LIE .: r ■ IS ETON 
 
 SEP 1 1 2008 
 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/natureguiitofsch00lerne_0 
 
The Nature and Guilt of Schism considered } with 
 a particular Reference to the Principles of the 
 Reformation, 
 
 IN 
 
 EIGHT SERMONS, 
 
 PREACHED BEFORE 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, 
 
 IN THE YEAR 1807, 
 
 A 
 
 AT 
 
 THE LECTURE 
 
 FOUNDED 
 
 & 
 
 THE REV. JOHN BAMPTON, M. A. 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 CANON OF SALISBURY. 
 
 BY THOMAS LE MESURIER, M. A. 
 
 RECTOR OF NRWNTON LONGVILLE, BUCKS, AND LATE FELLOW 
 
 OF NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 O v KairnXeuovIcS tov Xoyov rov Qeov* 
 
 X cor. ii. 17, 
 
 I 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 • 1 
 
 PRXNTED FOR LONGMAN, HURST, REES, AND ORME, 
 
 PATERNOSTER-ROW, 
 
 1808 . 
 
Vl 
 
 while it lasted, and which continue to be 
 felt even now through every member of the 
 government, in the finances as well as in 
 the army and the navy, this is not the place 
 to speak. Happily they noA r begin to be 
 on all sides acknowledged; and if I am 
 anxious that more complete justice should 
 be done to you in this as in other respects, 
 it is owing not so much to the interest 
 which I take in all that concerns your wel- 
 fare, as to the firm belief which I entertain 
 that such a sense of your merits, if more 
 universally prevalent, would materially tend 
 in its consequences to improve our public 
 situation, and to make us respectable both 
 at home and abroad. 
 
 But I also know, that among the measures 
 which were in your contemplation, and 
 which you had particularly at heart, there 
 were some which had for their immediate 
 object the providing for the advancement 
 and security of our ecclesiastical establish¬ 
 ment, and the counteracting, if not prevent¬ 
 ing of those disorders, which I have la¬ 
 boured, in the language, and, I trust, in 
 the spirit of Scripture, to mark and to re¬ 
 prove. 
 
9 9 
 
 vn 
 
 To these and many other reasons which 
 might be alleged for prefixing your name to 
 this work, I have to add the personal, and 
 to me most gratifying consideration of that 
 intimacy which has subsisted between us 
 from our early youth, and which your ad¬ 
 vancement to some of the highest offices in 
 the kingdom, has only contributed to cement 
 and to increase. 
 
 That it may please the Almighty to crown 
 you with every blessing, more especially by 
 making you his instrument of good both to 
 the king and the people, and that you may 
 daily more and more cherish and maintain 
 that true faith in Christ, and that entire 
 dependence on the Divine Providence, with¬ 
 out which there is and can be no solid peace 
 or happiness, is the sincere wish and 
 prayer of him who is ever, 
 
 My dear Lord, 
 
 MOST FAITHFULLY, AND 
 
 AFFECTIONATELY YOURS, 
 
 THO. LE MESURIER. 
 
■ 
 
 
 • • «. 
 
 i: <M 
 
 ;/ , 
 
 .'■?«> .0*1 70,:! • 
 
 * f J j 
 
 
 O; 
 
 
 
 • . : 
 
 
 MO 
 
 0 V 
 
 i , 
 
 ! t h ollji 
 
 r 
 
 DO 
 
 tih 
 
 J 
 
 mi 
 
 fc'fij: 
 
 Jw 
 
 to'“110 3fjt bbi; 
 
 ol: 
 
 Ot;;K 1 , 
 
 tI'h 
 
 // g 
 
 ill 
 
 Miff* 
 
 to 
 
 iiOtlor.bi : n • o 
 
 ':;ni 
 
 /Jittr* t 
 
 orxi 
 
 do: 
 
 0 
 
 •'*).* it 
 
 
 . t<! ... • , »o ,o 
 
 ( 
 
 1 . ;• Oi O 
 
 \ i 
 
 trr 
 
 * '• 'i>* r. onr. ir>\< *uo> mo . 
 
 .■■■.■* . 
 
 "7 ■ \ • • I ' ' ; > - * 7*1 >T, Ovm;/ 
 
 *M ' ■ ' :, 'o ; 
 
 
 .'rtuvmn 'A:. 
 
 ** • ttjh oatoiu 7i fii H-t< *• • * . 
 
 ‘ ‘J ■ >: ^ ■ vmm ' r. y? > ro 
 
 7 •• ‘ jo a 0 :iic #*kp.- *<• '• 1 %wr4 •»?•,> 
 
 W?fiflKrfi• - 
 
 
 O'M ' . • ■ • ■ ■ t;<;r 
 
 • ;«if ‘ 7 ,T> ! :. 5- *fit<Vi *fflHJi( i o .-■ '. M o j ■.- ' v -: -* 
 
 ww/m#'-. * ’ J °- r5! ■■ ■■V- 
 
 i-*>• 
 
 
 i. 
 
 
 . 
 
 ; o ■ yj YU a iU ♦:» ' ' ■ 
 
 or- J , 
 
 iJ * . & 
 
 <■ / 
 
 A ■ r.!,] i J 
 
 * ; ■ 
 
 ry '•• 
 
 I ’ 
 
 M - I 
 
 
 ,o 
 
 p * 
 
 0 ' *. li‘O 
 
 
IX 
 
 EXTRACT 
 
 From the last Will and Testament of the 
 
 late Rev . John Bampton, Canon of Sa¬ 
 lisbury . 
 
 I give and bequeath my lands and estates 
 to the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars, of 
 the University of Oxford, for ever, to have 
 and to hold all and singular the said lands 
 or estates upon trust, and to the intents and 
 purposes hereinafter mentioned; that is to 
 say, I will and appoint that the Vice Chan¬ 
 cellor of the University of Oxford, for the 
 time being, shall take and receive all the 
 rents, issues, and profits thereof; and (after 
 all taxes, reparations, and necessary deduc¬ 
 tions made) that he pay all the remainder to 
 the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture 
 Sermons, to be established, for ever, in the 
 said University, and tp be performed in the 
 manner following; 
 
 I direct and appoint that, upon the first 
 .Tuesday in Easter term, a Lecturer be yearly 
 chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, and 
 
 5 
 
X 
 
 by no others, in the room adjoining the 
 Printing house, between the hours of ten in 
 the morning and two in the afternoon, to 
 preach eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the 
 year following, at St. Mary’s in Oxford, be¬ 
 tween the commencement of the last month 
 in Lent term, and the end of the third w'eek 
 in Act term. 
 
 Also, I direct and appoint, that the eight 
 Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be preached 
 upon either of the following subjects: to 
 confirm and establish the Christian faith, 
 and to confute all heretics and schismatics; 
 upon the divine authority of the Holy Scrip¬ 
 tures ; upon the authority of the writings of 
 
 the primitive fathers, as to the faith and 
 
 * 
 
 practice of the primitive church ; upon the 
 divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ; upon the divinity of the Holy Ghost; 
 upon the articles of the Christian faith, as 
 comprehended in the apostles' and Nicene 
 creeds. 
 
 Also; I direct, that thirty copies of the 
 eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be al¬ 
 ways printed within two months after they 
 are preached, and one copy shall be given 
 to the Chancellor of the University, and one 
 
XI 
 
 * 
 
 copy to the Head of every College, and one 
 copy to the Mayor of the city of Oxford, and 
 one copy to be put into the Bodleian library, 
 and the expense of printing them shall be 
 paid out of the revenue of the land or estates 
 given for establishing the Divinity Lecture 
 Sermons; and the preacher shall not be 
 paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before 
 they are printed. 
 
 Also, I direct and appoint, that no person 
 shall be qualified to preach the Divinity 
 Lecture Sermons, unless he hath taken the 
 degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of 
 the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, 
 and that the same person shall never preach 
 the Divinity Lecture Sermons twice. 
 
 \ 
 
 *> 
 
 
<::■} ii, k tObJ . .n i > hi.: 
 
 bsi •; Mr> ■•• .; » * *h • 
 
 >• . I 
 
 r- 
 
 . < • 
 
 - V 
 
 '■Siftf 
 
 cr; {. fbo? I ■' 
 
 : 
 
 
 >:> quo 
 
 ad 
 
 : • . ■ 
 
 n - . . 
 
 ■ ry j 
 
 ■'•Uic . . x to 4 j m jr 
 
 v -> 
 
 • :v •• >, 
 
 "■ h,... 
 
 
 i-n. 
 
 ■ ■■ ■ 
 
 
 > Ini 5 
 
 Lf’ifl 
 
 »'* >v 
 
 VllfijVil ;■ 
 
 1 .* 
 
 1 
 
 / 5 » V ! 1 
 
 $r{ 
 
 10 f 
 
 i -iili? T^I’3 
 
 ■ r l ■ .*'j >/ii ; 
 
 
 ..a * 
 
 : 
 
 ' •• S ’ V 
 
 Tfit . r l A 
 
 if « /»3JiJ !*> :j,i •; 
 
 i OU 
 
 ,b*«q 
 
 
 
 
 . J :i, ' 
 
 3 ? i 
 
 s votL 
 
 HOS 
 
 
 »ttr^*5 •> tfi 1 ***i*J:i>J 
 
 , ' K " 
 
 rim 
 
 'm 
 
 , ' i 
 
 < • ' ■ ■ ». • 
 
 ’Hf *‘ i,: 
 
 ocf 
 
 » v r 
 
 
 ' i ' •■ 
 
 : « i;!s ' 
 
 . '■ . rt;* . . ; HI - 
 
 y ■, ,i 
 
 V* 4 * 
 
 ' 4^- , J 
 - J J • JvX. 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■ ’ - ' • , • . . 
 
 iSryra jftsife Ut> xA* «:« ui\ v « {,r 
 
 \ > 
 
 • ' r ’‘ ■" ivjc> f'M mih 
 
 *« > : ■ ■ 
 
 3 ' f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 4, * ' a > c . j*'> f ' ( j ,■ •. ■?.«. 
 
 - • f 
 
 * 
 
 ■ 
 
 * 
 
 8 (h r •-h*j« •' fM*-' K, 
 
 ** • f .• 
 
 / 
 

 
 PEINCE'feir 
 
 THE O'L o g ig&lj? 
 
 . Jr ; 
 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 Luke xii. 5L 
 
 Suppose ye that I am come to give Peace on Earth? 
 I tell you nay , ra/Aer Division. 
 
 i 
 
 issentions in the church—their fatal effects—contrary to 
 the spirit of the gospel—Our Saviour’s prophecy in that re¬ 
 spect, how fulfilled—even in the earliest ages of the church— 
 Arguments drawn from hence by the adversaries of 
 Christianity, ill founded—Guilt of schism—Wherever there 
 is separation from the church a schism, and some one answer- 
 able for it Texts by which our Lord enforces the necessity of 
 union—Schism of late considered as hardly criminal—not so 
 formerly—Necessity of bringing back to men’s minds the true 
 doctrine—The particular end of such lectures as the present— 
 No absolute authority claimed for the church—Separation in 
 some cases a duty—but where causeless a great sin—This the 
 doctrine of the church at the reformation—Even of the puri¬ 
 tans Acted upon by the latter—Shewn by their destruction 
 of the church when they came into power—Continued to be 
 
xnr 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 held by the dissenters at the restoration down to the beginning 
 of the last century—Bermet’s controversy with the dissenters 
 at Colchester—b rom that time a change in men’s opinions on 
 the subject—Traced back to bishop Hoadly, and his principles 
 —Bangorian controversy—Nonjurors—Union in conse¬ 
 quence between all the dissenters—Even Arians and Socinians 
 taken into favour—Found protection and countenance in 
 certain members of the Church—Hoadly—Whiston—Clarke— 
 Clayton—Blackburne—Application to parliament in 1772 — 
 Supposed or real laxity of opinion in the clergy produced the 
 Methodists—They also have a party in the church favourable 
 to them—All these naturally give encouragement to schism— 
 Hence it is become an evil which requires particularly to be 
 resisted—Plau of the present lectures—Questions w hich arise 
 outof it, or are connected with it—Church government—Na¬ 
 tional establishment—General exhortation to follow after 
 spiritual things—To seek the kingdom of God in the first 
 place. \ .... , . v A, l\ 1. 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 Gal. v. 12. 
 
 I would they were even cut off that trouble you. 
 
 Text considered—Inference from thence, and from other 
 similar texts of the necessity of conformity—What is required 
 of us in Scripture—Adherence to the old ways—Unifor¬ 
 mity—Teachableness and humility—Dissentions and Divisions 
 to what attributed—Not a word in Scripture to justify the 
 unbounded liberty of private judgment contended for by some 
 persons—What is the liberty there spoken of—Iu what par¬ 
 ticulars only the old covenant superseded by the new—Both 
 
XV 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 the Old and the New Testament written for our admonition— 
 Effect of all laws to produce uniformity—Particularly shewn 
 in the case of the Jews—Examples drawn from the earlier 
 ages—Before the deluge—Subsequent thereto—In the imme¬ 
 diate descendants of Noah—General apostacy in consequence 
 of men being left to themselves—The Jewish nation on that 
 account selected and set apart—Tied to a strict rule—Relaxed 
 in the time of the judges—Consequence—Strict observance of 
 the established order required in subsequent ages—Schism of 
 Corah and his fellows—Separation of the ten tribes—Extended 
 by Jeroboam to religious worship—Why—Its fatal conse¬ 
 quences All these instances conclusive against schism— 
 Stiongly in favour of adopting a certain degree of ceremony 
 in religion—View of the question under the New Testament— 
 Our Saviour complied with established forms—Submitted to 
 the hierarchy—Exhorted people so to do -The apostles did 
 the same Ordinances of the law reasoned upon by them - 
 Made the foundation for the rule and discipline of the church 
 This rule and discipline when established in the church most 
 rigidly enforced by the apostles—Instances—Strong condem¬ 
 nation of those who walked disorderly—Who broke the 
 peace of the church—The rule intended to be continued— 
 Directions to Titus and to Timothy evidently designed for 
 their successors as well as for them* P„ 47. 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 ■ 
 
 Matt. v. 16 . 
 
 Ye shall know them by their Fruits. 
 
 Text explained and commented upon—To judge of a doc¬ 
 trine not so much from the lives of its professors as from the 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xri 
 
 effect and tendency of it—No decisive argument to be drawn 
 in favour of a sect from its leaders being of a good moral 
 character—Not to stop us from examining into the soundness 
 of their tenets—The position that we are not to press an ad¬ 
 versary with consequences which he disavows examined—How 
 far only admissible—The consequences of a doctrine pecu¬ 
 liarly its fruits—-Exemplified in Calvinists—in Papists—Argu¬ 
 ment in favour of schism from the supposed sincerity of schis¬ 
 matics examined—Hoadly’s position—Answered by William 
 Law—Further combated—Consequences—Language of St. 
 Peter—Of St. Paul—No authority for saying that men while 
 in error can be in favour with God—We are bound to follow 
 after truth—How God will deal with those who err is not 
 revealed to us—The inquiry improper and mischievous as it 
 leads to relaxation in our endeavours—Case of the Judaizing 
 Christians—Were they sincere ? How spoken of by St. Paul 
 —The same reasonings and the same language applicable to 
 other schismatics—Conclusion—That no stress is to be laid 
 on the plea of sincerity —We are rather to argue that a man is 
 sincere because he holds the true doctrine—Ideas of a general 
 and comprehensive union —Impracticable—Would lead to 
 confusion—-Shewn from the nature of the dissentions now sub¬ 
 sisting—From those which subsisted in former ages—In the 
 days of the apostles—Almost all heretical—Only exceptions— 
 Schism of the Donatists, &c.—Schism among the popes— 
 Ebiouites—Gnostics—Manicheans—Docetae—Impossibility of 
 union w ith such as these must be admitted—Immoralities real 
 or supposed of these heretics—Means by which they defended 
 their tenets*-»Coriuption or denial of the Scriptures—Fruits 
 of schism—Conclusion^ recommending humility and sim¬ 
 plicity. P» 89. 
 
rth 
 
 x __ i i (jjr 
 
 sSmemox \ 
 
 * % 
 
 xvii 
 
 Luke xi. 35 . 
 
 Take heed , that the Light which is in thee be not 
 
 Darkness. 
 
 Heresies of the earlier ages succeeded by the corruptions 
 of popery—In the church itself—Words of the text parti, 
 cularly applicable to them—Not to be so lightly thought of, 
 as they are by some men—A false security—How it has 
 grown up—No material change has taken place—Nor can 
 be expected—Proselytism of the Romanists—Pretended mi. 
 racles—Co-operation of Dissenters with the Papists—Un*a- 
 tural—Can only subsist as being directed against the estab. 
 lished church—Romanists in these kingdoms equally schis. 
 matic with other dissenters—The schism which took place 
 at the reformation all imputable to their church—Case very 
 different as between our church and them and as between the 
 Protestant dissenters and us—We require no terms of com. 
 munion that are sinful—Nor had the popes ever of right any 
 jurisdiction over our church—The king supreme—As the 
 emperors were—Practice of the first ages—Absolute inde. 
 pendenoe of bishops at the beginning—How limited—General 
 communion between all bishops and churches—All interested 
 in maintaining the true faith—Hence interposition with each 
 other in particular cases—Synods—First provincial—Their 
 powers.-.Paul of Samosata—Establishment of patriarchs and 
 
 metropolitans—Preeminence in dignity of Rome_Extended 
 
 to Constantinople—General councils-.-Convened by the 
 emperors—And decrees enforced by them—Jurisdiction of 
 popes over other metropolitans, if any, could only have been 
 commensurate with the empire^.When that was dismembered 
 
 b 
 
xviii CONTENTS. 
 
 roust of course have ceased in all those parts which were so 
 torn away—No such jurisdiction either allowed or assumed 
 by the early popes—Expressly disclaimed by some of them— 
 Gregory the Great—Texts upon which this usurpation was 
 built—No reason why the bishop of Rome should be the suc¬ 
 cessor of St. Peter—Not even certain if St. Peter was at 
 Rome-—But certain that St. Paul was—And that he estab¬ 
 lished a church at Rome—First text respecting Peter’s con¬ 
 fession of Christ-—Power of the keys—Given to the other 
 apostles as to him—Opinion of the fathers—Of some popes 
 —And cardinals—Second text, respecting St. Peter being 
 bidden by our Lord to (i feed his sheep”—This also common 
 to the other apostles-—Commentaries of the fathers upon this 
 text—Other passages of Scripture decidedly against any su¬ 
 periority of one apostle over another-—Other doctrines called 
 in aid by the popes—Visibility of the church—Infallibility— 
 unsupported by either Scripture or fact—-Judgment of Pro¬ 
 testants upon these points—-Recapitulation of the argument 
 ---Shewing that the Reformation is no authority for the lati¬ 
 tude now contended for by the dissenters. P. 135. 
 
 X * ' ‘ \ . ” 1 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 2 Tim. iii. 5. 
 
 Having a Form of Godliness, but denying the Power 
 
 Similarity of error in all ages—Took nearly the same 
 course in early times as in the subsequent ages—Insinuated itself 
 by the same means—Uuder a false u form of godliness”—The 
 case with all false religions—General view of the corruptions 
 introduced by the popes—Established at length by persecu* 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xix 
 
 tion—The same corruptions and the same spirit still existing— 
 Intolerance of the Romish church of itself a reason why we 
 should separate from tier—Three heads of corruption parti¬ 
 cularly noted—First, idolatry—Second, doctrine of merits—- 
 Third, erroneous ideas of Christian perfection—Other errors 
 subservient to these, and all to the advancement of the papal 
 usurpation—Titles given to the pope—Transubstantiation—■ 
 Belongs to the first class—Indulgences and penance to the 
 second—Preliminary points—-Evasions of the Romanists— 
 Denial and palliation of their doctrines—A religion intended 
 for the poor must be taken as understood by the poor— 
 Subterfuges and ambiguities particularly inadmissible in the 
 Romish church, on account of her pretensions to certainty 
 and infallibility—More especially when arguing on the Re¬ 
 formation, we have a right to take the religion as then prac¬ 
 tised and avowed-—The question is, whether Henry the 8th, 
 and Elizabeth, were schismatics—The Romanists, on their 
 own shewing, can have no right to allege any supposed sub¬ 
 sequent improvements—First head considered-—Idolatry, 
 how practised-—In the worship of images and relics—Pre- 
 tence, that only relative—This is no more than what the 
 heathen pretended- —Usage and judgment of antiquity—-Gre¬ 
 gory the 1st—Council of Constantinople—Of Frankfort- 
 Second commandment—-How evaded, and kept from sight— 
 Short forms of decalogue—-Difficulty here, as to what shall 
 be the pth, and what the 10th commandment—Worship of 
 relics-—On what built—No real foundation-—Legends be¬ 
 longing to them—-Often involve impossibilities—Abuses at¬ 
 tendant on the practice-—Adoration of the cross in par¬ 
 ticular—Invocation of saints—-How defended—-Inferior 
 worship—-Texts, in which we are bidden to pray for one 
 another—Difficulties of the Romanists themselves in account¬ 
 ing for the manner in which saints become acquainted with 
 our prayers-—Saints are directly prayed to in the church of 
 Rome—Most pointedly against Scripture—Moses’s body— 
 Christ’s language to the virgin-—Little known of the apostles 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XT 
 
 --Adoration of the bread and wine in the mass,—Why de¬ 
 vised-—A matter of traffic—Absurdity, as well as impiety of 
 transubstantiation—Reasoning of the apostle to the He¬ 
 brews—Variety of opinions among the Romanists themselves 
 —Doctrine of the intention of the priests—-Suicidal-—How 
 absurd in its consequences—Conclusion—The odiousness of 
 this traffic. P. 190. 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 Mark vii. 9- 
 
 In vain do they worship me , teaching for Doctrines 
 
 -H 
 
 the Commandments of Men. 
 
 Similarity between the Rabbis of the Jews and the 
 Popish doctors-—Second head of corruptions—-Supposed 
 merits of the saints—-Adoration paid to them—Of what 
 jiature, and to what extent—Instances—Doctrine of satis¬ 
 faction—Object of it—Purgatory—The pains of*it, how to 
 be redeemed—-Works of supererogation—Indulgences— 
 How obtained, and to whom granted—At first particular— 
 Afterwards general—Still subsisting, and authorised and re¬ 
 commended by the Romish bishops in England—Use made of 
 the Vulgate translation—Sacrament of marriage—Penanco 
 —The doctrine detailed—How held at this moment—Traced 
 from the beginning—Penances imposed-—Turned to the ag¬ 
 grandisement of the see of Rome, and the clergy of that 
 church—Nature of the merits ascribed to the saints—A 
 short review of our Lord’s conduct—Of that of his apostles 
 —Contrasted with that of the Romish saints—Instances of 
 the particular kind of merits shewn forth in the lives of these 
 .saints---x he foundations upon which they stand examined--- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xxi 
 
 Conformities of St. Francis.--Popish miracles-—What re- 
 quhed to the composition of these saints—Monastic vows-— 
 Supposed evangelical councils—Objections made by Pro¬ 
 testants to these and the like practices—Why insisted upon 
 by the popes—Popish doctrine of traditions—Withholding 
 
 » O 
 
 the Scriptures from the laity—Prayers in an unknown tongue 
 —Persecution—Particularly a doctrine and practice of this 
 church—I he fact established—The church of Rome the only 
 power that has adopted and pursued it as a system—Traced 
 up, and shewn so to be---Answer to the question where our 
 chuicii was before Luther—Transubstantiation, a novel doc¬ 
 trine—Always some description of Christians who denied 
 ii—Fourth Lateran council—Dr. Milner’s assertions re¬ 
 specting its authority—Alleged distinction between canons 
 
 of doctrine and of discipline-—Other allegations_That it is 
 
 the laity who persecute—That the clergy cannot, even in¬ 
 directly, concur in the shedding of blood—Persecution the 
 most sure mark of Antichrist—Variations among Protestant 
 churches no argument against reformation in religion—Such 
 variations have always existed—Even in the church of Rome 
 —Union must be sought for only upon proper grounds— 
 Conclusion, p qk <* 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 Hebrews xiii. 8. 
 
 Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and 
 
 for ever . 
 
 Observations on the text—-Weakness of human nature 
 shewn particularly in its variableness—In the differences 
 which took place at the ^formation—Extremes into which 
 some of the reformers suffered themselves to be transported— 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 _ 
 
 XXII 
 
 Disputes upon points of doctrine—Consubstantiation—Pre* 
 destination—Divine grace—How enforced by the different 
 parties—Points of discipline—Prejudice taken up against 
 episcopacy—New order—Presbyterianism—Excesses of cer¬ 
 tain bodies of men—Conformity insisted upon by Calvin 
 and his followers—By Luther—Attempt to ascertain fun¬ 
 damentals—Mode and practice of the reformation in this 
 country—Effects produced—More temper and moderation 
 -—Less spoliation-—More lenity towards dissenters_Pu¬ 
 
 ritans—Their principles and language—Origin and growth 
 of the sect—Required conformity in all the members of 
 churches—Their professed aim a more complete reformation 
 --Independents—When arose, and how increased in number 
 and consequence—Gained the upper hand of Presbyterians 
 —Observations—For upwards of a century no considerable 
 body of men advocates for unbounded latitude—Circum¬ 
 stances under which this principle first maintained—Fruits 
 which it produced—Numbers of sects which started up and 
 disappeared—-Present state of sects in this country—Broad 
 line of distinction—Some sects differing from us in essentials 
 —Others not—The first properly heretics-—The term now 
 chiefly confined to those who are unsound in their opinions 
 of Christ—Necessary to consider these, as producing divi¬ 
 sions in the church—Their objections to our worship ana¬ 
 logous to those which we bring against the Romish church— 
 Term of Unitarians--.Variety among them—Some of them 
 worship Christ—Some consider the worship as idolatrous— 
 This variety observed upon, with a reference to the text— 
 Atonement made by Christ, the peculiar and distinguishing 
 doctrine of Christians—That which shocked the Jews and 
 the Greeks—This doctrine always held by the great body of 
 Christians—-Without variation—Further contrast—All Pro¬ 
 testants continue to agree in the causes of their separation 
 from the church oi Rome—Never any change in that re¬ 
 spect—But in their cause of separation from us the dissenters 
 are perpetually varying, both as to us, and with respect to 
 
I 
 
 CONTENTS. Xsii 
 
 each other—Liberties with Scripture taken by the Unita¬ 
 rians— Priestley—Evansori—-Monthly Reviewer—Our dif¬ 
 ferences with them irreconcilable—So of Quakers—They 
 also vary among themselves—Importance of the true doc- 
 trine respecting our Lord. p. 3id. 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 James iii. 1. 
 
 My Brethren, he not many Masters , knowing that 
 we shall receive the greater Condemnation. 
 
 Text explained, and commented upon—-Applicable par¬ 
 ticularly to those who intrude into the ministry_Second 
 
 description of Separatists-—Not differing in essentials—-Great 
 variety of them—Old denominations out of use-—General 
 term of Dissenters—Why preferred—Prevalence of Me¬ 
 thodists—-Growth of them—Grounds upon which they 
 found themselves—Want of education in their preachers— 
 Consequence of this—Whitfield’s followers—Their preach¬ 
 ing and doctrines—Leading to Antinomianism—Caution 
 used in respect to these doctrines by the divines of our church 
 ---By the old Puritans—Why resorted to by later sectaries, 
 and how handled by them-—Imputation against the regular 
 clergy—Evangelical preachers among the churchmen—Fruits 
 of the latitudinarian system—-As hostile to the more regular 
 dissenters as to the church—Recapitulation—Main position, 
 that schism is a sin-—Separation may be on justifiable grounds 
 —Every man must be guided by his conscience-—Yet no 
 foundation for the latitudinarian system—Combination 
 against the church-— Favour with which certain persons 
 holding, or supposed to hold heretical opinions in the church, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xxiv 
 
 are spoken of by the dissenters-—Objection to the church, 
 as to the manner of her government, as being exclusive and 
 uncharitable—Objection refuted—Consequences which would 
 ensue on throwing the church more open—-In point of jus¬ 
 tice—Practicability—Meeting at the Feathers Tavern- 
 Proposed rejection of all tests—Consequences—Lastly, ob¬ 
 jection that the institutions of our church are not calculated 
 for the promotion of piety examined and answered—Form 
 of our ecclesiastical government excellent—Shewn in its 
 effects—Observations and caution addressed to the several 
 sorts of dissenters-—To those particularly who complain of 
 our ministry as inefficient and unedifying—Conclusion, re¬ 
 commending to every man the reformation of himself. P. 365. 
 
kiSA 
 
 
 ■pftOFERTV Of 
 
 PElSGB mnT ' 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
 THEOLOGICAL,/ 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 Luke xii. 51. 
 
 Suppose ye, that I am come to give peace on earth f 
 I tell you , nay, but rather division . 
 
 Of all the calamities under which the church 
 of Christ has suffered, there is none which has 
 produced such pernicious and lasting effects, as 
 the dissentions by which in all ages it has been 
 torrv Even the cruelties and oppressions, to 
 which it was exposed at the beginning from the 
 fury of its persecutors, may be said to have 
 been harmless in comparison of these. Indeed, 
 in many respects, it was found, that persecution 
 rather increased than repressed the zeal of the 
 first disciples. It seems to have operated like 
 that temporary pressure upon certain well- 
 compacted bodies, which always produces a 
 powerful re-action. It was only when the 
 principle of disorganization was at work on the 
 
 B 
 
I 
 
 « SERMON I. 
 
 body itself, when the fire raged within, that 
 apprehension might be reasonably entertained 
 of serious and essential danger. 
 
 ^ O 
 
 Nor was this calamity more severe or de- 
 ploiable, than it was unnatural and strange. 
 Vve may collect this from the very words of 
 our Saviour in the text. Suppose ye,” said 
 he, that I came to give peace on earth ?” This 
 was indeed what might well have been sup¬ 
 posed. It was what had been proclaimed at 
 Lis oirth; it was what had been promised by 
 all the prophets, who had spoken of his king* 
 dom. . The angels’song was, “ On earth peace ; 
 good will towards men */' The language of the 
 ooiy men was still more strongly expressive of 
 vhe sti ictest harmony, and the most abundant 
 love. They declared that, in his day, “ The 
 ’ <r woI f should dwell with the lamb, and the 
 leopard should lie down with the kid, and 
 the calf, and the lion, and the young fat- 
 “ ling together, and a little child should lead 
 them')'/* How could such representations 
 t»e consistent with any degree of disunion or 
 division ? 
 
 In another point of view, also, this representa¬ 
 tion must have appeared quite inconsistent 
 with the ideas, which the disciples had been 
 jnstly led to entertain of their master’s king- 
 
 Luke ii. 14, + Isaiah xi. 6 . 
 
/ 
 
 SERMON I. 3 
 
 dom. It was to be eternal. “ Of the increase 
 “ of his government,” it had been said, “ there 
 1 1 shall be no end*.” And yet, how should 
 it stand at all under such circumstances ? They 
 knew well, our blessed Lord himself had so 
 argued, that, “ A kingdom divided against it- 
 self is brought to desolation, and a house di- 
 “vided against a house falleth.” + 
 
 Strange, however, and difficult to be recon¬ 
 ciled as all these circumstances might appear, 
 when they were first unfolded to the: world, 
 every year, as it has rolled on in the lapse of 
 ages, has only more fully ascertained the reality 
 of them, and borne a more decided testimony to 
 the truth, and the infallibility of that divine 
 Being, by whose mouth they were first made 
 known. We find, moreover, that the strife and 
 the contention which he foretold, take their 
 date almost from the very establishment of the 
 gospel; and indeed, this also was not obscurely 
 intimated by our Saviour at the same time, and 
 almost in the same breath. <f I am come,” said 
 he, “ to send fire upon the earth; and what will 
 “ I if it be already kindled J ?” Even while he 
 was in the world, that spirit of ambition, and 
 that love of distinction, which are the most 
 fruitful causes of dissention, had manifested 
 themselves among the disciples. Nay,, it was 
 
 * Isaiah ix. 7, 
 
 + Luke xi. 17, 
 3 % 
 
 l Luke xii- 49. 
 
i 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 y t » 
 
 only after repeated lessons of humility, and 
 “through much tribulation that the apos¬ 
 tles were taught the genuine doctrines of meek¬ 
 ness and of charity. Still more widely, and 
 more fiercely did the evil spread itself, when 
 he was withdrawn from the earth, and the 
 preaching of the word had devolved upon those 
 who, however entrusted with the most extraordi- 
 1!ar y powers, could not pretend to be more than 
 tallible men, nor could assume to speak with the 
 authority and weight, which must exclusively 
 belong to the only son of God. In propor¬ 
 tion too, as the kingdom of Christ became 
 more extended, a wider field was opened for 
 the adversary to carry his designs into exe¬ 
 cution, and to sow the tares among the wheat. 
 So rapidly indeed, and so openly did the evil 
 spread itself, that, far from having any dif¬ 
 ficulty m tracing its progress, we cannot but 
 see that it forms a most prominent part of ec» 
 clesiastjcal history. It is indeed, to the exist¬ 
 ence of that ambitious and contentious spirit, 
 that we owe the greater part of the apostolical 
 writings; which, at the same time that they con¬ 
 tain the must profitable instructions, and much 
 of information upon great points of faith, which 
 hau not perhaps before been so clearly revealed, 
 a ° who in the. strongest manner attest the er- 
 
 * Acts xir. 22. 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 5 
 
 tots and the divisions, which made it necessary 
 that these strong protests, and pointed admo¬ 
 nitions against evil doctrines and evil teachers 
 should be both recorded and proclaimed. 
 
 That ever since that time, not only schisms, 
 but heresies have abounded in the church, is so 
 far from being matter of doubt or of question, 
 that, on the contrary, their existence and num¬ 
 ber have been favourite topics of declamation 
 with the most celebrated champions of infidel¬ 
 ity. This has been considered as one of the 
 weakest parts of our holy religion by all those 
 who have laboured either openly or covertly 
 to subvert its foundations. A comparison has 
 even been instituted between Christianity and 
 Paganism, for the purpose of ascribing to the 
 latter a pre eminence in point of humanity, and 
 of liberality. We have been told of the in¬ 
 dulgence which the different nations of the 
 heathen always shewed to each other in this 
 respect; that not only individuals, but bodies 
 of men were allowed, without interruption, to 
 worship such gods, and to use such ceremonies 
 as they had chosen to adopt; while, on the 
 other hand, the several descriptions of Chris¬ 
 tians, though professing to worship the same 
 God, have persecuted each other, even to death, 
 for differences the most trivial and insignifi¬ 
 cant; and we have been asked, if this was the 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 /■* 
 
 o 
 
 charity and the peace which we say that it wa» 
 fthe end of our religion to establish ? 
 
 To these, and the like cavils, very sufficient 
 answers have at different times, and by vari¬ 
 ous persons been returned l . My present bu¬ 
 siness is only with the fact of the schisms’ having 
 existed; which however, to any sound rea- 
 soner, will never furnish the least inference at all 
 prejudicial to the interest of Christianity. It 
 must still be apparent that to those divisions, 
 which have so sorely rent the church, the word 
 of God has never, properly speaking, minis¬ 
 tered an occasion. In the perverse inclina¬ 
 tions of men, and in the violence of their pas¬ 
 sions, the true source of all these disorders 
 must be sought. And having been, as they 
 were foretold by our Saviour, they are in truth 
 to be numbered, as I have before hinted, amono* 
 the evidences of his divinity. It must also be 
 considered as a further proof of the Almighty 
 hand which hath wrought for us, that that dis¬ 
 union, which almost invariably operates to the 
 
 1 See Dr. Maltby’s Observations upon some of these later attacks. 
 Illustrations of the Truth of the Christian Religion, chap. vii. I 
 cannot help feeling some concern at seeing new, and apparently very * 
 <arge editions of Gibbon’s History advertised. If Hume and he 
 are still to continue our great masters in historical knowledge, 
 surely it is desirable that the publication of them should be accom¬ 
 panied with such notes, as should detect and expose their attacks 
 upon religion, and the unfairness of their narrative in all that re¬ 
 lates to the welfare and advancement of the church of Christ. 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 7 
 
 dissolution of every community where it enters, 
 has in this instance had no such effect ; nay, 
 that it has even produced consequences that 
 were beneficial ; not the least considerable of 
 which has been the preservation of the holy 
 Scriptures in their integrity ; while the jealousy 
 of the different sects, watching over each 
 other, has made any material falsification or in- 
 terpolation almost impossible. 
 
 Still, however greatly we may admire the 
 wisdom and the power of God, which can thus 
 bring good out of evil: however firmly we may 
 he persuaded that the existence of schism, far 
 from operating as an excuse for rejecting the 
 gospel, does in reality furnish the strongest ar¬ 
 guments against infidelity, we must not suffer 
 ourselves to be deluded into an idea, that it is 
 a matter indifferent in itself, or not an evil of 
 the greatest magnitude. Still less must we 
 imao-ine, that it is an act against the commission 
 .of which we have no need to be guarded ; or 
 which, when committed, requires not to be de¬ 
 plored and repented of. We must regard it as, 
 what in truth it is, what it has always in the 
 church, until very late years, been taken to be, 
 a very grievous sin. it is one, of which every 
 congregation, as well as every individual, look¬ 
 ed upon themselves as particularly concerned 
 to stand clear. Whenever, therefore, a separa¬ 
 tion took place in any church, or community of 
 
8 SERMON I. 
 
 Christians, great anxiety was shown by every 
 one of the parties to account for their conduct; 
 and to shew that the guilt, which was univer¬ 
 sally allowed to follow the act, did not belong 
 to them and to their friends, but to those of the 
 othei side. It was wisely reasoned that, al- 
 though our Saviour had foretold consequences 
 which would follow from his doctrine, this did 
 m no degree operate as a recommendation or 
 approbation of them; that his having declared, 
 that “ he was not come to give peace upon 
 " earth, but rather division,” would no way 
 excuse the individuals, by whose means peace 
 should be driven away, and division brought 
 m. It was remembered, that in the very sa°me 
 breath with which he had at another time de¬ 
 clared that, ft It must needs be that offences 
 shoil l<I come he had added, “ Woe to that 
 man by whom the offence cometh.” 
 
 If we required any arguments to shew, what 
 indeed our reason might of itself point out to 
 us, the great utility, as well as loveliness of 
 union, our blessed Lord has not left us to seek, 
 
 I he repeated and forcible exhortations tending 
 to that effect, which he delivered in his several 
 discourses to his disciples ; and more especially 
 in those which immediately preceded his cruci¬ 
 fixion, speak but too evidently what was the 
 
 * Matthew xviii. 7, 
 
SERMON I 
 
 9 
 
 end of his doctrine, and what were the means 
 by which he intended that it should be ad¬ 
 vanced. He prayed to the Father, that the dis¬ 
 ciples “ might be one, even as the Father and he 
 4 ‘ were one *than which it is impossible to de¬ 
 vise any terms more expressive of the com- 
 pletest union in every respect, in thought and 
 in word, as well as in deed. And that this 
 unity of the church was intended to produce 
 great and powerful effects even upon those that 
 were without, we are not left merely to infer; 
 for he goes on almost immediately after to re¬ 
 peat his prayer for the apostles, in order, as he 
 says, addressing himself to the Father, “ That 
 “ they all may be one, as thou Father art 
 <% in me, and I in thee; that they may also be 
 “ one with us, that the world may believe that 
 “thou hast sent met.” The union of Chris¬ 
 tians with one another was, you sec, to be an 
 evidence of the divine mission of their irreat 
 teacher and master. Again, he says, the more 
 to enforce it, “I in them, and thou in me; 
 “ that they may be made perfect in one, and 
 “ that the world may know that thou hast sent 
 “ me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved 
 “ mef ’ It is impossible to consider these, 
 among other passages, without being satisfied 
 that they relate, not merely to the preserve- 
 
 ♦Johnxvii.il, f lb. 21. + lb. 
 
 i 
 
10 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 lion of charity in general, but to that particu¬ 
 lar conformity in religious sentiment, in points 
 of faith and modes of worship, which must have 
 subsisted between Christ and his disciples dur¬ 
 ing his continuance upon earth. They were 
 his flock, and he the one shepherd. There was 
 no hint of their separating into different and in¬ 
 dependent companies ; of any liberty to choose 
 separate paths for themselves. All our Lord’s 
 words pointed to the strictest obedience, to the 
 closest adherence to one uniform rule. “ Ye are 
 “ my friends, if ye keep whatsoever I have com- 
 “ manded you.” “ If ye keep my commandments, 
 il ye shall abide in my love, even as I have kept 
 “ my father’s commandments, and abide in his 
 love*.” Will it now be said, that the man who 
 first separated himself from the church, who, 
 upon pretences more or less frivolous, declared 
 himself independent of his brethren, did “abide” 
 in that “love,” and “keep those command¬ 
 ments?” Surely not. Must we not rather believe 
 that, when our blessed Lord particularly prayed 
 that his disciples should remain united, in order 
 that the world might believe, that God had sent 
 him, he had in view that very scandal, which our 
 divisions and our contentions have excited ; and 
 of which, as I have before mentioned, the ad¬ 
 versaries of bur faith have so amply availed 
 themselves; and that he was shewing* a par** 
 
 * John xv. 14. 10. 
 
 \ 
 
SERMON L 
 
 11 
 
 ticular anxiety, that so great a stumbling block 
 should not exist ? 
 
 To some of my audience I shall, probably, ap¬ 
 pear as having spent some time, and a great 
 many words, very unnecessarily, in proving that 
 which is so plain, as not to be open to contro¬ 
 versy. To others, however, I may appear to 
 have been faulty for a reason almost directly 
 opposite. I shall be thought to have been lay¬ 
 ing a great deal of stress upon what is, in fact, of 
 no consequence ; upon what they conceive to 
 be not even a fair subject for any question^ 
 Many there are who will be surprised, and who 
 will revolt at any argument which tends to 
 shew, that it is not left to the arbitrary will or 
 caprice of any man to worship God after that 
 mode which is most agreeable to his imao-ina- 
 
 •v O 
 
 tion. They will look upon it as a novelty to 
 be told (what yet is the old and true doc¬ 
 trine) that to that sound part of Christ’s church, 
 which is established in the country where he 
 was born, or where the providence of God has 
 fixed him, lie is bound to adhere ; that to all its 
 ordinances in indifferent matters, all those rules, 
 which it has directed to be observed, for the 
 purpose of edification, it is his duty to conform ; 
 that he who separates from such a particular 
 church, does it at his peril; that he is commit¬ 
 ting an act, for which he must be seriously 
 and deeply accountable at the d^y of judgment ; 
 
 4 
 
12 
 
 SERMON L 
 
 that, in short, schism, independently of all con¬ 
 siderations of doctrine, though it should be no 
 part of its object to work any express corrup¬ 
 tion of the truth, is in itself a grievous and a 
 heinous sin; hurtful in the greatest degree to 
 the general interests of Christianity, and big 
 with the most serious consequences to the in¬ 
 dividual. 
 
 *1 hat, when I affirm this, I am treading upon 
 tender ground ; that this is a position which 
 liias for some time past, by many persons, been 
 considered as obsolete; and hardly so accre¬ 
 dited, as to make it necessary for any sectary 
 to combat, or even to notice it, I am fully 
 aware. But I feel, also, that this only makes 
 it the more incumbent upon those who are the 
 appointed teachers of the word to maintain and 
 enforce it. It is for that very purpose, among 
 others, that a standing ministry was instituted ; 
 it was ordained with that very intent, that 
 whatever changes took place in the minds of 
 the great body of Christians, there should be a 
 particular and chosen number, who should be 
 constantly upon the watch, lest either any part 
 oi that which is sound and true doctrine should 
 be lost, or any new and unfounded tenet should 
 be introduced. It is also more especially the 
 end for which these and similar lectures have 
 been founded. It was foreseen that, in the va¬ 
 riety of changes to which all human affairs are 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 13 
 
 liable, and by which the opinions, as well as 
 the worldly circumstances of men are so ma¬ 
 terially affected,, it might happen that great and 
 culpable indifference might prevail upon the 
 more important and material points of our re¬ 
 ligion ; and that it might require an extraor¬ 
 dinary degree or sort of exertion, either to keep 
 them in remembrance and preserve them in their 
 full vigour; or, in the case of their being neglect¬ 
 ed and forgotten, to bring them again into light, 
 and to claim for them their due rank and estima¬ 
 tion. And most surely to me, in the present 
 instance, it must be conceded, that when the 
 
 i / 
 
 pious founder of this lecture directed that it 
 might be preached for the confutation of schis¬ 
 matics, as well as of heretics, he did not con¬ 
 sider schism as a light and trivial matter ; he 
 did not conceive that it was left to the ca¬ 
 price or whim of every man, whether he should 
 join in communion with the national church or 
 no. I may be allowed to conjecture, that per¬ 
 haps it was the very lukewarmness upon this 
 subject, which he saw creeping as it were over 
 the church, and infecting and neutralizing 
 many of those whose duty it was to be most ac¬ 
 tive in opposing its effects, which caused him 
 to insert this particular direction for its being 
 noted and confuted. 
 
 For it is most certain, as I have before de¬ 
 clared, that it was not alwavs so. It will be 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 evident to any man who will look back into 
 history, only so far as the beginning of the last 
 century, that, down to that time, the guilt of 
 schism was considered as so heinous that it was 
 loudly deprecated or disclaimed by all parties. 
 How it has happened that, by degrees, the 
 dread of such an imputation has diminished, 
 til! at last it has dwindled almost into nothing, 
 and has ceased even to be thought of, may 
 also, as I conceive, be tolerably well accounted 
 for by those who will consider the change which 
 has taken place in the situation of the church, 
 and the nature of the adversaries which she has 
 had to contend with, from the period which I 
 have mentioned down to the present moment. 
 
 I shall perhaps, before I go farther, be called 
 upon to state what I mean, whether I would 
 set up an “absolute” 1 authority in the church; 
 
 * Those readers who are conversant with the Bangorian contro¬ 
 versy, of which I shall have more to say by ami bv, will recollect 
 how much turned upon the use of this same word'- absolute,” in 
 Bishop Hoadly’s famous sermon upon John xviii, 36. As nobodv 
 
 that is, no protestant claimed, or has ever claimed such an "abso¬ 
 lute” authority, it was evident that if that vvas'all which the bishop 
 was contending against, he was in fact but fighting a shadow. The 
 supposition was indeed contrary to theganeral tenour of the sermon, 
 as well as his other writings, and therefore it was more than sus¬ 
 pected that it was a mere after-thought of the bishop's, in order to 
 
 shelter himself from animadversion. William Law in his first 
 letter, plainly shews that the bishop's arguments "conclude as 
 ' strongly against all authority as against that which is absolute ” It 
 was in fact asserted that the word " absolute'’ was insefted bv" the 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 15 
 
 whether I would contend that under no circum¬ 
 stances whatever, a man may lawfully separate 
 irom the established communion? Undoubted¬ 
 ly, 1 claim no such infallibility for any church : 
 undoubtedly, there may be circumstances 
 which will not only excuse but justify such a 
 sepaiation. The case of the Reformation alone 
 would suffice to establish this point. But then, 
 whenever such a separation takes place, there 
 must be guilt somewhere. If he who separates 
 is innocent and justifiable, then he who has so 
 acted as to oblige his brother to separate from 
 
 him is the person guilty and liable to the judg¬ 
 ment. It is not therefore and cannot be strict¬ 
 ly true, that (always understanding the case of 
 there being a. national church established) 
 theiecan be a separation which is not schisma- 
 tical and sinful, and for which there will not 
 he some one or other tq answer as a criminal. 
 
 If I am told that, in laying down this posi¬ 
 tion, I am uncharitable, I can only say that I 
 know no difference in the main between this 
 and any other sin. Every man, who, in any 
 instance, disbelieves or disregards God’s com¬ 
 mandments, is guilty of sin and liable to pu¬ 
 nishment. But schism appears to me most evi- 
 
 bishop after the* sermon had been preached; and a curious contro- 
 
 VGrS y ar0se out of which ke Pt the city of London in a ferment 
 for some days. See an account of it in the Biographia Britannica, 
 
 Art. Kennet (White), and in Bishop Hoadly’s Works, Vol ii 
 i>. 430. 
 
16 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 dently, judging from the express words of 
 Scripture, to be an instance of such disregard: 
 and, if I am right in so conceiving, we are not 
 to suppose that it will be dealt with in a diffe¬ 
 rent manner from any other sin. If it be urged 
 that schism may be produced by prejudice or 
 ignorance, which is invincible, and the effect 
 of circumstances, I must say that this is as likely 
 to be the case of heresy or infidelity; the lat¬ 
 ter of which, at least, no one will deny to be 
 a sin. I admit, what must necessarily be ad¬ 
 mitted, that there are different degrees of guilt 
 which may be incurred by different persons in 
 file commission of the same sin; there are cir¬ 
 cumstances which will extenuate, some perhaps 
 which, in the eye of a merciful God, will 
 wholly takeaway the guilt of it: but this does 
 not make it to be no sin in itself. The ancients 
 avowedly made great allowances for those who 
 were born of schismatical parents, and in the 
 midst of a schismatical or heretical con^re^a- 
 
 , . , to to 
 
 tion . I am perfectly ready to go as far as 
 any of them ever went, nay as any man can go, 
 in hoping and trusting that the conduct of 
 these and of every other separatist will be 
 judged with the greatest possible mildness and 
 favour. But still, though you take as many 
 such individuals as you will, though you sup- 
 
 * See Bingham, Vol ii. p . 23. fol. Ed. 
 
SERMON T. 
 
 17 
 
 pose them all, if you will, to be thus absolved, 
 this does no way alter the nature of the thing: 
 it will still continue to be sinful; and this will 
 be no warrant for any man to enter into a 
 schism, or to continue in it, under the con¬ 
 fidence that he shall eventually escape condem¬ 
 nation. Indeed I will venture to say, that, in 
 some respects, schismatics appear to be more 
 directly sinful than heretics, or even than infi¬ 
 dels. They have less to say for themselves. 
 Their conduct seems particularly wanton and 
 without cause. That I may not appear more 
 rash and singular than is necessary, let me be 
 allowed here to plead the authority of some of 
 the most respected fathers of the church, whose 
 very sentiments and almost language I have 
 used. They say directly that schism is as bad 
 or worse than heresy, or than idolatry; and 
 one of them asserts that the prevalence of it is 
 the reason why the power of working miracles 
 had ceased in the church 3 . 
 
 3 The reader who doubts this may refer to Hammond on schism, 
 c. 1, 1 will add a few passages from Austin and Chrysostom. The 
 
 former in his Treatise contraEpistolam Parmeniani, Tom. ix. p. l3, 
 ed. Antwerp, as well as elsewhere, adduces and relies upon that 
 opinion of Cyprian, that a schismatic could not be a real martyr, 
 and he reasons from our Lord’s words in Matt. v. 10. “Blessed are 
 “ they who suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake $’* which he 
 denies to be the case with schismatics. “Ideo,” says he, “Dominus, 
 “ quisquam in hac re nebulas offenderet imperitis, et in suorum 
 “damnationemeritorum laudem quaereret martyrum,non generaliter 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 S E n M 0 N I. 
 
 i 
 
 But this was not only the language of remote 
 antiquity: it continued to he the doctrine of 
 
 ait, beati qui persecutionem patiuntur: sed addidit magnam diffe- 
 “ rentiarn, qua vera sacrilegio pietas secernatur. Ait enim, beati 
 “ qui persecutionem patiuntur propter justitiam. Nulio modoautem 
 “ pi'opter justitiam, qui Christi ecclesiam diviserunt, etc.” So in 
 Libro de Baptismo contra Donatistas, he calls it “sacrilege” re¬ 
 peatedly; 44 nefarise division^ sacrilegium,” p. 4Q. 44 Schismatis 
 
 46 sacrilegio,” p, 50 44 Sacrilegia schismata,” ibidem. 44 Sacrilegium 
 44 schismatis, quod omnia scelera supragraditur,” p. 10. And he 
 says none can be guilty of it 44 nisi aut superbiae tumore furiosos, 
 44 aut invidentiae livore vesanos, aut saeculari commoditate corrupted, 
 aut carnali timore pen ersos,” p. 50. That schismatics are worse 
 than idolaters he argues from their punishment in the Old Testa¬ 
 ment; that the one was slain with the sword, while the other was 
 swallowed up alive in the earth. 44 Idololatras enim in popul® 
 Dei gladius interemit, schismaticos autem terras hiatus absorbuit,’’ 
 p. 57. And he expressly ascribes the origin of schism to the want 
 of charity. 44 Nulli schismata facerent nisi fraterno odio non ex- 
 44 ccecarentur,” p. 5Q. And after citing 1 John ii. 11, he says, “An 
 44 non in schismate odium fra tern u in? Ouis hoc dixerit, cum et 
 44 origo et pertinaeia schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fratris ?’* 
 ibidem. Chrysostom in his homily on Ephes. iv. cites with ap¬ 
 probation that faying of Cyprian with respect to martyrdom. He 
 says too that nothing so contributes to cause divisions in the church 
 as ambition; and nothing so provokes the anger of God as for his 
 church to be divided. 44 Ovoh ovrcvs ixxkr^lav fovqrslzt 
 44 Stcufiv, ccs fyiXccpyjcc' ovSlv culcv irapc$vvet rov Qeov, ccc rrv 
 hiTtXTjclccv And he adds that though we should 
 
 do a thousand good works, “xoLv fj.ijfcc caxov s^yacrci^evqi xx?.cL” 
 we should not escape the punishment due to a breach of the unity 
 01 the church. Tom. xi. p. So. Ed. Bened. See also what he 
 says afterwards of schism not being a crime at all inferior to heresy, 
 tovfo AeTcv yede Siccf.ccx.flvpou.cu, on rov s'lg ausnv iu.jsscrsTv rb 
 UxXr/G-lccr yj<T 0 U oux sXocrlov ssl xccxov, p. 88. And in Tom. 
 p. 3, a in his homily on Matt. x. iO. he points out the reason 
 
the church at large, through succeeding ages. 
 It was the strong and declared opinion of our 
 national church in particular, at that period to 
 which we are all in the habit of looking’, wheii 
 she virtually, nay, actually separated from the 
 church of Rome ; when therefore she might 
 have spared herself and the rest of the reformed 
 churches much trouble, when she and they 
 might at once have set themselves above the 
 reach of obloquy and censure, if they could 
 have maintained the broad ground, that there 
 was no guilt in schism, and that neither 
 churches nor individuals were bound to have 
 fellowship with each other in matters of reli¬ 
 gion. She still, however, maintained the old 
 doctrine, she still reproved and taxed with 
 guilt all those individuals who separated from 
 their proper churches, and all those churches 
 who refused to communicate with each other 
 
 why miracles have ceased to be, lest any man having Such extraor¬ 
 dinary powers should thereby be puffed up and led to separate him¬ 
 self from the church : since he says, this is even now the case with 
 minent for other gift s, si y<x<j o'j ftfvojj,£vojv oy^eimv 
 ol 7?XsovznlYjy,acriv krlooig xop-uj'/lsc, ohvs) Xoys arb<pid, r* kvXatsio^ 
 hri$si%£i, xsvQ$ogov<riv t sifalpovlai) aW dXXrjXajv ylgovlou si xoii 
 ctj^sicx, sysvovh, tz'ou ovx dv hysvilo crjl^ccjcc', and he alleges as a 
 proof what happened among the Corinthians. It is remarkable too 
 that Chrysostom rather goes out of his way to give this opinion, as 
 his text only required him to speak generally of the blessings of 
 peace ; which shews the more strongly how much he was impressed 
 with the idea that ambition and vanity were the prevalent causes of 
 .schism. 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 20 
 
 without the most evident and weighty reasons. 
 She, as well as the rest, held it to be incumbent 
 upon those who so separated to shew that the 
 terms of communion imposed by the church 
 from which the separation was made were ac¬ 
 tually sinful; either as being in themselves con¬ 
 trary to^ the word of God, or as by manifest 
 consequence directly leading to evil. Of both 
 these sorts of terms there were numberless and 
 gross instances to be found in the practice and 
 discipline of the Romish church. The schism 
 therefore lay not at their door, but belonged to 
 those, who, by admitting and giving currency 
 to such enormous abuses had made it both dan¬ 
 gerous and sinful to remain in their society. 
 
 Such were the allegations of the church of 
 England at that memorable time, when, by the 
 grace of God, she was enabled to tread back 
 her steps, and disencumber herself of that load 
 of superstition, under which, in common with 
 the great body of Christians, she had so long- 
 groaned ; and when she shook off the yoke 
 which under the most impudent and fraudful 
 pretences, had been imposed upon her by a suc¬ 
 cession of artful and designing usurpers. When 
 afterwards a number of her sons, having been 
 driven by persecution into foreign countries, 
 had unfortunately imbibed a partiality for other 
 forms of discipline in preference to those which 
 she had adopted, and caused the first schism 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 21 
 
 «• 
 
 which took place among protestants in this 
 kingdom, neither did these very men contend 
 for that unbounded latitude of every man's wor¬ 
 shipping God after his own way. They pro¬ 
 fessed to act upon scruples of conscience ; to 
 be persuaded that the Reformation had not gone 
 far enough; that much of popish abomination 
 yet remained behind, of which it was necessary 
 that the church should be purged ; and which 
 they assigned as the cause why they could not 
 join in her communion. This was carried so 
 far, and so acted upon by these puritans, that 
 when, in the time of the great rebellion, the} T 
 came to have the upper hand, they fully shewed 
 themselves to have been in earnest. For they 
 not only established for themselves a mode of 
 worship more devoid of ceremonies and more 
 plain in every respect: not only they destroyed, 
 as far as-related to its temporal existence, the 
 hierarchy of the church, by voting bishops to 
 be useless, but they absolutely forbad under 
 considerable penalties any man's making use of 
 our liturgy. To popery and prelacy, which 
 they most unwarrantably yoked together, they 
 denied that toleration which they were not 
 disinclined to extend, and which was in fact 
 extended to all other, even the most extrava¬ 
 gant sects. By the very persecution which 
 they carried on against the church, they de¬ 
 clared in the plainest terms, though in a way 
 ( ' 
 
is SERMON I. 
 
 which was neither just nor decent, their con¬ 
 viction, or opinion at least, that there was a sub¬ 
 stantial and conscientious cause for their sepa¬ 
 ration. They did, as our church had done 
 before, throw the guilt of the schism upon those 
 from whom they separated. 
 
 This was still more apparent, when, upon the 
 restoration of monarchy, and of the church, 
 these same men who had, under the usurped 
 government, obtained possession of most of the 
 livings in the kingdom, were required to con¬ 
 form to the rites and ordinances of the church, 
 under pain of being ejected from their prefer¬ 
 ments; when almost the whole of them chose 
 rather to relinquish their situations than to 
 make the subscriptions required. For what 
 was then their language? They complained 
 bitterly of the bishops and other rulers of the 
 church, as having devised such terms of com¬ 
 munion as they could not in conscience comply 
 with; they deplored the separation, to which 
 they were thus, as they said, driven; but re¬ 
 peatedly and loudly protested that the schism 
 was none of theirs 4 . At the conferences which 
 
 • V / i t / * t .» / . * * * vi 
 
 ? T his is done in the strongest language by Peirce in his “ Vindi¬ 
 cation of the Dissenters/’ published in 1717. “ After the church 
 
 “ of England, being led by a schismatical rage, ejected her ministers, 
 V &c.” Part 1. p. 283. u We have all along desired peace, and 
 ** will still most cheerfully embrace it, as soon as the unrighteous con¬ 
 dition* which $ow obstruct it are xemoTed.” Ibidem, p. 285. After- 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 25 
 
 took place at the Savoy (as before at that which 
 took place before king Janies at Hampton 
 Court) the dissenting ministers agreed most 
 fully with the dignitaries of the church in their 
 ideas of not only the advantage, but the duty 
 of being united. The same doctrine continued 
 to be held by them and their successors for 
 many years after. Not only in their general 
 professions, but in particular sermons delivered 
 and published by them, they continued to urge 
 the necessity of unity in the church, and the 
 sin of those who caused any breach in that 
 unity. 
 
 So late as the beginning of the last century, 
 the question was agitated with great warmth 
 and zeal; in particular between a very respect¬ 
 able divine.of our church, and certain dissenters 
 in his neighbourhood ; and whatever might be 
 the merits of the case in other respects, it is 
 most evident that both sides proceeded upon 
 
 wards, speaking of the use of the surplice and ceremonies, he says, 
 “ Since the things themselves are useless, if they are lawful, they 
 « who join in them, and without any necessity give an occasion of 
 << offence to their brethren, and lor such a trifling matter deprive 
 them of their ministry, as though they were unfjt for the sacred^ 
 « office, nay, and rend the mystical body of Christ for a thing of 
 nought, must deservedly he reckoned guilty of a grievous sin,” 
 Part iii. p. lQO. He says too (Part ii. p. 2.) that the episcopal 
 clenry “are guilty of schism, out of a certain dread ol it.” Peirce s 
 book was considered as a book of great authority among the DP- 
 
 i i 
 
 
 senterso 
 
24 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 the assumption, that schism was a dangerous 
 and damnable sin \ 
 
 5 See Bennet’s Essay on Schism ; c. vii. where he shews that 
 ** schism is a damnable sin in the judgment of the (then) present 
 “ dissenting ministers.” That Dr. Bennet had. the better of the 
 argument, we need no other proof than the admission of Dr. Kip- 
 pis, (a well-known Socinian dissenter), in his note. Art. Ben- 
 net in the last edition of his Biographia Britannica ; who tells us, 
 that Dr. Bennett met with insufficient adversaries ; and that he 
 s£ (the writer) Temembers being told in his youth, by Dr. Phil. Dod- 
 “ dridge, that the dissenting ministers in and about Colchester, 
 “ who endeavouredto answer Dr.Bennet,ancl particularly Mr.Shep- 
 * ( herd, were persons of very mean talents.” Supposing the fact 
 were admitted; yet, as the question was a general one, and Dr. Ben- 
 net's book went through several editions, it may be asked, why some 
 more able adversary from some other place, did not give the doctor a 
 better answer. There follows a paragraph, which as it coroborates 
 my assertions with respect to fact; and also gives the great plea of 
 the dissenters for non-conformity, it may be material to subjoin. 
 
 The question concerning schism,” adds Dr. K. was deemed of 
 e( great importance during the last century, and the beginning of the 
 present, (that is, the eighteenth). The papists charged this 
 crime upon the protestants, and the members of the church of 
 “ England upon the dissenters; and the parties attacked, recrimi- 
 “ nated in their turn. In these more libera times, it will be con- 
 “ fessed by all, except some recluse bigots, that a man who sm- 
 cerely worships God according to the dictates of his own con- 
 t( science, in any Christian assembly , is an object of salvation.’’ Upon 
 this I need not make any observation, having considered this posi¬ 
 tion in Sermon III. only I must observe, that the qualification here 
 introduced by the doctor, which I have printed in Italics, could 
 hardly have been maintained by him without some prejudice to his 
 general principle. I have only further to notice a most ingenious 
 artifice employed by the doctor in this note, and common indeed, 
 among the Socinians. Speaking of Dr. Bennet’s tracts in favour of 
 the Trinity, he calls it defending Athanasianism thus employ¬ 
 ing a term of modern invention, for the purpose of insinuating that 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 25 
 
 From that time, I admit, as I have said be^- 
 fore, that this opinion of the great guilt of 
 schism has very much lost its hold on the minds, 
 
 i 
 
 the doctrine of the Trinity is no older than Athanasius; an insinu¬ 
 ation not only unfounded in fact, but repeatedly shown to be so, 
 and solemnly repelled by every writer on that side of the question. 
 It is indeed , a term so improper in every respect, that it was reserved 
 for the Socinians of the present age to bring it forward. This is, 
 however, outdone in unfairness by a Mr. Evans ; who, having 
 published an account of the different sects of Christianity, charac¬ 
 terises the “ Trinitarians” by an opinion of Dr. Priestley, making 
 them in fact Sabellians or Tritheists ; and immediately subjoins the 
 te Athanasians” as a distinct denomination; under which the 
 Church of England is impliedly, though not by name, attempted 
 to be stigmatized, 
 
 I might adduce further, in corroboration of what I have stated 
 in the text, the controversy between bishop (then Air.) Hoadly 
 and Dr. Calamy, on non-conformity, which equally proceeded 
 upon the admission of the great evil of schism. To put it in 
 Bishop Hoadly’s words, who was tender enough upon the subject, 
 it was agreed on all bands, “That all causeless and unnecessary 
 divisions and distinctions, are most carefully and conscientiously 
 to be avoided by all Christians.” Reasonableness of conformity, 
 p. 289 , duod. edit, and again, p. 479 > (< That regularity is not to 
 ?* be neglected without a great necessity, is my principle; and this 
 “ author,” (that is Calamy) “ has said the same over and over 
 “ again.’’ What Bishop Hoadly so tenderly calls “ neglecting 
 ft regularity” the Apostles would probably have called “ troubling 
 « the church.’’ However, Hoadly beat Calamy on his own prin¬ 
 ciples, and I think this is fairly to be deduced from what Calamy 
 himself says of the end of this controversy. “ I drew up a reply 
 *< to it” (the defence of episcopal ordination) <f both as to the 
 f f historical and argumentative part, in a letter to the author, but 
 f e forebore printing it that I might not give him disturbance in the pursuit 
 il of his political contest , in which he is so happily engaged , and so much to 
 tl the satisfaction of the true lovers of his country. We must believe 
 that Dr. Calamy had no great confidence in a cause which jie 
 
26 
 
 S E R M ON I. 
 
 of perhaps, a majority in this nation. It has 
 even ceased to be much debated,, and other ideas 
 more lax, and more conformable to the liberal¬ 
 ity so much professed in these times, have taken 
 its place. But surely, if we trace the com¬ 
 mencement, as well as the progress or this 
 change, we shall see no room to be convinced 
 that this new mode of thinking is preferable to 
 the old. It took its rise, or, at least, it appear¬ 
 ed first to gather strength from an event, 
 which, though in the beginning it might be 
 said to concern only a lew individuals, very 
 soon, by the co-operation of other causes, be¬ 
 came extremely general and extended in its ef¬ 
 fects. 
 
 The circumstance to which I allude, is the 
 celebrated controversy which arose about or 
 soon after that time ; and which was occasioned 
 by certain positions maintained and promulgated 
 by an eminent prelate of that day ; the tenden¬ 
 cy of which (as it was not without good rea¬ 
 son objected to him) appeared to be to en¬ 
 courage all manner of divisions, by inviting 
 every man to follow the bent of his own fancy 
 in the choice of his communion ; and by declar¬ 
 ing against every species of authority in the 
 
 abandoned upon such grounds. What be had io say, be has set 
 down shortly in the place from which the above passage is ex¬ 
 tracted : Abridgment of Baxter’s life, p. 713—18, and I believe 
 it will shew I am not wrong in my supposition. 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 57 
 
 church 6 . There were not wanting many very 
 able and learned divines to come forward in the 
 refutation of such opinions; and that it was 
 done with great success—nay, with an unan¬ 
 swerable force of argument, has been generally 
 enough acknowledged 7 . Rut there were cir- 
 
 6 At this distance of time it may not be altogether unnecessary 
 to mention, that the Bangorian controversy was occasioned by two 
 productions of Bishop Hoadly, the one, “ a Preservative against 
 tc the Principles and Practices of the Non-jurors both in Church and 
 Cf State,” printed in 171b; the other, ie a Sermon on the Nature of 
 “ the Kingdom or Church of Christ,” preached before the King, 
 and published by command. As to the latter of which, the Bishop 
 himself says, “ At whose request it was commanded to be publish- 
 “ ed, I know not; but I know that it was not either directly or 
 <f indirectly from any desire of mine.” ( Pref. to vol. of Sermons 
 1754) Against certain positions contained in these publications, 
 a complaint was instituted in the lower house of convocation, 
 which being referred to a committee, a representation was drawn 
 up, reprobating them in very strong terms. But after it was re¬ 
 ceived, and nem. con. voted to be entered on the books of the 
 house. Bishop Koadly’s friends, as is well understood, procured th« 
 prorogation of the convocation in order to shelter him from the 
 censure, which he would otherwise hardly have avoided. The 
 bishop indeed disclaims. (Pref. to answer to the representation of the 
 committee) having solicited or even known or suspected any such 
 design, till it was actually resolved and ordered. He adds however, 
 “ It’’ (the prorogation) “ neither tends to hinder any light from 
 “ appearing, which possibly can be procured, nor can it have such 
 sc effect in its consequences, but the contrary. For the debate is by 
 ** this means taken from the bar of human authority , and brought to 
 * ( that of reason and scripture : removed from a trial by a majority of 
 
 voices (which cannot be a trial contended for either by truth or 
 " by the Church of England) and brought to that of Argument 
 (( only.’’ 
 
 7 This may, I think* not unreasonably be collected even from 
 
S E R M O N I. 
 
 £3 
 
 cumstances, which, independently of the me¬ 
 rits of the question, tended to give weight 
 and prevalency to the sentiments thus brought 
 forward and supported by Bishop Hoadly and 
 his adherents. The very circumstance which 
 had occasioned the question to be agitated, 
 secured to him a considerable degree of favour 
 with a very large party in the nation, and the 
 decided patronage of the persons that were 
 then at the head of the government. This 
 was the scrupulousness, extreme, i s t may be al¬ 
 lowed, and too nice, of certain of our divines, 
 who, however they disapproved, and had even 
 resisted the designs of James the second against 
 the church 8 , yet conceived themselves to be 
 
 the language of one of the bishop’s strongest partisans. A con¬ 
 tinuation of the account of all the pamphlets relating to this con¬ 
 troversy by Thomas Hearn, M. A. was published in 1720 , which 
 concludes thus. “ Let me add one general observation : that 
 e< though the principles maintained by my Lord of Bangor do 
 “ appear to be the only ones upon which our reformation, qr 
 “ indeed any reformation can be justifiable 5 though they evident- 
 
 <c lv tend to justify Christianity from the objections that are un- 
 
 ✓ 
 
 e ‘ answerable by those, who contend for the contradictory prift- 
 ** ciples, such as that it makes God a being acting not by reason, 
 “ &c. Though this and mmch more be true, yet the number of 
 i( those who appear in public opposition to him increases : as fast 
 as former ones are baffled, new ones of higher stations, and 
 << greater dignity succeed, whilst many who are of the same 
 ( ‘ sentiments with him content themselves with being well-wishers 
 to his cause; and except those who first sided with him, few 
 “ openly appear to his assistance,” &c'. See Hoadly’s works, vol* 
 L p. 710. 
 
 • Fhis was particularly the case with five (if i mistake not) of 
 
S E R M ONI. 
 
 so bound by the oath of allegiance which they 
 had taken to him, that they Could not, during 
 his life, transfer that allegiance to any other 
 sovereign ; -and they in consequence declined 
 acknowledging his successor. This brought on 
 the expulsion of them from their bishoprics 
 and other perfermenis ; and, as they still per¬ 
 sisted in considering themselves as the right- 
 ful pastors in the several cures to which they 
 had been instituted, occasion was given to a con¬ 
 test, which though in itself purely religious, yet 
 was made naturally enough to bear upon the 
 politics of the day. The assertion of an eccle¬ 
 siastical authority independent of the civil 
 power was conceived, by the adminstration 
 then existing, to he of a dangerous tendency, 
 and they were not backward therefore to sup¬ 
 port those who came forward in opposition to 
 such claims. The mode however which was 
 adopted by the then bishop of Bangor for the 
 combating of these pretensions, well or ill- 
 founded, must he admitted to have been some¬ 
 what extraordinary for one, who was by his 
 office, an established ruler in the church. Not 
 
 the seven bishops. It is remarkable too, that Leslie, who was 
 the most violent (perhaps) of the non-jurors in favour of the pre¬ 
 tender, had early in his life very strenuously opposed an illegal 
 attempt of James the second to appoint a popish sheriff for a 
 county of Ireland, where he was an acting justice of the peace 
 V. Biog. Brit. Art. Leslie. 
 
 V 
 
30 
 
 SERMON L 
 
 content to argue against any abuse or miscon¬ 
 ception of authority, he proceeded at once to 
 deny that there was any authority whatever given 
 by Christ to any person to rule or to govern 
 his church: he asserted that what our Lord 
 said of “his kingdom not being of this world” 
 was to be taken most strictly, as interdicting 
 every man from being a judge or lawgiver in 
 religious matters ; and thus he, by necessary 
 inference, condemned or materially impeached 
 the very establishment in which he held so dis¬ 
 tinguished a situation 9 * 
 
 O 
 
 Inconsistent as this conduct might appear, 
 yet while the doctrine was patronized by the 
 government, and the supporters ot it were re¬ 
 warded with the preferments and the dignities, 
 of which they thus seemed to doubt the pro¬ 
 priety, it is no wonder that the tenet should 
 have continued to gain ground. It was more 
 particularly received with great favour by the 
 dissenters, with many of whose positions it 
 not only agreed, but even seemed in a great 
 degree to be borrowed from them. It further 
 
 O 
 
 opened to them a prospect of being set at liber- 
 
 \ 
 
 9 It is true the bishop afterwards endeavoured to explain away 
 or to narrow his positions, but it was clearly shewn by his oppo¬ 
 nents that this could not be done without destroying the whole of 
 his argument. See particularly William Law’s third letter, under 
 the head of “ A remarkable evasion of your lordship’s in relatioa 
 to church authority.’’ 
 
 
SERMON 1 . 31 
 
 ty from those restraints to which by the policy 
 ot the civil legislature they had been subjected ; 
 and they appear from that time io have shewn 
 a disposition to unite as one body in their ge* 
 
 neral views of hostility against the national 
 church. 
 
 In consequence of this too, and in order to 
 preserve consistency in the maintenance of the 
 doctrine, the Allans and Socinians began from 
 that time also to be taken into favour by the 
 other dissenters; and were admitted by them 
 to be entitled to the same degree of indulgence 
 and the same privileges as the other sects. 
 
 IIow far this was from being the case with 
 their predecessors, no man who has looked ever 
 so superficially into ecclesiastical history, can 
 be ignorant. From the earliest appearance of 
 the puritans down to the times of Baxter, and 
 even of his biographer Catamy, the Socinians, 
 and all those who denied the proper divinity of 
 our Lord, were considered as hardly deserving 
 even to be classed among Christians. Calvin, 
 it is notorious, shewed it by causing Seryetus 
 to be burned, and Baxter spoke of Biddle’s 
 followers as men who were little better than 
 
 Heists or Infidels 10 . In the toleration act passed 
 
 /• 
 
 10 “ The Socinians also in these times made some increase by the 
 ** means of one Mr. Biddle, sometime schoolmaster in Gloucester, 
 who wrote against the godhead of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards of 
 ** Christ. Ilis followers inclined much to mere Deism and Infidelity .’* 
 
32 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 under King William, a clause was inserted re¬ 
 quiring a subscription expressly calculated to 
 exclude this class of sectaries from taking ad¬ 
 vantage of its provisions; and by another sta¬ 
 tute it was declared to be an offence highly 
 penal to deny the godhead of any of the persons 
 of the blessed trinity; as also to affirm that 
 there is more than one God 11 . To neither of 
 which enactments was any opposition made by 
 the dissenters of those days, nor did they shew 
 the least apprehension that they could ever be¬ 
 come subject to the penalties which were thus 
 imposed. Not long after this, however, the 
 consequences of their own principles, when 
 pushed to the utmost, began to press upon 
 them, 12 and they or most of them manifested a 
 
 Calamy’s abridgment ofBaxter’s life, Vol. 1 . p. 104. Peirce in his 
 Vindication of Dissenters blames the churchmen as too easy in this 
 respect. “ Why,” says he, “ do they not, as well as we, keep 
 cc heretics and profligate sinners out of their communion.” Part 
 iii. p. 273. 
 
 51 This was extended to the Quakers. Vid. Stat. 1 . W. & M. 
 c. xviii. sec. 13. and 9 . and 10 . W. iii. c. 32. 
 
 * 2 “ Among the many clamours raised about this time (anno 
 ' 1704) among the Dissenters , one was that they did not deserve 
 
 tt to p ave liberty themselves, because they were enemies to the 
 *< liberty of others. This was started as a maxim that they that 
 << would be for straining others if they were able, could not reason- 
 a a p]y expect liberty from those that were in power, when they 
 “ differed from them. I shall not set myself to debate this maxim 
 “ or consider what might be objected to it; but shall let the world 
 << understand that the Dissenters took another way to answer it, 
 
 &c.” Calamys abridgment of Baxter’s Life, Vol. i. p 670 . The 
 
r 
 
 SERMON! Si 
 
 disposition to unite with all sectaries without 
 any distinction of doctrine any more than of 
 discipline. But as some of them continued to 
 thiiiK that the proper atonement of our Saviour, 
 and of course his divinity, were articles of 
 faith essentially interwoven with Christianity, 
 this was not carried either universally or with¬ 
 out opposition 13 ; though it is now I believe very 
 generally entertained. 
 
 way taken was to write a letter to some ministers of reputation in 
 New England on behalf of the Quakers, who complained of some 
 severe laws of a long standing, not repealed, from which they de¬ 
 sired to be screened. The letter was signed by several of the other 
 ihnt denominations of Dissenters : I suppose Presbyterian, Inde¬ 
 pendent, and Socinian. If it was so, this was a beginning of 
 union. , 
 
 Dr. Kippis in the last edition of the Biographic Britannica* 
 Art. CALAMY, (Edmund) speaks of this event and particularly 
 of Dr. Edmund Calamy’s conduct at the time, in the following 
 woids: ‘ In the great disputes which were carried on among the 
 
 “ Dissenters in 1718 and the following years, concerning subscrip- 
 “ tion to the first article of the church of England, relative to the 
 doctrine of the trinity. Dr. Calamy acted a neutral part. Pie 
 “ distinctly foresaw the quarrel and its consequences ; and before 
 “ it rose to an height, took up a resolution to have no hand in it. 
 " He was indeed at one private meeting, but saw so much there, 
 as de t«mined him to engage no farther, though he was earnestly 
 “ pressed both by the subscribers, and those who were afterwards 
 “ called the non-subseribers, to give them his company. We be. 
 “ heve that most of the present race of dissenting clergy will think 
 that Dr. Calamy lost some credit by not being one of the seventy 
 ,f three ministers who carried it against sixty-nine for the bible 
 “ 111 opposition to human formularies.” I have never met any 
 where with further particulars of this transaction, by which as it 
 seems the presbyterians and independents formally i reed to give 
 
 I) 
 
From that time, indeed, the opinions of Arius 
 arid Socinus began to acquire a degree of credit 
 not only greater than they had ever possessed, 
 but in a quarter where it might least have been 
 expected, even in the bosom of the church. 
 
 The learned and ingenious prelate,, of whom we 
 have been speaking, was by many persons sup¬ 
 posed to be much inclined to the Socinian 
 tenets 14 . Another extremely eminent, and 
 otherwise respectable divine put forth such an 
 
 the right hand of fellowship to the Soclnians. Nor am I aware 
 what were “ the quarrel and its consequences” which followed. 
 But I think there'was good reason for this caution of Dr. Calamy. 
 Possibly he remembered what his grandfather, (as quoted by his 
 xmcle Benjamin) had said, that “ he that separates from the 
 public worship, is like a man tumbling down a hill, and never 
 “ leaving till he comes to the bottom of it. I could relate/’ he 
 goes on, “ many sad stories of persons professing godliness, who 
 “ oat of dislike to our church-meetings began at first to separate 
 se from them, and after many changes and alterations are turned 
 w some of them anabaptist, some quakers, some ranters, some di- 
 “ reel atheists !” Ib. Art. Calamy (Benjamin.) Note A. 
 
 14 In the Eiographia Britanrtica, art. IIoadly, , it is supposed ( 
 that this charge rests merely upon his tc account of,Dr. Clarke, 
 “ and his extraordinary veneration for that divine but this is an 
 evident, if not a wilful mistake. When I say wilful, I mean it 
 with a reference to what is said afterwards of the plain account 
 of the sacrament, that “ it was not unjustly said to have met with 
 “ much warm and weak opposition.” The man who wrote this 
 must, or should therefore have known that upon that publication 
 more than any other, wasfounded, the impeachment of his lordship’s 
 orthodoxy respecting the divinity of our Saviour. As. this is a 
 point of some consequence and that may well deserve to be con¬ 
 sidered at length, I must refer my readers for further particulars to 
 additional note A. 
 
35 
 
 < 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 account oF his ideas of the trinity, as naturally 
 operated to fix upon him the charge of Arian- 
 ism 15 . The same heresy was maintained at the 
 same time, without any disguise, by the learned 
 and pious, but wild and extravagant William 
 W r histon 16 . Nearer to our days, a bishop of 
 the church of Ireland in a pamphlet, anony¬ 
 mous indeed, but acknowledged or understood 
 to be his, declared unreservedly for that opin¬ 
 ion A And the taking away of all subscriptions 
 was urged by another dignitary of our church 
 upon such latitudinarian principles as would 
 have set open the door to every the wildest 
 
 15 That Dr. Clarke’s ideas of the trinity were not those of our 
 church is so fully agreed on all hands that it is unnecessary to say 
 more on the subject at present. This indeed was put still more 
 out of all doubt by his corrections of the liturgy, deposited by his 
 son in the British Museum : (see his article in the Biog. Britannica) 
 and of which Mr. Lindsay has made a considerable use in his 
 Apology. 
 
 16 For the doctrines of this learned and worthy, hut very 
 eccentric writer, see his Memoirs, which are written in a style of 
 uncommon plainness and sincerity. His great text book was the 
 apostolical constitutions which I believe no other learned man in 
 our days has contended to be genuine. Whiston’s son was sub- 
 j ect to temporary derangements of mind ; and when he found the 
 fit coming upon him, used to go, and voluntarily put himself 
 under the care of a medical gentleman till the disorder was re¬ 
 moved. 
 
 17 See additional note B. for particulars of this publication and 
 ts consequences, as well as Bishop Clayton’s principles and 
 conduct. 
 
 JD 2 
 
36 
 
 SERMON' I. 
 
 theory 1 *. This may account, in some de¬ 
 gree, for what might otherwise appear a most 
 extraordinary measure, the formal application 
 to Parliament in the year 1772 from a numerous 
 body of the established clergy, praying for what 
 they called relief upon this subject: and although 
 no great degree of favour was shewn to the 
 petition, yet it could not but add strength and 
 currency to the arguments which continued to 
 be advanced by the dissenters for the taking 
 away of all distinctions in respect of religious 
 opinions. It must also be obvious that all 
 these descriptions of persons must of course b® 
 disposed to reject the doctrine that schism was 
 in any way criminal or sinful. And, in fact, 
 their common manner of treating the subject 
 has been to represent every idea of that kind 
 as being not only illiberal, but unchristian. 
 This has been particularly the case with the 
 writers of the Socinian, or, as they call them¬ 
 selves, the Unitarian heresy. It suits particular- 
 ly that sect, which has all along contended for, 
 and indeed subsisted upon the widest possible 
 latitude in understanding as well as interpret¬ 
 ing, nay admitting* or rejecting, the holy scrip¬ 
 tures; which peculiarly professes to oppose 
 every argument from authority, however built 
 
 * 3 It is hardly necessary to mention Archdeacon Blaekburne 
 m his Confessional and other tracts. 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 37 
 
 upon the remotest antiquity ; and admits of no 
 doctrine, however plainly laid down in the 
 revealed word of God, if not clearly reducible 
 to certain pre-conceived ideas of right and 
 justice. These principles so distinctly en¬ 
 courage and set up a private and independent 
 judge in every man’s breast, that they cannot 
 also but allow of and sanction the utmost pos¬ 
 sible difference of opinion. Of course, where 
 there is so little reason for individuals remaining 
 joined together, there can be no good ground for 
 complaining against any of their brethren who 
 shall chuse to make a further separation upon 
 principles of their own devising’ 9 . 
 
 But farther, it is curious (and this brings me 
 to the last circumstance memorable in this 
 revolution of men's opinions respecting ec¬ 
 clesiastical authority) it is, I say, particularly 
 curious that this extreme laxity of opinion upon 
 
 19 As has evidently been the case, among others, with Priestley, 
 Evanson and Wakefield; the two former of whom have outstrip¬ 
 ped all who have gone before them in the liberties which they 
 have taken with the scriptures ; and the last in rejecting social 
 worship. I was not aware that this last tenet had gained so much 
 ground. But I see it mentioned in a periodical work, (Gent. Mag. 
 for Dec. 1807, p. 1128) that on that account we must not estimate 
 the number of Socinians from the number of their chapels, there 
 being a great proportion of that sect who upon this principle of 
 Wakefield’s, absent themselves from all places of public worship. 
 This will serve to prove, among numerous other instances, to 
 what length the spirit of non-conformity will go when it is fuljy 
 let loose. 
 
3S 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 the most important tenets of Christianity (pre¬ 
 vailing whether in or out of the church) has, 
 by a sort of revulsion, given rise to another 
 sect, as decidedly schismatical, but proceeding 
 upon the directly opposite extreme in point of 
 doctrine. The Socinians, as well as the Arians, 
 though these last in a less degree, denying the 
 atonement made by Christ for our sins, and 
 asserting our sufficiency to merit salvation by 
 our own good works only, must of course con¬ 
 fine, or principally direct their preaching to 
 what is called the moral part of the law. This 
 must also have been the practice of those among 
 our clergy, who leant to the same opinions : 
 and possibly it may have happened to some of 
 the body who were strictly orthodox, to dwell 
 more frequently upon the purely practical, than 
 upon what is by many considered, though false¬ 
 ly, as the speculative part of religion. Whether 
 this did, in fact, take place to any extent, it 
 is not perhaps easy to ascertain 20 ; but, upon 
 the supposition that it had obtained not only 
 jn a great degree but almost universally, about 
 
 10 I profess myself perfectly unable to ascertain this : and there¬ 
 fore 1 speak only on the report of the sectaries themselves. I 
 find none, of our divines of that time backward to insist upon the 
 peculiar doctrines of Christianity; certainly not the non-jurors. 
 But as Bishop Hoadly as well as Dr. Clarke had many partizans, 
 under the denomination of the low church, it is not unlikely hut 
 that among them some such deficiency, as was pretended, may have 
 been found. 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 39 
 
 half a century ago, there arose in the very 
 bosom of this university another sect, pretend¬ 
 ing that there was a necessity for a new and 
 more zealous ministry, in order to enforce and 
 disseminate the true faith in Christ, which they 
 declared had been shamefully neglected and 
 abused. Of these men, who made themselves 
 known to the world under the name of me¬ 
 
 thodists, it is not necessary at this moment to 
 sav much, as the existence of them and the 
 influence which they have gained over the 
 minds, chiefly of the more ignorant and lower 
 sort of mankind, are sufficiently notorious. 
 What is remarkable, is, that in doctrine, they 
 profess most completely to hold with the 
 church of England ; nay, the boast of their 
 founders was, that they were in strict conform¬ 
 ity to her artie’es, while the regular clergy 
 daily departed from them. Their leaders too 
 
 had received ordination from our bishops. 
 This makes them, or, at least, made them, in 
 the beginning, more purely schismatical than 
 most of the dissenters of whom we have been 
 
 speaking: Another circumstance worthy of 
 
 notice is, that in their pec clarities of doctrine 
 for the adoption of which we conceive them 
 to be Math cable, as putting a wrong construc¬ 
 tion upon some of our articles, they also have 
 their favourers among the regularly ordained, 
 
40 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 and officiating ministers of the church. So 
 that, in this case also, there has not been 
 wanting precisely the same sort of encourage¬ 
 ment and countenance as has, according to what 
 we before observed, been enjoyed by the other 
 separatists. Here again, therefore, we shall 
 meet, where we might least have looked for 
 it, with a considerable body, who are either 
 the patrons of schism, or who will be disposed 
 to look upon it, if not openly to treat it with 
 indifference 21 . 
 
 In laying before you thus, early, and per¬ 
 haps somewhat out of its order, this account of 
 what I conceive to have been the state of the 
 church during the progress of the revolution 
 which has taken place in men’s minds respect¬ 
 ing the subject which I am discussing, I have 
 had jn view two objects: first, to remove from 
 myself that prejudice which might have been 
 entertained by any of you as if in arguing so 
 
 a 
 
 seriously against schism, and labouring to pre¬ 
 vent the extension of it, I were attempting 
 some new thing, and pursuing ideas of my own; 
 and, secondly, to lead you, from the actual situa-? 
 tion in which we stand, and the numerous ene¬ 
 mies with which our ecclesiastical establishment 
 is, as it were, beset or hemmed in, to con¬ 
 sider whether this be not an evil of such 
 
 See additional note C. for these gentlemen’s own account of 
 themselves. 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 41 
 
 magnitude and. pressure as requires to be re¬ 
 sisted with all the vigilance, and all the powers 
 which Providence has bestowed upon us. 
 
 Such being my individual persuasion, I in¬ 
 tend, with God’s help, to lay before you in 
 some detail the argument against schism, as it 
 is to be collected from scripture: both as it is 
 found in express reasoning and precept, and 
 also as it is supported by facts and examples. 
 Upon this certainly, as upon the corner stone, 
 do I propose to build ; feeling that “ no other 
 “ foundation can man lay.” I shall however 
 confirm this by shewing the manifest tendency 
 of schism, not only to disturb the peace of 
 the church, but also to corrupt her doctrine ; 
 this too made more plain by instances, which 
 the history of Christianity will amply supply. 
 
 And, because it has been a favourite topic 
 with dissenters of all sorts to insist upon our 
 separation from the church of Rome as if it 
 precluded us from objecting to their, or any 
 other separation from our church, I shall pretty 
 much at large shew the difference of the two 
 cases ; and prove that not only our church was 
 fully justified in what she then did, but that 
 the reformation can be a precedent only in 
 cases where to have remained in communion 
 with those from whom the separation is made 
 would be sinful. That this therefore can never 
 justify those men^ who can allege no actaal 
 
42 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 sinfulness in the terms of our communion: 
 and still less those whose cause of complaint 
 against us consists only in this, that we will 
 not so enlarge the platform of our establish¬ 
 ment as to comprehend all possible denomina¬ 
 tions of' Christians whatever their tenets may 
 be. 
 
 I shall moreover corroborate my position by 
 shewing most strongly the difference of the 
 two cases in another point of view; and pro¬ 
 testing that the assertion and vindication of 
 the independence of our national church, which 
 is the first and great feature of the reformation 
 in England! has, and can have nothing to do 
 with justifying individuals in their separation 
 from the established communion within whose 
 limits or pale they have their abode, and of 
 which they properly form a part. 
 
 Rut, further, I shall the more enlarge upon 
 the subject, because I conceive that the cir¬ 
 cumstances of the times do particularly require 
 that you should be reminded of what are the 
 doctrines and principles by which the church 
 of Rome is distinguished; and, when they have 
 been thus brought to your recollection, it will 
 be for you to consider whether they be not 
 such as are subversive of the very foundations 
 of Christianity : whether therefore they ought 
 not in every country to be specially guarded 
 against: and whether there be not still a broad 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 43 
 
 distinction and peculiar line of separation which 
 should be allowed to subsist between the Ro¬ 
 mish church on the one hand, and the great 
 body or aggregate of protestant churches on 
 the other. 
 
 I propose after that, to revert to the present 
 circumstances of our church for the purpose 
 of considering more particularly (as however 
 I shall have occasion to do through the whole 
 of these discourses, and in connexion with my 
 subject) the reasonings upon which the dif- 
 * ferent bodies, who separate from her, attempt 
 v to excuse or to justify their schism ; and hope 
 from thence to he enabled to inculcate the mpre 
 forcibly into those who hear me, the necessity 
 of adhering to the precepts of our Lord and 
 his apostles in maintaining the unity of the 
 faith by continuing in close fellowship with 
 one another. 
 
 It may be proper further to observe, that, 
 although heresy be distinct from schism, yet 
 they so naturally lead the one to the other 
 that I shall be necessarily led to speak of the 
 former, though principally as being incidental 
 to the latter, not on account of the things 
 
 J o 
 
 themselves, but as either immediately or by 
 necessary consequence, they are equally a cause 
 of disorder and disunion, as they conduce to 
 disturb or break the peace of the church. They 
 may, indeed, as we have had occasion to see, 
 
44 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 exist separate, though it is what will very rarely 
 happen. I have adverted to late instances in 
 our church of heresy without schism, as there 
 is also at this day more than one description of 
 schismatics, who may be considered as not 
 strictly heretical. 
 
 I should observe lastly, that the question of 
 church government is also nearly connected 
 with that of schism. Indeed the first is usually 
 pre-supposed (though this be not of absolute 
 necessity) before the latter is understood to 
 take place. It is not however within the limits 
 assigned me to give it any thing like the con¬ 
 sideration which is due to its importance. In¬ 
 deed this is rendered unnecessary by the many 
 excellent treatises which have been written 
 upon the subject; as well as by the authority 
 which is claimed and exercised among even the 
 most petty assemblage of the separatists them¬ 
 selves; who thus bear testimony to the truth of 
 the position, that, without some sort of rule or 
 order, it is impossible for any aggregate body 
 of men to continue their existence for any con¬ 
 siderable time"*. 
 
 42 This is particularly the case with the Wesleyan methodists, 
 who are, or were during the life of their founder, under as regular 
 and strict a government, as the church itself; extending even to 
 a sort of episcopal establishment. It appears indeed from some 
 late publications, that this is kept up to a, degree which is hardly 
 credible : so that the lower orders even begin to cry out against the 
 oppression of the superior. See Nightingale’s Portraiture of Mp* 
 thodism, printed for Longman and Co 
 
 6 
 
SERMONL 
 
 43 
 
 Still less is it my wish to say any thing which 
 may bear upon that alliance between church 
 and state, from whence is derived or rather by 
 which is secured, that portion which the for¬ 
 mer inherits of wealth and of worldly honour ; 
 and which may be suspected to have caused 
 much of the jealousy, to which she has been 
 exposed. If it should be necessary to touch 
 upon it, I shall not forbear, but it will be my 
 wish to steer clear of any thing like formal 
 discussion on that head. The appeal which I 
 shall make, I would wish to be directed ex¬ 
 clusively to your consciences, as followers of 
 Christ and servants of God. I would have 
 you consider the question not as it may affect 
 any temporal interests of your own, or of the 
 civil community to which you belong; but as 
 it may concern your eternal, and spiritual wel¬ 
 fare. I could wish this, not only because of 
 the infinitely greater importance which belongs 
 to heavenly things; not only because this is, 
 and ought to be, the ultimate scope and end 
 of all that we say in this place ; but also be¬ 
 cause I am persuaded (and it is a persuasion 
 in which I shall be joined by every considerate 
 man, more especially at this time, if he will 
 observe the striking characters, in which the 
 judgments of God are displaying themselves 
 throughout Europe) .1 am persuaded, I say, 
 
46 
 
 SERMON L 
 
 that it is only hy striving to conciliate the di¬ 
 vine favour, hy keeping the commandments, 
 that we can hope to obtain any tolerable pros¬ 
 pect, of even worldly happiness and prosperity. 
 In this, as in all other cases, that will be found 
 to be true, which our blessed Lord has declared, 
 “ Seek ve first the kingdom of God and his 
 “ righteousness, and all these things shall be 
 “ added unto you*.” 
 
 \ 
 
 Matth evv vi. 33. 
 
( 47 ) 
 
 S E R M O N II. 
 
 Gal. v. 12. 
 
 I would they were even cut off that trouble you. 
 
 Whatever may be the precise and appropriate 
 meaning of these words as used by St. Paul in 
 this place, it will not be denied me, that, in 
 whatever way taken, they convey a most marked 
 and severe censure upon the persons of whom 
 they were spoken. Indeed if any doubt could 
 remain upon the subject, it would be taken 
 away by only referring to the paragraph almost 
 immediately preceding. ‘‘.He that troubleth 
 "you,” says the apostle, “ shall bear his judg- 
 " ment, whosoever he be,” which is a denun¬ 
 ciation of the most severe nature, whether the 
 word there employed be taken to relate to a 
 condemnation, or punishment in this world. 
 
48 
 
 i 
 
 SERMON 1 It. 
 
 or to the judgment of that which is to come. 
 It cannot be disputed therefore that the apostle 
 in this case reprobated and condemned, in al¬ 
 most as strong terms as can be devised, the 
 persons whom he found occasioning and ex¬ 
 citing divisions in the churches of Galatia. 
 We have here then, upon the first view of the 
 tiling, the deliberate sentence of a teacher con- 
 fessedly inspired by the Holy Ghost, declaring, 
 in that particular instance at least, the guilt 
 that attaches to schism, and that it is a sin of 
 no common magnitude. If we find moreover, 
 as we certainly shall upon due examination, 
 that it is not only in this place, but also in the 
 rest, I believe I may say in all, of his epistles 
 that St. Paul holds the same language; if we 
 find, further, that it is the language not of St. 
 
 - Paul only but of every other individual among 
 the apostles, who has left us any memorial of 
 his sentiments in writing; we shall be led to 
 wonder where it is that men have discovered 
 the authority upon which they justify,or recom¬ 
 mend the holding of a variety of opinions in the 
 church ; or from whence it is that they have 
 conceived that such a diversity, whether of 
 discipline or of doctrine, was acceptable to 
 God. To hear the arguments which are ad¬ 
 duced by some of the advocates of non-con¬ 
 formity, one might be led to suppose that, 
 when our Lord spoke of his bringing division 
 
SERMON II. 
 
 4.9 
 
 upon the earth, lie intended that it should be 
 taken, not as an accidental circuinstance arising 
 our of the infirmity and wickedness of mam 
 not as, what it is in reality, an obstacle, and a 
 great one to the propagation of the gospel ; 
 but as if it had been a natural, and an approved 
 consequence of his labours, one of the means 
 originally devised by God for the furtherance 
 and advancement of his glory. We have even 
 been told to look at the infinite modifications 
 of matter, and to observe how surprisingly 
 they differ from each other; and we have been 
 asked, whether God must not have intended 
 that there should be the same variety in the 
 moral as in the physical world. An argu¬ 
 ment this which, if pursiied to the utmost, 
 would prove that because the earth is subject 
 to storms and to tempests, so the human mind 
 ought to be the sport of passion ; which would 
 make a change of temper, as natural and as 
 proper, as the change of seasons : and which 
 would undoubtedly require a heaven of a very 
 different sort from that which is in reality set 
 before us. These are among the fancies in 
 which men choose to indulge rather than look 
 into the source of all wisdom. If they would 
 only consult the scriptures, what, I repeat it, 
 would they see in them ? What, but every 
 word and every act directed to bring us to that 
 
 £ 
 
50 
 
 SERMON IL 
 
 uniformity of thinking, which, according to 
 this mode of arguing, is considered as foreign 
 to our nature? What indeed is the end of 
 that gospel, to which we are called, and of the 
 discipline to which it has subjected us in this 
 world, but that of 44 casting down imaginations 
 u and every high thing that exalteth itself 
 44 against the knowledge of God, and bringing 
 <c into captivity every thought to the obedience 
 44 of Christ* ?” It is certain, I say, that the 
 way held out to us in the scriptures as the only 
 one proper to be pursued by us, is that of 
 entire obedience ; of perfect conformity to the 
 will of God : and this to be accomplished by 
 subduing our passions, and measuring our ac¬ 
 tions by one fixed standard : certainly therefore 
 not by every man’s setting up his own private 
 opinion as the rule of his conduct, or hastily 
 departing from what he sees to have been 
 established. Instead of encouraging in our¬ 
 selves a prejudice against what we find to have 
 been the practice of those who have gone before 
 us, we are on the contrary directed rather to 
 presume that what we find established is right, 
 and to be followed. We are to 44 stand in the 
 “ ways and see, and ask for the old paths; 
 44 where is the good way, and walk therein, 
 44 and we shall then find rest for our soulsf.” 
 
 * 9 Cor. x. 5. 
 
 f Jerem. vi. 16 . 
 
SERMON IL 
 
 51 
 
 Again if we look to the end of our labours, to 
 “ the recompence of the reward*,’’ which is 
 appointed for the just, the same conclusion will 
 present itself to our minds. In that blessed state 
 where f<r the tears shall be wiped from all eyes, 
 “ where there shall be no more death, neither 
 “ sorrow nor cryingfour happiness, as far 
 as it is disclosed to us, will not consist in any 
 variety of pursuit; still less in any indulgence 
 of each man's particular fancy ; in any refine¬ 
 ments of our own, in any “doubtful dispu- 
 “ tations 1 but in the enjoyment and con¬ 
 templation of the one Supreme Being, in ado¬ 
 ration that will be as uniform, as it will be 
 intense. 
 
 What I mean to infer from this is, that the 
 disposition, which is principally, and indeed, I 
 may say, wholly required in a Christian, is that 
 of being Iftimble, teachable, and unpretending; 
 
 * Heb. xi. 26 . f Rev. xxi. 4. 
 
 1 The following quotation is hacknied, but yet so remarkable 
 and so applicable, that I cannot but remind the reader, wliat class 
 of beings it is that our Milton represents as amusing themselves in 
 another world with abstract speculations. 
 
 Others apart sat on a hill retir’d 
 In thoughts more elevate, and reason’d high 
 Of providence, foreknowledge, will and fate. 
 
 Fixed fate, free-will, foreknowledge absolute $ 
 
 And found no end, in wand’ring mazes lost. 
 
 , Par. Lost, B, ii. 
 
 And Milton was a republican and a Calvinist ! 
 
 E 2 
 
52 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 particularly disposed to submit to authority, 
 and to obey them that are set over him. I 
 would $?,y, further, that in proportion as such 
 a disposition becomes more general, the peace 
 not only of the community but of the indivi¬ 
 dual will be promoted ; that where such a dispo¬ 
 sition exists, schism will rarely, if ever, be found. 
 That on the other hand, as it will appear from 
 the scriptures both of the Old and of the New 
 Testament as well as from later histories, it is to 
 the contrary disposition that we may attribute 
 and trace up all the divisions and the dissentions 
 by which the church has been torn, and the pure 
 Worship of God has been impeded. It was the 
 desire of distinguishing themselves, or the im¬ 
 patience of control, which first led men to 
 set up as leaders of new sects and made them 
 familiar with heresies. It is this spirit of pride 
 and ambition, this desire of rule which has 
 since seduced the minds of Christians to cast 
 aside their natural character, and to break that 
 peace, which is the very essence of their pro¬ 
 fession. This is so dearly to be made out in 
 almost every instanc'd that I trust I shall ap¬ 
 pear to be justified in laying down the propo¬ 
 sition thus broadly. There may he cases, 
 perhaps many, which elude the search of man, 
 and where it may he impossible positively to 
 ascertain the intention with which any act has 
 beeen committed ; hut in much the greater 
 
V 
 
 S E R M O N II ■' S3 
 
 number the motives will but too plainly dis¬ 
 cover themselves, and leave us no doubt upon 
 the subject. 
 
 Let then the question be tried in the first 
 instance by the holy scriptures, and let it be 
 permitted me to bring forward what is revealed 
 to us upon this point, in the Old as well as the 
 New Testament. The inquiry need not detain 
 ns long, because, as I have urged before, we 
 shall find the evidence to be all on one side. 
 In no one instance will there be found an 
 example or even word to justify that unbounded 
 liberty of private judgment, which claims the 
 right of departing at pleasure from received 
 institutions, and going after a way of its own. 
 If we shall find a period, as a remarkable one 
 there was, when every man did “ what was 
 <f right in his own eyes,” it will be such a one 
 as will afford no warrant for imagining that 
 it is a state of that kind, which God particularly 
 delightsto see. It will indeed rather afford us 
 very strong arguments for coming to a directly 
 opposite conclusion. 
 
 Going on in the natural order, I shall begin 
 with what is found in the Old Testament upon 
 the subject. But there have been, and probably 
 are, men who would object to my reasoning 
 from what was commanded, or performed under 
 the Mosaic dispensation*. I shall be told per- 
 
 * See additional nete D. 
 
54 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 haps, that Christ has “ blotted out the hand- 
 “ writing of ordinances*;” that “ old things 
 “ are passed awayj*,” that we are admonished 
 to “ stand fast in the liberty with which he 
 “ has made us fieej.” To such objections I 
 may answer in the first place, that we are ex¬ 
 pressly warned “not to use that liberty for 
 “a cloak of maliciousness^: for an occasion 
 “to the flesh||:” for “ a stumbling block to 
 “ weak brethren!. 5 ’* We are told too of per¬ 
 sons (and those of the very description now 
 under consideration) who “ despise govern- 
 “ ments,” who in alluring others to evil, 
 “ promise them liberty, while they themselves 
 “ are the servants of corruption**.** We arc 
 therefore surely mailed upon to be particularly 
 careful that we do not misapprehend the nature 
 of that liberty which belongs to a Christian. 
 Undoubtedly that liberty has been grossly 
 abused in the very way against which I am 
 protesting. It must therefore be highly proper 
 to have clear and distinct ideas of what that 
 was from which Christ has set us free, lest we 
 fall into that sin which was so expressly con¬ 
 demned by more than one apostle. 
 
 Chrifct then most certainly took away, in the 
 first place, the sacrifices under the old law : 
 
 * Col. ii. 14. + 2 Cor. v. 17. £ Gal. v. 1. 
 
 ^ 1 Pet. ii. l6. || Gal. v. 13. 5 l Cor. viii. §„ 
 
 ** 2 Peter ii. IQ* 
 
SERMON II. 
 
 55 
 
 those sacrifices which were instituted from the 
 beginning*, in all probability from the very 
 period of the expulsion of our first parents 
 from Paradise; and so instituted as preparatory 
 to, and indicative of the one great sacrifice for 
 sin. Having himself in his own person, once 
 for all, made the requisite and sufficient atone¬ 
 ment, there “ remained thenceforth no more 
 “sacrifice for sin*;” and from the obligation 
 of this, not only the Jews, but all mankind 
 were set at liberty. He further took away every 
 institution which was ordained exclusively for 
 the children of Israel, which had an evident 
 reference to their peculiar situation ; whatever 
 was local or personal to therm But every 
 law and every principle which was of general 
 application, which could be observed by the 
 great body of mankind; which was fitted to 
 all nations, and all seasons, he not only did not 
 take away, but expressly sanctioned and made 
 more binding. In all the precepts which he deli¬ 
 vered, he referred to them in such a manner 
 as to make it clear that he was ordaining no 
 new thing. Not only the two great command¬ 
 ments of the law were laid down by him in 
 the very words of Moses, but he expressly 
 disclaimed the idea that he was come to “de- 
 “ stroy the law and the prophets he de¬ 
 clared that he came “ not to destroy, but to 
 
 * Heb. x. 26 . 
 
56 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 fulfil*.” What he took away of that law, 
 was the extreme rigour of it,-according to 
 which it was pronounced, and so pronounced 
 for a particular purpose, that “cursed is every 
 “ one that continueth not in all the things 
 “ which are written in the book of the law to 
 “ do them'!'/’ Under the new covenant, assu¬ 
 rances were held out of grace and favour upon 
 that imperfect performance, of which.alone we 
 are capable, provided it was accompanied with 
 faith in Christ, and a reliance tor salvation 
 upon his merits to the exclusion of every other 
 claim 3 . But still obedience was and is required 
 as strictly, and in as great degree, from us as 
 it was from the Jews: nay, it is required in 
 substance to the same laws, and to the same 
 religious as well as moral system. It is the 
 same God under the new, as under the old 
 
 * Mat. v. 17 . f Gal. iii. 10 . Deut. xxvii. 26 . 
 
 3 The covenant of works was first established with Adam and 
 Eve in Paradise ; and perhaps we may say that it was against them 
 only that it could strictly be, or rather was meant to be, enforced 5 
 since it was with them only of all human creatures that the 
 power of strictly observing it appears to have been lodged. When 
 it was again promulgated to the Israelites under Moses, it was 
 attended \\ ith modmeations, and even promises of forgiveness, to 
 repentant sinners. So that if it was made strict in terms, it was, 
 as I conceive, for the reason plainly intimated by St. Paul ; that, 
 being convinced by experience of our inability to work out our 
 salvation, merely by our own efforts, we should be the more ready 
 to lay hold ot the second covenant. Thus “ the law was our 
 “ schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.” Gal Jit. ? 4 , 
 
SERMON II. 
 
 57 
 
 «5 
 
 dispensation : we cannot therefore suppose that 
 the mode of serving him should be essentially 
 
 different in the one case from what it was in 
 
 * 
 
 the other. Indeed the great code, which is 
 acknowledged by us, as by all Christian na¬ 
 tions, is that which was delivered to Moses by 
 God himself on Mount Sinai. Those therefore 
 who would object to any argument drawn from 
 the commandments, or the dispensations of 
 God under the law, should be prepared to shew 
 that the commandments and the dispensations 
 upon which the argument is built, had all that 
 peculiarity which made them applicable to the 
 Jews only and no one else : no, not by possi¬ 
 bility to any one else: for it is certain that it 
 is only such commandments that are abrogated, 
 such dispensations only that we can be sure 
 will not recur. Nay, even as to those particu¬ 
 lars which are so circumstanced, we may very 
 fairly argue from them to a certain extent: 
 since we can never suppose that God would at 
 any time have enjoined or brought to pass that 
 which was essentially bad, or inexpedient in 
 itself. 
 
 But indeed be who reads and considers the 
 books of the Old Testament only, with a view 
 to what is positively commanded in them, will, 
 as I conceive, have but a very imperfect idea of 
 their importance, or of the usefulness which may 
 be derived from them. It is, in fact, the only 
 
 / 
 
58 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 i 
 
 history in which we are enabled distinctly to 
 trace the workings of God's providence, to see 
 his hand visibly extended, his eye actually 
 superintending all, even the minutest actions 
 of individuals as well as of nations. We have 
 here the clearest evidence of what in other cases 
 we can only conjecture, the manner in which 
 he interposes to control and over-rule the 
 things of this world. And from what then 
 took place, we are not only taught to reason 
 upon what has passed in later days, but may 
 draw wholesome, and instructive lessons for 
 our guidance. And this, St. Paul tells us, is 
 one great end for which we should consult and 
 mark those sacred oracles. Speaking of some 
 of those instances (one indeed which particular¬ 
 ly applies to the subject of these discourses) in 
 which the disobedience and rebellious dispo¬ 
 sition of the Israelites were severely punished, 
 he adds, “ Now all these things happened to 
 “ them for ensamples, and they are written for 
 u our admonition, upon whom the ends of the 
 “ world are come*. ” 
 
 After this, I trust, it will not be objected to 
 me that I argue either unfairly or impertinently, 
 when I assume that what God considered as 
 an abomination and as highly punishable under 
 the old covenant, could not be very acceptable 
 to him under the new. 
 
 * 1 Cor. x. 1J. 
 
SERMON II. 
 
 59 
 
 J 
 
 Let me be permitted to make another ob¬ 
 servation. Independently of the great ends, 
 which the Almighty had in view when he im¬ 
 posed upon the Israelites ordinances so numer¬ 
 ous and burthen some, it cannot be denied that 
 the very number and particularity of them had 
 a direct tendency to produce that unity which 
 is so desirable, and so strongly recommended 
 to us. This indeed must be the case with all 
 laws. Every statute, as it exacts obedience from 
 every member of the community to one and the 
 same system, as it regulates their conduct ac¬ 
 cording to one and the same rule of action, 
 must so far operate to knit them together, and 
 to give them the same habits, the same manners, 
 
 V 
 
 and the same way of thinking. It is clear also 
 that the more laws are multiplied, and the 
 more strictly they are observed, the more nu¬ 
 merous the points of union will be, and the 
 more the individuals will be likely to assimilate 
 to each other. This was, in fact, what took 
 place among the Jews; who thus preserved, 
 and even in their present state of dispersion, 
 exhibit a closer connexion with each other, 
 and have a more strongly-marked character, 
 not only than any other people now existing, 
 but than any people that ever was known. 
 And this may well make us consider whether 
 that which some men are so averse to, the obser¬ 
 vation of ordinances, may not in some sort 
 
 / 
 
60 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 contribute to the increase of charity, as it most 
 assuredly does to creating in us habits of obe¬ 
 dience. 
 
 Let us now examine how far the condition of 
 mankind in the early ages, as it is disclosed 
 to us in scripture, accords or not with these 
 
 ideas. 
 
 We may, I think, see good grounds to di¬ 
 vide the inhabitants of the earth, in what we 
 may call the former days, into two distinct 
 classes; one which does not seem to have been 
 subjected to any particular form of government, 
 or, at least, not to any strict rule in religious 
 matters : the other, on the contrary, kept under 
 a discipline as strict as it was uniform, under 
 regulations which no one was allowed to trans¬ 
 gress without the severest punishment. Now, 
 what shall we find to have followed from these 
 two different orders of things ? To which of 
 them was annexed either greater purity of mind, 
 and innocence of conversation, or a greater 
 share of God’s blessing, and even temporal hap¬ 
 piness? We must, I think, perforce answer 
 this in favour of that description of persons who 
 were governed by the most positive and severe 
 laws. 
 
 If we consider the state of mankind before 
 the deluge, when, as far as appears to us, the 
 greatest liberty of action was permitted, when 
 all men seem to have been left to.worship God 
 
SERMON II. 
 
 61 
 
 according to their own private judgment; al¬ 
 though we shall find some individuals, one or 
 two in particular, highly distinguished for piety 
 and the practice of righteousness, yet we can¬ 
 not surely think very favourably of that order 
 ot things which led to such a general corrup¬ 
 tion, that in the end only one man was found 
 worthy in the sight of God to he saved from the 
 general destruction in which all the rest of man¬ 
 kind were involved. If we extend our view 
 further to the period which immediately suc¬ 
 ceeded the deluge, when the same liberty ap¬ 
 pears to have been continued to Noah and his 
 sons, what do we see but the same disposition to 
 forget God, and to transgress his laws, even in 
 those who had been actual eye-witnesses of his 
 judgments ? And we perceive this perverseness 
 of disposition breaking out not only in the pos¬ 
 terity of Ham, but even in the immediate or 
 almost immediate descendants of the other bro* 
 thers, whom we find early engaged in a project 
 of making themselves independent of their Di¬ 
 vine Creator and Judge; a project winch was 
 only defeated by that confusion of tongues and 
 subsequent dispersion which produced the vari¬ 
 ety of nations by which the earth is now peo¬ 
 pled. What was the sort of religious worship 
 which all these nations adopted, into what 
 gross idolatry they fell, even from that very 
 time as far back as we can trace them, I need 
 
\ gr 
 
 62 SERMON II. 
 
 not detail to you. So prevalent and so popular 
 was the worship of false gods, so absolutely 
 were the inhabitants of the earth besotted with, 
 and given up to, the most abominable super¬ 
 stition, that the knowledge of the true God was 
 only preserved by instituting that other order 
 of persons, by selecting a particular people to 
 be put under the most strict ordinances and sub¬ 
 jected to the most severe discipline. 
 
 But, still more clearly to shew the profitable¬ 
 ness if not the necessity of a uniform rule or 
 standard, in order to preserve men from error, 
 it has so happened, that, in the history of this 
 very people there was a particular period, when, 
 as I hinted before, a relaxation took place in 
 this respect: when, as we are told, “There was 
 “ no king in Israel, but every man did that 
 “ which was right in his eyes*.” Now, what 
 was the consequence of this ? Why, that wick¬ 
 edness and impiety of all sorts, nay, and idola¬ 
 try in various forms, generally and abominably 
 prevailed among them ; that they were con¬ 
 stantly torn with dissentions and divisions, and 
 one tribe was nearly extirpated. During the 
 greatest part of this period they were, in conse¬ 
 quence of tills their rebellion and misconduct,- 
 given over and subjected to other nations who 
 tyrannized over them. When too, under the 
 
 * Judges xvii. 6. and xxi. 2$. 
 
 1 
 
SERMON II. 
 
 63 
 
 pressure of their calamity, they turned to God ? 
 and he heard their cry and helped them; when 
 “ he sent judges which delivered them out of the 
 “ hands ofthem thatspoiledthern*;” even then the 
 remembrance of these mercies had not any last¬ 
 ing effect upon their minds; for we are express¬ 
 ly told in their history, that it came to pass, 
 that <e when the judge was dead,” (that is, the 
 judge who had been the instrument of any par¬ 
 ticular deliverance) “ they returned and cor¬ 
 rupted themselves more than their fathers, in 
 “ following other gods, and bowing down 
 “ unto themf.” 
 
 From the consideration of these examples it 
 does seem to me, that we may fairly conclude, 
 upon a general view of things, that it is at least 
 dangerous for men to be indulged with that 
 complete liberty for which some persons would 
 stipulate; that it is neither safe nor scriptural 
 to declare against all sort of restraint, in the 
 choice of particular modes of worship, and in 
 the performance of religious offices. 
 
 Let us now see what was Gods manner of 
 dealing with the people whom he placed under 
 his own peculiar superintendence, and to whom 
 he prescribed with the greatest minuteness the 
 forms in which he would he approached, and 
 the honours which should he paid to him. Did 
 
 * Judges ii. 16. 
 
 + lb. 19, 
 
64 S E R M O N II. 
 
 >» 
 
 he lightly suffer the order which he had estab¬ 
 lished to be infringed ? Did he not on the 
 contrary most severely punish those who devi¬ 
 ated from it ? And this whether individuals or 
 bodies of men? It is most undoubted and noto¬ 
 rious that he did. But as in many of those 
 instances the falling off from God's word was 
 
 attended with the wickedness of open rebellion 
 
 / 
 
 and idolatry, as it was what we may call here¬ 
 tical, I shall confine myself to two of those in¬ 
 stances where the offence committed was, at least 
 in the beginning, purely what we may call schis- 
 . matical, where ail that was intended was to set 
 up other ministers and other teachers, in oppo¬ 
 sition to those who were so constituted by 
 divine appointment. 
 
 The first of these is the well-known case of 
 Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, which is so di¬ 
 rectly in point that it is not possible wholly to 
 pass it over. But it is also so well understood that 
 I need not enlarge upon it. I shall only observe 
 two things: First, that the origin of this schism 
 
 I 
 
 was clearly the ambition of Corah and his fel- 
 ' lows. They wished to partake of the power and 
 pre-eminence with which God bad invested 
 Moses and Aaron. Secondly, I would have you 
 note the language which was held by these men, 
 and consider whether it be any thing more than 
 what has been commonly urged in latter times 
 against the rulers of our church. “Ye take 
 
 O 
 
 4 
 
SERMON II, 
 
 65 
 
 (C too much upon you,” said they, speaking to 
 Moses and Aaron, “ seeing all the congrega- 
 “ tion are holy, every one of them, and the 
 “ Lord is among- them; wherefore then lift ye 
 “ up yourselves above the congregation of the 
 ic Lord 55 *?” What was insisted upon here, was, 
 you see, to outward appearance, only tire as¬ 
 sertion of an equality among all the members of 
 the community. It was but that denial Gf a 
 superiority of one man over the rest, which the 
 Presbyterians to a certain degree, and the In¬ 
 dependents in every respect refused to admit. 
 The remarkable punishment which v/as inflicted 
 upon these “ sinners against their own soulsf,” 
 as they are called, was of a nature to repress all 
 such attempts in future. It was indeed more 
 solemn and striking than any judgment which 
 was afterwards executed even upon idolaters. 
 Perhaps it is not easy to conceive any sight 
 more awful and tremendous, than that “new 
 thing,” that “the earth should open her mouth 
 “ and swallow, up” such numbers of persons, 
 and “all that appertained to them, and that 
 “ they should go down alive into the pit*.” 
 
 Of this attempt to intrude into the priesthood 
 as made by individuals, we therefore find no 
 
 * Numb. xvi. 3. t lb. 38. ^ 
 
 * Numb. xvi. 30. &c. and observe what Austin says upon this 
 in a passage before cited. Note 3 Sermon I. 
 
 F 
 
68 
 
 S E R M O N IT. 
 
 repetition. The other instance of sclnsnr, which 
 I purpose to notice, was of a more general na¬ 
 ture, but so far resembled this, as it was also' 
 dictated by ambition, and originated in mo¬ 
 tives of worldly policy. You. have probably 
 already anticipated me in referring to that sepa¬ 
 ration of the ten tribes which of the sons, of 
 Israel made two distinct people, as well in their 
 religious as their civil economy. That those 
 tribes-should no longer serve Rehoboam as their 
 king, was, you know, of divine appointment; 
 hut not so the change in their mode of worship. 
 I hey still continued bound to go up to Jerusa¬ 
 lem with their offerings, and to appear before 
 God in his temple, as he had commanded. From 
 this they had no dispensation; and there is no 
 doubt that ne who stopped Rehoboam, when 
 he was arming against his revolted subjects, 
 by saying to him, “This thing is from me*,” 
 would in like manner have extended his pro¬ 
 tection to them in this respect also, and ensured 
 them the full exercise of their religious duties. 
 But the mind of Jeroboam was occupied by 
 other considerations. His whole and sole anx¬ 
 iety was, how he should most securely retain 
 the kingdom which was thus cast upon him. 
 lie “said in his heart. If this people go up to 
 “ do sacrifice in the house of the Lord at Jeru- 
 
 * 1 Kings xii. 94. 
 
 I 
 
S E R M O N II. 
 
 67 
 
 u salem, then shall the heart of this people turn 
 “ again unto their lord, even unto Rehoboam, 
 “ king of Judah, and they shall kill me and go 
 “ again to Rehoboam, king of JudahV* He 
 therefore took counsel, and being the counsel 
 of human wisdom, it is no wonder that it drew 
 both him and his people farther into error. “He 
 “ took counsel/’ it is said, “and made two 
 “ calves, and said to his subjects, It is too 
 “ much for you to go up to Jerusalem, behold 
 “ thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up 
 “ out of the land of Egypt*.’’ Here we see 
 the natural progress of schism ; how almost of 
 course it leads to that which is false doctrine: 
 in other words how readily it becomes heretical; 
 how in this particular case it degenerated into 
 idolatry 6 . And it is observable (an observation 
 
 s 1 Kings xii. 27. I shall, I hope, be allowed to observe without 
 offence, that the first establishment of Presbyterianism, originated 
 in motives not very dissimilar. Calvin found that episcopacy was 
 unfavourable to republican forms of government. He devised 
 * therefore a system of greater parity to suit his political ideas. In 
 the great rebellion it is evident that the adoption of a similar system 
 was made instrumental to the overthrow of monarchy, and it is 
 equally notorious that the preference which Cromwell afterwards 
 gave to the Independents, had for its motive the strengthening of 
 himself in his usurpation. 
 
 * 1 Kings xii. 28 . 
 
 6 Perhaps nothing can be imagined more gross than the adoption 
 of this idolatrous.mode of worshipping God ; for it thus became in 
 all its circumstances the very offence committed by the ancestors 
 of these men before Mount Sinai, and for which they were so 
 
 F 2 
 
68 
 
 SERMON II 
 
 which it may be proper to recollect hereafter) 
 that in this case the offence was not against the 
 first, but against the second commandment; 
 for there h every reason to conclude that the 
 meaning of Jeroboam was that they should wor¬ 
 ship Jehovah himself under the likeness of these 
 calves. He knew his people, and that they 
 must have something sensible to attract their 
 notice ; so that he only debased, by the symbols 
 whiclr he adopted, he did not take away, or at 
 least did not mean to take away, the worship of 
 the true God. This however did not the less 
 become a sin, and a deep one; for u the people 
 u went up to worship before the one, even unto 
 “ Dan*.” And indeed the sin did not stop here, 
 for we learn in the next verse, that, in that na¬ 
 tural course by which men proceed in evil, “ He 
 e( made an house of high places'!” which was 
 another and a distinct innovation upon the estab¬ 
 lished worship. Lastly, follows another cir¬ 
 cumstance which seems to go along, and to have 
 gone along with every schism from that time 
 to this: “He made priests of the lowest of the 
 “ people, which were not of the sons of Levi;j:. , ' 
 
 The consequence of this was that God cursed 
 this people with such a succession of wicked 
 
 severely reproved. Of these men at least we may say, without fear 
 of being contradicted, that they Udcw that they were acting wrong 
 that th«y wilfully erred in forsaking the established worship. 
 
 # 1 Kings xii. 30. <t lb. 3K + lb, 
 
S E R M 0 N II. 
 
 6 $ 
 
 fangs, as I believe never has been seen in any 
 other age or nation; that the people thus go¬ 
 verned, went on deeper and deeper in wicked¬ 
 ness; till, at last, the measure of their crimes 
 feeing full, they were carried away into capti¬ 
 vity, from whence they have never returned, 
 nor is any trace or remembrance left of what 
 became of them, or any certain knowledge whe¬ 
 ther they do or do not any where exist as a 
 body. So signal and so severe, was the ven¬ 
 geance which God took upon them for this their 
 wilful and perverse separation from that religi¬ 
 ous communion which he had instituted for 
 them ; so signal, I say, Was their punishment, 
 •that I know not if a parallel be to be found for 
 it in all history 7 . 
 
 7 True it is that even this state of corruption, and this establish¬ 
 ment of idolatry, by authority of the sovereign, did not hinder, but 
 that individuals, though few in number and hardly to be discerned 
 should retain their allegiance to the true God, and serve him with 
 sincerity and uprightness. Nay, he had among them prophets, 
 such as Elijah and Elisha, who were particularly distinguished by 
 the wonders which they wrought, as well as the doctrine which 
 they inculcated. It was to Elijah that the Almighty himself de¬ 
 clared this : “Yet have I left me seven thousand in Israel all the 
 •“ knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which 
 <( hath not kissed him,” 1 Kings xix. 18 . and see Rom. xi. 4. To 
 such men undoubtedly it was not imputed as a crime that they did 
 not go up at the stated times to Jerusalem, but this can only form 
 a precedent for those who are under the same constraint, and who 
 are hindered by an overbearing power, from joining in worship 
 with that which is the true and proper church. 
 
/ 
 
 70 SERMON II. 
 
 Upon this view of things, as far as it has 
 gone, and as far as we trust to the scriptures of 
 the Old Testament, I apprehend that sufficient 
 ground has been laid for concluding, according 
 to what I have said before, first, that a total 
 freedom from church government and external 
 ceremonies is not a state particularly favourable 
 to the increase of religion, but rather the con- 
 
 V 
 
 trary: secondly, that where such government, 
 and such ordinances have been established, any 
 attempt to shake them off, whether directed 
 against the persons of the individuals who were 
 at the head of the establishment, or against the 
 authority which they exercised, and the mode 
 of worship itself, has not only not been ap¬ 
 proved of by God, but has drawn down upon 
 those who presumed so to act, his heavy indig¬ 
 nation. And not only this, but we have here an 
 example where God actually himself instituted 
 and established not only a very minute and ex¬ 
 tensive code of sucli rites and ordinances, but 
 set apart a particular description of persons to 
 minister in them before him. This too, amono' 
 that favoured people whom he had chosen out 
 of all the nations, as the people with whom he 
 would dwell, and with whom only the know¬ 
 ledge of him should be preserved. It appears, 
 I say, that from this people, among whom he 
 raised up a succession of holy men and pro¬ 
 phets, he required not merely the abstracted 
 
 / 
 
SERMON II. u 
 
 worship of the spirit, hut also a rigid adherence 
 to visible forms and ceremonies. He required 
 it from the body at large; he required it also 
 from every individual. This must, therefore, 
 
 I conceive, form a strong presumption in favour 
 of adopting a certain degree of ceremony in the 
 institution of anv religion. At least it should 
 seem hardly excusable, certainly not justifiable, 
 for any person to separate from the communion 
 of his fellows, united in the same faith, merely 
 because they use ceremonies ; as long, at least, 
 as those ceremonies continue to be such as can¬ 
 not be shewn to be either unlawful in them¬ 
 selves, or leading directly to evil consequences. 
 Yet, you well know, that this was the reason 
 which in later times, was assigned by the great 
 body of the dissenters in this country for their 
 separation from our church. When pressed 
 hard for the grounds of that separation, when 
 it was urged that the use of the surplice, as 
 well as the sign of the cross in baptism, were 
 adopted simply for the sake of decency and of 
 edification, they persisted in objecting to them, 
 even to the perpetuating of the schism, purely 
 and nakedly upon the ground that there was no 
 express warrant of Christ and his apostles^ for 
 the use of those particular forms, thatth^y were 
 therefore impositions of men, and that to such 
 impositions they would not submit. 
 
 Now, without recurring to that argument 
 
73 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 which I have hinted before, that there is no 
 mode ot worshipping* God, which prevails in 
 any congregation, though ever so bare of forms, 
 that has not something of human institution in 
 it, that according to this reasoning, even the 
 appointment of any particular day or hour for 
 divine worship, may be called a human imposi¬ 
 tion ; that such a proposition if consistently 
 pursued, and insisted upon rigorously, would 
 lead to all the extravagances of mysticism; that, 
 in fact, it has led among the Quakers to the 
 taking away of the sacraments, and the resist¬ 
 ing of the civil authority, in more than one 
 important point 8 ; let us see whether in fact 
 there be any reason to pronounce that the king¬ 
 dom of Christ was to be essentially different 
 even in these particulars, from the kingdom 
 which had before resided with Judah; whether 
 either our Lord or his apostles shewed a repug¬ 
 nance to complying with forms, merely as 
 forms; nay, to go farther, whether they, held 
 it a sufficient reason for separating from any 
 
 8 This is in fact the case with the Quakers in many important 
 particulars ; nor does their disclaiming all war or resistance to what 
 they call oppression, carry with it any thinglikea due andmecessary 
 submission to “ the powers that be.” By refusing t.o pay tythes, to 
 take upon themselves particular offices, to be sworn as witnesses, 
 and various other instances, where they hold a conduct in direct 
 opposition to the laws of their country, they in fact carry on a system 
 of resistance, which, if it were general, would be most effectual to 
 the overthrow of the government. 
 
SERMON II. 
 
 73 
 
 communion, that its rulers, though preserving 
 the true doctrine, were, in their own particular 
 practice, themselves become corrupt. 
 
 In the first place, we find our saviour, though 
 as he said of himself, he was “ Lord of the Sab¬ 
 bath*,” as of all things, whether of divine or 
 of human institution, submitting to every rite 
 of the Jewish church, circumcised, presented 
 in the temple, going up to Jerusalem with his 
 parents at the stated season; and, before he 
 entered upon his ministry, solemnly baptized: 
 this too, for that very memorable reason which 
 he gave to John at the time of his baptism, that 
 thus “ it became him to fulfil all righteousnesst,” 
 thus expressly attaching righteousness to the 
 performance of outward ceremonies. After that 
 even while he is reprobating the hypocrisy and 
 wickedness of the elders among the Jews, so far 
 is he from taking occasion to disparage their 
 authority, that he expressly guards against any 
 such conclusion. “The scribes and the pharisees,” 
 he said to the people, “ sit in Moses* seat; all 
 “ therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, 
 “ that observe and do; but do not after their 
 16 works, for they say and do notj/* Even 
 after he had ascended up into Heaven, and 
 when the apostles were actually carrying into 
 
 * Luke vi. 5. Mark ii. 28. f Matth, iii. 15. 
 
 Matth. xxiii. 3. 
 
74 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 execution the important and gracious purpose 
 for which he came, of breaking down the par¬ 
 tition wall, and extending the knowledge of 
 God to the gentiles also ; we do not find either 
 in the apostles themselves, or in the Jewish 
 converts, any aversion to joining in communion 
 with the body of the Jews, or to complying.with 
 the ceremonies of the law. They took care in¬ 
 deed to guard against the imposition of the yoke 
 upon the gentile converts; but, as far as ap¬ 
 pears from history, as long as Jerusalem existed, 
 and there was a temple where Jehovah was wor¬ 
 shipped, such Christians as chose might and 
 did pay their vows at his sanctuary. And to 
 the hierarchy of that church they not only paid 
 respect in their persons, but in their writings 
 reasoned upon it and alleged it as supporting 
 their own authority, and as being connected 
 with our religion. Christ is therefore called 
 the 44 Passover*.” He is also not only the vic¬ 
 tim, but the High Priest. It is said of those 
 who were invested with that character, that 
 44 no man taketh that honour to himself but 
 44 he that is called of God, as was Aaronf.’’ • 
 Again it is asked, as an argument why the 
 ministers of Christ should have a provision sup¬ 
 plied to them by those whom they taught, 
 
 44 Know ye not that they which minister about 
 
 f Hcb. v. 4. 
 
 * 1 Cor. v. 7. 
 
SERMON II. 
 
 75 
 
 “ holy things, live of the things of the tem- 
 il pie*?” Thus were the ordinances under the 
 old law made the foundation for the rule and 
 discipline which should be established in the 
 church. And in no one instance do we find 
 them disparaged or undervalued, except when 
 they were erroneously exalted beyond their pro¬ 
 per value, and set in competition with, or sup¬ 
 posed to contribute at all to the efficacy of the 
 atonement made by our Lord. 
 
 But, further, what did actually take place in 
 the church when established by the apostles? 
 Was it governed by any rule? What was the 
 liberty which prevailed in it? Not only the 
 .apostles and first teachers governed the church, 
 but they also ordained others who should take 
 that charge upon them. This was done in the 
 very mode now practised. And even Barnabas 
 and Saul when sent out to a particular ministry, 
 received their authority by the laying oij of 
 hands. After that, we find them superintend¬ 
 ing each their proper provinces, according to 
 the direction which their labours had taken, 
 and the different countries which they had con¬ 
 verted. Lastly, not only elders were ordained 
 in every church, but in the persons of Timothy 
 and of Titus we may trace the very character 
 which is now sustained by our metropolitans* 
 
 * 1 Cor. ix. 13 + 
 
 / 
 
1 
 
 7$ SERMON II. 
 
 "These men succeeded to the name as well as to 
 the office of apostles. In process of time the 
 name was changed into that of angel, and after 
 a short interval, the title of bishop or superin- 
 tendant was appropriated to that class of officers. 
 To all these the people are enjoined to be obe¬ 
 dient. u Submit yourselves to every one that 
 “ helpeth with us and laboureth*.” “Obey 
 41 them that have the rule over you, and sub- 
 “ mit yourselvesf/’ Such are the injunctions 
 of the apostles to the disciples at large; and 
 that the apostles themselves exercised the most 
 extensive and absolute authority, much beyond 
 what was claimed by the high priest among the 
 Jews 9 , no man who reads the epistles of St. 
 Paul, can have a doubt. As little doubt is there 
 
 of their having delegated to their successors the 
 
 % 
 
 * 1 Cor. xvi. 16 . ^ Heb. xui. 17. 
 
 * They were like their great master, whose ambassadors they 
 were, having his full powers, and being prophets as well as priests. 
 Hut it may be remarked that this union of character and accumula¬ 
 tion of authority was to cease with them. In the epistles to Titus 
 and Timothy we have no intimation that the supernatural gifts 
 which the apostles possessed, would be continued to them or that 
 they were actually imparted tp ..either .of those holy men. On the 
 contrary they are exhorted to “ hold fast the form of sound words 
 “ delivered to them,” to <c continue in the things which they had 
 learned,” and this with a .particular reference to the scriptures. 
 (2 Tim.iii. 14. et seq.) So that the apostle was immediately laving 
 the foundation -of an establishment, which was to be permanent 
 both in doctrine and discipline. All the modes of punishing offen- 
 sdeis there mentioned by him axe simply excommunication, or such 
 other modes as were to remain in the church for ever. 
 
SERMON II 
 
 77 
 
 whole of that authority, except that superna¬ 
 tural part of it which they derived from the 
 immediate communication of the Koly Ghost, 
 and which gave them power not only to discern 
 hearts, but to inflict extraordinary punishments, 
 even extending to death upon presumptuous 
 offenders 10 . Except this, I say, which was the 
 special gift of God to them personally, there 
 appears no doubt but that both Timothy and 
 Titus received all the power to rule their re¬ 
 spective churches with as absolute command as 
 had been exercised by St. Paul himself. It is 
 also clear from what I have already cited, and 
 many other passages, that a duty was imposed 
 upon the members of the church at large to pro¬ 
 vide for their ministers and teachers. The par- 
 ticular mode in which this was to be done was 
 not indeed declared, because it must have va¬ 
 ried according to the situation of the churches 
 in their then precarious state, when, instead of 
 being protected, they were persecuted by the 
 civil power. But nothing can be more exten¬ 
 sive or general than the principle of that max¬ 
 im, by which, as had been done by our blessed 
 Lord before him, the apostle enforced this right* 
 
 10 Such as took place in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira, and 
 Elymas. So as to the sicknesses and deaths in the Corinthian 
 church, as well such as happened as such as were threatened by St. 
 Paul. 
 
 a 
 
I 
 
 78 SERMON II. 
 
 I 
 
 44 The labourer is worthy of his reward, ,s or, 
 “ of his hire 11 .” : 
 
 In all this therefore we see nothing es¬ 
 sentially different from the course which was 
 observed in the Jewish church. I may say 
 hardty any difference, except as far as such a 
 difference was made necessary by the different 
 circumstances under which the one and the 
 other was established: the first having risen up 
 in connexion with, and supported by the civil 
 government of the nation ; the church of Christ 
 on the contrary, not only not having any such 
 connexion,, but being opposed and discouraged 
 in all possible ways by the ruling powers of the 
 states where it was preached: the first being 
 confined to one people; the other being intend¬ 
 ed for the salvation of all nations, and to go 
 out into all lands. This accounts for what I 
 have mentioned before of there being: no fixed 
 provision made for the clergy in the earliest 
 ages; because none such could be made without 
 the concurrence of the temporal government ; 
 this accounts also for the priesthood not being 
 confined to one family, as it was among the 
 Jews; and why instead of being hereditary, it 
 was assigned and delegated to such as were 
 
 11 Luke x. 7. and 1 Tim. v. 18. It is very material to recollect 
 that this is said to Timothy. It was therefore a matter not personal 
 to the apostles, but to be observed in after ages. 
 
SERMON XL 
 
 79 
 
 found proper for it by those who had in charge 
 to keep up the succession : why, also, instead of 
 one high priest, there were, in the first place, 
 instituted twelve apostles: not one pope, I may 
 add, but many bishops. But still the priest¬ 
 hood was essentially the same, and the same 
 may be said of the deacons, who, without any 
 forced construction, may be considered as an¬ 
 swering to the Levites 1 *. 
 
 1 \ 
 
 11 The testimony of Jerom to this effect is well known, as de¬ 
 livered in the very passage, in which he is arguing for something 
 like inherent equality between presbyters and bishops. ** Ut scia- 
 “ mus traditiones apostolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento, quod 
 ** Aaron fet filii ejus atque Levitse in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi episcopi 
 “ atque diaconi vindicant in Ecclesia,” in Epistola ad Evangelum, 
 Op. V. iv. Par. 2. p. 803. Jerom, it is well known, was the great 
 authority for the alleged parity of presbyters and bishops. Yet 
 in this very epistle, he admits that the bishops only can ordain. 
 ** Quid enim facit, exctpta ordinations, episcopus, quod Presbyter non 
 “ faciat.” Hammond vol. iv. 771, reckons up fifty other testimo¬ 
 nies from this very Jerom for the superiority of bishops over presby- 
 t ers. Jerom is, indeed, every way a very strong authority for the 
 succession of bishops, and the authority of the church. For even 
 he carries the institution of bishops to the very apostolical age. He 
 says, when men began to say, “ I am of Paul, and I of Cephas,’ 
 kc. referring to the very words of the apostle, then, says he, the 
 authority was given to one, (that is the bishop,) that the seeds o 
 schism might be removed, “ ut schismatum semina tollerentur.*’ 
 Vol. iv. 1. Pars, p, 412. Ed. Bened. This he repeats several times 
 in different places. Which, therefore, to the Presbyterians them¬ 
 selves, should have been an effectual argument, thus coming from 
 their great oracle, against their separation. See also other authori¬ 
 ties in Hammond, Leslie (vol. ii. p. 220 ) and Potter, Hoadly, and 
 later writers, * 
 
80 
 
 SERMON II. 
 
 What now did the apostles think of those per-* 
 sons who broke this order, who, following opi¬ 
 nions of their own, occasioned divisions in the 
 several churches? We have already seen what an 
 unqualified condemnation St. Paul passed upon 
 those who troubled the Galatians. Was he at 
 all less decisive in respect of those who disturb¬ 
 ed the peace of other congregations? 41 Now/* 
 says he, in the conclusion of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, when he was .delivering them such 
 commands as he particularly wished should leave 
 alasting impression upon them, 44 Now, I be- 
 44 seech you, brethren, mark them which cause 
 44 division and offences contrary to the doctrine 
 44 which ye have learned, and avoid them*.* 
 In the Epistle to the Thessalonians, he be¬ 
 seeches the brethren to 44 warn them that are 
 44 unruly,” or disorderly, as it is in the margin 
 of our Bibles, 44 rovs Gclccxlvs'f.” In the second 
 Epistle, he repeats and enforces the same pre¬ 
 cept, in a way that shews plainly what he means 
 by the word 44 aiaitiot* ic Now,” says he, 44 we 
 44 command you, brethren, that ye withdraw 
 i( yourselves from every brother that walkcth dis- 
 4f orderly, a-rW/o/;, and not according to the tra- 
 44 ditions which ye received of ust.” Amon«* 
 other very strong exhortations to Timothy and 
 to Titus, the former is directed to 44 withdraw 
 
 * Horn. xvi. 17 . + l Thes. v. 14. J 2Tiies. iii. 16 , 
 
I 
 
 SERMON L 17 
 
 pose them all, if you will, to be thus absolved, 
 this does no way alter the nature of the thing: 
 it will still continue to be sinful; and this will 
 be no warrant for any man to enter into a 
 schism, or to continue in it, under the con¬ 
 fidence that he shall eventually escape condem¬ 
 nation. Indeed I will venture to say, that, in 
 some respects, schismatics appear to be more 
 directly sinful than heretics, or even than infi¬ 
 dels. Ihey have less to say for themselves. 
 Their conduct seems particularly wanton and 
 without cause. That I may not appear more 
 rash and singular than is necessary, let me be 
 allowed here to plead the authority of some of 
 the most respected fathers of the church, whose 
 very sentiments and almost language I have 
 used. They say directly that schism is as bad 
 or worse than heresy, or than idolatry; and 
 one of them asserts that the prevalence of it is 
 the reason why the power of working miracles 
 had ceased in the church 3 . 
 
 3 The reader who doubts this may refer to Hammond on schism, 
 c. 1. 1 will add a few passages from Austin and Chrysostom. The 
 
 former in his Treatise contra Epistolam Parineniani, Tom. ix. p. l3. 
 cd. Antwerp, as well as elsewhere, adduces and relies upon that 
 opinion of Cyprian, that a schismatic could not be a real martyr, 
 and he reasons from our Lord’s words in Matt. y. 10. “ Blessed are 
 “ they who sutfer persecution for righteousness’ sake which he 
 denies to be the case with schismatics. “Ideo,” says he, “Dominus, 
 ne quisquam in hac re nebulas offenderet imperitis, etinsuorum 
 f damnationemeritorum laudem quasreret martyrum, non generaliter 
 
 C 
 
/ 
 
 SEP. M ONI. 
 
 But tills was not only the language of remote 
 antiquity: it continued to be the doctrine oi 
 
 *< ait, beati qui persecutionem patiuntur: sec] arldidit magnam dlfie- 
 rentiam, qua vera sacrilegio pietas secernatur. Ait enira, bead 
 “ qui persecutionem patiuntur propter justitiam. Nullo modoautem 
 “ propter justitiam, qui Christi ecclesiam diviserunt, etc.” So in 
 Libro de Baptismo contra Donatistas, he calls it “ sacrilege” re¬ 
 peatedly; nefariae divisiotiis sacrilegium,” p. 49 . ‘ c Schismatis 
 sacrilegio,” p. 50 “ Sacrilegia schismata,” ibidem. “ Sacrilegium 
 «< schismatis, quod pmnia scelera supragraditur,” p. 10. And he 
 says none can be guilty of it “ nisi aut superbias tumore furiosos, 
 * e aut invidentiae livore vesanos, aut sseculari commoditate corruptos, 
 aut carnali timore perversos,” p. 50. That schismatics are worse 
 than idolaters he argues from their punishment in the Old Testa¬ 
 ment; that the one was slain with the sword, while the other was 
 swallowed up alive in the earth. “ Idololatras enim in popul® 
 « Dei gladius interemit, schismaticos autem terras hiatus absorbuit,’’ 
 p. 57 . And he expressly ascribes the origin of schism to the want 
 of charity. “ Nulli schismata facerent nisi fraterno odio non ex- 
 « csecarentur,” p. 5g. And after citing 1 John ii. 11, he says, “An 
 “ non in schisrnate odium fraternum? Ouis hoc dixerit, cum et 
 tt origo et pertinacia schismatis nulla sit alia nisi odium fratris V* 
 ibidem. Chrysostom in his homily on Ephes. iv. cites with ap¬ 
 probation that faying of Cyprian with respect to martyrdom. He 
 savs too that nothing so contributes to cause divisions in the church 
 
 as ambition; and nothing so provokes the anger of God as for hi*' 
 church to be divided. “ Ovftev ovneg i/txArjcriav fivvycrslzi 
 *< Staiohv, cos evtih cvlcu 70 v hoy, teg rr t v 
 
 ETOtXrjcrlocv oizicr^vzi.” And he adds that though we should 
 
 do a thousand good works, “xav tvtjtev s§y 0.73^01 xa/.a” 
 
 we should not escape the punishment due to a breach of the unity 
 of the church. Tom. xi. p. 80. Ed. Bened. See also what he 
 says afterwards of schism not being a crime at all inferior to heresy, 
 fix 7 oho Kiltu x on hotpuzflvpoyou, on rov slg &ic£ 7 iv Eu.itc 7 clv ro 
 vy;'/ £xxAr, 7 <af yhou ovx sKarlov bcl xzkgv, p* 88. And in lorn, 
 tii. p. 3/5 in his homily on Matt., x. it), he points out the reason 
 
SERMON 
 
 the church at large, through succeeding ages. 
 It was the strong and declared opinion of Our 
 national church in particular, at that period tp 
 which we are all in the habit of looking, when 
 she virtually, nay, actually separated from the 
 chuich of Rome; when therefore she might 
 have spared herself and the rest of the reformed 
 churches much trouble, when she and they 
 might at once have set themselves above the 
 reach ot obloquy and censure, if they could 
 have maintained the broad ground, that there 
 was no guilt in schism, and that neither 
 churches nor individuals were bound to have 
 fellowship with each other in matters of reli¬ 
 gion. She still, however, maintained the old 
 doctrine, she still reproved and taxed with 
 guilt all those individuals who separated from 
 their proper churches, and all those churches 
 who refused to communicate with each other 
 
 why miracles have ceased to be, lest any man having such extraor¬ 
 dinary powers should thereby he puffed up and led to separate him¬ 
 self from the church : since he says, this is even now the case with 
 those who are eminent for other gifts, ,iyd s ov /.JVofuW 
 
 ol vXsovsKlr/fiaa-iv kr^oi; xopmh;, ciovs) A iys <ri><pix, ItiA ataiag 
 ivifclfei, xsvo$o£oocnv, sircupoylai, aV aAAojAtw ylgtvlcu si xat 
 cyj[aeiz sysvoviOf tfov oux av sysvelo g 7}1 ij.cclot; and he alleges as % 
 proo r what happened among the Corinthians. It is remarkable too 
 that Chrysostom rather goes out of his way to give this opinion, as 
 his text only required him to speak generally of the blessings of 
 peace ; which shews the more strongly how much he was impressed 
 wir.h the idea that ambition and vanity were the prevalent causes of 
 schism. 
 
 € 2 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 20 
 
 without the most evident and weighty reasons. 
 She, as well as the rest, held it to be incumbent 
 upon those who so separated to shew that the 
 terms of communion imposed by the church 
 from which the separation was made were ac¬ 
 tually sinful; either as being in themselves con¬ 
 trary to the word of God, or as by manifest 
 consequence directly leading to evil. Of both 
 these sorts of terms there were numberless and 
 gross instances to be found in the practice and 
 discipline of the Romish church. The schism 
 therefore lay not at their door, but belonged to 
 those, who, by admitting and giving currency 
 to such enormous abuses had made it both dan¬ 
 gerous and sinful to remain in their society. 
 
 Such were the allegations of the church of 
 England at that memorable time, when, by the 
 grace of God, she was enabled to tread back 
 her steps, and disencumber herself of that load 
 of superstition, under which, in common with 
 the great body of Christians, she had so Tong 
 groaned; and when she shook off the yoke 
 which under the most impudent and fraudful 
 pretences, had been imposed upon her by a suc¬ 
 cession of artful and designing usurpers. When 
 afterwards a number of her sons, having been 
 driven by persecution into foreign countries, 
 had unfortunately imbibed a partiality for other 
 forms of discipline in preference to those which 
 she had adopted, and caused the first schism 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 <21 
 
 which took place amoug protestants in this 
 kingdom, neither did these very men contend 
 for that unbounded latitude of every man’s wor¬ 
 shipping God after his own way. They pro¬ 
 fessed to act upon scruples of conscience ; to 
 be persuaded that the Reformation had not gone 
 far enough; that much of popish abomination 
 yet remained behind, of which it was necessary 
 that the church should be purged; and which 
 they assigned as the cause why they could not 
 join in her communion. , This was carried so 
 far, and so acted upon by these puritans, that 
 when, in the time of the great rebellion, they 
 came to have the upper hand, they fully shewed 
 themselves to have been in earnest For they 
 not only established for themselves a mode of 
 worship more devoid of ceremonies and more 
 plain in every respect: not only they destroyed, 
 as far as related to its temporal existence, the 
 hierarchy of the church, by voting bishops to 
 be useless, but they absolutely forbad under 
 considerable penalties any man’s making use of 
 our liturgy. To popery and prelacy, which 
 they most unwarrantably yoked together, they 
 denied that toleration which they were not 
 disinclined to extend, and which was in fact 
 extended to all other, even the most extrava¬ 
 gant sects. By the very persecution which 
 they carried on against the church, thev de- 
 cl&red in the plainest terms, though in a way 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 m 
 
 which was neither just nor decent, their con¬ 
 viction, or opinion at least, that there was a: ub- 
 stantial and conscientious cause for their sena* 
 ration. They did, as our church ha< done 
 before, throw the guilt of the schism upon tnose 
 from whom they separated. 
 
 This was still more apparent, when, upon the 
 restoration of monarchy, and of the church, 
 these same men who had, under the usurped 
 government, obtained possession of most of the 
 livings in the kingdom, were required to con¬ 
 form to the rites and ordinances of the church. 
 
 * V I • ■'■■■} 1 s. v * J 
 
 under pain of being ejected from their prefer- , 
 ments: when almost the whole of them chose 
 
 r . f- • 
 
 rather to relinquish their situations than to 
 make the subscriptions required. For what 
 was then their language? They complained 
 bitterly of the bishops and other rulers of the 
 church, as having devised such terms of com¬ 
 munion as they could not in conscience comply 
 with; they deplored the separation, to which 
 they were thus, as they said, driven* but re¬ 
 peatedly and loudly protested that the schism 
 was none of theirs 4 . At the conferences which 
 
 «.• 4 f ■ t t k V •* * f * * i H J - ■ - ' * * * ■* » * 
 
 f This is done in the strongest language by Peirce in his te Vindi- 
 f r cation of the Dissenters,’’ published in 1 717. te After the church 
 
 of England, being led by a schisraatical rage, ejected her ministers, 
 il &c.” Part 1. p. 283. “ We have all alqng desired peace, and 
 
 f* will still most cheerfully embrace it, as soon as the unrighteous con* 
 dftioiu which oow obstruct it are removed.” Ibidem, p. 285 . After* 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 23 
 
 took place at the Savoy (as before at that which 
 took place before* king James at Hampton 
 Court) the dissenting ministers agreed most 
 fully with the dignitaries of the church in their 
 ideas of not only the advantage, but the duty 
 of being united. The same doctrine continued 
 to be held by them and their successors for 
 many years after. Not only in their general 
 professions, but in particular sermons delivered 
 and published by them, they continued to urge 
 the necessity 7 of unity in the church, and the 
 sin of those who caused any breach in that 
 unity. 
 
 So late as the beginning of the last century, 
 the question was agitated with great warmth 
 and zeal; in particular between a very respect¬ 
 able divine of our church, and certain dissenters 
 in his neighbourhood ; and whatever might he 
 the merits of the case in other respects, it is 
 most evident that both sides proceeded upon 
 
 wards, speaking of the use of the surplice and ceremonies, he says, 
 « Since the things themselves are useless, if they are lawful, they 
 “ who join in them, and without any necessity give an occasion of 
 “ offence to their brethren, and for such a trifling matter deprive 
 them of their ministry, as though they were unfit for the sacred 
 “ office, nay, and rend the mystical body of Christ for a thing 01 
 f< nought, must deservedly be reckoned guilty of a grievous sin,” 
 Part iii. p. 19O. He says too (Part ii. p. 2.) that the episcopal 
 clergy “are guilty of schism, out of a certain dread of it.” Peirce’s 
 book was considered as a book of great authority among the Dis* 
 centers. 
 
<24 
 
 SERMON I. 
 
 \ 
 
 the assumption, that schism was a dangerous 
 and damnable sin 5 , 
 
 5 See Rennet’s Essay on Schism ; c. vii. where he shews that 
 schism is a damnable sin in the judgment of the (then) present 
 41 dissenting ministers.” That Dr. Bennet had the better of the 
 argument, we need no other proof than the admission of Dr. Kip- 
 pis, (a well-known Socinian dissenter), in his note. Art. Ben- 
 Ntet in the last edition of his Biographia Britannica ; who tells us, 
 that Dr. Bennett met with insiifficient adversaries; and that et he 
 “ (the writer) remembers being told in his youth, by Dr. Phil. Dod- 
 44 dridge, that the dissenting ministers in and about Colchester, 
 “ who endeavoured to answer Dr.Bennet,and particularly Mr.Shep- 
 ce herd, were persons of very mean talents.” Supposing the fact 
 were admitted ; yet, as the question was a general one, and Dr. Ben- 
 net’s book went through several editions, it may be asked, why some 
 more able adversary from some other place, did not give the doctor a 
 better answer. There follows a paragraph, which as it coroborates 
 my assertions with respect to fact; and also gives the great plea of 
 the dissenters for non-conformity, it may be material to subjoin. 
 “ The question concerning schism,” adds Dr. K. “ was deemed of 
 s ‘ great importance during the last century, and the beginning of the 
 present, (that is, the eighteenth). The papists charged this 
 iC crime upon the protestants, and the members of the church of 
 (( England upon the dissenters; and the parties attacked, recrimi- 
 e ‘ nated in their turn. In these more libera times, it will be con- 
 fessed by all, except some recluse bigots, that a man who sin- 
 “ cerely worships God according to the dictates of his own con- 
 science, in any Christian assembly , is an object of salvation.’’ Upon 
 this I need not make any observation, having considered this posi¬ 
 tion in Sermon III. only I must observe, that the qualification here 
 introduced by the doctor, which I have printed in Italics, could 
 hardly have been maintained by him without some prejudice to his 
 general principle. I have only further-to notice a most ingenious 
 artifice employed by the doctor in this note, and common indeed, 
 among the Socinians. Speaking of Dr. Bennet’s tracts in favour of 
 the Trinity, he calls it £<r defending Athanasianism thus employ¬ 
 ing a term of modern invention, for the purpose of insinuating that 
 
SERMON I, 
 
 35 
 
 From that time, I admit, as I have said be^* 
 fore, that this opinion of the great guilt of 
 schism has very much lost its hold on the minds, 
 
 the doctrine of the Trinity is no older than Athanasius; an insinu- 
 ation not only unfounded in fact, but repeatedly shown to be so, 
 and solemnly repelled by every writer on that side of the question. 
 It is indeed, a term so improper in every respect, that it was reserved 
 for the Socinians of the present age to bring it forward. This is, 
 however, outdone in unfairness by a Mr. Evans ; who, having 
 published an account of the different sects of Christianity, charac¬ 
 terises the “ Trinitarians” by an opinion of Dr. Priestley, making 
 them in fact Sabellians orTritheists; and immediately subjoins the 
 “ Athanasians” as a distinct denomination ; under which the 
 Church of England is impliedly, though not by name, attempted 
 to be stigmatized, ' 
 
 I might adduce further, in corroboration of what I have stated 
 
 in the text, the controversy between bishop (then Mr.) Hoadly 
 
 and Dr. Calamy, on non-conformity, which equally proceeded 
 
 upon the admission of the great evil of schism. To put it in 
 
 Bishop Hoadly’s words, who was tender enough upon the subject, 
 
 it was agreed on all hands, “That all causeless and unnecessary 
 
 “ divisions and distinctions, are most carefully and conscientiously 
 
 to be avoided by all Christians.” Reasonableness of conformity, 
 
 p. 28p, duod. edit, and again, p. 479, ic That regularity is not to 
 
 “ be neglected without a great necessity, is my principle , and this 
 
 “author,” (that is Calamy) “has said the same over and over 
 
 * 
 
 again.” What Bishop Hoadly so tenderly calls “ neglecting 
 “ regularity”’ the Apostles would probably have called “troubling 
 “ the church.’’ However, Hoadly beat Calamy on his ovyn prin¬ 
 ciples, and I think this is fairly to be deduced from what Calamy 
 himself says of the end of this controversy. “ I drew up a reply 
 “ to it” (the defence of episcopal ordination) “ both as to the 
 “ historical and argumentative part, in a letter to the author, but 
 “ forcbore printing it that I might not give him disturbance in the pursuit 
 “ of his political contest, in which he is so happily engaged, and so much to 
 “ the satisfaction of the true lovers of his country. We must belieye 
 that Dr. Calamy had no great confidence in a cause which he 
 
56 
 
 SERMON I, 
 
 of perhaps, a majority in this nation. It has 
 even ceased to be much debated, and other ideas 
 more lax, and more conformable to the liberal¬ 
 ity so much professed in these times, have taken 
 its place. But surely, if we trace the com¬ 
 mencement, as well as the progress of this 
 change, we shall see no room to be convinced 
 that this new mode of thinking is preferable to 
 the old. It took its rise, or, at least, it appear¬ 
 ed first to gather strength from an event, 
 which, though in the beginning it might be 
 said to concern only a few individuals, very 
 soon, by the co-operation of other causes, be¬ 
 came extremely general and extended in its ef¬ 
 fects. 
 
 The circumstance to which I allude, is the 
 celebrated controversy which arose about or 
 soon after that time ; and which was occasioned 
 by certain positions maintained and promulgated 
 by an eminent prelate of that clay; the tenden¬ 
 cy of which (as it was not without good rea¬ 
 son objected to him) appeared to be to en¬ 
 courage all manner of divisions, by inviting 
 every man to follow the bent of his own fancy 
 in the choice of his communion ; and by declar¬ 
 ing against every species of authority in the 
 
 abandoned upon such grounds. What he,had to say, he lias set 
 down shortly in the place from which the above passage is ex¬ 
 tracted : Abridgment of Baxter’s life, p. 713—18, and 1 belie*® 
 it will shew I am not wrong in my supposition 
 
 / 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 n 
 
 church 6 . There were not wanting many very 
 able and learned divines to come forward in the 
 refutation of such opinions; and that it was 
 done with great success—nay, with an unan¬ 
 swerable force of argument, has been generally 
 enough acknowledged 7 . Eut there were cir- 
 
 6 At this distance of time it may not be altogether unnecessary 
 to mention, that the Bangorian controversy was occasioned by two 
 productions of Bishop Moadly, the one, “ a Preservative against 
 
 the Principles and Practices of the Non-jurors both in Church and 
 “ State,” printed in 1716; the other, a Sermon on the Nature of 
 (t the Kingdom or Church of Christ,” preached before the King, 
 and published by command. As tp the latter of which, the Bishop 
 himself says, “At whose request it was commanded to be publish* 
 “ ed, I know not; but I know that it was not either directly or 
 <( indirectly from any desire of mine.” ( Pref. to vol. of Sermons 
 1754) Against certain positions contained in these publications, 
 a complaint was instituted in the lower house of convocation, 
 which being referred to a committee, a representation was drawn 
 up, reprobating them in very strong terms. But after it was re» 
 ceived, and nem. con. voted to be entered on the books of the 
 house. Bishop Hoadly’s friends, as is well understood, procured th® 
 prorogation of the convocation in order to shelter him from the 
 censure, which he would otherwise hardly have avoided. The 
 bishop indeed disclaims. (Pref. to answer to the representation of the 
 committee) having solicited or even known or suspected any such 
 design, till it was actually resolved and ordered. He adds however, 
 “ It” (the prorogation) “neither tends to hinder any light from 
 “ appearing, which possibly can be procured, nor can it have such 
 “ effect in its consequences , but the contrary. For the debate is by 
 “ this means taken from the bar of human authority , and brought to 
 “ that of reason and scripture .* removed from a trial by a majority of 
 “ voices (which cannot be a trial contended for either by truth or 
 “ by the Church of EnglandJ and brought to that of argument 
 f ( only.’’ 
 
 ? This may, I think, not unreasonably be collected even from 
 
S E R M O N I. 
 
 2 $ 
 
 eumstances, which, independently of the me¬ 
 rits of the question, tended to give weight 
 and prevalency to the sentiments thus brought 
 forward aud supported by Bishop Hoadly and 
 his adherents. The very circumstance which 
 had occasioned the question to be agitated, 
 secured to him a considerable degree of favour 
 with a very large party in the nation, and the 
 decided patronage of the persons that were 
 then at the head of the government. This 
 was the scrupulousness, extreme, it may be al¬ 
 lowed, and too nice, of certain of our divines, 
 who, however they disapproved, and had even 
 resisted the designs of James the second against 
 the church 8 , yet conceived themselves to be 
 
 the language of one of the bishop’s strongest partisans. A con- 
 tinuation of the account of all the pamphlets relating to this con¬ 
 troversy by Thomas Hearn, M. A r was published in 1720, which 
 concludes thus. <f Let me add one general observation : tha r t 
 “ though the principles maintained by my Lord of Bangor do 
 appear to be the only ones upon which our reformation, or 
 u indeed any reformation can be justifiable 5 though they evident- 
 st ly tend to justify Christianity from the objections that are un- 
 i answerable by those, who contend for the contradictory priiv 
 <s ciples, such as that it makes God a being acting not by reason, 
 ov-'c. I hough this and mmch more be true, yet the number of 
 those who appear in public opposition to him increases : as fast 
 '“as former ones are baffled, new ones of higher stations, and 
 greater dignity succeed, whilst many who are of the same 
 “ sentiments with him content themselves with being well-wishers 
 to bis cause; and except those who first sided with him, few 
 “ °P enl y appear to his assistance,” &c. See Hoadly’s works, voL 
 Lp. 710. 
 
 5 This was particularly the case with five (if 1 mistake not) of 
 
 
SERMON I. 
 
 29 
 
 So bound by the oath of allegiance which they 
 had taken to him, that they could not, during 
 his life, transfer that allegiance to any other 
 sovereign ; and they in consequence declined 
 acknowledging his successor. This brought on 
 the expulsion of them from their bishoprics 
 and other perferments ; and, as they still per¬ 
 sisted in considering themselves as the right¬ 
 ful pastors in the several cures to which they 
 had been instituted, occasion was given to a con¬ 
 test, which though in itself purely religious, yet 
 was made naturally enough to bear upon the 
 politics of the day. The assertion of an eccle¬ 
 siastical authority independent of the civil 
 power was conceived, by the adminstration 
 then existing, to be of a dangerous tendency, 
 and they were not backward therefore to sup¬ 
 port those who came forward in opposition to 
 such claims. The mode however which was 
 adopted by the then bishop of Bangor for the 
 combating of these pretensions, well or ill- 
 founded, must be admitted to have been some¬ 
 what extraordinary for one, who was bv his 
 
 4/ sj 
 
 office, an established ruler in the church. Not 
 
 the seven bishops. It is remarkable too, that Leslie, who was 
 the most violent (perhaps) of the non-jurors in favour of the pre¬ 
 tender, had early in his life very strenuously opposed an illegal 
 attempt of James the second to appoint a popish sheriff for a 
 county of Ireland, where he was an acting justice of the peace. 
 V. Biog. Brit. Art. Leslie. 
 
S E R M O N L 
 
 30 
 
 content to argue against any abuse or miscon¬ 
 ception of authority, he proceeded at once to 
 deny that there was any authority whatever given 
 by Christ to any person to rule or to govern 
 his church: he asserted that what our Lord 
 said of “his kingdom not being of this world” 
 was to be taken most strictly, as interdicting 
 every man from being a judge or lawgiver in 
 religious matters ; and thus he, by necessary 
 inference, condemned or materially impeached 
 the very establishment in which he held so dis¬ 
 tinguished a situation 9 . 
 
 Inconsistent as this conduct might appear, 
 yet while the doctrine was patronized by the 
 government, and the supporters of it were re¬ 
 warded with the preferments and the dignities, 
 of which they thus seemed to doubt the pro* 
 priety, it is no wonder that the tenet should 
 have continued to gain ground. It was more 
 particularly received with great favour bv the 
 dissenters, with many of whose positions it 
 not only agreed, but even seemed in a great 
 degree to be borrowed from them. It further 
 opened to them a prospect of being set at liber- 
 
 9 It is true the bishop afterwards endeavoured to explain away 
 or to narrow his positions, but it was clearly shewn bv his oppo¬ 
 nents that this could not be done without destroying the whole of 
 liis argument. See particularly W llliani Law’s third letter, under 
 the head of “ A remarkable evasion of your lordship’s in relation 
 to church authority.” 
 
SERMON l 
 
 31 
 
 ty from those restraints to which by the policy 
 ot the civil legislature they had been subjected ; 
 and they appear from that time io have shewn 
 a disposition to unite as one body in their ge* 
 ncrai views of hostility against the national 
 church. 
 
 In consequence of this too, and in order to 
 preserve consistency in the maintenance of the 
 doctrine, the Aiidns and Socinians began from 
 that time also to be taken into favour by the 
 other dissenters; and were admitted by them 
 to be entitled to the same degree of indulgence 
 and the same privileges as the other sects. 
 
 How far this was from being the case with 
 their predecessors, no man who has looked ever 
 so superficially into ecclesiastical history, can 
 be ignorant. From the earliest appearance of 
 the puritans down' to the times of Baxter, and 
 even of his biographer Calamy, the Socinians, 
 and all those who denied the proper divinity of 
 our Lord, were considered as hardly deserving 
 even to be classed among Christians. Calvin, 
 it is notorious, shewed it by causing Servetus 
 to be burned, and Baxter spoke of Biddle’s 
 followers as men who were little better than 
 Deists or Infidels 10 . In the toleration act passed 
 
 io u Socinians also in these times made some increase by the 
 et means of one Mr. Biddle, sometime' schoolmaster in Gloucester, 
 “ who wrote against the godhead of the Holy Ghost , and afterwards of 
 
 Christ . His followers inclined much to mere Dtism and Infidelity'" 
 
 6 
 
32 SERMON I. 
 
 under King William, a clause was inserted re¬ 
 quiring a subscription expressly calculated to 
 exclude this class of sectaries from taking ad¬ 
 vantage of its provisions; and by another sta¬ 
 tute it was declared,to be an offence highly 
 penal to deny the godhead of any of the persons 
 of the blessed trinity ; as also to affirm that 
 there is more than one God 11 . To neither of 
 which enactments was any opposition made by 
 the'dissenters of those days, nor did they shew 
 the least apprehension that they could evenbe- 
 come subject to the penalties which were thus 
 imposed. Not long after this, however, the 
 consequences of their-own principles, when 
 pushed to the utmost, began to press upon 
 them, 1 ” and they or most of them manifested a 
 
 Calamy's abridgment ofBaxter’s life, Vol. 1 . p. 104. Peirce in his 
 Vindication of Dissenters blames the churchmen as too easy in this 
 respect. “ Why,” says he, “ do they not, as well as we, keep 
 “ heretics and profligate sinners out of their eommunion.” Part 
 hi. p. 273. 
 
 11 This was extended to the Quakers. Vid. Stat. 1 . W- &m. 
 c. xviii. sec. 13. and 9 . and 10 . W. iii. c. 32. 
 
 14 “ Among the many clamours raised about this time (anno 
 " 1704) among the Dissenters, one was that they did not deserve 
 
 to have liberty themselves, because they were enemies to the 
 <c liberty of others. This was started as a maxim that they that 
 
 would be for straining others if they were able, could not reason- 
 “ ably expect liberty from those that were in power, when they 
 €t differed from them. I shall not set myself to debate this maxim 
 “ or consider what might be objected to it; but shall let the world 
 ' cf understand ihat the Dissenters took another way to answer it, 
 
 “ &c.“ Calamy’s abridgment of Baxter’s Life, Vol.i. p 670 . The 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 97 ' 
 
 £>ther topics which are much in vogue, and 
 which it may be proper in the first instance, 
 and before I proceed further, to dispose of. 
 
 First, it is usual for the apologists ot schism 
 or of other errors, to argue that we are not to 
 press an adversary with any consequences of 
 the doctrines professed by him, which he dis¬ 
 claims or does not avow. Now, if by this no¬ 
 thing more is meant than that it is not always to 
 be concluded that the individual himself is aware 
 of all the consequences which may follow from 
 the introduction of his doctrine; that we are 
 not therefore to suppose him to have actually 
 intended to do all the mischief which we can 
 shew that he lias done, or may be justly afraid 
 that he will do; if no more he meant than that 
 the severity of personal invective should be mo¬ 
 derated, and as much forbearance exercised as 
 may be possible without injury to the truth; I 
 have no sort of objection to the proposition, 
 nor can I have the least desire to see contio* 
 versy carried on in any way but such as is 
 strictly consistent with Christian charity. But, 
 if it be meant by this, that we are to be pre¬ 
 vented from impeaching a doctrine or combat¬ 
 ing a sect, upon any outer giounds than sucn 
 as our opponents themselves profess to stand 
 upon, that we are to charge them with no re¬ 
 sults, or deductions from their principles, hut 
 
 it 
 
sermon iil 
 
 98 
 
 such as they themselves present to our view; if 
 we are not to be at liberty to detect latent mis¬ 
 chief and to trace falsehood, whether involun¬ 
 tary or designed, under all its forms and 
 through all its disguises ; I must decidedly pro¬ 
 test against any such proposition. I must say 
 that this is a mode of contending for the truth 
 which is not to be prescribed to us, which 
 would operate most unfavourably against the 
 most sincere advocates of the gospel; which 
 would, in every case, give to the impugners of 
 the word, whether heretics or infidels, an undue 
 advantage both with respect to the mode of at¬ 
 tack and to that of defence. I must add that 
 it would further take from us the power of fol¬ 
 lowing as implicitly and as fully as we ought, 
 this direction or precept of our Saviour which 
 is contained in my text; for I contend that the 
 consequences of a doctrine are precisely the 
 “fruits” of which he there speaks. It is from 
 these that we are particularly called'upon to 
 judge whether it spring from its proper source, 
 whether it be truly derived from the spirit; nor 
 are we to be stopped from this mode of reason¬ 
 ing, by any protest which may be made on be¬ 
 half of any individual, even though we should 
 be disposed to give it the fullest credit, as far 
 as it relates to the man himself. 
 
 When, for example, we are considering cer- 
 
SERMON IIL gg 
 
 tain tenets which are prevalent in these times, 
 and we shew, as every man may shew, that the 
 doctrine of absolute decrees naturally leads to 
 the very extent of antlnomianism ; and that, in 
 truth, it lias that effect with the great body of 
 those who entertain it; we must not be told 
 that we argue unfairly, because Calvin himself 
 never avowed, and never, in practice, fell into 
 that eiior, because the enlightened and well- 
 instiucted members of the sect neither profess 
 nor act according to such abomination. Ad¬ 
 mitting, most fully, all these claims, must we 
 not be allowed to say, that in being careful to 
 <c maintain good works,” and living uprightly, 
 these persons may be said to act inconsistently 
 with their tenets, that the praise of consistenev 
 rather belougs to those whose conduct is differ* 
 ent? That, therefore, what is a snare to the 
 weak and the unlearned, can never be the doc¬ 
 trine which came from Christ? So, when the 
 advocates of the Romish Church defend them¬ 
 selves from the charge of idolatry by distin¬ 
 guishing the honour which they pay to their 
 saints from the worship which is due to God, 
 when they assert that they do not bow down 
 before images, in any sense which is criminal, 
 shall we not, even if we were, in mere excess of 
 candour, inclined to admit this to be the case 
 with the doctors of their church, deny that 
 these are the sentiments of the vulgar? Shall we 
 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 'SERMON III. 
 
 not urge, that these are distinctions not under¬ 
 stood by the unlearned, who do, in fact, pray 
 to their saints and to their images, with even 
 greater fervour than to God ? and, is not the 
 conclusion legitimate, that this doctrine and 
 practice, if they were not* as they are, abo¬ 
 minable in themselves, yet in their direct conse¬ 
 quences lead to evil, and ought to be rejected ? 
 
 Another topic, to which I have already in 
 part alluded* which is, indeed, considered as 
 one in special use among dissenters, which is 
 brought forward, upon every occasion, to justify 
 those who have nothing else to say for them¬ 
 selves, is, that, supposing them to be in an er¬ 
 ror, yet, as they are sincere in their belief, they 
 must be as acceptable to God as those whose 
 faith is in ever so great a degree more correct 
 Hence it is inferred, that the insisting upon the 
 particular tenets of any church, the laying any 
 stress upon joining in any particular commu¬ 
 nion, is an intolerable usurpation, that it is a 
 presuming most unjustifiably to lord it over the 
 consciences of others, who need only look to 
 themselves, and judge for themselves. The 
 main proposition, I cannot more strongly put, 
 than in the words of the learned prelate, to 
 whom, and to whose tenets, I have before al¬ 
 luded, and who was the first, (among our divines, 
 at least,) who adopted and recommended the 
 maxim. “ The favour of God/’ said his Lordship, 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 101 
 
 ^ follows sincerity, considered as such, and conse- 
 quently equally follows eveiy equal degree of sin- 
 cerity/’* The unsound ness and the pernicious 
 tendency of this doctrine cannot be more clearly 
 shewn in the first instance, than by applying 
 cur Saviour’s rule, and considering the conse¬ 
 quences which result from such a mode of rea¬ 
 soning. I cannot do this better, than by tak¬ 
 ing the words of that justly celebrated writer, 
 and pious man, who never received a word of 
 reply from the principal in that controversy, 
 though he was generally allowed to have been 
 the bishopsTnost formidable antagonist . 1 “ If,” 
 says he, “ it be sincerity as such that procures 
 “ the favour of God, then it is sincerity, inde- 
 “ pendent and exclusive of any particular way 
 <f of worship; and, if the favour of God equally 
 ■ ( follows every equal degree of sincerity, then 
 ** it is impossible that there should he any 
 “ difference, either as to merit of happiness 
 (c between a sincere martyr and a sincere perse- 
 
 * Preservative against the principles and practices of the Non¬ 
 jurors. 3d Ed. p. 91 . 
 
 1 See as to this, Wm. Law’s 3d Letter, in the beginning, where 
 he most deservedly lashes the bishop for declining to answer him, 
 
 “ because he was not a man sufficiently considerable.” The 
 bishop and his adherents were as studiously anxious as possible, to 
 shew a contempt of Win. Law, which they could not feel. See 
 the catalogue referred to in note 7 to sermon 1 . Observe too, that 
 W in. Law s Letters have gone through eight editions, without 
 reckoning their being reprinted in the Scholar Arm’d. 
 
 1 
 
/ 
 
 102 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 *'* cutor; and he that burns the Christian, if he 
 be but in earnest, has the same title to a re- 
 “ ward for it, as he that is burnt for believing 
 “ in Christ.”* “ I hope,” Wm. Law says after¬ 
 wards, “ that there is mercy in store for all 
 f£ sorts of people, however erroneous in their 
 “ way of worshipping God; but cannot believe, 
 ££ that to be a sincere Christian, is to be no 
 more in the favour of God, than to be a sin- 
 £i cere deist, or a sincere destroyer of chris- 
 “ tians. J ' ££ It will be allowed,” he goes on 
 most justly, c£ that sincerity is a necessary prin- 
 Cf ciple of true religion; and that, without it, 
 u all the most specious appearances of virtue are 
 “nothing worth: but still, neither common 
 <c sense, nor plain scripture will suffer me to 
 u think that, when our Saviour was on earth, 
 fC they were as much in the favour of God, who 
 cc sincerely refused to be his disciples, and sin- 
 se cerely called for his crucifixion, as those who 
 “ sincerely left all and followed him. If they 
 ie were, what has become of that ' blessedness 
 ie in believing,’ so often mentioned in scripture? 
 “ Or where is the happiness of the gospel reve- 
 “ lation if they are as well who refuse it sin- 
 “ cerely, as they who embrace it with inte-* 
 ££ grity? 
 
 * William Law’s 1st Letter to the bishop of Bangor, reprinted in 
 Scolar Arm’d, &c. Vol. i. p, 331. 
 f Ibid, p. 332, 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 103 
 
 The case here put, is an extreme one, but it is 
 not the less a case naturally and fairly arising out 
 of the position which is combated. It isso taken 
 in order more strongly to shew the absurdity of 
 the position in general, but the reasoning ap¬ 
 plies equally to all cases ; it equally afFects 
 schismatics and heretics as it does infidels. 
 Whatever is said of receiving the gospel, must 
 be taken of the proper receiving and right in¬ 
 terpretation of it. He that distorts or miscon¬ 
 strues, or only partially receives the word of 
 God, is undoubtedly guilty of sin, and must 
 bear the punishment to which he is thus be¬ 
 come liable. “ He that shall break the least of 
 “ these commandments/’ says our Lord, “ and 
 “ shall teach men so, shall be least in the kin o’- 
 
 61 dom of God:” But there is no command- 
 
 / 
 
 ment so strongly or so strictly enjoined by 
 Christ, or his apostles, as that of living at peace 
 and in unity with one another. It is also repeat¬ 
 edly and over and over again applied to the 
 communion of Christians in their worship of 
 God. Now, if it clearly appear, as it cer¬ 
 tainly does, that the apostles, after having esta¬ 
 blished the different churches, left behind them 
 successors regularly appointed to govern them, 
 and to keep up the succession; if such was the 
 authority actually conveyed to Titus and to 
 Timothy, and if the succession have been so 
 
 I V 
 
 keptup, whether under the name of apostles, ofan- 
 
304 
 
 S E 11 M O N III, 
 
 gels, of superintendants, or the more general, ark! 
 now appropriate term, of bishops, ' can any one 
 imagine or say, that it was, or is lawful, under 
 any pretence of sincerity, or otherwise, to break 
 that order? Nay, if, even without reference to 
 the apostles, we say, what nobody can deny, 
 that, from as far back as we have any account 
 of the churches, they have been governed by 
 such officers as the bishops are now; if such 
 'was the custom of ages universally acquiesced 
 in, how shall they be justified, who, in later 
 times, under colour of bringing in greater purity 
 or sanctity, or still more, from any private or 
 political views of their own, set up a new mode 
 of governing the church, and thus gave a be- 
 ginning to the various schisms and dissentions 
 Which, from that time to this, have broke, and 
 still break her unity and disturb her peace ? In 
 these, as in other cases, a positive evil is pro¬ 
 duced, a direct trangression of God's Ordinance 
 in breaking the unity of the church takes place* 
 In these, therefore, sincerity can no more be a 
 justification, than in the case of any other trails-* 
 gression. 
 
 * 
 
 But, further to advert to this plea of sin¬ 
 cerity, it were well, if they who make it for 
 
 9 All this is, in fact, admitted, and argued upon by Biihop 
 iloatlly, when he was only Mr. Hoadly, in his “ Reasonableness 
 ** of Conformity,” and Defence of Episcopal Ordination.’’ See 
 also, what has been said in note 12, upon sermon ii. 
 
SERMON III. 105 
 
 themselves, or for others, thoroughly consider¬ 
 ed all that it implies, and what sort of responsibi¬ 
 lity they take upon themselves, who would rest 
 their hope of salvation simply upon that ground. 
 For he who asserts his innocence, simply be¬ 
 cause he is sincere, does virtually assert that, in 
 forming his judgment, he took every precaution 
 not to be deceived, that he was swayed by no 
 prejudice, moved by no passion, that, through 
 the whole of the examination he preserved the 
 same integrity and purity of intention, the same 
 labour and patience of investigation, that he 
 harboured no wish, but that of arriving at the 
 truth 3 . That this is not the case with every 
 
 3 I might quote even Hoadly as using language little less strong 
 than mine. After admitting, that those persons who will be per¬ 
 suaded - by no arguments, that a compliance with the terms required 
 by the Established Church is lawful, are bound to separate from 
 our church : he adds, <e But then I leave this upon their minds, 
 
 (i that they are to be accountable to God for the error of their judg- 
 €C ments, as well as for the vices of their practice; especially such 
 se errors as carry along with them sad and pernicious consequences, 
 
 “ and tend to destroy Christian charity; and that, therefore, they 
 t( will most certainly be punished as persons guilty of a needless se- 
 (t paration, if it be found at last, that prejudice, or passion, or 
 hatred, or any worldly design hath blinded their eyes and hinder- 
 (< ed them from seeing the truth, or attending to it, and embracing 
 it.” He adds, afterwards, in the same page, some remarkable 
 words. “ The effects and consequences of separation are dismal 
 (c and horrible, the effects of unity blessed and glorious; and, ' 
 “ therefore, it is, that I say that they’’ (that is the separatists) 
 
 4< ought not to acquiesce in their former judgments though never 
 (t so settled and established, but to be disposed to alter them when 
 
106 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 individual, nay, that it is the case with very 
 few of the race of man, the scripture itself suf¬ 
 ficiently points out. We are there told, that 
 “ the heart is deceitful above all things.” We 
 hnow, indeed, and must have observed in our¬ 
 selves, as in others, how almost insensibly we 
 *i.re led to embrace opinions which are agreeable 
 to our temporal interests, or are flattering to 
 our passions and to our prejudices. It is only 
 irom inG consideration of this disposition in 
 man, that we can satisfactorily account for that 
 blindness with which we are told that men are 
 sometimes visited; when <e God sends upon 
 them a strong delusion, that they should be¬ 
 lieve a lie*/' when they “ see not with their 
 eyes, neither hear with their ears," when 
 their hearts are hardenedf," all which we 
 lightly consider as a judicial delusion, a judi¬ 
 cial blindness, deafness, and hardening. The 
 tiuth is, that men but too often desire to he 
 deceived, and then God gives them up to their 
 own imaginations. 
 
 “ reasons are offered against them. They are bound to incline to 
 “ unity rather than division, to conformity rather than separation, 
 “ and theref °re are bound never to be averse to conviction, &c. 
 Reasonableness of Conformity, p. 183. 3d Edit. How would the 
 number of dissenters be diminished, if they would but act upon 
 these principles! And, how different was the language of this same 
 man, when afterwards engaged in political and party contest! 
 
 * 2 Thess^l. ii. 11. f Matth. xiii. 15. Johnxii. 40. 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 10 
 
 That, indeed, God will not leave any man in 
 error, who only errs from weakness, or even 
 from a misguided zeal, might be presumed from 
 more than one example of that kind which i« 
 brought to our notice in the scriptures. But 
 still, however sincere or well intentioned they 
 might be who so erred, they are no where 
 considered as innocent and free from sin, 
 while they continued in error. St. Paul ex¬ 
 pressly, and more than once, condemns himself 
 for having persecuted the church, although he 
 did it ignorantly and in unbelief.” He calls 
 himself “ a blasphemer, and injurious*.” Si¬ 
 milar to this was the lano-ua^e of Peter to the 
 Jews, at his first preaching, when, having 
 charged them with killing the Prince of Life, 
 he added, “ Now, brethren, I wot that ye did 
 “ it ignorantly, as did also your rulers.” Yet 
 his conclusion was not that they were thereby 
 justified. On the contrary, his exhortation was 
 to “ repent and be converted, that their sins 
 “ might be blotted outf.” So little warrant is 
 there in the word of God for supposing that 
 men can be in favour with him while they con¬ 
 tinue in error, however involuntary. There 
 will, indeed, be found no sort of authority for 
 any such u flattering unction.” The commis¬ 
 sion which is given to the preachers of the gos- 
 
 * 1 Tina. i. 13. 
 
 4 
 
 f Acts iii. 17, 19 . 
 
103 
 
 S £ R M O N III. 
 
 pel is to teach men to believe in Christ, in a cru> 
 cified Saviour, in the benefits of his passion, 
 to receive him as the only begotten son of God. 
 The truth is to be tendered to them, and they 
 are to receive it, or to reject it at their peril. 
 Vi e iiave no business even to inquire whether 
 there be such a thing as invincible blindness, 
 as error which could not be avoided; that is 
 among “ the secret things of God* : ” which he 
 will decide, (as we may be sure,) not only with 
 justice, hut with mercy. The language which 
 the gospel speaks in that respect, is the same 
 which our Saviour held to Peter, when the 
 apostle was improperly inquisitive into what 
 was to he the fate of John ; f£ What is that to 
 thee ? Follow thou mej\” And, before that, 
 when in the same spirit, some of his disciples 
 asked him, “ if there were many that should be 
 “ saved r” He gave them no answer to their 
 question, but, in the strongest manner, pointed 
 out the impropriety of it, by recalling their at¬ 
 tention to what was their individual duty. 
 “Strive ye,” said he, f£ to enter in at the 
 “ straight gate, for many, I say unto you, will 
 “ seek to enter in, and shall not be ablej,” 
 which is plainly equivalent to a direct reproof; 
 as if lie had said to them, f£ take care of your 
 * £ own salvation, and trouble not yourselves 
 
 * Deut. xxix. 29 . f Job* xxi. 22. + Luke xiii. 24, 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 W§ 
 
 ^ about others; take heed that you be not among' 
 “ the number of those who shall fail to enter ia, 
 i( for that, and not any general speculation, is 
 “ your concern/’ What, indeed, can be the 
 effect of indulging in such conjectures, and in¬ 
 culcating such theories? What can be the 
 “ fruits” of such doctrine, but to diminish the 
 zeal of men, to make them less earnest in the 
 pursuit of religious truth ? When they are told 
 
 that it matters not what is their opinion of 
 
 « 
 
 Christ, what they think of the covenant in Ids 
 blood, what way they take to draw near to God, 
 provided they are but in earnest in doing it, 
 what can follow, but that lukewarmness and 
 indifference which our Lord reprobated so 
 strongly in the church of Laodicca, and which 
 seemed more abominable in his sight even than 
 total unbelief? “ I would,” he says, “ that thou 
 
 *v 
 
 Ct wert either hot or cold*.” Our blessed Lord 
 hath told us “ that strait is the gate, and nar- 
 row is the way that leadeth to eternal life,** 
 and shall we listen to those, who, in direct con¬ 
 tradiction to him, are labouring by all possible 
 means to extend the platform, and to represent 
 the way as, so broad, that all men of all possible 
 denominations may equally walk in it, and he 
 saved? Was this the language, not only of Christ, 
 but of his apostles? Was it the language of St. 
 Paul to the Judaizing teachers among the Galati- 
 
 * Rev. iii. 15. 
 
no 
 
 S E R M O N III. 
 
 ans ? Though what men could have had more to 
 say in behalf of their peculiar tenets ? They were 
 recommending a practice which had originally 
 been instituted from God, in which they had 
 been educated, which some of the apostles had 
 favoured, with which Paul himself had occa¬ 
 sionally complied : had they not then, more 
 than any others in later ages, reason to argue 
 that surely their errors were harmless; that they 
 preached good morality; that they ought to be 
 at liberty in such matters as these. Yet what 
 was the language of St. Paul P “Behold/’ says 
 he, “ I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circum- 
 “ cised,” (that is if contrary to my gospel ye 
 hold circumcision to be necessary) “ Christ 
 “ shall profit you nothing*.” Now this was a 
 mere point of faith: the thing itself was perfect¬ 
 ly indifferent, except as it derogated from the 
 efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ; and yet what 
 words can be stronger ? 
 
 Again our Lord says, “He that believeth 
 “ and is baptized shall be saved, but he that be- 
 “ lieveth not shall be damned*]'.” And with a 
 reference to this passage it has been well asked 
 of those whose tenets I am combating, and in 
 opposition to bishop Hoadly’s position: “Will 
 “ you say that all unbelievers were insincere, or 
 
 * Gal. v. C. 
 
 t Mark xti. lG. 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 ^ that those who were damned were in equal 
 “ favour with those who were saved*?” 
 
 This is a dilemma of which neither alterna¬ 
 tive will be allowed, by those at least who on all 
 occasions appear to feel abundant charity for 
 the assailants of the gospel. And what then 
 ■ becomes of the words of Christ ? What mean¬ 
 ing shall we attach to them ? 
 
 Proceeding upon the same grounds with re¬ 
 spect to schismatics and heretics, I will ask, 
 
 not, whether they were all insincere; but, will 
 
 you say they were all the contrary ? that they 
 had all of them that sincerity which is to com¬ 
 pensate for every error? Surely this will not be 
 said ; it will not be pretended that at least those 
 men who are so strongly reprobated by St. Paul 
 and his brethren, who either broached heretical 
 doctrines or divided the church with parties, in 
 direct opposition to the immediate successors of 
 Christ, it cannot be said, as I have before ob¬ 
 served, that they could be led into such con¬ 
 duct by any doubts which they entertained, hv 
 any real difficulty in understanding the terms 
 of the gospel ; for let there have been what ob¬ 
 scurity there might in the epistles of Sf. Paul, 
 or in any other of the apostolic writings, still, 
 as long as the authors of those writings were 
 hvmg, while there was yet on earth one of the 
 
 * William Law’s First Letter, p. 333 : 
 
112 
 
 S E R M O N III. 
 
 * 
 
 men to whom the propagation of that gospel 
 had originally been entrusted, there could be 
 no doubt or difficulty but what could be easily 
 removed. The way was plain for those who 
 meant honestly; they knew to whom they 
 should apply for instruction. They, therefore, 
 who, instead of taking that course, chose to 
 trust to their own imaginations, nay, to oppose 
 themselves to those very persons who alone 
 were able to teach them, and who were beyond 
 all question commissioned from God for that 
 very purpose, it is impossible, I say, that they 
 can by any construction be allowed such a plea. 
 They, however, undoubtedly professed, as all 
 sectaries profess, to be sincere : yet, I must in¬ 
 sist, it is no want of charity to say that they 
 were not so, that they must have acted con- 
 trarv to the dictates of their conscience, if they 
 
 %j * 
 
 would fairly have listened to her voice. 
 
 If then it must be allowed that there have 
 been persons dissenting from the body of the 
 church who were not sincere in that dissent; if 
 'the plea be not valid as to some, it must be per¬ 
 mitted to us in every case of this sort, as in all 
 other sorts of cases, not only to examine with 
 strictness every circumstance belonging to the 
 propagation of any new doctrine, as well as to 
 the doctrine itself; but we must also be per¬ 
 mitted to receive with great caution and not 
 rashly to admit the claim of its professors to 
 
SERMON IIL 
 
 US 
 
 rectitude of intention and integrity of heart. 
 Again, I say, what has been may be; and if 
 there could be factions and parties in the church, 
 in the face of such men as Paul and John, what 
 is more natural than to expect that, in religious, 
 as well as in civil matters, there will at all times 
 be found individuals actuated by a spirit of am¬ 
 bition, and studying to distinguish themselves, 
 rather than to establish the truth ? 
 
 We must not, therefore, be thought uncha¬ 
 ritable if we judge men, not according to what 
 they profess, but according to what we con¬ 
 ceive to be the real truth, according to what is 
 laid down in the scriptures. And if, after hav¬ 
 ing shewn, to the satisfaction of any fair man, 
 the falsehood of a tenet, we scruple not to pro¬ 
 nounce it to be pernicious, and to warn others 
 against the reception of it; nay, reprobate 
 when the occasion calls for it, those who were 
 its authors and maintained, leaving their final 
 condemnation or absolution to the judgment of 
 a merciful God, what is this but discharging 
 our duty ? Nor can we allow to the abettors of 
 any one false doctrine, a greater right to found 
 themselves in their sincerity, than to those of 
 any other, however apparently more absurd. 
 For there is no doctrine so horrible which has 
 not had among its followers those who were at 
 the moment persuaded that they were acting 
 rightly. “ The time cometh,” says our blessed 
 
 i 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 m 
 
 \ 
 
 Lord to his disciples, “when he that killeth you 
 eC shall think that he doeth God service*.” And 
 indeed can we doubt but that among the thou¬ 
 sands of persecutors which the Romish church 
 has poured forth from its bosom* there have 
 been numbers who were sincere, as far as that 
 word can be restrained to a man’s being confi¬ 
 dent at the time that he is justified in what he 
 is doing. They did it indeed because they in 
 fact “knew not” Christ, nor “the Father.”! 
 And the circumstances under which they were 
 wrought up to such a persuasion will undoubt¬ 
 edly come into consideration before God in 
 their due season. But still I see no reason to 
 say that they were not, perhaps fully, as well 
 entitled to the plea of sincerity as any of those 
 separatists who the most strongly claim it for 
 themselves at this day. It will at least not be 
 denied, but that they might be as sincere as 
 Calvin was when he brought Servetus to the 
 stake, 01 as the counter remonstrants were, 
 when, at the Synod of Dort, they so grievously 
 persecuted the Arminians. ‘ '* 
 
 Whoever will candidly weigh these things, 
 must, I think, agree with me that to lay any 
 great stress upon the plea of sincerity, further 
 than as it is supported by facts, would be a 
 taere fallacy. Still less should we be justified 
 
 • Johnxni, f. 
 
SERMON III 
 
 MB 
 
 In giving to it that extensive operation which 
 was contended for by bishop Hoadly and his 
 adherents, and which has been ever since and is 
 now relied upon by the great body of dissenters, 
 and (if I were not afraid of giving offence, I 
 would add too) of infidels. 
 
 It may be observed further, that to argue 
 from the alleged sincerity of a teacher to the 
 soundness of his doctrine, is to reverse the or?- 
 der of things. We ought rather to conclude 
 that a man is sincere in proportion as we find that 
 his doctrine is sound. In the former case we 
 evidently found ourselves on presumption only; 
 in the latter case we hare at least something so¬ 
 lid to build upon. After all, sincerity is a plea 
 which every individual may, and must, make. 
 No man indeed can be heard unless he makes 
 it. Of the truth of it however God only can 
 judge. Therefore, abstractedly taken, it can 
 form no ground of .reasoning, or at least can 
 supply no proof. 
 
 If then the sincerity of its professors, though 
 it were ever so well established, is no reason 
 why we should cease to combat heresy, or to 
 deprecate the continuance of any schism, %ve 
 shall not neither be stopped, I apprehend, by 
 that other proposition, which is sometimes urged 
 either expressly or by implication, that there 
 should be no distinction of communions among 
 us, but that all persons who are called after the 
 
 i 2 
 
n6 SERMON lit 
 
 name of Christ, whatever be their peculiar 
 opinions, should all be considered as belonging 
 to the chuich; and all should be Joined toge¬ 
 ther in the most general and comprehensive 
 union. Now, if it were only meant by this 
 that no over nice or captious inquiry, nay, that 
 no inquiry at all should be made into the faith of 
 those who come to attend at our established 
 places of worship; if it be only claimed that 
 all who are desirous so to do, should be 
 allowed to join in prayer, and be admitted to 
 the benefit of the sacraments as they are ad¬ 
 ministered among us, this is, in fact, the prac¬ 
 tice of our church, whose tei;ms of what is 
 called lay communion are as easy and open to 
 all descriptions of men as it is possible. There 
 is no individual whatever who is rejected, if he 
 will come and conform to the order which is 
 established ; and at a time when the old and 
 stricter notions prevailed among the dissenters, 
 we know that some of their teachers (Baxter 
 among the lestj who declined themselves to 
 minister according to the form prescribed in our 
 liturgy, not unfrequently attended our service 
 in the number of the congregation, and were 
 known as occasional conformists. 
 
 But what is asked is something more, it is 
 indeed much more; it is what, when we come 
 to examine it more closely, we shall find it im¬ 
 possible for us to grant without, in fact, <vi v i n cr 
 
117 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 k 
 
 tip what we conceive to be the foundations of 
 our faith; without prevaricating, or appearing 
 to prevaricate upon points of the greatest im¬ 
 portance. It is required of us that we should 
 adopt such a service and mode of worship as 
 should have nothing distinctive or peculiar : 
 which, indeed, except that the reading of 
 the holy scriptures might form a part of it, 
 might as well suit a Deist as a Christian. 
 
 Now, we might first inquire how far such a 
 project is in any degree whatever feasible; whe¬ 
 ther, when a number of persons assemble to¬ 
 gether, amongst whom there is a great variety 
 of opinions upon that very subject which is the 
 occasion of their meeting, it is reasonable to 
 expect that such a wonderful degree of discre¬ 
 tion shall be found among them, as shall keep 
 every single individual from touching upon the 
 disputed points; or if touched upon shall keep 
 him within those precise bounds, which shall 
 effectually prevent any breach of harmony and 
 want of good-humour. I think we might ra¬ 
 ther expect to find, what indeed has always 
 
 •% «r 
 
 taken place under such circumstances, much 
 dispute; much heat, and much wrangling; in 
 short, what the apostle calls “confusion and 
 every evil work*.” 
 
 But, in truth, it is not difficult to shew that 
 
 * James iii. l£. 
 
118 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 the , ground upon which this is urged, has in 
 reality, no existence; that there is no pretence 
 for saying that such a state of things has ever 
 existed. It is said by those who argue for this 
 mode of proceeding, that in the early periods of 
 Christianity, at its first preaching, nothing 
 was required of men but the most general belief 
 in Christ; that the disciples were not perplexed 
 or harassed with the captious questions which 
 have been since raised respecting the divinity of 
 the Son or of the Holy Ghost, that these are all 
 comparatively modern inventions, and therefore 
 a belief in them or any of them is to be imposed 
 on no man. Nay, there are not wanting those 
 who choose to doubt whether even it was usual 
 to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost The command in 
 St Matthew indeed is express enough, but they 
 find instances in the Acts of the Apostles, of 
 persons who are said to have been “ baptized in 
 “ the name of the Lord Jesus Christ*.” From 
 the peculiar mention of one name among the 
 three, they would infer that the other names 
 were not used, and this too against the uniform 
 testimony and usage of all antiquity, and against 
 the direct command of our Lord. What on the 
 contrary would any fair man conclude; what 
 would best reconcile all the texts but the natural 
 
 Actsviii. 16 . x. xix. 5. 
 
S E R M 0 N III. 
 
 119 
 
 inference, that as the name of Christ was that 
 by which the converts were to be distinguished, 
 it was deemed sufficient in those passages to 
 specify that name only, without loading the 
 narrative with the whole form at length; more 
 especially as the only end of making any speci¬ 
 fication might be to distinguish this baptism 
 from that of John, which is also referred to in 
 the same book. I might ask too, if it be not 
 a singular mode of disproving the divinity of 
 our Saviour, to argue that in some instances his 
 name only was used at the time when new mem¬ 
 bers were added to the church by baptism ? 
 
 But, not to go further into such disquisitions, 
 and keeping to the main question, I say where 
 can we, in any one point, find any such facility 
 on the part of the apostles as is contended for 
 in respect of the peculiar doctrines of the gos¬ 
 pel? Where shall shall we trace any such indiffe¬ 
 rence upon matters which came into controversy 
 before them, as can lead us to suppose that they 
 would have tolerated any sort of heretical opini¬ 
 on upon the subjects which are in these days 
 the great causes of dissention among Chris¬ 
 tians? We have already seen how St. Paul treated 
 the false teachers among the Galatians, and 
 how little he appeared inclined to suffer them 
 to go on with practices that were indifferent in 
 themselves except as they bore upon the very 
 
 1 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 I go 
 
 point which is now in dispute between the So* 
 cinians and the orthodox believers. For what 
 he objected to them was, that by putting their 
 trust in the ceremonies of the law they took 
 from the efficacy of our Lord’s sacrifice; that 
 they did not consider his death as a suffi¬ 
 cient atonement for their sins i that they relied 
 u P°n themselves: points these, which directly 
 bear upon the controversies relating to the per¬ 
 son of Christ. It is needless to repeat the pas¬ 
 sages adduced by me in my last discourse, to 
 shew the severity with which he reproves all 
 such doctrines and those who taught them. But 
 you will remember that so far was he from enlarg- 
 ing the terms of communion in order to compre¬ 
 hend such persons, that he expressly dbeets the 
 disciples to “ avoid ’ them. And, when he is 
 instructing Titus as to the manner in which he 
 should rule the church of Crete, he expressly di¬ 
 rects lnm to “reject” every heretic who continu¬ 
 ed such after a first and a second admonition. It 
 will not, I presume, be denied me that St. Paul 
 meant something when be used the word 
 
 ‘ Iieret / C or when he directed such a one to 
 be “rejected.” It will not neither, I think, be 
 disputed that to “reject ’’ and to “admit ” are 
 words of directly opposite signification. And 
 therefore this single passage might suffice to 
 prove that St. Paul did not consider the mere 
 
s E R M O N III. 
 
 121 
 
 assuming of the name of Christian to be a suffi¬ 
 cient qualification for constituting a member of 
 the true church. 
 
 But further, what was the opinion of St 
 John ? Of that apostle whose whole soul seems 
 to have been peculiarly devoted to love and 
 charity, whose writings breathe the warmest 
 sentiments of affection, and hardly contain a 
 line which is not calculated to unite the disci¬ 
 ples more closely together ? Had he then any 
 notions of such general comprehension? Was 
 he willing to overlook what are called in these 
 days trifling differences of opinion? I formerly 
 cited one passage in which is shewn his peculiar 
 abhorrence of those who maintained false doc¬ 
 trines. What now were the doctrines which he 
 so reprobated, and how did he characterize 
 them? Why, “Many deceivers/' says he, “are 
 
 entered into the world who confess not that 
 “ Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.^ “ This,” 
 
 he adds, “ is a deceiver and antichrist*.” The 
 same language he holds in his first epistle. In 
 that epistle too he makes it an article of faith 
 that Chi ist is the son of God, and in such 
 terms as shew that he meant it in a peculiar 
 sense. But now, let me ask, would St. John 
 have admitted into his communion the man 
 whom he calls “antichrist ?” Whom he bids the 
 
 * 2 John v, 7. 
 
m SERMON III. 
 
 I 5 * r ’ « f 
 
 elect lady not to “ receive/’ nor “bid him God 
 “ speed?” No one will say that he would. 
 
 I am not now urging the authority of St. Johd 
 for this or that opinion respecting our Lord, but 
 this I contend for, and it must be admitted to 
 me, that there were tenets maintained by him 
 respecting the person and nature of Christ which 
 he required all men to believe, and which he 
 would not suffer to be contradicted, neither 
 would allow those who thought otherwise to be 
 considered as members of the church. 
 
 And indeed, how impracticable any such 
 union of all seels would be, will appear more 
 clearly as we go on to inquire ever so cursorily, 
 as I now proceed to do, of what description 
 were the sects which prevailed in the apostoli¬ 
 cal age, and in the ages immediately succeeding.. 
 It will be found that the errors which they 
 maintained were so monstrous snd so contrary 
 to scripture, that it was utterly impossible for 
 any Christian to have joined in communion 
 with them, without being exposed to the most 
 imminent danger of “making shipwreck as con- 
 “ cerning the faith*/' or without “partaking 
 “ of their evil deedsf.” They are such as no 
 man now thinks defensible, or other vise than 
 most grossly absurd. Much labour indeed has 
 been bestowed a little to take off from the ab- 
 
 * 1 Tim. i. 19. 
 
 t 2 John v. IK 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 m 
 
 liorrence in which they have generally been 
 held*; but, after all the pains which ingenious 
 and learned men have bestowed upon the sub¬ 
 ject, enough will remain of apparent folly and 
 vanity in the doctrines, to justify us in applying 
 to them and to their holders the strongest terms 
 of reprobation, and to warrant us in concluding 
 that the manifest “ fruits” of schisms are among 
 the reasons why we should avoid them. 
 
 In calling these the “ fruits ’’ of schism; in 
 applying the term to all heresies, or nearly to 
 all of them, I might shelter myself under the 
 authority of one of the most eminent of the fa¬ 
 thers, who says, with great truth as well a® 
 
 • 
 
 force, that “ there is no schism which does not 
 devise for itself some heresy by which it may 
 “ justify its departing from the church 4 .” This 
 is indeed so true that we should, I apprehend, 
 
 * In particular by Beausobre in his Historic de Manichee, and 
 Lardner in his History of Heretics. 
 
 4 The whole passage is remarkable, and I cite it the rather as it 
 .shews how impossible it is to treat of schism without being led to 
 say something of heresy. He considers the separating from the 
 church as a sort of condemnation which the heretics pronounc® 
 upon themselves. “ Heretici in semetipsos sententiam ferunt suo 
 44 arbitrio de ecclesia recedentesj qus recessio propriae conscientiss 
 44 videtur esse damnatio. Inter hoeresin et schisma hoc esse arbi- 
 “ trantur quod hesresis perversum dogma habeat: schisma propter 
 44 episcopalem dissentionem ab ecclesia separetur; quod auidem 
 4t in principio aliqua ex parte intelligi potest. Casterum nullum 
 V schisma non sibi aliquam confingit haeresin ut recte ab ecclesii 
 4( reeessisse videatur.” Ilieron. in Titum. Vol. iv. pars 1. p. 43 g, 
 Ed. Bened. 
 
124 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 find it difficult, if not impossible, to point out 
 in the whole range of ecclesiastical history* 
 down at least to the time of the reformation* 
 more than two schisms which were not of that 
 description ; and both these originated so en¬ 
 tirely in views of ambition and struggles for 
 power that they will not tend in any degree to 
 reconcile us to that sort of separation. I mean, 
 first, in the earlier ages of the church, the 
 schism of the Donatists; and in later days, that 
 other schism, or succession of schisms, which 
 at different times exhibited to the world two 
 distinct sets of Popes opposed to each other; 
 the principal instance of which was continued 
 by succeeding elections among the contending 
 parties for more than half a century. Both this 
 and the former were but contentions who should 
 be the ruler of a particular church. The one 
 and the other was a dispute about the validity 
 of this or that election, kept up certainly to 
 the great disturbance of the Christian world in 
 those days, but not in itself involving any 
 points of doctrine. The Donatists indeed in the 
 course of the contest came to maintain some 
 opinions, and gave into certain practices which 
 could hardly be called orthodox, and so far 
 came under the general observation of St Je¬ 
 rome 5 . But, however that may be, all the 
 
 * This is what is observ«d by Austin, in Libro de Hseresibus, 
 Vol. ▼iii. p. 16. “ Pertinaci dissentione firmata, in haresin schisms 
 “ verier unt.” 
 
SERMON Ilf, 
 
 US 
 
 Ollier sects which the ancients knew of, and of 
 which we have accounts, founded themselves in 
 their separation from the church upon points of 
 doctrine. What these were I shall now proceed 
 shortly to point out, simply in order to shew their 
 utter incongruity and irreconcileable difference 
 with the true faith, and the impossibility of any 
 
 communion subsisting between them and the 
 true church. 
 
 They consisted principally of three classes, 
 for I mean to take a view only of the most emi¬ 
 nent and numerous. 
 
 The first were the Ebionites, who purely and 
 unqualifiedly denied our Saviour to be anv more 
 than meie man, born as well of Joseph as of 
 Mary. The next were the Gnostics, whose pe¬ 
 culiar tenets were not confined to the person or 
 natureof Christ, but to the creation and the whole 
 economy of the world. Last came the Maniche- 
 ans, who, to all these, or similar positions, su- 
 peradded the notion of two distinct principles; 
 an evil principle residing in matter co-eternal 
 with the good principle, and in constant oppo¬ 
 sition to him. 
 
 As to the first class, I purposely abstain from 
 any inquiry, whether, and how far they were 
 distinct from the Nazarenes, and whether they 
 were many in number, as has been asserted, or 
 few ; because these are points which have been 
 
12« 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 fully discussed by one who could leave little to* 
 be said by those who come after him*. But, 
 one observation I cannot help making, that* 
 whether the Ebionites and the Nazarenes were 
 one or different sects, they, most clearly, both 
 of them, held that heresy which it was the 
 professed object of two of the most consi¬ 
 derable epistles of St. Paul to oppose and put 
 down, and which, as we have seen, is repro¬ 
 bated by him with such peculiar severity in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians; which is also noted 
 and condemned in other epistles of that apostle. 
 Being then thus convicted of gross and perni¬ 
 cious error in the judgment of an inspired 
 apostle, it does seem to me a great deal too 
 much to take them, as has lately been done, for 
 important evidences to the purity or soundness 
 of any doctrine. Being shewn to have been so 
 perversely blind in a very important point, can 
 we think them worthy of credit, or authorities 
 to be used in any question which admits of dis¬ 
 pute ; more especially in one, which, as I have 
 shewn before, was directly connected with this 
 very error? add to this, that they denied the 
 authenticity of a great part of scripture. Of 
 the gospels, they mostly admitted only that of 
 
 i 
 
 * Bishop Horsley in his well known controversy with Dj. 
 Priestley. 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 \*7 
 
 St. Matthew, or rather a gospel of their own* 
 made up from his, in which all those passages 
 Which controverted their tenets were omitted* 
 Another strong reason this, why they could 
 never have joined in communion with the or¬ 
 thodox, nor are now to be considered as admis¬ 
 sible witnesses for the truth. 
 
 This was also the case with the Gnostics, 
 who, to these errors superadded, as before ob¬ 
 served, other more extravagant fancies; for 
 they, or most of them, held that Jesus was in¬ 
 deed the son of Joseph, as well as of Mary; 
 but that Christ only entered into him upon his 
 baptism, and continued with him only until 
 his crucifixion. They held also, that Christ 
 was of a nature distinct from God and inferior 
 to him, one of those beings whom they called 
 Eons. That, by another of these, and not by 
 Christ or by God the world was created ; and 
 that it was in order to remedy the evil produced 
 by this creator of the world or demiurgus that 
 Christ came upon earth. 
 
 The manner in which Manes and his follow¬ 
 ers refined, as it were, yet more upon these doc¬ 
 trines, set them still i further from the truth. 
 Their two principles, added to such errors of the 
 Gnostics as they adopted, were at the most open 
 variance with the scriptures; of which, there¬ 
 fore, both these descriptions of sectaries, as 
 
128 SERMON III. 
 
 well as the other, rejected all such parts as they 
 could not in any way bring to square with their 
 doctrines. 
 
 Superadded to these, or blended with some or 
 most of these heresies was that of the Docetoe, 
 who got rid of their difficulties by maintaining 
 that Christ did not come in the flesh, but that his 
 appearance was a mere allusion, an opinion, 
 which, as we have seen, was declared by St. 
 John to be that of te a deceiver and Anti- 
 
 christ.” 
 
 Extravagant as all this may appear to us, it 
 is not the least remarkable circumstance of the 
 whole, that such tenets could have obtained so 
 considerable a degree of currency. Not only, 
 however, they had many followers immediately 
 on their first appearance, but they even continu¬ 
 ed to flourish Ions: after the Judaizin£ Christians 
 had ceased to exist: and the Manicheans are sup¬ 
 posed to have retained their influence to a very 
 late period. Indeed, it was among the calumnies 
 which the Romanists propagated against the 
 first reformers, that their doctrines were con¬ 
 nected with those of Manes®, 
 
 6 This was particularly the case with the Valdenses and Albi- 
 genses, whose doctrines, as I have shewn in my reply to Dr. 
 Milner’s Observations, were studiously confounded with those of 
 the remnant of the Manicheans and Paulicians, which at that 
 time subsisted. This sort of calumny is, I believe, not quite gone 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 1 29 
 
 In this short view which I have taken of the 
 earlier corruptions of Christianity, I have con¬ 
 fined myself to the mention of these heresies, be¬ 
 cause they are such as are now universally given 
 up, because, however, they belonged to the prin¬ 
 cipal and the most numerous sects 7 which were 
 known in the church for the three or four first 
 ages; and they will therefore sufficiently illus¬ 
 trate the position, on account of which I have 
 gone back to periods so remote. I have said 
 nothing* of the Sabellian or of the Arian heresy, 
 for two reasons: first, because I should not be 
 allowed, without opposition, to treat of them in 
 the manner in which I have spoken of the 
 others, as involving any absurdity, or as stand¬ 
 ing in direct opposition to the scriptures. Next, 
 
 by j at least, if I mistake not, the Abbe Barruel has had recourse 
 to it in his late work upon Jacobinism. It is much to be lament¬ 
 ed, that Beausobre did not lire to fulfil the intention which he hadi 
 of publishing his History of the Later Manicheans, or Heretics, 
 persecuted under that name. This would have been a work not 
 only curious, but of great utility. 
 
 7 The Montanists became chiefly considerable from Tertuliian’s 
 having adopted their errors ; and, except as to their idea about 
 Montanus himself, do not seem to have been heretics much more 
 than many founders of monastic orders. The question of the 
 Pelagian heresy is of late years become so involved with that of the 
 Socinian, and with the opposite errors of the Antinomians or Fata¬ 
 lists, that it could not class among the lists of those that are now 
 undisputed. 
 
 k 
 
ISO 
 
 S E R M O N ILL 
 
 because having been revived in later times, and 
 having had, and having now many adherents, 
 they may more properly be noticed, when I 
 come to speak of the actual state of the church, 
 as it exists in our days. 
 
 Of Arianism only, I must be allowed now to 
 say, that its origin was such as fully corresponds 
 with the idea which the apostles give us of the 
 schisms and heresies of their time. For it is on 
 all sides agreed, that it was first brought forward 
 in a dispute which arose between Arius and his 
 bishop; and in which the presbyter was striving 
 to- shew his superiority in knowledge over the 
 man who was his superior in rank. It began 
 in vanity, it produced the most serious conten¬ 
 tions, and gave the first example of regularly 
 organized persecution. Both in its cause and 
 effects it may therefore be said to have been 
 completely unchristian. 
 
 It will be obvious, moreover, that I have ab¬ 
 stained from saying any thing' of many very 
 odious imputations, which, justly or unjustly, 
 were cast upon the heretics of those days, as if 
 they were not less impure and abominable in their 
 lives, than they were erroneous in their doctrines. 
 That the accounts which we have received of 
 them in this respect are not without foundation 
 it is reasonable to believe, and was natural to 
 expect; because disorder of one kind is very 
 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 131 
 
 apt to produce disorder of another; a bad 
 theory may well be said to lead to bad practice; 
 yet does it appear plain enough, that there has 
 been much exaggeration used, and no small 
 number of mistakes committed. 
 
 Nor, indeed, can it be shewn, that the leaders 
 of these sects did actually, either by example or 
 practice, directly encourage any such impure or 
 disorderly mode of living : nay, I rather think 
 that they professed, and perhaps practised a 
 greater severity of manners, and more strict 
 self-denial, which will afford proof of what I 
 have before alleged, that we must not too im¬ 
 plicitly consider sanctity of life as a proof either 
 of sincerity in the individual, or truth in his 
 doctrine. 
 
 There were, indeed, some sects and some in¬ 
 dividuals, whose precepts and conversation were 
 avowedly sensual. Such were the NicolaitansJ 
 and such, most probably, were Hymen?eus and 
 Philetus, who denied the resurrection: a denial 
 which we can hardly conceive that any man 
 could make, except with a view of encouraging 
 himself and others in licentious habits. 
 
 It is probable too, that among the Gnostics 
 and the followers of Manes, there were those 
 who, finding the rule of their masters too strict, 
 applied themselves to the bending of it, so as 
 to make it favour their own particular propensi- 
 
 k 2 
 
132 
 
 SERMON III. 
 
 ties. This is, indeed, what will always happen. 
 It happened most signally among the monks of 
 later times. Where unnatural restraints are im¬ 
 posed, they will be eluded or broken through, 
 and cause men to err in the opposite extreme. 
 The commandments of God, on the other hand, 
 are known by this, that they enjoin nothing 
 but what is practicable by all. 
 
 Such are the “ fruits” which appear to have 
 been produced in the earlier ages by a departure 
 from the church; thus were men led into wild 
 and idle, nay, and impious speculations. And 
 I may now ask, whether such tenets are not 
 wholly and irreconcileably at war with the true 
 faith? Whether there could, for a moment, have 
 existed any fellowship, any community of wor¬ 
 ship between the real disciples of Christ and 
 such dreamers? I will ask further, whether 
 these instances do not strikingly corroborate all 
 that I have said of the danger as well as sinful¬ 
 ness, as also of the natural progress of schism; 
 whether, reasoning from what we have hitherto 
 seen, we are not warranted in the conclusion, 
 that, generally speaking, every such departure, 
 v whether it be pure schism or mixed with heresy, 
 originates in those causes to which it is attri¬ 
 buted by the apostles; in pride, in ambition, 
 and that love of distinction which is not un¬ 
 mixed with covetousness. 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 153 
 
 The means too, by which these schisms and 
 these heresies were maintained and justified 
 were uniformly the satires no less than the cor¬ 
 rupting, the mutilating, or the perverting of the 
 holy Scriptures : “ the wresting of them” by 
 men, “ to their own destruction*.” And I 
 wish you the more to observe this, because it 
 will be a main test by which you may judge of 
 the separatists in later ages. 
 
 This is, indeed, only what we^might expect. 
 For it is only to those who approach him ia 
 the spirit of humility, of purity, and of meek¬ 
 ness, that God will make himself known. 
 The proud, the covetous, the ambitious, and 
 the vain he “ beholdeth afar offf.” They who 
 take up the Scriptures merely with a view of 
 making them speak a language favourable to 
 any pre-conceived notion of their own, or who, 
 as 1 fear, but too many have done in our days, 
 consider them as a field in which they may ex¬ 
 patiate at will, and upon which they are at li* 
 berty to make a display of their ingenuity ; all 
 such, I say, will, in the end, only deceive 
 themselves and others: they will be the dupes 
 of their own imaginations. If we would really 
 profit by the inspired writings, we must prepare 
 ourselves in a very different manner. We must, 
 
 & 
 
 * 2 Peter iii. 10. 
 
 t Psalm cxxxviii. 6. 0. Y. 
 
SERMON III. 
 
 I Si 
 
 according to the exhortation of St. Paul., “ as 
 u new born babes desire the sincere milk of tbe 
 eC word; then., and then only shall we partake 
 of it in such a manner as that we ff may grow 
 * c thereby*.” 
 
 * t Peter ii, 3, 
 
 
( 135 ) 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 Luke. xi. 35, 
 
 Take heed that the Light which is in thee be noi 
 
 Darkness . 
 
 In the schisms and heresies of the early ages, to 
 which in the close of my last discourse I ad¬ 
 verted, we had occasion to see the spirit of am¬ 
 bition and of covetousness which is the pre¬ 
 sumed, and by the apostles declared original of 
 all divisions in the church, operating indeed 
 widely and among different sorts of people, but 
 not assuming any great consistency of form, 
 or acquiring any share of solid establishment. 
 In succeeding times it pleased the Almighty, 
 that to the temptations with which the church 
 
136 
 
 SERMON IV* 
 
 was thus assailed from without, to the errone¬ 
 ous systems and the gaudy and complicated 
 theories which were displayed to her view by 
 those who had wilfully separated from her, an¬ 
 other and a more severe trial should be super- 
 added from within: that the false and corrupt 
 doctrine by which the truth was to be obscured 
 should proceed from those very persons to 
 whom the oracles of God were in a special man¬ 
 ner confided ; that the flock of Christ should be 
 led astray by those very rulers who were set 
 over it for the express purpose of keeping it in 
 the right path. This is what took place with 
 the first appearance, and grew with the growth 
 of the papal usurpations; till, at last, by the 
 abominable and even impious tenets which 
 came to be maintained by the church of Rome, 
 almost the whole Christian world was reduced 
 to the lamentable condition which is so forcibly 
 marked out in my text. Thus it happened that 
 " the light which was within them became dark- 
 “ ness/’ 
 
 I need not, I should conceive, employ many 
 words in shewing to you the propriety of this 
 application; and that it is to such a state of 
 things as I am describing that the words of 
 Christ most particularly and distinctly refer. 
 The parable or metaphor which is here used is 
 sufficiently familiar in the New Testament to 
 leave us no room to doubt its meaning. By 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 137 
 
 u the light” is every where meant the precepts 
 or rather the benefits of the gospel. Thus the 
 true believers are called the “children oflio-ht**” 
 
 » 9 
 
 and they are bidden to “walk in the light, 5> “to 
 believe in the lightf.” Of our Saviour it is 
 said that he is “ the true light which lightetfi 
 “ every man that cometh into tlie world;};.’' In 
 the same sense the apostles also are said to be 
 the light of the world ||.'" Reasoning upon 
 this we shall find that if that which according 
 to the parable of our Lord we may call “ the 
 “ mind's eye/' if our understanding be pure 
 . and free from prejudice or false principles, we 
 shall receive “ the light," we shall embrace the 
 great truths of his gospel as we ought, and be 
 properly directed in the way. If, on the con¬ 
 trary, it be distorted, obscured or pre-occupied 
 by false apprehensions of any sort, we shall run 
 the most imminent danger of being misled; we 
 shall see in the scriptures what they were never 
 intended to convey. We are therefore naturally 
 warned not to suffer ourselves to be led away 
 into the entertaining of any corruption of doc¬ 
 trine. lake heed that the light which is 
 “ within thee be not darkness.” And in the 
 parallel passage in St. Matthew the consequence 
 of such an error is very strongly expressed. u If 
 
 * Luke xvi. 8. Ephes. V. 8. t John xii. 
 
 % John i. 9. }) Mark r. 14 . 
 
IS $ 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 ic the light which is in thee be darkness, how 
 “ great is that darkness*!” How deplorable 
 indeed must have been the situation of mankind 
 when, as the Psalmist says, “ the things that 
 <c should have been for their wealth, were unto 
 “ them an occasion of fallingf.” If by the 
 word ‘Might” in this parable, any one should, 
 as some do, rather suppose that nothing more 
 than simply our reason or understanding is 
 meant, even that will make no material diffe¬ 
 rence; for it is certain that the tendency of the 
 popish system was equally to cloud the under¬ 
 standing as to pervert the doctrine : indeed the 
 one follows upon the other. In either case the 
 sources of knowledge are obstructed or poi¬ 
 soned : “the light which is within us becomes 
 “ darkness.” 
 
 That this was really the effect produced by 
 the usurped domination and corrupt tenets of 
 the Romish church in what are called the dark 
 ages, will hardly be denied me; but I must go 
 farther, and notwithstanding certain opinions 
 which are rather generally entertained, I must 
 express my full persuasion that no material 
 change has since taken place in that church 
 with respect to those very abuses, against which 
 a faithful witness was borne in this very place 
 even unto death. Still I must think that that 
 
 * Matt, vi. 23, 
 
 t Psalm Ixix. 23» 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 139 
 
 vigilance which was required on our part in 
 former days, is not now to be laid aside. If, 
 as I conceive the truth to be, the same spirit 
 lives and is active, we are still to be guarded 
 against it, though we should allow that its 
 power to oppress the true believers be in some 
 degree diminished. We must also labour, not 
 
 bv such odious means as were familiar to that 
 
 */ 
 
 church, but by those means which are not only 
 lawful but prescribed to us in God's word, to 
 prevent her influence from spreading. This is 
 not only not contrary to the spirit of Christian 
 charity, but it is even the most charitable work 
 in which a Christian can be employed. For 
 there is no labour which is so expressly enjoined 
 to us as that of preserving the souls of men 
 from error; as well as reclaiming and bringing 
 them back to the truth whenever they have been 
 led astray. Now there are no errors so thoroughly 
 pernicious, or which have been the cause of so 
 much mischief and of so much misery to man¬ 
 kind as those which are maintained by the see 
 of Rome. That church indeed has this peculiar 
 to herself, and which makes her, or made her 
 in time past when men thought more seriously 
 of these things, to be considered as the com¬ 
 mon and decided enemy of all other sects of 
 Christians, however at variance among them¬ 
 selves in other respects, that she is most inve- 
 terately and determinately bent against the 
 
140 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 diffusion of knowledge and freedom of investi¬ 
 gation in religious matters; that she will suffer 
 no man to see the doctrines of the gospel, but 
 in her own false mirror, through the tainted 
 medium in which they have by her been enve- 
 loped ; that not only she sutlers not the laity at 
 large to read and comment upon the scriptures, 
 but she does not permit the clergy itself, with¬ 
 out a licence previously obtained, to open any 
 one single book of controversy, to examine 
 what objections have been made to their princi¬ 
 ples and practice. Now what tenet, or what 
 invention of men could be so calculated to keep 
 the people in darkness, nay, in that gross dark¬ 
 ness to which, if taken at the time when the 
 papal supremacy was at the height, we may 
 truly say that history affords no parallel ? 
 
 Indeed the abominable tendency of these and 
 other popish doctrines is so apparent, and has 
 been so universally recognized among us for 
 more than two centuries, that it is perhaps part¬ 
 ly owing to that circumstance that we have now 
 come to look upon them as matters subject to 
 no controversy, as calling for no animadver¬ 
 sion. Nay, the very extravagance of them 
 has contributed to this general indifference 
 upon the subject, as men have been too apt 
 to conclude that it was impossible that any 
 person of common sense or common under¬ 
 standing, and having, as in this country 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 141 
 
 (blessed be God for it!) we yet have, the free 
 use of his faculties would for a moment be de¬ 
 ceived by them. And this opinion has gathered 
 strength from the system which, either from 
 prudence or from the want of ability to act 
 otherwise, has been observed by the priests of 
 that community for nearly a century. Ever 
 since the reign of James the second, if we ex¬ 
 cept some very recent and partial attempts 1 , we 
 
 > TJ|j|0 
 
 1 I allude particularly to the controversy which took place a few 
 years ago between the late Dr. Sturges and the popish bishop Dr. 
 (then Mr.) Milner. It must be allowed that this was partial, as 
 being confined to the two points of persecution and the observ ances 
 of monkery. But it may be said to have been partial in another 
 point of view, because it is clear enough, and it was in my opinion 
 an unfortunate circumstance for the interests of what we consider 
 as the true religion, that Dr. Sturges was led to enter into the con¬ 
 troversy rather from anxiety to vindicate the character of his friend 
 and patron bishop Hoadly from the attacks of Mr. Milner in his 
 history of Winchester, than from a zeal for the principles upon 
 which the reformation was really introduced : and of this (in many 
 respects wrong) bias, which in some degree affected the whole of 
 Dr. Sturges’s argument, his opponent did not fail most amply to take 
 advantage. This also it was, and this only, which led the late bishop 
 Horsley to say (what Dr. M. so triumphantly brings forward, 
 Gent. Mag. Sept. 1807.) that Dr. S. was worsted in the contest. 
 Before this, another controversy on the persecuting tenets of the 
 Komish church had been carried on between the late popish arch¬ 
 bishop Dr. Butler, and those learned and excellent divines of the 
 Irish church, the late bishop Woodward and Dr. Hales of Kilesan* 
 dra, with very different success from that which I have just men¬ 
 tioned, and which Dr. Sturges had clearly not seen, or he might 
 have given Dr. Milner a better artswer to some of his assertions* 
 Lastly, in consequence of my publishing in 1805, “ A serious Ex- 
 tf animation of the Roman Catholic claims then depending in Par- 
 
S E R M O N IV. 
 
 141 
 
 hear of no advocate for popery entering the 
 lists against Protestants. Nay, with such care 
 are their doctrines kept from the notice of all 
 who can judge of them, that it is not without 
 great difficulty that those who would combat 
 their errors* can with sufficient evidence fix 
 upon them the tenets which yet they are well 
 known to maintain, and the effects of which 
 are sufficiently visible in all the members of that 
 church, more especially among the weak and the 
 ignorant 2 . Hence it lias come to pass that men arc 
 
 “ liament,” both that point of persecution and also the Romish 
 doctrine respecting oaths, and the power assumed by different popes 
 m dispensing with them and of deposing kings at their pleasure, 
 have been agitated between Dr. Milner and me, first in the Gen¬ 
 tleman s Magazine, and afterwards in my “ Sequel to the Serious 
 “ Examination.” To this Dr. Milner made such an answer as he 
 thought proper in “ Certain Observations on the Sequel,” extend¬ 
 ing to thirty-close printed pages, and annexed to a second edition 
 of his “ Case of Conscience solved.” From the heap of abuse and 
 personal slander as well as various mis-representations of myself and 
 my argument, which are contained in that publication, I have, I 
 hope, sufficiently, though necessarily somewhat at length, cleared 
 myself in my “ Reply to the Observations of the Doctor.” The 
 many pamphlets which have been published on what is called the 
 Catholic question I have not noticed, as they all profess to consi¬ 
 der the question in a political, rather than a religious point of view. 
 
 I should, however, except from this certain “Remarks upon a 
 late Charge or the Bishop of Durham,” and the answers and re¬ 
 plies to which they have given birth. 
 
 4 It was not without taking great pains and after much fruitless 
 search, that I obtained a copy of Dod’s Church Historv, which is 
 the great authority with the papists in ecclesiastical matters; and 
 in Dr. Milner’s earlier publications most triumphantly cited. Of 
 
/ 
 
 SERMON IV. us 
 
 iso hardly persuaded to look into the question, 
 or to believe that any danger can now be appre¬ 
 hended from that quarter. 
 
 This ho wever is unquestionably a false con¬ 
 clusion and a delusive security. For these 
 doctrines have once prevailed as overall Europe 
 so especially in these kingdoms; and it is too 
 much to aver that neither force nor fraud shall 
 ever be successful in bringing them in again. 
 They want not yet patrons many and powerful. 
 I will add that the rage for proselytism still 
 subsists and is not without effect 5 . And, if we 
 
 Dr, Hussey’s (titular bishop of Waterford) famous Charge, I have 
 also by great accident obtained a MS. copy. But I have been 
 baffled in all my endeavours to procure a sight of the “ Hibernia 
 “ Dominicana” of Dr. Burke, the former bishop of that see and 
 historiographer to his order; some curious extracts from which 
 were first brought forward by the late bishop (Woodward) of 
 Cloyne, before mentioned in his present state of the church of Ire¬ 
 land, published for Cadell in 1787, a pamphlet which having al¬ 
 ready recommended to notice, I must again say contains most im¬ 
 portant facts as well as reasonings. This Dr. Burke I find men¬ 
 tioned by Dr. Milner, as being one of the great luminaries of the 
 Irish clergy since the reformation. Why then is this light hid un¬ 
 der a bushel ? See Dr. Milner’s inquiry into certain vulgar opinions, 
 p. 15, where the reader may see a list of names as unknown to the 
 world in general as they appear famous in Dr. M.’s eyes. 
 
 3 The reader may see what I have said on the subject in my 
 “ Sequel to the serious Examination.” He may also consider the 
 means by which the conversions are brought about; and in partis 
 cular that notable miracle at St. Winifred’s well. Of this however, 
 
 I shall have more to say by and by. I will only add that for the 
 benefit of the converts, not only new publications but republications 
 of old books are resorted to, of such a nature as cannot fail to con- 
 
144 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 were to admit what yet, after all that we have 
 seen of the errors of men confessedly learned, 
 
 vince any common understanding of what has so often been said, 
 that, “ the spirit of popery is still the same.” See particularly a new 
 edition of Ward’s errata of the Protestant biblc. More of the same 
 sort of stuff is promised, nay, the impudent and exploded story of 
 the nag s head is, it seems, to be revived $ as I since find is 
 actually the case in Dublin, in a pamphlet entitled. The contro¬ 
 versy of ordinations truly stated, by the same Ward. Reprinted by 
 Richard Coyne, 1807. I will add that on the alleged success of 
 his endeavours Dr. Milner has grounded a call upon the well dis¬ 
 posed of his communion for subscriptions to build a new chapel at 
 Birmingham. Similar calls are made for similar buildings at Mar¬ 
 gate and Edinburgh. See Laity’s Directory for 1808, sold by 
 Keating and Co. Duke Street, Grosvenor Square. The reader also 
 should be apprized that every popish priest in this country is con¬ 
 sidered as a missionary; at least I apprehend so: and in a late pas¬ 
 toral letter put forth by Dr. Milner it is given as a reason for its 
 having been delayed, that he wished it should accompany a new and 
 improved edition of the “ OBSERVANDA, or rules for the con- 
 “ duct of English Missionaries, which rules,” he adds, " are 
 “ usually distributed with the printed formulary of the faculties.” 
 p. xii. In the close of this pastoral letter, after repeatedly stat¬ 
 ing to his clergy that it is their bounden duty to reclaim their bre¬ 
 thren who are in error, he presses it upon them that they should 
 exert themselves to provide for a succession of their ministry ; and 
 he exclaims: “O let not that sacred cause fail in our hands, 
 4 * through religious indifference, which our Catholic ancestors 
 “ and predecessors supported for so long a time with their blood!” 
 Now, although after his repeated disclaimers, I do not mean to 
 charge Dr. Milner with the consequences which may be fairly de¬ 
 duced from the above passage, I must be allowed to say that I have 
 in my “ Sequel’ most incontrovertibly proved, out of the mouths 
 of the Romanists themselves, that all the popish priests who suf¬ 
 fered in the reign of Elizabeth and James, suffered not only for what 
 was precisely declared by the laws of the land to be treason, but for 
 actually holding tenets which Dr. Milner himself, if he be sincere, 
 
 4 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 145 
 
 in the first centuries, it were difficult to admit, 
 that the free use of our reason will of itself pre¬ 
 serve us from such corruptions; it should be 
 recollected that this will not hold good with re¬ 
 spect to what is called the unlearned, that is, 
 much the most numerous body of Christians. 
 They are wont, and not improperly, indeed 
 almost necessarily, to take their faith very 
 much upon the authority of others. It there¬ 
 fore would ill become us to discontinue any of 
 the vigilance and activity employed by our pre¬ 
 decessors in opposing a system of such danger 
 to the souls of men ,* one which has been a snare 
 not only to the vulgar and the foolish, but to 
 the wise and the noble; still more to the scribes 
 and disputers of the world. 
 
 must admit to be treasonable. I have, 1 say, proved this from the de¬ 
 clarations and conduct of Stapleton, Cardinal Allen, and the others 
 v/ho had the rule and direction of the English Romanists in those 
 days. I have done this without the slightest attempt at contradic¬ 
 tion by Dr. Milner in his f< Observations upon the Sequel,” though 
 this, being a main point at issue between us, was what he was par¬ 
 ticularly called upon to confute, and which if he could have ac¬ 
 complished it, would have done his cause more real good, than 
 hundreds of such pages as he has stufFed with unmeaning scurrility. 
 The reader who desires further satisfaction on this head may consult 
 Preservatives against Popery, tit. xiii. p, 154, for Cardinal Allen’s 
 opinion at large. And also p. 14g. The admission ofBzovius that 
 there was none suffered in Elizabeth’s time but those who taught 
 that the pope had power to depose kings. See also ib. p. 15b, the letter 
 of Pope Pius V. encouraging the Earls of Northumberland and 
 \\ estmoreland in their rebellion, and the epistle of the secular 
 priests immediately following. 
 
 J< 
 
146 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 Indeed there could never have been any re¬ 
 laxation in this respect but for the extraordi¬ 
 nary prevalence of that latitudinarian system 
 which I pointed out in a former discourse, and 
 which has of late been so extended as to include 
 the Roman Catholics in the association and alli¬ 
 ance, which, either tacitly or expressly, has been 
 formed against the established church. Of the 
 confusion of principle which has by this extraor¬ 
 dinary and unnatural coalition been necessarily 
 produced among.the dissenters, I have before 
 taken notice; but the inconsistency becomes 
 tenfold more glaring, when this sort of union is 
 considered as subsisting between Romanists and 
 Protestants, For thus it happens that they whose 
 leading principle it is to give the utmost pos¬ 
 sible scope to even the eccentricities of private 
 judgment in religious concerns, scruple not to 
 stipulate for the supposed rights and immuni¬ 
 ties of those who have never suffered individuals 
 to exercise any judgment at all upon such 
 matters. They who complain because, with 
 every facility of following their own religious 
 opinions, they are still liable to a few civil dis¬ 
 advantages in consequence of those opinions, 
 are become the champions of a sect, which, 
 wherever it has had the mastery, has ne< T er to¬ 
 lerated not only the worshipping of God, but 
 not the thinking of him in any way but its 
 
 ©wn. 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 147 
 
 1 he ground upon which this union is justi¬ 
 fied, is as full ot fallacy as the thing itself is 
 extraordinary. We are referred to the weak 
 and fallen state of the Romish church, and to 
 the liberal sentiments of certain individuals be¬ 
 longing to her; by whom it is said the narrow* 
 and contracted spirit which she has formerly 
 shewn, as well as the persecuting doctrines are 
 disclaimed 4 . Rut the fact is that no depen¬ 
 dence can be placed upon any result which may 
 be drawn from the situation of that church, 
 nor even from the language of ever so many of 
 her members speaking individually: because the 
 principles of her usurpations are interwoven 
 with her very essence: because too it has been 
 one of her maxims, avowed and acted upon, 
 that dissimulation and submission to her ene¬ 
 mies was allowed whenever she had not the 
 
 f I 
 
 ' ' * - 4 
 
 4 The misfortune is that in order to attain this spirit of liberality, 
 die Romanist is obliged to make such an effort as carries him be- 
 \ond the mark, and transports him into the very regions of infideli- 
 tv. This is notorious of all the Roman catholic writers in other 
 countries who have become famous as having taken the lead in 
 € niancipatmg the world from what they call the slavery of priest¬ 
 craft. And if the reader wishes to see more recent instances of it, 
 he ma) consult <( Sir John Throckmorton’s Considerations, &c.” 
 or “ the Remarks on the Bishop of Durham’s Charge the former 
 of which I have noticed in the “ Sequel,” and the latter in the 
 
 f Reply to Dr. Milner’s Obervations.” I might mention also some 
 late attempts of Dr. Geddej. 
 
 L 2 
 
148 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 power to assert her superiority 5 ; because lastly, 
 according to her fundamental doctrines, no in- 
 dividual can speak with any authority of him¬ 
 self, nor can act upon his own private judg¬ 
 ment. In fact, none of those Romanists who 
 disclaim the most strongly the tenets in ques¬ 
 tion, will admit distinctly that the popes or the 
 councils by whom those tenets were promulgat¬ 
 ed, or by whom they were acted upon, did err. 
 They cannot indeed make such an admission 
 without shaking; the foundations of their 
 church, and destroying the ground upon which 
 she builds her claim to dominion. The infalli¬ 
 bility which she arrogates to herself being thus 
 impeached in one insrance, would by neces¬ 
 sary consequence leave every man at liberty to 
 judge for himself as to the whole of the contro¬ 
 versy : which is what none of them will choose 
 to admit of, or suppose to be lawful 6 . 
 
 * See the graces or faculties granted to Parsons and Campion, 
 in 1580. Foulis p. 435, or Lord Burleigh’s tract *>f " Execution, 
 * ( See. not for Religion, but for Treason.’’ Preservatives against 
 Popery, tit. xiii. p. 171. or Appen. to "Sequel,” p. xlviii. Bellar- 
 mine’s position i 3 well known that "Haeretici non sunt bello pe- 
 tendi quando sunt fortunes nobis.” Bellarm, de Laicis. See this 
 set forth at full in Hicks’s tract of " Missionaries’ arts discovered,” 
 
 o 
 
 printed in Preservatives against Popery, tit. xiii. 1. 
 
 4 If there be any man who doubts of this I recommend to him 
 Dr. Milner’s late charge or pastoral letter before referred to. At 
 p. iv. in a passage, part of which I have elsewhere quoted, he says, 
 after inculcating the necessity of obedience to authority, “ The 
 
V 
 
 S E R M O N IV. 149 
 
 I he ti utli is that intolerance is and must be 
 the indelible character of that church; that it 
 is interwoven with her very frame. The posi¬ 
 tion so tenaciously maintained that out of her 
 pale there is no salvation, constrains them, as 
 it were, out of very charity, to use every means 
 in their power to extirpate all whom they can¬ 
 not reclaim; to persecute and put down all 
 those whom they call heretics; and every pao-e 
 of their history will point out to them the hor¬ 
 rible doctrine that all means are allowable for the 
 
 Catholic church in particular, that most illustrious and perfect 
 of all societies, as being the work of infinite wisdom 5 that scci- 
 “ ety, which like the ocean spreads its arms round the w hole earth, and 
 which unlike all human institutions, is neither to be dissolved by 
 external violence, nor internal decay; the church, I say, owes 
 “ ^11 her beauty and stability to the exact discipline and subordination 
 (< which her divine founder has established in her, and in which he 
 i( has marshalled her, ‘ like an army drawn up in battle array.’ ” 
 Cant. vi. 9. (It is v. 10 in our translation, and rendered, “ terrible 
 as an army with banners.” No matter, the quotation is not the 
 less remarkable, as well as the comment which follows) “ As in 
 “ a disciplined army the soldiers obey their officers, and these other 
 officers of superior rank, who themselves are subject to a com- 
 “ mander in chief: so in the Catholic church extending as it does from 
 ** the rising to the setting sun, the faithful of all nations are guided by 
 “ their pastors, who in their turns are submissive to the prelates, 
 whilst the whole body is subordinate to one supreme pastor, whose 
 “ seat is the rallying point and centre of them all. The Catholic, ac- 
 “ knowledging in the church a living, speaking authority as the 
 guide of his faith, must szwnut his private opinions to its decisions , 
 otherwise he ceases to be a catholic.” This is afterwards explained to 
 extend to the minutest points of discipline, (p. $.) and this under 
 the express penalty of an ANATHEMA. 
 
150 
 
 SERMON IV, 
 
 bringing about of so desirable an end. The 
 very existence.of such a tribunal as the inqui¬ 
 sition, however mitigated its forms, and how¬ 
 ever in some countries, of late years it may 
 have been subjected to the civil sovereign, is 
 in itself a decisive proof of what I say. In all 
 the countries where it is suffered \o subsist, 
 will it be pretended that a Protestant is per¬ 
 mitted even to breathe, except by mere con¬ 
 nivance ? At Rome, in any part of Italy, in 
 Spain, or in Portugal, will it be asserted that 
 such a thing as a place of worship for members 
 of the reformed church, except in the houses 
 of foreign ministers, has ever been licensed or 
 endured ? Is it safe even now for a native in¬ 
 habitant of any of those countries to profess 
 opinions contrary to the bulls of the pope or 
 the decrees of the council of Trent 7 ? 
 
 ' 
 
 7 I need not bring any stronger proof of this than what appears 
 in the very answer of the university of Salamanca to certain queries, 
 &c. which was printed by the Roman Catholics themselves as 
 apart of their case in 1805 . The university after asserting that. 
 “ Because they were catholics it is not necessary that they should 
 * i be acted by a persecuting spirit against those who are adverse 
 ** to their religion (which is indeed most true of the real catholic 
 religion) and afterwards saying that “ A distinction must be made 
 ** between the civil and religious toleration of heretics,” make the 
 following admission :—“ In Spain indeed,” (and this is the case 
 in all countries where the inquisition subsists) “ for these three hm- 
 “ died years past no one is permitted to hold any military office , nor to enjoy 
 fl a perpetual settlement, who is considered as an enemy to the catholic church , 
 because our princes have thought it more eligible to forego ccr- 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 151 
 
 The degree of ignorance produced by such a 
 state of things may, indeed, well be conceived to 
 be both inveterate and hopeless. In fact, the 
 same causes continue to produce the same ef¬ 
 fects*. If, indeed, as it is said, or rather sur¬ 
 mised, any improvements or modifications either 
 
 T, ■ .f. v 
 
 *■ tain advantages which might perhaps be derived from commercial 
 “ intercourse with men of different persuasions or from their im- 
 iC provement in the arts, than either to endanger the faith of their 
 t( subjects, or expose their empire to frequent broils and conten- 
 “ tions about the doctrines of religion.” App. to Impart. Report 
 of the Debates, &c. p. 28 . This is exactly the “ solitudinem fa- 
 ft ciunt, pacem appellant.” And the reader will observe, that this 
 is found in a document brought forward expressly in support of the 
 claim which the Roman Catholics of this kingdom advance to 
 what they call emancipation ; that is, to be declared eligible to all 
 civil and military offices whatsoever. 
 
 * I hav* been assured, from authority, upon which I have the 
 fullest reliance, that, out of eight hundred emigrated priests, which 
 w r ere at one time at Winchester, not more than four individuals 
 could read, Greek, and not more than two out of those four could 
 read the New Testament in the original so as to understand it. A 
 very near relation of mine had a conversation with a Romish priest 
 respecting our differences in religion, and the propriety of examin¬ 
 ing into them, upon which the priest gave this account of himself, 
 that, having* heard much of these things, and having, in conse¬ 
 quence, a desire to know what was said on our side, he had obtain¬ 
 ed leave of nis bishop to read controversial books, but that he had 
 gained nothing by it; indeed, quite the contrary, for he found his 
 judgment so completely bewildered, that he ended with being a 
 confirmed sceptic. “ J’ai fini par ne rien croirc,” were his words. 
 Such is the consequence of a man being early impressed with prin¬ 
 ciples fundamentally wrong ; or, perhaps we may say in this case, 
 having his temporal interest at variance with his better judg¬ 
 ment. 
 
152 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 in theory or in practice have taken place, we 
 may safely assert, that the knowledge of them 
 is, by their priests, confined entirely to their 
 catechumens. They make no boast of it to the 
 world. On the contrary, their language to us 
 is, that they do not disclaim any one tenet of 
 their church; they strictly maintain her infalli¬ 
 bility, they assert that she is, as some of them 
 have lately expressed themselves, semper 
 S£ eadcm 9 .” 
 
 This also, we know, that, in a part, at least, 
 of this united kingdom, (and it has very lately 
 been proved by woeful and bloody experience,) 
 the blind subjection of the laity to the clergy . 
 is as absolute as ever it was, and as full of mis¬ 
 chief to the bodies as well as to the souls of 
 men 10 . 
 
 ’ Dr. Troy and Mr. Charles Plowden. 
 
 1# We must not wonder at this, if only a small part of their 
 clergy hold the same language as Dr. Hussey did to his brethren of 
 the diocese of Waterford, in the pastoral letter to which I have al¬ 
 luded. It abounds in the most inflammatory representations of the 
 depressed state in which the Roman catholics had been kept: and, 
 after mentioning that a great part of these impolitic religious 
 “ penalties are removed,” he adds, that “ the rest of them are in a 
 state of progress to be totally removed. That, however a JUN- 
 TO for their own interested or other sinister views may raise 
 “ mobs to try to throw obstacles against the total repeal of them, 
 
 “ yet all their efforts must he useless. * The vast reck is already de - 
 “ tached from the ■mountain $ brew, and whoever opposes its descent and 
 if removal must be crushed by his own rash endeavours ” The allusion 
 to Matt. xxxi. 44, is evident, and shews very strikingly with what 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 155 
 
 That, under such circumstances, those secta¬ 
 ries who profess to be the most decided advo¬ 
 cates for civil and religious liberty, who, on all 
 occasions, express the greatest anxiety for the 
 extension of knowledge of every sort, should 
 make a common cause with that church, is only 
 a proof that there is no length to which men 
 may not be transported in the pursuit of a fa¬ 
 vourite object. It is what, in charity, I would 
 rather leave to themselves to account for or ex¬ 
 cuse, than mark by any expressions of my own. 
 One other observation only I will make, that, 
 clearly, these two classes of separatists, in unit¬ 
 ing with each other, cannot possibly have any 
 thing in common, except their hostility to our 
 establishment: they must tacitly, if not express¬ 
 ly agree to be silent upon every other particu¬ 
 lar, they cannot even hint to each other the 
 grounds upon which they profess to stand. 
 They can, indeed,-1 repeat it, have no one tenet, 
 no one argument in common, but that they are 
 both guilty of schism, that they have both un- 
 wariantably separated from the communion of 
 that church, to which (I speak, of course, of 
 
 confidence same of the papists, at least, in that kingdom, look to a 
 complete re-establishment of their church with all the fulness of 
 authority and power. This right reverend gentleman, however, as 
 I understand, discovered, that on this and some other occasions, 
 he had spoken rather to# plain, and therefore withdrew himself t© 
 France, where he is since dead. 
 
V \ 
 
 154 SERMON IV. 
 
 English and Irish Romanists,) they properly 
 belong. 
 
 After what I have said in my former dis¬ 
 courses, you will not wonder at my thus treat¬ 
 ing the members of that church, which falsely 
 and impudently calls itself Catholic, at my 
 considering them not merely as having caused 
 the schism, which is one way of treating it, but 
 as having themselves actually in their own per¬ 
 sons, separated from their proper and rightful 
 communion. Nothing, I must insist, can be 
 more true. The schism, both formally and 
 substantially, is all on their side 1 *. 
 
 The protestant dissenters, indeed, (and I 
 might have alleged this also, as making their 
 present alliance with the common adversary 
 more monstrous,) are, or have been fond, as I 
 before mentioned, of justifying their separation 
 from us by the example of our predecessors. 
 They say, that they have an equal right to sepa¬ 
 rate from our church, as our church had to sepa¬ 
 rate from the church of Rome. I have already 
 stated, or rather hinted certain grounds, upon 
 
 i c << Upon which grounds 1 do not scruple to affirm the Recu- 
 
 sants in England to be no less schismatics than any other separa¬ 
 te hsts. They are, indeed, somewhat worse ; for most others do 
 <( on i v forbear communion, these do rudely condemn the church 
 ». t0 winch they owe obedience, yea, strive to destroy it; they are 
 “ most desperate rebels against us.’’ Earrow’s “ Discourse con- 
 i( cerning the Unity of the Church,’’ towards the end. 
 
S E R M O N IV. 
 
 155 
 
 which it will appear, that the cases are very 
 
 %/ 
 
 different; X affirm, now, that it is incumbent 
 upon those who thus argue, t& shew that our 
 churcii requires such terms of communion as 
 aie actually sinful; because we and every pro- 
 testant church do most positively 'declare and 
 hold, and it will be my business, and is part of 
 my professed design, to shew that this is most 
 strongly the case with the church of Rome. 
 
 This once shewn, it follows, of course, that, if 
 the church ot Rome had ever so much or so en-' 
 tirely been our church, if we had been born, in¬ 
 deed, within her pale and under her jurisdiction, 
 still the terms ot her communion being contrary 
 to the true faith, and, of course, endanp-erinp' our 
 
 \ O O 
 
 salvation, it would have been our duty to with¬ 
 draw ourselves from her fellowship, to break off 
 her yoke from our necks. The fact is, however, 
 that it cannot, with any shew of reason, be pre¬ 
 tended that the Roman pontiff ever had a right 
 to exercise any sort of jurisdiction in this king¬ 
 dom, that he was the head, or in any way the 
 governor of this church. At the reformation, 
 therefore, the church of England did only re- \ 
 assert that independence which belonged to her 
 in the beginning, an/1 which, neither to her nor 
 to any national church can be denied. Again, 
 in recognizing the king of this realm for her 
 head, as supreme in ecclesiastical as well as 
 temporal causes, she only followed the example 
 
156' 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 of the primitive church, which, from the mo¬ 
 ment that it pleased God to give her Christian 
 emperors, submitted herself to their authority, 
 and owned them for her sovereigns. And tin’s 
 lasted for several centuries, without any pretence 
 to the contrary advanced by any one pope 1 ’. 
 
 There will appear no doubt of this, if we take 
 ever so cursory a survey of what was the prac¬ 
 tice of the first ages, in which we shall find the 
 absolute independency of bishops established in 
 the first instance, and afterwards only limited 
 by their being made subject to the superintend¬ 
 ence of patriarchs or metropolitans within their 
 several provinces, and to the emperor as the 
 head of all. Their independency was so abso¬ 
 lute at the beginning, that it extended to all 
 matters whatever, relating to the internal econo- 
 my of tlie church, to rites and ceremonies, to 
 the form of prayer which was used, nay, to the 
 particular terms of the creeds, with all that was 
 necessary in order to enforce and to preserve 
 uniformity 13 . According to the practice then 
 
 11 See the proofs of this most amply detailed in Barron’s Treatise 
 on the Supremacy of the Pope. Supposition vi. 
 
 13 See for this, Bingham, B. ii. C. 6. § 2 and 3. There is a 
 remarkable passage to this effect, from Austin, there cited, where 
 Casulanus is exhorted to submit, in all indifferent matters, to those 
 who were the rulers of the church where he was. »Si concilio 
 " meo acquiescis, episcopo tuo in hac re noli resistere et quod facit 
 44 ipse sine ullo sciupulo vel disceptatione sectare.” Aust. Epist. 
 
 / 
 
S E R M O N IV. 
 
 157 
 
 pursued and approved by all tlie orthodox, 
 ristian was bound to join in communion 
 with the particular church within whose limits 
 lie was resident; and to conform to all her or¬ 
 dinances, under the penalty of being consider¬ 
 ed as a schismatic. 
 
 Such was the state of every church within 
 herself, and such her constitution with respect 
 to individual members. As far a* this goes, 
 therefore, it is clear that the church of England 
 was fully authorized in the claims which she 
 made for herself at the reformation, and in the 
 manner in which she established and g*ave effect 
 to those claims. 
 
 But I admit, that there was also another and 
 a laiger sort of communion, according* to which 
 all the churches were bound in close fellowship 
 with each other, and constant correspondence 
 was kept up between them. Indeed, this was a 
 consequence of that unity which our Lord com¬ 
 manded to be observed between all bis disci¬ 
 ples; so that the several particular churches, 
 howevei, almost of necessity, having* separate 
 and independent litcsand customs, veta°*reein o * 
 
 ad Casulanum. Vol. ii. p. 52. Ed. Bened. The question was about 
 fasting on a Sunday or not, and he cites the advice giyen to himself 
 when young, by Ambrose, bishop of Milan, that, for avoiding of¬ 
 fence, he should follow the custom of every church to which he 
 came. Ad quameunque ecclesiam veneritis, ejus morem servate 
 if si scandalum pati non vultis aut focere.” Ib. pp. Gl, Ge, 
 
153 
 
 S E R M O N IV. • u ' 
 
 in all essential and fundamental points made 
 up the one catholic church of Christ. It may 
 also be well conceived, how desirable, and of 
 what importance it must have oeen to keep up 
 sued] a union and correspondence in those days 
 or persecution, when, as well the governors as 
 the individual members of the several churches 
 had such pressing need of advice and consola¬ 
 tion and support under the tribulations and 
 dangers to which they were almost daily ex¬ 
 posed* It followed also from this sort of con¬ 
 nexion that every bishop, although only ruling 
 his own church, had a concern, and felt an in¬ 
 terest in seeing that those articles of faith, by 
 the consenting in which the connexion was 
 kept up, and made to answer its proper end, 
 should be preserved pure and inviolate; and this 
 gave him a warrant to interpose, with his advice 
 and remonstrance, whenever, in any of the 
 churches, he perceived a disposition to run into 
 heresy, and to corrupt the genuine doctrines of 
 the gospel. And this was the sort, and the only 
 sort of interference, which, in the beginning, 
 was allowed to any bishop, whether the bishop 
 of Rome, or any other, in common with his fel¬ 
 lows. The dignity of that see, indeed, owing 
 to the opulence and extent of the metropolis to 
 which it belonged, might give a particular 
 weight to his opinion, but still he was only con¬ 
 sidered as a simple individual, among many who 
 
N 
 
 / 
 
 SERMON IV. 159 
 
 were his equals M . Nor did this or any other cir¬ 
 cumstance give to him more than to any other 
 
 14 There is a remarkable instance of this interference in one of 
 Cyprian’s Epistles (the Iviith) where the bishop of Carthage applies 
 to his brother bishop of Rome, on account of Marcian, bishop of 
 Arles, who had joined himself to Novatian, and so was guilty of 
 senism and heresy ; in which case, it, as he says, belonged to them 
 upon whom the government of the church was rested, to interfere 
 and take order. “ Cui rei nostrum estconsulere et subvenire, frater 
 carissime, qui divinam elementiam cogitantes, et gubernindte 
 Ecclesiae libram tenentes, sic censuram vigoris peccatoribus ex- 
 hibemus,” &c. And he says, lower down, that, on that account 
 it was, that so many bishops were joined together, in order, that if 
 one of their body should fall into heresy, or destroy the flock, the 
 others should come in, like diligent and charitable shepherds, and 
 keep together the scattered sheep of Christ. Ideirco enim, fra- 
 “ ter carissime, copiosum corpus est sacerdotum concordia? glutino 
 atque unitatis vinculo copulatum, ut si quis ex coilegio nostro 
 “ haeresin facere et gregem Christi lacerare et vastare tentaverit, sub- 
 “ veniant csteri, et quasi pastures utiles et misericordes oves domi- 
 “ nicas in gregem colligant.’’ And he illustrates this by two in¬ 
 stances; as that in the case of a haven becoming insecure, or a 
 house on the road being infested with robbers, how desirable it must 
 be for the ship to have a better port, which it might put into, and 
 the traveller to have another inn more safe, where he might be 
 lodged without danger. Again, he urges, that, although there are 
 many shepherds, yet there is but one flock. Etsi multi pastures 
 “ sumus unum gregem pascimus.” In consequence, he presses 
 him to write letters into the province, and to the people at Arles, 
 in order that Mavcian may be deposed, and another placed in hi* 
 stead. Baluze, in his notes on this passage truly observes, from 
 Cicero, that, where there is room for conjecture, ingenious men 
 will think very differently, according to their prepossessions. And, 
 so he says it has happened here. For, the Romanists urge this 
 place as shewing that Stephen was referred to as head of the church, 
 and as having power to excommunicate or depose any bishop, and 
 Raronius boldly asserts, that, neither the bishops nor the people at 
 
S E R M O N IV. 
 
 160 
 
 bishop, a power to repress disorder in any dio¬ 
 cese but his own. lie might admonish, reprove, 
 or exhort, but the judgment upon such matters, 
 when it became necessary to pass any such judg¬ 
 ment, was reserved to the assembly of all the 
 bishops, whether of the province, of the nation, 
 or of the empire; all which assemblies obtained 
 the name of synods or councils* 
 
 Of these synods or councils, there is little or 
 no mention in the two first ages of the church. 
 We have, indeed, in the Acts of the Aposfles, an 
 account of that which is generally considered as 
 the first council, and which may well have serv¬ 
 ed as a model to those which were afterwards 
 holden. It was not, indeed, till the fourth cen¬ 
 tury that we find any instance of what is called 
 a general or (ecumenical council. The reason of 
 this is apparent. Until the churches could be 
 
 Arles could get rid of this heretical pastor, without his permission. 
 On the other hand, the protestants see in this letter a perfect equality 
 between the bishops of Carthage and Rome ; and Fell retorts the 
 argument upon the papists, saying, that by the same rule, that the 
 bishop of Rome’s writing to the people at Arles argues a superiority 
 in him over them, Cyprian, by his writing to Stephen must* be 
 considered as Stephen’s superior. Baluze, of course, concludes for 
 the pope 5 but any man who reads the letter attentively, and without 
 prejudice, will see in this a plain proof, among so many others, of 
 what Bingham calls the " independency of the Cyprianic age.” No 
 other power is pre-supposed in Stephen than what is exercised by 
 Cyprian towards him, that of exhorting and persuading the peo¬ 
 ple at Arles to do their duty, which, also, in this case, both from 
 the local situation of Rome, and for the reason given in the next 
 note was most properly incumbent on Stephen. 
 
 5 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 161 
 
 lully secured from persecution, until the time 
 came when the sovereigns of the empire, having 
 adopted Christianity for their religion, became 
 its protectors and guardians, it would not have 
 been wise, and hardly practicable for the bishops 
 and fathers of the church to assemble together 
 m any great numbers, nor for the individuals to 
 leave their flocks upon any distant mission. 
 Of a general council publicity seems to be the 
 very essence; but before the days of Constan¬ 
 tine, it was often necessary for the disciples to 
 conceal themselves, in order to elude the rage 
 of their enemies, nor could they at any time 
 have been so certain of the continuance of 
 peace, as to be able to concert beforehand, and' 
 carry into execution, the arrangements which 
 might be necessary to such a meeting. All 
 therefore that could be done was, for such 
 bishops as were near to each other, to assemble, 
 according to the exigency, in the several dis¬ 
 tricts or provinces which were most infested 
 with such heresies as it was necessary to put 
 down and to condemn. What was decided in 
 these provincial or lesser councils was naturally 
 sent to the churches in other parts for their 
 concurrence: as it is evident that such decisions 
 could have weight only in proportion to the 
 numbers which approved of and concurred in 
 them : there not being then, as strictly speak¬ 
 ing there could not be any authority by which 
 
 M 
 
 v 
 
162 
 
 SERMON IV, 
 
 they could be made binding upon persons or 
 churches which were not parties or consenting 
 to their enactment. This is what took place 
 more particularly in the controversy respecting 
 the time of celebrating Easter, when, not only 
 separate councils were held in different pro¬ 
 vinces which communicated with each other, 
 but the sentiments of the other churches which 
 had no part in those councils, were also taken. 
 Such, also, was the mode adopted by that 
 council of Antioch which deposed Paul of Sa- 
 mosata, and which gave account of its proceed¬ 
 ings by a synod-el letter to all the absent bishops, 
 and more particularly to those of the two other 
 great sees, the bishops of Rome and of Alex- 
 and ria. 
 
 In all this, clearly, there is nothing like what 
 can be properly called jurisdiction in one church 
 or bishop over another: nothing but what I 
 have stated, that when any evils were to be re* 
 sisted, or any point of doctrine or of discipline 
 to be ascertained, those bishops who could c!q 
 so, met together and declared their sentiments. 
 I hose sentiments were communicated to the 
 othci churches, anti were adopted and observed 
 according to their apparent reasonableness, and 
 the weight of character which belonged to those 
 from whom they came. Nothing w r as pretended 
 to but that general and mutual superintendance 
 
 over each other which is exercised bv all bodies 
 
 %/ 
 
163 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 which are united and co-operating together in 
 any common cause. If in the case of Paul of 
 Samosata, the sentence was accompanied with 
 deprivation, we must recollect that the council 
 was held at Antioch itself, in the very city of 
 which he was bishop, and must have been so 
 held with the consent of the clergy and people, 
 as well asot the bishops who composed it; that 
 is, in fact, of all those whose concurrence could 
 be required in any election to the see, and in 
 whom or some of whom, must have resided the 
 power of removing individuals who should have 
 so corrupted the doctrine as to be unfit any 
 longer to preside over the church. 
 
 Still the different churches continued inde¬ 
 pendent of each other and equal in authority. 
 It was only after the civil and ecclesiastical go- 
 vernment of the empire became united in one 
 head, that the same sort ot subordination was 
 established in both cases ; and patriarchs and 
 metropolitans were set over the bishops in par¬ 
 ticular districts, in the same manner as the 
 exarchs and prefects had the civil rule over 
 their respective provinces. But even then the 
 patriarchs and metropolitans, however they 
 might govern those who were placed under 
 them, retained their independence in respect of 
 one another. And how much all this was con¬ 
 nected with the civil establishment will appear 
 from what happened in the case of Constanti- 
 
 ¥ 2 
 
 > 
 
164 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 nople ; which city having been greatly increas¬ 
 ed and raised into consequence by becoming the 
 residence of the emperors, it was upon that very 
 account declared in one of the general councils 
 that it should rank with the three other great 
 sees, those of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, 
 which had been considered as enjoying a pre¬ 
 eminence of dignity over the others. And the 
 very reasons which had given weight and im¬ 
 portance to Rome were alleged for putting Con¬ 
 stantinople upon an equal footing: that is, the 
 extent and the opulence and the civil rank of the 
 one as of the other: the “amplitudo urbis 
 their being both imperial cities: and Constan¬ 
 tinople is expressly styled on that account, 
 “ nova Roma/’ and “junior Roma,” a “new” 
 
 or a “younger Rome 15 .” 
 
 «•» 
 
 15 1st council of Constantinople, (2d general council) can. 3. 
 So council of Chalcedon, ( 3 d general council) can. 28. v. Barrow’s 
 treatise, p. 159. Cypiian recognizes this precedence in Rome, and 
 for this very reason “ Quoniam pro magnitudine sua debeat 
 (l Carthaginem Roma precedere.” Ep. 49. As to any other primacy, 
 or precedency, or real authority, or actual jurisdiction, it is com¬ 
 pletely negatived by all the saints in the Romish calendar of that 
 age ; by Austin and Jerome as well as by Cyprian. Not to fatigue 
 the reader with unnecessarily heaping quotations, it may suffice ge¬ 
 nerally to refer him to Barrow who in his treatise on the Supremacy 
 of the Pope, as well as in his Discourse on the Unity of the Church, 
 has brought together (as was his manner) even a superabundant 
 quantity of such authorities. Dr. Milner in his late work, (Inqui¬ 
 ry, p. 103 ) relies on a passage from Irenaeus contra Hsereses, lib. iii, 
 S 3 . where it is said that <f ad banc ecclesiam (meaning Rome) 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 165 
 
 During all this time the emperors were exer¬ 
 cising their supremacy over the church, and 
 were addressed by the popes themselves as their 
 sovereigns. It was in virtue of the imperial 
 mandate that those general councils to which we 
 are in the habit of appealing, were convened; 
 it was also by the operation of the imperial au¬ 
 thority that their decrees were enforced; that 
 they came to be considered as obligatory upon 
 all, and as possessing the character of doctrines 
 established by law 16 . 
 
 Now, in the first place, if we consider this 
 state of things, is it not clear that, even admit¬ 
 ting what can by no means be admitted, that 
 any jurisdiction was exercised by the bishop of 
 
 i 
 
 ct propter potiorem principalitatem necessae est omnera convenire 
 “ ecclesiam.” The reader will recollect that we have notlrenaeus’s 
 own words, and that in a case like this every thing depends on the 
 precise expression. However, I apprehend that which ever way 
 taken it can mean no more than what Cyprian has said in the above 
 passage. See^Grabe’s note on this text, who cites a passage of 
 Gregory Nazianzen saying almost literally the same thing of Con- 
 stantinople two centuries after : and, observe, this quotation from 
 Gregory, the later popish editor, who professes to answer Grabe, 
 passes over in perfect silence. Greg. Nazianzen, Vol. i. p. 517 , 
 
 E i$ YjV ” (that is Constantinople) u tfavlzyoQsv cckocc crvvlpeysi , 
 “ KCtl OLpyjTCU Ltjcrrfzp zp,7t0pl8 XOlVBT'ry 'JtlSZU.'s" “To which 
 iC the people from the farthest parts of the world run together, and 
 ft from whence, as from a common emporium of the faith, they 
 e( take their rise (or direction).” 
 
 16 See this completely shewn in Barrow’s treatise, under the head 
 Supposition vi. p. 185 , and seq. « 
 
1 66 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 Rome beyond his own provinces, or over the 
 church at large, still it could be no argument* 
 for his having a right to exercise any such ju¬ 
 risdiction in these realms at this moment? or, 
 in fact, at the time when Austin the monk, 
 landed upon these shores 17 ? For, what was then 
 meant by the whole world, was, in truth, 
 nothing more than the Roman empire: the 
 <'7)01x00^ svtj” the very term from which councils 
 are called oecumenical, had notoriously no wider 
 meaning 18 . The emperors therefore might have 
 conferred on the bishop of their capital city the 
 ecclesiastical dignity and power of a metropo¬ 
 litan over what was then called the whole world ; 
 and the pope might then have become, in respect 
 
 ihe first fruits of which were, let it be remembered, the 
 slaughtering of twelve hundred very venerable and harmless monks, 
 for refusing to acknowledge the authority of the pope. See Wil¬ 
 kins s Concilia, Vol i. p. 28 , and what is said there and in the pre¬ 
 ceding pages of these monks and of the British church. 
 
 In St. Luke c. ii. v. 1, it is rendered by our translators, “ the 
 u hole w'orld,” but evidently could only mean th® Roman em¬ 
 pire. Even as to these general or oecumenical councils, Barrow says, 
 They do shew rather the unity of the empire than of the church ; 
 or ol the church as national under one empire, than as catholic ; 
 “ for it was the state which did call and moderate them to its pur- 
 “ poses.” He further observes, that, c ‘ It is not expedient that 
 there should be any such now that Christendom standeth divided 
 under divers temporal sovereignties, for their resolutions may in¬ 
 trench on the interests of some princes, and can hardly accom¬ 
 modate themselves to the laws and customs of every state. Dis¬ 
 course concerning the Unity of the Church, p. 321 , vol. ii. of 
 Works. 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 167 
 
 of the wide extended dominions of thatvast em¬ 
 pire, what our primate is within the more con- 
 lined limits of this realm. Whether this did 
 happen or not I am not now inquiring; and 
 most assuredly whatever of that sort did take 
 place is of a later date than the seventh cen¬ 
 tury. But, however that might be, this con¬ 
 sequence would follow, when afterwards the 
 empire was dismembered and broken into se¬ 
 veral distinct and independent kingdoms, that 
 wherever the supreme civil government was 
 lodged, thither also the supremacy in ecclesi¬ 
 astical matters would follow. This was what 
 must have happened, what did in fact most de- 
 cidedty happen, with respect to this country, 
 divided as it was by the sea, and never having 
 had more than a very imperfect communica¬ 
 tion with the rest of the empire 19 . This is what 
 we see to have actually taken place in the Greek 
 church ; the patriarch of Constantinople having 
 always both claimed and in the end preserved 
 his independence, in spiteot the repeated efforts 
 which have been made by the see ot Rome to 
 bring him into subjection. Indeed the right 
 which was in later times assumed by the popes 
 
 ** “ Penitus toto divisos orbe Britannos.’’ Virg. "Eel. 1. That 
 in fact the bishop of Rome never had any jurisdiction over the Bri¬ 
 tish church, even when the country was subject to the Roman em¬ 
 perors, is shewn by Bingham, Book ix. c. 1 . § 11 and 12, which 
 see, and the authors there cited. 
 
16 S 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 of convening general councils, never was ad¬ 
 mitted or even thought of, as long as there ex¬ 
 isted any emperor who could exercise that 
 power. When the dismemberment of the em¬ 
 pire took place, the princes who ruled the 
 several states of which it had been composed, 
 were easily brought to let that function be ex¬ 
 ercised by an ecclesiastical person rather than 
 by one of their own description: for had it 
 been lodged in such a one it might naturally 
 have been alleged as a proof of his supremacy 
 over other temporal potentates, as if he had 
 succeeded to all the rights of the emperors: 
 but who could suspect that such would be the 
 consequence of entrusting it with a mere eccle¬ 
 siastic? Who could have dreamed, (and indeed 
 this of itself proves that no such idea was en¬ 
 tertained) who could have dreamed, I say, that 
 a pretension would thus be raised of a pre-emi¬ 
 nence and power so new and unheard of; which, 
 disclaiming the use of temporal means, should 
 yet rule over temporal princes and dispose of 
 their worldly concerns with the most absolute 
 sway ? 
 
 Thus in truth it will appear that there is no 
 foundation in history for supposing that any 
 such power was in the beginning conferred 
 upon the Roman pontiff. In the three first cen¬ 
 turies he was a simple bishop, and no more. 
 When afterwards he was declared to be one of 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 169 
 
 four patriarchs to whom a particular rank anu 
 jurisdiction were allotted, and in that character 
 he had a certain number of churches placed 
 under his superintendence 90 ; still his authority 
 was circumscribed to them only, and beyond 
 their limits he was not allowed to have any sort 
 of command or rule. Those very individuals 
 among the fathers whose words are cited by the 
 Romanists as acknowledging him to be the suc¬ 
 cessor of St. Peter, are most express and expli¬ 
 cit in asserting the equal authority of all bishops 
 and their independence on one another 21 . So 
 
 80 They were called the subnrbicarian churches ; what they were 
 see in Bingham, Book ix. c. 1, §9 & 10. This jurisdiction was 
 either simply co-extensive with that of the prafcctus urbls , that is, 
 extending to a hundred miles round Rome ; or at most extended 
 to the ten provinces which were subjected to the vkarius urbis. 
 Whatever they were, the Nicene council (can. 0 .) having particu¬ 
 larized them as being under the care and government of the Roman 
 bishop, and assigning the same jurisdiction to the bishop of Alex¬ 
 andria over the Egyptian churches, expressly negatives the pre¬ 
 tended claims of the popes in later times. 
 
 91 This is most remarkably shewn in that passage of Cyprian, 
 “ De unitate ecclesiae,” which the Romanists rely so mainly upon. 
 For there in the course of his argument for unity, after reasoning 
 upon our Saviour’s words in Matthew xvi. respecting building the 
 church upon Peter, (as he construes it) and the commandment in 
 John xxi. to “feed the sheep,” he goes on with most remarkable 
 assertions of the equality of the other apostles. “ Quamvis apostolis 
 tc omnibus tribuat et dicat sicut misit me pater &c. tamen ut uni- 
 “ tatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem 
 * e sua auctoritate disposuit.” As to this notion, harped upon by 
 other doctors also, of one being thus preferred for the sake of unity. 
 
170 
 
 SERMON 1 IV. 
 
 far from the earlier popes advancing any claim 
 
 to what later writers have called a monarchy 
 
 %/ 
 
 Barrow says, (Treatise, p. 33,) ,f I can discern little solidity in this 
 te conceit, and as little harm.” Which is true enough. But it is 
 a strong argument for what we say is the truth, that, having taken 
 up this conceit, the good father is so careful to guard against any 
 inference of real and substantial superiority in Peter. He goes on 
 “ Hoc erant utique et caeteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari con- 
 “ sortio praediti et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ab unitate 
 “ proncisicitur.’’ They were, we see, equal to Peter in honour and in 
 power. Again he says, this dignity ought to be kept and main¬ 
 tained particularly byzo- bijiops who preside in the church, &c. “ qui 
 “ in ecclesia praecedimus all equally we see. Then follows that 
 famous passage, “ Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum 
 “ pars tenetur:” Episcopacy is so much one, that, according to 
 him, each bishop “ holds an undivided share in the whole.” For 
 other passages of Cyprian equally strong, the reader may turn to his 
 opinion delivered in the council of Carthage, p. 32Q of his works. 
 Ed. Bened. and Epist. 77 to pope Stephen, where he says expressly 
 that every bishop is to follow the free judgment of his own will in 
 the administration of the church, being accountable to the Lord 
 for what he does. “ Ilabet in ecclesise administratione voluntatis 
 e( suae liberum arbitrium unusquisque praepositus, rationem actus 
 “ sui domino redditurns.’’ So the epistle of Firmilian to the same 
 Stephen (ib. p. 142) where the pontiff is taken to task for his arro¬ 
 gance and overbearing conduct, and told that by excommunicating 
 Cypr ian, as he did, he cut himself off from the church. “ Excidisli 
 “ enim te ipsum. Noli te fallere. Siquidem ille est vere schis- 
 “ maticus, qui se a communione ecclesiasticae unitatis apostatam 
 “ fecit. Dum enim putas omnes a te abstineri posse, solum te 
 “ ab omnibus abstinuisti. 1 ’ The popish editors are all somewhat 
 troubled at these strong expressions of Firmilian, and the last (the 
 Benedictine) salves the credit of his cause by saying, that the father 
 was perhaps hurried by the messenger whom Cyprian sent to him, 
 so that he could not read his letter over again. “ Raptim scribenti 
 ** multa in Stephanum iracundius dicta excidcrunt, quae fortasse 
 “ pro exiinia aninii moderatione Firmilianus emendasset, nisi spa- 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 171 
 
 in the church, it pleased God that by one of 
 
 them a most decided testimony should be borne 
 
 to the contrary. So late as in the seventh cen- 
 
 %/ 
 
 tury the patriarch of Constantinople having 
 assumed the title of ecumenical or general bishop, 
 the then pope, Gregory the great, not only 
 opposed his pretensions, but in the strongest 
 terms reprobated the idea of any such title or 
 character belonging to any person whatever. 
 This is the more remarkable as the pontiff who 
 made this declaration is one of those who are 
 most greatly honoured, nay canonized by the 
 Romish church. How afterwards in the gross 
 ignorance of the ages which succeeded, the 
 popes by taking advantage of the jealousies, the 
 wars, and the contentions which arose between 
 the secular princes of those days, and always 
 keeping their great end in view, were enabled 
 to secure to their see a pre-eminence of dignity 
 and power, as well as a fund of riches, beyond 
 what was enjoyed by any temporal sovereign, 
 has been traced and marked out by writers of 
 all descriptions; and such details are beside the 
 scope, and would exceed the limits of this dis- 
 cou rse. My busi ness is only to shew that such 
 a power existed and that it was usurped. It 
 may be essential also for me to shew what were 
 
 “ tium relegendae, ut par erat, epistobe Rogatianus morse impatiens 
 “ eripuisset.” (Vit. Cyp. p. cxvii)A most notable conjecture indeed ! 
 <and that will do equally well for all epistles as well as for this ! 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 172 
 
 the most gross of the abuses which grew out of 
 this usurpation, or were adopted and establish¬ 
 ed in pursuance of it; because it will be seen 
 that the great corruptions which at the time of 
 the reformation were universally complained of, 
 were, in fact, occasioned by the ambition and 
 avarice of the popes; and introduced by them 
 as means by which wealth might be accumulated 
 or power extended. Above all that diabolical 
 spirit of persecution by which all inquiry was 
 to be stopped, was and could have been nou¬ 
 rished only by the consciousness which must 
 have been felt that the foundations upon which 
 these encroachments were built were rotten and 
 unsound. What was obtained by injustice and 
 deceit, could only be secured by violence. 
 And it was only by forcibly shutting the eyes of 
 men that delusions so gross could be prolonged. 
 
 It will not be expected of me that I should 
 refute at length pretensions which have of late 
 years hardly excited any other feeling than 
 that of contempt, except in those who were in 
 some way or other parties to the fraud. Yet as 
 attempts have lately been made to restore them 
 to some degree of credit, as in fact they con¬ 
 tinue still to have an existence, though in a 
 more limited sphere, it may not be right to 
 pass them over wholly without notice. And as 
 the first and greatest abuse, as that which in¬ 
 deed is the foundation of all others, is the per- 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 173 
 
 version of the holy scriptures; as it is that 
 which above all others tends to obscure the 
 light, I shall in the first place endeavour to 
 draw your attention to that, and shortly exa¬ 
 mine those texts which are supposed to be fa¬ 
 vourable to the claims of the Roman pontiff, and 
 under colour of which he assumes to be not 
 only the first among bishops, but indeed the 
 only bishop. For, since the decrees of the 
 council of Trent, his dominion over his brother 
 bishops is carried to such a height and so con¬ 
 firmed, that in truth they are become little 
 better than his vicars. They swear obedience 
 to him in as strong terms as any subject can 
 use towards a sovereign ; and even oblige them¬ 
 selves to appear in person before him every 
 
 » 
 
 three years; or to excuse themselves by a suffi¬ 
 cient deputy. With such care is this vassalage 
 enforced. 
 
 You can hardly be ignorant that these pre¬ 
 tensions of the pope are founded upon the as¬ 
 sumption, first, that our Lord conferred on 
 Peter not only a pre-eminence or priority in 
 rank, but a jurisdiction and command over his 
 brethren the apostles. Next, that this was not 
 merely personal to St. Peter, but that it was 
 intended to devolve upon his successors, and of 
 his successors upon the bishop of Rome in par¬ 
 ticular. I pass by the questions which have 
 been raised, not without reason, as to whether 
 
 
174 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 St. Peter ever was at Rome and whether li£ 
 died there; because those facts have been ge¬ 
 nerally admitted, and the admission of them 
 will but little forward the cause of our adver¬ 
 saries, But it is not to be forgotten that those 
 who assert St. Peter to have been bishop of 
 Rome, also admit, that previous to that he was 
 bishop of Antioch, and also of Alexandria; be¬ 
 cause, if one were disposed to yield to them 
 every other point, it would still remain a ques¬ 
 tion why the bishop of Rome should be the suc¬ 
 cessor of St. Peter, rather than the bishop of 
 Antioch or the bishop of Alexandria. There 
 are indeed strong reasons why Antioch should 
 have the preference, why that should be con¬ 
 sidered as “ the mother and mistress of all 
 “ churches,” since it was there that the dis¬ 
 ciples were first called Christians : and the Ro¬ 
 manists themselves have a festival which is in¬ 
 stituted in honour of St. Peter’s chair at Antioch. 
 As to Antioch too, there is none to dispute the 
 point, with him, whereas undoubtedly those per¬ 
 sons who look only into the holy Scriptures, 
 will be apt to consider St. Paul as having much 
 the greater right to claim the church of Rome 
 as being his peculiar. Indeed it is hard to say 
 how the contrary can be maintained ; for mo¬ 
 dern Rome is certainly a gentile church ; and 
 the Romanists themselves being fain to allow 
 what was done by St. Paul at Rome, only de- 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 I *. 
 
 to 
 
 lend themselves from the proof which this sup¬ 
 plies against their cause, by saying that St. 
 Peter and he were bishops together, St. Paul 
 being bishop of the Jews, and St. Paul bishop 
 of the gentiles; and indeed they do for that 
 reason join them together as being both patrons 
 of their church. But here again Scripture is 
 against them, for it is most evident that St. 
 Paul's epistle to the Romans is addressed par¬ 
 ticularly to the Jews ; more so than to the gen¬ 
 tiles. So that they in fact make of St. Peter 
 an interloper: they represent him as doing that 
 which St. Paul most pointedly disclaims as im¬ 
 proper, “ building upon another man’s foun~ 
 “ dation*.” The truth is, however, that nei¬ 
 ther St. Peter nor St. Paul were in a strict sense 
 bishops of that or of any other see. They were 
 superintendents of a higher class, and while 
 they instituted resident bishops and elders, they 
 themselves travelled from place to place, in or¬ 
 der to extend as far as they could to the very 
 last the bounds of their master’s kingdom*)'. 
 
 Without dwelling any longer upon these and 
 many other points which might stop us in 
 the outset, let us coine to the texts in question. 
 
 Their first and most noted is that where our 
 Lord, having asked his disciples, “ Whom say 
 
 * Rom. xv. 20. 
 
 t See as to this Barrow’s Treatise, Supposition iii. p. 8.2, and seq. 
 
17 6 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 “ ye that I am,” and Peter having answered, 
 c£ Thou art the Christ, the son of the living 
 “ God,” our Lord in reply said, “ Blessed art 
 ct thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath 
 “ not revealed this unto thee, but my Father 
 u which is in Heaven. And I say unto thee, 
 “ thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
 “ build my church, and the gates of hell shall 
 “ not prevail against it.” Fie added further, 
 “ I will give unto thee the keys of heaven, 
 iC and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth 
 <£ shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever 
 il thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in 
 “ heaven.” Now were we to consider this 
 passage by itself, without adverting at all to 
 what is its proper comment, the subsequent 
 conduct of Peter and the other apostles, yet 
 even then it would be difficult to contend that 
 our Lord’s saying was to be applied exclusively 
 to St. Peter. For the question which led to 
 that, was put to all the apostles, and Peter 
 when he answered it, must, according to fair 
 construction, be considered as answering in the 
 name of all 24 . There is nothing particular to 
 
 ** {C Petrus, super quern rrdificata ab eodem domino fueratecclesia 
 (t unus pro omnibus loquens et ecclesise vice respondens.” Cyp. Ep. 
 55 . What this building of the church was, the same father, in 
 addition to tormer passages cited, explains very clearly, when quot¬ 
 ing this very passage, he deduces from it the ordination of bishops 
 and the course of the church according to which it should in all its 
 acts be governed by them as set over it. “Dominus noster episcopi 
 
 2 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 177 
 
 St. Peter, but that lie is addressed by name and 
 that to his name our Lord makes an immediate 
 allusion. But the power of binding and of 
 lousing which is thus declared to belong to St. 
 Peter, we find, according to the same evange¬ 
 list and to St. John, afterwards expressly con¬ 
 ferred by our Lord upon all the apostles. As 
 to the keys having been given to him, that is 
 properly referred to his having been the first 
 who preached the gospel not only to the Jews 
 but to the Gentiles ; and who thus had the pri¬ 
 vilege of opening the kingdom of Heaven to 
 both descriptions of Christians. As to what is 
 meant by the words, “upon this rock,’’ which 
 the Romanists interpret as making Peter the 
 head of the church ; it may be sufficient to say 
 that very few indeed of the fathers interpret it 
 as applying to Peter. Some say that Christ 
 means it of himself; others and much the 
 greater part apply it to the profession of faith 
 
 “ honorem et ecclesise suae rationem disponens in evangelio loquitur 
 ct et dicit Petro. Ego tibi dico, &c. Inde per temporum et suc- 
 tf cessionum vices cpiscoporum et ecclesisa decurrit ut ecclesia su- 
 iC per episcopos constituatur, et omnis actus ecclesiae per eodem 
 prsepositos gubernetur.” From these words spoken to Peter, he 
 infers not a jurisdiction exclusively given to Peter and his succes¬ 
 sors, but a government resting upon all bishops equally. Austin’s 
 words upon this are, “ Cui ecclesise figuram gerenti dixit dominus 
 <f super hanc,’’ &c. Ep. 53 . Ed. Bened. Jerome’s words are, “ Pe- 
 “ trus persona omnium apostolorum profitetur.’’ -Comment, in 
 loc. And afterwards when speaking of -giving the keys he applies 
 it not at. all to Peter, but to the bishops and priests in general. 
 
 N 
 
ITS 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 which the apostle had thus made. And this is 
 the opinion generally adopted and most approv¬ 
 ed. I will add farther that were it ever so er¬ 
 roneous, still as against the Romanists itw'ould 
 be conclusive: first, because of the authority 
 which they give to the fathers, being indeed in 
 their ideas equal to that of Scripture, and which 
 therefore makes this interpretation binding upon 
 them: secondly, because it proves most decid¬ 
 edly that at the time when the fathers wrote, 
 that is, for four or five centuries after Christ, 
 no such doctrine as this of the supremacy of St. 
 Peter was known in the church. If that be not 
 sufficient we can allege one of their popes them¬ 
 selves who interprets the passage in that sense. 
 “ Super ista confessione sedificabo ecclesiam 
 eC meanfV’ So notoriously modern as well as 
 false is the sense which they put upon these 
 words, as well as the doctrine which they would 
 build upon them. But supposing Peter to be 
 the “rock,” yet even then it would prove no¬ 
 thing, for, as it is argued by a learned man of 
 their own communion, if Peter was a founda¬ 
 tion stone, “lapis fundamentr-,” all the apostles 
 
 * 3 Felix ill. Epis. 51. apud Binniutn. See Barrow’s Treatise, 
 
 р. 60 . This was the case also with Nicholas i. Epis. 2 , 6 , and 
 John viii. Ep. 7 6 . 
 
 a4 Cardinal Cusa in his Treatise de Catholica Concord ia, lib. ii. 
 
 с. 13, Richer, Launoy, and Du Pin, as well as, I believe, many 
 ptber Romanists, have maintained the same doctrine, even in later 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 179 
 
 were equally “foundation stones/' It is ex¬ 
 pressly said, that “ the church was built upon 
 “ the foundation of the apostles, Christ himself 
 <c being the chief corner stone:’' and indeed all 
 the fathers in their comments upon these pas¬ 
 sages are careful to observe that nothing more 
 was given to Peter than to the rest of the apos¬ 
 tles 25 . 
 
 The other passage on which the advocates of 
 the popes chiefly rely, is that where our Lord 
 after his resurrection bids Peter “feed his 
 “ lambs,” and “feed his sheep*." In this also 
 you see that nothing more is enjoined than what 
 was and is the duty not only of apostles and 
 bishops, but of elders. The latter are by St. 
 Paul in the same terms exhorted to <c take heed 
 
 to the flock over which the Holy Ghost had 
 “ made them overseers, and to feed the church 
 “ ofGodf." But further, we have here again 
 the authority of the fathers, conclusive, I must 
 
 days. Cardinal Cusa’s words are so full that I have set them down 
 at the end in Note E. 
 
 53 I have noticed this particularly in Cyprian, because he is so. 
 constantly alleged by the papists as their great authority; but Aus¬ 
 tin and Jerome, and all the old fathers speak the same language. I 
 will only add one more observation ; that our Lord does not say to 
 Peter by thee I will rule my church, but upon thee, that is, ; upon 
 thy preaching or confession, I will build it. See, besides the authors 
 already cited, Whitby in loc. 
 
 * John xxi. f Acts xsl. 
 
ISO 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 \ 
 
 remind you, as against the Romanists, who 
 all in their comments upon this passage agree 
 that it conveys no authority; who on the con¬ 
 trary set it in its true/and beautiful light. Ac¬ 
 cording to them, the reason of our Saviour's 
 
 o 
 
 thus distinguishing Peter was to console him 
 under the sense of that apostacv of which he 
 had been guilty in denying his master ; and as 
 he had denied him thrice, so our Lord’s address 
 to him is repeated thrice : thus pointing out the 
 way by which he might recover all that he had 
 forfeited 26 . 
 
 Upon so weak and unreala foundation stands 
 the claim of the popes in its very first step. So 
 little do even the texts which they themselves 
 adduce speak for them. But, indeed, if they 
 had really contained any thing which by fair 
 inference might be construed to give a superi¬ 
 ority to St. Peter, this is so guarded against by 
 
 I can’t help observing how much Peter was sobered, if I may 
 use the expression, by having thus fallen into sin. His language 
 before was, <l Though all these should forsake thee, yet will not I 
 ei forsake thee.” New though the opportunity is so plainly given 
 him bv our Lord’s saying, “ Lovest thou me more than these?"' Yet 
 we find no repetition of this overweening confidence. His answer 
 is modest and humble: “ Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.” 
 A little of this modesty in his pretended successors would have be¬ 
 come them well, and done the church good service; at least have 
 kept it from a great deal of trouble. Indeed where is there in any 
 discourse of Peter’s, where is there in either of his epistles, the least 
 intimation of his having any superiority over his brethren ? 
 
 ] 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 IS 1 
 
 the whole tenourof scripture, that it could never 
 with any shew of reason have been ultimately 
 maintained. After our Saviour had made his 
 supposed delegation of authority to that apostle, 
 it pleased God that the disciples should contend 
 among themselves who should be greatest. Had 
 our Lord had any such intention as the Ro¬ 
 manists attribute to him, would he not then 
 have expressed it? Would he not have said, 4 ‘Why 
 “ this contention among yourselves ? Have I 
 c ‘ not already declared that Peter shall be the 
 “ head, that it is he that has the keys and who 
 <( shall rule over you ?” So far from this he de¬ 
 clares himself in the plainest terms against every 
 idea of there being any such superiority in any 
 of them. Again, when the two sons of Zebe- 
 dee asked the two first places in his kingdom, 
 does he then give a hint that it is Peter to whom 
 the chief honour is due, and who is to preside 
 over the rest? But it pleased God further that 
 in other instances also the equality which sub¬ 
 sisted between the apostles should be put be¬ 
 yond all doubt; that not only St. James should 
 deliver the judgment of a council where Peter 
 was present; that Peter should be deputed to 
 particular missions as other apostles were; but 
 that he should fall into error, and be reproved 
 for it by Paul, by one who calls himself the 
 least of the apostles; who yet maintains his 
 
182 
 
 SEE M O N IV, 
 
 right, not to be behind either Peter or any of 
 his brethren, and who ruled the churches which 
 he had founded, and, we may presume, Rome 
 among the rest, with absolute and perfectly in¬ 
 dependent authority. 
 
 I need not weary you with saying more on the 
 subject; nor need I add a word as to the other 
 points, for if there had been any pre-eminence 
 in Peter, surely it must have been all personal, 
 it could have had nothing to do with his suc¬ 
 cessor, if any such could have been found or 
 ascertained, which I have sufficiently shewn not 
 to be the case*'. 
 
 I know not neither, if I ought to notice two 
 other of their doctrines, which they call in aid, 
 and according to which they hold the necessity 
 of an infallible judge to decide controversies, 
 and the visibility of the church. Both which 
 advantages, they assert, are to be found in their 
 church and in no other. In support of this, they 
 allege certain texts of St. Matthew, in which 
 our Saviour speaks of his apostles as being “ the 
 
 * 7 The character of Peter, as compared to those of the other 
 apostles, is very natural, and according to what we may see almost 
 daily. Take any twelve men acting together, in any matter what¬ 
 ever, of business or of pleasure, there will always be some one, who, 
 from having greater eagerness or activity of mind, or pretending to 
 greater skill, will put himself more forward than the others ; and 
 this will be permitted by the rest, either through indolence, or for 
 the sake of convenience, without their allowing him to have, in 
 lict, any degree of power over them. 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 183 
 
 c< light of the world*, 5 * and tells them that a 
 <c city set upon a hill cannot be hicl .’ 5 In the 
 other passage he bids the disciples, in case of 
 their having any dispute, “ tell it to the 
 “ church')'. M In the first of these it is clear that 
 our Lord is only exhorting his apostles to be 
 diligent in propagating his gospel. It is as 
 clear, that, in the latter, he is speaking of con¬ 
 tests about temporal concerns, which he would 
 not have us pursue with too great earnestness. 
 As to the fact of the Romish church having always 
 been on such an eminence that she could at 
 all times be resorted to, and known as the true 
 one; that is, as weak as the rest of their pre- 
 ' tences. During the persecution under Diocle- 
 sian, the church at large was so oppressed that 
 her very existence could hardly be ascertained. 
 And, at a subsequent period, the whole church of 
 Rome, with the pope at their head, were Arlans. 
 It has been well asked, where was to be found, 
 at those periods, the boasted splendour and the 
 orthodoxy of that church, with all her visible 
 graces 18 ? 
 
 * Matt. v. 14. + Matt, xviii. 17- 
 
 »8 There a tune in the Jewish church, when the Scriptures 
 were not to be found, or had not for many years been opened. See 
 2 Kings xxii. Does not this bear some analogy to the state of 
 the Christian church under the popes in the dark ages? Yet, both the 
 Jewish and the Christian church survived these their respective era* 
 of desolation, It has also been asked, what became of this visibility 
 
1S4 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 The same question would apply to the claim 
 of infallibility. But, indeed, we might first de¬ 
 sire our adversaries to define with whom this 
 infallibility resides, with popes or with councils? 
 separate or united? For, upon this point, there 
 is, and has been, an endless diversity of opinion- 
 We might ask them further, how such a suppo¬ 
 sition is reconcileable with their many and no- 
 x torious schisms, their disputed elections, their 
 popes and anti-popes, as to most of whom it is 
 to this day matter of uncertainty which was the 
 true, and which the false pretender to infallibi¬ 
 lity 39 ? As to the texts which they adduce, of 
 
 as well as infallibility of the Romish church during the many 
 schisms by which she was torn, one set of'popes excommunicating 
 the other, particularly that long period alluded to in the text, when 
 one pretender to the government of this same infallible church was 
 at Rome, and the other at Avignon, which lasted for half a cen¬ 
 tury. Of these schisms, thirty are reckoned up. See Stillingfleet 
 on Idolatry, c. 5, § 6, and Preserv. against Popery, tit. i. p. 6. 
 
 ' ' ■ * * * ' ■ * > ' •. - • r / 
 
 There is no man who has opened a book on the subject, but 
 must have observed how hard the Romanists are driven, when call- 
 ed upon to point out where this infallibility resides. Some say in 
 popes, some in councils, and some in popes and councils uniting to¬ 
 gether. We are now told by an Irish archbishop of that com¬ 
 munion, that, when a council is not sitting, it resides in the pope, 
 y but that the infallibility is not ascertained until the doctrine or con¬ 
 stitution promulgated has been acquiesced in bv a majority of the 
 bishops of the church. What time is allowed for this acqui¬ 
 escence, or how Jong the infallibility continues m abeyance after the 
 promulgation of the constitution vve are not told. One thing 
 we know, that the bishops profess themselves to be the subjects of 
 *he pope, and take an oath at their consecration to observe alj hi* 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 185 
 
 the promises of our Saviour, that £C he will be 
 t( with us to the end of the world,” and that 
 “ the gates of hell shall not prevail against his 
 “ church,” Any man must see that these are 
 only general assurances, and that they hold out 
 only final success. 
 
 •j 
 
 Without further descanting upon them, I will, 
 therefore, confine myself to stating briefly what 
 I conceive to be the doctrine of protestants up¬ 
 on those subjects. 
 
 We do then most firmly believe that Christ will 
 be with his church to the end of the world ; that, 
 under whatever cloud he may suffer the light at 
 any time to be obscured, whether through the 
 malice of outward enemies or the corruptions of 
 Christians themselves, it will always, in due 
 season, break forth, it will, sooner or later, 
 enlighten the world far and near. In particu¬ 
 lar, we acknowledge it to be an effect of that 
 gracious Providence which thus watches over 
 the faithful, that we have been enabled to free 
 ourselves from the shackles which had been im¬ 
 posed upon us by the church of Rome, and from 
 the corruptions and abominations with which 
 
 i constitutions. So, what choice they can have, or what judgment 
 is left them to exercise, may, indeed, puzzle any common man to 
 determine. See more of this in the “ Reply to the Observations of 
 “ Dr. Milner,” p. 55 , and Dr. Troy’s Pastoral Letter, 1 793 , p. 73 , 
 and 76- This was the opinion of Butler also, a late titular arch¬ 
 bishop of Ireland. See his “ Lives of the Saints.” Part iv. p. 36‘c). 
 
 / 
 
J 86 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 we had been contaminated in the course of our 
 communion with her bishops. 
 
 We al so believe, that there has always been a 
 church of Christ existing and visible upon earth, 
 though not always easy to be distinguished. 
 Nay, we allow that church to have existed even 
 under the papacy; for, as it has been truly 
 said, a man infected with a leprosy, is still a 
 man; our church, therefore, was always sub¬ 
 sisting, even in the dark ages, though diseased. 
 God gave us grace at length to shake off the 
 diseases with which we had thus been infected; 
 we rid ourselves at the reformation of our many 
 heresies, the most pestilent of which, because it 
 was the source of all the others, was this su¬ 
 premacy of the popes. Thus the English church 
 is, and has continued essentially the same, from 
 the first conversion of the Britons to Christi¬ 
 anity down to the present hour. She has, in¬ 
 deed, suffered from within and without, she has 
 stood many an assault, and been greatly impair¬ 
 ed at times, both in strength and beauty ; but, 
 blessed be God, she survives, and is, according 
 to my firm and conscientious belief, the truest 
 model of an apostolical church now existing, as 
 near to perfection, in her theory at least, as, 
 perhaps, any church made up of fallible men 
 can hope to be, while we continue in this world. 
 
 X have now, I trust, shewn with sufficient 
 clearness,though briefly, that the claims of the 
 
S E R M O N IV. 
 
 187 
 
 popes have no foundation, either in Scripture or 
 in the practice of antiquity. I have shewn also, 
 upon how different a footing stands the question 
 between us and the papists from what it does 
 between us and the protestant dissenters. For, 
 according to what I have thus laid before you, 
 as well from the practice of all antiquity, as 
 from Scripture, and I may add, (for, indeed, all 
 the works of God harmonize together,) from 
 the nature of the thing, that we, as forming no 
 part of the national church of Rome could not 
 be bound to pay any obedience to that see, nor 
 to govern ourselves by her decrees. We could 
 only be connected with her in that common 
 bond of charity and of fellowship which should 
 join together all the churches of Christ; and 
 which will al ways subsist, where it is not broken 
 by any fundamental errors in doctrine, or by 
 extravagant and inadmissible claims of superi¬ 
 ority or of independence on the one part or on 
 the other. 
 
 But, as to the body of English dissenters, 
 they, as born within her bosom, are, or should 
 be, according to the same usage of antiquity, 
 language of Scripture, and nature of the thing, 
 members of our church; and as such, are bound 
 to conform to her discipline. This, indeed, 
 neither they nor any other individuals are bound 
 to do tc every extent; for, as I have before ad¬ 
 mitted, they may shew, if such were the case, 
 
18$ 
 
 SERMON IV. 
 
 that the terms of communion which she requires 
 are contrary to God’s word, and that they can¬ 
 not continue in conformity to her without en¬ 
 dangering their eternal salvation. Certainly, a 
 case of that kind, properly made out, would be 
 a sufficient excuse and ground of separation. 
 Rut, this is what has never been made out ; no, 
 nor ever pretended by the greater part of the 
 dissenters. They have, therefore, been obliged 
 to recur to such principles as I have before 
 shewn to militate not only against all ecclesias¬ 
 tical discipline, but against the very words of 
 Scripture. 
 
 On the other hand, and in the second place, 
 we are prepared to shew that the church of 
 Rome did, and does exact from all her mem¬ 
 bers such terms as are both sinful and danger¬ 
 ous, that they are such as therefore would have 
 justified us, even if we had been a part of her 
 particular church, in separating from her; nay, 
 would have made it our duty, as it is the duty 
 of every one of her members at this day, to 
 break from her communion. 
 
 And this is what I shall in my two next dis¬ 
 courses insist upon, both for the sake of con¬ 
 firming those who hear me, in the true and 
 genuine principles of the reformation, as also 
 for the sake of our brethren who remain within 
 the pale of that church, and who, indeed, if 
 any particular proof were wanting of their being 
 
SERMON IV. 
 
 189 
 
 what they are, appear from some late publications 
 of two of their bishops' 9 , to be still kept in the 
 same gross ignorance of the true principles of 
 Christianity, to be still in “ the very gall of 
 u bitterness*.” To endeavour to cha^e that dark¬ 
 ness from their eyes, is certainly whenever 
 the opportunity offers, our duty; though shut 
 out and guarded as they are from access to the 
 true light, it is a task little better than hopeless. 
 One way, indeed, there is, which is open to us 
 at all times, and which mtist be profitable for 
 that as for every good purpose. Let us not 
 only preach the good doctrine, but practise it. 
 Let us, therefore, not spare to pray God that he 
 would graciously assist us in these as in all our 
 endeavours to serve him ; that thus, under the 
 guidance of his Holy Spirit, and to the edifica¬ 
 tion and instruction even of those who hold 
 
 \ 
 
 us in execration and contempt, “ our light may 
 “ so shine before men, that they may see our 
 “ good works, and glorify our Father which is 
 “ in Heaven.” 
 
 ■ f « . i.. 
 
 ” Dr. Troy’s Pastoral Letter, and Dr. Milner’s various publi¬ 
 cations. 
 
 * Acts viii. 23. 
 
C *90 ) 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 2 Tim. iii. 5 . 
 
 Having a Form of Godliness, but denying the 
 
 Power thereof. 
 
 There is a wonderful resemblance, as I have 
 already had an opportunity of pointing out, be¬ 
 tween the heresies of the earlier ages, and those 
 of modern times. Error, indeed, and more 
 especially religious error, in all its endless va¬ 
 rieties, almost always proceeds from the same 
 motives, tends to the same ends, and works 
 by the same means. We must not be surprised, 
 therefore, if we find the false teachers among 
 the first Christians, recommending themselves 
 to their disciples by nearly the same pretences 
 
SERMON V. iq l 
 
 as were held forth by those who, in later ages, 
 have succeeded them in the great career oF im¬ 
 position and fraud. We shall find, in particu¬ 
 lar, what I hinted in my first discourse, to be 
 true, that the greatest dangers to which the true 
 religion has been exposed, have proceeded, not 
 so much from those who openly rejected its 
 doctrines, as from those who partly held, and 
 by corrupting, undermined the faith. True 
 piety and true devotion are, indeed, by the ap¬ 
 pointment of our gracious Maker, so congenial 
 with the mind of man, that they are readily re¬ 
 ceived, and not without great difficulty parted 
 with. Even they who are the most dissolute 
 and abandoned in their lives, who, the most en¬ 
 tirely in practice cast off the fear of God and 
 the belief of his word, do yet seldom venture 
 publicly to avow, or unqualifiedly to profess that 
 they do so. And this is shewn even in the most 
 avowed adversaries and oppugners of the truth. 
 For atheism has never been to any great extent, 
 or, at least, has not continued for any length of 
 time to he in fashion. On the contrarv, the 
 most powerful attacks upon Revelation which 
 have been made in our days have originated 
 with those who affected a great zeal for the ho¬ 
 nour of God, and declared their only anxietv 
 to be the reclaiming of mankind from what 
 they called superstition, and the confining of 
 them strictly to that knowledge of their Make?. 
 
192 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 ✓ 
 
 which, they said, was implanted in us by na¬ 
 ture, and which they pretended, therefore, could 
 not mislead. It is not my business, at presents 
 to shew how falsely this, was pretended, and 
 how little of certainty, or of any thing approach¬ 
 ing to it, there is in cl ism. I only mention this, 
 as one proof among the many which might be 
 adduced, of the conviction wh’n h universally 
 prevails, that there is no destroying the true 
 religion, but hy substituting something in its 
 place. “The form of godliness” must, we see, 
 he sought after and assumed, even hy those who 
 most “ deny the power thereof/’ Let the 
 phantom be ever so unsubstantial, some object 
 more or less determinate there must be to engage 
 the minds of men, in the absence of a better 
 principle. Where there is not this lure of a 
 higher and more refined sort of knowledge 
 held out, the mode which is most frequently 
 adopted, for catching the attention of the weak¬ 
 er brethren, is that of affecting and teaching a 
 more rigorous sanctity of manners, or some 
 novel and striking species of devotion. The 
 imagination is to be engaged, either by grossly 
 visible objects and a higher degree of pomp and 
 external ceremony/ or some new mode of ap¬ 
 proaching God, no matter whether more easy, 
 or more apparently difficult; often, by a shew 
 of bodily mortification and self-denial, carried 
 to a surprising pitch. 
 
193 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 This, indeed, forms a prominent feature in 
 the history of all false religions; we trace the 
 principle, not only in the horrible sacrifices of¬ 
 fered up to Moloch, in the priests of Cybele, 
 and the vestal virgins of old, but in the faquirs 
 and the bonzes of these days, whose voluntary 
 sufferings and dreadful penances exceed even all 
 that is told, whether truly or falsely, of the her= 
 mits and the ascetics of the earlier as well as of 
 the darker ages. The fact is, that whatever is 
 difficult to be achieved or to be borne is apt to 
 impress us with an idea of merit, and there will 
 never be wanting ambitious or vain persons, 
 who, for the sake of the distinction which it 
 may procure them, will endure the severest 
 hardships. But, besides, experience tells us, 
 that the greater part of mankind find it more 
 easy to make even the most painful but deter¬ 
 minate sacrifice, than to renounce a favourite vice, 
 or abstain from any indulgence of passion which 
 is become habitual. “ Will the Lord be pleased 
 “ with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands 
 <c of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first bom for 
 <c my transgression, the fruit of my body for the 
 “ sin of my soul?” Such was the proferred devo¬ 
 tion of those who were reminded that their 
 duty was of a more reasonable, and, one would 
 have thought, a more easy sort. He hath 
 
 u shewed thee, () man, what is good, and now 
 what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do 
 
 o 
 
194 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 \ 
 
 “ justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly 
 “ before thy God*?” 
 
 Such was the language of the prophet, even 
 under the old dispensation, which, being a 
 covenant of works, might, with some reason 
 have been supposed to exact severer and more 
 painful terms of obedience than those which 
 were to succeed under the new covenant. We 
 might well, therefore, be surprised, if, under this, 
 which was a covenant of grace, and, of course, 
 in its very terms more favourable and mild, any 
 such misconception of that which God delights 
 in should have been found to prevail. This, how¬ 
 ever, is the very error, which, even in the days 
 of the apostles, and by them, was complained 
 of. The pure service which the disciples of Christ 
 were bound to offer, very soon became, from its 
 simplicity and unaffected plainness, an offence 
 to those who are always requiring some great 
 
 thingf.” The vain and the foolish, as well as 
 the sensual, were soon brought to undervalue . 
 that which had no recommendation of outward 
 shew or performance, and to engraft their own 
 wild conceits upon the eternal word of God. 
 Thus the Judaizing Christians of the apostolic 
 age maintained, as we have seen, that the ob¬ 
 servances of the law were still to subsist after 
 the coming of our Lord, as before; they deter- 
 
 * Micah vi. 6, 7, 8. 
 
 f S Kings v. 13. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 195 
 
 mined still to continue subject to that ie yoke 
 c< which neither their fathers nor they were able 
 “ to bear*.'” And, it is upon the very same 
 principle, that, by the bishops of Rome in later 
 days, every encouragement has been given to 
 the superinduction of useless and burthensome 
 ceremonies; that penances have been imposed, 
 and a wonderful merit has been ascribed to 
 mortifications and austerities of all kinds ; and 
 thus the attention of even sincere believers has 
 been drawn away from the practice of piety and 
 of charity, and their worship has been made, in 
 a great measure, to terminate in objects not 
 only of mere human institution, but often mani¬ 
 festly derogating from the honour of God, and 
 set up in opposition to his commandments. 
 
 The motive and the end in both cases were 
 the same; they only differed in the degree to 
 which the corruption was carried. The teachers 
 marked out by St. Paul, did, indeed, “ creep 
 t£ into houses and lead captive silly womenf.’* 
 But the bishops of Rome flew at a higher and 
 more extended quarry; they grasped at no less 
 than the empire of the world. Still the aim 
 of the one and of the other (as perhaps' it has 
 been of every sectary,) was the acquisition of 
 wealth and of power. In the prosecution of 
 their object, it will be seen with what wonderful 
 
 * Acts xv. 10. 
 
 f 2 Tin\. iii. 6. 
 p c 2 
 
196 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 dexterity successive popes have worked upon 
 the credulity of mankind, and laid, as it were, 
 every human infirmity under contribution. Of 
 the different superstitions which were pressed 
 into their service, some might have been consi¬ 
 dered as only foolish or indifferent, if it had not 
 been for the end to which they were employed; 
 but others were, in the very nature of them, abo¬ 
 minable and impious; since, however disguised 
 and masked, it is impossible to consider them in 
 anv other light than that of gross idolatry, and as 
 in various ways derogating from the sufficiency of 
 theatonement by Christ. Others there are, which, 
 under “ a form of godliness,” led, almost un¬ 
 avoidably, to dissoluteness of morals. Out of 
 all these, when arrived to their full maturity, 
 and then only, turned into articles of faith, was 
 engendered, as I have formerly observed, that 
 monster which mav be considered as the con- 
 
 j 
 
 summation of all. Persecution, in all its various 
 forms was let loose, so that no man should be suf¬ 
 fered to exist who had not received the mark of 
 u the beast*.” Those who only expressed a wish, 
 who only ventured to breathe a sigh after a purer 
 worship, were considered as rebels against the 
 v cegerent of God, and as the most dangerous 
 of offenders. They were vexed and harassed 
 in ail manner of ways, cast into dungeons, 
 driven into exile, or committed to the flames. 
 
S E R M O N V. 
 
 197 
 
 Thus was the empire of this usurping- power 
 established in blood, and became almost uni¬ 
 versally trimphant, til!, at length, the impu¬ 
 dence with which its abominations were prac¬ 
 tised, and the length to which they were car¬ 
 ried, shocked the common sense of mankind, 
 and Providence was pleased to raise up a suc¬ 
 cession of zealous men, by whose exertions 
 many kingdoms were rescued from the bondage 
 in which they were held; and stations were thus 
 secured from which the genuine light of the 
 gospel might be made to dawn upon ail those 
 whose eyes were not obstinately or forcibly shut 
 against the truth. 
 
 Such is the nature of the abuses, from the 
 practice of which, our ancestors, by the grace 
 of God, were enabled to withdraw, while with 
 many a hard and painful struggle they obtained 
 for us, as for themselves, the comfort and the 
 liberty of worshipping God according to the 
 way which he has enjoined in his word. This 
 it was, which, while it imposed upon us the ne¬ 
 cessity and the duty of reformation, did yet 
 only by consequence separate us from our bre¬ 
 thren of the Romish persuasion. For, certain 
 it is, and it cannot be too often repeated, it was 
 not we, but they, who made the division. Our 
 clergy, in the first years of the reign of our Eli¬ 
 zabeth, admitted to communion, without any 
 question, all those Romanists who chose to 
 
198 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 come, as most, if not all, of them came to our 
 places of public worship. This they continued 
 to do, until the pope, fearing, with good reason, 
 the effects which such habits might produce, 
 forbad them so to do; and this at the very 
 moment when he thundered out his anathemas 
 against our sovereign, and laid the kingdom 
 under an interdict. 
 
 We have it, therefore, in our power to say, 
 as has been said, that, in that view, and as 
 members of the Catholic church, it is they that 
 have forsaken us, and not we them ; so that, 
 in every possible way, we are warranted in re¬ 
 torting upon them the charge of schism, since 
 to them, properly and in every point of view, it 
 belongs. I have, at the same time, admitted, 
 that if circumstances had been different, if our 
 church, after the death of Queen Mary, had con¬ 
 tinued popish, it would have been the duty of 
 every man who valued his salvation, to separate 
 himself from her, and noc to touch the “ ac~ 
 “ cursed thing/’ I say, again, that if any dis¬ 
 senter can fix upon us any fundamental doc¬ 
 trine which is inconsistent with scripture, or even 
 any form or ceremony which is plainly contrary 
 to what is revealed, he will stand excused in 
 leaving us, he may, and ought to go where his 
 conscience may better he satisfied. 
 
 This it is which calls upon me to enter into a 
 particularity of detail which I should, perhaps. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 199 
 
 otherwise have avoided. It is become neces¬ 
 sary, again, to bring forward to notice, errors 
 so often refuted as to be considered, by most of 
 us at least, to be quite exploded. But there are 
 other circumstances also, already touched upon, 
 which make it expedient, nay, an absolute point 
 of duty, for us no longer to be indifferent or in 
 any degree negligent upon such subjects. 
 Popery, we need to be reminded, is not ex¬ 
 tinct. It has indeed, of late years, wonderfully 
 revived, and rears its crest in these realms with 
 all the ardour of confidence. But this can never 
 happen, the church of Rome can never maintain 
 her principles without the most direct and ab¬ 
 solute condemnation of ours. To her catechu¬ 
 mens, to those whom she is striving to pro¬ 
 selyte, she must and does represent us as rebels 
 against the divine authority, as wilful and inve- 
 terate oppugners of the truth 1 . That such at- 
 
 r 
 
 1 The reader may turn to wliat I have said in note 3 of the pre¬ 
 ceding sermon. It is not only Ward’s book which holds this sort 
 of language, but all the recent publications of the Romanists in 
 these kingdoms breathe the same spirit. In Dr. Milner’s Inquiry 
 ** into certain vulgar Opinions” just come out, the language of our 
 homilies is even reprobated as “ blasphemous.” “ Such,” says 
 this gentleman at p. 127, “ is the blessed change,” (speaking of 
 the destruction of a monastery,) “"which is blasphemously attributed 
 “ to the * light and spirit of God’ in the book of Homilies! and 
 t( for making which, the obscene and irreligious Henry is likened 
 " to the pious Josaphat, Josias, and Hesechias.” Horn. vol. 1. 
 Sermon on good Works, Part iii. I will add p. 34, (oi the lol. Ed.) 
 where the reader may see that the word “ pious” is not found. It 
 
 \ 
 
200 
 
 S E R M O N V. 
 
 tempts must always, however secretly and 
 quietly have been made, was in the nature of 
 things; but we may now, every one of us, 
 know for certain, that such is the case. Miracles 
 too are pretended to be wrought in testimony 
 of what is called the Catholic church, and every 
 endeavour is used to seduce individuals from 
 our communion". 
 
 is inserted, evidently in order to give a higher zest to the indecent 
 sarcasm which is here thrown out upon the Reformation. Had, 
 however, Henry been as “ obscene and irreligious” as Dr. Milner 
 and other papists represent him, he might, notwithstanding, be 
 “ God’s true and faithful minister,” nay, and enlightened by the 
 spirit of God” in doing the particular work to which he was ap¬ 
 pointed. Dr. M. if he reads his Bible, might recollect Jehu and 
 Cyrus, and other characters who are so described by the sacred 
 penmen, though they were, or became afterwards Idolaters, and so 
 open rebels against God. But this is a very slight specimen indeed, 
 of the abuse which this right reverend author, like the rest of hi 3 
 brethren, delights in heaping upon everyone of our old reformers. 
 This we find at p. 381. “ In this there is no mention of the nu- 
 
 “ merous and revolting blasphemies and immoralities’’ (immorali¬ 
 ties too !) “ with which the works of Luther and Calvin abound, 
 
 “ no notice of the perfidy, treason, and rebellion taught and prac- 
 tised b Y Cranmer, Ridley, Knox, and every head of the reforma- 
 “ tion in every country where it has prevailed,” &c. Perfectly 
 parallel to this is the language of Ward, in his,, Preface to the 
 Eirata, where he tells us that the first protestant translators of 
 the Bible were ( men of scandalous and notoriously wicked lives •” 
 and instances “ Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Cranmer, Tindal, 
 &c.” I believe, a more impudent and gross slander, never was 
 uttered by the mouth of man. 
 
 * One of these supposed miracles has been detailed with great 
 pomp by Dr. Milner as vicar apostolical for the middle district, 
 under tne tule ot Authentic Documents relative to the miraculous 
 
S E R M O N V. 201 
 
 It therefore behoves us, at least, who are en¬ 
 trusted with the cure of souls, not to slumber 
 
 cure of Winifred White of Wolverhampton, at St. Winifred '9 
 well, on the 28th of June,, 1005.’’ Printed by Keating and Co. 
 This good lady states herself to have been attacked with a disorder 
 which appears to have puzzled both the surgeon and the physician, 
 in more ways than one, and which, after about two years’ languish¬ 
 ing under it, she fancied might be removed by going to St. Wini¬ 
 fred’s well; and the event, it seems, answered her expectation. 
 She walked down to the well, with the greatest apparent difficulty, 
 and immediately upon being dipped into it, rose up perfectly 
 restored in health and strength. The protestant reader who reads 
 this curious production, with all the attestations, and even the la¬ 
 boured comments of the right reverend historian of this tale, will 
 see nothing in it but what may be accounted for by the not unna¬ 
 tural supposition of this woman’s having sufficient art and perse¬ 
 verance to carry through an imposture by which she might, in 
 many ways, be a gainer. I am informed by a most respectable 
 clergyman of the other branch of the United Church, that in Ire¬ 
 land such exhibitions are very common. One example of it in 
 former times I have met with and cannot help extracting from a 
 recantation sermon by Anthony Egan, late a Franciscan friar, and 
 general confessor in that kingdom, preached in London in the year 
 lG73. Speaking of the corruptions of popery, he says “ I may 
 “ tell you what offence I took at these vain stories which they 
 “ have of miracles, and especially when I discovered their grand 
 tf impostures therein. For, about seven years ago, a priest, near the 
 l< city of Limbreck, (Limerick,) by name William Sarchwell, had, 
 ic for fifty shillings, hired a woman to pretend herself a cripple from 
 “ her birth, and that she had a revelation that it she dipped her- 
 “ self in such a well, whilst the priest said mass, she should be 
 <c recovered of her infirmity. The plot thus laid, and accordingly 
 “ executed, she comes halting to the well, and returns out of it 
 “ perfectly cured,” (exactly as Winifred W r hite did,) “ which 
 “ became a miracle to the people,’’ (here, it is not only a miracle 
 to the people, but to the bishop,) (t which did not only get to the 
 “ cheat a vast sum of money, hut also confirmed the people in 
 
202 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 / 
 
 at our posts: we must at all times be ready “to 
 give an answer to them that ask a reason of 
 “ the faith that is in us*.” And we can nei¬ 
 ther defend ourselves from the charge which the 
 servants of the pope thus bring against us, nor 
 pr event our flock from being infected with false 
 doctrine, but by shewing that what we reject 
 is not rejected by us without cause ; that if we 
 loathe what they teach, it is because it runs 
 counter to the whole tenor of scripture and is 
 a manifest abomination in the sight of God. 
 
 The exposing of the false and pernicious tenets 
 of the Romish church may therefore be consi¬ 
 dered as being now especially our duty, not 
 only as we are bound at all times to oppose false¬ 
 hood and to maintain truth; but as it is again 
 become a necessary measure of self-defence, 
 ibis however will be found to be a task of no 
 great difficulty. Our predecessors have so dis¬ 
 tinguished themselves in this career as to leave 
 every facility to those who will only follow their 
 steps. They have provided such a store as well 
 as such a choice of weapons, as are fitted for all 
 occasions, and proof against every attack. Al- 
 
 “ their superstition. But after some time the counterfeit had some 
 “ remorse of conscience, and came to me to confession in order to 
 absolution,” (he was great penitentiary or confessor general) 
 • c which I would not grant till she had declared the whole story 
 “ to the congregation, which she did accordingly.” He tells of 
 •tiler miracles of the same sort, but this may suffice, 
 
 * 1 Peter iii. 15. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 2G5 
 
 though therefore, under the present circum¬ 
 stances, I think it proper to detain you for 
 some time upon this part of my subject, I do 
 not mean to dwell upon it at any great length. 
 To touch upon a few of the principal heads 
 
 may be sufficient. Indeed one radical and fun- 
 «/ 
 
 damental error, one corrupt doctrine, of the 
 nature and magnitude of those with which that 
 church is over-run, would of itself be a suffi¬ 
 cient cause for any separation ; much more for 
 such a separation as ours, which in truth as I 
 have already proved requires no apology. If we 
 shew the church of Rome, but in one point to 
 be anti-christian, we stand sufficiently justified 
 in this respect even if no other communion were 
 in question than that which is becoming arid 
 desirable for all independent churches to have 
 with each other. Rut we are doubly justified 
 when the demand which she makes upon us, is, 
 not only to meet her upon equal terms, and to 
 give her the right hand of fellowship, but abso¬ 
 lutely to submit ourselves to her will, and to 
 pay unreserved obedience to her decrees: for 
 this would be wilfully and wantonly to follow 
 after error, and, as the apostle says, et to make 
 “ ourselves the servants of corruption.” This 
 would be, as the same scripture goes on, “ to 
 “ make our latter end worse than the begin- 
 “ ning*.” 
 
 *2 Peter ii. 19, 20. 
 
I 
 
 204 SER M O N V. 
 
 We say then, that it is impossible for us to 
 join in communion with the church of Rome, 
 nay, that she is to be avoided as an abomina¬ 
 tion; that every man is bound at his peril, to 
 “ come out of her.” 
 
 First, because she is idolatrous. 
 
 And this idolatry is shewn not only in the 
 invocation of the saints and the honour paid to 
 images and relics, but most avowedly and di¬ 
 rectly in the adoration of the bread and wine 
 at the celebration of the mass. 
 
 Secondly, because she derogates in various 
 ways from the sufficiency of our Lord’s atone¬ 
 ment, and so as much as in her lies, she “makes 
 “ the cross of Christ of none effect*.” 
 
 And this she does by the efficacy which she 
 attributes to the merits of her saints, as well as 
 by the ability which she declares to be in every 
 man to effect even more than his own salvation. 
 
 Thirdly, because she entertains notions and 
 inculcates ideas of Christian perfection, not only 
 erroneous in themselves but in their conse¬ 
 quences highly pernicious: as they almost in¬ 
 evitably lead to great dissoluteness of manners, 
 and at least divert the attention of mankind from 
 the real and essential duties of faith and charity, 
 to practices the most useless and trifling, and 
 even ridiculous. 
 
 * 1 Cor. i. 17. 
 
S E R M O N V. 
 
 205 
 
 And this is shewn in the peculiar and extra¬ 
 vagant honour which she ascribes to virginity; 
 in the consequent denial of marriage to the 
 clergy; in the institution of monastic orders; 
 and in the extraordinary efficacy which she at¬ 
 tributes to a punctual compliance with her rules 
 and ceremonies, and more especially the sub¬ 
 mitting to extreme and painful acts of volun¬ 
 tary penance and unnecessary mortification. 
 
 That this does by no means comprehend the 
 whole catalogue of her errors, not even many 
 of the grosser sort, will be easily perceived: but 
 some of them, such, for example, as her ad¬ 
 herence to pretended traditions, even in oppo¬ 
 sition to the commandments of God ; her pray¬ 
 ing in an unknown tongue, and denying to the 
 laity the use of the scriptures, and of all contro¬ 
 versial writings, except by special permission, 
 may rather be regarded as means by which she 
 carried her purposes into effect than as original 
 corruptions: and they will properly form a se¬ 
 parate class and come to be considered by 
 themselves. I shall also as I go along have oc¬ 
 casion to observe upon that great and funda¬ 
 mental taint which runs through the whole, 
 that the end which she has uniformly kept in 
 view, whether in devising or in adopting these 
 corruptions of the true doctrine, has been the 
 advancement of her power and the increase of 
 her wealth: more especially the exultation of 
 
206 
 
 S E RMON V. 
 
 the pope above every human authority : even to 
 the conferring upon him honours and titles 
 which could not be assumed without the high- 
 est presumption, not to say actual impiety*. 
 
 3 Lot to mention those common titles of ee God s vicar’ 5 and 
 Christ’s vicar,’ 5 and his ordinary appellation of “most holy fa¬ 
 ther, he has in many cases assumed the power and even the style 
 ot God himself, as may be seen in Mr. Granville Sharp’s inquiry 
 founded on the tenth chapter of the Revelations. There is a re¬ 
 markable passage in Erasmus to this purpose. In a long note upon 
 theword ‘ c pjUTouoXoy icc" (in 1 Tim. i. 6.) after instancing many of 
 the questions in the schools, he goes on, “ Jain vero de Romani 
 pontificis potestate pene negotiosius disputatur quan de potestate 
 “ Dei, dum quaerimus de duplici illius potestate, et an possit abro- 
 “ gave quod scriptis apostolicis decretum est. An possit aliquid 
 “ statuere quod pugnet cum doclrina evangelica. An possit novum 
 “ articulum condere in fidei symbolo. Utrum majorem potesta- 
 “ tern habeat quam Petrus an parem. An possit prtecipere angelis. 
 “ An possit universum purgatorium, quod vocant, tollere. Utrum 
 “ simplex homo sit , an quasi Dcus. An participet utramque naturam cum 
 “ Christo. An clementior sit quam Jiizmt Christus % cum non legatur 
 “ Christum quenquam a purgatoriis paenis revocasse. An solus 
 omnium non possit errare. Scxccnta id genus disputantur mag- 
 “ nis editis voluminibus, &c.” He says too that this is done “ non 
 “ sine magna suspicione adulationis,” but supposes that Leo the 
 xCth could not be pleased with such flattery. The reader must 
 have observed particularly the impiety of making the pope “ quasi 
 *■ Decs,” in some sort a God, and not only setting him above Peter, 
 but doubting whether he was not more full of mercy than Christ, 
 since it is no where read that Christ ever delivered a soul out of 
 purgatory 1 r I hat these ideas are not worn out may be concluded 
 from what I am informed by a most respectable friend of mine who 
 has lived in Italy some years, and tells me that at Rome it is a com¬ 
 mon saying among the lower classes that “ the pope is greater than 
 “ God. “ II papa e piu che Dro per noi altri,” wa^ actually said 
 by a servant in his family* 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 207 
 
 1 will say further, that if I have not specifi¬ 
 cally mentioned the tenet of transubstantiation, 
 so notorious and so deservedly hateful, because 
 before that, more than any other idol, martyrs 
 have been sacrificed, and innocent blood has 
 been poured out, it is because I consider it as 
 substantially included in the adoration of the 
 mass; as indeed the establishment of the one 
 followed close upon the practice of the other. 
 If I have not neither mentioned purgatory nor 
 indulgences by name, it is because both of 
 them are so connected with the boasted sacra¬ 
 ment of penance, they both so essentially de¬ 
 pend upon the doctrine of merits, that there 
 is no treating of one of them without the other’s 
 also coming into discussion. 
 
 But there will remain other points to be ascer¬ 
 tained, or rather objections to be encountered 
 before we shall be suffered quietly to proceed to 
 a declaration of the doctrines which are pro¬ 
 fessed by the Romish church, or to reckon up 
 the corruptions with which both her faith and 
 her modes of worship are infected. With all 
 her boasts or infallibility, she has never dis¬ 
 claimed any accommodation to circumstances. 
 What could not be professed with impunity, or 
 without awakening suspicions which might be 
 prejudicial to her worldly interests, she has al¬ 
 ways allowed those of her sons upon whose at¬ 
 tachment she could rely to dissemble or to 
 
 1 
 
208 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 modify as they might find it convenient. Hence 
 has arisen the difficulty formerly mentioned by 
 me of fixing upon our adversaries the errors 
 which they hold, of bringing them fairly to 
 the contest. This system of evasion has by the 
 Jesuits in particular been followed to such a de¬ 
 gree and with so little shame and reserve (even 
 to the denying or dissembling the very distin¬ 
 guishing tenet of their order) that their name 
 has become proverbial for equivocation. But 
 it has also been the case, to a greater or less 
 extent, with every description of their teachers: 
 nay, with every individual who had leisure or 
 ability to join in what was considered as the 
 common cause. There were indeed, ages be¬ 
 fore the reformation, and there are even now, 
 countries where argument may be overborne by 
 authority, where silence may be enjoined under 
 the penalty of death or of torment; but, among 
 happier nations, where inquiry cannot be stifled, 
 other arts must be resorted to. When pressed 
 therefore with the absurdity, with the evil ten¬ 
 dency, with the impiety of their doctrines, the 
 Romanists seldom hesitate to disclaim what 
 they cannot defend ; at the same time all that 
 is atrocious is softened down, all that is gdarinsr 
 coloured over with a thousand specious pre¬ 
 tences. When necessary, even the authority of 
 councils is disputed, and frivolous and false 
 distinctions are made between canons of discip- 
 
S E R M O N V. 
 
 209 
 
 1 • - 
 
 line and of doctrine. At one time we are told 
 
 that a tenet is not binding because only the 
 decree of an individual pope, then another is 
 held to be unsound because the council where 
 it was declared was in some respect faulty, or 
 not approved by the infallible head of the 
 church. In one moment it is declared that this 
 
 •T * ** ■ ^ 
 
 same church will not endure any the least tam- 
 
 ' ' - j A / i . 
 
 pering with her discipline by unauthorized indi¬ 
 viduals, of course not by the laity: and in the 
 next we are informed, perhaps by the same man, 
 that whatever popes or councils may decree, is 
 of no validity unless it be received and {by the 
 legislature, that is of course by lawmen) allowed 
 in each particular country. When all fails re¬ 
 crimination is employed, and circumstances 
 partly real and partly supposed, are adduced, 
 which when examined appear most manifestly 
 either not to apply at all, or to have taken place 
 under the influence of popery operating upon 
 its very adversaries 4 . - , 
 
 * Of all these different modes of evasion the reader will see num¬ 
 berless instances if he will only turn to the contest between Arch¬ 
 bishop Wake and Bossuet, or rather the defenders of Bossuet, and 
 the other tracts which follow in the beginning of the 3d Vol. of 
 Preservatives against Popery. Bossuet’s expositions and the other 
 tract lately reprinted here, entitled, u A Papist represented and 
 
 ** misrepresented,” are there particularly refuted. More of this 
 sort of fencing may be seen in Dr. Milner’s controversy with Dr. 
 Sturges, and his later publications, as well as the Remarks on the 
 Bishop of Dudtam’s Charge ; as also in my Remarks upon thorn in 
 
 P 
 
 i 
 
210 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 Upon the various ways in which this sort of 
 spirit is manifested, I shall have occasion to 
 observe as 1 go along: but there are two or 
 three general observations which it will not be 
 amiss to make in the very beginning, and to 
 bring forward as a sort of protest against all 
 such attempts to mislead. 
 
 In the first place we must be allowed most 
 pointedly and decidedly to insist, that jn argu¬ 
 ing upon a religion which was avowedly in¬ 
 tended, as for all sorts of men, so especially for 
 the poor, we have a right to take it as it is un¬ 
 derstood and practised by the people at large; 
 at least as it is suffered by the pastors and doc¬ 
 tors to be by their flocks understood-and prac¬ 
 tised. It is in vain for them* to tell us that such 
 and such uses .of images and relics, or such 
 and such ideas of indulgences are erroneously 
 imputed to them, if we can with truth say that 
 they are the uses which prevail and the ideas 
 which are entertained by the great body of that 
 communion, by the weak and the ignorant 
 Still more have we a right to say, if the fact 
 will bear us out, as it certainly will, that, let 
 the use or the idea be as mistaken as it. may, it 
 must pass for that which is authorized, until it 
 he shewn that by authority the mistake is point- 
 
 the “Sequel to the Serious Examination,’* and “Reply to Dr. 
 u Milner’s Observations.” 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 211 
 
 •I 0 
 
 ed out and the error corrected : and that too in 
 such a way as to prevent any possible misunder¬ 
 standing on the part of the most unlearned. 
 
 But, secondly, we may with truth allege, 
 that any subterfuge or ambiguity is more espe¬ 
 cially not to be tolerated in a church which lays 
 such extraordinary stress upon the necessity of 
 certainty in doctrine; whose great argument for 
 the recognition of one infallible head wholly 
 rests upon this principle, that without such an 
 oracle to resort to, it will be impossible to be 
 satisfied what is to be believed, or to be prac¬ 
 tised. I hat the least degree of allowance in 
 this respect becomes still more preposterous 
 when we recollect that she contends not only 
 for a visible but an infallible head; when she 
 distinctly asserts that she never can be deceived. 
 It is sufficient therefore for those who oppose 
 her to shew that at some time or other she has 
 taught the doctrine or advanced the proposi¬ 
 tion which is disputed ; because what she has 
 once maintained she cannot relinquish without 
 foregoing those pretensions to infallibility, 
 which, according to her own tenets, are inse¬ 
 parable from her existence. By her own act 
 she has placed herself in a situation where to 
 recede but one step is total defeat, to confess 
 but one error is self-destruction. 
 
 But the utter inadmissibility of any such mo¬ 
 difications as we have been speaking of, the in- 
 
 p 2 
 
SERMON V, 
 
 congruity of giving weight to any supposed 
 modern improvements in practice or refinements 
 in doctrine, will appear more strongly when the 
 point is considered with a view to the very ques¬ 
 tion which we are agitating, to that which is 
 the avowed subject of these discourses. For 
 the inquiry which we are now pursuing is whe¬ 
 ther our national church was rightly founded 
 in separating herself from the church of Rome 
 at the era of the reformation : in other words, 
 
 to which of the churches must be imputed the 
 
 / 
 
 schism which then took place. If therefore we 
 
 were to allow that ever so great a change for 
 
 the better had in later times been effected in 
 
 the faith as well as in the discipline of that 
 
 church, and if we should forbear to press upon 
 
 her that consequence of her own pretensions 
 
 which effectually debars her from making use 
 
 of such a plea; if, in short, we were, in excess of 
 
 candour and of charitv, to make it for her, still 
 
 •/ 
 
 it would be of no avail. It would and must 
 still be of no importance to the matter in dis¬ 
 pute, since it could never tend to shew that our 
 Henry and Elizabeth were schismatics, or that 
 Paul the 3d or Pius the 5th were justified in the 
 excommunications which they pronounced, and 
 the bulls which they issued in order to deprive 
 those sovereigns of their kingdoms. It is indeed, 
 I believe, very true that the reformation has had 
 a salutary effect even upon those by whom it is 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 213 
 
 most loudly condemned. The liberty with 
 which the Protestants have been necessarily led, 
 and have happily been empowered to reprove 
 and to expose the abominations which took 
 place in the Romish communion, has made a 
 certain degree of caution necessary even among 
 the most corrupt of her members. Of late 
 years decency has not been so grossly violated, 
 nor religion so shamefully insulted as it was ky 
 some popes at that very period, and still more 
 by the impudent debaucheries and erroneous 
 vices of many of those who had gone before. 
 And this improvement, whatever it may be, has 
 of course been carried farther in those countries 
 where, as with us, the Romanists bear but an 
 inconsiderable proportion in number to their 
 Protestant neighbours; where therefore any 
 gross immorality, any long or systematic per¬ 
 severance in the practice of scandalous vices 
 could scarcely escape observation. Still how¬ 
 ever let us admit as much of this as we may, let 
 us think as well as they would wish us to do of 
 the sincerity and purity of life of our misguided 
 brethren, we are still bound to repel every 
 claim which they would found upon such me¬ 
 rits: we may and must, if we would judge ac¬ 
 cording: to the real truth of the case, insist 
 upon going back to the period when the sepa¬ 
 ration took place ; we must ask the question, 
 decisive as it will what was the state of Te- 
 
214 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 ligion and morality among the adherents af po¬ 
 pery in the sixteenth century 5 ? 
 
 * The gross immoralities and abominations practised by many of 
 the popes are recorded by their own historians. Every one must 
 know that the council of Constance was called for upon the ground 
 of a general and thorough reformation in the church being abso¬ 
 lutely necessary. Many writers of that time have left upon record 
 their strong sense of the abuses which they wished in vain to see 
 removed. Take one or two specimens from Nicholas de Cleman- 
 gis, a most learned and excellent doctor of those days. “ Tanta 
 est improborum in singulis professionibus exuberantia, ut vix 
 mille inter unus reperitur qui id quod sua professio exigit, sin- 
 ceriter faciat. Ouinetiam si simplex aliquis, si frugalis in col- 
 legio aliquo vel conventu latam et lubricam perditorum vitam 
 “ non sectetur, fabula ridicula caeteris efficitur, insolensque et sin¬ 
 gulars insanus aut hypocrita continuo appellatur, &c. De cor- 
 
 “ rupto statu ecclesise.” c. 25. But what is said in c. J5 goes 
 much beyond this. <c Jam illud, observo, quale est, quod plerisque 
 in dicecesibus rectores parochiarum ex certo et conducto cum 
 suis pradatis pretio passim et publice concubinas tei.mt?’’ 1 have- 
 read somewhere of a complaint made by certain of the clergy in a 
 diocese, that the bishop having established this sort of tax or com¬ 
 position upon the keeping of concubines, exacted it even from those 
 who preserved their chastity and required no such indulgence. 
 Gerson, Peter d’Ailly, and Espence (Espencseus) all of them great 
 names wrote to the same effect. And above all the reader should 
 consult two most curious reports made by certain prelates and car¬ 
 dinals commissioned to inquire into the state of the church. The 
 one made to Paul III. in 1538, and the other to Julius III. in 1553, 
 the originals of which are published in the Fasciculus rerum expel 
 tendarum et fugiendarum. Ed. Lond. 1690. Vol. ii. pp. 23J and 
 (k 4. In the former there is the following passage. <£ In hac 
 0 urhe,” (that h Rome) “ meretrices ut matron* incedunt per 
 urbem, sen mula vehuntur, quas assectantur de media die no- 
 biles famihares cardinalium clericique. Nulla in Urbe videmus 
 “ han( ; corru Ptionem praeterquam in hac omnium exemplari. 
 “ habitant etiam insignes aedes.” A translation of these reports* 
 
SERMON V. 215 
 
 The truth is however that no material change 
 has taken place: for the reasons already alleged 
 no such change can have taken place. The 
 doctrines of the church remain the same, and 
 upon what can a better practice be founded ? 
 “The tree,” as we had formerly occasion to 
 observe being “corrupt/’ what must “ the fruit” 
 
 be? 
 
 First then, the church ot Rome is idolatrous. 
 And she shews this idolatry, in the first in¬ 
 stance, in the worship of images and of reties. 
 The facts here will hardly be disputed. She has 
 images in her churches to which 01 hefoie 
 which the same sort of adoration is practised as 
 is paid to God himself. Incense is burned, can¬ 
 dles are lighted, vows and offerings are made : 
 men bow down to them. But here the pretence 
 is that the adoration is not paid to the image, 
 but to the being whom it represents. This how¬ 
 ever is a conclusion so far from being natural or 
 obvious to the understanding that the council 
 
 with a preface by Dr. Clagett, will be found in the first Volume of 
 the Preservatives against Popery, tit. i. p. 76 . Of this excellent 
 collection, from which the reader will see. that I have borrowed 
 largely, 1 can only say that it ought to be in every Protestant cler¬ 
 gyman’s library. I may say the same of the Fasiculus verum expe- 
 tendarum et fugiendarum, where the reader will find the several 
 treatises of the authors above mentioned. It is the more valua e 
 as the first compiler was a Roman catholic (Orthuinus Gratms) 
 though the appendix added by the London editor be perhaps the 
 
 most valuable part. * 
 
516 
 
 S E R M O N V. 
 
 of I rent while it ordered images to be retained 
 and due worship to be paid to them, while it 
 anathematized all those who shall presume to 
 maintain a contrary opinion, yet found it ne¬ 
 cessary as a sort ol salvo, expressly to declare 
 tnat tms is not because of any divinity or virtue 
 in the image itself. And in what is called the 
 Tient catechism the ministers of parishes are 
 directed to instruct the people upon this point, 
 as often as tne opportunity offers. All which 
 is a sufficient proof out of the mouth of our ad- 
 veisanes themselves of what we well know, that 
 the common people do really worship the image 
 itself when they kneel before it, and approach 
 it with any other act of devotion. 
 
 -out, if it were not so, if all the adoration 
 which is thus paid, were by every votary of the 
 image; leally and truly paid to the prototype: 
 what excuse is this but such as any heathen 
 might make, such as indeed was made by all 
 the opponents of Christianity in the first age si 
 When pressed with the absurdity of worshipping 
 idols, of making stocks and stones the objects 
 of their devotion, they answered as the Ro¬ 
 manists now do, tnat their worship was paid in 
 effect to the God, after whose likeness the image 
 was made or whom it represented. But this 
 was never allowed either by Origen, by Arno- 
 bius, or St. Austin, or any other of the fathers, 
 to be a sufficient or available plea. The truth 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 317 
 
 is moreover, that so far was this from being a 
 practice approved in the earlier ages, that it no 
 sooner appeared than it was expressly con¬ 
 demned. Nay, it pleased God that in this in¬ 
 stance also the very same pope who, as I have 
 mentioned in a former discourse, disclaimed the 
 supremacy soon afterwards usurped by his suc¬ 
 cessors, even that pope, a saint of their church, 
 should bear testimony against them and declare 
 himself against the practice*'. The third coun¬ 
 cil of Constantinople also, which was the first 
 council held on the subject, in the strongest 
 terms, as it is well known, condemned all such 
 worship : and, though the second council of 
 Nice soon after that made a contrary decision, 
 so far were the western churches from admit- 
 ing its authority, that a council was held at 
 Frankfort in opposition to it, where the old 
 
 and the true doctrine was maintained. If not- 
 
 • 
 
 withstanding the popes contrived afterwards to 
 gain their point, and procured the worship of 
 images to be adopted, this did not become ge- 
 neral till near a thousand years after Christ, and 
 we know how soon after that it came a^ain to 
 be called into question. 
 
 But could the advocates of the Romish church 
 produce ever so long and so continued a prac- 
 
 * Gregory the first. Lib. 9. Ep. 9. Indict. 4 . and see Moreton’s 
 Catholic Appeal, p. 28 . 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 tice in their favour, could they shew that, in¬ 
 stead of being rejected with abhorrence, this 
 doctrine had been embraced by all the fathers, 
 of what weight could it be, how could it stand 
 a moment in direct contradiction to the word 
 of God ? We have not forgotten, we hear every 
 clay, every day at least of solemn prayer, that 
 commandment which enjoins us f£ not to make 
 <c to ourselves any graven image, nor the like- 
 “ ness of any thing which is in heaven above, 
 
 * v . * 
 
 < ' r 
 
 “ or in the earth beneath, or in the water under 
 the earth/' “ not to how down to them, nor 
 “ worship them/' What need we then any dis¬ 
 tinctions or sophisms about the sort of worship 
 which is paid to images? Is it not here wholly 
 and entirely and in the strongest terms for¬ 
 bidden ? And that it was meant so to be, the 
 understanding of the whole Jewish nation, the 
 whole current of Scripture puts beyond all 
 doubt. There every species of idolatry, every 
 worshipping of any being under a visible form 
 is declared to be an abomination. In the very 
 delivery of that law the most express caution 
 was given, a comment impossible to be mis¬ 
 taken was added. “Take ye good heed to 
 “ yourselves/' said Moses, “for ye saw no 
 “ manner of similitude on the day when the 
 “ Lord spake to you in Horeb.” They were 
 not to worship even the true God under any 
 sensible representation. And that this was in 
 
1 
 
 SERMON V, 219 
 
 effect the crime of Aaron in Horeb, and of 
 Jeroboam in Dan and Bethel; that it was, in 
 truth, the worshipping of God under a likeness, 
 and not the going after false gods, in the strict 
 and proper sense of the word, which was their 
 offence, has by many of our divides been evi¬ 
 dently shewn 6 . 
 
 * See Stillingfleet on Idolatry, and the treatises of Wake and others 
 in the second and third Volume of Preservatives against Popery. 
 The only instances by which the Papists support themselves, are 
 that of the cherubims over the mercy seat and the brazen serpent. 
 But neither the one nor the other were to be. honoured or reve¬ 
 renced. When this came to be the case with the brazen serpent 
 Hezekiah brake it in pieces, 2 Kings xviii. 4. After alleging these 
 instances, however, the Trent catechism is lain to add, besides 
 what was quoted in the preceding note, that it is necessary to make 
 the people understand that images were therefore forbidden, lest by 
 worshipping them as gods , any derogation from the true worship of 
 God should take place. “ Superest igitur ut imagines ob earn rem 
 * ( vetitas interpretamur ne quid, simulachris quasi diis colendis, de 
 4t vero Dei cultu detraheretur.’’ Catechismus ubi sopr. § 33. 
 Again in the next section idolatry is defined to be “If idols or 
 “ images are worshipped as God “Si idola et imagines tanquam 
 “ Deus colantur,” &c. This is their great defence. That they do 
 
 t , 
 
 not worship or honour them as gods. So it is in the Vindication 
 of the Roman Catholic Tenets annexed to Ward’s Errata, &c. 
 spoken of before. They are ready, they tell us, to say, “ Cursed 
 te is he that commits idolatry, that prays to images or relics or 
 “ worships them for God.” Does not this sufficiently speak for 
 itself? Who is to answer that every weak and ignorant man who 
 sees other§kneel and who is directed himself to kneel before an image 
 shall observe the distinction ; that he shall never make the mistake 
 of giving them divine worship? More especially when they see cer¬ 
 tain images esteemed more holy and more greatly honoured than 
 others ? Was the Diana of Ephesus more super-eminently honoured 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 But of the strict obligation of this law we 
 need perhaps no other proof than the mode 
 which our adversaries have taken to evade it. 
 For this purpose an improper division of the 
 decalogue has been adopted. According to 
 this the second commandment is made a mere 
 
 h * ^ 
 
 appendage to the first 7 . By this two advan- 
 
 &mong the Greeks than our lady of Loretto among the Papists ? 
 There are I believe also many images which boast a descent frori) 
 heaven as well as that; or at least thousands of relics which are 
 asserted to have been miraculously discovered. How little this was 
 countenanced by the primitive fathers may be seen in Whitbv’s 
 Worship of the Church of Rome justly condemned. Preservatives 
 against Popery, tit. vi. as well as Stillingfleet. But I will insert one 
 passage from Tertullian, as it directly combats their vain distinction 
 between images and idols ; upon the ground of which we are ac¬ 
 cused of perverting Scripture, because we translate the second com¬ 
 mandment, “ Thou shalt not make any graven image ,” instead of 
 thing.' The father is arguing against every species of idolatry in 
 the most comprehensive sense : and he adds, “ It is necessary to 
 “ observe the meaning of the word eiSos* In the Greek it stands 
 for form (forma) from whence the diminutive eiSooXov being de¬ 
 rived, equally makes with us a smaller form (formula). “ Igitur 
 “ omnis forma vei formula idoluin se dici exposcit. Inde idolola- 
 “ tria omnis circa idolum famulatus et servitus.” “Therefore all 
 e ‘ forms or representations of things whether great or small, require 
 11 to be distinguished by the nanje of idol. Hence every sort of alien - 
 “ dance or service about an idol is idolatry." De Idololatria, c. 3. 
 Can any words by more strong or precise? And will the Papists 
 explain tnis away as they in vain attempt to do the words of Gregory 
 the 1st. That eiStvtor is in fact the same as “image,’’ contrary 
 to another distinction of theirs, take the authority of ITomcr, 
 
 T^Ae as Eipyovwv $vyjxi ziSio'acc xa^ovrevv. IA. vp. 72. 
 
 1 °r this they shelter themselves under the authority of Austin, 
 
 1 might say his solitary authority, for he is only supported by Fui- 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 <!0 t 
 
 f4m 
 
 tages arc intended to be gained. First, an op¬ 
 portunity is given, as they think of restricting 
 the prohibition to idols in the strictest sense: 
 that is to images of false gods: because it is 
 said that to the forbidding of false gods only 
 the first commandment refers; and, it what 
 follows is only meant in die way of explanation 
 or comment, it can relate only to the same 
 subject. Whereas if the second commandment 
 be taken as a distinct precept, it can 1 mean no* 
 
 gentius near two centuries after. All the other ancient fathers, and 
 Josephus and Philo among the Jews, are against them. 1 ne reader 
 may consult Stillingfleet and Whitby’s tract above cited, p. 268 . 
 But even Austin seems at last to have come round to the better 
 opinion; for although in some of his earlier works he makes the 
 first table to compnze only three commandments, and mr tub. 
 quaint reason that it should correspond with the number of persons 
 in the Trinity, Sermo de Decern Chordis, Vol. v. p. 38 . \et in 
 a better hour he reckons them up evidently as we do. In the tract, 
 « contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum.” Lib. Hi. § 10. He is ar¬ 
 guing for the observance of the moral part of the law, and instances 
 the decalogue, which requires active performance, excepting, says 
 he, the carnal observance of the sabbath, which signifies spiritual 
 sanctification and rest. “ For,” he goes on, “ who will say that 
 “ Christians are not bound to observe that to the or^e God only 
 “ religious worship is to be paid, that an idol is not to be wor- 
 “ shipped, that God’s name is not to betaken in vain, that parents 
 S( are to be honoured, that adulteries, murders and thefts are not to 
 “ be committed, nor false witness borne, and that the whe or any 
 << thing else belonging to others shall not be coveted? f ‘ Ut uni 
 “ Deo religionis obsequio serviatur, ut idolum non colatur, ut no- 
 ■*« men Domini non accipiatur in vanum, ut parentes honorentur, 
 <c ne adulteria, homicidia, furta. Falsa testimonia perpenentui. ne 
 tc uxor ne omnino res ulla concupiscatur aliena. 
 
222 
 
 S E R M O N" V. 
 
 thing but a positive condemnation of all image- 
 worship whatsoever. A second advantage 
 which is procured by thus classing this part 
 01 toe decalogue is that the precept is more 
 easily kept out of sight. It cannot indeed 
 wholly be suppressed : when the commandments 
 are printed or read at length this clause must 
 appear; but with the ignorant and the unlearn¬ 
 ed the method usually taken is to use a short 
 form or aubreviation in which the second com¬ 
 mandment is made absolutely to disappear. 
 I his is or was, I believe, uniformly the case in 
 all Romish countries abroad. It is sometimes 
 the case here : at least I have an example of it 
 in a catechism professing to follow that of Pius 
 the 5th, where indeed the second command¬ 
 ment or rather the words of it are commented 
 upon, but in the summary of the command¬ 
 ments it is not found 8 . This artifice, it must 
 
 * See Clinton’s Catechism sold by Keating and Co. But it fur¬ 
 ther appears that this is what has actually taken place without anjs 
 attendant explanation in Ireland, under the very auspices of Dr. 
 Troy, the popish archbishop of Dublin. We have there a book of 
 prayers published “permissu superiorum,*’ entitled, “The poor 
 “ Man’s Manual of Devotions, &c.” Dublin, printed by Richard 
 Cross, No. 28, Bridge Street, 1805, where (at p. 17 .) immediately 
 after the apostles’ creed (the same as we have it) are their ten com¬ 
 mandments. The second is entirely omitted, and to make up the right 
 number, for the ninth we read, “ Thou shalt not desire thy neigh¬ 
 bour's wife,’’for the tenth, “Thou shalt not desire thy neigh- 
 “ four’s goods.’’ To this book is prefixed the calendar: so that it 
 is evidently designed to be most emphatically the prayer book for 
 
 \ 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 22$ 
 
 be owned, is a most gross one; and the more 
 so as in consequence of it much difference arises 
 as to what are the ninth and the tenth com¬ 
 mandments. For some give the preference to 
 the first, and some to the second clause of the 
 tenth commandment. According to the former 
 
 . /* o 
 
 the ninth commandment is, “Thou shalt not 
 “ covet thy neighbour’shouse,” or “thy neigh- 
 “ hour’s goods.” According to the others it is, 
 c£ Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife.” 
 By which latter mode manifest violence is done 
 to the text in taking the words out of their 
 order. And by this very difference and uncer¬ 
 tainty, here again as in so many cases, our in¬ 
 fallible adversaries are made to bear witness 
 against themselves 9 . 
 
 papists of the lower class. In the catechism of Pius V. it stands 
 thus, “ Ego sum Dominus Deus tuns qui eduxi te de terra 
 “ ^gypti, de domo servitutis. Noil habebis deos alienos coram me 
 * c non facies tibi sculptile &c.” and so stops short before the mate¬ 
 rial words, <e Thou shalt not iota down to them nor worship than.'" A. 
 hint which Mr. Clinton has taken, as we see, or rather improved 
 upon. 
 
 9 See the preceding note as to what is done in Ireland. Agree¬ 
 able to that is the London Catechism. Yet in some books it is the 
 reverse. In the primer or office of the virgin Mary, printed for 
 Coghlan 1780, I find them thus stated, “ IX. Thou shalt not 
 “ covet thy neighbour’s house.” <f X. Thou shalt not covet thy 
 * ( neighbour’s wife, nor servant, nor handmaid, nor ox, nor ass, 
 “ nor any thing that is his.” The Trent Catechism above-men¬ 
 tioned puts them together without any division ; but in the expo- 
 
 # 
 
224 
 
 SERMON v. 
 
 I come now to the Generation of relics, for 
 which the arguments that are adduced are so 
 futile, that we may safely pronounce, that they 
 can impose upon none but such as are willing to 
 he deceived. The great advocates for them tell 
 us of St. John the baptist’s expression, that he is 
 not worthy to unloose the latchet of our Sa- 
 “ viour’s shoes which shews, they say, that 
 reverence must be paid to such things. In an- 
 
 sition makes the distinction between coveting onr neighbour’s wife, 
 and the other things, and so the Dublin and London bishop’s 
 division is the more popish. Tn truth this is a point which must 
 alwavs have puzzled those who chose so to read the command¬ 
 ments. Our editor of the primer however has the authority of an 
 English council to support him. In the council at Lambeth held 
 under John Peckham in 1281, the ninth commandment is stated 
 to be “ non concupisces dovmm proximi tui,” which is explained 
 to mean ail immoveables, or as we say real estate, particularly that 
 of any catholic. “ In quo mandato implicate inhibetur cupiditas 
 (f possessionis immobilis, Catholici proecipue cujuscunque.” In 
 the last of course the wife is thrown in with the “ moveables” “res 
 * f mobiles.” Wilkins’s Concilia, Vol. ii. p. 55. Such is the way 
 in whiclji that commandment is split and parcelled out, which St. 
 Paul comprehends in two woids ,* ou:< Eitibvy^crsic. “ f Ihou shalt 
 “ not covet.” Rom. xiii. 9 . It is remarkable that the precept 
 stands differently in Deuteronomy from what it does in Exodus, 
 as in Deuteronomy the wife is put first. I cannot therefore but 
 think that in putting the words as they stand in Exodus, Providence 
 had it in view to confound those who would thus twist the scrip¬ 
 tures to serve their particular ends. Compare Deuteronomy v. 
 with Exodus xx. See further Stillingfleet’s Answer to a PapiSt 
 •represented and misrepresented. Preserv, against Popery, tit. nL 
 p. 302. 
 
• v SERMON V. ' £25 
 
 other place, they urge the miracle which was 
 wrought by the bones of the prophet Elisha, 
 when, by virtue of them, a dead man was restor¬ 
 ed to life. They tell us too, of the cures which 
 were wrought by the handkerchiefs from the 
 body of St. Paul, and of the sick which were 
 laid in the streets, in order that, at least, the 
 shadow of Peter passing by, might overshadow 
 them. Such is the evidence from Scripture 
 which is adduced, and who can but wonder 
 that such passages should be alleged for such a 
 purpose ? For, do we hear of any man having 
 preserved or paid religious honour to the latchet 
 of our Saviour’s shoe? or to the handkerchiefs 
 which came from the body of the apostle? Were 
 the bones of Elisha, which God had pleased in 
 that one instance, to make the instrument of a 
 miracle, kept up or adored, or held in any ve¬ 
 neration ? So far from it, we never even hear a 
 word of them, not only in the^ age when the 
 miracle happened, but in those which followed; 
 nor, I believe, was ever the argument drawn 
 from it heard of till after the reformation* 
 Lastly, it must be allowed, that not even any 
 of them, amidst all their thousands of relics, and 
 it must be said to the praise of their modesty, 
 have ever attempted to shew us the shadow of 
 St. Peter. So that to any man who will but 
 reason in this as he does in other matters, these 
 very instances, instead of commending, will ap- 
 
 Q 
 
£26 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 pear to involve a plain condemnation of the 
 practice. The legends too, which belong to all 
 these relics are so fabulous upon the face of them, 
 the very manner of their being found, and of 
 their genuineness being ascertained, has, in 
 every instance, so little, not only of reason, but 
 of common sense in it, that no man who is not 
 under the influence of the grossest bigotry can 
 avoid being shocked and disgusted at them, or 
 can see them in any other than the most ridi¬ 
 culous light. 
 
 What makes the doctrine not only every way 
 suspicious but abominable, is that we shall find 
 the discovery of these pretended relics to have 
 been in many, I believe, in most instances so 
 timed as evidently to serve a particular purpose, 
 to procure credit to some order, some saint, or 
 some tenet, and at all times to have answered 
 the purpose of laying the credulity of the peo¬ 
 ple under heavy contributions 10 . This last abuse 
 had o-rown to such a height in the thirteenth 
 century, that it it was formally reproved in the 
 fourth council of Lateran, and certain provi- 
 
 10 This traffic began very early ; we hear of it in the fourth cen¬ 
 tury. Austin, in complaining of the lazy and vagabond monks of 
 his time, mentions that they went about selling relics. <<r Alii 
 «( membra martyrum, si tamen martyrum, venditant,’’ &c. De 
 ♦pere monachoruni, c. xxviii. This abuse, as Fleury observes, has 
 continued ever since, notwithstanding the regulations made in the 
 ivih Lateran on that subject. H. E. B. lxxvii. §. 55. 
 
SERMON Y. 
 
 227 
 
 sions made for discriminating the genuine from 
 the false relics. This, however, has not pre¬ 
 vented, nor was it seriously meant to prevent 
 the continuance of this gainful trade, or the 
 multiplication of the articles themselves, which 
 has gone on to such a degree as in some cases in¬ 
 volves an impossibility. Since it has been 
 truly observed, that more wood is shewn as 
 having been a part of the cross, than many 
 such crosses would have supplied, and of one 
 saint there are three heads shewn in three dif¬ 
 ferent places, all equally well authenticated 11 . 
 
 With all these abuses before their eyes, the 
 council of Trent decreed, that due worship 
 should continue to be paid to them, and in this 
 respect it has gone even greater length than it 
 had gone in respect of images, since it has sub¬ 
 joined no caution as to the extent or nature of 
 the worship. Every abuse, therefore, which is 
 
 11 Of John the Baptist. I believe I might have said four. Se* 
 Flenry, H. E. in the proper places. The same thing has happened 
 to the body of St. Mary Magdalen, which was shewn in Provence 
 and in Burgundy, and in both places was visited with greatdevotion 
 by Saint Louis. See the same historian, b. Ixxxiii. § 48, com¬ 
 pared with b. lxxxv. § 52. In the latter case the saint was present 
 at their removal for the purpose of their being put into a silver 
 shrine ; and it is said, that both he and the pope’s legate, who also 
 was present, took a part of these relics. The historian observes, 
 that this shews, that he (St. Louis,) could not have any great 
 idea, ( <f il ne croyoit pas trop,”) that they were at Sainte Beaumc 
 in Provence, though he had gone there to visit them thirteen years 
 before. 
 
228 
 
 S E R M 0 N V. 
 
 committed by the most ignorant of their com¬ 
 munion, in the adoration which is paid to relics, 
 may be most justly charged upon the church 
 herself, since, in a matter of such importance, 
 she has taken so little care to guard against 
 error. 
 
 This is said only in case of her advocates dis¬ 
 claiming any part of the superstition with 
 which relics are, in fact, adored. But, that she 
 could not, with any justice, do this, may be 
 shewn from her public offices. One relic, at 
 least, the cross of Christ, nay, its representation 
 is there made the subject of the most direct 
 adoration; it is even addressed in terms which can 
 only be properly directed to the Supreme Being. 
 And that this is not done unadvisedly, appears 
 further from the declared opinion of their great¬ 
 est doctors, who lay it down expressly, that it 
 is entitled to exactly the same degree of wor¬ 
 ship as the Saviour whom it bore. It varies the 
 case but little, or rather it makes it stronger, 
 that this higher degree of worship is only re¬ 
 served to the true cross itself, but that other 
 crosses are to be adored only in an inferior de¬ 
 gree, because this only proves more decidedly 
 the solemnity of the act, and the deliberation 
 with which it is adopted 14 . 
 
 14 See in Preserv. against Popery, the case of poor Imbert, who, 
 trusting to the exposition of Bossuet, felt himself authorised to tell 
 the people, at the time of the exaltation of the cross, that thev were 
 
SERMON V. 2 <2 9 
 
 From the worship of images and relics, we 
 may pass on to the invocation of saints and 
 
 not to worship the cross itself, but Jesus Christ crucified 
 in the presence of the cross ; but he was opposed by the 
 cure or rector, who said, “ No, no, the wood, the wood.” 
 Imbert replied, “ No, no, Jesus Christ not the wood,” and when 
 the other went on “ Eece lignum, adoremus,” Imbert took him 
 up, saying, “ on which the Saviour of the world hung, come let 
 “ us adore this Saviour of the world.” For this Imbert was prose¬ 
 cuted, and without any hearing interdicted by the archbishop of 
 Bourdeaux his ordinary, and even threatened with perpetual im¬ 
 prisonment and chains. Upon this he appealed to Bossuet, re¬ 
 questing his protection, in order that he might have liberty to de¬ 
 fend himself; but he could get no redress. See his letter dated 
 June 13, 1683, and Wake’s observations in his answer to the bis¬ 
 hop ofMeaux’s second letter. Bossuet said the man was “ weak 
 ** and ignorant and that his” (the bishop’s) “ doctrine was totally 
 
 t 
 
 ** different from what that daring person had presumed to broach.' 
 Preserv. against Popery, tit. ix. pp. 9 b & 134. Through the 
 whole of this controversy it is wonderful to what shifts the bishop 
 of Meaux and his vindicator were put, and how clearly they are 
 refuted by Wake. This is the more deserving the notice of my 
 readers as exactly the same sort of management is going on among 
 the Romanists of this day, and the same complaints of unfair¬ 
 ness and want of candour in Protestants are alleged and refuted 
 without ceasing. If the reader will have the goodness only to turn 
 to p. 137 & seq. he will find a string of accusations against the 
 clergy of the church of England of that age, and Wake in particular 
 very much resembling the abuse which has been and is daily be¬ 
 stowed upon me and my brethren by Dr. Milner. See bis “ OLk 
 “ servations on the Sequel,” and his “Inquiry,” passim. As to 
 the fact of the cross being adored, the reader who will not take the 
 trouble of consulting the authors above referred to, need only turn 
 to the Romish ritual for the 14th September where he will fiud, 
 first the hvtnn. 
 
 w * 
 
 “ O crux ave spes unica 
 “ la hie triumphi loria 
 
250 ' SERMON V. 
 
 of angels; about the fact of which, there is 
 also no doubt. But it is alleged,, that the venera¬ 
 tion which is paid to them is not the same which 
 is paid to God. This is, however, so subtle a. 
 distinction, that, in order to find a fit term for 
 it, they are obliged, even in derogation of the 
 authority which they ascribe to the Latin vul- 
 gate, to go to the Greek; from which they 
 borrow the words duleia and latreia; the lat¬ 
 ter of which, they say, denotes the highest de- 
 
 ft Piis adauge gratiam 
 “ Reisque dele criminal’ 
 
 What more could we ask of Christ himself than ** an increase of 
 grace, and that “ our sins should be blotted out ?** Afterwards 
 c^mes the following anthem, “ Crux splendidior cunctis astris, 
 “ mundo Celebris, hominibus multum amabilis, sanctior universis, 
 quae sola fuisti digna portare talentum mundi, dulce lignum 
 ^Lilces clavos duleia ferens pondera, salva praesentem catervam in 
 4< tuis hodie laudibus congregatam ! !” Here there can be no 
 quibbling 5 this prayer for salvation is not only addressed to the 
 cross; but that there may be no mistake a description of it is added 
 which fixes it to be the material substantial cross which is adored. 
 
 Sweet wood, bearing the sweet nails, bearing the sweet burthen. 5 * 
 And to this wood it is prayed that it would “ save this company or 
 “ crowd gathered together to its praise ! 1 ” Horse diurnae breviarii, 
 Romani. Antwerp, 1781 , set forth with the authority of Clement 
 XIII. and the licence and approbation of the ordinary. So this is no 
 obsolete practice. Whether the above anthem is sung in our Eng^ 
 lish chapels I know not, but the hymn is j and stands in the office 
 for vespers, thus translated : 
 
 Hail cross ! our hope, to thee we call 
 In this triumphant festival. 
 
 Grant to the just increase of grace. 
 
 And ev’ry sinner’s crimes efface. 
 ie Vespers,” printed for Keating Sc Co. 180$. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 231 
 
 gree of worship, that which is due to God alone; 
 the former, that inferior sort, which may be paid 
 to saints and angels. They refine still further 
 upon this, and having of late years found out 
 many excellences in the Virgin Mary, which 
 were not seen or acknowledged by the primitive 
 church, they assign to her an intermediate sort 
 of honour which they call hyperduleia. It 
 were easy to shew that there is no such distinc¬ 
 tion between the terms, as used in the New 
 Testament; but, indeed, the distinction itself 
 seems in a degree unauthorised among them, as 
 no mention is made of it in the Trent Catechism* 
 which uses the words “ colore” and “ coitus” 
 as indifferently applied to God or his saints. 
 Still, it is insisted, that the saints are rightly 
 called upon to intercede with God for us, and 
 this is justified by the passages of Scripture in 
 which we are bidden to pray for one another. 
 It might be answered, first, that the direction 
 is, that we should pray for one another, and 
 not to one another; and that further, it has 
 been rightly asked, Is there no difference be¬ 
 tween my simply asking my neighbour to pray 
 to God for me, or my falling upon my knees 
 before him or his picture, in a church, with all 
 the devotion which makes a religious act to 
 pray to him to procure me the divine favour? 
 It should, indeed, be a sufficient answer, that 
 for the one act, we have the full warrant of 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 252 
 
 Scripture, whereas we cannot perform the other 
 without the direct violation of a divine com¬ 
 mandment 14 . 
 
 The practice indeed is every way different from what it is re¬ 
 presented to be; for commonly the prayer is put up to God that 
 by the intercession or by the merits and intercession of such and 
 such a saint he may grant us such and such blessings. Take St. 
 Patrick for example, March l/th. “ O God who was pleased to 
 send biessed Patrick, thy bishop and confessor, to preach thy 
 gloiy to the gentiles, grant that by his merits and intercession we 
 may through thy mercy be enabled to perform what thou com- 
 “ mandest.” Again the collect for St. George’s day, 23d of April. 
 O God who by the merits and prayers of blessed George, thy 
 martyr, hilest the hearts of thy people with joy, mercifully grant 
 that the blessings we ask in his name,’’(per eum) (< we may hap- 
 
 “ pity obtain b y th y grace,” And observe that this stands also in 
 the office of vespers for Sundays. Again January 18th, Festi¬ 
 val of St. Peter’s chair at Rome. Collect, “ O God, who by de¬ 
 in e ring to thy blessed apostle Peter the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven, didst give him the power of binding and loosing; grant 
 that by his intercession we may be freed from the bonds of our 
 sins, who livest.” And still stronger what they call the secret. 
 May the intercession, we beseech thee, O Lord, of blessed Peter, 
 the apostle, render the prayers and offerings of thy church accep¬ 
 table to thee, that the mysteries we celebrate in his honour may 
 “ obtain for us the pardon of our sins.’’ Sometimes the merits 
 only are mentioned as in the day of St. Francis Xavier, Dec. 3d. 
 
 O God, who by the preaching and miracles of blessed Francis, 
 didst bring into thy church the people of the Indies; mercifully 
 grant that we may imitate his virtues whose glorious merits we 
 " celebrate (veneramur) through.” That for St. Cuthbert is sin¬ 
 gular. It is that “ interveniente beato Cuthberto mereamur ad cul- 
 " men virtutum pervenire.” “ That by his intervention we may 
 “ deserve to arrive at the summit of virtue.” I will only add one 
 more collect remarkable as well for the subject of it as for the terms 
 in which it is conceived. It is that for the day of St. Thomas of 
 Canterbury (Thomas a Becket) a gentleman who in these realms 
 
But, besides, in praying for one another, we 
 are doing an act of charity which is, or should 
 
 has greater honour paid to him, as will appear by the calendar, than 
 St. Thomas the apostle or St. John the evangelist; for their feasts 
 are only doubles of the second class, while his is a double of the 
 first. It runs thus : “ O God, in defence of whose church the glo- 
 “ rious prelate Thomas, fell by the swords of wicked men ; grant 
 <f we beseech thee, that all who implore his assistance may find 
 * ( comfort in the grant of their petitions, through.” “ Utqui ejus 
 implorant auxilium petitionis suae consequantur effectum per.’* 
 Is this any thing like one man’s asking another to pray to God for 
 him ? But take a specimen of the direct applications to them. In 
 what is called the common of the apostles is sung the hymn, “ Ex- 
 “ ultet orbis gaudiis,” of which the second, third, and fourth 
 stanzas are, 
 
 2 u Vos saeculorum judices, 
 t( Et vera mundi lumina, 
 tl Vctis precamur cordium: 
 
 “ Audite voces supplicum. 
 
 2 O you true lights of human kind, 
 
 (( And judges of the world design’d, 
 
 “ To you our hearty vows we show, 
 
 “ Hear your petitioners below. 
 
 3 “ Qui templa cseli clauditis, 
 
 “ Serasque verbo solvitis, 
 
 “ Nos a reatu noxios 
 “ Solvi jubete, quaesumus. 
 
 3 “ The gates of heaven by your command 
 “ Are fasten’d close, or open stand ; 
 
 tf Grant, we beseech you, then, that we 
 “ From sinful slav’ry may be free. 
 
 4 f< Praecepta quorum protinus 
 “ Languor salusijue sentiunt 
 “ Sanatc mentes languidas: 
 
 Augete nos virtutibus. 
 
 4 “ Sickness and health your pow’r obey ; 
 
 “ This comes, and that you drive away : 
 
 “ Then from our souls all sickness chace, 
 
 “ Let healing virtues take its place.” 
 
234 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 be mutual: the person who prays for his neigh* 
 hour neither arrogates, nor has in fact attributed 
 to him any superiority over the person for whom 
 he prays. Whereas the Romanist, in addressing* 
 his saint, considers him as one of a superior or¬ 
 der, who is not only out of all fear for his own 
 salvation, but actually enjoys it: nay has, and 
 had at the time of his death such a superabund¬ 
 ance of merits, that they might be employed in 
 behalf of those of his fellow.creatures whom he 
 chooses to favour. Farther, in praying to a saint, 
 the devotee cannot be sure that his patron hears 
 him, unless he ascribe to him the attributes 
 which belong only to God, ubiquity and om¬ 
 niscience; for unless he be every where, and 
 knows all things, there can be no certainty that 
 he hears or understands what is required of him. 
 This is particularly the case as to mental prayer, 
 which is, if I mistake not, put up equally to the 
 saints as to God. And indeed here ao*ain we 
 
 O 
 
 have another proof, and a very strong one, of 
 the uncertainty of this infallible church. For 
 this being a doctrine so highly injurious to God, 
 
 Here are both temporal and spiritual blessings prayed for by the 
 congregation, as suppliants (supplices) to the apostles. What more 
 could be prayed of Christ, or in what more humble way could he 
 be approached ? These specimens are taken from Vespers, or the 
 Evening Office, printed by Keating and Co. 1805. Except the 
 secret, which is taken from the Pocket Missal, printed by the same 
 printer in 17<T)0. For numerous other instances, equally strong, the 
 reader has only to open cither of those books. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 235 
 
 we must not wonder if it gives occasion to many 
 questions. Her doctors therefore are not agreed 
 how the saints become acquainted with the 
 prayers which are put up to them, whether by 
 themselves, and by their own power ; or whether 
 they perceive them reflected in the divine efful¬ 
 gence which they contemplate ; or, lastly, whe¬ 
 ther God makes a special revelation to them on 
 every occasion as it occurs. There is a solemn 
 trifling in all this, which, if the matter were of 
 less importance, might be amusing. But I can 
 only now add one observation. You cannot 
 but be aware how by all this process God is, as 
 it were, withdrawn from our sight, and other 
 objects interposed, as more proper to fix our at¬ 
 tention. Thus there are two distinct steps by 
 which he is to be approached. First, to the 
 image is given a worship, purely relative as they 
 say, which terminates in the saint or the angel; 
 and the saint or the angel is finally to transfer 
 the prayer to the Lord of all. And this is all to 
 be imposed upon men, because in that commu¬ 
 nion they choose to fancy, contrary to the most 
 express declarations of Scripture, that the Al¬ 
 mighty is not directly accessible, or at least that 
 he prefers being approached through many in¬ 
 tercessors. And so fond are they of this idea, 
 that in one of their collects they pray that “ the 
 “ number of their intercessors may be multi* 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 S36 
 
 “ plied 15 /’ Does not this strongly bring to mind 
 that text of St. Paul, in which he so expressly 
 condemns and exposes the falsehood and folly 
 upon which this practice is founded, and which 
 applies to so many corruptions of the Romish 
 church. He cautions the Colossians not to be 
 be guiled with a voluntary humility and wor- 
 shipping of angels “ which.things/’ he says, 
 ei have a shew of wisdom in will-worship, and 
 humility, and neglecting of the body ; not in 
 , 4C any honour to the satisfying of the flesh*.” 
 
 I have treated this violation of God’s com- 
 mandments as if it was really no more than it pre¬ 
 tended to be. Even then it must be taken to be a 
 most signal derogation from the honour of Christ, 
 as introducing such a number of intercessors, 
 where the gospel has revealed to us only one Me¬ 
 diator, only one who “ having suffered for us, 
 
 4 4 ever liveth to make intercession for us.” It 
 is in vain that here again our adversaries make 
 their distinctions between a mediator of redemp- 
 
 Collect for All Saints'-day, “ Omnipotens et sempiterne 
 et Deus, qui nos omnium sanctorum tuorum merita sub una tri- 
 “ buisti celebritate venerari; quaesumus ut desideratam nobis ture 
 “ propitiationis abundantiam multiplicatis intercessoribus largiaris. 
 
 “ Per,” See. “ Our intercessors being multiplied,” as it stands in 
 the Primer published in 1780. In the Missal and Vespers published 
 in 1796 and 1805, it is translated, “ since we have so many peti* 
 “ tioners in our behalf.” This is not the only instance in which 
 I find theLaUn very much softened down in the later translations. 
 
 * Col. ii. 23. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 237 
 
 tion and a mediator of intercession: for where 
 is such a distinction to be found ? Did not God, 
 by the very act of sending down his Son upon 
 earth declare, in the most pointed manner, that 
 this was a work to which no human creature 
 was equal, and in which no mere man could be 
 a sharer ? 
 
 But the truth is, that the devotion which is 
 paid to the saints in the Romish church goes 
 much farther* The members of her communion 
 call upon their saints not merely to pn*y for 
 them, but to “ protect them/’ “ to give them 
 “ all manner of assistance/’ to “ brino- them to 
 “ heaven/’ and u save them from hell 16 /’ Their 
 
 l6 . This is indeed but according to the directions of the Council 
 of Trent, who say that we are to recur to the help and assistance of 
 the saints, as well as to their prayers. Cone. Trid. Sess. 23 . de 
 Invocatione, &c. I have already given a specimen in a former note, 
 to which I will now add the hymn on St. John the Baptist’s day, 
 where the people are taught to call themselves his servants, “famuli,” 
 and to beseech him to cleanse their “ lips from the pollution of 
 
 guilt, in order that they may sing his wonderful works.” 
 
 “ Ut queant laxis resonare fibris 
 il Mira gestorum famuli tuorum 
 “ Solve polluti labii reatum 
 Sancte Joannes.” 
 
 This is marvellously softened in the translation. Sec Vespers, 
 
 p. 206 , 
 
 That we with tuneful notes may sound 
 Thy life, with signal wonders crown’d; 
 
 Great Baptist, let no sinful stain 
 Our lives with discord stain. 
 
238 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 addresses to the Virgin Mary, in particular, ex¬ 
 ceed almost all that can be conceived. They 
 address her in a manner which is nothing less 
 than blasphemous ; they bid her use her right 
 as a mother, and in that character prevail upon, 
 if not command her son. “ Jure matris impera 
 “ redemptori,” was once, if it be not still, stand¬ 
 ing in their offices. They beseech her to “ loose 
 ff the bands of the guilty,” to “ give light to the 
 ic blind,” to “ drive away evils,” to “ receive her 
 “ votaries, and support them in the hour of 
 “ death.” Thousands indeed there are, and 
 have always been, who daily commit themselves 
 to her, and not to God, The same thing hap¬ 
 pens with respect to other saints 17 . 
 
 They are also the “ famuli” servants of St. Joachim. “ Famulis 
 “ confer salutis opera.” See Missal, p. 445. In the feast of St. 
 Richard, April 3d, they pray that by his intercession they may at¬ 
 tain to “ the glory of eternal bliss.” Dec. 6th, that by the merits 
 of St. Nicholas they may be “ delivered from the flames of hell,** 
 a gehennae incendiis. In the Vespers this is translated “ from 
 “ eternal flames.” July 6th, that by the merits of St. Peter and 
 St. Paul they may (t obtain a glorious eternity.” And N. B. this 
 prayer is in the common of Vespers for Sundays. 
 
 17 See Wake’s Defence of the Exposition of the Docrine of the 
 Church of England in Preserv. against Popery, tit. ix. p. 6 0, and 
 the pther treatises in the same book. In the common office for her 
 we have the hymn “ Ave Maris Stella,” which contains the follow¬ 
 ing petitions :—(Vespers, p. 121.) 
 
 Solve vincla reis The sinners’ bonds unbind, 
 
 Profer lumen caacis Our evils drive away ; 
 
 Mala nostra pelle Bring light unto the blind. 
 
 Bona cuncta posce. For grace and blessings pray. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 23 9 
 
 The wickedness of all this will appear aggra¬ 
 vated, if we consider in how many ways God 
 
 Monstra te esse matrem 
 Sumat per te preces 
 Qui pro nobis natus 
 Tulit esse tuus. 
 
 Thyself a mother shew ; 
 
 May he receive thy prayer, 
 
 Who for the debts we owe 
 
 From thee would breathe our air. 
 
 In the office of Matins in Advent is the blessing, “ Nos cum 
 <e prole pia benedicat virgo Maria which junction of the two 
 names in this way must shock every true Christian. “ May the 
 (( Virgin Mary, with her pious son, bless us.’’ Primer, p. 75. 
 At p. 99 , we have the hymn where she is called upon to “ protect 
 “ us at the hour of death,” and she is called “ mother of grace, 
 mother of mercy.” “ Mater gratise, mater misericordiae, tu nos 
 “ ab noste protege et hora mortis suscipe.” At p. 290 , I find this 
 recommendation to her, “ O holy Mary, I recommend myself, my 
 ** soul, and body, to thy blessed trust and singular custody, and 
 “ into the bosom of thy mercy, this day and daily, and at the hour 
 of my death; and I commend to thee all my hope and com¬ 
 fort, all my distresses and miseries, my life, and the end thereof; 
 that by thy most holy intercession and merits all my works may 
 be directed and disposed according to thine and thy son’s will. 
 iS Amen.” My readers will by this time be both wearied and dis¬ 
 gusted, but I must add the prayer which immediately follows :—r 
 “ O Mary, mother of God, and gracious virgin, the true com- 
 “ forter of all afflicted persons crying to thee : by that great joy 
 “ wherewith thou vvert comforted when thou didst know our Lord 
 (c Jesus was gloriously risen from the dead; be a comfort to my 
 soul, and vouchsafe to help me with thine, and God s only be- 
 <c gotten son, in that last day, when I shall rise again with body 
 “ and soul, and shall give account of all my actions; to the end 
 that I may be able by thee, O pious mother and virgin, to avoid 
 “ the sentence of perpetual damnation, and happily come to eternal 
 f* joys with all the elect of God. Amen.” It must be remem¬ 
 bered, that it is not to what might be disclaimed as obsolete canons, 
 or mere opinions of the schools (not to any fooleries of a St. Buo- 
 naventure, or Cardinal Bona) that I am referring the reader, but ro 
 what is the actual and daily practice of the Romanists in these 
 kingdoms. 1 can add even the express recommendation of one c! 
 
 (( 
 
 a 
 
 ft 
 
 a 
 
240 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 has declared himself against such corruptions. 
 You may remember that when Moses died, his 
 body was not to be found : and this, as it is 
 well understood, was done in mercy, lest the 
 Israelites should, from the great benefits of 
 which he had been the instrument to them, have 
 been led to worship his remains, or in any other 
 way to pay him adoration. It is striking to seer 
 how God appears to have pursued a similar 
 course with respect to the first publishers of the 
 New Testament. Of the Virgin Mary we know 
 absolutely nothing after the ascension of our 
 Saviour, except that she was at . one time with 
 the disciples at Jerusalem. And even while our 
 Saviour was upon earth, so far was he from treat¬ 
 ing her with any such distinction as might lead 
 to this idolatry, that all his addresses to her 
 seem directed to prevent even the idea of it from 
 being entertained. “ Woman/’said he, on one 
 occasion, a what have I to do with thee?” At 
 another time, when told that his mother and his 
 brethren stood without, desiring to speak with 
 him, his answer was, 44 Who is my mother, and 
 
 their bishops. In his late Pastoral Letter, Dr. Milner recommends 
 to his clergy “ a special devotion to the Virgin Mary, as recom- 
 et mended in the Observandawhich passage in the Observanda 
 is as follows :—“ Plurimum proderit se suosque omnes sub Deiparae 
 “ patriocinio constituere.” It will be highly profitable to place 
 «* ourselves, and our relations and friends, under the patronage of 
 “ the mother of God.” Pastoral Letter, by John, Bishop of Cas- 
 taballa, p. xxviii. published by Keating and Co. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 241 
 
 (< who are my brethren ?” And to put this matter 
 beyond a doubt, he stretched forth his hand to 
 his disciples, and said, ‘‘Behold my mother and 
 “ my brethren; for whosoever shall do the will 
 t( of my father which is in heaven, the same is 
 “ my brother, and sister, and mother.” Could 
 our Lord in more express terms condemn by an¬ 
 ticipation all this blasphemous worship of the 
 Virgin ? Going on to others, we may observe 
 that of Joseph, her husband, not a word is said. 
 We are left to collect that he died before our 
 Lady only from what passed at the foot of the 
 cross 18 . The same retoark applies to the apos- 
 
 T3 . Yet this man, very late in the 14th century, and not before, 
 for certain curious reasons alleged, has all at once started up the 
 greatest of all saints except the Virgin Mary. “ We are not to 
 “ discourse of St. Joseph in the same dialect as when we mention 
 “ other saints.” Office of St. Joseph, printed for Keating and Co. 
 1800. In the same book the votary is directed to offer himself to 
 the saint in the following terms :— (l I firmly resolve and purpose 
 f ‘ never to forsake you ; and never to say or do, nor even to suffer 
 “ any under my charge to say or do any thing against your honour : 
 te receive me therefore for your perpetual servant, and recommend 
 <( me to the constant protection of Mary, your dearest spouse, and 
 ** to the everlasting mercies of Jesus, my saviour. Assist me in all 
 ** the actions of my life, all which I now offer to the everlasting 
 “ glory of Jesus and Mary, as well as your own.” (If this be not 
 blasphemy and idolatry, I must confess myselt ignorant of the 
 meaning of those terms.) “ Never, therefore, forsake me, and 
 ** whatsoever grace you see most necessary and profitable to me, ob- 
 ** tain it for me now, and at the hour of death, &c.*’ Ib. pp. 
 113, 114. In the meditations subjoined, it is not only taken for 
 granted that Joseph was a virgin, but proved in a very curious way 
 that he made the vow of virginity very early in life. “ Seeing St. 
 
 ft 
 
242 
 
 SERM O N V. 
 
 tics, Of them nothing is told us in scripture 
 but what is absolutely necessary for the proper 
 publication of the gospel. Not a word is added 
 for the purpose of exciting veneration, or even 
 of gratifying curiosity. Of only one apostle the 
 death is related : and that of Peter is merely 
 intimated in the way of warning and of pro¬ 
 phecy. Of the rest of the twelve we have lite¬ 
 rally nothing; nor is it placed beyond a doubt 
 whether it was at Rome that Peter suffered, or 
 even whether he was ever there. And must we 
 not after this wonder, nay be shocked, to see 
 how the gracious purpose of God (for so I must 
 think it) obviously manifested in the suppres¬ 
 sion of all that related to men so extraordinary, 
 and so worthy to be had in remembrance, has 
 been defeated, nay, turned to a directly con¬ 
 trary end, made the occasion of inventing a 
 thousand lies and forgeries ? Could we rea¬ 
 sonably have expected that upon such a founda¬ 
 tion there would have been erected the worship 
 not only of those who were real and acknow¬ 
 ledged saints, who undoubtedly were inspired by 
 God, but of those who had no possible preten¬ 
 sions to such honour, who were not only weak 
 
 tt Mary Magdalen de Pazzi made avow of perpetual virginity at ten 
 years of age, probably our angelical patriarch offered this ines- 
 timable treasure at a more early period!!” And these again I 
 say are not the reveries of the tenth century, but the spiritual food 
 with which the good Catholics of England are fed at this day ! ! I 
 
S E R M O N V. 
 
 243 
 
 and fallible, but actually in error, actually de« 
 ceived, as well as deceiving, and in too many 
 instances wicked and designing impostors? The 
 wonder will only cease when it is lost in senti¬ 
 ments of indignation and abhorrence; when we 
 perceive that the whole originated in, and ac- 
 quired;consistence from a system of covetousness 
 and ambition, pursued, without intermission, at 
 the expence of all true piety and devotion. 
 
 For that it was indeed with a view to the 
 offerings which should be made at the shrines 
 of those false Gods, to the price at which their 
 intercession should be purchased, that the saints 
 were thus by the church of Rome exalted, we 
 cannot but pronounce as we come lastly to con¬ 
 sider that other instance in which her idolatry 
 is so signally displayed, and the most solemn 
 act of religion prostituted to the purposes of 
 worldly gain. The gross abuses which take 
 place m the celebration of the mass, the strange, 
 and I may say horrible doctrine of transubstan- 
 tiation which it involves, would be less shock¬ 
 ing if tney had been the mere effect of specu¬ 
 lative tii oi, and had not, on the contrary, 
 grown up and been adopted under the influence 
 of the foulest avarice and the most insatiable 
 lust of power. It would never have been con¬ 
 tended that at the solemnization of the ericha - 
 list the bread and wine actually become the 
 
 r 2 
 
 \ 
 
244 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 proper body and blood of Christ, so as even no 
 longer to retain any particle of their original 
 elements, if it had not been perceived that the cha¬ 
 racter of the priest would by this means be highly 
 exalted and magnified ; that he must become a 
 being of particularholiness in theeyes of his fellow 
 creatures, if it was believed that he had the 
 gift of working so astonishing a miracle ; that to 
 him was entrusted the power of making the 
 God that was to be eaten and worshipped 19 . 
 Again, the necessity of repeating the actual sa¬ 
 crifice of Christ; the profitableness of it to the 
 dead as well as to the living ; the belief that 
 this profit might be acquired for others by the 
 mere act of the priest officiating by himself; all 
 these would never have become articles of faith, 
 if it had not been declared at the same time that 
 the benefit, great as it was, might be purchased 
 for money; if, independent of the larger dona¬ 
 tions with which the piety of wealthier votaries 
 might enrich the church, it had not been set¬ 
 tled that masses for the dead as well as tor the 
 
 19 One great abuse founded on this was the robbing of the tem¬ 
 poral sovereign of his superiority over the lands which were held 
 by the clergy. Homage was not to be paid by them as by the 
 laity, because forsooth r< it was execrable that pure hands, which 
 «< could create God, and could offer him up as a sacrifice for the 
 i( salvation of mankind, should be put in this humiliating manner 
 ** between profane hands, &c ” Hume’s Hist, of England, ^ ol. i. 
 p. 3C4. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 245 
 
 living* might be contracted for at stipulated 
 prices. 
 
 There is something in this traffic so abomin¬ 
 able and disgusting, something which so directly 
 tends to debase in the eyes of the most ignorant 
 the very nature of a sacrament, that reason and 
 piety revolt alike at the idea. I need the less 
 insist upon the impiety as well as absurdity of 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation. Volumes 
 have been written on the question: but it lies 
 within a small compass, and is obvious to every 
 understanding. You need not surely be re¬ 
 minded that by the same sort of reasoning which 
 makes the bread and wine become the body and 
 blood of Christ in substance and in specie, our 
 Lord while upon earth must be taken to have 
 been literally a way to walk over, a vine in 
 which the believers were also literally engrafted, 
 and a lamb with all the properties of that crea¬ 
 ture, although his appearance to the sight was 
 ever so different from all this. You can be at 
 no loss, when told that transubstantiation is a 
 miracle, to answer that it is directly contrary 
 to every idea which is given us of a miracle; 
 that a miracle appeals to the senses, but this 
 directly contradicts them. When you are told 
 that the words of our Lord “ this is my body,” 
 and fk this is my blood,” are plain words, you 
 may answer with a learned prelate of our church, 
 
 5 
 
246 SERMON V. 
 
 <f very plain indeed, for they are a very plain 
 “ figure 20 .” 
 
 Archbishop Sharpe. And I am very willing to leave the mat¬ 
 ter upon this issue, though Dr. Milner in his late pamphlet is so 
 confident upon this point. I do still “ think that a simple up- 
 * f right man, reading the institution of the blessed sacrament in 
 f ‘ the gospel, ’ (that is our Lord’s taking the bread into his hands 
 and saying,) “ Take, eat, this is my body,” would not conceive that 
 bread to be the real and proper body, in substance, of the man or 
 being by whom it was so held ; more especially when he recollected 
 that when the promise of it,” (as it is here called by Dr. Milner) 
 was given, that is, when as related in John vi. 55, our Lord said 
 among other things, ic my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is 
 drink indeed,” and that they which should eat his body and 
 drink his blood should have eternal life : that very same saviour 
 added, upon the disciples murmuring at this as a hard saying, (v. 6’3) 
 It is the spirit that quickeneih, the flesh profiteth nothing, 
 * f the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life.” 
 \\ hen too St. Paul (cited by Dr. Milner himself only two page's 
 before) has told us that “ the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth 
 lite. ’ I say, that even without these strong authorities, a simple 
 upright man would suppose that the eating of Christ there men¬ 
 tioned, was only spoken in a spiritual and figurative sense. See 
 Inquiry into certain Vulgar Opinions, &c. pp. 191, 2. But Dr. 
 Milner has made a greater discovery, he has brought such a testi¬ 
 mony of the faith of our church in the ninth century, as induces 
 .him to defy the subtilty of the most disingenuous contro- 
 vertist,” to give it any other meaning than what he has assigned. 
 It is from Bede, whom I have not at hand, and whom not being 
 
 aide therefore to collate or to see what precedes or what follows, 
 I receive not without a protestation at the hands of Dr. Milner, 
 for reasons which I have repeatedly shewn and shall again shew ] 
 yet for argument’s sake I take him as cited. The passage is this] 
 (See Inquiry, &c. p. 148) and I say it no more proves transubstan- 
 tiation than it proves the transmutation of metals: for the only thing 
 which has caught Dr. Milner is that it contains the word trans- 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 247 
 
 One more argument only I shall allege, be¬ 
 cause it confirms what 1 have said before of the 
 
 fertur (printed by him in capitals) as if because it begins with the 
 same syllable as transubstantiation it must have the same meaning. 
 In fact Bede says no more than what any orthodox member of our 
 church might now say. “ Lavat nos (Christus) quotidie a peccatis 
 * s nostris in sanguine suo cum ejusdem beatEe passionis memoriaad 
 i( altare replicatur, cum panis et vini crcatura in sacramentum car- 
 “ nis et sanguinis ejus TRANSFERTUR : Sicque corpus et san- 
 ‘ f guis illius non infidelium manibus ad perniciem ipsorum funditur 
 « etocciditur, sed fidelium ore suam sumitur ad salutem.” I will 
 now give a TRANSLATION (this word also begins with trans) of 
 the passage and I defy any reasonable man to understand it as Or. 
 Milner chooses to do. “ Christ washes us from our sins every day 
 « in hi s blood, when the memory of his blessed passion is renewed 
 « at the altar, when the creature of bread and wine is transferred 
 for changed) ‘Onto the sacrament of his body and blood; and so 
 “ his body and blood is not shed and slain by the hands of infidels 
 “ to their destruction, but taken by the mouth of the faithful to 
 “ their salvation.” Every member of this sentence negatives the 
 idea of transubstantiation. The celebration of the eucharist is the 
 ** renewal of the memory of our Lord’s passion the “ change or 
 <c transfer” of the bread and wine, is not into his body and blood, 
 but “ into the sacrament of his body and blood and lastly, he is 
 not slain or his blood shed, but only “ taken to salvation.” Is this 
 such a change of substance as the Papists plead for ? Our church, 
 as Dr. Milner knows, believes a real, but a sacramental presence. 
 Nay, she prays that “ we may so eat the flesh of Christ and drink 
 “ his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, 
 “ and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and in 
 the very prayer of consecration it is asked of God that we “ recen- 
 “ ing these his creatures of bread and wine, according to our Sa 
 “ viour Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and 
 « passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood. * 
 And does our church believe transubstantiation ? It believes it 
 much as it did in Bede’s time. For further proof of which let the 
 reader only turn to Collier’s Ecclesiastical History, Voli. P- 204, 
 
 4 
 
248 
 
 SERMON V. 
 
 uncertainty and doubt which is so discernible 
 at times in this certain and infallible church. 
 You may remember the chapter of the epistle 
 to the Hebrews, where the efficacy of the one 
 sacrifice of Christ is so insisted upon and its 
 superiority over the offerings of the old law is 
 shewn from its needing no repetition. “ Christ/' 
 says the apostle, “ by his own blood entered 
 t( once into the holy place, having obtained 
 eternal redemption for us.” Of course there 
 was no need that he should offer himself more 
 than once. “ Nor yet,” says the apostle, “ that 
 “ l )e should offer himself often, as the high 
 “ priest entereth every year into the holy place 
 <f with blood of others (for then must he often 
 f ‘ have suffered from the foundation of the 
 “ world) but now once in the end of the 
 world hath he appeared to put away sin by 
 “ the sacrifice of himself.” I need not point 
 out to you how directly this contradicts their 
 notion of Christ’s sacrifice in the mass; but 
 
 where he will see her faith in that respect demonstrated to have 
 been e\en in the 10th century what it is now. Indeed it was some 
 time after Bede that the doctrine was first agitated by Radbert; 
 who was, as I have had occasion to mention in my next sermon, 
 immediately answered by Bertramn (or Ratramn) Rabanus Maurus 
 and Johannes Scotus ; and this even by command of the Emperor 
 Charles. Bertramn s book which is extant and prohibited in the 
 Index expurgatorius is a well known proof how much this tenet 
 was considered as a novelty. As little ground is there for what 
 
 Dr. M. says of the doctrine of Chrysostom and the Greek church, 
 in the same place. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 249 . 
 
 what I would have you further observe is that 
 clearly the suffering of the victim is inseparable 
 from every sacrifice. Here indeed they are 
 taken for one and the same thing. But then the 
 question arises, How does Christ suffer in the 
 mass? Is his body really eaten? Our adversa¬ 
 ries hardly venture to say that. But how else 
 does the victim suffer or is destroyed? One of 
 their great doctors says that by the pressing of 
 the teeth the body of Christ loses not its natural 
 but its sacramental essence; which to my appre¬ 
 hension goes a great way towards reducing the 
 matter to what archbishop Sharpe calls f ‘a plain 
 “ figure/’ and nothing else. But here again 
 another question arises among them as to what 
 is the sacrificial act. When docs the sacrifice 
 take place ? Some say at the oblation of the 
 elements, some say at Ihe consecration, others 
 at the breaking or mixing of them, and others 
 lastly, at the eating or consumption of them. 
 These are only some of their doubts ; and infi¬ 
 nite are the contradictions with which the dis¬ 
 cussion of them is involved. Meanwhile the 
 victim about which they are so divided is lifted 
 up, carried about in procession and worshipped ; 
 and often so far from being destroyed in the 
 proper sense of sacrifice, is reserved and made 
 subject to a thousand accidents, nay to be de¬ 
 voured, as has been confessedly the case, by 
 dogs, and by rats and mice. 
 
SERMON V. 
 
 250 
 
 But the difficulty or the mischief does not 
 stop here. There is one tenet behind so extra¬ 
 ordinary and absurd, as well as wicked, that one 
 can hardly conceive how it could have been es¬ 
 tablished. It bears particularly upon this point 
 of idolatry, since it makes it utterly impossible 
 for any man to be sure that he is not worship¬ 
 ping plain bread and wine. In their great eager¬ 
 ness to exalt the character of the priest, and to 
 invest him with the highest possible authority 
 in the execution of his office, the later popish 
 councils have decreed that the intention of the 
 priest is necessary to the validity of a sacrament: 
 that is, that the priest must mean to do what 
 he is supposed to do, lie must really intend to 
 change the bread and wine into the body and 
 blood of Christ, or no change whatever takes 
 place. If through inattention, through per¬ 
 verseness, through malice, he does not choose 
 that grace should be conveyed to the partakers 
 of the host, they not only receive no benefit 
 whatever, hut in kneeling and adoring the wa¬ 
 fer, they are paying religious worship to a mere 
 composition of flour and water. It is, there¬ 
 fore, as I said before, impossible for any man 
 who performs this act of adoration, unless he 
 could read the heart of the priest, to he sure that 
 lie is not guilty of idolatry. But there is still 
 further room for doubt and hesitation. For as 
 this doctrine extends to orders and to baptism 
 
 i 
 
S E R M O N V. 
 
 251 
 
 as well as to the mass, it follows also that if the 
 bishop who ordained the priest had no intention 
 of conferring orders, if the minister who offi¬ 
 ciated at his baptism had no intention of ad¬ 
 mitting him into the church of Christ, he is no 
 lawful priest, and none of his acts can have any 
 efficacy, nor can confer the least particle of 
 spiritual grace, or the most insignificant privi¬ 
 lege. And this, it must be further observed, 
 goes back to every bishop and every priest from 
 the days of the apostles. If in any one instance 
 the intention was wanting, the chain is broken, 
 and all those whose admission into the church 
 is connected with the act which is thus defective 
 are in fact no Christians. In short, upon their 
 principle, every bishop and every priest, nay 
 every saint of their church may he no better 
 than heathens and publicans. 
 
 The folly as well as impudence of this doc¬ 
 trine is so alarming, it is such a loosening; of 
 the foundations of the church, so suicidal, that 
 one can only refer it to that strong delusion 
 mentioned in scripture, which causes men to 
 £t believe a lie;” which leads them to overlook 
 the most false consequences, in the pursuit of a 
 present, though ever so unsubstantial an ad¬ 
 vantage. 
 
 Thus have I brought to a close what I meant 
 to say upon the first head of the corruptions 
 prevailing in the Romish church; and you can- 
 
252 
 
 SERMO N V. 
 
 not but see how even by that our separation 
 from her might be fully justified. From the 
 first to the last the scriptures are uniform in re¬ 
 presenting idolatry as the grossest act of rebel¬ 
 lion against God. He deigns to consider himself 
 as the husband of his church. And every other 
 act of worship to any other being, nay, every 
 such act paid even to him in any other manner 
 than he warrants, is stigmatized as adultery and 
 whoredom. He represents himself as a “ jealous’* 
 God, that we may understand (for such is the 
 nature of jealousy) that not only every approach 
 to such a crime, but the very suspicion of it in 
 the wife whom he hath chosen is what he will 
 not endure. But as you have also seen the 
 church of Rome is not only a prostitute, but a 
 prostitute for hire. Not only she prefers a 
 “form” before the “power” of godliness ; but 
 as St. Paul says elsewhere, supposes “ gain to 
 “he godliness*.” Indeed when you see for 
 what base ends the worship of God is thus by 
 her priests and rulers profaned, what words can 
 we apply to them more justly than those of our 
 Lord spoken to other money changers, far less 
 criminal than these, “ It is written my house* 
 “ shall be called a house of prayer, but ye have 
 “ made it a den of thieves.^*” 
 
 * 1 Tim vi. 5. 
 
 t Matt. xxi. 13. 
 
( 253 
 
 \ 
 
 / 
 
 \ 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 Mark vii. 7. 
 
 In vain do they worship me , teaching for Doctrines 
 the Commandments of Men. 
 
 In the beginning of my last discourse I ob¬ 
 served upon the difficulty which must be felt by 
 every infidel or impostor in opposing the true 
 religion, unless he be prepared with other doc¬ 
 trines by which he may divert and engage the 
 attention of men, and satisfy that propensity 
 to the divine worship which is so deeply rooted 
 in the human mind: I may add now that the 
 sort of doctrine which is thus made to supply 
 the place of God’s word, can of course only 
 
254 
 
 S E R M O N VI. 
 
 be that which is pointed out in the text. And 
 this a fiords another proof of the truth of what 
 has been more than once observed, that error in 
 al] ages is substantially the same. For you can¬ 
 not be ignorant that the practice which our 
 Saviour thus reproves in the pharisees and hy¬ 
 pocrites of his day, is the principal and most 
 powerful engine employed at all times by the 
 church of Rome, and by force of which she 
 has been enabled to support her authority, and 
 give currency to her peculiar tenets. The doc¬ 
 tors of modern days have but trod the same 
 path as the rabbis of old ; both saw their ad¬ 
 vantage and pursued it; and in both cases but 
 too successfully, “ The word of God was made 
 €t of none effect by their traditions*.” In 
 what way indeed could any colour have been 
 given to the abominations which in my last dis¬ 
 course I pointed out, how could the worship of 
 images and of relics, or the invocation of saints 
 ever have become accredited but by devising 
 such explanations and glosses, and bringing 
 forward such opinions of men as should quite 
 put out of sight the divine commandments in 
 which they were so expressly prohibited. 
 
 Such is the case with the first class of corrup¬ 
 tions adopted by the Romish church, nor shall 
 we fnd those which follow at all less contradic¬ 
 tory to the words of scripture, or differently 
 
 * Matt. xt. 0. 
 
255 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 I 
 
 supported. They stand indeed like the others 
 upon no better or more specious foundation 
 than the inventions of men. 
 
 I come then, as next in order, to that class 
 of corrupt doctrine by which she derogates from 
 the sufficiency of our Lord’s atonement; and 
 this by the introduction of other intercessors, 
 and her whole sj^stem of merits as applied to the 
 living as well as the dead. And to any man 
 who has duly considered the nature of our re¬ 
 demption, who feels as he ought all that is due 
 to our great Lord and Saviour, this species of 
 
 '•11 • 
 
 error will not appear in any degree less pernici¬ 
 ous than the first. It will also be found mate¬ 
 rially connected with it. And indeed, accord¬ 
 ing to the observation already made, as it is in 
 the nature of truth that all its parts should har¬ 
 monize together and support one another; so 
 shall we find the different species of error, more 
 especially in religious matters, so naturally to 
 run into each other, to be so closely entwined 
 
 1/ 
 
 and interwoven that it is hardly possible to con¬ 
 sider any one of them without some of the others 
 coming also into discussion. Thus the worship 
 of the saints, and of course of their images and 
 relics, forces itself naturally upon us, when 
 coming to consider the Romish doctrine of 
 merits. By their merits it is that the saints are 
 
 represented as having raised themselves, to that 
 eminence, from which they are able to give to 
 
256 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 their votaries assistance and protection. What¬ 
 ever therefore of honour or of worship may be 
 paid to them, becomes on that account doubly 
 abominable and impious. It is idolatry; and 
 idolatry practiced upon grounds which cannot 
 but most immediately derogate from the glory 
 of him who is in scripture declared to be our 
 only Redeemer and Protector, the only Being 
 who is “mighty to save*. ” And this as I have 
 before observed, would be the case if the vene¬ 
 ration which is paid to saints, and the trust 
 which is reposed in them, were ever so mode¬ 
 rate and kept within ever such narrow bounds; 
 if nothing had taken place of that which I have 
 already pointed out, and which we know to 
 have been the fact ever since saints were first 
 worshipped ; that infinitely more and more ear¬ 
 nest supplications are and have been by their 
 worshippers put up to them than to Christ or 
 the Father 1 . But even this is not all; there is 
 
 * Isaiah lxiii. 1. 
 
 / 
 
 ’ The reader may recollect what has been adduced in some of 
 the notes to the last sermon, particularly notes l6 , 17 & l8 . Take 
 another specimen or two : first, of the famous St. Francis, of Assisi. 
 “ He had a singular devotion to the mother of God (whom he 
 “ chose for the special patroness of his order) and in her honour 
 t( he fasted from the feast of SS. Peter and Paul to that of her as- 
 “ sumption. After this festival he fasted forty days and prayed 
 “ much, out of devotion to the angels, especially the archangel 
 “ Michael; and at All saints he fasted other forty days. Under the 
 <r name of these lents he spent almost the whole year in fasting and 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 257 
 
 yet one circumstance remaining behind to fill 
 up the measure of abomination. In fact, had 
 
 ge prayer. See Butler’s Lives of the Saints, Vol. iv. p. J4. that 
 is in fact in devotions to the honour of saints and angels. Little 
 therefore could be left for God. In the manner of performing 
 the novena or nine days devotion to St. Francis Xavier,’’ (sold by 
 Keating and Co.) we are directed to be if always endeavouring to 
 te repose an entire confidence in the merits of this apostle,” &c; 
 p.394. And at the end is a prayer to him concluding in these 
 words, u as thou art favourable and loving to all persons, be so also 
 et to me, though an unworthy sinner. Grant me this reouest to 
 te the glory of God and to thy own honour. Amen.” I am in¬ 
 formed from very good authority, that it is common at Naples for 
 the people to call upon Christ to pray for them to St. Januarius. 
 fi Jesu Maria’prega per me a san Gennaro.’* There will be less 
 difficulty in believing this if we consider the example very lately set 
 by the head of that church. Upon his return from France in the 
 year 1805, the pope held a secret consistory in which on the 26th 
 of June, he delivered an allocution giving an account of what he 
 had done. And he t( congratulates himself in being able to com- 
 te municate with them,” (the consistory) “ that day so near the 
 * c solemn festival of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, in order that 
 ** after having described the benefits he has experienced, chiefly by 
 (i their holy assistance, they may proceed to celebrate the memory 
 of those glorious martyrs, with a piety the more ardent and with 
 hearts overflowing with gratitude.” In the end he says, ‘‘it 
 rt behoves them to prostrate themselves at the throne cf the author 
 e< of these benefits, and humbly to supplicate him, through the in- 
 tercession of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul,” &c. See 
 Cobbett’s Pol. Reg. Vol. viii. p. 139 . If the reader will examine 
 the miracles which are pretended to have taken place in these latter 
 times* he will almost invariably find them ascribed not to any prayer 
 to God, but to some invocation of a particular saint, who is to be 
 honoured therehy. See Butler’s Lives of the Saints, passim* I shall 
 onlv further subjoin the well known account of the offerings in the 
 church of Canterbury just before the reformation mentioned in 
 Burnet and other writers, as made at the three great altars. “ The 
 
 S 
 
25S 
 
 S E R M O N VI. 
 
 the doctrine gone no further, it would but 
 imperfectly have served the ends which the 
 popes had in view. Had men simply been told 
 that by their own endeavours the saints had 
 raised themselves to the immediate enjoyment 
 of the beatific vision, and the conclusion been 
 laid before them which resulted from this, that 
 the same path was open to all who would make 
 the same exertions, this would not have tended 
 sufficiently of itself to advance the temporal in¬ 
 terests of the church : nay, by teaching the 
 efficacy of a man's own endeavours, it might 
 have raised in the catechumens ideas of inde¬ 
 pendence, or have led them at least to put con¬ 
 fidence in themselves and not in her. Care 
 indeed was taken, as hereafter will be seen, that 
 the merits by which this privilege was to be 
 obtained, should be of such a nature as must 
 at any rate contribute greatly to her support; 
 but even with that, had no other consequence 
 been attached to it, the doctrine would have 
 been comparatively barren and unproductive. 
 It was therefore necessary to resort to other de¬ 
 vices, and by novel and arbitrary distinctions 
 
 ** one was to Christ, the other to the virgin and the third to St. 
 (i Thomas. In one year there was offered at Christ’s altar 3 l. 2 s. Gd. 
 at the virgin’s altar, 63 I. 5s. 6 d. But at St. Thomas’s altar, 
 8321. 12 s. 3d. But the next year the odds grew greater for there 
 cc was not a penny offered at Christ’s altar, and at the virgin’s only 
 41. l$. 8 d. ButatSt. Thomas’s, Q54l. 6 s. 8 d.” Hist, of Ref. i. 244. 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 259 
 
 to set up new modes of satisfaction and atone¬ 
 ment; that thus the minds of men might be 
 weaned from fixing their thoughts exclusively 
 and entirely, as they ought, on the merits of 
 our Lord ; that they might thus be brought 
 down from heaven to earth ; from the pure and 
 spiritual faith in a divine Saviour, to a reliance 
 on human protectors, on ceremonies both vis¬ 
 ible and gross. 
 
 The Scriptures indeed had spoken but too 
 plainly on this head. It was so expressly laid 
 down in them that Christ, by his death, had 
 become the author of eternal salvation* that 
 he 3iath delivered us from the wrath to 
 cC comef ; that “there is none other name under 
 “ heaven by whom we may be savedj.” All 
 these, and numberless other passages, were so 
 strong and positive, that directly to oppose them 
 would have been too flagrant rebellion, and some 
 evasion was to be found. This was hit upon by 
 means of that intermediate state, concerning: 
 
 7 o 
 
 which so little is declared in Scripture, that the 
 most pious and learned men have differed upon 
 the subject. There were also doubts and reve¬ 
 ries, nay, and declared heresies, of some of the 
 ancient fathers, which might easily be, as they 
 were in fact made subservient to any system 
 which might be adoped 2 . Here there was a 
 
 * Heb. v. 9 . f 1 Tbess. i. 10. + Acts, iv. 12. 
 
 * Origen’s, for example, which the Romanists scruple not to <yte 
 
2 ® 
 
 I 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 field which, being almost entirely left open to 
 the imagination, might well be employed for 
 such purposes as fraud should devise, and cre¬ 
 dulity adopt Accordingly, while the one sacri¬ 
 fice of Christ was allowed to be indeed effica¬ 
 cious for the salvation of all the faithful, that is ? 
 of those who died in communion, and bavin a' 
 made their peace with the church, it w r as taught 
 that this salvation was restricted to redemption 
 from the torments of eternal damnation. There 
 was still (as mankind were led to believe) an¬ 
 other satisfaction to be made. God, it was as¬ 
 serted, had indeed promised the final remission 
 of sins through Christ, but had reserved to him¬ 
 self the right of inflicting temporal punishment* 
 even for the sins which were thus remitted. 
 This temporal punishment was to consist, in the 
 first place, of sufferings and mortifications of all 
 sorts in this life; but for those who had not 
 passed through this ordeal, and were not suffi¬ 
 ciently purged, there was ordained a place of 
 torment, where their souls might be detained for 
 a longer or a shorter time, according to the de- 
 
 and rely upon when it suits their purpose. See Archbishop Wake’s 
 Discourse upon Purgatory, Pres, against Popery, tit. viii. ch. vi. 
 See also the Discourse upon praying, for the Dead,, ib. ch. vii. in 
 which is shewn the weakness-of their argument, built on the an¬ 
 cients being used to pray for the dead ; since they prayed for all the 
 saints, and- even the Virgin Mary ; which alone would overturn 
 all their system ot the boasted merits of their great intercessors and 
 protectors'. 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 Sfil 
 
 gree of this sort of satisfaction which might be 
 required in their particular case. This place 
 was, after some time, called by the well known 
 name of purgatory. 
 
 In this doctrine it could not, and it cannot be 
 
 H 
 
 denied,, that there is something not only revolt¬ 
 ing in itself, but directly contrary to all the ideas 
 which are inculcated in Scripture respecting the 
 divine mercy, and our redemption through Christ, 
 For to be told that we are “freely” justified 
 through him, that by him we are no longer 
 c,r children of wrath and yet to be told that 
 even those who are admitted to the benefits of 
 his passion, who are enrolled in the number of 
 the faithful, are notwithstanding bound to go 
 through a course of sufferings, little, if at all 
 inferior in intenseness, to those which ate des¬ 
 tined for the reprobates, having all the horrors 
 of hell except its duration ; this is such a con¬ 
 tradiction as, thus nakedly considered, must not 
 only shock the reason of the sober Christian, 
 but even alarm the feelings of the credulous anti 
 superstitious. 
 
 This, therefore, as the system was matured, 
 came very soon to be explained, as being a mat¬ 
 ter of mere terror, rather than any thing else. 
 It was at least, as men were told, such a penalty 
 as might be got rid of, without personal incon¬ 
 venience, by any man who would onlv give him- 
 gelf up to the guidance of the church. She had 
 
262 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 in her care provided a store, out of which every 
 man might be fully supplied, if he would but 
 pay a sufficient price. She had discovered that, 
 although the merits of Christ, as applied by 
 himself, and, in the first instance, do not redeem 
 the souls of the faithful out of purgatory ; yet, 
 as applied by his priests, and as offered up in 
 the mass, they have all the efficacy which is re¬ 
 quired. That is, our Lord, for the mere pur¬ 
 pose of magnifying and enriching the ministers 
 of his sacraments, must have kept back some 
 part of the all-sufficiency of his atonement, in 
 order that in due season, and for good consi¬ 
 derations, the part so reserved might be dealt 
 out for the particular profit of those whom the 
 
 * s 
 
 church should appoint for that purpose. 
 
 ‘ A more profligate and impudent insult upon 
 the majesty of our Lord can hardly be con¬ 
 ceived. It is however surpassed by what fol¬ 
 lows. For, not content thus to parcel out and 
 to retail, as it were, the benefit of our redemp¬ 
 tion by Christ himself, they have gone to that 
 length of impiety as to say that, that which, in 
 the first instance, the sufferings of Christ do not 
 effect, to the full and entire remission of any 
 mans sins, may also be made up by the merits 
 of his saints. And, to this end, they imagined 
 that most presumptuous and unscriptural tenet 
 of works of supererogation. According to this, 
 in opposition to the whole scheme of our re* 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 % 6 $ 
 
 demption, as made known from the days of 
 Adam down to those of St. John, in the teeth 
 of so many declarations of the saints themselves, 
 they hold that, not only the saints have done so 
 much as entitles them to receive, in strict justice, 
 the rewards of eternal life, but that their good 
 works have been so abundant, and so much be¬ 
 yond what was required of them, that out of 
 that abundance they are enabled to supply the 
 deficiencies of others. Thus it is in tact de¬ 
 clared that it is not Christ only that suffered for 
 sinners; but that this is an honour which is 
 shared by the martyrs and confessors, whose 
 sufferings or good works, for in this instance 
 the terms are synonimous, are available, if not 
 for the forgiveness of sins, yet for the remission 
 of that penalty which is the consequence of sin. 
 And thus, lest, I suppose, the merits of Christ 
 should not prove sufficient, the merits of the 
 saints are added, and altogether form that trea¬ 
 sure, or store, the dispensation of which is com¬ 
 mitted to the church 3 . 
 
 Such is the short history of indulgences, 
 which are founded on this supposed stock of 
 
 3 See Rheims Testament, note upon 2 Cor. ii. 10. tc Whereupon 
 tc we inferre most assuredly, that the satisfactorie and penai woiks 
 “ of holy saints, suffered in this life, be communicable and appli- 
 (t cable to the use of other laithful men, their fellow-workers in 
 tf our Lord, and to be dispensed according to every man s necessitie 
 te and deserving, by them whom Christ hath constituted over his 
 “ familie, and hath made the dispensers of his treasures.” 
 
254 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 superabundant works, and overflowing grace: 
 and which, although now such a settled point 
 of doctrine in the church of Rome, were not 
 even thought of before the era of the crusades. 
 At that time the piety of the faithful requiring 
 some extraordinary incentives, this species of 
 rewards was first held out, in order to animate 
 the courage, and revive the zeal of the kings 
 and princes who were called upon to head their 
 armies against the infidel possessors of the holy 
 land. It was also, by a transition quite natural 
 in that communion from the enemies of Christ 
 to the enemies of the church, further extended 
 to those who took up the cross against the he¬ 
 retics of those days; the whole influence of the 
 church being thus brought to bear upon all 
 those who opposed the power, or the doctrines 
 of the popes. I lie credit of these wares being 
 thus established, they were not suffered to fall 
 to the ground ; but they were brought forward 
 as powerful auxiliaries upon every occasion, 
 whenever the see of Rome stood in need of ex¬ 
 traordinary support, or its coffers required to be 
 replenished 4 . They came at last to be publicly 
 put up to sale, and this in so barefaced and scan¬ 
 dalous a manner, that, as you well know, it was 
 from the indignation excited by this very abuse, 
 more than any other, that the Reformation re- 
 
 Thosc which are called general indulgences did not take place 
 till the time of Boniface the 8th, about the end of the 13th century; 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 265 
 
 ceived .its first and most decided impulse. Much 
 as they may, since that time, have lost of their 
 repute, however necessary it may have been 
 found to proceed with more caution and reserve 
 in the dispensing of them, yet the practice still 
 subsists. To this day they form a part of the 
 means by which the pope retains his influence, 
 and exercises his authority over the members of 
 his communion, wheYever dispersed ; and a cer¬ 
 tain and allotted portion of them figures in the 
 directories, and other books, which are printed 
 for the information and edification of the Roman 
 Catholics in this country. They are, I will 
 add, still defended by the pens of their bishops, 
 and maintained to be full of spiritual profit and 
 comfort to all Christians 5 . 
 
 I have purposely abstained, as may have been 
 observed, from adverting with any particularity 
 to the grounds upon which these errors have 
 been established. I have entered into none of 
 the distinctions by which, in the hands of the 
 schoolmen, they were supported ; the merits 
 “ de congruo,” and the merits “ de condigno,’* 
 or the “ opus operatum.” I have forborne to 
 do this, both because in any degree to have at- 
 
 b See the Laity’s Directory, a Roman Catholic calendar, pub¬ 
 lished by authority : and Dr. Milner’s Pastoral Letter, p. viii. See 
 also, in Dr. Hales’s State of the Modern Church of Rome, an ac¬ 
 count of the cargoes of them which the King of Spain takes from 
 his holiness, and retails to his subjects in America. The instance 
 d):re produced is of the years 1782 and 1783, pp. 182 and 218. 
 
sdS 
 
 SERMON VL 
 
 tempted it might have led me too far; and also 
 for that much more satisfactory reason, that 
 these points have been so ably and so fully 
 treated by a learned Gentleman, who but lately 
 preceded me in these lectures, that no man who 
 wishes for information upon the subject need 
 now be at a loss where to go 6 . My business 
 indeed, as I have before mentioned, is not to 
 give a detailed history of such tenets, but 
 shortly to point them out, and to shew their 
 utter opposition to, and inconsistency with the 
 true faith of Christ. It may be sufficient to 
 assert, that by the popes, and their adherents, 
 nothing has been omitted or disregarded, no¬ 
 thing has been considered as trivial or unim¬ 
 portant, which could in any way be made to 
 favour their doctrines or pretensions. What¬ 
 ever of subtle refinement had been imagined by 
 the schoolmen in their curiously idle researches, 
 or advanced by them in the heat of argument, 
 whatever hasty or loose opinions may have been 
 unguardedly thrown out by the fathers, what¬ 
 ever has occurred among the Vulgar, nay, even 
 every mistaken or inaccurate passage in their 
 versions of the divine oracles, which could be 
 made to bear upon the points in question, has 
 
 6 Dr Kichard Laurence, who appears to have given the death¬ 
 blow to that allegation, with so much positiveness advanced by 
 certain sectaries, both in and out of the church, that the compilers 
 of our articles understood them in a Calvinistic sense. 
 
 1 
 
267 
 
 SERMON VI, 
 
 by them been carefully collected, raised to im¬ 
 portance, and turned to account. This is parti¬ 
 cularly visible in their doctrine of the sacra¬ 
 ments; two of which, more especially, stand upon 
 hardly any better foundation than the language 
 of that translation of the Bible, which is com¬ 
 monly called the Vulgate, and which for that 
 very reason they have adopted in preference to 
 the originals. I mean the sacraments, as they 
 term it, of marriage and of penance. The first 
 they founded upon that expression of St. Paul, 
 where he terms it a mystery; by the Vulgate 
 rendered fC sacramentum 7 . ” Of the second, that 
 
 7 Ephes. v. 32. Yet is this so weak a foundation, that the 
 annotators of the Itheims Testament are fain, in some sort, to give 
 it up, and to rest themselves upon the general sense of the passage ; 
 as it is echoed by some of the fathers, “ Thus,” they say, we 
 ** gather that matrimonie is a sacrament; and not of the Greek 
 “ word mysterie only, as Calvin falsely says, not of the Latin word 
 “ sacrament, both which we know to have a more extended sig- 
 nification,” &c. See Rheims Testament in loc. This is true 
 enough: Austin applies the word to the casting out of Ishmael in 
 Gen. xxi. which he calls “ magnum sacramentum and after ob¬ 
 serving that God confirmed the words of Sarah, he adds, t( Jam hie 
 “ manifestum est sacramentum, quia nescio quid futurum partu- 
 e< riebat ilia res gesta l{ because that act led to something that 
 e ‘ was to come after.” In Johan, tract xi. Since then such is th« 
 meaning of “ sacramentum,” both in the vulgate and in the fathers, 
 what pretence is there for their taking the word in that particular 
 sense in which, by us and by them, the word sacrament is now 
 understood ? For in fact it is only upon these passages in which 
 the word clearly signifies te mystery,” and nothing else, that they, 
 following Peter Lombard, the first author of this conceit, have built 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 %6 S 
 
 of penance, because it belongs to this question 
 of merits, I shall now proceed to say a few 
 words, and thus conclude this head. 
 
 The practice of penance was certainly not 
 unknown in the first ages of the church. It 
 was thought a necessary, and an edifying act of 
 humiliation, for those who had been guilty of 
 scandalous crimes, more especially those who 
 had fallen away in time of persecution, publicly 
 to confess their sin, and submit to open shame, 
 before they were again received to communion. 
 Undoubtedly such a practice might well be jus¬ 
 tified from Scripture, and particularly from what 
 appears to have taken place in the church of 
 Corinth, under the directions of St. Paul. But, 
 as the intention was not only to reform the of¬ 
 fender, but to deter others from the commission 
 of the offence, all was public, confession as well 
 as penance 9 . Afterwards, when the external 
 
 that doctrine. See Fulk’s note, ib. So that after all (taking their 
 own state of the case) either it rests upon this passage, thus mis¬ 
 interpreted, or it is a purely arbitrary decision of their church. 
 
 8 And particularly there was no respect of persons, or any com¬ 
 mutation allowed. See Bingham’s Eccl. Anliq. b. xvi. c. iiu § 3. 
 Indeed that there is no mention of indulgences, either in the Scrip¬ 
 tures, or in the old doctors of the church, is admitted by the most 
 respectable writers, ,even of the Romish communiop. Cardinal 
 Cajetan says, i( De ortu indulgentiarum si certftudo haberi posset, 
 ft veritati indagandae opem ferret; terum nulla sacrae scriptural, 
 t( nulla sacrorum dpetorum Graecorum aut Latinorum authoritas 
 scripta banc ad nostram deduxit aetatam.” Opuc. tom. 1. tract 
 1531. Durandus, one of their most famous writers, says the same. 
 
SERMON VI. 2 69 
 
 pressure upon the church was diminished, and 
 she had tasted the sweets of worldly prosperity, 
 this, like all other branches of discipline, was 
 relaxed ; and the confession was allowed to take 
 place, first before a few, and afterwards to the 
 priest only; and by the priest only the offender 
 was reconciled to the church. Upon this, by 
 degrees, was built the doctrine of private and 
 general confession, and the obligation of every 
 man to undergo that humiliation. The idea of 
 repentance, as entertained in the Scriptures, and 
 consisting simply in the change of the heart, in 
 sorrow, and amendment of life, assumed a more 
 complex form. By the help of the Vulgate, 
 that which alone is material, and of great price 
 in the sigh t of God, the conversion of the spirit, 
 is become of comparatively little significance. 
 For the Greek word /xer&voav, which conveys no 
 other sense but that of an operation of the mind, 
 
 “ De i'ndulgentiis pauca did possunt per certitudiaem quia nec 
 tl Scriptura de iis expresses loquitur ; sancti etiam ut Ambrosiua 
 ,4 Hil. Aug. Hieron. minime loquuntur de indulgentiis.” Du¬ 
 rand. C4. disx. 20. 9 . 3. After this it may not be amiss to subjoin: 
 the decree of the Council of Trent on the subject. ee Cum pro- 
 “ testas conferendi indulgentias a Christo ecclesia? concessa sit: 
 44 atque hujusmodi protestate divinitus sibi tradita antiquissiniis 
 ’ >< etiam temporibus ilia usa fuerit: Sacrosanctar synodus indulgen- 
 “ tiarum usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem et sanctorum 
 conciliorurn auctoritate probatum in ecclesia retinendum esse 
 “ ducit ct prscipit, eosque anathemalc damnat qui aut inutiles 
 i( esse asserunt vei eas concedendi in ecclesia potestatem esse 
 negant.'' V. Pallavicim Hist. Conc.Trid. 1. xxiv, c. ft. 
 
270 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 a change purely spiritual, the Vulgate had sub¬ 
 stituted agere poenitentiam,” rendered again 
 into English, <e to do penance.” And, in pro¬ 
 cess of time, this same term of “ penance” has 
 usurped both the place and the office of “ re- 
 “ pentance 9 .” This is now, since the Council 
 of Trent established it as a sacrament, declared 
 to consist in four acts, three of them allotted to 
 the penitent, being contrition, confession, and 
 satisfaction; by which, when crowned with the 
 fourth, that is “ absolution at the hand of the 
 fi priest/’ it is held that all his sins committed 
 
 * Agreeably to this, in the Rheims Testament, John the Baptist, 
 Matthew iii. v. 3, is made to say not “ repent,” hut f * do penance,” 
 for “ the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” And ib. v. 8, yield 
 therefore “ fruits worthy of penance,” which in the note is ex* 
 plained to mean (C works” of penance, such as fasting, prayer, alms, 
 and the like. So it is in all similar passages ; as in Rom. ii. we 
 have “ the benignitie of God hringeth thee to penance,” instead 
 of “ the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.’’ This sort 
 of phrase would shock one’s cars for its barbarism, if it were not 
 something so much worse. See Erasmus ad loc. whose sentiments 
 agree with those of Lactantius, an old father of the church, and a 
 particular favourite with the Romanists; and which 1 shall there¬ 
 fore set down here. Speaking of repentance- (poenitentia) he says, 
 “ Graeci melius et significantius y.EravOictv dicunt: quam nos 
 <( possumus resipiscentiam dicere: resipiscit enim et mentem suam 
 (t quasi ah insania recipit quem errati piget,” &c. There was 
 therefore no need in Latin of using such a term as fC poenitentia g 
 or, in English, of coining the word penance; a term still more im¬ 
 proper, because appropriated wholly to that error. Mr. Ward, 
 however (and of course his late editor), have the modesty to place 
 the translation of our Bible in these places among his supposed 
 “ Errata.” See Lact. de vert) cultu 24. 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 271 
 
 since baptism are forgiven 10 . How different all 
 this is from the simplicity of Scripture, or of 
 ecclesiastical discipline, as it originally prevailed, 
 I need not point out to you. I must, however, 
 call your attention to the ability which is here 
 asserted to be in us to satisfy for our sins. The 
 satisfaction indeed in most cases is easy enough. 
 It is, as they define it themselves, the doino- 
 
 O 
 
 * 4 of the penance which is enjoined by the priest.” 
 That in ordinary cases this is not very heavy 
 there is reason to believe; but that, whenever 
 the interests (and, I mean even the temporal 
 interests) or the church required it, the penance 
 has been most serious, history will furnish us 
 with a thousand examples. In this country, 
 particularly, we must remember, that one of our 
 kings purchased absolution from pretended trans¬ 
 gressions with no less than the surrender of his 
 dominions. Upon these, however, and other 
 
 10 That is, I suppose, those sins which merited eternal damna¬ 
 tion. I he pains of purgatory are still to be redeemed by drawing 
 upon the other fund. There is, however, a good deal of confusion 
 in this : for in some of the collects respecting the saints (as before 
 .observed), they are considered as interposing, to 6ave men from the 
 pains of hell, and to procure them eternal happiness. Vid. note l(i, 
 of Sermon V. On the other hand, the satisfaction which is here 
 commonly required to be made, is precisely that sort of perform¬ 
 ances, which, according to their notions, qxalts human beings into 
 a state of sahjtship. As see infr. n. 12. In this account of pe¬ 
 nance I have followed the short catechism printed for the London 
 district, that I might not be supposed to misrepresent the tenets of 
 ihe Romanists, as now professed in England. 
 
 < 
 
272 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 instances, I need not dwell; you will see of 
 yourselves what a prodigious source of wordly 
 advantage this must necessarily have proved, 
 and must still prove, as far as the times will bear 
 it, in the hands of those who, generally speak¬ 
 ing, have never scrupled any means for the in¬ 
 crease of their own private fortunes, or the ad¬ 
 vancement of their order. But gross as this 
 abuse was, and is, it is yet of less consequence 
 than that fundamental error, in thus teaching 
 men that they are able to make satisfaction to 
 God; and thus drawing away their minds from 
 the contemplation of him who alone is their 
 Redeemer, who alone is entitled to our thanks 
 and praises, and whose doctrine we can never 
 receive as we ought, unless we are first made 
 sensible of our nothingness, of our “ inability of 
 “^ourselves to help ourselves.” But, indeed, 
 since the church of Rome still reserves to her¬ 
 self the power of swelling the calendar of her 
 saints, since she still presumes, and has actu¬ 
 ally, within only a very few years, presumed to 
 assert in practice this proud and impious preten¬ 
 sion of creating new objects of religious wor¬ 
 ship, it must of course follow that she should 
 uphold, in its full extent, this doctrine of merits, 
 and this supposed ability in every individual of 
 her communion, by his own efforts, to raise him¬ 
 self to that high eminence. We must not wonder 
 therefore if, in the number of anathemas pro- 
 
 i 
 
SERMON VL 
 
 noun iced by the council of Trent, there should 
 be one reserved for those who presume to deny 
 that the good works of any mortal man can have 
 any such efficacy*. 
 
 It remains for us to inquire what is the nature 
 of these merits, which, according to the church 
 ot Rome, entitle a man to this crown of glory, 
 which thus raise him in some respect to a level 
 with his Saviour, and obtain for him a share in 
 that most excellent office of making interces¬ 
 sion for sins. For, you will recollect that she was 
 charged, in the third place, with holding such 
 false ideas of Christian perfection, as wgre not 
 only erroneous in themselves, but pernicious in 
 their consequences, as leading to dissoluteness 
 oi manners, and, at best, resting upon the ob¬ 
 servance of practices trifling and useless, and 
 even ridiculous, rather than the essential duties 
 of faitli and charity. 
 
 If this shall, upon examination, he found to 
 be a true statement • if the qualities and the 
 achievements for which the Romish saints are 
 pronounced to be blessed, shall turn out to be 
 of the nature which I have here attributed to 
 them, what an aggravation must it be of the 
 folly and impiety which is thus committed ? 
 How must it increase the condemnation of this 
 idolatrous church, that the individuals whom 
 she w 01 ships were so far from deserving* religious 
 
 See Deciet. Concil. Trident. Sess. vi. c. 16 . can. 22 . 
 
 . T 
 
274 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 honour, that they were hardly entitled to the 
 lowest degree of civil respect; nay, that for the 
 most part, the history of their lives is but a 
 tissue of the most childish and contemptible ex¬ 
 travagances. 
 
 o 
 
 In order the better to detect what is falsehood, 
 let us first take a view of what is unquestionably 
 the truth. 
 
 Any man who coolly considers the workings 
 ot our holy religion, as exemplified in the con¬ 
 duct of our Lord and his apostles, will, I think, 
 agree with me, that there is no quality which 
 so peculiarly and appropriately belongs to it as 
 sobriety. It is throughout natural and con¬ 
 sistent, without pretensions or affectation. Our 
 blessed Lord came clown upon earth expressly 
 to suffer. It was a part of his mission that he 
 should be placed in an inferior rank of life, that 
 he should be poor, “ despised and rejected of 
 men . 5 But we never find him, voluntarily, or 
 by any act of his, aggravating the evils and in¬ 
 conveniences of that situation in which he was 
 found, imposing upon himself, or his followers, 
 unnecessary mortifications. So far from it, we 
 find him reproached by the hypocrites of those 
 days, because, as he expresses it, <{ he came eat- 
 “ mg and drinking/’ So much was he in every 
 respect like unto his brethren, sin only excepted. 
 When he observed that “ the foxes had holes, 
 f< and the birds of the air had nests, but the s’on 
 
S E R M O N VI. 
 
 275 
 
 “ of man had not where to lav his head, ” it was 
 said not ostentatiously nor by way of complaint, 
 but simply as a warning to those who were mis- 
 taking the nature of his kingdom. He was buf¬ 
 feted indeed and spit upon, and he patiently 
 submitted to it; but he did not provoke or un¬ 
 necessarily expose himself to these or any other 
 indignities. Nay, in one instance when he was 
 struck, he remonstrated with the man who had 
 committed that outrage. 
 
 Similar to this was the conduct of the apostles, 
 those true and faithful followers of their blessed 
 master. In them may be traced the same mo¬ 
 deration, the same evenness and steadiness both 
 of life and conversation. They were equally 
 free from rashness and from weakness. Their 
 zeal was fervent and pure, and uniformly active, 
 but never broke out into excess or violence of 
 any sort. They lived with other men, and like 
 other men ; nay, at times in houses which they 
 hired: sometimes they were maintained by the 
 disciples, at other times they provided for 
 themselves ; as was best suited to circumstances 
 and as might best promote or advance the gos¬ 
 pel which they preached. They fasted indeed, 
 but only as others fasted, as was common, and 
 as has always been common, more especially in 
 eastern countries. If they journeyed often, if 
 they were often in perils and dangers, it was 
 
 t 2 
 
 \ • . *v 
 
 . i 
 
SERMON VL 
 
 ‘ 27 b 
 
 not that they desired these things, but that they 
 necessarily met with them in the course of their 
 mission. As to scourgings and imprisonments, 
 they not only did not inflict them upon them¬ 
 selves, but they complained of them and would 
 have avoided them when inflicted by others. 
 In some cases they actually did escape them by 
 their own act: in others the hand of God mi¬ 
 raculously interposed for their deliverance. 
 ■’ Above all, their humility was real, it was natu¬ 
 ral and without parade. There was no osten¬ 
 tatious self-abasement, none of that disclaimer 
 of merit which is only calculated to invite 
 praise. They seemed never to think of them¬ 
 selves : yet when called upon by the occasion 
 they readily and naturally spoke of their labours 
 with all the simplicity of truth, without exag¬ 
 geration or diminution. 
 
 Let us now, turn from these the real and un¬ 
 doubted saints of the church, to the spurious 
 and false imitators of them, whom the interested 
 policy and superstition of modern times has 
 • raised to the same rank, or even to a more ex¬ 
 alted post in their scale of worship and of holi¬ 
 ness. 
 
 I pass bvall those saints who were manifestly 
 canonized for no other reason but for the assis¬ 
 tance which they ministered to the church of 
 Rome, in the establishment of her manifold 
 
277 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 usurpations: their Saint Thomas a Bechets 11 , St. 
 Thomas Aquinases, St. Pius the 5th, and St. 
 Gregory the 7th. I will confine myself to those 
 whose labours tended only in a general way to 
 the exaltation of that church and the recom¬ 
 mendation of her doctrines. Now nothing can 
 be more different than are the lives of these pre- 
 
 i 
 
 tended confessors and martyrs from those of 
 the first and true apostles. There, we have 
 seen, all is natural and easy; but in the modern 
 saints all is forced and out of the due course of 
 things. Their whole exertion consists in arbi¬ 
 trary sufferings fancifully imposed either by 
 themselves or by some rule to which they have 
 
 11 I cannot however help making one or two observations re¬ 
 specting this saint. For what merits he was canonized every one 
 knows. I have already observed upon his having greater honour 
 paid to him than the immediate apostles of’ Christ. His life is 
 written by the late popish archbishop Dr. Butler, very much at 
 length. In this as maybe supposed his contests with his sovereign 
 are smoothed over with great address, and the “eminent sanctity” 
 of the martyr, as he is called, is given as a complete answer to all 
 the relations of historians that are unfavourable to him. Butler’s 
 Lives of the Saints, part iv. Dr. Butler (ib.) gives an account of 
 the sermon preached by this saint on the Christmas day preceding 
 his death; but forgets a circumstance mentioned by Radulphus de 
 Diceto : that after the service performed he solemnly excommuni¬ 
 cated, with lighted candles, (accensis candelis) Nigell de Latberilla, 
 for violently intruding into the church of Herges, and Robert de 
 Brooks, who had, in mockery of him, cropped one of his sumpter- 
 horses, “ qui equum quendam ipsius archiepiscopi victualia defe- 
 “ rentem ad ignominiam ejus decurtaverat.” Such was the “ cha- 
 “ ritv and zeal,” which we are told so abounded in the martyr! 
 Bee Anglia Sacra, part ii. p. 691. 
 
278 
 
 S E R M O N VI. 
 
 submitted. Their labours are directed to no end, 
 or to such as is evidently mistaken and unau¬ 
 thorized by Scripture. The pains which they 
 undergo are not only voluntarily inflicted, but 
 often attended with such silly refinements, with 
 circumstances so ridiculous as would hardly be 
 credited if they were not related by their own 
 panegyrists with the express view of exalting* 
 their character 12 . They therefore can excite no 
 
 Of St. John of the Cross it is said, “ When he arrived at Sa- 
 “ hmanca in order to commence his higher studies, the austerities 
 “ which he practised were excessive. He chose for his cell a 
 “ little dark hole at the bottom of the dormitory; a hollow board 
 something like a grave, was his bed. Pie platted himself so 
 rough a hair shirt that at the least motion it pricked his body to 
 “ blood. His fasts and other mortifications were incredible.” Af¬ 
 terwards it is said, “ For fear of contracting any attachment to 
 ** earthly things he was a rigorous observer and lover of povertv. 
 “ All the furniture of his little cell or chamber consisted in a paper 
 <c image and a cross of rushes, and he would have the meanest 
 “ beads and breviary, and wear the most threadbare habit he could 
 ** g et -” Butler’s Lives of the Saints, part iv. p. 777 , &c. A cer¬ 
 tain St. Felix, of Cantalicio, went beyond this, “ for he wore a 
 “ shirt of iron links, and plates studded with rough spikes,” and he 
 “ privately used to pick out of the basket the crusts left by the rc- 
 “ ligious, for his own dinner.’ 5 Ib. part ii. p. 434. Yet even this 
 is exceeded by St. Frances, for she “ got her dry crusts from the 
 “ pouches of the beggars in exchange for better bread. Her dis- 
 “ cipline was armed with rowels and sharp points,” &c. Ib. part i. 
 p. 424 . Of St. Peter of Alcantara, we are told that “such was 
 “ the restraint he put upon his eyes, that he had been a consider- 
 li a ^ e time a religious man without ever knowing that the church 
 “ his convent w>as vaulted. After having had the care of serving 
 the refectory for halt a year, he was chid by the superior for 
 having never given the friars any of the fruits in his custody, to 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 279 
 
 compassion, no sober man can feel an interest 
 in their fate. Indeed, they desire not, they ex- 
 
 i 
 
 “ which the servant of God humbly answered that he had never 
 (C seen any. The truth was that he had never lifted up his eyes to 
 “ the ceiling where the fruit was hanging upon twigs. He told St. 
 “ Teresa that he once lived in a house three years without know- 
 “ ing any of his religious brethren but by their voices. He seemed 
 “ by long habits of mortification to have almost lost the sense ot 
 “ what he ate, for when a little vinegar and salt was thrown into 
 “ a porringer of warm water, he took it for his usual soup of 
 “ beans.” Ib. partiv. p. 379- St. Laurence Justinian is an in¬ 
 stance of the same'sort. “A servant presenting him vinegar one 
 “ day at table instead of wine and water he drank it without saying 
 “ a word.” Ib. part iii. p. 843. Further he “never drank out of 
 “ meals: when asked to do it under excessive heats and weariness, 
 “ he used to say, * If we cannot bear this thirst how shall we 
 “ endure the fire of purgatory?” Ib. p. 834. St. Francis Xavier, 
 “ recollecting that in his youth he had been fond of jumping and 
 “ dancing, tied his arms and thighs with little cords, which by 
 “ his travelling swelled his thighs and sunk into his flesh so as 
 “ scarcely to be visible.” Ib. partiv. p. 850, and Tsovena. With 
 many of these saints frequent discipline is a great panacea. St. 
 Francis Borgia began it at ten years old. Ib. p. 150. St. Peter 
 Damian recommended “ the use of disciplines whereby to subdue 
 “ and punish the flesh, which was adopted as a compensation for 
 “ long penitential fasts: three thousand lashes with a recital of 
 “ thirty psalms, were a redemption of a canonical penance of one 
 “ year’s continuance.’’ Ib. part i. p. 332. Accordingly of himself 
 we are told that “he tortured his body with iron girdles and fre- 
 “ quent disciplines.” P. 334. The following instances can hardly 
 be read without a smile, “The physician having ordered him (St. 
 “ Aloysius) and anotner sick brother to take a very bitter draught, 
 “ the other drank it at once with the ordinary helps to quality the 
 “ bitterness of the taste, but Aloysius sipped it slowly, and, as it 
 “ were, drop by drop that he might have the longer and fuller taste 
 “ of what was mortifying.” Ib. part ii. p. G 98 . St. Aicard, (it 
 being the custom in his community for every monk to shave his 
 
 \ 
 
 O 
 
280 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 press!v disclaim any such sympathy, they arro¬ 
 gantly consider themselves as above the feelings 
 of human nature. Their pretensions, in fact, 
 as nourished and supported by their church, 
 bring them close upon the very borders of im¬ 
 piety, if they do not actually make them guilty 
 of that crime. 
 
 For if you consider the whole tenor of their 
 lives, you will perceive that invariably their suf¬ 
 ferings, the hardships and the pains which they 
 inflict upon themselves are considered as being* 
 intrinsically and abstractedly meritorious. They 
 thus ascribe to themselves, or have ascribed to 
 
 crown on Saturdays) “ having once been hindered on the Saturday, 
 “began to shavehimself very early on the Sunday morning before the 
 “ divine ofhce, but was touched with remorse in that action, and 
 is said to have seen in a vision the devil picking up every hair 
 “ which he had cut off at so undue a time, to produce against 
 him at the divine tribunal. Hie holy man desisted and passed the 
 < f day with his head half shaved : and in that condition grievously 
 “ accused and condemned himself in full chapter with abundance 
 “ of tears.’’ Jb. part iii. p. 927 . Lastly, St. Francis Borgia above 
 mentioned, “ Being once on a journey with F. Bustamanti, they 
 <r lay all night together in a cottage upon straw; and F. Busta- 
 
 ■ - - * W’ » . _ 
 
 “ manti, who was very old and asthmatical, coughed and spit all 
 “ night; and thinking that he spit upon the wall frequently dis- 
 “ gorged a great quantity of phlegm on his face, which the saint 
 “..never turned from him. Next morning F. Bustamanti finding 
 “ what he had done was in great confusion and begged his pardon. 
 
 “ Francis answered, f You have no reason, you could not have 
 “ found a fouler place or fitter to spit upon.’’ This gentleman 
 qlso, “ in sickness chewed bitter pills, and swallowed the most 
 “ nauseous potions slowly,’’ on the same principle. Ib. part iv. 
 pp. 204 & 20(5. 
 
 *' ' ' "1 
 
 i 
 
S E R M O N VI. 
 
 281 
 
 them, what belongs and can belong to no crea¬ 
 ture, what never did belong to any being but our 
 Lord himself. His sufferings were indeed, and 
 were intended to be meritorious ; they were so 
 both in respect of himself and of those for 
 whom he suffered, and to whose salvation that 
 merit was to 'be effectual. But they were so 
 meritorious, both on account of his nature, so 
 different from ours, and on account of the di¬ 
 vine councils which had from the beginning 
 appointed as well the sufferings as the redemp¬ 
 tion of which they were to be productive. For 
 any creature therefore, any mere human being to 
 expose himself to sufferings, as if he were by 
 that act establishing a. claim to merit nakedly 
 and abstractedly taken is, what I have stated 
 it to he, little or nothing short of absolute blas¬ 
 phemy and impiety. All that belongs to any 
 of us in these cases is the hope that our pa¬ 
 tience under sufferings may make us acceptable 
 to God ; and this more especially if we consider, 
 as we ought, all misfortune to be, as it is, his 
 dispensation, sent upon us for our chastisement, 
 and for our improvement; but even this is only 
 because he has so appointed. As to voluntary 
 mortifications, or any self-denial more than is 
 necessary to keep down our lusts and inordinate 
 appetites, and for the due exercise of charity; 
 and except in such extraordinary cases as oc¬ 
 curred in the first ages, and in some subsequent 
 
282 
 
 SERMON VL 
 
 periods of persecution, and as it is not impos¬ 
 sible though improbable may yet recur, in all 
 which God makes a special call upon us; be¬ 
 yond this I will venture to say that there is no 
 warrant in Scripture for such practices 15 . 
 
 If now what these saints endured of penances 
 and sufferings, their hair cloths, their discip¬ 
 line, their starving and nakedness, their living 
 
 13 Speaking of a certain degrading situation in which Felix of 
 Cantilicio was placed, the biographer tells us, “ In this circum- 
 “ stance Felix thought himself most happy, for no ambitious man 
 “ is more greedy of honours than Felix appeared to be of contempt, 
 " which, out of sincere humility, he looked upon as his due” 
 Butler’s Lives, part ii. p. 434. St. Mary Magdalen, of Pazzi, “ al- 
 “ ways spoke of herself as of the bane of her community and the 
 outcast and abomination of all creatures. It was her delight to 
 l< be forgotten, contemned, and reprimanded in the meanest of- 
 “ fices.” Afterwards in her last and grievous sickness, with her 
 bodily pains she sometimes laboured under the most grievous 
 “ inward dryness and desolation of soul, yet her prayer was to 
 suffer more, to suffer without any comfort, to drink gall without 
 “ honey.’’ Ib. p. 450. Holy poverty was dearer to St. Francis(of As¬ 
 sisi,) “ through his extraordinary love of penance ; he scarce allowed 
 “ his body what was necessary to sustain life, and found out every day 
 “ new means of afflicting and mortifying it. If any part of his rough 
 “ habit seemed too soft, he sewed it with packthread,” &:c. Ih. part 
 iv. p. 70. St. Laurence Justinian’s humility was of a still more ex¬ 
 traordinary sort; it extended to the not justifying himself under a 
 false accusation. “ Whilst he was superior he was one day rashly 
 “ accused in chapter of having done something against the rule. 
 “ The saint could have easily confuted the slander and given a sa- 
 “ tisfactory account of his conduct; but he rcTsc instantly from his 
 ‘* seat and walking gently with his eyes cast down, into the middle 
 of the chapter room, there fell on his knees and begged penance 
 and pardon of the fathers.” Ih. part iii. p. 835. 
 
283 
 
 t 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 in filth, and letting themselves be eaten up with 
 vermin 14 , (for these are among the most promi¬ 
 nent of their merits) if all tins was no more than 
 was necessary for the subduing of their passions 
 and keeping their bodies under subjection, what 
 have they done more than was their indispen¬ 
 sable duty, what was essential to their salva¬ 
 tion ? At some times indeed one is led to think 
 from their language that they have no other 
 meaning 15 . But at other times the pride of' 
 their hearts, and the foolish and impious purpose 
 which they had in view, breaks forth even in 
 themselves; and more openly in their panegy¬ 
 rists. There we see their foolish and wicked 
 
 / 
 
 14 St. Charles Boromeo, l< under his robes wore a very poor 
 “ garment which he called his own and which was so mean and 
 “ usually so old and lagged that once a beggar refused to accept it.” 
 Butler’s Lives, part iv. p. 589 . Our saint (St. Macurius) “ hap- 
 iC pened one day inadvertently to kill a gnat that was biting him in 
 c< his cell; reflecting that he had lost an opportunity of suffering 
 
 that mortification, he hastened from his cell to the marshes of 
 “ Scete, which abound with great flies whose stings pierce even 
 t( wild hoars. There he continued six months, exposed to these 
 “ ravaging insects, and to such a degree was his whole body dis* 
 “ figured by them with sores and swellings, that when he returned 
 “ he was only to be known by his voice.” Ib. part i. p. 17 . 
 
 15 He (St. Francis of Assisi) “ called his body brother ass, be- 
 “ cause it was to carry burthens, to be beaten, and to eat little and 
 “ coarsely.” “ As a man owes a discreet charity to his own body, 
 “ the saint, a few days before he died, asked pardon of him, for 
 ts having treated it with «o much rigour, excusing himself that he 
 “ had done it the better to secure the purity of his soul, and* for 
 “ the greater service of God. 5 ’ Butler, part iv. p. 7J, 
 
*84 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 ambition of obtaining -the praise of men, and 
 sharing in the glory which belongs only to their 
 Redeemer. One of these (St. Xavier) we are 
 expressly told, satisfied for the sins of others ; 
 and many instances of his doing this, in the 
 most ridiculous and farcical ways, are gravely 
 related. Of another (a St. Charles Eoromeo) 
 it is related, that by walking in certain proces¬ 
 sions barefoot, and with a halter about bis neck, 
 he thus offered himself a victim for the sins 
 “ of the people 16 .” And these stories, these bias- 
 
 16 Butler ubi supr, p. 558. This is said of others. St. Thomafc 
 of Yillanova, when any of his subjects had committed any griev- 
 
 ous fault, joined fasting and bloody disciplines with earnest 
 “ prayers and tears, that it would please the Lord of mercy to bring 
 “ back the strayed sheep for which he had shed his blood.” Ib. 
 part iii. 987 . Penance throughout is considered as satisfaction, 
 and even as a sacrifice. St. Caesarius “ strongly inculcated the 
 <£ fear of the pains of purgatory for venial sins, and the necessity of 
 l£ effacing them by daily penance.” lb. p. 66 l. After speaking 
 of St. Francis Borgia’s hair shirts and disciplines, with the cloths 
 with which he wiped off' the blood, as kept by him under lock and 
 key, it is added, “ sometimes he put gravel in his shoes when he 
 i ‘ walked ; and daily, by many little artifices, he studied to com- 
 “ plete the sacrifice of his penance,” &c. Ib. part iv. p. 205. Of 
 St. Peter Damian we are told, that “ old age, and his journey, did 
 “ not make him lay aside his accustomed mortifications, bv which 
 <f he consummated his holocaust.” Ib. part i. p. 33 d. In the 
 Novena, die votary of St. Francis Xavier is taught to pray, that he 
 may be brought to love penance, and thereby satisfy God for bis 
 sins, p. 73. So inveterate is this notion, that we find it prevailing 
 in those who have borne the most respectable character in that 
 communion. The late bishop of St. Pol de Leon is stated, in a 
 biographical account of him, seemingly from authority, to have 
 begun his will in these words :—“ I submit myself to the holy 
 
t 
 
 S E R M O N VI. - 285 
 
 phemies (for such they are) are not taken from 
 legends of the dark ages ; they are found in 
 modern books of biography and devotion, ex¬ 
 pressly compiled, and sold for the instruction 
 and improvement of the present generation 17 . 
 
 But of all the attempts of this kind, the most 
 direct, as well as the most successful, the most 
 impious also, because the most deliberately car¬ 
 ried into execution, and persevered in, is the 
 celebrated legend of the stigmates, or five 
 wounds of St. Francis. The success of this 
 
 t( will of Ged, as to the time and circumstances of my death, and 
 
 I unite the sacrifice of my life to that which Jesus Christ has 
 <c voluntarily made of his own, to satisfy the justice of hisFatherfor 
 “ the sins of myself and all mankind.” Gentleman’s Magazine, 
 for May, 1807, page 397. 
 
 17 I must beg the reader to bear this in mind. The book 
 from which I have quoted is that which is in use among the 
 Homan Catholics of these kingdoms, and written by a late titular 
 archbishop of Ireland. Both the book and its author are spoken of 
 with great approbation by the Romish bishops of this day. And 
 indeed in some respects Dr. Butler has shewn a discretion which 
 has not been followed by those who have come after him; for he 
 gives up most of the stories told of St. Patrick, some of which Dr. 
 Milner seems now endeavouring to bring into credit. See Inquiry 
 into certain Vulgar Opinions, &c. See particularly p. 225, where 
 St. Patrick is said to have prayed, and as supposed with success, 
 that all the Irish should have true repentance, poenitentiarn cre- 
 “ dentium,” though at the hour of death : and, secondly, that they 
 should not always be oppressed by barbarians (or foreigners). 
 < f Ne a barbaris consumerentur in relernum.’’ When one recollects 
 the present situation of affairs, one cannot help thinking that this 
 legend is not brought forward without a view of producing a parti¬ 
 cular effect. 
 
 % 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 28 6 
 
 strange imposition is the more remarkable, be¬ 
 cause the idea was not the saint’s own, but other 
 persons before him had imagined this means of 
 recommending themselves to notice, and had 
 laileci in establishing their pretensions. This 
 had happened particularly in England only two 
 years before 19 . Notwithstanding the prejudices 
 which one may suppose must have been excited 
 in cousequence, the matter was so contrived by 
 this father of the mendicant orders, and so carried 
 on by his successors, that it has now, for near 
 six hundred years, passed current in the Romish 
 church, that St. Francis was, by Christ himself, 
 impressed with five wounds, exactly similar to 
 those which our Saviour bore upon the cross. 
 Not content with this the Franciscans have 
 pushed their impiety to such a height, as to re¬ 
 present their founder to have been in every par- 
 ticulai so conformable to our Lord, as to be 
 haidly in any degree different or inferior 19 . In 
 
 18 See Wilkins’s Concilia, vol, i. p. 584; or Matth. Paris, ad 
 annum 1222. A man is apprehended and punished as having in 
 his body « quinque vulnera crucifixi.” Mosheim is of opinion 
 that St. Francis barely imprinted these marks on himself, as others 
 have done, and that the story of their being impressed on his body 
 by Christ himself was an invention of his order after his death. 
 
 Mosheim, vol. iii. p. 335. See the whole fable most solemnly re¬ 
 lated in Butler’s Lives, part iv. p. 8Q. 
 
 y See m particular their famous book of the resemblances between 
 ( hnst and St. Francis: “ Liber conformitatum,’’ &c. From this 
 book large extracts were published by the first Reformers, under the 
 title of the « Alcoran des Cordelius.” See Mosheim, ubi supr. 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 287 
 
 all this they have been favoured by the popes, 
 who reaped great advantages from the labours 
 of this order. The fable has been recognised 
 by more than one bull, and ‘even enjoined as 
 matter of faith : while, with a direct reference 
 to it, a festival was instituted in honour of the 
 five wounds of Christ 20 . 
 
 40 After this signal instance of blasphemy, so solemnly received 
 for truth, there is no invention of man, however profane or strange, 
 which can excite our surprise. I must, however, mention two, 
 because they are taken from the respective acts of canonization of 
 the saints, to which they relate. St. Frances, above-mentioned, 
 “ enjoyed,” it seems, <f the familiar conversation of her guardian 
 “ angel.” Butler’s Lives, part i. p. 427. In St. Bonaventure’s 
 Life there is a flight almost equal to St. Francis’s stigmates. “ His 
 “ humility,’’ it is said, “ sometimes withheld him from the holy 
 “ table.” “ Several days had passed, nor did he yet presume to 
 t( present himself at the heavenly banquet but while he was 
 ft hearing mass, and meditating on the passion of Jesus Christ, 
 “ our Saviour, to crown his humility and love, put into his mouth, 
 ec by the ministry of an angel, part of the consecrated host, .taken 
 “ from the hand of the priest.’’ Ib. part iii. p. 115. It is a very 
 common thing with the “ modern’’ saints, in their raptures, to be 
 lifted up two or three feet from the ground ; some, as St. Francis, 
 six or seven ; and St. Philip of Novi several yards. In the life of 
 this last saint the biographer enters into a disquisition respecting the 
 manner in which this is brought about, part ii. p. 45Q. Of this 
 man also it is testified that (< divine love so much dilated his breast 
 “ in an extraordinary rapture, that the gristle which joined the 
 fourth and fifth ribs was broken, which accident allowed the 
 le heart, and larger vessels, more play ; in which condition he lived 
 fifty years.” Ib. p. 456. St. Teresa, in her visions, saw all the 
 secrets of purgatory : and particularly the souls of several persons 
 fjeed from thence by the prayers of devout persons,” &rc. Ib. 
 
288 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 Of the miracles hy which the virtues of this, 
 and other the like saints, were supposed to have 
 been manifested, I might now say something : 
 but to compare them with those real signs and 
 wonders, which were indeed wrought by God, 
 might require more time than can well be spared. 
 If, on the other hand, I were only to mention 
 the most obviously extravagant of them, it might 
 break in upon that seriousness which it is always 
 desirable to preserve in this place 91 . 
 
 These instances, however, will sufficiently 
 shew how little of real humility there is in this 
 excess of mortification and severity of penance, 
 in which the church of Rome places that per¬ 
 fection which leads to canonization. I must, 
 however, further observe, that to the co;nposi- 
 tion of a modern saint the observance of mo¬ 
 nastic vows appears to be essential; and this is 
 indeed no more than might have been expected, 
 if we consider what advantage the popes have 
 
 part iv. p. 325. I believe I may now say 
 Dr. Milner however, as I find f rom one 
 a votary of St. Teresa. 
 
 “ Ohe ! jam satis est !’* 
 of his publications, is 
 
 *i M ° 5t 0f them m s,!ch Cl,res as that wrought at St. Winifred’s 
 well. But the reader may consult the late bishop Douglas’s Cri- 
 tenou, where also he will see the signal imposture of the Jesuits 
 who at first disclaimed the idea of their founder having worked 
 miracles; till finding it for their interest that he should he sainted, 
 as well as others, they changed their note, and produced all tliai 
 was required of them for that purpose. 
 
 1 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 2S 9 
 
 derived from the institution of what they call 
 religious orders. To these the see of Rome has 
 always looked as to its most decided supporters. 
 And, in gratitude for their services, as well as 
 with a view to the continuance of them, it has 
 declared that only among them perfection was to 
 be found. In pursuance of this a distinction is 
 taken, not only not warranted by Scripture, but 
 unknown to antiquity. Whereas our Lord, to 
 those who asked him the way to eternal life, 
 answered simply “ Keep the commandments,” 
 these jugglers have devised something yet more 
 refined, by which a higher degree of glory may 
 be obtained. Besides the things which are com¬ 
 manded, and which our Lord has thus declared 
 to be sufficient, they have discovered certain 
 other particulars (which they call the evange¬ 
 lical counsels), for the observance of which 
 greater and more shining rewards are reserved. 
 And these are precisely the things which men 
 vow when they enter into a monastic life: vo¬ 
 luntary poverty, perpetual chastity, and obe¬ 
 dience, that is a blind obedience, to the com¬ 
 mands of their superiors. 
 
 The objections which are made by all Pro¬ 
 testants to the requiring, or even entertaining 
 of such vows, are sufficiently known, to make 
 it unnecessary for me to say more than a few 
 words on the subject. We object to them as 
 being a snare to the consciences of men, the 
 
 u 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 $90 
 
 generality of whom are incapable of persevering 
 in anv such courses, and therefore can onlv 
 make such vows to their own destruction**. 
 This is the more true, as we know in fact that 
 individuals entered, and were solicited, nay, in 
 some sort by force, induced to enter into mo¬ 
 nasteries at that early age, when they could not 
 be acquainted with either the strength of their 
 bodies, or the disposition of their minds. And 
 that the profession of celibacy did not neces¬ 
 sarily produce chastity, nor the vow of poverty 
 exempt those who had made it from covetous¬ 
 ness or luxury; no, nor that of obedience from 
 giving way to contention and strife, is so proved 
 by the writers of that very church, that I need 
 only refer you to them, as shewing most deci¬ 
 sively what I asserted, that all these false and 
 feigned standards of perfection only led to dis¬ 
 soluteness of manners, and the increase of vice, 
 as well as to open blasphemy and impiety. 
 
 ” The following observation in Dr. Butler’s Life of St. Teresa is 
 remarkable, as it shews how the truth will sometimes fore? its way 
 even in the most perverted minds. i( A desire most perfectly to 
 “ obey God in all things, moved her to make a vow never with a 
 “ fall knowledge to commit a venial sin,"and in every action to do 
 “ what seemed to her most perfect; a vow which, in persons less 
 “ perfect, would be unlawful, because it would be an occasion of 
 “ transgressions.” Butler’s Lives, part iv. 329- One great evil 
 which grew out of these rash and “ unlawful’’ vows was, that men 
 being glad to find out any means of getting rid of them, submitted 
 to the authority assumed by the popes of dispensing with all vows 
 and oaths, even those by which subjects were bound to their so¬ 
 
 vereigns. 
 
SERMON VI. 291 
 
 j > ' 
 
 Had therefore those who called the council of 
 irent been actuated by any serious intention of 
 reforming abuses, we might well have expected 
 that such as these would not have been over¬ 
 looked. The causes of that dissoluteness, which 
 was so frequent among the clergy, both secular 
 and professed, as they were well understood, 
 would of course have been removed. Rut it was 
 seen by the popes, as it was confessed and ar¬ 
 gued by one of their adherents, that if the 
 clergy were allowed to marry, and so to have 
 houses, and wives, and children, they would 
 come to depend upon their princes, and not 
 upon the pope. And tins will sufficiently shew, 
 what I have already stated, as applying to the 
 monks, why in all ages the see of Rome has been 
 so anxious and so active in the imposition of 
 celibacy upon her priests, and other ministers 
 of religion. Ry keeping them as much as pos¬ 
 sible unconnected with the rest of the world, a 
 powerful body was established, which was al¬ 
 ways ready to support every the most extrava¬ 
 gant claim or pretension ot that church; and 
 indeed it was not till the ambitious Hildebrand, 
 pope Gregory the 7th, had asserted his claim to 
 supreme dominion, in the most extensive sense, 
 that measures were effectually taken and pursued 
 to restrain the secular clergy from contracting 
 
 IT 2 
 
292 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 marriage* 5 . Still, however, a great preference 
 was always given by the popes to those who are 
 called the regular clergy ; because the vows of 
 poverty and of obedience which they take, in 
 addition to that of celibacy, tended still more to 
 detach them from all connexion with temporal 
 princes, and to secure to the see of Rome most 
 exclusively the benefit of their exertions. And 
 indeed any man, who will look ever so cursorily 
 into the legends of the saints, will see this most 
 strongly exemplified in the high estimation which 
 is every where bestowed upon this same virtue 
 of obedience, and the excess to which, in the 
 most minute and trifling particulars, it is 
 carried 24 . 
 
 There remain now only three points for me 
 to touch upon, of the number of those which I 
 have mentioned, as rather secondary to, and 
 supporting the others, than as original or pri¬ 
 mary : though it must be said, at the same time, 
 
 * 3 See Usher de Christianarum Ecclesiarum successione et 
 statu, c. v. §. 10, with the testimonies there cited. See also Col¬ 
 lier’s Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. lgl, as to how the case stood 
 in this kingdom. 
 
 * 4 For example, take a certain “ St. Stanislas Kotska.” “ In the 
 “ practice of obedience to his superiors, such was his exactitude, 
 that, as he was one day carrying wood with a fellow novice, he 
 would not help the other in taking up a load upon his shoulders, 
 * e till he had made it less, because it was larger than the brother 
 “ who superintended the work had directed, though the other had 
 taken no notice of such an order.” Butler’s Lives, part iv. p. 6-55, 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 293 
 
 that there have been no doctrines or practices 
 more seriously prejudicial to the true faith, both 
 in extent and degree. 
 
 The first is that monstrous tenet, which is held 
 by the church of Rome, respecting what are 
 called traditions, to which I have already al¬ 
 luded, and according to which equal authority 
 is given to them as to the Scriptures themselves. 
 This is attempted to be justified, upon the ground 
 that whatever is come down to us, as the word 
 of God, was first spoken before it was written: 
 and that all that was spoken was not committed 
 to writing at the time. From thence, applying 
 their doctrine of the infallibility of the church, 
 they maintain that whatever is taught by their 
 church, although it be not found in holy writ, 
 must be taken to have been originally spoken 
 by Christ, or his apostles. And thus that which 
 from daily experience we know to be of all 
 things the most uncertain and fallible, more es¬ 
 pecially when going back to the transactions of 
 ages past, oral communication, and loose report, 
 are equalled to the authentic relations and expo¬ 
 sitions of the faith, deliberately set down and 
 published by those who were truly and un¬ 
 doubtedly apostles and evangelists. This is 
 such a confusion of all historical evidence, to 
 say no more; it is such an opening to all manner 
 of frauds and forgeries (as indeed it was adapted 
 
294 
 
 S E It M O N VI. 
 
 \vith no othei view), that the bare statement of 
 't is sufficient for its confutation 2 *. I must, 
 however, recal your attention to what is said in 
 my text, that you may see how closely these 
 modern Pharisees have imitated the example of 
 those by whom our Lord was crucified, and his 
 disciples persecuted. I must also add, as a 
 further instance of “ teaching for doctrines the 
 “ commandments of men,” that, in all the Ro¬ 
 mish catechisms, there is a regular section al¬ 
 lotted to the commandments of the church, as 
 distinguished from the commandments of God; 
 
 “ E ' en ,hdr fav0l,nte > St. Austin, is directly against them here, 
 
 rr otl r r ts - He has tw ° m y swm s t0 that 
 
 effect. One ts m the thud book, against Petilianus (c. vi.)where, ar- 
 gmng against schismatics, and for the authority, as well a, unity of 
 the church, he cites, and relies upon the passage in Galat. i. 8 
 
 „ 7’ 0t T angd fr ° m he! "' en ’ Sh °“ W P reach a »y ot her gospel 
 
 „ Un ° ]°“ , than tHat " h ‘ ch we have Poached, let him be ac- 
 cursed; but mstead of “ that which we have preached,” he 
 
 puts other than what ye have received in the Scriptures of the Old 
 
 „ and the W Tcstamem -" “ Si angelus de ratio vobis annun- 
 cavern prasterquam quod in Scripturi, legalibus et evangelicis 
 .cceptsus anathema sit.” Tom. ix. ed. Bened. And that, he 
 .ay., extends to every particular of doctrine, whether relating to 
 rib , or is church, or to faith, or practice. “ Sive de Christo 
 
 4< SUe CJUS eccles “' sile <ie alia quacunque reqnae pertinetad fidera 
 vitamque vestram.’’ In his book, “ De Doctrina Christiana,” 
 ie is equally explicit as to the Scriptures, containing all things ne¬ 
 cessary to salvation. (Book ii. c. g.) In eis qua: aperte in Scrip. 
 
 tUr ‘ S p0S ‘ ta sutU mveniun tur ilia omnia quae continent fidem 
 
 moresque vivendi, spem scilicet atque caritatem.” Tom iii’ 
 e,d. Beued. 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 295 
 
 unci that the one and the other are majle a matter 
 of the same strict obligation 26 . Lastfy, I must 
 bid you recollect that other act of most abo¬ 
 minable presumption, by which, in express de¬ 
 rogation of our Lord’s institution, the cup in 
 the eucharist is denied to the laity; thus also 
 unduly exalting the clergy above their brethren: 
 which practice they themselves justify only as 
 a mere ordinance of the church 27 . 
 
 The next abomination by which that church 
 is distinguished, and which she had adopted 
 evidently as a means of upholding her authority 
 is the withholding of the Scriptures from the 
 laity, or suffering them to be read only by those 
 to whom she grants a special permission. Of 
 this the principle, wicked as it is, cannot be 
 mistaken. They only are enemies to know¬ 
 ledge whose deeds are evil; who, if they come 
 to the light must be reproved. I need not surely 
 
 26 They are, first, to keep certain appointed days holy, with ob¬ 
 ligation of hearing mass, and resting from servile works; second, 
 to fast in Lent, &c. fifth, to pay tythes ; sixth, not to solemnize 
 marriage at certain times, nor within certain degrees of kindred, nor 
 privately without witnesses. See Catechism for London district. 
 The Douay Catechism says expressly, that men are bound to keep 
 the commandments of the church “ under pain of mortal sin. See 
 Abstract of Douay Catechism, printed for Keating and Co. 
 
 •? 1 cannot however help observing, that the seal of the Christian 
 covenant seems to be particularly attached to the cup. This is the 
 “ cup of the New Testament,” or covenant, in my blood, which 
 is not said of the bread, and this makes the subtraction the more 
 daring and abominable. Acts, c. xyii. p. ! 1. 
 
296 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 point out to you how in Scripture we are re¬ 
 quired “of ourselves to judge what is right;” 
 how we are reminded that those very Scriptures 
 were “ written for our instruction/' how those 
 men, as the Bereans for example, are commended 
 who “searched the Scriptures/’ how the law 
 and the prophets are every where appealed to; 
 and that, so far from being* supposed that the 
 gospel is above the comprehension of ordinary 
 men, it is said, “ that God has hidden those 
 things from the wise and prudent and re¬ 
 vealed them to babes*.” I, therefore, only 
 need remind you of it as a fact, and add that 
 the doctrine is still maintained in England, and 
 more especially in Ireland, and necessarily so 
 maintained by those who style themselves vicars 
 apostolical, and who of course are bound 
 to speak the language and enforce the tenets 
 
 of that see from which they derive their au¬ 
 thority 58 . 
 
 * Matt. xi. 25 . 
 
 Hear tor example bishop Milner in his Pastoral Letter p. 8 . 
 I he unlearned “arc to receive the bread of the word of God, ready 
 “ broken and prepared for their digestion at the hands of their 
 “ pastors.” And see his “Inquiry into certain Vulgar Opinions, 
 “ &c.” p. 185, where Irenaeus is quoted to no purpose; and 
 with now much truth St. Austin is brought in as favouring his 
 opimon may be judged from the passages which I have adduced 
 above m note It is clear how the African bishop would have 
 answered the Ronnsh bishop’s question, when the latter asks, “ Is 
 
 “ thc pefUSaI ° f the bibIe > Sir ' the only means by which mankind 
 
 5 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 297 
 
 Of that which is rather a part of the same, 
 than a properly distinct abuse, the continuing 
 
 can attain to a knowledge of the revealed truths of the bible ?’’ 
 Certainly, he would have said, either by perusing it, or by those 
 who can t read hearing it read to them, and appealing to that and 
 that only when there is any doubt. For in the chapter already cited 
 from his Book de Doctrina Christiana, he would have the Christian 
 read and get by heart the Scriptures, even though he cannot yet un¬ 
 derstand them. The first thing to be observed, he says, “ prima ob- 
 servantia,” is “ nosse istos Iibros, et, si nondum ad intellectum, 
 “ legendo tamen vel mandare memorias vel omnino incognitas non 
 habere. Aug. op. Tom. iii. p. IQ. How indeed the pastors of 
 the Romish church “ break and prepare the bread of the word of 
 God for the digestion’’ of their flock, w r e have seen in but too 
 manyinstances; but it may not be amiss to add another sample from 
 this last book of Dr. Milner’s. He tells us of the Irish having with¬ 
 stood the persecutions of almost three centuries in support of the 
 religion, “ once for all delivered to them by the saints (his own Italics) 
 that is, by St. Patrick and his disciples,” and boldly cites at the 
 bottom of the page, Jude v. 3. Now my readers will know that 
 that passage is one which when properly quoted has a very different 
 aspect. It speaks of the faith “ ones delivered TO the saintsf that is, 
 delivered at the time when St. Jude wrote to the faithful in the apos¬ 
 tolic age : not such as might be delivered BY Romish saints several 
 centuries after. St. Jude was of the same mind as St. Paul in the 
 passage above cited, that not only 7 no saint but not even an an^el 
 should add to the faith then already delivered once for all. And 
 this being the very point in issue between the Romanists and us, 
 we cannot have a better proof how Scripture not only can be, but 
 is, perverted by these precious breakings” and “ preparations for 
 digestion, of the Romish bishops and priests. Dr, Butler, an¬ 
 other such prelate, tells us in his Lives of the Saints, part iv. p. 378, 
 that “ Christ declares the spirit and constant practice of penance to 
 be the foundation of a Christian or spiritual life.” Pray where 
 did Dr. Butler find this? Not in the true gospel certainly. As for 
 Dr. Milner he not only misrepresents Scripture, but the doctrines 
 and the feeling of Protestants upon the subject. We do not, as he 
 
298 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 to pray in a tongue which has become no longer 
 intelligible to the mass of the people, I shall 
 only observe, that this also could only have 
 been established with the same view of exalting 
 the priest above the congregation; so as to in¬ 
 crease the superstitious veneration paid to him 
 by the vulgar, and establish more firmly the 
 empire of the church. 
 
 I come now to that last most important head, 
 of persecution, ever to be borne in mind ; since 
 by that more than any other, or rather by that 
 alone, the dominion of the pope lias been up¬ 
 held, and such narrow bounds have been set to 
 the progress of the reformation. This is so no¬ 
 torious, the cruelties which in every European 
 country have been exercised againt all those who 
 in any manner presumed to question the autho¬ 
 rity of the Romish church, have forages been 
 so openly avowed and even justified by her 
 warmest partizans, that we must greatly wonder 
 to find any man at this day so hardy as to dis¬ 
 pute the existence either of the facts or of the 
 doctrine upon which they were founded. 
 
 Odious indeed, and anti-christian as the doc¬ 
 trine manifestly is, we cannot wonder that even 
 
 supposes (Inquiry, p. 188), “ wish to take the bible out of the hands 
 " of the Quakers,’'or of any other dissenters, however they may 
 wrest the Scriptures to their own undoing. Our wish is that they 
 should read it to better purpose; that they should re-consider it 
 until by that light they come to get rid of their errors. 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 299 
 
 they who would practise it, where it was in 
 their power, should at times and in countries 
 where it could only be exerted against them¬ 
 selves, even for their own protection, wish it 
 • to he disclaimed, or at least thrown into the 
 shade. We might expect that under such cir¬ 
 cumstances, the attempt would be made to ex¬ 
 plain away or to soften the apparent harshness 
 and atrociousness of the law, to excuse it under 
 the plea of necessity, of unavoidable prejudice 
 or ignorance. But for any man in the teeth of 
 general councils, of successive popes, of hun¬ 
 dreds of doctors, nay of saints, to affirm that 
 persecution is not (which implies that it has 
 never been) a tenet of the church of Rome, is 
 an assertion so monstrous, so flagrantly devoid 
 of truth, that I will venture to say it was never 
 till now conceived to be possible. 
 
 This however is what has lately been done, 
 not by an obscure or ordinary individual, one 
 who might be supposed to do it inconsiderately, 
 or from want of information, but one who, as 
 representing the pope in these kingdoms, 
 as supporting the character of a bishop, must 
 be expected to speak with deliberation and not 
 without the prospect of producing some effect. 
 This gentleman has not only in a certain degree 
 contested the fact of the church of Rome being 
 a persecuting church, but lias absolutely denied 
 that she has held the doctrine, fie has also 
 
300 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 gone further, since he has retorted the charge 
 upon the reformed churches, and asserted that 
 the Protestants have not come short of, nay, 
 have surpassed the Papists in the career of per¬ 
 secution 23 . 
 
 I might ask, in the first place, whence it was 
 that the Protestants derived their ideas as well 
 as their practice of persecution ? That some of 
 them in the early periods of the reformation, 
 did persecute, though never to any great extent, 
 is as true, as that it was in them a remnant of 
 
 * 9 This sort of recrimination is a very favourite topic with Dr. 
 Milner, the gentleman here alluded to. He had urged in the Letters 
 to a Prebendary, and afterwards in the Gentleman’s Magazine and 
 elsewhere, that more English Roman catholics had suffered for re¬ 
 ligion under Elizabeth and in the two succeeding reigns, than there 
 had been put to death of Protestants under queen Mary. X shewed 
 in my “ Sequel to the serious Examination,” from the very words 
 of Stapleton, the most accredited English Romanist of those days, 
 that the priests who then suffered did not suffer for religion, but 
 for holding the tenet that the pope could by virtue of his spiritual 
 power depose heretical kings : and which tenet he says, “esthodie 
 
 capitalis in Anglia. To which Dr. Milner has not answered a 
 word. The fact is that purely for his religion no Papist was ever 
 executed in this kingdom. Nor even were the least disabilities im¬ 
 posed upon them till pope Pius V. in fact declared war against our 
 Elizabeth, and by calling upon them as his subjects to join in the 
 quarrel, necessarily made their loyalty suspected. See further what 
 I have said note 8 of Sermon XV. I have gone so largely into this 
 question of persecution in the pamphlets already mentioned, that 
 my reader will excuse my generally referring him to them as fully 
 establishing all my positions respecting this head, and standing per¬ 
 fectly unanswered, except by the most general and loose charges of 
 calumny and disingenuousness and other abuse of that sort. 
 
S E R M O N VI. 
 
 301 
 
 Popish error, which they found it difficult at 
 the beginning entirely to shake off. But as to 
 the fact, it may be sufficient to ask what has 
 lately become of those millions of Protestants 
 with which France, Savoy, Hungary, Poland, 
 and Bohemia once swarmed ? By what means 
 were they put down ? What was the crime of 
 the thousands and hundreds of thousands who 
 in those countries underwent such dreadful suf¬ 
 ferings, but their religion ? Indeed if ever anv 
 beings suffered purely on account of their reli¬ 
 gion we may safely aver that such was this case. 
 Their persecutors indeed had in view principally 
 to exalt the pope ; but as to the persecuted, 
 their being in opposition to the see of Rome was 
 merely a secondary consideration, and an acci¬ 
 dental consequence arising out of their anxiety 
 to maintain what they conceived, and rightly 
 conceived, to be the truth. 
 
 So much it may be sufficient to have said as 
 
 to facts. But, as our business here is chief!v 
 
 «/ 
 
 with doctrines, it may be necessary not to pass 
 over so slightly that part of the assertion which 
 relates to them, and to shew that in charm up- 
 
 o o 
 
 the church of Rome with teaching that it is 
 lawful to persecute we speak most correctly and 
 without exaggeration. It may indeed be shewn 
 that persecution, that is a regular organized 
 system of persecution, is as much the distin¬ 
 guishing characteristic of modern as of ancient 
 
1 
 
 502 S E R M O N VI. 
 
 Rome. Nay, I know not that it properly be¬ 
 longs to any other power; for all who in latter 
 times have been persecutors have acted under 
 her influence and in obedience to her decrees. 
 Nor was either the doctrine or the practice fol¬ 
 lowed with any regularity or consistency, till 
 the empire of modern Rome had begun in the 
 extent and magnitude of its pretensions to rival 
 the old. True it is, that many of the disputes 
 about questions of religion which arose in the 
 early ages of the church, produced serious and 
 bloody contests ; the Arians in particular per¬ 
 secuted the orthodox, and were persecuted in 
 their turns. Something too of this sort took place 
 among the Greeksin their contests about image- 
 worship. But these instances were very far 
 from being systems, like that which afterwards 
 sprung up and was established under the sanc¬ 
 tion of the Romish church, extending over vast 
 tiacts of countries, always directed to the same 
 end, and under the same leader. 
 
 A recurrence to only a few dates and a few 
 facts will clearly shew on which side the truth 
 lies. 
 
 First, it should be recollected that the rights 
 of the church, as they are called, or, as we 
 style them, the usurpations of the popes, were 
 first asserted in their full extent by Gregory the 
 7th, commonly known as pope Hildebrand, who 
 died in the year 1080 and that thev were car- 
 
SEE M O N VI. 
 
 303 
 
 ried to their utmost height by pope Innocent 
 the 3d, who finally established at once the 
 supremacy of the popes and the doctrine of 
 persecution, in the 4th general council of La- 
 teran, held in the year 1215. But this was also 
 the era when the great corruptions of the church 
 first came to have, as it were, a solid establish¬ 
 ment : for then was transubstantiation first de¬ 
 clared to be an article of faith : then besran the 
 mass to be adored : then were the clergy effec¬ 
 tually prohibited from marrying : then lastly, 
 was the use of the Scriptures first interdicted 30 . 
 
 All these abuses, I say, first took place with¬ 
 in the era above marked out, that is, between 
 the time of Gregory VII. and that of Innocent 
 III. or a little after. And it was the indiffna- 
 tion which they excited which obliged the popes 
 to have recourse to force, as the only means of 
 procuring their universal reception. Thus it 
 became necessary that a general council should 
 solemnly anathematize all heresies contrary to 
 what they had laid down; and that they should 
 
 30 See Usher de Christianarum Ecclesiarum Successione et sjtatu. 
 c v. before referred to. The last article of denying the Scriptures 
 to the laity, I find first solemnly ordered in the council of Thou- 
 louse, and before the pope’s legate, A. D. 1229. See Fleury’s E. H. 
 b. Ixxix. § 58 . I might have added that it was within this period 
 that the oath winch the Romish bishops now take and by which 
 they in so many particulars subject themselves to thd absolute autho¬ 
 rity of the pope was first framed. See the oath and observations 
 upon it. Sequel to the serious Examination, and Appendix. 
 
304 
 
 SERMON VL 
 
 enjoin all princes and rulers to join in extirpat¬ 
 ing all those whom they thus marked out as 
 heretics : and the better to induce those tem¬ 
 poral sovereigns to be active in the execution 
 of this duty, indulgences were held out on the 
 one hand as rewards, and on the other the terror 
 of being themselves deprived of their domi¬ 
 nions, if they were negligent in executing the 
 commands of the church. Then also was es¬ 
 tablished the inquisition, a tribunal than which 
 a more effectual engine for the destruction both 
 of soul and body was never devised by human 
 malignity. 
 
 From that period therefore and under the 
 pressure of such a tyranny, we might well ex¬ 
 pect, as was the fact, that few should retain 
 either the ability or the courage to call in ques¬ 
 tion the doctrines which were proposed to them. 
 And thus the notions of purgatory and indul¬ 
 gences with all their abuses came to be impli¬ 
 citly received, and the doctrine of seven sacra¬ 
 ments, first agitated by the schoolmen in the 
 eleventh century, was finally made an article 
 of faith by the council of Trent 31 . 
 
 31 In this council also the jurisdiction of the pope over his bro¬ 
 ther bishops was carried to a greater height than before, and they 
 were in fact made his vassals. See my Reply to Dr. Milner’s Ob¬ 
 servations, p. 181 . It was also, as I apprehend, in consequence of 
 the powers vested in liim by this council, that the oath wdiich is 
 taken by the priests and members of monkish orders was drawn up 
 by Pius IV. which oath and observations upon it, see also in Sequel 
 and Appendix. 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 305 
 
 How notwithstanding, by the blessing of 
 God, many nations were enabled to emancipate 
 themselves from this bondage, and to cleanse 
 themselves from these abominations, I am not 
 now called upon to detail; but there are two 
 or three material observations which a recur¬ 
 rence to those early ages may naturally suggest. 
 
 First, it may be remarked, in answer to those 
 advocates for the church of Rome, who ask us 
 where was our church before Luther; that in 
 reality there was no time when there did not 
 'exist a certain number of Christians who con¬ 
 demned the doctrines of that church, and as¬ 
 serted their right of serving God according to 
 his word. For, in respect to the doctrine of 
 transubstantiation in particular, it is clear that 
 it was not formally declared an article of faith 
 until the thirteenth century : and then only so 
 declared in opposition to certain persons who 
 were called heretics for refusing to admit it; and 
 who must be taken to have been numerous and 
 powerful, since extraordinary levies ot troops 
 and the co-operation of sovereigns were thought 
 to be necessary for their suppression. In truth, 
 it was only towards the close ot the ninth cen¬ 
 tury, that the doctrine was with any distinctness 
 published or insisted upon; and then only by 
 an individual. Paschasius Radbertus, the au¬ 
 thor of it, himself evidently betrays a consci¬ 
 ousness of its being a novelty. No sooner in- 
 
 x 
 
306 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 deed, did his book appear than it was answered 
 by Ratramn of Corbie, writing under the orders 
 of the Emperor Charles the bald, who expressly 
 maintains the presence of our Lord in the eu- 
 charist to be merely figurative, in strict con¬ 
 formity to what is now held by the church of 
 England. Though the tenet afterwards gained 
 ground, yet in the eleventh century it was 
 openly combated by Berenger. He was fol¬ 
 lowed by Peter de Bruis and his disciple Henry, 
 who were succeeded closely by the Waldenses 
 and Albigenses; if indeed we are not rather to 
 consider that there existed at all times both in 
 territory of Alby and in the vallies of Pied¬ 
 mont, a body of men zealous for the gospel and 
 “ holding the truth’’ in incorruption. For it 
 is remarkable that the old Romish historian of 
 the war with the Albigenses 52 , speaks of Tou¬ 
 louse as having from its very foundations been 
 infected with what he calls heretical pravity and 
 infidel superstition. And Reinerius, an inquisi¬ 
 tor in those days, speaking of those> whom he 
 was persecuting, mentions as one of their pecu¬ 
 liarities, the length of time which the sect had 
 subsisted, as some said from the days of pope 
 Sylvester and according to others from the very 
 days of Christ. It has also been demonstrated 
 
 3 * Pierre de Vaux Cernav, or Petrus de Valle Sernensi, see his 
 book almost at the beginning. “ Ha2c Tolosa valde dolosa statim 
 ** a fundamentis, &c.” 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 307 
 
 by a learned divine of our communion, that the 
 churches of Piedmont, that is the church of 
 Milan, and the subalpine churches, were not 
 only independent of the pope till long after the 
 period which we are speaking of, but that they 
 held the same doctrines which the Waldenses 
 were afterwards charged with holding 35 . 
 
 I come next to the grounds upon which it is 
 now urged that persecution is no tenet of the 
 Romish church ; and in particular the assertion 
 that the third canon of the 4th council ofLate- 
 ran, was a mere temporal canon of discipline 
 and of no force among those nations who did 
 not receive it. This may well astonish us as 
 coming from those men who have expressly 
 sworn the most unreserved obedience to all the 
 decrees and all the provisions whatever of every 
 pope and of every council. It is the more pe¬ 
 culiarly extraordinary, since at other times the 
 very same men, wishing to throw off the odium 
 of that measure from their church upon the 
 
 33 Dr. Allix in his remarks on the Ecclesiastical History of the 
 churches of Piedmont, London, 1690. See my Reply to the'Ob¬ 
 servations of Dr. Milner, p. 142 . Dr. Milner being now I suppose 
 constrained to drop the apology made by him for the council of 
 Lateran, that its 3 d canon was directed against such monsters as 
 would not now be suffered to live, meaning the Albigenses, and it 
 having been proved by me that these supposed heretics were neither 
 immoral, nor persecuted for any immorality, but for their faith; 
 has now made another discovery. In his last publication (Inquiry, 
 &c. p. 78 ) he intimates that this same 3 d canon of that council was 
 a temporary ordinance regarding the feudal rights of the Albigenses ! 1 
 
 x 2 
 
308 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 laity, lay a great stress upon that council being 
 attended by all the great powers in Europe, 
 either in person or by their representatives. 
 i\oi vvid it contribute much to establish the 
 euedit of the gentleman who principally urges 
 this plea, that he has asserted that the decrees 
 of that council were never received in this coun¬ 
 try. Whereas not only it was here acted upon, 
 not only the statute of Henry IV. for burning 
 heretics was passed in pursuance of it, but the 
 whole of its provisions were formally adopted 
 in a council held at Oxford in the year 1222 s *. 
 
 34 Those readers who are strangers to the assertions lately made 
 on behalf of the Romanists, should be informed that Dr. Milner, 
 in arguing that the 4th council ofLateran had nothing to do with 
 the burning of our first reformers, urged that they suffered as Pro¬ 
 testants, and that there existed no such description of men as Pro¬ 
 testants in the 12 th century. In answer to this I shewed that they 
 (Cranmer, Ridley, and the rest) were burned as heretics, and for 
 the particular heresy (so called) of denying transubstantiation. He 
 further urged “ that they were burned by virtue of the Act de Ilse- 
 " retico conburendo, passed in 2 Henry IV. without any solicita¬ 
 tion from the clergy.” Upon which I produced first the act 
 itself which expressly recited an application of the clergy, “ Cum 
 <( ex parte pradatorum et cleri sit ostensum (Sequel xxxiv)” and 
 afterwards the very petition itself of the clergy, and the king’s 
 answer (Reply 135). The doctor, however, still insisting in his ob¬ 
 servations on the Sequol, that the decrees of that council were 
 never received in this kingdom, I produced (Reply, p. 130 ) 
 words oi the council of Oxford, mentioned in the text, for which 
 see" Wilkins’s Concilia, Vol. i. p. 585. and Du Pin’s E. H. 13th 
 century, p ; 105. Dr. Milner having also insisted that John 
 Huss and Jerome of Prague were burnt in the same manner 
 by virtue of the old laws of the empire only, and not by the 
 
309 
 
 S E R M O N VI. 
 
 * 
 
 But can any thing be more monstrous than 
 this supposed distinction between doctrine and 
 discipline ? If a council order that men of cer¬ 
 tain descriptions shall be extirpated, does it not, 
 in the most pointed ’manner, declare that it is 
 lawful, nay, that it is an act of duty to extir¬ 
 pate men of that description ? What reasonable 
 being ever made a difference between the de¬ 
 claratory part of the law, and the punishment or 
 penalty by which the observance of it is secured ? 
 But will these gentlemen tell us what descrip¬ 
 tion they affix to the hundreds of bulls issued by 
 
 V 
 
 successive popes, and among others the bull 
 in Coma Domini, by which all heretics were 
 
 council of Constance, or any ecclesiastical authority, it may be 
 right to add that these same old laws, that is, the constitution of 
 the Emperor Frederick the 2 d (see Letter to a Prebendary, p. 126 ), 
 were in fact enacted, not only at the instance of the pope, and di¬ 
 rectly in pursuance of the 3d canon of the 4th of Lateran, but 
 solemnly ratified by Honorius III. -with the usual denunciation of 
 the vengeance of Almightv God, and of the apostles Peter and Paul, 
 against all those who shall in any way infringe them. See these 
 constitutions in the Corpus Juris Civilis ad calc. There were no 
 less than eight councils in France, held within thirty years after the 
 4th council of Lateran, confirming and enforcing its edicts. And 
 its canons, as all the other genuine epistles or decrees of popes, 
 contained in the decretals, were confirmed in the council of Con¬ 
 stance, as being of equal authority with the w ritings of the apostles. 
 In the 5th council of Lateran, Sess. 9 , the same doctrine was re¬ 
 cognised, it being ordered that “ Heretics and Judaizers should be 
 “ prosecuted by the Inquisition.” And in truth the bulls issued in 
 Ccena Domini, by all popes, in latter ages, are only, as I. have 
 shewn, in Reply, p. 169 , a sort of proclamation founded upon the 
 canons of that council. 
 
310 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 devoted to destruction ; and in which the clergy 
 were directed to stir up the laity to that good 
 work of persecution ? What is meant by dog¬ 
 matical constitutions of popes, if such bulls as 
 these be not included under that description? 
 Indeed if this be no doctrine, why do they he¬ 
 sitate to say at once that the councils and the 
 popes who enjoined the practice did err 35 ? 
 
 Again, as to the pretence that the laity are 
 chargeable as persecutors, and not the clergy, 
 because the former were present at the council, 
 
 35 1 shall here add only one more proof that persecution is a doc¬ 
 trine of the Romish church, out of the mouth of one of her most 
 famous doctors. In his second homily on St. George’s day, Eckius, 
 the great adversary of Luther, commenting on John, xv. comes 
 to the 6th verse ; upon which he has these remarkable words, 
 “ Qualis porro sit hie expectandus finis deincips ostendit dominus, 
 “ et ait, si quis in me non manserit mittetur foras sicat palmes, 
 “ et arescet, et colligent eum et in ignem mittunt et ardet. Solent 
 “ subinde conqueri hoeretici et quasrere cur tandem comburantur ? 
 if Ecce hie eis causam ad literam, quia juste non permanent. Vere 
 (( enim ad haereticos refertur.” (l The heretics are wont to com- 
 tl plain, and to ask why, after all, are they to be burned ? Behold 
 “ an authority for it, even according to the strict letter! !!” Ho- 
 miliar. Eckian. part iii. p. g46. The book is dedicated, by permis¬ 
 sion, to Clement the 7th. The reader will observe, that the here¬ 
 tics complained of the practice even in those times, instead of re¬ 
 taliating ; and, in fact, when was there ever a papist burned as a 
 heretic ? that is, after being pronounced to be a heretic by an eccle¬ 
 siastical judge. I have purposely abstained from observing upon 
 the popish doctrine, that kings may be deposed by popes, or slain 
 by their subjects, after such deposition, because it has become in 
 some sort a political question, and because, in my pamphlets above 
 referred to, I have gone into it so much at large. 
 
 5 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 31J 
 
 either in person, as princes, or as embassadors; 
 and because (which is another pretence) the 
 clergy are forbidden to judge in any cause of 
 blood; Is not this something still more futile, 
 nay, destructive of the former plea ? For we 
 know that the laity have no voice in councils: 
 they are there, and they in fact assisted at the 
 lateran council, merely as witnesses, or as vas¬ 
 sals, in order to receive the directions of their 
 spiritual fathers. And this being the case, the 
 fathers of the council having only to declare 
 what was to be done, and the emperors and 
 kings being bound to act upon .it, who shall 
 deny that what was thus declared was, in the 
 strictest sense, doctrine? that it was most 
 strictly what was intended to be taken as the 
 divine, and not as human law ? 
 
 And as to the miserable subterfuge that the 
 clergy have nothing to do with such executions, 
 because they are bound by the canons to have 
 no concern in the shedding of blood. What is 
 this but the plea of a felon, who having em¬ 
 ployed a child to set fire to his neighbour’s 
 house, when charged with the crime, should 
 insist that the act was none of his ? 
 
 ' Indeed the mock solemnity with which these 
 spiritual judges, after having made the adjudi¬ 
 cation which infallibly dooms the unfortunate 
 culprit to the flames, recommend mercy to the 
 temporal magistrate, who receives him at their 
 
312 
 
 SERMON VI. 
 
 hands without any power to act, but according 
 to the course which they have prescribed, this, 
 I say, is hypocrisy so barefaced, that I must 
 believe it will rise up in judgment against them, 
 before God, as a great aggravation of their other¬ 
 wise deep guilt. 
 
 In truth I know not, after all, if this single 
 tenet of persecution ought not to be considered 
 as the most sure mark of Anti Christ. Certainly it 
 must operate as the most decisive reason against 
 linking with any church by whom it is main- 
 tained. Could we persuade ourselves that we 
 might innocently submit to all the fopperies and 
 the tricks which are daily practised by Roman¬ 
 ists, under the name of devotions; could we 
 bear to be present while images are worshipped, 
 and bread and wine receive the adoration which 
 is only due to God; yet we could never con¬ 
 ceive ourselves justified in pronouncing, and in 
 compelling others to pronounce that all this is 
 right and sound doctrine ; in thus calling “good 
 “ evil; and evil good*.” But there is no me¬ 
 dium allowed by the church of Rome. We 
 must be wholly hers, or be by her devoted to 
 destruction. 
 
 Indeed the deliberation, and the circum¬ 
 stances with which her anathemas are pro¬ 
 nounced, are among the most prominent and 
 
 * Isaiah, r. 20. 
 
/ 
 
 SERMON VI. SIS 
 
 horrible of her blasphemies ; and, as if this were 
 not sufficient of itself, she increases the impiety 
 by derogating from the divine Majesty in the 
 very act, while she devotes her victims to the 
 vengeance of Peter and Paul in the same breath 
 with that of God 3 ®. 
 
 Such are a few of the particulars by which 
 we prove our separation from the church of 
 Rome to rest chi grounds very different from 
 any which can be alledged by our fellow Pro¬ 
 testants for separating from us. So flagrant 
 indeed are these abuses,so manifest these corrup¬ 
 tions, that, as we have seen, fully to justify them 
 lias baffled the arts of even the most subtle ad¬ 
 vocates of that church. Unable to support any 
 argument oil the justice of the case, they have 
 endeavoured to silence us by recrimination. 
 They bring forward, and exaggerate our diffe¬ 
 rences among ourselves. The variations of the 
 Protestant churches have been a favourite theme 
 with those who could no otherwise recommend 
 an implicit submission to the “ commandments 
 “ of men.” Deeply indeed must we lament the 
 divisions which have torn the church in these, 
 as in the former days ; with concern we must 
 observe, that no era of Christianity has been 
 
 ,6 Such is the conclusion of all papal bulls: “ lndignationem 
 ** omnipotentis Dei et beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum ejus 
 ** se noverit incursurum.” 
 
314 
 
 S E R M O N VI. 
 
 totally exempt from that misfortune. Nor in¬ 
 deed has this been in any degree less the case 
 with the church of Rome than with any other 
 churches. Yet deeply as we must regret our 
 share of this calamity, anxious as we all should 
 be to repair the breaches which have been made 
 in the unity of our ecclesiastical establishment, 
 we cannot but see that no peace can be desira¬ 
 ble but such as rests upon solid foundations, 
 such as is built upon the divine word, and not 
 upon human inventions. To trust in these is 
 “ in vain to worship God*.” It is not indeed 
 by sacrificing the truth that any real union can 
 be established. 
 
 There is, however, nothing in all this to pre¬ 
 vent, but rather much to enforce, the propriety 
 of our agreeing where we can agree ; in reject¬ 
 ing and condemning at least what we all (I 
 speak of Protestants at large) agree should be 
 rejected and condemned. It is a great step to 
 wisdom, even to heavenly wisdom, to keep clear 
 of that which is manifest folly. You must 
 therefore, I trust, approve of the anxiety with 
 which I entreat you to bear in mind the state of 
 darkness from which we have escaped. You 
 will join your charitable, nay fervent, wishes to 
 mine, for the conversion of our misguided bre¬ 
 thren of the Popish communion; you will pray 
 
 * Matt. xr. 9 . 
 
SERMON VI. 
 
 315 
 
 that they may at length hear that warning voice, 
 those awful, yet gracious words, which have such 
 a manifest reference to the church ot Rome, that 
 1 scruple not to apply them in their full extent, 
 “ Come out of her my people, that ye be not 
 tc partakers of her sins/and that ye receive not 
 “ of her plagues*.” 
 
 * Revel, xviii. 4. 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
S E R M O N VII. 
 
 Hebrews xiii. 8. 
 
 Jesus Christ , the same yesterday, and to-day, and 
 
 for ever. 
 
 / N 
 
 The immutability which, in this passage, is so 
 diiectly ascribed to our Lord, is, in various 
 other parts of Scripture, most expressly, as you 
 may well remember, declared to belong to God 
 oijly. -A 11 (i this is material to he remembered ; 
 for the consequence is obvious; and it will hold 
 good, whether we consider the proposition as 
 applying to our Lord s person, to his promises, 
 or his doctrine; for undoubtedly it can be said 
 of no creature, more especially it can be said of 
 no human being, that in any of these points he 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 317 
 
 is unchangeable. This glorious attribute is, 
 and must be confined to the Deity, to the great 
 
 Father of Lights*,” whose self existence, 
 whose infinite power, and infinite wisdom, as 
 they must have been fully and equally perfect 
 at all times, can and could be subject neither to 
 increase nor diminution, but must have been 
 the same throughout all ages. In him, there¬ 
 fore, I repeat it, and in him only, with whom, 
 according to this, and other .passages, Christ 
 must consequently be one, we are rightly told, 
 that there is no variableness, i( neither shadow 
 
 of turning')'.” 
 
 That indeed this is not the nature and pro¬ 
 perty of man, as the experience of every day 
 cannot but convince us, so may we see it most 
 strikingly exemplified in the history of that pe¬ 
 riod, to which I am now, in the course of iny 
 subject, naturally led to refer. The age of the 
 Reformation, as it is marked by many and sin¬ 
 gular benefits of which it was productive to 
 mankind, so does it abound with numerous 
 proofs of the imbecility inherent in human na¬ 
 ture, its want of steadiness, and proneness to 
 error. In the act of emerging from darkness, 
 we see the first reformers unable (as it were) to 
 bear the light. The effulgence which at once 
 broke in upon them, one would suppose. 
 
 * James, i. 17. 
 
 t lb. 18. 
 
31S 
 
 S E R M O N VII. 
 
 dazzled their sight, and prevented their seeing 
 many of the objects presented to them in the 
 same point ot view; and hence it happened that 
 that entire agreement and union did not take 
 place which was so desirable, and might have 
 been expected. When the existence and enor¬ 
 mity ot abases were equally apparent and con¬ 
 fessed, we might well have hoped that those 
 who were unanimous in condemning and com¬ 
 bating them, would be content to proceed to 
 their removal by the same means, and with the 
 same spirit. 
 
 To take away that which is corrupt, and to 
 leave that which is sound, to let the tree stand 
 alter it is freed from its rotten branches, seems 
 to be the mode in all such cases, not only the 
 most fit and natural to be pursued, but likely to 
 be attended with the least difficulty. It is the 
 mode which we say, and, we trust, with reason 
 say, was happily pursued in this country. Could 
 it have been pursued in other countries also, 
 not only a greater and a more strict union would 
 have prevailed among the reformed churches in 
 general, but in the individual churches them¬ 
 selves much less occasion, or rather no occasion 
 at all, for schism would have been ministered. 
 
 Unfortunately, however, that took place 
 which is common upon other occasions, that 
 men flew from one extreme to the other; from 
 the most abject slavery, they passed to the 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 j 
 
 319 
 
 wildest liberty. And indeed this is perhaps the 
 hardest trial to which a human being* can be 
 subjected. It is at least the most severe test of 
 strength in the moral, as well as in the physical 
 world, to restrain exertion within its due bounds. 
 In all cases where it is called upon to put forth 
 its utmost powers, the mind, as well as the body 
 of man, is apt to overshoot the mark, to be hur¬ 
 ried beyond its proper object. 
 
 Hence it was that with many individuals, 
 nay, with many bodies of men, the odium 
 which had been so justly excited by the cor¬ 
 ruptions of popery was extended to many par¬ 
 ticulars with which they had in reality no sort 
 of connection. Matters the most indifferent 
 were pronounced to be an abomination ; cere¬ 
 monies the most innocent, nay edifying, were 
 cried down, because they had been used by the 
 ministers of the Romish church, because in their 
 descent from the remotest antiquity they had 
 been handed down through those, whose touch 
 was now to be considered as in every act of 
 them communicating pollution and disease. 
 
 Nor was this all. The infirmity of man shewed 
 itself also in those jealousies,those oppositions 
 i( of science*,” if I may so use the term, whichr 
 have in all ages been the fruitful source of such 
 inveterate disscntions. The glaring and enor- 
 
 * 1 Tim. vi. 20. 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 320 
 
 mous abuses which, in my last three lectures, 1 
 pointed out, as most prominently distinguishing 
 the church of Rome, were indeed equally con¬ 
 demned by all the Reformers ; but still upon 
 two or three points of Christian doctrine, diffe¬ 
 rences, or rather shades of opinion arose, which, 
 as they were with great heat maintained on the 
 one side and on the other, produced among the 
 first leaders of the Protestant churches dissen-' 
 tions but too violent, and at once destructive of 
 union, and prejudicial to the common cause. 
 The doctrine of transubstantiation, for exam¬ 
 ple, was indeed disclaimed by all; but the na¬ 
 ture of Christ’s presence in the sacrament was 
 differently understood by the different indivi¬ 
 duals. In particular Luther, from a partial ad¬ 
 herence to old ideas, came to entertain the 
 notion of what he termed consubstantiation : he 
 held that the body and blood of Christ sub- 
 stautially existed in the sacrament, though not 
 alone, but united with the bread and wine ; so 
 that both the one and the other were taken by 
 the communicants. This approached so near 
 to the popish doctrine, it so naturally led to all 
 the same consequences, that we cannot wonder 
 •at its being rejected by Zuinglius, and other 
 eminent Reformers 1 . Besides this, those great 
 
 1 In consequence of which they were most unmercifully abused 
 by Luther, as the Romanists do not fail to remind us. It is re¬ 
 markable, that in Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, the word 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 321 
 
 points of predestination and free will, and the 
 extent of divine grace, which, after their agita¬ 
 tion by St. Austin, and his immediate succes¬ 
 sors, had been, as it were, laid by, and only fur¬ 
 nished matter of speculation for the schools, 
 now came again to be held forth as distinguish¬ 
 ing tenets of sects, and from that time began to 
 
 trouble and to divide the Protestant world. 
 
 * 
 
 It is well known with what heat and animosity 
 the several parties maintained the contest which 
 rose out of these, and the like questions. They 
 who had been so heartily united in opposition 
 to the tyranny of the see of Rome, all at once 
 shewed a disposition to embrace one of the 
 worst of its tenets. The Lutherans persecuted 
 the Calvinists; while Calvin, on the other hand, 
 was not backward in enforcing, by all the 
 means in his power, a conformity to his opi¬ 
 nions. In the mean time other sects arose, 
 which revived ancient and almost forgotten 
 heresies. The divinity of our Saviour, after an 
 interval of near a thousand years, was again 
 impugned; and in some cases the very founda¬ 
 tions of civil society were directly attacked, and 
 the standard of rebellion against the lawful ma¬ 
 gistrate was openly reared. 
 
 To these contests, upon points of doctrine, 
 
 C( consubstantiation” is not to be found, which betrays a con¬ 
 sciousness that the doctrine is not defensible, though as a Lutheran 
 he could not expressly give it up. 
 
322 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 were added other differences upon matters of 
 discipline. In those countries, where the actual 
 rulers of the church kept aloof from the Refor¬ 
 mation, or were reckoned among its enemies, 
 it became necessary to supply their place by 
 other governors of the same, or of a different 
 description. Unfortunately, I say unfortunately, 
 more especially with a reference to my present 
 subject, since undoubtedly every departure from 
 antiquity could not but give a wider opening to 
 schism, unfortunately in many places the most 
 violent mode, and that which was most opposed 
 to the uniform practice of ages, was adopted. 
 Because the bishops of Rome, under colour of 
 the authority which they derived from their 
 office, had been guilty of so many usurpations, 
 and exercised such tyranny, it was hastily con¬ 
 cluded by some ardent spirits that all episco¬ 
 pacy was usurping and tyrannous in its nature. 
 Because the corruptions of the Romish church 
 had grown up under the government of a bishop, 
 it was most unwarrantably concluded that cor¬ 
 ruption was inseparable from such a form of 
 hierarchy. To justify these conclusions, the 
 literal text of Scripture was called in, where, as 
 it was asserted, no appropriation could be found 
 of the word bishop, to that character and office 
 which bishops in our days have borne, and still 
 hear; and thus an argument, or rather a pre¬ 
 tence, was established for the abolition of the 
 
323 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 order, and the substitution of another form of 
 ch u rch - go ve rnmen t*. 
 
 Still, in the adoption of this very material 
 innovation—for innovation I must take leave to 
 call it, much variety prevailed; not were the 
 same measures adopted, or the alteration carried 
 to the same length in all places. With some of 
 the Lutheran churches the very name of bishop, 
 or of superintendant, remains ; and in the rest, 
 a certain pre-eminence, or superiority, is re¬ 
 served to one person, over the members of their 
 consistories, approaching, as we are told, in a 
 greater or less degree to the usage of antiquity 3 . 
 
 5 Yet even by some of those who were decidedly against the pre¬ 
 sent system of episcopacy, testimony was borne in favour of its 
 antiquity and usefulness, when exercised after what they conceived 
 to be the primitive and apostolic manner. See the famous passage 
 in Calvin’s Treatise de Necessitate Reformandse Ecclesiae, where he 
 says, “ Talem nobis hierarchiam si exhibeant, in qua sic emineant 
 fe episcopi, ut Christo subesse non recusent; ut ab illo, tanquam 
 <f unico capite pendeant et ad ipsum referantur : in qua sic inter 
 i( se fraternam societatem colant, ut non alio nodo quam ejus veri- 
 tale sint colligati ; tumvero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, 
 et si qui erunt, qui non earn revereantur, summaque obedientia 
 “ observeht.’’ Calv. Opera, tom. viii. p. 60 . See also his Con- 
 fessio Fidei, at p. Q5, “ Fatemur ergo episcopos sive pastores reve- 
 renter audiendos, 5 ’ &c. Baxter’s sentiments were notoriously 
 the same. See his Life and Abridgment passim. He (as well as 
 others of his sect) was only for putting the order upon a new, and 
 what he thought a better footing. See Calamy’s Abridgment, 
 
 p. 81. 
 
 3 See Mosheim, vol. iv. p. 287* Though as to this there ap¬ 
 pears, even from his account, to be a great degree of variation and 
 uncertainty. 
 
SERMON VIL 
 
 3M 
 
 Even in the first establishment of what is called 
 the Presbyterian form of church-government, 
 something*, nay a great portion of the same 
 order was preserved. At least we know that 
 Calvin exercised at Geneva, in his capacity of 
 moderator, an authority full as extensive, and 
 even, in fact, as absolute as was ever claimed by 
 any bishop. He did indeed at his death recom¬ 
 mend that the same authority should not be 
 continued for life in any other person; and his 
 advice being followed, that which was made an 
 annual office only, soon lost a great share of its 
 importance and dignity, till in process of time 
 an almost perfect equality was established among 
 the several members of that communion. 
 
 ^ itli such food for dissention, so early mi¬ 
 nistered, both in point of discipline and of doc¬ 
 trine, with so many and such warm disputes 
 carried on between the great leaders of the Re¬ 
 formation, so kept up, and so perpetuated by 
 the different denominations under which their 
 respective followers were ranged, we must not 
 wonder ii much cause for scandal was en^en- 
 
 o 
 
 dered ; if, more particularly, other sectaries, of 
 a turbulent and ambitious spirit, with views less 
 pure, and minds less informed, led the way to 
 new doctrines, and gave into all manner of dis¬ 
 orders. To what extravagant lengths some of 
 taese false apostles proceeded, what civil, as well 
 as religious mischiefs they caused, may be seen 
 
SERMON VIE 
 
 325 
 
 in history, of which they form one of the black 
 pages 4 . From these, and other excesses of the 
 like sort, it is well, if we learn the wholesome 
 lesson, not rashly to depart from received opi¬ 
 nions, or abolish forms long observed; seeing' 
 that by every such instance we weaken the re¬ 
 straints which the laws impose upon the unruly 
 appetites of men, and give scope to that rage for 
 novelty and wildness of speculation, which are 
 so readily made subservient to the purposes of 
 vanity, of ambition, or of covetousness. 
 
 I have thus touched upon the state of the re¬ 
 formed churches abroad, at the era of the Refor¬ 
 mation, not as pretending to give a detailed 
 account of them ; but because, in many respects, 
 their history is connected with that of our na¬ 
 tional church ; more especially it was from them 
 that was taken that aversion to our discipline 
 which occasioned the first, and, for a century, 
 the only schism by which she was rent. It was 
 to Calvin, and his successors, that the old pu¬ 
 ritans made their appeal ; it was according to 
 his notions that they wished our establishment 
 to be modelled. 
 
 I must, at the same time, observe, that what¬ 
 ever might be Calvin’s objections to many of 
 the rites and practices of our church after she 
 was reformed, how much soever he might wish 
 
 4 Particularly the shocking excesses of the Anabaptists in Hol¬ 
 land, as well as irt Germany. 
 
326 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 that she had formed herself after the model 
 which lie had devised, he never encouraged her 
 individual members in separating from her com¬ 
 munion, or affecting any sort of independence 
 upon their ecclesiastical rulers. Indeed he was 
 himself but too rigid in exacting conformity 
 within the pale of his jurisdiction; he suffered 
 no one to declare, or hardly to entertain any 
 opinion contrary to his own in religious matters. 
 He drove from the city, and territory over which 
 he presided, and even punished with greater se¬ 
 verity all tnose who shewed the least disposition 
 to oppose his authority, or to question the sound¬ 
 ness of his doctrine. He could not therefore,, 
 without contradicting the whole tenour of his 
 administration, have in the slightest de°ree 
 abetted any man in setting up his private opi¬ 
 nion against tire professed rule of discipline es¬ 
 tablished in the country where lie lived. This 
 was likewise the case with Luther, and his fol¬ 
 lowers. They were not less severe than others 
 in condemning, nay persecuting every devia¬ 
 tion, either in form or in substance, from the 
 standard which they had set up. 
 
 They were indeed fully sensible of the great 
 evils of schism, as well with respect to churches 
 as-to individuals. Many attempts were there¬ 
 fore made by them to reconcile their differences, 
 either by coming into each others’ opinions, or 
 by ascertaining upon what points men might 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 m 
 
 safely differ, without such difference becoming 
 a necessary cause of separation. That these at¬ 
 tempts should have failed at the time will not 
 appear strange to those who have observed with 
 what obstinacy we are all apt to adhere to opi¬ 
 nions which we have once delivered, more es¬ 
 pecially in questions of a religious or abstruse 
 nature. But all these discussions of what are 
 called fundamentals, all these inquiries into the 
 points of faith, which must indispensably be 
 holden in contradiction to those which are in¬ 
 different, and should make no breach of com¬ 
 munion, are material to be kept in mind, as they 
 bear upon the subject which wq are discussing: 
 as they tend to shew that nothing but what 
 concerns the very essence of our faith can jus¬ 
 tify us in separating from tli.e church to which 
 we belong 5 . For if there were not an obligation 
 laid upon every one of us to be at unity with 
 one another, and of course to submit ourselves 
 to them that have the rule in ecclesiastical mat¬ 
 ters, while we can do it with safety to our soul, 
 
 6 See what was attempted in this way by Melanchthon, and 
 others, in Germany. Mosheim, vpl. iv. pp. 326, 345, and v. 269. 
 See also the result ,of $ similar attempt made under the protectorate 
 in this kingdom, in Calamy’s Abridgment of Baxter’s Life, 
 p. 120. Baxter’* idea was, to propose the Creed, tlie Lord’s Prayer, 
 and the Ten Commandments, as the essentials or fundamentals of 
 Christianity. These were also the fundamentals of Durv, or 
 Duraeus, who at this very time was travelling about Europe on the 
 fruitless errand of reconciling all the Protestant churches. M(Ji 
 sheim, v. 277, and Bayle. 
 
32 8 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 any such inquiry as this which I have men¬ 
 tioned would have been nugatory and imper¬ 
 tinent It would have been mere solemn trifling 
 to ask what are fundamentals, and what are in¬ 
 different points in doctrine, if it was open to 
 any man to say I care not what other persons 
 ic think upon such subjects, I will be bound by 
 Ce no form, I will worship God according to my 
 “ own fancy.” 
 
 That this was not the mode of reasoning 
 adopted by our church at the Reformation, as 
 you see it was not that of the other reformers, 
 I have abundantly shewn in my former dis¬ 
 courses. It remains for me shortly to point 
 out to you how it has happened that to us, as to 
 other nations, reformation came accompanied 
 with disunion ; how in taking away known and 
 inveterate evils, a way w r as made for the letting 
 in of mischiefs of another sort. 
 
 Both the mode and progress of the Reforma¬ 
 tion, it may first be observed, were very diffe¬ 
 rent in this country from what happened with 
 other nations. In the first place, with us it 
 began at the head. It was not a comparatively 
 obscure and unauthorised individual who first 
 questioned, and put down the usurped dominion 
 of the pope; but it was the actually existing 
 government, the king himself, who, with the 
 concurrence of the legislature, and of his sub¬ 
 jects at large, resumed those rights of which Ids 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 329 
 
 predecessors had been stripped, and which had 
 from himself been withheld. Secondly, the work 
 begun did not go on without interruption. On 
 the contrary, it received very material checks, 
 as well from the capricious humour of Henry, 
 as from that dispensation of Providence which 
 suffered the kingdom, after being once eman¬ 
 cipated, to fall again under the bondage of su¬ 
 perstition, which tried the faith of our first re¬ 
 formers by all the severity of persecution. 
 
 I mention these facts, not as authorising any 
 particular claim of merit for our church or our 
 sovereigns on that score. I enter not into the 
 question of the motives by which Henry was 
 actuated in his quarrel with the pope, but I 
 point them out as accounting for the circum¬ 
 stances which are at this day peculiar to the 
 church of England. To these it was owing that 
 the changes which took place were not made 
 without much deliberation, that every measure 
 was fully considered before it was finally adopted ; 
 that, under the blessing of God, advantage was 
 taken of the experience of other nations, as well 
 as of the wisdom and judgment which might be 
 found at home. Hence it was that less of vio¬ 
 lence was used in the correction of abuses, less 
 of spoliation took place in respect of the pos¬ 
 sessions of the church 6 ; and more of the ancient 
 
 6 I believe it will be found, upon examination, that in taking 
 away episcopacy , the sovereigns of Germany were greatly influenced 
 
330 S E R M O N VII. 
 
 form of discipline, as well as of the accustomed 
 rites and ceremonies, was retained with us, than 
 with any other people. -It may lastly be re- 
 maiked, that the very establishment of the su* 
 premacy in the crown, while it kept down the 
 tuibulence of those spirits who would have run 
 into every extreme of doctrine, did also, by the 
 ^ *" r y stability which it gave to the system, en¬ 
 able the government with safety to allow a freer 
 course to the discussion ot religious questions \ 
 in otiier words, to be more tolerant than the 
 fashion of the times in other countries endured. 
 I say this, well aware of the laws which bore 
 hard, and the severities which were sometimes 
 exercised upon the puritans, because those who 
 would still fix the charge of intolerance upon 
 the English church of that day, may be asked in 
 what country, at that time, was it allowed that 
 any sect or body of men should stand forth in 
 
 by the prospect of appropriating to themselves the possessions be¬ 
 longing to the Afferent sees. It was also with a view to the same 
 mu of robbery that Leicester, and other courtiers of Elizabeth 
 countenanced and supported the puritans. This was very well uni 
 derstood by the latter, who, in consequence, failed not to onlawe 
 upon the great riches possessed by the heads of the church. 
 Come of) you bishops,” one of them cried, “ away with your 
 su P" flulll «, yield up your thousands, be oontem with hundreds, 
 
 , as ‘ ICy be m olher churches, where he as great learned men a! 
 
 „ >' nU 7 ' LCt - V ° Ur P ° r ' i0n be P riest -hhe, anti not prinee-lilte, 
 „ ' ct tle Queen have the rest of vour temporalities, and other 
 
 ... 7 5 ’. t0 maintain those wars which you procured.” See Peirce's 
 utmcalion, part 1st, p. 107, who cites this with approbation. 
 
 <c 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 331 
 
 opposition to the established discipline of their 
 national church, that they should introduce and 
 keep up a peculiar form of worship of their own. 
 This was not, as I again repeat, the case with 
 the nations which embraced either the Calvin- 
 istic or the Lutheran communion. And if we 
 further consider the sort of language which was 
 used by the puritans, their open contempt of 
 authority, the manner in which they reviled the 
 acknowledged rulers of the congregation, their 
 engagements to each other to use all their en¬ 
 deavours to get their scheme of religion or fur¬ 
 ther reformation adopted, we shall hardly be 
 able to pronounce them wholly guiltless of 
 those factious practices which are properly cog¬ 
 nizable by law; still less shall we wonder if in 
 that age when the rights of sovereign and peo¬ 
 ple were not weighed with any great accuracy 
 they were subjected to penalties or to treatment 
 somewhat more arbitrary than what we should 
 at this moment approve 7 . 
 
 7 That however there were some positions maintained by them 
 which could not but render them objects of jealousy to any govern¬ 
 ment, needs no stronger proof than the admission of one of the 
 great champions for unbounded church liberty. In his Confessional, 
 archdeacon Blackburne, after mentioning the opinion of the Cal¬ 
 vinists in Holland, “ that the civil magistrate who did not do his 
 ft duty in his province,” (viz enforcing the church’s decisions, dis¬ 
 couraging and suppressing sects and heresies) “ ceased to be a 
 “ child of God, and might be deposed from his office,’’ adds, “ It 
 ** cannot be denied that many of the English puritans entertained 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 That indeed nothing was endured by these 
 men which they would not have inflicted upon 
 others under the same circumstances was, as I 
 have already observed, clearly proved by their 
 conduct, when afterwards in the time of the 
 gicat lebeliion, they not only brought about 
 the adoption of their favourite mode of eccle¬ 
 siastical government, but did all in their power 
 to deprive every individual of the episcopal 
 
 cleigy, fiist of his character, and afterwards of 
 his means of living. 
 
 Indeed it was the very moderation of our 
 chuich which indisposed the puritans to her 
 communion. Their alleged ground of com¬ 
 plaint against her was that she still retained the 
 trappings of popery, that she used many cere¬ 
 monies arid kept up many practices which they 
 considered as superstitious. 
 
 On these objections which they thus enter¬ 
 tained to the doctrine or rather to the discip¬ 
 line of the established religion, I need not, I 
 trust, dwell at any length. For who is there 
 in these days that will seriously maintain that 
 the wearing of a surplice, the making of the 
 
 w, e n0t '° nS: P "' ha P 3the S reates ‘ pin of them in secret. 
 .. I, T any extraordlMr .V countenance was shewn to papists, either 
 
 ,. 7 J “ mCS ’ ° r mdeed before him by .Elizabeth, the puritans gave 
 no obscure mumations of what they thought of the government, 
 
 and the less d.screet among them openly avowed the lawfulness 
 
 12 >Xrr' l>0lh in ,he rei “ ns ° f: Elizabeth and 
 • antes. Elackb, Works, Vol. v. pp. 396, 397. 
 
 f c 
 
 (C 
 
 cc 
 
SERMON VIE 
 
 353 
 
 sign of the cross in baptism, the observance of 
 a few festivals in commemoration of those par¬ 
 ticular acts in which our Lord’s mercy and 
 goodness towards us were most signally dis¬ 
 played, or in honour of his immediate followers 
 and acknowledged saints, or, lastly, a few ex¬ 
 pressions in our liturgy which involved no cor¬ 
 ruption of the faith, and are, as we say, justified 
 by Scripture itself, who will now insist that 
 these or any other such unimportant particu¬ 
 lars could form a sufficient excuse for schism? 
 Nay, who will now seriously maintain that 
 there is any sort of warrant in the New Testa¬ 
 ment for the preference which they gave to the 
 presbyterian over the episcopal form of govern¬ 
 ment ? 
 
 As to the progress of these opinions, it is 
 well known that although in the beginning of 
 the reformation and under the reigns of Henry 
 the 8th and Edward the 6th, there were a few 
 individuals who shewed a disposition to quarrel 
 with the number and quality of the ancient or¬ 
 dinances which were retained in the church at 
 that time, yet they did not possess influence or 
 weight sufficient to interest anv considerable 
 part of the nation in favour of their sentiments. 
 It was only in consequence of the persecution 
 under queen Mary, and owing to it, that the 
 aversion or rather abhorrence which was then 
 so deservedly excited against popery began to 
 
334 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 extend itself to every thing which appeared in 
 any deg ree to be connected with what were 
 rightly called its abominations. And even this 
 disposition only gathered strength to display 
 itself from the connexion which was formed by 
 many of the exiles under that persecution, with 
 some of the leading members of the reformed 
 churches abroad. In particular, the reception 
 which some of those early confessors and suf¬ 
 ferers for the truth met with at Geneva and in 
 places similarly disposed, led them to entertain 
 a strong attachment to the form of discipline 
 which \\\n established in that country. They 
 did indeed at once embrace all the violence 
 with all the principles of Calvin. A part of 
 those principles, however, as we have already 
 seen, consisted in the strict observance of what¬ 
 ever ecclesiastical government was established, 
 and of course these men were as decided enemies 
 to any thing which they considered to be schis- 
 matical as the most zealous advocates for epis¬ 
 copacy could be. Their object, as it was avowed 
 3 t ^ o increase of their num¬ 
 
 bers and the ascertaining of their sentiments 
 gave them boldness to make any common de¬ 
 claration, was ‘‘to bring*' what they called 
 “ the reformation into the church 8 .” They'nei- 
 
 * “ About this time ( 1572 ) Chark, Travers, Gardner, Barber, 
 
 “ Chester, Cook, and Edgerton, joined the rest of the puritan fac- 
 tion in order to the settling of their discipline. After some de- 
 
I 
 
 SERMON VII. 335 
 
 / 
 
 thcr conceived nor announced that, strictly 
 speaking, in any nation or among any people 
 there could or ought to be more than one 
 church : or that, as it was afterwards expressed, 
 “ a church or churches could be gathered out 
 c£ of a true church/' Uniformity in ecclesias¬ 
 tical discipline was all along the prevailing idea 
 with them as with their contemporaries. It 
 continued so to be, nay, to be the only one 
 entertained, down to, and even after the me¬ 
 morable period, when, in the reign of our 
 Charles the first, the descendants and successors 
 of these men entered into that famous eno-asre- 
 ment called the solemn league and covenant; 
 in the very terms of which it evidently appeared 
 that no departure had in this respect taken place 
 from the strictest notions professed by the first 
 reformers respecting conformity. For by this 
 covenant they who took it engaged that they 
 would endeavour to extirpate not only “ popery 
 <£ and prelacy,” (that is the government of the 
 church by archbishops, bishops, deans, and 
 
 “ bate upon the question they came to the following resolutions 
 “ That forasmuch as clivers books had been written and sundry 
 “ petitions exhibited to her majesty, the parliament, and their lord- 
 ' <( ship'?, every man should therefore labour by all means possible to 
 * ( bring the reformation into the church.’’ it was likewise further 
 resolved, <c That for the better bringing in of the said holy discip- 
 “ line, they should not only as well privately as publicly teach it, 
 “ but by little and little, as well as possibly they might, draw the 
 “ same into practice.” Collier’s Eccl. Hist. V. ii. p. 541. 
 
336 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 their officers) not only “superstition, heresy, 
 “and profaneness/’but “schism.’’Thus clearly 
 by the most manifest implication condemning 
 every division in the church which was not 
 the result of necessity ; and thus also most for¬ 
 cibly disclaiming for themselves any such liberty 
 as in our days is contended for, of professing 
 what faith any man pleases, of separating from 
 the congregation as often as we choose or in 
 whatever way we think proper 9 . 
 
 True it is that, in the progress of that great 
 and striking combination of schism from the 
 church and rebellion against the sovereign 
 which then or soon after gained the upper hand, 
 in the course ot that opposition to all authority, 
 whether ecclesiastical or civil, which brought 
 our monarch to the block, that took place which 
 always happens in times of such confusion, that 
 every man being set up as “a judge and a di- 
 “ vider,” being called upon to pronounce con¬ 
 demnation upon the errors of his rulers, natu¬ 
 rally took the liberty to form a system of his 
 own as well in religious as in other matters ; and 
 to indulge in every wild theory which his ima- 
 
 * See the material clauses of this solemn league and covenant in 
 Collier, Vol. ii. p. 859, and the whole more at length in Baxter’s 
 life, by Sylvester, p. 3Q 1. One of their engagements was that they 
 would not suffer themselves to be withdrawn, “ whether to make 
 “ defection to the contrary part, or to give themselves to a detest- 
 able indifferency or neutrality in that cause,” &c. 
 
S E R M O N VII. 
 
 337 
 
 gination could form : that in consequence, a 
 number of sectaries arose, each claiming a right 
 to form separate and independent congregations 
 unconnected with, and not to be controlled 
 others, and not owning any common form of 
 discipline or of doctrine, nor admitting any 
 community of that sort to be at all essential or 
 necessary. But it is also true that as long as 
 that party which entertained the old puritan 
 principles, and was in the beginning considered 
 as the only one in opposition to the episcopal 
 establishment, which did in fact erect its own 
 form of ecclesiastical government upon the ruins 
 of the church, as long, I say, as that party re¬ 
 tained either strength or authorit}g it not only 
 would not adopt nor give any sort of counte¬ 
 nance to such a latitude in opinion and practice, 
 but even positively refused to allow it a tolera¬ 
 tion. An application was made on the subject 
 only the }^ear before the king’s death, to that 
 assembly of divines which the long parliament 
 had convened as a sort of substitute for the 
 convocation, or as filling the place of that na¬ 
 tional synod, which according to the ideas of 
 Calvin was to have the supreme rule or direc¬ 
 tion in ecclesiastical matters 10 . The assembly 
 however refused the application, and upon 
 grounds which are material to be considered. 
 
 I * See Baxter’s account of this assembly in his Life by Sylvester, 
 
 73. 
 
 Z 
 
33S 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 f 
 
 They urge that to grant the request of the In¬ 
 dependents would be, in the words before cited, 
 “ to allow the lawfulness of gathering churches 
 u out of true churches,” and that “it would 
 “ encourage perpetual schism and division in 
 “ the church, always drawing some oil from the 
 “ churches under the rule,” that is, under the 
 then establishment. “ This,” they say further, 
 “ would encourage animosities between those 
 “ who remained, and those who went off.” 
 And in another part of the conference they ex¬ 
 pressly refused to allow the plea of conscience 
 as a motive for such separation, “ because this 
 “ was what might be alleged by any erroneous 
 “ conscience whatsoever*.” 
 
 Such was the judgment of the then ruling 
 party both in church and state. Such were 
 the opinions of those, who, for the first cen¬ 
 tury after the reformation, were the only con¬ 
 siderable or acknowledged opponents of the 
 established discipline of our church. If, not¬ 
 withstanding the refusal of a toleration, no 
 proceedings were actually bad against the In¬ 
 dependents, if they continued to hold their 
 meetings unmolested, it must be ascribed to 
 that influence among the people, and particu¬ 
 larly with the army, which they contrived to 
 obtain, and which finally put them into pos- 
 
 * Collier's Eccl. Hist. Voi. ii. p. 820. 
 
SERMON VII. 339 
 
 - 1 ' * 1 
 
 session of power, and enabled them to triumph 
 over all opposition. 
 
 Instead of wearying you with any more par¬ 
 ticular details upon this part of our history, I 
 shall content myself with two or three observa¬ 
 tions upon what has thus been brought before 
 you. 
 
 First it appears, I think with sufficient clear¬ 
 ness, according to what I formerly alleged, 
 that, down to nearly the middle of the seven- 
 teenth century, there never was, not only any 
 nation, but not any considerable body of men 
 among any people, still less any ruling party 
 or number of persons having authority, which 
 held the tenet now so commonly brought for¬ 
 ward of the indifference of all communions, or 
 the licence of arbitrarily and without cause 
 assigned separating from the ecclesiastical es¬ 
 tablishment of that place to which a man be¬ 
 longs. We shall find even the most inconsi¬ 
 derable bodies among those who dissented from 
 the churches under which they lived, nay, we 
 shall find upon inquiry all the true servants of 
 God who were suffering under persecution, ear¬ 
 nest not simply for the liberty of worshipping 
 God in uprightness and sincerity of heart, but 
 for the propagation of the truth, for the remo¬ 
 val in others as well as in themselves of that 
 which they conceived to be corruption, and 
 
 7 t 2 
 
340 
 
 SEE M O N VII. 
 
 dangerous, if not damnable sin. We further 
 find them all expressly, whenever they had an 
 opportunity of explaining themselves, even in 
 the very act of separating from their brethren, 
 and however differing in other respects, yet 
 joining in the open and unequivocal condemna- 
 - tion of schism. 
 
 Secondly, I would call your attention to the 
 time when, and the circumstances under which 
 the latitudinarian principle was first with any 
 effect avowed and acted upon. The sect indeed 
 of the Independents was not wholly unknown 
 before the days of the rebellion. The Brownists 
 in particular, though disclaimed by their bre- 
 tnren who succeeded them, excited consider¬ 
 able notice in the days of Elizabeth. But their 
 reign was neither long nor widely extended. It 
 was only in the moment of confusion and compa¬ 
 rative anarchy, at that juncture of civil warfare, 
 which, as it does violence to the strongest of our 
 social feelings/tends more completely than any 
 other to unhinge the mind, it was then only, I 
 say, when the kingdom was literally “ divided 
 
 against itself,' that any countenance was ob¬ 
 tained, or power possessed by those who de¬ 
 clared against all subordination or control in 
 the administration of their spiritual concerns. 
 Nor can it be doubted that it was the very wild¬ 
 ness and unsteadiness of their principles, their 
 
I 
 
 SERMON VII. 341 
 
 being so readily “carried about with every 
 “ wind of doctrine*/’ which, as it made them 
 more useful and ready tools for the advance- 
 ment of Cromwell in his views upon the sove¬ 
 reignty, so it procured them in return that 
 degree of protection and countenance from him 
 which raised them in consequence above their 
 more regular and scrupulous brethren. 
 
 Thirdly, we may observe, as we are in Scrip¬ 
 ture called upon to do, what were the imme¬ 
 diate “fruits” of this extreme laxity of princi¬ 
 ple, when thus recognized and having obtained 
 a kind of solid footing. History will tell us 
 that there was no time when such strange and 
 
 o 
 
 monstrous tenets were openly and without fear 
 or rebuke maintained. And this we learn not 
 from one class of men, not from the writers of 
 the oppressed church of England only, but from 
 every author who lias treated the subject. In 
 particular from two divines of the Presbyterian 
 communion, we have a most disgusting and 
 particular detail of these abominations. Strong 
 as this word is* I must use it, because many of 
 them did in no degree stop short of impiety and 
 blasphemy. By Edwards, in his Gangraena, not 
 less than two hundred of these sects are reckon¬ 
 ed up; and the plain and simple account of the 
 pious and honest, though in some respects weak 
 
 * Epb. iv. 14. 
 
/ 
 
 p 
 
 342 S E R M O N VII. 
 
 and erring Richard Baxter, must convince 
 every reasonable man how largely all these sec¬ 
 taries dealt in hypocrisy and self-delusion 11 . 
 
 Of a tenet which first shewed itself at such a 
 period, which as soon as it gathered strength was 
 attended with such effects, can we be otherwise 
 than distrustful ? Must we not say that in this 
 respect, experience has confirmed what is other¬ 
 wise to be collected from Scripture? 
 
 The vanity and unsoundness of these sects, 
 the ranters and the seekers, and so many more, 
 further appear from the little hold which they 
 were able to take upon even the prejudices of 
 men. Of most of them we know nothing but 
 what we read in the history of those times. 
 Independency however, we must admit, not 
 only in its general principle, but in some of its 
 original forms has kept its ground, and indeed 
 very widely extended its empire. It has so 
 increased and acquired such strength as greatly 
 to outstrip its old competitor in the career of 
 schism, and bids fair to throw it entirely into 
 the shade. For you must be aware what a 
 change Presbyterianism has undergone in later 
 times, and even from the age of Baxter. Not 
 only its numbers but its credit have greatly di¬ 
 minished: so that this class of dissenters, which, 
 
 11 See Baxter’s account, Life by S) Wester, p. 72, & 102 k Cala- 
 roy’s Abridgment, pp. 89, gS & seep 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 343 
 
 as I have before observed, was originally the 
 most powerful, nay the only one which first 
 raised and maintained itself against the estab¬ 
 lished government, has lost all its weight, and 
 hardly retains a name in this kingdom. If I 
 am not mistaken, the nonconformists of Eng¬ 
 land, at this moment, are generally, if not uni¬ 
 versally, Independents: they have no synods,- 
 or system of discipline, answering to that which 
 was established at Geneva, or which now obtains 
 in Scotland. If they are at all distinguished 
 from one another, it is by their greater or less 
 orthodoxy in doctrine, and perhaps the sort of 
 ordination which they require for their mi¬ 
 nisters. 
 
 As long indeed as there were any .of the Pres¬ 
 byterians remaining, so long did they retain 
 their attachment to church discipline, and so 
 long continue both to lament the existing schism, 
 and to testify their readiness to adopt such mea¬ 
 sures as would restore them to communion with 
 the establishment. Hence the hopes which they 
 entertained at the restoration of Charles the 2d, 
 and the conferences at the Savoy, as well as 
 those which had before taken place at Hampton 
 Court in the reign of James the 1st. As, how¬ 
 ever, a new set succeeded, and the obtaining of 
 their demands became more and more hopeless, 
 they relaxed by degrees, until at last, towards 
 the end of the 17th century, a union took place 
 
344 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 between this class of dissenters and the Inde¬ 
 pendents, which put an end to their differences, 
 and first Jed the way to that abandonment of 
 fixed principle, which seems to be the great 
 
 chaiacteiistic of all tire separatists of the present 
 day 12 . 
 
 How indeed, by what means, and by what 
 degrees, from that period, the minds, not only 
 of (lie dissenters, but even of many members of 
 the church, were gradually led to look with in¬ 
 difference upon the progress of schism, and to 
 be less and less sensible of the advantages which 
 result from conformity, and a proper submission 
 to authorised rulers, I have considered some- 
 'vnat in detail in my first discourse, and need 
 not now repeat. What was there said, also ren- 
 ders unnecessary any further or more regular 
 deduction of the state of our church, or of its 
 history, during the last hundred years. What¬ 
 ever there was of peculiarity in it, has occa¬ 
 sionally been pointed out, and will come to be 
 considered, as I now proceed shortly to bring- 
 
 before you the actual state of the different, oit 
 
 at wan, the most prominent sects, which at pre¬ 
 sent divide this country, and set themselves up 
 in diiect hostility to the establishment. 
 
 In the very entrance upon this part of my sub- 
 
 ”Tlns agreement took place, and was formally published in the 
 year 1 Coo. See the articles at length in Calamy's Abridgment, 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 ject, however, it is evidently proper to draw one 
 broad line of distinction, and to divide our op¬ 
 ponents into two classes ; one consisting of those 
 which differ from us upon essential points of 
 doctrine, and the other of those who have no 
 such cause to allege for their separation. And 
 we cannot but note this great difference between 
 them, that, with respect to the former class, if 
 they be really persuaded that the doctrine which 
 they maintain is the true faith, they do rightly 
 in abstaining from our communion. Whereas 
 the latter, even if their objections were ever so 
 well founded, as long as those objections relate 
 to points which are either indifferent, or of tri¬ 
 vial moment, will still be guilty of making un¬ 
 necessary divisions in the church ; or, in other 
 words, of actual schism. 
 
 Weeneed not here be stopped by the difficul¬ 
 ties which the German divines encountered in 
 their attempts to ascertain what were funda¬ 
 mentals in religion, and what were not. The 
 general feeling in this country, for many years, 
 has, if I mistake not, confined the application 
 of the term of heresy to-that error, which con¬ 
 sists in denying or derogating from the divinity 
 of our Lord. As the persons who hold this 
 error are also those who maintain, and who alone 
 (for I now put the Papists out of the question) 
 maintain the heresy of Pelagias, I believe that 
 this class will, with sufficient precision, include 
 
 5 
 
545 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 all those who dissent upon what I consider as 
 essential points. I must be understood, how¬ 
 ever, as speaking of those whose principles are 
 clearly laid down, and avowed to the world ; 
 for it is certain that there are many individuals, 
 and some sects, of which, either from the nature 
 ot their tenets, or the obscurity in which they 
 contrive to involve themselves, it is difficult to 
 pronounce whether their conduct partake mere 
 largely of heresy or of schism. Some of these 
 also, as the Quakers for instance, by the opi¬ 
 nions which they hold respecting the sacraments, 
 may he said most emphatically to excommunicate 
 themselves from all other Christian societies. 
 Of these i must be allowed only incidentally to 
 take notice. 
 
 Upon this first class of dissenters I shall now 
 proceed to observe, reserving the consideration 
 of second class of sectaries, those who ap¬ 
 pear to me to be more properly schismatics!, to 
 my next and concluding discourse. 
 
 I am aware indeed that it mav be doubted by 
 some whether it comes properly within my plan 
 to take any particular notice of persons, whose 
 offence is not that of pure schism, but some* 
 thing of a more serious and aggravated nature. 
 I giant tnat heresy is usually considered in a 
 ciiiieicnt lignt fiom schism, and that according 
 to the ics trained and most common sense of the 
 u 01 vis, they do not fall under the same head. 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 347 
 
 Yet will it appear that both the nature of the 
 tiling, and the course of my argument, require 
 that I should bestow upon the one, as upon the 
 other, in this instance at least, some degree of 
 attention. 
 
 In the first place, different as the things them¬ 
 selves may be, yet if they are in fact involved 
 with each other, if the one is in many cases tbe 
 cause of the other, there will be no possibility 
 of taking a full view of either of them without 
 the other coming in some degree into considera¬ 
 tion. Heresy, as I have before observed, may 
 exist without schism. But that only proves the 
 more strongly, that, when it actually does pro¬ 
 duce schism, it cannot wholly be passed over 
 by those who would trace, through either their 
 causes or effects, the divisions which exist in 
 the church. 
 
 I am further led to do this, by the distinction 
 which pressed itself upon me in the course of 
 my argument, when in vindicating the true 
 principles upon which the Reformation pro¬ 
 ceeded, and urging that it stood upon very dif¬ 
 ferent grounds from those upon which any of 
 the dissenters could, or did profess to stand in 
 their separation from us, I admitted that if they 
 could fix upon us any errors, nay, even one e r¬ 
 ror of the sort or magnitude which it was agreed 
 by all Protestants belonged to the church of 
 Rome, there could be nothing said against the 
 
348 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 justice of tlieir separation; and I went on to 
 deny that even any attempt of that kind had 
 ever been made by any, excepting* only one 
 class of dissenters. But in making the excep¬ 
 tion I had this very class in my mind, who do 
 in fact impute to us a corruption of doctrine 
 nearly, if not precisely the same as one of those 
 which we charge upon the Romanists. 
 
 For you will recollect that one of our objec¬ 
 tions to the church of Rome is founded upon her 
 invocation of the saints, which we justly regard 
 as a direct breach of the first commandment, as 
 giving to men that honour which belongs only 
 to God, which indeed he has in express words 
 reserved to himself. But this is in fact what is 
 imputed to us by those members of this sect 
 who go the full length of the doctrine, who 
 speak, as most boldly, so most consistently. 
 By them the worship which we pay to Christ is 
 expressly called idolatrous and blasphemous. 
 And, if their tenets be well founded, if they 
 rightly affirm that our Saviour is not God, that 
 there is no warrant in Scripture for the doctrine 
 of the trinity, we must admit that it is not with¬ 
 out reason that all this is said, nay, that we are 
 really guilty of the charge which they bring 
 against us. 
 
 It is true that this language is not, and cannot 
 he held by a great proportion of this sect; for 
 though they affect to be distinguished by one 
 
S E R M O N VII. 
 
 349 
 
 common name, there is, and it is a feature to be 
 remarked in all dissenters at this moment, a 
 wonderful variety and discordancy in the opi¬ 
 nions which are held among them, as well by 
 congregations as by individuals. Indeed the 
 name of Unitarians (to which, by the way, let 
 it be observed, they have just the same, and no 
 more true right than the Papists have to be ex¬ 
 clusively called Catholics) seems to have been 
 adopted by them for the very purpose of uniting 
 those in words who could never unite in sub- 
 
 j t 
 
 stance. It is simply a sort of rallying point 
 against the established church: in every other 
 respect their object and form of proceeding es¬ 
 sentially vary among themselves. For, while 
 the followers of Priestley and Evanson thus 
 stigmatise the worship of Christ; by others of 
 them he is adored, and has divine honours paid 
 to him, as much, or nearly as much, as by us. 
 The Arians, for example, through all the degrees 
 which there are of them, allow him to be God, 
 and admit his pre-existence; nay, that he cre¬ 
 ated the world : only they maintain that he was 
 born within time, and that the worship which 
 they pay to him is not exactly the same, but 
 relative and inferior to that which is due to the 
 Father. Socinus also, the great leader of the 
 modern Anti-Trinitarians, overcome by the 
 strong and positive language of Scripture, not 
 only held Christ to be an object of adoration. 
 
550 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 though a mere man, but strongly reprobated, if 
 he did not join in persecuting those who were 
 of a different opinion. If now we only con¬ 
 sider the various shades of which these several 
 tenets are capable, we may conceive what a vast 
 variety of sentiments must exist amons: them. 
 Indeed the distinguishing position of the greater 
 part of their writers is, that they ought to have 
 no fixed creed ; they conceive that the free 
 spirit of inquiry, which they profess to be al¬ 
 ways exercising to advantage, must he every 
 day leading them to new discoveries and im¬ 
 provements. And this was actually declared 
 in the only attempt which was ever made at any 
 thing like a regular profession of faith in that 
 communion, or rather, I should say, in any of 
 their communions 13 . 
 
 * ^ acov ‘ an ^ ate chism, of which see a detailed account in 
 Toulmin’s Life.of Socinus, p. 257, 25g, & seq. I will add a 
 quotation from this author, and another from Dr. Priestley, as il¬ 
 lustrative of what I have above said of the variableness or diversity 
 ot the Socinian tenets, in their different congregations, and the im¬ 
 propriety of the denomination of Unitarian, as assumed by them. 
 Dr. 1 oulmin, speaking of some variations of this sort, says, “ The 
 “ alterations their sentiments underwent were the consequence of 
 
 - their avowed principles, and tne result of the free inquiry they 
 “ allowed. The edition of the Catechism I have quoted was dif¬ 
 ferent from a preceding publication of that kind, being in some 
 
 - places altered, in others corrected, and in some instances 
 
 “ abridged. This they own, and their plea is not only a justifica¬ 
 tion of taose alterations, but a caveat against any censure of any 
 “ future chan g e in the? r religious system,” & c . Toulmin’s Life of 
 Socinus, p. 270. Afterwards speaking of Biddle’a followers, he 
 
 U 
 
S E R M O N VIL 
 
 33 ’, 
 
 \ 
 
 Bat to my apprehension this is a sort of lan¬ 
 guage, so far from being warranted by Scripture, 
 that, on the contrary, this very fluctuation, and 
 variety of opinion, appears to me to form of 
 itself a very strong presumption against any sect 
 that governs itself by such a principle. Faith 
 
 says, “ it does not appear that this society subsisted after his death, 
 “ nor have the Socinians made any figure, as a community, in 
 f * England. But theological sentiments, nearly resembling the 
 ** Socinian system, have been held by various persons, and pro- 
 ** bably are daily gaining ground, and of late years have been more 
 <e openly avowed, and freely canvassed. Many societies of Pro- 
 testant dissenters have become communities of professed Unita- 
 rians, though chiefly upon the Arian scheme; and the Trini- 
 “ tarian forms of worship, which are preserved in the church of 
 England, and which are so closely incorporated with all its scr- 
 4i vices, methinks, must form an insuperable objection against 
 “ conformity, with all sincere and conscientious Unitarians,” &c. 
 All this my reader will see agrees with what I say, except that I do 
 not believe that the numbers of these dissenters are increasing. 
 How too, of all persons, can Arians challenge the particular name 
 #f Unitarians? For is not their system expressly that of two gods, 
 the one supreme, and the other subordinate? What can be said 
 for them that may not be urged by the Papist for the worship of 
 saints, or by the Pagan for that of his dii minores? Dr. Priestley 
 in this agrees with me ; as may be seen, I think, in his controversy 
 with Dr. Price, and further in his Early Opinions, &c. vol. iv. 
 p. 632-3) where he has this remarkable passage. Assuming first 
 that Dr. Clarke had satisfied the majority of learned Christians in 
 this country, respecting “ the supremacy of one God, the Father, 
 i( and that Christ is only a creature,” that is, that he had made 
 them Arians ; he adds, <( If learned men will give equal attention 
 *• vo the subject of this work, we may expect that in an equally 
 “ short epace of time the controversy between the Arians and Uni- 
 tarians will be decided.’’ He goes on to intimate what is very 
 true, that Animism is a “ halting between the two opinions. ’ 
 
552 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 is always, in Scripture, represented to us as some¬ 
 thing steadfast and unchangeable. It is, on the 
 other hand, one of the characteristics of error, 
 that it is unstable, and knows not where to fix. 
 And I would put it to you, whether this be not 
 a characteristic mark particularly applicable to 
 schism. 
 
 Consider my text, which in more ways than 
 one bears upon this question ; and take it with 
 the words which precede, or with those which 
 follow it. d he apostle thus exhorts the disci¬ 
 ples: Remember them which have the rule 
 
 “ over you, who/’ says he, “ have spoken the 
 “ words ot God ; whose faith follow, consider- 
 16 i n g‘ the end of their conversation.” Now 
 what is this end of their conversation ? u Jesus 
 “ Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and 
 <£ for ever.” Something it is, surely, not chano*- 
 ing from day to day, but which all the world 
 are, and have been obliged to maintain from 
 the beginning, and will continue to be so 
 bounden to-the end. A being, if I may add my 
 comments, whose existence is thus asserted to 
 have been from everlasting; an office to which 
 he was appointed before the worlds; a doctrine 
 which always was, and must remain unchange¬ 
 able. Some persons there are who, for obvious 
 reasons, refer the text to the words which fol¬ 
 low in the next verse: “ Be not carried away 
 " with divers and strange doctrines.” And so 
 
353 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 they reason, that the words “Jesus Christ, the 
 “ same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever,” 
 means only that his doctrine is always the same, 
 and cannot be changed by men 14 . Now were 
 we even to restrict the interpretation of the pas¬ 
 sage to this one point, for which, however, I see 
 no reason, yet would not this give any effectual 
 support to the cause of our adversaries. 
 
 For, let me ask what is this doctrine of Jesus 
 Christ which is “ the same yesterday, and to-day, 
 “ and for ever,” which is thus peculiar to him, 
 which yet was, from the earliest time, and will 
 continue for ever ? What is, in other words, 
 this gospel, this “ mystery/' which, as the apos¬ 
 tle tells us, was “kept secret” (it existed, you 
 observe, but was kept secret), “ since the world 
 “ began; but now” (that is in Christ) “was 
 “ made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the 
 tc prophets, according to the commandment of 
 “ God, made known to all nations for the obe- 
 “ dience of faith*/' What, I say, was, or could 
 be this mystery, but the cross and passion of 
 Christ, and our redemption through him, the 
 atonement which he made for our sins ? A 
 doctrine this, be it now considered, which 
 stands, and can only be built upon the divinity 
 of our Lord ; which therefore every Arian and 
 
 14 See Lindsey’s Sequel to the Apology, and Dr. Clarke there 
 quoted, p. 2$i. 
 
 * Romans, xvi. 25. 
 
 A A 
 
354 
 
 SERMON yih 
 
 Socinian, every opposer of the orthodox tenets 
 js by necessary consequence bound to oppose. 
 Where, I say, shall we find any other doctrine 
 peculiar to Christianity ? Take this away, and 
 what did our Lord teach, but what Moses, and 
 every teacher of righteousness before him had 
 taught? Will it be said that the moral precepts 
 of the gospel were different from those of the 
 law ? The knowledge of God, our duty towards 
 our neighbour, are these also set forth under the 
 new covenant differently from what they were 
 under the old? So far from it, our Lord laid 
 them down, and, ts it should seem, studiously 
 so, in the very words of Moses. What then is 
 this doctrine of Christ, I repeat it, but that re¬ 
 mission of sins through his blood, which is so 
 explicitly laid down in Scripture, but which it 
 is the constant but fruitless endeavour of every 
 Unitarian to explain away? If indeed Christ, 
 in dying, made not an atonement for our sins, 
 why is his death so magnified ? If he was not 
 God, why are his sufferings considered as so 
 precious? Why should his cross be counted 
 “ a stumbling block to the Jews, and to the 
 tff Greeks foolishness*?” It was no novelty to 
 the one or to the other to hear of innocence op¬ 
 pressed, or good men suffering under an unjust 
 judgment. But what shocked them was the 
 
 * 1 Cor. i. 2a. 
 
SERMON VIE 
 
 355 
 
 idea that this should happen to a divine being. 
 This it was which they treated, and their fol¬ 
 lowers in these days treat as an absurdity and 
 impiety; even that he by whom the world was 
 made should “ come to his own,’’and not only not 
 be received by them, but suffer an ignominious 
 death at their hands. This is the doctrine 
 which yet is so clearly laid down in the Scrip¬ 
 tures, that no man reading them, as he would 
 any other book, can fail to see it there recorded : 
 nor is it met by our adversaries in any other 
 way than by opposing human opinions and 
 judgments against the express word of God. 
 
 Clear indeed, and direct as are many of the 
 texts which speak of our Lord as God, which 
 give him all the attributes of the Deity, it seems 
 to me that the most conclusive, as well as the 
 most satisfactory mode of establishing this great 
 truth, is to take the whole scope and tenor of 
 Scripture, as directed to this one point, the sa¬ 
 tisfaction which he made for our sins. No such 
 satisfaction it is allowed on all hands, could be 
 made by any creature. This being then granted, 
 and the consequence following, as it inevitably 
 must, that every text which proves that our Sa¬ 
 viour made a proper atonement for the sins of 
 the world, also proves him to be God; let the 
 most illiterate, or the most learned man, take up 
 the writings of the apostles and evangelists, and 
 read straight forward, and without prejudice, 
 
 A A 2 
 
5 56 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 and I will venture to say that lie cannot avoid 
 seeing the doctrine in question set forth in cha¬ 
 racters the most plain and intelligible. If he 
 will besides go on and look into ecclesiastical 
 history, he will also find that it has been the doc- 
 trine of the great body of believers, from the 
 first preaching of the gospel down to the pre¬ 
 sent day. Nor is this constant prevalence of 
 the doctrine a small argument in its favour. 
 For can we conceive that God, who has pro¬ 
 mised to be with his church to the end, would 
 suffer her to go on uniformly, day after day, and 
 year after year, under a delusion thus professed 
 
 , ^ s 
 
 and preached by men of an undoubted holy life, 
 by confessors and martyrs? Nor is that true 
 which has sometimes been urged, that the cor¬ 
 ruptions of popery have met with the same long 
 and uninterrupted reception. Most of them, 
 as I have shewn, are of a comparatively very 
 late date; and of none of them can it be said that 
 they have for any long time been universally, 
 and without question received. On this ground, 
 therefore, and as decisive of the question, we 
 might surely ask, with what church, or de¬ 
 scription ot Christians, is to be found ie Jesus 
 
 Christ, the same yesterday, and to-day, and 
 i( for ever ?” 
 
 Let me press the contrast further in one other 
 instance. Between the great body of the Pro¬ 
 testant churches (all of them, be it remembered, 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 357 
 
 holding the doctrine of the-Trinity ) there was, 
 at the time of the reformation, a most perfect 
 consent as to the grounds upon which they se¬ 
 parated from the church of Rome. In this re¬ 
 spect they all bore testimony for one another. 
 The same consent upon the same points has 
 continued and continues to exist at this day. 
 Take Lutherans, Calvinists, or Church of Eng¬ 
 land men, all have precisely the same opinion 
 (I speak this of those who have any opinion at 
 all) of the abominations of the church of Rome 
 as was entertained from the beginning by our 
 ancestors. Rut now is this the case with those 
 who have since separated from their national 
 churches; more especially the separatists from 
 our church, whether in points of doctrine or of 
 discipline? Have they not shifted their ground, 
 and that repeatedly ? It is most notorious that 
 ' they have. And with respect to the divinity of 
 our Saviour in particular, there is, as I have 
 already shewn, the most astonishing variable¬ 
 ness prevailing among those who dissent upon, 
 that ground. Nothing is more notorious than 
 what I have said of the changes of opinion as 
 well as actual variations in practice which have 
 happened and are daily taking place among 
 them. 
 
 Rut this is not all. The Unitarians of this ae;e 
 have in order to support their error, had recourse 
 to an expedient of so dangerous a nature, so ap- 
 
35 8 
 
 SERMON VIE 
 
 proaching to sacrilege, that it cannot be too strong* 
 ly reprobated. It deserves the more to be noticed 
 as it discovers so plainly the weakness of their 
 cause. It fully admits what I have above stated 
 that the Scriptures but too plainly pronounce 
 their condemnation. In consequence some of 
 their late writers, being pressed with texts 
 which speak so decidedly against them, have 
 boldly pronounced all those which contain any 
 thing contrary to their ideas to be spurious, and 
 no part of the genuine word of God. One of 
 these great champions confined his attack to the 
 beginning: of St. Matthew’s and of St. Luke’s 
 
 o O 
 
 gospel 15 ; but another of them, whose labours 
 in the cause have very lately been brought for¬ 
 ward again to our notice 16 , has laid violent 
 hands not only upon the same part of St. Luke’s 
 gospel, but upon the whole of the other three 
 gospels, together with by much the greater 
 portion of the epistles. Much the same liberties 
 have at times been taken with the Old Testa¬ 
 ment, and not long ago one of their critics, 
 after reviewing an attempt of this sort, congra¬ 
 tulated the Christian world upon the satisfac¬ 
 tory result which he drew, that after giving up 
 what was according to him not withput reason 
 
 16 Dr. Priestley, for which see his History pf Early Opinions 
 concerning Christ. 
 
 16 Evansop, of whose seripons an edition, with his life, has lately 
 hyep published. 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 359 
 
 impeached, we should yet retain all that was 
 good of the books of Moses and some other 
 more important parts of holy writ 17 . 
 
 This, as you may recollect, is a inode of 
 proceeding which is not new. It was used 
 by the heretics of the first ages; but with 
 so little of real or permanent success, as, 
 one would have thought, would sufficiently 
 have discouraged a repetition of the attempt; 
 especially at this time when the canon of the 
 Scriptures has been so long and so clearly asce'r- 
 
 17 The Monthly Reviewer; who, at the end of review of hisEich- 
 horn’s Introduction to the Old Testament, by which the authority 
 of almost every book which it contains is more or less shaken, tells 
 us that, “ After all this severe criticism, it may seem consolatory 
 “ to observe that it would at most be justifiable to expel from the 
 “ present canon only Esther, Jonah, and the legend concerning 
 “ Daniel. The other works retain their claim unimpeached. 
 ft There is nothing in the point of view which has here been taken 
 t( of the Hebrew writings that ought at all to alarm the jealousy of 
 (< the most faithful Christian .'* This same point of view only 
 allows the pentateueh to be a work of Moses in the main but occa¬ 
 sionally interpolated. The same of Joshua. As to Samuel and 
 the historical books they are all declared to he written after the cap¬ 
 tivity. As to other books; of that which is ascribed to Isaiah, the 
 greater part is declared not to be written by him, but, as the re¬ 
 viewer seems to think, by Daniel. The book of Daniel (a book 
 cited by our Saviour himself, and which more than any other it has 
 puzzled Jews and Infidels of all sorts to answer) is condemned as 
 44 the legend concerning Daniel!” And in all this “ there is no- 
 “ thing to alarm the jealousy of a faithful Christian !” Especially 
 when we consider what might be accomplished hv a more adven¬ 
 turous hand, if this attempt of Eichborn should be received bv the 
 Christian world with the same complacency with which it is hailed 
 by this reviewer. See Monthly Review, Vol. xxiii. N. S, p. 497, 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 SCO 
 
 W 
 
 tainech It might, have been expected that men 
 would not easily have been brought to follow 
 the steps of the Ebionites and Cerinthians, of 
 Marcion and of Manes. 
 
 Such being the opinions actually entertained 
 and the practices resorted to by this first class 
 of sectaries, it must I think be evident to vou 
 as to me, that, as long as they continue so to 
 act and to think, their differences from us, as 
 they are fundamental, must continue irrecon- 
 cileable, and keep them separated from our 
 communion. So far from requiring them to 
 join with us under these circumstances, we must 
 rather wonder if there should be found among 
 us, any individuals, who holding such opinions 
 venture not only to join in our prayers but to 
 administer our sacraments. As to the separation 
 from us of those who are really conscientious in 
 what we must call their blindness, it is an evil 
 undoubtedly, but one which must be submitted 
 to, until it shall please God, by opening their 
 eyes, to bring them back into his church and 
 number them with the true Israelites. While 
 they continue to look upon us in the light of 
 idolaters, and we charge them with being rebels 
 to'their God, with denying the Lord who 
 bought them, how is it possible that we can 
 agree in the essentials of worship, that we cai 
 pray with the same spirit ? Without gross prt 
 varication on the one side or on the other, thet 
 
S E R M O N VII. 
 
 S6 1 
 
 can be, it is clear, no sort of unity in our de¬ 
 votions. 
 
 The same observation will, I fear, hold good 
 with respect to most of those whose tenets I 
 have mentioned as being involved in obscurity 
 either involuntary or studied. Of the Quakers 
 indeed even the peculiarities of their discipline 
 and of their exterior deportment are so founded 
 in the affectation of singularity and so confirmed 
 by the most inveterate pride and obstinacy 19 , 
 their pretensions to immediate inspiration are 
 so derogatory to the authority of the holy Scrip¬ 
 tures, and so open the door to every wild and 
 fantastic opinion, that it is hardly possible to 
 reason, much less to come to any agreement 
 with them. The wildness and want of certainty 
 
 •j 
 
 which is intimately combined with their mys¬ 
 ticism, does indeed constantly expose them to 
 the danger of falling into great inconveniences. 
 
 18 Let those who would condemn these expressions as too strong 
 look into the early history and publications of the Quakers, before 
 they assumed the specious clothing with which their doctrines were 
 veiled by Barclay and Penn. Nay, let them consult their late panegyrist 
 Clarkson, who every where talks of them as a “ highly professing 
 if body:” who in truth shews them to be what Tom Paine, mean¬ 
 ing to recommend them in his Age of Reason, said they were, “ little 
 ** more than Deists.” One of Clarkson’s expressions is 90 truly 
 bombast that I cannot help citing it as a specimen. “ Hence titles, 
 “ in the glare of which some people lose the dignity of their vision, 
 '* have no magical effect upon Quakers.” Portraiture of Quakerism, 
 Vol. iff p. 209. He is very fond of this idea of Quakers keeping 
 up the dignity of man, &c. 
 
362 
 
 SERMON VII. 
 
 This has appeared very evidently in some late 
 proceedings of the sect. Some of their mem¬ 
 bers having shewn too decided a propensity to 
 what are called the Unitarian tenets, and hav¬ 
 ing followed Dr. Priestley and the Monthly Re¬ 
 viewers in their rejection of parts of Scripture, 
 have been put to silence by their general assem¬ 
 bly, even without being allowed to be heard 
 in their defence. The society has in conse¬ 
 quence been complained of, and not without 
 reason, as acting contrary to its own princi¬ 
 ples 19 . Indeed the whole transaction has very 
 plainly exposed the slippery foundation upon 
 which they stand, and makes it probable that 
 that is, or will soon become true which is stated 
 
 a late panegyrist of theirs as matter of la¬ 
 mentation, that they are a decreasing sect 20 . To 
 us it can only be matter of satisfaction that 
 there should be such a probability of their 
 being in due time reclaimed from their errors. 
 
 I have thus pointed out to your notice that 
 description of dissenters whose differences from 
 
 See a Narrative of the Proceedings in America qf the Society 
 called Quakers in the case of Hannah Barnard, &c. Printed for John¬ 
 son, 1804 . There have, I think, been other cases of the same 
 sort which excited the attention of the Monthly Reviewer at the. 
 time. 
 
 ao Clarkson in his Portraiture before cited. As he appears to 
 have written under the patronage of t|ie Quakers, and on their be¬ 
 half, his authority must be tqken to be of nq smaU weight upop 
 this point. 
 
SERMON VII. 
 
 363 
 
 us are so essential and fundamental as to leave 
 no prospect of union withput a thorough change 
 in their ideas of our common religion. Thejf 
 thus, as I have before observed, stand to us in 
 somewhat the same relation as that i;i which we 
 stand to the Romanists. The question in both 
 cases is a direct one; namely, on which side 
 the truth lies. It admits of no compromise. 
 As to our doctrine, which is and has been 
 through all ages the general doctrine of the 
 church, it has been so ably defended and sup** 
 ported; more especially in this country, and' 
 even among my predecessors in this lecture, 
 there have been found so many pious and 
 learned men prepared and able to put to silence 
 the gainsayers ; that perhaps even what little I 
 have said upon the subject might have been 
 spared. I have indeed only treated it inciden¬ 
 tally, as having caused and causing one of the 
 main divisions in the church, though of that 
 kind which is distinguishable, and which I wa$ 
 therefore called upon to distinguish from pure 
 schism. 
 
 If I have enlarged upon it somewhat more 
 than was strictly necessary, let me be excused 
 by the high importance which every true be? 
 liever must attach to this above all other points 
 of doctrine. And when I add that a right mi? 
 dcrstanding of the crqss of Christ must always 
 l?e most useful eveq jn prqmqtjng that uqiory 
 
364 
 
 SER M O N VIL 
 
 which it is the object of these discourses to 
 enforce, I may well be justified by the example 
 and the words of that true and divinely inspired 
 servant of God, who when combating the pro¬ 
 pensity to ichism which he had observed among 
 the Corinthians, declared and laid down as his 
 main principle, that “ when he came to them 
 “ he was determined to kno\V nothing among 
 u them save Christ Jesus and him crucified*.’* 
 
 t.* ' j 
 
 * 1 Cor. ii. 2. 
 
 i 
 
 
 t ’ 
 
 -t. 
 
( 365 ) 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 James iii. 1. 
 
 ]\]y Brethren, he not many Masters, knowing that 
 we shall receive the greater Condemnation. 
 
 T here Las been a difference of opinion respect¬ 
 ing the true sense of this text. To some it has 
 appeared that St. Janies intended no more than 
 to enforce the strong admonition of our Saviour 
 against the too hastv or rash censuring* of our 
 neighbours, to bid us “not to judge lest we 
 should be judged/" The other and, I appre¬ 
 hend, clearly the sounder interpretation, sup¬ 
 poses the apostle to express a disapprobation of 
 those men, who, from a too great love of dis¬ 
 tinction or some other bad motive, set them- 
 
 i 
 
366 
 
 S E R M O N VIII. 
 
 selves up as teachers of the word, without hav¬ 
 ing previously obtained the proper qualifica*- 
 tions, or duly prepared themselves for the dis¬ 
 charge of so important an office. That this is 
 the true meaning of the apostle must sufficiently 
 appear from the word xaxa.\o$” here used, 
 and somewhat inaccurately rendered “ master, 
 which in every other passage of scripture is ap¬ 
 plied to men who teach; and not who “judge” 
 
 in the sense which belongs to the other inter- 
 
 l 
 
 pretation. It has also been well observed that 
 the phrase, “ be not many/' only condemns an 
 imprqper eagerness to be the thing understood, 
 that it implies that the thing must exist; which 
 cannot be of such improper or unjust judging 
 as we are here supposed to be cautioned against. 
 
 ' Lastly, it may be added that the apostle by 
 saying, “ we shall receive the greater condem- 
 “ nation,” or rather ct the more strict judg- 
 ie ment,” includes himself in the number of 
 those who are or may be subject to this judg¬ 
 ment ; which might with much propriety be 
 said, if the words refer to the pastoral office: 
 but not soproperly if they were pointed; against 
 slander or the rash and unmerited censure of 
 others; these being faults of which the apostle 
 neither was,' nor would, even for the sake of 
 example, suppose himself to be guilty. 
 
 Thus explained, the caution of St. James ap¬ 
 plies with great force to that error of which I 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 367 
 
 am discoursing; or rather to that disposition 
 and that habit which are particularly apt 
 
 to produce and encourage divisions in the 
 church 1 . 
 
 It is also peculiarly applicable to this division 
 of my subject upon which I ain now entering. 
 Foi it is not any corruption of doctrine of 
 which the apostle complains ; but of that spirit 
 of ambition which induces men to press for¬ 
 ward as leaders; which causes them eagerly to 
 thrust themselves into that office, which should 
 never be undertaken without the most serious 
 and deliberate consideration, which even those 
 who are best qualified to labour in it, never 
 can, or should undertake without a deep sense 
 of its awfulness, and of the heavy responsibility 
 which is imposed upon all those by whom it is 
 exercised. 
 
 How much this sort of error prevails among 
 us, it is impossible for any man not to observe 
 even upon the most transient view: and its 
 wide and increasing extent will be distinctly 
 shewn as I proceed according to the plan which 
 I laid down. 
 
 You will recollect then that in the conclusion 
 of my last discourse, having brought down the 
 history of our church from the reformation to 
 
 For more on this head bishop Bull may be consulted, whom T. 
 ,have chiefly followed in what I have above stated. See Vol. I 
 Sermon vi. of his English works. 
 
368 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 our days, I proceeded to consider the nature of 
 the religious divisions which at this moment 
 prevail in the country ; and I distinguished the 
 separatists from our establishment into two 
 classes ; the one differing from us upon funda¬ 
 mental points of doctrine; the other having no 
 such objection to our communion. Of the for¬ 
 mer I then spoke somewhat at large: and it now 
 remains for me to inquire into the state of those 
 other brethren of ours, whose estrangement 
 from us I consider as being, even upon their 
 own shewing, unsupported by any sufficient 
 cause: and who therefore are more directly im- 
 
 w 
 
 plicated in the guilt, whatever it be, of keeping 
 up schisms in the church. 
 
 The course which I should naturally take 
 would be to lay before you the different descrip¬ 
 tions, by which the individuals of this class of 
 sectaries are distinguished, with their particular 
 tenets and the grounds upon which they at¬ 
 tempt to justify their separation from, and hos¬ 
 tility to, the establishment. But to any man who 
 will undertake to do this, difficulties almost in¬ 
 surmountable will present themselves. For the 
 truth is, as I have already observed, that the 
 same variety, the same changeableness, nay, 
 the same inconsistency will be found in this 
 class of dissenters as in those which in my last 
 discourse I noticed. The nonconformists in 
 this kingdom (for this name, I apprehend, be- 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 369 
 
 longs principally to those who differ not from' 
 us in doctrine, but object only to conformity 
 bn account of our discipline.) The Noncon¬ 
 formists of this time, I say, have so little of 
 settled opinion, with respect to the causes of 
 their dissent from us, they have indeed now so 
 long taken it for an established truth, that their 
 separation from us stands in no need of any apo¬ 
 logy* that we must not wonder if we find that the 
 
 * i 
 
 principle, or rather want of principle, upon 
 which they justify their refusal to be connected 
 with us, should keep them unconnected with 
 
 each other. 
 
 To this state of things we may attribute the 
 prevalence of that general appellation of dis¬ 
 senters, which is studiously affected by all sects. 
 
 I hey reap from it two advantages : first, it is a 
 common bond of union (and the only one 
 equally comprehensive which could be devised, 
 since it even takes in that other class of the 
 Unitarians), in their opposition to the national 
 church. It also supersedes the necessity of their 
 ascertaining*, nay, of their inquiring into the 
 particular cause why they refuse to join in com¬ 
 munion with us ; or rather why they will not 
 submit to the rule in ecclesiastical matters, which 
 is established by law. 
 
 True it is, we sometimes hear of new and old 
 Dissenters, now and then of Presbyterians, and 
 very often indeed of Methodists. But it would 
 
 £ a 
 
370 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 be very difficult to apply with a distinctness, or 
 certainty, sufficiently appropriate, even these 
 denominations to the particular congregations. 
 The real fact is, that in this, our day, with very 
 few exceptions, all the distinctions upon which 
 separation was wont to be justified, arc done 
 away* 
 
 Of course, when the substance of things is 
 gone, the names can no longer be retained to any 
 good purpose. The words “ Presbyterian” and 
 ft Independent” are therefore scarcely ever now 
 heard of as applicable to a congregation. The 
 one would imply a form of discipline which does 
 not exist; and the other, as denoting a denial of 
 that, or any other such form, is no longer ne¬ 
 cessary to be used. 
 
 Indeed where there is so little certainty or 
 permanency in the ground upon which any 
 body of men meet together, it is rather to be 
 expected that they would be cautious in assum¬ 
 ing any distinguishing title. We find accord¬ 
 ingly that those names which are, or have been 
 appropriated to any sect of dissenters in these, 
 or in former days, have not, for the most part, 
 originated with themselves, but have been fixed 
 upon them by other persons, who were struck 
 with some singularity in their demeanor or 
 practice. 
 
 But whatever may be the case as to the name, 
 it must be agreed that in fact, and in substance. 
 
371 
 
 SERMON VITE 
 
 the number of the Presbyterians, properly so 
 called, nay, of the old Independents, is dwin¬ 
 dling away, and that they both bid fair to be 
 swallowed up in that more powerful and popular 
 description of enthusiasts which go about under 
 the name of Methodists ; and who, without pub¬ 
 licly professing that great latitude of principle 
 in religious matters, upon which the advocates 
 for the dissenters at large now rest the cause, 
 do, in effect, avail themselves of it in the most 
 extraordinary degree. 
 
 There is indeed something very surprising in 
 the growth and prevalence of this sect. When 
 and how they first appeared I had occasion to 
 mention in the beginning of these discourses ; 
 and you may recollect that hostility to the 
 church, or at least dissent from her articles, 
 even those which relate to discipline, did not 
 originally form any part of their profession. 
 Indeed some of the individuals of their bod}- were 
 decidedly adverse to the petition against sub¬ 
 scription, which was presented to Parliament in 
 1775 . They have therefore, by some of the 
 advocates of the lax system, been said not to be 
 properly entitled to the name of dissenters®. 
 
 • “ What the mildness of these new dissenters is I cannot guess, 
 
 “ nor what new dissenters he means, unless he has the Methodists 
 “ in his eye; if so, what right has he to call them dissenters? 
 
 “ They pretend, at least, and in my opinion have pretty well nigh 
 e< made good their pretence, that they are equally orthodox, and 
 
 B J3 2 
 
372 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 They did originally, and do to this day found their 
 claim to notice upon the presumed necessity of 
 a more active ministry of the word. Their 
 teachers profess to supply the zeal and the ex¬ 
 ertion which they state to be wanting in the 
 regularly ordained clergy. They declare them¬ 
 selves to be called in an especial manner to take 
 care of those flocks which are perishing, merely 
 because they are not provided with pastors suf¬ 
 ficiently vigilant and able. And although in 
 some of their assemblies, more especially in that 
 which follows the late John Wesley, some or¬ 
 dination, and some previous instruction is usu¬ 
 ally, if not always required, yet the principle 
 being once declared, and precedents established 
 of men taking upon themselves the pastoral 
 office, in consequence of an alleged inward 
 call, only known to themselves, and not subject 
 to any examination or sanction from others, 
 the consequence has been, that the country has- 
 been inundated with an incalculable number of 
 illiterate and uninformed teachers of the word ; 
 that men who had no means nor opportunity of 
 studying the Scriptures, or getting at a right 
 knowledge and understanding of their contents, 
 have taken upon themselves to inform and in- 
 
 (t equally sincere Conformists, as they who accuse them of hete- 
 <ri rodoxy and irregularity.” Occasional Remarks upon some late 
 Strictures on the Confessional, part ii. See Blackburne’s Work*,, 
 vol. vi. p. 271 j n. See also vol. vii. pp. 77 and 88. 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 373 
 
 struct others; that is, to give those just and en¬ 
 larged notions of religion which themsel ves could 
 not have acquired. 
 
 The mischief which arises from all this may 
 be conceived, if we advert only to a few of its 
 consequences. Taken from the lowest of the 
 people, these men of course confine their preach¬ 
 ing to individuals of the same description ; that 
 is, to the lowest and most ignorant classes ; to 
 those who are most likely to be led away by 
 unsound doctrine; among whom there is no 
 chance that falsehood should meet with detec¬ 
 tion, or error with reproof. The evil therefore 
 makes its way precisely where it is least likely 
 to meet with opposition ; and the very coarse¬ 
 ness and vulgarity of phrase which is used by 
 these men, is often of itself a recommendation, 
 as it is a mark of their adapting themselves, as 
 far as they are intelligible at all, to the capaci¬ 
 ties and habits of their hearers. 
 
 This ignorance in the teachers, and in the 
 taught, this mischief of f ‘ the blind leading the 
 tc blind,* 5 becomes more serious, when it is re¬ 
 collected what are the subjects usually agitated 
 in these assemblies, by and before such men. 
 The great doctrines by which Whitfield and his 
 followers chose to be distinguished, are, as it 
 is but too well known, the Calvinistic tenets of 
 absolute decrees, of unconditional election and 
 reprobation. To these is joined that other tenet, 
 
374 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 maintained alike by them and the other class, of 
 Methodists, that every man who is thus elected 
 to grace has an inward and sensible assurance 
 of his salvation : that, on *the other hand, they 
 who do not enjoy this sort of experience, as they 
 call it, however innocent their life, or whatever 
 their endeavours after righteousness may be, 
 must be taken to be amon°; the number of the 
 reprobate, to be still “ dead in trespasses and 
 sins*,” 
 
 The evil tendency of these doctrines, more 
 especially when operating upon those who are 
 weak and uninformed, not only is evident, but 
 has in fact been manifested in many individual 
 instances, as well as in their general effect upon 
 the sect. It is plain how directly they lead to 
 a presumption, or to a despondency alike un¬ 
 christian ; how they tend to weaken, instead of 
 strengthening the bonds of chanty. The fC hor- 
 “ rible decree/’ as Calvin himself calls it, operates 
 most forcibly and fatally to seal up the bowels 
 of compassion, even against those who are nearest 
 in blood. This indeed cannot be matter of 
 wonder, since we know that it has often armed 
 a man against himself in the agonies of that 
 despair, which was grounded in the apprehen¬ 
 sion that as to him the mercy of God could only 
 Svprk to the aggravating of his condemnation. . 
 
 • Ephes. ii. \. 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 375 
 
 On the other hand, the security of those whom 
 a more sanguine temperament, and a natural 
 disposition to cheerfulness, has filled with the 
 contrary persuasion, has not only been productive 
 of pride and arrogance, but led by a conse¬ 
 quence too natural, to great relaxation both in 
 morals and in practice. 
 
 That indeed, in many of the meetings belong¬ 
 ing to this sect, the most direct antinomianism 
 is preached, I believe, will hardly be denied. 
 Nay, I do not doubt that if a man were to take 
 the pains to collect, and set down the tenets, or 
 rather the random and hazarded opinions deli¬ 
 vered by these teachers, he would find a variety 
 as great, and of nearly the same sort, as is re¬ 
 corded in the Gangraena. The manners of the 
 times indeed, with the better understanding of 
 Scripture, and the more wide diffusion of the 
 spirit of charity which prevail, greatly owing, 
 by the by, to the exertions of that national 
 church which is so vilified, may operate in some 
 degree to restrain the extravagance of their 
 flights: but still the catalogue would be found 
 but too numerous and disgusting. 
 
 If I have not ranked errors so dangerous and 
 gross among the fundamental points, which may 
 in some sort excuse or justify separation, it is, 
 first, because the persons who teach them pro^ 
 fess, however falsely, to teach nothing but what 
 is contained in the articles of our church, Se-* 
 
$76 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 condly, because the error consists not so much 
 in preaching doctrines radically false and un~ 
 founded, as in the exaggeration with which the 
 true doctrine is urged, in the extreme to which 
 it is pushed, and the manner in which it is dis¬ 
 torted. It is not indeed to be denied that there 
 have been divines of our church, not however, 
 as has been supposed, the immediate authors of 
 our reformation, who maintained the doctrine 
 of absolute decrees, and perhaps as strongly as 
 Calvin himself did. It is also most certain that 
 such were the opinions of the old Puritans ; and 
 if the late Presbyterians and Independents have 
 been somewhat moderate upon these topics, they 
 owe it very much to their intercourse with the 
 divines of the establishment. But those of our 
 church, and even the sounder Puritans, who 
 held this doctrine most positively in former days, 
 were careful to keep in the shade all that was 
 dangerous or derogatory to the moral precepts 
 ox the gospel, and to guard against every mis¬ 
 take in practice to which it might give occa¬ 
 sion 3 . In stating therefore their ideas of abso- 
 
 3 A remarkable instance of this we have in Whitgift, who is on 
 all hands allowed to have been a most decided Calvinist. He found 
 raultwith the university of Cambridge for their proceedings against 
 Barret, one of their preachers, and for a retractation which they had 
 made him sign ; “ for that,” among other reasons, “ in some parts 
 “ of his retractation they had made him affirm that which was con 
 trary to the doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and 
 “ Earned divines in the church of England, and in o'her churches 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 377 
 
 lute election and reprobation, they failed not to 
 caution their hearers against applying the doc¬ 
 trines to themselves, or to any other individual; 
 and while they declared the outward works of 
 a man to be the only proof of his inward justi¬ 
 fication, they reprobated in the strongest terms 
 the abominations of antinomianism ; while they 
 held that the elect could not finally fall from 
 grace, they maintained also that it was only by 
 his actual perseverance in righteousness that a 
 man could know that he was one of the num¬ 
 ber. Their preaching was perhaps not very con¬ 
 sistent with their doctrine, but it kept clear of 
 evil. The contrary, however, has been most 
 directly, and lamentably the case, since the 
 wider propagation of schism has cast the 
 handling of these most delicate and danger¬ 
 ous points upon men, who are as conspicuous 
 for their rashness and violence, as for their want 
 of education, and of all acquired knowledge. 
 In their hands these terrible weapons are wielded 
 without judgment, and without discretion, and 
 upon all occasions, simply because they are 
 
 ei likewise, men of best account: and that which, for his own 
 ft part, he thought to be false, and contrary to the Scriptures. For 
 t( the Scriptures were plain, that God, by his absolute will, did not 
 hate and reject any man without an eye to his sin. There might 
 “ be impiety in believing the one ; there could be none in believing 
 “ the other. Neither was it contrary to any article of the church 
 “ of England, but rather agreeable thereunto.’’ Strype’s Life of 
 Whitgift, p. 441. And he shews great anxiety to keep them quiet 
 upon such points. 
 
 1 
 
37 S 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 found to be of the greatest power in exciting’ 
 the imagination and interesting the feelings of 
 the weaker brethren. They are made therefore 
 to supply the place of argument and of elo¬ 
 quence ; to supersede every other, however ne¬ 
 cessary or wholesome doctrine. Making the 
 whole mystery of salvation to consist in a man's 
 opinion of himself, these deceivers do in fact 
 “ change the truth of God into a lie*/' they 
 give to the proud and the scornful what is pror 
 mised only to the humble and the rneek;. 
 
 That however this style of preaching should 
 he more and more practised every day, that it 
 should gain such ground is not surprising. It 
 warm.ly interests, while it deeply alarms those 
 who are unable to detect its fallacy. It holds 
 out the stake of a professed gamester, often 
 desperate and always anxious, but great in its 
 object. On the other hand, to the preacher 
 it is a most useful engine; a short and com¬ 
 pendious way of doing the work. For we know 
 that it requires both knowledge and temper and 
 patience to reason soberly “ of righteousness,, 
 “ temperance and judgment to comet,” but it 
 requires no pains nor study to qualify a man 
 for harping always upon the same string; for 
 bellowing out to affrighted multitudes that 
 unless they feel quite sure that they shall be 
 
 * Homans i. 25. 
 
 f Acts xxiv. 25. 
 
SERMON VIII, 
 
 379 
 
 saved, they will inevitably be damned. Instead 
 of bidding men to “ do justice and to love 
 u mercy, and to walk humbly before their 
 “ God*,” and shewing them the way in which 
 these and the like commandments must be ful¬ 
 filled, how much more easy must it be to say 
 and to repeat only. Be confident and have faith, 
 and your salvation is sure. Such are the lead¬ 
 ing traits of that doctrine, in which the whole 
 of Christianity is made to consist; and in the 
 delivering of which many impieties and blas¬ 
 phemies are put forth, which almost exceed, as 
 indeed they have been compared to those of the 
 Papists 4 . 
 
 All this is accompanied with the most gross 
 and indiscriminate calumnies against the regular 
 clergy, who are treated as “ dumb dogs,” as 
 watchmen who sleep upon their posts; as men 
 who are totally unmindful of the solemn duty 
 which they have bound themselves to discharge. 
 While these adversaries of ours thus declaim to 
 their hearers upon our neglect, they fail not to 
 magnify their own diligence ; their labours are 
 contrasted with ours in the most invidious way, 
 
 * Micah vi. a. 
 
 4 Particularly by bishop Lavfngton in bis “ Enthusiasm of Me¬ 
 thodists and Papists compared,” where the reader may see a strong 
 resemblance with great clearness made out. 
 
'58 0 
 
 SERMON VIIL 
 
 and in such a manner as to throw the advantage 
 all on their side 5 . 
 
 ^ Of this I can adduce a very strong instance in which the attack 
 is made personally upon me. The reader must first be informed 
 that a magazine set on foot by John Wesley under the title of the 
 Arminian Magazine is now continued by his followers under the title 
 of the Methodist Magazine : and that the publication of it is as regu¬ 
 larly provided for at the annual conference of that sect, as any other 
 ©f their most important objects. In this magazine there is a parti¬ 
 cular department inscribed by them, “The truth of God defended,’’ 
 in which publications inimical to their connexion are reviewed. 
 To this ordeal, such as it is, was subjected (in January and February 
 1807 ) a sermon which I preached before the aichdeacon of Bucks 
 in the spring preceding; and in which I had touched shortly upon 
 the points which are the subject of the present discourses. For this 
 good deed the heads of the sect have raved against me most furiously 
 In every possible way. They have attacked the style as well as the 
 matter of the sermon ; and represented me as equally ignorant of 
 facts and unsound in doctrine. Their objection to. me as a bad 
 writer seems to consist in this, that I haye called the publication 
 of a sermon a thing ; that 1 have said that to have added notes to a 
 •sermon would “ in some degree have altered the nature of the 
 “ thing;” and that I have construed the word “ church” with the 
 neuter pronoun “it” and not with the feminine “she.” I had 
 said that we should ** particularly direct our attention to the situa- 
 “ tion of the church : as well to the attacks with which it is or 
 “ may he threatened as to the means by which they may be re- 
 “ pelied,” &:c. And these gentlemen, meaning to be witty, refer 
 the pronoun “it” to “ situation” instead of to “church,” in order 
 to make me talk nonsense. They go on to throw out ail manner 
 of insinuations against me and the rest of the clergy, charitably re¬ 
 commending to us Mr. Simeon’s “ Helps to Composition,” and 
 thus proving most decidedly what they pretend to denv, their hos¬ 
 tility to the establishment, as well as the peculiarity of their, 
 preaching. They next are very angry with me as charging them 
 with what I never meant to extend to the followers, of Wesley, 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 382 
 
 That any encouragement should be given to 
 such a sort of preaching, that language any way 
 
 namely the doctrines of absolute decrees. I was writing in Buck¬ 
 inghamshire, where those doctrines almost exclusively prevail with 
 the church, as well as other, Methodists. They then justify the 
 doctrine of sudden, that is, instantaneous, conversions, from the 
 versicle and response of our church, f< O God make speed to save 
 “ us,” “ O Lord make haste to help us !” and in this as in other 
 parts indulge very freely in such jokes as f< gentle dulness ever 
 <( loves.’’ Lastly they proceed to the most gross misrepresentation. 
 “ In conclusion,” say they, “ Mr. Le Mesurier reverts to the 
 “ false but favourite doctrine of merit?' (these Italics are theirs) 
 “ and says that ‘ if there be those to whom the Lord has vouchsafed 
 <( an assurance of salvation it can be only to such as have merited 
 t( that happiness by a long and uniform course of piety and virtue.’* 
 4t Here we would observe,” they go on, “ that the Methodists 
 “ have believed and preached, with every true church of England 
 ** man, that ‘we are accounted righteous before God only for the 
 tc merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith and not by 
 et our own works or deserving,” &c. Thus in fact accusing me 
 most pointedly of holding false doctrines respecting merits. Now 
 the candid reader would immediately see that the word “ merited.,” 
 is not used by me in the strict theological, but in the ordinary and 
 popular sense. I was not talking at all of the doctrine of merit 
 strictly speaking. And this Dr. Coke, or whoever wrote this arti¬ 
 cle, must have known. He could not neither be ignorant of nr- 
 real opinions. For in the beginning of the very same paragraph 
 from which he quotes, I had thus slated them, “ Let us,” I sav, 
 addressing myself to my brethren the regular clergy, “ not be.spas- 
 “ ing in setting forth the gieat truths of our religion, and in par- 
 ticular, shewing an entire and sole dependence on the one saeri- 
 fice of Christ. Let us be as explicit as possible in disclaiming 
 “ all merit of our own,” &c. Now could it have been believed, if 
 it were not thus shewn, that any man could be so lost to all sense 05 
 decency as well as justice, as after this to charge me with contra¬ 
 dicting the doctrine of our articles? Is there any sort/ of means 
 which will be neglected, any sort of scandal which will act be. 
 
382 
 
 SEfeMON Vllf. 
 
 similar to that which is used by those intruders 
 should be adopted by any member of the estab¬ 
 lishment, I must lament, because it appears 
 to me that any approximation or countenance 
 given to such doctrine can never promote the 
 ends of true religion. I must lament it too for 
 the reason which I have formerly mentioned 
 that it has greatly conduced to the increase 
 of schism without the church ; if it has not also 
 created a schism of its own within the pale : 
 for surely to adopt any distinctive appellation, 
 such as that of gospel or evangelical ministers, 
 in opposition to others who are thus by impli¬ 
 cation arraigned as deficient in the necessary 
 requisites of their office, cannot but tend to 
 disturb the harmony which should subsist 
 anions: all the individuals of the same commu- 
 nion. We have however by the explanations 
 to which the assumption of this title has given 
 rise, and in the course of which the real and 
 genuine doctrine of the church lias been fully 
 vindicated and asserted, obtained this advan¬ 
 tage for ourselves the more moderate and cool 
 dispensers of the word, that we may now quietly 
 he allowed to enjoy our claim to at least an 
 
 \ 
 
 employed against the clergy, by those who can be guilty of such 
 bare-faced falsehood ; and that in the very moment when they are 
 arrogantly and presumptuously giving themselves out as “ defend* 
 “ ing the truth of God?” 
 
SERMON VIII. 38S 
 
 £qual participation in the character of true 
 churchmen 6 . 
 
 If I have spoken freely and without reserve 
 upon this head, it is because I am strongly ini* 
 pressed with the importance which should be 
 attached to this point; it is because here in my 
 judgment the strong hold of schism is to be 
 found. I will add, that there is no man of a 
 sober mind who will not acknowledge that 
 much detriment has accrued to religion by the 
 manner in which the topics to which I allude 
 have been handled in the pulpit whether of the 
 church or of the meeting house. We know 
 particularly as to the latter, that the absurd and 
 ridiculous, as well as unscripturai language, in 
 which what may be called the amusement 
 rather than the instruction of the day is dealt 
 out, has been pushed to that degree of extrava¬ 
 gance as to supply topics for all manner of ludi¬ 
 crous composition, and even for the stao;e. 
 On the other hand the assertion of Mr. Top- 
 lady and his fellows, that their tenet of abso¬ 
 lute decrees was the doctrine of the church, 
 has also furnished the Unitarians with some of 
 Cheir most plausible arguments against the sup- 
 
 * I need hardly mention the several answers which have been 
 /,‘rven to Mr. Overton’s book by Mr. Daubeny, Mr. Pearson, and 
 others : as also Dr. Laurence’s Bampton Lectures before referred 
 to. There have been also some able articles in. the British Critic and 
 s^ther Reviews upon the ■subject. 
 
5S4 
 
 SERMON VIIL 
 
 posed irrationality and absurdity which they 
 impute to the orthodox faith. 
 
 Such have been some of the consequences of 
 that unbounded liberty, which in pursuance of 
 the modern and, as they are called, more en¬ 
 larged ideas of toleration, has been of late exer¬ 
 cised in admitting every man indiscriminately, 
 whatever may be his qualification or way of 
 life, to deliver his notions of the gospel, and to 
 set up for a “master” or “ teacher in Israel.” It 
 has bred a sort of fanaticism which has in fact 
 been to the full as destructive to the old sects of 
 dissenters, as it can have been prejudicial to the 
 church herself And perhaps to this more than 
 to any other cause may be ascribed the apparent 
 decay, if not in numbers, yet in learning and 
 respectability, among the dissenters; more es¬ 
 pecially that class of dissenters to whom the 
 name originally and more properly belonged. 
 To many of their predecessors from the days of 
 Cartwright down to those of Doddridge; nay, 
 to some few in our time, the general cause of 
 Christianity, and even of orthodoxy in doctrine 
 has been greatly indebted : but (I say it with 
 no invidious meaning) it does appear to me that 
 we have no great promise of that sort at this 
 moment. On the contrary those who have dis¬ 
 tinguished themselves in the literary world in 
 
 these days have been almost without exception 
 
 / 
 
 of the Unitarian description : that is of the 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 385 
 
 number of those who making the grounds of 
 
 C2 O 
 
 their dissent to rest upon the deductions of hu¬ 
 man reasoning are naturally compelled in some 
 sort to acquire those stores of human learning, 
 and to exercise those talents by which alone 
 that ground can be maintained. But the other 
 class of dissenters holding the doctrines not 
 Trinity, but of the exclusive efficacy 
 of faith, and some of them the extremes of 
 election and reprobation, for which they must 
 look only to the text of scripture; professing 
 besides in their prayers and in their preaching 
 always to expect the extraordinary aid of the 
 spirit, have at all times, on the latter account 
 most especially, been but too liable to the inroads 
 of enthusiasm: they have also, as another con¬ 
 sequence of this last principle, been less careful 
 to keep up those helps of human knowledge, 
 which vve of the establishment hold it not only 
 advantageous but a part of our duty to be sedu¬ 
 lous in cultivating. The effect of this has been 
 that the preaching of the methodists being more 
 full of noise and requiring less of understanding 
 or reflection to comprehend it, has with the 
 greater ease found access into the congregations 
 of their dissenting brethren; that many of the 
 individuals have been seduced from their soberer 
 and better informed pastors ; and that, in the 
 conflict, those who were iri a higher degree en¬ 
 thusiastic have gained the ascendancy, and even 
 
 c c 
 
 i 
 
386 
 
 S E R M O N VIII. 
 
 obtained possession of those meeting houses in 
 which formerly none but ministers in due form 
 ordained by the presbytery were allowed to 
 officiate. 
 
 Thus it has happened, that as I mentioned 
 before, all the old sects of orthodox dissenteis 
 seem ready to be swallowed and lost in this 
 more novel and active body of separatists ; and 
 the idea prevalent among them that ignorance 
 and want of literature are of no consequence in 
 a preacher, and cannot impede the grace of 
 God by which they declare that they are sensi¬ 
 bly impelled, bids fair finally to debase not 
 only their doctrine, but the character of their 
 mi nistry 7 . 
 
 7 It surely is a singular circumstance that no sort of qualification 
 should be required of those who are licensed to preach the word ; 
 that even men who are so ignorant as not to be able to w y nte then* 
 names, should be sent lortli with full authority and without molest 
 tation to vent what doctrine they please. Nay, that temporal advan- 
 tages (as exemption from certain offices and from serving in the 
 militia) evidently operating as an encouragement for such presump¬ 
 tion should have been annexed to the mere obtaining of such li¬ 
 cences j and this even when the man is six days out of the seten 
 following a handicraft trade or working as a common labourer. I 
 must think that if the IQ G.3. c. 44, was now to be passed, such 
 extreme latitude would not be given. In the army of reserve act, 
 and iu later militia acts the exemption is extended only to those who 
 follow no other occupation than those of teacher or schoolmaster. 
 Perhaps a similar restriction upon granting a licence to preach 
 might not be improper. I am well aw*are that what I have said 
 above of the ignorance of the Methodist preachers in general, win 
 expose me again to be taken to task by Dr. Coke and Mr. Joseph 
 
337 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 Under such circumstances I do not feci my¬ 
 self called upon to mention any of the other 
 classes of dissenters, or to enter with more par¬ 
 ticularity into the situation and merits of our 
 opponents, as they are at present marshalled in 
 array against our establishment. If you recol¬ 
 lect the positions which I set out with offer¬ 
 ing for your consideration, you will, I appre¬ 
 hend, agree that to go into any further detail 
 would be beside my purpose; and that what I 
 have said will sufficiently affect every descrip¬ 
 tion of sectaries, so as to bring them within the 
 scope of my argument 3 . 
 
 Benson, or whoever may be the editors of the Methodist Magazine 
 for the year. But the fact is so notorious that I fear not to leave 
 the matter without further comment on my part to the judgment 
 of my readers. I am aware indeed that of late in the Methodist 
 Magazine learning seems to have grown into some sort of favour; 
 but this in my opinion only proves that the sect is flourishing, and 
 that considering themselves as well established they would not now 
 neglect the aid of human endowments. That probably too they 
 find that power is not always to be preserved by the same sort of 
 means which have served for its acquisition. 
 
 * Amongst other changes to which such things are subject I find 
 that the disciples of Wesley have lately arrogated to themselves ex¬ 
 clusively the title of Methodists. The followers of Whitfield are 
 distinguished I believe, by the title of the evangelical connexion or 
 some such description. When or how this was arranged I know 
 not: but it must surely be allowed to those who are not of the 
 number ol the initiated to call both the sects by that name which 
 was first assumed by or affixed to them at their first rising into notice 
 equally and in common. I speak this with a reference to those 
 angry strictures made upon my visitation sermon by the Wesleyans 
 
 c c 2 
 
388 
 
 SERMON Vril. 
 
 You will remember that the great points 
 which I have laboured to inculcate, have been, 
 
 \ } 
 
 in the Methodist Magazine, before mentioned, where I am taken to 
 task in rather a curious manner, for having considered the Methodists 
 as holding the doctrine of absolute decrees.In what I said, I was, as I 
 have observed before, alluding to theWhitfield connexion, which, as 
 every body knows, thanks to the celebrity of Cowper the poet, is 
 very prevalent in the country where I was preaching. 1 rather sus¬ 
 pect indeed from a sort of admission to that effect in the Christian 
 Observer for October 1807 , p. 676 , that the Wesleyan connexion 
 is getting the better of its rival in the cause of fanaticism ; which 
 must be in a great measure attributed to the superior foresight of 
 John Wesley, in establishing such a regular form of government 
 over his flock ; as well as his good sense in not adopting all the 
 extravagances of his brother sectary. I cannot say however that 
 their differences are so great as one might suppose. For example 
 in the Evangelical Magazine (for January 1807, p. 20) we are told 
 of the extraordinary conversion of an Atheist, and this is brought 
 about by referring him to the gospel and telling him that he will 
 find there that Christ “ hath power unconditionally to forgive all 
 “ manner of sins and blasphemies,” which if the reader will find in 
 his gospel his copy must have a different reading from an}- that I 
 have met with. Indeed the (i interpreter of a thousand,” (as he is 
 called) who said this, immediately contradicts himself j for he goes 
 on, “ Believe then on him and ihou-shalt not perish,” which if it 
 be not a direct xondition, namely that of believing, I know not 
 what words mean, I he sick man however the next morning re¬ 
 peats this as asign of his conversion, “Yes, the son of man hath 
 {i power to forgive all manner of sins unconditionally.” On the 
 -other hand in the Methodist Magazine for 1804, p. 607, we have 
 'theaccount of a disciple of Thomas Paine: the nature of whose 
 conversion is stated to be among other things, that (( while he 
 “ condemned himself for his past criminal inattention to the means 
 “ of grace, he did not protest, as some persons have been known 
 ct to do when distressed with the fear of death, that if God would 
 “ prolong his life, he would be assiduous in the use of them for 
 t( the future, as though he would thereby make a full, or at least a 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 3 89 
 
 that schism is a sin ; and that the sin consists 
 in separating without cause from the church to, 
 
 partial atonement for his former folly : no, he evidently saw that 
 ee nothing could remove the least of his sins but the gratuitous cle- 
 c< mency of the Lord God,” &c. I would here ask how a man’s 
 making resolutions that he would use the means of grace for the 
 future, in any way derogates from the gratuitous clemency of God ; 
 for as to the introducing the word “ atonement,” this man must 
 know that no sinner making such resolutions, nor clergyman di¬ 
 recting him so to do, ever considers or calls such amendment of 
 life an atonement for the past: and that if ever any such word has 
 been used, which I do not believe, it can only have been in a popu¬ 
 lar and loose sense: just as in the sermon before mentioned I used 
 the word “ merited,” upon which those gentlemen have so harped ; 
 or as the apostle used the word “ unrighteous,’’ when he said to the 
 brethren, “ God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour 
 f< of love,’’ which taking the word strictly would imply that God 
 is absolutely bound injustice to reward the work and labour of 
 those who serve him. But here closing this discussion which 
 would carry us too far and divert us from the main point, 1 shall 
 leave my readers to weigh the doctrine of the evangelical teacher 
 insisting that the promises of Christ (for such must be the meaning 
 of the word “ power,” as used by him) are “ unconditional,'’* 
 against the practice of the Methodist who would discourage the 
 making resolutions of amendment lest they should interfere with 
 the grace of God : and to judge of himself what foundation there is 
 in holy writ for either the one or the other; only reminding him 
 that these are among the “ fruits ” of schism. 
 
 One word more, as to my ignorance” in supposing that in Buck¬ 
 inghamshire the Methodists are Calvinistic. The Reviewer refers me 
 (p. 22) to the minutes of their conferences, or to the Methodist 
 Magazine for the September preceding, where, he says, I shall find 
 the names of the Methodist preachers in Buckinghamshire. Now 
 I have made the search, not indeed in the minutes for the year 
 1806 , but in those for 1804 & 1807, and in them I find no Metho¬ 
 dist preacher appointed in theWesleyan connexion for Buckingham¬ 
 shire. Which is a striking instance of a corrector requiring to be 
 
390 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 which a man belongs : that is, from the rule of 
 discipline established and observed in the place 
 where a man is born or where he is permanently 
 resident. That with that church so established 
 a man is bound to abide in communion, unless 
 lie can shew clearly and satisfactorily that the 
 conditions of communion which she requires, 
 are such as he cannot subscribe to without seri¬ 
 ous hazard to his salvation. 
 
 It is plain now, that allowing, as I do and 
 must do, conscience to be the guide of every 
 man, a thousand distinctions might be taken : 
 that, as many individuals as there are who se¬ 
 parate from us, so many cases might by possi¬ 
 bility be supposed : that at least every congre¬ 
 gation might have its particular cause to allege 
 for its separation. 
 
 My belief indeed is that very few of them are 
 provided with any such cause; but in candour, 
 
 corrected ; for I presume that no change took place between 1804 
 & 1807, and this proves also what I have stated, that the Metho¬ 
 dists in Buckinghamshire hold with Whitfield and not with Wes¬ 
 ley. That there are even now Calvinists called Methodists, the 
 Evangelical Magazine will prove ; for there I find accounts of 
 preachers ordained to congregations of that description. See Mag. for 
 Aug. p. 379 . Nay, in the very Magazine (for Jan. 1807) in which 
 my sermon is criticised, ( p. 4 ) I find Mr. Adam Clarke (one of the 
 chiefs of the sect) speaking of Whitfield as at least a, reputed Me¬ 
 thodist. “ The first Methodist sermon (so called) which Mr. $. 
 
 ** heard was from Mr. Whitfield at St. Luke’s church.” Taking 
 these words even with the qualification, they clearly justify me in, 
 applying the term to predestinarians. 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 391 
 
 or only for argument’s sake, I may allow it to be 
 the case; and, numerous as these might he, it 
 could never be my intention to enter into them 
 all. My object indeed was not so much to bring 
 back those who have strayed, for I fear they 
 are little disposed to listen to what may come 
 from this place, as to confirm those who arc 
 actually a part of our flock. 
 
 In order to do this, it was sufficient to touch 
 upon the great and leading arguments which 
 have of late been most commonly urged upon 
 the subject and adopted most widely. They 
 will be found, as I think I have shewn, to re¬ 
 solve themselves, almost without exception, 
 into that fashionable principle so much in 
 vogue of late years, that the most unbounded 
 liberty of thinking and of acting is not only to 
 be allowed, but to be commended, in religious 
 
 as well as in political questions. What I have 
 
 < 
 
 answered to this I need not repeat, as I have 
 had occasion to advert to it more than once: 
 and perhaps considering the mischievous effects 
 of which it has in our times been productive, 
 we may venture to suppose that it is not now 
 looked upon as so absolutely incontrovertible, 
 as but a little while back it was taken to be 9 . 
 
 9 I will only add one word more respecting the origin of these 
 principles. Archdeacon Blackburne in the Confessional after men¬ 
 tioning Locke as having given currency to these more enlarged ideas 
 of what is by some called toleration, adds in a note, “It is weg 
 
 / 
 
592 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 But as, in its application to religious disputes, 
 it has been a received notion with some persons, 
 that this was the very principle upon- which the 
 first reformers proceeded; nay, that the reforma¬ 
 tion could be defended upon no other principle; 
 I thought it necessary to inquire with some 
 minuteness and to ascertain what were the 
 allegations and the mode of proceeding actually 
 pursued, more especially in this country, by 
 those great men to whom we are indebted under 
 God for our emancipation front the bondage of 
 Popery. I have satisfied myself, and I hope 
 have satisfied you, that they advanced no such 
 claim. I have shewn too that no such claim 
 was advanced by those who first separated from 
 our church. These leaders in the cause of 
 schism alleged grounds for their separation, 
 which, however trivial and unworthy of notice 
 they may now appear, were held out by them 
 as being of high import and materially affect¬ 
 ing their hopes of eternal salvation. 
 
 Cf and truly observed in the preface to the last beautiful edition of 
 Air. Lockes Letters concerning Toleration, in quarto, 1760 , 
 that, ‘Mr. Locke was not the first writer on this subject; for 
 the argument was well understood and published during the civil 
 (that is, what we commonly call the great rebellion) 
 Llackb. s W orks, Vol. v. p. 98 . It is remarkable that Blackburne’s 
 ideas on the subject, nay the whole bias of his mind, seems to 
 have been owing to his having stumbled upon these excellent old. 
 
 Puritans, as he calls them, early in life at the house of a rela¬ 
 tion. Account of his Life, lb. Vol. i. p. 5. 
 
393 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 i 
 
 It is not, therefore, (and let it no more be 
 urged) it is not to the era of the Reformation 
 that we must go back for the arguments by 
 which the church is now assailed. They are 
 all of modern date, or never heard of in old 
 time except in the writings of the popish doc¬ 
 tors,, when labouring by every possible means 
 to advance the ambitious views of their pontiffs, 
 and to subvert the established authority of both 
 civil and ecclesiastical magistrates. 
 
 That indeed the object at this present junc¬ 
 ture is not very dissimilar; that it is not any 
 particular points of doctrine or of discipline 
 which are objected to, but the very existence of 
 the church which is struck at, must be apparent 
 from the union of all dissenters, however differ¬ 
 ing in fundamentals; from this comprehension 
 
 * 
 
 and admission into the league of even the Ro¬ 
 man catholics. The manner in which the points 
 ofattack are studiously generalized I have already 
 noticed ; and have observed how little of peculi¬ 
 arity there is now discernible in any sect. I must 
 leave it to you to judge whether conscience or 
 scripture can have much to do either with the plan 
 or with the mode of carrying it into execution. 
 As to the means which are employed, I shall 
 onlv mention one circumstance more as strongly 
 shewing how little attention is paid to consis¬ 
 tency or to principle, when the violation of 
 
 \ 
 
SERMON VIIR 
 
 394 
 
 ■c 
 
 them is attended with any prospect of advan¬ 
 
 tage. 
 
 i have already observed to you that there 
 have been individuals within the church, ac¬ 
 tually engaged in her ministry, who have fallen 
 under the suspicion, well or ill founded, of 
 holding opinions directly repugnant to her art 
 cles ; and this upon points which we have seen 
 to be most essential and fundamental. How far 
 and to what extent this might be true of all or 
 any of them, I am not called upon to inquire, 
 or to establish ; it is sufficient for my argument 
 that it was so presumed and understood by the 
 dissenters, who failed not to shelter themselves 
 under their authority, while they made them 
 the constant themes of their panegyric on that 
 very account. They are indeed never mentioned 
 by our adversaries but as being men particularly 
 enlightened, liberal and learned, nay, sincere 
 and honest. Now, it must he noted that these 
 persons so highly and in many respects so justly 
 extolled, remained in our communion, and 
 joined in the administration of our sacraments, 
 and the daily use of our prayers, when, accord¬ 
 ing to the ideas of the men who so praised them, 
 they must have conceived those prayers to be 
 not only ill expressed, but in many cases bias- 
 pdemous; and have looked upon those sacraments 
 as unduly, and with superstitious ceremonies 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 395 
 
 ad ministered. One would have thought there¬ 
 fore that sincerity and honesty would have been 
 the last themes of panegyric with which men so 
 situated should have been graced. We should at 
 least not have expected that when the whole 
 body of the clergy were, as it has often hap- 
 
 V / 
 
 pened, aspersed, as professing doctrines merely 
 because there were temporal emoluments attached 
 to that profession, those individuals among 
 them should have been specially excepted from 
 the censure, who of all others upon their own 
 shewing, or rather upon the shewing of their 
 partizans, were peculiarly liable to the imputa¬ 
 tion. But thus it is, or at least so it appears, 
 and it may as well be said at once, that, in the 
 estimation which they make of men’s conduct 
 and the praises which they bestow, the great 
 point in the contemplation of the dissenters, is 
 what will further their views, and what will 
 not. Men may remain in the church if they 
 will be content to undermine it. Nay, instances 
 are not wanting where even infidels and scoffers 
 have had their share of commendation, because 
 the} r promoted and recommended that way of 
 thinking which was most adverse to the estab- 
 lished church 10 . 
 
 *• I may I believe safely refer niv reader generally to the Monthly 
 Review for examples of this. But he may also consult theBiogra- 
 phia Britannica, (last ed.) Article CHUBB, and the additional pote 
 to the article ANTHONY COLLINS. . 
 
396 
 
 SERMON Vlir. 
 
 But, it may be said, nay, it has been said by 
 certain objectors within the church, it has been 
 repeated by some who are without; it is not so 
 much the church herself which is a grievance, 
 as the manner in which she governs, and the 
 yoke which she imposes upon her members ; in 
 particular the subscriptions which she requires 
 from her pastors : she is it seems exclusive in 
 her principle and uncharitable in her judgments. 
 
 Let us see then what would be the conse¬ 
 quence of giving way to such objections. Let 
 us ask what would be gained by departing from 
 the order which is now established ? By what 
 
 4 / 
 
 inust the present system be replaced or how mo¬ 
 dified ? 
 
 Why, some persons, among the foremost of 
 whom are the Romanists, who when they are 
 weakest are always surprisingly liberal 11 , tell us, 
 that a portion of the ecclesiastical revenues 
 should be appropriated to the procuring subsis¬ 
 tence for every description of ministers, and 
 establishments for all sorts of sectaries. They 
 are indeed aware that in asking this from the 
 chuich, they are asking her in fact to encourage 
 what she declares to be error, to minister arms 
 against what she is persuaded to be the truth. 
 
 "Very different, I will say, in this respect from that true 
 church whose cause I am supporting. She has never compromised 
 w;th her assailants, nor for the sake of temporary advantages re¬ 
 nounced or dissembled what she considered as fundamental truths. 
 
S E R M O N VIII. 
 
 397 
 
 It is therefore asked not so much of the church 
 as of the civil rulers, at whose disposal it is 
 argued that her possessions are rightly placed. 
 That indeed there is any difference between the 
 tenure by which the estates of the church are 
 holden, and the title by which all other pro¬ 
 perty is secured, is a position which never has 
 been made out, and I apprehend never will be; 
 but, admitting all that they want in this re¬ 
 spect, setting aside all considerations of justice 
 and right as they might be pleaded in favour of 
 the church; yet must it be allowed, that, when 
 “ kings and queens/* became the “ nursing fa- 
 “ thers and nursing mothers” of the church. 
 
 v/ 7 
 
 and when there appeared to be divisions among 
 the believers, it became the duty of the sove¬ 
 reigns to ascertain what assemblage of Chris¬ 
 tians it was which could properly claim to be 
 the true church: and having once ascertained 
 the point, to give to them and to them only 
 protection and encouragement, and not to the 
 multitude of pretenders to that character. As 
 long therefore as the church of England is the 
 church bv law established, as long as she is in 
 the judgment of the magistrate the true church, 
 she must continue entitled to all the advantages 
 which she possesses. She is indeed entitled to 
 them according to the intention of those who 
 first granted a portion of their revenues for the 
 support of a clergy: who assigned it to a certain 
 
S E E M O N VIII. 
 
 39 8 
 
 and determinate body, to such a body as in its 
 constitution and according to their ideas, was cal¬ 
 culated to maintain the truth ; and not to a dis¬ 
 jointed and undisciplined herd of teachers, who 
 might at pleasure vent whatever absurd or erron¬ 
 eous opinions their imaginations might suggest. 
 
 But the idea is not only big with injustice, 
 and contrary to God’s word, and to the reason 
 of the thing, but impossible to be carried into 
 execution. Let us suppose that in the first in¬ 
 stance it was possible so to arrange the division 
 of the spoil that all parties might for a moment 
 be satisfied ; that Papists, Socinians, Methodists, 
 and even Quakers, if they chose it, had all their 
 share, and to their hearts’content. The settle- 
 ment once made, how long would it last? Is 
 there any possible assurance that it would last 
 an hour? For who shall say that in the very next 
 point of time, some of those fanatics who are so 
 numerous in our days, some illiterate boor or 
 ignorant mechanic, or even day labourer, might 
 not, by setting up an additional receptacle for 
 schism, disturb the whole order? That he might 
 not draw away from the others a part of their 
 followers, and upon the very principle on which 
 the first division proceeded, demand that the parts 
 so allotted should again be brought together, and 
 that out of the common mass he should receive 
 a portion? And as every day might produce new 
 ministers, so every day might gather together 
 
S E R M O N VIII. 
 
 new congregations all equally entitled with the 
 rest to partake of this fund so thrown open to 
 all. 
 
 Nor should we obtain any greater degree of 
 certainty, if we were to listen to those within 
 our church who have professed no intention of 
 making any material alteration in her establish¬ 
 ment, except the taking away of those sub¬ 
 scriptions which they considered as an intoler¬ 
 able burthen unwarrantably laid upon their con¬ 
 sciences. This was the language of Archdeacon 
 Biackburne and the rest of the meeting at the 
 Feathers tavern in the year 1772. But neither 
 there nor in the Confessional was it particularly 
 pointed out whether any or what test should be 
 substituted; or how the church in the absence 
 of any such test, was to exist without having 
 any definite doctrine, or without some security 
 that her doctrine, such as it might be, should 
 be taught by her ministers. We see no trace 
 •of any object but that of throwing down fences, 
 without considering how the thing was after¬ 
 wards to subsist when thus laid open to every 
 inroad. It was therefore not unfairly concluded 
 that the real point in view was wholly to change 
 the constitution of the church, and under co¬ 
 lour of maintaining individual liberty to make 
 her profess a new faith, and hold a new lan¬ 
 guage. 
 
 Take the attempt however in the most fa* 
 
400 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 vourable light: let 'us admit that nothing is 
 intended more than is disclosed. Suppose then 
 that no subscription was required, no inquiries- 
 made as to the opinions of those who are to 
 officiate as ministers within our communion. 
 What, in such a case, is to prevent any the 
 wildest and most contradictory tenets from 
 being delivered in opposition to each other, 
 either from different pulpits at the same time, 
 or from the same pulpit in succession ? Will it 
 tend to edification for the same people to be 
 told one day that Christ was mere man and that 
 to worship him is idolatry ; and on the next to 
 be taught that be is one with God, and in every 
 respect to be honoured and prayed to as God ? 
 
 < In one cluirch to be told that we are created 
 with sufficient power of ourselves to do the wll 
 of God, and in another to be warned that it is 
 only through the blood of Christ and bv virtue 
 
 s J 
 
 of the atonement which be made for us, that our 
 endeavours after salvation can be rendered in 
 any manner available ? Lastly, what confusion 
 must it cause to have the authenticity of scrip¬ 
 ture by one man questioned and by another 
 strenuously maintained ? Who sees not, that, 
 if such differences on religious points must exist, 
 it is better that they who differ so widely 
 should be kept asunder; that they only who 
 agree in the same doctrine should worship Gad 
 in the same place ? 
 
S E R M O N VIII. 
 
 401 
 
 Nor would the difficulty be obviated by men’s 
 subscribing, as has been proposed, only to the 
 Scriptures as commonly received. In the first 
 place, in the way that men interpret Scrip¬ 
 ture, this would be almost equal to no sub¬ 
 scription at all. And, secondly, how upon the 
 broad principle which in such cases is to be 
 acted upon, could you repel from communion 
 those, who professing to be Christians, reject 
 either whole books or particular passages of 
 the sacred text? Would they not urge with the 
 same force as any other sectaries, that they 
 have a right to preach the gospel, according to 
 what appears to them to be the word of God 
 and that only. 
 
 Such men could never be answered by the 
 advocates for the latitudinarian principle; they 
 could only be met properly and with effect by 
 those who could say what our church says, that 
 to an erroneous conscience indulgence only 
 and not encouragement is due; that truth only 
 is to be attended to and followed, and not the 
 scruples, however honestly entertained, of weak 
 brethren ; that the faith once delivered must 
 be liolden, and error combated by all means 
 which are consistent with Christian, charity;' 
 that this is the very end for which the y church 
 was established, the very duty which is imposed 
 upon rulers. 
 
 Who indeed does not see, in the history of 
 
 D D 
 
40# 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 modern as well as of ancient sectaries and here¬ 
 tics, the absolute necessity of providing against 
 the extravagant lengths to which men may be 
 hurried in the maintenance of their peculiar opi¬ 
 nions ? Who knows not that without a regular 
 watch not even the strongest holds can be se¬ 
 cure ? The fact is, however, as I have already* 
 stated, that there is no church whose terms of 
 communion are so well calculated to embrace 
 every denomination of sincere Christians, as 
 those of the church of England. She in fact 
 shuts out no man who is not by his difference 
 in fundamental points excluded. Her articles 
 were evidently drawn up with this enlarged 
 view : and fitted as they are for the widest ad¬ 
 missible comprehension, she yet, as I must re¬ 
 mind you, requires no man to declare his assent 
 to them, except those who are specially appoint¬ 
 ed to teach others; of the integrity of whose 
 faith, as well as their ability to impart know¬ 
 ledge, she is therefore bound to be fully satis* 
 tied, before she commits to their care a trust so 
 important. 
 
 Whatever indeed of obloquy she may incur 
 on this account we may observe, can in no way 
 be considered as peculiar to her. She is in this 
 case attacked only in common with all churches 
 that are established. And the charge originated 
 
 * Sermon IJL 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 403 
 
 with those frotn whom we might well expect that 
 it should come. For it was by the Unitarians, or 
 men that were or are supposed to think' with 
 them, that this objection to all establishments 
 was first, and is now, principally maintained : 
 that is to say, by a class of men who have never 
 yet been able to secure to themselves not only 
 a national, but not even any considerable es¬ 
 tablishment in any nation: whose deviation 
 from the faith seems to have been marked by 
 Providence with something not very unlike 
 what has befallen the rebellious Jews; who ate 
 in some sort strangers and outcasts in every 
 country where they abide. 
 
 But there is another accusation, very different, 
 and even opposite in its nature* brought against 
 our church, which, if it were in any degree true, 
 should indeed alarm our consciences, and awaken 
 our most serious attention. It is directed against 
 us, both collectively and individually. It is 
 said that the institutions of our church are not 
 calculated for the promotion of true piety and 
 devotion : and that we, her ministers, are want¬ 
 ing in diligence and in zeal. These charges 
 are brought against us principally, as I have 
 before observed, by those who are considered 
 by us as intruders into the ministry, who boast 
 that with them are found that fervency and 
 
 d n £ 
 
404 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 edification which in us are wanting 15 . I might, 
 therefore, in the first instance, object to them, 
 as interested judges, as men who have an evident 
 purpose to serve in the censures which they 
 pronounce. I might warn them, lest upon both 
 
 14 I cannot help stating a remarkable instance of the manner lit 
 which this is alleged, even in these days, and by men of the best 
 repute among the schismatics, for such I take Mr. Adam Clarke to 
 be. In the article before quoted, in n. 8, I find this account of the 
 times when the Methodists first showed themselves: r< In those 
 ft days the word of the Lord was scarce, as there was no open 
 S( vision for a considerable time, till the providence of God per- 
 ec mitted the churches to be shut against Messrs. Wesley and 
 <( Whitfield, and they were compelled to go to the highways and 
 *< hedges 1 .” Not only the scandal against the regular clergy of 
 ^hose days, which this conveys, is remarkable, but still more the 
 presumption and profaneness with which God’s revelations to his 
 prophets are likened to the reveries of these enthusiasts. Take 
 another instance of this profaneness from the same life of Mr. 
 Thomas Symonds, when on his death bed, being asked if he 
 would take a little wine, he said “ No more wine, till I drink it 
 <S( new in the kingdom of God.” No wonder, when the words of 
 the hymns which he sung were such as these:— 
 
 “ My Jesus to know, and feel his blood flow, 
 
 “ ’Tis life everlasting, ’tis heaven below.” 
 
 Mag. for Feb. p. 52, 53. 
 
 Take one more instance from Whitfield’s own mouth. After 
 preaching at Bristol, in the year 1739, he “ signified to the con- 
 te gregation that there was one coming after him whose shoe’s 
 t( latchet he was not worthy to unloose.” He then published that 
 se the Rev. John Wesley would preach next day.” Method. Mag. 
 for Sept. 1807, p. 416. This is almost equal to any passage in the 
 tf Book of the Conformities of St. Francis,” before mentioned. 
 And when such things are now published, with approbation by the 
 leaders of the sect, it is a proof that the character of their fanaticism 
 is not greatly improved or mitigated. 
 
SERMO i\ T VIII. 
 
 405 
 
 grounds, and in whatever sense taken, they 
 should fall under the condemnation which is 
 threatened in my text. The charges indeed are 
 as easily made, as they are difficult to be refuted. 
 In the exercise of a ministry so extensive and 
 important, that it has even, by an inspired 
 apostle, been said of it, ie Who is sufficient for 
 u these things ?” administered as it is, by fal¬ 
 lible men, what can we suppose but that there 
 must be defects which jealousy may discover, 
 and prejudice will magnify? In a case where 
 the boldest of us dares not say that he is right¬ 
 eous, how easy must it be to impute guilt? 
 
 Such apology, however, as is consistent with 
 the frailty of man, such claims of merit as even 
 weak mortals may oppose to human judgments, 
 have often, and with the approbation of the 
 wise and good, been made for the church of 
 England. Nor are the imputations novel, or 
 now, for the first time, either advanced or re¬ 
 pelled. This is but the language of the old 
 puritans in the time of the great rebellion. Not 
 satisfied with condemning* prelacy, as radically 
 vicious and faulty in discipline, they turned 
 their malice against the individuals who com¬ 
 posed the body of the episcopal clergy. By 
 packed and interested commissioners they in¬ 
 stituted inquiries into the character of every 
 beneficed minister, whom they first pronounced 
 to be scandalous, and afterwards ejected from 
 
40 6 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 his living. It may be conjectured that censures 
 v so similar are not brought forward without some 
 intention that they should answer a similar 
 end. 
 
 This is a subject, however, upon which I need 
 say little. Incidentally, and in the course of 
 tny argument, I have had occasion to shew what 
 has been the conduct of our church in situa¬ 
 tions of great difficulty and danger, during 
 which she has, with God's help, steadily main¬ 
 tained her ground. 
 
 Of her form of government I have also been 
 led to speak, if not at large, yet sufficiently to 
 shew that it is agreeable to the practice of the 
 highest antiquity. It is indeed, we say, of di¬ 
 vine institution. It has been shewn so to be by 
 many of her able and pious advocates. But 
 even of those who will not admit that episco¬ 
 pacy has the absolute sanction of God, many 
 are forced to admit that it was instituted by the 
 apostles. We say also that it is the form of 
 ecclesiastical government best fitted for the 
 purposes of edification : that it admits more 
 readily than any other the exercise of that mo¬ 
 deration, which is on all hands allowed to be 
 ;$o desirable, and which is so seldom found : 
 that it is best enabled to temper its judgments 
 with the alternate and due application of indul¬ 
 gence and severity. We say farther of the 
 church, that retaining 3 sufficiency of those 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 407 
 
 ornaments, and of those ceremonies which give 
 decency and grace to religious worship, she re¬ 
 jects all that is excessive or superstitious : that, 
 lastly, in the provision which is set apart for 
 the clergy, while nothing is given to ostentation 
 or superfluity, due attention is paid to the pre¬ 
 servation of that dignity, which, as it is allowed 
 to accompany all human institutions, should not 
 be withheld from that which is divine. 
 
 The effects have, as we say also, been suit* 
 able. For in what church, or among what body 
 of men have there existed such a number of 
 able and pious preachers of our common reli¬ 
 gion ? I fear not to ask where else are to be 
 found so many truly valuable treatises of prac¬ 
 tical piety and religious edification ? Where 
 shall we trace so much real learning, such so¬ 
 briety, and zeal, concurring together, such ani¬ 
 mated, yet chastened eloquence, combined with 
 deep research, and sound argument, as are to 
 be found in the discourses and compositions of 
 the divines of our church ? By whom has the 
 progress of infidelity and of heresy, nay, and of 
 popery, been more carefully watched, or more 
 successfully combated ? Where, lastly, shall 
 we discover, in any number of individuals, for 
 so long a period, so much of true Christian 
 spirit, whether in the manner of their life and 
 conversation, or in the government of them¬ 
 selves sind their flocks, so much to be praised* 
 
40S 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 and so little to be blamed, as is confessedly to 
 be seen in the succession of our bishops, 
 from the reformation to this day ? 
 
 Such being the fact, I do, and must ever pro¬ 
 test against the calumny and abuse with which 
 the ministry of our church, and the church her¬ 
 self, are so frequently and so unjustly loaded. 
 Perfection I do not attribute to her; for God 
 has given perfection to no mortal being, and to 
 no institution upon earth, however proceeding* 
 originally from himself. By the very infirmity 
 which shews itself in almost every act of every 
 man, and of every body of men, we are forcibly 
 and houily reminded that we have no conti- 
 “ nuing city' 5 here; but that we must look for 
 happiness, and for reward, to a state of things 
 far different, and “ to come.” Yet I must say 
 that it is a great blessing, and a great privilege, 
 too apt to be despised, and held cheap by those 
 who enjoy it, to be born, as we have been, 
 under a form of discipline so conducive to piety, 
 and of which we have such assurance that it is 
 agreeable to the word of God. 
 
 I do not say neither, I never have pretended 
 to say, that the church of England contains 
 within hei bosom no unworthy members ; nay 
 no unworthy ministers of the word. He must 
 he a'much bolder man than I who will venture 
 to say this of any community to which he be¬ 
 longs. This is a presumption which will rather 
 
SERMON VIII. 
 
 409 
 
 be found with our adversaries than with us. 
 Rut this I will affirm, and it is the least that can 
 be said, that there is in her no such corruption 
 of doctrine, no such perversion of discipline, no 
 such imposition of what is wrong, and suppres¬ 
 sion of what is right, as makes it any way dan¬ 
 gerous or criminal to live in her communion. 
 Nay, I will further assert, that in her the gospel 
 is so preached, the sacraments are so adminis¬ 
 tered, that no sincere and religious member of 
 her establishment can be left to seek for the 
 means.of serving God, or be at a loss for the 
 way in which he is to secure his salvation. 
 That therefore, I repeat it, being the national 
 church duly and legally established in this 
 country, they who estrange themselves from 
 her, and choose to worship God after a method 
 of their own, do it at the peril of incurring the 
 guilt, and subjecting themselves to the punish¬ 
 ment, of schism. That this is a schism most 
 particularly without cause in those who can 
 only defend their separation upon the ground 
 of a supposed liberty of private opinion; this 
 being a ground which, thus broadly laid down, 
 would allow a free course to every system, and 
 authorize the withdrawing from every govern¬ 
 ment, even from such as might be the most 
 evidently necessary for the maintenance of rule 
 and order, and expedient for the purposes of 
 edification. That it is but little more excu§- 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
410 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 able in those who will persist in standing upon 
 ground which has repeatedly been shewn to be 
 untenable; who will rest upon scruples, which to 
 every reasonable man must appear ridiculous; 
 who will still affect to see abomination in a sur¬ 
 plice, and antichrist in the sign of the cross. 
 That further as to those whose error consists in 
 a false confidence of their righteousness, and of 
 the special favour of God extended to them in¬ 
 dividually, it behoves them well tq be upon 
 their guard, lest, in building so presumptuously 
 upon the immediate influences of divine grace, 
 they should be found to be, in fact, tempting 
 the spirit of God ; lest in following after gifts 
 which are now, either not at all, or most spar¬ 
 ingly bestowed, they shall appear to have ne¬ 
 glected the true and only proffered means of 
 salvation. That, lastly, as to those whose dif¬ 
 ferences with the church are indeed material, 
 whose schism hears the character and stamp of 
 heresy, it doubly behoves them to take heed, 
 that in extenuation of the mischief which they 
 pause, they may be able most truly to plead the 
 sincerity and purity of their intentions; they 
 must labour indeed to inform themselves ; they 
 must use their utmost endeavour, that no strong 
 reason be left for supposing that that which is 
 their error is otherwise than involuntary and 
 unavoidable, that their persuasion do not turn 
 !>ut to be prejudice. It becomes them well to 
 
411 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 t I 
 
 fear lest either, on the one hand, by setting up 
 in themselves, and in their works, a righteous- 
 ness which belongs to no human being or work: 
 still more by withholding from their Saviour 
 the honour which is due to him ; or, on the 
 ether hand, by dividing among many that glory 
 which belongs only to Christ, by addressing 
 their supplications to intercessors of their own 
 creating, instead of wholly relying on the me¬ 
 rits of the one Mediator, they shall be deemed to 
 have forfeited the redemption which he pur¬ 
 chased, to have “ counted the blood of the cq- 
 4t venant an unholy thing ; ,5 and thereby to have 
 cut themselves off from the benefit of that great 
 act of mercy, which was in the contemplation 
 of our Creator even before the foundations of 
 the world. 
 
 With respect to those whose dissent has the 
 particular stamp of uncharitableness, who set up 
 other teachers of thejr own, merely on the 
 ground of alleged insufficiency in the regular 
 ministers of the church; who accuse us of being 
 negligent in our work, and vicious in our lives, 
 let them be aware that, even if their accusation 
 were true, it wQujd form no excuse for schism. 
 “We have this treasure in earthen vessels*. ” We 
 are weak and fallible men. We are indeed re¬ 
 sponsible to our great master, and most assuredly 
 
 * $ Cor, iv. 7« 
 
412 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 for any wilful neglect, for any despite which we 
 may have done to the spirit of grace we shall 
 be doubly chastised ; but as long as we preach 
 the word, as long as we put up the regular 
 prayers for the congregation, as long as we ad¬ 
 minister the sacraments, there is no pretence 
 for our flocks to commit themselves to other 
 guides, to run into by paths. If we be inat¬ 
 tentive to our duty, let us be rebuked. If we 
 be slow in correcting ourselves, or admonishing* 
 others, let them cry aloud and spare not, let us, 
 as we ought, bear the blame. Let application 
 be made to those who are the regular superin- 
 tendants of the church. If they are slack also, 
 let them also be reproved. But let not this be 
 made a pretext for adding one evil to another. 
 If our ad\ eisaries be really desirous of reforming* 
 us, let them take the right way : they must know 
 tiiat it is not that which they have chosen. It 
 was not by rending the church that our ances¬ 
 tors freed themselves, under God, from the cor¬ 
 ruptions of popery, but by casting out of it the 
 abominable thing: by soberly examining into, 
 and establishing the grievance, and then apply- 
 »;«g the remedy. # But to run headlong into 
 schism, upon tiie ground of imperfections, either 
 mciely pi Cl ended, or only to a certain degree 
 existing, is to shew in the parties who thus*act 
 a desire oi distinction, and an undue attachment 
 L; Jv.ii pi irate opinions, rather than an anxiety 
 

 SERMON VIH. 
 
 413 
 
 for the real interests of the community. I say 
 this not rashly, because it is clear that, for 
 those who cry out against abuses, to adopt a 
 course which puts them in the wrong, can only 
 serve to perpetuate abuses. It takes from the 
 force of any remonstrance, however well 
 founded, when it is shewn that the person who 
 makes it is himself in an error, whether of the 
 same, or of a different sort. If there be minis¬ 
 ters in our church who are vicious, and desire 
 to continue in vice, they must indeed be thank¬ 
 ful to those who, by their conduct, give them 
 an opportunity of saying that they are only 
 blamed by men who are out of humour witlr the' 
 
 V 
 
 church, whose delight it is to C5 speak evil of 
 <( dignities*.’' 
 
 Such are the observations which X have* 
 thought it my duty to make on a subject, the 
 importance of which has of late years been 
 greatly overlooked ; and which has by many 
 persons, from a very obvious motive, a motive 
 however which cannot be too strongly noticed* 
 been studiously kept out of sight. I have 
 shewn you, I trust, with sufficient clearness, 
 that the siii of schism is expressly and repeatedly 
 condemned in Scripture; that in the judgment 
 of all antiquity, nay, of the whole Christian 
 world, until a comparatively very late period, 
 
 * 2 Peter, ii. 10. 
 
 / 
 
414 
 
 SERMON VIII. 
 
 it was considered as a sin of a very heiriotts 
 nature, and such as it deeply concerned every 
 Christian to avoid. Lastly, pursuing the his¬ 
 tory of the church to our times, I have shewn 
 the futility of the reasonings which are com¬ 
 monly adduced in defence of this sin. I have 
 shewn too what are its fruits; what are the evil 
 effects by which it has always been attended. 
 IIow, in particular, the cause of Christianity, 
 combined as it is with the unity of the church, 
 has suffered, and still suffers almost equally 
 from the two extremes of latitudinarian indif¬ 
 ference, and fanatical enthusiasm. I trust too 
 that I have so done it, as not to be misunder¬ 
 stood. Sorry indeed should I be, if in com¬ 
 bating a too great laxity of principle, I should 
 have appeared in any way to discourage the 
 cultivation of that true liberality, which is indeed 
 only Christian charity under a different name. 
 On the other hand, God forbid that by any 
 word which I have uttered 1 should in the 
 smallest degree counteract the genuine workings 
 of true devotion in the breasts of those who 
 3 )ear me, or damp the ardour of that faith by 
 
 winch alone man is enabled to hold converse 
 with his Maker. 
 
 I ucsire not that implicit credit should be 
 given to my words: I have referred you to 
 Sciipture. bee yourselves if schism be not there 
 reproved; if .causeless separation from the church 
 
t 
 
 SERMON VIII. 415 
 
 be not a sin. If it be so written, surely, I must 
 say it again, it is so written for our admonition 
 and guidance. 
 
 lo those who, in the turbulence of their 
 spirit, or the fervency of their zeal, are still 
 anxious for further reformation, let me point 
 out one sort cf reformation which cannot be 
 wrong. Let every man reform himself. This 
 indeed, as it would be the most effectual, so un¬ 
 doubtedly is it the most unexceptionable mode 
 which we can take of bettering our condition, 
 as well as that of others. 
 
 What are the vices which particularly operate 
 to create divisions in the church, I have already- 
 in the words of Scripture, pointed out. We 
 cannot indeed be ignorant what we ought to 
 amend. Were we thoroughly bent upon effect¬ 
 ing this great object, would we “lay aside all 
 “ malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and en- 
 “ vies, and all evil speakings*/’ we should fmd 
 little difficulty in obeying the commandments 
 of God, even when they required of us to be 
 obedient to man. 
 
 To this reformation we are indeed loudly 
 called by the great events which are passing 
 around us, and to which I have before alluded. 
 One at least of the sore judgments of God is 
 now let loose among the nations to a degree 
 
 * 1 Peter, ii. 1, 
 
416 SERMON VIIL 
 
 almost unprecedented. By national punish¬ 
 ments we are admonished of our wickedness* 
 
 whether national or individual. Nor can we 
 
 # _ ■. 
 
 expect that the effect will be removed while the 
 cause subsists. We must have peace at home, 
 before we can hope to be relieved from the bur¬ 
 then of foreign war. 
 
 Let us all then apply ourselves to the work, by 
 beginning at the right end. Let every one 
 examine his own heart, and he sure that all is 
 right within, before he presumes to judge others, 
 or to meddle with received and established order. 
 Let us strive, if we will, for the common good; 
 but let it be according to our Lord’s directions. 
 Let our thoughts be pure, and our intentions 
 just and upright. Let us, above all things* 
 search out, and bold fast the true faith. Let us, 
 as he said to his disciples, have salt within 
 “ ourselves,” and then doubt not that “we shall 
 “ have peace with one another*.” 
 
 * Matth. ix. 50. 
 
 I 
 
( 417 ) 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 (See p. 34.) 
 
 That the charge of Socinianism was directly made by more 
 than one person against the (then anonymous) author of the 
 <c Plain Account of the Sacrament,will appear from the 
 following particulars. I shall first adduce William Law, 
 who, in his Demonstration of the gross and fundamental 
 « Errors of a late Book, called a Plain Account,’’ &c. has 
 the following, among many other equally strong passages s 
 <c The way that this author came by his Plain Account of the 
 « Sacrament, was not, as he would have you believe, from 
 an impartial consideration of the words of the Institution, 
 iC but from his wrong knowledge of the Christian Mth. 
 <c He had first lost and renounced all the right and true 
 t6 knowledge of our Saviour in the Scriptures, and therefore 
 was obliged not to find it in the Sacrament. And because 
 it would be openly confessing to the woild that he was, 
 u in the sense of Scripture, an Antichrist, if he should have 
 u plainly told you that he did not believe Christ to be trolly 
 
 £ £ ; 
 
 l 
 
418 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 (i and essentially God, or the atonement and satisfaction for 
 64 our sins, or a principle of life to us, therefore he only 
 “ tells you that he has been led into this account of the 
 tc Sacrament by a bare consideration of the words of the 
 u Institution, according to the common rules of speaking/' 
 &c.—Demonstration, &c. 4th ed. p. 100. Before this, William 
 Law had made the same charge in effect, though in milder 
 terms, against the bishop, by name, in his third letter, par¬ 
 ticularly in the postscript. I shall next refer to another 
 answer to the bishop’s book, entitled, u A true Account of 
 “ the Nature, End, and Efficacy of the Sacrament/’ &c. by 
 Thomas Bowyer,M. A. printed by Rivingtons’, 1738, written, 
 as it seems to me, with great ability ; where, besides the 
 opposition which is made to the bishop's doctrine in the body 
 of the book, it is shewn, in the preface, by the production 
 of passages in parallel columns, first, that the bishop’s account 
 of the Sacrament is exactly that which is given by the Soci. 
 nians; and, secondly, that it is also completely at variance 
 with the doctrine of the church of England, as set forth in 
 her articles, homilies, and liturgy, A third anwer was given 
 by Skelton, which is about to be republished by Mr. Clapham; 
 and which, if I recollect right, proceeds upon similar grounds. 
 I will add, that in none of those productions do I see that 
 weakness of opposition spoken of by the editor of the Bi¬ 
 ograph 5a Britannica. As to the warmth which they shew, 
 that will not perhaps be thought too great by those who are 
 sincere believers in the divinity of Christ. As to myself, I 
 cannot but agree with the judgment there passed upon the 
 bishop’s principles. It appears to me very clearly that any 
 man who will take up the Plain Account without prejudice 
 will see in it the greatest care observed to keep clear of the 
 doctrine of atonement; and that too in a case which could 
 not be properly discussed without taking that very doctrine 
 into consideration: that is, in fact, we see the author en¬ 
 deavouring most studiously to avoid confessing a doctrine to 
 which lie/had most solemnly subscribed. .When ou f faith in 
 
419 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Christ is spoken of*, it is stated to be “ a belief in him, as 
 “ sent into the world by God/’ (see p. 110, 1st ed.) not 
 as suffering for our sins. Or, where those sufferings are 
 spoken of, it is said of them merely that they were u under¬ 
 taken, submitted to, and designed for the promoting of 
 “ our eternal happiness,” p. lip. And the end for which 
 Christ was thus sent into the world is stated to be merely 
 “ to enliven and strengthen by his excellent doctrine, and 
 <fc by his holy example, our sincere endeavours to know and 
 practice God’s commandments.’" This is the more strik¬ 
 ing, as all this suppression of the main end of Christ’s coming 
 into the world takes place precisely in a part of his work, 
 where the bishop is professing particularly to explain the, 
 doctrine of our church. For these passages are found under 
 his 17th proposition, where he professes to apply what he 
 had previously laid down to our public office of the commu¬ 
 nion. He does this, as he says, u in order both to interpret 
 “ such passages (relating to this institution) as may stand in 
 “ need of interpretation ; and to lead all persons concerned 
 <c make use of it in the most proper and Christian manner.” 
 Now certainly if such was his intention, the bishop was 
 bound to bring forward every passage in that office which 
 related to the end for which that offioe was instituted, or 
 which could serve to explain the nature of that death or pas¬ 
 sion, which it is our object in that office to commemorate, 
 or remember (according to his favourite word), and conse. 
 quently that of the person who so suffered. But this is pre¬ 
 cisely what he omits. Let the reader judge. In stating the 
 exhortation read to the communicants, he tells us, after some 
 account of the previous part, that the exhortation goes on to 
 “ en £ a g e the persons present now.” a word not in the ori¬ 
 ginal, “ to judge themselves, so as to repent them of all their 
 “ s *ns ; to come to the Lord’s table with a steadfast faith in 
 U Christ, now to be remembered another interpolation, 
 
 “ anii lo revive in their hearts the real sentiments of 
 “ perfect charity with all men, and the heartfelt thankful - 
 
 / 
 
420 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 iC ness to God ; assuring them that with this temper, snd 
 a these dispositions of mind, they will be meet partakers f 
 that is, will partake worthily, of these holy mysteries/* 
 Now let the reader compare this with the whole of what is 
 said in the exhortation, observing the parts omitted, which 
 are here printed in Italics, and let him judge whether this be 
 a fair or a full representation. <c Repent ye truly for your 
 sins past: have a lively and steadfast faith in Christ, our 
 i( Saviour: amend your lives, and be in perfect charity with 
 u ad men : so shall ye be meet partakers of these holy mys- 
 u teries. And, above all things, ye must give most humble 
 <£ and hearty thanks to God the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost, for the redemption of the world by the death 
 u and passion of our Saviour Christ , both God and man, who 
 n did humble himself even to the death upon the cross for vs 
 u miserable sinners, who lap in darkness, and the shadow of 
 k£ death, to the end that he might make us the children of God, 
 ii and exalt us to everlasting life. And to the end that we should. 
 u alway remember the exceeding great love of our master and 
 *'* only Saviour, Jesus Christy thus dying for us, and the innv. 
 u merable benefits which, by his precious blood shedding he hath 
 u obtained to us ; he hath instituted and ordained holy mys~ 
 u teries as pledges of his love, and for a.continual remembrance 
 u of his death , to our great and endless comfort.” I need 
 hardly ask whether the passages thus omitted are not most 
 material, in order to shew what is the sense of our church in 
 this office of her’s; and whether any good reason can be 
 given for such an omission, but that which William Law and 
 Bowyer have suggested ? The other instance, how r ever, which 
 I shall adduce, is still stronger; for there the suppression 
 takes place in the very prayer of consecration, every part of 
 which cannot but be most importantfor the understanding of 
 what our church intended. u The prayer,’* says the bishop, 
 p. 116 , u called the prayer of consecration, follow's next, 
 and this is.so iramed that the whole congregation is sup- 
 “ posed to join in the one only petition in it, which is ma. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 421 
 
 ** nifestly framed upon the original design of this holy 
 institution, and very properly placed here just before the 
 <c acts of receiving the bread and wine.” Very true : and 
 according to this wc should, of course, expect to have our 
 attention particularly called to all that relates to u the ori- 
 (( ginal design of this holy Institution.'* But this is pre¬ 
 cisely what the bishop takes care not to do. As if afraid to 
 look the subject in the face, he takes his reader at once into 
 the middle of the prayer. (i In this,” says he, u all the com- 
 4C municants arc made to say 6 hear us, O merciful Father, 
 6i we most humbly beseech thee, and grant that we, receiv- 
 (C ing these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy 
 ‘ c Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in re- 
 (i membrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of 
 u his most blessed body and blood.’ ” Here we see is ji 
 simple reference to our Saviour’s holy institution. The ac* 
 count of that institution, as well as of the event upon which 
 it is founded, is contained in the former part of the prayer, 
 in which also u the whole congregation is supposed to join," 
 and which therefore should not have been omitted, if the 
 bishop had meant to give us the real and entire sense of our 
 church in this office of her’s.—It runs thus: u Almighty 
 God, who of thy tender mercy didst give thine only be - 
 gotten Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer death upon'the cross for 
 h ovr redemption , who made there, by his one oblation of him- 
 u self once offered , a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, 
 u oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; 
 <c and. did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to con - 
 tinue a perpetual memory of that, his precious death , until 
 u his coming agaiu. Hear us,” &c. as above. I may now 
 ask if these are common omissions, or if they could have 
 taken place without design. I will say further, that had the 
 whole of this exhortation and prayer been thus set out, it 
 would not have been easy, nay, not possible to apply this 
 office of our church to the author's notion of the Sacrament 
 
'425 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 being a mere remembrance of Christ's death in general, when 
 that death is here so specially set forth as a full, perfect, and 
 sufficient sacrifice for him ; nay, further, when the Sacrament 
 itself is declared to be a 44 pledge of our Saviour's love, to 
 c * our great and endless comfort.*’ Nor could the author 
 have ventured to speak of Christ simply as 44 sent frornGod,’* 
 if he had thus stated him to be one of the persons of the 
 godhead, and 44 both God and man,’* thus 44 humbling him- 
 64 self to the death upon the cross for us, miserable sinners," 
 &C. Had these expressions been brought forward as they 
 ought, it would have been a task too hard even for the bi¬ 
 shop’s abilities to keep out of sight the doctrine of our church, 
 as more distinctly expressed in her catechism, that this sa- 
 crapveut, as well as the other, is 44 a means wffiereby we re- 
 44 ceive inward and spiritual grace, and a pledge to assure us 
 44 thereof.” If I shall be told that the bishop only professes 
 to apply this office to what he had before laid down, and to 
 adopt it for the use of such as joined in that rite, according 
 to his notions, I must still protest against such application 
 or adaptation, as being a process by which the Scriptures 
 might be made to speak even the language of atheism ; as in 
 the well known case of a man’s citing 44 there is no God,” 
 which is hardly a more gross mutilation and perversion of 
 holy writ, than the present case is of our liturgy. I hope 
 that I shall stand excused for having discussed this point so 
 much at large. It was this instance of bad faith, as I con¬ 
 ceive it to be, which first decided my opinion about bishop 
 Hoadly. It must be recollected too that at this day, with 
 many persons, the 44 Plain Account" passes for not only a 
 harmless, but a useful and edifying bo ( ok. Every thing in¬ 
 deed which contributes to set the character of bishop Hoadly 
 in its proper light, is of great importance, as he is an autho¬ 
 rity mainly relied on by all who stand in opposition to the 
 church. The Bangorian controversy forms an epoch in our 
 ecclesiastical history. One great cfffict w'bich it produced 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 lias been the reducing our convocation to a mere cypher in 
 practice. And of this we are reminded in newspapers and 
 magazines, as often as the occasion recurs, always with a 
 compliment to the memory of the enlightened prelate, who is 
 held forth as the author of this blessing. 
 
 B. 
 
 (See p. 35.) 
 
 We are now told that the Essay on Spirit was not written 
 by bishop Clayton, but 44 by a young clergyman in his 
 44 diocese, who shewed the manuscript to his Lordship, and 
 44 for reasons which may easily be conceived, expressed his 
 44 fear of venturing to print it in his own name. The 
 44 bishop, with that romantic generosity which marked his 
 44 character, took the matter upon himself,’’ &c. Biogr. 
 Brit, new ed. art. Clayton. This, it is evident,, makes no 
 difference as to the substance of the case. In note A. of that 
 article, the reader will find an account of the controversy to 
 which this pamphlet gave rise, with such an opinion upon 
 the result as might well be expected from the declared prin¬ 
 ciples of the editor. Bigotry is of course imputed to all thp 
 opponents of the essay, with the single exception of Dr. 
 Randolph. The conclusion is, however, not very different 
 from what I have expressed elsewhere; and shews that the 
 effects produced by this author were not in the end consi¬ 
 derable. 44 Upon the whole," Dr. Kippis says, 44 the Essay 
 44 on Spirit, and the tracts on the same side of the question, 
 44 were the means of diffusing the Arian opinions, which 
 44 opinions, however, are now on the decline; many Unitarian 
 44 Christians tending fast to the opinions of Socinus/’ Upon 
 this essay I cannot help mentioning one observation which 
 etfuck me, before I knew r that it had already been made by Mr. 
 
424 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 <Joncs. The essayist takes the definition of spirit with which 
 haf opens his work, and on which he builds, from Spinosa, a 
 professed Atheist A hopeful authority it must be admitted 
 for a Christian divine to rest upon : not as an argumentum ad 
 hommem , in which case we may well turn the words of unbe¬ 
 lievers upon them, but as the corner stone of his system. 
 
 But, whoever was the author of the essay on spirit, as 
 bishop Clayton did not stop there, but proceeded to other 
 publications in which he expressly contradicted the doctrines 
 of our church, measures were taken towards a legal prosecu¬ 
 tion of his lordship, and a day actually fixed for a meeting of 
 the Irish prelates at the house of the primate. ci A censure,” 
 we are told, (i was certain, and deprivation was apprehended ” 
 In the mean time the bishop died of a nervous fever. This 
 intended proceeding is characterized by Br. Kippis as a “per- 
 <£ section,*’ and George the2d is said to have disgraced him¬ 
 self by giving it his countenance. It is added as an aggra- 
 vation that the bishop of Clogher was “ distinguished above 
 “ several of his brethren both by his abilities and virtues,” 
 
 and m particular that he was superior to the primate (Stone) 
 in those respects. 
 
 Upon this I must remark, first, that it is indeed no un¬ 
 common idea, but in my opinion a very pernicious one, that 
 genius and talents carry with them their own excuse for what¬ 
 ever irregularities or offences a man may commit against reli¬ 
 gion or morality. Whereas I have always considered it to 
 be the language of Scripture, as well as of common sense, 
 that such persons are only the more guilty in proportion as 
 they are more highly endowed. “ To whom much is given, 
 of him much shall be required .’* If therefore it wnre al¬ 
 lowed that bishop Clayton was that man of transcendant 
 abilities and virtues, still it could form no reason why any 
 deviations of his from the paths of duty should not be noticed 
 or animadverted upon, as well as those of inferior men : nay, 
 that this should be done by men inferior to him in many re¬ 
 spects. Secondly, I must say that it is a perfect abuse of 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, 
 
 425 
 
 forms to call this proceeding against the prelate in question by 
 the name of (C persecution.” And it seems to me the more 
 requisite to combat this position, because I find it elsewhere, 
 in effect if not in terms, promulgated by this very Dr. Kippis 
 under the authority of a learned prelate of our church, now 
 living. In the Life of Dr. Lardner, the present bishop of 
 Landaff is quoted as saying, a Newton and Locke were es- 
 *‘ teemed Socinians, Lardner was an avowed one: Clarke 
 ie and Whiston w r ere declared Arians: Bull and Waterland 
 (( were professed Athanasians.” (Surely a bishop of our 
 church could not have written this: Bull’s doctrine, I thought 
 was professedly built, after the Scripture, upon the ante-ni- 
 cene fathers. But to go on with the quotation.) u Who 
 (( will take upon him to say that these men were not equal 
 <( to each other in probity and scriptural knowledge ? And 
 ii if that be admitted, surely we ought to learn no other 
 u lesson from the diversity of their opinions, except that of 
 a perfect moderation and goodwill towards all those who 
 * 6 happen to differ from ourselves. We ought to entertain 
 no other wish but that every man may be allowed without 
 u loss of fame or of fortune, et sent ire quoe velit et quee sen * 
 a tiat dice re.” Life of Lardner, prefixed to his Works, p. 
 ci. Perfect moderation and goodwill towards all men is cer~ 
 tainly what every Christian, and I trust churchmen as well as 
 others, should and do practice. But what is insinuated goes 
 much farther. It is evidently meant to condemn all such 
 proceedings as were instituted against Clarke, Iloadly, and 
 Clayton. Now, first, as to the loss of u fame.” Every one 
 knows that neither Dr. Clarke’s, nor Hoadly’s, nor Clayton’s 
 reputation was hurt by the proceedings which were had or 
 prepared against them. Every man, and particularly every 
 thinking man still has, as he would otherwise have had, his 
 own opinion as to their doctrine and abilities. They were 
 only brought more forward by the prosecution. Indeed we 
 must be aware that vain men have often even courted perse¬ 
 cution for the sake of the fame or notoriety w ith which it is 
 
42 6 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 alwajs attended. Secondly, as to “ fortune,” taking it as I 
 must do, thathere, as in the Biographia Britannica, the loss of 
 preferment is meant, for it is clear that in no other way can 
 a man’s fortune be hurt in these days by his real or supposed 
 heterodoxy; as to that point, I say, the proposition is still 
 more unfounded. I deny that the suspending or depriving a 
 man who publicly preaches or writes contrary to the doctrine 
 of the church in which he is authorized to officiate, can be called 
 “ P ersccu <™n,” or even that the loss of stipend whichmayen. 
 sue can fairly becalleda “lossof” theindividual's “fortune.” 
 The proceeding is not meant, if rightly understood and 
 instituted, for punishment; but in order that a trust, a sacred 
 tiust, may be taken from hands either incompetent or unwil¬ 
 ling to discharge it, and transferred to such as are more com. 
 petent or willing to execute that task. The doctrines of the 
 trinity, and of the proper atonement of Christ are, as our 
 church holds, the main and fundamental points of Chris- 
 tianity. Whoever takes preferment, takes it upon the solemn 
 and special trust and confidence that he will maintain those 
 doctrines. When a man finds himself unable from error, or 
 irom what he thinks a greater degree of light breaking in upo« 
 him, to discharge that trust; when he thus feels himself bound 
 to act in opposition to engagements which he has so delibe. 
 ratcly contracted, what should be his conduct ? Should he not 
 himself retire from the situation of which he can no longer 
 fulfil the duties ? And, if |,e will not of himself do that 
 which is so obviously right and just, shall he not be compelled 
 to the performance of this act of justice ? Or shall the flock 
 be left in prey to one who, if onr belief be true, is, in respect 
 of them, no better than a wolf? Surely, at least as long as a 
 chinch is allowed to subsist, she should be allowed also to 
 require from those whqm she sends forth that they shall do 
 her faithful service. As to the “ loss of fortune” to the in. 
 dividual, it is no more than'what happens to every man who 
 has chosen for himself a line of life which by subsequent 
 events, no matter whether of bis own or of others producing 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 427 
 
 he is rendered incapable of pursuing. And this, I trust, may 
 serve also as an answer (in addition to those of Mr. Nares and 
 others) to the most extraordinary pretensions of Mr. Stone, 
 advanced in his late publications, as well as his very indecent 
 attack, upon his diocesan for only doing that which the bishop 
 was most conscientiously bound to do f 
 
 c. 
 
 (Seep. 40.) 
 
 That I am not calumniating, nor even mistaken in what 
 I have here stated, I am enabled to produce a notable testis 
 monyfrom the pen of these gentlemen themselves, who are 
 so well known under the title of evangelical preachers. In 
 the Christian Observer for October last (18C7) a publication 
 which is understood to be conducted by the principal men of 
 note in that party, at page 663, I have found the following 
 description of themselves, which so much agrees with what I 
 hare said, that, had not my sermons been preached in the 
 March preceding, I might have been suspected of having 
 even borrowed my account from them. After giving what 
 they call a summary of the state of the Christian church from 
 the Reformation, to which I certainly should not implicitly 
 subscribe, they come to the period in question, of which they 
 thus speak : u In this state things remained till the appearance 
 il of Wesley and Whitfield. When they arose, their superior 
 iC talents/’ (some of us might not admit this superiority without 
 qualifying it in many important points; but let that pass) 
 i( zeal and incaution naturally still more alarmed the church. 
 u The old cry of puritanism revived under another name; 
 a and many excesses on the part of the new religionists seemed 
 to justify the hostility which was excited against them. 
 
428 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 IS or was this the only influence their movements had upon 
 “ the charch - Their zeal, thank God, was contagious. It 
 communicated itself at first to some members of the estab- 
 hshment (whose number has since greatly increased) who, 
 “ without sanctioning the irregularities or the schism of these 
 <C tw0 emment characters, entered like them upon the apos. 
 U tollc careei '>’’ (which, it seems, they did not when they 
 received ordination from the church) “ of proclaiming loudly 
 “ ths P ec, 'har doctrines of Christianity, and pressing others 
 “ into the service of their crucified Redeemer.” (They for¬ 
 get here to specify those peculiarities by which they have 
 been really distinguished from their brethren, their attach, 
 ment to the doctrines of Calvin.) These men have thus sprung 
 up burning and shining lights in the “ deadness and coldness 
 “of the night of religion.” (Which deadness and coldness 
 we must of course impute to the great ma$s of their brethren, 
 the more sober part of the established church.) « Forming 
 “ no sect >” (Indeed! what then did Mr. Overton mean by 
 his “ true churchmen ascertained?” What do these gentlemen 
 themselves mean by the denomination which they so often use 
 of “evangelical clergy?”) “betraying no self-interested 
 “ Views, preserving in the heart of an old establishment the 
 “vigour of youth; winning separatists to the church by 
 “ dewing them how pure she might be; giving to all who 
 “ love their Lord the right hand of charity,” (that is, encou¬ 
 raging those sectaries, who as they state it elsewhere, (p. 676) 
 
 “ havc no objection to give their attendance at church, when 
 “ a preacher who is true to the church principles, according 
 “ to their construction of them, is in the pulpit.”) “drying 
 “ up the sources of schism ; passing through good report, 
 
 “ and through evil report; they exhibit a beacon to warn 
 >• tnc unwary, to console the friends and alarm the enemies 
 • ‘ of Christ. They go on conquering, and, we hope, to con- 
 
 " <luer > a11 opposition to vital religion and sound morality 
 shall be subdued/’ J 
 
 It is the opinion of some persons that in fifty, nay. in 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 429 
 
 twenty years, the Methodists will prescribe what sort of go¬ 
 vernment there shall be in the church. I cannot but conceive 
 that it is to some such conquest that the latter part of this 
 paragraph alludes. These gentlemen will say indeed that they 
 mean only a conquest over vice and irreligion: but this is the 
 object of their calumniated brethren of the church as well as 
 theirs. Besides there are cant words which are peculiarly 
 useful in discovering men’s intentions. Such in this case is the 
 term 44 vital religion,'* which though it be a perfectly good 
 expression in itself, and as originally applied, has been much 
 more often used of late for the purpose of drawing invidious 
 contrasts, than for real edification. What is said above of 
 44 drying up the sources of schism,” may be better understood 
 by adverting to what follows: and it will be seen that it is 
 by joining with partial separatists, that is by giving up in 
 some degree the establishment, that they expect (very foolishly 
 indeed if they have really any such expectation) to 44 dry up 
 44 the sources of schism.” 44 Strange as it may seem, they 
 go on, 4£ a large part of the establishment refuse to m*foe any 
 44 distinction between this class of men and the separatists, 
 44 to whose increase in fact these persons alone oppose any 
 44 effectual barriers ; and even the vagrant enthusiast (What 
 w ill Messrs, the Wesleyan Methodists say to this sort of lan¬ 
 guage ?) ‘ 4 disowned alike by pious churchmen and sober dis- 
 44 sidents, who from a tub twangs his spiritual nonsense to a 
 <f company of deluded followers, is confounded by the blind* 
 44 ness of their prejudice with the person who has commanded 
 44 listening senates and emancipated a quarter of the globe.” 
 Saying nothing of the fulsomeness as well as falsehood of this 
 panegyric on Mr. Wilberforce, observing only that these 
 saints (as they give themselves out to be) can occasionally deal 
 in flattery ; leaving it with the very modest eulogium which 
 they had before pronounced upon themselves; I shall only 
 remark that Mr. Wilberforce is a partial separatist; I say, at 
 least a partial separatist; for if he be not greatly belied, he 
 is even more connected with dissenters than with churchmen: 
 
430 additional notes. 
 
 I will add too with that class ofdissenters who follow the tenets 
 of Calvin, who tread in the steps of Whitfield rather than of 
 Wesley. It is clear then that this man whom they bring for¬ 
 ward as the leader of their host, as deserving of the highest 
 praise, is a man whom all antiquity would have branded as a 
 schismatic; one too of that description of men whom they 
 themselves adduce (in effect, if not in terms,) as being most 
 likely to bring about the destruction of the church. For thus 
 in a subsequent article (p. 677.) they express themselves. 
 After giving a hint about the negligence of the regular clergy, 
 they say, “ Thesubject however of the increaseof dissenters, 
 or rather of Methodists, and of half.separatists from the 
 church (for the chief increase is of this kind) of men whose 
 “ qualified secession undoubtedly may lead to very important 
 “ C01} sequences to the establishment , cannot be properly dis- 
 “ cussed unless it be viewed on every side. The diffusion of 
 “ knowledge of every kind, the more free exercise of private 
 “ judgment, the increased severity with which men are now 
 u disposed to judge their superiors both ecclesiastical and 
 civil, the diminution of the general reverence for what is 
 “ ancient, conspire perhaps with other causes to set men free 
 
 “ fr0m that s(rict alle S ian “ which they formerly considered 
 ‘ to be due to the church.” Such is the opinion which they 
 have of partial separatists; such, also, as it appears further 
 from this passage, is the mild and philosophical indifference 
 with which the breach of church communion is by these evan¬ 
 gelical gentlemen contemplated and disposed of! Let the 
 reader now seriously consider these passages, in which, as it 
 seems to me, the views of the sect have somewhat unguardedly- 
 been brought forward, and he will not think that I have gone 
 too far when I have stated that the existence of such a body 
 of men as those who style themselves the evangelical clergy has 
 proved an encouragement to schism. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 <m 
 
 D. 
 
 (See p. 53.) 
 
 At the time when I preached this sermon I did not imagine 
 that even before it could reach the press 1 should by anticipa¬ 
 tion actually receive this answer under the form of a sweeping 
 condemnation of not me only but of all the sober members of 
 the church of England. And it is made more pointed by the 
 revival of an old and obsolete name in order to cast odium 
 upon all those who are disposed with seriousness and with 
 earnestness to maintain our present ecclesiastical establishment. 
 We are therefore described as men attached to the <c High 
 ‘ c church school as if there were now such parties in the 
 church as high church and low church. The latter, as every 
 one knows, has for many years disappeared : it did not flou¬ 
 rish greatly even in the days of Hoadly, and seems to have 
 expired with archdeacon Blackburne. It could never in 
 fact be in high repute; for it must always have borne the 
 appearance of hollowness and treachery. What remained of 
 it from the last-mentioned period with more consistency and 
 manliness merged itself in the dissenting interest and pro¬ 
 fessions. All who from that time are or have been of the 
 church (with a very few exceptions, such as cannot constitute 
 a party) are and have been content to be really and bona fide 
 of the church, without disputing or undermining either her 
 faith or discipline. If indeed the self-called evangelical 
 clergy mean to take to themselves the denomination of low 
 church (as from this article there is some appearance of such 
 an intention) let them declare it; let the point be ascertained, 
 and in that case there may be some reason for the distinction. 
 But, I repeat, for several years past, we have been accus¬ 
 tomed to hear of only churchmen and dissenters. Let those 
 
43$ ADDITIONAL NOTES, 
 
 who will, revive the amphibious b'rood, but let it be done 
 openly. Under what class the writer of the article to which 
 I allude means to range himself, may indeed admit of a doubt. 
 From the bustle which he makes about philosophy, I should 
 suspect him to be of the description mentioned by St. Paul, 
 as walking <c after the elements of the world, and not after 
 u - Christ.” The passage of which I am .speaking is found in 
 the Christian Observer (the publication before mentioned as 
 speaking authoritatively the language of the church Metho¬ 
 dists) in the number for May last (1807) at page 318. The 
 writer there, in accounting for the conduct of certain persons 
 attached to the high church school, who,” as he pretends, 
 have shewn great apathy respecting the abolition of the 
 u slave trade,” (another evil report to which the poor church 
 of England men are, it seems, to be exposed) thus gives his 
 opinion ; or rather that of his fellows as well as his own ; for 
 he is speaking in the character of a reviewer, and quite 
 ex cathedrd. u We,” says he, u have always thought the whole 
 of the high church system to be rather defective than erro- 
 neous; and unless we mistake, most of its defects will be 
 found to grow, not unnaturally, out of certain prevailing 
 qualities in the moral and intellectual character of that 
 school. The principals among the class of religionists just 
 ^ mentioned are in general men of vigorous understandings, 
 
 ” and not unfrequently well skilled in ancient learning ; but 
 u they rarely cultivate those habits of free and discursive 
 '•inquiry which we call philosophical, and are therefore ill 
 ” read in human nature, and ignorant of moral and political 
 “ science. In their tempers also, though not deficient in 
 ** many great and masculine qualities, they will often be 
 ” found rather harsh and arbitrary, not sufficiently diffident 
 ” oi themselves, or compassionate towards H eir fellow crea- 
 ** tures.” I rom this agreeable compound of personal cha¬ 
 racter the writer deduces the peculiar creed which he ascribes 
 to the persons in question. u They consider,” he says, 
 
 ' £ God’s government rather as regal than parental. The sys- 
 
 5 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 433 
 
 u tcm is made up altogether of submission and injunction. 
 
 a The objects for effecting which certain regulations were 
 
 * 
 
 “ imposed, and the nature of the submission exacted are never 
 “ inquired into. The behests of the Almighty under the 
 u law and the gospel, to the Jew and the Christian, are placed 
 i( on the same level(If they are, it is because the Scrip¬ 
 ture makes no distinction between them, and only so far as 
 the former are not superseded; because also such is the doc¬ 
 trine of our church even as it is expressed in her seventh arti¬ 
 cle) 6( and many among the high churchmen deem themselves 
 “ morally obliged to read with equal complacency the precept 
 delivered by Samuel to Saul, 4 Go smite the Amalekites,* 
 u and the legacy of peace which our blessed Master bequeath- 
 Ci ed to his disciples." And lower down it is stated that as a 
 consequence of these principles, the following effect is pro¬ 
 duced on the minds of those persons. u If slavery is men- 
 “ tioned in the Old Testament without being condemned, it 
 <,i becomes almost an article of faith that it cannot deserve 
 u condemnation. To be wiser than God is presumption ; 
 u and thus that blessed religion which offers to her sons 
 u spiritual liberty as their richest inheritance, and which 
 c< by a silent influence has established social freedom, is 
 u made auxiliary to the defence not only of slavery but of a 
 u traffic in slaves infinitely more wicked and detestable than 
 the worst form of bondage which the world has yet wit- 
 “ nessed.” Here first observing that, according to these men 
 themselves, it is spiritual wisdom only that is promised in 
 scripture, I may be allowed to pause: I may be permitted to 
 ask who these men a*£ that charge the u high church school” 
 with this want of common feeling? Why, forsooth, men who 
 have over and over again intimated their opinion that the 
 doctrine of our articles is Calvinistic: who have told us that 
 Mr. Overton, when vindicating Mr. Romaine and Dr. 
 Hawker, and persons thinking like Mr. Romaine and Dr, 
 Hawker, has fully established this point; who themselves 
 profess to be Calvinistic; who therefore if they be consistent, 
 
434 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 can, with perfect complacency, contemplate the “ horribih 
 dcctetum , which has, according to them, from the begin, 
 rung, without any consideration of what might be their efforts 
 to serve God, doomed the far greater part .of mankind to 
 inevitable perdition! Who as to themselves, with a reasonable 
 share of that confidence which they impute to us, have decided 
 that they are of the number of the elect. These are the men 
 who are to teach us humanity, meekness,and liberality; who 
 are to complain of the harshness and arrogance of their more 
 regular brethren. What have wc not heard, and what may 
 we not believe of the unfeclingness and obduracy with which 
 these men, or at least the more ignorant members of their sect, 
 a5C won * to look down upon and arraign those whom they 
 consider as the “ perdita massa ?” On the other hand the 
 hign church men (if the word must be used) have been always 
 considered as leaning to Arminianism. Charity, therefore, 
 whether in thought or deed, occupies a much more prominent 
 part in (heir creed than in that of their detractors. All their 
 habits in fact give the lie to the imputation here cast upon 
 them. Where indeed did this critic discover among them that 
 ignorance of mankind, and that want of philosophy; if by 
 philosophy be meant only that proper and fair use of reason 
 which Christianity both warrants and requires ? Did he find 
 it in the chief opponents of Hoadly ? In either of the two 
 Sherlocks, father or son ? Did he find it in Seeker, who was 
 particularly an object of attack to Blackburne, on account 
 of his supposed high church principles ? Where are the con¬ 
 siderable characters, living or dead, upon whom he can fix 
 this notable charge of ignorance and bigotry ? Indeed, I 
 thought that the appearance of those great apostles Messrs. 
 
 M eslcy and Whitfield, had only been called for, and was 
 become salutary and edifying, most pointedly because of the 
 too great predominance of this philosophizing spirit among 
 the divines of our church ; from the excess of liberality which 
 before these times prevailed ; nay, I think the reader will see 
 this plainly enough declared in this very publication, at the 
 pages referred to in the preceding note. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES, 
 
 435 
 
 W e might indeed wonder not only upon what the accusa- 
 lion is founded, hut why it is brought forward, if the purpose 
 were not so expressly disclosed. It seems then that upon this 
 same high church, that is, upon the real church of England, 
 is to be cast the odium of being an enemy to liberty : and this 
 from not having taken a part in the opinion of these gentle¬ 
 men sufficiently active in the abolition of the slave trade. 
 This too, I suppose, will form a principal feature in her con¬ 
 demnation, when the time shall come for her overthrow to be 
 completed. This is a charge however, to which she will not 
 plead guilty ; nay, which she will repel with indignation. 
 Her true sons are as averse to every sort of slavery ; are as 
 little arbitrary in their principles as any men alive : I might 
 add (according to the well known saying of a Frenchman, 
 Qui dit Dcmocrate , dit tiran ) more than the sectaries who 
 defame them But the fact is simply this : the dissenters, 
 including the church Methodists, treated the abolition of the 
 slave trade as a party question ; they made a point of sup¬ 
 porting it in a body, and therefore were or appeared to be 
 unanimous upon the subject. The real churchmen, besides 
 that, as being the more numerous body, they were not so 
 likely to unite in any case, did not so treat it, nor made any 
 such point. Every man therefore acting and thinking accord¬ 
 ing to the particular bent of his mind, or as circumstances 
 might influence his judgment, the consequence as that not 
 only they were divided in opinion, but held different shades 
 of opinion. Many were most decided abolitionists, while 
 others hesitated. This is what would have happened among 
 the dissenters also, if the free range which they are wont to 
 give to their ideas had not been repressed by the consideration 
 above stated. What indeed might be the differences of opinion 
 
 thus entertained by those who were content to think for 
 
 « ^ 
 
 themselves it is needless now to inquire : only I will mention 
 that some might and did think that it might be as well if the 
 slave trade were only regulated ; and the abolition of it should 
 not precede but follow the abolition of slavery. Why such an 
 
436 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 idea was not more, generally entertained may be easily enough 
 accounted for. Of slavery it is universally, or almost univer¬ 
 sally agreed, that the abolition must be gradual. 66 Every well 
 44 informed abolitionist,” says this same critic (Christ. Observ. 
 ub. supr. p. 327 ) (i deprecates an immediate emancipation as 
 u sincerely as the most prejudiced colonist.” How indeed 
 was slavery abolished among the primitive Christians? How 
 was villeinage made to disappear in this country ? Butmea- 
 sures which are only to operate gradually could, as it is evi¬ 
 dent, leave no present harvest of popularity, of fame, or of 
 influence to be reaped by the authors of them. Their wis¬ 
 dom could only be proved, and their merit ascertained by 
 time: that too, at a period when they would have ceased 
 to be in the contemplation of any but the sober and reflecting 
 part of mankind. They could not therefore have given cur¬ 
 rency to any such flights as those which I have mentioned in 
 the preceding note respecting Mr. Wilberforce. Why I said 
 that the compliment there paid to that gentleman was both 
 false and fulsome, the reader may now see; for, first, it was 
 not Mr. Wilberforce that u drew listening senates,” but Mr. 
 Fox and Mr. Pitt. And, secondly, neither Mr. Pitt nor Mr. 
 Fox, nor Mr. Wilberforce, nor, 1 will add, Mr. Clarkson, 
 have u emancipated ” any u quarter of the globe.” What 
 measures will now he taken for the abolition of slavery itself 
 remains a question. It may be a question also whether the 
 abolition of the slave trade will or will not contribute to the 
 furthering of this more important abolition. That both ques¬ 
 tions may be resolved in the way most favourable to liberty, 
 and most conducive to the eternal as well as temporal welfare 
 of the negroes, is, I am sure, the sincere wish of every true 
 member of the church of England. Wc wish too that what¬ 
 ever may be attempted may be carried on under the auspices 
 of government itself; more especially the providing for the 
 religious instruction of the slaves and their admission to all the 
 benefits of the Christian covenant. We wish it, because 
 those are duties undoubtedly inc.imbent upon every govern- 
 
additional notes. 
 
 437 
 
 wnt, and because thus only will be obviated the complaints 
 made, whether justly or falsely, that unsound doctrines are 
 instilled into the minds of the catechumens, and ideas of in¬ 
 subordination conveyed, together with the great truths of 
 Christianity. This is what I am well aware will not be uni¬ 
 versally approved of. There are, I am afraid, persons who 
 do not like even a good thing the better for being done re¬ 
 gularly, and according (o established order. They know, 
 and we know, that when any object is left to be accom¬ 
 plished by irregular exertion, a much wider field is opened to 
 the gratification of individual ambition and vanity. One 
 measure only I will venture to point out, as being every way 
 of importance. It should somehow or other be established 
 as a law, that in all transfers of property the families of 
 slaves should not be separated : that the parent should not 
 be taken from the child, nor the husband from the wife. 
 Without some such provision it is evident that (setting aside 
 
 the misery which it produces), neither conjugal fidelity, nor 
 the proper education of infants, can be looked for. 
 
 But, since it has been thus brought forward, let me 
 be allowed to say a word or two more respecting this same 
 “high church school:” the rather, as it may serve o 
 ascertain the principles of these gentlemen who appear as 
 its opponents, who would thus revive the party of Hoadly and 
 of Blackburne. We deem then (it may be said) too 
 highly of episcopacy ; we consider it as of divine institution, 
 and therefore not to be departed from. Certainly we do 
 think that it is not to be departed from without such a neces- 
 sity as does not exist in this kingdom ; and we leave it to 
 those churches abroad who have made the departure to jus¬ 
 tify themselves, as to them may seem best. But we deem 
 also very highly of the priesthood. We do so ; but we do t 
 not on account of the priests themselves, but on account of 
 the ministry which is entrusted to them, and to them only, 
 and from which such advantages are derived to the people at 
 
43S 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 large. We look upon them, as the ambassadors of Christ 
 duly commissioned, and we conceive that the benefits which 
 are to be derived from a participation of the Sacraments will 
 be more certainly, it not then only obtained, when adminis* 
 tered by those who are thus duly commissioned. Now I am 
 afraid that in both these points we shall not be supported by 
 our (so called) evangelical brethren any more than by the dis¬ 
 senters. They are, as they tell us, indifferent about-forms: 
 they are for the substance; for vital religion, wherever they 
 can find it. u Vital religion” is to them what ce sincerity’’ 
 was to Iioadly. It supplies all defects. The misfortune is, 
 
 . *bat both the one and the other are qualities of which God 
 only can judge, and as to which a man may easily deceive 
 himself. It is therefore as unwise as it is unwarrantable to 
 sacrifice that which they choose to call forms, but which, if it 
 be commanded, must be something essential, to the alleged 
 greater facility of obtaining that which no man can ever be 
 sure that he has found ; which at least may as well be ob¬ 
 tained (we say much better) in the regular way, as by irre- 
 gular means; in the church as out of the church. As to the 
 sacraments also, the evangelical clergy seem in their ideas to 
 fall very short of the doctrine contained in our liturgy and 
 articles. They will not allow that regeneration takes place 
 in baptism ; and consequently do not assent to the rubric, 
 which declares that children which are baptized, dying 
 “ before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved.” 
 I suspect too that there is the same deficiency in respect of 
 the other sacrament. I suspect it, as well from the general 
 tenor of their language, as from observations of my own. 
 But as one proof of this, I will venture to adduce what has 
 lately happened in the East Indies, in the case of certain 
 evangelical preachers, and under the auspices of certain 
 evangelical rulers ; for of this description, it is generally un¬ 
 derstood, are the present leading directors of the company. 
 It will not be objected that this is a distant quarter of. the 
 globe, for at this moment the attention of the religious part 
 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 439 
 
 of the nation is particularly directed to that country. And 
 it will be remembered that all which passes there is under the 
 control of governors here at home. The facts which I al¬ 
 lude to are these . One of the oldest chaplains at Calcutta 
 is, and has been for several years past, in the habit of admi¬ 
 nistering Ihe communion, though confessedly only in deacon s 
 orders: and I am told that it is even doubtful if he has any 
 ordination at all. He justifies himself by saying that he has a 
 call : and, as I am assured, holds all ecclesiastical authority 
 and power to be useless. lie is further stated to me as 
 preaching antinomian, that is, high Calvinistic doctrines. 
 In all this he is supported by several of his brethren, one of 
 them a man of some note, and particularly by four of those 
 who have been lately sent sent out. The same thing took 
 place at Madras. Dr. Ker, the senior chaplain (the same 
 gentleman who was formerly chaplain at St. Helena), did 
 also, when only in deacon’s orders, administer the sacrament. 
 Representations on the subject have been transmitted from 
 both presidencies, but, as far as appears, without effect. And 
 one of the other chaplains having remonstrated against Dr. 
 Ker’s irregularities, lias, on that account, suffered something 
 very like persecution, and is now in England endeavouring 
 to procure redress. Such is the state of the church in India, 
 while men are disputing whether any or what sort of mis¬ 
 sionaries shall be sent thither. It should seem that while there 
 is this total disregard of religious order and edification, while 
 the sacraments of Christ are thus (speaking according to the 
 sense of our church) profaned, missionaries may preach, but 
 conversions will hardly follow. It is time indeed that go¬ 
 vernment should seriously attend to tne supplying of the 
 religious wants both of Europeans, and of natives, in that 
 country. I myself believe that the latter would gladly re¬ 
 ceive the truth, if it were properly proposed to them, and 
 recommended by the example of those to whom they are in 
 the habit of looking up as to their superiors. Rut whatever 
 
 %> 
 
440 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 may be the case with regard to them, surely, at least, our 
 own worship ought to be pure and regular. Surely some 
 check should be interposed to prevent a contempt of estab¬ 
 lished order in those who appoint to such situations. If no 
 care be taken to ascertain the qualifications of the chaplains 
 sent out, the pulpits of Calcutta and of Fort St. George may 
 as well be filled by professed sectaries, as by churchmen of 
 this description. 
 
 Let it not be supposed that I have gone too far in the 
 several discussions which I have here entered into. I have 
 touched upon nothing but what materially concerns the credit 
 of our national church. What I have said respecting the 
 sacraments, both here, and in note A. is every way material 
 to the subject of these Lectures. If the sacraments have been 
 instituted by Christ himself, as special means or instruments 
 of grace ; and if further he have, as we contend, appointed a 
 particular description of men to be “ dispensers of those 
 
 mysteries,” it must necessarily be a strong argument for 
 abiding in communion with the established church, if in her 
 most assuredly, perhaps, as we also contend, solely are found 
 those ministers and dispensers, and, of course, those special 
 means of grace. 
 
 The reader may observe farther the notable consistency of 
 these editors of the Christian Observer ; according to whom 
 we are at one moment to be tied down to the strictest notions 
 of justikeation by faith alone, and at another be invited to 
 launch out into the wildest regions of discursive philosophy. 
 
 Nor let any man imagine that the publications which I 
 have quoted, and upon which I have reasoned, are too insig¬ 
 nificant to deserve so much notice. It was many years ago- 
 that somebody observed that 66 learning seemed to be retiring 
 <c to dictionary-makers, and compilers of magazines,” and 
 surely this is much more true of the present times. Every 
 man must see how greatly the editors of magazines and re¬ 
 views, nay, and of newspapers, contribute to form the pub- 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 441 
 
 lie opinion : and what numbers there are who hardly read 
 any thing else, and who trust to no other guides. But, 
 further, the magazines which I have quoted are the declared 
 oracles of their respective eccts, and actually dispense among 
 the members at large those flowers of learning, as well as of 
 piety, which it is the appointed task of their most able and 
 approved teachers to collect. We have indeed no other 
 equally authorised and authentic repository of their tenets, 
 whether religious or political. 
 
 E.' 
 
 (See p. 178, n. 24.) 
 
 Extract from the 13th chapter of the 2d book of Cardinal 
 de Cusa de Concordantia Catholica. (See his works, printed 
 at Basil, 1565, p. 726 ; or Schardius’s Collection de Juris- 
 dictione, &c. Basil, 1566, p. 528.) 44 Sed pro investigando 
 
 44 veritatem illius, an scilicet de jure positivo omnes prelati 
 44 inferiores papa, derivative scilicet ab ipso papa jurisdic- 
 44 tionem habeant, ut notent doct. in c. quae ab ecclesiarum, 
 44 praesertim dominus fr. 3. Oportet primo, si hoc verum 
 44 foret, Petrum aliquod a Christo singularitatis recepisse, et 
 44 papam in hoc successorem esse. Sed scimus, quod Petrus 
 44 nihil plus potestatis a Christo recepit aliis apostolis. 21 
 44 distinct, in novo. 24. q. 1. loquitur. Nihil enim dictum 
 44 est ad Petrum quod aliis dictum non sit. Nonnc sicut 
 44 Petro dictum sit quodcunque ligaveris supra terrain : ita 
 44 aliis, quodcunque ligaveritis ? et quanquam Petro dictum 
 44 est Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram : tamen per petram 
 44 Christum, quern confessus est, intelligimus. Et si Petrus 
 44 per petram tanquam lapis fundamenti ecclesiae intelligi de- 
 44 beret: tunc secundum sanctum Hieronymum ita similiter 
 4( alu apostoli fuerunt lapides fundamenti ecelesise. Do quibus 
 
 G G 
 
442 
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 Ci habetur apocalypsis penultimo, ubi per 12 lapides funda- 
 u rnenti civitatisHierusalem sanctae ecclesisenemodubitatapos- 
 cc tolos intelligi debere. Et si Pelro dictiim est, Pasce oves ; 
 6 * tamen manifestum est quod ilia pascentia est verbo et ex- 
 c * emplo. Ita etiam secundum sanctum Augustinum, in 
 u glossa super eodem verbo, omnibus idem prceceptum est 
 cc ibi : euntes in universum mundum. Matth. &Marc.ultim : 
 C£ nil reperitur Petro aliud dictum, quod potestatem importet 
 (c aliquam. Ideo recte dicimus, onmes apostolus in potes-, 
 u tatem cum Petro ^quales.’’ 
 
 f.: 
 
 (See p. 256, n. 1.) 
 
 A learned and respectable friend of mine lias furnished me 
 with the following proofs of the extraordinary and blas¬ 
 phemous devotion which is paid to St. Januarius in Naples. 
 They consist of two inscriptions • the first of which is rather 
 imperfect, he having taken only the most material words, as 
 they struck him at the moment; but they are such as suf¬ 
 ficiently support the position, on account of which they are 
 here adduced. 
 
 Part of an inscription in a church over the catacombs at 
 Naples :— 
 
 <£ Divo Januario 
 
 u Franc. Buoncompagno Card. Antistes 
 “ Ut novissime eruptas Vesuv. fiammas 
 u numine suo extingueret 
 u urbem incendio liberaret 
 46 22d Dec. 176T. 
 
 4,1 Sacro cum capite et admiraudo sanguine,’’ 
 
 Ac. 
 
 4 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTES. 
 
 443 
 
 Inscription on a monument over the Capuan gate at Na¬ 
 ples, on which is the statue of St. Januarius:— 
 
 44 Divo Januario 
 44 urbis Neap, indigetum principi 
 44 quod Mon. Yes. an. 1707, cum maxima 
 44 ignis eruplione facta dies oomplures magis 
 44 magisque fervebat, jam ut certissimum urbi toti 
 44 incendium minaretur sacri ostentu 
 44 capitis in ara hie exstructa excidiosos* impetas 
 
 c 
 
 44 extemplo oppresserit et oipnia serenarit 
 44 Neapolitan! 
 
 44 ejus divini beneficii, ut et innumerhm 
 44 aliorum, quibus a hello fame 
 44 pestilentia terras motu urbem 
 44 civitatemque liberarit memores 
 
 44 P. P.” 
 
 r 
 
 * Quaere as to this word, I can find it in no lexicographer,. 
 
 V I N I S. 
 
 C. Slower, Fruiter, Futernoi’er Row . 
 
NEW WORKS 
 
 Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orme, 
 Paternoster Row . 
 
 1. LECTURES delivered in the Parish Church of Wake- 
 held, in the Year 1S02, on that Part of the Liturgy of the 
 
 ^ n §l an( l contained in the Morning Prayer. Rv- 
 IHOMAS ROGERS, M. A. Master of the Grammar 
 School, Afternoon Lecturer of St. John’s, and Sunday Even¬ 
 ing Lecturer of the Parish Church in Wakefield. In 4 vols 
 crown 8vo. Price II. 4s. in Boards. 
 
 2. DISCOURSES on various SUBJECTS. By JEREMY 
 TAT LOR, D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to King Charles the 
 f irst, and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor. A new 
 Edition, in 3 vols. Svo. Price 11. 7s. in Boards. 
 
 3. The RULE and EXERCISES of HOLY LIVING 
 in which are described the Means and Instruments of ob! 
 taming every Virtue, and the Remedies against every Vice ‘ 
 and Considerations serving to the resisting^!! Temptations * 
 together with Prayers, containing the whole Duty of a 
 Christian, and the Parts of Devotion fitted for all Occasions 
 and furnished for all Necessities. By JEREMY TAYLOR* 
 D. D. arid edited by the Rev. Thomas Thirhvall, M. A l 
 a he 27th Edition, in 1 vol. Svo. Price 7s. in Boards. 
 
 4. The RULE and EXERCISES of HOLY DYING 
 The l?th Edition. By JER. TAYLOR, D. D. In 1 vol’ 
 Svo. Price 7s. 
 
 а. PAROCHIAL DIVINITY ; or Sermons on various 
 Subjects. By CHARLES ABBOT, D. D. F. L. S. Chaplain 
 io his Grace the Duke of Bedford, Vicar of Oakley and 
 (jrokungton, in Bedfordshire, and late Fellow of New Col- 
 lege, Oxford. In I vol. Svo. Price 9s. in Boards. 
 
 i n.e Sermons in this \ olume, in number twenty-seven 
 are on interesting and important subjects, enforced with a 
 zeal and earnestness which do great credit to the Author’s 
 feelings/’— Ox. Rev. 
 
 б. An EXPOSITION of the HISTORIC WRITINGS 
 of the NEW TESTAMENT, with Reflections subjoined to 
 each Section. By the late TIMOTHY KENRICK. With 
 
 Memoirs of Ihe Author. In 3 vols. large Svo. Price 2 
 Guineas in Boards. 
 
 7. JUDGMENT and MERCY for AFFLICTED 
 SOULS ; or, Meditations, Soliloquies, and Prayers. By 
 1 RAN CIS QU ARLES. With a Biographical and Critical 
 Introduction, by Reginalde Wolf, Esq. In 1 vol. crown 
 Svo. A new Edition, with a Head of the Author, by Free, 
 mail. Price 7s, ia Boards. 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4752C0 _ 
 
 89 - 02-69 22192