is dreadful arrogance, therefore, which the Church of Rome shows in this respect; coining new articles of faith, some of which they own were not articles of faith from the beginning, and sentencing men to Hell for not believing what, before that sentence, themselves acknowledge nobody was bound to believe. This, you see, is changing the terms of the Christian covenant arbitrarily, and making a new Gospel at their own pleasure. But in opposition to their decisions and anathemas, hear one of St. Paul: Though an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we the Apostles of Christ, have preached, let him be accursed. Trust then yourselves on this foot: for other foundation can no man lay, than that which they laid*. Nor indeed did the primitive Church, for several hundreds of years, attempt it, or make any doctrine necessary, which we do not: as the learned well know from their writings; and the unlearned may know from the most ancient of their Creeds, which we now use in our constant service. Afterwards indeed needless additions first crept in, then false ones : but, had they begun ever so much sooner, our cause had received no prejudice. To the law and to the testimony, as the Prophet directs, we appeal: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in

them t.

*

1 Cor. iii. 11.

+ Isaiah viii. 20.

SERMON XXXIV.

1 PET V. 12.

-Exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand.

I COME now to conclude the subject on which I have been so long employed. A sufficient number of the doctrines of the Romanists have been considered, and what they plead for them, examined. But besides the pleas they make for each in particular, they have others for all in general. Should they, when they want to make a convert, fairly propose to him each of their notions separately, and give him proofs, first that it is true, and then that it obliges him to quit our Communion for theirs; this they are sensible would be a hopeless undertaking. And therefore very wisely they are for shorter work, and have general arguments, it seems, to prove that, let their doctrines or ours be what they will, we must be in the wrong, and they in the right.

One of these arguments is their infallibility, but this I hope was fully confuted in my first discourse, and indeed in every one since. For it is in vain for them to pretend they cannot be mistaken, if it appear but in any single instance that they are.

Another is, that Protestants, not being of the Roman Church, are not of the Catholic Church: for the Catholic Church is but one, and, out of it, there is no salvation. Now, we acknowledge it is but one body under one head, Christ Jesus; but then

1

in this one body there are many members; and why are not the Churches of Greece, Asia, and Africa: why is not ours, as true a member of it as theirs? On what authority, if names were worth disputing about, do they ingross that of Catholic to themselves? Do not we profess the true Catholic faith, that faith which the universal Church received from the Apostles? We profess it much purer than they. Are the Sacraments more duly administered by them than by us? Far from it for of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, one half they have taken away from the laity: and concerning the other half, they have taught the most monstrous absurdities, and built on them the most shocking idolatry. Then, for that of Baptism, we administer it with water alone, just as Christ appointed, whereas they have added oil, salt, spittle, and I know not what, as if it were on purpose to make it as unlike his institution as they can. Is then the appointment or ordination of their clergy more valid, or more regular than ours? On no account whatever. For if they brought down the succession uninterrupted to the reformation, we have certainly preserved it uninterrupted since; which now they may be ashamed to deny, since a learned man of their own Communion hath fully proved it. And consequently, for them, who are but a very unsound part of the Catholic Church, to call themselves the whole of it, is quite as absurd, as for a diseased limb (though perhaps the larger for being diseased) to be called the whole body. But they will say, we separated, and so cut off ourselves from the Catholic Church, at the reformation. I answer, we did not. We only cast out, as was our duty, the errors that were crept in and we did it by the lawful authority of our superiors, both ecclesiastical and civil. Upon which

the Church of Rome, instead of imitating our good example, commanded all they could influence, to quit our communion. It is they then who made the separation, and it is they that continue it. We are ready still to join in communion with them, upon the terms of the Gospel: and they refuse to join with us, but upon terms of their own devising. Now when two Churches break communion with one another; though it is always a fault, yet it does not always follow, that either of them is thereby broken off from the Catholic Church, any more than it follows, that when two men break off acquaintance, one of them is broken off from the civil society to which they belong. But when one Church shall excommunicate another, merely because the governors of that other made such alterations in it as Scripture warrants, and because the people complied with those alterations, such an instance of presumption and uncharitableness is much more likely to cut off those that use it from the Church of Christ, than those against whom it is used. But supposing we had even acted without, and separated from, our Church governors, as our Protestant brethren abroad were forced to do: was there not a cause? When the word of God was hidden from men, and his worship performed in an unknown tongue; when pernicious falsehoods were required to be professed, and sinful terms of Communion to be complied with; when Church-authority, by supporting such things as these, became inconsistent with the ends for which it was established: what remedy was there but to throw it off, and form new establishments? If in these there were any irregularities, they were the faults of those who forced men into them; and are of no consequence in comparison with the reason that made a change

necessary. For were a man to separate himself from every Church he knows on earth, in order to obey the laws of Christ, he would still be a most valuable member of that general assembly and Church of the first-born, that are written in Heaven*. For what communion hath light with darkness?-And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?-Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty †.

But 'tis an article of faith, they tell us, that the Church of Rome is the mother and mistress of all Churches, and therefore to cast off her authority, can never be lawful. We answer, the mother of all Churches, she certainly is not. is not. For in Jerusalem was the first Christian society, and from thence were derived many others, more ancient than that of Rome. Nor was that Church the mother of the British Churches, nor of all the English. But had the first persons that founded the Gospel here been sent from Rome, that had given them no manner of authority over us. Whence is she then the mistress? Why, St. Peter was head of the Church, and the Bishops of Rome are his successors. But the Scripture tells us, Christ is head of the Church, and tells us of no other. We own it was said to St. Peter, upon this rock will I build my Church §. But this rock, for aught they can ever prove, might be, not St. Peter's person, but his confession made immediately before: that Jesus was the Christ. Or, if the Church was to be built on St. Peter, yet not on him alone, but upon the foundation of all the Apostles and Prophets, as St. Paul teaches expressly. And accordingly, * Heb. xii. 23. † 2 Cor. vi. 15, 16, 17, 18. Eph. i. 22. iv. 15. § Matt. xvi. 18. | Eph. ii. 20.