and particularly of the Virgin Mary; which hath now for fome ages been a principal part of their religion. Now, a man may juftly wonder that fo confiderable a part of religion as they make this to be, fhould have no manner of foundation in the fcripture. Does our Saviour any where speak one word concerning the worfhipping of her? Nay, does he not take all occafions to restrain all extravagant apprehenfions 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 (fays he) are my mother and my brethren? He that doth the will of my Father, the fame is my mother, and fifter, and brother. And when the woman brake forth into that rapture concerning the bleffed mother of our Lord, Blef fed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps that gave thee fuck! our Saviour diverts to another thing: Yea rather, bleed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. Does either our Saviour or his apostles, in all their par ticular precepts and directions concerning prayer, and the manner of it, and by whom we are to address our felves to God, give the leaft 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 apoftles would have been fo filent about so considerable a part of religion; infomuch, that in all the epiftles of the apoftles 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 fo for feveral ages, a main part of their public worthip, yea, and of their private devotion too; in which it is ufual with them to fay ten Ave Maries for one Pater Nofter; that is, for one prayer they make. to almighty God, they make ten addreffes to the bleffed Virgin; for that is the proportion obferved in their rofaries. He that confiders this, and had never feen the Bible, would have been. apt to think that there had been more faid concerning her in fcripture, than either concerning God, or our bleffed Saviour; and that the New Teftament 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 fhew me fo much as one fentence

in

in the whole Bible, that founds 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 fome fuperftitious people about the middle of the fourth century. And I remember particularly, that Epiphanius, who lived about that time, calls it the he refy of the women.

And thus I have given you fome inftances of feveral doctrines and practices which the church of Rome hath built upon the foundation of Christianity. Much more might have been faid of them; but from what hath been said, any man may easily discern how dangerous they are to the falvation of men.

Secondly, I now proceed, in the fecond place, to con fider, whether our granting a poffibility of falvation, though with great hazard, to thofe in the communion of the Roman church, and their denying it to us, be a fufficient argument and encouragement to any man, to quit our church, and go to theirs. And there is the more need to confider this, because this is the great po pular argument wherewith the emiffaries and agents of that church are wont to affault our people. Your

"church (fay they) grants that a Papift may be saved; 66 ours denies that a Proteftant can be faved: therefore "it is fafeft to be of our church, in which falvation, by "the acknowledgement of both fides, is poffible."

For answer to this, I fhall endeavour to fhew, that this is fo far from being a good argument, that it is fo intolerably weak and fophiftical, that any confiderate man ought to be afhamed to be catched by it. For either it good of itself, and fufficient to persuade a man to relinquifh our church, and to pafs over to theirs, without entering into the merits of the cause on either fide, and without comparing the doctrines and practices of both the churches together; or it is not. If it be not fufficient of itfelf to perfuade a man to leave our church, without comparing the doctrines on both fides, 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 falfe; this alone is a fufficient inducement to any man, to cleave to that

church

church where the true doctrine is found; and then there is no need of this argument.

If it be faid, that this argument is good in itfelf, without the examination of the doctrine of both churches; this seems a very strange thing, for any man to affirm, That it is reafon enough to a man to be of any church, whatever her doctrines and practices be, if the do but damn those that differ from her, and if the church that differs from her do but allow a poffibility of falvation in her communion.

But they who ufe this argument, pretend that it is fufficient of itself; and therefore I shall apply myself to shew, as briefly and plainly as I can, the miferable weakness and infufficiency of it to fatisfy any man's confcience, or prudence, to change his religion. And, to this end, I fhall,

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

2. Give fome parallel inftances, by which it will clearly appear, that it concludes falfe.

3. I fhall take notice of fome grofs abfurdities that follow from it.

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

5. How improper it is to be urged by thofe that makeufe of it.

1. I fhall fhew the weakness of the principle upon which this argument relies; and that is this, That whatever different parties in religion agree in, is fafeft to be chofen. The true confequence of which principle, if it be driven to the head, is, to perfuade men to forfake Christianity, and to make them take up in the principles of natural religion; for in thefe all religions do agree. For, if this principle be true, and fignify any thing, it is dangerous to embrace any thing wherein the feveral parties in religion differ; because that only is fafe and prudent to be chofen, wherein all agree. So that this argument, if the foundation of it be good, will perfuade: farther than thofe who make use of it defire it fhould do; for it will not only make men forfake the Protestant religion, but Popery too; and, which is much more con-fiderable, Chriftianity itself.

2. I will give fome parallel inftances, by which it will clearly be feen, that this argument concludes falfe. The Donatifts denied the baptifm of the Catholics to be good, but the Catholics acknowledged the baptifm of the Donatifts to be valid; fo that both fides were agreed, that the baptifm of the Donatifts was good; therefore the fafelt way for St Austin, and other Catholics, according to this argument, was to be baptized again by the Donatifts; because, by the acknowledgement of both fides, baptifm among them was valid.

But to come nearer to the church of Rome: Several in that church hold the perfonal infallibility of the Pope, and the lawfulness of depofing and killing kings for herefy, to be de fide; that is, neceffary articles of faith; and, confequently, that whoever does not believe them cannot be faved. But a great many Papifts, though they believe these things to be no matters of faith, yet they think thofe that hold them may be faved, 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 fides are agreed, that they that hold them may be faved; but one fide pofitively fays, that men cannot be faved if they do not hold them.

But my text furnishes me with as good an inftance to this purpose as can be defired. St Paul, here in the text, acknowledgeth the poffibility of the falvation of thofe who built hay and stubble upon the foundation of Chriftianity; that they might be faved, though with great difficulty, and as it were out of the fire. But now, among those builders with hay and ftubble, there were thofe who denied the poffibility of St Paul's falvation, and of those who were of his mind. We are told of. fome who built the Jewish ceremonies and obfervances upon the foundation of Christianity; and said, that unless men were circumcised, and kept the law of Mofes, they could not be saved. So that, by this argument, St Paul, and his followers, ought to have gone over to thofe Judaizing Chriftians; because it was acknowledged on both fides, that they might be faved. But thefe Judaizing Christians were as uncharitable to St Paul, and o ther Chriftians, as the church of Rome is now to us

for

for they faid pofitively, that they could not be faved. But can any man think, that St Paul would have been moved, by this argument, to leave a fafe and certain way of falvation, for that which was only poffible, and that with great difficulty and hazard ? The argument

:

you fee is the very fame; and yet it concludes the wrong way which plainly fhews, that it is a contingent argument, and concludes uncertainly, and by chance; and therefore no man ought to be moved by it.

3. I fhall take notice of fome grofs abfurdities that follow from it. I fhall mention but these two.

1ft, According to this principle, it is always fafeft to be on the uncharitable fide: and yet uncharitableness is as bad an evidence, either of a true Christian, or a true church, as a man would with. Charity is one of the moft effential marks of Chriftianity; and what the apoftle faith of particular Chriftians, is as true of whole churches, that though they have all faith, yet if they have not charity, they are nothing.

grant that no charity teacheth men to fee others damned, and not to tell them the danger of their condition. But it is to be confidered, that the damning of men is a very hard thing; and therefore, whenever we do it, the cafe must be wonderfully plain. And is it fo in this matter? They of the church of Rome cannot deny, , but that we embrace all the doctrines of our Saviour contained in the Apoftles creed, and determined by the four firft general councils; and yet they will not allow this, and a good life, to put us within a poffibility of falvation, because we will not fubmit to all the innovations they would impofe upon us. And yet I think there is fcarce any doctrine or practice in difference between them and us, which fome or other of their moft learned writers have not acknowledged, either not to be fuffi ciently contained in fcripture, or not to have been held and practifed by the primitive church: fo that nothing can excufetheir uncharitablenefs towards us. And they pay dear for the little advantage they get by this argument; for they do what in them lies to make themfeives no Chriftians, that they may prove themselves the truer and more Chriftian church: A medium which we do not defire to make use of.