A survey of the summe of church-discipline. Wherein the vvay of the churches of New-England is warranted out of the vvord, and all exceptions of weight, which are made against it, answered : whereby also it will appear to the judicious reader, that something more must be said, then yet hath been, before their principles can be shaken, or they should be unsetled in their practice. / By Tho. Hooker, late pastor of the church at Hartford upon Connecticott in N.E.

CHAP. III. Of the Invisible Church. Whether the Invisible Church be the principall, prime, and onely proper subject, to whom all the Seals, and priviledges of speciall note doe belong?

MAster R. lib. 2. p. 242. distinct. 3. Is pleased to suggest a se∣rious advertisement unto us, which being well considered, many of our erroneous mistakes, (as he saies,) may seasonably be recovered, and we brought thereby to a right understanding of the things of Christ.

Among other of my Brethren, I doe professe my scope in this inquiry, to be onely this, to see the way of truth, and to walk therein: and therefore shall gladly lend a willing ear to his di∣rection and advise, that our errours being thereby discovered, we may see and shun them for time to come.

That particular truth, which will be like a sea-mark to teach us how to steer our course and compasse aright, is by him thus ex∣pressed.

THE INVISIBLE CHƲRCH CATHOLIKE is the principall, prime, and native subject of all the priviledges of Christians, &c. and the CHƲRCH VISIBLE, as she is such, is no waies such a subject: the non-consideration whereof we take to be the ground of many errors in our reve∣rend Brethren in this matter.

This is his seasonable warning, unto which I readily attend: and because I would not creare molestias, & serere lites sine causâ: I shall crave leave to make inquiry into two things, wherein my stick is most, that being convinced and satisfied in them, I shall readily sit down in silence, and submit to the evi∣dence of better reason, then mine own.

• 1. Whether the invisible Church be the principall, prime, and onely subject of the Seals of the Covenant?
• 2. Whether the holding of this conclusion will necessarily make us forsake our doctrine touching that power we give to the people, and our assertions of Independency and congregatio∣nall Churches.

I choose to restrain the proposition to that particular mentioned, because there appears the greatest difficulty, to my dimme and shallow apprehension. As also because the through explication of this which is most familiar, will of n••cessity force and draw in with it a reall consideration of the rest.

That I may be plain and punctuall in our proceeding, I shall take leave, and I hope without offence, to set down the con∣trary.

The Invisible Catholike Church, is not the prime and onely subject of the Seals, and therefore not of all priviledges of Chri∣stians, by any argument that M^r R. hath here alledged for proof or confirmation hereof.

When I say, the prime and onely subject, I understand the meaning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to M^r R. minde and exposition, quod convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 convenit 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Though his exposition of the rule is neither safe nor sound, yet it is a safe ground in dispute to take principles in that sense and meaning, which is confessed by him, with whom we dispute.

To come to the matter in hand, I shall endeavour two things.

• 1. I will consider what he hath said for confirmation, and shew what reason yet I have, to perswade me not to yeeld to his proof.
• 2. I shall propound such arguments as I have, which wholly hinder for the while, from entertaining this opinion.

To the 1.

The 1. argument which M^r R. alleadgeth to prove that the visible Church, as such, hath not right to the seals, but the invi∣sible, is this,

* 1.1

Those onely who are within the covenant have right to the seals.

And this is Peters argument, Act. 2.38. to prove the baptizing of infants.

But only the invisible Church hath right to the covenant.

I Answer.

People may be said to be within the covenant two waies.

Either,

• Externally in the judgement of charity.
• Internally and spiritually, according to the judgement of verity and truth.

Externally those are within the covenant, who expressing

their repentance, with their profession of the truth, ingage themselves to walk in the waies of God, and in the truth of his worship, though they have not for the present that sound work of Faith in their hearts, and may be shall never have it wrought by Gods spirit in them.

And of persons thus in covenant the Apostle speaks in Act. 2. and that to M^r R. his apprehensions elswhere, as it will appear easily to any, who will weigh the context.

That being in Covenant is here understood, which was visible and intelligible to the Apostle, according to the grounds of judici∣ous charity, otherwise the Apostles counsell had not been of war∣rant to carry them to the practice of Baptisme, if he had given them direction upon a misconceived ground: nor had they reason to have followed his direction. For the reply had been easie.

Invisible Christians have only right to Seals: But whether we be such, we for the present doe not know: and its certain, you can neither see, nor know, for truth of grace is invisible to man.

But the being externally in Covenant, is thus intelligible by the Apostle, therefore this is here attended.

The first is proved, and the second is as plain.

The Invisible works of grace, which doe make the Church Invisible, are to be beleeved, cannot be seen, nor come within any certainty of humane knowledge, And this is not only con∣fessed in the generall, but acknowledged also to be meant in this place. 3000. were added to the Church, who could not all be approved, to the consciences one of another to be true con∣verts.

Clear then it is from the scope of the place, the ground of the Apostles counsel, and the nature of the promise here expressed, 1. That being externally in covenant is here attended. 2. That such a being in covenant doth give right unto the Seales, else the frame of the Apostles reason and counsell had fallen to the ground.

The proposition thus cleared, the Minor is to be denied as false: and the contrary tenet, That only the Invisible Church hath right to the Seals, will draw unavoidable difficulties with it, and give such advantages to the Adversaries of Gods grace, and the dispensation of his Ordinances, that they will hardly be re∣gained.

We are compassed about by M^r. R. in this ch. l. 2. p. 247. with a croud of accusations, to hold one of the grossest of the Armi∣nian, Popish, Socinian Doctrines: and upon all occasions we hear Ad nauseam us{que}, of our sodering with the errours of Soci∣nus. Catch. Cracov. Nicholaides. &c. How justly, we have in part touched, and shall add something in the season thereof.

But I would be loath any of our tenets maintained professedly by us (not fathered upon us injuriously,) should lay such a cor∣ner-stone to build up the wretched doctrine of the Anabaptists, as this of his doth.

For let M^r R. help us to answer the Anabaptists upon his grounds, thus reasoning.

Those, that I cannot know have any right to the Seals, to them I cannot give the seals of the Covenant in faith as the Apostle cals faith.

But I cannot know that Infants are of the Invisible Church, which only gives them right to the seals.

Therefore I cannot of Faith give the seals to them.

If M R. will grant them the proposition, that they may give the seals unto such, whom they cannot know have any right to them, They will go away triumphing, as well they may. For they have such a hold, that all the battery of the strongest Argu∣ments is not able to drive them from.

If M. R. help the minor with a distinction which he useth, l. 2. sect. 5. in the variation. p. 185.

Faith in Christ truly giveth right unto the seals of the cove∣nant, and in Gods intention and decree, called voluntas bene∣placiti, they belong only unto the invisible Church: But the orderly way of the Churches giving the Seals is, because such a society is a professing or visible Church, and the orderly giving of the Seals according to Gods approving will, called voluntas signi & revelata, belong to the visible Church.

This salve is too narrow for the sore. For the distinction will either make God order the giving of the Seals, to such who have no right, and so impeach his wisdome, to appoint the giving of the seals to such, to whom he gives no right to receive them: or else it doth implicare plainly, and the severall expressions contain apparent contradictions. For this voluntas signi, which allows the Church visible to give the Seals, it either gives another right besides that which the invisible members have, or else it

gives no right. If it give another right. then the invisible Church hath not only right, which is here affirmed. If it give no right then the visible Church doth give the Seals orderly to such who have no right to them, as far as we can see: which was beforc denied in the grant of the proposition.

Quid plura? I must confesse such is my feeblenesse, that I cannot see how this can be avoided. For ask the question, How come hypocriticall professours to have right unto the Seals? As members of the visible Church they can have no right: they are the very words of M. R. p. 249.

The visible Church as the visible Church, hath no right unto the Seals, therefore they as visible have no right.

And Invisible members they are not, and there∣fore can have no right that way. Either then the Church must give them no seals; or else give them seals, when she cannot know they have any right, for indeed they have none, since of the invisible Church they are not, whereby they may claim a right: and being only of the visible Church, she can give no right: and so she administers seals orderly to such who have no right any waies to them: and this an order without order.

For these reasons now expressed it is, that I cannot see weight enough in M. R. his arguments to perswade my judgement to be satisfied in the proof.

Having then gained so much, that in a true sence it is a truth that the visible Church is within the Covenant, and hath right to the Seals, according to the warrant which God hath left in his word: Let us in short inquire

Whether there is not allowance given us in the woud, to give to the Church visible titles of speciall note; and this also is an especiall priviledge, which is by M. R. denied to the visible Church.

1. Its called the flock, or Church, redeemed by the bloud of God.

2. Its stiled the body of Christ.

All this in a savoury sense (according to former and familiar explication, speaking still according to the Judgement of charity, which is the only line, according unto which our conceivings are to be led) is safe and true.

The first is expressed, and to my apprehension, with as much evidence, as can be desired. Act. 20.28. Attend to the whole

flock. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his blood.

The Church here is according to us, Congregationall: to M^r. R. its Presbyteriall. But take it either way, it must needs be visible.

That over whom Elders and Officers are set to attend and fed, by doctrine and discipline, this must needs be a visible Church. For unlesse they did see them and know them, how could they execute censures upon them?

But THESE are called the Church redeemed with the bloud of God, then which stile, none can be more glorious.

If any man say that the elect and invisible are only there inten∣ded by that name. I answer. That conceit is crosse to the very grain of the words, and the scope of the text, For they must attend 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the whole flock. The charge puts no difference betwixt person and person, nor must their care be different. Nay upon this ground the Elders should not know what their care was, nor upon whom they should bestow it. For they might reply, Lord, we cannot search into thy secrets, to perceive who are elect and invisible Saints; we cannot discern them, and therefore we cannot tell how to feed them: whereas by the cur∣rant and common sense of the Scriptures, taking redeemed and sanctified as visibly, though not really such, the stream of the text runs pleasantly, without the least appearance of a doubt.

Its called the Body of Christ, 1 Cor. 12.27.28.

These evidences of truth once taken in and entertained, A way is readily made to the right understanding of all M^r R. ar∣guments so far as they seem to crosse any opinion and practice of ours.

And Secondly, Those heavy Inditements which are laid and pleaded against us, will be wiped away with a wet finger, For hence it follows,

• A Church may be visibly in Covenant, which hath not an in∣fallible assistance, but may erre in Fundamentals: which may fall away, and not indure as the daies of heaven. And that is his first and fifth Argument.
• A Church may be visibly redeemed by the blood of God, and be called the body of Christ be stiled by the name of Sons and daughters of God, and yet not be really and inwardly

• such: which is his second Argument.

The third is answered before.

A Church may be visibly redeemed and taught outwardly by the spirit of Christ, as he is Politicall Head of his Church, which was never taught inwardly, nor effectually brought home to Christ, which is his last Argument.

Hence again all those heavy inditements which are charged upon us, are wiped away, nay they melt away of themselves before the explication of this holy truth of God, as snow before the heat of the Sun.

They who hold a visible Church to be externally within the Covenant, and the redeemed ones of God, his sons and daughters, to be his body and house, of which Christ is the Head and husband in A VISIBLE MANNER: They cannot be said, by the inference of any right reason, to main∣tain: That Christ died for all such in Gods intention, Or, That all such are chosen to glory: Or, That God intendeth to save all such; There is not a colour of any consequence from such a ground, to make good such a conclusion.

We have done with the first thing, which we propounded, namely, I have shewed the Reason, why M. R. his proof doth not evince the cause for which it is brought.

To the Second

I shall now propound such arguments which yet hinder mee wholly, from yeelding to the opinion. and that I may narrowly expresse my naked thoughts, The Conclusion I am to prove, I thus propound.

The Invisible Church Catholike is not the prime and princi∣pall subject of the Seals of the Covenant; they do not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, belong to it, which is according to M. R. his minde, they do not belong to all them and only to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

Argument. 1.

1. If those who were gracelesse, and had no interest in Christ, had yet a command from God to receive the Seals had warrant from his word to require them: Then they had a right from God (i. e. an outward or visible right, in foro Ecclesiae, for of that we speak) to partake of them. This admits no deniall. For there can be no better right, then Gods command to injoyn, and his word to warrant us to challenge any priviledge.

But such who were gracelesse and without any interest in Christ, and so none of his Invisible members, have Gods command to injoyn, and his word to warrant them to re∣ceive the Seals: as Ismael, Esau, and all the males were injoyned to be circumcised. All the families of the Jews were commanded to eat the Passeover, many whereof without all question, were not Invisible and beleeving mem∣bers of Christ.

Argument. 2.

2. If many beleevers, who were sincerely such, had yet no warrant or allowance, because of that, to partake of the Seals of the Covenant, Then the Seals do not of right be∣long to all invisible members as the prime and principall subject thereof.

The nature of the terms evidence the truth of the propo∣sition. For warrant and right carry a parity of reason with them.

The Assumption is made good by instance thus.

Job and his godly friends were Invisible members of Christ, yet being strangers from Israel, they are expresly forbidden to eat of the Passeover. Exo. 12.48.

Argument. 3.

3. If the Invisible Church be the prime subject, to whom the Seals do appertain, then they belong immediatly to them, and to all others by their means, and this the rule of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, infers undeniably. Therefore in an orderly way, they must first be dispensed to them, and from them communi∣cated to others. As heat is first in fire, and from fire com∣municated to other things,

But this M. R. elsewhere overborn, as it seems with the beau∣ty of the truth, doth plainly deny. p. 18.2.

The orderly giving of the Seals belongeth to the visible Church, and by this de∣vice the visible Church must have them firstly, and the invisible from her.

Which is professedly crosse to the rule formerly mentioned, as all men grant.

Argument. 4.

4. Rom. 11.17. The true Olive is there the Church of the Jews, the fatnesse thereof, is all such priviledges as appertain thereunto. The way and means how the Gentiles come to par∣take thereof, is by their ingrafting into the Church visible.

And this is the received interpretation of the most judicious Be∣za, Pareus, Willet, &c. and the context will constrain as much if it should be denied.

Whence I thus reason,

The Olive is the prime subject of that fatnesse that issues from it, and appertains to it.

But the visible Church is the Olive: the Seals (as other pri∣viledges) are part of that fatnes, which appertains thereunto. Therefore the visible Church is the prime subject of them.

Before I leave this place, I shall commend to M. R. his re∣view, and the consideration of the judicious reader, what is writ by himself. lib. 2. p. 260.

If any after they be received, shall be found not to be added of God, because they be not regenerated, yet we are not to cast any out for non-regeneration, even known.

If you be bound to keep such in a compleat Church state, I suppose you will not deny them the seals, and then they shall partake, and you shall give the seals to such, whom you know have no right to them, because they are known not to be of the invisible Church: because they are known to be non-regenerate persons.

We have now finished the main Quaery, and given in our Reasons, why we cannot yeeld to M. Rutterf. his advertisement.

We shall add one word touching the other particular propoun∣ded to debate, which was this.

Whether the holding of this conclusion will necessarily make us forsake our doctrine of Independency and popular government, so far as we give power to people to act in Church affairs.

For Answer I yet conceive.

The holding of the former errour will neither help us out of an errour, if we be in it, nor yet help M^r R. to confute that opinion, or to bring us out of it. For the holding of one errour will not help a person to see, much lesse recover him out of another. But this appears to us, by that which I have answered, to be an errour. Therefore, this were enough for the while, to cause me to wave the inference.

But that which caries greatest weight with me, is,

That conclusion which overturns M^r R. his main principles touching the government of a visible Church: That will rather confirm our proceedings, then weaken them.

But this conclusion now in debate doth so: as may thus appear.

That which puts all offices and the exercise of them; and the seals and the dispensation of them into the hands of beleevers: That overthrows the pillar, principles of M^r R. concerning the government of the visible Church.

But this opinion, that makes the invisible Church, the prime, principall subject of all christian priviledges, and so of all offices, officers, and the dispensation, (for these are such) doth put all offices and officers, the seals and dispensations of them into their hands.

This part can be onely questioned, and it is thus confirmed.

Because this conclusion or opinion puts the formalis ratio of all these offices and ordinances into the hands of invisible be∣leevers: and ••••at also is evident, Because it makes it agree to them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

If M^r R. rid his hands of this argument with any reality of truth, he must shew some essentiall cause of offices and officers, of the right of seals and the dispensations thereof, besides the in∣visible Church; and that his conclusion and the interpretation which he hath setled, will not suffer.

I will onely suggest this to him, to occasion him to clear this coast to purpose.

Those terms or things, which contain all the essentiall causes of each other, beside them there can be no formall, or essen∣tiall cause added. For then all the essentialls should not be there.

But those which agree 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, these contain the essentialls each of other. For this is the nature of those things which are convertible or reciprocall, ac∣cording to all the rules of right reason, unlesse there be a new logick made, which yet never saw light. Homo est animal rationale. A man is a living crea∣ture indued with a reasonable soul: and every living creature indued with a reasonable soul, is a man. An entire man consists of a soul and body so organized, and whatever consists of such parts, is an intire man. The one of these take up as much as the other: and all the essenti∣all causes of the one, are comprehended in the other: other∣wise they had not been of equall breadth or capacity, which a reciprocation requires.

Of this kinde are the Catholike invisible Church, and all Chri∣stian

priviledges, they agree thus reciprocally.

Whatever hath these, is the invisible Catholike Church: and the invisible Catholike Church hath all these. And therefore

All the essentialls of these priviledges are therein included. And therefore beside or without this, none can be added upon M^r R. grounds.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 2. p. ••48.