XIX.

as Church-history reprefents Alexandria and Antioch to have ART. been. Those of the Church of Rome, by whom they are at this, day condemned both of herefy and fchifm, do not difpute this. Nor do they difpute that many of their Popes have led bad and flagitious lives they deny not that the canons, ceremonies, and government of the Church are very much changed by the influence and authority of their Popes: but the whole question turns upon this, Whether the See of Rome has erred in matters of faith, or not? In this thofe of that communion are divided: fome, by the Church or See of Rome, mean the Popes perfonally; fo they maintain, that they never have, and never can fall into error: whereas others, by the See of Rome, mean that whole body that holds communion with Rome, which they fay cannot be tainted with error; and these separate this from the perfonal infallibility of Popes: for if a Pope fhould err, they think that a General Council has authority to proceed against him, and to deprive him: and thus, though he should err, the See might be kept free from error. I fhall upon this Article only confider the firft opinion, referving the confideration of the fecond to the Article concerning General Councils.

As to the Popes their being fubject to error, that must be confeffed, unless it can be proved, that, by a clear and exprefs privilege granted them by God, they are excepted out of the common condition of human nature. It is further highly probable that there is no fuch privilege, fince the Church continued for many ages, before it was fo much as pretended to; and that in a time when that See was not only claiming all the rights that belonged to it, but challenging a great many that were flatly denied and rejected: fuch as the right of receiving appeals from the African Churches; in which reiterated inftances, and a bold claim upon a fpurious canon, pretended to be of the Council of Nice, were long purfued: but those Churches afferted their authority of ending all matters within themselves. In all this conteft infallibility was never claimed ; no more than it had been by Victor, when he excommunicated the Afian Churches for obferving Eafter on the fourteenth day of the moon, and not on the Lord's-day after, according to the cuftom of the Roman, as well as of other Churches.

Eccl. 1. v. c.

Firmil. Con.

When Pope Stephen quarrelled with St. Cyprian about the Eufeb. Hift. rebaptizing of hereticks, Cyprian and Firmilian were fo far 23, 24, 25. from fubmitting to his authority, that they fpake of him with a Cypr. Ep. freedom used by equals, and with a feverity that fhewed they 74, et 75. were far from thinking him infallible. When the whole Eaft Sard. C. 3. was distracted with the difputes occafioned by the Arian con- et 7. troverfy, there was fo much partiality in all their councils, that it was decreed, that appeals fhould be made to Pope Julius, and afterwards to his fucceffors; though here was an occafion given

R 2

ART. given to affert this infallibility, if it had been thought on, yet XIX. none ever spoke of it. Great reverence was paid to that Church, both because they believed it was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul, and chiefly because it was the imperial city; for we fee that all other fees had that degree of dignity given them, which by the conftitution of the Roman empire was lodged in their cities: and fo when Byzance was made the imperial city, and called New Rome, though more commonly Conftantinople, it had a patriarchal dignity bestowed on it; and was in all things declared equal to Old Rome, only the point of rank and order excepted. This was decreed Con. Conft, in two General Councils, the fecond and the fourth, in fo express a manner, that it alone before equitable judges would fully Thew the fenfe of the Church in the fourth and fifth century upon this head. When Pope Liberius condemned Athanafius, and subscribed to Semi-Arianifm, this was never confidered as a new decifion in that matter, so that it altered the state of it. No ufe was made of it, nor was any argument drawn from it. Liberius was univerfally condemned for what he had done; and when he repented of it and retracted it, he was again owned by the Church.

Can. 3.

Con. Chalced. C. 28.

We have in the fixth century a moft undeniable inftance of the fenfe of the whole Church in this matter. Pope Honorius was by the Sixth General Council condemned as a Monothelite; and this in the prefence of the Pope's legates, and he was. anathematized by feveral of the fucceeding Popes. It is to no purpofe here to examine whether he was juftly or unjustly condemned; it is enough that the fenfe both of the Eastern and Weftern Church appeared evidently in that age upon these Con. Sinu two points; that a Pope might be a heretick; and that, being fuch, he might be held accuried for it: and in that time there was not any one that fuggested, that either he could not fall into herefy, fince our Saviour had prayed that St. Peter's faith might not fail; or that, if he had fallen into it, he must be left to the judgment of God; but that the holy See (according to the fable of P. Marcellin) could be judged by no body. The confufions that followed for fome ages in the western parts of Europe, more particularly in Italy, gave occafion to the bifhops of Rome to extend their authority.

eff. An.

303.

Tom. I.

Conc.

The emperors of Conftantinople, and their exarchs at Ra venna, ftudied to make them fure to their interefts, yet ftill afferting their authority over them. The new conquerors ftudied alfo to gain them to their fide; and they managed their matters fo dextroufly, that they went on ftill increasing and extending their authority; till being much ftraitened by the kings of the Lombards, they were protected by a new conquering family, that arofe in France in the eighth century;

who,

XIX.

who, to give credit both to their ufurpation of that crown, ART. and to the extending their dominions into Italy, and the affuming the empire of the Weft, did both protect and enrich them, and enlarged their authority; the greatnefs of which they reckoned could do them no hurt, as long as they kept the confirmation of their election to themselves. That family became quickly too feeble to hold that power long, and then an impofture was published, of a volume of the Decretal Epiftles of the Popes of the firft ages, in which they were reprefented as acting according to thofe high claims to which they were then beginning to pretend. Those ages were too blind and too ignorant, to be capable of fearching critically into the truth of this collection; it quickly paffed for current; and though fome in the beginning difputed it, yet that was foon borne down, and the credit of that work was established. It furnished them with precedents that they were careful enough not only to follow, but to outdo. Thus a work, which is now as univerfally rejected by the learned men of their own body as fpurious, as it was then implicitly taken for genuine, gave the chief foundation during many ages to their unbounded authority: and this furnishes us with a very juft prejudice againft it, that it was managed with fo much fraud and imposture; to which they added afterwards much cruelty and violence; the two worst characters poffible, and the leaft likely to be found joined with infallibility: for it is reasonable enough to apprehend, that, if God had lodged fuch a privilege any where, he would have fo influenced those who were the depofitaries of it, that they should have appeared somewhat like that authority to which they laid claim; and that he would not have forfaken them fo, that for above eight hundred years the Papacy, as it is reprefented by their own writers, is perhaps the worst fucceffion of men that is to be found in history.

But now to come more clofe, to prove what is here afferted in this part of the Article. If all those doctrines which were established at Trent, and that have been confirmed by Popes, and most of them brought into a new Creed, and madeparts of it, are found to be grofs errors; or if but any one of them fhould be found to be an error, then there is no doubt to be made but that the Church of Rome hath erred: fo the proof brought against every one of thefe, is likewise a proof against their infallibility. But I fhall here give one inftance of an error, which will not be denied by the greater part of the Church of Rome. They have now for above fix hundred years afferted, that they had an authority over princes, not only to convict and condemn them of herefy, and to proceed against them with Church-cenfures; but that

R 3

they

XIX.

ART. they had a power to depofe them, to abfolve their fubjects from their oaths of allegiance, and to transfer their dominions to fuch perfons as fhould undertake to execute their sentences. This they have often put in execution, and have conftantly kept up their claim to it to this day. It will not ferve them to get clear here, to fay, that these were the violent practices of fome Popes: what they did in many particular inftances may be turned off, and left as a blemish on the memories of fome of them. But the point at prefent in queftion, is, whether they have not laid claim to this, as a right belonging to their See, as a part of St. Peter's authority defcended to them? Whether they have not founded it on 7. poft Ep. his being Chrift's Vicar, who was the King of kings, and Lord of lords; to whom all power in heaven and in earth was given? Whether they have not founded it on Jeremy's being et Oted. Jet over nations and kingdoms, to root out, pluck down, and to deftroy? and on other places of Scripture; not forgetting, that the first words of the Bible are, In the beginning, and not In the beginnings; from which they inferred, that there is but one principle, from whence all power is derived: and that God made two great lights, the Sun to rule by day; which they applied to themselves.

Dict. Papa,

1. 1.

Ep. Greg.

55.

Extravag.

de Major.

C. I.

Conc. Lat.

3. cap. 27. Con. Lar. 4. Can. 3.

Con. Lug.

This, I fay, is the question: Whether they did not affume this authority as a power given them by God? As for the applying it to particular inftances, to thofe kings and emperors whom they depofed, that is, indeed, a perfonal thing, whether they were guilty of herefy, or of being favourers of it, or not? And whether the Popes proceeded against them with too much violence or not?

The point now in queftion, is, Whether they declared this to be a doctrine, that there was an authority lodged with their See for doing fuch things, and whether they alledged Scripture and Tradition for it?

Now this will appear evident to those who will read their bulls in the preambles of which thofe quotations will be found, as fome of them are in the body of the Canon Law: and it is decreed in it, that the belief of this is abfolutely neceffary to falvation.

This was purfued in a courfe of many ages. General Councils, as they are esteemed among them, have concurred with the Popes both in general decrees afferting this power to be in them, and in fpecial fentences against Princes: this Card. Perron became the univerfally received doctrine of thofe ages: No Hasangue au univerfity nor nation declaring against it; not fo much as one divine, civilian, canonist, or cafuift writ against it, as Card. Perron truly faid. It was fo certainly believed, that those writers, whom the depofed Princes got to undertake their de

tie.s eftat.

fence,

XIX.

fence, do not in any of their books pretend to call the doctrine ART. in general in question.

Two things were difputed: one was, Whether Popes had a direct power in temporals over Princes; fo that they were as much fubject to them as feudatory Princes were to their fuperior Lords? This, to which Boniface the VIIIth laid claim, was indeed contradicted. The other point was, Whether those particulars for which Princes had been depofed, fuch as the giving the inveftiture to bifhopricks, were herefies or not? This was much contested: but the power, in the case of manifeft herefy, or of favouring it, to depofe Princes, and tranffer their crowns to others, was never called in question. This was certainly a definition made in the chair, ex cathedra: for it was addreffed to all their community, both Laity and Clergy: plenary pardons were bestowed with it on those who executed it: the Clergy did generally preach the Croifades upon it. Princes that were not concerned in him that was depofed, gave way to the publication of those bulls, and gave leave to their fubjects to take the Crofs, in order to the executing of them and the people did in vaft multitudes gather about the standards that were fet up for leading on armies to execute them; while many learned men writ in defence of this power, and not one man durft write against it.

This argument lies not only against the infallibility of Popes, but against that of General Councils likewife; and alfo against the authority of oral tradition: for here, in a fucceffion of many ages, the tradition was wholly changed from the doctrine of former times, which had been, that the Clergy were fubject to Princes, and had no authority over them, or their crowns. Nor can it be faid, that that was a point of discipline; for it was founded on an article of doctrine, whether there was such a power in the Popes or not? The prudence of executing or not executing it, is a point of difcipline and of the government of the Church: but it is a point of doctrine, whether Chrift has given fuch an authority to St. Peter and his followers? And thofe points of fpeculation, upon which a great deal turns as to practice, are certainly so important, that in them, if in any thing, we ought to expect an infallibility: for in this cafe a man is distracted between two contrary propofitions: the one is, that he must obey the civil powers, as fet over him by an ordinance of God; fo that if he refifts them, he fhall receive in himself damnation: the other is, that the Pope being Chrift's Vicar, is to be obeyed when he abfolves him from his former oath and allegiance; and that the new Prince fet up by him, is to be obeyed under the pain of damnation likewife.

R 4

Here