overturned. Melanchton is not the only one who entertained these opinions in these times. You will have remarked this declaration; "Our brethren are agreed." In the confession of Augsburgh, they had already proclaimed tolerably loudly the authority of the Church, the agreement of the ancient Church, of the Catholic Church, and even the doctrine of the Church of Rome. I have given you the passages above. As for the Calvinists, without retracing here the multitude of professions of faith, and of synods, the object of which evidently was to instruct and to hold people's minds in subjection, by the voice of authority, I shall notice some sentences of the synod of Delpht, because they have more closely imitated the language of the Catholic Church, and almost adopted the same doctrine.

The remonstrants had advanced that the synod with which they were threatened would not be infallible like the apostles. It was not easy for the Calvinists openly to deny this; the synod of Delpht, however,' answered them in these words: "Jesus "Christ who promised to his apostles the Spirit of "truth, whose lights should conduct them in all "truth, also promised to his Church to be with "her to the end of ages, and where two or three are "assembled together in his name, there to be in the "midst of them:" from which they conclude, a little later, "that when pastors from several countries "should be assembled, to decide according to the "word of God, what must be taught in the Churches,

we must, with a firm confidence, be persuaded "that Jesus Christ would be with them according to his promise." Now the declaration of this provin

'1618.

cial synod (and this should be observed) was afterwards read and approved at the national synod of Dordrecht, called by all the party the almost œcumenical synod, because, in fact, in it were found deputies from England, Scotland, the Palatinate, Hesse, Switzerland, Geneva, Bremen, Emden, in a word, from the whole body of the reformation, not joined to the Lutherans, with the exception of the French, whom reasons of state kept away, but who approved of it afterwards. We see here the whole of Calvinism brought back in its turn to the principle of authority, as was Lutheranism before it, in the confession of Augsburgh.

The particular teachers who have since ap-' peared, and who have shewn more learning and moderation, in both parties, have adopted the same principles and held nearly the same language. I do not even entirely except M. Jurieu, whom I could cite to you, were it not of more consequence to make you acquainted with a more grave and more solidly instructed personage, M. Molanus, the Abbé de Lokkum, the friend and fellow-labourer of Leibnitz, in the project of conciliation carried on for some time, between them and Bossuet, but which unfortunately failed. M. Molanus assigns as the third rule of faith "the interpretation of the scripture adopted by common consent or authorized by the practice of the ancient and modern Church, -or which should be approved by a general "council held legitimately and freely. All Chris"tians are agreed (says he) upon the following "points: 1st, such or such councils are not always "necessary of themselves, but only on account of "certain circumstances, as when the troubles of the "Church cannot otherwise be appeased. 2dly. It

ઠંડ

"is agreed that the interpretation of scripture given by the council should be preferred, at least ex

teriourly, to that of any individual: on this account "the confession of Augsburgh declares that a general council is the ultimate means employed by antiquity to procure the peace of the Church, "and ought to be resorted to. The synod of "Dordrecht, all the councils held by the two

parties, and even that of the apostles, confirm the "same thing. In fine we find still another de"cided confirmation in the acts of the synod of "Charenton, where it is said, that if it were per"mitted to all and to each one to adhere to private "interpretations, there would be as many religions "as parishes. 3rdly. Again, it is agreed, that the "œcumenical councils have very often erred,' and "that when we attribute to them the assistance of "the Holy Spirit, or that infallibility to which all "christians owe an inward submission, we have never "pretended that such infallibility belongs to them, "precisely because they are councils, but because "of the subsequent consent of the greatest part of the

Church, to which the assistance of the Holy Spirit "is promised." And in the new explanation of his method he says: "If the Church had decided in a "council undoubtedly general, such as are, by the "consent of all parties, the first of Nice, the three "of Constantinople, that of Chalcedon and that of

66

Ephesus, the contrary to that which the protes"tants decide, there is no doubt that this decision "should carry the day." You have here then,

'I know not who can allow that the general conncils have erred: certainly M. Molanus cannot do it, for he teaches the opposite in this very passage.-Ibid. 322.

according to the learned Abbé and according to M. Leibnitz, for they both laboured together, the authority of the Church brought into honor and repute and according to them and the acts of Charenton, it is not lawful for any one to adopt his private interpretations, because otherwise there would be as many religions as parishes: the œcumenical council should supersede all others; infallibility is attached to the greatest part of the Church, because the assistance of the Holy Spirit has been promised it. Do we require more? Or did we ask more in the time of Luther and Calvin ? Who would not feel himself vehemently moved with compassion at the sight of the fatal schism, that has been effected by means of crying down an authority, to which the reformers were one day to have recourse again? O the blindness and folly of man! Oh! the misery of your guilty reformers and their numerous descendants!

But I am detaining you too long in a strange country: I hasten to conduct you again to your fellow-countrymen. From the time that England, which perhaps may claim the glory of superior knowledge in its temporal interests, and of excelling in the art of governing, had taken the fatal resolution to legalize schism and to form itself into a religious constitution, it felt the necessity of investing its new Church with all the strength and power of the nation. One of the first concerns of the parliament was to carry a law for the establishing of uniformity of worship. The supreme governess acted upon the same plan. No sooner had she substituted her bishops for those of the ancient Church, but she gave them to understand that they must assemble and draw up a formula of faith, that

might serve as the basis of the common creed of her subjects. They actually assembled in 1562, and drew up the thirty-nine articles, which afterwards received the approbation of the governess and the legal approbation of parliament. But what influence could the governess or the parliament have over the mind, after they had taught the people to despise the holy authority that Jesus Christ had given to his Church? And, above all, what did the new spiritual lords mean by their twentieth article? With what face did they there claim for themselves the right of judging controversies, deciding upon matters of faith, of enforcing obedience to their decisions by all their spiritual censures, they who but lately had prided themselves on their abjuring the authority of the universal Church, and had just made so shameful a display of insubordination against their legitimate superiors? How come they, now adays, to entertain so high an idea of the episcopal dignity and authority, much misplaced undoubtedly in their persons, and yet essentially most christian? There are then certain powerful truths with which men find themselves penetrated and as it were impregnated in spite of themselves; to which they are constrained to pay homage, when their interests hold their peace. For then they lay down their principles in theory, as if they no longer remembered having combated them the day before in their actions. To conclude, all that they gain is to give a more scandalous display to the contradiction with which they were reproached between their actual doctrine and their public conduct. "Who are you? Said

they to them: whence come you? Yeterday we "knew nothing of you? Whose place do you oc"cupy? It is the place of your masters in the faith,