held by the dissenters at the restoration down to the beginning of the last century-Bennet's controversy with the dissenters at Colchester-From 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-Plan of the present lectures-Questions which arise out of it, or are connected with it--Church government-Na. tional establishment-General exhortation to follow after I would they were even cut off that trouble you. TEXT considered---Inference from thence, and from other the Old and the New Testament written for our admonition- - SERMON. III. MATT. v. 16. Ye shall know them by their Fruits. TEXT explained and commented upon-To judge of a doc- effect and tendency of it-No decisive argument to be drawn 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---Unna- 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 pendence 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---Pre-eminence 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 b must 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 "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- SIMILARITY of error in all ages-Took nearly the same |