THE Context is thus. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wiſe Maſter-builder, I have laid the foundation and another buildeth thereon: but let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay, than that which is laid, Jeſus Chriſt. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, ſilver, precious ſtones, wood, hay, ſtubble, every mans work ſhall be made manifeſt, for the day ſhall declare it; becauſe it ſhall be revealed by fire; and the fire ſhall try every mans work of what ſort it is. If any mans work abide which he hath built thereupon, he ſhall receive a reward. If any mans work ſhall be burnt, he ſhall ſuffer loſs; but he himſelf ſhall be ſaved, yet ſo as by fire.

In theſe Words the Apoſtle ſpeaks of a ſort of perſons, who held indeed the foundation of Chriſtianity, but built upon it ſuch doctrines or practices as would not bear the trial; which he expreſſes to us by wood, hay, and ſtubble, which are not proof againſt the fire. Such a perſon, the Apoſtle tells us, hath brought himſelf into a very dangerous ſtate, tho he would not deny the poſſibility of his ſalvation: He himſelf ſhall be ſaved, yet ſo as by fire.

That by fire here is not meant the fire of Purgatory, as ſome pretend (who would be glad of any ſhadow of a Text of Scripture to countenance their own dreams) I ſhall neither trouble you nor my ſelf to manifeſt; ſince the particle of ſimilitude [ 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ] plainly ſhews that the Apoſtle did not intend an eſcape out of the fire literally, but like to that which men make out of a Houſe or Town that is on fire. Eſpecially ſince very learned perſons of the Church of Rome do acknowledg that Purgatory cannot be concluded from this Text, nay all that Eſtius contends for from this place is, that it cannot be concluded from hence that there is no Purgatory; which we never pretended, but only that this Text does not prove it.

It is very well known that this is a Proverbial phraſe uſed not only in Scripture, but in prophane Authors to ſignifie a narrow eſcape out of a great danger. He ſhall be ſaved, yet ſo as by fire, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , out of the fire. Juſt as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is uſed 1 Pet. 3.20. where the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the eight perſons of Noah's family who eſcap'd the flood, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they eſcaped out of the water. So here this phraſe is to be rendred in the Text, he himſelf ſhall eſcape, yet ſo as out of the fire. The like expreſſion you have, Am. 4.11. I have pluckt them as a firebrand out of the fire. And Jude 23. Others ſave with fear, plucking them out of the fire. All which expreſſions ſignifie the greatneſs of the danger and the difficulty of eſcaping it; as one who when his houſe at midnight is ſet on fire, and being ſuddenly wak'd leaps out of his bed, and runs naked out of the doors, taking nothing that is within along with him, but imploying his whole care to ſave his body from the flames, as St. Chryſoſtom upon another occaſion expreſſeth it. And ſo the Roman Orator Tully. (who, it is likely did not think of Purgatory) uſeth this phraſe; Quo ex judicio, velut ex incendio, nudus effugit; From which Judgment or Sentence he eſcaped naked, as it were out of a burning. And one of the Greek Orators Ariſtides. tells us, That to ſave a man out of the fire, was a common proverbial ſpeech.

From the words thus explained, the Obſervation that naturally ariſeth is this, That men may hold all the Fundamentals of Chriſtian Religion, and yet may ſuperadd other things whereby they may greatly endanger their ſalvation. What thoſe things were which ſome among the Corinthians built upon the foundation of Chriſtianity, whereby they endanger'd their Salvation, we may probably conjecture by what the Apoſtle reproves in this Epiſtle, as the tolerating of inceſtuous marriages, communicating in Idol-feaſts, &c. And eſpecially by the doctrine of the falſe Apoſtles, who at that time did ſo much diſturb the peace of moſt Chriſtian Churches, and who are ſo often and ſo ſeverely reflected upon in this Epiſtle. And what their Doctrine was, we have an account Act. 15. viz. that they impoſed upon the Gentile Chriſtians Circumciſion, and the obſervation of the Jewiſh Law, teaching that unleſs they were circumciſed, and kept the Law of Moſes, they could not be ſaved. So that they did not only build theſe doctrines upon Chriſtianity, but they made them equal with the Foundation, ſaying, that unleſs men believed and practiſed ſuch things they could not be ſaved.

In ſpeaking to this Obſervation, I ſhall reduce my diſcourſe to theſe two Heads.

1. I ſhall preſent to you ſome Doctrines and Practices which have been built upon the Foundation of Chriſtianity, to the great hazard and danger of mens ſalvation. And to b • plain, I mean particularly the Church of Rome ▪

2. I ſhall enquire, whether our granting poſſibility of ſalvation (tho with great hazard to thoſe in the Communion of the Rome ▪ Church, and their denying it to us, be a rea • ſonable argument and encouragement to an • man to betake himſelf to that Church.

And there is the more reaſon to conſider • heſe things, when ſo many ſeducing Spirits • re ſo active and buſie to pervert men from • he truth; and when we ſee every day ſo many men and their Religion ſo eaſily parted. • or this reaſon theſe two Conſiderations ſhall • e the ſubject of the following diſcourſe.

I. Firſt. We will conſider ſome Doctrines and Practices which the Church of Rome hath built upon the foundation of Chriſtianity, to the great hazard and danger of mens ſalvation. It is not denied by the moſt judicious Proteſtants, but that the Church of Rome do hold all the Articles of the Chriſtian Faith which are neceſſary to ſalvation. But that which we charge upon them, as a juſt ground of our ſeparation from them, is, the impoſing • f n • w Doctrines and Practices upon Chriſtians as neceſſary to ſalvation, which were never taught by our Saviour, or his Apoſtles; and which are either directly contrary to the doctrine of Chriſtianity, or too apparently deſtructive of a good life. And I begin

1. With their Doctrines. And becauſe I have no mind to aggravate leſſer matters, I will ſingle out four or five points of Doctrine, which they have added to the Chriſtian Religion, and which were neither taught by our Saviour and his Apoſtles, nor own'd in the firſt Ages of Chriſtianity. And the

Firſt which I ſhall mention, and which bein • once admitted makes way for as many e •• rors as they pleaſe to bring in, is their Doctri •• of Infallibility. And this they are very ſt •• and peremptory in, tho they are not agree • among themſelves where this Infallibility • ſeated; whether in the Pope alone, or a Cou •• cil alone, or in both together, or in the diffuſi •• body of Chriſtians. But they are ſure they hav • it, tho they know not where it is.

And is this no prejudice againſt it? can an • man think that this priviledg was at fir •• conferred upon the Church of Rome, and tha • Chriſtians in all Ages did believe it, and ha •• conſtant recourſe to it for determining thei • differences, and yet that that very Churc • which hath enjoyed and uſed it ſo long ſhoul • now be at a loſs where to find it? Nothing could have fallen out more unluckily, tha • that there ſhould be ſuch differences among them about that which they pretend to be th • onely means of ending all differences.

There is not the leaſt intimation in Scripture of this priviledg conferr'd upon the Roman Church, nor do the Apoſtes, in all thei • Epiſtles, ever ſo much as give the leaſt direction to Chriſtians to appeal to the Biſhop o • Rome for a determination of the many differences which even in thoſe times happen'd among them: And it is ſtrange they ſhould be ſo ſilent in this matter, when there were ſo many occaſions to ſpeak of it, if our Saviour had plainly appointed ſuch an infallible Judge of controverſies for this very end to decide the differences that ſhould happen among Chriſtians. It is ſtrange that the ancient Fathers in their diſputes with Hereticks ſhould never appeal to this Judg; nay, it is ſtrange they ſhould not conſtantly do it in all caſes, it being ſo ſhort and expedite a way for the ending of controverſies. And this very conſideration to a wiſe man is inſtead of a thouſand arguments to ſatisfie him, that in thoſe times no ſuch thing was believed in the world.

Now this Doctrine of infallibility, if it be not true, is of ſo much the more pernicious conſequence to Chriſtianity, becauſe the conceit of it does confirm them that think they have it in all their other errors; and gives them a pretence of aſſuming an Authority to themſelves to impoſe their own fancies and miſtakes upon the whole Chriſtian world.

2. Their Doctrine about Repentance, which conſiſts in confeſſing their ſins to the Prieſt; which if it be but accompanied with any degree of contrition does upon abſolution received from the Prieſt, put them into a ſtate of ſalvation, tho they have lived the moſt lewd and debauched lives that can be imagin'd; than which nothing can be more plainly deſtructive of a good life. For if this be true, all the hazard that the moſt wicked man runs of his ſalvation is only the danger of ſo ſudden a death as gives him no ſpace for confeſſion and abſolution. A caſe that happens ſo rarely, that any man that is ſtrongly addicted to his luſts will be content to venture his ſalvation upon this hazard; and all the arguments to a good life will be very inſignificant to a man that hath a mind to be wicked, when remiſſion of ſins may be had upon ſuch cheap terms.

3. The Doctrine of Purgatory; By which they mean an eſtate of temporary puniſhments after this life, from which men may be releaſed and tranſlated into Heaven by the prayers of the living, and the ſacrifice of the Maſs. That this Doctrine was not known in the primitive Church, nor can be proved from Scripture, we have the free acknowledgment of as learned and eminent men as any of that Church; which is to acknowledg that it is a ſuperſtructure upon the Chriſtian Religion. And though in one ſenſe it be indeed a buildding of Gold and Silver upon the foundation of Chriſtianity, conſidering the vaſt revenues which this Doctrine (and that of Indulgences, which depends upon it) brings into that Church; yet I doubt not, but in the Apoſtles ſenſe, it will be found to be hay and ſtubble. But how groundleſs ſoever it be, it is too gainful a Doctrine to be eaſily parted withall.

4. The Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation. A hard word, but I would to God that were the worſt of it; the thing is much more difficult. I have taken ſome pains to conſider other Re • igions that have been in the world, and I muſt freely declare, that I never yet in any of them met with any Article or Propoſition, impoſed upon the belief of men, half ſo unreaſonable and hard to be believed as this is: And yet this in the Romiſh Church is eſteemed one of the moſt principal Articles of the Chriſtian Faith; though there is no more certain foundation for it in Scripture, than for our Saviour's being ſubſtantially changed into all thoſe things which are ſaid of him, as that he is a rock, a vine, a door, and a hundred other things.

But this is not all. This Doctrine hath not onely no certain Foundation in Scripture, but I have a far heavier charge againſt it, namely, that it undermines the very foundation of Chriſtianity it ſelf. And ſurely nothing ought to be admitted to be a part of the Chriſtian Doctrine which deſtroys the reaſon of our belief of the whole. And that this Doctrine does ſo, will appear evidently, if we conſider what was the main argument which the Apoſtles uſed to convince the world of the truth of Chriſtianity; and that was this, That our bleſſed Saviour, the Author of this Doctrine, wrought ſuch and ſuch miracles, and particularly that he roſe again from the dead: And this they proved becauſe they were eye-witneſſes of his miracles, and had ſeen him and co •• verſed with him after he was riſen from t •• dead. But what if their ſenſes did decei • them in this matter? then it cannot be d •• nied but that the main proof of Chriſtiani •• falls to the ground.

Well! We will now ſuppoſe (as t •• Church of Rome does) Tranſubſtantiation 〈◊〉 have been one principal part of the Chriſti •• Doctrine which the Apoſtles preached. B • if this Doctrine be true, then all mens ſen •• are deceived in a plain ſenſible matter, wher • in 'tis as hard for them to be deceived as 〈◊〉 any thing in the world: For two things ca • hardly be imagin'd more different, than little bit of wafer, and the whole body of man.

So that the Apoſtles perſwading men to b •• lieve this Doctrine, perſwaded them not 〈◊〉 truſt their ſenſes, and yet the argument whic • they uſed to perſwade them to this was bui •• upon the direct contrary principle, that me • ſenſes are to be truſted. For if they be no • then notwithſtanding all the evidence the A • poſtles offer'd for the reſurrection of our Sa • viour he might not be riſen, and ſo the fait • of Chriſtians was vain. So that they repre • ſent the Apoſtles as abſurd as is poſſible, vi • going about to perſwade men out of the •• ſenſes by virtue of an argument, the who • ſtrength whereof depends upon the certain • ty of ſenſe.

And now the matter is brought to a fair • e; If the teſtimony of ſenſe be to be relied on, then Tranſubſtantiation is falſe; If it be • t, then no man is ſure that Chriſtianity is • e. For the utmoſt aſſurance that the A •• ſtles had of the truth of Chriſtianity was • e teſtimony of their own ſenſes concerning • r Saviour's miracles, and this teſtimony • ery man hath againſt Tranſubſtantiation. • om whence it plainly follows, that no man • o not the Apoſtles themſelves) had more • aſon to believe Chriſtianity to be true, than • ery man hath to believe Tranſubſtantiation 〈◊〉 be falſe. And we who did not ſee our Sa •• our's Miracles (as the Apoſtles did) and •• ve only a credible relation of them, but do • e the Sacrament, have leſs evidence of the •• uth of Chriſtianity than of the falſhood of • ranſubſtantiation.

But cannot God impoſe upon the ſenſes of • en, and repreſent things to them otherwiſe • an they are? Yes, undoubtedly. And if he • ath revealed that he doth this, are we not 〈◊〉 believe him? Moſt certainly. But then we • ight to be aſſured that he hath made ſuch a • evelation; which Aſſurance no man can have, • e certainty of ſenſe being taken away.

I ſhall preſs the buſineſs a little farther. • uppoſing the Scripture to be a Divine Revela • ion, and that theſe words (This is my Body) 〈◊〉 they be in Scripture, muſt neceſſarily be taken in the ſtrict and literal ſenſe; I ask no • ▪ What greater evidence any man has th 〈…〉 theſe words (This is my Body) are in the 〈…〉 ble, than every man has that the Bread 〈…〉 not chang'd in the Sacrament? Nay no m 〈…〉 has ſo much; for we have only the eviden 〈…〉 of one ſenſe that theſe words are in the Bib •• but that the Bread is not chang'd we have t 〈…〉 concurring teſtimony of ſeveral of our ſenſ 〈…〉 ▪ In a word, if this be once admmitted th 〈…〉 the Senſes of all men are deceiv'd in one 〈…〉 the moſt plain ſenſible matters that can b 〈…〉 there is no certain means left either to conv 〈…〉 or prove a Divine Revelation to men; nor 〈…〉 there any way to confute the groſſeſt imp 〈…〉 ſtures in the World: For if the clear eviden 〈…〉 of all mens ſenſes be not ſufficient for this p 〈…〉 poſe, let any man, if he can, find a better a 〈…〉 more convincing argument.

5. I will inſtance but in one Doctrine mo 〈…〉 ▪ And that ſhall be, their Doctrine of depoſ 〈…〉 Kings in caſe of Hereſie, and abſolving th 〈…〉 Subjects from their Allegiance to them. A 〈…〉 this is not a meer ſpeculative Doctrine, b 〈…〉 hath been put in practice many a time by t 〈…〉 Biſhops of Rome, as every one knows that 〈…〉 vers'd in Hiſtory. For the troubles and co 〈…〉 fuſions which were occaſion'd by this ve 〈…〉 thing make up a good part of the Hiſtory 〈…〉 ſeveral Ages.

I hope no body expects that I ſhould take the pains to ſhew that this was not the Doctrine of our Saviour and his Apoſtles, nor of the Primitive Chriſtians. The Papiſts are many of them ſo far from pretending this, that in ſome times and places, when it is not ſeaſonable and for their purpoſe, we have much a-do to perſwade them that ever it was their Doctrine. But if Tranſubſtantiation be their Doctrine, this is; for they came both out of the ſame Forge, I mean the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third. And if (as they tell us) Tranſubſtantiation was then eſtabliſh'd, ſo was this. And indeed one would think they were Twins and brought forth at the ſame time, they are ſo like one another, both of them ſo moſtrouſly unreaſonable.

II. I come now in the ſecond place to conſider ſome Practices of the Church of Rome, which I am afraid will prove as bad as her Doctrines. I ſhall inſtance in theſe five.

1. Their celebrating of their Divine ſervice in an unknown Tongue. And that not only contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church, and to the great end and deſign of Religious Worſhip, which is the Edification of thoſe who are concerned in it, (and it is hard to imagine how men can be edified by what they do not underſtand) but likewiſe in direct Contradiction to St. Paul, who hath no leſs than a whole Chapter wherein he confutes this Practice as fully, and condemns it as plainly as any thing is condemned in the whole Bible. And they that can have the face to maintain that this Practice was not condemned by St. Paul, or that it was allowed and uſed in the firſt Ages of Chriſtianity, need not be aſhamed to ſet up for the defence of any Paradox in the World.

2. The Communion in one kind. And that notwithſtanding that even by their own acknowledgment our Saviour inſtituted it in both kinds, and the Primitive Church adminiſtred it in both kinds. This I muſt acknowledg is no addition to Chriſtianity, but a ſacrilegious taking away of an eſſential part of the Sacrament. For the Cup is as eſſential a part of the Inſtitution as the Bread; and they might as well, and by the ſame Authority, take away the one as the other, and both as well as either.

3. Their worſhipping of Images. Which practice (notwithſtanding all their Diſtinctions about it, which are no other but what the Heathens uſed in the ſame caſe) is as point-blank againſt the ſecond Commandment, as a deliberate and malicious killing of a man is againſt the ſixth. But if the caſe be ſo plain, a man would think that at leaſt the Teachers and Guides of that Church ſhould be ſenſible of it. Why, they are ſo, and afraid the people ſhould be ſo too, and therefore in their ordinary Catechiſms and Manuals of Devotion they leave out the ſecond Commandment, and divide the tenth into two to make up the number; leſt if the common people ſhould know 〈…〉 t their Conſciences ſhould ſtart at the doing of a thing ſo directly contrary to the plain command of God.

4. The worſhipping of the bread and wine in the Euchariſt, out of a falſe and groundleſs perſwaſion, that they are ſubſtantially changed into the body and blood of Chriſt. Which if it be not true (and it hath good fortune if it be, for certainly it is one of the moſt incredible things in the whole World) then by the confeſſion of ſeveral of their own learned Writers, they are guilty of groſs Idolatry.

5. The worſhip and invocation of Saints and Angels; and particularly of the Virgin Mary, which hath now for ſome Ages been a principal part of their Religion. Now a man may juſtly wonder that ſo conſiderable a part of Religion as they make this to be ſhould have no manner of foundation in the Scripture. Does our Saviour any where ſpeak one word concerning the worſhipping of Her? Nay, does he not take all occaſions to reſtrain all extravagant apprehenſions and imaginations concerning honour due to Her, as foreſeeing the degeneracy of the Church in this thing? When he was told that his Mother and Brethren were without; Who (ſays he) are my mother and my brethren? He that doth the will of my Father, the ſame is my mother, and ſiſter, and brother. And when the Woman brake forth into that rapture concerning the bleſſed Mother of our Lord, Bleſſed is the womb • that bare thee, and the paps that gave thee ſuck! Our Saviour diverts to another thing, Yea, rather, bleſſed are they that hear the word of God and keep it. Does either our Saviour or his Apoſtles in all their particular Precepts and Directions concerning Prayer, and the manner of it, and by whom we are to addreſs our ſelves to God, give the leaſt intimation of praying to the Virgin Mary, or making uſe of her Mediation? And can any man believe, that if this had been the practice of the Church from the beginning, our Saviour and his Apoſtles would have been ſo ſilent about ſo conſiderable a part of Religion; inſomuch that in all the Epiſtles of the Apoſtles I do not remember that her Name is ſo much as once mentioned? And yet the worſhip of her is at this day in the Church of Rome, and hath been ſo for ſeveral Ages, a main part of their publick worſhip, yea and of their private devotions too; in which it is uſual with them to ſay ten Ave Maries for one Pater Noſter; that is, for one Prayer they make to Almighty God they make ten addreſſes to the bleſſed Virgin; for that is the proportion obſerved in their Roſaries. He that conſiders this, and had never ſeen the Bible, would have been apt to think that there had been more ſaid concerning Her in Scripture, than either concerning God, or our bleſſed Saviour; and that the New Teſtament were full from one end to the other of precepts and exhortations to the worſhipping of Her; and yet when all is done, I challenge any man to ſhew me ſo much as one ſentence in the whole Bible that ſounds that way. And there is as little in the Chriſtian Writers of the firſt three hundred years. The truth is, this practice began to creep in among ſome ſuperſtitious people about the middle of the fourth Century: And I remember particularly, that Epiphanius who lived about that time calls it the Hereſie of the Women.

And thus I have given you ſome Inſtances of ſeveral Doctrines and Practices which the Church of Rome have built upon the Foundation of Chriſtianity. Much more might have been ſaid of them, but from what hath been ſaid any man may eaſily diſcern how dangerous they are to the ſalvation of men.

I proceed now in the ſecond place,

II. To conſider, whether our granting a poſſibility of ſalvation, tho with great hazard to thoſe in the Communion of the Roman Church, and their denying it to us, be a ſufficient argument and encouragement to any man to quit our Church and go to theirs. And there is the more need to conſider this, becauſe thi • is the great popular argument wherewith th • emiſſaries and agents of that Church are won • to aſſault our people. Your Church (ſay they) grants that a Papiſt may be ſaved; Ours denies that a Proteſtant can be ſaved; therefore it is ſafeſt to be of our Church, in which ſalvation by the acknowledgment of both ſides is poſſible.

For anſwer to this I ſhall endeavour to ſhew, that this is ſo far from being a good argument that it is ſo intolerably weak and ſophiſtica 〈…〉 that any conſiderate man ought to be aſham'd to be catch'd by it. For either it is good of it ſelf and ſufficient to perſwade a man to relinquiſh our Church, and to paſs over to theirs, without entring into the merits of the cauſe on either ſide, and without comparing the Doctrines and Practices of both the Churches together, or it is not. If it be not ſufficient of it ſelf to perſwade a man to leave our Church, without comparing the Doctrines on both ſides, then it is to no purpoſe, and there is nothing got by it. For if upon examination and comparing of Doctrines the one appear to be true and the other falſe, this alone is a ſufficient inducement to any man to cleave to that Church where the true Doctrine is found and then there is no need of this argument.

If it be ſaid, that this argument is good in it ſelf without the examination of the Doctrines of both Churches; this ſeems a very ſtrange thing for any man to affirm, That it is reaſon enough to a man to be of any Church, whatever her Doctrines and Practices be, if ſhe do but damn thoſe that differ from her, and if the Church that differs from her do but allow a poſſibility of ſalvation in her Communion.

But they who uſe this argument, pretend that it is ſufficient of it ſelf; and therefore I ſhall apply my ſelf to ſhew, as briefly and plainly as I can, the miſerable weakneſs and inſufficiency of it to ſatisfie any mans conſcience or prudence to change his Religion. And to this end I ſhall,

1. Shew the weakneſs of the principle upon which this argument relies.

2. Give ſome parallel inſtances by which it will appear that it concludes falſe.

3. I ſhall take notice of ſome groſs abſurdities that follow from it.

4. Shew how unfit it is to work upon thoſe to whom it is propounded. And

5. How improper it is to be urged by thoſe that make uſe of it.

I. I ſhall ſhew the weakneſs of the principle upon which this argument relies; And that is this, That whatever different parties in Religion agree in, is ſafeſt to be choſen. The true conſequence of which principle if it be driven to the head, is to perſwade men to forſake Chriſtianity, and to make them take up in th • principles of natural Religion, for in theſe al • Religions do agree. For if this principle b • true, and ſignifie any thing, it is dangerous to embrace any thing wherein the ſeveral par • ties in Religion differ; becauſe that only i • ſafe and prudent to be choſen wherein all a • gree. So that this argument, if the foundati • on of it be good, will perſwade further tha • thoſe who make uſe of it deſire it ſhould do for it will not only make men forſake the Pro • teſtant Religion, but Popery too; and which is much more conſiderable, Chriſtianity it ſelf▪

II. I will give ſome parallel inſtances by which it will clearly be ſeen that this argu • ment concludes falſe. The Donatiſts denied th • Baptiſm of the Catholicks to be good, but th • Catholicks acknowledged the Baptiſm of th • Donatiſts to be valid. So that both ſides wer • agreed that the Baptiſm of the Donatiſts wa • good, therefore the ſafeſt way for St. Auſti • and other Catholicks (according to this ar • gument) was to be Baptized again by th • Donatiſts, becauſe by the acknowledgment o • both ſides Baptiſm among them was valid.

But to come nearer to the Church of Rome Several in that Church hold the perſonal In • fallibility of the Pope and the lawfulneſs of de • poſing and killing Kings for Hereſie to be d •••• de, that is, neceſſary Articles of Faith, and • onſequently, that whoever does not believe • hem cannot be ſaved, But a great many Pa • iſts, tho they believe theſe things to be no matters of Faith, yet they think thoſe that • old them may be ſaved, and they are gene • ally very favourable towards them. But now, • ccording to this argument, they ought all to • e of their opinion in theſe points, becauſe • oth ſides are agreed that they that hold them may be ſaved; but one ſide poſitively ſays that men cannot be ſaved if they do not hold them.

But my Text furniſheth me with as good • n inſtance to this purpoſe as can be deſired. St. Paul here in the Text acknowledgeth the poſſibility of the ſalvation of thoſe who built • ay and ſtubble upon the foundation of Chriſtianity; that they might be ſaved, tho with great difficulty, and as it were out of the fire. But now among thoſe builders with hay and ſtubble there were thoſe who denied the poſſibility of St. Paul's ſalvation and of thoſe who were of his mind. We are told of ſome who built the Jewiſh Ceremonies and Obſervances upon the foundation of Chriſtianity, and ſaid that unleſs men were Circumciſed and kept the Law of Moſes they could not be ſaved. So that by this argument St. Paul and his followers ought to have gone over to thoſe Judaizing Chriſtians, becauſe it was acknowledged on both ſides that they might be ſaved. But theſe Judaizing Chriſtians were as unchari ••• ble to St. Paul and other Chriſtians as t • Church of Rome is now to us, for they ſa • poſitively that they could not be ſaved. But 〈◊〉 any man think that St. Paul would have be •• moved by this argument, to leave a ſafe an • certain way of ſalvation for that which w • only poſſible, and that with great difficult and hazard? The argument you ſee is the v •• ry ſame, and yet it concludes the wrong way • which plainly ſhews that it is a contingent arg •• ment, and concludes uncertainly and by chance and therefore no man ought to be moved by i •

III. I ſhall take notice of ſome groſs abſurd •• ties that follow from it. I ſhall mention bu • theſe two.

1. According to this principle it is alway • ſafeſt to be on the uncharitable ſide. And yet uncharitableneſs is as bad an evidence, either of a true Chriſtian, or a true Church, as a man would wiſh. Charity is one of the moſt eſſential marks of Chriſtianity, and what the Apoſtle ſaith of particular Chriſtians is as true of whole Churches, that tho they have all Faith, yet if they have not Charity they are nothing.

I grant that no Charity teacheth men to ſee others damned, and not to tell them the danger of their condition. But it is to be conſider'd that the damning of men is a very hard thing, and therefore whenever we do it the caſe muſt be wonderfully plain. And is • t ſo in this matter? They of the Church of Rome cannot deny but that we embrace all • he Doctrines of our Saviour, contain'd in the Apoſtles Creed and determined by the four •• rſt General Councils: And yet they will • ot allow this and a good life to put us with • n a poſſibility of ſalvation, becauſe we will • ot ſubmit to all the innovations they would • mpoſe upon us. And yet I think there is ſcarce • ny Doctrine or Practice in difference between • hem and us, which ſome or other of their moſt learned Writers have not acknowledged • ither not to be ſufficiently contained in Scrip • ure, or not to have been held and practiſed • y the primitive Church; ſo that nothing an excuſe their uncharitableneſs towards us. • nd they pay dear for the little advantage • hey get by this argument, for they do what 〈◊〉 them lies to make themſelves no Chriſtians • hat they may prove themſelves the truer and more Chriſtian Church; A medium which • e do not deſire to make uſe of.

2. If this argument were good, then by this • ick a man may bring over all the world to • gree with him in an error which another • oes not account damnable, whatever it be, • rovided he do but damn all thoſe that do • ot hold it; and there wants nothing but •• nfidence and uncharitableneſs to do this. But 〈◊〉 there any ſence, that another mans bold • eſs and want of charity ſhould be an argument to move me to be of his opinion? cannot illuſtrate this better, than by the di •• ference between a skilful Phyſician and 〈◊〉 Mountebank. A learned and skilful Phyſicia • is modeſt, and ſpeaks juſtly of things: H • ſays, that ſuch a method of cure which h • hath directed is ſafe, and withall, that tha • which the Mountebank preſcribes may poſſibly do the work, but there is great hazard and danger in it: But the Mountebank, who neve • talks of any thing leſs than infallible cures (and always the more Mountebank, the ſtrong • er pretence to infallibiliiy) he is poſitive tha • that method which the Phyſician preſcribe • will deſtroy the Patient, but his receipt is infallible and never fails. Is there any reaſon in this caſe, that this man ſhould carry it meerly by his confidence? And yet if this argument be good, the ſafeſt way is to reject the Phyſicians advice and to ſtick to the Mountebanks ▪ For both ſides are agreed, that there is a poſſibility of cure in the Mountebank's method▪ but not in the Phyſicians; and ſo the whole force of the argument lies in the confidence of an ignorant man.

IV. This argument is very unfit to work upon thoſe to whom it is propounded: For either they believe we ſay true in this, or not. If they think we do not, they have no reaſon to be moved by what we ſay. If they think we do, why do they not take in all that we ſay in this matter? Namely, • at tho it be poſſible for ſome in the com • union of the Roman Church to be ſaved, • et it is very hazardous; and that they are 〈◊〉 a ſafe condition already in our Church. And • hy then ſhould a bare poſſibility, accompa • 'd with infinite and apparent hazard, be an • rgument to any man to run into that danger?

Laſtly, This argument is very improper to • e urged by thoſe who make uſe of it. Half • f the ſtrength of it lies in this, that we Pro • eſtants acknowledg that it is poſſible a Papiſt • ay be ſaved. But why ſhould they lay any •• reſs upon this? What matter is it what we Hereticks ſay, who are ſo damnably miſtaken • n all other things? Methinks, if there were • o other reaſon, yet becauſe we ſay it, it ſhould • eem to them to be unlikely to be true. But I • erceive when it ſerves for their purpoſe we • ave ſome little credit and authority among • hem.

By this time I hope every one is in ſome meaſure ſatisfied of the weakneſs of this argument, which is ſo tranſparent that no wiſe man • an honeſtly uſe it, and he muſt have a very • dd underſtanding that can be cheated by it. The truth is, it is a caſual and contingent argument, and ſometimes it concludes right, and • ftner wrong; and therefore no prudent man • an be moved by it, except only in one caſe, when all things are ſo equal on both ſides that there is nothing elſe in the whole wo •• to determine him; which ſurely can ne • happen in matters of Religion neceſſary to believed. No man is ſo weak, as not to con • der in the change of his Religion the me • of the cauſe it ſelf; as not to examine t •• Doctrines and Practices of the Churches 〈◊〉 both ſides; as not to take notice of the con ••• dence and Charity of both Parties, togeth •• with all other things which ought to move conſcientious and a prudent man: And if 〈◊〉 on enquiry there appear to be a clear adva •• tage on either ſide, then this argument is nee •• leſs and comes too late, becauſe the work already done without it.

Beſides, that the great hazard of ſalvatio • in the Roman Church (which we declare u • on account of the Doctrines and Practic • which I have mentioned) ought to deter • ny man much more from that Religion, th • the acknowledged poſſibility of ſalvation 〈◊〉 it ought to encourage any man to the embr •• cing of it: Never did any Chriſtian Churc • build ſo much hay and ſtubble upon the found •• tion of Chriſtianity, and therefore thoſe th • are ſaved in it muſt be ſaved, as it were, out 〈◊〉 the fire. And tho Purgatory be not meant i • the Text, yet it is a Doctrine very well ſuite to their manner of building; for there is nee • of an ignis purgatorius, of a fire to try the •• work what it is, and to burn up their hay an • •• ubble. And I have ſo much Charity (and I •• ſire always to have it) as to hope, that a • eat many among them who live piouſly, and • ve been almoſt inevitably detain'd in that • hurch by the prejudice of education and an •• vincible ignorance, will upon a general re •• ntance find mercy with God; and tho their • rk ſuffer loſs and be burnt, yet they themſelves • ay eſcape, as out of the fire. But as for thoſe • ho had the opportunities of coming to the • nowledg of the truth, if they continue in the • rors of that Church, or apoſtatize from the • uth, I think their condition ſo far from being • e that there muſt be extraordinary favou •• ble circumſtances in their caſe to give a man •• pes of their ſalvation.

I have now done with the two things I pro •• unded to ſpeak to. And I am ſorry that the •• ceſſary defence of our Religion, againſt the •• ſtleſs importunities and attempts of our ad •• rſaries upon all ſorts of perſons, hath enga •• d me to ſpend ſo much time in matters of •• ſpute, which I had much rather have em •• oyed in another way. Many of you can be • y witneſſes that I have conſtantly made it • y buſineſs, in this great Preſence and Aſſem •• y to plead againſt the impieties and wicked •• ſs of men, and have endeavoured by the beſt •• guments I could think of to gain men over 〈◊〉 a firm belief and ſerious practice of the main • ings of Religion. And, I do aſſure you, I had much rather perſwade any one to be good man, than to be of any party or de • mination of Chriſtians whatſoever. For doubt not, but the belief of the ancient Cre • provided we entertain nothing that is deſtr •• ctive of it, together with a good life, will ce •• tainly ſave a man; and without this no m • can have reaſonable hopes of ſalvation, no 〈◊〉 an infallible Church, if there were any ſuch • be found in the world.

I have been, according to my opportuniti • not a negligent obſerver of the genius a • humour of the ſeveral Sects and Profeſſio • in Religion. And upon the whole matter▪ do in my conſcience believe the Church of E •• gland to be the beſt conſtituted Church th • day in the world; and that, as to the ma • the Doctrine and Government, and Worſhip 〈◊〉 it, are excellently framed to make men ſobe • Religious: Securing men on the one han • from the wild freaks of Enthuſiaſm; and 〈◊〉 the other, from the groſs follies of Superſti • on. And our Church hath this peculiar adva •• tage above ſeveral Profeſſions that we know 〈◊〉 the world, that it acknowledgeth a due a • juſt ſubordination to the civil Authority, an • hath always been untainted in its loyalty.

And now ſhall every trifling conſideratio • be ſufficient to move a man to relinquiſh ſuc • a Church? There is no greater diſparag • ment to a mans underſtanding, no greater a ••• ument of a light and ungenerous mind, than • ſhly to change ones Religion. Religion is • r greateſt concernment of all other, and it 〈◊〉 not every little argument, no nor a great • iſe about infallibility, nothing but very plain • nd convincing evidence, that ſhould ſway a • an in this caſe. But they are utterly inexcu •• ble who make a change of ſuch concernment • pon the inſinuations of one ſide only, with • ut ever hearing what can be ſaid for the • hurch they were baptized and brought up 〈◊〉 before they leave it. They that can yield • us eaſily to the impreſſions of every one • at hath a deſign and intereſt to make Pro •• lytes may at this rate of diſcretion change •• eir Religion twice a day, and inſtead of mor •• ng and evening Prayer they may have a mor •• ng and evening Religion.

Therefore for God's ſake, and for our own • ouls ſake, and for the ſake of our Reputation, • t us conſider and ſhew our ſelves men; Let 〈◊〉 not ſuffer our ſelves to be ſhaken and carried • way with every wind. Let us not run our •• lves into danger when we may be ſafe. Let 〈◊〉 ſtick to the foundation of Religion, the Ar •• cles of our common belief, and build upon •• em gold, and ſilver, and precious ſtones, I • ean, the vertues and actions of a good life; • d if we would do this, we ſhould not be • t to ſet ſuch a value upon hay and ſtubble. 〈◊〉 we would ſincerely endeavour to live holy and vertuous lives, we ſhould not need to 〈◊〉 about for a Religion which may furniſh with eaſie and indirect ways to get to Heav •

I will conclude all with the Apoſtles Exh ••• tation, Wherefore my beloved brethren be ſteadfaſt and unmoveable, always abounding the work of the Lord.

Now the God of peace which brought gain from the dead our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, 〈◊〉 great Shepherd of the ſheep, by the blood of everlaſting Covenant, make you perfect in ev • good work, to do his will; working in you t • which is well-pleaſing in his ſight, through Je ••• Chriſt, to whom be Glory for ever and ev • Amen.