And is not this place parallel to that of the very like expreſſion, 2 Cor. 13. 5. Know ye not that Chriſt is in you? Which all Proteſtant Divines preſſe againſt Papiſts for proving Believers certain aſſurance and perſwaſion of grace and ſalvation. Therefore I conclude: That the Apoſtle by theſe whom he calls the Temple of the Holy Ghoſt, underſtands them that are ſuch indeed and in truth of the object, and not in the judgment of charity; And what an incongruous interpretation were it to put upon theſe words, Know ye not that ye are the temples of the Holy Ghoſt redeemed with a price? this ſenſe; Know ye not that ye are accounted in the judgment of charity, temples of the Holy Ghoſt, &c. 4. Yet I think it cannot in truth be ſaid that all and every one in the Church of Corinth were judged poſitively by the Apoſtle in the judgment of charity, gracious, renewed and ſanctified ones, even becauſe of the groſſe wickedneſſe he in theſe Epiſtles expreſſeth himſelf to have known to be amongſt them.
section 7 The laſt exception the Authors of the Epiſtle goes about to obviate thus, Neither hath it any weight with us to the contrair which is objected that there were groſſe faults amongſt them, as diviſions, intemperance, queſtioning the Reſurrection, inceſt; Will not Lots drunkenneſſe, Davids adultery, Peters deniall, prove theſe to be ſins incident to the Saints, tho juſtly cenſurable, as the inceſtuous was excommunicate: a man who once, as is ſpoken of Gaius, hath been approven of the truth it ſelf, though he be overtaken with groſſe infirmitie, albeit for it he be cenſurable according to the nature of his offence, yea the higheſt Eccleſiaſtick Cenſure paſſe againſt him; yet he is to be eſteemed as a brother, 2 Theſ. 3. 15. Anſw. 1. Tho that objected, hath not with you, yet has it had with many judicious and godly men in the Church of God, both ancient and moderne, much weight to the contrair: I name, for the preſent but one (there be no doubt of many others) becauſe of the Controverſie he is upon in making uſe of this conſideration. The godly Orthodox and ancient Auguſtine, ad Donatiſt as poſt collationem, cap. 21. where diſputing againſt the Donatiſts maintaining ſeparation from all other Chriſtian Churches, becauſe of the mixture … many wicked ones amongſt them from that place, 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. (juſt as theſe Authors of this Epiſtle do afterward from that ſame very place, ut non ſit ovum ovo ſimilius) anſwers them from the conſideration of theſe many groſſe wickedneſſes expreſſed by the Apoſtle as abounding in that Church, that there were many graceleſſe perſons amongſt them, yet they neither made nor were commanded to make ſeparation from that Church. I humbly deſire the judicious Reader to be at the pains to read the whole Chap. and I ſhall but point at two or three remarkable Paſſages of it, here ſee the Margine.*In eodem quippe ipſo populo Corinthiorū quod dicimus demonſtramus ne forte arbitrentur prophetarum tantummodo moris fuiſſe. & non ad Novi Teſtſed ad V…eris conſuetudinem pertinere, ſ…c arguere reprehenſibiles quaſi omnes in eo populo, arguantur, & ſic allo qui laudabiles quaſi omnes illi la…dantur. Ecce & ad Corinthlos ſic Apoſtalus loquitur. Paulus vocatus Ieſu Chriſti per voluntatem Dei. & Soſthene… frater Eccleſiae quae eſt Corinthi ſanctificatis in Ieſu Chriſto vocatis ſanctis. Quis haec avdiens credat in Eccleſia Corinthiorum eſse aliquos reprobos quandoquidem verba iſta ſic ſonant velut ad omnes directa ſit laudatio? Et tamen paulo poſt dicit: Obſ…ro autem fratres, ut id ipſnm dicatis omnes, & non ſi…t in vobis ſchiſmata.—In ipſis etiam Corinthiis ibi erant qui non credebant reſurrectionem mortuorum quae ſingularis ſides eſt Chriſtianorum—Attendamus verbailla quibus C…inthiorum Eccleſiam in principio Epiſtolae ſic laudat ut dicat… Gratias ago Deo meo ſemper pro vobis in gratia Det quae data eſt vobis in Chriſto Icſu, quia in omnibus divites facti eſt is—Ecce ſic erant ditati in Chriſto in omni verbo & in omni ſcientia ita ut iis nihil decſſet in ulla graetia, ut in illis eſſent qui reſurrectionem mortuorum adhuc uſque non crederent &c. where it is moſt evident that this learned and godly Father expounds theſe titles of ſaints &c. given to the Church of Corinth. not of all and every one, but of a part thereof and that upon this very conſideration that there were amongſt them perſons guilty of ſuch wickedneſſe as are afterwards fallen upon by the Apoſtle to whom his minde is, theſe titles were not competent.
But waving the Authority of men, let us conſider the things themſelves, and ſee if the Authors have not, as it would ſeem, ſtrained themſelves here, to make this conſideration appear light unto them. Then, 2. Let it be obſerved that in the account of theſe groſſe wickedneſſes that were amongſt the Corinthians alledged as a ground againſt their aſſertion, that all and every one in the Church of Corinth were ſuch as were judged true Saints in the poſitive judgement of charity by the Apoſtles, ſome maine groſſe faults are omitted, and ſome of them reckoned up, are minced by them. Firſt I ſay ſome are omitted: as for example, vain carnall abuſe unto oſtentation of the gifts of the Spirit with which the Apoſtle meeteth, 1 Cor. 12, 13, 14. vile envying, traducing, and labouring by all means to diſgrace and bring in diſguſt amongſt them the bleſſed Apoſtle and his Miniſtry: Read, 2 Cor. 10. and 11. and 12. and conſider what was the practices of theſe amongſt the Corinthians, againſt whom the Apoſtle vindicates himſelf, and ſay if they were ſuch as the Apoſtle judged true Saints, nay does he, not in expreſſe tearms, Cap. 11. ver. 13, 14, 15. ſay of them that they were falſe Apoſtles, deceitfull workers, transforming themſelves into the Apoſtles of Chriſt, Satans Miniſters, transforming themſelves as the Miniſters of Righteouſneſſe, whoſe end ſhould be according to their works. Martyr in loc. Eos non omni notitia Dei exuit: ſed tantum loquitur de ea notitia quae ſalutaris eſt & ad regenerationem conducit, ignorare autem Deum hoc nomine ſe ſatis declarabant, quod reſurrectiomè inficiahantur.Again ſome of them reckoned up are minced. Not only were there amongſt them intemperance ſimply, but coming drunk to the Lords table, 1 Cor. 11. 21, 22. and 'tis ſpoken of as a thing ordinary and habituall in them; not ſimply committing of fornication, but impudent ſlighting of it as little or no ſin at all, as appears, 1 Cor. 6. not ſimple queſtioning (as they Interpret it) i. e. doubting about the Reſurrection, but downright poſitive denying of it, 1 Cor. 15. How ſay ſome among you that there is no Reſurrection of the dead. How could the Authors hearts endure to parallel ſuch habituall drunkenneſſe and whoredome with Lots and Davids lapſes through the ſurprizall of ſuch temptations as they were under: Such hereticall denying of a moſt fundamentall point of Religion, the Reſurrection from the dead, with Peters denyall, of a mater of fact, his knowledge and acquaintance with Chriſt (which yet was a grievous ſin on the mater) under the violence of a temptation, as if theſe former, as well as theſe latter, were to be accounted but infirmities of Saints? Nay, albeit I deny not, but atheiſticall doubtings may ariſe and infeſt the hearts of gracious ones (which yet are a torment to them) yet I ſee not how a formed deniall of that fundamentall point of the Reſurrection, now ſince Chriſts Reſurrection, and ſo clear and full revelation of the Goſpel, can be conſiſting in the heart with true ſaving faith; And is it not upon this very account that the Apoſtle ſpeaking to theſe Corinthians in that 15. cap. verſ. 34. ſayeth, ſome (he means of their Church, as the Nether Dutch Notes well obſerve) have not the knowledge of God, i. e. they have not ſaving knowledge of God. 2. What, ſhall we yet ſay that the Apoſtle judged all and every one in the Church of Corinth truely gracious Saints. 3. As to that, a man who once ſpoken of as Gaius, &c. 1. 'Tis true that ſuch a man, though he be overtaken with a groſſe infirmitie, and therefore be cenſurable and cenſured with the cenſure of Excommunication, yet is not for that, to loſſe the eſtimation we had of him before upon ſuch grounds; but what is this to the purpoſe in hand? Have the Authors ſhown us, or can they ſhew us any evidence or proof that theſe mentioned in the Corinth. as guilty of theſe groſſe wickedneſſes, were ſuch as Gaius is ſaid to have been, approven of the truth it ſelf, yea or poſitively in charity judged true Saints and Regenerat? To ſuppoſe this, (as the Authors do but ſuppoſe it here) is nothing elſe but to ſuppoſe and beg the thing in Queſtion without any proof of it. 2. I conceive the Authors are in a miſtake, when as they take that, 2 Theſ, 3. 5. eſteem him (it is, admoniſh him, in the text) as a brother, to import neceſſarily the accounting a man one truely Regenerat; For in Chriſtianity as there is a ſpeciall brotherhood in regard of communion in Regenerating grace; ſo there is a common brotherhood, in regard of common profeſſion of Chriſtian Faith and Religion, and it is ſufficient to underſtand a brother in that place, in that more common notion and relation, as is evident by the oppoſition there made to an enemy. Tho I think the Apoſtle there is not ſo much ſpeaking of the ſtate of the man cenſured, what it is, or ought to be judged; As what the affection and cariage of theſe yet in the Church ought to be towards him for his good. Thus we have ſeen and conſidered the firſt ground brought by the Authors for their Theſis, taken from the examples of the Churches founded by the Apoſtles and the confirmation brought to hold it up.
Their is ere they come to the next, this word caſten in, but this is not our caſe; our Churches are overflowed with a deluge of prophane Atheiſts, who have been ſuch from their birth to this preſent hour, which I can no otherwiſe look upon in this place of their Epiſtle, but as an untimous eruption of deſpite againſt their mother Church. Afterward ſuch as it is, it might have come in its place, when they come to ſpeak to the point of their practice of ſeparation from this Church: But here in this place of their Epiſtle, they are upon the queſtion de jure, of what members Churches Viſible ought to be conſtitute, what is it to this purpoſe that theſe Churches have de facto, ſuch and ſuch perſons in them? But now to their ſecond ground: John (ſay they) thought not a bare verball profeſſion ſufficient ground to admit perſons to Baptiſme. Theſe who came to him to be Baptized, unleſſe he ſaw joyned with it fruits meet for Repentance, and upon this ſcore he could not (I conceive it ſhould be, *For if it be, he could not, it muſt be meant de jure, as we ſay, illud poſſumus quod de jure poſſumus. For to deny that Phyſicè he could were but falſe & impertinent: but that were to beg the queſtion: for now they are reaſoning from his fact or practice to conclude the jus or rule, therefore knowing ſome of the Authors acure enough to ſee ſuch a thing, I conceive, it has been firſt written would not, and that the other is an eſcape of the tranſcriber.he would not, ſee the reaſon of my conjecture on the Margine) admit the Phariſees who came to him to be baptized, as is clear, comp. Mat. 3. with Luke 7. 30. the Phariſees were not baptized of John. If it be replyed that Chriſt in Luke speaks only of ſome of the Phariſees, the ſcope of the Text will eaſily refute it. For he chides the Phariſees as worſe then the Publicans, in this, that the Publicans came to Johns baptiſm in a capacitie to be baptized and were baptized of him, which the Phariſees did not; But if theſe many Phariſees, Mat. 3. 7. had been baptized of John; and only ſome others of them rejected his baptiſm, ſurely the Phariſees in this had been nothing behind the Publicans, for neither were all the Publicans baptized.
section 8 In this Argument, theſe Authors have no ſmall confidence as appeareth, once for all then to vindicate this place from their forgery. 1. Whereas they ſay John Baptiſt thought not a bare verball profeſſion ſufficient to admit theſe to Baptiſm who came to him to be Baptized, unleſſe he found joyned with it fruits meet for Repentance Anſw. 1. 'Tis not a bare verball profeſſion that we plead for as a ſufficient ground, nor ſay we that Iohn Baptiſt proceeded upon it as a ground in admitting perſons to his baptiſm, a bare verball profeſſion may be apparently in jeſt, mocking, and in groſſe palpable hypocriſie. Iohn no doubt would not thought ſuch a profeſſion a ſufficient ground: nor do we think it either. But between ſuch a profeſſion, and a profeſſion wherewith are ſeen preſently and actually fruits meet for Repentance, i. e. poſitively evidencing and proving true Repentance in the heart; there is a profeſſion ſober and ſerious, tho for the preſent there be not, nor can be for the preſent, ſeen ſuch fruits, meet for Repentance joyned with it, ſuch a Profeſſion we ſay as this, is a ſufficient ground to admit to Baptiſme upon; And upon ſuch a Profeſſion, we ſay Iohn admitted thoſe to baptiſme, that came to him to be baptized, without enquiring or waiting to ſee fruits meet for Repentance. For it is moſt evident by comparing the Evangeliſts, Matthew, Mark, Luke, yea and Iohn 3. 23. that great multitudes of people coming to him were baptized by him together, at the ſame time. Now I pray how did Iohn ſee fruits meet for Repentance in all and every one of theſe by themſelves? was he acquaint with every one of their converſations perſonall, before they came there, who will be ſo impudent as to hazard upon ſuch an aſſertion eſpecially, of him who lived in the wilderneſſe remote from their Cities and Societies? Or after they came forth to him and offered themſelves to be baptized, did Iohn delay their baptiſm and they abide in converſing with him, ſo long a time (which could not be for ſome few dayes, yea or weeks) as he might ſee ſuch fruits in their converſation, viz. (as the Authors of this way tell us) omitting no known duty, and committing no known evill, or leading a converſation without ſcandall? Who will ſay or beleeve this either? Or did Iohn ſee theſe, by examining every one of them ſeverally, and cauſing them make a declaration of the experimentall work of Repentance upon their heart? 1. But how could he do this, with ſo great multitudes, yea when all is done, this would be nothing but verball profeſſion of the work, and not fruits, ſpoken of in the Text, which are reall good works and practices in life and converſation. And as to their hinting at the Baptiſts words, bring forth fruits meet for Repentance: As if it were imported thereby, that Iohn is requiring the works to be brought forth, and that he might ſee them in relation unto, and before his adminiſtration of baptiſm to them, is a groſſe miſtake or deceit; for it is evident that Iohn is not requiring a qualification in relation to his adminiſtration of baptiſm to them; But Preaching their duty, without which neither their profeſſion nor outward baptiſm, nor any other outward priviledge or prerogative ſhould ſave them from the wrath of God. Yea it is evident that this Sermon exhortatorie was ſo far from being Preached to the purpoſe the Authors intimats, that it was Preached either in the time of the adminiſtration, or rather after the adminiſtration was performed; As would appear by Mark 1. 8. I indeed a have baptized you.
section 9 But they prove that John Baptized not but upon ſeeing fruits meet for Repentance joyned with Profeſſion. How? upon this ſcore (not ſeeing fruits meet for Repentance with their profeſſion) he could (it ſhould be would) not admit the Phariſees who came to him to be baptized. Anſw. 1. I know Reverend Pareus thinks theſe Phariſees were not admitted to Baptiſme by John: but he gives not this as the ground of Johns debarring them, not ſeeing in them fruits meet for Repentance, but this, that they came out of curioſitie, or maliciouſneſſe, to diſturb his Miniſtry and were manifeſt hypocrites: and we confeſſe if any were known to be ſuch, they ought to be debarred, and that to adminiſter Sacraments to ſuch were to proſtitute them, as that Reverend Author ſayeth, for ſuch are known mockers and diſpiters of the Ordinances. Muſculus, Hum. Aret. Calv. alſo though he expreſſeth not this in formal words as thoſe, yet his whole diſcourſe upon the text, materially ſpeaks it clearly enough.But there may be a profeſſion not of this kind, with which yet there is not, at the preſent, ſeen joyned fruits, poſitively evidencing the ſound work of Repentance in the heart. 2. Moſt part of commentators are of a judgement contrare to that of Pareus, that they were not debarred, ſee theſe on the Margine: *Obſerve, that theſe two verſes, Luk. 7. 29, 30 by ſome are taken to be ſpoken by Chriſt himſelf as part of his diſcourſe concerning Iohn Baptiſt, and ſo our preſent Authors of the Epiſtle take them▪ By others they are taken to be the words of the Evangeliſt, expreſſing the different effect, that Chriſts diſcourſe concerning John had upon diverſe hearers, viz. that the common people and very Publicans hearing that diſcourſe glorified God, having been ſuch as were before baptized of John: but the Phariſees deſpiſed it and rejected it being ſuch as were not baptized by John we will not now diſcuſſe which of the two are moſt probable, the former interpretation is the more common.and true…y to me there appeareth nothing in the Text againſt it, but rather ſome what for it, that theſe Phariſees that came to him then were Baptized by him: for that ſharp objurgation, O generation of vipers, &c. on which weight may be laid, was ſpoken not only to the Phariſees (though in ſpeciall way it was to them) but to the whole multitude of the people. Luke 3. 7. Nay doth not Iohn in the proſecution of this diſcourſe directed in ſpeciall way to the Phariſees ſay, I baptize you? yea as in Mark, I have baptized you? If any ſhall ſay this was not one diſcourſe, with that going before, becauſe Luke ſayeth that he uttered the laſt point as the people were in expectation, and all men muſed in their hearts, &c. I ſay this proveth not that it was another diſcourſe, or that there was any interruption or intervall of time interveening: it onelyonly ſheweth that upon conſideration of theſe thoughts in mens hearts concerning this, as an ſpeciall reaſon, he uttered this point, which yet as appeateth in Matth. and all other interpreters take it, he ſpake alſo for clearing the Doctrine of Baptiſme, to ſhew what belonged to him as the externall Miniſter of it, and what to Chriſt as the principall Cauſe and Author.
section 10 But ſee we how our Authors will prove, that theſe Phariſees that came to John, were not admitted by him, and that upon this ſcore, as not ſeeing (viz. at that time, ſo we muſt circumſtantiate the mater) in them fruits meet for Repentance joyned with their Profeſſion. 'Tis clear (ſay they) if we compare Matth. 3. with Luke 7. 3. the Phariſees were not baptized of John. Anſ. 1. Suppoſe it were granted that this were meant Univerſally of the Phariſees and ſo of thoſe that came to Iohn, Matth. 3. with the reſt: Yet were proven but the half of that which was alleadged, viz. that they were not admitted by him to baptiſme. But nothing is brought for the other half, viz. that it was upon this ſcore, viz. becauſe he ſaw not fruits meet for repentance with their Profeſſion. Might it not be that he admitted them not, not upon that negative ground, but upon this poſitive; Becauſe he ſaw them coming out of curioſitie or maliciouſneſſe, or jeſting, and not ſo much as in ſober ſeriouſneſſe. Nay take theſe verſes, 29. 30. as a continuate part of Chriſts ſpeech concerning Iohn, (as our preſent Authors takes them) and not ſo much is proven, viz. that Iohn refuſed to admit them. They import rather, that they themſelves refuſed to be baptized, deſpiſed and rejected his baptiſme; Then that he refuſed to baptize them deſiring to be baptized, and ſo interpreters commonly, eſpecially thoſe that take theſe verſes to be a part of Chriſts ſpeech, underſtand them. But 2. take theſe verſes as you will, I ſee not how it appears clearly by them, that theſe Phariſees that came to Iohn, Matth. 3. were not baptized by him. For take them as the Evangeliſts words (as it ſeemeth very probable they ſhould be, comparing them with Math. 11. 15. and the beginning of ver. 31. of that 7. of Luke) then they are meant of ſuch Phariſees as were preſent hearing this diſcourſe of Iohn, and the meaning is this much, The Phariſees that were preſent hearing this diſcourſe of Chriſt, not being baptized of Iohn, &c. Now can this be brought to prove that the Phariſees that came to Iohn, Math. 3. were not baptized: unleſſe you will ſay, that all the Phariſees in Judea, yea in the world, were preſent hearing that diſcourſe; Which is neither ſaid in the Text, nor any wayes likely they could be preſent. And take them as a continuate part of Chriſts diſcourſe concerning Iohn, and ſuppoſing alſo that it were meant that Iohn debarred them from baptiſm (the contrary whereof, that themſelves rejected, deſpiſed it, and would not be baptized by himl, is likely to be meant, as we ſaid a little before) yet it is not clear thereby that theſe Phariſees that came to Iohn, Math. 3. were not baptized, becauſe the propoſition is but indefinite, and ſo may be verified tho underſtood particularly; And if ſo, what evidence have we from the words that theſe that came to Iohn were the men. Judicious Interpreters, by name Muſculus and Aretius, expreſly comparing the one place with the other, affirm they are not the ſame particular perſons ſpoken of in both.
section 11 Againſt what is ſaid in the laſt place, our preſent Authors ſay, The ſcope of the context will eaſily refute it: for Chriſt chideth the Phariſees as worſe in this, &c. Anſw. 'Tis eaſier for men to ſay, that their Adverſary is eaſily refuted, then to do it. 1. It is likely as we ſhew before, that in theſe verſes 29, 30. 'tis not Chriſt that ſpeaketh, chiding the Phariſees as worſe that way then the Publicans: But Luke expreſſing how the people and Publicans preſent upon the one hand, and the Phariſees on the other, were affected with Chriſts diſcourſe concernin Iohn. But 2. let them be Chriſts own words, it will not be found by the context that it is Chriſt his ſcope to chide the Phariſees he ſpeaketh of here for this, that coming to be baptized, they came in an incapacity, and for that incapacity were refuſed Baptiſm by Iohn, tho deſirous (which they ſhould have proven, and not begged) but for this, that they would not be baptized by him; For the words are not, that they rejected the counſell of God, and Iohn baptizeth them not, or therefore were not baptized of him: but they rejected the counſell of God, themſelves not being baptized by him foreign. Take theſe words as uttered by Chriſt ſpeaking on in a continuate diſcourſe, And what can a man conceive to be the meaning of them, but this ſimply, that they put away, deſpiſed, rejected the means of ſalvation ordained by God (that is his counſels) and made known by his Miniſter Iohn, and this was an evidence of it, that they were not baptized by him. But, 3. To the point we are on more nearly here; let it be granted which the Authors ſayes, that he chideth the Phariſees for that cauſe they alledged; The co…equence built upon it, to prove that theſe Phariſees that came to Iohn, Mat. 3. were not baptized, is feeble: For it muſt be thus, Chriſt chideth the Phariſees as worſe then the Publicans, for this, that when as the Publicans came in a capacity to be baptized and were baptized. The Phariſees did not ſo: Ergo, none of the Phariſees were baptized, & ſo neither were theſe mentioned, Mat. 3. I deny the conſequence. For the antecedent may be true, and Chriſts chiding the Phariſees, generally, reaſonable and juſt, tho ſome of them had been otherwayes affected and thereupon baptized. As for the reaſon of the conſequence brought by the Authors, if theſe many Phariſees, Mat. 3. 7. &c. The whole ſtrength of it lyes in a ſophiſticall inſinuation, that theſe Phariſees, Mat. 3. becauſe they are ſaid to be many, were the greateſt part of all the Phariſees, and theſe being ſaid to be baptized there were but ſome few beſide, of whom theſe words, Luke 7. 30. (they were not baptized) could be expounded, this I ſay is but a meer ſophiſticall inſinuation: for albeit theſe, Mat. 3. be called many, yet their might been Phariſees many more, ten to one beſide, of whom that Luke 7. 30. might be ſaid. Now conſidering that the Publicans and other ſuch common people tho all of them were not baptized of Iohn, yet generally they ſhew themſelves more obedient and reſpective to the Ordinances Miniſtred by Iohn, as alſo they did unto Chriſt himſelf, then the Phariſees did, albeit ſome of them alſo might been diſobedient to him and not baptized by him, it may be clearly enough ſeen, that the Phariſees were much behind them in this, and that Chriſt might juſtly chide the Phariſees as worſe then the Publicans, for the cauſe mentioned (ſpeaking of them indefinitely) tho all and every one of them had not been in the blame. This is not unuſuall in comparing two ſorts, orders or conditions of perſons, to blame the one as worſe then the other in ſuch a particular reſpect (in an indefinite ſpeech) when the one is more generally blame-worthy that way, then the other, tho, may be, ſome of the party blamed are free of the fault, and ſome of the party commended, may be deep enough in that fault. This much for clearing Iohn Baptiſts procedure in admitting perſons to baptiſm, viz. that he did baptize perſons coming to him upon their firſt profeſſion, withour delay or waiting for diſcoveries of true heart Converſion and Saintſhip in them.
section 12 Having ended this Argument from Iohns order of baptizing, they tell us that, many moe and more preſſing grounds from the Word might be alledged to make forth this point: But we are loath (ſay they) to be tedious: only ſure wee are, holineſſe becomes the Houſe of our God. It is certain our Churches are not conſtitute according to this rule in the full extent of it; Yea alas few of our moſt precious men will acknowledge it to be the rule. Anſw. 1. Albeit the Authors conceiving to their knowledge many moe grounds to be in the Word of God for making forth their point and having ſet down here but ſome few of them, omitting the reſt, might, without incurring the hazard of animadverſion, alledged that they paſſed theſe others, being loath to be tedious, becauſe to wit they were writing an Epiſtle, not a Tractat: Yet their purpoſe being in this Epiſtle, to give an account of their thoughts (as they ſay in the beginning) in this mater to ſome Godly men: I humbly conceive, that when as they ſay, that there might be alledged more preſſing grounds (which I doubt not but they ſpeak as even to their own knowledge) for their point then they have alledged, but they are loath to be tedious by ſetting them down: This cenſure might juſtly be put upon it, that either it is an open writing themſelves with their own pen, knowingly, fooliſh wrongers of their own cauſe; When as purpoſing to pick out ſome few grounds of many, for giving an account of their belief to men, whom they would give ſome ſatisfaction to, and draw to their judgement and ſide, they leave out the grounds that are moſt preſſing for making out their point: But verily I think ſome of them, at leaſt, not ſo ſimple as to have committed wittingly and willingly ſuch an errour; Or it is, give me leave to ſay it, a meer windy word, to ſay the leaſt, inconſideratly uttered. And how ſinfull a thing it is ſo to ſpeak, eſpecially in maters of this kind, they are not ignorant. 2. But is that word, Pſal. 93. ult. Holineſſe becometh thine Houſe for ever, hinted at to cloſe up the mater, one of theſe more preſſing grounds, for making forth their point? O! but firſt this is an Old Teſtament Scripture ſpoken in relation to the then Churches of the Old Teſtament (whatever the place importeth) as well as to the Goſpel Churches. Now why then did you before, as ſeems with your Maſter, reſtrict your Doctrine concerning the qualification of Church-members to the Goſpel Churches? Or if you will now diſown that reſtriction, is it your minde that this Holineſſe you plead for, was alſo the rule of admitting Members to the Viſible Church under the Old Teſtament? Then ſure, Moſes was in a great fault, who walked not by this rule in his practiſe about Church Members as no man can deny. Far be it from you to ſay it, Brethren, when the Lord hath given him a Teſtimony that he was faithfull in all his houſe. 2. We ſhall not here mention the diverſe interpretations of theſe Words of the Pſalm given by ſeverall interpreters (ſee Calv. Pareus in locum) the moſt genuine interpretation I conceive to be; Either to take them, as our Engliſh tranſlation renders them. Holineſſe becometh thine Houſe: and ſo as holding forth the duty of theſe who are the Lords Houſe. Or thus rendring them, to thy houſe beautifull holineſſe, viz. belongeth as their peculiar priviledge beſtowed on them by thee: but whither of theſe wayes they be taken, they make nothing to the Authors point; Not taking them in the latter interpretation, as is evident, the Authors I beleve will not ſay, that God by the efficacy of his Grace works Holineſſe in all and every Member of the Viſible Church. Nor yet taking them in the former; According to which the ſimple meaning of them, is no other but that which is expreſſed in the lateſt edition of the Engliſh Annot. on the place a holy life and converſation becometh them that profeſſe themſelves to be ſervants to ſo great and glorious a Majeſty, and who of us will deny this: this importeth what is the duty of all that profeſſe themſelves to be in ſo neer a relation to God as his Houſe, which is to be Holy in the Truth of the thing or object, and not only ſo to cary it before men as to be eſteemed by them ſuch in charity, which men may doe without the reality or Trueth of the thing. And this we grant, that men profeſſing themſelves the people of God ought in duty, as they would anſwer their profeſſion, to be truely Holy. But what is this to the point of the qualification neceſſarily requiſite in perſons in foro Eccleſiaſtico that they may be admitted to the externall fellowſhip of the Church? Wherefore. 3. we confeſſe our Churches were not conſtitute according to this rule; I mean of the Holineſſe ſpoken of in that paſſage of the Pſalm: Nor indeed could they, nor can ever any Churches in this world be ſo conſtituted: becauſe it is true Holineſſe in the reality and truth of the thing, that is ſpoken of, which falls not under the cognition of the Eccleſiaſtick court, to be a rule of admitting perſons unto the conſtitution of the Viſible Church. 4. I know not well whom they mean by theſe, few at leaſt precious men whom they inſinuate to acknowledge their rule; Except they mean themſelves who have ſinfully ſeparated themſelves from the Church of Chriſt. But I may ſay they have no cauſe to weep and ſay alas for the precious men that will not acknowledge their new rule of conſtituting Viſible Churches: becauſe it is a rule that God never conſtituted for that purpoſe; But they have cauſe to weep and ſay alas (which I pray God of his Grace they may do) for themſelves that they have ſeparated themſelves from the Church of Chriſt upon the very ground that Donatiſts ſeparated of old.
section 13 In the reſt of the former part of their Letter they declare their purpoſe of ſeparating from the Communion of this Church, and their ground of ſo doing, which I follow not here, it being my purpoſe to take unto conſideration only ſo much of their Letter as directly concerneth the preſent Queſtion I had in hand touching the neceſſary qualification of Church members. I doubt not but ſome of theſe men to whom they directed that Letter has returned them a ſufficient Anſwer upon that point of their ſeparation. And one of them has abundantly refuted that ſame point in Print againſt Separatiſts, as many other Orthodox Divines has done the like, not only modern Divines in their writings againſt late Separatiſts; But alſo ancient againſt Donatiſts and Novatians. Certain it is and cannot be denyed by any that has any tollerable inſight in the Ancients that theſe our Authors in their ſeparatiō goes upon that ſame very ground that Donatiſts and Novatians ſeparated of old. It was one of the Errours of theſe, that by fellowſhip with wicked and ungodly men in the Worſhip and Ordinances of God, others are polluted (as we may learn from Cyprian Epiſt. 51. and 52. and Auguſt. in his writings againſt Donatiſts, particularly, contra Epiſtolam Parmeniani) and therefore did ſeparate from all other Churches as defiled with ſuch mixtures, uſing as an Argument and ground for them, that ſame very paſſage brought by theſe preſent Authors for themſelves, 2. Cor. 6. As we ſee by Auguſtin. ad Donatiſt. poſt collationem, cap. 21. cited by us a little before, where the Godly and Learned Ancient does abundantly and ſolidly refute the Donatiſts abuſe of that place, as he does in his ſeverall writs againſt theſe proud Schiſmaticks, all their other Arguments: And I much wonder that theſe our Brethren (I yet ſay if ſo they will ſuffer themſelves to be ſo called by us) ſhould have licked up that Schiſmaticall Doctrine & practice of Donatiſts, ſo univerſally condemned by the ancient Church, and ſolidly refuted by the Orthodox Divines that then were. But it not being my purpoſe at this time to proſecute this part of their Epiſtle, I ſhall cloſe this Appendix, adding only a word or two out of theſe two Ancients I have named concerning this mater. Cyprian. Epiſt. 21. written to 4. Confeſſours who, having been ſeduced into the Novatian ſeparation and ſchiſm, had returned again to the unity of the Church, and ſignified the ſame to Cyprian, thus ſayeth he to theſe Confeſſours. Poſtea quam vos de carcere redeuntes, … maticus & Haereticus error excepit, ſic res erat quaſi veſtra gloria in carcere remanſiſſet. Illic enim veſtri nominis dignitas recediſſe videbatur, quando milites Chriſti non ad Eccleſiam de carcere redierunt in quem prius cum Eccleſiae laude & gratulatione veniſſent: nam & ſi in Ecceſiâ videntur eſſe Zizania non tamen impediri debet aut fides aut charitas noſtra, ut quoniam Zizania in Eccleſia eſſe cernimus, ipſi de Eccleſia recedamus; nobis tantum modo laborandum eſt ut frumentum eſſe poſſimus, ut cum caeperit frumentum Dominicis condi horreis, pro opere noſtro & labore fructum capiamus. Apoſtolus in Epiſtola ſua, 2 Tim. 2. dicit in domo autem magna non tantum vaſa ſunt aurea, &c.—nos operam demus & quantum poſſumus laboremus ut vas aureum vel argenteum ſimus. Caeterum fictilia vaſa confringere Domino ſoli conceſſum eſt, cui & virga ferrea data eſt, eſſe non poteſt major Domino ſuo ſervus nec quiſquam ſibi, quod ſoli filio pater tribuit vendicare ſe putet: ut ad aream ventilandam & purgendam paleam ferre ſe jam poſſe aut à frumento univerſa Zizania humano judicio ſegregare. Superba eſt iſta obſtinatio & ſacrilega preſumptio quam ſibi furor pravus aſſumit: Et dum Dominium ſibi ſemper, pluſquam mitis juſtitia depoſcit, aſſumunt, de Eccleſiâ pereunt, & dum ſe in ſolenter extollunt, ipſo ſuo humore caecati, veritatis lumen amittunt. Here we ſee ſeparation from the Church becauſe of the mixture of naughty perſons ſolidly condemned and noted with a black mark by this Godly Ancient. The like or almoſt the ſame he hath in the Epiſtle immediatly following that former cited. The word I would preſent from Auguſtine is that, contra Epiſtolam Parmeniami, lib. 3. cap. 1. Ab initio cum omnis pia ratio & modus Eccleſiaſticae Diſciplinae unitatem Spiritus in vinculo pacis maxime debeat intueri quod Apoſtolus ſufferendo invicem praecepit cuſtodire, & quo non cuſtodito medicinae vindicta non tantum ſuperflua ſed etiam pernicioſa, & propterea jam nec medicina eſſe convincitur, illi filii mali, qui non odio iniquitatum alienarum, ſed ſtudio contentionum ſuarum infirmas plebes jactantiâ ſui nominis irretitas, vel totas trahere, vel certe dividere affectant, ſuperbia tumidi, per…i…a veſani, calumniis inſidioſi, ſeditionibus turbulenti, ne lucis veritate carere oſtendantur, umbram rigidae ſeveritatis obtendunt, & quae in Scripturis ſanctis ſalva dilectionis ſinceritate & cuſtoditâ pacis unitate ad corrigenda fraterna vitia, moderatiori curatione praecepta ſunt ad Sacrilegium Schiſmatis, & ad occaſionē praeciſionis uſurpant dicentes, ecce ait Apoſtolus, auferte malum ex vobis ipſis. Yea the very univerſall Argument and purpoſe of theſe Books againſt Parmenianus, this Ancient himſelf, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 17. expreſſeth to be this, in tribus libris contra Parmen. Donatiſlarum Carthaginenſis Epiſcopi, ſucceſſoriſque Donati, queſtio magna verſatur & ſolvitur; utrum in unitate & eorundum communione Sacramentorum mali contaminent bonos (which is the very ground whereupon theſe our Brethren builds the neceſſity of their ſeparation) & quemadmodum non contaminent diſputatur propter Eccleſiam toto orbe diffuſam cui calumniando Schiſma fecerunt. If I would bring here all that, that Ancient hath againſt this Tenet and practice of ſeparation of theſe Authors I might tranſcribe the moſt part of all his writings againſt the Donatiſts. Therefore I refer the Reader to the writings themſelves, and beſeeches theſe our Brethren yet in the fear of God and in humility of Spirit to conſider and ponder their way they have run into was condemned, and ſolidely refuted from the Word of God, in theſe ancient Schiſmaticks, by the Godly and Orthodox ancient Doctors of the Church in that time. And now I go on to Mr. Lockiers Appendix.