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
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