IT is sad to consider, how that Christianity has suffered more by the Factions and Feuds of Chri­stians themselves, than by the Fury of its Pro­fessed Adversaries; that Schism has done more Mis­chief to the Church of God than all the Persecutions of the Heathen Roman Emperours, who made it their business to abolish and destroy the very name of Chri­stian out of the World; and that Christians should treat one another with that despight and Malice, as if good Nature and Charity, and a mutual forbear­ance were things of meer indifference: As it has hap­pened between Churches of different Communions in the East and West, and in these Northern parts of the World since the Reformation, either because they would not own an Usurpt and pretended Universal Authority, or else because of some little disagree­ment in Opinion, or the Usage, or Non-usage of a Ceremony, which every particular Church, in de­pendence upon, and in conjunction with the Civil Power, has a right to Ordain and Constitute, and which all its Members are Obliged to conform to, out of a Principle of Conscience. For hitherto must be referred, as to their chief and proper Causes, all those horrid Tumults and Separations of Parties, which [Page 2] have so much distracted the Peace of the Church from its first Beginnings and Infancy to this day, how­ever blancht over by some with subtilty and Artifice of Wit, and by others with pretensions of Zeal, to colour their Ambition and their Pride, and to render their ill Designs the more plausible and successful. Here it is (for I cannot be so unjust and partial, as to charge the Romanists only with the fault, though they are deepest in the Guilt, and more blameable than the rest) that all take Sanctuary, and think to justifie their ill will one to another this way; that they, from whom they divide and separate themselves, entertain different Notions of some points of Religion, though perchance they be not Essential to the Faith; or else use other Rites in their Religious Worship, which yet may be as decent, and as useful, and as significant, as if this were to renounce Christianity, and to forsake the Communion of the Catholick Church.

How has this fond Opinion broken Christendom into pieces, and shut Unity and Peace out of it! Private Passion, and a false Zeal corrupting our Judgments and Practises so far, that instead of joyning in the same Publick Worship and Service of Christ our Com­mon Saviour, and Living together in Holy Commu­nion and Love, we can scarce think well one of ano­ther; we are afraid of one anothers Company, in a Church at least, as if it were Infectious; we use most unjust and most unchristian Censures; we malign and hate one another to the Death, and, as much as in us lyes, we send one another to Hell by our evil and un­charitable surmises, and by peremptory Sentences of Excommunication.

To prevent which dismal and bloody effects of Schism, the Apostle, in the beginning of this Chapter, [Page 3] lays down and prescribes a Method, which would prove most effectual, if we understood our Duty and our Interest so much, and had but the Honesty and the Conscience to put it in practise and execution; which is, to walk worthy of the Vocation wherewith we are called, v. 1. That is, to adorn the Doctrine of God our Saviour with a suitable Conversation, and as it becomes true followers of Christ, to live up to those Excellent Rules and Institutions which he has Publish'd, and not only to make an outward Shew and Profession of Christianity, but to justifie and demon­strate the Truth and Power of it by the Example and Practise of the severest Virtues; and especially in this great Instance of it, With all Lowliness and Meekness, and Long-suffering, to forbear one another in Love, v. 2. That is, to make some [...]—as in that Excellent Speech of the Emperour Constantine to the Bishops, upon the breaking up of the Council of Nice, just before their departure to their respective Dio­ceses: In Eusebius, in his Life, Lib. 3. Cap. 21. allowances for the faileurs, and im­perfections, and infirmities of the Understanding, not to be perempto­ry and dogmatical in matters of O­pinion to the prejudice of Unity, nor to be over-fierce and severe in Con­demning little mistakes and mis-ap­prehensions of things, but to keep the Unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace, v. 3. That is, to maintain this Spiritual Communion with all Peaceableness and Moderation; as being all Members of one Body, the Catholick Church, 1 Cor. 12. 13. actuated by one Spirit, and called together in one Hope of our Calling, v. 4. That is, by virtue of the same common Christianity, all alike pretending to the hopes of the same common Salvation; all Disciples of the same Lord, and initi­ated into the same Faith by Baptism. So long as there [Page 4] is no breach made upon the Articles of Faith, and the form of sound Doctrine is retained in its full sense and meaning, there can be no just cause for Censure and dis-union: All other differences of Opinion in Matters of Doctrine should be tolerated and forgiven, if they have no evil influence upon Religion, Mora­lity, and Government; if there be no Schism or Sedi­tion in practise or behaviour, and so long as the Uni­ty of Faith is preserved entire, and kept inviolate, there being as but one Lord, so but one Faith, and one Baptism.

From which words I shall endeavour to make good these three following Propositions.

1. That the Doctrine of Faith is to be derived only from the Revelations of Christ. One Lord, one Faith.

2. That the Unity of Faith only respects the Fun­damentals of the Christian Religion. And,

3. That all, who are Baptized, and consequently are by this Sacrament of initiation admitted and re­ceived into the Communion and Society of Christians, are to make Profession of this Faith. One Faith, one Baptism.

1. That the Doctrine of Faith is to be derived on­ly from the Revelations of Christ. One Lord, One Faith.

That it is not in the Power of Humane Wit, how prying and industrious soever, to raise it self up to the Contemplation and Knowledge of Supernatural Truths without the assistances of Divine Revela­tion and Grace, is no disparagement to our Reason to acknowledge; it being the effect of an irrational Pride, and a foolish and idle Presumption to think otherwise: And particularly, that the Mysteries of the [Page 5] Christian Religion lye out of our reach and ken, ap­pears by this unhappy Proof, that upon their first publication at that time, when all the Treasuries and hidden recesses of Nature were thrown open, and laid common, when nothing seemed to escape the curio­sity of bold and industrious Enquirers; and when the Studies of Philosophy seemed to exalt Reason to the highest pitch and degree of Perfection that it was ca­pable of, they stood amazed at the strangeness of this New Doctrine, not agreeing with their Principles, and no way to be accommodated to any of those numerous Hypotheses which they had taken up; and from this amazement they soon advanced to a down­right and violent Opposition of it, andused the utmost Forces of their Wit and of their Eloquence, and of their Learning, to deride, and decry, and suppress the fur­ther growth and spreading of it. And the Jews too, though they daily turned over the leaves of the Pro­phets, which pointed out in part those Glorious Dis­coveries of the Secrets of God, which were to be made in the times of the Messias, were so besotted and wrought upon by the suggestions of a gross Fancy, and an ill-grounded Prejudice, that neither the exact and punctual fulfilling of those Prophesies, even in their minutest Circumstances, nor continued Miracles wrought before their Eyes, the highest and most ra­tional grounds of Credibility, could prevail upon them to admit a Doctrine, which was so much above their mean apprehension of things, and seemed to thwart and cross and contradict those Foolish Idea's and Childish Fancies, wherewith they had so long pleased themselves.

The World was now to be Instructed with a better and more Heavenly Doctrine, and all just motives of [Page 6] perswasion were used and proposed to satisfie their Reason, and to work them up to a full belief of it, enough to lay the whole blame of their Infidelity up­on themselves. The Will of God was Revealed by Christ in plain and easie Propositions, without the least Ambiguity: And the Authority wherewith they were proposed, rendred them Infallible; for how could they well doubt of, or deny the truth of a Doctrine, which they saw attested and confirmed by Omnipotence?

The ground then of our Faith is the Revelation of God by Christ. My Doctrine is not mine, says our Blessed Saviour, but his that sent me, St. John 7. 16. And He that sent me is true, and I speak to the World those things which I have heard of him, St. John 8. 26. And as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things, v. 28. All things that I have heard of my Father, I have made known unto you, Chap. 15. v. 15. And I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, Chap. 17. v. 8. He is the Author and Finisher of our Faith: He it is, who Commissioned his Apostles to Publish the Doctrine which he first taught, from him, and in his Name, to go about the World, and make Proselytes to his Religion, and Proclaim the Saving Virtues and Me­rits of his Cross, and the Glories of his Resurrection. And what one of the number says concerning the In­stitution and Celebration of the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, 1 Cor. 11. 23. I have received of the Lord that which I have delivered to you, is to be said of the whole complexion and comprehension of the Articles of Faith. This was their Profession, wheresoever they went; there was no mixture of their own Fancy and Invention in [Page 7] the case; St. John 14. 26. & Ch. 16. 13. 1 St. John 1. 1. they were Infallibly secured from the least Error in their Doctrine by the Guidance of Gods Spirit; That which was from the beginning, which they had heard, which they had seen with their Eyes, and which they had looked upon, and their hands had handled concerning the World of Life, they decla­red, and nothing else: Nobis ni­hil ex nostro arbitrio indu­cere licet, sed nec eligere, quod aliquis de arbitrio suo induxerit. Apostolos Domini habemus auctores, qui nec ipsi quicquam ex suo arbitrio, quod inducerent, elegerunt; sed acceptam à Christo Disciplinam fideliter nationibus adsignaverunt. Tertullianus de Praescripti: haeret. Cap. 6. Expeditè praescribimus adulteris nostris, illam esse regulam veritatis, quae veniat à Christo, transmissa per comites ipsius, quibus aliquanto posteriores diversi isti Commentatores probabuntur. Apologet. Cap. 47. That is, they spake no­thing concerning Christ, either his Person or his Doctrine, but what they were Infallibly assured of, what they had heard Christ say, and declare to be his Will, and what they had seen him do.

The Foundation of Faith being thus established, I shall hence deduce these following Conclusions.

1. That no Doctrine can or ought to be proposed as an Article of Faith, but what Christ has revealed, and what the Apostles from him have declared in their Preaching, and in their Writings.

2. That since the times of the Apostles, and the Sealing up the Canon of Scripture, no new Doctrine can or ought to be added, as Essential to the Christian Faith.

3. That it is not in the Power of the Church in general, much less of any particular Church, of what denomination soever, to lay down any Doctrine, as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation, but what is expresly Revealed, or clearly deduced out of the Writings of the New Testament, and was acknow­ledged in the first Ages of Christianity.

[Page 8] 1. That no Doctrine can or ought to be proposed, as an Article of Faith, but what Christ has Revealed, and what the Apostles from him have declared in their Preaching, and in their Writings.

All Articles of Faith relying upon the Revelation of God by Christ, as we cannot deny such a Testimo­ny, which God has given of his Son, without making him a Lyar, as St. John speaks, first Epist. 5th. Chap. 10th. ver. So nothing more can be required of us, than to believe that, and that only, as necessary and with a Divine Faith, which he has been pleased to Reveal: Hanc tibi fossam determi­navit ipse, (Christus) qui te non vult aliud credere, quam quod in­stituit, ideó (que) nec quaerere. Tertul. de Prae­script. Cap. 10. Because what he has thought fit to Communicate of the Mind and Will of God, in Or­der to the constituting a Church upon Earth, and bringing us to Heaven, must needs be judged sufficient, as it is indeed most sufficient, to effect this double end.

Now, because Christ did not leave behind him a System or Body of Articles in Writing, (most of which refer to himself, that is, as well to that won­derful [...], or Dispensation and [...], as the Greek Fathers call it, and so comprehending his Conception and Birth, and the several Acts of his Life, and his last Sufferings; as that He was Con­ceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of a pure and spotless Virgin, did such and such stupendious Miracles, Suf­fered by way of Atonement and Expiation for the Sins of the whole World; rose again from the Dead, and ascended Bodily into Heaven, and the like, as to the [...], or transcendent Excellencies of the Divine Nature; as that He is the only Begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all Worlds, and God of the same Substance with the Father, and the like, which were to be the Fundamentals of his Religion) but left the business of propagating a Church, which he [Page 9] had Founded by his Blood, to his Apostles, to them we are to have recourse, V. Ter­tullianum de Praescript. haeret. Cap. 21. as to the Infallible Re­lators of his Mind and Will.

Here then is to be the Tryal of a Doctrine propo­sed to us, as a Matter of Faith. Is it any where to be found in the Discourses of our Blessed Saviour, pre­served in the History of the Gospels? Did the Apostles teach it their first Converts? Is it agreeable to, or found­ed upon true Apostolick Tradition? Is this Tradition un-interrupted, and derived down pure from the first Ages of the Church? Was it received universally by the whole number of Christians in their time? Is it any where to be met with in their Writings, either in express terms, or by a just, and clear, and necessary consequence? For though the Doctrine of the Chri­stian Religion was Preach'd and received before any word of the New Testament was Penned; yet to say, the Apostles taught many Points of Doctrine, which they did not put down in Writing, and much more, such Points, as consequentially overthrow and destroy the plain sense and letter of the Text, is a very ground­less and scandalous Supposition: And besides, the in­jury done to the Scriptures, which contain in them all Points necessary to be believed, is confuted by the Au­thors of it, who pretend to fetch Proofs of their fan­sied tenents out of them: There having been that great Veneration shewn to the Inspired Writings in all Ages, that Hereticks, and other kind of Innovators have chosen rather to bend and warp the Scripture, and pervert its true sense and meaning in favour of their tenents, than not seem to have the Countenance of its Authority.

2. That since the times of the Apostles, and the Sealing up of the Canon of Scripture, no New Doctrine [Page 10] can or ought to be added as Essential to the Christian Religion.

For all which is Essential to the Faith was delivered by the Apostles to the Church at first, otherwise the Rule of Faith had been imperfect, and would have had something wanting to its completion, to be sup­plyed in after-times; which is to cast a slur and a ble­mish upon those first Ages of Christianity, which were fully Instructed in all things fit and necessary for Christians to know and believe by the Apostles them­selves, without the stamp of whose Authority no Doctrine could be Authentick. For what ever was believed as necessary, derived only from them, as the Instruments, which Christ made use of to convey his Doctrine to the World; which they did fully, and carefully, and successfully by the mighty aids of his Spirit, according to the trust reposed in them. They establish'd the belief of the Christian Religion in the hearts of the Faithful: They concealed nothing of the mind and will of God. Churches were formed and modelled according to their direction and command; and Episcopal Government with the inferiour and sub­ordinate Orders settled for the better preservation of Unity and Communion. The Faith of Christ was professed and acknowledged, as they taught and de­livered it. Their Writings were among them, ex­actly agreeing in all things with what they had Preach'd, and were to be the standing Monuments of the will of Christ, Registred by their Pens, to direct all succeeding Generations of Christians in their be­lief, and in their practise. After their Decease no new Revelation was to be expected, only a delivering down of the same Apostolical Doctrine to after-ages, in which the Faith, nay, the Curiosity of all Christians ought to acquiesce.

[Page 11] 3. That it is not in the Power of the Church in general, much less of any particular Church, of what denomination soever, to lay down any Doctrine, as necessary to be believed in order to Salvation, but what is expresly revealed, or clearly deduced out of the writings of the New Testament, and was acknow­ledged in the first Ages of Christianity. For if so, they must pretend to the same Authority, and pro­duce clear and convictive Evidences of such Revela­tions to make them credible, and lay an Obligation upon the Consciences of all Christians to receive their Propositions under the grievous penalty of otherwise disobeying the voice and will of God. This dotage indeed Montanus, and such kind of Enthusiasts, have been guilty of: But their pretensions were rejected as dreams of folly, arising from mis-interpretations of Scripture, as if there were to be new Revelations made in after-times by way of super-addition and sup­plement, (into which errors they were led by their pride and conceitedness, and an ill habit and temper of body) and the Authority of the Scriptures, and the Praescription of the precedent Ages were justly objected against them. See Vin­centius Liri­nensis excel­lently treating of this Argu­ment in the 32 Chapter of his Commoni­torium. All that the Church can pretend to is only this, not to define and make a new Article of Faith, but only to declare what before was revealed and acknowledged, though not so clearly understood, till the iniquity of the times made it ne­cessary for the Church in a general Council to inter­pose her Authority in the determination of Contro­versies of Faith. And where this pretence is true, her Authority ought to be submitted to, and her Propo­sals embraced: That is, if the Doctrine proposed be the just and natural result of an Article of Faith ex­presly revealed in the Scripture, and understood in [Page 12] that manner, and acknowledged as such by the first Christians, Contemporaries and Successors of the A­postles, and constantly received from that time down­ward by the generality of Christians. For the oppo­sition of a few after the first and general reception of a necessary truth is not considerable; who through prejudice, or out of design to raise troubles in the Church, or out of Ambition to be the Chiefs of a Faction, or through a pretended dissatisfaction at the Mysteriousness of it, or through wantonness of Wit and Humour, have been so obstinate, as not only to refuse to make the same acknowledgment, but to maintain the contrary with violence.

To all which, that is, to Scripture, Apostolick Tradition, and universal consent, the Fathers Assem­bled in the four first General Councils had regard in their determinations against the Hereticks of their time. They only fixt what was Catholick Doctrine, and what was believed in the Ages before they were born. They founded their Declarations upon Scrip­ture and universal Tradition: And to silence all Dis­putes, and to prevent Schism, and to direct their own and after-times in the belief and understanding of the great Mysteries of Faith, they reduced the Doctrine of it, as it lyes scattered in several parts of Scripture, into a form of plain and intelligible words, and en­larged themselves in the explication of it, as we shall see anon: [...]. Theo­dotus Ancyranus in expositione sym­boli Nicaem Romae 8. 1669 Speak­ing of the Union of the two Natures in the single Person of Christ. pag. 26. It being the very same Faith which the Apostles Preach'd, and which the Scriptures hold out to us. All the Anathema's are founded upon that of St. Paul, Gal. 1. 8, 9. Though we or an Angel from Heaven Preach any other Gospel unto you, [Page 13] then what we have Preached unto you, let him be ac­cursed. If any Man Preach any other Gospel unto you, than that you have received, let him be accursed. And if there cannot be another Gospel, there cannot be another Faith: The Gospel being the Revelation of God by Christ, and that Revelation full and made but once in the days of his flesh. Whatever therefore the Church believes or proposes to be believed, must ne­cessarily be founded upon such a Revelation; and consequently, that Doctrine, if it be of Faith, must Originally derive from Christ and his Apostles; the Doctrine of Faith being nothing else but what He and They from Him have delivered, and consequently, one and the same, yesterday, to day, and for ever: That is, in all Ages. Now, into the Unity of this Faith, and wherein it consists, I shall enquire, in the next place, which brings me to

The second Proposition, That the Unity of Faith only respects the Fundamentals of the Christian Re­ligion.

In order to the clearing of which, I will premise these two things:

1. That there was a form of words containing a brief Summary of the Principles of the Christian Re­ligion in the Apostles times. This seems to be pre­supposed in the writings of the New Testament, and most probably may be the same with the [...], or form of sound words, which St. Paul advises Timothy to hold fast, 2 Epist. 1. 13. and the [...], or the good depositum or Doctrine com­mitted to his trust; which undoubtedly refers to the grounds and fundamentals of Christianity, purely and abstractedly considered as the rule of Faith, to which he was precisely to adhere against all the noise and [Page 14] clamours of vain and idly-curious talkers, and the contradictions of the Gnosticks, (the Hereticks of that Age, who not content with the express and plain Revelations of the Gospel, pretended to higher and greater degrees and measures of Divine knowledge) as is plain from 1 Tim. 6. 20. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain bablings, and oppositions of Science, falsly so cal­led: It being most agreeable in the nature of the thing, if there were no places of Scripture to coun­tenance and make out the supposition, that the Apo­stles should, for the use of the new Converts, put the necessary Articles of Faith together into certain heads of Discourse, and that to these they should refer as to a Rule, Gal. 6. 16. Phil. 3. 16. as to a form of Doctrine, Rom. 6. 17. as to the first Principles of the Oracles of God, Heb. 5. 12. as to the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ, Heb. 6. 1. and as to the Faith once delivered to the Saints, Jude v. 3. All which several circumlocu­tions are expressive of the same thing, and suppose those Doctrines, whatsoever they were, universally taught, and as universally acknowledged and re­ceived.

But But of this see the Ap­pendix. whether this form be the same with that, which bears the name of the Apostles Creed, (which undoubtedly in the main is very ancient, and most probably as ancient as their time; the Church, in suc­ceeding Ages indeed, to serve and maintain the inte­rests and necessities of Religion against the innovati­ons and assaults of Heresie, adding several clauses and expressions to it) is not here to be disputed at large. But however this is certain, that long before the times of the Council at Nice there was a Confession of Faith in use among Christians as the Standard of Catholick [Page 15] verity, as is demonstrable from the Testimonies of Irenoeus, Tertullian, and others: which Creed Sciendum sanè est, quod in Ecclesiae Ro­manae symbolo non habetur additum, de­scendit ad in­ferna: Sed ne­que in Orient is Ecclestis habe­tur hic sermo. Vis tamen ver­bi eadem vide­tur esse in eo, quod sepultus dicitur. Rufi­nus. (though there might be some variation of expression in it, that is, Rufinus Presbyter Ec­clesiae Aquileiensis in expositione symboli Apostolici. Priusquam incipiam de ipsis sermo­num virtutibus disputare, illud non importunè commonendum Puto, quod in diversis Eccle­siis aliqua in his verbis inveniuntur adjecta. In Ecclesiâ tamen Urbis Romae hoc non de­prehenditur factum. Quod ego propterea esse arbitror, quod neque heresis ulla illic sumpsit exordium: Et mos inibi servatur antiquus, eos qui gratiam baptismi suscepturi sunt publicè, id est fidelium populo audiente, symbolum reddere: Et utique adjectionem hujus saltem sermonis eorum qui praecesserunt in fide, non admittit auditus. In ceteris autem locis, quantum in­telligi datur, propter nonnullos haereticos addit a quaedam videntur, per quae novellae doctrinae sensus crederetur excludi. might be more contracted or en­larged at different times, yet agreeing in the main as to the sense and wording too of most of the Articles) being of general usage, and of great Authority, de­riving neither the one nor the other from the Canon or Decree of any Council, it may more than probably be supposed from the spreading and universal reception of it in the Churches of the East and West, and from the general silence of its first establishment, that it was delivered down from the very first Ages, as ha­ving the Apostles for its Authors.

Against this if it be objected, that if such a Creed had been extant at that time, the same respect and reverence would have been given to it as to their other writings, and consequently that there would have been no addition nor alteration of it, much less any new form, as the Nicene may seem to be, framed and introduced, as if the other had been defective, it may be fully and satisfactorily replyed, that whoso­ever considers the estate of the Church in the South­ern parts of the Empire; V. Eusebi­um de vitâ Constantini. Lib. 3. Cap. 4. that is, in Egypt and Libya, and Thebais, under Constantine, how it was rent and torn, and the dissolution of its very Being [Page 16] threatned by the new and blasphemous Opinions of Arius and his numerous followers, he will quickly find, that the Fathers, who were conven'd at Nice to put a stop to those Commotions, and allay the fury of the Tempest, which began to shake the foundati­ons of the Government as well as of Religion, lay under a necessity of fencing about the hitherto uncon­tradicted and established Doctrine of Christianity with a larger and more explicite form of Words, retaining for the most part (though with some little interpo­lation referring to the Arian controversies, which they hoped to put an end to this way) the old form, which Eusebius, Bishop of Coesarea in Palestine, pre­sented the Emperour and that Council, as having re­ceived it from the Bishops his Predecessors, and which himself and the Catechumeni were first taught, and profest at their Baptism; and by these means Epipha­nius in Ancho­rato versus fi­nem. [...]. ad­ding a Commentary and explication of what was more closely couch'd in the Apostolical form, which they did not pretend to alter, but to draw forth in its full meaning and consequence.

For it was not enough for the Arians to say, which is the Plea of the Socinians at this day, that they acknowledge the Apostles Creed, and are willing to subscribe to it, unless at the same time they will ad­mit the full sense of the words with the several pro­positions, that are necessarily included in them, as they are and have been understood by the Catholick Church from the first times of Christianity. For if they pretend to say, they believe Christ to be the only begotten Son of God in a private sense of their [Page 17] own, to the prejudice of his God-head, that is, if they will not for all this believe him to be God, begotten of his Father before all Worlds, but fancy there was a time, when he was not, and so make him a Creature, though the most glorious and perfect of all the Crea­tion, and so deny him to be of the same substance with the Father; what is this but to destroy the Faith of Christ, which is built upon this Foundation, to make a mock-profession of Faith, to retain the Apo­stles words only, and deny in the mean while the truth of the Doctrine, which they were intended to establish? And so afterward when the Heresie of Macedonius brake out, threatning new troubles, and distracting the minds of the People with their Blas­phemous Novelties. V. Theo­dotum Ancy­ranum in ex­posit. symb. Nic. pag. 88. Et professionem fidei à Romano Pontifice haberi solitam in libre diurno Pontif. Roman. pag. 35.—Secundum Constantinopolitanum adaequè Sanctum; certum quoque quin­quaginta Patrum Concilium sub Imperialis memoriae majore Theodosio, in Regiam Urbem concurrens, quod symbolo deesse putabatur exposuit, & gratiâ Spiritûs Sancti in lustrante, Deum esse Spiritum Sanctum, Patrique & filio, utpote consubstantialem, coadorandum an­nexit. The Article concerning the Holy Ghost was enlarged by the Assessors of the first General Council held at Constantinople under Theo­dosius the Emperor; by which enlargement all good Christian People were to be establish'd in the belief of the Catholick Doctrine, declared so to be, accord­ing to Scripture and Universal Tradition.

By these mighty Arguments they convinced the Hereticks, and justly subjected them to the Punish­ment which their refractoriness and guilt deserved. They settled the Peace of the Church, and secured the Faith from the like assaults in after-times. Their Creed was the Test by which they discerned Truth from Heresie, and it was received and acknowledged [Page 18] as such, Athana­sius Epistolâ ad Jovianum Im­peratorem, de fide. Of the Nicene Creed, [...]. And a little after, [...]— Theodotus An­cyran. [...]. pag. 30. [...]—p. 31. Si quis hanc fidem non habet, Ca­tholicus dici non potest; quia Catholicam non tenet fidem, & ideò alienus est & profanus, & adversus veritatem rebellis. V. Fidem S. Ambrosii apud Lambec. Lib. 2. Comment. de Bibl. Caesar. Cap. 5. p. 268. by all the Orthodox Christians in the Churches of Greece, the lesser Asia, Syria, and Egypt, and taught the Catechumeni as a necessary qualification of their admission into the number of the Faithful, which is the true reason that the other short form, which had been in use hitherto (the sum and sub­stance of it with all its necessary deductions being transfused into this) began to be dis-used, and in pro­cess of time wholly omitted and left out of their Li­turgies. Whereas at Rome, and in the other Churches of the West, where those Controversies about matters of Faith, which had exercised the Wits and Curiosi­ties of the Orientals, (whose prying and restless Genius drove them upon those subtilties) never were admit­ted, or made no considerable progress among them; they continued constant and steddy in the profession of the Ancient Faith, and therefore stuck to, and retain­ed the old form of words, as they are summ'd up in the Creed, which we call the Apostles, with some little addition, and needed not a larger explication.

2. It follows from this, that S. Leo in sermone 23. qui est de nativi­tate Domini IV. Nisi una est fides non est. the Doctrine of Faith must necessarily be one and the same every where, according to the assertion of the Text: It was the common Faith, Tit. 1. 4. not appropriated to any particular Sect; but it lay in common, and open to all: The whole Faith, that is, so much as was ne­cessary to denominate them true Believers, was re­ceived by all without any difference in the main points of it. For how could it be otherwise while they ad­hered [Page 19] so close to the Doctrine of the Apostles, who all Preach'd the same Faith in the most distant parts of the World, between which there could not possibly be, as the times stood then, that is, before the Po­larity or directive vertue of the Load-stone was known, any communication or intercourse? There was a perfect agreement and harmony of Confessions a­mong all who had embraced the Doctrine of Christia­nity. The Christians here in Britain believed no otherwise than those at Jerusalem, and those in India, whom St. Thomas Converted, and all who lived in the intermediate spaces between those two vastly di­stant extreams, which were the boundaries of the then known World, exactly agreeing with both. Though they differed in Language, Customs, Laws, Behaviour, and way of Living, and were under dif­ferent Governments, yet they all held the same thing: Which Argument is excellently handled by Irenoeus, in his 1st. Book, 3d. Chap. adv. Hoereses. There cannot be a more convictive Argument of the truth of the sense of the Articles of Faith, which the Hereticks reject, than the profession of them in all Churches of the World. For how came this univer­sal Consent establish'd, but from the soundness of the Doctrine, and the Authority of its first Publishers? Among that great variety of Opinions, which pre­vailed every where, there were certain essential points of Faith, wherein they were all unanimous, and so long as they were held and maintained, a liberty of Judgment and Opinion was allowed in lesser matters, witness those Ancient forms before-mentioned, long before the Civil Power took the Christian Religion in­to its protection; which whosoever admitted and pro­cessed, was received into their Communion. So that [Page 20] from this Unity of Faith, which was received every where by the whole number of Christians, except some obstinate Heretical Dissenters, who were a small and inconsiderable Party at first, in comparison of the rest, the Christian Church was styled Constan­tiue, in his Let­ter to the Churches con­cerning the Ni­cene Council, Apud Eused. in vitâ ipsius. lib. 3. cap. 18.— [...]. Catholick, or Universal, just as the great Ocean is one and the same, though it receives particular denominations from the several shores which it washes, as the Brit­tish, Cantabrian, Atlantick, and the like, and not from any pretended subjection to one Sovereign Pa­stor: And the word Catholick became another name for Orthodox; and the Bishops afterwards subscribed themselves Bishops of the Catholick Church of such a place, as founded on the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, Universally received throughout the World, and by vertue of the same Faith in Communion with all Christians.

Upon these two Suppositions I shall lay down these following Propositions: That,

1. Diversity of Opinions in matters of Religion of less moment does not interrupt and dissolve the Unity of Faith.

Opinions arise either from want of Evidence in the things themselves, which causes a fluctuation and unsettlement in the mind, as not knowing where to fix and rest; to which we yield a wavering kind of assent, more or less, according to greater or lesser de­grees of Probabilities; or else from the weakness of the understanding, which not being able to take a comprehensive view of things, and resolve them into their first Principles and Original Causes; or for want of a sure Foundation, whether of Nature or Rea­son, or Authority, or Revelation, takes up with Ar­guments and motives of assent, which fall short of [Page 21] certainty, and which cannot quiet the mind, and se­cure it from all suspicion and fear of the contrary. And indeed considering the great variety of mens tempers and complexions, Education and Interests; and the greater or lesser degrees of Knowledge, In­dustry, Curiosity, and the like; there is a Moral im­possibility, that Opinions should be one and the same. And where God has left a liberty, no Power upon Earth can oblige the Conscience and Understanding to admit them any otherwise than as Opinions: That is, either as true in their kind, but far from the Infallibility of Divine Revelations; or as piè credi­bilia: Or as means and instruments of Agreement and Uniformity in Judgment, to prevent Schism and Confusion; so as yet no one particular Church shall prescribe to another, but leave each to its liberty of securing their peace and quiet by what Confessions they judge best for that end; and nothing be imposed as a matter of Doctrine, which thwarts the Ancient Christian Doctrine and the Catholick Tradition of the Church.

2. All truths are not fundamental and necessary to be believed with the same firmness of assent: For se­veral Propositions may be true and useful, and yet not necessary and essential to the Faith; the ignorance or dis-belief of which does not throw a man out of the Communion of the Church. The neglect of this di­stinction has been one great cause of the troubles and turmoils of Christendom, whilst fierce and eager Dis­putants have been engaged in the defence of several tenents, which have no necessary dependance on the Doctrine of Faith, and which are not determined in the Scriptures, and by reason of their difficulty, and the various apprehensions and prejudices of men not [Page 22] like ever to be fully and satisfactorily decided; and which indeed are but niceties and trifling subtilties in comparison; while they put a greater value upon them than the nature and matter of them will bear; and whilst they Sacrifice Unity and the Peace of the Church, and the grand and real concerns of Religion to Passion and Humour.

3. Much less are doubtful Consequences and Philo­sophical Opinions to be admitted and reckoned in the number of Fundamentals. At first certainly, and for several Ages together, there was no great subtilty re­quired in order to be a good Christian. The Institu­tions of Christianity were not Laborious and per­plext: Nothing was required but a firm assent of the mind to a few Propositions, whose matter indeed was Mysterious, but what had the highest ground of Credibility to make the assent to them just and ratio­nal; but when once a bold Curiosity, and an unlaw­ful, and an over-affected subtilty made men depart Theodotus speaking of the Nestorians of his time— [...]. pag. 7. from the simplicity of Faith, and Religion, in­stead of being the Rule of Life and Discipline, be­came an Art of Disputing; and Scripture and Anti­quity no longer made the Judges of Controversies, but every mans particular Reason, though never so much byassed and perverted by the prepossessions of fancy, and by the heat and influence of his Passions; then Articles of Faith began to multiply, and every nicety and far-fetch'd consequence was called by that name, and Magisterially imposed, and the Philosophy of Aristotle and Plato was brought in to their assistance, till the substance of Christianity was even lost in the Quarrel, and the very Foundations of it undermined, and Faith swallowed up in wantonness of Wit, and Peace shut out of the World by Faction and Schism. [Page 23] The result was, that they were the worse Christians; more talkative and curious perhaps, but less strict and Religious, and Charitable; nay, less knowing than they were before they let loose the Reins to their fancy, and leapt over those boundaries which God and the Church had set.

4. Whatsoever was not Fundamental in the Apostles time, cannot be so now. If it be a true way of de­fining an Article of Faith, that it was revealed by Christ to the Apostles, and as such, imposed by them upon their Proselytes, without the embracing of which they could not be Christians; and that it is to be found in the writings which they left behind them, either expresly or by necessary consequence: Then the contrary also, that is, whatsoever is not found in their writings, either directly, or by just and neces­sary consequence, and was not proposed to the first Believers, cannot be Fundamental; and consequently no one is bound to believe any Doctrine, but what was then revealed, and afterward acknowledged by the Catholick Church; and what-ever proposal is made by the Church, is no farther to be believed, than as it is consonant to the Scripture and the Doctrine of the Apostles; this declaration not being of it self suffici­ent to make an Article of Faith, but as it is founded upon Scripture and Apostolical Authority. How had the Peace of Christendom been still preserved, if these Rules had been followed and kept in after-ages? That is, if new Opinions, whereof some are very dange­rous, to which the Christian Church was a stranger for several Centuries of Years, and all uncertain at the best, if meer fancies, to which Superstition and Ignorance have given Birth; and if the niceties and subtilties of the Schools, and things impossible to be [Page 24] throughly known, and matters of meer speculation, that tend to the disservice of Religion, and do not slow in the least from its Principles, had not been adopted Articles and Points of Faith, (all which we justly object to the Church of Rome) and made ne­cessary conditions of Communion. How might we have adorsed before the same Altars, and gone together to the House of God as Friends; and have been parta­kers of the Mysteries of the Body and blood of our Saviour, if they had not determined the manner of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and brought in a new Doctrine, which contradicts the whole circle of Sciences, and the sense and experience of all mankind; and tyed all others to believe an unnatu­ral sense of the words of the Institution? making the differences irreconcileable by their Trent Canons, and shutting out all possible hope of Peace, till God shall open the eyes of the Christian Princes of that Com­munion to see the fallacies and cheats of the Court, and the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome, to call a free and truly General Council, to debate the differences which are now on foot, to the great scan­dal of Christianity, upon the Principles of Scripture, Primitive Antiquity, and genuine Apostolical Tra­dition, and which considerations of Worldly Interest and Grandeur keep up; this being the only way left to restore Unity to the divided Catholick Church.

'Tis the glory as well as happiness of the Church of England, that the Rites she uses in her Religious Worship are decent and Solemn, and every way ser­ving the purposes of Religion; that her Goverment is Apostolical, that her established Liturgy is accord­ing to the Primitive Standard, and which no wise and good man can justly be offended at, unless per­chance, [Page 25] he thinks this a just reason, because it is a set form; that she holds nothing as necessary and essen­tial to Faith, but what was held so in the first Ages of the Church, and can be proved out of the Scriptures; that she rejects no Tradition that can prove it self to be Apostolical; that she receives the Articles of the Catholick Faith, held Anciently for such, in their received sense, and as they are laid down in the three Creeds, and admits all, who receive them, into her Communion; that her determinations of Opinions in her Articles are modest, and far from the high-flown pretence of Infallibility, and designed as an Instru­ment of Union; that she is willing to communicate with Christians of what denomination soever, where the terms of the Communion are Lawful, so as it may be done without sin, without prejudice to truth, and the Fundamentals of Church Government confirm­ed by universal Practise and Canons of Councils, and without violating the Rights and Priviledges of the Catholick Church, as well as her own in particular. Let the Romanists single out any one of her professed Tenents, which she holds as essential to Faith, and necessary to Salvation, which is not exactly agreeable to the first Antiquity. They cannot deny, that she holds nothing amiss herein; only they pretend, that she does not hold enough: That is, that we reject Transubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, In­vocation of Saints and Angels, Worshipping of Ima­ges; that we do not admit the Pope to be the visible Head and Monarch of the Church, and the Vicar of Christ, and that it is necessary to Salvation to be Sub­ject to him, and the like: All which are meer Fancies and Usurpations. But if the Primitive Christians were in the right, if a good Life (for that is a Fun­damental [Page 26] and most necessary point of Christianity, and without which all our belief, be it never so Or­thodox, will signifie nothing) added to an entire and found Faith, carried them to Heaven, we may be se­cure; it is enough for us to follow them and tread in their steps: We retain the same Faith; the Reforma­tion of the Church of England conformed it self to their Practise and Example. Our Church has been the great Eye-sore of Rome ever since, and especially of late, when they had such mighty hopes of pre­vailing, to which the froward and perverse humour of the Non-Conformists, and chiefly the Presbyte­rian Faction, the Original and source of all our Church-divisions, have given so great advantage. So that the Wise and most Learned King James, of Blessed Memory, may seem to have been a Prophet in this too, That if ever the Pope were brought into England, it would be upon the back of a Puritan, as well as in that remarkable saying, No Bishop, no King; the truth of which was most sadly justified and made out in the late most bloudy and unnatural Wars, and by the most horrid Murder of the best of Prin­ces, Charles the Martyr, whose Righteous Soul must needs be troubled (if any thing of pity, which is a troublesom Passion, can be supposed to reach the Blessed) at our present Distractions, and the dismal consequences of them. They envy her Beauty and Order, the discreet Piety of her Service, and the Re­gularity and exactness of her Discipline, and the Apo­stolicalness of her Government, and the flourishing of her Universities. This makes them rage and swell, and for want of better Proofs and Arguments, accuse and arraign, as guilty of Heresie and Schism, and Innovation, the purest and most Apostolical Church [Page 27] of the World. But wise and considerate men are not to be frighted out of their Senses, and out of their Religion with hard and big words, and with reproachful Language. The dissolute and debauched may easily be reconciled, as the new word is, to a Religion that is so favourable to them, and gives them hopes of going to Heaven after a careless and wretched Life, if upon a Sick Bed they begin to be afraid, and profess a little sorrow, and can but send for a Priest, and be Absolved; and the ignorant and weak may be wrought upon by little tricks and pieces of Sophistry, and cheated and trapanned out of a Church, the Doctrine of which they did not throughly understand. For it is impossible for one who understands aright the Grounds and Principles of the Reformation, upon which this National Church proceeded, ever to renounce her Communion, unless he first makes Shipwrack of his Honesty as well as of his Conscience, and is swayed wholly by Worldly re­spects and interests. But we need value their Censures the less, not only because they are unjust and uncha­ritable, but because they involve the Primitive Chri­stians in the same guilt with us, and all the Christian Churches this day in the World, that will not own that grand Fundamental Article of the Roman Faith, the Pope's Jurisdiction, and be content to receive their Christianity from Rome, and acknowledge all her determinations to be truly and really, as they in the ordinary Court-stile call them, Apostolical. Let us in the name of God justifie the Doctrine of our Church by the strictness and exemplariness of our Lives, as well as by Arguments and Discourses of Reason. Let us reform our selves not only from the Errors and Superstitions, but from the Vices that are [Page 28] too commonly practised in Catholick Countries, as they call them, though thanks be to the great industry and kindness, and charity of their Missionaries of late, they would be content, I will not say (though perhaps I might justly enough) make it their business, that Atheism and Profaneness, and Debauchery should over­spread the Land, rather than that the name of the Church of England should be any more in remembrance. In times of such defection to Socinianism and Popery on the one hand, and to Fanaticism on the other, let us take heed to our selves, that we be no way byas­sed or wrought upon to desert the purity and integri­ty of the Christian Doctrine, as it is taught in this Church, in any one point of it; and withal let us se­riously consider and remember, that it is not enough to believe it with our hearts, unless we make open and publick profession of it with our Mouths: Which brings me

To the third Proposition, That all who are Bap­tized, and consequently are by this Sacrament of In­itiation admitted and received into the Communion and Society of Christians, are to make profession of this Faith; One Faith, One Baptism.

It was the undoubted Practise of the Church in the first Ages, that the Candidates of Baptism should make profession of that Faith, into which they were to be Baptized, some previous time being allowed for their [Page 29] Instruction in the Do­ctrine of it, as Mos inibi (Romae) servatur antiquus, eos qui gratiam Baptismi suscepturi sunt, publicè, id est, si­delium populo audiente, symbolum reddere. Thus he: Leo Magnus, Epist. 24. ad Flavianum Episc. contra Eutychem; quam eruditionem de Sacris novi ac veteris Testamenti paginis acquisivit, qui ne ip­sius quidem symboli initia comprehendit; & quod per totum mundum omnium regenerandorum voce depro­mitur, istius adhuc senis corde non capitur. Epistolū 97. ad Monachos Palaestinos—quae tanta extitet de­cipientis astulia, ut obliti Prophetarum & Apostolo lorum, obliti symboli salutaris & confessionis, [...] pronunciantes coram multis testibus, Sacramentum Baptismi suscepistis, diabolicis vos illusionibus sub le­retis? This for the Western Church. For the like Practise of the Eastern Churches, we have the Au­thority of Eusebius apud Socratem, Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. c. 5. & Theodorit. l. 1. c. 12. and of the Fathers of the Council held at Constantinople under Theodosius, in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Damasus, St. Am­brose, and the other Bishops of the West, speaking of the Nicene Creed then established, but referring also to the Ancient Oriental Creed, and the practise of the Ages before them. [...]—apud Theodore lib. 5. c. 9. Besides others elsewhere mentioned. Rufinus, a Presbyter of Aquileia, who Lived almost 1300 Years since, in his Expo­sition upon the Creed, as­sures us for his own time, and says, it was then an Ancient Custom, and so may be justly referred to the very times of the A­postles. 'Tis to be ac­knowledged indeed, that St. Luke, in the History of the Acts of the Apo­stles, gives us this account only in general, that the new Converts were re­quired to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; as in the case of the Prison­keeper, Converted by the Preaching of St. Paul, Acts 16. 31. And that af­ter St. Philip had convinced the Eunuch by Preaching to him Jesus, and explaining the Prophesies which fore-told him, so as that he desired to become a Proselyte of Christ, as he had hitherto been of Moses (a Devotion to whose Law had brought him to Jeru­salem) and had also farther acquainted him, that if his request to be Baptized were more than a Com­plement or Curiosity; if it were real and sincere; if his Faith proceeded from a thorough conviction of mind, he was qualified for Baptism, and not other­wise: If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest. [Page 30] The Eunuch makes no other Confession but this, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Acts 8. 37. This Objection was made of old, that is, in St. Augustines time, as appears by his Book de fide & operibus: To which he returns this just Answer, cap. 9. Nunc ergo placet, ut hoc solum homines respondeant, & continuo baptizentur, nihil de Spiritu Sancto, ni­hil de Sanctâ Ecclesiâ, nihil de remissione peccatorum, nihil de resurrectione mortuorum, postremò de ipso Jesu Christo nihil, nisi quia filius Dei est; non de incarnatione ejus ex Virgine, de passione, de morte crucis, de Sepulturâ, de tertii diei resurrectione, de ascensione ac sede ad dextram Patris aliquid dicendum est Catechizanti, ac profitendum credenti? By which it appears, that it was his judgment, that a more ex­plicite form was then made, and consequently that this bare Confession was attended with it, or at least does necessarily suppose and involve it. See more to this purpose in the same Author at large. But then it is evident, that in this one Proposition the whole Doctrine of the Creed is virtually contained, and that it draws necessarily all the other along with it, and that this general belief was deduced into its severals afterwards; and that for a more ex­plicite and particular enu­meration of the Articles of the Christian Faith, we are to have recourse to the Apostolical writings, in which they confirm the new Christians in the Faith which they had been taught to believe and acknowledge. By all which it may appear, that,

1. Divine Faith in general is necessary to the Be­ing of a Christian, and that without it we, to whom the Gospel is Preach'd and made known, cannot pre­tend either to Christianity, or to any hope of Salva­tion. For, as the Apostle St. Paul says, if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be­lieve in thine heart, that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved, Rom. 8. 9. Where this Article of the Resurrection of Christ from the dead supposes the rest, and is here expresly mentioned, as the confirmation of the truth of Christ's Mission and Doctrine.

2. That it is a very grievous Error to fancy, that it is a matter of meer indifference what our belief is [Page 31] in particular, and that it is enough, that we believe that Christ is the Son of God, without obliging our selves to believe all the just and necessary consequen­ces of that Proposition, meerly because that one sin­gle Act of Faith qualified the first Converts for Bap­tism; when that only is mentioned, as the Founda­tion and Basis of all the rest, and does Necessarily in­clude all the other Doctrinal Points, that depend up­on it.

3. That we are obliged to profess our belief of the whole Doctrine of Christianity, as it lyes in the writings of the New Testament, which is the Rule of Faith, and as out of them it is briefly summed up in the Creeds, the explication which the Catholick Church has made of that Rule. So that as on the one hand after this acknowledgment, it is unjust to demand a more particular and distinct account or catalogue of the Fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith ne­cessary to be believed in order to Salvation; (that be­ing sufficient for the Catholick Church in all Ages, which was so in the first) so on the other hand, to believe less, and to reject any part of the Christian Doctrine, and teach the contrary, is justly chargeable with the guilt of Heresie, and is not the effect of wariness, but of pride and obstinacy. The command of God to believe the Testimony that he has given of his Son, and the revelations of his will, and the Di­vine Authority, on which they are founded, are suf­ficient Arguments to move us to assent to the truth of them, though the matter of them be so far above our comprehension. They are Mysteries, and necessa­rily must be such, and therefore are to be adored and submitted to, with that humility, that befits Crea­tures conscious of their own weaknesses and faileurs, [Page 32] and of the infinite and incomprehensible Majesty and perfection of God. And if this troubles them, they may as well murmur, and quarrel, and find fault with the dispensations of Providence, as obscure and un-intelligible: There is enough to satisfie all, who will be content with just Proofs of it, though not to take away all possible doubt: and by this means they must side with the followers of Epicurus in their idle and foolish, and impious attempts to raze the very notions of a Deity, out of the minds of Men, and extinguish and destroy all Religion out of the World. This is not imposing upon them, or doing violence to their Reason, as they object, only upon this pretence, because the Mysteries of Religion are not as evident and clear to their understanding, as visible objects are to the Eye in a clear and full light: For then they would cease to be matters of Faith, and lose their name, and fall under the comprehension of Science. And indeed so long as they retain this unreasonable Principle, that all the Mysteries of Christian Religion are to be tryed and judged by the narrow Rules of Phi­losophy and natural Reason (which can be no proper medium of proving things only knowable by Revela­tion) they may well pretend that 'tis not in their own power to change their Opinions, and that 'tis not possible for them to bring their understandings to ad­mit them. But can they hope, that this should ju­stifie their pertinaciousness, and excuse them at God's Tribunal? Is it not to be feared, that the unjust pre­judices which they entertain, arise from a perverse will, and from obstinacy and pride, and peevishness, and not from any dissatisfactoriness at the inevidence and incertainty of the grounds and motives of their Credibility? It is only God who can convince such [Page 33] men by the mighty influences of his Grace, and re­move these prejudices, which obstruct the reception of his truth, to whose Mercy we leave them. For us, let us hold fast our Profession of Faith without waver­ing; for God is faithful who hath called us to the know­ledge of his Truth. If you understand aright the Prin­ciples of the Christian Religion, and the Principles of the Protestant Religion, it is impossible for you to be debauched and perverted either by Socinian or Jesuit, or Sectary. All their pretended demonstrations (for error and delusion are usually very bold and confident) are meer Sophisms and Arguments of deceit, tricks, and artifices of Wit, without any foundation of true Reason in the one, or of Scripture or Apostolical Tra­dition in the other. If, as I said before, the Primi­tive Christians went to Heaven, you may be assured of the same hope of Salvation in the Communion of the Church of England, if you add to a sound Faith the practises of a Vertuous, and Holy, and truly Chri­stian Life; and if you perform the Vows you made at your Baptism, and renew every time you receive the most blessed Sacrament, and so adorn the Primitive Faith with Primitive Purity and Holiness.