hundred and eighteen at Nice were far exceeded by those ART. at Arimini. All the firft General Councils were made up XXI. for the most part of Eastern Bifhops; there being a very inconfiderable number of the Western among any of them; fcarce any at all being to be found in fome. If this had been the body to whom Chrift had left this infallibility, it cannot be imagined but that fome definition or description of the conftitution of it would have been given us in the Scripture: and the profound filence that is about it gives juft occafion to think, that how wife and how good foever fuch a conftitution may be, if well purfued, yet it is not of a divine inftitution; otherwise fomewhat concerning fo important a head as this is must have been mentioned in the Scripture.

The natural idea of a General Council, is a meeting of all the Bishops of Chriftendom, or at least of proxies inftructed by them and their Clergy. Now if any will ftand to this description, then we are very fure that there was never yet a true General Council: which will appear to every one that reads the fubfcriptions of the Councils. Therefore we must conclude, that General Councils are not conftituted by a divine authority; fince we have no direction given us from God, by which we may know what they are, and what is neceffary to their constitution. And we cannot fuppofe that God has granted any privileges, much lefs infallibility, which is the greatest of all, to a body of men, of whom, or of whofe conftitution, he has faid nothing to us. For fuppofe we should yield that there were an infallibility lodged in general in the Church diffufive, fo that the Church in fome part or other fhall be always preserved from error; yet the restraining this to the greater number of fuch Bifhops as fhall happen to come to a Council, they living perhaps near it, or being more capable and more forward to undertake a journey, being healthier, richer, or more active than others; or, which is as probable, because it has often fallen out, they being picked out by parties or princes to carry on cabals, and manage fuch intrigues as may be on foot at the Council; the reftraining the infallibility, I fay, to the greater number of fuch perfons, unless there is a divine authority for doing it, is the transferring the infallibility from the whole body to a fele&t number of perfons, who of themselves are the least likely to confent to the engroffing this privilege to the majority of their body, it being their intereft to maintain their right to it, free from intrigue or management.

We need not wonder if fuch things have happened in

the

ART. the latter ages, when Nazianzen laments the corruptions, XXI. the ambition, and the contentions that reigned in those. affemblies in his own time; fo that he never defired to fee any more of them. He was not only prefent at one of the General Councils, but he himself felt the effects of jealoufy and violence in it.

Further, it will appear a thing incredible, that there is an infallibility in Councils becaufe they are called General, and are affembled out of a great many kingdoms and provinces; when we fee them go backward and forward, according to the influences of courts, and of interefts directed from thence. We know how differently Councils decreed in the Arian controverfies; and what a variety of them Conftantius fet up against that at Nice. So it was in the Eutychian herefy, approved in the fecond Council at Ephefus, but foon after condemned at Chalcedon. So it was in the business of images, condemned at Constantinople in the Eaft; but foon after upon another change at court maintained in the fecond at Nice; and not long after condemned in a very numerous Council at Francfort. And in the point in hand, as to the authority of Councils, it was afferted at Conftance and Bafil; but condemned in the Lateran; and was upon the matter laid aside at Trent, Here were great numbers of all hands; both fides took the name of General Councils.

It will be a further prejudice against this, if we fee great violence and diforders entering into the management of fome Councils; and craft and artifice into the conduct of others. Numbers of factious and furious. monks came to fome Councils, and drove on matters by. their clamours: fo it was at Ephefus. We fee grofs fraud in the fecond at Nice, both in the perfons fet up to reprefent the abfent patriarchs, and in the books and authorities that were vouched for the worship of images. The intrigues at Trent, as they are fet out even by Cardinal Pallavicini, were more fubtile, but not lefs apparent, nor lefs fcandalous. Nothing was trufted to a feffion, till it was first canvaffed in congregations; which were what a committee of the whole houfe is in our Parliaments; and then every man's vote was known; fo that there was hereby great occafion given for practice. This alone, if there had been no more, fhewed plainly that they themselves knew they were not guided by the Spirit of God, or by infallibility; fince a feffion was not thought fafe to be ventured on, but after a long previous canvaffing.

Another question remains yet to be cleared, concerning

XXI.

their manner of proceeding; whether the infallibility is ART. affixed to their vote, whatfoever their proceedings may be? Or whether they are bound to difcufs matters fully? The first cannot be faid, unless it is pretended that they vote by a special infpiration. If the fecond is allowed, then we must examine both what makes a full difcuffion; and whether they have made it?

If we find opinions falfely reprefented; if books that are fpurious have been relied on; if paffages of Scripture, or of the Fathers, on which it appears the stress of the decifion has turned, have been manifeftly misunderstood and wrested, so that in a more enlightened age no perfon pretends to juftify the authority that determined them, can we imagine that there fhould be more truth in their conclufions, than we do plainly fee was in the premises out of which they were drawn? So it must either be faid, that they vote by an immediate infpiration, or all perfons cannot be bound to fubmit to their judgment till they have examined their methods of proceeding, and the grounds on which they went: and when all is done, the question comes, concerning the authority of fuch decrees after they are made; whether it follows immediately upon their being made, or muft ftay for the confirmatory bulls? If it muft ftay for the bull, then the infallibility is not in the Council: and that is only a more folemn way of preparing matters in order to the laying them before the Pope. If they are infallible before the confirmation, then the infallibility is wholly in the Council; and the fubfequent bull does, inftead of confirming their decrees, derogate much from them: for to pretend to confirm them, imports that they wanted that addition of authority, which deftroys the fuppofition of their infallibility, fince what is infallible cannot be made ftronger; and the pretending to add ftrength to it, implies that it is not infallible. Human conftitutions may be indeed fo modelled, that there must be a joint concurrence before a law can be made: and though it is the laft confent that fettles the law, yet the previous confents were necessary steps to the giving it the authority of a law.

And thus it is not to be denied, but that, as to the matters of government, the Church may caft herself into fuch a model, that as by a decree of the Council of Nice the Bishops of a province might conclude nothing without the confent of the Metropolitan; fo another decree might even limit a General Council to ftay for the con fent of one or more Patriarchs. But this mult only take place in matters of order and government, which are left

to

ART. to the difpofal of the Church, but not in decifions about XXI. matters of faith. For if there is an infallibility in the Church, it must be derived from a fpecial grant made by Chrift to his Church: and it must go according to the nature of that grant, unless it can be pretended that there is a clause in that grant, empowering the Church to difpose of it, and model it at pleasure. For if there is no fuch power, as it is plain there is not, then Chrift's grant is either to a fingle perfon, or to the whole community : if to a fingle perfon, then the infallibility is wholly in him, and he is to manage it as he thinks best: for if he calls a Council, it is only an act of his humility and condefcenfion, to hear the opinions of many in different corners of the Church, that fo he may know all that comes from all quarters: it may also seem a prudent way to make his authority to be the more eafily borne and fubmitted to, fince what is gently managed is beft obeyed: but after all, thefe are only prudential and difcreet methods. The infallibility must be only in him, if Chrift has by the grant tied him to fuch a fucceffion. Whereas on the other hand, if the infallibility is granted to the whole community, or to their reprefentatives, then all the applications that they may make to any one See muft only be in order to the execution of their decrees, like the addreffes that they make to Princes for the civil fan&tion. But ftill the infallibility is where Chrift put it. It refts wholly in their decifion, and belongs only to that: and any other confirmation that they defire, unless it be reftrained fingly to the execution of their decrees, is a wound given by themfelves to their own infallibility, if not a direct disclaiming of it.

When the confirmation of the Council is over, a new difficulty arifes concerning the receiving the decrees: and here it may be said, that if Chrift's grant is to the whole community, fo that a Council is only the authentical declarer of the tradition, the whole body of the Church that is poffeffed of the tradition, and conveys it down, must have a right to examine the decifion that the Council has made, and fo is not bound to receive it, but as it finds it to be conformable to tradition.

Here it is to be fuppofed, that every Bishop, or at the leaft all the Bishops of any national Church, know best the tradition of their own Church and Nation: and fo they will have a right to re-examine things after they have been adjudged in a General Council.

This will entirely deftroy the whole pretenfion to infallibility and yet either this ought to have been done after

the

XXI.

the Councils at Arimini, or the fecond of Ephefus, or elfe ART. the world must have received Semi-Arianifm, or Eutychianifm, implicitly from them. It is alfo no fmall prejudice against this opinion, that the Church was conftituted, the Scriptures were received, many herefies were rejected, and the perfecutions were gone through in a courfe of three centuries; in all which time there was nothing that could pretend to be called a General Council. And when the ages came, in which Councils met often, neither the Councils themfelves, who must be suppofed to understand their own authority beft, nor thofe who wrote in defence of their decrees, who must be fup- : posed to be inclined enough to magnify their authority, being of the fame fide; neither of thefe, I fay, ever pretended to argue for their opinions, from the infallibility of thofe Councils that decreed them.

They do indeed fpeak of them with great refpect, as of bodies of men that were guided by the Spirit of God: and fo do we of our reformers, and of thofe who prepared our Liturgy: but we do not afcribe infallibility to them, and no more did they. Nor did they lay the ftrefs of their arguments upon the authority of fuch decifions; they knew that the objection might have been made as ftrong against them, as they could put the argument for them; and therefore they offered to wave the point, and to appeal to the Scripture, fetting afide the definitions that had been made in Councils both ways.

To conclude this argument.

If the infallibility is fuppofed to be in Councils, then the Church may juftly apprehend that he has loft it: for as there has been no Council that has pretended to that title, now during one hundred and thirty years, so there is no great probability of our ever feeing another. The charge and noife, the expectations and difappointments of that at Trent, has taught the world to expect nothing from one: they plainly fee that the management from Rome must carry every thing in a Council: neither princes nor people, no nor the bishops themselves, defire or expect to fee one.

The claim fet up at Rome for infallibility makes the demand of one feem not only needlefs there, but to imply a doubting of their authority, when other methods are looked after, which will certainly be always unacceptable to those who are in poffeffion, and act as if they were infallible: nor can it be apprehended, that they will defire a Council to reform thofe abuses in discipline, which are

all