Passage I am apt to believe that this Apostle might have sav'd himself the labour of coming down from Heaven to be his own Commentator I must confess that in reading this Epistle I have often wondred how St. Paul should come to omit one Argument which according to the Men of the Infallible way must have been worth all the rest And that is the Determination of this Question by the Council of Jerusalem for all are agreed and the Notation of years which we find in the First and Second Chapters makes it clear that this Epistle was written after that Council yet in all this long Vindication of the Liberty of the Gentile Christians it is not once urg'd And I cannot conceive any reason of this Omission unless it be that having in the very beginning laid aside all Human Authority and Respect of Persons he might not think it proper afterwards to alledge the Apostolical Decree But if this had been the only Infallible way of Deciding Controversie this Omission cannot be excused Now because some have endeavoured to prove the Infallibility of Councils from the Example of that of the Apostles I proceed briefly to shew That they did not proceed in the way of Infallibility though they were really Infallible because they were Inspired Persons but all their Proceeding was according to Allegation and Proof and the Conclusion is made to depend upon these Premisses and not their Infallibility in pronouncing it Whereas in the New Way the Conclusion is Certain because some Men declare it though the Reasons alledged may be good for nothing The summ of that Synodical Action was this First S. Peter represented to them How the Holy Ghost had already Determined that Question by falling upon Cornelius and other Persons Uncircumcised then Paul and Barnabas declared What Wonders that God had wrought among the Gentiles by them And lastly S. James shews out of the Prophets How the Conversion of the Gentiles was foretold and concludes Wherefore my Sentence is Then it pleased the Apostles and Elders to send certain Persons with an account of this whole Matter to the Churches concerned and a Letter with this Expression among others It seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and to us Which does not import as if whatsoever they agreed to declare must therefore be the Truth and to be received without asking farther Questions though what they did Decree was certainly Truth and Right but only suggests the former Decision of the Holy Ghost in the Case of Cornelius and some other declared by Barnabas and Paul for then it seemed Good to the Holy Ghost to receive the Gentiles without Circumcision But in the Assembly of Jerusalem we have not the least Intimation of any Declaration of the Spirit either by Miracle or Revelation But the Holy Ghost having before visibly declared upon the Point to that in all likelihood the Expression must allude But whatever the Apostles thought of the way of Infallibility it is plain The Believers were not yet well instructed concerning it for this Definition could not end the Controversie And in the beginning of the next Chapter We find S. Paul Circumcising Timothy whose Father was a Greek Because of the Jews that were in those Quarters and how little Use was made of it in ending the same Controversie in the Church of Galatia I have observed already But further yet S. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans teaches another Method of Belief than the Advocates for Infallibility for some time would impose upon the World for he utterly disallows this way of making the Faith of God to depend upon the Belief or Unbelief of Men as if that were to be the Standard of Truth and Error For what if some did not Believe shall their Vnbelief make the Faith of God of none Effect God forbid Yea let God be True and every Man a Lyar as it is written c. This is an Answer to such Objections as were Suggested against the Christian Faith from the Unbelief of the Jews For when our Saviour appeared they had the Visible Church and all Ecclesiastical Authority the Priesthood the Sanadrim the Scribes and Pharisees and the Renowned Doctors were theirs the Religious Sects the Outward Purity the Opus operatum and Supererogation were on their Side Now if these must prescribe to our Belief we Christians have lost our Cause for the High Priest and the Elders assembled i. e. The Pope and Council of that Time condemned Christ for a Blasphemer But S. Paul would no more submit to such Definitions than we Protestants to those of the Council of Trent but enters his Protestation against all such as by any Act of Men would Prescribe against the Truth of God and gives Reason and Scripture for his Proceeding God must be Pure but all Men may be Lyars and so fairly takes his leave of all Infallible Men. And so far is he from Affecting that Brerogative himself which he denies to others that he appeals to the Scriptures as his Vouchers and does not desire to be believed upon the Authority of his Place but by the Method he uses of proving what he advances he sets a Fair Precedent to all other Teachers and which Origen upon this Place understands to be his Design For if a Person so Great and so Qualifyed as S. Paul did not think the Authority of his Saying any thing to be sufficient unless he prove it out of the Law and the Prophets how much more should we the least of Gods Ministers observe the same Rule And Lastly S. Peter from whom some of the Competitors for Infallibility derive their Title advises all Christians To be ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh them a Reason of the Hope that is in them Now all Interpreters of this Place both Antient and Modern that I have seen are very much out if this Reason be no other than the Infallibility of S. Peter or of the Church Now this Answer I Believe because the Church Believes is surely the Easiest of any and all other Answers would be Impertinent if this alone were the Infallible Reason The School-Men have upon some Occasions thought fit to ground their Rational Way upon this Passage and Valued their Usefulness and Service to the Church on this Account But for God's sake What Use can there be of these Fallible Reasons in a Church that is Infallible in her Conclusions and holds not her self obliged to render any other Reason for them but a Curse And indeed I cannot see any Occasion of giving any Reason since her Disciples do Profess that they have no Assurance but that in these she may be Mistaken Now if the Apostles did not think fit to use this Way of Infallibility it seems something incongruous for the Church in Succeeding Ages to pretend to it for as the Gifts of the Spirit grew less methinks the Way of Teaching should rather be less than more Magisterial unless some new Paraclet to supply the Defect
required but Orthodox Faith and the Truth of Apostolick Doctrine And it is strange in all the Disputes between Cyril and Theodoret there is not the least Word about the Infallible Definition of the Ephesin Synod which had decided the Matter under Dispute And it is no small Prejudice against the Infallible Way Cyril Ep. ad Euopt that Cyril tells his Adversary That he ought to Argue out of the Scriptures only There was never Council occasioned more Dispute than that of Chalcedon the World was a long while divided about it But those who declare their Adherence to it never pretend it to have been Infallible but on the contrary Ep. Anatol. ad Leon. Ep. Episcop Europ ad Leon Episc Isaur ad eund vid. Tom. 5. Conc. Ed. Labb Profess their Approbation of it Because it had Asserted the True Faith not that the Faith must be true because asserted by it because it had defined nothing New or Strange against the Rectitude of the Faith because it had added nothing to the Faith or altered nothing in the Constitutions of former Councils or explained any thing Incongruously but followed the Scripture and the Nicene Council Ep. Syriae 2. ibid. And the Bishops of Syria declare their Opinion not only of this but of all the other received General Councils That they Decree them to be True Councils because they have Asserted and Ratified this Faith by the Holy Seriptures What shall we call this but a Protestant Rule of Faith when a Council is to be known to be True or False from its Doctrine and not the Doctrine from the Infallibility of the Judge And Maximus it seems Collat. S. Maximi cum Theodos Ep. Caesar Ed. Sirm. p. 161 162. had no other Means of discerning True from Erroneous Councils but the Doctrine they defined For says he If the Emperor's Summons or Commands give Authority to Synods and not the True Faith receive the Synods that have been assembled against the Word Consubstantial And having reckoned up many Heretical Councils concludes But they were all condemned for the Impiety of their Erroneous Opinions confirmed by them And then The Rule of the Church acknowledges those for true Synods which the Orthodoxness of their Opinions doth Recommend And Theodosius Answers It is so as thou affirmest It is Orthodoxness of Belief gives Credit and Confirmation to Synods I might pursue the same Observation through several other General Councils which a considerable part of the Church believed to have actually mistaken but to which none for some Ages ascribed the Prerogative of Infallibility but those in which I have instanced being the Principal for Reputation and Authority it is needless to observe the same thing of those that followed And the Fathers taking the Liberty of Judging Conciliary Definitions by the Rule of Faith the Holy Scriptures do plainly overthrow all Pretence of an Unaccountable Infallible Way of Defining presumed to be above all Examination and Review because above all possibility of Mistaking Now as the Church was Ignorant of the Infallible Judge during the conjunction of East and West and the Opportunity of General Councils so the Greek Church after it was broken off from the West was altogether unacquainted with this Infallible Way and when the Church of Rome began to assume to it self the Quality of Infallible the Eastern Church Protested against it And while they follow the Patriarch Photius they can never Resolve their Faith into any Human or Ecclesiastical Authority for he has prevented all such Pretences by that strong Protestation he makes in his Epistle to the Bishop of Aquileia Photii Ep. ad Ep. Aquil. in Auct Biblioth Patr. per Combef p. 535. where in answer to the Authority of the Fathers touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost he saith What should I descend so low as to speak concerning the number of those that affirm this thing though the whole Creation should do it with onc Voice none surely would leave the Instruction and Doctrine of the Creator to hearken to the Voice of the Creature contradicting him that made it To conclude I cannot avoid suspecting the Roman Infallibility when I consider not only That no other Church pretends to it but that no Heresie or Sect of Christians ever claimed it These did seldom come behind the Church in Assuming and Pretence and commonly presumed more upon their Authority and what they wanted in Truth and Proof they made up with Arrogance and the Positive Way There is no other Principle into which Faith is used to be resolved but they endeavour to make their own Scripture Tradition Miracles Revelation all these they boldly challenged but this Assurance of Infallibility we never find them to have usurped I am loath to ascribe it to their Modesty it is more likely they had no Example to provoke them and they were not so Fortunate as to find out the Way themselves to so bold a Pretence unless we may imagine that they had a better Opinion of their Way than to think it stood in need of so Miserable a Subterfuge So that the Impudence of this Pretence is peculiar to the Church of Rome and may serve as a more proper Note to distinguish it than any of those laid down by Bellarmine But this is no note of Honour but a Brand for as the Church of Rome corrupted it self beyond all others in Doctrine and Worship the Divine Judgment delivered her up to a Reprobate Sense that renders her incapable of Discerning or Reforming her Errours this Presumption That she is not subject to Mistake hanging perpetually like a Veil over her Eyes FINIS Books Printed for James Adamson at the Angel and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard I. A Treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy wherein its Rise and Progress are Historically considered In Quarto II. A Treatise proving Scripture to be the Rule of Faith writ by Reginald Peacock Bishop of Chichester before the Reformation about the Year 1450. In Quarto III. Several Captious Queries concerning the English Reformation first proposed by Dean Manby an Irish Convert in Latin And afterwards by T. W. in English Briefly and fully Answered by the late reverend and learned Dr. Clagett Preacher to the Honourable Society of Grays-Inn and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty IV. Two Discourses of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead In Quarto V. The Present State of the Controversie between the Church of England and the Church of Rome Or an Account of the Books written on both Sides in a Letter to a Friend In Quarto VI. Mr. Chillingworth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe Way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting Personal Contests but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before printed viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church Transubstantiation Tradition c. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist with his Confutation of the said Motives In Quarto VII Clementis epistolae duae ad Corinthos interpretibus Patricio Juneo Gothifredo Vandelino Joh. Bapt. Cotelerio recensuit notarum spicilegium adjecit Paulus Colomesius bibliothecae Lambethanae curator accedit Tho. Brunonici Windsoriensis dissertatio de Therapeutis Philonis His subnexae sunt epistolae aliquot singulares vel nunc primum editae vel non ita facile obviae In Quarto VIII The Travel of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant in Three Part viz. 1. Into Turky 2. Persia 3. The East Indies In Folio
Side of the Pretenders the greediness of believing what Men have a mind should be true seems to me sufficient to Counterballance that Defect and to dispose Men to accept very slender Evidence Therefore besides want of Proof there must be some other powerful hindrance some visible and obvious Presumptions of Imposture that immediately stop our easiness and forwardness of Believing For I. It is strong presumption of a Cheat when Men are observ'd to be utterly destitute of all those great good things they pretend to have in their power to bestow Who can have regard to the Vapouring of a Mountebank upon the Stage that has seen the Family of that Pretender languishing without relief under the most Common and Curable Diseases Who can endure the Cant of a Begger about the Secret of Making Gold Or have the Patience to see a Man who has the Indies within the power of his Art if his Pretence were not a Lye condescend to Beg or Borrow a small piece of Mony to save himself from Starving It is no otherwise with the Pretence of Infallibility our desire of believing it lies under the check of this Presumption For the Church of Rome that offers us the Benefit of her Infallibility to remove the Differences we have with her or among our selves is found to make no use of it in her own Occasions to heal those Differences that arise within her own Communion The Disputes between the Jesuites and Dominicans are of great Importance yet the Infallible Judge all the while they depended did never think fit to Interpose This Doctrin of Infallibility it self is doubtless fundamental and the Church of Rome is divided about it some ascribing it to the Pope others to a Council yet the Infallible Judge is so shy of using his Gift as to restrain it when it is most necessary for the Manifestation and Defence of its own self If the Church of Rome has an Infallible Judgment it has indeed a wonderful Gift but to the least purpose or effect that can be imagined For in deciding the Controversies of those that pretend to believe it the Church does not think fit to use it And those that do not believe it can receive no benefit by its Definitions and yet it is to these only that it thinks fit to define II. If the Church of Rome were Infallible we cannot but think she would afford her People Infallible Instruction i.e. she would take care that her Catechisms her Liturgies and her Sermons should be Infallibly true Doctrins But if you will enquire how this Infallible Church teaches her Disciples you will find that her Catechisms were Composed by Fallible Men and are Expounded by Men as Fallible as they If you go to her Sermons you hear the words of Fallible Monks or Curates or sometimes of Bishops who may be Hereticks and Preach damnable Doctrins If you go to her Publick Offices there you meet with Forms made by they know not whom there you will hear Lections of Uncertain Authority taken out of Legends and the Writings of Men that either were or might be mistaken Therefore when some of the Advocates of the Roman Church are press'd by any Objections taken from the Publick Offices they decline the Authority and dispense with themselves for maintaining them as the Unerring Belief of the Church For the Infallible Church forsooth does not speak to the People in these Offices This we readily accept but then we desire some reason may be given why this Church being as they pretend Infallible does not think fit to instruct her People infallibly in her Liturgies or Homilies since those are the ordinary ways by which the People are Instructed And why she exposes the Souls of Men to the possible danger of Miscarrying by the ignorance or perverseness of her Fallible Priests when it is in her power to prevent all this by her own Infallible voice speaking in Homilies or Catechisms or Liturgies or other Authentick Books all as true as the Bible Wherefore all things consider'd I conceive our Opinion That the Church of Rome may Mistake is less dishonourable to her than theirs who would flatter her to fancy her self Infallible For we leave her a good Excuse why she does not give her Children Infallible Instruction Because she has no such Privilege whereas her Flatterers leave her inexcusable for not doing that which they confess she does not do and yet contend she is able to do Which will certainly leave her in the Opinion of all Impartial Judges most unworthy of so great a Trust as that of Infallibility III. Although the Roman Catholicks in their Disputes with Us are very forward to appeal to the Infallible Judge because he is their own yet when they mistrust that their own Opinions are in danger of being Condemn'd by the same Judge they make use of all means to prevent or decline his Judgment We have several Instances to this purpose in the Council of Trent which I think has most voices in the Roman Church for being Infallible But I will content my self with one only and that is the Debate about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin. When the Article of Original Sin came to defin'd it seemed scarce to be avoided but that this of the Conception must be involv'd For if they defin'd in General without Exception That Adam's Sin pass'd upon All the Virgin would be concluded and the Franciscan Doctrin Condemn'd But if she were Excepted and declared Pure from that Original Blemish then the Dominicans would be Condemn'd Be it so but why should either Side be afraid of an Infallible Judge Why should they not by consent submit their Disputes and their Opinions to that which had clearer Light and could not be mistaken They had wrangled enough about it in the Dark according to their Uncertain and Fallible Judgment now an opportunity offer'd it self of letting all Sides know the Truth and of putting an End to that tedious Controversie But nothing could be done for want of Faith and Resignation to the Infallible Judge I cannot believe so hardly of the Dominicans as that they were unwilling to know the certain Truth of the Matter and if they had been in their Conscience persuaded that whatsoever the Majority of the Council had defin'd must be Truth it cannot be conceived why they should be so Industrious to avoid a Sentence They saw indeed a Majority on the other Side but then it was a Majority of Private Judgments which if they were in the wrong must change when they came to define as a Council or else farewell all Council-Infallibility But the Dominicans it seems would not trust that and I do not blame them but then we appeal to their Equity and desire that they would not put upon us that Infallible Judge to whom they are so loth to submit their own Opinions But let these Dominicans be as restive as they please and unwilling to have this Point Decided yet the Majority of the Council
wary Conduct of the Roman Church towards her own Members seems to confess a distrust of her own Infallibility so the Unreasonable Confidence which she uses towards us begets in us a just Suspicion that she is in the wrong and is not altogether Insensible of it For it is a sign of a very bad Cause when those concern'd to Defend it are unwilling to enter into its Merits and instead of that only bluster and stand upon their Privilege instead of Maintaining it by Law and Reason declare that they are to give Law and not to submit to any and that whatsoever they say that must be Reason This is an Extravagancy in which no Authority upon Earth can bear a Man out For if a Professor when he is press'd by some Untoward Objections against some Opinion he has deliver'd should think fit to answer only with his Brow or else to deliver it again as his positive Judgment out of the Chair declaring That it belonged to him to dictate in that place I am apt to believe that his Beard though never so venerable would scarce be able to preserve him from the Contempt and Derision of his own Disciples Or if a Judge question'd for an Unjust Sentence should instead of Law or Equity produce only his Commission to justifie his Act I am afraid whatever became of his Person his Reputation would be in some danger Especially if all were of Judge * Rustworth's Coll. T. 1. P. 506. Dodridg's mind That it is no more fit for a Judge to decline to give an Account of his Doings than for a Christian of his Faith. Now this is the Case between Us and the Church of Rome We charge Them of Corrupting the Faith of Establishing Superstition and Insufferable Tyranny We produce our Evidence and alledge Scripture and Primitive Antiquity to make out Our Charge On the other side She takes upon her and stands upon her Privilege She defines and proves it with a Curse which is a Spiritual kind of Hectoring and We are Hereticks convict because we are not satisfied with these Demonstrations For my own part I think they are to blame that do not like this Proceeding in an Enemy for the nearest thing to an Acknowledgment that the Roman Cause is Indefensible is this desperate way of maintaining it the less of Argument Men have the more Positive they grow and endeavour to make up their want of Reason by the Boldness and Peremptoriness of their Affirmation And though some may ascribe the Infallibility-shift to the Confidence of the Church of Rome I shall rather impute it to her Desperation And we are the more confirmed in this Suspicion that the Roman Church was brought to this Shift by Distress rather than Choice when we consider the time and the Occasion upon which we find her openly to have declared her self Infallible When the Eastern Church quarrell'd with those of the West about some Points of Doctrin as well as Ecclesiastical Observances among other things they urge That the Catholick Church was on their Side For of the five Patriarchs which Govern'd the Church whom they usually compar'd to the five Senses there were four for the Eastern Opinions And if two to one be accounted odds it will be intolerable Presumption for one to oppose four For so Michael Cerularius urges not intending to confer any Infallibility upon those four Patriarchs but from a Majority pleading a Presumption of Right Pope Leo opposes to this the Dignity of St. Peter and the Privilege which the Roman Church had of being Infallible though she stood alone This appears by the Letters of Michael Patriarch of Constantinople and Peter of Antioch and Leo the Ninth's Reply to their Objections and it is no wonder the Pope took Sanctuary in such a Pretence when Authority did commonly bear down Reason And the Roman Church was too great to depend upon the sole Merit of the Cause and such Reasons as were common to her with every private Christian in the World. But this Pretence of Infallibility was yet rather Insinuated than Defined till Gregory VII condemn'd and depos'd by several German and Italian Councils was forc'd to lift up his See beyond all Human measure and to declare positively That his Church could never Err. About an Hundred and fifty Years after this the Schoolmen invented the Term Infallibility to express this Unaccountable Privilege Mr. Cressy calls it an Unfortunate Word and 〈◊〉 is indeed For never any had harder usage than this It is forced to stand against Scripture and Tradition against Authority and Reason and Sense This poor Infallibility must hide all Faults must cover every Defect and vouch every Absurdity and justifie even Transubstantiation I have insisted I fear too long upon the grounds we may have to suspect that the Church of Rome does not really believe her own Infallibility What conceit she may have of her self or how she may stand in the Opinion of her Adherents is to us of no great Importance since we do not conceive our selves concluded either by her fond Fancies of her own Excellence or the extravagant Applauses of her Flatterers only we would desire she would not press us too vehemently to this Belief while she is under such flagrant Suspicion of Deriding it within her self If she do really believe this we envy her not the Paradise of such a Conceit but rather pity her Disease and the disorder of her Imagination for so it is And something not unlike her case we have in the Character of the Church of Laodicea Because thou hast said I am Rich and encreased with Goods and have need of nothing and knowest not that thou art Wretched and Miserable and Poor and Blind and Naked anoint thine Eyes with Eye-salve that thou mayest see But be the Roman Pretence never so sincere we have further grounds of Suspicion that really there is no such thing For I. Christ himself the Author of our Faith though he was Infallible because he was God yet did not think fit to use this way of Authority or meer Defining to introduce his Doctrin nor to recommend it to his Disciples as a Principle for trying Doctrâ—â—â— when he was gone to Heaven The way therefore which our Saviour took was to Prove and to Convince by Arguments proper and conclusive When he was question'd he appeal'd to the Scriptures Search the Scriptures for they testifie of me If I bear witness of my self my witness is not true And therefore produces the Testimony of John the Baptist of his Father at his Baptism of the Miracles that he did The same Works which I do they bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me If ye do not believe me believe the Works But above all he alledges the Scripture in Vindication of his Person and his Doctrin When he was blamed for Healing on the Sabbath he justifies himself from the Law that permitted Beasts to be relieved on that day and by an Argument a fortiori he
proves That a Charity towards a Child of Abraham was much more to be allowed When the Sadducees disputed with him he reproach'd them for not knowing the Scriptures but blames them not at all for being ignorant of the Infallible Judge In short all his Instructions all his Preaching all his Disputes were full of Arguments and Proofs drawn from the Merits of the Cause from Scripture and Reason and to finish his Evidence and the Conviction of his Hearers oftentimes he crown'd all with Miracles The Pharisees indeed when they were at a loss for an Argument would take Refuge in their Authority and therefore when they could not answer a poor Man thus they take upon them Thou wast altogether born in Sin and dost thou Teach us Are we blind also And have any of the Pharisees believed on him But our Saviour instead of Encouraging this assuming way warns his Disciples against it Call no Man Rabbi or Master upon Earth call no Man Father i.e. Submit not your selves implicitly to such Arrogant Teachers as these that usurp Dominion over your Faith. And therefore he recommends to Men the Use of their Judgment Why of your own selves judge ye not what is right And lest any should think that this noble Faculty was given them only for their Worldly Occasions he reproaches the Jews for not making due Use of it in Enquiries of Religion Ye can discern the face of the Heaven and why do you not discern this time of the Messiah Which the Scriptures did plainly mark out to those that would use their Judgment to discern them Now it became our Saviour to deal with us in this manner for since upon our account he was pleas'd to be made Man it was most suitable to that Condescension to speak to us as a Man and to meet us in our own way of Apprehension And besides it seems more agreeable to the Nature of the Eternal Word or Reason to satisfie and convince our Understandings than to amaze and confound them with Paradoxes without Proof or Explanation Although Christ's Disciples call'd him Master and so indeed he was yet he did not use them as Servants but as Friends For the Servant knows not what his Lord doth A Servant is not to demand Reasons or to know the Intention of his Master in every thing he commands But Christ calls his Disciples Friends because he had made known to them all things that he had heard of the Father Besides it is much cheaper to affirm Confidently than to preduce any tolerable Proof and many may amaze Men with strange and extravagant Opinions that are not able to render any Reason that may move an ordinary sober Understanding The Gnosticks and the extravagant Sects that sprung from them would submit their wild Conceits to no rational Examination you must take all upon their Credit or be an Infidel For these Mystical Rabbies were above the poor Dispensation of giving Reasons Apelles the Heretick in a Conference with Rhodon affirms That a Man ought not to Examine his Faith but to content himself with whatever Opinion he had receiv'd And being demanded a Proof for his Belief of One God since he rejected Moses and the Prophets He frankly confess'd He had none to give but that he was mov'd he knew not how to believe it And therefore is justly derided by his Antagonist But the true Christians did not thus learn Christ they received his Doctrin not only because he Pronounced it but because he gave Proof and Demonstration of what he said And besides the outward Testimony of Miracles it was no small help to their Conviction to see the Inward Merit and Excellency of this Religion that it had nothing unworthy of God nothing contrary to Moral Honesty or the Principles of Natural Religion And Justin Martyr though he believed in Christ with so much Assurance as to Die for him yet to let us see that his Faith was not altogether Implicit but grounded upon Rational Conviction from the Merit of the Doctrin makes this bold and somewhat harsh Declaration in his Book against Marcion That he should not have believed Christ himself had he preach'd any other God beside the Creator And we have Irenaeus's Approbation That it was well said The Apostles did not think fit to make use of this way of Infallibility though the Promise upon which it is now grounded was made immediately to them and the Assistance of the Spirit was visible in the Miracles they wrought But they did not affect to be above their Master and they could not forget that Caution he gave them Not to be call'd of Men Rabbies Nay so far were they from affecting Dominion over the Faith and Understanding of Christians that they permit and applaud the diligence of those who would not receive the Gospel upon their bare Affirmation but search'd the Scriptures to see whether those things were so as they were alledged by the Apostles If we may allow St. Luke to speak their sense It was St. Paul's Advice to the Corinthians that they should Examine themselves whether they were in the Faith and he renounces all Dominion over their Faith. When the same Corinthians doubted of the Resurrection St. Paul does not think it sufficient to say That it was defined and a received Article of the Creed But enters into the Merits of the Cause and proves the Truth by Arguments unanswerable and Defends it against all the Objections that had rendred it suspected When the Churches of Galatia were divided upon the great Question Whether the Gentile Christians were obliged toobserve the Law of Moses and many pretended the Authority of Peter and James to the Prejudice of Christian Liberty St. Paul undertakes our Defence and throws off all not only the Authority of Men though they were Apostles but of Angels Though an Angel from Heaven should preach any other Gospel let him be accursed And this high Declaration was intended if Chrysostom understand it right to shew That where the Debate is concerning Truth St. Paul will not be satisfied with the Dignity or Office of any Persons As if that must be Gospel which they declare Alas then for the Infallible Judge if there be no respect of Persons no regard of Offices when Truth is in question We were told a quite contrary story That the only way to know the Truth was to consult Men plac'd in certain Dignities and to take for Oracle whatsoever they shall think fit to define St. Paul it seems knew nothing of any Infallible Judge from the heavenly Angels downwards and Chrysostom his Interpreter takes not the least care to Except him The Greeks have a Tradition That when Chrysostom wrote his Comments upon St. Paul's Epistles the Apostle was seen for several days standing behind the Bishop's Chair and whispering into his Ear But without believing this a Man may have reason to be satisfied that the Gloss speaks the sense of the Text and if all his Epistles had been as clear as this
of Miracles and Inspiration had thought fit to confer upon it the Gift of Infallible Decision But the Generation next to the Apostles knew nothing of this Matter but Confess the State of the Church in their Time to be Inferiour to that of the Apostolick Age and that Hereticks then could not be so effectually Suppressed as they were by the Apostles and immediate Disciples of our Saviour For Hegesyppus speaking of the Martyrdom of Symeon Bishop of Jerusalem observes That to that Time the Church had continued a Virgin and Unpolluted for while the Apostles lived Hereticks were forced to keep themselves close but when their Generation was closed then these Deceivers began to appear with wonderful Confidence What absurd Fellows were these to think They could prevail against an Infallible Church at one Time more than another had they no Dread of the Infallible Judge Did they not know that his Sentence could make them Hereticks Convict when ever he thought fit to pronounce it or at leastwise Did they not know that all Christians Believed such a Judge and therefore could have as little Hopes then as in the Time of the Apostles But though we let these pass for Impudent Stupid Fellows Yet what should this Hegesyppus mean by Representing the Church as a Virgin but to such a Time since in despight of all Heresies the Church must always remain Pure and Uncorrupted Valesius would fain refer this to the Church of Jerusalem only But he ingenuously Confesses That Eusebius who Cites it meant otherwise and applyed it to the Church in General And the Reasons that Hegesyppus gives make it plain that so he meant it too And therefore Valesius bespeaks a favourable Interpretation of them both How little Thought Justin Martyr and Irenaeus had of this Way of Infallibility I have mentioned before they both Wrote against Heresies and Irenaeus his Books are still Extant but not the least Mention made of the Authority of the Infallible Judge Scripture and common Sense furnish all his Arguments Tradition indeed is once mentioned because Hereticks made this their Pretence but then too it is used only for a Negative Argument to shew that the Apostolick Churches never Taught any such Traditionary Doctrines without the least Pretence that those Churches had received any other Articles of Belief besides what were contained in the Scripture Clemens of Alexandria lays down several Ways of Detecting Hereticks but it was his Misfortune or rather that of his Age to be Ignorant of that which is now accounted the only Infallible Tertullian Prescribes against all Hereticks without troubling the Scriptures from the Common Rule of Faith which is not an Indefinite One in petto but a short Summary of the chief Points of Christian Religion from the Novelty of Heresies from the Doctrine of Apostolical Churches Founded before those Opinions Sprung But his Misfortune is not only to omit the Infallible Judge but to preclude him in the very Beginning of his Book by this Remarkable Passage What then says he if a Bishop or a Deacon or a Widow or a Virgin nay if a Martyr or a Doctor should fall from the Rule must Heresie therefore be Truth What do we receive Doctrines for the sake of Persons or Persons for the sake of Doctrines But how shall we know Truth from Heresie if we may not depend upon the Person of the Infallible Judge And do not those who resolve their Doctrine into the Definition of an Infallible Judge approve the Doctrine for the Persons Sake Orig. contra Cels l. 3. When Celsus Reproached the Christians with their Divisions and Multitude of their Sects Origen had no better Reply to make than That this Misfortune was not peculiar to them for the same thing happened to Physicians and Philosophers and yet to Wise Men it was no Prejudice against those Professions And then shews how these Sects sprung from their different Understanding of the Scripture but could not it seems think of the Remedy which was peculiar to them and of an Infallible Judge and that therefore those who rejected his Definitions were inexcusable and unworthy of the Name of Christians But Chrysostom on Acts 15 draws this Answer to the Point when he declares That Christians had no other way of chusing their Church in this variety of Christian Sects than Physicians or Philosophers had in determining what Sect they should follow Which was no other than using their best Judgment and Diligence in the Application of the Common Rule But Lactantius De vera Sap. l. 4. for want of Knowing this Infallible Judge gives the meanest Direction of any to discern the true Faith in the midst of Different Pretensions The Catholick Church says he alone has the True Religion If he had stuck here we might have thought perhaps that he had known the Mystery of Infallibility but when he proceeds a little further he spoils all Hereticks says he pretend to have the Catholick Church as well as the Truth His Answer to the Objection follows That those have the Catholick Church who have Confession and Penance and that Heals those Sins and Wounds to which Human Frailty is subject The Good Man at that Time happened to think of the Montanists or Novatians and therefore describes the True Church in Opposition to their Severity to be that which restored Penitent Sinners to Communion after Publick Confession of their Fault and publick Satisfaction to the Church But by this Rule how shall we know the True Church in the Controversie between the Catholicks and the Arrians for they were both agreed in this Point of Discipline But how can we expect that these Writers before the Nicene Council should say much of the Infallible Judge since she had no such if either a General Council alone or in conjunction with the Pope be it for it is well known That from the Time of the Apostles to the Synod of Nice there was no General Council And Alphonsus a Castro imputes the Number and Extravagance of the Heresies of those Times to the Want of an Infallible Judge Adv. Heres l. 1. which he takes to be a General Council But I cannot get this Scruple out of my Head How God should intend such a Judge as the only certain Means of Preserving the Integrity of Christian Religion against Heresie and yet suffer his Church to be without it for almost three Ages when she stood in the greatest Need of such a Help and was otherwise by her Holiness and Glorious Martyrdoms best qualifyed to receive such an Extraordinary Favour And afterwards when the Emperours were Christian and Orthodox there seemed to be less Need of it for their Laws against Hereticks might perhaps be more Infallible in their Effect of Suppressing them than the most solemn Sentence of the Infallible Judge For the Popes of those Ages though they were ingaged in several Controversies yet neither did they pretend to be Infallible nor were they acknowledged as such by any other Churches
The Dispute between Pope Stephen and S. Cyprian about Rebaptizing is well known and whoever compares their Opinions with what the Council of Nice Determined upon that Question will find they were both in the Wrong Tertul. adv Prax. Pope Anicetus gave but a poor Sign of his Infallibility when he received the Prophecy's of Montanus Prisca and Maximilla and received the Asiaticks and Cataphrygians into his Communion And Marcellinus his Infallibility must surely forsake him when he offered Incense to Idols as the Roman Offices do accuse him and though Baronius mentions the Endeavours of some Zealous Men to take off this Blemish yet after all the Revisions of the Breviary it remains there still But be the Catholick Church before the Nicene Council as destitute of Infallible Judgment as it was of Civil Force surely when Councils were assembled with the concurrence of Popes all Dispute and Heresie must be at an end for when the Infallible Judge has taken his Place all Knots in Religion must be Unty'd and all Doubts removed for who so Ignorant or Perverse as to dispute against his Sentence whom all the Christian World must know to be uncapable of Mistake Now the Misfortune is That after Many General Councils received by the Bishop of Rome and the greatest part of Christendom we hear no Tydings of an Infallible Judge nor of the Roman Resolution of Faith into the meer Authority of Papal Councils And this is such a Disappointment under which no Man can be patient and in spight of all Good Disposition of Believing the Roman Method it will breed Suspicion That the Infallible was not revealed to the Church of those Times Athanasius the great Champion and Confessor for the Nicene Creed in all his Apologies forgot this great and unanswerable Defence That he followed an Infallible Guide He Explains and Confirms from Scripture Athan. or ad Maxim. Id. de Nicen. Synod Decret Orat. 1. contr Arrian the Notion of Consubstantial but could not be so happy as to urge That it must be true Because the Infallible had pronounc'd it He deservedly commends the Nicene Council and the Faith defined there but his Reasons turn Infallibility upside down For he received the Determination of that great Assembly because in his Judgment he was convinc'd That it was True and Consonant to the Scriptures but did not therefore think It must be as True as Gospel Because it was the Sentence of an Infallible Judge And at last in the Way of our Protestant Resolution of Faith declares That in those Controversies that divided the Church We ought to pray for the Spirit of Discretion That every one may know what to Receive and what to Reject A Faithful Disciple of the Gospel is able to distinguish between Truth and Pretence because he has the Spirit of Discerning but the Simple is carryed away with every Colour But what should we do with this Private Spirit of Discretion in a Controversie already decided by the Infallible And what danger of the Simple if he can but be Simple enough to Believe as the pretended Infallible Church Believes And it is yet more strange That after the Nicene Decisions this Father should recommend the Scriptures as a better and more sufficient Means than any other for our Direction to the True Faith. Con. Maxim. l. 3. c. 14. S. Augustin was surely to blame when in a Dispute with an Arrian he makes this Proposal That they should by Consent lay aside the Authority of Council-Definitions and gives up the Judgment of the Nicene Fathers in exchange for that of the Hereticks of Rimini and leaving the Advantage of a Sentence by which alone the Truth could be Infallibly known according to the Roman Supposition descends to put the Matter upon an Issue which we are now told is very uncertain and of dangerous Consequence that is To be tryed by Scripture and Reason One would think it had been a much easier and shorter Task for him to prove the Council of Nice Infallible if he had thought it as Demonstrable as the Missionaries say it is than to convince the Hereticks by Disputable Passages of Scripture interpreted according to his Private Reason Here indeed he overthrows Infallibility but Implicitly and by Consequence but in another place he expresly Disclaims it The Church says he L. 2. con Crescon ought not to set her self above Christ for he always Judges according to Truth but Ecclesiastical Judges as Men are commonly-Mistaken And then lest you may imagine General Councils excepted in another place he declares That even Plenary Councils may need Amendment and that L. 2. de Bapt. c. 3. The latter may Correct what is Amiss in the former And in an Epistle to S. Jerom he further declares That he had learned to pay this Deference only to the Canonical Scriptures of believing their Authors to have erred in nothing But others though never so Learned or Holy without any Exception I read so as not to take any thing to be True because they were of that Opinion but because they proved it by Scripture or Reason S. Jerom professes so firm adherence to his Private Coviction Ep. ad August Apud Flac. Illyr in Cato l. Test Suttliv de Eccles That the Authority of all the World should never be able to make him depart from it This says he I affirm this I boldly pronounce though all the World should gainsay it And he makes no Scruple of Rejecting Councils if they determine any thing against the Doctrine of the Scriptures In Esai c. 30. nay he makes it the Character of Hereticks That they take upon them so great Authority That whether they Teach Truth or Falshood they will not allow their Disciples to examine by Reason but Implicitly to follow their Leaders And yet I do not know of any of these arrived to such an Extravagance as to pronounce themselves Infallible Nazianz. ep ad Procop. Gregory the Divine was surely a Stranger to the Infallible Judge when he resolves to shun all Assemblies of Bishops because he never saw Good Issue of any of them And I can scarce believe that he would have been con tent to submit the Faith to Major Vote Orat. ad Arrian when he brings in the Arrians insulting over the little Flock of Christ defining the Church by Multitude and preferring the Sand to the Stars Joh. Antioch in Conc. Ephes t. 3. p. 70. 76. Ed. Labbe He must needs be Ignorant of the Infallible Judge that thus writes to the Emperor Theodosius against Cyril and his Ephesin Council That a great number of Bishops is unnecessary for the Examination of Opinions in Religion and serves only to create Tumults For this End our Adversaries bring great Numbers depending only upon that and not upon the Truth and Orthodoxness of their Belief And then speaking of Cyril Endeavouring to ratifie his Heresie by Multitude not considering That in Religion it is not Number that is