Paul they dishonoured those blessed apostles, and destroyed the honour of their pretence by their untoward prevarication. Which words, I confess, pass my skill to reconcile them to an opinion of infallibility: and although they were spoken by an angry person, yet they declare that, in Africa, they were not then persuaded, as now they are at Rome: "Nam nec Petrus, quem primum Dominus elegit, vindicavit sibi aliquid, insolenter, aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere b." That was their belief then; and how the contrary hath grown up to that height where now it is, all the world is witness. And now I shall not need to note concerning St. Jerome, that he gave a compliment to Damasus that he would not have given to Liberius; "Qui tecum non colligit, spargit." For it might be true enough of Damasus, who was a good bishop and a right believer: but if Liberius's name had been put instead of Damasus, the case had been altered with the name; for St. Jerome did believe and write it so, that Liberius had subscribed to Arianism. And if either he or any of the rest had believed the Pope could not be a heretic, nor his faith fail, but be so good and of so competent authority as to be a rule to Christendom; why did they not appeal to the Pope in the Arian controversy? why was the bishop of Rome made a party and a concurrent, as other good bishops were, and not a judge and an arbitrator in the question? why did the fathers prescribe so many rules and cautions and provisoes for the discovery of heresy? why were the emperors at so much charge, and the church at so much trouble, as to call and convene councils respectively, to dispute so frequently, to write so sedulously, to observe all advantages against their adversaries, and for the truth, and never offered to call for the Pope to determine the question in his chair? Certainly no way could have been so expedite, none so concluding and peremptory, none could have convinced so certainly, none could have triumphed so openly over all discrepants, as this, if they had known of any such thing as his being infallible, or that he had been appointed by Christ to be the judge of controversies. And therefore I will not trouble this discourse to excuse any more words either pretended or really said to b Cyprian. Epist. ad Quintum fratrem. De Script. Eccles, in Fortunatian.

this purpose of the Pope, for they would but make books swell, and the question endless: I shall only to this purpose observe, that the old writers were so far from believing the infallibility of the Roman church or bishop, that many bishops and many churches did actually live and continue out of the Roman communion; particularly St. Austin, who with two hundred and seventeen bishops and their successors for one hundred years together, stood separate from that church, if we may believe their own records. So did Ignatius of Constantinople, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyprian, Firmilian, those bishops of Asia that separated in the question of Easter, and those of Africa, in the question of rebaptization. But besides this, most of them had opinions which the church of Rome disavows now; and therefore did so then, or else she hath innovated in her doctrine; which, though it be most true and notorious, I am sure she will never confess. But no excuse can be made for St. Austin's disagreeing and contesting in the question of appeals to Rome, the necessity of communicating infants, the absolute damnation of infants to the pains of hell, if they die before baptism, and divers other particulars. It was a famous act of the bishops of Liguria and Istria, who,-seeing the Pope of Rome consenting to the fifth synod in disparagement of the famous council of Chalcedon, which for their own interests they did not like of,-renounced subjection to his patriarchate, and erected a patriarch at Aquileia, who was afterward translated to Venice, where his name remains to this day. It is also notorious, that most of the fathers were of opinion, that the souls of the faithful did not enjoy the beatific vision before doomsday. Whether Rome was then of that opinion or no, I know not; I am sure now they are not, witness the councils of Florence and Trent: but of this I shall give a more full account afterward. But if to all this which is already noted, we add that great variety of opinions amongst the fathers and councils in assignation of the canon, they not consulting with the bishop of Rome, nor any of them thinking themselves bound to follow his rule in enu

Ubi illa Augustini et reliquorum prudentia? quis jam ferat crassissimæ igno. rantiæ illam vocem in tot et tantis Patribus? Alan. Cop. dialog. p. 76, 77. Vide etiam Bonifac. II. Ep. ad Eulalium Alexandrinum; Lindanum Panopsi, I. 4. c. 89. in fine; Salmeron, tom. 12. tract. 68. sect. ad Canonem; Sander. de visibili Monarchia, 1. 7. n. 411. Baron. tom. 10. A. D. 878.

meration of the books of Scripture,-I think no more need to be said as to this particular.

15. Eighthly but now if, after all this, there be some Popes which were notorious heretics and preachers of false doctrine, some that made impious decrees both in faith and manners, some that have determined questions with egregious ignorance and stupidity, some with apparent sophistry, and many to serve their own ends most openly, I suppose then the infallibility will disband, and we may do to him as to other good bishops, believe him when there is a cause; but if there be none, then to use our consciences. "Non enim salvat Christianum, quòd pontifex constanter affirmat præceptum suum esse justum; sed oportet illud examinari, et se juxta regulam superius datam dirigere." I would not instance and repeat the errors of dead bishops, if the extreme boldness of the pretence did not make it necessary. But if we may believe Tertullian, Pope Zepherinus approved the prophecies of Montanus, and upon that approbation granted peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, till Praxeas persuaded him to revoke his act. But let this rest upon the credit of Tertullian, whether Zepherinus were a Montanist or no: some such thing there was for certain. Pope Vigilius f denied two natures in Christ; and in his epistle to Theodora the empress, anathematized all them that said he had two natures in one person. St. Gregory himself permitted priests to give confirmation, which is all one as if he should permit deacons to consecrate, they being by divine ordinance annexed to the higher orders and upon this very ground Adrianus affirms that the Pope may err in definiendis dogmatibus fidei. And that we may not fear we shall want instances, we may, to secure it, take their own confession; "Nam multæ sunt decretales hæretica" (says Occham as he is cited by Almain)," et firmiter hoc credo" (says he for his own particular): sed non licet dogmatizare oppositum, quoniam sunt determinata h." So that we may as well see that it is certain that Popes may be heretics, as that it is dangerous to say so; and therefore there are so few that teach it. All the patriarchs, and the bishop of Rome himself, subscribed to

• Tract. de interdict. compos. à Theol. Venet. prop.13. Lib. advers. Praxcam. Vid. Liberal. in breviario, cap. 22. Durand. 4. dist. 7. q. 4. Quæ. de confirm. art. ult. 3. dist. 24. q. unica.

Arianism, as Baronius confesses: and Gratian affirm sthat Pope Anastasius II. was stricken of God for communicating with the heretic Photinus . I know it will be made light of, that Gregory VII. saith, the very exorcists of the Roman church are superior to princes. But what shall we think of that decretal of Gregory the Third, who wrote to Boniface his legate in Germany, " quòd illi quorum uxores infirmitate aliquâ morbidâ debitum reddere noluerunt, aliis poterant nubere1." Was this a doctrine fit for the head of the church, an infallible doctor? It was plainly, if any thing ever was, 'doctrina dæmoniorum,' and is noted for such by Gratian, "caus. 32. q. 7. can. quod proposuisti :" where the gloss also intimates that the same privilege was granted to the Englishmen by Gregory, " quia novi erant in fide."-And sometimes we had little reason to expect much better: for, not to instance in that learned discourse in the canon law 'de majoritate et obedientia,' where the Pope's supremacy over kings is proved from the first chapter of Genesis, and the Pope is the sun, and the emperor is the moon, for that was the fancy of one Pope perhaps, though made authentic and doctrinal by him; it was, if it be possible, more ridiculous, that Pope Innocent the Third urges, that the Mosaical law was still to be observed, and that upon this argument; "Sane," saith he, "cum Deuteronomium secunda lex interpretur, ex vi vocabuli comprobatur, ut quod ibi decernitur, in Testamento Novo debeat observari." Worse yet; for when there was a corruption crept into the decree called Sancta Romana "," where, instead of these words, 'Sedulii opus heroicis versibus descriptum,' all the old copies, till of late, read,' hæreticis versibus descriptum,' this very mistake made many wise men (as Pierius" says), yea, Pope Adrian the Sixth, no worse man, believe, that 'all poetry was heretical ;' because, forsooth, Pope Gelasius, whose decree that was, although he believed Sedulius to be a good catholic, yet, as they thought, concluded his verses to be heretical. But these were ignorances; it hath been worse amongst some others, whose errors have been more malicious. Pope Honorius was condemned by the sixth general synod, and his k Dist. 19. c. 9. Lib. 4. Ep. 2,

i A. D. 357. n. 44.

1 Vid. Corranz. Sum. Concil. fol. 218. edit. Antwerp.
Cap, per venerab. qui filii sint legitimi.
Dist. 15. apud Gratian.

• De Sacerd. barb.

epistles burnt; and in the seventh action of the eighth synod, the acts of the Roman council under Adrian the Second are recited, in which it is said that Honorius was justly anathematized, because he was convicted of heresy. Bellarmine says, it is probable that Pope Adrian and the Roman coun cil were deceived with false copies of the sixth synod, and that Honorius was no heretic. To this I say, that although the Roman synod, and the eighth general synod, and Pope Adrian, all together are better witnesses for the thing than Bellarmine's conjecture is against it; yet if we allow his conjecture, we shall lose nothing in the whole: for either the Pope is no infallible doctor, but may be a heretic, as Honorius was; or else a council is to us no infallible determiner. I say, as to us for if Adrian and the whole Roman council and the eight general were all cozened with false copies of the sixth synod, which was so little a while before them, and whose acts were transacted and kept in the theatre and records of the catholic church; he is a bold man that will be confident, that he hath true copies now. So that let which they please stand or fall, let the Pope be a heretic, or the councils be deceived and palpably abused (for the other, we will dispute it upon other instances and arguments, when we shall know which part they choose), in the meantime we shall get in the general, what we lose in particular. This only, this device of saying the copies of the councils were false, was the stratagem of Albertus Pighius nine hundred years after the thing was done; of which invention Pighius was presently admonished, blamed, and wished to recant P. Pope Nicolas explicated the mystery of the sacrament with so much ignorance and zeal, that in condemning Berengarius he taught a worse impiety. But what need I any more instances? It is a confessed case by Baronius, by Biel, by Stella, Almain, Occham, and Canus, and generally by the best scholars in the church of Rome, that a Pope may be a heretic, and that some of them actually were so; and no less than three general councils did believe the same thing, viz. the sixth, seventh, and eighth, as Bellarmine is pleased to acknowledge in his fourth book "De Pontifice Romano, c. 11. resp. ad Arg. 4." And the canon "Si Papa, dist. 40,"

P Vide diatrib. de act. 6. et 7æ synod. præfatione ad Lectorem, et Dominicum Bannes 22æ. q. 1 a. 10. dub. 2. Picus Mirand. in exposit. theorem. 4.