as the field from which he is allowed to make out his case of evidence; we, in truth, present him with a very ample and very liberal concession: for we might, in undeniable equity, determine the end of the second century to be the proper limit of his permitted historical investigation.

II. But, while, for the production of evidence to substantiate his assertion, the Romanist is justly confined to the three first centuries: the diligent inquirer after truth is subjected to no such confinement.

For testimonies against the peculiarities of Romanism, he is at full liberty to resort, not only to the writings of the three first ages, but to the writings also of any subsequent period.

The reason of this difference, between the legitimate station of defence and the legitimate station of attack, is sufficiently obvious.

If, in the documents of the fourth or fifth century, the diligent inquirer finds, on the part of the then existing Church Catholic, a disavowal or a contradiction of latin peculiarities: it will follow, a fortiori, that peculiarities, unknown or disavowed in the fourth or fifth century, could not have been universally received, upon the declared authority of Christ and his Apostles, in the first or second or third.

Hence, as early testimonies are absolutely indispensable to the cause of modern Romanism: so, for the purpose of the honest inquirer after truth,

there is an aspect, under which the very lateness of testimony against latin peculiarities renders such testimony peculiarly cogent and valuable.

Thus, for instance, any testimony of the third century against those peculiarities would only prove, that they had not started into existence, or that they were not ecclesiastically received, during the lapse of the third century: whereas testimony of the sixth century against them would prove, that, even at that comparatively late period, they were still unknown and unrecognised.

In short, the lower we can descend in producing testimony against the peculiarities of Romanism; the more fully and completely and fatally we shall demonstrate their upstart usurping novelty.

CHAPTER II.

INFALLIBILITY.

For the Catholic Church, which they fondly identify with the provincial Latin Church of the Western Patriarchate, the Romanists claim the high prerogative of infallibility.

I. Where this infallibility resides, however; or, to speak perhaps more accurately, Whether this infallibility alike resides with three several organs, or is confined to one of those three organs exclusively the doctors of the Latin Church, as if in bitter mockery of the very claim itself, have never yet been able fully to agree; and the infallible Church herself, notwithstanding her alleged infallibility which doubtless is lodged SOMEWHERE, has not hitherto, I believe, thought good to determine this knotty question.

1. The Jesuits, and those high Romanists who bear the name of Transalpines, while they of course admit that a papally ratified General Council is infallible, contend also for the personal

infallibility of the Pope; when, on any point of faith, he undertakes to issue a solemn decision 1.

But, as those speculatists are confuted by the undeniable fact, that Pope Gregory VII solemnly adjudged to the Roman Pontiff the identical title which Pope Gregory I had solemnly declared to be the badge of Antichrist's forerunner 2: so the latin divine Almain positively declares, on behalf of his own party in the infallible Church, that the Pope may err even judicially; alleging very sensibly, in proof of his declaration, the whimsical circumstance, that, in regard to the tenure of the property possessed by Christ and his Apostles, Pope Nicolas III and Pope John XXII gave two judicial decisions which flatly contradicted each other 3.

2. 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 in

Butler's Book of the Rom. Cath. Church. p. 121-124. 2 Ego fidenter dico, quod, quisquis se Universalem Sacerdotem vocat vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sua Antichristum præcurrit. Gregor. I. Epist. lib. vi. epist. 30.

Quod solus Romanus Pontifex jure dicatur Universalis, Gregor. VII. dictat. Epist. lib. ii. epist. 55. Labb. Concil. vol. x. p. 110.

3

Papa potest errare, errore judiciali: de personali, omnibus notum est. Jac. Almain. de Auctor. Eccles. c. x.

Quorum unus determinavit judicialiter, Christum et Apostolos nihil habuisse in communi nec in proprio: alter, oppositum.

Ibid.

fallibility 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 a 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.

But, here again, we are immediately encountered by a practical confutation of the low Cisalpines, as we before encountered a similar confutation of the high Transalpines.

The Council of Constantinople, which sat in the year 754 but which was never confirmed by the Pope, unanimously decreed the removal of images and the condemnation of image-worship: but the second Council of Nice, convoked in the year 787 and confirmed by the Pope, decreed the

1 Butler's Book of the Rom. Cath. Church. p. 121–124.