{24a} “For my part, I should think it did more concern our Lord Jesus, by virtue of this promise, to make his Church _impeccable_, than _infallible_. My meaning is, that it is a much more desirable thing to secure his ministers and people from the danger of _sin_, than from the danger of _error_. But the former He hath not done, and therefore I much doubt of the latter.”—Archbishop Sharpens Sermons, vol. viii. {24b} _In Scripturis canonicis nullum de iis verbum est_: _nec ex Apostolorum institutione speciale quicquam de illis accepit illa primitiva Christi Ecclesia_.—Albert. Pigh. Hierarch. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. 1, quoted in that masterly work, “The Difficulties of Romanism,” by the Rev. G. S. Faber, book 1, chap. ii. p. 36. {26} “The low Romanists who are distinguished by the name of Cisalpines, (for serious differences exist, it appears, even in the very bosom of privileged inerrancy,) not only deny the personal infallibility of the Pope, but hold also that for heresy or schism (to both of which, we find, the alleged fallible head of an infallible body is actually liable,) he may be lawfully deposed by a general council. Such being the case, they must, on their own principles, inevitably hold the infallibility of a general council even when _not_ sanctioned by the papal confirmation: for it is quite clear, on the one hand, that no _prudent_ Pope, at least, would ratify the sentence of his own deposition, or confirm the decree which pronounced him to be a schismatic or a heretic; and it is equally clear, on the other hand, that no general council could infallibly pronounce the Pope to be a heretic or schismatic, himself all the while stiffly denying, as of course he _would_ deny, the offensive allegation, unless such general council, _independently_ of any papal ratification, were _itself_ constitutionally infallible.”—_Faber’s Difficulties of Romanism_, p. 247, 248. {27a} Bellarm. de Cone. lib. i. cap. 8. {27b} See Bishop Taylor’s Liberty of Prophecy, sect. 6. vol. viii. of his works, p. 41. {27c} “That the authority of general councils was never esteemed absolute, infallible, and unlimited, appears in this, that before they were obliging (obligatory) it was necessary that each particular Church respectively should accept them, _Concurrenti universali totius ecclesiæ consensu_, &c., _in declaratione veritatum quæ credendæ sunt_, &c. In this way, as observed by Gerson, the decrees of councils became authentic, and turned into a law: and till they became so their decrees were but a dead letter.”—See Heber’s Bishop Taylor, vol. viii. p. 50, 51, remarking on St. Augustin, b. 1. cap. 18. de Bapt. contra Donat. {29a} See Works of Leslie, vol. i. p. 497. {29b} For an example, see Blanco White’s Evidence, p. 39. {29c} See Bishop Burnet on the Twenty-second Article.