Doctrines or ours be what they will, we muft be in the wrong, and they in the right.

One of these Arguments is their Infallibility, but this I hope was fully confuted in my first Difcourfe, and indeed in every one fince. For it is in vain for them to pretend they cannot be mistaken, if it appear but in any fingle Inftance that they are.

Another is, that Proteftants, not being of the Roman Church, are not of the Catholic Church: for the Catholic Church is but one, and, out of it, there is no Salvation. Now, we acknowledge it is but one Body under one Head, Christ Jefus; but then in this one Body there are many Members; and why are not the Churches of Greece, Afia, and Africa; why is not ours, as true a Member of it as theirs? On what Authority, if Names were worth disputing about, do they ingrofs that of Catholic to themselves? Do not we profefs the true Catholic Faith, that Faith which the Univerfal Church received from the Apoftles? We profess it much purer than they. Are the Sacraments more duly adminif tered by them than by us? Far from it: For of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, one half they have taken away from the Laity; and concerning the other half, they have taught

the

the most monftrous Abfurdities, and built on them the most shocking Idolatry. Then, for that of Baptifm, we adminifter it with Water alone, just as Christ appointed, whereas they have added Oil, Salt, Spittle, and I know not what, as if it were on Purpose to make it as unlike his Institution as they can. Is then the Appointment or Ordination of their Clergy more valid, or more regular than ours? On no Account whatever. For if they brought down the Succeffion uninterrupted to the Reformation, we have certainly preferved it uninterrupted fince; which now they may be ashamed to deny, fince a learned Man of their own Communion hath fully proved it. And confequently, for them, who are but a very unfound Part of the Catholic Church, to call themselves the whole of it, is quite as abfurd, as for a diseased Limb (though perhaps the larger for being difeased) to be called the whole Body. But they will fay, we separated, and fo cut off ourselves from the Catholic Church, at the Reformation. I anfwer, we did not. We only caft out, as was our Duty, the Errors that were crept in: and we did it by the lawful Authority of our Superiors, both Ecclefiaftical and Civil. Upon which, the Church of Rome, inftead of imitat

ing our good Example, commanded all they could influence, to quit our Communion. 'Tiš they then who made the Separation, and 'tis they that continue it. We are ready still to join in Communion with them, upon the Terms of the Gospel and they refuse to join with us, but upon Terms of their own devifing. Now when two Churches break Communion with one another, though it is always a Fault, yet it does not always follow, that either of them is thereby broken off from the Catholic Church, any more than it follows, that when two Men break off Acquaintance, one of them is broken off from the Civil Society to which they belong. But when one Church fhall excommunicate another, merely because the Governors of that other made fuch Alterations in it as Scripture warrants, and because the People complied with thofe Alterations, fuch an Inftance of Prefumption and Uncharitableness is much more likely to cut off those that use it from the Church of Chrift, than those against whom it is used. But fuppofing we had even acted without, and separated from, our Church Governors, as our Proteftant Brethren abroad were forced to do: was there not a Caufe? When the Word of God was hidden from Men, and

his Worship performed in an unknown Tongue; when pernicious Falfehoods were required to be profeffed, and finful Terms of Communion to be complied with; when Church-Authority, by supporting fuch Things as thefe, became inconfiftent with the Ends for which it was established what Remedy was there but to throw it off, and form new Establishments? If in thefe there were any Irregularities, they were the Faults of those who forced Men into them ; and are of no Confequence in Comparison with the Reason that made a Change neceffary. For were a Man to feparate himself from every Church he knows on Earth, in Order to obey the Laws of Chrift, he would still be a most valuable Member of that general Affembly and Church of the Firft-born, that are written in Heaven. For what Communion bath Light with Darkness?--And what Agreement hath the Temple of God with Idols ?-Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye feparate, faith the Lord, and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my Sons and Daughters, faith the Lord Almighty".

But 'tis an Article of Faith, they tell us, that the Church of Rome is the Mother and Mistress of

1

all Churches, and therefore to caft off her Authority, can never be lawful. We answer, the Mother of all Churches, the certainly is not. For in Jerufalem was the first Christian Society, and from thence were derived many others, more ancient than that of Rome. Nor was that Church the Mother of the British Churches, nor of all the English. But had the first Perfons that founded the Gospel here been fent from Rome, that had given them no Manner of Authority over us. Whence is the then the Miftrefs? Why, St. Peter was Head of the Church, and the Bishops of Rome are his Succeffors. But the Scripture tells us, Chrift is Head of the Church, and tells us of no other. We own it was faid to St. Peter, Upon this Rock will I build my Church. But this Rock, for ought they can ever prove, might be, not St. Peter's Perfon, but his Confeffion made immediately before that Jefus was the Chrift. Or, if the Church was to be built on St. Peter, yet not on him alone, but upon the Foundation of all the Apofiles and Prophets, as St. Paul teaches exprefsly. And accordingly, the Wall of the new Jerufalem, or Church of God, is faid to have twelve Foundations, on which were the

с

Eph. i. 22. iv. 15. d Matt. xvi. 18. e Eph. ii. 20.

Names