of men, and pay respect to customs established by antiquity. But while changes are to be avoided, unless particularly expedient, no practices should be adhered to on any other ground than their usefulness.

A distinction, however, should here be made between the motives which should guide the pastors of the Church in framing these rules, and the subjects in submitting to them. The former should consider the expediency or non-expediency of a particular rite, but the latter should only inquire into its lawfulness. If lawful, they are bound to obey, whatever may be their opinion as to its fitness, for order and obedience are both in their own nature and in their consequences to be preferred to all the particular considerations of expediency or inexpediency.

2. With respect to matters of faith," the "Church ought not to enforce any thing to be be"lieved for necessity of salvation, besides what is "contained in Holy Writ." It is certain that as we owe our hopes of salvation only to Christ, so also he who procured it for us can alone fix the terms on which we may expect it. On this subject there can be no dispute; it has been already discussed in the sixth Article.

Before we conclude, it is necessary to explain the meaning of the words, "the Church is the witness and keeper of Holy Writ." We acknowledge the Church is the depositary of

the entire Scriptures, as the Jews were of the Old Testament. But we infer from this instance, that men may be faithful in transmitting a book without corruption, and yet be mistaken in the meaning of that which they thus preserve. For we find, they are called the "keepers of the oracles of God," (Rom. iii. 2.) and are never reproved for violating that trust. Still they so far misunderstood the Scriptures, that they rejected the Messias. And thus, when the Church is called the witness of Holy Writ, it does not imply any authoritative judgment that they pass upon it, so that the canonicalness of any book shall depend upon their testimony; but that the books of Scripture have been preserved and read among such vast numbers and successions of men, that it was impossible any corruption should take place.

The Roman Catholics are here involved in a circle, for they believe the Scriptures on the authority of the Church, and again believe the authority of the Church, because the Scriptures assert it. On the contrary, we have seen, that our mode of proof is perfectly valid; for it is not on the authority of the Church, as such, that we believe the Scriptures; but merely from the testimony of vast bodies of men in all ages, who from their situation, were competent witnesses to the facts which they declare.

Q

ARTICLE XXI.

OF THE AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS.

GENERAL COUNCILS MAY NOT BE GATHERED TOGETHER
WITHOUT THE COMMANDMENT AND WILL OF PRINCES.
AND WHEN THEY ARE GATHERED TOGETHER (FORAS-
MUCH AS THEY BE AN ASSEMBLY OF MEN WHEREOF
ALL BE NOT GOVERNED WITH THE SPIRIT AND WORD

OF GOD) THEY MAY ERR, AND SOMETIMES HAVE ERRED
EVEN IN THINGS PERTAINING TO GOD. WHEREFORE

THINGS ORDAINED BY THEM AS NECESSARY TO SAL-
VATION HAVE NEITHER STRENGTH NOR AUTHORITY,
UNLESS IT MAY BE DECLARED THAT THEY ARE TAKEN
OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES.

THIS Article consists of two parts: I. It declares with whom the power of calling councils is lodged; and, II. It asserts the fallibility of General Councils.

I. With respect to the persons with whom the power of calling councils is lodged, the Article asserts, that" General Councils may not be ga"thered together without the commandment "and will of princes."

The justice of this prohibition appears from the following considerations: 1. From the words of Scripture. It is declared, that "every soul

must be subject to the higher powers.' (Rom. xiii. 1.) Clergymen, therefore, are subject to their princes. Hence it follows, that they cannot be obliged to leave their dominions upon a foreign summons, since their persons are under the laws of the country to which they belong.

2. From the dangers that would result from a contrary practice. If a foreign power should call the clergy of any state away at pleasure, it might not only be left in great destitution, as to religious performances, but they might have such treasonable notions infused into them, as to become the disturbers and betrayers of their country.

As soon

3. From the practice of antiquity. as the Church had the protection of Christian magistrates, the Roman emperors always summoned the general councils. This appears from the letters to the emperors, and from the acts of the councils themselves, which mention the authority by which they were called, without any allusion to the Popes. There are some instances in which we find the latter requesting the em

b

This subject is fully discussed by Bishop Andrews, in his Sermons, p. 737, Ed. Lond. 1661; Jewel, Def. of Apol. p. 6. c. 12. div. 2; Field of the Church, B. 5. c. 51. and Bilson on Christian Subjection, par. 2. p. 274. Ed. Oxf. 1585.

b Independent of the express declaration of the acts of the different councils, it is remarkable that in the preface to the council of Rheims, summoned by Charlemagne, A. D. 813, it is said to be

peror to summon a council,a but no where is there any trace of their doing so on their own authority. Even since they have got this power into their own hands, they do not expect that the world will receive a council as general, unless the princes of Christendom consent to the publication of the Bull.

The authority of calling councils has been claimed by various bodies. When all Christendom was included within the Roman empire, then the calling of a council depended on the will of an individual. But during the dark ages, the world was so subjected to the Pope's sway, that princes seldom presumed to oppose their summons. After the schism in the Popedom, however, when there were two, and sometimes three Popes at a time, councils claimed, as representatives of the universal

b

assembled "a domino Carolo Cæsare more priscorum imperatorum.” See Act. Concil. v. 20. in prefat. Ed. Paris, 1644.

a Leo the Great wrote to the Emperor Theodosius" suppli"cating his majesty with groans and tears, that he would convene a "general council to be held in Italy." Notwithstanding this prayer, the council was held in Chalcedon.-See Leon. Mag. Epist. 14. ad Theod.

b This is the celebrated Western Schism, which placed the Church under the government of two Popes. In order to heal it, the council of Pisa was assembled in 1409, which deposed the two existing Pontiffs, and elected another in their place. But as they disregarded the decree, there were then three Popes at the same time. See Mosheim, Hist. cent. xv. par. ii. c. ii. sec. ii.