1

But to call the number of men and women who believe in Christ, and obferve his inftitutions, whether difperfed or united in this vifible world, to call thefe the invifible church, is as falfe and groundless as to call them the order of angels, or the church of feraphims. The profeffion of Chriftians is as visible as any other profeffion, and as much declared by vifible external acts; and it is as proper to call a number of men, practising law or phyfic, an invifible fociety of lawyers and physicians, as to call the church on earth the invifible church. For all thofe acts and offices which prove people to be Chriftians, or the church of Chrift, are as visible and notorious as thofe which prove them to be of any particular "fecular employment. Would it be proper to call the number of infidels and idolaters the invisible church of the devil? Are they not vifibly under the dominion of the powers of darkness? Are they not vifibly out of Chrift's church? Muft it not therefore be as vifible who is in this church, as who is not in it?

If any one fhould tell us that we are to believe invisible Scriptures, and obferve invifible facraments, he would have just as much reafon and Scripture of his fide as your lordship has for this doctrine. And it would be of the fame fervice to the world to talk of thefe invifibilities, if the canon of Scripture was in difpute, as to defcribe this invifible church, when the cafe is, with what vifible church we cught to unite.

Our Saviour himself tells us, that "the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net that was caft into the fea, and gathered of "every kind; which, when it was full, they drew to thore,

and fat down, and gathered the good into veffels, but caft the "bad away." And then fays "fo fhall it be at the end of the "world *."

This, my lord, is a defeription of the ftate of Chrift's church given us by himself. Is there any thing in this description that fhould lead us to take it for an invifible kingdom, that confifts of one particular fort of people invifibly united to Chrift? Nay, is it not the whole intent of this fimilitude to teach us the contrary, that his kingdom is to confift of a mixture of good and bad fubjects till the end of the world? The kingdom of Christ is faid here to gather its members as a net gathers all kinds of fish; it is chiefly compared to it in this respect, because it gathers of all kinds; which I fuppofe is a fufficient declaration that this king

Matt. xiii. 47.

dom confifts of fubjects good and bad, as that the net that gathers of every kind of fish, takes good and bad fish. Let us fuppofe that the church of Chrift was this invisible number of people united to Chrift by fuch internal invisible graces; is it poffible that a kingdom confifting of this one particular fort of people invisibly good, fhould be like a net that gathers of every kind of fish? If it was to be compared to a net, it ought to be compared to fuch a net as gathers only of one kind, viz. good fish, and then it might reprefent to us a church that has but one fort of members.

But fince Chrift, who certainly understood the nature of his own kingdom, has declared that it is like a net that gathers of every kind of fish; it is abfurd to fay, that it confifts only of one kind of perfons, (viz. the invifibly good) as to fay, that the net which gathers of every kind, has only of one kind in it. Farther; "when it was full they drew it to fhore, and gathered the "good into veffels, but caft the bad away; fo fhall it be at the "end of the world." Now as it was the bad as well as the good fish which filled the net, and the church is compared to the net in this respect; fo it is evident that bad men as well as good are fubjects of this kingdom. And I prefume they are members of that kingdom which they fill up, as furely as the fish must be in the net before they can fill it. All these circumstances plainly declare that the church or kingdom of Chrift fhall confift of a mixture of good and bad people to the end of the world. Again; Chrift declares" that the kingdom of heaven is like to certain king which made a marriage for his fon, and sent his "fervants out into the highways, who gathered together all as many as they found, both good and bad, and the wedding was "filled with guests *."

a

Nothing can be more evident than that the chief intent of this parable is to fhew that the church of Chrift is to be a mixture of good and bad people to the end of the world. It is like a feaft where good and bad guests are entertained; but can it be like fuch a feast, if only the invifibly virtuous are members of it? If the fubjects of this kingdom are of one invisible kind, how can they bear any resemblance to a feaft made up of all kinds of guests? Nay, what could be thought of more unlike to this kingdom, if it was such a kingdom as you have represented it?

Matt. xxii. 2.

How could our bleffed Saviour have more directly guarded against fuch a defcription of his kingdom as your lordship has given us, than he has done in these parables? He compares it to a quantity of good and bad fish in a net, to a number of good and bad guests at a feast. Are there any words that could more fully declare his meaning to be, that his kingdom confifted of good and bad fubjects? Could any one more directly contradict this account of our Saviour, than by faying that his kingdom is an invifible kingdom, confifting of a particular fort of people invisibly virtuqus?

Your lordship professes a mighty regard for the Scriptures, and a great dislike to all doctrines that are not delivered there; pray, my lord, produce but fo much as one text of Scripture; tell us the Apostle or Evangelift that ever declared the number of believers, whether difperfed or united on earth, to be the univerfal invifible church; fhew us any one paffage in Scripture which teaches us, that none are of the church of Chrift, but those who have fuch invifible virtues, and cannot be known to be fo.

There is as much authority from Scripture to prove that the church is a kingdom without any fubjects, as that they are only of it, who have fuch invifible graces. And it is as easy to prove from thofe facred writings, that neither Christ or his Apostles were ever visible on earth, as that the number of people on earth who believe in Chrift constitute the invifible church.

In the parables above mentioned it is out of all doubt that our Saviour defcribes his univerfal kingdom or church: it is alfo certain that the univerfal invifible church, which you call Chrift's church, cannot be this univerfal church that is made up of a mixture of good and bad members. I therefore beg of your lordfhip to let us know where Chrift has taught us that he has two univerfal churches on earth; for if you cannot fhew that he has declared that he has thefe two univerfal churches, you must allow that this which you have described, is a church of your own fetting up, not only without any authority, but even against the express word of Scripture.

Your lordship fays that the do&rines which the learned committee have condemned, if they be of that evil tendency, must be fo either with regard to the univerfal invifible church, made up of all those who fincerely in their hearts believe in Chrift, or with respect to the univerfal vifible church made up of all, who in all

countries (whether fincerely or infincerely) openly profess to believe in Chrift, or with refpect to fome particular visible church *. It may be justly expected, my lord, that you should shew us fome grounds for this diftinction. Where does our bleffed Lord give us fo much as the least hint that he has founded two univerfal ehurches on earth? Did he defcribe his church by halves when he likened it to a net full of all kinds of fifh? Has he any where let us know that he has another univerfal kingdom on earth be fides this, which in the variety of its members is like a net full of all forts of good and bad fish?

Let your lordship, if you can, fhew any fubtilties in popery which are more of human invention, or more contrary to Scripture, than this refined diftinction. The opus operatum in the facraments, the temporal fatisfactions for fins, works of fupererogation, or any of the niceft arts of jefuitifm are not lefs founded in Scripture than this nice diftinction of injuring either the univerfal invisible, or the univerfal vifible, or a particular visible church. For, my lord, the church of Chrift is as truly one and the fame church, as the facrament of baptifm is one and the fame baptifm; and he no more inftituted feveral forts of churches than he instituted several kinds of baptifm.

Pray, my lord, therefore be no longer angry at human arts in religion; why may not popery have its peculiarities in doctrine as well as your lordship? The church of Rome, with all its additions and corruptions, and pompous ornaments, is as much like the church as it was in the Apostles times, as your invisible church is like that which Christ declared to be his church. When they fet out the church as infallible, they do but reafon like your lordship, when you defcribe it as invisible.

That there are good and bad church-men, is past all doubt; but that people are of the church by means of invisible virtues, is as falfe as that only good men came to the feast in the Gospel. We are affured that many are called, but few are chofen;" i. e. that many shall be made members of Chrift's church, but few fhall be faved; and who these few are that truly work out their falvation, may be invisible to us; but thofe many that were called, that is, who were in the church, though they did not live up to al! the intents of church-communion, yet were as truly of the church, as the bad fish were really in the net.

* Anfwer to Repr. p. 5.

But to proceed; I fhall illuftrate this reply of your lordship concerning an univerfal vifible, and univerfal invifible, and parti cular vifible church, with the following inftances.

Let us fuppofe any one was charged with writing against the facraments; if he fhould with your lordship reply, that this charge against him must either relate to universal visible facraments, or univerfal invifible facraments, or particular visible facraments, he would have just as much Scripture or reason to fupport that diftinction, as your lordship has for dividing the church into univerfal vifible and univerfal invifible, and particular vifible. For the profeffion of christianity, or church-membership, is as external and visible a thing, as the facraments are external vifible inftitutions. So that it is as contrary to Scripture, and as mere an human invention to make pretence of an univerfal in. visible church, when the dispute is concerning Christ's church on earth, as it is to have recourfe to invifible facraments, if the queftion was concerning Chrift's facraments.

They are both equally external and visible; and as the facra, ments may be received without any spiritual advantage, so perfons may be of the church, and yet not be faved. And as the facraments are not lefs facraments, though they may not convey the defigned benefits to the receiver; fo neither are such a number of people not of the church, though they do not obtain that falvation which is the intended confequence of churchcommunion.

Your lordship cannot give any one reafon for introducing this diftinction with regard to the church, which will not equally hold for the fame diftinction in regard to the facraments; and there is exactly the fame Quakery and fanaticism in one doctrine as the other.

For as it is the facraments which chiefly constitute the church, fo no diftinctions or divifions can with any tolerable propriety be applied to the church, but fuch as may be alfo applied to the facraments that conftitute the church. And therefore the terms univerfal and particular, vifible and invisible, have no more to do with Chrift's church which he has inftituted in this world, than with the two facraments which he also instituted, baptifm, and the fupper of the Lord.

Again; if any one was accused of writing against the Christian revelation, he might answer with your lordship, if this accufation be true, it must be fo either with regard to God's universal vifible