estate of the realm, the 'enclesia';--the Puritans in requiring of the
'enclesia' what was only requisite or possible for the 'ecclesia'.[5]
Archbishop Grindal is an illustrious exception. He saw the whole truth,
and that the functions of the enclesiastic and those of the ecclesiastic
were not the less distinct, because both were capable of being exercised
by the same person; and _vice versa_, not the less compatible in the
same subject because distinct in themselves. The Lord Chief Justice of
the King's Bench is a Fellow of the Royal Society.


Ib. c. vi. 3. p. 209.

God was not ignorant, that the priests and judges, whose sentence in
matters of controversy he ordained should stand, both might and
oftentimes would be deceived in their judgment. However, better it was
in the eye of His understanding, that sometime an erroneous sentence
definitive should prevail, till the same authority perceiving such
oversight, might afterwards correct or reverse it, than that strifes
should have respite to grow, and not come speedily to some end.


It is difficult to say, which most shines through this whole passage,
the spirit of wisdom or the spirit of meekness. The fatal error of the
Romish Church did not consist in the inappellability of the Councils, or
that an acquiescence in their decisions and decree was a duty binding on
the conscience of the dissentients,--not I say in contending for a
practical infallibility of Council or Pope; but in laying claim to an
actual and absolute immunity from error, and consequently for the
unrepealability of their decisions by any succeeding Council or Pope.
Hence, even wise decisions--wise under the particular circumstances and