A little stone, pretended to be out of the mountain, tried, and found to be a counterfeit, or, An examination & refutation of Mr. Lockyers lecture, preached at Edinburgh, anno 1651, concerning the mater of the visible church and afterwards printed with an appendix for popular government of single congregations : together with an examination, in two appendices, of what is said on these same purposes in a letter of some in Aberdene, who lately have departed from the communion and government of this church / by James Wood ...

APPENDIX, Wherein is Examined so much of that Let∣ter 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 God∣ly men in the South, declaring their separation from the com∣munion of the Church of Scotland, upon two points of Controver∣sie between us and these of the Independent way, viz. the consti∣tution of the Visible Church, and the Government thereof, con∣trary to their solemn Vowes made to Almighty God in two Cove∣nants, 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 re∣spect

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 suffici∣ently 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 Ap∣pendix, to the latter in another after our second Part of Mr. Loc∣kiers Examination. The cause why I do this, thus apart in Ap∣pendices, 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 con∣sider 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 be∣fore, they expresse a restriction of this to Gospel Churches. 1. As I conceive Churches of the New Testament, for ought we under∣stand (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 conside∣red. 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 ne∣cessary

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 be∣ing 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 there∣of. 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 ad∣mitted as constitute members of a Visible Church) I would aske them what is the other part of the distinction? What other mem∣bers 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 Go∣spel-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 re∣quired and made a part of the ground of esteeming persons belee∣vers, 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 be∣haviour which is requisite to be a ground of esteeming persons be∣leevers, 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 ma∣ter

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 mem∣bers 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 ex∣perience 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 be∣leevers from the Visible Church. But now I would know whe∣ther they acknowledge such Infants members compleatly, I mean in actu primo, or not? If they say the former, they are at a dis∣agreement with others of the Independent way. If they say the latter, then we must have another distinction of constitute mem∣bers 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 necessa∣ry qualification to make one (of years) fit to be admitted a mem∣ber of the Visible Church, is, together with profession of the truth, such a conversation as may make a man to be esteemed, i. e. po∣sitively 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 in∣to

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 blame∣lesse 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 indu∣ctive 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, justifi∣ed, &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 necessari∣ly 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 ex∣ceptions (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 ano∣ther. We hope when the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 6. 18. flee forni∣cation, 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 ex∣hortation 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 deno∣mination 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 suf∣ficient 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 Chur∣ches expressed here, are to be understood as spoken of them uni∣versally: 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 con∣dition 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. There∣fore,

&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 cal∣led Redeemed by the Apostle: But all these to whom that exhor∣tation 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 Co∣rinth, 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 pe∣culiar 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 obli∣gation, 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 So∣ciety 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 fornica∣tion, 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 exhor∣tation is pressed, vers. 18.) and upon some, by some speciall Ar∣gument 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 as∣sured that they were Redeemed, and had the Spirit of God dwel∣ling 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 Argu∣ment is clear, because otherwise a man might and ought to know and be assured of a lie, concerning his estate, which is deluded pre∣sumption. 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 A∣postle, 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 dwel∣ling in them, they are such as may and ought to be assuredly sen∣sible 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 Pa∣pists 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 judg∣ment 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 ob∣viate thus, Neither hath it any weight with us to the contrair which is objected that there were grosse faults amongst them, as di∣visions,

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 over∣taken with grosse infirmitie, albeit for it he be censurable accor∣ding 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 consi∣deration. The godly Orthodox and ancient Augustine, ad Dona∣tist as post collationem, cap. 21. where disputing against the Dona∣tists maintaining separation from all other Christian Churches, be∣cause 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.

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 al∣ledged 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 car∣nall 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 Co∣rinthians, 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 them∣selves into the Apostles of Christ, Satans Ministers, transfor∣ming themselves as the Ministers of Righteousnesse, whose end should be according to their works. 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 Au∣thors 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 o∣vertaken 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 Au∣thors shown us, or can they shew us any evidence or proof that these mentioned in the Corinth. as guilty of these grosse wicked∣nesses, 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 mi∣stake, when as they take that, 2 Thes, 3. 5. esteem him (it is, ad∣monish 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 Regene∣rating grace; so there is a common brotherhood, in regard of com∣mon 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 e∣nemy. 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 conside∣red

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 pre∣sent 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 Chur∣ches have de facto, such and such persons in them? But now to their second ground: John (say they) thought not a bare ver∣ball 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, he would not, see the reason of my conje∣cture on the Margine) admit the Pharisees who came to him to be baptized, as is clear, comp. Mat. 3. with Luke 7. 30. the Pha∣risees 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 for∣gery. 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 pro∣ceeded

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 joy∣ned 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 con∣versing 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 con∣versation, viz. (as the Authors of this way tell us) omitting no known duty, and committing no known evill, or leading a con∣versation 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 conver∣sation. 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 nei∣ther 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 be∣ing 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. 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 com∣mentators are of a judgement contrare to that of Pareus, that they were not debarred, see these on the Margine: 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 onely 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 be∣longed 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 circumstan∣tiate 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 no∣thing 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 them∣selves 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 evi∣dence have we from the words that these that came to Iohn were the men. Judicious Interpreters, by name Musculus and Are∣tius, 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 Publi∣cans: 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 com∣ing to be baptized, they came in an incapacity, and for that in∣capacity 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, them∣selves not being baptized by him 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. 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 sal∣vation 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 near∣ly here; let it be granted which the Authors sayes, that he chi∣deth 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 other∣wayes 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 in∣sinuation, that these Pharisees, Mat. 3. because they are said to be many, were the greatest part of all the Pharisees, and these be∣ing said to be baptized there were but some few beside, of whom these words, Luke 7. 30. (they were not baptized) could be ex∣pounded, 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 com∣mon people tho all of them were not baptized of Iohn, yet gene∣rally 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 disobe∣dient 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 re∣spect (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 com∣mended, may be deep enough in that fault. This much for clear∣ing Iohn Baptists procedure in admitting persons to baptism, viz. that he did baptize persons coming to him upon their first professi∣on, withour delay or waiting for discoveries of true heart Conver∣sion 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 accor∣ding 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. Al∣beit 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 con∣ceive, 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 cen∣sure 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 pres∣sing 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 qualificati∣on 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 Vi∣sible 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 di∣verse interpretations of these Words of the Psalm given by severall interpreters (see Calv. Pareus in locum) the most genuine in∣terpretation 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. be∣longeth 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 effi∣cacy 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 ne∣cessarily requisite in persons in foro Ecclesiastico that they may be admitted to the externall fellowship of the Church? Where∣fore. 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 rea∣lity and truth of the thing, that is spoken of, which falls not un∣der the cognition of the Ecclesiastick court, to be a rule of admit∣ting 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 Let∣ter 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 separa∣tion. 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 Se∣paratists; But also ancient against Donatists and Novatians. Cer∣tain it is and cannot be denyed by any that has any tollerable in∣sight in the Ancients that these our Authors in their separatiō goes upon that same very ground that Donatists and Novatians separa∣ted 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, parti∣cularly, 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 Au∣gustin. 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 refu∣ted 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 glo∣ria in carcere remansisset. Illic enim vestri nominis dignitas re∣cedisse videbatur, quando milites Christi non ad Ecclesiam de car∣cere

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 Domi∣no 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 ventilan∣dam & purgendam paleam ferre se jam posse aut à fru∣mento 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 ex∣tollunt, 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 Ecclesiasti∣cae Disciplinae unitatem Spiritus in vinculo pacis maxime debeat intueri quod Apostolus sufferendo invicem praecepit custodire, & quo non custodito medicinae vindicta non tantum superflua sed eti∣am perniciosa, & propterea jam nec medicina esse convincitur, illi filii mali, qui non odio iniquitatum alienarum, sed studio con∣tentionum 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 & custodi∣tâ 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 ip∣sis. 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. Donatisla∣rum Carthaginensis Episcopi, successorisque Donati, questio magna versatur & solvitur; utrum in unitate & eorundum com∣munione 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 fe∣cerunt. If I would bring here all that, that Ancient hath against this Tenet and practice of separation of these Authors I might tran∣scribe the most part of all his writings against the Donatists. There∣fore 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 condem∣ned, 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 M^r. Lockiers Appen∣dix.

Notes

• In eodem quippe ipso po∣pulo Corin∣thiorū quod dicimus demonstra∣mus ne forte arbitrentur prophetarum tantummodo moris fuisse. & non ad Novi Test∣sed ad V•…•…e∣ris consuetu∣dinem perti∣nere, s••c ar∣guere repre∣hensibiles quasi omnes in eo populo, arguantur, & sic allo qui laudabiles quasi omnes illi la••dan∣tur. Ecce & ad Corin∣thlos sic A∣postalus lo∣quitur. Paulus vocatus Iesu Christi per voluntatem Dei. & Sosthene•• frater Ecclesiae quae est Corinthi san∣ctificatis in Iesu Christo vocatis sanctis. Quis haec avdiens credat in Ecclesia Corinthiorum esse ali∣quos 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 Ic∣su, 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.
• Martyr in loc. Eos non omni notitia Dei exuit: sed tantum loquitur de ea notitia quae salutaris est & ad re∣generatio∣nem condu∣cit, ignorare autem Deum hoc nomine se satis de∣clarabant, quod resur∣rectiomè in∣ficiahantur.
• For if it be, he could not, it must be meant de jure, as we say, il∣lud possumus quod de jure possumus. For to de∣ny that Physicè he could were but false & imperti∣nent: but that were to beg the question: for now they are reasoning from his fact or pra∣ctice to conclude the jus or rule, there∣fore know∣ing some of the Au∣thors acure enough to see such a thing, I conceive, it has been first writ∣ten would not, and that the o∣ther is an escape of the tran∣scriber.
• Muscu∣lus, Hum. Aret. Calv. also though he expres∣seth not this in for∣mal words as those, yet his whole dis∣course up∣on the text, materially speaks it clearly e∣nough.
• 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, ex∣pressing the different effect, that Christs discourse concerning John had upon diverse hea∣rers, 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.