it is the last consent that settles the law, yet the previous consents were necessary steps to giving it the authority of a law. But it may be answered, that, in matters of government, the Church may follow this example. By By a decree of the council of Nice, a bishop could conclude on nothing without the consent of the metropolitan; so, too, another decree might decide that a general council should wait for the consent of a particular patriarch. But this could only take place in matters of order and government, which are left to the disposal of the Church, but not in decisions about matters of faith. For if there is an infallibility in the Church, it must be derived from a special grant made by Christ. Now, (unless there be a clause in this grant, empowering the Church to dispose of it at pleasure, as confessedly there is not,) this grant must be either to a single person, or to the whole community. If to a single person, then the infallibility is wholly in him, and his calling a council can only arise from humility or prudence. On the other hand, if the infallibility is granted to the whole community, or to their representatives, then all the applications they make to any one See can only be in order to the execution of their decrees, but still the infallibility rests wholly in their decision, and any other confirmation that they desire is a direct disclaiming of their own privileges.

4. From our ignorance as to the reception of those decrees. When the decrees are confirmed, a new difficulty arises. For, if Christ's grant is to the whole community, so that a council is only the authenticated declarer of the tradition, the whole body of the Church that is possessed of this tradition must have a right to examine the decision, and therefore is not bound to receive it, unless it be conformable to the tradition they have themselves preserved. Now, if this be allowed, it destroys infallibility. If it be not allowed, then Semi-Arianism should have been received after the council of Arimini, and Eutychianism after the second at Ephesus.

5. From the contradictions of different councils. In the Arian controversy, several councils decreed in opposition to that of Nice, through the influence of Constantius. The Eutychian heresy was approved in the second council of Ephesus," and soon after condemned at Chalcedon. The

The principal of these have been already mentioned, those of Arimini aud Seleucia. The councils of Tyre and Antioch, in the years 335 and 341, adopted the same opinions, by both of which Athanasius was successively condemued. See Gibbon's Decline and Fall, v. ii. p. 227-230.

b This council was summoned by Theodosius, A. D. 449, in consequence of the heresy of Eutyches, which was favoured by its decrees. These were, however reversed in the council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451, under the Emperor Marcian.-See Mosheim's Hist. v. i, cent. v. par. ii. c. v. sec. xiv.

a

worship of images was condemned at Constantinople, and soon after, owing to a change in the principles of the court, maintained in the second Nicene council, and again condemned at Francfort. Finally, the authority of councils was asserted at Constance and Basil, but condemned in the Lateran, and quite passed over at Trent. 6. From the intrigues practised on them. At Ephesus, numbers of factious monks carried their point by mere clamour. Gross frauds were practised in the second of Nice, both in the persons representing the absent patriarchs, and in the authorities produced for the worship of images. The intrigues at Trent were more artful, though not less scandalous. No subject

The council of Constantinople here alluded to, was summoned by Constantine Copronymus, A. D. 75-1, and condemned the worship of images. It was succeeded by the second Nicene Council, in the year 786, in which image worship was approved; and this again was contradicted by the council of Francfort under Charlemagne, A. D. 794.-See Mosheim's Hist. v. i. cent. viii. p. ii. c. iii. sec. xii.

b The Council of Constance was held in the year 1414, for the purpose of healing the great Western schism. That of Basil was held A. D. 1431, and in both the authority of a council was declared superior to that of the Pope. Their decrees, however, were reversed by the Lateran council, in 1512.-See Mosheim's Hist. cent. xvi. c. i. sec. i.

с

This council is called by the Greeks, the band of robbers, in consequence of the violence with which it was conducted.

d Cardinal Pallavicini endeavours to defend this practice.-See Hist. Conc. Trid. 1. 6. c. 4. sec. 7, 8. and c. 8. sec. 5. Ed. Antwerp,

was brought before a session till it had been previously canvassed in a congregation or secret committee, by which means each person's vote was discovered. This circumstance proves, that they themselves were aware that they were not infallibly guided by the Spirit of God, since had they been so, they could have had no apprehensions as to the result in a session.a

7. From the practice of the early ages. It is remarkable that the Church was constituted, the Scriptures were received, many heresies were rejected, and the persecutions were undergone in the course of three centuries; yet, during this term there was no general council. And when the ages came, in which councils met, neither the councils themselves, who must have understood the extent of their authority, nor those who wrote in defence of their decrees,

a Roman Catholics object to the Reformed Church, that there is in it no infallible tribunal to which men may appeal for the interpretation of Scripture; an objection, which is obviated among them by the decrees of their infallible councils. Now, surely, if these decrees themselves need a similar interpretation, the objection urged against us is removed. And, that they do require such interterpretation, the conduct of the Church itself proves, for as soon as the council of Trent had finished its sittings, a society was formed by Pope Sixtus V. called "the congregation for interpreting the decrees of the council of Trent ;" to which, or to the Pope himself, all disputes were to be referred. The existence of such a society. evidently involves the conclusion we wish to establish.

ever pretended to argue for their opinions, from the infallibility that was lodged with them.

8. From the present state of the world. If the infallibility is supposed to be in councils, then the Church may justly apprehend that she has lost it. For, as there has been no council for 270 years, so there is no probability of our ever seeing another. The circumstancs connected with the Council of Trent have taught men to expect little advantage from them, and thus infallibility is at an end, and has left the Church, at least for a very long interval.

Before we conclude, it is necessary to consider the texts adduced in support of this doctrine.

1st."Tell it unto the Church, and if he "neglect to hear the Church, let him be to thee

re

as a heathen and a publican." (Matt. xiii. 17.) Here our Saviour is alluding to the private differences that might arise among men, and to the forgiveness of injuries. "If thy brother sin against thee," he directs, first, that private endeavours were to be used, then the interposition of friends, and finally, the contest was to be referred to the assembly or body to which they belonged. And those who could not be persuaded by such methods were no more to be esteemed as brethren, but were to be regarded as evil men, like heathens; they might, after such conduct, be excommunicated, and subsequently prosecuted in temporal courts, since they had,