Holy Scriptures. Thus, in the Council of Constance it was decreed to be necessary for salvation to believe the pope to be the head of the church. In the Council of Basil it was made an article of faith to believe that the council was above the pope; and therefore, Pope Eugenius, in not obeying the council, was adjudged a heretic. The following are some of their arguments for this doctrine, and their principal objections to the opposite sentiment:

From the words, "The Spirit shall testify of me, and ye shall bear witness also," (John xv, 27,) they conclude that the testimony of the truth consists jointly in the testimony of the Holy Ghost and of the prelates of the church. We answer, The witness of the Spirit and of the apostles is one for the Spirit first testified the truth to the apostles inwardly; and the apostles, inspired by the Spirit, testified openly. So the pastors of the church, witnessing with the Spirit, which is not now inspired by new revelations, but only found in Scripture; but if the Spirit testify one thing in the word, and they testify another, different from the word, we must reject their testimony.

They argue as follows: "The church erreth not; therefore we must hear her in all things." Answer. We have proved before that the Church of Rome hath erred, because she followeth not Scripture. They say, "All heretics allege Scripture, therefore we must have a living exposition for them." We reply, that all heretics have alleged Scripture to be in their favour; but they were confounded by Scripture, and by no expositor.

They also maintain, "The word cannot be judged of the word, therefore there must be another judge besides." Our Saviour's words furnish the reply here: "The word which I have spoken shall judge at the last day." If the word shall judge at the last day, much more shall it judge us in the present life.

2. That the church hath no such power as is here contended for, we prove by the following arguments; and we are sure that the true church of Christ will never challenge any such prerogative.

First. All Scriptural truths are not so necessary to salvation, that the ignorance of some of them should prove perilous to salvation. Much less are any truths, not in Scripture, of any such necessity. The consequence is, that truths, not contained in Scripture, are not necessary in religion. Wherefore we infer, there is no need that the church should be endowed with an unnecessary power.

Secondly. The church hath no more authority than the apostles, nor indeed in all things so much. But they had no power to make articles of faith. St. Paul delivered that which he received, both in regard to the eucharist in particular, and in regard to the gospel in general. The church may explain articles of faith out of Scripture, but she cannot make new ones. Timothy is thus instructed: "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thee," 1 Tim. vi, 20. If Timothy was to introduce no new thing, but to explain and preserve the old, how much more the pastors of the church now?

Thirdly. The confession of our adversaries proves our position. The fathers of Basil, who concluded it was an article of the Christian faith to believe the superiority of the council, gathered it out of the sayings of Christ, Tell it to the church. Hence we gather that they believed

the church could establish no new article of faith without Scripture. Bellarmine says, that the church is not now governed by new revelations, but by those received from the apostles.*

Fourthly. We have already proved that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, and therefore all articles of faith must be derived thence.

3. In regard to ceremonies, they maintain that the church hath power to institute such as she deems necessary.

We allow, that though there should be great moderation used in the ceremonies of the church, and there is some limitation in ordaining them; yet the church hath greater liberty in the rites which are appointed for order, than in doctrines of faith, or rules of morals. The doctrines and rules of right are always the same, and cannot be changed and regard the conscience; but rites and ceremonies are external, and commanded for order's sake. The church cannot appoint ceremonies, but according to these four rules and conditions:

First. All things ought to be done to the glory of God, even in civil actions, much more in things appertaining to the service of God. 1 Cor. x, 31. Our adversaries offend against this rule, applying and annexing remission of sins to their own inventions and superstitious ceremonies, as unto penance and extreme unction.

Secondly. All things ought to be done decently and in order. 1 Cor. xiv, 40. Wherefore all ridiculous ceremonies are to be abolished; such as bowing to the cross, lighting candles at noon, counting beads, &c. Thirdly. All things ought to be done without offence. 1 Cor. x, 32. Fourthly. All things ought to be done to edification. 1 Cor. xiv, 12. But the popish ceremonies are not edifying. They have hallowed fire, water, bread, ashes, oil, wax, flowers, branches, clay, spittle, salt, incense, balm, chalices, &c., &c.

XVII. Of the INFALLIBILITY of the church.

The following is a condensed view of the infallibility of the Church of Rome, as collected from her own authors:

Dens affirms, "That the church, in matters of faith and manners, can by no means err, is an article of faith. Moreover, infallibility in the church may be considered in a twofold point of view: the one active and authoritative, which is called infallibility in teaching and defining; the other passive or submissive, (obedientialis,) which is called infallibility in learning and believing."

"Infallibility considered in the first sense refers to the church, in regard to the head or chief pontiff and the prelates of the church; although this infallibility would not regard the laity or inferior pastors: for as a man is said to see, although his vision does not apply to all his members, but to his eyes only, so the church, in like manner, is said to be infallible, although this infallibility refers only to the prelates."

it

"But if the church is not, considered in regard to its head, but as it embraces all the faithful, or laics, under the obedience of the pope, is not proper to say it is infallible in teaching and defining; because its gift in this respect is not to teach, but to learn and believe: wherefore the church, in this view, is said to be passively infallible, or infallible in learning, believing, practising," &c.

* De Script., quæst. 6, c. iv.

† De Ecclesia, No. 80, tom. ii, p. 404.

"Hence it is impossible that the whole church, obedient to the pope, should believe any thing as revealed, or practise any thing as good, which is not such: hence it can be said, that the sense of the universal church is always true, and its practice or usage always good."

Our author also affirms, "that the church is an infallible judge of controversies of faith; that this authority is vested in the bishops only, especially in the pope; and that lay persons, priests, doctors, or others, have no part in making infallible decisions in the church." He says the government of the church is a monarchy in regard to its head, but at the same time tempered with an aristocracy. A unanimous consent is not necessary to make a decision infallible; a majority is sufficient for this purpose. He also says, (No. 82,) that a tacit consent is sufficient to make a decision infallible, for to be silent is to consent. Hence he concludes that" when the pope defines any thing, and the majority of bishops do not object, it is impossible that this definition should embrace error." Other Romanists are of a different opinion.

The extent of infallibility has been warmly debated in the Church of Rome. The subtle and sophistical disputes and distinctions concerning questions of right and questions of fact, present the doctrine of infallibility in a light which makes their very infallibility itself a subject of greater perplexity than any controversy which has ever existed in the Protestant churches.†

As we have devoted an entire chapter to the discussion of infallibility alone, the reader is referred to it for a full exposition and confutation of this popish error.

* De Ecclesia, No. 81.

+ Those who would wish to see these subtle questions stated at large and discussed, may consult Dens, Theol,, de Eccles., No. 84, tom. ii, p. 412. Bailly, Sum. Theol., de Eccles., c. xiii, tom. ii, p. 446. Paschal's Provincial Letters.

2

CHAPTER III.

GENERAL COUNCILS.

I. A COUNCIL DEFINED.-Different kinds of councils.-II. MEMBERS OF COUNCILS. 1. Who are members? 2. Their error in this: 3. Practice of the Roman and primitive churches different: 4. Character of primitive bishops: 5. Variety of opinion on this head. Roman prelates not bishops.-III. WHO MAY CONVENE COUNCILS. 1. The pope only in ordinary cases. Popes Pelag. II., Leo IX., Pius II., Leo X. Dens and Aquinas cited: 2. Their arguments answered: 3. Six arguments against their doctrine.-IV. PRESIDENTS OF COUNCILS. 1. They say the popes, of right, preside. Falsity of this: 2. They did not preside in the first councils. Reasons why they declined on some occasions: 3. They contradict history in attaching the presidency to the pope. --V. THE NUMBER AND REQUISITES OF GENERAL COUNCILS. 1. Nice I., in 325: 2. Constantinople I., in 381: 3. Ephesus, in 431: 4. Chalcedon, in 451: 5. Constantinople II., in 453: 6. Constantinople III., in 680: 7. Nice II., in 787: 8. Constantinople IV., in 879 9. Lateran I., in 1123: 10. Lateran II., in 1139: 11. Lateran III., in 1179: 12. Lateran IV., in 1215: 13. Lyons I., in 1245: 14. Lyons II., in 1274 15. Vienna, in 1311: 16. Constance, in 1414: 17. Basil, in 1431: 18. Ferrara, in 1438: 19. Lateran V., in 1512: 20. Trent, from Dec. 13th, 1545, to Dec. 4th. 1563: 21. Character of general councils. Six objections against them: 22. Council of Trent particularly considered. Nine exceptions against it: 23. Diversity of opinion on the number and character of general councils.-VI. OF THE AUTHORITY AND INFAL LIBILITY OF A GENERAL COUNCIL. 1. Their doctrine stated. Some ascribe infallibility to the council without the pope. Others require the confirmation of the pope 2. Arguments against their infallibility. The uncertainty of their decisions arising from the superiority of the pope and council over each other. The confirmation of the pope, deciding conciliariter, doctrine of intention, proceeding lawfully, meaning of the decrees, rules of determining true from false councils. The questions are endless: 3. Disagreement among themselves respecting the characters of inerrancy: 4. Violence and disorder, the craft and artifice in managing some: 5. It is not asserted by councils, recorded in history, or taught in Scripture: 6. Their discordant views of the confirmation of the pope. Absurdity of such confirmation: 7. Some councils have been corrupted and others pretended: 8. The consent of bishops, as they hold it, overturns the infalli bility of councils. Decision of the majority not necessary. Tacit consent. Their doctrines on this head are resolved into the infallibility of the pope. This is the sentiment of their greatest and recent divines. Bellarmine and Pighius cited: 9. Infallibility inconsistent with the representative character of a council: 10. It requires as immediate an inspiration and revelation as the apostles had: 11. Councils have contradicted one another. Augustine cited. Dens' evasion: 12. Some councils have actually erred: 13. Some have decided contrary to Scripture: 14. No council has sat for nearly three hundred years.-VII. THEIR ORIGIN AND USE. 1. Not of divine origin. Matt. xviii, 17, 20, and Acts xv, 28, considered: 2. But of human origin. Did not exist in the primitive church. Their origin: 3. They do not prevent controversies: 4. Nor restore peace to the church: 5. Nazianzen's opinion. Conclusion.

I. A COUNCIL is an assembly of Christians met to deliberate on ecclesiastical matters, whether of faith, morals, or discipline. The Latins gave this assembly the name of concilium or council, while the Greeks called it by the name of synod. Both names are synonymous, and signify an assembly of any kind. We shall use it in the ecclesiastical sense only. In church history we find five kinds of councils mentioned, viz., congregational, diocesan, provincial, national, and general.

The simplest and most ancient form of ecclesiastical councils is the congregational, or a collection of Christians and ministers of the same place, met to transact church business. Of this sort, probably, was the assembly met on the occasion of the Gentiles conforming to Jewish ceremonies. Acts xv. That met on the occasion of selecting deacons

may be similar. Acts vi. Perhaps, too, the famous meeting of the presbyters, or bishops, of Ephesus was very little else.

The diocesan council consisted of all those persons holding ecclesiastical offices, within the precincts of the diocess, or parish of a primitive pastor or bishop. Of this description are the assemblies of which mention is made by the apostolic fathers, Clement, Polycarp, &c. But diocesan councils, or synods, held in the third, fourth, and subsequent centuries, were vastly different from those diocesan or parochial assemblies which were held immediately after the decease of the apostles.

Provincial synods, or councils, were those which were held in a province, and had their commencment in the second century, but they took their peculiar form at a subsequent date. The metropolitans usually presided.

A national council is composed of delegates from an entire nation, where the patriarch or primate presides.

These councils, in their first origin, had no other legislative authority than that which rested on the mutual agreement of the members. After Christianity had become the established religion of the Roman empire, in the beginning of the fourth century, the emperors convened councils, which were called œcumenical, universal, or general. Among the ancients a national or provincial council was frequently called general, because it was constituted of representatives from a whole province or nation.

In the present discussion we dismiss any particular inquiries concerning any councils, except those which are called general, which the Church of Rome considers as infallible. There are several points connected with general councils, in which Protestants and Romanists differ, which may be discussed in connection with the following heads-1. Who are members? 2. Who may convene them? 3. Who preside? 4. Their authority. 5. Their infallibility. 6. Their number. 7. Their origin and use.

II. Who are MEMBERS of general councils?

1. We collect the following qualifications of membership from Ferraris, who supports his statements by ample testimonies.* He affirms it to be the doctrine of the Church of Rome, that bishops alone, and the higher prelates, as archbishops, primates, and patriarchs, have decisive votes in councils. Titular bishops also, who have no other than nominal diocesses, are also members of general councils. So, also, are cardinals, though they may not be bishops, abbots, and generals of orders.

Theologians, and doctors of the canon laws, are called to general councils: not for the purpose of voting, but for consultation, on account of their skill in divinity and the canon law.

Princes are invited for protection, but not to vote or decide. class of laymen is admitted to take part in councils.

No

In a council it is not necessary, says Dens,† that all bishops should be present. It is enough that a sufficient number from all countries be present to represent absent members. Hence many councils, not called general, had more members than some which had received that name. That the first general council was composed of both bishops and * Ferraris, in Concilium, art. i, Nos. 27-44. De Ecclesia, No. 85.