as many eâ—â—rors as they please to bring in is their Doctriâ—â— of Infallibility And this they are very stâ—â— and peremptory in tho they are not agreeâ— among themselves where this Infallibility â— seated whether in the Pope alone or a Couâ—â—cil alone or in both together or in the diffusiâ—â— body of Christians But they are sure they havâ— it tho they know not where it is And is this no prejudice against it can anâ— man think that this priviledg was at firâ—â— conferred upon the Church of Rome and thaâ— Christians in all Ages did believe it and haâ—â— constant recourse to it for determining theiâ— differences and yet that that very Churcâ— which hath enjoyed and used it so long shoulâ— now be at a loss where to find it Nothing could have fallen out more unluckily thaâ— that there should be such differences among them about that which they pretend to be thâ— onely means of ending all differences There is not the least intimation in Scripture of this priviledg conferr'd upon the Roman Church nor do the Apostes in all theiâ— Epistles ever so much as give the least direction to Christians to appeal to the Bishop oâ— Rome for a determination of the many differences which even in those times happen'd among them And it is strange they should be so silent in this matter when there were so many occasions to speak of it if our Saviour had plainly appointed such an infallible Judge of controversies for this very end to decide the differences that should happen among Christians It is strange that the ancient Fathers in their disputes with Hereticks should never appeal to this Judg nay it is strange they should not constantly do it in all cases it being so short and expedite a way for the ending of controversies And this very consideration to a wise man is instead of a thousand arguments to satisfie him that in those times no such thing was believed in the world Now this Doctrine of infallibility if it be not true is of so much the more pernicious consequence to Christianity because the conceit of it does confirm them that think they have it in all their other errors and gives them a pretence of assuming an Authority to themselves to impose their own fancies and mistakes upon the whole Christian world 2. Their Doctrine about Repentance which consists in confessing their sins to the Priest which if it be but accompanied with any degree of contrition does upon absolution received from the Priest put them into a state of salvation tho they have lived the most lewd and debauched lives that can be imagin'd than which nothing can be more plainly destructive of a good life For if this be true all the hazard that the most wicked man runs of his salvation is only the danger of so sudden a death as gives him no space for confession and absolution A case that happens so rarely that any man that is strongly addicted to his lusts will be content to venture his salvation upon this hazard and all the arguments to a good life will be very insignificant to a man that hath a mind to be wicked when remission of sins may be had upon such cheap terms 3. The Doctrine of Purgatory By which they mean an estate of temporary punishments after this life from which men may be released and translated into Heaven by the prayers of the living and the sacrifice of the Mass That this Doctrine was not known in the primitive Church nor can be proved from Scripture we have the free acknowledgment of as learned and eminent men as any of that Church which is to acknowledg that it is a superstructure upon the Christian Religion And though in one sense it be indeed a buildding of Gold and Silver upon the foundation of Christianity considering the vast revenues which this Doctrine and that of Indulgences which depends upon it brings into that Church yet I doubt not but in the Apostles sense it will be found to be hay and stubble But how groundless soever it be it is too gainful a Doctrine to be easily parted withall 4. The Doctrine of Transubstantiation A hard word but I would to God that were the worst of it the thing is much more difficult I have taken some pains to consider other Reâ—igions that have been in the world and I must freely declare that I never yet in any of them met with any Article or Proposition imposed upon the belief of men half so unreasonable and hard to be believed as this is And yet this in the Romish Church is esteemed one of the most principal Articles of the Christian Faith though there is no more certain foundation for it in Scripture than for our Saviour's being substantially changed into all those things which are said of him as that he is a rock a vine a door and a hundred other things But this is not all This Doctrine hath not onely no certain Foundation in Scripture but I have a far heavier charge against it namely that it undermines the very foundation of Christianity it self And surely nothing ought to be admitted to be a part of the Christian Doctrine which destroys the reason of our belief of the whole And that this Doctrine does so will appear evidently if we consider what was the main argument which the Apostles used to convince the world of the truth of Christianity and that was this That our blessed Saviour the Author of this Doctrine wrought such and such miracles and particularly that he rose again from the dead And this they proved because they were eye-witnesses of his miracles and had seen him and coâ—â—versed with him after he was risen from tâ—â— dead But what if their senses did deceiâ— them in this matter then it cannot be dâ—â—nied but that the main proof of Christianiâ—â— falls to the ground Well! We will now suppose as tâ—â— Church of Rome does Transubstantiation 〈◊〉 have been one principal part of the Christiâ—â— Doctrine which the Apostles preached Bâ— if this Doctrine be true then all mens senâ—â— are deceived in a plain sensible matter wherâ— in 't is as hard for them to be deceived as 〈◊〉 any thing in the world For two things caâ— hardly be imagin'd more different than little bit of wafer and the whole body of man So that the Apostles perswading men to bâ—â—lieve this Doctrine perswaded them not 〈◊〉 trust their senses and yet the argument whicâ— they used to perswade them to this was buiâ—â— upon the direct contrary principle that meâ— senses are to be trusted For if they be noâ— then notwithstanding all the evidence the Aâ—postles offer'd for the resurrection of our Saâ—viour he might not be risen and so the faitâ— of Christians was vain So that they repreâ—sent the Apostles as absurd as is possible viâ— going about to perswade men out of theâ—â— senses by virtue of an argument the whoâ— strength whereof depends upon the certainâ—ty of sense And now the matter is brought
to a fair â—e If the testimony of sense be to be relied on then Transubstantiation is false If it be â—t then no man is sure that Christianity is â—e For the utmost assurance that the Aâ—â—stles had of the truth of Christianity was â—e testimony of their own senses concerning â—r Saviour's miracles and this testimony â—ery man hath against Transubstantiation â—om whence it plainly follows that no man â—o not the Apostles themselves had more â—ason to believe Christianity to be true than â—ery man hath to believe Transubstantiation 〈◊〉 be false And we who did not see our Saâ—â—our's Miracles as the Apostles did and â—â—ve only a credible relation of them but do â—e the Sacrament have less evidence of the â—â—uth of Christianity than of the falshood of â—ransubstantiation But cannot God impose upon the senses of â—en and represent things to them otherwise â—an they are Yes undoubtedly And if he â—ath revealed that he doth this are we not 〈◊〉 believe him Most certainly But then we â—ight to be assured that he hath made such a â—evelation which Assurance no man can have â—e certainty of sense being taken away I shall press the business a little farther â—upposing the Scripture to be a Divine Revelaâ—ion and that these words This is my Body 〈◊〉 they be in Scripture must necessarily be taken in the strict and literal sense I ask noâ— What greater evidence any man has th 〈…〉 these words This is my Body are in the 〈…〉 ble than every man has that the Bread 〈…〉 not chang'd in the Sacrament Nay no m 〈…〉 has so much for we have only the eviden 〈…〉 of one sense that these words are in the Bibâ—â— but that the Bread is not chang'd we have t 〈…〉 concurring testimony of several of our sens 〈…〉 In a word if this be once admmitted th 〈…〉 the Senses of all men are deceiv'd in one 〈…〉 the most plain sensible matters that can b 〈…〉 there is no certain means left either to conv 〈…〉 or prove a Divine Revelation to men nor 〈…〉 there any way to confute the grossest imp 〈…〉 stures in the World For if the clear eviden 〈…〉 of all mens senses be not sufficient for this p 〈…〉 pose let any man if he can find a better a 〈…〉 more convincing argument 5. I will instance but in one Doctrine mo 〈…〉 And that shall be their Doctrine of depos 〈…〉 Kings in case of Heresie and absolving th 〈…〉 Subjects from their Allegiance to them A 〈…〉 this is not a meer speculative Doctrine b 〈…〉 hath been put in practice many a time by t 〈…〉 Bishops of Rome as every one knows that 〈…〉 vers'd in History For the troubles and co 〈…〉 fusions which were occasion'd by this ve 〈…〉 thing make up a good part of the History 〈…〉 several Ages I hope no body expects that I should take the pains to shew that this was not the Doctrine of our Saviour and his Apostles nor of the Primitive Christians The Papists are many of them so far from pretending this that in some times and places when it is not seasonable and for their purpose we have much a-do to perswade them that ever it was their Doctrine But if Transubstantiation be their Doctrine this is for they came both out of the same Forge I mean the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the Third And if as they tell us Transubstantiation was then establish'd so was this And indeed one would think they were Twins and brought forth at the same time they are so like one another both of them so mostrously unreasonable II. I come now in the second place to consider some Practices of the Church of Rome which I am afraid will prove as bad as her Doctrines I shall instance in these five 1. Their celebrating of their Divine service in an unknown Tongue And that not only contrary to the practice of the Primitive Church and to the great end and design of Religious Worship which is the Edification of those who are concerned in it and it is hard to imagine how men can be edified by what they do not understand but likewise in direct Contradiction to St. Paul who hath no less than a whole Chapter wherein he confutes this Practice as fully and condemns it as plainly as any thing is condemned in the whole Bible And they that can have the face to maintain that this Practice was not condemned by St. Paul or that it was allowed and used in the first Ages of Christianity need not be ashamed to set up for the defence of any Paradox in the World 2. The Communion in one kind And that notwithstanding that even by their own acknowledgment our Saviour instituted it in both kinds and the Primitive Church administred it in both kinds This I must acknowledg is no addition to Christianity but a sacrilegious taking away of an essential part of the Sacrament For the Cup is as essential a part of the Institution as the Bread and they might as well and by the same Authority take away the one as the other and both as well as either 3. Their worshipping of Images Which practice notwithstanding all their Distinctions about it which are no other but what the Heathens used in the same case is as point-blank against the second Commandment as a deliberate and malicious killing of a man is against the sixth But if the case be so plain a man would think that at least the Teachers and Guides of that Church should be sensible of it Why they are so and afraid the people should be so too and therefore in their ordinary Catechisms and Manuals of Devotion they leave out the second Commandment and divide the tenth into two to make up the number lest if the common people should know 〈…〉 t their Consciences should start at the doing of a thing so directly contrary to the plain command of God 4. The worshipping of the bread and wine in the Eucharist out of a false and groundless perswasion that they are substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ Which if it be not true and it hath good fortune if it be for certainly it is one of the most incredible things in the whole World then by the confession of several of their own learned Writers they are guilty of gross Idolatry 5. The worship and invocation of Saints and Angels and particularly of the Virgin Mary which hath now for some Ages been a principal part of their Religion Now a man may justly wonder that so considerable a part of Religion as they make this to be should have no manner of foundation in the Scripture Does our Saviour any where speak one word concerning the worshipping of Her Nay does he not take all occasions to restrain all extravagant apprehensions and imaginations concerning honour due to Her as foreseeing the degeneracy of the Church in this thing When he was told that his Mother and Brethren were without Who says he are
not believe â—hem cannot be saved But a great many Paâ—ists tho they believe these things to be no matters of Faith yet they think those that â—old them may be saved and they are geneâ—ally very favourable towards them But now â—ccording to this argument they ought all to â—e of their opinion in these points because â—oth sides are agreed that they that hold them may be saved but one side positively says that men cannot be saved if they do not hold them But my Text furnisheth me with as good â—n instance to this purpose as can be desired St. Paul here in the Text acknowledgeth the possibility of the salvation of those who built â—ay and stubble upon the foundation of Christianity that they might be saved tho with great difficulty and as it were out of the fire But now among those builders with hay and stubble there were those who denied the possibility of St. Paul's salvation and of those who were of his mind We are told of some who built the Jewish Ceremonies and Observances upon the foundation of Christianity and said that unless men were Circumcised and kept the Law of Moses they could not be saved So that by this argument St. Paul and his followers ought to have gone over to those Judaizing Christians because it was acknowledged on both sides that they might be saved But these Judaizing Christians were as unchariâ—â—â—ble to St. Paul and other Christians as tâ— Church of Rome is now to us for they saâ— positively that they could not be saved But 〈◊〉 any man think that St. Paul would have beâ—â— moved by this argument to leave a safe anâ— certain way of salvation for that which wâ— only possible and that with great difficult and hazard The argument you see is the vâ—â—ry same and yet it concludes the wrong wayâ— which plainly shews that it is a contingent argâ—â—ment and concludes uncertainly and by chance and therefore no man ought to be moved by iâ— III. I shall take notice of some gross absurdâ—â—ties that follow from it I shall mention buâ— these two 1. According to this principle it is alwayâ— safest to be on the uncharitable side And yet uncharitableness is as bad an evidence either of a true Christian or a true Church as a man would wish Charity is one of the most essential marks of Christianity and what the Apostle saith of particular Christians is as true of whole Churches that tho they have all Faith yet if they have not Charity they are nothing I grant that no Charity teacheth men to see others damned and not to tell them the danger of their condition But it is to be consider'd that the damning of men is a very hard thing and therefore whenever we do it the case must be wonderfully plain And is â—t so in this matter They of the Church of Rome cannot deny but that we embrace all â—he Doctrines of our Saviour contain'd in the Apostles Creed and determined by the four â—â—rst General Councils And yet they will â—ot allow this and a good life to put us withâ—n a possibility of salvation because we will â—ot submit to all the innovations they would â—mpose upon us And yet I think there is scarce â—ny Doctrine or Practice in difference between â—hem and us which some or other of their most learned Writers have not acknowledged â—ither not to be sufficiently contained in Scripâ—ure or not to have been held and practised â—y the primitive Church so that nothing an excuse their uncharitableness towards us â—nd they pay dear for the little advantage â—hey get by this argument for they do what 〈◊〉 them lies to make themselves no Christians â—hat they may prove themselves the truer and more Christian Church A medium which â—e do not desire to make use of 2. If this argument were good then by this â—ick a man may bring over all the world to â—gree with him in an error which another â—oes not account damnable whatever it be â—rovided he do but damn all those that do â—ot hold it and there wants nothing but â—â—nfidence and uncharitableness to do this But 〈◊〉 there any sence that another mans boldâ—ess and want of charity should be an argument to move me to be of his opinion cannot illustrate this better than by the diâ—â—ference between a skilful Physician and 〈◊〉 Mountebank A learned and skilful Physiciaâ— is modest and speaks justly of things Hâ— says that such a method of cure which hâ— hath directed is safe and withall that thaâ— which the Mountebank prescribes may possibly do the work but there is great hazard and danger in it But the Mountebank who neveâ— talks of any thing less than infallible cures and always the more Mountebank the strongâ—er pretence to infallibiliiy he is positive thaâ— that method which the Physician prescribeâ— will destroy the Patient but his receipt is infallible and never fails Is there any reason in this case that this man should carry it meerly by his confidence And yet if this argument be good the safest way is to reject the Physicians advice and to stick to the Mountebanks For both sides are agreed that there is a possibility of cure in the Mountebank's method but not in the Physicians and so the whole force of the argument lies in the confidence of an ignorant man IV. This argument is very unfit to work upon those to whom it is propounded For either they believe we say true in this or not If they think we do not they have no reason to be moved by what we say If they think we do why do they not take in all that we say in this matter Namely â—at tho it be possible for some in the comâ—union of the Roman Church to be saved â—et it is very hazardous and that they are 〈◊〉 a safe condition already in our Church And â—hy then should a bare possibility accompaâ—'d with infinite and apparent hazard be an â—rgument to any man to run into that danger Lastly This argument is very improper to â—e urged by those who make use of it Half â—f the strength of it lies in this that we Proâ—estants acknowledg that it is possible a Papist â—ay be saved But why should they lay any â—â—ress upon this What matter is it what we Hereticks say who are so damnably mistaken â—n all other things Methinks if there were â—o other reason yet because we say it it should â—eem to them to be unlikely to be true But I â—erceive when it serves for their purpose we â—ave some little credit and authority among â—hem By this time I hope every one is in some measure satisfied of the weakness of this argument which is so transparent that no wise man â—an honestly use it and he must have a very â—dd understanding that can be cheated by it The truth is it is a casual and contingent argument and sometimes it concludes right and â—ftner wrong and therefore no prudent man â—an be moved by it except only
A SERMON PREACHED AT White-Hall Before His Late MAJESTY By JOHN TILLOTSON D.D. and Dean of Canterbury LONDON Printed for Brabazon Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1686. Price 3 d. A SERMON Preach'd at White-Hall c. 1 Cor. III. 15 But he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire THE Context is thus According to the grace of God which is given unto me as a wise Master-builder I have laid the foundation and another buildeth thereon but let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid Jesus Christ Now if any man build upon this foundation gold silver precious stones wood hay stubble every mans work shall be made manifest for the day shall declare it because it shall be revealed by fire and the fire shall try every mans work of what sort it is If any mans work abide which he hath built thereupon he shall receive a reward If any mans work shall be burnt he shall suffer loss but he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire In these Words the Apostle speaks of a sort of persons who held indeed the foundation of Christianity but built upon it such doctrines or practices as would not bear the trial which he expresses to us by wood hay and stubble which are not proof against the fire Such a person the Apostle tells us hath brought himself into a very dangerous state tho he would not deny the possibility of his salvation He himself shall be saved yet so as by fire That by fire here is not meant the fire of Purgatory as some pretend who would be glad of any shadow of a Text of Scripture to countenance their own dreams I shall neither trouble you nor my self to manifest since the particle of similitude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly shews that the Apostle did not intend an escape out of the fire literally but like to that which men make out of a House or Town that is on fire Especially since very learned persons of the Church of Rome do acknowledg that Purgatory cannot be concluded from this Text nay all that Estius contends for from this place is that it cannot be concluded from hence that there is no Purgatory which we never pretended but only that this Text does not prove it It is very well known that this is a Proverbial phrase used not only in Scripture but in prophane Authors to signifie a narrow escape out of a great danger He shall be saved yet so as by fire 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the fire Just as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Pet. 3.20 where the Apostle speaking of the eight persons of Noah's family who escap'd the flood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they escaped out of the water So here this phrase is to be rendred in the Text he himself shall escape yet so as out of the fire The like expression you have Am. 4.11 I have pluckt them as a firebrand out of the fire And Jude 23. Others save with fear plucking them out of the fire All which expressions signifie the greatness of the danger and the difficulty of escaping it as one who when his house at midnight is set on fire and being suddenly wak'd leaps out of his bed and runs naked out of the doors taking nothing that is within along with him but imploying his whole care to save his body from the flames as St. Chrysostom upon another occasion expresseth it And so the Roman Orator who it is likely did not think of Purgatory useth this phrase Quo ex judicio velut ex incendio nudus effugit From which Judgment or Sentence he escaped naked as it were out of a burning And one of the Greek Orators tells us That to save a man out of the fire was a common proverbial speech From the words thus explained the Observation that naturally ariseth is this That men may hold all the Fundamentals of Christian Religion and yet may superadd other things whereby they may greatly endanger their salvation What those things were which some among the Corinthians built upon the foundation of Christianity whereby they endanger'd their Salvation we may probably conjecture by what the Apostle reproves in this Epistle as the tolerating of incestuous marriages communicating in Idol-feasts c. And especially by the doctrine of the false Apostles who at that time did so much disturb the peace of most Christian Churches and who are so often and so severely reflected upon in this Epistle And what their Doctrine was we have an account Act. 15. viz. that they imposed upon the Gentile Christians Circumcision and the observation of the Jewish Law teaching that unless they were circumcised and kept the Law of Moses they could not be saved So that they did not only build these doctrines upon Christianity but they made them equal with the Foundation saying that unless men believed and practised such things they could not be saved In speaking to this Observation I shall reduce my discourse to these two Heads 1. I shall present to you some Doctrines and Practices which have been built upon the Foundation of Christianity to the great hazard and danger of mens salvation And to bâ— plain I mean particularly the Church of Rome 2. I shall enquire whether our granting possibility of salvation tho with great hazard to those in the Communion of the Rome Church and their denying it to us be a reaâ—sonable argument and encouragement to anâ— man to betake himself to that Church And there is the more reason to consider â—hese things when so many seducing Spirits â—re so active and busie to pervert men from â—he truth and when we see every day so many men and their Religion so easily parted â—or this reason these two Considerations shall â—e the subject of the following discourse I. First We will consider some Doctrines and Practices which the Church of Rome hath built upon the foundation of Christianity to the great hazard and danger of mens salvation It is not denied by the most judicious Protestants but that the Church of Rome do hold all the Articles of the Christian Faith which are necessary to salvation But that which we charge upon them as a just ground of our separation from them is the imposing â—f nâ—w Doctrines and Practices upon Christians as necessary to salvation which were never taught by our Saviour or his Apostles and which are either directly contrary to the doctrine of Christianity or too apparently destructive of a good life And I begin 1. With their Doctrines And because I have no mind to aggravate lesser matters I will single out four or five points of Doctrine which they have added to the Christian Religion and which were neither taught by our Saviour and his Apostles nor own'd in the first Ages of Christianity And the First which I shall mention and which beinâ— once admitted makes way for