THe Roman Church appropriates this glorious Title to her self only; thunders Anathema's against all other Churches what­ever; calls them Hereticks, and Schismaticks; declares, unless they unite themselves with her, they are with­out any hope of Salvation; [Page 2] uses a thousand subtilties to draw them to her Commu­nion; deceives and frigh­tens the simple and igno­rant, making them believe, that out of her there is no Salvation; offers great re­wards to the learned; per­secutes them that will not be either corrupted with fat Preferments, or decei­ved and frightned with several Fables, wherewith they are entertain'd; de­prives them of their Estates, and Employments, &c. and forces them to forsake their Country, as the poor Protestants of France are now necessitated to; ei­ther causing them to be burnt alive, or inflicting se­veral [Page 3] other cruel torments upon them, as it is at this time the Custom in Italy and Spain.

I confess, that the Ro­man Church was not al­ways cruel. I grant that in the Apostle's time, and first Ages, I mean, when they observed the holy Scrip­ture both in its Practice and Doctrine, they could just­ly boast of this glorious Ti­tle, Holy Cacholick. But since they were corrupted, and have diminished from, and added unto the holy Scripture several points of Faith, which they impose upon us, under pain of Damnation; and since they are fallen into Heresie, they [Page 4] have lost this fair and glo­rious Title: These words, Holy Catholick, cannot be justly attributed unto them; it is the Church of England which now most [...] and gloriously pos­sesses these honourable Qualities.

But as women that have lost their honour, & are grown debauch'd, when they quar­rel with them that are ho­nest and vertuous, are u­sed to call them Whores first, lest that villainous and odious name should be cast upon themselves; so the Church of Rome hav­ing lost the fair qualities of Holy Catholick, and being fallen into Heresie, is wont [Page 5] to call the Church of Eng­land Heretical, lest she should justly reflect upon her, that which she falsly accuses her with.

I will not go abovt here to prove that the Church of Rome is Heretick; I have done it already, per argu­mentum adhominem; that is, by their own Princi­ples, in a small Treatise so intituled. Those who have the Book, and have read it over, are fully convinced of it; and those that have it not, if they desire to have it, may be satisfied, as soon as they are pleased to acquaint me with their laudable intention. Where­fore I shall here make it e­vident, [Page 6] that the Church of England is the holy Catho­lick Church, which being proved, (there being but one holy Catholick Church) it will appear that the Church of Rome hath lost this glorious and noble Ti­tle.

But before I make it ap­pear, it will be necessary rightly to understand the words, Church, Holy, Ca­tholick.

The word, Church, is u­sually taken, either for the place, where people are gathered together to pray and worship God; or else for a Congregation of hu­mane Persons professing the Christian Faith, where­of [Page 7] Jesus Christ is the foun­dation, For other Founda­tion 1 Cor. 3. 11. can no man lay than, that is laid, which is Jesus Christ; and though the Apostles and the Prophets Ephes. 2. 19, 20, 21. be also termed the Foun­dation, yet Jesus Christ himself is the chief corner Stone, in whom all the Building fitly framed to­gether, groweth unto a holy Temple in the Lord.

We accept the word Church, in this latter sence; wherefore by the Church, we understand a Body or Collection of humane Per­sons, professing the same Faith in Christ, gathered together in several places of the World, for the [Page 8] Worship of the same God.

The Church thus descri­bed may be called Holy in several respects, and for se­veral Reasons. First, In re­ference to the Vocation, by which all the members thereof are called, and se­parated from the rest of the World to God; which Separation in the Lan­guage of the Scriptures is a Sanctification, and so the calling being holy (for 2 Tim. 1. 9. God called us with an holy calling) the Body which is thus separated and congre­gated may well be termed Holy. Secondly▪ In relation to the Offices appointed, and the Powers exercised in the Church, which by [Page 9] their Institution and Ope­ration are holy. Thirdly, In reference to the Saints departed from this life, and admitted to the presence of God; and of this Church speaks St. Paul, when he saith, Christ loved the Church, Eph. 5 25, 26, 27. and gave himself for it, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it, by the washi [...]g of Water by the Word, that he might present it to himself a glori­ous Church, not having spot or wrink'e, or any such thing, but that it should be holy, and without blemish. Fourth­ly, In respect of every Per­son, who is a member of that Church; because in professing Faith in Christ, he is thereby engaged to [Page 10] holiness of life, according to the words of the Apo­stle, 2 Tim. 2. 1. Let every one that na­meth the name of Christ, de­part from iniquity.

The Church that we are speaking of, and call holy, is that that embraces all the Professors of the true Faith of the holy Scriptures, when they are in this World; which Church comprehends good and bad, being both externally called, and professing the same Faith; for the King­dom Mat. 13. 24, 30. of Heaven is like unto a Field, in which Wheat and Tares grow together into the Harvest: Like un­to a Net, that was cast into the Sea, and gathered of [Page 11] every kind. Firmissime Fulgent. ad Petr. c 43. tene & nullatenus dubites aream Dei esse Ecclesiam Ca­tholicam, & intna eam us (que) in finem seculi frumento mixtas paleas contineri, hoc est, bonis malos Sacramento­rum Communione misceri; that is, Hold this most sirm­ly, and doubt not of it in a­ny wise, that the Catholick Church is a Floor, and that therein, (as long as the World shall stand) Wheat and Tares together shall be contain'd, that is to say, that the bad and wicked shall be mingled with the good and just in the Com­munion of the same Sacra­ments. This is that Ark of Noah, in which were preser­ved [Page 12] Beasts, clean and un­clean; This is that great house, in which there are not only vessels of Gold and Silver, but also of Wood and Earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour.

Therefore when we speak of the Holy Church, we do not consider her in respect of the Vocation, which is holy; neither of the Offi­ces and Powers, which likewise are holy; nor in reference to the Saints de­parted this Life, and en­joying the presence of God; nor in relation to the Persons, who compose the Church in this Life, since in that respect the [Page 13] Church comprehends both good and bad; but in re­lation to the Doctrine taught therein, which is pure and holy, and with­out blemish.

The Church thus descri­bed is also called Catholick, that is, universal; which word is used in our Creed, to teach us to discern the true Church from the false. The word, Catholick, may be taken either in refe­rence to time, or relation to places, or in respect of Persons; or else in refe­rence to Doctrine. It is here taken in respect of the Doctrine only; so that by the Catholick or universal Church, we mean, that [Page 14] Church that teaches and believes the whole Christi­an Doctrine. For as the Holy Ghost did lead the Apostles into all truth, so did the Apostles leave all truth unto the Church, which is called Catholick, from the universality of ne­cessary and saving Truths contain'd therein.

This being granted, it follows, that that Church which embraces the Faith once delivered to the Saints, and keeps the holy Scriptures in Purity, with­out adding to, or dimi­nishing from them, is the holy Catholick Church; for whatsoever Church pretendeth to be holy Ca­tholick, [Page 15] and keeps not the whole Faith once deliver­ed to the Saints, and impo­ses things to be believed, which are not found, nei­ther can be deduced from the Scriptures by evident and necessary Consequen­ces, (as the Church of Rome doth) falsly attributes this name to her self. Since then the Church of Eng­land keeps the Faith once delivered to the Saints, pre­serves the holy Scripture in its Purity, and imposes no­thing to be believed, but what is therein distinctly contained, or can be dedu­ced therefrom, by evident and necessary Consequen­ces, it follows, that she [Page 16] is the holy Catholick.

Read over the Old and New Testament, and if you can make it appear, that the Church of England be­lieves or practises one point of Faith, which is not con­tain'd in the holy Scrip­ture, or doth not believe or practise those Articles of Faith, which are contained therein, (as too often the Roman Church doth) then I will grant freely, that she is not the holy Catholick; bnt no body being able to make this appear, I am in the right, in asserting the Church of England to be the holy Catholick Church. 'Tis certain, they do not make unto themselves any [Page 17] graven Images; nor wor­ship, kiss, and serve them; neither bow, pray, and offer Incense unto them. They do not make Images of God the Father in the shape of an old man, hold­ing the Globe of the World in his hands, nor of the Holy Ghost in the form of a Dove, nor of the Cross, and do not worship them (as the Church of Rome doth) with a Worship of [...], that is, with a Wor­ship due unto God only.

They do not believe in any other Saviour and Re­deemer than Jesus Christ; they hold him for their on­ly Mediator and Advo­cate, and they will not put [Page 18] their trust and confidence in▪ any other. They do not believe any other Pur­gatory, than the Blood of Jesus Christ; nor believe that the Pope with a little Indulgence laid unto a Bead, or Cross, or Medal, or with a Mass said upon certain days of the week, is sufficient to procure a release to the Souls of men detained in torments, wherein, to fill his Trunks with Money, and to fatten his Kitchin, he would make ignorant People to believe, they are imprisoned. They do not believe that he is Infallible; that he hath a­ny Power to depose Kings and Princes from their [Page 19] Throne, to dispense their Subjects from their Allegi­ance, or to kill those that he calls Hereticks. Nei­ther do they believe that Christ's Body is still upon Earth; they believe and put it in practice, that we are bound to sing, pray, and give thanks to God Al­mighty in a known tongue; they believe they ought to give the common People the liberty of reading the holy Scriptures in their own Tongue. They give the Sacraments of Christ's Body and Blood with Bread and Wine; give leave to eat Flesh at all times; do not forbid Bi­shops, Priests, and those [Page 20] which are in orders to mar­ry, 1 Tim. 4. knowing that such a Doctrine is the Doctrine of Devils; they add no­thing to, nor diminish from the holy Scriptures, as the Church of Rome often doth, therefore it is clear, that the Church of Eng­land believes the whole Christian Doctrine, as it was once delivered to the Saints, and consequently, that she is the Holy Catho­lick.

Object. The Church of England believes in the Trinity; but the word, Trinity, is not found in the holy Scripture; therefore the Church of England be­lieves a point of Faith not [Page 21] contained in the Word of God, therefore she is not the holy Catholick, for as you said before, to give the denomination of holy Catholick to any Church, it is requisite, she should believe the whole Christi­an Faith, as it was once de­livered to the Saints, with­out any addition to, or diminution from the holy Scriptures.

Answ. Though that word, Trinity, be not found in the holy Scriptures, yet the thing signified thereby, is found therein; as it ap­pears by the words of Mat­thew, Go ye therefore and Mat. 28. 29. teach all Nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Fa­ther, [Page 22] ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. And more evidently by those of the 1 Joh. 5. 7. first of St. John: There are three that bear record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. That Consequence there­fore is not good, which saith, that the Church of England is not the holy Catholick, because it be­lieves in the Trinity, that word not being express'd in the holy Scripture; for provided the thing signifi­ed be found there in e­quivalent terms, or may be deduced from thence by clear and necessary Conse­quences, 'tis sufficient, and [Page 23] matters not, if the word it self be not expressed. But as I have just now made it appear by the Texts of Saints, Matthew and John, the Trinity is there very clearly expressed, there­fore, &c. But you may further urge that by the word, Trinity, we mean three eternal and infinite Persons, really distinct one from another, subsisting in one Nature numerically; but this is contrary to Rea­son, and is not found in the holy Scripture, nor can be deduc'd from it by clear and necessary Consequen­ces; therefore it may be rightly inferr'd, that the Church of England is not [Page 24] the holy Catholick Church, it believing a point of Faith, which is neither found distinctly, nor in e­quivalent terms in the ho­ly Scripture.

Probatur minor, First, That the Trinity is contra­ry to humane Reason, which is proved thus. For as it is contrary to humane Reason, that Peter, Paul, and John, who are three distinct Persons, have but one Nature Numerically, seeing that every Person hath its Nature different from th'other, if not in Specie, at least Numericè, and it cannot be otherwise; so it is centrary to Reason, that the Father, Son, and [Page 25] Holy Ghost should be three really distinct Persons, and notwithstanding, have but one nature Numericè; which can't be, since from three Persons do naturally follow three substances or natures; which is proved thus. Person in God is ei­ther a being, or nothing; we can't say that it is no­thing, because the three divine Persons should then be nothing at all, therefore it must be a Being: If Be­ing, either it is real or men­tal; we can't call it mental, because sublato Intellectu, the Persons should be no more; therefore it remains that it is a real Being; if real, either it is a Substance, [Page 26] or an Accident; there be­ing no Medium between Substance and Accident. We can't say that it is an Accident, because we do not admit any in the God­head, for the great Absur­dities which follow from thence; therefore it must be a Substance; and if a Substance (since there are three really distinct Per­sons) it follows, that there are also three really distinct Substances, which is con­trary to Reason.

Secondly, That the Tri­nity is neither found di­stinctly, nor in equivalent Terms in the holy Scrip­ture, is easily proved. The former is without any con­tradiction, [Page 27] for if ye read over the holy Scripture, ye shall no where find the word, Trinity. And the latter is proved thus. If the Trinity be there in e­quivalent terms, it is ei­ther in this Text, Go ye and teach all Nations, baptizing them in the name of the Fa­ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; or else in this, There are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. For, though in the one and th'other mention be made of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and consequently, of three Persons, because [Page 28] the Father is a Person, the Son a Person, and the ho­ly Ghost a Person; yet we cannot infer that these three Persons have but one nature or substance Nu­mericè; for although some infer it from that word, in the Name, which is in the singular number, yet that is not convincing, since I may say, such a thing is commanded in the Name of the King, and his Chan­celor, and yet, though that word be in the singular Number, we can't infer, that the King and his Chan­celor have but one nature Numericè.

[Page 29] Neither can the Trinity be inferred from these words of St. John, and these three are one; because, by that Unity we may very well understand a Unity of Will, Agreement, and Spirit, and not of Nature or Substance; so that, when 'tis said, there are three that bear Record, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; It is the same thing as to say, these three are one in Will; do agree one with another; what one Will's, the other willeth also. And this is confirmed by the words of St. John, wherein Jesus Christ prayeth his Father Joh. 15. 21. that we may be one, as he [Page 30] is one with his Father; that is, that we may do what he will have us to do, as he doth what his Father will have him to do. Eve­ry body may see clearly that we are not, nor can be one in nature, Numericè, with Jesus Christ, it being contrary to Reason; there­fore we cannot infer by a clear and necessary Conse­quence, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost have but one nature or substance, Numerice, therefore the Trinity is neither found in the holy Scriptures distinctly, nor can be deduced from them by evident and necessary Consequences.

[Page 31] First, I answer thus. I must confess with all learn­ed men, that the Mystery of the Trinity is above hu­mane Reason; that it can't be comprehended in this World by any Creature whatsoever. We may sooner reckon the Sands of the Sea, the Leaves of Trees, than understand that glo­rious Mystery; for how can we apprehend one and the same thing, to be one, and yet many? How can we apprehend that one and the same Essence may be begotten, and yet unbe­gotten; that one and the same thing was from all E­ternity, and yet was truly and properly begotten? [Page 32] This is above humane Rea­son. Therefore the An­gel, in a form of a little Boy that brought a Spoon­ful of Water from the Sea, and poured it in a little hole, did answer Austin, who was meditating upon the Mystery of the Trini­ty, he asking him what was his intention, that his de­sign was to put all the Wa­ter of the Sea in that little hole. But Austin replying, that that was impossible, the Sea being so vast, and the hole so little, the Child answered, that he should do that sooner than he could comprehend the Mystery of the most holy Trinity. Deum esse Tri­nitatem [Page 33] credimus potius Aug. lib. 15. de trin. quàm videmus. That is, we rather believe than see that God is Trinity. And Thomas Aquinas saith, im­possibile Tho. Aqui­nas. q. 32. ar. 1. in conclus. est per rationem na­turalem ad cognitionem Tri­nitatis divinarum Persona­rum pervenire; quia homo per rationem naturalem in cognitionem dei pervenire non potest nisi ex Creaturis; Creature autem ducunt in Dei cognitionem sicut effe­ctus in causam. Hoc igitur solum ratione naturali de Deo cognosci potest, quod competere ei necesse est secun­dum quod est omnium enti­um principium. Virtus au­tem Creativa Dei commu­nis est toti Trinitati, unde [Page 34] pertinet ad unitatem essen­tiae, non ad distinctionem Personarum; per rationem igitur naturalem cognosci possunt de Deo ea quae perti­nent ad unitatem essentiae, non autem ea quae pertinent ad distinctionem personarum. That is, It is impossible by natural Reason to come to the knowledg of the Trinity of divine Persons; because by natural Reason we cannot come to the knowledg of God, but by Creatures, which lead us to the knowledg of God, as effects to the Cause. Therefore by natural Reason that only may be known of God, which by necessity be­longs to him, as he is the principle of all things. But [Page 35] the Power of creating in God is common to the whole Tri­nity, therefore it belongs to the unity of Essence, and not to the distinction of Persons. We may then by reason know the things belonging to the unity of the Essence of God, but not the things belonging to the distinction of Per­sons.

Secondly, I answer, That though it be contrary to Reason, that Peter, Paul, and John, who are three distinct Persons, have but one nature Numericè; ne­vertheless it doth not im­ply, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who are three really di­stinct Persons, have but one [Page 36] nature or substance Nume­ricè: For it is otherwise in divine than humane Per­sons. And although Per­son in God be a real being, and consequently (being really taken) a Substance; yet it doth not follow, be­cause there are three really distinct Persons, that there are three Substances really distinct one from another. For God being an intelle­ctual Being, he knows him­self to be infinitely Perfect, and knowing himself to be so, he loves himself: The term of his Intellect is cal­led the Son, as we call the Holy Ghost the term of his love▪ but it is not so with the term of the Intellect­and [Page 37] Love of God, as with the term of the Intellect and Love of men, because this is an Accident, that a Sub­stance; I say, a Substance; because no Accidents can be found in God, as it is the consent of all Writers; therefore since the term of the Intellect of God, and the term of his Love is a Substance, and since one is call'd the Son, and the other the Holy Ghost; it follows (since three Sub­stances cannot be in God, because it would import three Gods, which is con­trary to the nature of God, to Reason, and to the Ho­ly Scriptures,) that they have but one and the same [Page 38] Substance, as it is taught both in the Symboles of Nice, and Athanasius.

Thirdly, I answer, That though the Trinity be not found distinctly in the ho­ly Scripture, yet it may be inferred from thence by clear and necessary Conse­quences. And though the two Texts of St. Matthew and John before mention­ed, be not sufficient to convince the Reader, since they may be explained as they are in the Objection; nevertheless, the essential Attributes of God, as his Eternity, Immensity, Om­nipotency, Creation, Con­servation of the World, Sanctification of Souls, Re­surrection [Page 39] of the Bodies, Prayer and Worship being equally attributed to the three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, (as it may be seen in several places of the ho­ly Scriptures, and I will shew in the sequel of my Discourse,) it follows, by an evident and necessary Consequence, that they are God, and therefore that they have but one sub­stance or Nature Numericè, which is called Trinity.

Obj. The Church of England believes that the Son is Consubstantial with the Father; but the word, Consubstantial, is not found in the holy Scriptures; [Page 40] therefore the Church of England believes an Arti­cle of Faith, which is not in the word of God; there­fore she is not the holy Ca­tholick Church.

Answer, Though that word, Consubstantial, be not read in the holy Scrip­tures, yet the thing signifi­ed and meant by that word, is found therein. For when we say and be­lieve, that the Son is Con­substantial with the Father, we mean that he hath one and the same Substance with his Father, which is inferred from the holy Scripture by clear and ne­cessary Consequences; for these words of St. Jahn, I [Page 41] and my Father are one, do Joh. 10. 13 signifie nothing less than the Son hath an unity of Substance with his Father; for if had only an unity of Will, of Mind, and A­greement, as the Arians, and several other Persons in France, England, Hol­land, &c. do believe at this time, he should not be cal­led in the holy Scriptures, the only begotten Son of 1 John 5. 20. Ro. 9. 5. Heb. 1. 3. God, the true God, eternal Life, and God blessed over all for ever. He should not be called the brightness of the glory of his Father, and the express Image of his Per­son; and we should not read of him that he being Phil. 2. 6. in the form of God, thought [Page 42] it not robbery to be equal with God; he should not be cal­led Rev. 1. 8. Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, which is, which was, and which is to come, the Al­mighty. Col. 2. 3. Or that In him are hid all the Treasures of wisdom and knowledg, and Col. 2. 9. that In him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodi­ly. We should not read, Col. 1. 16' 17. that By him were all things created that are in Heaven, and that are in Earth vist­ble and invisible, whether they be Thrones or Domini­ons, or Principalities, or Powers; and that All things were created by him, and for him, and that he is be­fore all things, and by him [Page 43] all things consist; and that Heb. 1. 3. Joh. 5. 21. He upholds all things by the word of his Power; and as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickens them, even so the Son quickens whom he will; Neither should we read, that He knows the hearts of all men, Joh. 5. 23. and that All men honour the Son, even as they ho­nour the Father; and that All the Angels of God wor­ship Rev. 4. 10. 11. him; and that Four and twenty Elders fall down before him, and worship him, and cast their Crowns before the Throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive Glory, and Honour, and Power, for thou hast Created all things, and for [Page 44] pleasure they are, and were Created.

Now since by these Texts of the holy Scrip­tures, ye see that the Name of the true God, which cannot be proper to a Creature, is not only a­scribed to the Son, but also all the essential properties of God are attributed un­to him, it follows, by a clear and necessary Conse­quence, that he is Consub­stantial with the Father, or that he hath with him one and the same Substance Numericè.

You may further urge, if the Son be Consubstan­tial with the Father, it fol­lows, that he is really and [Page 45] properly true God; but he cannot be properly and really true God, ergo, he is not Consubstantial with his Father.

The Minor is proved out of the holy Scriptures. There is none other God but 1 Cor. 8. 4. one. The Lord of Israel is that true God, for there is none else besides him. The Deu. 4. 35. Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is that only true God; This is Life eternal, Joh. 17. 3. 1 Cor. 8. 16. that they might know thee, O Father, the only true God. For though there be that are called Gods, whe­ther in Heaven or in Earth, as there be Lords many, and Gods many, but to us there is but one God the Father, [Page 46] of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Tim. 2 5. For, There is one God, and one Mediator between God and Men, the Man Christ Jesus.

But if according to what St. Paul saith, though there be many that are called Gods and Lords, neverthe­less, there is but one true God, and one true Lord; and if according to what Jesus Christ saith, his Fa­ther be that only true God, it follows, that Christ or the Son of God is not real­ly and properly true God, and consequently, that he is not Consubstantial with his Father.

[Page 47] Probatur 2 ^o. If Jesus Christ were really and pro­perly true God, his Resur­rection should be ascribed unto him, as the true and principal Author; but it is not ascribed to him as the true and principal Au­thor, but to his Father, as we read in several places of the holy Scriptures; God the Father, who raised him Gal. 1. 1. Act. 3. 26. from the dead. God having raised up his Son Jesus, &c. Therefore he is not really and properly true God.

Probatur, 3 ^o. If the Son were really and properly true God, he should have the knowledg of all things; but he hath not the know­ledg of all things, since he [Page 48] doth not know the day of Judgment; therefore, &c.

The Minor is proved thus; But of that day and Mat. 24. 36. hour, saith Christ, knows no man, no not the Angels of Heaven, but my Father only. Mark that that word (only) is exclusive; for if the Father only knows the day and hour of Judgment, it follows, that the Son doth not know it, there­fore having not the know­ledg of all things, he is not really and properly true God, since to the true God nothing can be un­known.

Probatur, 4 ^o. Either the Son is of himself, or by an other; he is not of him­self, [Page 49] because he hath a Fa­ther; therefore he is by an­other; if by another, he cannot be really and pro­perly true God; for he that is by an other is not independent, but the true God is independent.

Probatur, 5 ^o. Christ or the Son is Mediator be­tween God and men; but if the Son was really and properly true God, and Consubstantial with his Fa­ther, he should be Media­tor between men and him­self, which is absurd, be­cause no body is Mediator between himself and ano­ther.

[Page 50] Probatur, 6 ^o. The Son is begotten, even accord­ing to divine Nature: But that which is begotten was not always; that which was not always, is not eternal; that which is not eternal, is not really and properly true God, there­fore the Son is not really and properly true God, and consequently, he is not Consubstantial with his Father.

To the first Objection, which contains these words Joh. 17. 13. of John, This is Life eter­nal, &c. I answer, that by the onl [...] true God, is mean [...] God a se; and in that sence the Father is the only true God, because he only is God [Page 51] à se, he only is the Ori­gine of the Godhead: But the Son is God of God, and the Image of the invisible Father. And to the words of St. Paul, Though there 1 Cor. 8. 6. be that are called Gods, &c. I say, that as nothing can hinder the Father to be Lord, though it be said, There is but one Lord Jesus Christ; so nothing can hin­der Jesus Christ to be true God, though it be written, There is but one God the Fa­ther.

To the Second, I an­swer, that as a non esse ad non posse, the Consequence is not good, so because the Son did not raise up him­self from the dead, it doth [Page 52] not follow, that he could not; and the contrary ap­pears by his own words, I Joh. 10. 17 lay down my Life, that I might take it again, no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of my self, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it a­gain.

To the Third, I say, that the Son of God ac­cording to his humane Nature, knew not the day and hour of Judgment, as he knew not Lazarus's Se­pulchre, when he asked his Sisters, where they had laid him. And as he knew not what the two Disciples were talking of by the way, when he said [Page 53] unto them, What manner Luk. 24. 17. of Communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And as he knew not whe­ther Peter loved him more than the rest of his Disci­ples, Joh. 21. 17 when he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me. But as he was God he knew all things, for In him are hid all the treasures of Col. 2. 3. wisdom and knowledge; and as saith Isaiah, The spi­rit Isa. 11. of the Lord shall rest up­on him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spi­rit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord. And as it appears by these words of Peter, Lord thou knowest Joh. 21. 17 all things.

[Page 54] Secondly, I say, because Christ emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a Servant, therefore for a little time he laid down his knowledge, that he might be less than the Angels, and that in all things he might be like unto us, sin only excepted; and that he were born like other Children, who got their knowledge by degrees, as it is written Luk. 2. 52. in Luke, Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and men. Or according to Austin, he Aug. lib. 1. de Trin. is said ignorant of the day of Judgment, because he doth not make them know it, that is, he knew it not so, that he would manifest [Page 55] it to his Disciples. But he was to declare it in a con­venient time; of which time to come, speaking as if it were past, he said, Henceforth I call you not Servants, for the Servant knoweth not what his Lord doth▪ but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father, I have made them known into you. Which things he had not yet declared, but because he was to manifest them certainly, he spake as if he had done it alrea­dy; for he tells them, I have yet many things to say Joh. 16. 12 unto you, but ye cannot bear them now, amongst which is understood the day of [Page 56] Judgment; and therefore he hid it from them, and ac­cording to that kind of expression, a man is said to be ignorant of that which he keeps from another.

To the Fourth, I say, though the Son be of the Father, and as the Coun­cil of Nice saith, he be God of God; neverthe­less he is not dependent, because he is begotten from the Father necessarily.

To the Fifth, I answer, that Christ who is the Son of God, and God of God, according to the Council of Nice, is Mediator be­tween God the Father and men; and so he being a Person really distinct from [Page 57] the Father, we cannot say that he is Mediator between men and himself.

To the Sixth, I say, it is true that which was in tem­pore, was not always; but the Son is begotten ab aeter­no, because he is begotten necessarily, and therefore he was always.

Therefore I say, that though by the aforementi­oned Texts of the holy Scriptures, and Arguments deduced from them, it seems that the Father only is really and properly true God; yet since we read in the holy Writings, that the Son is called God, the true God, the eternal Life, God blessed over all, the Almigh­ty, [Page 58] equal to the Father, and that all the essential Attri­butes of the Godhead are ascribed unto him, we in­fer, that he is really and properly true God, and consequently, Consubstan­tial with his Father.

You may further urge against this, that the Son may be called God, true God, Almighty, the Eter­nal Life, the Creator, and have all the other essenti­al properties of the God­head, and yet not be really and properly true God; because all these divine At­tributes are ascribed unto him dependently, and as a second and instrumental Cause, as it appears by se­veral [Page 59] Texts of the holy Scripture, as for Example, By whom he spoke unto us in these last days, by whom al­so he made the Worlds, Heb. 1. 2. And he was a man ap­proved by God by Miracles, Wonders, and Signs, which God did by him, Act. 2. 22. God created all things by Je­sus Christ, Eph. 3. 9. And as it is related by several Fathers, Deus cum mundi creationem meditaretur ver­bum suum protulit, quo ad­ministro in rerum molitione uteretur.

But the essential Attri­butes of the Godhead, are in God independently▪ and as in the first Cause; there­fore, since they are found [Page 60] in the Son dependently, and as in an instrumental Cause, it follows, that he is not really and properly true God, and consequent­ly, that he is not Consub­stantial with his Father.

I answer, That though this instance appear to be good and convincing, yet it is of no value, since the Council of Nice, which is read upon every Sabbath, and written by so many learned and godly Persons, hath declared in that very time, when such Questions had almost infected all the World, that the Son was God of God, very God of very God, being of one sub­stance with the Father, and [Page 61] that by him all things were made.

You may urge again; if because the Council of Nice hath declared, that the Son is God of God, very God of very God, and of one substance with the Father, it is a powerful motive to be convinced of it, why do ye not believe in the Invocation of Saints, Pur­gatory, Transubstantiati­on, &c. seeing the Coun­cil of Trent, which was al­so composed of several learned and pious Persons, did declare it so?

I answer, That though we should suppose that the Council of Trent was com­posed of several learned [Page 62] and godly Persons, which is in Question, since some amongst them have decla­red, that it was a Popes Cabal, it doth not follow, that we are bound to be­lieve in the Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, and Transubstantiation, &c. because it is ordained so by that Council; for they command points of Faith, which can neither be found distinctly in, nor deduced from the holy Scriptures by clear and necessary Conse­quences, as I have made it appear in a little Treatise, intituled the Church of Rome evidently proved Heretick.

[Page 63] But it is not so in the Council of Nice, because they would have us to be­lieve an Article of Faith, which, though it be not in the holy Scripture in di­stinct and express words, yet it is deduced from it by evident and necessary Consequences, as ye have already seen, and shall be made more evident in the following Arguments.

But for the better un­derstanding of it, we must suppose one thing which is true, viz. That Jesus Christ or the Son of God, had a real Being before he was born of the blessed Virgin Mary, as it appears by his own words, when speak­ing [Page 64] to his Disciples, he Joh. 6. 62. saith, What and if you shall see the Son of man ascending up where he was before. The bread of God is he which cometh down from Heaven; I came down from Heaven, not to do mine own will, but Joh. 16. 27 the will of him that sent me. I came forth from the Fa­ther, and am come into the World, again I leave the World, and go to the Fa­ther.

The real existence of the Son of God, before he was born of the blessed Virgin Mary, is again proved clearly by this Argument. Whosoever was before John the Baptist, and be­fore Abraham, was some [Page 65] space of time before Christ was man, or begotten of the Virgin Mary. But Je­sus Christ, or the Son of God was really existent be­fore John the Baptist, and before Abraham, as it ap­peareth by these Testimo­nies of the Scripture, This Joh. 1. 5. is he of whom I speak, he that cometh after me, is pre­ferred before me, for he was before me. Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abra­ham Joh. 8. 59. was, I am. And by these words of St. Paul, By whom also he made the Heb. 1. 11, 12. 13. Worlds. This being sup­posed and true, I argue thus.

[Page 66] The Being which Christ had before he was concei­ved by the Virgin Mary, was not any created, but the divine Essence by which he was always tru­ly and properly God: For he who was subsisting in the form of God, and thought himself to be equal with God (in which thought he could not be deceived nor injurious to God) must of necessity be truly and essentially God, because there can be no e­quality between the divine Essence which is infinite, and any other whatsoever, which is finite; but so was Christ, as we may see by these words, Being in the [Page 67] form of God, he thought it phil. 2. 6, 7. not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied himself, and took upon him the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of man. Out of which words naturally result three Propositions, fully demonstrating my As­sertion, First, That Christ was in the form of a Ser­vant as soon as he was made man; Secondly, That he was in the form of God, before he was in the form of a Servant; Thirdly, That he was in the form of God, that is, did as tru­ly and really subsist in the divine Nature, as he was in the form of a Servant, or in the nature of a man: [Page 68] For he was so in the form of God, as thereby to be equal with God: But no other form, beside the es­sential which is the divine Nature it self, could infer an equality with God. There can be but one In­finite, Eternal, and Inde­pendent Being, and there can be no Comparison be­tween that Infinite, Eter­nal, and Independent Be­ing, and what is Finite, Temporal, and Dependent. He therefore who did tru­ly think himself equal with God, as being in the form of God, must be conceived to subsist in that one infi­nite, eternal, and indepen­dent Nature of God: And [Page 69] therefore as here Christ was really and essentially man, of the same Nature with us, in whose similitude he was made, so certainly was he also really and es­sentially God, of the same Nature and Being with him, in whose form he did subsist.

This truth is confirmed by these words of the 1st. of John, We know that the 1 Joh. 5. 20. Son of man is come, and hath given us an under­standing, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ, this is the true God, and Eter­nal Life. And by these of St. Paul to the Romans, [Page 70] Rom. 9. 5. Out of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. From whence we may in­fer, that he who was truly subsisting in the form of God, and equal with him, before he was in the Na­ture of man, and who is called God, and the true God, the Almighty, and that in all those ways, by which the supreme Deity is expressed, hath an eter­nal and indivisible Essence and Nature with God. But Christ was so, and is so called, therefore, &c.

Moreover, is it not writ­ten in your Law, saith Christ, Ye are Gods? Are not these the very words [Page 71] of the eighty second Psalm? If God himself so spake, or the Psalmist from him; if this be the Language of the Scripture; if Kings and Magistrates, and they be called Gods, unto whom the Word of God came, may we not say with grea­ter Reason, of him whom the Father hath sanctified, Col. 2. 9. and sent into the World, and in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, that he is God?

We grant, That the Fa­ther is the true God; we grant that God only is to be worshipped and served, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Therefore we [Page 72] must grant that the Son also is the true God, since we are commanded to wor­ship him, and the same ho­nour is given to him, as to the Father, which is seen Paul. by these words, Let all the Angels of God worship him, and by these of John, Who Joh. 5. 22, 23. hath committed all Judg­ment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Fa­ther. If then we be obli­ged to worship the God of Israel only, if we be also commanded to give the same worship to the Son, which we give to the Fa­ther, or to the God of Is­rael, it is necessary, that we should believe that the [Page 73] Son is the God of Israel, and consequently truly and properly God.

Which is seen clearly by these words of Austin, up­on those of St. John, All Joh. 1. 9. things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made: Neque enim dicit omnia, nisi quae facta sunt, id est, omnem Creaturam. Ʋnde liquido patet ipsum factum non esse per quem fa­cta sunt omnia, & si factus non est, Creatura non est; si autem Creatura non est, ejusdem cum Patre substan­tiae est. Omnis enim sub­stantia quae Deus non est, Creatura est, & quae Cre­atura non est, Deus est. Et [Page 74] si non est Filius ejusdem substantiae cujus est Pater, ergo fact a substantia est, si facta substantia est, non om­nia per ipsum facta sunt, at omnia per ipsum fact a sunt, unius igitur ejusdem (que) cum Patre substantiae est, & ideo non tantum Deus, sed & verus Deus. That is, For he doth not say all things, but the things which are made, to wit, all Creatures. From whence it appears clearly, that he, by whom all things were made, was not made. And if he was not made, he is not a Creature; if he be not a Creature, he is of the same substance with the Father, for every sub­stance which is not God, is [Page 75] a Creature; and that which is not a Creature, is God. And if the Son be not of the same Substance with the Fa­ther, then he is a Substance made; if a Substance made, all things were not made by him, but all things were Joh. 1. 3. made by him, therefore he is of the same Substance with the Father, and consequent­ly, he is not only God, but true God.

Which is confirmed by these words, wherein he is said to exist before all things; for if he was not true God, he should be a Creature; if a Creature, we could not say that he is before all things, because he who should have created him, [Page 76] should have his Existence before him; for every Crea­ture supposes a Being ante­cedent from whom it hath received its Existence. Since therefore he is said to be before all things, it is, because he is the true God; for none but the true God can be said properly to be before all things; every Creature having its Being of him, and he nei­ther hath, nor can have his Existence from any thing whatsoever, having it of himself from all Eterni­ty.

Object. The Church of England believes as an Arti­cle of Faith, that the Holy [Page 77] Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; and though they can make it appear, that he proceeds from the Father, from the words of St. John 15. 26. yet they cannot prove that he proceeds from the Son.

I answer as before, to wit, that these words (the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son) are not found distinctly in the holy Scripture; but yet are inferr'd from it by clear and necessary Conse­quences. So these words of Jesus Christ, All things Joh. 16. 15. that the Father hath, are mine; and those of the 17. [Page 78] v. 17. 10. Chapter, All mine are thine, and thine are mine, prove this evidently; for if it be true, as it is granted by all Divines, viz. That all things that the Father hath, the Son hath likewise, the Re­lation of Paternity only ex­cepted, the Father produ­cing the Holy Ghost, it follows, that the Son doth produce him also, and con­sequently, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, as he proceeds from the Father.

This is manifested by Joh. 16. 7. these words of St. John, It is expedient for you, that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I de­part, [Page 79] part, I will send him unto you. And by that of the 15. 25. 15. When the Comforter is come, whom I will send un­to you from the Father. For if ye suppose, what ye do already believe, and as I will make appear in the se­quel of my Discourse, viz. That the Holy Ghost is God, as it is declared by the words of the 5th. of the Acts, To lie to the Holy Ghost, is to lie unto God; and as it appears by the es­sential Attributes of the Godhead, ascribed unto him, as the Sanctification of Souls, and Omniscience, For the Spirit searches all 1 Cor. 2. 10. things, yea the deep things of God. It follows, be­cause [Page 80] he cannot be sent as Servants are by their Ma­sters, or Ambassadors by their Lords, since in that mission there is always some dependency; there is a Su­perior and inferior; there is one Major and one Mi­nor, which can never be found in God; it follows, I say, by a necessary Con­sequence, he being sent from the Father and the Son, it is because he pro­ceeds from both.

You may further urge, the Holy Ghost is not tru­ly and properly God; therefore he doth not pro­ceed from the Father and the Son, according to the manner, as it is belie­ved [Page 81] in the Church of Eng­land.

The Antecedent appears by these words of St. John, When the spirit of truth is Joh. 16. 13 come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself, but what­soever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and will shew you things to come. From whence I thus argue.

First, He that doth not speak of himself, supposes another distinct Person, from whom he hath recei­ved Instruction; but the Holy Ghost doth not speak of himself, therefore he sup­poses another distinct Per­son, from whom he hath received Instruction; there­fore [Page 82] he is not truly and properly God, because he that is truly and properly God, cannot suppose any other Person, from whom he should receive Instru­ction.

Secondly, He that speaks what he heareth, supposes another Person speaking distinct from him that heareth; but the Holy Ghost speaketh what he heareth; therefore he sup­poses another Person speak­ing distinct from him; therefore he is not truly and properly God, because he that is truly and pro­perly God, cannot suppose any other Person speaking unto him, from whom he [Page 83] could receive Instruction; this being contrary to the Nature of the true God. The Major Proposition of these two Arguments is clear and certain, the Mi­nor is from St. John, there­fore Joh. 16. 13. it follows, that the Holy Ghost is not truly and properly God, and consequently, that he doth not proceed from the Fa­ther and the Son, as the Church of England be­lieves.

Answ. I grant that the Holy Ghost doth not speak of himself, but speaks what he heareth, he being not of himself, but of the Fa­ther and the Son; however [Page 84] it doth not follow, but that he is truly and proper­ly God.

But before I make it ap­pear, it is necessary to ob­serve, that the Holy Ghost is sometimes taken for God himself, sometimes for a divine Quality, sometimes for a Person really distinct from the Father and the Son.

First, He is taken for God himself, God is a spirit, John 4. 24. For God be­ing Holy and a Spirit, it is evident that he is holy Spi­rit, and Reciprocally, he that is called holy Spirit per Excellentiam, and with­out dependency, is God. For these Terms, God, and [Page 85] holy Spirit, are really one and the same thing; as likewise these following, Eternal, Lord, Creator, Con­servator. They differ only in reference to the diffe­rent effects, which we ap­ply them to. God is na­med Eternal, because he is without Beginning and Ending: Is called Lord, be­cause of his Power over all things; Creator, because he made them of nothing; and Conservator, because he keeps them from returning into nothing: And he is called Holy Ghost, per Ex­cellentiam; because, to speak properly, none but he is truly Holy, and be­cause he receives his Holi­ness [Page 86] from no body; all other Creatures whatso­ever have their holiness by Communication and De­pendency. In that sence the Holy Ghost is not re­ally distinguish'd from the Eternal Father, but only per Intellectum, or in as much as the Definition which is ascribed to the Eternal Father, is different from that of the Holy Ghost, as the Eternal is di­stinguish'd from the Cre­ator. For although it be really one and the same thing, yet our Understand­ings conceive the Eternal otherwise than the Creator, in as much as the Eternal is a Being without beginning [Page 87] and ending; and the Cre­ator is a first and Indepen­dent Cause, who produ­ced all things out of no­thing.

Therefore in that sence, the Holy Ghost being not really distinguish'd from the Eternal Father, we cannot say that he proceeds from him, because it would follow, that one and the same thing should be sup­posed at the same time ex­isting and not existing; existing, because we con­ceive it to be so; and not existing, because in that instance of Reason, when we should conceive it pro­ceeding from the Father, it should not be existing, [Page 88] which is contrary to Rea­son, since there is no in­stance of Reason, where­in we can conceive the true God not to be. There­fore it follows, that the Holy Ghost in the afore­mentioned sence doth not proceed from the Father.

Secondly, He is taken for a divine Quality, as when the Holy Ghost said unto those of Antioch, Se­parate Act. 13. 2. me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereun­to I have called them. We must conceive it was God, who spake these words, but because God did all this, by that Power within him, which is his Spirit, therefore these words and [Page 89] actions are attributed to the Holy Ghost; in that sence likewise the Holy Ghost is not really distin­guish'd from the Eternal Father, and consequently, is not proceeding from him.

Thirdly, He is taken for a Person really distinct from the Eternal Father; and that he is so, is evident­ly proved by these Texts, Grieve not the holy spirit of Eph. 4. 3. God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption; and by this to the Romans, The spirit it self maketh in­tercession Rom. 8. 26. for us, with groan­ings which cannot be utter­ed; and by that of the first to the Corinthians, The 1 Cor. 2. 10. [Page 90] spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God. For Grief is certainly a personal Affection, of which a quality is not capa­ble. We can understand what is an interceding Per­son, but we have no ap­prehension of interceding and groaning Qualities; and we understand also, that to search is a property belonging to a Person, and not to a Quality.

You will urge, that it is ordinary in the holy Scrip­ture to find the like Ex­pressions, which are proper unto Persons, given unto those things which are no Persons; as when the Apo­stle saith, Charity suffereth [Page 91] long, and is kind; charity 1 Cor. 13. 4, 5. envieth not, vaunteth not it self, &c. All which perso­nal Actions are attributed to Charity, which is no Person, but belonging to that Person which is chari­table; because that Person, which is so qualified, doth perform those Actions ac­cording to, and by the vertue of that Charity, which is in him. In the same manner, personal A­ctions are attributed to the Holy Ghost, which is no Person, but only the Virtue, Power and Efficacy of God the Father, who is a Per­son, and doth perform those personal Actions at­tributed to the Holy Ghost, [Page 92] by the Virtue, Power and Efficacy in himself, which is the Holy Ghost.

Answ. This giveth no satisfaction; for there are several personal Attributes given in the holy Scriptures expresly to the Holy Ghost, which cannot be ascribed to God the Father; as for Example, to make Inter­cession, is a personal Acti­on, and this Action is at­tributed to the Spirit of God, as it appears by these Rom. 8. 27. words of St. Paul, Because he maketh intercession for the Saints, according to the Will of God. But to make Intercession is an Act, which cannot be attributed to [Page 93] God the Father, for it would follow, that the Fa­ther should make Interces­sion to himself, which is absurd, because he that maketh Intercession, is sup­posed to be distinct from him, to whom he maketh Intercession.

Moreover, To come un­to men as being sent unto them, is a personal Action; but the Comforter, or the Holy Ghost did come, be­ing sent, as it is seen by these words of St. John, When the Comforter is come, Joh. 15. 26. whom I will send you from the Father; and if I go Joh. 16. 7. not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him [Page 94] unto you; ergo, the Holy Ghost cannot be ascribed in this place to God the Father, since God the Fa­ther sendeth, but is never sent.

And to speak and hear are personal Actions, and both together attributed to the Holy Ghost, in such a manner as they cannot be attributed to God the Father; as it appears by Joh. 16. 13 those words of John, When the spirit of truth is come, he will guide you into all truth, for he shall not speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that he shall speak. Now to speak, and not of himself, cannot be attributed to God the Fa­ther, [Page 95] since he doth all things of himself. And to speak what he heareth, cannot be also attributed to God the Father, who can re­ceive no Instruction from another. Seeing then the Holy Ghost speaketh, and not of himself, and speak­eth what he heareth, it followeth evidently that he is not God the Father, neither a divine Quality, which cannot be said pro­perly to speak and hear, but that he is a Person di­stinct from the Father.

Now that the Holy Ghost as a Person really distinct from the Father, is truly and properly God, appears by these words of [Page 96] St. Peter, for when Peter said, Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? He re­peateth Act. 5. 4. the same Question, in reference to the same Offence, Why hast thou con­ceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. He means there the true God, as it appears by these words, Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. For, when he saith, Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God, it is as if he should say, thou hast not lied un­to Creatures, since men are Creatures, but thou hast lied unto him who is no Creature, and consequent­ly [Page 97] unto him who is true God. And if the Holy Ghost could be taken some­times for a Creature, this Proposition of St. Peter, To lie to the Holy Ghost, is to lie unto God, would not always be true; therefore St. Peter speaking without distinction, and without a limited sence, 'tis to prove that this word, Holy Ghost, is never taken in the holy Scripture, but for the true God.

Moreover, to whom the divine Attributes do belong, as certainly as they belong unto God the Fa­ther, he is truly and pro­perly God, because these are divine Attributes, which [Page 98] are properties of the Di­vine Nature, and none can be indued with, to whom the Nature of God doth not belong: But the divine Attributes, as Omniscience, the Sanctification of Souls, and the like, do belong as certainly unto the Holy Ghost, as they do unto God the Father; therefore it followeth, that the Holy Ghost is truly and proper­ly God, and consequently that he proceedeth from the Father and the Son as it is declared in the Sym­bole of Nice.

Obj. The Church of England doth neither be­lieve, nor practice all that [Page 99] is contained in these words, viz. Abstain from meats of­fered Act. 15. 29. to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from forni­cation; therefore she is not the holy Catholick Church, since the holy Ca­tholick Church is that, that believes and practises the whole Christian Doctrine, as I have made it appear already.

Answ. This Command­ment was in the time of the Primitive Church, but was abolished by the Apo­stles. Because the Jews would not eat things stran­gled, nor Blood, the Apo­stles enjoyned, that the [Page 100] Gentiles embracing the Christian Religion, ought in Charity to Conform herein to the Jews, and not give Offence where the thing was it self indif­ferent. Wherefore St. Paul 1 Cor. 8. 13 saith, If meat make my bro­ther to offend, I will eat no flesh, while the World stand­eth, lest I make my brother to offend. But now this Commandment is past, and abolish'd by the Apostles, and therefore it is not true, that the Church of Eng­land doth believe and pra­ctise any thing contrary to the holy Scripture.

For the-better under­standing of this Truth, we must know, that in these [Page 101] words enjoyned to the Gentiles embracing the Christian Religion, to wit, Abstain from pollution of I­dols, and from Fornication, and from things strangled and from blood, there is something bad in it self, and something bad by Acci­dent; something bad for a time only, something belonging to the Moral Law, and something be­longing to the Ceremonial. The thing bad in it self for ever, and belonging to the Moral Law, is to abstain from Idolatry, and from Fornication; and the thing bad by accident, for a time only, and belonging to the [Page 102] Ceremonial Law, is to ab­stain from things strangled and from Blood. Now it is certain, that to abstain from Idolatry, and Forni­cation, is a part of the Moral Law, seeing it is written, Thou shalt have no Exod. 20. other Gods, but me; and thou shalt not commit Adul­tery. It is also true, that these things are bad of themselves, and for ever, because they were forbid­den in time past, are now unlawful, and shall be for time to come; which ap­pears by these words of St. Paul, to the Corinthians, Neither Fornicators, nor Cor. 6. 9. Adulterers shall inherit the Kingdom of God.

[Page 103] 'Tis likewise certain, that to Abstain from things strangled and from Blood, belongs to the Ceremonial Law; it is also without doubt, that it was abolish­ed, as it is seen in these words of St. Paul, Whatso­ever 1 Cor. 10. 25. is sold in the Shambles, that eat, asking no question for Conscience sake, for the Earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof; if any of them that believe not bid you to a Feast and ye be disposed to go, whatsoever is set be­fore you, eat, asking no que­stion for Conscience sake. And by these to Timothy, where it is said, that Eve­ry Creature of God is good, 1 Tim. 4. and nothing to be refused, if [Page 104] it be received with thanks­giving; and forbidding to abstain from meats, is a doctrine of Devils. And by these to the Romans, Rom. 14. 14. I know and am perswaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of it self, but to him that e­steemeth any thing to be un­clean, to him it is unclean.

And that ye may not say, that these words of St. Paul were written before those of the Council held Act. 15. 29 at Hierusalem, or of the 15th. of the Acts, the con­trary is to be seen in the eighth Chapter, wherein it appears, that after these things Paul came to Co­rinth, and continued there [Page 105] a year and six months, teaching the Word of God amongst the People of that City, to whom he did write two Epistles some years after. From whence it is evident, that this Com­mandment to abstain from Meats and things strangled and from Blood, is now a­bolished.

I must confess, that if any Person would keep himself wholsom, and have a mild and benign Temper, he ought to abstain from both; for seeing that Ax­iome is received amongst Physitians, ex his consta­mus ex quibus nutrimur; and since experience teach­eth, that those who feed [Page 106] upon Blood, are common­ly cruel and bloody; and those that feed upon Meats strangled are neither so healthful, nor live so long as those that abstain from them, it ought to be suf­ficient to perswade us to abstain from both. How­ever in eating Blood and Meats strangled, there is no sin. And to make it appear, we must know the Ceremonial Law changeth as the shadow of our Bo­dy, when the Sun shines upon it differently; and so may be considered in three different times. First, when God did establish it by Moses unto the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Page 107] Who blotted out the hand­writing Col. 2. of Ordinances, that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his Cross, as it is written in the 2d. to the Colossi­ans. Secondly, From the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto the destructi­on of the Synagogue▪ and perfect manifestation of the Gospel. Thirdly, From the manifestation of the Gospel, unto the end of the World. In the first time that Commandment, To abstain from things stran­gled and from Blood, ought to be kept, and the Trans­gressors were cast out▪ of the Synagogue, and sepa­rated from the People of [Page 108] Israel. In the Second they were bound to keep it, for Conscience sake, and that they might not offend the Jews▪ But in the Third, after the Gospel was mani­fested, that Command­ment was abolished, as I have made it appear alrea­dy; and therefore when the Church of England eat things strangled and Blood, it is not true, that they be­lieve and practise any thing now forbidden in the holy Scripture.

Object. The Church of England believes, and puts it in practise, that we ought to baptize young Children, before they can use their [Page 109] own Reason, and give ac­count of their Faith; but that Doctrine is not agree­able to the holy Scripture, there being mention made only of the Baptism of a­dult Persons, I mean of them that can be instru­cted, and are able of Faith and Repentance, as it ap­pears by these Texts, Teach all Nations, baptizing them Mat. 28. 19 in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Repent and be Act. 2. 38. baptized every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins; if ye believe, ye may be baptized. Therefore the Church of England is not the holy Ca­tholick Church, since she [Page 110] believeth, and practiseth an Article of Faith, which is not agreeable to the holy Scripture.

Answ. First, I grant, that the Baptism of young Chil­dren is not Necessary neces­sitate medii, as the Church of Rome believes, teaching that they cannot possibly be saved, unless they receive the Water of Baptism; because the Grace of God doth not always depend upon Elements, which are not in our power at every time. And the Baptism that saves us, saith St. Pe­ter, 1 Pet. 3. 21. Is not that that puts a­way the filth of the Flesh, but the Answer of a good Con­science [Page 111] towards God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore that which shuts the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven against us, is not a meer and innocent pri­vation of Baptism, but the Contempt and Prophana­tion of it, and a bad Con­science, which will not for­sake sin.

Secondly, I say, That the Baptism of young Chil­dren is necessary, necessitate praecepti, that is to say, as much as it is possible to obey the Commandment of Jesus Christ; and though this Precept be not found in the holy Scripture, in distinct and express words, yet it may be inferred from [Page 112] thence by clear and neces­sary Consequences.

My first Proof concern­ing the Baptism of young Children, is from the Co­venant of Grace, wherein God makes appear the eter­nal Riches of his Mercies and Compassions in so great a measure, that he receives no body in that holy Covenant, without receiving their Children likewise; as it is seen in these words, which God spake to Abraham, saying, Gen. 17. 7. I will establish my Covenant between me and thee, and thy Seed after thee in their Generations, for an everla­sting Covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy Seed [Page 113] after thee. And by those of the Acts, wherein St. Peter speaks thus unto the Jews; Be baptized every Act. 2. 39. one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ, for the remis­sion of sins, for the promise is unto you, and to your Chil­dren, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. From which words I infer these two Arguments.

First, All that are parta­kers of the Covenant of Grace, ought to be Parta­kers of the Seal of that Co­venant, and of that Sacra­ment, which is the Mysti­cal sign of our entring into that Covenant; now not only the Faithful are Par­takers [Page 114] of the Covenant of Grace, but [...] Children also, as [...] by the a­forementio [...] Texts, both of Genes [...]s and Acts; there­fore not only the Faithful, but their Children also ought to be partakers of the Seal of that Covenant, and consequently of Bap­tism, which is the Mystical Sign of our entring into that Covenant.

Secondly, Unto whom the Promise is made, they ought to be baptized, as it appears by the words of St. Peter, Act. 2. 39. But the Promise is made unto the Children, as well as unto their Parents; there­fore Children ought to be baptized.

[Page 115] Which is confirmed by these words of St. Matthew, Go teach all Nations, bapti­zing Mat. 29. 18 them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; now young Children are of the number of Nations; there­fore unto them belongs Baptism; therefore they ought to be baptized.

You may further urge, Immediately before that Text in the Acts, Be bapti­zed every one of you, &c. it is read, Repent. And in that of St. Matthew, we read, Teach all Nations; and so Repentance and Do­ctrine are presupposed be­fore Baptism; but young Children, who cannot use [Page 116] their Reason, neither are capable of one, or the other; therefore it follows, they ought not to be bapti­zed.

Answ. We ought to teach them that are able to be taught, and baptize them that are able to be bapti­zed. Repentance and Do­ctrine are necessary in adult Persons, but not in young Children. Otherwise it should follow, that the new Law, which is a Law of Grace, should be less fa­vourable, than the old, which is a Law of Rigor; and that Jesus Christ were come to lessen the favours of God, and not to increase [Page 117] them; seeing in the old Law, young Children were circumcised; now since Baptism is in the place of Circumcision, weare to bap­tize young Children, since they were circumcised; and seeing Circumcision, which was a Ceremony, and divine Institution, did nei­ther require Doctrine, nor Repentance in young Chil­dren, though it were ne­cessary in adult Persons, as it appears in Abraham, and in all others who turned Jews; even so Baptism, which is a Ceremony, and a divine Institution, doth neither require Faith, nor Repentance in young Children, although it doth in a­dult Persons.

[Page 118] Which is confirmed by the words of St. Matthew, where it is said, that They Mat. 19. 13 brought unto Jesus Christ little Children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray, and that the Disciples rebuking▪ them, Jesus said, suffer little Children, and forbid them not to come un­to me, for of such is the Kingdom of God. From whence I argue thus.

To whom do belong the things signified, unto them belong the Signs also; as the Crown, which is the Sign and Mark of Royalty, belongs to him, to whom the Kingdom belongs; but unto little Children belongs the Kingdom of God, as it [Page 119] is written in St. Matthew, 19. 13. Therefore unto them belongs Baptism, which is the Sign of the en­tring into that Kingdom. For except a man be born of Joh. 3. 5. water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the King­dom of God. Therefore young Children born with original sin, (as it appears in several places of the ho­ly Scripture, but especially by these words of St. Paul to the Romans, By the Of­fencof Rom. 5. one, Ju dgment came upon all men to Condemna­tion,) are not to be depri­ved of Baptism, lest they should not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; which is the Reason that St. Cy­prian [Page 120] and Austin have so often declared the Baptism of little Children to be ne­cessary.

Moreover, if they brought unto Jesus Christ young Children, and he put his hands on them, and prayed for them; why shall they not bring unto him little Children in the Church? Why shall not the Minister pray for them? And why shall he not confer unto them the Ceremony, or the Institution of Baptism, as Jesus Christ gave unto little Children the Ceremo­ny or Institution of Impo­sition of hands? I ask this Question, whether the Ce­remony of Imposition of [Page 121] hands was in vain, or whe­ther they received by it some particular Grace from Christ? Ye will not say, that it was in vain, because then Jesus Christ in whom were hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledg, would not have used it; if they received by it some special Grace, notwith­standing their want of Re­pentance and Faith, which they were not then capa­ble of, why shall not young Children now re­ceive the Ceremony of Baptism, and thereby all Graces annexed unto it, though they be not capa­ble of Faith and Repen­tance? When a Father or [Page 122] Mother were baptized, all those of the Houshold were baptized also, as it appears Act. 16. 13 in the Acts, where it is said, that Lydia a seller of Pur­ple of the City of Thyatira was baptized, and her Hou­shold; and that the Kee­per of the Prison was bap­tized, he and all his. And in the first Chapter of the 1 Cor. 1. 16 first Epistle to the Corin­thians, St. Paul saith, that he hath baptized the Hou­shold of Stephanus; but it is probable, though not convincing, that in so many Families there were Chil­dren.

And since our Fathers and their Children were 1 Cor. 10. 2 baptized in the Cloud, and [Page 123] in the Sea, and they being the Figures of our Baptism, as is evident by St. Paul; that that which is by them figured, may be accomplish­ed, the Children now ought to be baptized in the Bap­tism of Jesus Christ.

Object. It is forbidden in several places of the holy Scriptures, to Swear, or to take an Oath. Ye have Mat. 5. 33, 34. heard that it hath been said to them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thy self, but I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, &c. But let your Communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these, cometh o evil▪ and in [Page 124] the Epistle of St. James, Jam 5 12. Above all things, my Bre­thren, swear not, lest ye fall into Condemnation.

But the Church of Eng­land is not against swearing, or taking an Oath; yea she uses, and maintains it law­ful; therefore she believes and practises an Article for­bidden in the holy Scrip­ture; therefore she is not the holy Catholick Church.

Before I give an Answer, it is necessary to know, that an Oath is an Invocation to God, or an Appeal to him, as a Witness of the Truth of what we say; so that in case that that we swear be not true, we, if not ex­presly, at least virtually [Page 125] invoke God as a Judge and Avenger.

There are two sorts of Oaths, one Assertory, and the other Promissory; an assertory Oath is, when we promise by Oath something that is Future; and if our promise be made directly and immediately to God, 'tis called a Vow; if to men, an Oath. That being supposed;

I Answer▪ That an Oath is not only lawful, but also is sometimes necessary, as when mens Estates are con­cern'd, and no Evidence can be had to decide and clear the matter, but what is assured by Oath. Then it is necessary to make an [Page 126] end of, and decide the Controversie; as it appears by these words of St. Paul, Heb. 6. 16. An Oath for Confirmations, is to them an end of strife.

And its lawfulness ap­pears by several Texts of the holy Scripture, where­in God, who is truth it self, and cannot lie, and conse­quently might be believed of men upon his bare word, and without necessity of making an Oath, yet to confirm his promises, is willing to take it. For when God made the Pro­mise to Abraham, because he could not swear by a greater, he sware by him­self. And verse 17. God willing more abundantly to [Page 127] shew unto the heirs of pro­mise the immutability of his Counsel, confirmed it by an Oath. Therefore if God himself swears and takes an Oath, why shall it not be lawful to men to take an Oath in dubious mat­ters, and of great Concern, and when no Evidence can be had to decide and clear them?

Was not Mephibosheth spared because of the Lord's Oath, that was between them, between David and 2 Sam. 21. 7. Jonathan the Son of Saul? Did not the Law of Moses in many cases require them? Doth not St. Paul use them oftentimes? as when he saith, God is my witness. Rom. 1. 9. to J. 2. 5. I [Page 128] call God for a Record upon my Soul. Before God I lie not. Which Oaths, St. Paul, who was to teach the Pre­cepts of Christ to others, should not have used, if they had been unlawful, and forbidden in the holy Scriptures.

And Christ himself, as ye may read, Mat. 26. 63, 64. did not refuse it, when the High-Priest asked him to answer upon his Oath, whether he was the Son of God. I adjure thee, saith the High-Priest, by the li­ving God that thou tell us, whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God, and Jesus said unto him, thou hast said.

[Page 129] Therefore seeing Jesus Christ himself doth answer, when he is adjured upon Oath, & St. Paul oftentimes called God to witness, for the Confirmation of what he saith: seeing David and several others have used it in the Old Testament, and God himself, who cannot give us a bad Example, used it for the Confirmation of his Promises, it is a clear and evident sign, that it is lawful, and that we are to explain these words of St. Matthew, I say unto you, swear not at all; as also these others of St. James, above all things, my Bre­thren, swear not; they ought to be interpreted not [Page 130] generally, but in a limited sence, as only forbidding swearing in common Con­versation, and in our ordi­nary Commerce and Af­fairs, as it appears by the words immediately follow­ing, viz. Let your Commu­nication be yea, yea, and nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil.

From whence it follows, though Swearing or Oaths ought to be avoided in our Conversations, because they are then so many sins, yet there is a time, and there are occasions, as when the matter is doubtful, and of concern, and no Evidence can be had to clear and de­cide [Page 131] it, when they are not only lawful, but also very necessary. And therefore when at certain times, and upon certain occasions the Church of England com­mands to sware or take an Oath, and believes it law­ful, she doth neitherbelieve, nor practise any thing for­bidden in the holy Scrip­ture.

Object. It is written in the 20th. Chapter of Exod. Remember to keep holy the Exod. 20. 8, 9, 10. Sabbath day, six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy [Page 132] Son, nor thy Daughter, thy man-Servant, nor thy maid-Servant, nor thy Cattel, nor thy Stranger that is within thy Gates, for in six days the Lord made Heaven, and Earth, the Sea, and all that in them is, and rested the se­venth day, wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

The Church of England doth not keep this divine Commandment, but ob­serves the first day of the week, instead of the se­venth; therefore she is not the holy Catholick Church.

Before I give an Answer to this Objection, I will give leave to my Adversa­ry [Page 133] to say all that he can, to establish his Opinion.

When I read, saith he, these words in the 20th. Chapter of Exodus, or when I see them written in great Letters in our Churches, or hear them pronounced aloud at the Communion Table, the first day of the week, which we call Sunday, I think that the words of Isaiah, Hear ye indeed, but under­stand Isa. 6. 9. and Mat. 13. 14. not, and see ye indeed, but perceive not, may be well here adapted. And may not this be justly attributed unto us, since the Jews ex­cepted with a small num­ber of Christians scattered in the North; we neither [Page 134] practise what we read, nor what we hear. And that this may appear clearly, it is necessary to consider without any prejudice, that the aforesaid words con­tain a day determined by God, which we are bound to keep holy, and where­on we ought to rest. But it is the seventh day which God kept holy, and where­on he rested, therefore it is that and no other, which we ought to keep holy, and whereon we are bound to rest. That it is the day upon which God rested, which we are bound to keep holy, appears evident­ly by these words: In it thou shalt not do any work; [Page 135] For what mean these words, but thou shalt not do any work in the day, whereon God rested? This is the most natural Explica­tion that a man can give to them. But God fore­seeing he should be forgot by his Creatures, gives us warning, saying, Remem­ber to keep holy the Sabbath day. And that that day is the seventh, which we call Saturday, appears again e­vidently, First, by these words, But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Secondly, by the next, In six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea and all that in them is, and rested the [Page 136] seventh day. Thirdly, be­cause we read in Genesis, Gen. 2. 23. God rested on the seventh day from all his works, which he had made, and God blessed the seventh day and sanctifi­ed it. Therefore it is that day which is to be kept ho­ly; for it is an Axiome re­ceived in Divinity, viz. that men neither can, nor ought to change, what was established and determined by God; as for Example, Water in Baptism, and Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper, cannot be changed by men, because they have been established and determined by Jesus Christ, who is received as God among Christians. Is [Page 137] it not written, Cursed is he that addeth any thing to the Law, or diminisheth from it? doth not St. Paul forbid, not to think of men 1 Cor. 4. 6. above that which is writ­ten? and doth not Christ himself say in St. Matthew, In vain they do worship me teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men? That the seventh day is our Saturday, is again manife­sted, First, because since Moses, the Jews who did always, and do still keep the seventh day, do keep our Saturday for their Sab­bath. Secondly, Because as Sabbath among the Hebrews is the seventh day, Sabbato among the Italians, [Page 138] Sabbado among the Spani­ards; Samedy among the French, so is Saturday a­mong the English men. Thirdly, Because the Evan­gelists saying in our Tran­slation, that Jesus Christ was risen the first day of the week, which, accord­ing to the Language of the Scriptures, is the next day after the Sabbath; it fol­lows evidently, our Satur­day preceding the first day of the week, and the Sab­bath being the seventh day, that the seventh day is our Sabbath. But it is in vain to bring such Proofs unto them, who acknow­ledg to have changed the Saturday or seventh, to [Page 139] the first day of the week. Therefore since our Satur­day is the seventh day of the week, and God rested on it, blessed, sanctified it, and commanded us to keep it holy, is it not just, in O­bedience to God, to keep it so?

Some will answer, saith my Adversary, that that change was made, First, That we might have no Communication with the Jews; Secondly, Because Jesus Christ arose upon the first day of the week; Thirdly, Because we read, that the Apostles met on that day.

[Page 140] To the first Objection my Adversary replyeth, that we ought to have Com­munication with the Jews in all things which are good: Otherwise the Jews believing in one God, we should not believe so; and they believing in the Old Testament, it should not be the Object of our Faith.

To the Second he saith, that a Question may be made, whether he rose on the first day of the week; none of the Evangelists in the Original saying in ex­press Mat. 28. 1. Luk. 27. Joh. 2. 1. words, the first day of the week, but [...] But though this be true, is it [Page 141] a sufficient Reason to change the day which God himself hath prescribed un­to us, blessed, sanctified and commanded? We may re­member the day of his Re­surrection, and keep it ho­ly; but we ought not, be­cause he rose upon the first day of the week, to abo­lish the true Sabbath, to transpose it to another day, without an express Com­mandment, either of Christ or of his Apostles. And if that Reason were good, might we not say, because he dyed on such a day, we ought also to transfer the Sabbath unto it?

[Page 142] And to the third Obje­ction, it is true, saith he, we read in our Translation, that the Apostles met on the first day of the week, but, mark ye, that it was 1 Cor. 16. 1 Concerning the Collection for the Saints, as ye may read in the 16th. Chapter of the first to the Corinthians. And though it were also to Preach and break Bread, as Act. 20. 7. it appears in the Acts; yet, saith he, if this Reason were sufficient for the changing of the Sabbath into the first day of the week, this should be sufficient also for the continuing of it in the se­venth; since we read that the Apostles met oftentimes together on the Sabbath to [Page 143] pray, preach, and baptize. Act. 16. 13, 14, 15. And Christ himself and his Apostles were strict Sab­bath-keepers, they even af­ter his death. And Christ seems to favour this Opi­nion, when in the 24th. Chapter of St. Matthew, Mat. 24. 20 speaking not only concern­ing the Destruction of Hi­erusalem, but also concern­ing the last day of Judg­ment, he saith, Pray ye, that your flight be not in the Winter, neither on the Sabbath day. [...]. From which words this Ar­gument is deduced: In Christ's time the Sabbath was on the seventh day, therefore when he com­manded us to pray, that [Page 144] at the day of Judgment, our flight should not be on the Sabbath day, he com­manded us to pray that it should not come on the se­venth day; and since this Commandment of Christ is still the same at that time, in reference to the last day of Judgment, the same day ought to continue still, o­therwise his Command­ments and Threatnings are vain.

And it signifieth nothing to say, that in the words of the fourth Command­ment there is something moral, as the Sanctification of days without any de­termination, which cannot be abolished; and some­thing [Page 145] Ceremonial, as the determination of a day, which may be changed. For if the determination of the seventh day be meerly Ceremonial, and conse­quently may be changed, likewise the Determinati­on of the first day of the week is meerly Ceremoni­al, and therefore may be changed also. Wherefore the Reason why this is kept rather than another, is meer Policy, and to a­void Confusion, which we could not prevent, if there were not a day determi­ned. But if that Reason be valid, is it not better to take the day assigned by God, whereon he rested, [Page 146] which he sanctified and blessed above all others? upon which he declares, he will bless them that keep it holy, as he will curse and punish the Transgres­sors of it; which was kept by Jesus Christ and his A­postles, which God com­manded usin express words, and which Christ doth now command; for, as I have made it appear, this Ordi­nance, Pray ye, that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath, stands at this very day. Is it not better, I say, to take that day, than that whereof we find no Commandment in the holy Scripture?

[Page 147] Again, It signifieth no­thing to say, it is written in the 2d. Chapter to the Colossians, Let no man Col. 2. 16, 17. judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of an ho­ly day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ; for in this place, the word, Sabbaths, instead of shew­ing that the seventh day could be changed into the first of the week, serves only to make it appear, we ought to have no determi­ned day. Therefore since it is certain, and granted by all men, that though we are to sanctifie all the days of our life, that is to [Page 148] say, to live holily; yet we ought particularly, to set aside one day of the week, whereon we ought to rest, and keep holy to God Al­mighty: These words then of St. Paul to the Colossi­ans, are not to be under­stood concerning the Sab­bath assigned in the 20th. Chapter of Exodus, but concerning other Sabbaths, which besides this, the Jews did keep.

It is then evident, if we lay down all prejudices, that the said Objections are not strong enough to con­tradict what is before assert­ed, viz. that men neither can, nor ought to change what is established and de­termined [Page 149] by God, as it is the consent of all Divines, and holy Scriptures; and notwithstanding all that I have just now alledged, the Church of England chang­ing the seventh, unto the first day of the week, to keep it holy, it is manifest, she breaks the fourth Com­mandment of the Deca­logue, and consequently, is not the holy Catholick Church.

Answ. All the words contained in the fourth Commandment do not bind equally, some contain­ing a Commandment, as Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day; and some in­cluding [Page 150] a Permission, as, Six days shalt thou labour and do all thy work; as like­wise these of St. Paul to 1 Cor. 10. 25. the Corinthians, Whatso­ever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no Question for Conscience sake. In these sorts of Expressions God doth not command, but gives only permission and leave to eat of whatsoever is sold in the Shambles: As well as to eat of the Fruit of the Trees of the Garden, excepting the Tree of Life, which was forbidden our first Parents. It is then clear, that these words, Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work, include but a Permission; for I think [Page 151] no body will say, that it is not lawful to a man on any other day of the week, to abstain from gross and sla­vish works, to the end he might meditate God's Works and Perfections, and apply himself unto Exerci­ses of Charity and Piety.

Second Answer, All that are contained in the De­calogue, are not, ex Jure naturali, nor belong to the Moral Law, and conse­quently, are not Immuta­ble; for the Preface, Hear Israel, I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the Land of Aegypt, out of the House of bondage, sheweth evidently, that God speaks unto Israel ac­cording [Page 152] to the Flesh, as they were a Type of Israel according to the Spirit; and puts them in mind of his renowned favours to­wards them, in delivering them out of the bondage of Aegypt, as a Type of our spiritual Redemption, and slavery under the De­vil, Sin, and Death. Now if either we consider the Type, or the thing signifi­ed thereby, neither of them are ex Jure naturali, or be­long to the Moral Law, (which is the same, and Immutable at all times, and among all Nations) but are grounded upon the good pleasure of God, who, by his special goodness to­wards [Page 153] that People, was pleased so to deal with them.

Third Answer, These words of the fourth Com­mandment, In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy Son, nor thy Daughter, thy man-Servant, nor thy maid-Servant, nor thy Cat­tel, nor the Stranger which is within thy Gates, could not have relation to Adam and Eve, when they were first created; because in that state they saw no strangers in their Family. These words were especial­ly related to the ancient Israelites, who had lived in Aegypt like strangers, to the end they might learn, [Page 154] when they should possess the Land of Promise, to deal with all the World, otherwise than the Aegyp­tians had dealt with them. And therefore the afore­mentioned cannot be understood, ex Jure na­turali, as belonging to the Moral Law, it being alike and the same among all Na­tions.

Fourth Answer, The next words, For in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, the Sea, and allthat in them is, and rested the seventh day, do not infer in themselves an indispen­sable necessity; for no bo­dy doubts, but that God could create this great [Page 155] World with all its perfe­ctions in a less time, yea, in a moment, if he had pleased; and consequent­ly, that he could appoint another day than the se­venth to be kept holy, as for Example, the third, if on that day he had finish­ed the Creation of the World. But being finish'd in six days, the Question is, whether the seventh be of an indispensable necessi­ty. Wherefore,

I Answer, Fifthly, That the day assigned by God for his Worship, was Sym­bolical, Mystical, and Ce­remonial, and consequent­ly, ought to be abolished, and so was not of an indis­pensable [Page 156] Necessity, and therefore did not belong to the Moral Law. That the institution of the Sab­bath day was such, may be seen clearly, because A­dam the first of all men, was able by the strength of his natural Reason, in the state of Innocency, to com­prehend what belonged to the Natural and Moral Law; but by the strength of his Reason, he could ne­ver understand why the se­venth day ought to be kept holy, rather than another. Therefore the Reason of it was the good Will of God, which Adam could never understand of himself, wanting a special Revela­tion [Page 157] or positive Com­mandment, wherein the Reason of it might be ma­nifested unto him.

And it signifies nothing, to say, that it is written, we are bound to keep holy the seventh day for ever, because by the word, for ever, is meant only a long space of time assigned by God, as it appears in these Texts, Exod. 21. 6. Exod. 32. 13. Levit. 24. 8, 9. Numb. 18. 19. Numb. 25. 13. Wherein though the word, for ever, be used; yet we say it belongs to the Ceremonial Law, and consequently, ought to be abolished under the Gos­pel, Col. 2. 17. where the body of [Page 158] these things, whereof they were but a shadow, is made manifest.

And that the Institution of the seventh day, redu­plicativé ut sic, could be a­bolished, appears by the words of the Prophet Eze­kiel. Ezek. 20. 12. I gave them my Sab­baths to be a sign between me and them, that they might know, that I am the Lord that sanctifie them. An by the other words of St. Col. 2. 16, 17. Paul to the Colossians, Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new Moon, or of the Sabbath days, which are shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ. Now, seeing [Page 159] the Plural Number con­tains all Singulars; Sab­baths being taken in the Plural Number, it follow­eth, that that contained in the Decalogue, and which is here in Dispute, is also included therein: Other­wise St. Paul would not have failed to make an ex­ception.

The Sabbath, saith Christ, was made for man, and not Mark 2. 27, 28. man for the Sabbath, there­fore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath. Now he that is the Lord of any thing, can dispose of it as it seems good unto him, therefore the Son of man being Lord also of the Sab­bath, he may dispose of it [Page 160] as he pleaseth, and there­fore might abolish it; and consequently, it doth not belong to the Natural or Moral Law, which cannot be changed, even by God himself.

And it signifies nothing, to say, that Jesus Christ himself, and his Apostles, have kept and sanctified the seventh day; for they did keep it as they did some other Commandments of the Ceremonial Law, which were all abolished in their convenient time; to the end that they might not offend the Jews, among whom they were born, and to whom especially they were to preach the holy [Page 161] Gospel; but might convert them to Christian Religi­on, and call them that were predestinated, and might by all means save some; and 1 Cor. 9. 22. so propagate the more the Kingdom of God, Which doth not consist in meat and drink, or in distinction of sabbaths, but in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

From whence it follows, that the Sanctification of the seventh day, reduplica­tivé ut sic, did not belong to the Moral Law, and consequently, might be a­bolished. I say, the San­ctification of the seventh day, ut sic, for in reference of that which is Moral, I [Page 162] mean, the true Piety and Worship due unto God, it could not be abolished, and no man in the World in whatsoever dignity, yea, nor God himself, can dis­pense with.

Now the Worship due unto God may be consider­ed in two respects, inward­ly, or out wardly, Consi­dered in the first sence, it respects our Confidence in God, our Obedience to his Commandments, our Invo­cation, Praises, and Thanks­givings. Considered in the latter, it respects places, where are publick Meet­ings, wherein the Word of God is preached, and his Sacraments are admini­stred. [Page 163] In reference to the outward Worship due un­to God, it is necessary (to avoid Confusion from whence proceed great e­vils) to establish some Or­der, and to appoint certain days and hours to meet to­gether, that we might praise and worship our Lord, call upon his holy Name, and give thanks for all his unmeasurable mer­cies.

Now the Church, to which Christ gave his Au­thority and Power, and whose Ordinances he will have us to keep, as it ap­pears by these words, If he neglect to hear the Church, Mat. 18. 17 let him be unto thee as an [Page 164] heathen man, and a Publi­can, had good and suffici­ent Reasons to change the seventh into the first day of the week. First, Be­cause being Typical and Mystical, and not belong­ing to the Moral Law, as I have made it appear, it might be abolished, as all the other Precepts of the Ceremonial Law were: For Col. 2. 14. Christ blotting out the hand­writing of Ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his Cross.

Secondly, The Sanctifi­cation of the seventh day being ordained unto us, to the end we might remem­ber [Page 165] the day and benefit of our Creation, as it appears by the words of the 11th. verse, For in six days the Lord made Heaven and Earth, &c. The Church which we ought to obey in all things, not contrary to the holy Scripture, find­ing, that the day of our Re­demption was very consi­derable, yea, much more excellent than that of our Creation, as it appears by the words of Jesus Christ, concerning Judas, Good Mark 14. 21. were it for that man, if he had never been born.

And finding that in the first day of the week, Jesus Christ, who is the true Joh. 1. light which lighteth every [Page 166] man that cometh into the World, came out of the darkness of the Sepulchre, on which day our Redemp­tion appeared more especi­ally and evidently; and Act. 2. that on the first day of the week, there appeared un­to the Apostles cloven Tongues, like as of fire, and sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and be­gan to speak with other Tongues; and that on this day likewise Christ revea­led to St. John, the excel­lent and admirable Myste­ries described in his Reve­lations; and that the Apo­stles did chuse that day for their publick exercises of [Page 167] Piety, and Charity, for the administration of Sa­craments, and manifestati­on of the Gospel, as it ap­pears in the Acts, and in Act. 20. 1 Cor. 16. the first to the Corinthians; I say all this being true, the Church thought they might and ought to imi­tate the Apostles, and in­stead of the seventh, or­dain the first day of the week to be kept holy.

Object. It is written in the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Not to 1 Cor. 4. 6. think of men above that which is written; and in the 15th. Chapter of St. Matthew, In vain they do Mat. 15. 9. worship me, teaching for Do­ctrines [Page 168] the Commandments of men. But the Church of England thinks of men above that which is writ­ten, and teaches for Do­ctrines the Commandments of men, as it appears in the Common-prayer Books, which are appointed to be read in all their Churches, wherein they enjoyn The sign of the Cross, and God-Fathers and God-mothers in Baptism; it appears also in the Surplice, Musick, and Organs, practised espe­cially in Cathedral Church­es. Therefore she is not the holy Catholick Church, because to be so, she ought to believe and practise the whole Christian Faith, [Page 169] without adding to, or di­minishing from it.

Answ. The words of St. Paul and Matthew are to be understood of the Do­ctrine or points of Faith, that is to say, it is not law­ful to any man, in what­ever Dignity or Power he is, to establish any Article of Faith, besides what is established in the holy Scripture. Therefore St. Paul foreseeing, that men would attribute to them­selves a Priviledge belong­ing to God only, I mean, that they should establish Articles of Faith, not found in the holy Scripture, (as oftentimes the Church of [Page 170] Rome doth) curseth them, and will have them to be Anathema.

Secondly, I say, when the Church of England commands and uses Com­mon-Prayers, she doth not think of men above that which is written, nor tea­ches for Doctrines the Commandments of men, because in several places of the holy Scripture, we have a Command to pray, yea, to pray by a form; For when you pray, saith Christ himself, pray after this man­ner, Mat. 6. 9. Our Father which art in Heaven, &c. and see­ing that Jesus Christ not only commands his Dis­ciples to pray, but also to [Page 171] pray after a Form, which Example they ought to follow in all other Pray­ers, 'tis a sign that Com­mon-Prayers, which are made according to that form which by our Savi­our is set as a Pattern, I mean, which conduce to the Glory of God, and Salvation of Souls, and wherein nothing is found contrary to the holy Scrip­ture, are not only lawful, but ought to be used in Churches, and preferred before extempore Prayers. I say, that they ought to be preferred before extempore Prayers; First, Because in this sort of Prayers, we may let slip (as it happens [Page 172] too often) a bad Doctrine, or some points contrary to Faith; and either by in­consideration or ignorance we may ask that which is contrary to the Will of God, and hurtful to our Salvation; and what good effect can a man hope from such Prayers, wherein are found so many Imperfecti­ons? But none of these faults are found in Com­mon-Prayers; we are cer­tain, they are Orthodox, and that therein we ask nothing hurtful unto us, nor contrary to the Will of God, they being com­posed by them who repre­sent the Church, I mean, by a considerable number [Page 173] of learned and godly men, who before they com­manded them to be used in publick, did seriously consider, whether they were wholly conformable to the Word of God.

Secondly, Because in the Prayer made extempore, as Dr. Beveridge did very Dr. Beve­ridge. well observe in his admira­ble Sermon of the Excel­lency of the Common-Prayer, We must first listen to what the Minister will say next, then we are to consider, whether what he saith be agreeable to sound Doctrine, and whether it be proper and lawful for me to joyn with him in the Petiti­ons he puts up to God Al­mighty. [Page 174] And if we think it is so, then we are to do it; but before we can well do that, he is got to another thing; by which means it is very difficult, if not moral­ly impossible, to joyn with him in every thing so regular­ly as we ought to do. But by a set form of Prayer, all this trouble is prevented for having the Form continu­ally in our mind, being thorowly acquainted with it, fully approving of every thing in it, we have nothing else to do, whilst the words are sounding in our ears, but to move our hearts and our af­fections suitably to them, to raise up our desires of those good things, which are pray­ed [Page 175] for, to fix our minds wholly upon God, whilst we are praising of him, and so to employ, quicken, and lift up our whole Souls in per­forming our Devotions to him.

Thirdly, I confess that there are unlawful Cere­monies. They being ei­ther grosly Idolatrous, or else directly conducing to Idolatry, as some are found in the Church of Rome; as to bow before Images, pray and offer Incense un­to them. But I must also confess, that there are some lawful, they either condu­cing to have more respect towards God Almighty, or serving to incite our cold [Page 176] hearts, and inflame them with the love of God, and heavenly things.

The Ceremonies which are practised in the Church of England are lawful, be­cause they are good, and have no other end than the edification of Souls, and to cause in us more and more respect and love towards holy and Celestial things; and are not contrary to the holy Scripture.

That there be lawful Ceremonies, it can't be de­nied, unless we will con­demn the holy Scripture, and the Practice of the A­postles, and of Jesus Christ, who ordained and kept them. Which is manife [Page 177] sted by these words, Now 1 Cor. 11. 2 I praise you brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the Ordinances, as I delivered them to you; and verse 34. The rest will I set in order when I come. When ye come together, saith 1 Cor. 14. 26. the same Apostle, speak­ing concerning meeting in Churches, Let all things be done to edifying. And verse 40. Let all things be done decently, and in order. And what means all this, but that there were Cere­monies used among the first Christians in the Apo­stles time, proposed by them, whereof no particu­lar mention is made in the holy Scripture?

[Page 178] And to make it plain, and remove all doubt, mark the following Ceremonies. Is not the Ceremony of the holy Kiss ordained by St. Paul, when he saith, Salute one another with an holy kiss? Is not the Cere­mony of putting off the Hat, commanded to every man when he prayeth un­to God? When a man pray­eth, saith Paul, he ought 1 Cor. not to cover his head. Was not the Ceremony of the Imposition of hands on young Children used by Christ himself? As in these Mat. 19. 13 Mar. 10. 14 words, They brought unto him little Children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray, and the Disciples [Page 179] rebuked them; but Jesus said, Suffer little Children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for such is the Kingdom of Heaven, and he laid his hands on them. Was not the Ceremony of washing the feet used by Jesus Christ? He poured Joh. 13. 5. & v. 14, 15. water into a Bason, and be­gan to wash the Disciples feet, and to wipe them with the Towel, wherewith he was girded; and saith, if then your Lord and Master have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one anothers feet, for I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

[Page 180] Is not the Ceremony of anointing them that are sick, ordained by St. James? When he saith, Is any sick Jam. 5. 14. among you? let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, a­nointing him with oyl, in the name of the Lord.

I will not here mention several other Ceremonies used among the first Chri­stians, as to mingle Water with Wine, to signifie that the blood of Christ had a cleansing virtue in it, which Mystery was represented by the Water which flow­ed with the Blood, from our Saviours side. As to give Milk with Honey to drink unto baptized Per­sons, [Page 181] to signifie that they were like new born babes, who ought to desire the sweet and sincere Milk of the Word. And as to stand up in all their Devotions from Easter to Whitsun­tide, to signifie that Christ was risen from the dead; because (though the In­stances here mentioned may be sufficient to per­swade us to follow their Example in the use of Ce­remonies,) those that I have brought out of the holy Scripture ought whol­ly to convince us.

It is then certain, that there are lawful Ceremo­nies, which have no other end, than the Glory of God, [Page 182] the Salvation of our Souls, and are not contrary to the Word of God. And that the Ceremonies command­ed and practised in the Church of England are such, I will make it appear. But, First, We must be certain, though the Church have no Power to establish points of Faith, belonging to God only, as it is the consent of all Divines; yet she hath power to set up Ceremonies, which are necessary, either to the decent administration, or reception of Sacraments; or to make us remember the holiness and purity, which we ought to have, when we are gathered to­gether [Page 183] to sing Psalms unto God, to call upon his holy Name, to beg his Mercies, and give him thanks for all his Favours, or to inflame our hearts, and lift up our minds towards heavenly things. I say, that the Church hath now this Pow­er, since there is but one Catholick Church, and that the same now as was in the Apostles time, and since in the Apostles time, there were Ceremonies, as I have made it appear al­ready, and may clearly be inferred from these words of St. Paul, let all things be done decently and in order. For what is it meant there­by, but that the Word of [Page 184] God should be preached, his praises sung, his holy Name worshipped and cal­led upon, thanksgivings returned unto him, and his Sacraments administred and received with the Ce­remonies established by the Church? Which is evi­dently inferred from these words, Decently, and in order. Therefore since there were Ceremonies in the Church then, it is lawful now to have them; but had there been none in the Apostles time, it doth not follow, that they are for­bidden at this. God left Authority enough to his Church to set any, provi­ded, as I have said before, [Page 185] they conduce to his Glory, the Edification of Souls, and are not contrary to the holy Scripture. But the Ceremonies used in the Church of England are such; therefore they are lawful. To shew it in par­ticular.

Doth not the Ceremo­ny of the sign of the Cross, used immediately after In­fants Baptism, conduce to the Edification of our Souls? Being to put us in mind, that we are not to be ashamed, to confess the Faith of Christ crucified, but manfully to fight un­der his Banner, against sin, the World, and the Devil; and to continue Christ's [Page 186] faithful Souldiers and Ser­vants unto our lives end. And doth not this conduce to the Glory of God? See­ing we take from thence an occasion to praise and give him thanks for his great love manifested unto us, in sending his only Son into the World, to die upon the Cross, for the redemp­tion of Mankind. And can an y body make appear that this is contrary to the Word of God? No, cer­tainly, he which endea­vours it, will undoubtedly fail in his undertaking.

Is the Custom of God-Fathers and God-Mothers in Baptism contrary to the Word of God? In what [Page 187] Chapter or Verse is that to be found? I have read the Scripture over, and I do not remember to have read that it is forbidden. But on the contrary, I find this Custom very good, yea, very necessary; because our spiritual Generation, which is by Baptism, is in some manner like unto our carnal; wherefore it is said, 1 Pet. 2. Laying a­side all malice and all guile, as new born babes desire the sincere Milk of the Word. And as in carnal Generati­on, a Child newly born wants a Nurse, and a Ma­ster to breed him up, so in the spiritual Generation of Baptism, some body is re­quired, [Page 188] who taking the place of a Nurse and Ma­ster, brings up the Child, and instructs him in the Faith of Christian Religi­on; wherefore because the Ministers cannot do it, being imployed towards the common care of the Souls committed to their Charge, and the Childs Parents may die, before he be grown to Age, and un­derstand what belongs to the Christian Faith, the Church requires God-Fa­thers, and God-Mothers, that they might receive in their Charge, the Child baptized, and promise to see him brought up to, and understand (as much as is [Page 189] in their Power) the Chri­stian Religion.

Is the Custom and Cere­mony of standing up in reading Hymns, Psalms, the Gospel, and the Creed; and of kneeling down in making our Prayers unto God, forbidden in the ho­ly Scripture? On the con­trary, have we not an Ex­ample of Jesus Christ, who prayed upon his knees, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this Cup from me, nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done.

And when we are stand­ing up in the reading of Psalms and Hymns, it is to shew, that we ought to lift up our mind towards [Page 190] Heaven; and by our stand­ing at the Creed and Gos­pel, we give to understand, that we are ready to de­fend them to the utmost of our Power, against all op­position whatsoever. And doth not this conduce to the Edification of our Souls, and to the Glory of God?

Is the Custom of wear­ing the Surplice, of sing­ing, and playing upon Or­gans, forbidden in any Chapter of the holy Scrip­ture? If they were, pray inform me where it is. What evil consequence follows therefrom? Instead of this, doth it not serve to distinguish Lay-man from [Page 191] Clerk, and to cause a grea­ter respect to be given to the things belonging to the Worship of God, and to put him that wears it in mind, that when he com­eth to Church to admini­ster divine Service, he ought to be pure in his heart, which is signified unto him by the whiteness of his Surplice, which is the Symbole of Purity. And doth not Musick and Organs, used especially in Cathedral Churches, serve to raise up our minds; to inflame our hearts with the love of God; to lift them up towards Heaven; and to cause them to desire to be for ever in that holy and [Page 192] blessed Company, wherein with an Harmony, that in­finitely surpasses our Mu­sick here upon Earth, they Isa. 6. 3. sing Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts, the whole Earth is full of his Glory. And is it not conformable to several Texts of the holy Scripture, wherein it is Psal. 81. said, Sing aloud unto God our strength, make a joyful noise unto the God of Jacob. Take a Psalm, and bring hi­ther the Timbrel, the plea­sant Harp with the Psaltery, blow up the Trumpet.

Therefore it is clear and certain, that the Ceremo­nies of the Church of Eng­land are lawful, they be­ing not contrary to the ho­ly [Page 193] Scripture, but condu­cing to the Glory of God, and Edification of our Souls. Now because these words, Not to think of men above that which is written, and these, In vain they do worship me, teaching for Do­ctrines the Commandments of men, are not to be un­derstood concerning Cere­monies, but concerning points of Faith; and find­ing several Ceremonies used among the first Christians, even in Christs, and his Apostles time, whereof some were specified (as I have made it appear alrea­dy) and some not specifi­ed, whereof no particular mention is made in the ho­ly [Page 194] Scripture, as it may be inferred from these words of St. Paul, Let all things be done decently, and in or­der; it follows, that the Church of England is the holy Catholick Church, since she believes and pra­ctises nothing but what is agreeable to the Christian Doctrine.

It is then without good Reason, that a great ma­ny separate themselves from that Church, it being the holy Catholick. For those, who, knowing her to be such, separate them­selves from her, are Schis­maticks, and out of hope of Salvation.

[Page 195] First, I say, that they are Schismaticks, because they have not sufficient Reason to warrant their Separation. For, as saith Irenaeus, Schismata operan­tur Irenaeus, lib. 4.c 62. qui sunt immanes, non habentes Dei dilectionem, fuamque utilitatem potius considerantes, quàm unita­tem Ecclesiae, & propter Modicas, & quaslibet cau­sas magnum & gloriosum corpus Christi dividant, & quantum in ipsis est interfi­ciunt, pacem loquentes & bellum operantes, verè li­quantes culicem, & Came­lum transglutientes. Those are Schismaticks, who are cruel, having not the love of God before their eyes, but [Page 196] rather embracing their own In̄terest, than the Ʋnity of the Church, and for small and light causes divide the great and glorious Body of Christ, and murder it as much as is in their power; speaking Peace, and making War, straining at a Gnat, and swallowing a Camel. Ceremonies are no points of Faith, therefore he that separates himself because of Ceremonies, separates him­self for small and light Cau­ses, and therefore he is a Schismatick; and if he on­ly be Schismatick, who se­parates himself from the Church for small and light Causes, as saith Irenaeus, and is granted by Divines; then [Page 197] on the other hand, he is no Schismatick, who separates himself for great and weighty Causes, as for Ido­latry, and other Articles of Faith, which they will have us to believe, under pain of eternal Damnation, and which are not found in the holy Scripture, or are directly contrary to it. Therefore we separating our selves from those of the Roman Church, for great and weighty Causes, it is manifest, we are not Schismaticks; and as no man should separate him­self from a Church, for small and light Reasons, so he is bound to separate himself, when he finds e­vidently, [Page 198] that that Church believes and practises Arti­cles of Faith, which are not in the holy Scripture, or are directly contrary to it; which is enjoyned unto us by St. Paul, and Isaiah saying, Come out frone a­mong 2 Cor 6. 17 Isa. 52. 11. them, and be ye sepa­rate. For what fellowship hath righteousness with un­righteousness? And what Communion hath light with darkness? And what Con­cord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believes with an Infidel? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with I­dols? This is the only law­ful Cause of Separation, and for this Cause, we se­parate [Page 199] our selves from those of the Roman Church, or rather they separte them­selves from us, for Schism is not to be Imputed unto us, because we believe, and practise nothing in the Church, but what is agree­able to the holy Scripture. Wherefore it may be justly imputed to them, because they do not only believe and practise, but also will have us to believe and pra­ctise several Articles of Faith, which are neither distinctly contained in the holy Scripture, nor can be deduced from it by clear and necessary Consequen­ces.

[Page 200] They then that sepa­rate themselves from the Church of England, be­cause of Ceremonies, do separate themselves for small and light Causes, and consequently, are Schisma­ticks.

Secondly, I say, they are out of hope of Salvati­on; for as man is compo­sed of a body and spirit; and as his body liveth by his spirit, whilst it is united to the body. So if we will live by the Spirit of Christ, we must be united to Christ's Body; but the Mystical Body of Christ is the Church, therefore they that are separated from the Mystical Body of Christ, [Page 201] cannot be vivified by the spirit of Christ, and con­sequently cannot be saved; for those only are saved, that are vivified by the spirit of Christ.

Which is very well re­presented by the Deluge and Ark of Noah, for as all perished temporally by the Deluge, that were not in the Ark, so all shall pe­rish eternally, who are out of the Catholick Church. And as no body could e­scape drowning, being out of the Ark; so neither shall any escape Damnation out of the Church. And as none of the first born of Aegypt lived, but such as were within these Habita­tions, [Page 202] whose Door▪posts were sprinkled with blood by the appointment of God, for their preservati­on. And as none of the Inhabitants of Jericho could escape the Fire and Sword, but such as were within the House of Rahab, for whose Protection a Covenant was made. So none shall ever escape the eternal wrath of God, which is not a Member of the holy Ca­tholick Church. For as Act. 4. 12. There is no other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we can be saved, but the Name of Jesus. So there is no other Church, where­in we can be saved, but the holy Catholick.

[Page 203] Which is confirmed by the Fathers. Whosoever, saith Chrysostome, divides Epist. 152. ad Hom. 11. in Eph. the unity of the Church, (the mystical Body of our Lord) he shall not incur a less pu­nishment, than those have done, who pierced, mangled, and tore his Body. Sola Lact. lib. 4. de vera sap. & relig. c. 30. Catholica Ecclesia est quae ve­rum cultum retinet. Hic est Eons veritatis, hoc est do­micilium fidei; quo si quis non intraverit, vel à quo si quis exierit, à spe vitae ac salutis aeternae alienus est.

Aug. de symb. ad cathec. l. 4. c. 10. He shall not have God for his Father, saith Austin, That would not have the Church for his Mother. So the fourth Council of Car­thage, Conc. Cart▪ can. 1. declares, that out of [Page 204] the Catholick Church there is no Salvation. And Ful­gentius [...] de remiss. pec­cat. l. 1. c. 22. speaks thus, Sicut in Hiericho quisquis extra illam domum fuit, nullum potuit adipisci vitae subsidi­um, sic extra Ecclesiam Ca­tholicam nullus accipiet in­dulgentiam peccatorum. Ex­tra hanc Ecclesiam nec Chri­stianum nomen aliquem ju­vat, nec baptismus salvat, nec mundum Deo sacrifici­um offertur, nec peccato­rum remissi accipitur, nec aeternae vitae foelicitas inve­nitur. As in Hierieho, who­soever was out of that House, could not obtain the benefit of Life, so out of the Catho­lick Church none shall receive the pardon of sins. Out of [Page 205] this Church, neither the Ti­tle of Christian secures any one, neither doth Baptism confer Salvation, neither doth any man offer a Sacri­fice agreeable unto God, nor receives the Remission of his sins, nor finds the happiness of Eternal Life. And in another place, he saith, Firmissimè tene & nullate­nus Idem de side ad petr. Diac. c. 39. dubites quemlibet Haere­ticum sive Schismaticum in nomine Patris & filii & Spiritus sancti baptizatum, st Ecclesiae Catholicae nonfu­erit aggregatus, quantas­que eleemosinas fecerit, etsi pro Christi nomine etiam sanguinem fuderit nullate­nus posse salvari. Omni e­nim homini qui Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae [Page 206] non tenet unitatem, neque baptismus, neque Ele­emosina quaelibet copiosa, ne­que mors pro nomine Christi suscepta proficere poterit ad salutem, quandiu in eo Hae­retica vel Schismatica pravi­tas perseverat, quae ducit ad mortem. Hold this most firmly, and doubt not of it in any wise, that every He­retick and Schismatick what­soever, baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, if he be not reunited to the Catholick Church, let him bestow ne­ver so many Alms, yea, though he should shed his blood for the Name of Christ, he cannot obtain Salvation. For neither Baptism, nor [Page 207] Alms, how great soever, nor death suffered for the Name of Christ▪ shall profit unto Sal­vation to any man that holds not the Ʋnity of the Catho­lick Church. If he neglect Mat. 18. 17 to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, and a Publican.

Therefore, since those who separate themselves from the holy Catholick Church, are Schismaticks, and out of hope of Salva­tion, as I have made it appear evidently, the Church of England being the holy Catholick, let now the Reader draw the Conclusion.

[Page 208] I know, what I said just now concerning those who are out of the Catholick Church, will be granted to be true; but, the Reader will object again, the Que­stion is, to know which is the holy Catholick Church; for if we will believe some Fathers, it seems that the most part, yea, none of those that you blame in this Treatise, are out of it. For Fulgentius in the place aforementioned, saith, that Fulg. de remiss. pec­cat. lib. 1. c. 22▪ There is one only Church, which is this, wherein the Trinity is believed one God, of one Nature and Substance; wherein nothing is attribu­ted to the Son, more than to the Holy Ghost; wherein [Page 209] one and the same honour and worship is rendred to the Trinity, who is true God: This is the only true Church, which believing and publish­ing one Essence in Trinity, dares not esteem one Per­son above th'other. Ʋna est Ecclesia, in qua Trinitas u­nus Deus, unius naturae at­que substantiae creditur; in qua nec Filio, nec Spiritui sancto contumelia minorati­onis ingeritur; in qua unus atque idem Cultus, & ho­nor unus uni Trinitati quae Deus verus est exhibetur: Haec est una vera Ecclesia quae sic credit & praedicat unam Trinitatis Essentiam, ut in tribus unam quamli­bet non audeat praeferre alte­ri [Page 210] personam. Athanasius is of that Opinion; Whoso­ever, saith he, will be sa­ved, before all things, it is necessary that he hold the Ca­tholick Faith; and the Ca­tholick Faith is this, that we worship one God in Tri­nity, and Trinity in Ʋni­ty. And Lactantius saith, Lactant. de vera sap. & rel. lib. 4. c. 30. Sola Catholica Ecclesia est, quae verum cultum retinet. This is the only Catholick Church, which keeps the true Worship. And three or four times after, he speaks thus, Quia singuli quique Coetus Haereticorum se potissimum Christianos, & suam esse Ecclesiam Catholicam pu­tant, sciendum est illam esse veram, in qua est Confessio [Page 211] & poenitentia; quae peccata & vulnera quibus subjecta est imbecillitas carnis, salu­briter curat. That is, Be­cause every Congregation of Hereticks, think to be espe­cially Christians, and their Church the Catholick, they must know, that that Church is the true, wherein is Con­fession and Repentance, that cures the sins and wounds, which the weakness of the Flesh is subject to. There­fore according to Fulgen­tius and Athanasius, the Arians only are out of the Catholick Church; and according to Lactantius, we are not able to deter­mine any Person out of it: Every one pretending to [Page 212] keep the true Worship, and granting Confession and Repentance to be necessa­ry. Christ himself in his answer to the young man, Mat. 19. 16. who asked him, What good thing shall I do, that I may have Eternal Life? Did not bid him to believe in the Trinity, nor in the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father; nor in the Procession of the Holy Ghost, from the Fa­ther and the Son, nor in the Incarnation of the Son of God; nor in his Resur­rection; nor did tell him that he was to be baptized, or to keep the Sabbath, &c. but, If thou wilt en­ter into Life, keep the Com­mandments; [Page 213] and the young man having asked him which were they? Jesus specified them unto him, saying, Thou shalt do no Murther; thou shalt not commit Adultery; thou shalt not Steal; thou shalt not bear false Witness; honour thy Father and thy Mother; and thou shalt love thy neigh­bour as thy self. If then according to Christs words, he that keeps these Com­mandments here described, is saved; we must con­ceive him to be in the Ca­tholick Church, or what some Fathers said, that out of the Catholick Church there is no Salvation, is false. And as in what Sect [Page 214] soever, every one pretends to keep the true Worship; and by God's Assistance, to perform his Command­ments; even so every one pretends to be saved, and consequently, to be in the holy Catholick Church.

I answer, That they are deceived; for when the Fathers said, that the Catholick Church did con­fist in such and such a thing, as for Example, in the be­lief of the Trinity, they did not intend to exclude the belief of the other points of Faith, nor the practise of the Command­ments enjoyned us in the holy Scripture. And Je­sus Christ, who saith to the [Page 215] young man, that if he will enter into Life, he must keep the Commandments here mentioned, pronoun­ces Wo unto the Authors of Heresies, as unto all Scribes, Pharisees and Hy­pocrites; will have us to eat his Body, and to drink his Blood; Except ye eat Joh. 6. 53. the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no Life in you; bids us to be baptized, Except a man be born of Water and of the Joh. 3. 5. Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Be­sides practice, he desires be­lief; He that believeth and Mat. 16. 16 is baptized, shall be saved.

Wherefore it is not e­nough to say, I thought I [Page 216] was a Member of the Ca­tholick Church, because I thought it did consist in believing and practising such and such things only; our ignorance is not suffi­cient to excuse us before God; we are bound to in­quire after Truth, and the true Worship of God. A wilful and affected igno­rance is a double Crime, and we must not believe, because we think we do well, and are Members of the Catholick Church, that this is sufficient to excuse us; this is a mistake, other­wise the Jews should not have been guilty, when they crucified Jesus Christ, because they did it igno­rantly, [Page 217] and thought they acted according to their Law, For had they known 1 Cor. 2. 8. it, they would not have cru­cified the Lord of Glory. We could not say that Paul was guilty, when breathing out Act. 9. threatnings and slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord, he went unto the High-Priest, desiring Let­ters from him to Damascus to the Synagogues, that if he found any Christians, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound to Hierusalem. Nor when he made ha­vock v. 8. 3. of the Church, en­tring into every House, and haling men and women, committing them to Prison. [Page 218] v. 7. 38. Nor when he was consent­ing unto the death of Ste­phen, and kept the Cloaths of the Witnesses who sto­ned him, though Austin Serm. 14. de Sanctis. speaks thus of him; Ʋt enim esset in omnium lapi­dantium manibus, ipse om­nium vestimenta servabat, magis saeviens omnes adju­vando, quàm suis manibus lapidando. For he thought he did well, transported by a Zeal which he had for his Law. Neither could we now blame the Papists, when they act so horrid and cruel Tragedies against those that they call Here­ticks, for, as I suppose, they think they do a Sacrifice well-pleasing unto God. If [Page 219] any ignorance can excuse a man, it is that which is called Invincible, as that of young Children, and mad People.

Therefore when we live in a Kingdom, wherein Re­ligion there practised is not contrary to the holy Scrip­ture, we are bound to conform unto it. I know that We had rather obey God Act. 5. 29. than men, but it is when their Commandments are contrary to the Command­ments of God; otherwise we are obliged to obey the Princes and Magistrates which we are subject to; put them in mind to obey Principalities and Powers, to obey Magistrates, Tit. [Page 220] 3. 1. Obey them that have the Rule over you, and submit your selves. Heb. 13. 17. Submit your selves to every Ordinance of men, for the Lord's sake, whe­ther it be to the King as Su­preme, or unto Governors, as unto them that are sent by him, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. 1 Pet. 2. 13. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers, for there is no Power but of God: The Powers that be, are ordain­ed of God; whosoever therefore resisteth the Pow­er, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they that resist, shall receive to themselves [Page 221] Damnation, Rom. 13. 1, 2.

Wherefore the holy Pow­ers enjoyning usto conform to the Church of England, which (as I have made it appear) teaches or practi­ses nothing contrary to the holy Scripture; we are obliged to obey them. Nei­ther do I see, how those that are convinced of what I have here written, and still refuse to obey, can ex­cuse themselves from being Schismaticks, and from be­ing out of hope of Salvati­on. He shall not have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother. Whosoever resist­eth Rom. 13. 2 the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God, and they [Page 222] Aug. de symb. ad Cathec. lib. 4. c. 10. that resist shall receive to themselves Damnation. O Ecclesia Romana, aut quae­cumque sis alia, quid insul­tas, quid exsufflas, quid eti­am ad tempus multa usurpas adversus Ecclesiam Anglica­nam? Licet haec doleat, non te magna metuit sponsa Chri­sti sancta Catholica Ecclesia; cum enim respexerit ille spon­sus, ejicieris tu ut ancilla cum filiis tuis, quoniam non erunt haeredes filii ancillae, cum filiis liberae. O Church of Rome, or whatsoever o­ther Church thou art! Why dost thou boast? Why art thou puffed up? Why also dost thou usurp upon the Church of England? Though she be sorrowful▪ yet the great spouse [Page 223] of Christ, the holy Catholick Church doth not fear thee; for when the Bridegroom looks upon her, then thou shalt be cast out, as the Bond-woman, with thy Children; because the Children of the Bond-woman, shall not be heirs with the Sons of the Free woman.

Although I have made appear, that the Church of England, is the holy Ca­tholick Church, and that all those, who knowing her to be such, and still refuse to conform, are Schisma­ticks, out of hope of Salva­tion; and shall not be heirs with the Sons of the free­woman, but cast out as the bond-woman with her [Page 224] Children, yet I am not of that Opinion, that they ought to be persecuted; this Doctrine of Persecuti­on being contrary to the Law of Nature, and to the Doctrine of our Saviour Jesus Christ; As ye would that all men should do unto you, so do you unto them. We would not be persecuted for our Religion, therefore we must not persecute o­thers. But the Reader will object, we have a Law, and by our Law they ought to be persecuted; I Answer, if that were a sufficient Rea­son to warrant Persecuti­on, we could not blame the Jews, when they killed the Prophets, and stoned them, [Page 225] and crucified Jesus Christ, who is Heir and Lord over all, and God blessed for ever. For they said, We have a Law, and by our Law he ought to die. And we could not blame Queen Mary, who by a Law in her days, cau­sed so many to suffer Mar­tyrdome; nor now the Pa­pists, who formerly, and at this very time in France, Spain and Italy, establish Cruelty and Oppression by Law.

If any men be Plotters, or contrive any evil against the King or Government, or breed Sedition and Di­sturbance in the Kingdom, they must suffer according to the Law; but if they be [Page 226] found without Plots, or evil Contrivances, but err­ing only concerning Religi­on, they are to be reproved and admonished, and after the second Admonition re­jected, Tit. 3. 10, 11. not cast into Prison, or spoiled of their Goods, and the like; if men be in an Error, the Bishops and Ministers ought rather to convince them by the truth, and stop their mouths by sound Doctrine, than to stir the King and his Coun­cil to make Laws to impri­son them, and take their E­states from them, &c. as it is now practised in France, against the poor Prote­stants. But to make them suffer meerly for Religions [Page 227] sake, I think it is not law­ful, it being contrary to the Law of Nature, and Christ's Doctrine, as it is proved by these words of the most worthy and learned Dr. Tillotson, in his most excel­lent Sermon preached be­fore the honourable House of Commons, and printed by their Order. Jesus Christ, saith he, going to worship at Hierusalem, because the Samaritans, who were of another Religion, would not receive him in his Journey, two of his Disci­ples, James and John, pre­sently take fire, and out of a well-meaning Zeal for their Master, and of the true God, and of of Hieru­salem, [Page 228] the true place of wor­ship, they are immediately for dispatching out of the way these Enemies of God, and Christ, and the true Religion. And to this end, they desire our Saviour to give them Power to call for fire from Heaven to con­sume them, as Elias had done in a like ease. But Je­sus Christ seeing them in this heat, notwithstanding all the Reasons they pretend­ed for their passion, and for all they sheltered them­selves under the great ex­ample of Elias, doth very calmly, but severely re­prove this temper of theirs, Luke. saying, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of; [Page 229] for the Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them. Ye own your selves to be my Disci­ples, but do you consider, what spirit now acts and governs you? Not that surely which my Doctrine designs to mould and fashi­on you into, which is not a furious and persecuting and destructive spirit, but mild, and gentle and sav­ing, tender of the lives and interest of men, even of those who are our greatest Enemies. You ought to consider, that you are not now under the rough and sowr dispensation of the Law, but the calm and pea­ceable institution of the [Page 230] Gospel, to which the spi­rit of Elias, though he was a very good man in his time, would be altogether insuitable. God permitted it then under the imperfect way of Religion, but now under the Gospel, it would be intolerable. No diffe­rence of Religion, no pre­tence of Zeal for God and Christ, can warrant and ju­stifie this passionate and fierce, this vindictive and exterminating spirit. This persecuting, killing and destroying one another a­bout Religion, is contrary to Christs Doctrine, for, He is not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them. He came not to kill and de­stroy, [Page 231] but for the healing of the Nations, for the Salva­tion and Redemption of mankind, not only from the wrath to come, but from a great part of the e­vils and miseries of this life.

This spirit of persecuti­on, which our Saviour here reproves in his Disciples, is directly opposite to the main and fundamental Precepts of the Gospel, which command us to love one another, and to love all men, even our very Ene­mies; and are so far from permitting us to persecute those who hate us, that they forbid us to hate those who persecute us: They re­quire [Page 232] us to be merciful, as our Father which is in Hea­ven is merciful; to be kind and tender-hearted, forbear­ing one another; if any man have a quarrel against any, even as God for Christs sake hath forgiven us; and to put on as the Elect of God, bowels of mercy, meekness and long suffering; and to follow peace with all men, and to shew all meekness to all men. To all which Pre­cepts nothing can be more opposite, than inhumane Cruelties and Persecutions.

Christs great business was to be beneficial to others, to seek and to save that which was lost; He went about doing good to the Bodies [Page 233] and to the Souls of men. He could if he had pleased, by his miraculous Power have confounded his Ene­mies, and have thundred out death and destruction against all Hereticks and Schismaticks; but intending that his Religion should be propagated in humane ways, and that men should be drawn to the Profession of it by the bonds of Love, and by the gentle and pea­ceable methods of Reason and Perswasion, he gave no Example of a furious Zeal, and religious Rage against those who despised his Do­ctrine. When he went about making Proselytes, he offer­ed violence to no man, on­ly [Page 234] said, If any man will be my Disciple, if any man will come after me. And when his Disciples were leaving him, he doth not (as the Church of Rome) set up an Inquisition to torture and punish them for their de­fection from the Faith; on­ly says, Will ye also go away?

And in Imitation of this blessed Pattern, the Chri­stian Church continued to speak and act for several A­ges. And this was the Lan­guage of the holy Fathers, Lex nova non se vindicat ultore gladio. The Christian Law doth not avenge it self by the Sword. This was then Greg. ad Episc. con­stantinop. the Style of Councils, Ne­mini ad credendum vim in­ferre. [Page 235] To offer Violence to no man to compel him to Faith, and Gregory saith, Nova & in audita praedicatio, quae ver­beribus exigit fidem.

And indeed if Hereticks and Schismaticks from the holy Catholick Church were to be persecuted, the Samaritans, who were both Hereticks and Schismaticks, and had affronted our Sa­viour himself in his own Person, the honour of God, and of that Religion which he had set up in the World, ought certainly to be pu­nished; so that if ever it were warrantable to put on this fierce and furious Zeal, here was a case that seemed to require it; but even in [Page 236] these Circumstances, Jesus Christ thinks fit to rebuke and discountenance this spirit, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. And he gives such a Rea­son, as ought in all diffe­rences of Religion, how wide soever they be, to de­ter men from this temper. For, saith he, The Son of man is not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them; that is, this spirit is utterly inconsistent with the great design of Christian Religi­on, and the end of Christs coming into the World.

What then hath the Church of Rome, or any other whatsoever, to plead for her Persecution to men [Page 237] for the cause of Religion, which James and John might not much better have pleaded for themselves in their Case against the Samaritans? Does she pra­ctise these severities out of a Zeal for truth, and for the honour of God, and Christ, and the true Religion? Upon these very accounts it was, that James and John would have called for fire from Heaven to have de­stroyed the Samaritans. Is the Church of Rome, or any other whatsoever perswa­ded, that those whom she persecutes are Hereticks and Schismaticks, and that no Punishment can be too great for such Offenders? [Page 238] So James and John were perswaded of the Samari­tans, and upon much bet­ter grounds: For they had some Excuse in their Case, which the Church of Rome hath not; and that was ig­norance: And this Apologie JesusChrist makes for them, saying, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. But in the Church of Rome, or in any other Christian Church whatsoever, what­ever the Case of particular Persons may be, as to the whole Church, and the go­verning part of it, this ig­norance is wilful and affe­cted, and therefore inexcu­sable. For the Christian Re­ligion, which they profess [Page 239] to embrace, doth as plainly teach the contrary, as it doth any other matter whatsoever: And it is not more evident in the New Testament, thatChrist dyed for sinners, than that Chri­stians should not persecute and destroy one another for the mis-belief of any Ar­ticle of revealed Religion; much less for the dis-belief of such Articles as are inven­ted by men, or are imposed as only Ceremonies.

Those whom we call He­reticks and Schismaticks, saith Salvian, do not think they are so. They are Here­ticks and Schismaticks in our Opinion, but in their own they are not: For they think they [Page 240] are Catholicks, in as much as they call us Hereticks; therefore what they are to us, Salv. we are to them. Haeretici sunt, sed non scientes apud nos sunt haeretici, apud se non sunt, nam in tantum se Catho­licos esse judicant, ut nos ip­sos titulo haereticae pravitatis infament. Quod ergo illi no­bis sunt, & hoc nos illis. Therefore as we would not have them to persecute us for our Religion, so, we ought not to persecute them for theirs, As ye would that all men should do unto you, so do you unto them.