Thus the infallibility of general councils is established. But where, I pray, is this written? and in what part of the New Testament shall we find this important doctrine? What constitutes a general council? and how shall we know when it is vere Universale? For this it seems is a necessary requisite to draw down infallibility upon it. Have bishops alone a right to vote in a general council? Why are presbyters excluded, &c.? Were even all the Christian bishops invited to the Nicene Council? Were the Novatian bishops admitted there? No, says Valesius; they deserved to be shut out as being schismatics. It may be so; but they were accounted orthodox in points of doctrine, and they had also a plausible claim to admittance, if they wrought miracles. Socrates tells us that some of them had these extraordinary gifts, and their miracles are as probable as those of Antony, of Hilarion, of Symeon, and of other monks. Four hundred bishops met together at Ariminum: did they constitute a general council? No; it was an Arian council, and therefore it must not be called Concilium, but Conciliabulum. Thus the question concerning Universality is somewhat embarrassed. But let us proceed to something that is not embarrassed, and that is sufficiently plain. Let us imagine then a Council called by a Christian emperor, by a Constantine, a Constantius, a Theodosius, a Justinian, and three or four or five hundred prelates assembled together from all quarters, to` decide a theological debate. Let us consider a little by what various motives these various men may be influenced, as by reverence to the emperor, or to his counsellors and favourites, his slaves and eunuchs: by the fear of offending some great prelate, as a bishop of Rome or of Alexandria, who had it in his power to insult, vex, and plague all the bishops within and without his jurisdiction; by thedread of passing for heretics, and of being calumniated, reviled, hated, anathematized, excommunicated, imprisoned, banished, fined, beggared, starved, if they refused to submit; by compliance with some active leading and imperious spirits, by a deference to the majority, by a love of dictating and domineering, of applause and respect, by vanity and ambition, by a total ignorance of the question in debate, or a total indifference about it, by private friendships, by enmity and resentment, by old prejudices, by hopes of gain, by an indolent disposition, by good-nature, by the fatigue of attending, and a desire to be at home, by the love of peace and quiet, and a hatred of contention, &c. Whosoever takes these things into due consideration will not be disposed to pay a blind deference to the authority of general councils; and will rather be inclined to judge that the council held by the apostles at Jerusalem was the first and the last in which the Holy Spirit may be affirmed to have presided. Thus far we may safely go, and submit to an apostolical synod but if once we proceed one step beyond this, we go we know not whether. If we admit the infallibility of one general council, why not of another? and where shall we stop? At the first Nicene council, A. D. 325. or at the second Nicene council, A. D. 787? They who disclaim private judgment, and believe the infallibility of the church, act consistently in holding the infallibility of councils; VOL. II. C but but they who take their faith from the Scriptures, and not from the church, should be careful not to require nor to yield too much regard to such assemblies, how numerous soever. Numbers in this case go for little, and to them the old proverb may be applied; Est turba semper argumentum pessimi. I would have said sæpe, but the verse will not ad mit it. If even the Nicene council hath small pretensions to infallibility, the subsequent general councils, as that of Constantinople, and that of Ephesus, have still less pretensions, as Bishop Bull must have known, and as every one knows who is at all acquainted with their history. A council of gladiators held in an amphitheatre would be as venerable as that of the Constantinopolitan fathers, if Gregory Nazianzen may be be lieved. The testimony of this pious and learned father is very troublesome to the admirers of such assemblies, and they are willing to suppose that it was the effect of peevishness, and that old age and ill usage had soured his temper in some degree. What would the good man have said, if he had lived to see the general council of Ephesus, which was far worse than any thing that his eyes had ever beheld? He would have wished himself at the ends of the earth, to be rid of such company, and as he was a poet, he would have made verses upon the occasion, after the manner of Pone me pigris ubi nulla campis Arbor aestivu recreatur aura; Pone sub curru nimium propinqui If such councils nade righteous decrees, it must have been by strange good-luck. Several writers of the fourth and following centuries have indeed spoken of the Nicene fathers as of inspired men; but we must remember that the epithets DECTVEUsos and Deopógos, like other complimenting titles, were extremely cheap in those days. Eusebius and several of the ancients commend the Nicene bishops in general: Sabinus bishop of Heraclea, and of the sect of the Macedonians, called them ignorant and illiterate men, in his collection of councils, which is lost, for which Socrates reprimands him, and Bishop Bull censures him with great vehe mence. In the Nicene council there were undoubtedly not a few learned, pious, and virtuous prelates, and holy confessors and some worthy persons, though not so many in some of the subsequent general councils ; but in such assemblies the best and the most moderate men seldom have the ascendant, and they are often led or driven by others who are far inferior to them in good qualities. A general council, as we are told, will at least be secured from erring in fundamentals. But by this way of reasoning the number of fundamentals will be increased beyond measure and without end, and metaphysical terms of art will be accounted fundamental doctrines, as if the very existence of Christianity could depend upon words not used by the Holy Spirit, unknown to the sacred writers, not to be found in the creeds of the three first centuries, of which different interpretations were given when they were first established and have been given ever since, and which common people most certainly do not and cannot understand: C 2 derstand: but they are secured, it seems, by that sort of faith without knowledge, which the church of Rome recommends, and which is called by some Fides Carbonaria. At the Nicene council, Eusebius proposed a creed, in which he avoided the word uocios, and anathematized every impious heresy, without specifying any: but his advice was not followed, oog was insented, and the Arian doctrines were anathematized. Disputes, as we may well suppose, ensued amongst the bishops concerning the meaning and the consequences of the word μorios. Eusebius assented to it, and declared in what sense he understood it. His sense of consubstantial was, that the Son of God was not like created beings, but received his existence and his perfections from the Father in a different, and in an ineffable manner. Thus he took leave to interpret for himself the us; and the council seems to have given him permission so to do, or at least not to have passed any sort of censure upon him, though they understood more to be contained in that word. If that were really the case, as I think it was, Eusebius did not de ceive the council. Others give other senses to it, and the debate, says Socrates, was like a battle fought in the dark. Tô 0μεσσία λέξις τινὰς διετάραττε· περὶ ἂν κατατριβόμενοι καὶ ἀκριβολογέμεν καὶ τὸν καὶ ἀλλήλων πόλεμον ήγειραν νυκτομαχίας τε ἐδὲν ἀπεῖχε τὰ γινόμυα. κδὲ δ' αλλήλως ἐφαίνοιτο κοῦντες, ἀφ ̓ ὧν ἀλλήλες βλασφημέν Srindabarre-cor Consubstantialis ; quorundam animos conturbabat ; quam illi diu multumque versantes, et scrupulosins examinantes, intestinum inter se bellum excitaverunt. Eaque res nocturne pagne haudquaquam dissimilis erat : neque enim utrique sutis intelligere videban tur, 導 |