46 INFALLIBILITY. [Bom? I. others state, thai'his decisions are not to be taken a? infallible unless when they are re?:eived by the whole church--we say these distinc- tions are fatal to infallibility. On these points of distinction Roman Catbelies have been endlessly divided among themselves. For while some deny that the popes are 'infallible in any capecity, others contend that they are in matters of faith. And their distinctions between mat- ters of ?-/gAt and fact, of the reception and non-reeeption of papal decisions, have so far perplexed them, that a m?n of sense is glad to find that his Bible is liable to ?one of these difficulties. �. Some Roman Catholics, especially the French, who reject the infallibility of the pope, esstend for the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and maintain that it is deposi?Ml with each general council regularly called, as the representative and organ ef the Catholic Church. 1. But then it is disputed among. them what mal?s a council gene- ral, and what is a regular call. Some reckon eighteen general coun- cils, and some at most but seven or eight. And indeed they might well doubt whether there.was ever one such in the world. They are much divided even about the Council of Carthage. The Italians deny that it was mcumenicai in all its sessions, while /he French church vigorously m_niutain the opposite opinion. The fifth of Lateran is also questioned. Yet it requires both of these councils to mak? up the number eighteen. There is also much controversy respecting the proper call- ing or a?embling of a council. The popes, for re_any centuries, con- vened councils, and clai?n it as a matter of right. The first council of Nice, the second at Constantinople, the third at Ephesus, the four? at Chaleedon, and the sixth at Constantinople, were not convoked by Popes, but by emperors: several of them were even convened contrary to the will of popes, and therefare not legally convoked, according to some. Moreover, there is mt/ch controversy, amidst the great num- ber of forgeries, which of the cannas are genuine and which are not. Besides, the meaning of some of the most important ones is much disputmt. 2. We learn from the most undoubted sources that councils, both in doctrines and mor?!s, have decided contrary to one another. The Couneil of Nice, in 325, and of Ephesus, in 431, decree with an anathema "that no new arti?'le for ever shall be added to the creed or ?s?th of Nice.*' But the Council of Trent, in more than twelve hun- drel?nts.af?er, add twelve netv articl? to this very creed, pronouncing an a/fathelna on all who will not embrace them. The Council bf Laodice? in 360 or 370, and the Council of Trent, in 1545, have decided in/irect opposition to e?ch other respecting the canon of Scripture. '?h former decided on the canon which Protest- ants acknowledge, rejecting the apocrypha, and the latter pronounced the apocrypha to be canonical. The Council of Constantinople, in 754, unanimously decreed the removal of images and the abolition of image worship; but the second Council of Nice, in 787, decreed that inmge worship should be e?ts- bHshed. �spoctin_g the snpremacy of the pope councils have differed. The �?eee the ?t/ons of the church relative ? ? worship nccuratel. f traced out 1
�
