βασιλεως, και ισαποςολε sanctos et cecumenicos cœtus adflatorum divinitus patrum, congregatos in regno magni regis et Apostolis æquiparandi. Quis auditis hiset similibus verbis, religioso quodam horrore et corpore et animo non contremiscat, ac paratus non sit oracula ejusmodi cœtus avidis auribus excipere, haud aliter ac si cœlo ipso emitterentur? Verum, hæc est, (quis crederet?) abstracta notio synodorum, quæ in inconspicua idearum republica coguntur; non imago earum, quæ inter miseros mortales olim congregatæ fuere. Reges ignari, (non legent hæc Mohammedani, nec ethnici, sed ii quorum scire interest, quo fiet ut verum aperte proloquar) reges, inquam, ignari, nec inter bonos principes numerandi, convocarunt Græculos, qui linguæ acuendæ per totam vitam operam dederant, rerum ipsarum ignaros, contendendi studiosos, perpetuis rixis inter se divisos; et bardos aliquot homines ex Occidente, rudiores quidem illis, sed non meliores; iique post pudendas contentiones, obscurissima quæque dogmata, verbis sæpe parum aptis, auctoritate suâ firmant; quæ stupidi populi sine examine adorent, quasi divinitus accepta. Non ficta me loqui norunt qui synodorum historias legerunt; nec certe vanus erat Gregorius Nazianzenus, qui dixit,

‘Ουδε τι πε συνοδοισιν ομόθρονος εσσομ εγωγε

• Χηνων η γερανων ακριτα μαρναμένων

• Ev9

ερις, ενθαμοθος τε, και αιχία κρυπτα παροιθεν

• Εις ένα δυσμενεων χώρον αγειρομένα.

"Nunquam ego sedebo in synodis anserum aut

gruum temere pugnantium.

Illic contentio, illic

rixa, et probra antra latentia sævorum hominum in unum locum collecta."-CLERICUS, Art. Crit. i. page 430.

The latter corruptions of the Church of Rome have furnished Protestant divines with a similar theme for declamation. But the defence of either of these causes is not necessary to the support of the ground upon which the present subject stands. The infallibility of councils and synods, and the infallibility of the Church of Rome, may be suffered to fall together, without the proper authority of the Church of Christ, for which alone we plead, being in the least affected by the event. For if Christ did leave an authority with his Church, (and if he did not, every idea of the Church as a visible society must be laid aside) every argument brought against that authority can apply only to the improper exertion of it. Those authors, conse

quently, who attempt to defend the Reformation upon principles inconsistent with the external constitution of a Church, by general and unrestrained assertions in favour of private judgment, are, in fact serving the cause against which they would be thought, perhaps, to be zealously engaged; for if by any mode of arguing, the governors of the Church can be deprived of all authority over its members in spiritual matters, the constitution of the Church is dissolved. In this case, all sects stand upon the same footing, and are justified in acting upon the same principle, of gathering as many of the dispersed and scattered Christians into their respective flocks as they can.

This endless division among Christians, so irre

concileable with the unity of the Christian Church, (a necessary consequence of the admission of those principles, upon which the Reformation has been defended by some writers) has occasionally proved such a stumbling block to undiscriminating persons, that they have known no other way to get rid of it, than by returning to that state of bondage, from which their forefathers were so happily delivered. And indeed no argument has tended more to confirm the enemies of the Reformation in their prejudices against it, than that which has been drawn from those incautious positions, which, if pursued to their consequences, utterly annihilate all order and government in the Church.

R

In fact, the loose manner of writing, which has of late years prevailed, seems calculated not so much to give an idea of the plan upon which the Church of Christ has been founded, as by a latitude of interpretation, to accommodate the language of scripture to the various opinions that have been formed upon it; that the term of Church communion may be rendered as comprehensive as possible, or mean nothing. A liberality, if so it may be called, which tends to dissolve all ecclesiastical government, and to leave us in possession of no determinate idea upon this important subject. For the unity of the Church, upon which so much stress is laid in the sacred writings, is absolutely incompatible with that disjointed state, in which Christians (in consequence of mistaken ideas, and a certain indiscriminate application of terms, which originally conveyed a distinct and appropriate meaning) now think themselves at liberty to live.

And it is a melancholy consideration, that the writings of some persons, who, from their office, were bound to understand the constitution of the Christian Church, and to manifest a due zeal for its preservation; by loosening, as it were, what God designed to consolidate into a regular and well connected form, have thereby contributed to furnish mankind with the most plausible reasons for their various deviations from it.

The produce of the seeds of liberty, sown at the révolution, has, we are sorry to say, in these days, assumed a wildness of growth, not to be reconciled with any regular mode of cultivation. Nor can we be surprised at the circumstance, when we consider the little influence which the Christian religión now possesses on the public mind.

The natural man, it is well known, is indisposed to restraint of every kind. The sacred right of independence, as it is called in modern language, is the idol which he worships. Unfortunately for

him, considered as a moral agent, there have been distinguished characters in every age, whose talents have stamped a credit upon principles, which tend to favour his natural disposition, by counteracting those modifications of liberty necessary to its becoming a useful quality in society. Forgetting, or not admitting, the actual condition of fallen man, they have proceeded upon the idea, that the chief danger to social happiness was to be apprehended from the side of government; and provided man was but left free enough, he was sure to be what his Creator designed he should be. These distinguished characters have, perhaps, gained the

title which they coveted, that of being esteemed liberal men; but they have gained it for the most part at the expence of reason and revelation; and neither Church nor state owe them any acknowledgment for their services. For he must be very little acquainted with human nature, and very unobservant of the present progress of licentious opinions, who does not know, that the principles of independence now propagating in the world are absolutely incompatible with all regular order and government.

It has been urged, in reference to the subject immediately before us, than in proportion as the human mind has advanced in knowledge by the progressive discoveries which have from time to time been made in the various branches of science, it has been more qualified to establish a rule of judgment for itself, independent of the authority of former ages. And so far as this position ought to apply, we may reason with Lactantius in support of it. "Deus dedit pro virili portione sapientiam -nec quia nos illi temporibus antecesserunt, sapientiâ quoque antecesserunt. Quæ si omnibus æqualiter datur, occupari ab antecedentibus non potest. Sapientiam sibi adimunt qui sine ullo judicio inventa majorum probant, et aliis pecudum more ducuntur. Sed hoc eos fallit, quod majorum nomine posito, non putant fieri posse ut aut illi plus sapiant, quia minores vocantur, aut illi desipuerint, quia majores nominantur."-Lact. Div. Inst. ii. 7.

But whilst the argument is thus strong in favour of the freedom of human judgment, and against all