well as of particulars and we conceive that the edification of the whole is more fairly aimed at by requiring this general conference though with the present denial of the Supper to some few that may be worthy then by giving the same to such with the hazard of all order and discipline 2. Yet if this conference be scrupled at with seeming seriousnesse there is as before provision made for the admission of such as are unsuspected without it but more plainly though such upon the foresaid gounds as also because of that liberty the Church hath for the choice of fit and convenient seasons may be kept off a while yet I conceive if they make a modest and not a turbulent or scandalous claime they may not be totally or finally meerly for want of submitting to conference of which they may also shew their reasons be cut off or denied the Sacrament prudence may a while with-hold possession but it cannot for ever dispose of right And now I hope reasonable men will at least be favourable in their censures of us and our intentions if not satisfied with our processes Our most ingenious candid Countrey-man I am sure is not at much distance with me though the gulph betwixt us were somewhat greater then thus it is with whose words I shall conclude and yeeld the end of this digression If there were saith he no other gulph betwixt us but the necessity we plead but the conveniency of examination of our knowledge in order to Mr. Morris p. 78. our Admission to the Sacrament we might sooner come together CHAP. XL. We may not proceed against wicked brethren but by discipline and censures HItherto of our Churches and Sacraments some few inferences more added touching discipline and censures will put a speedy period to the whole Touching censures I inferre from my great Proposition thus If saving grace go not into the essence of the visible Church but wicked persons and such as as have no evidence of saving grace may be truely members of the visible Church Then 1. We may not proceed against wicked Church-members but by discipline or censure 2. Nor reckon them without until they are made such by censure or cast out 3. We are bound to proceed against all such wicked Church-members in a course of censure Of these in their order 1. We may not proceed against wicked Church-members but by What order hath God left in his Church to keep his Ordinances from contempt R. The unruly should be admonished the obstinate excommunicated the penitent after their fall restored and comforted Hier catech p. 87. censure Supposing that we have finished our discourse of the Churches proceedings against the ignorant which is not by censure and that we are now considering the Churches way of proceeding against the wicked as such or for their wickedness or their wicked conversation the ground of this inference is very plaine for wicked persons being supposed to be Church-members at least till cast out and therefore to be dealt with onely as such they are not to be proceeded against but by censure for this reason because the way and the onely way that Christ hath appointed and allowed to his Church to proceed in against all her members in point of conversation is the way of censure or discipline which I presume did never yet receive a question much lesse contradiction from any sober or learned man and which is abundantly testified unto by the universal practice of all the Churches of all the several modes and formes of Churches in the world for what Churches did ever proceed against any member of her own for scandal or wickednesse in any other way but the way of discipline or censure or what other way can there be imagined or ventured on to be asserted Quest But what is meant by censure Answ Censure here is not taken in the large and broad sense of it but in its strict and ecclesiastical sense or as it is peculiar to the Churches jurisdiction and properly termed Church-censure and it may be defined thus Church-censure is an instrument of discipline whereby personal Censure defined Application of the Will of God is made for the removing of scandals It is an Instrument of discipline for Ames teacheth discipline is personalis applicatio per censuras In preaching of the Word the Will of God is really applied but yet generally or indefinitely c. not personally in administring the Sacraments the will of God is personally applied also yet by seals but now the Wil of God in the exercise of discipline is applied by censures The subject both of the scandal and of the censure must of necessity be in ecclesia or within or a brother if thy brother Mat. 18. 15. and consequently the party offended and censuring must be a brother too The sinne of a brother qua scandalous or offensive is the onely ground reason and object of this censure offend thee or sinne against thee Mat. 18. 15. Now there is no other course left by Christ for brethren or Church-members or the Church as such to recover satisfaction from a brother but this way of personal applying the will of Christ unto him as Ames expresseth it but by censures But to make this more evident and to cut the remaining work The parts of censure short let us consider this discipline or censure in its parts which as Aimes hath laid the division for us are these two fraternal correption or admonition and excommunication Admonition is taken simply and largely for a moral duty as Admonition twofold simple and respective it is pressed Levit. 19. 17. and in many other Scriptures or respectively to excommunication or discipline and limited or restrained to the Church and grounded upon the positive precept of Christ Matth. 18. 15 16 17. the first is indeed a personal application of the will of Christ but no Church-censure the last is the first personal application of the Will of Christ by censure or the first act or kinde of Church-censure Give me leave to note the difference here which I conceive Simple admonition no Chuâ—ch-censure may be of use a little plainer the first simple large and moral admonition cannot well be called a Church-censure or any part of Christian discipline 1. Because we stand obliged to it by the Law of nature but so we are not to any part of Christian-discipline as such 2. Therefore all mankinde are bound unto it though none but the Church have to do with Ecclesiastical discipline Yet I humbly conceive that this absolute and moral duty of Yet it hath its use in the Church for sins of infirmity which Church censuremedleth not with admonition hath its use in the Church also viz. for sinnes of infirmity and sinnes of a weaker and more inconsiderable offensivenesse then to be proceeded against by discipline unlesse grosse obstinacy be also added which obstinacy is then the scandal and the object of censure rather then the
really a God but because he may not or cannot be seen i. e. with mortal eyes SECT III. Visibility applied to the Church We may apply this distinction of visibility briefly in three particulars 1. In the latter sense onely visibility is given to the Church in the subject of the question viz. as it seemes to be what indeed and truth it is otherwise there appeareth contradictio in terminis I meanes in the terms of the question for then the question would be whether that Church which onely seemeth to be and is not really so may be considered to be really a Church of Christ therefore the forme of the question heeded supposeth this viz. that the visible Church is truely and really a Church of Christ and onely questioneth whether it may be considered to be so without respect to saving grace indeed a member or part of the visible Church may be such either really or onely in shew and seemingly but this cannot be said of the whole 2. Visibility is usually given to the Church by divines by Prop. 2. a Metaphor from sense to Reason The sight of the Church as they conceive being rather rational then sensitive and 't is rather termed visible quia rationabilis because it may be known and discerned it not being seen so much by the eye quam intellectu mente ratione as Divines speak Though I humbly conceive that this must rather be understood of the Church as true or of God or Christ then as a Church for as it is a Church or a Congregation of men professing religion so it is also evident to sense visibilis as Ames visu scilicet vel sensu externo Medul p. 165. Though visibility be opposed to invisibility it followeth not that because the question specified a Church visible therefore Prop. 3. we grant a Church invisible also properly so called no more then because there is a white swan therefore there is a black Yet I intend not to deny the Church invisible onely the subject of my question is not this but the Church-visible SECT IV. The nature of the Church I shall now as briefly as I can offer my notion of this visible Church so far as I conceive the present debate requireth viz. touching the nature and the common distribution of it into visible and invisible 1. The nature of the Church I conceive to be 1. Integral 2. Aggregative This distinction together with the application of both parts of Medul p. 167. sect 5. it to the Church may be easily collected from Ames himselfe and Trelcatius also teacheth that the Church both as visible and invisible hath integral parts and is consequently totum integrale Instit p. 214 â—um p. 220. and yet that the Church is in the number of those things which Logicians call aggregative 1. Then first the Church is an integrum and consequently The Church is an Integrum of an individual and singular and not an universal nature it containing plura membra constituentia ipsum realitèr whereby it doth actually exist extra animam or in it selfe The Church is integral for it hath a plurality of parts these parts are integral and these parts are united and consequently 't is singular for by a union of integral parts 't is unum and doth really exist and omne quod est vel existit eo ipso quia est singulare est and consequently 't is not universal in a Metaphisical or logical sense for universale doth not exist as such out of the minde and totum universale is distinct in kinde from totum integrale therefore the universal Church is not properly a genus nor particular Churches the species thereof but rather as Ames Ibid. hath clearly taught us members of the Catholick quae habet rationem integri Indeed Ames saith that a particular Church is species ecclesiae Ibid. in genere but let us first note the difference he there puts betwixt ecclesia in genere and ecclesia catholica and secondly the Ames his difference twixt ecclesia in genere and ecclesia catholica ground or reason assigned by himself of this assertion and my position will be still found to stand firm 1. His difference betwixt ecclesia in genere and ecclesia catholica is most apparent in his own words saith he a particular Church is species ecclesiae in genere but respectu ecclesiae catholicae 't is membrum c. so that nothing can be gathered from these words to conclude the Catholick Church to be a genus or a totum universale but indeed the contrary that it is not so but that as before was noted the Catholick Church habet rationem integri 2. The reason upon which Ames asserts a particular Church to be species ecclesiae in genere is that common nature which is found in all particular Churches but is this reason sufficient to denominate the Church a genus or particular Churches species thereof I humbly conceive not for then all those things which partake of the same common nature must specifically differ and every drop of water partaking of the common nature that is in all other drops of water must be species aquae Indeed everything which partaks of the common nature or genus Things may partake of the common nature of one another onely then they specifically differ or of their differences also and then numerically only onely of another thing doth differ specifically from that other thing and is species of that common nature or genus but if a thing partaketh not onely of the common nature of another but also of its difference it is granted thereby to have both its genus and differentia and consequently the same definition which cannot competere with things specifically differing Thus I conceive a particular Church partaking not onely of the common nature of all other particular Churches but also of their differentia they ought to have the same definition and having the same matter and the same forme too they are the same essentially and differ onely as Logicians speak Numerically But so farre as I understand this controversie 't is wholly spent about the true meaning of logical termes and wholly issues in this notion whether Ramus doth well to assert homo to be genus or not worthy of any much lesse an eager contest in Divinity unlesse we could descry some more dangerous consequences attending upon either conclusion then are yet discovered For my part while Ames maintaineth this difference 'twixt Ames asserteth both the Catholick and particular Church to be Integrum ibid. ecclesia in genere and ecclesia catholica as before was noted and grants that ecclesia catholica hath rationem integri and a particular Church est etiam integrum I am sure my position stands that the nature of the Church is integral and then whether the notion Church be a genus or not is hardly worth a dispute seeing that it existeth not out of the integral i. e. universal
so but though the Church may be sometimes obscured it never loseth its visibility or ceaseth to be visible So Ames ecclesia nunquam planè desinit esse visibilis Med. p. 166. 39 quamvis enim aliquando viz usquam appareat ecclesia tam pura c. ecclesia tamen aliquo modo visibilis exist it in illa ipsa impuritate cultus professionis which we may take in English in those pertinent words of Master Fox the right His protestation before his Acts and Monuments Church saith he is not so invisible in the world as none can see it The Scripture-Church is most properly the Church of Christ this none can well deny But now the visible Church is the Scripture-Church as appeares from the Doctrine of Scripture about the Church the examples the parts the Ordinances and number of Scripture-Churches First the Doctrine of the Scripture about the Church is generally such as agreeth onely with the Church-visible viz. as made up of tares and wheat good and bad Elect and reprobate c. Yea the very word Church in Scripture as some affirme is not more then once taken for the Church-invisible which is Heb. 12. 23. though that very place is by some Reverend Divines understood of the Church-visible also for it was already come into by persons then alive ye are come therefore the Church on earth and it was a Church that had Ordinances in it v. 25. therefore the visible But if it should be granted as Master Blake observes that in this place and in two or three more the Scripture meaneth the Church invisible which is as much as can be pretended unto yet doubtlesse that which is the ordinary language of the holy Ghost which he useth most often and almost always is that which is most proper 2. It also appears from the examples of Scripture-Churches De quâ solâ ecclefiâ praesumptivâ c. Dav. Detern p. 218. ex spalatensi for have not even all these a mixture of corrupt and wicked members and is such a mixture compatible with the Church invisible or what Churches can such be but visible therefore saith Davenant all such Scriptures and assertions of the fathers as speak of this mixture of good and bad in the Church are to be understood of the presumptive or visible Church 3. It further appeares by the parts of the Scripture-Church which are generally such as are onely to be found in the visile Church that the Scripture-Church is the visible Church The parts of the Scripture-Church are generally Priest and people Pastors and flock the Rulers and the ruled the Catechisers and the catechized and the like as both the Old and New Testament abundantly testifie Now in the Church invisible there are no such parts no such relations no such officers but all are members but Christ the head therefore the Scripture-Church wherein these parts and officers as such are viz. Priests Prophets Apostles Bishops Pastors Elders Deacons Rulers Cetechizers c. must needs be the visible Church Fourthly that the Scripture-churche is the visible Church appears moreover by the dispensation of Ordinances fixed therein which is proper and peculiar to the visible Church in all the Scripture-Churches we finde a dispensation of the Word Sacraments discipline the dispensation whereof is in the hands of men who are onely capable of dealing with the Church as visible yea the dispensation it self is visible and all will readily grant that these Ordinances are all of them peculiar to the visible Church the attendance of the Church upon them being the most eminent and remarkable meanes of rendring the Church her self to be visible Lastly this yet farther appears from the number of the Scripture-churches they are many the Church at Rome Corinth Galatia Ephesus Colosse Philippi Thessalonica Pergamus Thyatira c. Whereas the invisible Church is also indivisible 't is but one and not to be divided into any more therefore the Scripture-church which is thus actually divided must needs be the visible Church Arg. 5. My last Argument is taken from the Name Church and may be this The visible Church in its nature doth not properly answer to the name Church therefore it is most properly the Church for that thing which doth in its nature most properly answer to such a name must needs be the thing most properly which that name doth signifie Now the nature of the visible Church may be observed to answer to the name Church in a most proper signification both in English Latine Greek and Hebrew 1. In English the word Church doth in a true and direct propriety of speech signifie nothing but that which is the Lords and may be conceived to imply the Lords people or the Lords house Die Kyrchen nuxcupant ipsum Dei populum Domum in quo hic congregatur ad cultum Dei Vid. Bul. Dec. p. 135. it seemes to be taken from the German word Kurch which also alludeth haply to the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dominica which as Bullinger observes they used to understand both of the people and the house of the Lord where the people of the Lord used to assemble and indeed of both as they have relation one to the other Now if the name Church intend the people of the Lord meeting together in one place to attend on the worship of God we need not much trouble our selves for its proper application to the visible Church 2. In Lattine the Church is called Congregatio the Congregation or the people gathered together answering haply to the Hebrew which may also be here taken notice of Katial 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Congregavit Now doth not this name also most properly agree with the nature and reason of the visible Church is it not a local gathering together that most properly constitutes a Congregation and is not this most proper to the particular and consequently to the visisible Church therefore is she also called an Assembly a body a City a Kingdom none of which but most properly resemble the Church as visible 3. Lastly the Church in Greek is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which most directly imports a people called out of the world as anon more largely Indeed the term from or out of which the Church is called is not expressed in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet all agree that it is as necessarily implied in it Now this sense of the word Church most properly and exactly intendeth the Church-visible this being most apparently and properly called out of the world as easily appeareth For the world here must be understood to be either the world of the ungodly or the world of infidels but it cannot be understood of the world of the ungodly because there is still a mixture of the Church and the world in this sense according to that of our Saviour I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world then if the world out of which the Church is called be
their opinions with those that directly and in very termes renounce it so neither savours it of much charity or indeed justice that wicked men that directly professe the faith both vocally with their mouth and really by attending on the Ordinances of God be equally condemned with Apostates and Hereticks that rase the very foundation of all religion though in works they deny him Therefore such as stand baptized into the faith of Christ and yet remaine in visible Communion with the Church and do not renounce the faith of Christ either with their mouths or in the intent and purpose of their hearts cannot onely by their disobedience or wicked lives as I shall anon labour to prove unchurch themselves or declare themselves as some would rather say to be no true members of the visible Church There are in the Church such as 1. Seem and are not 2. Are and seem not 3. Are and seeme and Distinct 6 are none visi not seen 4. Are and seem and are seene also He that is and seemes not is a David in desertion he that seemes and is not is a Judas betraying with a kisse he that is and seemes and is not seen is a Saint in a cave he that is and seems and is seen also is I presume not onely the man savingly qualified professing the same before men but our ordinary professour and Church-member that usually attends upon visible communion with the Church though wanting saving grace The same persons in divers respects may seem to be what They are Distinct. 7 They are not Or the same persons may be said in one respect to be hypocrites and in another respect true beleevers so that though we are wont to condemn all for hypocrites that professe Religion without real holinesse yet I suppose I shall not erre if I say we ought to do it not without caution and limitation I confesse that if not all that thus professe Religion without saving grace yet most of them are hypocrites in that they pretend if not seem to be what they are not viz. savingly qualified and I humbly offer whether it be not in this sense that Divines generally charge such professours as have no saving grace with the sin of Hypocrisie even because they pretend to have that Mr. Perkins speaking of temporary beleevers on Luk. 8. 13. saith these though they are not sound yet they are void of that grosse kind of hypocrisie Their mindes are enlightned their hearts are endued with such faith as may bring forth these fruits for a time and therefore herein they dissemble not but rather shew that which they have His Ep. to the Reader before his Treatise tending unto a declaration of a mans estate grace and interest in Christ or as they would say in the true mysticall invisible Church which indeed they have not But let us seriously consider can either they or we with any colour of reason or justice adjudge men to be hypocrites farther then they are so or for professing themselves to be what indeed they are though also they should professe themselves to be what they are not may not men be so far illightened as to know and beleeve the Scriptures really and yet not be so far sanctified as to believe effectually to salvation and may he not professe this faith which he truely hath though he also professe and pretend to more and is he not a true beleever and a true professour so far as he hath though false and hypocritical in professing more and to be accounted a true Beleever as to the Church visible though a hypocrite as to the Church invisible A hypocrite is one that pretendeth or seemeth to be what he is not but when men that have no saving grace pretend or seeme to be visible Church-members relatively holy Gods Covenant-people common believers c. they pretend and seeme to be what in truth they are therefore thus farre they are no hypocrites but true beleevers so far as they truely beleeve and true men so far as they professe But what they thus truely believe and what they truely are The devil is an hypocrite while he professeth himself an Angel of light but when he acknowledgeth what he truely believeth that there is a God and that he is a fearful avenger of wicked spirits and that Christ is the Sonne of God c. in this the devil is no hypocrite so what is good in wicked men is still good and what is true in them is still true notwithstanding all the evil and falshood that they are guilty of Their hypocrisie in one respect cannot destroy their reality and truth in any other In a word a hypocrite as such cannot possibly be truely a member of any Church whether it be visible or invisible for that which is false as such can never be true so he that pretends to saving grace and interest in the Church invisible if his pretence to that saving grace be false his interest in this invisible Church cannot be true and likewise he that pretends to the common faith and yet doth really renounce it cannot possibly be a true member of the visible Church yet one that is an hypocrite as to the Church invisible may in another sense be a true beleever and have a real interest in the visible Church accordingly CHAP. IV. Arg. 1. From the Etymology or the Name of the Church HItherto of the Termes of the question and the sense thereof by what I have already intimated I am bound to adhere unto the affirmative part which turneth it selfe into this Thesis The visibly Church may be considered to be truely a Church of Christ without respect to saving grace Thus I shall now proceed as the Lord shall assist me to prove from these five considerable places or heads of Argument viz. the Etymology of the Church visible Causes of the Church visible Definition of the Church visible Testimony on my side Absurdity on the contrary First then as method requires we shall set down the Etymology of the Church and argue from it The name or word signifying Church in the Greek original which is generally allowed to be argued from is known to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which primitively derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and more immediately from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contained in it both Calling and calling out a right improvement of each of these I presume wil help us with its Argument SECT I. My first Argument then ariseth from the calling that we find Arg. 1 included in the name and is indeed inseparable from the nature Primum illud quod actu eccle siam constituit est vocatio unde nomen definitionem suam accepit ecclesia enim est coetus hominum vocatorum Med. 161 162 Inter Orthodoxos qui ecclesiam definium coetum electorum vel per electos intelligunt secundum electionem vocatos vel non ecclesiam quae actu existit Medul 161 of the Church thus Arg. 1. The Church
and the called are of equal latitude But the called may be considered to be truely so without respect to saving grace therefore the Church c. That the Church and the called are of equal latitude is not only confirmed by the Etymology of the Church but is the evident consent of all Divines wherefore Amesius tells us that the first thing which constitutes the Church actually is calling and that the Church hath not onely its Name but its definition from calling who also desineth the Church to be a company of men called Yea so strict is Amesius in this point that he concludeth the very Elect are not of the Church either visible or invisible but as they are called and by consequence that the Church is made up of the called as distinguished not onely to those that are not called in general but particularly to the Elect. Trelcatius expresly saith that external calling is the very forme Forma ecclesiam visibilem constituens est vocatio illa externa quam mediatè Deus efficit Inst Theol p. 223. that constitutes the visible Church The assumption viz. that the called may be considered to be truely so without respect to saving grace appears 1. In the evidence of our Saviours known words many are called and few chosen 2. Of the very nature of a true call 1. Those whom Christ affirmeth to be called are truely called let Christ be true but Christ affirmeth some to be called that They are called foro Christi not onely foro ecclesiae have no saving grace for he saith that many are called and but few chosen therefore more are called then are chosen then some are called that are not chosen then some are called that neither now have nor yet ever shall have any saving grace unless the reprobates may Therefore some are truely called that have no saving grace and if so doubtlesse none will stick to grant but that they may be considered to be truely so without respect to saving grace 2. This appears from the nature of a true call which doth truely consist without saving grace as is easily manifest by a due distribution thereof Calling is Active or direct Passive or reflex and this Partialis Totalis Common Saving The direct or active calling is such a calling as is not answered by the persons called upon whereby though indeed they are called upon they are not in the Scripture sense called this hardly any can think doth render the persons called upon truely a Church thus Paul called the Athenians but yet left them as he found them not a Church of Christ but of Satan viz. Idolaters this call seeing it obtaineth no part of its end at all I presume to terme vocatio mefficax or as Master Baxter hath well Englished The calling which is common to Pagans is vocation uneffectual The reflex or passive calling is such as terminates effectually in the persons called upon which is when persons both hear and answer the word calling suffering themselves to be called and brought unto God thereby this in general I presume to terme effectual calling as it stands in opposition to the former call which is not at all effectual and also as this sheweth it self most exactly and prâ—fitably effectual for its most direct and prâ—per end a calling and gathering a people to God Indeed this which I terme effectual calling is twofold it being effectual either onely in common or also in saving effects The first to wit that calling which onely reacheth unto common effects is that by which persons are called out of the world to renounce all false Gods and to professe the true God according to the true Religion and thus to become truely members of the visible Church and of the number of the many called in the Text and therefore I humbly desire that two things may be here noted 1. That though some please to terme this kinde of call partialis it must onely be understood with respeact to that other saving work which belongs to the next branch of the distribution and not at all with respect to the work specified or the calling to be truely members of the visible Church which doubtlesse is perfectly and totally done by the true and genuine efficacy of this which we terme a common call Secondly let it be further noted therefore that when we say this common call is effectual to common effects we mean onely such effects as are common to the Elect and Reprobate but not common to the Church and the world but special and peculiar to the Church alone wherein more are called then are elected The second sort of effectual calling to wit that which worketh saving effects is indeed though not more truely effectually yet more gradually and further if not specifically more effectual then the former for it bringeth men not an ecclesiastical but also to a mystical and saving union with Jesus Christ and by that which is opposed to the common faith which is said to be wrought by the former common call and is usually called justifying or saving faith which is called by those which terme the call partialis vocatio totalis and is as I conceive plainly implied in the chosen in the text fore-cited few are chosen i. e. few are called as Amesius expresseth it according to election The distribution being thus laid two things are briefly to be done in order to a fit application thereof and then I have ended this first Argument 1. To Apologize for this which to some may seeme a new sense of the common distinction of calling into effectual and ineffectual 2. To evince this common call to be truely a call For the first of these the distribution forelaid seeming so rational to my self and so adequate to the meaning if not to the very termes of most Divines I hope little need be said yet 1. I must confesse it is somewhat rare for Divines to terme the common calling effectual calling yet I presume it is as seldome termed ineffectual Trelcatius gives the term efficax onely unto the saving call yet he doth not term the common call opposed by himself in the very same place unto the saving and as he stileth it effectual call in efficax 2. Yea though Trelcatius doth not terme this common call efficax he doth evidently imply that it may be lawfully termed so he tells us that externa vocatio is that quam mediatè Deus efficit Now if this common or external call be that which doth efficere it may doubtlesse be properly said to be effectual yea more Instit p. 114. plainly in another place he teacheth that efficacitas vocationis est duplex una salutaris electorum propria Altera non salutaris sed praevia secundum ordinem communem ad vocatos communiter spectans so that there is an efficacy in the common call which is not saving and therefore this common call is efficax 3. However a Learned Authour of our own viz. Reverend Master Baxter hath authorized
sometimes fit and sometimes not fit when the Church is an actual meeting and not fit when she hath adjourned to another time Therefore this definition a society called out of the world to the worship of the true God being fit to expresse the nature both of the universal and the particular visible Church and that at all times and states thereof it may I think be yeelded to be a proper definition thereof Now to draw up this discourse I shall onely further intimate that the definition of the visible Church may be truely considered to be such and truely applicable to the visible Church without any respect to saving grace as appears to the very first glance of our observation from the definition fix'd upon viz. that it is a society of men called â—ut of the world to the worship of God who will be so ventrous as to question either the fitness of this definition or its applicablenesse to the visible Church without respect to saving grace For 1. All the parts that are either essential or necessary or fit for this definition of the Church have appeared before to be thus truely applicable thereunto without respect to saving grace therefore the whole is so likewise 2. All particular definitions now mentioned except one are to be truely considered without respect to saving grace without any colour of question much lesse controversie and that one viz of Ames is nothing against us seeing Ames his judgement is for us and himself alloweth such persons a place in the Church as he will not allow if we understand him any place in the definition of the Church as before is noted 3. Therefore these very Authours take occasion to acquaint us that the Church which they thus define containeth Hypocrites as well as the Elect and that with the joint consent of the reformed Divines which I doubt not abundantly to make to appear when we speak upon the head of humane Testimony CHAP. XVI Objections answered and the true sense of the reformed Divines considered who say the invisible Church is onely the true Church BEfore we passe on to that way of arguing termed inartificial namely from authority we think fit to consider a few objections which may be called artificial and leave the other Objections which arise from Scripture and the judgement of the Church to be handled I think more methodically after my arguments thence The first and indeed the onely considerable objection against me is this Object 'T is confest that there is but one true Church 't is also confest that the invisible Church is one true Church but now the Church invisible cannot be considered to be truely such without respect to saving grace therefore neither the Church visible Answ I answer that in general this argument is justly exceptible against because before it reacheth the conclusion of my opponent it evidently concludeth that which I presume himself renounceth viz. that the visible Church is in no respect at all either with or without saving grace to be truely a Church of Christ that this is the first conclusion of the argument is most obvious from the two first propositions 1. 'T is said there is but one true 2. The invisible is one true Church What now doth force it self from hence but therefore the visible is no visible Church somewhat a strange conclusion unknown I think to all the ages of the Church before us and such as imposed upon the providence of God to have entrusted this whole worship and Ordinances in the hands of a false Church 2. Hereby also we have a quick dispatch of the present controversie for what need we reach any further after the thing before us viz. whether the visible Church may be considered to be truely a Church of Christ without this respect to saving grace if it be first concluded that there is no visible Church at all 3. But more directly I answer by denying at least one of these things either 1. That the one true Church is the Church invisible Or 2. That though the one true Church be invisible yea and this invisible Church cannot be considered to be truely such without respect to saving grace yet it followeth not that the visible Church may not be considered to be truely a Church of Christ without respect to saving grace 1. I might deny with fairnesse enough that the one true Church is properly the Church invisible until my arguments above for the contrary are answered till when the present objection can challenge no answer 2. But here I shall rather deny the consequence and that though I grant the invisible Church to be the onely true Church and that this cannot be truely considered as such without respect to saving grace yet the visible Church is a true Church and may be considered to be truely such without respect to saving grace the reason is because these attributes of visible and invisible though they are given to the same subject the Church yet in diverse respects which appears by this argument if they are to be taken in the same respect and visibility be as none will deny an inseperable adjunct of the Church then there is no invisible Church for to say as Ames saith the Church never ceaseth to be visible and there is an invisible Church if visible and invisible here be to be taken in the same respect is a plaine contradiction now the consideration of the divers respect wherein the same Church is said to be visible and invisible detects the fallacy of the former Argument thus the Church with respect to its saving faith and to those persons that have this saving faith is said to be invisible this faith being not seen and these persons not to be certainly known And againe the same Church with respect to its profession and the persons therein that own the same in the eyes of the world is truely said to be visible So that though there be but one Church there is a Church invisible and a Church visible And again though this Church as invisible cannot be considered to be truely such without respect to saving grace seeing it is therefore said to be invisible because of its saving grace and the subjects thereof cannot be seen or certainly known by men yet this Church in its visible consideration or as it is the visible Church may be considered to be truely such without respect to saving grace seeing that which renders it thus visible hath no necessary dependance upon saving grace as Reverend Hudson saith well the Church is considered to be visible and invisible à duplici modo communionis externae internae visible with respect to its external way of communion which doth not suppose saving grace and invisible with regard to its internal way of communion which doth suppose saving grace This is doubtlesse the plaine sense of the reformed Protestant Churches as is clearly stated by that eminent patron thereof Med. p. 165 Dr. Ames his words are known The Militant Church
beast being an animated creature as well as a man without the specification or essential quality of reason added However indeed 't is such a soul that is the forme of man not a soul in general nor yet reason in abstract consideration from soul but the soul as such or the reasonable soul so in the case before us the forme of the Church lieth in a society so qualified or intended or as such yet still a community though as Ames saith a community that looks at communion in the worship of God Yet lastly that I may not seem to acquiesce in my own sense and also that I may if possible attaine the genuine notion of the reformed Divines in the point I shall not stick to say that Essential here is not the attribute of totum or opposed to integral but of forma and opposed to accidental Essential forme is also used here in a large sense for the substantial form of any real thing and accordingly applicable to compositum agregativum as wel as essentiale strictly taken In all visible assemblies many bad are mingled with the good and therefore of necessity we must allow another Church wherto they properly belong which can be none but an invisible Church White his way to the true Church I yet perceive no great absurdity to be incurred if one should assert that a double acceptation of an aggregative body may make a supposition of a double forme and they both essential Give me leave to explicate my meaning by the former distinction of the Church as largely and strictly taken each of which acceptation I conceive will bear its distinct definition and consequently may be supposed to have its distinct essential form so far as this diverse acceptation will hold A heap of stones wherein there are many precious stones may be taken strictly for a heap of precious stones and largely for a heap containing both the precious and the common Now if this heape be defined exactly according to both these acceptations who would not see a formal difference betwixt them the one must be exclusive of all the common and the other must generally agree unto and receive in both the common and precious Thus if we define the Church as consisting onely of the Elect and againe if we define it as such a society as agreeth to both the Elect and reprobate must not the definitions differ as much as the Elect and reprobate i. e. specifically for in the latter the Elect and reprobate are found to agree in one common bond or fellowship which by the former is utterly dissolv'd Yet this doth not make two distinct Churches farther then in our consideration the reason thereof is plaine because the Church is a society made up of heterogeneous parts or parts specifically differing in their proper natures and this various acceptation thereof doth strictly consider and define onely one part or largely takes the whole together yet all the while there is no real separation of these Churches but the one still remaineth the whole and the other is but a part if largely considered we may consider the precious apart and the common apart and we may define it as a heap of precious stones and as such a heap as containeth in it stones both common and precious and yet there is but one real heap and the heap taken strictly is but part of of the heap taken largely This matter may be plainer understood thus an aggregative body is such as not one thing absolutely but such as containeth Trelcatius de eccles in it self two things one of which is like to multititude and matter dispersed the other is like to unity order and collection So that we see ground 1. To consider such a body in one respect In an aggregative 1. Matter dispersed like to multitude or matter divided now this matter thus divided may be either of the same kinde or nature which is called Homogeneous or of different which is called Heterogeneous If this matter be Homogeneous i. e. of the same nature then if you define a part you define the whole or at least you define the whole in part i. e. you define the whole matter of this body though you do not define it with respect to its forme in collection but if this matter thus divided be of different nature so farre as the nature of the matter differs so farre will the definition of one part differ from the definition of the whole because the definition of the whole must be so general as to agree to both parts but the definition of the one differing in nature from the other must distinguish it from all things else of a differing nature and so consequently from the other part of this compositum and consequently from the whole which as was said must have a definition so general as to take in all the parts in some common reason Efficacitas vocationis duplex una salutaris electorum propria altera non salutaris ad vocatos communiter spectans Trel p. 114. and do not these specifically differ or bond agreeing to all Ex. gr the Church strictly taken is defined to be coetus electorum this now is specifically exclusive of the reprobate and as differing from that definition of the Church is which to take in the reprobate which by Wallebaeus is said to be coetus communiter vocatorum The Elect are commonly called and more as more they are defined by themselves and specifically differ from such as are onely commonly called as they are commonly called they agree with those that are onely commonly called and fall into the same definition with them which definition must differ specifically from the former suppose we should frame such a definition as takes in both man and beast would not that specifically differ from the definition of man as distingushed from bruits wherby he is said 〈…〉 not onely animal as they are but animal rationale as they are not Yet we have still evident ground in the second place to consider There is also a unity of this matter in an aggregative body this matter in the unity of this collective body the parts though never so different in nature are not divided in state but united so farre as to agree together in the same body homo and brutum though specifically differing in themselves yet they are the same generally and united together in animal the Elect and reprobate they are specifically differing in themselves yet both agree in their genus of visible Church-membership by common calling the like might be said of tares and corne chaffe and wheat c. these being also specifically differing in themselves yet they visibly meet in the same heap and agree to stand together in the same field Let us lastly observe that this notion of the Church is sufficient to maintaine the reformed sense from that of the Romish For the controversie betwixt us and them was not whether there be a visible Church but
whether there be a Church invisible i. e. such in the Church as are in a higher sense the children of God the members of Christ and in a state of salvation then others who may also be called a Church in a distinct consideration to the rest of visible professors which the Church of Rome denieth and the reformed assert and maintain against them Neither indeed is the controversie so much about the nature of the visible as about the being of the invisible Church every one knows that there is a vast difference about the head about the succession and about the visibility of pomp and multitude and about the infallibility of the visible Church betwixt us and them yet about the nature and definition of the visible Church the difference is but small the whole burthen thereof resting upon the nature being and definition of the Church invisible I shall presume to give my reader one famous instance of this from the great late controversie of the present point in France betwixt Mons Mestrezate and Cardinal Perron as is to read at large in an excellent Treatise written in French by that Learned Monsieur whereof please yet to take this short account He begins his book with a necessity of distinguishing â—he Church before he cometh to the definition of it his distinction is founded in divers respects viz. 1. â—he internal 2. The external state of the Church he gives us the notion of the Church in Scripture viz. 1. For a visible society of Christians 2. The invisible condition of Christians The first he builds on these places Col. 4. 16. 1 Cor. 14. 12 19 23. Acts 14. 22. Gal. 1. 13. Act. 8. 3. 2 Cor. 8. 1. Gal. 1. 1. 2 Cor. 1. 1. 2 Thes 1. 1. Apoc. 1. 4. and 2. 23. The second he builds upon Eph. 5. 25 23. Eph. 1. 22 23. Eph. 5. 29 30. Heb. 12. 23. According to this distinct acceptation of the word Church in Scripture he proceeds to distinguish of the Church more properly which he saith is the nuptial body of Christ and the Church lesse properly is the outward communions visible societies of Christians then he addresseth to his definitions of the Church thus diversly considered The first saith he is the body or multitude of those whom God according Lib. 1. cap. 4 to the eternal counsel of his election hath drawn out of their natural corruption and perdition by the Minstery of his word and the power of his Spirit incorporating them into Jesus Christ by true faith and sanctification unto life eternal now upon this rests the dispute for the last viz. the visible Church he agrees in most part with the Cardinal in this definition The Church is a society of those whom God hath called unto salvation Lib. 2. cap. 1 by the profession of the true faith and a sincere administration of the Sacraments by lawful Ministers Whence we conclude that the difference betwixt us and the Papists is not much about the nature of the visible Church both are agreed that it is a Church and that it is such a Church for the most part as the Monsieur hath here defined but chiefly about the Church invisible But before I close here methinks I am tempted to cry 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that I have now hit the very sense of the reformed Divines touching the nature of the Church invisible and visible they clearly hold that there is but one Church and yet they do so distinctly consider this one Church in its strict and large acceptation For the militant and Catholick Churches are not all one in state by reason whereof they may be in one which are not in the other Whites way to the true Church or as visible and invisible that any one that gives the lightest observation thereunto must needs confesse that their definitions thereof do more then accidentally differ and therefore essentially which two things are reconciled onely by granting that when they define the Church strictly taken they define but one part of the Church when largely taken and when they define the Church largely taken they conclude the Church strictly taken under some general attribution which equally or at least joyntly admits both of the Elect and reprobate which are Heterogeneous matter yet united in one society the visible Church as before is explicated Yet would I with all modesty submit this and what else I have or shall conceive and write to the judgement of my abler brethren knowing that the spirit of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets CHAP. XVII The first Argument from Scripture God calls a wicked people his people and his Church THe arguments usually termed artificiall with their objections have been hitherto insisted on we shall therefore descend in the next place to take the evidence of testimony both divine and humane of God and the Church The records of divine authority and testimony are the holy Scriptures Whence our first argument is offered thus God is pleased in the Old Testament to own such a people for his people and Christ in the new for his Church which at the very same time he himself universally brands as wicked rebellious evil-doers back-sliders c. and taketh no notice at all of any good thing in them therefore surely a people may be considered to be truely a people of God and a Church of Christ without respect unto and upon other terms besides saving grace Here now what I have writ I read over againe and againe yet must I seriously professe that I cannot foresee any colourable answer that is to be given to this Argument He that hath but a slight knowledge in the holy Scripture must needs confesse the antecedent and he that hath but a very slight reason me thinks cannot but yeeld the consequence 1. For the antecedent viz. that God and Christ do thus acknowledge a wicked people at the very same time when such their wickednesse is charged upon them for their own people and Church is so legible in the whole course of the Scripture that truely to heap instances and proof upon it would be to weaken it I shall onely therefore fix my reader upon one undeniable instance in each Testament according to the parts of my proposition That in V. T. is Isa 1. 2 3 4 5 6. where the Lord himselfe doth very eminently and above all kinde of contradiction both charge and acknowledge a people as before is asserted 1. Then observe how he is pleased to charge them And 2. To own and acknowledge them The charge is observable In 1. The matter of it 2. The extent of it the charge in the matter of it is that they are ignorant and inconsiderate ver 3. rebellious against the Lord that nourished 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them and brought them up v. 2. or magnified and exalted them as the Interlineary translates it or brought up and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Arabick exalted as the vulgar Lattine