gives the synodical epistle of the council, on the subject of the errours condemned; but without any intimation of the dependence of the effect, on the sanction of the bishop of Rome.

The presidency in this venerable body has not been so easily conceded. It is acknowledged, that the first name in the subscription, is that of Hosius, bishop of Corduba, in Spain. Athanasius, who was himself an attendant on the council, is quoted by the translator of Dupin, as calling Hosius the president and father of all the councils. Certain it is, that he presided in very many. But Fleury thinks, that he held the place of Sylvester bishop of Rome; giving for his authority no other than Gelasius of Cyzicus, who wrote about one hundred and fifty years afterwards; and is represented by Dupin as not to be depended on. The latter author is more moderate than Fleury, on the subject of the presidency; saying-" It is not certainly known who presided in this council," but "tis very probable it was Hosius."

The second council-that of Constantinople—was held in the year 381, being called by the emperour Theodosius. Fleury does not allege that the bishop of Rome presided, either in person or by proxy. Its presidents were Meletius bishop of Antioch, and Gregory Nazianzen, bishop of Constantinople, in succession. The decrees were sent, not to the bishop of Rome, but to the emperour for his confirmation. At this council, there was made an arrangement very much to the present point. It was the determining of the bounds of jurisdiction of the bishops of the four principal seesRome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria: being considered distinct from, and independent on the authorities of one another. And the allowing of the second place to the recently grown greatness of Constantinople, is evidence of the grounds on which the first place had been allowed to the ancient grandeur of the first city of the empire.

* Vol. I. P. 229.

It must be acknowledged, that between the two councils, in the less general council of Sardica, there was bestowed a most important privilege on the bishop of Rome-that of receiving of appeals from bishops, who might think themselves aggrieved by the decisions of provincial councils. This was evidently a grant of the body. It authorized the Roman prelate, not to rehear the controversy in his own diocese; but to cause it to be reheard in a provincial council of the country concerned, to which he might send his legates. Such as it was, this regulation was not received in the East; and cannot be reckoned even a law of the Church of that day.

Concerning the council of Ephesus, in the year 431, it is confessed to have been called by the emperour Theodosius the younger: and although some Roman Catholick authors have supposed, that it was in virtue of the judgment and advice of the bishop of Rome; Dupin* pronounces the supposition groundless, and says it was impossible. Cyrill of Alexandria presided: and the same Dupin denies it to have been as legate, however empowered to represent the bishop of Rome; but says, it was as the first of the greater bishops present: for which distinction, he assigns his reasons. Fleury,t although he says-" St. Cyrill was the chief, as holding the place of the Pope Celestine, as appears by the records," yet adds, "he might also have presided by the dignity of his see." On the conclusion of the council, they did not desire the sanction of the bishop of Rome, nor did they make any report to him of their determinations: but they reported them to the empe. rour; making honourable mention of that bishop, because of his having already condemned the errour, which was now the subject of their anathema.

The council of Chalcedon, held in the year 451, were assembled by the emperour Marcian; not only without the authority of the bishop of Rome, but contrary to his wishes. That prelate was represented by his

Vol. i. p. 267.

Book xxiv. sect. 36.

legates. But certain great officers of state moderated the proceedings; which were, in the result, sent to the said bishop for his approbation. For by this time, his see had attained to a grade of importance, beyond what it had possessed in the times of the earlier councils.

The facts stated concerning these assemblies, show in a strong point of view the entire ignorance of the Christian world, during that tract of time, of an authority inherent to the see of Rome or to her bishop, over other Churches; any further than as may be provided by human institutions, in their nature discretionary and subject to change. That a provision of this sort was made by the partial council of Sardica, has been conceded. But this detracts nothing from the present argument: or rather, it is in favour of the point sustained.

On the whole, the only ground of the claim here contradicted, is St. Peter's having been in Rome, and having there exercised his apostolick ministry, but a short time before his martyrdom. That it was a short time only, we may gather from there being no notice taken of him, in the second epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, written from Rome; in which the apostle says "I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand."* St. Peter is believed to have suffered with him; which makes the above passage indicative of the lateness of the presence of the former, in the capital of the empire. There is no claim set up in favour of Antioch; although he is supposed to have resided there a much longer time, in the same character of a local bishop. But in truth, there is no ground for the claim of either of them to him, in that character; whatever reason they may have to entertain the greater veneration for his memory, on account of the benefits of his personal ministry, in the higher character of an apostle.

iv. 6.

It is certain of all the succeeding councils called general, that they have very much contributed to the upholding of the spiritual jurisdiction claimed by the bishops of Rome, as belonging to their see. Accordingly, for the forming of a due estimate of the weight of the sanction thus given, the following remarks are made.

First: We read nothing in scripture of any ecclesiastical right, to be vested in representative bodies of the Church. They are therefore of human institution, and their decrees are not binding, when not agreeable to the word of God. The only alleged warrant in scripture for such assemblies, is that of the meeting of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, for the determining on the question concerning the observance of the ritual law of Moses; as related in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts. But the transaction does not indicate any property of a representative body of the Church. It does not appear that any Church, besides that of Jerusalem, had component members of the body. The result, is declared to be the issue of divine illumination: and the need of this, at the crisis of a question so essentially connected with the calling of the Gentiles, and in the infancy of the propagation of the gospel, is no proof that the like aid is to be expected, after the depositing of the faith in ecclesiastical records, to continue to the end of time.

Secondly: The Church existed three hundred years after the ascension, without the interference of any such council, for the preservation of the faith. If this should be accounted for from the persecutions under which she lay; the answer is, first, that there were intervals, abundantly sufficient for the contradicting of existing heresies by general councils, had this been contemplated as the appointed mean. Secondly, Christ intimated with sufficient plainness, that the Church should be under persecution in some times and places; without giving the assurance, that she should be at any time or place ex

empt from it: and therefore, any scheme of ecclesiastical government, not consistent with such a dispensation, could not have been ordained by him. And thirdly, the whole scheme of governing with the aid of general councils, is inefficient in any other predicament, than that of the concurrence, or at least the implied consent of the civil authorities of the countries, comprehending Christian Churches. Whatever difference of opinion may prevail on the question of an alliance between Church and state; it is a settled point with all who can properly be called Christians, that their religion, and the ends to be answered by it, are not made dependent on the will of our civil superiors. It is an unquestionable prerogative of the supreme authority in every country, to judge of the expediency of an intercourse between its citizens or subjects, and those of any other foreign jurisdiction. The right exists, although it may happen to be used wantonly. But any one may perceive, that there must be substantial use in the exercise of it; when an influence has been acquired or is sought, by the civil authority of one country, through the medium of existing prejudices or opinions in a portion of the inhabitants of another. On this account, even the first four councils of those called general, were in reality not such; but belonged to the Churches within the jurisdiction of the civil magistrates, by whom the assemblies were convoked. Those Churches contained the general mass, but not the whole body of Christian people; the gospel having been carried far beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire. It is true, that at the first council, there appeared bishops from some extraneous countries. Still, its decrees, as to their binding operation, must be understood to have had the civil complexion of the authority which gave existence to them. Any affirmed truth rests on a different authority; which would have been good, had no such assemblies been held.