go more justly, but they will work more effectively; they cannot judge better, but they will be capable of furnishing more matter upon which the judgment may be exercised. This is the meaning of the proverb: plus vident oculi quam oculus. We notice it in the councils, where really a multitude of considerations are put upon the carpet which would perhaps escape one or two, but they run a risk often of not taking the better side in concluding upon all these considerations, when there are no skilful persons charged with directing and weighing them. Hence some judicious theologians of the Roman party, seeing that the authority of the church, i.e. that of the most exalted in dignity and the most supported by the multitude, could not be certain in a matter of reasoning, have reduced it to the mere attestation of the facts under the name of tradition. This was the opinion of Henry Holden, an Englishman, doctor of the Sorbonne, author of a book entitled "Analysis of the Faith," in which, following the principles of the "(Jommonitorium" of Vincent de Lerins. he maintained that we cannot make new decisions in the church, and that all the bishops assembled his council can do is to attest the fact of the doctrine received in their dioceses. The principle is specious so long as we continue in generalities; but when we come to the fact, it is found that in different countries different opinions have been received for a long time; and in the same countries also they have gone from one extreme to another, notwithstanding the arguments of Arnauld against insensible changes; besides often without confining themselves to attest them, they have taken it upon themselves to judge. It is also at bottom the opinion of Gretser, a learned Jesuit of Bavaria, author of another Analysis of Faith, approved by the theologians of his order, that the church may judge controversies by making new articles of faith, since the assistance of the Holy Spirit is promised it, although most frequently they try to disguise this view, especially in France, as if the church were only to explain doctrines already established. But the explanation is a statement already received, or a new one which they believe may be drawn from the received doctrine. Practice is most frequently opposed to the first sense, and in the second, what can the new statement which is established be but a new article? I am not, however, of the opinion that we despise antiquity in the matter of religion; and I also believe that we may say that God has preserved the truly ecumenical councils hitherto from all error contrary