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
which is to some an Infallible Judge they methinks should not be afraid to declare the whole Truth for they surely could not mistrust their own Infallibility and as little could they Question the Acquiescence and Submission of all good Catholicks yet these had Scruples and could not speak out for they had received a Caution from Rome whence their Spirit of Defining came That they should by no means Meddle with that Controversie that depended between Catholicks which might occasion a Schism How For a General Council to determine a Controversie between Catholicks would it be to expose the Church to the Danger of Schism Where then is their Belief of Infallibility Where is their Resignation to the Decrees of the Church Or to what Purpose is Infallibility given if it cannot be Exercised for fear of Offence and giving occasion to Schism We are told That the only Remedy against Heresie and Schism is the Determination of the Church and we are pressed to forsake our Religion because the Council of Trent has condemned it whereas in Confidence between Pope and Council we find that their Catholicks would leave them for that very Reason which they use to Convert us i. e. If they durst Condemn their Opinions as they have done ours It is said indeed That this Article of the Immaculate Conception is not of Faith and therefore needs not to be decided and if it were the Decision of the Church may not be Infallibly True because the Promise of Infallible Assistance extends only to Matters of Faith. I should be better content with this Answer if I could be satisfy'd once What is of Faith and what is not How comes Invocation of Saints Worshipping of Images and Purgatory to be of Faith and this not It cannot be said Because the Church has determin'd those Points and not this For before I enquired Why the Church would not determine this and it was given me for a Reason That it was not of Faith. Or is it because it does not seem to be of so great moment in it self This cannot be pretended for Matters of less Moment have been declared to be of Faith For Instance The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin is an Article in it self of less Moment than this of the Immaculate Conception for he that denies that the Mother of our Lord always continued a Virgin makes her less Perfect in the Opinion of some but not Criminal in the Judgment of any For if she had enjoy'd the Liberty of Wedlock she had not sinned But he that affirms her to be Conceived in Sin if she knew no Sin is a False and Blasphemous Accuser and does her real Dishonour Yet Helvidius and some others that denyed her Perpetual Virginity are Hereticks the Dominicans that charge her with Original Sin and that Unjustly according to the Opinion of the major part of the Council of Trent if we may believe Pallavicini and of the present Roman Church are still Good Catholicks and the Question must not be Infallibly Decided against them for fear of Schism But one of the greatest Hindrances of our Belief of Infallibility is to see That those who affirm that such a Priviledge belongs to their Church cannot agree where to place it Some are for the Pope some for a General Council some for the Church Diffusive now if but one of these Competitors be Infallible of three Parties into which the Roman Church is divided upon this Question there are two against him and as very Hereticks as we If all the three be Infallible then all the Roman Church is in a Dangerous Error for of this Trinity of Infallible Judges no Party believes but one to the Exclusion of the other two Nor can they Reproach us with rejecting all the three for we allow the Church Diffusive to be Infallible in a Sense that is That there shall be always Persons professing the Substance of the Christian Faith only we do not make these Infallible Judges nor resolve our Faith into this Pious Opinion as into a first Principle But we need not insist upon this for the Romanists themselves confess That the Church Diffusive can be no Judge and that no Controversie in Religion was ever yet Decided by it Now while the Romanists are Disagreed about their Infallible Judge how can we believe that they have any For surely If God had appointed such a Judge he had rendred him so Conspicuous and Remarkable that every one who was not wilfully Blind must have Discerned him else there could be no Use of him and instead of Ending Controversie he would Serve only to Increase it by becoming himself the Subject of a New Dispute For what Use I pray of an Infallible Judge that lies incognito or what benefit from that Infallibility that is Distracted between many and Endless Competitions The Wisdom of God is not wont to confer so great a Gift to so little purpose and those who concern the Divine Wisdom in this Question by saying That God had not made sufficient Provision for his Church if he had not made it Infallible do not consider That while they Disagree about this Infallibility they overthrow their own Argument and betray the Divine Wisdom after they had interested it in their Disputes When they pretend to be all agreed in this That they Blieve the Pope and a General Council in conjunction to make up one Infallible Compound we have great Reason to suspect That what they say is not True and that they do not believe it themselves for several have lived and dyed in their Communion who publickly taught That a Pope and General Council concurring may err in the Faith and were never Censur'd for this Doctrine Besides it is as reasonable to believe that two Cyphers joyned may make up a Summ as that two Fallible Parties can make up one Infallible in Conjunction Or if these Parties are Infallible apart they do but mock us when they talk of their Conjunction But that they do not Believe their own Pretence seems to me plain Because they take no Care to be always provided of this Infallible Compound How can they believe a Pope and Council united to be the only Infallible Judge and yet use no Means to bring them together once in a hundred Years The Council of Constance when it had Decreed Councils to be Infallible took Care to Act according to their Pretence and therefore ordered Councils to be frequent and provided against all those Impediments which the Jealousie of the Roman Court might oppose to their Design But that Men should believe that Infallibility of Judgment belongs to a certain Conjunction of Parties and yet to be content they should never meet and to let Ages pass without the least Benefit of this Infallibility that was in their Power is such a Riddle that overcomes my Weak Faith so Rank a Pretence as would turn the Stomach of a Pharisee But if they pretend That the State of the World and Circumstances of Princes will
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