St. Peter, St. Paul, St. Barnabas, and St. James, that the assembly came to a resolution. If they had been filled with the spirit of infallibility, such as is conceived now adays, they would have been all at first of one mind; and there would have needed no more to be done, but to charge one of them to give out the oracle in the name of the whole assembly.

There happened likewise, before that, another thing related by St. Luke, Acts x. which makes it also very evident, that the Holy Ghost which the apostles received the day of Pentecost, had not taught them all they ought to know, (so far was it from rendering them at first dash infallible) and that they were not then considered as persons out of danger of falling into error, as they have been since accounted. Peter needed a vision, as appears by the story of Cornelius the centurion, to learn that he ought not to scruple preaching the gospel to the Gentiles; although Christ had ordered his apostles before his ascending into Heaven, to preach the gospel unto all creatures; whereby he clearly enough denoted the Gentiles as well as the Jews.

St.

St. Peter after having obeyed the express order which he received from God, to preach the gospel to Cornelius, was no sooner returned to Jerusalem, but the be-lievers of the circumcision, not dreaming that his apostleship rendered him infallible, dispute with him; and tell him, after a manner that shows that the infallibility which we now attribute to him, was to them unknown, Thou wentest unto men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.

Many years, as it seems, after that, Peter being at Antioch, had not the courage to maintain openly, that the Jews might eat with the Gentiles without scruple. For before that certain persons came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision: And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that St. Paul observing, that they walked not uprighly, was obliged to tell Peter before them all, if thou being a Jew livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? said that St. Peter was guilty of a fault

It is

only in his conduct, and not in his doctrine; that he believed and maintained the same with St. Paul, but that on this occasion he dissembled his opinion; and that he did not otherways constrain the Gentiles to live as the Jews, but in abstaining to eat with them. The Gentiles, say they, seeing that St. Peter did not eat with them because they were uncircumcised, did, by reason of this his conduct, believe themselves obliged to be circumcised, and consequently to observe the other ceremonies of the law. They believed that it was a sin to continue uncircumcised, because St. Peter forbore to live familiarly with them on that account; and on the contrary that it was a duty to observe the circumcision. So that it was by his conduct only that St. Peter forced them to live as Jews. And indeed it is true that by efficaciously engaging one to do a thing, after what manner soever it be, we are said to force one to do it. See Gen. xix. 3. Luke xxiv. 29.

I believe really that this is the best explanation. But it proves clearly that the metaphysical infallibility which is attributed to the apostles is not of apostolic tra

dition. For, in truth, to dissemble a true doctrine when they ought to preach it, and to engage people in an error by their conduct, is visibly a human weakness, and which becomes not those who are looked upon as the simple instruments of the holy spirit speaking by their mouths. St. Peter's conduct gave the Gentiles to understand, as well as if he had told it them, that they must observe the circumcision; and to give them to understand it by forbearing to eat with them, was almost the same thing as to tell it them by word of mouth. Nay more, it is not unlikely that St. Peter believed that this dissimulation was lawful, as well as St. Barnabas, and the other Jews who had followed his example; otherwise it is not credible that so pious men, who were the first ministers of the gospel, would have done it. And so we must confess that they were guilty of some weakness even in doctrine, although they recanted it soon, nor was it of great importance.

There is also a great difference observable in the manner of Christ's speaking (He that had received the spirit without measure) and that in which the Apostles

same.

express themselves; whereas according to the common opinion it ought to be the If the same spirit had rendered them infallible, they had right to declare to the world the doctrine of salvation with the same power, and to speak as authoritatively as Jesus Christ. see the contrary in their writings. spoke as one having authority. heard it was said of old, &c. unto you, &c. The apostles, on the contrary, declare that they say nothing of themselves, and refer all to the prophets, and to Jesus Christ: Acts xxvi. 22. 1 Cor. xi. 23.

But we Christ You have But I say

And that which is yet more considerable is, that they distinguish manifestly that which they say themselves from that which Christ had said. And unto the married, I command, yet not I, but the Lord, &c. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord, &c. So St. Paul speaks, 1 Cor. vii. 10. 12. which he would not have done, had he been aware that his auditors had believed his words as infallible as the words of Christ.

Methinks these are convincing proofs that the apostles had not a perpetual in