efpecially by the doctrine of the falfe apostles, who at that time did fo much disturb the peace of most Christian churches, and who are so often and so feverely reflected upon in this epiftle. And what their doctrine was, we have an account, Acts xv. viz. that they impofed upon the Gentile Chriftians circumcifion, and the observation of the Jewish law, teaching, that unless they were circumcifed, and kept the law of Mofes, they could not be faved. So that they did not only build thefe doctrines upon Christianity, but they made them equal with the foundation, faying, that unless men believed and practised fuch things, they could not be faved.

In fpeaking to this obfervation, I fhall reduce my difcourfe to these two heads.

I. I fhall prefent to you some doctrines and practices which have been built upon the foundation of Christianity, to the great hazard and danger of mens falvation : and, to be plain, I mean particularly the church of Rome.

2. I fhall inquire, whether our granting a poffibility of Talvation, though with great hazard, to thofe in the communion of the Roman church, and their denying it to us, be a reasonable argument and encouragement to any man to betake himself to that church.

And there is the more reason to confider these things, when fo many feducing spirits are so active and busy to pervert men from the truth, and when we fee every day fo many men and their religion fo eafily parted. For this reason these two confiderations fhall be the subject of the following discourse.

Firft, We will confider fome doctrines and practices which the church of Rome hath built upon the foundation of Christianity, to the great hazard and danger of mens falvation. It is not denied by the most judicious Proteftants, but that the church of Rome do hold all the articles of the Christian faith which are neceffary to falvation; but that which we charge upon them, as a juft ground of our feparation from them, is, the impofing of new doctrines and practices upon Chriftians as neceffary to falvation, which were never taught by our Saviour or his Apostles; and which are either directly contrary to

the

the doctrine of Christianity, or too apparently deftru&tive of a good life. And I begin,

I. With their doctrines. And becaufe I have no mind to aggravate leffer matters, I will fingle 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 Apoftles, nor owned in the first ages of Christianity. And the

First which I fhall mention, and which, being once admitted, makes way for as many errors as they please to bring in, is, their doctrine of infallibility. And this they are very stiff and peremptory in, though they are not agreed among themselves where this infallibility is feated; whether in the Pope alone, or a council alone, or in both together, or in the diffufive body of Chriftians. But they are fure they have it, though they know not where it is.

And is this no prejudice against it? Can any man think, that this privilege was at first conferred upon the church of Rome, and that Chriftians in all ages did believe it, and had conftant recourse to it for determining their differences; and yet that that very church, which hath enjoyed and used it so long, fhould now be at a lofs where to find it? Nothing could have fallen out more unluckily, than that there fhould be fuch differences among them about that which they pretend to be the only means of ending all differences.

There is not the least intimation in fcripture of this privilege conferred upon the Roman church; nor do the Apoftles, in all their epiftles, ever fo much as give the least direction to Christians to appeal to the Bishop of Rome for a determination of the many differences which even in those times happened among them. And it is ftrange they should be fo filent in this matter, when there were fo many occafions to fpeak of it. If our Saviour had plainly appointed fuch 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 difputes with hereticks, fhould never appeal to this judge: nay, it is ftrange they fhould not conftantly do it in all cafes, it being. fo fhort and expedite a way for the ending of controverfies.

verfies. And this very confideration to a wife man is instead of a thousand arguments, to fatisfy him, that in those times no fuch thing was believed in the world.

Now, this doctrine of infallibility, if it be not true, is of fo much the more pernicious confequence to Christianity, becaufe the conceit of it does confirm them that think they have it, in all their other errors, and gives them a pretence of affuming an authority to themselves to impofe their own fancies and mistakes upon the whole Christian world.

2. Their doctrine about repentance, which confifts in confeffing their fins to the priest; which, if it be but accompanied with any degree of contrition, does, upon abfolution received from the priest, put them into a state of falvation, though they have lived the most lewd and debauched lives that can be imagined. Than which nothing can be more plainly deftructive of a good life: for, if this be true, all the hazard that the most wicked man runs of his falvation, is only the danger of fo fudden a death, as gives him no space for confeffion and abfolution: A cafe that happens fo rarely, that any man that is ftrongly addicted to his lufts, will be content to venture his falvation upon this hazard; and all the arguments to a good life will be very infignificant to a man that hath a mind to be wicked, when remiffion of fins may be had upon fuch cheap terms.

3. The doctrine of purgatory: by which they mean an eftate of temporary punishments after this life, from which men may be released, and tranflated into heaven, by the prayers of the living, and the facrifice of the mafs. That this doctrine was not known in the primitive church, nor can be proved from fcripture, we have the free acknowledgment of as learned and eminent men as any of that church; which is to acknow-ledge, that it is a fuperftructure upon the Chriftian religion. And though in one fenfe it be indeed a building of gold and filver upon the foundation of Chriftianity, confidering the valt revenues which this doctrine, and that of indulgences, which depends upon it, brings into that church; yet I doubt not but, in the Apostle's fenfe, it will be found to be hay and ftubble. But how groundles

VOL.I.

R

༡

groundlefs foever it be, it is too gainful a doctrine to be eafily parted withal.

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 fome pains to confider other religions that have been in the world, and I must freely declare, that I never yet, in any of them, met with any article or propofition, impofed upon the belief of men, half fo 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 Chriftian faith; though there is no more certain foundation for it in fcripture, than for our Saviour's being fubftantially changed into all those things which are faid 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 only no certain foundation in fcripture, but I have a far heavier charge againft it; namely, that it undermines the very foundation of Christianity itself. And, furely, nothing ought to be admitted to be a part of the Christian doctrine, which deftroys the reafon of our belief of the whole. And that this doctrine does fo, 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 bleffed Saviour, the author of this doctrine, wrought fuch and fuch miracles; and particularly, that he rofe again from the dead. And this they proved, because they were eye-witnesses of his miracles, and had feen him, and converfed with him, after he was rifen from the dead. But what if their fenfes did deceive them in this matter? then it cannot be denied, but that the main proof of Christianity falls to the ground.

Well! we will now fuppofe, as the church of Rome does, tranfubftantiation to have been one principal part of the Chriftian doctrine which the Apoftles preached. But if this doctrine be true, then all mens fenfes are deceived in a plain fenfible matter, wherein it is as hard for them to be deceived, as in any thing in the world: for two things can hardly be imagined more different, than a Ettle bit of wafer, and the whole body of a man. So

'that

that the Apostles perfuading men to believe this doctrine, perfuaded them not to truft their fenses; and yet the argument which they used to perfuade them to this, was built upon the direct contrary principle, That mens fenfes are to be trufted. For if they be not, then, notwithstanding all the evidence the Apostles offered for the refurrection of our Saviour, he might not be rifen; and fo the faith of Chriftians was vain. So that they represent the Apostles as abfurd as is poffible, viz. going about to perfuade men out of their fenfes by virtue of an argument, the whole ftrength whereof depends upon the certainty of fenfe.

And now the matter is brought to a fair iffue. If the teftimony of fenfe be to be relied upon, then tranfubftantiation is false; if it be not, then no man is sure that Christianity is true. For the utmost affurance that the Apoftles had of the truth of Christianity, was the teftimony of their own fenfes concerning our Saviour's miracles; and this testimony every man hath against tranfubftantiation. From whence it plainly follows, that no man, no not the Apostles themfelves, had more reason to believe Christianity to be true, than every man hath to believe tranfubftantiation to be falfe. And we who did not see our Saviour's miracles, as the Apostles did, and have only a credible relation of them, but do fee the facrament, have lefs evidence of the truth of Christianity, than of the falfhood of tranfubftantiation.

But cannot God impose upon the fenfes of men, and represent things to them otherwife than they are? Yes, undoubtedly. And if he hath revealed that he doth this, are we not to believe him? Moft certainly. But then, we ought to be affured that he hath made fuch a revelation; which affurance no man can have, the certainty of fense being taken away.

I fhall prefs the business a little farther. Suppofing the fcripture to be a divine revelation, and that these words, This is my body, if they be in fcripture, muft neceffarily be taken in the ftrict and literal fenfe; I ask now, what greater evidence any man has, that these words, This is my body, are in the Bible, than every man has that the bread is not changed in the facrament? Nay, no man has fomuch for we have only the evidence of one fenfe,

R 2

that