for the government of their hearts and lives, and clear refolutions of the material doubts which frequently occur in human life, they intangle them in niceties and endlefs fcrupulofities, teaching them to fplit hairs in divinity, and how with great art and cunning they may avoid the committing of any fin, and yet come as near to it as poffible. This is a thing of a most dangerous confequence to the fouls of men; and if men be but once encouraged to pass to the utmost bounds of what is lawful, the next step will be into that which is unlawful.

So that unlefs faith without works will fave men, notwithstanding the infallible fecurity which they pretend to give men of a found and right belief, (if it were really as much as they talk of,) the falvation of men would still be in a great hazard and uncertainty, for want of better and fafer directions for a good life, than are ordinarily to be met with in the cafuiftical writings of that church; efpecially if we confider, that the fcriptures are locked up from the people in an unknown tongue, where the fureft and plaineft directions for a good life are moft plentifully to be had; infomuch that a man had better want all the volumes of cafuiftical divinity that ever were written in the world, than to be without the Bible; by the diligent fludying of which book alone he may fooner learn the way to heaven, than by all the books in the world without it.

Fifthly and lastly, This provifion which God hath. made, is, when all is done, as good a fecurity against fatal errors and mistakes in religion, as an infallible church could give, if there were one; and it is as good a way to prevent and put an end to controverfies in religion, fo far as it is neceffary that they fhould be prevented, and have an end put to them: And these are the two great reafons why an infallible judge is fo importunately, demanded and infifted upon. I fhall fpeak to thefe diftinctly and severally; but because they will require a longer difcourfe than the time will allow, I fhall not enter upon them at prefent, but refer them to another opportunity.

SER

SERMON

LXXXIX.

41

Honesty the best prefervative against dangerous mistakes in religion.

JOHN Vii. 17:

If any man will do his will, he fhall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

W

The third fermon on this text.

Hen I made my entrance into thefe words, I propofed from this text,

First, To thew that an honeft and fincere mind, and a hearty defire and endeavour to do the will of God, is the greatest security and beft prefervative against dangerous errors and mistakes in matters of religion.

In the next place, I proceeded to remove an objection, to which my difcourfe upon this fubject might feem liable. Some perhaps might afk, Is every good man then fecure from all error and mistake in matters of religion? This is a mighty privilege indeed. But do we not find the contrary in experience? that an honest heart and a weak head do often meet toge ther? For answer to this I laid down feveral propofitions.

By the last of which I fhewed, that God hath made abundant provifion for our fecurity from fatal and dangerous errors in religion, both by the infallible rule of the holy fcripture, and by fufficient means of inftruction to help us to underftand this rule, and by his infallible promife of affitting us, if with honeft minds and a due diligence, we apply ourfelves to the understanding of this rule, and the

4

use of these means. And this, I told you, was in all refpects a better fecurity, and more likely to conduct us fafe to heaven, than any infallible church whatfoever and that for five reafons; four of which I have already treated of, and now proceed to the fifth and laft, viz.

Because this provifion which I have fhewn God: hath made, is both as good a fecurity against fatal errors and mistakes in religion, as an infallible church could give, if there were one : And it is likewife as good a way to prevent and put an end to controverfies in religion, fo far as it is neceffary they should be prevented, or have an end put to them. And thefe are the two great reafons why an infallible judge is fo importunately demanded and infifted upon. I thall fpeak to these two points distinctly and severally.

First, Becaufe this is as good a fecurity against fatal errors and mistakes in religion, as an infallible church could give, if there were one. For an infal-lible church, if there were fuch an one upon earth, could not infallibly fecure particular Chriftians against errors in faith, any other way than by the definition and declaration of those who are infallible in that church. And there are but three that pretend to it; either the Pope, or a general council, or the Pope and a general council agreeing in the fame definitions. Not the Pope by himfelf, nor the general council without the Pope; because the church which pretends to infallibility is not agreed, that either of thefe alone is infallible, and therefore their definitions can be no certain, much lefs infallible foundation of faith; no, not to that church which pretends to infallibility. So that if there be an infallible ora cle in that church, it must be the Pope and council in conjunction, or the definition of a council confirmed by the Pope. Now in that cafe, either the council was infallible in its definitions, before they had the Pope's confirmation, or not. If the council was infallible in its definitions, before they had the Pope's confirmation; then the council alone, and of itself, was infallible, (which a great part of the church of Rome

Rome deny), and then it needed not the Pope's confirmation to make it infallible: Or elfe a general council is not infallible in its definitions, before they receive the Pope's confirmation; and then the Pope's. confirmation cannot make it fo: for that which was not infallibly defined by the council, cannot be made infallible by the Pope's confirmation.

But there is another difficulty yet: It is a maxim generally received, and that even in the Roman church, "That the definitions of a general council, "confirmed by the Pope, are not obligatory, unless they be received by the univerfal church." From whence these two great inconveniencies will unavoidably follow.

1. That no man is obliged to believe fuch defini. tions, till he certainly know that they are received by the univerfal church, which how he fhould cer tainly, much lefs infallibly know, I cannot underftand; unlets he either fpeak with all the Christians in the world, or the reprefentatives of all particular churches return back and meet again in council, to de⚫ clare that the univerfal church hath received their ..definitions; which I think was never yet done.

2. It will follow, that the definitions of a general council confirmed by the Pope, are not infallible, till they be received by the univerfal church. For if they were infallible without that, they would be obligatory without it; becaufe an infallible definition, if we know it to be fo, lays an obligation to believe it, whe-. ther it be received by the univerfal church, or not. And if fuch definitions are not infallible, till they be received by the univerfal church, they cannot be come infallible afterwards; because if the definitions were not infallible before, they cannot be received as fuch by the univerfal church, nor by the mere reception of them, be made to be infallible definitions, if they were not fo before.

But if we fhould pafs over all thefe difficulties, there is a greater yet behind, and that is, fuppofing the definitions of general councils confirmed by the Pope to be infallible, particular Chriftians cannot be

fecured

fecured infallibly from error without the knowledge of thofe definitions: And there are but two waysimaginable of conveying this knowledge to them: Either by the living voice of their particular pastors, whom they are implicitly to believe in these matters; but particular pastors are fallible, (as they them felves grant), and therefore their words can neither be an infallible foundation of faith, or an infallible means of conveying it; and it is unreasonable, they fay, for men that own themfelves to be fallible, to require an implicit belief to be given to them: or elfe the knowledge of the definitions of councils muft be conveyed to particular Chriftians by writing, and if fo, then there will only be an infallible rule, but no living infallible judge. And if an infallible rule will ferve the turn, we have the fcriptures, which we are fure are infallible, and therefore at least as good as any other rule. But they fay, that the definitions of councils give us an infallible interpretation of feripture, and therefore are of greater advantage to But do not the definitions of councils fometimes alfo need explication, that we may know the certain fense of them, without which we cannot know the doctrines defined? Yes certainly; they need exptica- tion as much as fcripture, if there be any difference about the meaning of them; and there have been, and still are, great differences among thofe of their own church about the meaning of them. And if the explications of general councils need themfelves to be explained, then there is nothing got by them, and we are but where we were before: For differences about the meaning of the definitions of general councils, make as great difficulties and uncertainties in faith, as the differences about the meaning of fcrip

us.

ture.

Well, but the people have the living, voice of their particular paftors, to explain the definitions of coun. cils to them. But this does not help the matter neither, for these two reafons:

1. Because particular paftors have no authority to explain the definitions of general councils. The council of Trent hath, by express decree, reserved

to