THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND Evidently proved the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. By Peter Berault, the Author of the Church of Rome proved Heretic. If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an Heathen man, and a Publican, Mat. 18. 17. He shall not have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother. Aug. de symb. ad Cathec. lib. 4. c. 10. LONDON, Printed by T. Hodgkin, for the Author, 1682 TO His HIGHNESS' Prince RUPERT, Count Palatine of the Rhine; Duke of Bavaria and Cumberland; Earl of Holderness; Constable of the Royal Castle of Windsor; Knight of the Noble Order of the Garter; One of His Majesty's most Honourable Privy Council, etc. May It please your Highness, THe two small Books, which I did presume to present unto your Highness, were so kindly accepted, that having no otherway in any measure to acknowledge this favour, but the Dedication of this, I thought I could do no less, than to dedicate it unto so good, so wise, meek, and generous a Person as yourself; being not only a true and sincere Protestant, nor only a living Member, but also an unmoveable Pillar of the holy Catholic Church; and though Jesus Christ said, that the Gates of Hell should not prevail against it, yet the Devil having a root of Evil, and enmity in himself, night and day seeks its destruction: To effect which, he subtly, Proteus-like, appears in different forms, assaulting it several ways; either by raising against it those of the Church of Rome, insinuating that we, being separated from them, are excluded all hopes of Salvation; and that they are bound with fire and sword to seek our utter ruin and destruction; or insinuating to other Dissenters from the Church of England, that to live up to the strict Rule and Principles of the Christian Religion, they are obliged to separate themselves from it. This Maxim is received in Philosophy, Sublatâ causâ tollitur effectus, the Cause being removed, the Effect ceaseth; therefore when I have made appear, that those Insinuations of Satan are deceitful, and that the belief and practice of the Church of England is conformable to the holy Scripture, I hope I shall be able to bruise the head of that old Serpent, and to procure the Church's peace; especially having for my Patron so virtuous a Prince, so great a lover of Peace, so good a Member, and so strong a Pillar of the holy Catholic Church. I do not here intent any Panegyric, knowing your Highness takes much greater pleasure in doing good, than in hearing the repeated Echoes of your Princely Merits, looking on your Noble Virtues, as a fitter Subject for the Records of Honour, in which your Highness will be praised to all succeeding Ages. There your brave and warlike Actions, Wisdom, Prudence, Goodness, piercing and solid Understanding in all Sciences and Affairs, discreet Conduct, and diligent Cares for the maintenance of the true Protestant Religion, and Catholic Faith, against all Superstitions, Errors, Idolatries, and cruel Persecutions of the Church of Rome, will be much better described, than I could here have done with my Pen. There every one may read, that at 13 years of Age, your Highness marched to the Siege of Rhynberg. At the Age of 18 Commanded a Regiment of Horse in the Germane Wars, in 1642 came into England, fought and defeated Colonel Sands near Worcester; routed the Rebel's Horse at Edge-hill; took Cirencester; raised the Siege of Newark; recovered Litchfield and Bristol; fought the great Battle at Marston-moor, and in 1666 being joined Admiral with the Duke of Albemarle, attacked the whole▪ Dutch Fleet in such a bold resolute, but prudent and discreet way, that you soon put the Enemy to the flight. And though we live in an Age, wherein every one seems to be free to speak what he will, and not to spare even those whom they have no reason to speak against; yet nothing can be said, but in your Praise and Commendation. I conclude this Epistle, humbly begging of your Highness to accept of this small Treatise. I could have enlarged it, had I not known that Princes, who are commonly encumbered with several important Affairs, have no time to read great Volumes. When your spare-hours will allow to make a perusal of this, which though little, yet contains much, I hope your Highness will receive some satisfaction, and see that my whole intention is to wish the Peace of this Nation; the Glory of God Almighty; the good of his holy Catholic Church; the Salvation of the Souls of men; and the reducing of the wand'ring sheep, whether Popish, or other Dissenters, into Uniformity; which is heartily desired by Your Highness' Most humble, most obedient, and affectionate Servant, Peter Berault. TO THE READER. Unprejudiced Reader, AS it is not enough to depart from evil, but we are obliged to do good: Even so it is not enough to have proved the Roman Church Heretic, but also to make appear, that the Church of England is the holy Catholic Church. But if in reading what I have written, thou sayest I have not done well, because thou dost not understand it, blame my Discourse, not my Faith. It may be, another might speak more clearly upon this Subject; nevertheless no man did ever speak so, that in all things he could be understood by all Persons alike. Therefore let him who is not pleased herewith, see whether he understands others better, when they speak or write concerning the same things: And if he doth, let him shut my Book, yea let him throw it into the fire, and employ his time in reading those that he understands better. However let him not think, I was bound to be silent, because I have not written so clearly as those which he understands; for all that is written, doth not fall into the hands of every man; and it may be also, that those which read what I have written, may not find any Books, wherein such Questions are handled more clearly. Wherefore it is good to have several Books of a different style, though not of a different Faith, concerning the same Questions, because the same thing is oftentimes by some conceived one way, by others another. But if he that complains, he doth not understand these things, could not comprehend them, when others have disputed about them with subtlety, let him desire God, that he would be pleased to enlighten his Spirit, and cease to blame me, and to say, it had been better for me to be silent. But should the Reader object, I very well understand what is written, but what is written is not true; let him prove his Opinion, and let him confute mine, which if he doth with charity and truth, and makes it appear unto me, I shall confess myself very much obliged unto him, and think my Endeavours in composing this small Treatise, sufficiently rewarded. I know (Opinions concerning Religion being many in this Nation,) I cannot be without a great many Foes; but if they consider, that I have no other intention, than to manifest the Truth, and procure Peace among ourselves; love towards one another, and union to the holy Catholic Church, out of which whosoever is, is a Schismatic, and excluded all hopes of Salvation, as I will make appear hereafter, than they will cease to hate, and begin to love me. But oftentimes it happens quite contrary to our good intention; as when Jesus Christ manifested unto the Jews the Vices which they were given to, his intention was that they should hate their sins, and not the Physician who was willing to heal them: But it happened on the contrary; they were ungrateful, saith Augustine, for being grown mad, they assaulted the Physician, who came to cure them. I may say the same thing, concerning those who are unwilling to hear Christian Doctrines; their Interest is to know them, since it concerns their eternal Salvation, and therefore they ought to receive those who are so charitable as to instruct them, with a greater kindness, than a King doth the dearest of his Courtiers. But too often we see the contrary: They look upon those Physicians of their Souls, as upon their greatest Enemies; nevertheless, since there are some, who are glad to hear the truth, and receive it in meekness, to those especially I direct this Discourse, my design is to convince them, and so to draw them out of the Error, in which they have walked many years; wherein, I hope, with God's assistance, to have good success, because I shall say nothing, but grounded upon sound Reason, and the Authority of the holy Scripture, and Fathers, which I shall quote faithfully, to the end, that these Authorities may be as many Bucklers, to defend me from all the strokes, which some would offend me with, that I may not be wounded, before I see them run through and overthrown. Naked Truth, and the publishers of it are commonly hated in this World. And though it be written in Esdras, that Truth is stronger than Wine, than Women, than Kings, yet we daily see by experience, that for all its strength, it is oftentimes cruelly assaulted, and miserably subdued upon Earth. Every one knows, what Persecutions Jesus Christ suffered, because he would make it appear unto all men; his Apostles, Disciples, and Martyrs were not only hated, but after his Example endured several Torments, even death itself, because they would defend and make it manifest. If I have written any thing not agreeable to the Word of God, or sound Reason, I shall be very glad and thankful in being informed of it; therefore I submit this small Treatise to the censure of the Church, and to the judgement of all learned and godly men, whose delight is to draw Truth from the holy Scripture. Farewell. ADVERTISEMENT. IF any Gentleman or Gentlewoman hath a mind to learn French or Latin, the Author of this Treatise will wait upon them; he liveth in Thames-street, over against Baynard's- Castle. THE Church of England Proved the Holy Catholic Church. THe Roman Church appropriates this glorious Title to herself only; thunders anathemas against all other Churches whatever; calls them Heretics, and Schismatics; declares, unless they unite themselves with her, they are without any hope of Salvation; uses a thousand subtleties 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 frighted with several Fables, wherewith they are entertained; deprives them of their Estates, and Employments, etc. 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 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 Heresy, they have lost this fair and glorious Title: These words, Holy Catholic, 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 debauched, when they quarrel with them that are honest and virtuous, 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 Catholic, and being fallen into Heresy, is wont to call the Church of England Heretical, lest she should justly reflect upon her, that which she falsely accuses her with. I will not go about here to prove that the Church of Rome is Heretic; I have done it already, per argumentum adhominem; that is, by their own Principles, in a small Treatise so entitled. 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, that the Church of England is the holy Catholic Church, which being proved, (there being but one holy Catholic 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, Catholic. 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 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 sense; 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 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 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 sanctify and cleanse it, by the washing 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 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 every kind. Firmissime Fulgent. ad Petr. c 43. tene & nullatenus dubites aream Dei esse Ecclesiam Catholicam, & intna eam usque 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 Catholic Church is a Floor, and that therein, (as long as the World shall stand) Wheat and Tares together shall be contained, 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 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 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 Catholic, that is, universal; which word is used in our Creed, to teach us to discern the true Church from the false. The word, Catholic, 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 Catholic or universal Church, we mean, that 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 Catholic, from the universality of necessary and saving Truths contained 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 Catholic Church; for whatsoever Church pretendeth to be holy Catholic, 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) falsely attributes this name to herself. 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 is the holy Catholic. Read over the Old and New Testament, and if you can make it appear, that the Church of England believes or practices one point of Faith, which is not contained 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) than I will grant freely, that she is not the holy Catholic; but no body being able to make this appear, I am in the right, in asserting the Church of England to be the holy Catholic Church. 'Tis certain, they do not make unto themselves any 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 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 Kitchen, 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 Throne, to dispense their Subjects from their Allegiance, or to kill those that he calls Heretics. 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 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 Catholic. 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 contained in the Word of God, therefore she is not the holy Catholic, for as you said before, to give the denomination of holy Catholic 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, baptising them in the Name of the Father, there, 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 Catholic, because it believes in the Trinity, that word not being expressed 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 matters not, if the word itself 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, etc. 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 deduced from it by clear and necessary Consequences; therefore it may be rightly inferred, that the Church of England is not the holy Catholic 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 lest Numericè, and it cannot be otherwise; so it is centrary to Reason, that the Father, Son, and 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, 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, 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, baptising 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 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 Chancellor, and yet, though that word be in the singular Number, we can't infer, that the King and his Chancellor have but one nature Numericè. 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 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. 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? 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 ask 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 credimus potius Aug. lib. 15. de trin. quam 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 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 knowledge of the Trinity of divine Persons; because by natural Reason we cannot come to the knowledge of God, but by Creatures, which lead us to the knowledge 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 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 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 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 called 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 Substance, as it is taught both in the Symbols 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 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 show 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; therefore the Church of England believes an Article of Faith, which is not in the word of God; therefore she is not the holy Catholic 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 and my Father are one, do Joh. 10. 13 signify 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, etc. 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 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 knowledge, and Col. 2. 9 that In him dwells all the fullness 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 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 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 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, 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. Probatur 2ᵒ. 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, etc. Therefore he is not really and properly true God. Probatur, 3o. If the Son were really and properly true God, he should have the knowledge of all things; but he hath not the knowledge of all things, since he doth not know the day of Judgement; therefore, etc. 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 Judgement, it follows, that the Son doth not know it, therefore having not the knowledge of all things, he is not really and properly true God, since to the true God nothing can be unknown. Probatur, 4ᵒ. Either the Son is of himself, or by an other; he is not of himself, 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, 5ᵒ. 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. Probatur, 6ᵒ. 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, etc. I answer, that by the only true God, is mean● God a se; and in that sense the Father is the only true God, because he only is God 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, etc. 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 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 myself, 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 Judgement, as he knew not Lazarus' 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 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. 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 Judgement, because he doth not make them know it, that is, he knew it not so, that he would manifest it to his Disciples. But he was to declare it in a convenient time; of which time to come, speaking as if it were passed, 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 spoke 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 Judgement; 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 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, 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 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 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 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, etc. 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 and godly Persons, which is in Question, since some amongst them have declared, that it was a Pope's Cabal, it doth not follow, that we are bound to believe in the Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, and Transubstantiation, etc. 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, entitled the Church of Rome evidently proved Heretic. 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 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 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. 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 form of God, he thought it phillip 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: 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 itself, 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 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, 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, etc. Moreover, is it not written in your Law, saith Christ, Ye are Gods? Are not these the very words of the eighty second Psalm? If God himself so spoke, 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 fullness 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 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 Judgement 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 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. Vnde 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 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 ejusdemque 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 a Creature; and that which is not a Creature, is God. And if the Son be not of the same Substance with the Father, than 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, 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 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 inferred 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. 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, 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 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 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 show 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 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 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 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 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 from no body; all other Creatures whatsoever have their holiness by Communication and Dependency. In that sense the Holy Ghost is not really distinguished 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 distinguished 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 and ending; and the Creator is a first and Independent Cause, who produced all things out of nothing. Therefore in that sense, the Holy Ghost being not really distinguished 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, 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 sense 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 spoke these words, but because God did all this, by that Power within him, which is his Spirit, therefore these words and actions are attributed to the Holy Ghost; in that sense likewise the Holy Ghost is not really distinguished 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 itself maketh intercession Rom. 8. 26. for us, with groan which cannot be uttered; and by that of the first to the Corinthians, The 1 Cor. 2. 10. 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 long, and is kind; charity 1 Cor. 13. 4, 5. envieth not, vaunteth not itself, etc. 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 virtue 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, 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 expressly 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 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 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, 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 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 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 sense, '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 are properties of the Divine Nature, and none can be endued 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 Symbol of Nice. Obj. The Church of England doth neither believe, nor practise all that 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 Catholic Church, since the holy Catholic Church is that, that believes and practices 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 enjoined, that the Gentiles embracing the Christian Religion, aught in Charity to Conform herein to the Jews, and not give Offence where the thing was itself 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 abolished 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 words enjoined 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 itself, and something bad by Accident; something bade for a time only, something belonging to the Moral Law, and something belonging to the Ceremonial. The thing bad in itself 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 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. '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, ask no question for Conscience sake, for the Earth is the Lords, and the fullness 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, ask 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 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 persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, 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 Jerusalem, 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 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 wholesome, and have a mild and benign Temper, he ought to abstain from both; for seeing that Axiom is received amongst Physicians, ex his constamus ex quibus nutrimur; and since experience teacheth, that those who feed 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 persuade 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, Who blotted out the hand-writing 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, aught to be kept, and the Transgressor's were cast out▪ of the Synagogue, and separated from the People of 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 practice, that we ought to baptise young Children, before they can use their 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, baptising 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. baptised every one of you, in the Name of Jesus Christ, for remission of sins; if ye believe, ye may be baptised. Therefore the Church of England is not the holy Catholic Church, since she 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 towards God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore that which shuts the Gates of the Kingdom of Heaven against us, is not a mere and innocent privation of Baptism, but the Contempt and Profanation 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 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 spoke 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 after thee. And by those of the Acts, wherein St. Peter speaks thus unto the Jews; Be baptised 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, aught to be Partakers of the Seal of that Covenant, and of that Sacrament, which is the Mystical sign of our entering into that Covenant; now not only the Faithful are Partakers of the Covenant of Grace, but 〈◊〉 Children also, as 〈◊〉 by the aforementioned Texts, both of Genesis 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 entering into that Covenant. Secondly, Unto whom the Promise is made, they ought to be baptised, 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 baptised. Which is confirmed by these words of St. Matthew, Go teach all Nations, baptising 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 baptised. You may further urge, Immediately before that Text in the Acts, Be baptised every one of you, etc. 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 their Reason, neither are capable of one, or the other; therefore it follows, they ought not to be baptised. Answ. We ought to teach them that are able to be taught, and baptise them that are able to be baptised. 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 Rigour; and that Jesus Christ were come to lessen the favours of God, and not to increase them; seeing in the old Law, young Children were circumcised; now since Baptism is in the place of Circumcision, wear to baptise 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. 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 is written in St. Matthew, 19 13. Therefore unto them belongs Baptism, which is the Sign of the entering 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, Judgment 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 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 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 than Jesus Christ in whom were hid all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge, 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 Mother were baptised, all those of the Household were baptised 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 baptised, and her Household; and that the Keeper of the Prison was baptised, 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 baptised the Household 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 baptised in the Cloud, and 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 baptised 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 thyself, but I say unto you, Swear not at all, neither by Heaven, etc. But let your Communication be yea, yea, and nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these, cometh o evil▪ and in 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 practices an Article forbidden in the holy Scripture; therefore she is not the holy Catholic 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 expressly, at least virtually 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 men's Estates are concerned, 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 end of, and decide the Controversy; 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 itself, 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 swore by himself. And verse 17. God willing more abundantly to show 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 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 Highpriest asked him to answer upon his Oath, whether he was the Son of God. I adjure thee, saith the Highpriest, 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. 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 generally, but in a limited sense, 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 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 swore 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 Son, nor thy Daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maid-Servant, nor thy cattle, 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 Catholic Church. Before I give an Answer to this Objection, I will give leave to my Adversary 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 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; 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 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 Axiom received in Divinity, viz. that men neither can, nor aught 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 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, 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 acknowledge to have changed the Saturday or seventh, to 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. To the first Objection my Adversary replieth, 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 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 died on such a day, we ought also to transfer the Sabbath unto it? 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 pray, preach, and baptise. 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 Jerusalem, but also concerning the last day of Judgement, 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 at the day of Judgement, 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 Judgement, the same day ought to continue still, otherwise his Commandments and threatenings 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 Ceremonial, as the determination of a day, which may be changed. For if the determination of the seventh day be merely Ceremonial, and consequently may be changed, likewise the Determination of the first day of the week is merely Ceremonial, and therefore may be changed also. Wherefore the Reason why this is kept rather than another, is mere 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, 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 Transgressor's 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? 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 showing 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 sanctify all the days of our life, that is to 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 aught to change what is established and determined by God, as it is the consent of all Divines, and holy Scriptures; and notwithstanding all that I have just now alleged, 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 Catholic 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 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, ask 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 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 Egypt, out of the House of bondage, showeth evidently, that God speaks unto Israel according 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 Egypt, 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 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 manservant, nor thy maid-Servant, nor thy cattle, 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 Egypt like strangers, to the end they might learn, when they should possess the Land of Promise, to deal with all the World, otherwise than the Egyptians 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 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 finished 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, aught to be abolished, and so was not of an indispensable 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 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, aught to be abolished under the Gospel, Col. 2. 17. where the body of these things, whereof they were but a shadow, is made manifest. And that the Institution of the seventh day, reduplicatiué 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 sanctify 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 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 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 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, reduplicatiué 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 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 outwardly, Considered in the first sense, 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 public Meetings, wherein the Word of God is preached, and his Sacraments are administered. 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 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 hand-writing 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 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, etc. 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 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 choose that day for their public exercises of 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 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 enjoin The sign of the Cross, and Godfathers' and Godmothers in Baptism; it appears also in the Surplice, Music, and Organs, practised especially in Cathedral Churches. Therefore she is not the holy Catholic Church, because to be so, she ought to believe and practise the whole Christian Faith, 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 Privilege belonging to God only, I mean, that they should establish Articles of Faith, not found in the holy Scripture, (as oftentimes the Church of 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, etc. and seeing that Jesus Christ not only commands his Disciples to pray, but also to 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 aught 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 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 of learned and godly men, who before they commanded them to be used in public, 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, than we are to consider, whether what he saith be agreeable to sound Doctrine, and whether it be proper and lawful for me to join with him in the Petitions he puts up to God Almighty. And if we think it is so, than 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 join 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 thoroughly 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 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 grossly 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 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 stead 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? 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 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 Basin, 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 aught to wash one another's feet, for I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. 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 oil, 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 signify 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 Saviour's side. As to give Milk with Honey to drink unto baptised Persons, to signify 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 signify that Christ was risen from the dead; because (though the Instances here mentioned may be sufficient to persuade 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, 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 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 Catholic 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 God should be preached, his praises sung, his holy Name worshipped and called upon, thanksgivings returned unto him, and his Sacraments administered 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, 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 show it in particular. Doth not the Ceremony of the sign of the Cross, used immediately after Infant's 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 faithful Soldiers 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 any 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 Godfathers' and Godmothers' in Baptism contrary to the Word of God? In what 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, 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 employed towards the common care of the Souls committed to their Charge, and the Child's Parents may die, before he be grown to Age, and understand what belongs to the Christian Faith, the Church requires Godfathers', and Godmothers', that they might receive in their Charge, the Child baptised, and promise to see him brought up to, and understand (as much as is 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 show, that we ought to lift up our mind towards 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 Layman from 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 Symbol of Purity. And doth not Music 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 blessed Company, wherein with an Harmony, that infinitely surpasses our Music 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 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 Christ's, 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 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 Catholic Church, since she believes and practices 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 Catholic. For those, who, knowing her to be such, separate themselves from her, are Schismatics, and out of hope of Salvation. First, I say, that they are Schismatics, 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, quam 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 Schismatics, who are cruel, having not the love of God before their eyes, but rather embracing their own Innterest, than the Unity 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 Schismatic; and if he only be Schismatic, who separates himself from the Church for small and light Causes, as saith Irenaeus, and is granted by Divines; then on the other hand, he is no Schismatic, 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 ourselves from those of the Roman Church, for great and weighty Causes, it is manifest, we are not Schismatics; 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, that that Church believes and practices Articles of Faith, which are not in the holy Scripture, or are directly contrary to it; which is enjoined 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 ourselves 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. They than that separate themselves from the Church of England, because of Ceremonies, do separate themselves for small and light Causes, and consequently, are Schismatics. 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, 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 Catholic 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 Egypt lived, but such as were within these Habitations, 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 Catholic 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 Catholic. Which is confirmed by the Fathers. Whosoever, saith chrysostom, 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 the Catholic 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 Catholic Church none shall receive the pardon of sins. Out of 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 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 Heretic and Schismatic whatsoever, baptised in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, if he be not reunited to the Catholic 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 Alms, how great soever, nor death suffered for the Name of Christ▪ shall profit unto Salvation to any man that holds not the Unity of the Catholic 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 Catholic Church, are Schismatics, and out of hope of Salvation, as I have made it appear evidently, the Church of England being the holy Catholic, let now the Reader draw the Conclusion. I know, what I said just now concerning those who are out of the Catholic Church, will be granted to be true; but, the Reader will object again, the Question is, to know which is the holy Catholic 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 one and the same honour and worship is rendered 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. una 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, & honour 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 personam. Athanasius is of that Opinion; Whosoever, saith he, will be saved, before all things, it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; and the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. And Lactantius saith, Lactant. de vera sap. & rel. lib. 4. c. 30. Sola Catholica Ecclesia est, quae verum cultum retinet. This is the only Catholic 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 & poenitentia; quae peccata & vulnera quibus subjecta est imbecillitas carnis, salubriter curate. That is, Because every Congregation of Heretics, think to be especially Christians, and their Church the Catholic, 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 Catholic Church; and according to Lactantius, we are not able to determine any Person out of it: Every one pretending to 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 baptised, or to keep the Sabbath, etc. but, If thou wilt enter into Life, keep the Commandments; and the young man having asked him which were they? Jesus specified them unto him, saying, Thou shalt do no Murder; 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 thyself. If then according to Christ's words, he that keeps these Commandments here described, is saved; we must conceive him to be in the Catholic Church, or what some Fathers said, that out of the Catholic Church there is no Salvation, is false. And as in what Sect 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 Catholic Church. I answer, That they are deceived; for when the Fathers said, that the Catholic 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 practice of the Commandments enjoined us in the holy Scripture. And Jesus Christ, who saith to the young man, that if he will enter into Life, he must keep the Commandments here mentioned, pronounces Woe 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 baptised, 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 baptised, shall be saved. Wherefore it is not enough to say, I thought I was a Member of the Catholic 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 Catholic 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, 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 threatenings and slaughter against the Disciples of the Lord, he went unto the Highpriest, 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 Jerusalem. Nor when he made havoc v. 8. 3. of the Church, entering into every House, and haling men and women, committing them to Prison. v. 7. 38. Nor when he was consenting unto the death of Stephen, and kept the clothes of the Witnesses who stoned him, though Austin Serm. 14. de Sanctis. speaks thus of him; Vt enim esset in omnium lapidantium manibus, ipse omnium vestimenta servabat, magis saeviens omnes adjuvando, quam 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 Heretics, for, as I suppose, they think they do a Sacrifice wellpleasing unto God. If 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. 3. 1. Obey them that have the Rule over you, and submit yourselves. Heb. 13. 17. Submit yourselves 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 Damnation, Rom. 13. 1, 2. Wherefore the holy Powers enjoining usto conform to the Church of England, which (as I have made it appear) teaches or practices 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 Schismatics, 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 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 of Christ, the holy Catholic Church doth not fear thee; for when the Bridegroom looks upon her, than thou shalt be cast out, as the Bondwoman, with thy Children; because the Children of the Bondwoman, shall not be heirs with the Sons of the Free woman. Although I have made appear, that the Church of England, is the holy Catholic Church, and that all those, who knowing her to be such, and still refuse to conform, are Schismatics, out of hope of Salvation; and shall not be heirs with the Sons of the freewoman, but cast out as the bondwoman with her 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, 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 Martyrdom; 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 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, etc. as it is now practised in France, against the poor Protestants. But to make them suffer merely for Religion's 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 Jerusalem, 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 wellmeaning Zeal for their Master, and of the true God, and of of Jerusalem, 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; for the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Ye own yourselves 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 sour dispensation of the Law, but the calm and peaceable institution of the 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 justify this passionate and fierce, this vindictive and exterminating spirit. This persecuting, killing and destroying one another about Religion, is contrary to Christ's Doctrine, for, He is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. He came not to kill and destroy, 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 us to be merciful, as our Father which is in Heaven is merciful; to be kind and tenderhearted, forbearing one another; if any man have a quarrel against any, even as God for Christ's 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 show all meekness to all men. To all which Precepts nothing can be more opposite, than inhuman Cruelties and Persecutions. Christ's 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 and to the Souls of men. He could if he had pleased, by his miraculous Power have confounded his Enemies, and have thundered out death and destruction against all Heretics and Schismatics; 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 Persuasion, 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 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 itself by the Sword. This was then Greg. ad Episc. constantinop. the Style of Councils, Nemini ad credendum vim infer. 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 Heretics and Schismatics from the holy Catholic Church were to be persecuted, the Samaritans, who were both Heretics and Schismatics, 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 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 aught 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 men's lives, but to save them; that is, this spirit is utterly inconsistent with the great design of Christian Religion, and the end of Christ's coming into the World. What then hath the Church of Rome, or any other whatsoever, to plead for her Persecution to men 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 persuaded, that those whom she persecutes are Heretics and Schismatics, and that no Punishment can be too great for such Offenders? So James and John were persuaded 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 Apology 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 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 died 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 disbelief of such Articles as are invented by men, or are imposed as only Ceremonies. Those whom we call Heretics and Schismatics, saith Salvian, do not think they are so. They are Heretics and Schismatics in our Opinion, but in their own they are not: For they think they are Catholics, in as much as they call us Heretics; therefore what they are to us, Salu. 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. FINIS.