puerile; but it has the merit of being distinct, and I really do not perceive, that the argument of Mr. Palmer, though a little more specious, is at all more conclusive.

Mr. Palmer has cited from the early fathers many passages, in which they have greatly magnified the authority of the church. But it should be considered, that these passages were written in opposition to those gnostic sects, which, in their vain pretension to a superior knowledge of divine things, had fabricated for themselves scriptures of their own, differing in many important particulars from the authentic revelation transmitted by the church; so many and so important, indeed, that the late professor Burton denied to them, in any proper sense, the appellation even of heretics, contending that they should rather be considered as externs than as erring members of the church of Christ. In these circumstances, it was natural that the fathers should, in the strongest language, oppose the authority of the church to adversaries so opposed to the truth; but it does not at all appear, that in any of these passages they sought to coerce the private judgment of any individual acknowledging the same gospel with themselves. The first question which gave occasion for a determination of the church, in regard to those who

6 Lect. upon the Eccles. Hist. of the First Cent. p. 379. Oxford, 1831.

were properly its own members, acknowledging the same scriptures, but differing in their interpretation of them, was that of Arianism; and to decide this question the first general council was convened. On such an occasion we might expect to find a decree claiming entire and unqualified submission, if it was indeed the received principle that to the general decision of the Church, on an article of faith, all private judgment should be required to give way. But we find no such pretension advanced by the council in the recorded history of the transaction. The very numerous bishops assembled under Constantine, who had before them a decree of the apostles claiming the sanction of the Holy Spirit, and might be believed to be sufficiently inclined to magnify their own newfound power, prefixed no such claim of authority to their determination of this most important question, but merely issued it, as they were well authorised to do, for the regulation of the public order and profession of the church. The empe

ror did, indeed, in his letter, claim for the decree of the council the respect due to an act sanctioned by divine authority; but the question to be considered by us is, what did the council claim for itself? The testimonial of the emperor is of the less value, as he," five years afterwards, in disregard

7 Socratis Hist. lib. i. c. 9.

8 Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 417. Lond. 1782.

of the determination of the council,, recalled Arius from his exile.

The man, who more than all others should have been disposed by circumstances to magnify the authority of the council, was Athanasius. It had been convened chiefly to determine the great question of the divine nature of Jesus Christ, contested between him and Arius, and it gave him a decisive triumph over his adversary. If, then, this first œcumenical council were indeed at that time held to have been an unquestionable expositor of the faith of Christians, we might expect to find in the writings of this eminent father of the church some express declaration of its unimpeachable right of deciding this controversy, which appears to have continued for some time to agitate and distract the church. It appears, indeed, that there is among his writings an epistle on this very subject, from which his opinion may be collected. We find in it, however, no statement of this kind, but, on the contrary, language of a very different import. In reply to an anticipated plea of the Arians, that nothing should be stated concerning our Saviour except what is stated in the scripture, and in the words of scripture, he says, "so also would I have consented that we should do, because the arguments of truth, which are taken from the scriptures are far more fit, than those which are

9 Epistola de Decretis Nicænæ Synodi, ATHAN. Opera, tom. i. pars 1, p. 237.

drawn from any other source." Nor is this all, for,' in writing of two provincial synods, he urged, "what, I beseech you, is the use of synods, when the Nicene is sufficient, which, being assembled against the Arian and other heresies, hath condemned them all by its own sound faith?" He did not tell them, as I must suppose you would have done, that a provincial council has not any right to prescribe articles of faith, but merely that their interference was unnecessary, that of Nice having been suffi. cient. The truth is, that the pretension has arisen in opposition to the assumed infallibility of the papacy, and it should be abandoned to the church, in which it had its origin.

All the confusion of this question appears to have arisen from the fundamental error of rejecting the distinction between the visible and the invisible church of Christ, which had grown out of the reformation; between the outward framework, by which the orders and sacraments of the church are regularly transmitted from age to age, and the inward influences of the Holy Spirit, establishing the kingdom of heaven in the hearts of individuals, however dispersed and unconnected. The peculiar opinions and practices of yourself and your associates require the acknowledged existence of an outward and visible church, in the determinations of which, whether relating to doctrine or to mere

1 Epist. de Synodis Arimini in Italiâ et Seleuciæ in Isauriâ.

order, all should be obliged to acquiesce with entire submission, as of the commissioned expositor of the will of God; and you, therefore, ascribe to that outward church the promise of his personal presence and protection, which our Saviour had coupled with the condition, that men should be taught to observe what he had himself commanded.

The distinction between the visible and the invisible church is expressly authorised by our Saviour. When he compared the kingdom of heaven to a net, which "gathered of every kind," the good and the bad, to be separated by the angels at the end of the world, he must have spoken of an outward and visible church, comprehending, together with sincere believers, all who professed a belief in him, however little deserving to be acknowledged as his followers. When, on the other hand,3 he told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was within them, he must have spoken of that regenerated state of the heart, which would constitute a true believer and faithful follower, and must, therefore, have limited his conception of his church to those scattered individuals who should be members of it in the sincerity of their christian profession, though perhaps not among its authorities. Nor is there any incongruity in maintaining that, while an outward frame

2 Matt. xiii. 47-50.

3 Luke, xvii. 21.