universally received." Such were the first six General Councils, whose decisions on every fundamental doctrine are acknowledged by the Anglican Church as the voice of GOD.'

"We do not believe," says Dr. HAMMOND, in the name of the Church of England, "that any General Council, truly such, ever did or shall err in any matter of faith."2 The twenty-first Article declares, that "General Councils, when they be gathered together (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the SPIRIT and Word of God), may err.' Similarly LAUD remarks" That all General Councils, be they never so lawfully called, continued, and confirmed, have infallible assistance, I utterly deny :"

1 That our Church makes particular mention of the first four, arises from the fact that they are the Repositories of all true Apostolical Tradition. This is expressly asserted by Dr. Hammond, who observes, that the Fathers in those Councils "fetched their definitions regularly from that Scripture, and that sense thereof, which the several Churches had received down from the Apostles, and so were approved and received universally in all Churches, not as those which had formed any new Articles, but which conserved the DEPOSITA entrusted to the Churches [by the Apostles]; and, in time of need, brought them forth and discovered them, to the securing of the truth against heretics."See p. 86. 3 P. 3.

2 P. 88.

and again; "That a General Council, à parte ante, when it first sits down and continues to deliberate, may truly be said to be infallible in all its after deliberations, I utterly deny." The meaning of the Article, and of the declarations of the Archbishop is, that no General Council, either collectively or individually, is, inherently and à priori, infallible; and this doctrine (which will be shown to be in no wise inconsistent with the above assertion of HAMMOND, and the unreserved submission given by our Church to the first six Councils) is maintained by all our standard divines. The Article goes on to say, that General Councils "sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining to God;" but since this cannot be affirmed, with any historical truth, of any real Ecumenical Council, the Article must be understood to speak historically of pretended General Councils, whose infallibility is asserted by the Romanists. A General Council, truly such, (which Hammond asserts never did nor shall err, in the great Christian verities,) must not only, I repeat, be lawfully called, and freely celebrated, but also universally received. "The claim of a Synod to the estimation of a General

1
1 P. 72.

Council, depends entirely upon the general or universal reception of its decrees by the Catholic Church, and no Council is to be accounted General or Universal whose decrees are not generally or universally received by the Catholic Church." It is, therefore, the fiat of the Universal Church, the testimony borne to it by the Church throughout all the world, "by the reception of its decrees," which renders a Council General; and it is this testimony alone which invests its decisions with that infallible authority which is possessed by the first six General Councils. ""Tis true," says LAUD, "that a General Council, de post facto, after 'tis ended, and admitted by the whole Church, is THEN infallible, for it cannot err in that which it hath already clearly and truly determined without error."" recapitulate what has been said respecting the infallibility of General Councils. The judgment of the Anglican Church, as contained in her twenty-first Article, and illustrated by HAMMOND, LAUD, &c., appears to be this: A Council being composed of fallible men, may err in its decisions. A General Council, to become truly such, must be generally recognized by the Catholic Church.

To

It is this

1 Perceval On the Roman Schism, p. 17.

2 P. 72.

reception of its decrees, by the Universal Fold, which stamps them with infallibility; and this, only so far as the Church Herself is indefectible.

Traditions are received

Church of
England.

VII. It next remains to be considered, what what Traditions have been received semper, ubique, et ab by the omnibus,' are, consequently, still acknowledged by the present Catholic Church, and allowed and reverenced by the Church of England.

These may be comprehended under five general heads:

1. The Tradition of holy Writ.-"We receive," says FIELD, "the number and names of the authors of Books, Divine and Canonical, as delivered by Tradition. This Tradition we admit; for that, though the Books of Scripture have not their authority from the approbation of the Church, yet the number, authors, and integrity of the parts

1 "The highest evidence of Apostolical Tradition is where the testimony is not only everywhere and always, but where it has ever been recognised as Tradition, and reflected upon and professedly delivered down as saving, by those who hold it. Such is the Creed, and such, in the way of ordinances, are the Sacraments, and certain other rites and usages."-Newman On Romanism and Popular Protestantism. Lect. X. p. 295.

of these Books we receive as delivered by Tradition."1 "This Tradition," says PATRICK, "we own, it being universal, continued, uninterrupted, and undenied. Though, in truth, this is Tradition in another sense of the word; not signifying the Doctrine delivered unto us, but the manner and means of its delivery." The Church of England declares, in her twentieth Article, that the Catholic "Church is a witness and keeper of holy Writ ;" and in her sixth Article, "In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church" Catholic. The same Tradition which teaches us to distinguish holy Writ from all other writings, assures us likewise that it "containeth all things necessary to salvation.” This is the main pillar of the faith of our Anglican divines in the sufficiency of Scripture; and Bishop

1 P. 43.

2 P. 155. "This," says the learned Bishop of Peterborough, "is a Tradition of Testimony, and has no connexion whatever with a Tradition of Doctrine. And it is so far from distinguishing the Church of Rome, or indeed any Church whatever, that it is applied to establish the authenticity of ancient writings in general. It is, moreover, a kind of Tradition, which is applied to the Written Word, whereas Tradition, as a rule of faith, applies exclusively to the Unwritten Word."-Comparative View of the Churches of England and Rome. Pp. 146, 147. Edit. 1814.