CHAP. I.
Of the subject of the question the visible Church.

CHAP. II.
Of the terme [truely] or the Church truely so called.

WE now proceed to the predicate in question, or that which is questioned of this subject, the visible Church; contain­ed in these words of the question [truely a Church of Christ, with­out respect to saving grace.]

Wherein we have before observed; First, that which is more directly questioned, in these words [truely a Church of Christ.] Secondly, the condition or limitation there­of, in the words annex'd [without respect to saving grace.]

To begin with the first, I humbly conceive that a good and cleare understanding of this terme [truely], or how the Church may be said to be truely so, may have a strong subserviency to a happy decision of the main controversie; wherefore, I shall take the liberty to enlarge my sense and notion thereof, to as much plainesse as I am able.

1. Truth as predicable of the visible Church, is sometimes ex­pressed by vera, and sometimes by verè.

By vera ecclesia is usually meant the Church, not onely endu­ed Ecclesia vera. with the truth of being, but endowed also with the truth of goodnesse, or the goodnesse of well-being, and under some excellen­cy of doctrine or manners, or both.

By verè ecclesia is usually intended the being of the Church Verè. alone, and not the quality, unlesse so farre it intend the evil qualities of any Church, as to secure its being against them.

Accordingly Divines use to say, that such a Church as is ve­ry corrupt, and yet retaineth the essence or being of a Church of Christ, is, verè, or truely a Church of Christ, but not vera ec­clesia, or a true Church, that is a pure or an holy Church: as an honest man is said to be verus homo, a true man, and a thief who is not properly said to be a true man, is doubt­lesse verè homo, and as truely a man as any other; verè serving to expresse truth as natural, and vera, as moral.

Yet, with leave, though this distinction may serve to explain The distinction excepted a­gainst. our meanings, I adde, that 'tis well-known to all that are schol­lars that both these termes [vera and verè] may be lawfully ap­plyed to the Church, or any thing, while the physical being there­of is not wholly perish'd, though the defects in morals be never so notorious; if we speak of the subject under that notion, and of truth as attributed thereunto in its physical acceptation. A thief is doubtlesse a true man, as well as truely a man; if we speak of a thief quatenus homo, as a man, and not as a good or bad man, morally true or false. Thus also the Church may be said to be as well a true, as truely a Church of Christ, while its essentials re­maine in it, and it hath not yet lost its natural being, be it ne­ver so corrupt in moral concernments, or never so much to be censured or condemned in any such respects; for if the Church hath its Ens, it must be allowed its verum also.

3. But it appeareth that the question carrieth the weaker terme (viz. truely,) as that which is likeliest to be yeelded unto, by such as are likeliest to dissent upon the whole; whereby it ea­sily The terme ap­plied to the question. appeareth to the Reader what is enquired after in the que­stion, namely, not whether the visible Church may be considered to be a pure or a perfect Church, or a true Church in a moral ca­pacity? but whether it may be considered to be truely a Church, that is to have all the essentials of a visible Church, or its na­tural being without respect to saving grace? or whether the bei­ing of the visible Church, have a necessary dependance upon saving qualifications?

4. It may be also heeded, that though the question run [whether it may be so considered] (the reason whereof may appeare here­after) yet the question is not whether the truth of the Church consist only in consideration; for the weight of our question resteth upon the truth of the Churches being in it self, and not in our minds or conception, onely this nature and truth of the Church with­out our mindes cannot be so, quoad nos, without an act of our minde, viz. consideration; but the question properly is de veri­tate, ecclesiae visibilis (as the Metaphysicks speak) in essendo; Veritatem in Rebus ipsis, quae ab illâ de­nominantur verae. Suar. disp. 8. which is defined, truth in the things themselves by vertue of which truth, the things themselves are said to be true, which is such a truth as agrees with the Church without the operation of the mind, and therefore such as states the Church [Page 21] a real thing thing; seeing competere alicui atra mentis operationem, is the known definition of Reale esse.

Lastly, this common expression [truely a Church] is desired to be kept unto, to keep out those troublesome and disputable termes, of ecclesia aequivoca, and ecclesia presumptiva, which are wont to perplex this controversie; to both of which this verè ecclesia, or the truth of the Churches being in it self stands in as evident as direct opposition; for the aequivocal Church, in the sense of most of those that dissent from me, hath no truth of being at all; and the presumed Church dependeth upon the charity of the mind of those that consider it, and hath not that being that is to be certainly knowne and consi­dered by us, as it is here in question; but more plaine­lie.

1. The evasion of ecclesia presumptiva is thus anti­cipated, whether it import the visible or invisible Church.

1. If by this presumed Church be meant the visible, which in favour and charity we presume to be a Church (as Spalaten­sis, and after him Davenant seemeth to some to imply) though we know not who are true members thereof, because we know not who among them have saving grace; then, who seeth not, that this presumption begs the question; it being evidently built upon that supposition, which is mainly in controversie, viz. that one cannot be a true member of the visible Church without sa­ving grace; this acceptation of the Church taketh up that respect to saving grace which is questioned, and therefore can claime no place in the controversie.

2. But if by this presumed Church be meant the invisible Church, or the Church of the saved, which seems more proper, seeing we can onely presume and conjecture, (as Insibili credi­mus esse electos aliquos, etiamsi qui illi sint non novimus scientia perfe­cta, sed conje­cturali dun­taxat. Col. Theo. p. 4. disp. 13. Thes. 7, Maccovius saith) who are the true members thereof. Yet thus it concerneth not us at all, who are now debating a question about the visible, and not the invisible Church.

2. In like manner the term aequivocum is struck out of this con­troversie; for if the question be, as ours is, whether the Church be truely so without respect to saving grace? and the answer be this, that such are onely members of the Church ae­quivocè, that have no saving grace, the thing in question is evidently [Page 22] begg'd, if aequivecè be opposed to truly, as usually herein it is.

6. But there being so much noise at present about the termes univocum aequivocum & analogum about this thing, I think my Reader will look for some longer account of my minde therein, which though I am loath to do, yet I humbly offer in a few par­ticulars.

1. If we shall be able to prove that the truth of the visible Church doth not necessarily suppose saving grace, and that such as have no saving grace may truely be said to be of the Church: I humbly conceive we need not trouble our selves at all, whether they be so univocè, equivocè or analogicè.

2. Yet, although I presume it might safely be asserted, that wicked men may be members of the visible Church univocally, I should for peace and quiet sake be very well satisfied with this, that they are most properly so per analogiam; wherein, I hum­bly conceive we may almost meet with both those Reverend and eminent men, Mr. Blake and Mr. Baxter, as appears under both their hands in print. Vid. Br. Apol. p. 99. and Blakes seals p. 150, 151.

3. However, if I may make my own choice, I had rather re­duce the membership of hypocrites unto that branch of Analogy which Bueerwood calls, Dignitatis solius; which truely, me­thinks, (if I may be plaine,) should fit the notion of most men that trouble themselves in the point, and are loath to be Brownists.

4. The analogy of dignity onely, saith he, is, when one member of it, is more worthy then the other: and instances, thus homo, and Brutum. are Analogous of the name Animal; though (to satisfie us how unworthy this is of an eager dispute with Divines, when we see such a difference among Logicians themselves) Stierius, and other Logicians bring us, the very same instance of univoca; but if we keep our selves to this branch of analogy, on which we have pitch'd, it may help me to explain my mean­ing, thus▪

1. Both man and beast are animal; so both the hypocrite, and the Elect; regenerate, are Church-members. 2. The beast is as truely and properly animal, as well as the man; so the hypocrite is truely and properly a Church-member, as well as the Elect re­generate. 3. the man, however, is the more noble animal, so the elect regenerate is the more noble Church-member. 4. Lastly, there­fore [Page 23] the man and the beast are analogous of the name animal; and the hypocrite and the Elect regenerate of the name Church-member.

5. I might subjoyne, if it be worth the paines, that if we would speak logically in logical termes, as we speak of one member of the division, so we must speak of the other, and not as some affect to do, to say that true beleevers are univocal members, and hypocrites aequivocal; for they are both membra dividentia of the same head; and if the one be univocal, so is the other, and if the one be aequivocal so is the other; as the living dogg and the dog-star, are both aequivoca, with respect to the name Canis; and man and beast, are either both analoga or uni­voca, of the name animal.

CHAP. III.
Of the respect we owe to saving grace in the consideration of the visible Church.

HAving hitherto laboured in the Explication of the subject of the question, viz. the visible Church, and of its attribute directly in question, viz. truely a Church of Christ; we proceed to the condition or limitation thereof, contained in the words an­nex'd, without respect to saving grace; which for the sake of dispatch, we shall look upon together with the Copula, which serveth to joyne the subject and the attribute in the question to­gether, containe in these words [may be considered to be;] which that we may the easier receive our explication of, we shall sent the question at full once more before us, viz.

Whether the visible Church may be considered to be truely a Church of Christ without respect to saving grace.

Where, that we may further observe the reason, as well as the sense of the termes, I humbly beg my readers patience yet carefully to heed,

[Page 24] 1. That it is not questioned, whether the visible Church may be without respect to saving grace; but whether it may be con­sidered, &c. that would have sounded very improperly.

For respect doth not flow a principio essendi, but a princi­pio cognoscendi; and naturally answers onely thereunto: Respect is but a looking upon, or unto, which requireth an eye, either real, viz. bodily, if the discourse be of sensible objects; or metaphori­cally, viz. of the minde; if the discourse be of intellectual or rational objects, as this that is before us here; viz. saving grace, is.

Here we have a rational object, viz, saving grace, and a rational sight, or a looking upon or unto it, viz. in the word respect; and therein, therein is plainly rational eye and act supposed as fit to be expressed, which here is done by this terme in the question; Consideration.

Had the question been of the truth of the visible Church in general, without respect; it might have been thus ex­pressed, viz. whether the visible be truely a Church, and no more.

Or had the question been onely and simply of the Churches dependency upon saving grace, and not of our respect there­unto; it might have beene expressed thus. Whether the visi­ble Church be truely a Church without saving grace, and no more.

But seeing, as we shall presently finde, that there is a necessity of the latter words, [without respect to saving grace,] there is also a manifest necessity of such a kind of copula, as here we have [viz. may be considered] or conceived, or thought, or imagined to be, or the like; and the meaning thereof is briefly but thus.

Whether we may take a true apprehension, conception, or con­sideration of the visible Church, in the being or nature thereof, without an eye or respect unto saving grace; or whether we must necessarily take saving grace into our thoughts, to a right and true understanding of the visible Church to be truely a Church of Christ.

2. That the question is not whether the visible Church may be con­sidered to be truely a Church of Christ without saving grace; but without respect to saving grace.

For if the Church neither ever were, nor yet is, nor ever shall be, or exist, without this (i. e.) true saving grace; it will not help, or profit us much to finde, whether it be so in our Consi­deration, or not; yet if it shall be proved that saving grace is ve­rily, Quarto modo. neither of the essence or property of the Church, it will thence, easily follow, that there is no contradiction in considering a Church to be truely such without it; yea, I suppose, it will further follow, that this visible Church, so considered without saving grace, hath not its being onely in reason or consideration, but hath some foundation of being in re, and is at least ens rationis ratiocinatae, and so considered conceptu objectivo, as the Metaphy­sicks speak. Yea, I know not but that happily it may claim one step further, and be termed ens reale, if we mean ens real potentiâ, non actu; but,

3. The question, lastly, is not whether the visible Church may be (i. e. actually) without saving grace; but whether it may be considered to be truely a Church without respect to saving grace; that is, whether saving grace be either of the essence or property of the Church, or so neere unto the nature and being of it, as that it cannot be conceived to be, but respect must be had to saving grace, this is the very sense of the question before us; yet concern­ing this which is denyed to be our question, viz. the actual be­ing of the Church without saving grace, I shall crave leave to ex­presse my self in a few particulars, which I humbly conceive, may have, yet some further and direct subserviency to the cheer­ing of my mind, touching the question, with which I shall conclude that word.

I readily grant, that though saving grace be not of the es­sence, or property of the visible Church, yet saving grace is of the excellency & bene esse of it; but even therefore saving grace is de­nied to be necessary in our consideration of the nature and being of the visible Church.

A symmetry of part, strength of body, lively colour, consisten­cy of braine, quicknesse of fancy, soundnesse of minde, retention of memory, and good discourse, all these are of the excellency and glory of a man, yet not one of them require a necessary place in one consideration, when we would conceive, of his nature and property, quatenus homo, as he is a man; for he may be a man without all these, and therefore he may doubtlesse be conceived [Page 26] a man and truely, without respect to any of them; the appli­cation hereof to our present discourse is easily left to my Reader.

2. I further grant that as it cannot be, but that many indivi­dual men among the rest of the kinde, will be thus excellently qua­lified, as before, so neither can it ever be, but that many indi­vidual members of the visible Church, shall be endued with saving grace, according to that of Ʋrsin, in ecclesia semper sunt aliqui Catech. p. 408 (non omnes) electi, & sancti.

3. Yet I humble offer whether the cause of this impossibility may not be thought to lie rather in the will of God so determin­ing, and consequently be a thing extrinsecal to the being of the Church; then in the nature of the Church, or any thing intrin­secal thereunto? and whether the visible Church might not, for any thing in the nature thereof to the contrary, be truely a Church of Christ, though there should not be one member in it for a time savingly qualified? though it be still granted, that for the glory of grace, the Lord hath so ordained, that it never shall be actually so.

Even as (to follow my present similitude) it is impossible, but there should be many wise and judicious men in the world: yet this necessity lieth not in the nature of man, but rather in the will of God, that hath so ordained for the glory of his own name, and the good of society in the world.

And if at last it issue thus, I see not but that we may safely conclude the visible Church without saving grace; to be in the former sense Ens reale, id est, potentia; if he define ens reale well, that saith it is, quod habet esse ex parte Rei, actu vel potentia; seeing such a Church hath its being, ex parte rei, potentia; and the onely reason why it hath not the same actualitèr, is not ex parte rei, sed ex parte Dei.

4. Yet once more, I humbly offer, that seeing there may be a Corporation of men, without one wise or learned man amongst them, why may not there be a particular Church in the world, without one member savingly qualified, at least for some certaine space of time, &c?

Indeed Ames concludeth, (and doubtlesse soundly) maximè probabile esse nullam dar [...], &c. that it is most probable, that there is no particular Church where the profession of the true faith Medul. de ecclesia. [Page 27] flourisheth, but that there are some therein that are true belie­vers; yet none can construe maximè probabile, impossible to be otherwise, and if it be most probable, 'tis not necessary, and then the being of the Church dependeth not thereon, but it may be without it; for he that saith any thing is most likely to be, e­ven thereby intimates that that thing is not certaine to be, and then it may not be; and that is all I querie for.

Neither can those words of God to Paul, for I have much people in this City, inforce any such thing, though we grant that much people to be the Elect; for

1. These words carried extraordinary encouragement against the Vid. Act. 18. 9 10 extraordinary trials which that City had for Paul; and therefore will conclude onely, that in the like case, where a Minister is called to much suffering, he shall be an instrument of grace to much people.

2. However much people might have been first wrought up­on to an outward profession, before this much people had been savingly converted, and yet have been a true particu­lar visible Church, though it's very unlikely that it was so.

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 [Page 34]

• 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.

CHAP. V.
Arg. 2. From the Etymology or the name of the Church.

WE now descend to the second Argument offered us from Ecclesia ab [...]. the name of the Church, as it is more immediately derived from [...], and denoteth a calling out.

But, that we may lay the foundation well, before we begin to build, there are three things to be truely premised, before we fix the Argument.

1. That this Etymology of the word, doth not in the least con­tradict, but most evidently perfect and compleat the for­mer; for by the former the Church is concluded to be called, in a general and simple sense; and by this, the Church, which was thus before said to be called, is, in a more strict, close, and respective sense▪ said to be called out; where we have plainly intimated to us, that there is some special term, place, or state, out of which, or from which, it is called.

[Page 40] 2. That this Etymology is generally allowed by those that we Etymologicè ecclesia est coe­tus publicā au­toritate evoca­tus. de eccles. p. 214. finde most accurate upon this subject. Etymologicè (saith Trel­catius) the Church is a company called out by publick authority; and pasor, doth not onely derive [...] from [...], evoco, but even renders the word [...] in Latine, by Caetus Evocatus, which is in plaine English, a company cal­led out.

3. That this calling out, which we finde in the name of the Church, doth not so properly or exactly note the inward state from which, as the outward caetus, or society▪ out of which it is called; which will be easily granted me to be the world; there­fore we finde the Church set in opposition to the world, out of which, and not to sinne, darknesse, or Satan, from which we are called, according to that of our Saviour. I have chosen you, (that is, by calling, as we know he did his Disciples) out of the John 15, 19 world.

Whence (as the Learned Master Baxter, seals with a certainly) all Divines in their definitions of the Church are agreed, that it is a society of persons separated from the world to God, or called Against Tombs out of the world; and therefore no society, the calling of whose members, hath not the world for its terme from which, hath per­sons Nullus coetus cujus membro­rum vocatio non habet mundum terminum aquo, habet sanct [...] vo [...]atos, pro proximâ ma­te [...]iâ. Norton. in [...]e [...]p. ad to­tam. quest. syl­l [...]g. p. 1 [...]5. of a holy calling, for its next matter; or, by consequence can be a true Church; as another argues, who cannot be ima­gined possibly partial to my cause, namely, that learned and Scholastical Divine, Reverend Master Norton of New En­gland.

These things thus premised, the Argument hence is this.

As the visible Church may be considered to be called out of the world, so it may be considered to be a Church of Christ. What hath beene said hath put this out of doubt.

But the visible Church may be considered to be truely called out of the world, without any respect to saving grace.

Therefore, the visible Church may be considered to be truely a Church of Christ, without respect to saving grace.

The minor here which is all that is left questionable, is easily [Page 41] evident if we distinguish of the world, as we are wont to distin­guish of the Church, viz. to be visible and invisible; the visible world is the world of infidels, and such as openly detest the true Messias; the invisible world is the world of ungodly, which being, as tares amidst the what of the godly, cannot be discerned by men. The first is opposed to the visible Church, the latter to the invisible; out of the visible world, the visible Church is called, and out of the invisible world, the invisible Church, or the Church of the saved, is called.

Againe, the visible Church is, as truely called out of the visible world of Pagans and Infidels, and such as live without the pale of the Church, as the Church of the saved is called out of the world of the vngodly; doth not the eye of the whole world see this, and bear witnesse to it? viz. that the visible Church, is, by the calling of God, in this sense effectually, (in that it is really) se­parated Vocatio commu­nis—ab infide. litate ad fidem evocat. Trel. ut supra. from, and stands in distinction, and opposition unto, the whole world of Infidels, Pagans, Turks, and Jews, and all other societies and parties of men in the world, as the called of God, his lot and portion, and peculiar people; all which, and a great deale more Master Baxter (as well as many others) is plea­sed to acknowledge, that the Scriptures attribute to the visible Church.

CHAP. VI.
Arg. From the visible Church, in its causes; and first, as it is of God.

HItherto of the quid nominis; proceed we now to the quid Rei; and to seek for that thing, and nature and truth of being in the Church, which the name, we have found, doth import.

I shall put my self and reader into the way of this search, by an offer of this general Argument taken from the causes of the visible Church.

As we may consider the causes of any thing, so we may consider the thing it self.

But we may consider the causes of this Church to be real, causes without respect to saving grace.

Therefore the Church to be truely a Church, without respect to saving grace.

I think, the major will not be question'd by any; seeing what­soever any thing is in it self, it is the same, first in its causes; Quicquid est in effectu, prae ex­istit in causis. Causatum quod ex causa suum esse habet. yea, the very definition of the effect is, that it is but the result, or that which hath its very selfe of the cause, and depends by its cause; and therefore it is called effectum, or a thing done, or standing as it is, by it cause, and causalum, that is a thing caused, that is such a thing, as is Causalitas sive causatio est in­fluxus ille, seu concursus, quo unaquaequc cau­sa in suo genere actu influit in effectum, Suar [...]z no more a thing, then what it hath from its cause, or as it is cau­sed; and causality or causation (which is but the formal reason of the cause) is nothing else but that Influx, or concurrence whereby every cause, in its own kinde, doth actually flow into the effect.

The minor onely then resteth upon proof, viz. That the visible Church may be considered to have its true and real causes without respect to saving grace; which I shall labour to maintaine, by a particular induction and examination of the several causes of the visible Church in order; the efficient, the end, the matter and form thereof.

Here, now, are two things to be joyntly enquired after. First, what these causes are. Secondly, whether they may be considered to be real causes of the visible Church, without respect to saving grace;

Let us first then begin to consider the efficient cause of the vi­sible Church, thus; namely, what it is, and what kinde of effects it worketh, without respect to saving grace.

1. The efficient cause of the visible Church is

• Principal.
• Instrumental.

The principal efficient, of the visible Church, is secundum. Efficient.

• Constitutionem.
• Ordinationem.

The principal efficient, in the constitution of the Church, is God; Rom. 2. 29. [Page 43] in the administration or ordination of it, is Christ, thus God Rom. 12. 5 1 Cor. 3. 11 Col. 1. 18. is properly the authour; and Christ is properly the head of the Church.

The instrumental cause of the Church, especially in its consti­tution Acts 2. 41 2 Pet. 2 23 1 Tim. 2. 15 is the preaching of the word; for how can they beleeve in him, of whom they have not heard, and how can they hear without a preacher; this distribution needeth no proof, seeing it is general­ly allowed.

2. Let us, now, come to our task, and examine whether these efficient causes, may not be considered to have a real influ­ence into the visible Church, which yet doth not include saving grace.

As for the instrument, the preaching of the word, we need not insist particularly thereupon; partly because the instrument is but subordinate to its principal: efficient in the same opera­tion; and therefore, if the work of principal efficient be real, so is, doubtlesse, the same work relating to the instrument of it; and partly, because the influence of this instrumental cause, the preach­ing of the word, into the constitution of the visible Church, is reserved to be largely handled, in answer to a great obje­ction against cur Churches in England at the latter end of this discourse.

Therefore we have but two things here before us, whether God may be considered to be truely the Authour; or Christ to be truely the head of the visible Church; without respect to saving grace; and of these in order, I shall humbly signifie my opinion, by forming the same into Arguments.

The Argument from God, as the Authour of the visible Church.

If God, in the constitution of the visible Church, by the preach­ing of the Word, may be considered really to effect the same, without the bestowing of saving grace, then he may; without doubt, be considered to be the real Authour of the visible Church without re­spect to saving grace.

But, now God in the constitution of the Church, by the preach­ing of the word may be considered, really to effect the same, with­out the bestowing of saving grace.

Here is nothing to be interposed, but these foure things; Mr. Perk. speak­ing of temporal beleevers, saith. 1. They have knowledg. 2. they give assent. 3. they give assent to the Covenant of Grace. 4. They are perswaded in a general māner, that God will perform his promises to the members of his Church. Ep. to his declar. of a man estate. And ads, Mark, here is a true faith wrought by the holy Ghost yet not saving faith. either,

First, that the calling, whereby men are brought to leave the world, to renounce Idols, to embrace the true religion, Hystori­cally to believe the Gospel, to see a necessity of depending on Christ, repentance and obedience to salvation, are no real works, but this would be against common sense; for we see the contra­ry with our eyes.

Or secondly, that these common works are also saving works; but this would be against experience; which sadly tells us, that men may go so farre, and yet no further in the way to heaven, or else against the doctrine of perse­verance.

Or, Thirdly, that these common graces do not really constitute a visible Church, but this would be against what we have formerly proved.

Or, Fourthly, and lastly, that God is not the worker of these common effects by his Word, which would indeed be against Re­ligion.

I shall, therefore, conclude this Argument with those known and pertinent words of Amesius; hence (saith he) even visible Hinc ecclesiae etiam visibiles & particulares, ratione fidei quam profiteu­tur, rect è dicun tur esse in Deo paTre & in do­mino Jesu Chri­sto. 1 Thes. 1. 1. 2 Thes. 1. 1. Medul. p. 168. and particular Churches, by reason of the faith which they professe (as also I might adde by reason of the grace which they have re­ceived from God) are rightly said to be in God; he doth not say ratione fidei qua, but ratione fidei quam profitentur, that being the faith of God which they professe, through the work of the common grace of God, upon them; they are rectè, or truely said to be in God, without any further consideration of any saving grace, by which they believe, received from him.

CHAP. VII.
The Argument from Christ as the head of the visible Church.

THe second Argument from the efficient is taken from Christ as the cause efficient of the visible Church according to dis­pensation, or as he is the head thereof. Thus,

Christ, may be considered to be truely the head of the visible Church without respect to saving influence; therefore, the visible Church may be considered to be truely his body without respect to saving grace.

The reason of the connexion, here, is most evident; but I must needs confesse, that the antecedent requires, as well a modest inqui­sition, as strong demonstration; seeing it is easily noted to crosse many plain expressions of eminent Divines.

In this antecedent, there are two distinct branches, First, that Christ is the head of the visible Church, this passeth. Secondly, that he may be so considered without [necessary] respect to saving influence, this is my task; which I shall humbly un­dertake after I have gotten a faire understanding with my rea­der therein.

For I desire, it may be heeded, that I do not affirm, that Je­sus Christ doth performe the office of a head fully, without saving influence, but (as it is expressed) truely (i. e.) in some mea­sure truely.

2. It may be also observed, that, truely, here, stands not in op­position to mystically, but to falsly, or to seemingly onely; for though our Divines do usually mean by the mystical body, the Church invisible, yet doubtlesse Master Cotton (as is well noted of him by others also) doth not speak improperly, when he termes a particular visible Church, a mysticall body; and if that be granted, the visible Church, though not particular, may al­so challenge the same title; and if the visible Church be granted to be the mystical body of Christ, then Christ may be said to be its mystical head. Besides, if Christ be indeed the head of the [Page 46] visible Church, as none do doubt; and if he be not the head thereof, as it is Physically or Mathematically taken, which none will affirme, who can deny but that he is so Mysti­cally.

3. Further may it be noted, that it is not said, that Christ doth performe the office of an head to the Church, truely with­out saving influence, in any other consideration, but as it is the visible Church; for if any will assert a Church invisible, I am not bound at all, to follow him, and say that this Church invisible, also, hath true influence from its head, Christ, which is not saving; a thing not to be ima­gined.

4. Lastly, neither do I offer to say, that Christ is the head of his body visible, without saving influence; but that he may be so considered, without respect thereunto; seeing there are in­fluences not saving. which yet descend from Christ, as the head upon his body, the Church; and upon many of the members thereof that shall never be saved; and this is enough for my present purpose, because in whatsoever sense, Christ may be said to leave the influence of a head upon his Church; the Church may in the same sense, be said to be his body; and if it shall truely be made to appear, that Christ doth really performe the office of the head, when he doth not give saving grace, it will thence easily follow, of it selfe, that the Church may be conside [...]ed to be truely his body, without respect thereunto.

Now, that Christ may be considered to be thus truely the head of the visible Church, without respect to saving grace, I think, appeareth thus.

Arg. 1. Christ truely dispenseth gifts and graces (not saving) to the visible Church, and to many particular members thereof, Arg. 1 that shall never be saved, as he is a head: therefore he may be considered to be truely the head of the visible Church, without re­spect to saving influence.

The Antecedent (which is, alone, to be proved) hath three parts.

1. That Christ doth truely dispense gifts and graces not saving to the visible Church, which none that know, what the gifts of prayer, preaching, healing, &c. or what the graces of illumi­nation, [Page 47] conviction, common faith, and common love, are, will of­fer to deny.

2. That Christ bestoweth these, both, gifts and graces, upon some particular members of the visible Church, which shall ne­ver be saved; this also will be easily granted me. 1. Concern­gifts, in Judas, and in those that are reserved to cry out another day, we have prophecied in thy Name, and in thy Name we have Mat. 7. 22 cast out devils; and, Secondly, concerning graces, if we but once shall think upon that sad catalogue, the Apostle recordeth, Heb. 6 4, 5, 6.

3. That Christ bestoweth these gifts and graces, not saving, Profession of saith before a visible Church uniteth to Christ as head of the visible Church, whe­ther the person be sincere or no cobbet of Inf. Bapt. p. 57. as a head which is also very evident. 1. Because they are gifts and graces abound in the Church alone. 2. Because they are conveyed to the Church by the dispensation of Ordinances, which is the dispensation of Christ, as head. 3. Because, the Scripture it self hath noted them, to be the proper work of the spirit of Christ, which is peculiarly designed and sent to do the work of Christ, as head; gifts are so, there are diversities of gifts, but the same spirit, that giveth them all; graces are so too, for the spirit is to convince the world of sinne, &c. and those that were enligh­tened, and had tasted the good Word of God, and the powers of the world to come by common grace, they, as the text addes, were made partakers of the holy Ghost. 4. Because these gifts and graces, are most properly reducible to the work of Christs offices, which he dispenseth as head, gifts to his prophetical, and graces to his Priestly and Kingly office.

Arg. 2. The members of the visible Church may be consider­ed Arg. 2 to be truely members of Christ, without respect to saving grace; therefore, Christ may be also considered to be truely the head of the visible Church, without respect thereunto; the conse­quence is obvious.

The Antecedent, viz. that members of the visible Church may be considered, to be truely members of Christ without respect to saving grace, appears. 1. Because the members of the visible Church, may be considered to be truely obj [...]cts of discipline, truely called to the Ministry, and truely baptized, without respect to sa­ving grace.

1. The members of the visible Church may be considered to be truely objects of discipline; without respect to saving grace; 1 Cor. 5. [Page 48] unlesse fornication, railing, drunkennesse, covetousnesse, ma­lice, wickednesse, or scandal as such for which discipline is pro­perly appointed, carry respect to saving grace; or those that are about dispense the rod, should first consider whether the fault may consist with grace, or a saving condition, and otherwise not to lash therewith.

Therefore it will follow that the members of the visible Church may be considered to be truely members of Christ, without re­spect to saving grace. For,

(1.) All discipline is truely a part of the administration of Christ, as Head of the Church, it being truely appointed by him­self; to be dispensed by such as stand in his stead, in the Church; Quia vero tam efficaciter urget obedientiam er ga Christum, idcirco non s [...]ne ratione singulari magna pars reg­ni Christi preut visibiliter eccle­siam regit, ab optimis theolo­gis in ista disci­plina colocatur. Medul. p. 202 to be dispensed by them in his Name alone; to be made effe­ctual by his power alone; and lastly, it being so urgent a meanes of obedience to his Gospel. Wherefore as Amesius addeth, is not without singular reason, according to the method of our best Divines, reputed a great and special part of the Kingdome of Christ, which all will grant belongeth to him as Head of the Church.

(2.) The objects on whom discipline is to be exercised, or granted by all to be members of the Church, and consequently of Christ; for as we have said, discipline is part of his dispensa­tion as head, and the influence of the head is not beyond the body; Certainly, Christ judgeth none with discipline, but such as the Church ought to judge; now the Church ought to judge none, but those that are within, for those that are without God 1 Cor. 5. 12, 13 judgeth; Within and without what? but the Church? and what is the Church but the body of Christ? therefore Amesius ex­actly Personae circa quas exerceri debet, sunt membra ecclesiarum visibilium insti tutarum, 1 Cor. 5 11. & non a lii, v. 12. Med. p 201. John 6. 70. saith, that persons about whom discipline ought to be exercised are members of visible instituted Churches, and none other.

2. Persons may be considered to be truely called to the work of the Ministry without respect to saving grace; for Judas was truely called to the work of the Ministry, as is undeniable insinu­ated by that question of our Saviour [have not I chosen you twelve?] (i. e.) have not, I my self put you twelve into my Mi­nistry? yet 'tis known that Judas was not savingly called to be a member of Christ, as the next words added by our Saviour note, [and one of you is a Devil] which our Saviour, doubtlesse knew, [Page 49] when he first chose him, and would never have chose him, had saving grace been essential to a true and lawful call to the Mi­nistry.

Therefore, it hence also follows, that persons may be consi­dered to be truely members of Christ, without respect to saving grace; for can any one possibly think, that Christ would choose an infidel remaining such, to rule his Church? or make him an officer over, that is not one, of his people? or put him into the place of the steward of his house, whom he yet hath not, and whom he never intends to put into his house? who doubts, but that he that is a Ruler, Officer, or Steward over the Church, peo­ple, or house of Christ, is also a member thereof, and much more? and that he that is a member of the Church, people, and house of Christ is also a member of Christ him­selfe?

3. Persons may be considered to be truely baptized without respect unto saving grace; for persons are truely, because law­fully baptized, in their infant state, unto the consideration of their Covenant-holinesse, and not the supposition of their per­sonal Si ullius gratiae sunt participes, fit illud vi fae­deris gratiae, atque adeo & foedus & pri­mum foederis sigillum adipsos etiam pertinet. saving grace; for, as Ames teacheth us, if they are parta­kers of any grace, it is done by force of the Covenant of grace, and thus both the Covenant and the first seal of the Covenant belongs also to them, not as having true grace, but as borne to God, and in Covenant with him by their parents, and if it be so with us when infants, I shall humbly ask anone why not so after­wards? and in our adult estate? if born Christians, and if we do not renounce Christianity.

Then hence it also follows, that persons may be considered to be truely members of Christ, without respect to saving grace; for into what are persons baptized, but into the body of Christ? 1 Cor. 12. 13. yea, and though afterwards, they prove ungodly, yet are they dealt with both here and hereafter as within, and as children of the Kingdome here, they have punishment peculiar to the subjects and members of Christ, viz. to be cast out, as be­fore; if after admonition, they remaine obstinate, then, if they repent, and are re-accepted, into communion with the Church, they are still dealt with as within, and are not required to be re-baptized; and if they shall die in their wickednesse; they shall be judged hereafter and proceeded against, not as the children [Page 50] of this world, but as the children of the kingdome; but of this more largely hereafter, as we shall have abundant occasion, now ac­cept of this short touch.

Arg. 3. Christ is considered under all those many other meta­phors given him in Scripture, to stand in relation to the visible Church, without respect to saving grace; therefore also under this of a Head. The consequence cannot be denied, seeing he is still but the same thing, the same mediatour, and represent­ed under the same offices by all those various metaphors which the Scripture giveth him; and therefore, there is the same rea­son for one and all, and an equal extent in the meaning and ap­plication of them all; Now, that Christ is considered under all those many other Metaphors given him in Scripture to stand in relation to the visible Church without respect to saving grace, ap­pears by induction.

1. As he is a King, he hath subjects, bad and good; some to be blessed, but some to be cursed at the great day, yet both children of the Kingdom.

2. As he is a Master, he hath some faithful, and some slothful, yet both his servants.

3. An Husbandman, that hath tares as well as corne, and both in his field; chaffe, as well a wheat, and both in the barne.

4. A Fisher, that hath fish that is bad as well as good, yet both in the net.

5. A Vine, that hath some branches that bring forth much fruit, and yet others, that bring forth no fruit, and yet both in him. John 15. 2

6. A Father, that hath rebellicus as well as dutiful children; yet both children. Isa. 1. 2.

7. A House-keeper that hath vessels, some to honour, some to dishonour, yet both vessels, and within the house.

8. A bride-groom, that hath Vrgins to attend him, some with oyle in their Lamps, and some with none, yet both Virgins; therefore why not such a head, as hath some members sound and others rotten, and yet both related, that is, mystically united to him.

There are two special objections against this relation of wicked men to Christ; which I hold my self bound to labour to salve, before I passe on.

Object. 1. The first is taken from the metaphorical termes of body and head, and may be formed thus. That member which hath not life in it self, though it be yet united to the body is not truely a member of that body; unde equivocè agunt membra tri­bui cadaveribus, as Shibler saith. But wicked men have no life in themselves; therefore they are not truely but onely aequivocally members of the body of Christ.

Answ. 1. To the proposition which hath first its proper, and secondly, its metaphorical sense. I allow it in its proper, but I deny it in its metaphorical sense, or in this rigid application In omni para­bola—Hoc te­nendum est ut utamur parabo­lis, tanquam picta tabella.—Itaque re­prehendenda est illa anxiet as & sollicitudoeorum qui in parabolis Christi omnia, student resccare ad vivum, quod est non inter­pretari sed vex­ant Camero. praelect. in Mat. 18. 8. of it.

It is a general complaint, by those that see how much it is a­bused, That men are apt to receive apprehensions about the mysti­cal union betwixt Christ and his members, from the natural u­nion betwixt the natural head and body. Certainly a meta­phor may be press'd to death, so farre as the Scriptures apply this metaphor of head and members, to Christ and his Church, we may safely venture; but further, though it may be true, it will not bear an argument.

That I have good ground, thus to except against the proposi­tion, I leave, in one word, to the determination of all, but Ana­baptists; for, if this be a true proposition, that, none can be true­ly a member of the body of Christ, that hath not spiritual life in himself; then of necessity it followeth, that the children of the holiest parents in the world, are not to be accounted truely mem­bers of the body of Christ, from their parents holinesse, seeing that is the life that is in the parent, and is not inhering in the childe▪ but onely relative to it; the childe hath not this life in its self but in another, and therefore, according to this propo­sition 'tis not a true, but onely an aequivocal member of Christ, if we but once grant, in the sense intended, that it is an essen­tial requisite to every member, ut vitam habeat in se, that it Infantes nati in ecclesia, sunt etiam de ecclesia, contra anaba­plistas Ursin. have life in it self; and yet we know that it is the general opini­on, that ch [...]ldren born in the Church, are also of the Church, against the Anabaptists.

Answ. 2. But we may let the Metaphor hold, if we distinguish of life in the minor; which may with favour of my reader, be conceived to be such as is a necessary requisite to visible Church-membership: or such as is a necessary requisite to saving or (if [Page 52] you had rather) invisible Church-membership; if you please you may call the first an ecclesiastical, or political life; the last, a saving or a spiritual life.

If the objection, meaning in the minor, the first of these, then I deny it, viz. that wicked men have no life in themselves; for it is very evident, that wicked men have so much life in themselves (if any be requisite) as is essential to visible Church membership. I confesse, life, is somewhat unusually attributed to wicked men, and to ascribe it to them, as such, is a contradiction; seeing, quatenus wicked, they are dead; yet seeing, they are to be consi­dered in a double respect, 1. As wicked men in nature. 2. As holy men in state and condition; wicked men inherently, holy men adherently; wicked men habitually, holy men relatively, holy by Covenant, by separation, dedication, obligation, and profession, though they be dead indeed, in the first sense, why may not they be truely said to be alive in the second? if holinesse and life be e­quivolent here, as must needs be granted; and this holinesse of se­paration to God by Covenant and Baptisme, and continued professi­on, be a real thing, as Camero saith, and I think, hitherto, hath hard­ly been denied in terminis.

Such, are doubtlesse, Christians, and not so far alienated from the life of God, as the Gentiles, or Heathens are; they are not now, Ephes. 4. 18. without Christ, or aliens to the Common-wealth of Israel, or stran­gers to the Covenants of promise, having no hope, or without God Ephes. [...]. 12. in the world. which is the Scripture-description of such, as are in a Gentile condition, viz. out of the verge and pale of the visible Church.

Yea, I have one, and he an authour not to be contemned, con­sidering what paines he took in the controversie, that saith ex­pressely that wicked men are not onely members of the Church in the general, but as the Church is, the body of Christ, and that they have the life of true members in them; his words are these.

Such may be, and and are of the visible Church, who onely outwardly submit themselves to the true worship of God, though they be not true worshippers; this profession of the true religion and submission, I speak of, is all in all in this case; it is that which giveth life and being to every member united to his body; so, as whosoever, maketh this profession and useth this submission [Page 53] being knit to this body, and not cut off by excommu­nication, is in and of the visible Church. Dayrel of the Church. pag. 36.

But, if life, here, be intended to signifie such; as is essential to ones being a member of the Church of the saved, as it seems to be.

I answer, that either (unlesse it be proved that the Church visible, and the Church of the saved are of equal latitude, which I wholly despair to see) there are four terms in the argument, the major intending the visible, and the minor the invisible Church: or else there is the fallacy termed ignoratio elenchi discovered in it, the conclusion being onely that life is essential to a member of the Church of the saved, which was never questioned, when it should (as easily appears) have been that this life is also necessa­ry to visible Church-membership, to which it carrieth no aime at all

Object. 2. The second great objection, against this Argument is taken from those known words of Zanchie, de eccles. 534. Membra sunt Satanae non Christi. Hypocrites and reprobates are members of Satan, and therefore they can be no members of Christ.

Answ. In answer hereunto, I shall first consider the sense of Zan­chy in these words, and then his reason.

1. I conceive that Zanchy, did not intend, by these words, that they were not members of the visible, but of the invisible Church; which I have observed to be the general meaning of our reformed Divines, when they speak of the members of Christ, insomuch, that there is almost ground to think for one that is well accustom­ed to their writing; they distinguish betwixt the members of the visible Church, and the members of Christ; as they also gene­rally attribute, two other termes, viz. Catholick and Mystical, as if they were peculiar to the Church invisible; whereas, I pre­sume, hardly any of those same Divines, but would, upon a lit­tle consideration thereof, allow all the three, viz. Mystical, Ca­tholick, and members of Christ, unto the visible Church also; for if the visible Church be not a natural, 'tis a Mystical body; and if it be unversal, which they did not deny, it must needs be Ca­tholick, and if it be not the body of Christ, whose is it? yet, I say, 'tis of most easie observation, that seldome, either of the three, [Page 54] are given by them to the visible Church, and therefore not likely to be so here; and if he meant of the Church invisible, 'tis nothing to our question.

Again, another reason why Zanchy may be thought here, to speak onely of the Church invisible, offers it self from the scope of the place; for he is evidently striking at the Papists excessive errour, touching the members of the Romish Church, as if every one that had the honour to be a member thereof, was thereby a member of the Church of the saved, which Zanchy seemeth to anticipate, as other our Divines in the like case, asserting that there are reprobates and hypocrites in the visible Church, and these are not to be thence concluded, to be real members of Christs (invisible, mystical) body, or in a state of salvation; and thus membra sunt satanae non Christi, quoting that place, that is seldom, if ever interpreted of the members of the visible Church, viz. they were not of us, 1 John 2. 19. for confirmation thereof, and that his secret bent is against the Papist, as I have said, is more then intimated by his next words, quicunque spiritum habent non Christi sed Antichristi.

Thus much for his sense; now for his reason here, that one can­not be both a member of Christ, and a member of Satan; but wicked men are members of Satan.

I answer. 1. By concession; for it is most true, one cannot be both a member of Christ, and a member of Satan, at the same time, and in the same respect, one cannot be a member of Christs Is it then possi­ble that the self same men should belong both to the Sy­nagogue of Sa­tan and to the Church of Je­sus Christ? Unto the Church which is the body mystical not possible; howbeit of the visible body of Jesus Christ, &c. Hook. eccles. polit. p. 84. visible body, and of Satans visible body, that is a Christian, and an infidel, a beleever and an unbeleever, at the same time and in the same respect; this is a plain contradiction.

But, Secondly, by way of exception. I answer further, that the same person, may at the very same instant of time, be both a member of Christ, and a member of Satan in divers respects; he may be a member of Satan internally, and a member of Christ externally, and yet, both, really; a member of Satan habi­tually, a member of Christ relatively, a member of Satan by obedience, a member of Christ by profession, a member of Christ by Covenant, a member of Satan by service. Lastly, a member of Christ his visible Kingdome, and a member of Satans invisible Kingdome; and both really and truely so; as a man that is openly and really the husband of an honest wife, may [Page 55] yet the member of an harlot, by a close and reserved course of uncleannesse with her; even so, one that is really and openly in Covenant with Christ, and truely a member of his body, may yet, by a secret course of unfaithfulnesse to him, be also a member of Satan.

CHAP. VIII.
The Argument from the End of the visible Church.

HItherto of the efficient causes of the Church, and the Argu­ments thence arising; next, proceed we to the end thereof, and argue thus.

As a thing may be considered to have its end; so it may be [...]. Plut. Nihil potest esse causa nisi in quantum est ens Si medium non existit, non pro­ducitur finis. considered to have its being; for nothing can be further a cause then it hath a being; therefore not negation or privation an pos­sibly be a cause of a real and positive effect, but that which is a cause of a real and positive effect, must needes be some­thing real and positive in it selfe. 2. If the meanes do not exist, the end is not produced, and therefore if the end be produced, the means is thereby certainly discoved to have its existence.

But now, the visible Church may be considered, truely and re­ally to have its end, without respect to saving grace; therefore, also its being.

There are three things which may tend, by a briefe dis­patch to the clearing of this Assumption. 1. To assigne the ends of the visible Church. 2. To prove the same to be real and proper ends therefore. 3. To shew that the visible Church, as it is a means thereof, may be considered without respect to saving grace.

First, the ends of the visible Church, is ultimately the glory of God in the world; and more immediately, his wor­ship in the world; the great meanes of the former, viz. his glory, [Page 56] as Szegedine exactly teacheth, the end of the Church is the true Finalis causa ecclesiae est ve­rus Dei cultus: ordinata enim est ecclesia, ad verum Dei cul­tum ad glorifi­candum Deum. Szeged p. 2 [...]6 Theol. Instit. p. 215. Quae causa fina­lis ecclesiae? verus Dei cultus Bucan. de eccl. lo. 441. p. 477. worship of God; for the Church is ordained for the true worship of God, that he might be glorified; which Trelcatius hath hand­somely couched together, saying that the visible Church is insti­tuted ad cultum gloria Dei, for the worship of the glory of God; now, as that which is suborainate hereunto, the visible Church is made the seat and subject of all visible administrations; where­by, also, the wicked in the Church may be left without excuse, the Elect, converted; the converted, edified; the visible Kingdom of the Devil vanquished; Christs visible Kingdom advanced, and the Nations of the earth openly gained to a visible subjection there­unto in due season.

Secondly, these are the real uses, and proper ends of the visible Church. For,

1. The visible Church, as such, hath a neer aptnesse and kind­linesse Medium est aptum & utile fini. in it, and is per se, and sua natura, useful hereunto, viz. for the keeping and upholding the glory and worship of God in the world, as none will deny; seeing God is herein truely owned, visibly professed, submitted unto, obeyed, and worshipped according to his will, and that with such a smooth and easie tendency as na­turally Quod sua natu­ra utile est ad aliquid efficien­dum propter il­lud esse videtur. [...]ows from the visible Church as such. Now it is a maxime, that that which is apt of it selfe, and according to its own free nature for the effecting of any thing, seemeth to have its being for that very thing, and by consequence, that thing is truely and properly the end thereof.

2. The visible Church, as such, is necessary for the obtaining of these ends; without it, what glory would redound to God in the world, or what worship? where, else, would visible Ordinan­ces be fixt and dispens'd? how would the visible Kingdome of Christ be advanc'd; the visible Kingdome of Satan subverted? How would hypocrites in the Church be inexcusably judged, or the Elect be ordinarily saved; if there were no visible Church? Quod alio quo piam indiget, vt acquiratur, hujus finis est. Sin [...] quo quic­quam existere non potest in naturâ, id est illi necessarium, atque propter illud factum. Now the Rule is, that, that which wants another thing for its own attaining, is the end of that other thing; but these particulars want the visible Church for their obtaining; therefore they are the ends thereof; which is evidently grounded by Scaliger, upon that necessity, that there is of the means in order to the end, which is the thing I am urging; for (saith he) that thing is necessary for another, when that other cannot exist in nature, without it; [Page 57] and therefore, this was made for that other, and consequently, that other thing for which this was made, is the end thereof.

Here is a double necessity of the visible Church for the ends speci­fied. Necessitas. [...]. Of the means, (i. e.) without which these ends cannot 1. Medii. be attained; this hath been now spoken to. 2. Of the ends (i. e.) where this means of the visible Church is, there, these, in some true 2. Finis. measure, do of necessity follow; which might serve us another evi­dence, that the ends before are true and proper ends of the visible Church; for quo existente, necessario pr [...]ducitur aliquod bonum, hoc est, aut videtur esse illius finis.

3. God himself hat ordained the visible Church for the ends spe­cified; Praecepti vel institutionis. therefore 'tis yet further necessary for them, viz. with a necessity of divine ordination and institution; and then there is no ground of doubting left, but that they are true and proper ends thereof. Hath not God ordained the visible Church, to put his name there, to be the ground and pillar of his truth? that he might have a praise and a name in the Earth, and in one word, that those that worship him might glorifie his Name? Psalme 89. Finis rei est sua operatio. Operatio est usus vel actus ad qu [...]m ordinatur now, if so, are not these the ends for which God hath ordained the visible Church? the end of a thing, is but its operation, and opera­tion in this logical sense; is but that use or act for which any thing is ordained, by God in nature, or by God in Scripture; the latter of which we are now upon, and therefore I shall rather choose to expresse i [...] in the wor [...]ds of a Divine lately cited, the Church is ordained [by God] for his true worship, that he might Sz [...]gid, p. 226 be gl [...]rified, and therefore the end of the Church is the worship of God.

Thirdly, as these are proper ends of the visible Church, so the visible Church is truely a means of them, and may be so consider­ed, without respect unto saving grace; for what necessity of sa­ving grace can we imagine to the attaining of the foresaid end [...] the glory of God in his visible worship before the eyes of men? much lesse what possible necessity is the [...]e for our having respect unto sa­ving grace, when we truely consider thereof? doth mens attend­ing upon publick Ordinances, essentially depend upon their saving grace? or cannot we truely consider thereof, but we must sup­pose the men savingly gracious? do not the common effects of the spirit in illuminating, conviacing of sinne, and of necessity of at­tending [Page 58] on the means of grace, for peace and salvation work men out of conscience, to a constant and solemn dependance there­upon; and yet none will say that any particular thus expressed, doth necessarily suppose a saving work; yea, the end, which is neerest, and most generally allowed to the visible Church, viz. the worship of the glory of God, may doubtlesse be obtained by a great deal lesse, viz. by a visible profession of, and submission to, that way of worship, that the Lord hath ordained, which doth not of neces­sity require, such a great degree of common grace, as before was specified.

True grace is indeed necessary to work out our own salvation: But, we are wont to say, that gifts, which do not necessarily sup­pose true grace, are onely necessary to work on others; especially in the way of the worship of God, for the advancing of his name and glory thereby to the world.

'Tis also true, that saving grace, is necessary to the acceptance of our worship before God. (I mean to a plenary acceptance for some, we read of, that found some measure of true acceptance, in their serving of the Lord, though without saving grace.) But, yet not necessary for the effecting of Gods glory before men (that can judge onely, according to appearance) in his visible worship, saving grace is an invisible thing; then what necessary use can there be thereof, in such visible effects as may be done without it? and such, as in their present consideration, respect only such creatures as can­not discern things invisible.

I grant, that saving conversion of visible Church-members, is one great end of the visible Church, and that, therefore, the pro­mises of first grace do most especially belong unto them; but this if well heeded, rather helps, then hinders my designe; for it evi­dently supposeth the visible Church, and visible Church member­ship to have its being before his conversion, or saving grace, of Finis est posto­rior medio in executione. which the visible Church is said to be a means; for the Rule is, that the end, is after the means, in execution.

CHAP. IX.
The Argument from the Matter of the visible Church.

HItherto of the external causes of the visible Church, and the Arguments thence arising; let us now consider the causes thereof remaining, which are called internal, viz. the matter and forme.

From matter of the visible Church in general, I argue thus.

The visible Church may be considered truely to have the matter of the Church of Christ, without respect to saving grace.

Therefore to be truely a Church of Christ without respect there­unto; This consequence, simply taken, I confesse is not so war­rantable, because the matter doth prae-exist before, and remaine sometimes after the forme; yet take it respectively to the forme afterwards to be maintained, and to the question in controversie, which is chiefly concerning the matter of the Church, and especi­ally to the opinion of my present Opponents; we readily affirm that all the question is about the matter of the Church, that if this be fained, so is our Church; and if this be real, so is our Church, and I doubt not but it will passe without interrup­tion.

However, the thing that I am dispatching, doth not engage me for the consequence, though the other causes have been found so pregnant as to bear such a particular improvement; onely to as­signe and maintain to the visible Church all its causes, and there­fore its existence truely so, in our consideration, without respect to saving grace; which, I presume, hath been done already, as to the Authour, the Head, and the End of the Church, to which I now proceed to add, the matter thereof, affirming (as before in the an­tecedent (that the visible Church may be considered to have the true matter of the Church of Christ without respect to saving grace.

The matter of the Church, habet rationem

• Partium.
• Subjecti.

1. The matter of the visible Church having the reason of the parts, is, the Ministers and the people, the pastors and the flock, ecclesia utens, and ecclesia docens, as some speak, and as we read, 1 Cor. 12. both making up the compositum, the Church; and this Church must needs be the visible Church, for there are no such organical parts; no Minister but Christ himself in the Church in­visible.

Now, may we consider, both these parts of the matter of the Church, as truely such, without respect to saving grace? did not Judas truely teach, and do not thousands truely professe in the Church of Christ, being truely called, though not savingly cho­sen, without any measure of saving grace? but, this will more fitly meet us in the next consideration of the matter of the Church, viz. as having the reason the subject mat­ter.

Next, we enquire what the subject matter of the visible is, and whether it also may be considered without respect to saving grace.

1. What is rhen the subject matter of the visible Church? Trel­catius tells us, that it is all such as are called out, and externally professe the faith; which, I think, none can choose but approve of, when they consider that faith is a thing invisible, and there­fore not any way fitted to commend the matter of the Church to us, as visible, and though it be granted that faith doth unite men to the Church, yet it must still be yeelded, that pro­fession thereof doth render them members of the Church as visible.

2. But here, seeing most do consent that professors of the faith are the subject matter of the visible Church, it will, I presume, be worth our enquirie, what is meant by the faith so profes­sed. Certainly, it must be either the doctrine, or the grace of faith; and which of these is properly, or usual, said to be professed.

1. Is it the grace of faith which men professe? certainly no, [Page 61] for that is the faith by which, and not the faith which we profess. 2. How incongruous a speech would it be to say, I professe that I believe, while it is good and sound, and relishing upon the minde of the hearer, to say, I professe what, or that doctrine which I do beleeve. 3. If the meaning was that we do professe the grace of faith, then the Epithite, true, which Divines do ge­nerally annex to faith, should be put to profession, and whereas they usually speak of the profession of the true faith, they should should say, the true profession of the faith. 4. This appeares in its contrary out of doubt; for such as fall away from the faith, are not said to deny their own faith, but the faith or doctrine of Christ.

2. Then it is doctrine of faith, which we professe, as members of the visible Church; and if this be the note or character of the matter of the visible Church, it can, in the most strict and rigid sense, that can possibly be put upon it, onely require two things; truth in the object professed, and truth in the subject professing, (i. e.) that he professe the true doctrine of faith, and that he be­lieve what he professeth, (i. e.) that he have a good profession, and that he have a good principle answering to it; such a faith as such a profession doth require, to make it not dissembled, but true and real; and thus, though we do not professe the grace of faith, yet the grace of faith so farre is consented to, as is requisite to a true profession, seeing thereby we truely beleeve what we so pro­fesse.

3. Yet though this faith is supposed to be true where the mat­ter of the Church is true; the matter of the Church doth not re­ceive its denomination of being true, from the truth of this grace of faith, but from the truth of its object or doctrine beleeved, and accordingly professed which, as also what was before asserted viz. that the doctrine of faith is the object of proper profession, or the faith properly professed, appears by abundant example in Scripture. The Eunuch being being demanded, dost thou be­leeve? answered not, my faith is sincere, but I beleeve that Je­sus Acts 8. 37. is the Sonne of God. The like did they, Matth. 14. 33. when reproved for their unbeleef, they professed, saying, of a truth thou art the Sonne of God. John also bare record, and what was it? that is the Son of God, Joh. 1. 34. so Nathael professing said, thou art the Son of God, v. 49.

But most remarkable is that eminent profession of Peter, with Id est, super hauc firmam confessionem tuam, qua con­fiteris & credis me esse Christum filium Dei vi­ventis, edificabo ecclesiam meam. as Bucer in loc. Christ his approbation annex'd to it, Matth. 16. 16, 18. thou art (saith he) Christ the Sonne of the living God; to which our Saviour answers, upon this rock, (upon this rock, as some emi­nent expositors conceive, of profession, or upon this profession, as upon a rock) will I build my Church.

Christ, then it seems will build his Church upon this rock of profession, of the doctrine of faith, and such as are built thereupon, are true stones in his house, and the true subject matter of his visible Church, and those that require a profession of the grace of justifying faith, or of saving grace, as necessary to our en­tring the visible Church, seem to lay another foundation thereof, then Christ himself hath laid.

Therefore, answerable hereunto, is that of the Apostle, being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, (i. e.) (as Bullinger teacheth) upon their doctrine, not their grace, nor yet Eph. 2. ult. our own; not as if the Apostles and Prophets were the foundation of the Church in their persons: yet it seems they were so, in their doctrine; which was indeed the doctrine of that one foundation, other then which none may lay, viz. Jesus Christ.

Therefore accordingly, the true visible Church hath ever, hi­therto, been argued and knowne by the truth of the do­ctrine, which it hath professed, and not by the truth of its graces.

4. Therefore the true and proper principle of this profession is but a dogmatical faith; seeing that faith, which is the principle of such a profession, must needs fix upon the same object with that professi­on, Faith is termed hystorical in the Schooles, that goeth no farther then to give assent and credit to the story of that which God speaketh to be true. Culverwel of faith, p 16. Vid. Rogers of faith p 6. and Ball of faith. page 3. Temporary faith hath more then the former adding to knowledge and assent, a pro­fession of the Word, yet living still in their sinne [...], in a carnal est [...]te, Rogers page 7: Tem­poral faith is to assent to the heavenly doctrine, to professe it, and to glory therein; the de­vils beleeve historically, Ursin. Cat. English. by Par. page 134, 135. we professing what we beleeve, and beleeving what we pro­fesse, viz. the doctrine of faith, as the common sense within, re­ceiveth the same object which the outward organ of the eye or ear seeth or heareth; Yet, I further yeeld, that there is an act of faith more then meerly dogmatical or historical, that doth many [Page 63] times, if not ever engage a man to be so beleeving to make a pro­fession to the world of what he beleeveth; for it is not the bare beleeving of such a truth, that puts a man on to professe it; but usually something of an applicative faith added thereto; which faith also must needs be yeelded to be very farre short of a justifying faith; and is termed by Divines a temporary faith.

5. Againe, this profession, put on as farre as it is possible, is but either vocal by word, or real by deed; I meane, be atten­dance upon the visible administration of the Gospel and worship of Christ, whom we professe, in the sight of men: for that other profession of a holy life, is so indirect a profession, and so uncertaine a character of the true visible Church, as that it was yet never allowed by the Church of Christ in any age, to be a necessary requisite to the matter of a true Church.

6. But, by the two former branches of this profession, the matter of the Church, receiveth the name both of professours and wor­shippers; which latter terme of worshippers, I cannot but expresse my good liking to. 1. Because the proper quality, use, end and businesse of the visible Church in the world, is cultus gloriae Dei, as before, viz. to worship God. 2. And Christ himself assu­reth us, that his Father under the Gospel-dispensation, sought a people to serue him, by this very terme, namely to worship him. John 4. 3. And the rule for the finding out the material cause of a thing is, Cujus rei propria qualitas in aliquo composito reperitur, id est hu­jus materia.

7. But, to conclude, not any one, or all of these, do necessarily suppose that faith which justifieth, or saving grace; a man may Eternally those are within the Covenant who expressing their repentance with their pro­fession of the truth, though they have not the sound work of faith, nor ne­ver shall. Hook. surv. p. 36. truely beleeve, and outwardly profess the doctrine of Christ, and constantly attend upon the Ordinances of worship: a man may be a professour of the true faith, and a worshipper of Christ, with outward worship, and thus be truely a part of the matter of the visible Church, and all this without saving grace, as none can deny.

8. Therefore the subject matter of the visible Church, may be truely considered to be the matter of the Church of Christ without respect to saving grace.

9. Yea, if we speak of particular members, and not of the [Page 64] whole, I conceive, that so much as is already yeelded, is not absolutely necessary to the matter of the visible Church; for one that is born within the Church, and never yet did actually renounce his relation thereunto, though he do not actually beleeve, or vo­cally professe, &c. (as is the very case of Children, Ignorants, Ideots, and Mad-men) I doubt not to affirme, to be a real part of the matter thereof. For, as Reverend Master Cotton, from His holinesse of Church members. p. 1. New England, teacheth; such as are borne of Christian parents, and baptized in their infancy, into the fellowship of the Church, are initiated members of the same Church, though destitute of spi­ritual grace; until they justly deprive themselves of the priviledge of that fellowship.

CHAP. X.
The Argument from the forme constituent of the visible Church.

HAving found the vi [...]ble Church considerable as truely such, in all the rest of its causes; we now proceed to examine and argue from the form thereof.

And if we shall be able to prove that this cause also, may be considered to be truely such, without respect to saving grace, I presume, that nothing can possibly intercept this our conclusi [...]n there-from, viz. then the visible Church may be consi­dered Posita forma in materia cengrua necessario fit compositum. Arist. formam v [...]cat, [...]. to be truely such (in it selfe) when it hath beene found to be truely such in all its causes) without respect there­unto.

For, Forma tribuit essentiam completam c [...]mp [...]sit [...], it presupposeth the matter informed by it; yea, it is said, not onely to per­fect, but even to give the very being to a thing; for, before any thing hath its forme, it is not that thing; and so soone as ever hath its forme, it instantly hath the being, and justly challengeth the name of that thing. Yea, it is the very reason and principle of [Page 65] the being of a thing; yea, its very essence (as Aristotle saith) and ipsum quid sit.

But now, the forme of the visible Church, being not essentially Forma [...]. depending upon saving grace, may be considered to be truely such, without respect thereunto, whether we intend it systatical­ly, the forme, by which the visible Church is constituted such, or diaretically, by which the visible Church (being constitute) is distinguished and knowne to be a true from a false Church. The consideration of each of these will afford us its Argu­ment.

1. From the constituent form of the visible, thus.

The visible Church may be considered to have a real constitu­tive forme, without respect to saving grace; therefore al­so to be truely a Church of Christ without respect there­unto.

The consequence must needs be yeelded me, because its contrary implies a contradiction; for to say, that any thing hath a real con­stitutive forme, is as much as to say, that it really and formally is; therefore, to deny that any thing hath not really or truely a being, is formally to contradict its having a real constitutive forme.

Then nothing but the minor requires proof, which is, that the visible Church hath a reali constitutive forme, which hath no necessa­ry dependance upon, and may consequently be considered without respect unto saving grace; which, I presume, will appear upon a short and easie debate.

Trelcatius, who, in some other of his passages, seemeth not to favour this opinion overmuch, yet assignes to the visible Church, as it is distinguished by himself to the Church invisible, as all the other causes, so this of the forme, and calls it by this very terme, of the forme constituting the visible Church. 2 Nei­ther can it be thought that he intended such a form, as did imply saving grace, for he termes it externa vocatio, as it stands opposed by himself to that effectual call which he accounts to be the forme of the Church invisible. 3. Nor yet can any imagine, that he thought it not a real call; because he addes, quam me­diatè Deus efficit; which God himselfe works though medi­ately.

Yet I must needs enter my exception against this forme assigned [Page 66] to the visible Church by Trelcatius and others, viz. external vocation. I shall easily allow it taken in an active sense, to be an efficient, or taken in a passive sense, to be a necessary condition, as before in the matter of the visible Church, but in no sense at all, to be the form thereof. For,

1. If this external calling were the forme of the Church, then every particular member would be a formal Church, for every particular member is externally called, and where the forme of a thing is, there we may truely say that thing it self is.

2. Persons, qua called, seem rather to be matter of the Church, and external vocation, to be onely a condition requisite in the mat­ter of the visible Church, being near the same with external profession or outward worshipping, my reason is, because that persons externally called may pre-exist a Church informed, as also remain when the forme of the Church is lost; for when two or three are called out of the world by the preaching of the word, we cannot presently say there is now a Church formed, though these be good stones to begin the building withal, and a Church may be possibly consumed, even to two or three, or dis­solv'd and scattered, and so loose its forme, though persons called still remain, which according to the rule, should rather be account­ed the matter of the Church; for si forma perit, manente aliquo, Col. Conim. br. materiam illud esse necesse est.

3. For which Amesius seemeth directly; faith, saith he, Fides ut insiu­gulis fidelibus existens distri­butive, est for­ma vocatorum; sed in omnibus collective spe­ctata est coetus vocatorum, i. e. forma ecclesiae. Medul. 163. as it is existing in single beleevers distributively, is the forme of the called, who are the matter, and not the forme of the Church.

Amesius teacheth that the forme of the visible Church, quoad externum statum, or as it is distinguished from the invisible, is internae fidei externa professio.

Which external profession is either personal or ecclesiastical; if personal, then every professor, as it was reasoned before, having the forme of the Church, would be a true Church, and if ecclesiasti­cal, yet this external profession seemeth rather a formal [...]ction, or an action of the Church presupposing its being and existence, and flowing immediately from the form of the Church, which it self is not; for before there can be an ecclesiastical profession, or the profession of a Church, there must be ecclesia, or a Church in the [Page 67] order of nature at least, which could not be, if this pro­fession were the forme thereof, for forma est ratio essen­tiae, and rather before, or at least simul natura, cum compo­sito.

However, if this external profession be the forme of the visible Church, it will serve my turne well enough. For, 1. It will not be denied to be a real thing, by Amesius himself, who allows it power to interest a person in the external state of the Church. 2. Nor yet to consist without saving grace, as his own words directly expresse, illi autem qui professione tantum sunt fide­les, Medul. 168 &c.

I confesse that Amesius accounts this externall profession, to be but the accidental forme of the Church, and that it is in terminis distinguished by him, from the essential forme thereof.

Yet, he acknowledgeth, that some persons, who do not at all partake of that essential forme, which is distingushed by him to Illi autem, qui professione tan­tum sunt fideles dum remanent in illa societate, sunt membra illius ecclesiae sicut eti­am ecclesi [...] Catholicae, quoad externum tan­tum, non quoad internum sta­tum, aut essenti­alem. Med. p. 168. this accidental forme, do yet truely partake of this accidental form of the Church, & are by consequence in his own words membra ecclesiae; the sense of which he limits in the next words, accord­ing to the external, and not according to the internal or essential state of the Church.

If I may be modest and yet bold, I should be bold to say that Amesius seemed here in a strait betwixt two; he was loath to say, that external professours wanting true grace, were true mem­bers of the Church of Christ, therefore, saith he, they are not so, quoad statum internum aut essentialem, and yet as loath to say, they were not truely so, and therefore saith, they are membra ecclesiae quoad statum externum; the Papist held the one, and the Brownist the other, how then dare he or we hold either? the Papist was ready to charge him with Brownisme for denying hypo­crites to be members of the Church; he answers them, that hypo­crites are so according to the outward state of the Church; the Brownist was as ready to charge him with Popery, in affirm­ing wicked men to be true members of the visible Church, and he answers them that they are not so, quoad statum internum and essentialem.

But let us weigh his words a little farther, by fixing the questi­on, whether any thing may be considered as such, from its [Page 68] accidental forme? seeing Amesius hath said that such are mem­bers of the Church by their participation with this accidental forme of profession.

But may a man be considered qua homo, from the figure or co­lour of his body? or any member of that man be considered such from its partaking of either of these? if by the essential form alone a thing is that which it is, can any thing partake of the being of that thing without partaking of the essential form? do not the Schooles generally with Thomas teach that forma accidentalis non tribuit perfectionem essentialem composito? would not the affirmative to this, viz. that the accident perfects the essence (seeing accidens habet esse in subjecto,) be a flat contra­diction? How then can Amesius say, that one that onely par­takes of the accidental forme of the Church, is a member there­of? either we must allow, that such professours are true mem­bers of the visible Church, or deny them to be so; if they are, they must needs partake of the essential form of the body, and not onely of the accidental, if they are not, let us be rigid Brownists, and open­ly say what we think.

Yea, if such professours do truely partake of the accidental form of the Church, I conceive they must also truly partaker of the essen­tial; interest in the accident of any thing is founded in interest, in the essence of that thing; for an accident, as such, hath no being but in its subject, and there cannot be an interest in, or re­lation to any thing, but as it is; how then can a man stand un­der the accidental forme of the Church, unlesse he be pars subjecti vel substantiae? and how can that be, unlesse he partake of the essential, or substantial forme of the Church.

How can any thing partake of my colour, or figure, unlesse it be part of my selfe? it may partake of whitenesse, but not of my whitenesse, or of whitenesse as an accident of me, unlesse it be part of me; so, indeed, a man may be a professor, but he cannot partake of the profession of the Church, unless he be a real part of the subject, the Church, which cannot be without partaking with the essence or essential forme thereof.

So that here I pitch, such professours are members of the visi­ble Church farther then Ames alloweth, or not so farre; for they partake either of both the essential and accidental forme or of [Page 69] neither; and must be consequently granted to be true members of the visible Church, both according to the external and the internal state thereof, or according to neither.

Now, if in conclusion it be found, that such professours (as we are now considering) do also partake of the essential forme of the visible Church, this essential forme, must be, either the same which Forma essentialis, est Relatio spiritualis. Med. 163. Neque ulla relatio vim istam habet prae­ter illam que consistit in pri­mi & intima affectione ad Christum p 162 163. vid p. 168 [...]8. Amesius assignes or another; but it cannot be the same; these professours (as we are now considering) do also partake of the essential forme of the visible Church, this essential forme must be either the same, which Amesius assignes, or another; but it can­not be the same; these professours, are by himself, expressed to be uncapable thereof; for they are called by him, tantum profes­sione fideles, (i. e.) such as do not savingly beleeve; and this essential forme of the Church, which he meaneth, is a little a­bove expressed by himself, to be; such a relation as carrieth true faith (which effectually worketh true holiness) with it, of which, such as onely profess, are necessarily supposed to be destitute.

But, if that essential forme of the Church be another, then that which Amesius assigneth; either, that forme which he assigned, is not the true essential forme of the Church, or there are two di­stinct Duae formae substantiales non possunt in eadem materia consistere. forms thereof. Now there cannot be two distinct formes of one and the same Church. I meane, two distinct essential formes, that is little lesse then a contradiction; neither shall we be allowed to have two distinct Churches, which must needs fol­low two substantial formes; for omnis differentia constitutiva est [...]orma distin­guit Rem ab omnibus aliis, a prioris. etiam divisiva, divisiva generis, constitutiva specii (i. e.) it doth divide the genus into its species, and then doth constitute the spe­cies distinct from one another.

Againe, if there be found such an essential forme of the Church Forma substan­tialis tribuit essentialem per­fectionem com­posito. as those, which onely profess, and are without saving grace, do indeed partake of, then the visible Church, as such, or as it stands in distinction to the invisible will be found to be truely and properly a Church, for the essential form, giveth an essential perfe­ction to any thing.

Then it will follow, in conjunction with what every one grants, that there is but one Church truely and properly so called, that the invisible Church as distinguished from the visible, is not so.

Therefore it remaineth, that we now further enquire after the essential forme of the visible Church.

Amesius asserts that the essential forme of the Church lieth in Relation; which, saith he, is nothing else but faith, and concludeth, fides, &c. faith, therefore, is the forme of the Church.

But as if he were aware, that some would reply, then, par­ticular Fidem enim ho­mines fideles, qui prout sigil­latim distribu­tive consideran­tur▪ sunt vocati Dei; sunt etiam ecclesia Dei prout conjun▪ctim vel colle­ctive conside­rantur in coetu. Med. p. 163. 13. Beleevers were formal Churches, he anticipateth thus; faith, saith he, in particular beleevers, distributively taken, is the forme of the called, but collectively taken, 'tis the forme of the Church; the same beleevers taken apart, are the called of God, and conjoyn'd are the Church of God. Thus he. But,

1. Be it so, that faith is the forme of the Church, if there may be found a real faith, as well as a real calling, that is not saving (as no doubt there may) my case is yet well enough; though, I confesse, Ames clearly meaneth a saving faith.

2. But, I must be allowed the boldnesse once more to offer my humble exceptions, against what is here by him as­serted.

For, 1. If that same faith, which is the forme of the Church be indeed to be found in particular beleevers scattered, I cannot imagine how this conclusion can be intercepted, particular belie­vers have the forme of the Church, and consequently are true­ly a Church, though not in coetu, or in societie; do they want the mattter of the Church? no, for they are (considered apart) in his own words, the called of God; and the called of God, are the true matter of the Church, none will deny.

Neither, 2. Will it be helped to say, that faith in beleevers, considered collectively, is the form of the Church. For, 1. The form of a thing is real, which hath being extra mentis operatio­nem, it receiveth no part of its nature from consideration; and therefore, if faith be in it self, or properly the essential forme of the Church, so it still will be, whether we consider it distri­butively or collectively, and wheresoever we finde it, viz. in materia congrua, in fit matter, as the called doubtlesse are. Be­sides, 2. Then, something is apparently added to faith, to in­forme [Page 71] the Church, viz. the collection of the persons so beleeving; and then, I humbly offer, whether whatsoever faith be meant here, it belong not exactly to the matter, and most unproper­ly to the forme of the Church? for, that which doth not perfect the essence, or give essential perfection to a thing, is not the essential forme of that thing, but faith doth not give essential perfection to the Church; for where faith is, there is not this essential perfection of the Church, without something else, viz. collecti­on, or association of the subjects of this faith together added.

3. Therefore he saith, 1. Fides est forma ecclesiae; and then; 2. Coetus est forma ecclesiae; wherein I am yet to seek his mean­ing; for either these differ and are two things, and then there are two formal causes of the Church, or else faith and company are all one, in his sense, and indeed almost in his words, (fides specta­ta collectivè, est coetus vocatorum, id est, forma ecclesiae) which I can­not comprehend.

4. If coetus vocatorum, be indeed a definition of the Church, as Amesius saith, then either vocati are the forme, or coetus, or both; Med. p. 163. 12. if vocati distinct from coetus be, then coetus is not; if coetus di­stinct from vocati, then the vocati are not; and if both together be the forme, then where is the matter?

5. Again, if this be a perfect definition, and consequently, the whole cannot be the forme, one of the parts must, and now which is likeliest coetus or fideles? not fideles, of the faithful, because that these prae-exist before the Church is informed, and some­thing as was before observed, is necessarily to be added to perfect the essence of the Church. 2. One of these two must be the matter of the Church, but coetus cannot, because the matter is presuppo­sed to the forme, but coetus, or the consosiation of beleevers, doth praesuppose beleevers. 3. Therefore the cleanest account with me, is that beleevers are the matter, the coetus and the collecti­on or community of them, is the true essential forme of the Church. That wherein they have com­munion is the publick exer­cise of such duties, as we ead Act 2. 47. Hook eccles. pol. 89.

Here then, at length, I pitch, that the forme of the Church lieth in society or community st [...]ictly, and properly that collection taken actively, or unit [...]on is the immediate efficient, collection taken passively or union is the effect or proper state of the Church, that communion is its formal action, but corporation, society or commu­nity is strictly the forme thereof.

Which learned Ames himself, doth seeme more than to inti­mate (if we let passe the foresaid obscurities) saying, that faith­ful Med p. 163. 13. men are the Church of God, prout conjunctim, vel collecti­vè considerantur in coetu, and yet more plainly in the page be­fore; p. 162. 9. Coetus dicitur, quia in multitudine consociata vel com­munitate multorum proprie consistit, non in aliquo uno vo­cato.

So that, in short account, the remote matter of the Church Ad homines re­stringitur iste coetus. p. 162. 10 is men; the lesse remote matter of the Church, is men called; and the next matter of the Church, is a many, or a multitude of men called; and now, that which is to be added, to compleat the Church, is the society or community (as Ames exactly) of these many, or this multitude of men called; and this is properly the forme thereof; Which further appeares. For,

1. The Church is allowed by all, to be totum aggregati­vum, or a holy heap; now where lieth the forme of an heap but in the society of the parts thereof, they being put together?

2. 'Tis therefore called a body in Scripture; corpus coagmen­tatum and compactum ex variis membris, as Ames noteth from Ephes. 4. 16. as also a House, a Family, a City, a Kingdome, a Flock; and where lieth the forme of all these, but in society or community.

3. This notion suits so well with the principles of many, that they are called Congregational men, and their way called, Em­phatically, the Congregational way, doubtlesse then their Church is a Congregation; yea, the opinion of many of them is, that their Church-Covenant is the forme of their instituted Church; which Covenant is onely the bond of the company or so­ciety.

Lastly, that which being put in any matter, the thing is necessa­rily Quo posito in materia aliqua, necessario con­stituitur com­positum, & sub­lato tollitur; id est, illius forma. constituted; and being taken away; the thing is dissolved, is the forme of that thing; but society or community being added, to many men called, which is the matter of the Church, the Church is necessarily constituted; and society or community being taken away, the Church is dissolved; therefore, society or community is the forme of the Church.

5. Szegedine teacheth, that true doctrine, and the true use of [Page 73] the Sacraments are the formal cause of the Church.

But these, I conceive, are rather either the means of communion, which is, as was said before, the formal action, more properly, then the very forme it selfe, of the Church; or else the distinguishing forme, whereby the Church is known rather then the constitutive form, whereby the Church hath its being.

But to draw up this discourse of the constitutive forme of the Church. 1. Whatsoever it appear to be, I hope to prove that it may be truely considered without respect to saving grace, if it be calling, or faith, or profession; it hath before appeared, that these may be considered to be truely, when not savingly such; and if it be society or community, as hath partly appeared already (and will more fully appear when we handle the definition of the Church) I presume none will question, but this also, may be considered to be truely such without any respect to saving grace.

2. But if Ames should mean as he truely seemeth to do, that coe­tus vocatorum, or societas fidelium, in an united and conjunct sense, is the forme of the Church; that is, neither the called, nor society, but these both together, as a company or society of the called, or the faithful; though then we know not, as before was said, where to finde the matter of the Church, and that the whole defi­nition will be taken up in the form, and consequently, we may not grant it; yet, I conceive, we may safely give it; for the visible Church, may be as well considered to be a society of persons called conjunctively, as persons called, and a society without respect to saving grace.

3. And although we should farther give him, that which also we have before denyed to grant him, viz. that that faith which is the essential forme of the Church, is a saving faith; yet he is pleased freely to recompense us again with with as much in affirm­ing, that persons that are onely externally called, and such, as one­ly professe (as himself speaks) are truely members of the Church of Christ, according to the outward state thereof, or as it is a visible Church, which is freely acknowledged to be all, that is necessarily sought in the present controversie.

4. Indeed, he also adds, that such profession, and outward calling is but the accidental form of the Church (as before) which assertion, we conceive, will hardly bear this his conclusion, however, this is no­thing unto us. We thankfully take his concession, and leave the con­sequence to be further considered.

CHAP. XI.
The Argument from the distinguishing forme of the visible Church.

WE now descend to the other branch of the formal cause, called distinguens vel discriminans; contained in those notes or marks, whereby the Church is known to be true and distinguished from a false Church. Whence the Argument is this.

The notes or marks of a true Church may be considered to be truely such without respect to saving grace; therefore the Church her selfe.

None will venture upon the consequence, for if those very things (viz. the notes) whereby alone, we take to our selves a consideration of the Churches being and truth cannot be affirmed to have any dependance upon saving grace, then, certainly, the Church may be considered to be truely such without respect to saving grace.

The Antecedent appears by an easie induction of the notes and marks of a true Church.

They are either essential or accidental; it is generally agreed, Professio verae fidei est maxime essentialis eccle­siae nota. Med. p. 171. that the essential note of the Church is profession of the true faith, which, as Amesius saith, is maximè essentialis, in the highest man­ner essential to the Church. Now the nature of an essential mark, as the Schooles teach, is certo demonstrare infallibly to demon­strate the essence of that thing, of which it is a mark, therefore, profession of the true faith, doth thus certainly & infallibly demon­strate the essence and nature of the true Church; but now profes­sion of the true faith may be truely considered, without respect to saving grace; for the true faith may be professed by a Cain, a Ju­das, a Simon Magus, a Demas, and those that have no share at all in saving grace, and that truely to, as none, I think, will venture to question.

But this profession of the true faith (I humbly conceive, if we speak exactly) as it is a mark of the true Church, must be taken [Page 75] ecclesiastically and not personally; for there may be a private per­sonal owning and profession of the faith, where there is no formal, proper and exact Church; and there, we cannot affirme profes­sion of the faith an essential note of the true Church; personal profes­sion, I grant is a certaine mark of a member of the Church (i. e.) universal, and ecclesiastical profession of the Church it self.

This ecclesiastical profession (I conceive) consists in attend­ance upon the Ordinance of divine worship, and is rather a real, then a vocal profession; for the end of the visible Church, be­ing properly the worship of God, the note thereof is properly, that which renders it serviceable to its end, which is attendance upon those things which are ordained for that end, the Ordinances of di­vine worship.

I confesse, Amesius intends a profession of faith formally and vocally taken, which he distinguisheth from the solemne preaching Professio ista in coetu aliquo po­test antecedere solennem verbi praedicationem, & Sacramento­rum administra­tionem. Med. p. 172. 30. of the Word, and administration of the Sacraments. By which, he either meanes a profession made by all those that are admitted into an instituted Church, which cannot (I conceive) be proved from Scripture, to be a necessary duty, much lesse an essential mark of the true Church, and is not very consonant with reason, seeing if this be maximè essentialis nota, the Church may possibly, through want of occasion of admitting, be many years without such an essential note, the nature of which, if I mistake not, re­quires that it be more usual; Besides, how such a profession can be looked upon, as the profession of the whole, which is of some necessity for its being a mark of the whole; I know not, it being not made by a publick Minister, but a private member, yea, hard­ly a member, if the end of his confession be in order to his admission, but however, 'tis clearly the profession of the party, and a note one­ly of his faith and worthinesse of admission, and in any sober sense, can hardly be look'd on, as the profession, much lesse the note, and least of all the essential, the chiefly essential note of the whole Church; as indeed we never found affirmed before, by any Au­thentick authour in the Church of Christ, and which, I humbly conceive, is not Ames his sense here; onely I took this occasion to free him from it, because I fear, these words of his, are made a patron of such a practise.

But if this be not the profession of faith, which Amesius affirm­eth to be the note of the Church; it must needs be the set and [Page 76] solemn declaration of the faith, by the mouth of the Church, to wit, the Minister, which was wont to be done (as he requireth) be­fore the Sermon.

But this, I humbly conceive is not to be distinguished from the Word and Sacraments, as it is maxime [...]ssentialis ecclesiae nota, ac­cording to Scripture, reason, or the judgement of most, if not all that have anciently written upon this subject, is not the same faith professed by the Minister in preaching, and the people in hearing, and by both, in participating in the Sacraments or seales thereof, which is read in the Creed? and are not these actions, as visible, and as essential to the Church, as the reading and hearing of the Creed? or dare any say that where there is a con­stant and diligent attendance on the preaching of the true do­ctrine, and lawful administration of prayers and Sacraments, that there we cannot discerne a true Church without a solemne decla­ring, of the faith, in a set Creed? and most of our Churches in England, that have at present (I know not for what cause) laid aside that practice, are therefore, not visible true Churches?

Though I highly approve of such a solemn declaration of the faith (if possible in the same sound forme of words, to be uni­versally made) yet I humbly conceive, that this is but a pru­dential humane Ordinance, and therefore not so necessary or so neer the essence, or so essential a mark of the Church, as sound doctrine and pure Sacraments, both which are undoubtedly of immediate divine institution, and without which the Church cannot exist.

Which thing Trelcatius doth thus most accurately and fully o­pen the proper and essential note of the visible Church, which flows immediately from the very forme of it, is but one, viz. the Nota propria & essentialis ecclesiae visibilis proximeque flu­ens ex forma illius unica est; veritas scilicet verbi Dei, Revelati ac communicati; cui veritas Sacramentorum tanquam connexum inse­perabile conjuncta est.—Utriusque enim veritas ita proprium & essentiale est [...] ecclesiae, ut veritas haec & ecclesia convertantur. Instit. Theol. p. 224. truth of the Word of God revealed and communicated, to which the truth of the Sacraments is inseparably joyned, for which he quotes, Heb. 4. 12. John 10. 27. Matth. 28. 10. Rom. 4. 11. [Page 77] for as he addes the truth of both is such a proper and essential mark of the Church, that this truth [of both Word and Sacra­ments] and the Church, are convertible.

But of this I shall have more occasion in the next Chapter; therefore I have onely this to do here, namely, to set this pro­fession of the faith before you, to consider whether it doth necessarily suppose saving grace, or not, in any of these senses. 1. May not personal vocal profession be made without saving We are to ac­knowledge a Church of Christ more or lesse corrupt according to the greater or lesse abuse of Gods Word and worship. Bp. Usher. p. 39. his sum of Rel. grace? and the truth be professed, as well as beleeved, where sa­ving grace is wanting? 2. May not ecclesiastical profession, whether more formally by a solemn Creed read, and silently con­sented unto by the people, be also done, and considered without any respect to saving grace in the declarer or consenters. 3. Or that other real profession consisting in attendance upon the Ordinances of God, be considered to have truth for its ob­ject both in Word and Sacraments, and yet without respect to sa­ving graces?

Againe, the accidental notes of the Church, are also generally acknowledged to be of two sorts, inseparable or proper, and sepa­rable or common.

The separable and proper notes of a true Church are said to be the pure preaching of the Word, and the lawful administration of the Sacraments, which are but the meanes or actions of con­veyance and application of the foresaid truth of both, unto the Church, and so near unto the profession thereof, which was said before to be the essential mark of the Church, that I have already reduced it thither, and need not repeat it here againe.

The separable notes of the Church, whatsoever they be, can­not conclude any thing against me; because they are such, I meane, separable, and therefore not necessary in our consideration of the being of the Church.

However, that we leave not them onely untoucht, they are u­sually reduced unto two heads. 1. Ecclesiastical power. 2. And holiness of life.

Ecclesiastical power hath three branches, the power of Mini­stry, the power of Order, the power of Discipline; all which may easily be considered without the least respect to saving grace. 1. Judas may truely exercise his Ministry. And, 2. Outward [Page 78] Order may be fix'd and observed. And, 3. Discipline may be e­rected and dispensed without any necessary supposition of saving grace, either in the parties so dispensing, or in the objects (open­ly scandalous) on which the Discipline is dispensed; as hath beene touched before, and will be more fully handled here­after.

I confesse, holiness of life cometh neerest, to shew its respect to saving grace; but this also shewes as much respect to my cause; as easily appeares by this [concluding] argu­ment.

If holiness of life be separable from a true Church, then saving grace is separable from a true Church, for if a holy life doth not alwayes suppose saving, yet saving grace doth not always pro­duce a holy life.

But, it is still confessed, by those which write most accurately on the Church, that holinesse of life is a separable accidental note, which is onely necessary to the order and welfare of the Church, and not to the being or truth thereof.

Now, if saving grace be separable from a true Church, then it may be considered to be truely such, without respect there­unto.

The summe of the general Argument from the causes is this.

• All the causes of the visible Church may really exist without the work of saving grace, viz.
  • The efficient, as
    • Authour, God
    • Head, Christ.
  • The end of the
    • Glory
      • of God on earth, before men.
    • Worship.
  • The matter, whe­ther it be
    • Professors of the faith.
    • The outwardly called.
    • Outward worshippers.
  • The form whether it be
    • Constituting.
    • Distinguishing.

• he forme constituting, whether it be
  • Faith.
  • Calling.
  • Society or community.

• The form distinguishing, whe­ther it be
  • Essential
    • Profession of the faith, or truth of word & Sacraments.
  • ccidental inseperable
    • Pure preaching of the word, and administrati­on of Sacraments.

Therefore the visible Church may be considered to be truely a Church of Christ, without respect to saving grace.

CHAP. XII.
The Argument from the definition of the visible Church, first from its special quality.

HAving done with the causes, we proceed to the definition, whence we thus argue.

The definition of the visible Church doth not suppose saving [...] grace, therefore the definition, the visible Church it self, may be considered to be truely such, without respect to saving grace, for the definition of a thing, is but that whereby the nature of that thing is declared or explicated, and is plainly convertible with the thing defined.

Now whether the definition of the visible Church be inclusive of saving grace, or not; may appear, First, from the parts there­of severally considered. And, Secondly, by a view of such defini­tions of the Church, as are already given us by approved Au­thours.

1. The parts are three. 1. The special quality of the visible Church. 2. Or the special work and employment thereof. Or, lastly, the state and condition wherein the Church so qualified is rendred capable of that employment.

First, let us look upon the special quality of the visible Church, which may be conceived to be either the faith, calling, or pro­fession thereof Whence by some the visible Church is, in short, defined to be, a company or society of Beleevers; or a compa­ny of men called by external vocation, or a company professing the Christian and true Religion; where the weight and empha­sis rests upon the faithful, or the called, or professors of the true Religion.

My businesse is not to defend or to except against any of these, either in their truth or fulness, but to propose, whether these and the like have any necessary dependance upon saving grace; which to affirme, I think, is not without evident danger.

Here are two things rest upon me, 1. That external calling, [Page 81] profession of the true religion, and faith have no necessary de­pendance upon saving grace. 2. That these are true and real in their kinde as to visible membership, when not sa­ving.

1. For external calling; the very sound and notion thereof, Efficacitas vo­cationis, duplex una salutaris electorum pro­prio: altera non salutaris ad vo­catos communi­ter spectans. Inst. Theol. p. 114. sufficiently proves its independency upon saving grace, and that as distinguished from the inward and saving calling, it is true and real in its kinde, and indeed effectual, as Trelcatius notes, I suppose is sufficiently argued be­fore.

2. Neither can any doubt but that profession of the true and Christian religion is also generally done, without saving grace; and for its being yet a true and real profession, when not saving, this depends upon the truth of the faith, by which, or rather from which, this profession is made, and which is next to be weigh­ed.

3. Therefore whereas the external calling, and the profession of the faith, have both been largely handled before, and this common faith hath been often touched upon; as againe, will be frequent occasion of hereafter; I shall, now once for all, humbly endeavour to prove, that there is a faith in the mem­bers of the uisible Church, which is true and real in its kind, though not saving.

Arg. 1. This appears, First, from the authority. Secondly, from the reason of Scripture. 1. From Scripture-authority, thus.

1. The Scripture intimates, that all that are not Heathen are Beleevers, 1 Cor. 7 14. as even all affirme, that interpret the place against the Anabaptist; for indeed, the question was not, Existimant re­formati, quod soedcralis quae­dam fanctitas qua jus habent illi qui hoc modo sancti sunt, ad media salutis & Sa­cramentum Baptismi, & qua ab Ethnicis, Turcis, similibusque al iis infidelibus seperantur, 1 Cor. 7. 14 Toti Nationi seu populo comunicetur, cui Deus tabulas sui soederis ita imper. tit easdem suscipiant, & profiteantur, quos ad statum visibilis ecclesiae suae vocat & ducit, Rom. 11. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Blakes Seals, p. 118. out of Apol. touching continuance with such as were wicked, if professing re­ligion, but such as were Heathens, (i. e.) out of the Church; there­fore Heathen and Infidel, or no Church-member and unbeliever, are synonimous; Let him be to thee as a Heathen, Mat. 18. is worse than an Infidel, 1 Tit. 5. 8.

But now there are may persons within the Church, who though they are without saving grace may not be termed Heathens. 1. The scandal of persons within may declare they have no saving grace, yet the punishment at last to be inflicted on such, is but to put them into the state of an Heathen, or to deal with them as with a Heathen or a Publican; therefore doubtless they were not Heathen before.

2. In the place before cited, a wicked Church-member is compared to an Infidel, or an Unbeleever (worse then an Infi­del; because he professeth and owneth the faith with his mouth which he denies and wounds by his ungodly life;) and he that is compared to an infidel; is thereby concluded to be no infidel; for a comparison must needs be betwixt two; for it is as it were a comparison, or a comparing things one with another; and he that is no Infidel or unbeleever, must needs be granted to be a beleever, or will be enforced from 2 Cor. 6. 15. What part hath the Beleever, [...], with an infidel, or one without the Church.

3. Of which, the Scripture giveth us, a cleare instance in Si­mon Magus; it first affirmeth that he believed, and then wit­nesseth, that he notwithstanding was in the gall of bitter­nesse, They have in­deed a true faith in their kinde, but not the justifying faith of the Elect. Boultons deceit. p. 73. and bond of iniquity, and consequently in a state of wickedness.

4. And lastly, the Scripture is most plaine, Luke 8. 13. in our Saviours interpretation of the stony ground; which for a while beleeve, but in the time of temptation fall away (i. e. from that state of faith wherein they stood a while;) our Saviour doth not say by their falling away it appears, they did not be­leeve Upon this Luk 2. 13. Master Perkins notes three things, 1. Their faith, they are said to beleeve for a season. 2. The fruits of that faith, they received the Word with joy. 3. Their unsoundnesse in the time of temptation, they fell away. Mark (saith he) here is a true faith, yet not saving faith. Epist. before his declarat. of a mans estate. at all, or shew themselves to be what indeed they were before, viz. Infidels, but he affirmeth they did beleeve. 2. Again, that this was a real faith, for he saith they fell away from it; they could not fall away from that which was not. Lastly, in the time of temptation, implying, that before that time they might be truely said to stand in the; else the blast of temptation could not have thrown them down; as also those that made shipwrack [Page 83] of faith, are supposed, 1. To have had the faith, else they could not have lost it. 2. To have had no saving faith, for then they would not have made shipwrack of it.

2. In the reason of the Scripture, it is also plaine, that there is a true faith which yet is not saving; whether we consider it in a relative, or in a qualitative sense.

1. There is a relative or (if any had rather) a federal faith as well as holinesse; allowed by all but Anabaptists upon the account of our parents Church-membership.

Obj. If any should reply that this faith is in the parent, and not in the childe.

Answ. I must have leave to deny it; an account of which I shall give more largely hereafter, in briefe here, thus.

1. The faith that is in the parent is a personal, habitual, or qualitative faith, this faith that relates to the childe is foe­deral.

2. The childe is as truely the subject of this faith, which he hath by relation to his father, by grace, as of filiation or son-ship, which he hath also by relation from his father by nature.

3. Yea, this faith is more firmely seated in the childe, then his One sort of real holines consists in a bare rela­tion of the peo­ple of God and depends wholly upon birth within the pale of the Church, and the parents embracing the covenant. Blak. Scals p. 150. out of Camero. filiation; for this dieth with the parent that doth not; which shews that the childe hath its faith as well be relation to the Church and Covenant, in which, and indeed, God himself, to whom he is borne, as to his earthly parent.

4. Therefore the children are said to be holy themselves, as well as their parents, 1 Cor. 7. 14. that is federally; and that which is a reason of this foederal holinesse is equally a reason of their foe­deral faith.

5. Indeed, nor we, nor our children have any right in Abra­hams Covenant, but as we, and they are Abrahams children; he is the great root, and we and ours branches upon him; now none are Abrahams children, but beleevers; he is the father of the faithful, therefore our children, being children of Abraham, are beleevers, as we are.

6. Therefore children may be known (as Christ himself intimates) to believe in his Name, i. e. by their being born within the Church, Mat. 18. 6, 7. or else they could not be received, or offended as such, as Christ sup­poseth.

[Page 84] 7. Lastly, none but an Anabaptist will deny our children to be both of the Church, and the subject of their own Church-membership, and therefore to be sealed such in themselves, and not onely in their parent, by baptisme, and consequently, the Camero distin­guisheth of real holinesse one sort consists in the bare relati­on of the per­son, &c. as Mr. Blake notes, Seals 150 subjects of their own faith; seeing baptism is also a seal of the righ­teousness of faith.

2. Neither, let any reply, that this is not a real, because it is a relatiue faith; for even, therefore, it is real (real being opposed here, to that which is either false, or not at all, and not unto relative) is not a childe, a son really, because relatively? 2. That must needs be real in it self, which hath real effects; but this re­lative faith hath real effects; hereby we are borne to God, and Tametsi relatio est Ens debilis entitatis, tamen est magnae effi­caciae. in the Covenant, hereby we have a right to baptisme, and all other Ordinances, so far as we are capable of them; being mem­bers of the visible Church and body of Christ, and all these really and truely so.

3. Now, that this foederal faith, differs from that which ju­stifieth The Church in dispensing, looketh into visibility of in­terest in the Covenant to guide her; nor is the saving interest of the persons her rule &c. Cobbet cited by Blake Seals p. 124. and saveth, (which is, necessarily, a quality of the person so justified, or saved) or, at least, that we need not respect the sa­ving grace of the childe; whom, upon this foederal and re­lative consideration, we are about to receive and admit to Baptisme, I think, none but an Anabaptist will stick to que­stion.

2. Habitual or qualitative faith, may be considered also to be a true faith, when not saving, both as it is an historical, and as it is a temporary faith, as Divines distinguish.

Both which, viz. the historical and temporary faith are distin­guished from justifying and saving faith generally, by most Pro­testant Assensus ille ge­neralis quem poutisicii fidem statuunt, non est fides (i. e. justi­ficans) quia ipsis fatentibus, potest esse sine ulla vita Am. Med. p 8 Virtutis activae quantitas, ex quantitatis ef­fectu cognosci debet. Trel. Inst. Theol. p. 114 Divines; yea, those which hold as the Papists generally do, that historical faith doth justifie, even they do yet grant, that there is an historical faith in some degree and acts thereof, that is not saving; which is most apparent in the other, viz. temporary faith, which is, doubtlesse, a higher degree of faith (if there be a difference) and evidently includes a dogmatical faith within it;) for this being but temporary cannot be saving.

Now, that both these are real though not saving; appears by the truth of their effects; an Historical faith doth generally produce a temporary faith, wherein there is still more or lesse of an Applica­tive faith, though never so much as a justifying faith.

Sometimetimes this temporary faith sheweth it self by a strong application, bringing its subject truely to answer, though Efficacitas vo­cationis est in­terna, cum tanguntur, in­tellectus & vo­luntas. Tre. Inst. 114. Ex modo vocan­di non ex effectu vocationis. Inst. Theol. but in part, the call of God, which renders him really, though but commonly called; yet, not outwardly, but in a very deep measure inwardly called; for as Trelcatius hath most accurate­ly noted, this common calling is termed external, onely with re­spect to the manner of calling, and not with respect to the ef­fect of the call; this common call, being as truely, though not so throughly an inward call, as that which is saving; for it reacheth the minde, and produceth its change truely there, by bringing it to see danger and vanitie in the wayes of sinne; and to judge the wayes of grace and holinesse better and safer; it toucheth and turneth the will also, to perfer and choose, and accordingly to apply it self to the true Religion; it unlocks, interrupts and partially awakens the deepest part, and secretest closet of the soul, the conscience; by convincing it of sinne, and the wrath and terrours of the Lord accompanying sin; by per­swading it, of a necessity of repentance unto life, of beleeving to the saving of the soul, of mortification of sinne, and of becoming a new creature; by letting in the flashes of hell for duties omit­ted, and evils practiced and allowed, against light and truth im­prisoned; this makes a change and disturbance in the passions; quencheth love to the world, breaketh, or at least disorders and shakes the quiet hope, joy, and delight in sinne, &c. and on the other side draweth it into a good compliance with better ways makes it to attend on the word gladly, to receive it with joy, to yeeld some outward conformity to the will of God, and e­ven to taste of the powers of the world to come; and not onely to deserve the title of beleever, but even of one sanctified with the blood of the Covenant, and yet all the while but such as is but for a while, and therefore not justifying or saving faith, as sadly appears, Heb. 6. and Heb. 10. Therefore is but deservedly stiled by Matthew and Mark, [...], temporary.

Object. I cannot foresee what can possibly interrupt us by way of objection here, unlesse it be said that real faith is taken aequi­vocè, and though an historical and temporary faith are real in their kinde, yet is not these but a justifying and saving faith, which is to be understood in the definition, when the Church is defined societ as fidelium.

Answ. But, even this was prevented; for though Ames doth evidently mean a faith which justifieth or saveth, yet it hath appeared the Scripture doth not, in the former instances; wherein, persons that are evidently denied to have this justify­ing saving faith, are yet as evidently allowed, to have re­al faith, and that, such as interests in visible Church-member­ship.

1. None, according to Scripture, are denyed to be members of the Church but infidels; but neither temporary beleevers, nor foe­deral as before, can ever from the Scripture be proved, either to be infidels or savingly beleevers.

2. Foederal faith is not justifying, or (in Wallaeus his word) doth not justifie the childe, yet this entitles the childe to vi­sible Church membership; and by this, to wit, foederal faith, all that are borne in the Church are entitled and stand possessed of the said membership; and this is the very state and case of most of the people of God in England, and that which an­swereth our own case, might give satisfaction without further enquiry.

3. Yet, if not a dogmatical faith, a faith lesse then justifying, or a temporary faith, or a common faith (which so farre draweth the person beleeving, and to own and apply himself (by desire of, and submission unto Baptisme) to the true Religion, though it work not so deep as was before explained) is sufficient to admit an adult heathen (as more largely anon) into communion with the Church; as easily appears in Simon, who had no more; in the Eunuch who professed no more; and in the stony ground, which hereby stood in a due possession of this communion, till in the time of temptation it fell away.

CHAP. XIII.
Touching Communion in the Ordinances of God, and the place it hath, in the defini­tion of the Church.

WE now proceeed to the second great specialty observable, in the definitions of the visible Church; taken from its chief office and employment, viz. communion in the Ordinances and worship of God.

Here, though I do not altogether exclude the qualifications spoken to, yet, I shall humbly offer whether, communion in the worship and Ordinances of God be not fitter to define the visible Church by, then the former qualifications thereof.

Cons. 1. Such as lay most weight upon the former qualifications of faith, calling, and profession; in their definitions of the visible Church do, yet ever adde, more then a touch of this holy exer­cise and communion of it, to the perfecting of their said defini­tions, as will appeare expresly anon. Amesius himself adds unto his societas fidelium ad communionem sanctorum constanter inter se Med. p. 168. exercendum.

Cons. 2. These qualifications seeme fitter to define the Church as invisible by seeing they also are invisible; indeed Ames defi­neth the Church to be coetus vocatorum, but he evidently in­tends Vid. Med. cap. 31. 7. p. 162 the mystical or invisible Church; it is a most usual thing for Divines to define the mystical (by which they intend the Church of the saved) after this manner, viz, by some occult (invisible) qua­lity of faith, love, calling, or the like; whereas the defining of the Church from its outward acts and exercises in the worship of God, is (without some shew of exactnesse) to define the Church as visible, from something visible.

Cons. 3. If the visible Church should take its definition, rather from the said qualifications, then from its communion in Ordi­nances, then would the Church be rather known from the evi­dence of these qualifications, then from its communion in Ordi­nances; for that which flows most immediately from the essence [Page 88] of a thing into our apprehension and knowledge, cannot but be reckoned the most essential, and therfore, the best mark of that thing.

But the Church, on the contrary, hath been ever better knowne and distinguished by the Ordinances wherein it communicates, then from any personal qualities whatsoe­ver.

1. Therefore, the truth of the Ordinances, and the truth of the faith which is professed, hath been ever respected and look­ed upon, as an essential mark, and indeed the onely essential mark of the true visible Church, while personal qualities have beene ever reckoned among the seperable adjuncts there­of.

2. Indeed purity of life, and evidences of saving grace, I hum­bly conceive, are rather the purity of single members, but the purity of Ordinances, the purity of the Church as such; so that the purer the Ordinances, the purer the Church, &c. contra.

As even all our Divines, do argue upon the Marks of the Church against the Papist; and as is most punctually and fully asserted by the Irish confession (Artic. 58.) But particular and visible Churches; of those that make a profession of the faith, and live under the outward meanes of salvation) be many in number wherein the more or lesse sincerely, according to Christs institution the Word of God is taught (not practiced) and the Sa­craments are administred (not received) and the authority of the keys is used (not obeyed) the more or lesse pure are such Churches to be accounted.

Cons. 4. The Church is rather and better distinguished from O holy Socrates O holy Plato; O devilish Christian; O wicked Prote­stant. Woods Serm. p. 49 its opposite, viz. the world by its fellowship in Ordinances then by the evidence of inward qualities or saving grace any other way; therefore its definition should rather be taken from thence.

1. Many Christians are not so civil as some Heathens, and many Heathens are not so profane as some Christians; yet no Heathens do attend the Ordinances of God, as Christians do in their solemn assemblies.

2. As Heathens (taken in a large sense for all infidels) do o­penly oppose the true religion; so Christians do more openly [Page 89] own and maintain the same in these their solemne meetings, and (properly, publick) assembles; particular persons stand in most direct opposition to infidels, not by their own private calling, faith or profession, but by their relation to these bodies and As­sembles of Gods people, and the communion thereof in the worship of God in publick.

3. Therefore therein, also the Church is most exposed to the malice of those that seek her life, and thirst to destroy her very being in the world, not so much in her righteousnesse towards men, or in her private enjoying, or separate professing the faith of Christ, as in her publick and valiant owning and serving her Lord in the wayes and Ordinances of divine worship, as it were to the worlds, and the God of the worlds, defiance; for fear of whom they flinched (Heb. 10.) and forsock the assembling of themselves together, with the Church.

Cons. 5. This further appears if we well consider the onely way, that God himself hath generally, if not ever, taken, directly and judicially to un-church a people; namely, by removing his Ordi­nances, and not his graces, their faith, calling or profession from them; Look over all the books and works of God; and see whether this can be questioned; the very people that murthered Christ, yet to them belongs the promise, Acts 2. and they are the seed of the Covenant, chap. 3. and so continue, notwithstanding this height of all impiety untill the Ministry and Ordinances are turned from them to the Gentiles, Acts ult. 'tis granted that such desperate wickednesse doth not onely deserve, that God should spew a people out, but also it doth violently provoke him to it; yea, it is threatned with it, Rev. 3. 16. Yet observe, they are to be spewed out of his mouth, his word is to be removed from them; for how did those Asian Churches cease to be so, but by the Lords performance of that other threatning in order unto this, viz. removing his Candlestick out of their place, Revel. 2. 5.

Cons. 6. Yea, a people, have no other way to unchurch them­selves, but by their voluntary breaking of their communion in the Ordinances of God, by heresie, poysoning them, and thus ma­king them die, and cease to be Gods Ordinances; or schisme, directly rejecting them, or by the perfection of both, in a total Apostasie.

But though wickednesse did ever unchurch a people demerito­riè, it never yet did unchurch a people formaliter vel effectivè, as will appear more anone.

Yea, though Heresie be indeed a renouncing the faith and schisme, a renouncing the profession of the faith, yet at present, I conceive, that heresie doth properly and strictly unchurch, as it denieth the faith, not, as it is the faith of Christ, but as it is, the foundation of this communion in the Word and Sacra­ments; Being built up­on the founda­tion of the Prophets and Apostles. and accordingly schisme doth stictly unchurch, as it breaks off this communion, and not as it ceaseth the profession of the faith.

Therefore breaking off from this communion, is most exactly and properly termed, schisme, or a renting of the Church, and ungodlinesse of heart or life, and indeed a ceasing to professe the faith, as such, is not so properly or stictly schysme.

Cons. 7. These qualifications, faith, holinesse, calling, and pro­fession, may all be found where there is no instituted or formed Church and (consequently, to our congregational brethrens principles, who as Master Cotton in the name of his brethren, phraseth it, say, that the universal visible Church is a Chimaera) where there is no formed visible Church; wherein Ames is so ex­presse, Fideles non constituant ecclesiam particularem, nisi speciali Med. p. 167. vinculo inter se conjungantur; which onely renders them capable of this communion; the Jewish Church being dissolved; the E­lect, that were saved, were not of themselves a formed instituted Church, but must therefore be added to the Gentile-Churches, i. e. Congregations.

Therefore these personal qualifications, are not so fitted to the definition of the visible Church, as communion in the Ordinances of God; for wheresoever this is fixed and settled, there is un­doubtedly a true visible Church, this communion supposeth the called, beleevers, professors on the one side, and the officers or dis­pensers of the Ordinances on the other side, and plainly expresseth or signifieth to us, the essence or truth of the visible Church, by the formal actions of it.

Now, that I may yet, be more free from exception, and more truely understood, I shall here recollect, and subjoyne what hath beene already in a scattered way hinted, about [Page 91] these two great considerable in a few brief concessions and pro­positions.

Prop. 1. I grant, that these personal qualifications are necessari­ly supposed in this communion in Ordinances, in the senses before given of them; the persons thus communicating, are such as are called thereunto; such as professe the faith therein, and such as are presumed to beleeve what they thus professe, or at least not to deny or renounce it.

Prop. 2. These qualifications are therefore necessary conditions of Church members, or of such particular persons as assemble them­selves with the Church in this worship of God, or as Ames most Med. p. 163 accurately, forma vocatorum, the forme of the called, not of the Church.

Prop. 3. Therefore these qualifications are rather to be reduced to the matter of the Church, then to the forme.

Prop. 4. I grant, therefore, that they fitly serve to expresse the qualification of the matter of the Church, in the definition thereof, as I conceive Amesius and others mean, whose definitions of the visible Church, are usually begun thus; a company of beleevers, &c. or of the called, &c. or of such as profess the faith, or the true Re­ligion.

Prop. 5. Yet, I humbly conceive, the maine distingushing part of the definition of the visible Church, lieth in the communion of Or­dinances, for the reasons above specified; this, being, as was said, the formal action of it, immediately springing from its forme and es­sence, viz. society or community which is the next great particular in the definition of the Church and now at hand to be considered.

Onely, by the way, let this be concluded with the easie notice that my designe is yet going on; seeing none can doubt, but if persons void of saving grace, may be truely considered to have faith, calling, and profession, as before, they may much easier also be considered to partake of the outward communion of the Church, in the worship and Ordinances of God; and therefore, so far, none can hinder the definition of the Church to be applicable therunto without respect to saving grace.

CHAP. XIV.
Touching that State of the Church, whereby it is capable of communion in Ordi­nances, viz. Community.

THe last great particular, that claimeth a place in the defini­tion of the Church, is that proper condition or state thereof, that only renders it capable of the exercise of this employment, comes now to be handled.

This, I presume, will be generally consented unto, to be a company, community, or society (as it strictly intends com­munion in the worship of God) wherein, I humbly conceive, is contained.

1. Many particular persons or men (in the kinde, not sex, or age. 1. Many, coetus requirit decem. 2. Many men, for other creatures below man, are not capable of making a society, it be­ing a political, and therefore a rational state, and Angels are al­most as much above it; society being a state of discourse, and so most properly belonging to discoursive creatures, viz. men, accord­ing to that of the Grammarian, coetus requirit decem homines; this is supposed in a society. Cod.

2. The union of these men by some kinde of bond or other, whereby they are embodied and made an habitual assembly, a fixed society, this is expressed.

3. Actual communion in the Ordinances of God, this is intended.

Coetus or societas here, is therefore to be taken in a moral or political sense, from corporations or companies of trade. So, 1. 'Tis orderly, not tumultuons. 2. 'Tis fixed, not occasional. 3. 'Tis habitual, not onely actual. 4. It hath officers belonging to an or­derly and fix'd society of this nature. 5. Therefore, lastly, 'tis a society of Christians governed by the Minister, or Ministers of the Gospel, as we still finde it to be in Scripture.

I shall crave leave to explicate my self herein, a little further, by a few propositions.

Prop. 1. This community is of necessity required in the true or false definition of the visible Church.

Prop. 2. This community doth directly, immediately and for­mally Foederata ifla conjunctio tantum consti­tuit ecclesiam, quotenus spectat ad communio­nem sanctorum exercendam. Am. Med 169. intend communion; Communion is the most natural act, and the very essential efflux of community; therefore coetus (a coire) [...], is truely rendred an Assembly or Con­gregation.

Prop. 3. Communion, then, hath the next necessity and place, to community, in the definition of the Church, as being the essenti­al property thereof, and its formal evidence,

Prop. 4. The means of this communion, or its specification is the Ordinances or worship of God, instituted and enjoyned by Christ in the Gospel.

Prop. 5. Would we view all the three special particulars, that lay claime to this definition, at once I humbly conceive. 1. That the qualifications spoken of, viz. faith, calling, &c. taken with Ames in a saving sense, they best serve to define the Church in­visible. 2. Communion in Ordinances best serve to define the u­niversal visible. 3. And this community or proper society best serves to define the particular instituted visible Church, which is the Church which we finde most frequently defined by Authors; not but that they may all have their place in the definition of the particular Church, but I think thus they may all have the chiefest and most necessary place in the definition of the Church.

Prop. 6. We then may hence note three degrees of ne­cessity in these three great parts of the definition of the Church.

1. The Church cannot be without the qualifications spe­cified, yet they may be, where the Church (viz. a particu­lar Neque tamen sufficit, subitanea aliqua conjun­ctio, & sanctae communionis exercitium ad ecclesiam consti­tuendam; nisi etiam constantia illa accedat quoad intentio­nem saltem, &c. Am. Med, p. 170 instituted Church) is not, viz. in the called or beleevers scattered.

2. Actual communion constantly attended on, cannot be where the Church is not, yet the Church may be where there is no actual communion; the Church is really, when it doth not meet or assemble together; this is more necessary then the formes.

3. Communion or society referring to this communion, can nei­ther be where the Church is not, neither can the Church be where [Page 94] this is not; therefore, this is necessary, even with the highest de­gree of necessity, for a right defining a particular visible Church which further appeareth thus.

1. Because (as before) we conceive, the very forme of the Definitio pro­priè dicta vel essen [...]ialis est physica quae da­tur per Meteri­am & formam vel metaphysica, que datur per genus & diffe­rentiam. Church to consist in coetu, in society or community, it being an aggregative body; but I still intend such a community as relates to communion in the worship of God; now desinitions being onely to explicate the essence of a thing, and the forme being neerest to the essence, and, as Aristotle saith, the very quid and essence it self, definitions are best, when taken from the forme.

2. Definitions are fittest to be taken from hence, because the qualifications mentioned are supposed in the persons of this society and this community doth essentially con-note the communion in Or­dinances, in the habit or first act of it; when the second act, or a­ctual communion is unavoidably suspended, by intrinsick or ex­trinsick necessity thereof.

3. These qualifications may be where there is no Church, and a Church may be where there is no actual communion, at present, The action be­ing ended the Assembly is dissolved, and is no longer in being; whereas the Church which was assembled doth no lesse continue after­ward then be­fore. Hook. eccles pol. 89▪ and therefore, neither of these are so fit to define the Church with­al, as community; that was now observed, to be convertible with the Church.

4. The Names of the Church do generally intimate this commu­nity, for its most usual and proper name [...], Scharpius ac­quaints us that it is from convocando; and that among the Atheni­ans it signified a company called together voce praeconis to hear the sentence of the Senate, which Assembly the Latines called concio, and this, saith he, is [...], transferred to a holy use; we see here one actual Congregation of the people, and this called eccle­sia from their being convocated, and this usual actual convocation, must needs suppose a community, by which they were held, in a con­stant [...] a convocando & apud Athenien­ses significabat coetume reliqua Turba, voce praeconis ad audiendum Senatus sententiam convocdtum, qui coetus latinis concio dicitur, [...] ad res sac as traducitur. Nempe ad significandum sanctum coetum voce praeconien verbi vocatorum ad ora­cirla divina audienda, Joh. Scharp. Carsus Theol. [...] G [...]aecis celebre & usitatura, significans proprie coetus, hominum a suis sedibus in alium convocatorum ad aliquid audiendum. Poly. Anth. p. 969. Vid Bul. dec. p 135. preparation for these summons; but he proceeds to tell us what it is in a holy sense, viz. an holy Assembly of persons called to­gether by the voice of the Preachers of the Word, to hear the Di­vine Oracles. Langus also teacheth, that [...] among the [Page 95] Greeks, signifying properly a company of men called together from their own seats into some other place, ad audiendum, to hear something; whence the occasion being frequent and so­lemn, the company became a society, or an habitual company constantly attending in one place upon Gods worship, which is properly a Church of God, therefore, in Latine, 'tis cal­led Congregatio, haply from the Hebrew Katial, Congre­gavit. [...]

Its metaphorical names import no lesse; 'tis called a Body, a House, a Family, a City, a Flock, a Kingdom; all which connote union, and such, as directly intends communion and fellow­ship.

5 The Church is therefore called a Way. I persecuted, saith Paul, this way unto the death, Acts 22. v. 4. which is a fi­gure pointing at the persons that usually walked together in Visibilis ecclesia est coetus eorum qui per verbum externum Sacra­mentorum ac disciplinae ec­clesiastice usum in unum exter­num corpus coa­lescunt. disp. 40 Thes. 32 Est unitas ec­clesiae quae late patet in Sacram. omnium societa­te & communi­one. His Vind. p. 9 Visibilis eccle­sia est coetus communiter vo­catorum, tum electorum tum reproborum p. 194. Arnob. p. 156. upon the 19. Art. allowed by the former Church of England. one way of worship; and evidently intimateth that the per­sons that thus walked together, were a fix'd community or so­ciety.

6. Some that define the Church, leave out the foresaid per­sonal qualifications, so do the Leiden Professours, the visible Church, say they, is a company of persons that by the external word, the use of the Sacraments and discipline are united into one outward body. And Augustine, 'tis the unity of the Church which lieth broad in the society and community of all the Sacra­ments.

Some againe, that define the Church do not expresse it commu­nion in Ordinances; so Mr. Hudson, the visible Church, saith he, is a company of people called or separated by God from Idols to the true Religion, and yeelding professed subje­ction to that call; and more plainly Wollebius, the visible Church is a company of persons commonly called, as well Elect as reprobate.

But no Authour that I have yet met withal, did ever define the Church, without specifying and expressing this society or community one way or other. Apollonius begins his definition with societas, the Leiden Professors with coetus: So, Wallebi­us, Trelcatius, Ames, and Augustine with unitas; of English men, Bradshaw saith the Churches of Christ are holy assemblies: Dayrel saith a particular visible Church is a company, &c. so [Page 96] Hudson, the visible Church is a company, &c. And Arnobius up­on the 19 Arti a Congregation of faithful people.

Therefore it is likely that the unity or society of the Church, deserveth the first and the highest place in the definition thereof.

Lastly, therefore I shall conclude my selfe in those expresse Fideles non constituunt ec­clesiam particu­larem, quamvis simul plures in codem loco con­veniant aut vi­vant, nisi speciali vinculo inter se conjugantur. Med. p. 169. Vinculum hoc est foedus &c. Ibid. words of Amesius; that neither the faithful, or many faithful, or many faithful meeting together, or living in one place, do thereby constitute a particular Church, without they be further joyned together by some special bond among themselvs; and I shall not fear to adde, with him, that this bond is a Covenant; and that this covenant ought to be such, as he there defineth it, viz. that whereby the faithful oblige themselves particularly to per­forme all those duties both towards God, and mutually towards each other, which respect the Condition and Edification of the Church.

Yet give me leave to explain my self in a few particulars touching this bond or Covenant, and I shall hasten to the conclusion of this last particular.

1. I grant, this bond or covenant may be lawfully expressed, at the first constitution of a particular Church, because it rationally agreeth with the nature of such a society.

2. I further grant that the expresse bond, being a prudential thing, may be so much the neerer to necessity, by how much the more prudence dictates it, to be of use, and discovers more evi­dent occasion thereof accidentally occurring at the constitution of such a Church.

3. Yet I must interpose against the necessity thereof in its own nature, because we finde not any such command in Scripture, nor a­ny such practice in the primitive Churches.

4. Neither may the want, much lesse the absence thereof, by a­ny means, be hence interpreted, to the questioning of the truth of such Churches, as have the Word and Sacraments purely, or but truly administred, and constantly attended upon; for who can deny but that these are infallible marks, yea essential notes of a true Church? besides, it is apparent even thereby that there is an implicit bond or covenant, wherein to such a people, are not onely taken with God, but, mutuo inter se, mutually with one another (seeing as the prophet queries, how can two walk to­gether, [Page 97] unlesse they be agreed;) which two of the most eminent, Dr. Ames and Mr. Hooker. as well as moderate, Congregational men, have under their hands ac­knowledged, to be all that's necessary to the truth of a visible Church in this respect.

5. Therefore, we must, with them conclude, that the form con­sisteth not in a Covenant, as expressed; for then where that was wanting, the Church could not exist; but as a Covenant or mutual bond, so far as it is necessarily supposed in the nature of such a society, or community.

6. Although I have before granted, that either an expresse or implicite covenanting to performe the duties of Church mem­bers, is a necessary duty, binding all that are admitted into such a relation; Yet I must still deny it to be of such absolute neces­sity, as that the non-real and actual intention in a particular per­son so to covenant and oblige himselfe should exclude the reality of his visible Church-membership; provided, his desire to be ad­mitted, be real and sincere.

The reality of his desire of admission, is essential to his very admission; but the reality of his actual purpose to performe all the duties, to which he is obliged by his admission, is onely essen­tial to his safe admission; the first is necessary for his be­ing, the last for his well-being in this state of the Church mem­bership.

Indeed, he is passively bound by the command of God, as also by his relation to this society of the Church, both actively Persons may be passively bound when they do not actively binde themselves. and actually, to oblige himself unto the said duties: yet, if by rea­son of the Churches carelesnesse, he is not put upon it; or by reason of his ignorance of this his duty, or his unwillingnesse to en­gage, at present, so farre in it; he shall not thus oblige himself, he is not thereby presently disobliged from his duty, by the nullity of this his Relation, or visible Church member­ship.

7. This actual obliging himself in truth, to performe all the du­ties There is a ne­cessary duty, & a necessary condition. of a Church-member, is, therefore a necessary duty, accompany­ing his admission, but no necessary condition thereof, or without which he cannot be admitted.

And this, I would conceive to be the meaning of Ames his words before noted, viz. the bond, without which, the faithful do not constitute a particular Church, is a Covenant, vel expressum, [Page 98] vel implicitum; which implicitum, I humbly conceive, must ne­cessarily An implicit Covenant op­posed to an ex­presse and an actual cove­nanting. An actual co­nanting is ei­ther vocal or mental. We covenant consequentially or vertually what neither expressely nor actually. be opposed both to expressum and to actuale; and his meaning is, or should be, that neither an expresse, that is, a vocal; nor yet an actual, whether vocal or mental Covenant, is a condi­tion so necessary, as without which the faithful cannot constitute a Church; but a conjunction so far foederata, as his phrase is, as is necessary to communion, which doth implicitely, i. e. consequen­tially, though not expressely and vertually, though not actually, also bind the faithful, i. e. all the members of the Church, parti­culatim, to the performance of all those duties, which the na­ture of so holy a society calls them unto.

For, I readily grant, that, though particular persons do not actually, either in their words or thoughts, oblige themselves so largely; yet, by their very desire of admission into the Church, if admitted, they do by consequence and vertue thereof, oblige them­selves unto all those duties that the state, into which they desire to be, and are accordingly admitted, doth necessarily and natu­rally We binde our selves vertually to more, when we yeeld to be admitted, some­times; then we that are admit­ted think of or intend. put them upon; so, in conclusion this foedus, as it is extend­ed in Ames his description, is necessary, in intentione pas­sionis, viz. admission, non patientis, the person admit­ted.

8. Yet at length, we must conclude, that there is very little use of, and consequently, as little reason to dispute about this bond, whether expresse or implicite, in constituted Churches; seeing, herein, our members are generally admitted in their in­fancy; and what shall need to be imposed at years of discre­tion, cannot, with any shew of reason intend their admission into the Church; it being rightly, either but in order to their admission to some higher Ordinance; or, at most their confirmati­on in that state, and those priviledges, whereinto they are indeed admitted, before, in baptism; but of this more directly, and there­fore more largely hereafter.

However, my maine conclusion passeth still; for if the per­sons that are subjects of both this society, and the bond thereof, may be considered (as before is proved without respect to saving grace; then, doubtlesse, so may both the society and the bond thereof, touching the first, viz. the society, there is no colour of doubting; and touching the latter, viz. the Covenant, let Amens himself, whose words haply are the ground of our doubt, [Page 99] be our resolver; he, first, assures us, that such as onely professe, are members of the visible Church; and yet, also, here addes, that the visible Church is not constituted without the bond of this Covenant; so that, if Ames consist with himself, or may be yeelded unto in the case this Covenant may be entred, even by such, as onely professe, i. e. such as have no saving grace, or (as he in another place) no inward vertue. Besides, what should possibly hinder, but that such persons as are not endu­ed with saving grace, may yet be obliged to those duties, which are not performable, without that grace which themselves want, by an obligation brought upon themselves by themselves, when they themselves did not intend it, as we have found this to be; and was the very case of Simon Magus.

CHAP. XV.
Of the definition as it may be framed, by the union of the former parts.

HItherto of the parts of the definition of the visible Church, by themselves: proceed we now, to look upon these parts in union, and to state an entire definition there­from.

Which is most ready to be done, by the closing, or drawing together what hath beene so long considered a­part.

The visible Church may thus be said to be Beleevers or per­sons outwardly called, or professing the true Religion; ordinarily attending the communion of Ordinances, in coetu, or in a fix'd society; or if you would put them together thus, a community of persons, that believe with a common faith, or that are called with common calling, or that make a profession of the true Re­ligion, ordinarily meeting and joyning together in the Ordinances of Gods worship,

For, though communion be neerer to the essence of the visible [Page 100] Church, then personal qualifications; and community, then com­munion; yet, as hath beene still acknowledged, they have all their sit place and use in the definition there­of.

Here, therefore, is the qualification of the matter, viz. com­mon faith, calling, or profession; here is the forme constituting, the coetus, or community, as it looketh unto communion; and lastly, here is the formal action, or, if you please, rather the form d [...]stinguishing this society from all other communion in the Ordi­nances of God.

Most of the definitions, that our reformed Divines, have given, so far as I can find, do indeed expresse all these three parts thereof. I shall set a few of them down here, and leave the rest to the search and judgement of the learned.

The Leiden Professors define it to be a company of those which Visibilis ecclesia est coetus eorum qui per verbum externum Sa­cramentorum & disciplinae eccle­siasticae usum in unum corpus colescunt. disp. 40. The. 32 by the external word, and the use of the Sacraments and eccle­siastical discipline are united into one body; wherein two of the three foresaid parts are very evident; 'tis a company, and such a company as hath the communion of such a body in the Word and Sacraments. I confesse, that the other, viz. the qualification of the subjects of this company, is not by them here specified; yet their profession is easily implied in their fellowship and communion in Gods Ordinances, and the not mentioning, of the calling, or faith, or profession thereof, onely intimates, as before was noted, that personal qualifications are not so necessary to the visible Church, as this community or communion.

Indeed, they also insert discipline, but seeing that discipline is not necessary to the being of the Church, and is but a separable adjunct of it, it cannot be taken as more necessary, into the definiti­on of the Church.

Ames defineth the Church institute, or visible particular, to be Est societas fi­delium speciali vinculo, inter se conjunctorum, ad communio­nem Sanctorum constanter inter se exercendam, Med. 168. a society of beleevers, joyned together among themselves by a special bond, for their constant exercising the communion of Saints together; where all the three parts are very visible. 1 Beleever. 2. In society. 3. For communion. I have before confessed, that he intends saving faith, as appears by his next words; yet I hum­bly conceive, his meaning is, that all this society ought to be en­dued with such a faith, and not that they are so indeed, or if not, no members of the visible Church.

For in the same page, he tells us, that it is very probable that there is no particular Church, but it hath some members that do savingly beleeve; and by his asserting, the greatest probability of some that savingly beleeve, he evidently granteth that others in this Church, yea, and many others (for they, viz. many others, are directly distinguished to some) may be without saving faith; and yet, as he grants in the next Paragraph, be members of the visible Church; and in that known place against Bellarmine, saith expressely, that it is false, if any say, that we, the reformed Divines, require inward vertues, and therefore not the root of them, saving faith, to render one a member of the visible Church.

Trelcatius saith, the visible Church is a company of men cal­led Ecclesia visibitis definitur coetus hominum vaca­tione externam, seu praedicatione verbi ad cultum gloriae Dei, Inst. 215 Est societas coramqui veram fidem profiten­tur ad commu­nionem & soci­etatem ecclesia­sticam inter se exercendam. out by external calling, as by the preaching of the word and the communion of the Sacraments, to the worship of the glory of God; here, also all the parts are manifest. A company. 2. Of men called with external calling. 3. To communion in the worship of God.

But Apollonius seemeth most clear and distinct, whose defini­tion, I had rather fix upon, then any yet named; 'tis, saith he, a society of persons professing the true faith, and exercising ecclesi­astical communion and fellowship among themselves; here is society of professors, for communion; communion ecclesiastical di­stinguishing this society from all others; and profession d [...]stinguish­ing this society and communion, to be of the visible, and not of the invisible Church.

There are some of our own countrey-men, that have given ve­ry clear definitions of the visible Church in this kinde. Reverend Bradshaw saith the Churches of Christ are holy assemblies, joyn­ing ordinarily and orderly together in the worship of God; here is an Assembly, the qualification thereof holy; the communion thereof joyning together in the Worship of God, though, I con­fesse, I suppose, that he here called these assemblies holy, not with respect to the subjects or the persons that made it up, but to the works and employment about which they were conversant, the holy service and worship of God.

Yet. I confesse, that there is an obscure Authour, whose name is Dayrel, that wrote many yeares agon in the defence of Dayrel of the Church p. 24 like to Hookers. our Churches against the Brownists, whose definition is more [Page 102] exact to my notion of the visible particular Church, then any of A Church as now we are to understand it, [...]s a society that [...]s a number of persons belong­ing unto Chri­stian fellowship the place and limits whereof are not certain. eccl pol. p. 88 Lictionary p. 85 the former, a particular visible Church, saith he▪ is that company, that in a City, Town, or place cohabiting, professe the Christian or true Religion, and do ordinarily meet and joyne together in the exercises of religion. A company, united by co-habitation and profession; and having communion together ordinarily in religious exercises, the Ordinances of God.

Much like to which Wilson hath defined the universal vi­sible Church; 'tis, saith he, a company of men selected, ga­thered and called out of the world, by the doctrine of the Gos­pel, to know and worship the true God in Christ according to his Word.

Or if these be too long, you may take it thus; the visible Church Ecclesia specia­liter, sumitur, pro coetu sacra, scu conventu hominum ad cultum Dei convenientium, Ravanel. de eccl. for which he quotes many Texts. is a society of persons called out of the world to the worship of the true God.

In this last, I am willing to acquiesce, it being short, and yet, I humbly conceive, plaine, clear and full, evidently conteining the whole sense of all the former, and wanting, for ought I can see in no necessary propertie of a perfect defini­tion.

Herein we finde the matter, persons called; so termed by Christ himself, as peculiar to the visible, distinguished to the invisible, or the Church of the Elect. 2. They are persons called out, so it exactly answers to the most natural and allowed Etymology of the Church. 3. Here are the termes of this motion, a quo, out of the world, ad quem, to the worship of God; wherein we have its sepe­ration, The end of the Church in the Scripture in the time of the Gospel is to worship God as before, from John 4 and its dedication; its seperation from the world, its dedi­cation to God and his worship. Wherein also, its distinguishing forme, and end, and office is con-noted, communion in the meanes or Ordinances of this worship of God. 4. 'Tis also said to be a society, a fix'd community, that respects this communion, wherein as hath been often said the tò formale, the very constituting form of the Church consisteth.

This definition is also convertible with the thing defined; it doth not lie broader or narrower, but just adequate and even with it; for every society thus called out of the world, to the worship of God, is a Church of God, and è contra.

Object. Neither doth it avail to object, that in this definiti­on, there is no mention at all of the constant or ordinary meeting [Page 103] thereof for this worship of God; as some other definitions have it.

Answ. For we are defining, a visible Church in general, which ought to be such, as agrees with every kinde of visible Church, if I may so speak, both universal and particular; now this constant▪ actual meeting together, is rather peculiar to the particular Church, then common therewith, to the Church universal, which hath this actual meeting together, but either in its representa­tive, a general counsel; or in its parts, particular Churches, whereas a society called out of the world to the worship of God, is general and common, both to the universal and parti­cular Church.

2. Yea, a particular visible Church it self, is such, when it hath not this actual meeting together; much more, when it hath it not constantly; from which it haply may accidentally be long suspended, and yet not lose its being; and therefore not come short of its definition; the essence of the Church lieth not in act, but in habit; not in communion, but in community; as this com­munity * Foeder ata ista conjunctio cate­nus tantum con­stituit ecclesiam quatenus spectat ad communionē exercendam, to be exercised. Am. Med. 169 Sanctae commu­nis exercitium ad ecclesiam constituendam sufficit, si constantia illa ac [...]edit, quoad intentionem tantum, quae sta­tum ad sert corporis, & membrorum in spirituali qua­dam politia, as with small va­riation of words is gathered. From Am. Med. 170 parag. 21 looks towards, and alwayes intends this communion, to which it is therefore said to be called out of the world, in the defi­nition.

As a man doth not lose any part of his essence, or cease at all to be a man, when he ceaseth the exercise of his reason, in his sleep, or the like; because, the essence of his manhood lieth not in the exercise, but in the faculty of reason; whereby he is fitted, and duely fur­nished to exercise the same, when occasion is offered, and impedi­ments are removed; So the Church ceaseth, not to be a Church, when she ceaseth her actual communion in the worship of God, be­cause the essence of the Church, being in society to that end, doth not suppose it, though indeed it strongly intend it, and dispose unto it, as it conteineth a habit therof, or at least an obligation thereunto, upon due seasons.

Yet, though the communion be not actual, but onely habitual; we may not say the community is onely habitual and not actual; it would be strange to say, that a man is only an habitual man, because his reasoning is now habitual, and not actual, or a society of such a trade is onely habitually so, when it doth not actually meet and as­semble together. The communion therefore is but habitual, but the Church hath its essence and existence, when it doth not meet toge­ther.

Therefore, to have put ordinary or orderly meeting together, into the definition of the Church, would have made the definition larger then the definitum sometimes; so that sometimes the Church must have been no Church, when indeed it is so; or the definition there­of, must have been no proper definition thereof, but variable, 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 [...]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. 'Tis confest, that there is but one true Church; 'tis 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 106] 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 [Page 107] (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 is invi­sible and visible; this distinction, is a distribution of the adjuncts of the same subject, in divers respects; the one internal, the other external.

I confesse, the reformed Divines, I mean, many of them do af­firme, that the invisible Church is onely revera ecclesia, the true Church; but their meaning, I humbly conceive, must be taken, with a great deal of caution; which, with all humility, I shall labour to unfold in a few distinctions, as neere their owne sense, and with as much of their spirit, as I am able.

The Distinctions, which may help us herein; may be either, of the Epithete, true; or the subject, the Church.

1. Truth, as applicable to the Church, is taken Respectu

• Naturali Vel Entitatis.
• Morali Vel Status. Vel Finis.

Now, I humbly offer, whether the reformed Divines, asserting the invisible Church to be the onely true Church, can possibly be though to exclude the visible Church from being true in the first branch of this division. viz. in that natural sense, where­by a thing is said to have the truth of being and existence; why [Page 108] then do they still define the visible Church? and give it all its Profession and preaching of the true doctrine is the only proper and certain note of the true Church. Hil­dersham on Joh. 4. p. 161 This was the meaning of Wickliff Husse, and others, who therefore define the Church to be the multi­tude of the elect not for that they think them onely to pertain to the Church, and no others; but be­cause they only pertain unto it principally, ful­ly, effectually and finally. Field on the Church. p. 13. Distinct. 2. real causes? why do they tell us of the marks of the true visible Church? why do none of them assert that the visible is not truely a Church, or that the invisible Church, is alone, the Church truely so called? yea, in that they assert it to be visible, they conclude it to be real, seeing we cannot see that that is not.

Therefore they may be granted to meane onely, that the invi­sible Church is onely true with respect to her state in the favour of God, and to her end, salvation; that is the members of the invisible Church alone, are certainly and infallible instated in the love of God, and to be saved; their controversie, with the Papist, engaged them to both these in their defence of the invisible Church, and perseverance, but no further; for, though the question was whether all in the visible Church were in a state of grace, or whe­ther all that were in a state of grace should persevere therein to the end; yet we never read that they ever came to question, whe­ther the visible Church might be truely said to be a Church of Christ, or not, the centrary being indeed acknowledged on both sides.

The Church invisible then is the onely true Church in this moral sense, it onely being truely in the love and favour of God, and sure of salvation; but the visible Church is also true in a natu­ral sense, it being really and truely a Church of God. Or,

2. Truth, as applied to the Church is so

• Simpliciter.
• Secundum quid.

Truth, as taken in general, large, or simple acceptation, may be easily conceived to be granted by the reformed Divines even to the visible Church; 'tis true in its kinde, with such a truth, as is agreeable to the nature of a visible Church: I think, none will deny this, nor affirm the invisible Church to be the onely true Church, in this sense.

Yet there is a restrained sense of truth, in order to some par­ticular determination of it, which belongs onely to the Church invisible, and which our Divines must needes meane what­ever it be: yet generally they explaine themselves, as Bullinger doth himselfe; revera ecclesia, saith he, viz. fi­deles, Electi Dei, viva membra, connexa Christo, non modo [Page 109] vinculis & externis notis, sed spiritu & fide.

In which words he plainly expresseth that there is a double way of being knit to Christ, 1. Fide & spiritu. 2. Vinculis & externis notis. The first of which he intends, when he speaks of the true Church, viz. that the invisible Church is the onely true Church in this respect of being knit unto Christ by faith and the spirit, leaving room for any to conclude besides, that such as are knit unto Christ by outward bonds alone, are yet so farre truely knit, as to be truely members of the visible, though not of the Church invisible.

Ʋnion with Christ is true outwardly (externis vinculis) by which the visible Church is truely his Church, and true savingly, whereby the invisible Church is the onely true Church in that re­spect.

The subject of this questioned truth may also be distin­guished for the better discovery of the minde of these Di­vines herein.

The Church is taken Strictly. Largely. Consisting of the

• Elect re­generate.
  Distinct. 1. Hac autem ec­clesia latius ac­cepta quatenus & bonos & malos continet. Zanch. de eccl. p. 65. Militans eccle­sia rursus consi­deratur duplici­ter vel enim strictius consi­derata vel lati­us, & malos complexa. Bul. Dec. 350. Vox ecclesia ambigui stricte, latissime, minus late in quo ele­cti & hypocrite. Ravanel. &c. Objicis, sat scio, hypocritas me numerasse, &c. Dec. p. 347
• Good and bad.

This we may the bolder insist upon, because it is of so frequent use amongst the reformed Divines themselves, upon the same oc­casion; and as they themselves explaine it, the Church strictly taken is the Church invisible consisting onely of the Elect, as Trelcatius; Bullinger, &c. or of the Elect-regenerate and called, as Ames, and others, and the Church largely taken, consisting of the Elect and reprobate, Beleevers and hypocrites, good and bad, as their general language is.

To apply it, when these Divines affirme, that the invisible Church is the onely true Church, can they be understood in any other sense then this, viz. that they onely are the true Church in this close strict and saving sense, as the Church is taken strictly? and is it not as evident, as any thing in the world, that they intend only to shut hypocrites out of the Church in this strict and saving sense? and as plaine, that they allow them a place in the Church, as it is largely taken, which large acceptation of the Church is [Page 110] by themselves generally expressed to be ecclesia bonos & malos amplexa.

Bullinger frames an objection on purpose that he may have an oc­casion to declare his minde to this point; his objection is, How can hypocrites, being members of Satan, be members of the Church? He answers, by distinguishing of hypocrites. Some, saith he, con­fide in their own righteousnesse, as the Pharisees did; these are not; others do not so, but neither hating, nor flying from, nor persecuting the Church, do outwardly joyne with it, and pro­fesse the same faith a while with it, &c. these are members of the Church till they fall away; and much more those that continue in this profession till they die; which he largely proves (as in­deed most of the reformed Divines do) from all the parables of Ut jam nihil ad­dubitarc possu­mus Judam non fuisse membrum internae Sanctae dei ecclesiae, licet esset membrum exterioris eccle­siae. Quam su­perius appellavi ecclesiam mili­tantem strictius consideratam; aliam vero visi­bilem illam bo­nos & malos comprehenden­tem latius con­sideratam. Dec. page 355 the Kingdome of Heaven in the Gospel, at length concludes, that hypocrites are members of the Church visible largely taken, containing the good and the bad, but not of the Church invisible, not true and living members of this interiour Church, or the Church so strictly taken.

Yet, this doth not infer two distinct Churches, for if we take the Church strictly, then hypocrites are no part of the Church; and if we take it in the large sense, then the strict Church is but a part thereof, to instance in the material Church, if taken in a strict sense, it signifieth the body of the Church exclusive of the chancel, if largely, for both together; and then, the Church strictly taken is but part of the Church largely taken.

This is clear, while we distinguish the Church, qua Church, but when we consider it as visible and invisible, it faileth us. We say well, that the Church taken strictly is part of the Church ta­ken largely, and the Church largely taken containeth the Church strictly taken, but it would be hard to say, the Church invi­sible taken strictly is part of the Church visible taken largely, to say a thing, as invisible is part of a thing as visible, is contra­dictio in adjectio.

'Tis evident then, that invisible and visible are opposed here in the accident, not in the subject, i. e. 'tis not meant that as some persons are invisible, so others in the same respect are visible, as if saving grace was not seen in some, and yet seen in others; but thus some persons having saving grace not seen, are said to be invisible, and others having profession visible, are said to be visible.

Moreover, this subject of these accidents is rather the faith Bull. Dec. 355 Invisibilis & interna dicitur non quod homi­nes sunt invisi­biles, sed quod hominibus non appareat, qui ve­re & ficte cre­daut. then the person; they are applied to the person, but intend the faith, or the truth thereof, as 'tis saving, 'tis invisible, as 'tis professed, so 'tis visible, and not because the men are either visible or invisible.

Lastly, the Church largely taken, may be considered Either Asolutely. Or Comparatively.

In it self, or in comparison with the Church strictly taken; and accordingly the reformed Divines may be thought to meane, that the Church largely taken, if it be considered absolutely and in it self, is a true, or at least, truely a Church of Christ, but when the Church largely taken, as it includes the bad & the good together, is compared with the Church strictly taken for the company of the Elect or savingly called, then, as they say, the latter is the onely true Church, and the former in comparison thereunto, is not a true Church, that is not so truely in the favour of God, and uni­on with Christ.

Object. 3. I confesse that Ravanellus and Calvine (with others haply) affirme, that the Church, thus largely taken, is the Church improperly, and the Church strictly for the Church of the Elect onely, is the Church properly taken. But,

Answ. 1. I humbly conceive, that their difference with the Pa­pist did not exact their assertion from them, for the Pa­pist denieth the invisible Church altogether, and not, that it is the Church properly, or improperly taken; then this remaineth as a lawful controversie among us Protestants, whether the visible or invisible Church be most properly the Church of Christ.

2. Neither, do I think, this assertion of theirs doth necessarily flowe from this strict and large acceptation of the Church; the larger acceptation of a thing, doth not alwayes imply the most proper acceptation thereof, nor è contrà, God of Abra­ham not of the dead. the man (as Abraham) taken from the soul onely, is not the largest, nor yet the preperest acceptation of man. The Church taken exclusive to the chancel, is not the largest, nor, I think, the properest acceptation thereof; a denomination from the better part, is not the largest, nor, I think the properest denomination of a company; this is figurative, therefore the other, viz. the [Page 112] larger acceptation should be the proper, as opposed to figurative.

3. How ever, this toucheth not my conclusion which is, that the Church in this large acceptation, may be considered to be truely a Church, and not properly; much lesse more properly so, then the Church (invisible) or strictly taken.

4. Yet, I humbly crave, that my former arguments for the contrary part, in my state of the question, may have the ju­stice of consideration, if not, the charity and honour of a confutation.

Object 4. I confesse, once more, that Ames hath placed reprobates and hypocrites, out of the essential, and within the accidental form of the Church. But,

Ans. 1. I humbly conceive, that this is his peculiar language, we find divers of the reformed Divines distributing the form of the Church into internal and external, as they also do, the state, society Vid. Cameron, praelect. de eccl. cap. de natura & conditione ecclesiae in prin cipio, & circa medium caput and communion of the Church.

2. I have ventured before to manifest the inconsistency hereof, with his own concession; that hypocrites and reprobates, while they re­main in the communion of the Church, are membra ecclesiae; yea, that this very expression, that they onely partake of the accidental form, hath a contradiction in it self

For, if there be no essential forme besides; this, then, cannot be an accidental forme; seeing this, viz. the accidental forme is opposed unto the essential, and must needs suppose an essential Accidens, hic, est accidens, non praedicabile, sed praedicamen tale; quod oppo­nitur substantiae distributio enim est in formam substantialem & accidentalem or substantial forme to give being to the subject of this accident, all whose being is in the subject of it; if there be no substantial forme, there is no substance, and if there be no substance, there can be no accident; for the definition of substance requires that it do substare accedentil us; and (therefore as Schibler saith) the rea­son of an accident requires, that it do in haerere in subjecto.

Or if the Church have another forme, viz. essential, or sub­stantial, besides this, (accidental) as indeed he allows; then, I cannot yet see, but that interest in the accedental forme, is ne­cessarily founded in interest in the forme, which is called essential; and that, by granting that hyrocrites and reprobates do partake of the accidental, he necessarily implies that they also partake of the substantial forme; and therefore, to say, that such (or a­ny) persons, do onely partake of the accidental forme of the Church, is for ought I can see, a plaine contradiction to it self.

For, if the reason of an accident be, to be in the subject, then, [Page 113] it no farther is, then it is in the subject; then, also, nothing can stand under it, as it is the accident of such a subject, viz. the Church, unlesse it be part of the Church, unlesse it also partake of the substantial forme of the Church, or that which renders the Church (or the subject of this profession, or what ever it is, which is said to be the accident thereof) a Church, a dead carkasse, though it still retaine the same colour and figure, that it had when it was alive; yet it cannot be said to stand under the co­lour and figure of a man, and why? because the substantial form of a man is not in it; 'tis not a man, therefore not capable of the accidents of a man; so, a hypocrite may partake of profession, which is like the profession of the Church, but cannot partake of the profession of the Church, nor any part of the accidental forme of the Church, unlesse it be part of the subject the Church, which it cannot truely be, without partaking also of the substan­tial forme of the Church, where there is an essential totum, as well as an integral, all the essential parts must feel the influence of the essential forme, or else they do not partake of an accidental forme of the totum; for, indeed, a member, that admits no influ­ence from the forme, is no longer an integral part of the body, and consequently, doth no longer partake of any thing, as it is of the body.

Yet, I shall adde one Argument ad hominem to prove that hy­pocrites partake of the essential forme of the Church; a mark is said to be essential, because, 1. It flows directly and necessarily from the essence. And, 2. It is a sure indication of the essence of a thing; therefore, wheresoever we finde an essential mark, there the essence of the thing is, and there we may know it to be; now, what is the essential mark of the Church? hath not Ames answered, the profession of the true faith? therefore hypocrites, &c. who, doubtlesse, do partake of this pro­fession which himself acknowledgeth to be the essential note of the Church, are and may be known to be of the essence of the Church. Ames tells us, that hypocrites have a share in the the outward pro­fession of the Church, which he saith is the accidental forme, and which, he also saith, is the essential note of the true Church; therefore, they, partaking in the accidental state, or forme of the Church, they also partake in the essential note of the Church, and therefore of the essence of the Church, and therefore of the essential form of the Church.

3. I confesse it is my present opinion, that that which Ames assignes to be the essential or internal forme, viz. faith is no forme at all, either of the Church visible or invisible; but onely a necessary qualification of the matter of the Church of the saved, or the Church invisible; which seemes not much incongruous to Ames himself, sometimes for he affirmeth that fides taken di­stributively is but forma vocatorum, the forme of the called, and not of the Church; and that collective sense, that he would put on faith, to make it the forme of the Church, is it self as di­stinguished from faith, the forme of the Church, which is not far from his own meaning, yea, and words too, in another place, ecclesia maximè consistit in coetu.

4. Yea, further, I yet judge, that the visible Church hath no internal forme at all, and that which Ames calleth the accidental forme, and others the external, is very neere unto all the essen­tial forme, constituting of the visible Church; the visible Church is a collective or aggregative body, and that visible. Now whether is the essential form of a visible aggregative body inward or out­ward? indeed, the particular parts of such a body separately considered, have their internal formes, but is not the form of the whole another thing? is not union, or rather unity or society of the parts, the forme of the whole? and is not this external? for instance every particular sheep hath its forme internal, but as these are a flock, they have another outward forme, which yet is not accidental, but essential to it, as it is a flock, viz. their being in unity or community or society together.

Indeed, 'tis necessary that there be sheep, if there be a flock of sheep, and 'tis necessary that these sheep have their essen­tial, which is an internal forme; yet both these are but conditi­ons of a congruous matter which is essential to every compositum. I grant therefore, that sheep with their internal forme are essen­tial to the flock, viz. as the matter is essential, but they are no part of the forme.

I grant also, that in rational aggregative bodies, viz. socie­ties of men; there lieth some difference from a heap of inani­mate creatures, as stones, &c. & from a flock of sensitive creatures, as sheep, &c. because the reason of man doth qualifie rational societies, with an habitude or aptitude to various ends and em­ployments, which are accordingly distinguishing and specifically [Page 115] differencing rational societies; and which is not communicable to other collective bodies which are irrational; therefore there is something to be understood, at least, if not expressed, which is to signifie the reason or the end of every rational society, to distin­guish it from societies of men, of another kinde. Ex. gr. among men there are domestick politick scholastick & ecclesiastick societies, which constitutes a family, a Common-wealth, a Colledge, and a Church. Now, without some peculiar reason or end of these several socie­ties, how shall we distinguish the one from the other? they are all collective bodies, they are societies of men, yea, they may be all societies of Christians, yea, they may be all societies of Christians that are in a state of salvation; and yet discovered by a general description onely, and nothing in­timated to distinguish to us one kinde of society from ano­ther.

Therefore, something is to be added, besides a bare society of Christians, to distinguish the Church from a Christian family, a Christian Common-wealth, or a Christian Colledge, which hath beene often hinted to be the peculiar reason and intention of this ecclesiastick society from all others, viz. the joynt and publick communion thereof in the worship and Ordinances of God.

Neither, may it be then replied, that the forme of the Church consisteth not in coetu, or in society, because there is something to be added to distinguish the same; for that which is added, is but the quality or reason of this society, or its being such a so­ciety, yet a society still; even as none may say, that the forme of a man is not his soul, because a soul, in general, is not that which distinguisheth a man from a beast; a beast being an animated creature as well as a man, without the specification, or essential quality of reason added. However, indeed 'tis 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 [Page 116] 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 [Page 117] 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 [Page 118] 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 [...]he Church before he cometh to the definition of it; his distinction is founded in divers respects, viz. 1. [...]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 [Page 119] 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.