1

Again; another reafon why the article does not defcribe your invifible church is this; because it defcribes "thofe outward acts, which are neceffary to make a visible church." Thefe outward acts are, the "preaching the pure word of God, and administering the fatraments." Now, my lord, feeing thefe outward acts fhew that the church here defcribed is not your invifible church, does not this evidently declare that fuch outward acts are not neceffary to your church? For if they did equally belong to both churches, and were alike neceffary to them, how could they more defcribe one than another? But you fay, it is the mentioning of these outward acts, that shews that your invifible church is not defcribed; therefore it is plain that you do not include these outward acts as effential to your invifible church, and confequently it is a church to which neither public worship, nor visible facraments are neceffary. For if these outward acts are neceffary to your invifible church, why does not your lordship mention them as fuch? You own you describe what it is that makes every particular man a member of the invifible church; yet you not only take no notice of thefe outward acts, but fay that the article defcribes not your church, because it mentions thefe outward acts, which is a demonftration that these outward acts do not be long to your church.

Farther; when the learned Committee had charged your lordfhip with the omiffion of "preaching the word and adminiftring of the facraments," you answer, "they might have added, he omits likewife the very public profeffion of Chriftianity. And is not the reafon plain? because I was not speaking of the visible church; to which alone, as fuch, vifible outward figns, and verbal profeffions belong: but of the univerfal invifible church *."

My lord, the reafon is very plain, and it is as plain that is not a good reafon. For if the preaching of the word, the adminiftring of the facraments, and the public profession of Christianity, be neceffary to make any one a member of your invifible church, then there was as good reafon to mention them in your description, as if you had been defcribing the vifible church.

If they are not neceffary, then you have fet up a church exclufive of the visible church. The cafe ftands thus; if thefe outward as be as neceffary to make perfons be of the invifible as of the visible church, then they ought to come equally into the description

*Anfwer to Repr. p. 80.

of both churches, being equally neceffary to both: if you say they are not equally neceffary, then you must allow that there is no neceffity that the members of your church fhould be in any external communion.

It is therefore no apology to say that you describe the invisible church, unlefs you will fay that a man may be of it without any outward acts, or communion with any visible church. If a perfon may be of this invifible church without having any thing to do with visible facraments, or worship in a visible communion, then you have an excufe why you did not mention these outward profeffions in your defcription of the church; but if he cannot be of this invifible communion without obferving these outward ordinances, then it was as neceffary to mention thefe outward ordinances in your account of this church, as if you had been defcribing a church, which confifted of nothing elfe but outward ordinances.

So that the fhort of the cafe is this; if the obfervation of external ordinances be not neceffary to make men members of your invifible church, then indeed there is a plain reafon why your lordship fhould omit them; and it is alfo plain that this doctrine fets afide the Gofpel, if this invifible church, the "only true church in the mouth of a Christian," be excufed from Gospel ordinances. But if these external ordinances be neceffary to conftitute the invisible church, then there was as plain a reason to mention them, in the defcription of your church, as if you had been defcribing the visible church.

So that if your lordship will give a good plain reason why you have omitted these outward acts, it must be because they do not belong to it; for otherwife the calling it invisible is no excufe, unless it has no occafion for fuch outward performances.

And indeed this has appeared to be your doctrine in almost every page, that you fet up this invifible church in oppofition to outward and vifible ordinances. For you all along fet out the oppofition or difference betwixt the vifible and invifible church in refpect to external ordinances: thus the one is visible, "because to it alone belong external figns, or verbal profeffions*." The other is invifible for the want of these. Yet this invisible church thus deftitute, and even neceffarily deftitute of external

* Answer to Repr. p. 81.

ordinances, is by you called, the "only true church in the mouth of a Chriftian."

One may, I acknowledge, eafily conceive in one's mind a number of people, whofe internal and invifible graces may entitle them to the favour of God; and these may be called an invisible number, or congregation, or church, because it is invifible to us where it is, or how great it is. But then, my lord, it is a great miftake if this invisible church is opposed to, or diftinguished from the vifible church in refpect of external ordinances. For in these things they are both equally obliged to be vifible. And the invisible church is not fo called, in contradiftinction to those who attend visible communions, and obferve external ordinances, but in contradistinction to thofe who are invifibly bad, and are not what their external profeffion promifes. This is the only number of people or church, which the invisible church is oppofed to. For as the invifible church intends a number fo called, because of their invifible graces; fo this invifibly good church can be truly opposed only to the invifibly bad church, or fuch as are not fuch perfons inwardly, as they profefs to be outwardly.

But, contrary to this, your lordship has all along confidered and defcribed this invifible church in oppofition to the vifible, and made those outward acts which are neceffary to the visible church, fo many marks to diftinguish it from that which is invifible. Thus you fay that you "was not fpeaking of the visible church, to which alone, as fuch, vifible outward figns, or verbal profeffions belong: but of the universal invisible church *."

Here you plainly make external figns, and outward profeffions diftinguifh the vifible from the invifible church; whereas it is not invisible in this refpect, as being without thefe external profeffions, or in contradiftinction to a visible church; but it is only invifible in thofe graces, which human eyes cannot perceive. Thus they are faid to be the invifible church, because they are a number of men, who are fuch inwardly, as they profefs to be outwardly. But this fhews that they cannot be fo called in contradiftinction to outward profeffions, fince they must have an outward profeffion themselves before they can be inwardly fincere in it; and confequently they are not opposed to, or distinguished from a number of outward profeffors, for this they are obliged to

*Anfwer to Repr. p. 81.

be themselves, but from a number of outward profeffors, who are not fincere in what they outwardly profefs.

If I fhould defcribe charitable men to be an invifible church of perfons fincerely well affected to mankind, and this in contradiftinction to others who are externally charitable, and perform outward acts of love, Or if I fhould defcribe chafte men to be an invifible church of perfons inwardly chaste and pure, and this in contradiftinction to others externally chafte and vifibly pure as to outward acts; I should just have the fame authority either from reafon or Scripture to fet up thefe invifible churches of charitable and chafte men, in opposition to perfons outwardly charitable and chafte, as your lordship has to fet up this invifible fincere church in contradiftinction to the visible external church. For, first, this fincerity no more makes a church, than charity and chastity make a church, or than honesty makes a man a member of a corporation, or an officer in the army; thefe being private perfonal virtues, do not conftitute a church or fociety, but concern men, as men, in every estate of life.

Secondly, Outward ordinances, and vifible profeffions are as neceffary to make men true Chriftians, as outward acts of love, and external purity are necessary to make men charitable or chafte. For Christianity as truly implies external acts and profeffions, as chastity implies outward purity.

Now, my lord, fuppofe the queftion was, whether adultery or fornication, or any other impurity was lawful, and that the world. was divided upon this controverfy; would he not be an excellent preacher of chastity, that fhould never tell us whether any or all of thefe were unlawful, but fhould pretend to decide the controverfy,, by telling the world, that chafte men, is an invisible church of perfons inwardly pure, and this in contradistinction to persons externally pure? Suppofe he should tell them that their title to chastity did not depend upon their being or not being of the number of any outwardly pure or impure perfons, but upon their inward purity; what apology could even charity itfelf make for fuch a teacher?

The controverfy on foot is this; whether external communion with any fort of fanatics be lawful? Whether it be as safe to be in one external vifible communion as in another? The world is divided upon this fubject, and your lordship comes in to end the controverfy. But how? Is it by examining the merits of the contending parties? Is it by telling us what is right and what is

wrong in the different communions? Is it by telling us that one external communion is better than another? Is it by fhewing us that any is dangerous? Is it by directing us with which we ought to join, or indeed that we ought fo much as to join with any? No: this right and wrong, or good and bad in external com munions, though it was the whole question, is wholly skipt over by your lordship; and you preach up an invifible church as the "only true church in the mouth of a Chriftian," and this in contradiftinction to all visible churches: and only declare that our title to God's favour cannot depend upon our being or continuing in any particular method, but upon our fincerity.

Your lordship fays; "I have laid down a defcription of the univerfal invisible church or kingdom of Christ *." Your lordship had been as well employed if you had been painting of spirits, or weighing of thoughts. "The main queftion," you fay, "is whether this defcription be true and just †.”

This, my lord, is not the main queftion; nor indeed does it concern us at all whether your lordship is ingenious, or not, in this description.

For fuppofe your lordship had been defcribing an invifible king to the people of Great Britain, do you think the main question amongst the lords and commons would be, whether you had hit off the defcription well? No, my lord, the main question would be, to what ends and purposes you had fet up fuch a king, and what relation the fubjects of Great Britain had to him, whether they might leave their visible, and pay only an internal allegiance to your invifible king. If your lordship thould farther defcribe him as the only true king in the mouth of a Briton, I believe it would be thought but a poor apology to appeal to your fine painting, that you had defcribed him juftly, and fet him out as invisible. The application is here very eafy; it is a very trifling queftion, and only concerns your lordship's parts, whether your defcription of your invifible church be juft or not; but it is the ufe and end of fetting up this church, which is any matter of question to us. Your lordship might erect as many churches as you please, if you did it only for fpeculative amusement, and to try your abilities in fine drawing; but you pretend to unfettle the Chriftian church, by your new buildings, or to destroy the dif tinction between the church and conventicle, by your invisibles,