ment of the reformed, and our ancient Saxon Church: that it is no new Church, but the very same it was before the Roman Church as now corrupted, notwithstanding her boasts of infallibility, antiquity, and universality, was known, or had an existence in the world.

From what has been advanced, judge ye, as wise men, if there be any ground for the insidious and gratuitous assertion of the Romanists, that it is safer for a Christian to be a member of the Church of Rome than of the Church of England. This specious fallacy is made up from the liberality of our Church, and the uncharitableness of theirs :-"That Protestants allow a possibility of salvation to all believing Christians in the bosom of the Romish Church; but Romanists deny that Protestants can be saved in the English Church: therefore, it is a safer way to go over to that side to which parties agree, than to abide where one party stands single in opinion by themselves." I must confess that I am not one of those liberal Protestants who think that persons are safe in the Romish communion. I perfectly accord with the sentiments of an eminent and ancient Prelate. "I am so far from thinking," says Bishop Bull, "that salvation is to be found in the unity of the Church of Rome, that, on the contrary, I verily believe they are in great danger who live in her communion, who

own her erroneous doctrines, and join in her corrupt practices."

And this is the very important point to which, in the last place, I would call your attention:That we are safer in our Church, and have several advantages for obtaining comfort and eternal life, of which they are destitute who belong to the church of Rome. Safer, because, what we believe as an article of faith, has upon it the seal of truth, and stamp of antiquity; owned by all Christians, in all ages of the world, and plainly revealed in the word of God. Safer, because, in our worship, there is no taint of superstition: in our service, no stain of Idolatry in our ceremonies, nothing but what is simple and edifying; nothing that can draw away the mind from worshipping God in spirit and in truth. In its forms, our ritual has nothing unmeaning, and nothing superfluous. Man is a weak creature, and in his devotion, needs many aids which may arouse a slumbering mind, and sustain the soul on the wings of prayer. On this wise principle, our Church, by the decent vestments of its ministers,-by the interchange of reading, prayer and psalmody,—by retaining just so much ceremony as may fan the flame of devotion, without distinguishing it under the cumbrous load of absurd or unnecessary form, has modelled her frame, without debarring it by external pomp and gaudy rites, the appen

dages of Pagan orgies. While our ritual does not aim at that abstract worship which, perhaps, is beyond the faculties of man, it is, at the same time, spiritual in a very impressive degree; and, need we add, that our ritual is as comprehensive as it is spiritual: it derives its chief stores from the fountain-head of holy writ; nor has it disdained to borrow some portions from the admired compositions of men, whose learning, devoted to the honour of God, seems to have been richly seasoned with the fervency of holy aspirations. The eastern and western Churches have contributed to the comprehensiveness of our prayers; in the collective body of which, as in some immense reservoir, all the streams of Christian devotion have combined their sacred waters. And can there be found men who, having once held intercourse with God, in a Liturgy so pure, so spiritual, and so comprehensive, close this holy volume of devotion, and seek, in a corrupt communion, a strange form of worship? To such would we say-If your souls have any relish for what is sublime and pure ;-if you have any understanding of what is simple and impressive ;if you have any delight in seeing, during the hours of prayer, all the attributes of God developed, and all the mysteries of Redeeming Love displayed, cast not too hastily from you these pearls of prayer; and beware of impover

ishing your souls by withdrawing from a Church so purely apostolic !

Thus far we have inculcated attachment and allegiance to the Protestant Church, on the purity and excellence of her ritual; but we cannot conclude without warning the wavering and unstable, that this desertion of their God, under whatever specious name this unworthy conduct may be viewed, is sinful apostacy. If we pray to be delivered "from all false doctrine, heresy, and schism," we incur even a greater guilt than heretics, when we join their bands as wilful deserters from the camp of God. It is to trifle with the most deliberate oaths by which the soul of man can be bound,-the baptismal oath,— which places us in communion with God. What constitutes an aggravation of this heinous sin is, that it usually proceeds from some unworthy motive. Ye whose defection is now troubling Zion, look into your hearts, tear aside the veil of concealment, and candidly expose the machinery of your deeds. Would to heaven that this apostacy proceeded from an abstract love of truth; for then you might claim from us some charitable allowance; but how often does it arise from vanity, from singularity, from a diseased mind, and from affectation of superior discernment!

To us, my Brethren, who depart not from the courts of our Zion, who prefer them to our

G.

chiefest joy, there remains much solid ground of conviction in the spiritual doctrine of our Church. If we chiefly advert to the tenets of that Church which claims the possession of truth and infallibility we shall discover in those high pretensions, many and most grievous violations of God's word. Nor do we hastily, or acrimoniously hazard this assertion; but, if salvation be found within the pale of any Christian Church, we shall be warranted in not seeking it within that communion which is distinguished by many and dangerous errors.

Suffer me to imprint on your minds some few of these erroneous tenets, which render salvation, in that communion, very doubtful and hazardous. The Church of Rome asserts, that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, a change is made of the bread and wine, into the natural body and blood of Christ, and this is termed Transubstantiation.' This is a doctrine which

The doctrine of Transubstantiation was first suggested in the fifth century, and immediately opposed. In the next age, the same doctrine of a physical change was written against, but still continued to gain ground. In 754 it was virtually opposed by the Conncil of Constantinople-the seventh Ecumenical Council: but in the year 787 it was declared to be a true doctrine by the second Nicene Council. In the ninth century it was formed into a regular scholastic shape by Paschasius Radbert. In the fourth Council of Lateran, in 1215, it was definitively imposed, as a necessary