Sermons and Discourses Volume 2, Sermon 3
A SERMON Preached before the KING AT WHITE-HALL, In April 1672.
1 Cor. III.15.
But he himſelf ſhall be ſaved, yet ſo as by fire.
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, though he would not abſolutely 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 [foreign] plainly ſhews, that the Apoſtle did not intend an eſcape out of the fire literally, but ſuch an eſcape as 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, foreign, out of the fire. Juſt as foreign is uſed 1 Pet. 3.20. where the Apoſtle ſpeaking of the eight perſons of Noah's family, who eſcap'd the flood, foreign, 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, Amos 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. Chryſoſtome 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 *Ariſtidestells 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 repreſent 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 be plain, I mean particularly by the Church of Rome.
2. I ſhall enquire, whether our granting a poſſibility of ſalvation (though with great hazard) to thoſe 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 conſider theſe things, when ſo many ſeducing Spirits are ſo active and buſie to pervert men from the truth; and when we ſee every day ſo many and their Religion ſo eaſily parted. For this reaſon theſe two Conſiderations ſhall be 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 of new 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 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 ſeated; whether in the Pope alone, or a Council alone, or in both together, or in the diffuſive body of Chriſtians. But they are ſure they have it, though they know not where it is.
And is this no prejudice againſt it? can any man think, that this priviledg was at firſt conferred upon the Church of Rome, and that Chriſtians in all Ages did believe it, and had conſtant recourſe to it, for determining their differences, and yet that that very Church, which hath enjoyed and uſed it ſo long, ſhould now be at a loſs where to find it? Nothing could have fallen out more unluckily, than that there ſhould be ſuch differences among them, about that which they pretend to be the onelyonly means of ending all differences.
There is not the leaſt intimation in Scripture of this priviledg confer'd upon the Roman Church; nor do the Apoſtles, in all their Epiſtles, ever ſo 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 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 Judg 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, though 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 a ſtate 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 building 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 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 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 Saviours 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 only 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 converſed with him after he was riſen from the dead. But what if their ſenſes 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 ſuppoſe (as the Church of Rome does) Tranſubſtantiation to have been one principal part of the Chriſtian Doctrine, which the Apoſtles preached. But if this Doctrine be true, then all mens ſenſes are deceived in a plain ſenſible matter, wherein 'tis as hard for them to be deceived, as in any thing in the world: For two things can hardly be imagin'd more different, than a little bit of water, and the whole body of a man.
So that the Apoſtles perſwading men to believe this Doctrine, perſwaded them not to truſt their ſenſes, and yet the argument which they uſed to perſwade them to this was built upon the direct contrary principle, that mens ſenſes are to be truſted. For if they be not, then notwithſtanding all the evidence the Apoſtles offer'd for the reſurrection of our Saviour, he might not be riſen; and ſo the faith of Chriſtians was vain. So that they repreſent the Apoſtles as abſurdly as is poſſible, viz. going about to perſwade men out of their ſenſes, by virtue of an argument, the whole ſtrength whereof depends upon the certainty of ſenſe.
And now the matter is brought to a fair iſſue. If the teſtimony of ſenſe be to be relied upon, then Tranſubſtantiation is falſe: If it be not, then no man is ſure that Chriſtianity is true. For the utmoſt aſſurance that the Apoſtles had of the truth of Chriſtianity, was the teſtimony of their own ſenſes concerning our Saviours miracles; and this teſtimony every man hath againſt Tranſubſtantiation. From whence it plainly follows, that no man (no not the Apoſtles themſelves) had more reaſon to believe Chriſtianity to be true, than every man hath to believe Tranſubſtantiation to be falſe. And we who did not ſee our Saviours Miracles (as the Apoſtles did) and have only a credible relation of them, but do ſee the Sacrament, have leſs evidence of the truth of Chriſtianity than of the falſhood of Tranſubſtantiation.
But cannot God impoſe upon the ſenſes of men, and repreſent things to them otherwiſe than they are? Yes, undoubtedly. And if he hath revealed that he doth this, are we not to believe him? Moſt certainly. But then we ought to be aſſured that he hath made ſuch a Revelation; which Aſſurance no man can have, the certainty of ſenſe being taken away.
I ſhall preſs the buſineſs a little farther. Suppoſing the Scripture to be a Divine Revelation, and that theſe words [This is my Body] if they be in Scripture, muſt neceſſarily be taken in the ſtrict and literal ſenſe, 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 chang'd in the Sacrament? Nay no man has ſo much; for we have only the evidence of one ſenſe that theſe words are in the Bible, but that the Bread is not chang'd we have the concurring teſtimony of ſeveral of our ſenſes. In a word, if this be once admitted, that the Senſes of all men are deceiv'd in one of the moſt plain ſenſible matters that can be, there is no certain means left either to convey or prove a Divine Revelation to men; nor is there any way to confute the groſſeſt impoſtures in the World: For if the clear evidence of all mans ſenſes be not ſufficient for this purpoſe, let any man, if he can, find a better and more convincing argument.
5. I will inſtance but in one Doctrine more; And that ſhall be, their Doctrine of depoſing Kings in caſe of Hereſie, and abſolving their Subjects from their Allegiance to them. And this is not a meer ſpeculative Doctrine, but hath been put in practice many a time by the Biſhops of Rome, as every one knows that is vers'd in Hiſtory. For the troubles and confuſions which were occaſion'd by this very thing, make up a good part of the Hiſtory of 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, that is, both of them ſo monſtrouſly 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 it, 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 the 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, though 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 this is the great popular argument, wherewith the emiſſaries and agents of that Church are wont 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 ſophiſtical, 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 Practiſes 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 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 clearly 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 the principles of natural Religion, for in theſe all Religions do agree. For if this principle be true, and ſignifie any thing, it is dangerous to embrace any thing wherein the ſeveral parties in Religion differ; becauſe that only is ſafe and prudent to be choſen wherein all agree. So that this argument, if the foundation of it be good, will perſwade further than thoſe who make uſe of it deſire it ſhould do; for it will not only make men forſake the Proteſtant 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 argument concludes falſe. The Donatiſts denied the Baptiſm of the Catholicks to be good, but the Catholicks acknowledged the Baptiſm of the Donatiſts to be valid. So that both ſides were agreed, that the Baptiſm of the Donatiſts was good; therefore the ſafeſt way for St. Auſtin and other Catholicks (according to this argument) was to be Baptized again by the Donatiſts, becauſe by the acknowledgment of both ſides, Baptiſm among them was valid.
But to come nearer to the Church of Rome. Several in that Church hold the perſonal Infallibility of the Pope, and the lawfulneſs of depoſing and killing Kings for Hereſie, to be de fide, that is, neceſſary Articles of Faith, and conſequently, that whoever does not believe them, cannot be ſaved. But a great many Papiſts, though they believe theſe things to be no matters of Faith, yet they think thoſe that hold them may be ſaved, and they are generally very favourable towards them. But now, according to this argument, they ought all to be of their opinion in theſe points, becauſe both 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 an inſtance to this purpoſe as can be deſired. St. Paul here in the Text acknowledgeth the poſſibility of the ſalvation of thoſe who built hay and ſtubble upon the foundation of Chriſtianity; that they might be ſaved, though 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 uncharitable to St. Paul and other Chriſtians, as the Church of Rome is now to us; for they ſaid poſitively, that they could not be ſaved. But can any man think, that St. Paul would have been moved by this argument, to leave a ſafe and certain way of ſalvation, for that which was only poſſible, and that with great difficulty and hazard? The argument, you ſee, is the very ſame, and yet it concludes the wrong way; which plainly ſhews, that it is a contingent argument, and concludes uncertainly and by chance, and therefore no man ought to be moved by it.
III. I ſhall take notice of ſome groſs abſurdities that follow from it. I ſhall mention but theſe two:
1. According to this principle, it is always 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 though 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 it ſo in this matter? They of the Church of Rome cannot deny, but that we embrace all the Doctrines of our Saviour, contain'd in the Apoſtles Creed, and determined by the Four firſt General Councils: And yet they will not allow this, and a good life, to put us within a poſſibility of ſalvation, becauſe we will not ſubmit to all the innovations they would impoſe upon us. And yet I think there is ſcarce any Doctrine or Practice in difference between them and us, which ſome or other of their moſt learned Writers have not acknowledged, either not to be ſufficiently contained in Scripture, or not to have been held and practiſed by the primitive Church; ſo that nothing can excuſe their uncharitableneſs towards us. And they pay dear for the little advantage they get by this argument; for they do what in them lies, to make themſelves no Chriſtians, that they may prove themſelves the truer and more Chriſtian Church; A medium which we do not deſire to make uſe of.
2. If this argument were good, then by this trick a man may bring over all the world to agree with him in an error, which another does not account damnable, whatever it be; provided he do but damn all thoſe that do not hold it; and there wants nothing but confidence and uncharitableneſs to do this. But is there any ſenſe, that another mans boldneſs and want of charity ſhould be an argument to move me to be of his opinion? I cannot illuſtrate this better, than by the difference between a skilful Phyſician and a Mountebank. A learned and skilful Phyſician is modeſt, and ſpeaks juſtly of things: He ſays, that ſuch a method of cure which he hath directed is ſafe, and withall, that that which the Mountebank preſcribes, may poſſibly do the work, but there is great hazard and danger in it: But the Mountebank, who never talks of any thing leſs then infallible cures, (and always the more Mountebank, the ſtronger pretence to infallibility), he is poſitive that that method which the Phyſician preſcribes 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 Phyſician's; 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, that though it be poſſible for ſome in the communion of the Roman Church to be ſaved, yet it is very hazardous; and that they are in a ſafe condition already in our Church. And why then ſhould a bare poſſibility, accompany'd with infinite and apparent hazard, be an argument to any man to run into that danger?
Laſtly, This argument is very improper to be urged by thoſe who make uſe of it. Half of the ſtrength of it lies in this, that we Proteſtants acknowledg, that it is poſſible a Papiſt may be ſaved. But why ſhould they lay any ſtreſs upon this? What matter is it, what we Hereticks ſay, who are ſo damnably miſtaken in all other things? Methinks, if there were no other reaſon, yet becauſe we ſay it, it ſhould ſeem to them to be unlikely to be true. But I perceive, when it ſerves for their purpoſe we have ſome little credit and authority among them.
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 can honeſtly uſe it, and he muſt have a very odd underſtanding that can be cheated by it. The truth is, it is a caſual and contingent argument, and ſometimes it concludes right, and oftner wrong; and therefore no prudent man can 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 world to determine him; which ſurely can never happen in matters of Religion neceſſary to be believed. No man is ſo weak, as not to conſider in the change of his Religion, the merits of the cauſe it ſelf; as not to examine the Doctrines and Practices of the Churches on both ſides; as not to take notice of the confidence and Charity of both Parties, together with all other things which ought to move a conſcientious and a prudent man: And if upon enquiry there appear to be a clear advantage on either ſide, then this argument is needleſs, and comes too late, becauſe the work is already done without it.
Beſides, that the great hazard of ſalvation in the Roman Church (which we declare upon account of the Doctrines and Practices which I have mentioned) ought to deter any man much more from that Religion, than the acknowledged poſſibility of ſalvation in it, ought to encourage any man to the embracing of it: Never did any Chriſtian Church build ſo much hay and ſtubble upon the foundation of Chriſtianity; and therefore thoſe that are ſaved in it, muſt be ſaved, as it were, out of the fire. And though Purgatory be not meant in the Text, yet it is a Doctrine very well ſuted to their manner of building; for there is need of an ignis purgatorius, of a fire to try their work what it is, and to burn up their hay and ſtubble. And I have ſo much Charity (and I deſire always to have it) as to hope, that a great many among them who live piouſly, and have been almoſt inevitably detain'd in that Church by the prejudice of education and an invincible ignorance, will upon a general repentance find mercy with God; and though their work ſuffer loſs and be burnt, yet they themſelves may eſcape, as out of the fire. But as for thoſe who have had the opportunities of coming to the knowledg of the truth, if they continue in the errors of that Church, or apoſtatize from the truth, I think their condition ſo far from being ſafe, that there muſt be extraordinary favourable circumſtances in their caſe to give a man hopes of their ſalvation.
I have now done with the two things I propounded to ſpeak to. And I am ſorry that the neceſſary defence of our Religion, againſt the reſtleſs importunities and attempts of our adverſaries upon all ſorts of perſons, hath engaged me to ſpend ſo much time in matters of diſpute, which I had much rather have employed in another way. Many of you can be my witneſſes, that I have conſtantly made it my buſineſs, in this great Preſence and Aſſembly, to plead againſt the impieties and wickedneſs of men; and have endeavour'd, by the beſt arguments I could think of, to gain men over to a firm belief and ſerious practice of the main things of Religion. And, I do aſſure you, I had much rather perſwade any one to be a good man, than to be of any party or denomination of Chriſtians whatſoever. For I doubt not, but the belief of the ancient Creed, provided we entertain nothing that is deſtructive of it, together with a good life, will certainly ſave a man; and without this no man can have reaſonable hopes of ſalvation, no not in an infallible Church, if there were any ſuch to be found in the world.
I have been, according to my opportunities, not a negligent obſerver of the genius and humour of the ſeveral Sects and Profeſſions in Religion. And upon the whole matter, I do in my conſcience believe the Church of England to be the beſt conſtituted Church this day in the world; and that, as to the main, the Doctrine, and Government, and Worſhip of it, are excellently framed to make men ſoberly Religious: Securing men on the one hand, from the wild freaks of Enthuſiaſm; and on the other, from the groſs follies of Superſtition. And our Church hath this peculiar advantage above ſeveral Profeſſions that we know in the world, that it acknowledgeth a due and juſt ſubordination to the civil Authority, and hath always been untainted in its loyalty.
And now ſhall every trifling conſideration be ſufficient to move a man to relinquiſh ſuch a Church? There is no greater diſparagement to a mans underſtanding, no greater argument of a light and ungenerous mind, than raſhly to change ones Religion. Religion is our greateſt concernment of all other, and it is not every little argument, no nor a great noiſe about infallibility, nothing but very plain and convincing evidence, that ſhould ſway a man in this caſe. But they are utterly inexcuſable, who make a change of ſuch concernment, upon the inſinuations of one ſide only, without ever hearing what can be ſaid for the Church they were baptized and brought up in, before they leave it. They that can yield thus eaſily to the impreſſions of every one that hath a deſign and intereſt to make Proſelytes, may at this rate of diſcretion change their Religion twice a day, and inſtead of morning and evening Prayer, they may have a morning and an evening Religion.
Therefore, for Gods ſake, and for our own Souls ſake, and for the ſake of our Reputation, let us conſider and ſhew our ſelves men; Let us not ſuffer our ſelves to be ſhaken and carried away with every wind; Let us not run our ſelves into danger when we may be ſafe. Let us ſtick to the foundation of Religion, the Articles of our common belief, and build upon them gold, and ſilver, and precious ſtones, I mean, the virtues and actions of a good life; and if we would do this, we ſhould not be apt to ſet ſuch a value upon hay and ſtubble. If we would ſincerely endeavour to live holy and virtuous lives, we ſhould not need to caſt about for a Religion, which may furniſh us with eaſie and indirect ways to get to Heaven.
I will conclude all with the Apoſtles Exhortation; Wherefore, my beloved Brethren, be ye ſtedfaſt and unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord.
Now the God of peace, which brought again from the dead our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, the great Shepherd of the ſheep, by the blood of the everlaſting Covenant, make you perfect in every good work, to do his will; working in you that which is well-pleaſing in his ſight, through Jeſus Chriſt, to whom he Glory for ever and ever. Amen.