true Church in the world, even though that society should fall into error.a Hence we may see the absurdity of that question,

"Where was

your Church before the time of Henry VIII ?”’ We answer, Where it is now, in England, and in the other kingdoms of the world, with this difference, that it was then corrupted, and it is now pure.b

II. The Article asserts, that particular Churches have erred. "As the Church of Jerusalem, "Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the "Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in 66 matters of faith."

It is admitted that the Church of Jerusalem, where our Saviour taught, and the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch, which were founded by St. Peter in person, or by proxy, have erred. It is also admitted, that many of the Popes of Rome have led wicked lives, and that their in

a There is a peculiar absurdity in the doctrine of those Roman Catholics, who hold the personal fallibility of the Pope. They think, that heretics do not belong to the Church of Christ; yet the Pope may err in a point of faith; that is, he may be a heretic, and still be a member of the Church. Thus, we are not of the Church, because heretical; yet the same cause does not produce the same effect in him.

b See Hooker's Eccl. Pol. B. 3. sec. 1.

St. Peter is said to have made Mark bishop of Alexandria, and to have been himself bishop of Antioch-See Theod. Ep. 86.

Р

fluence and authority have materially changed the canons, ceremonies, and government of the Church. The only question is, whether the See of Rome has erred in matters of faith? And, on this subject, there is no difference among those of her communion, except as to what constitutes the See of Rome. Some, by the See of Rome, understand the Popes personally; for they say, since it is necessary that infallibility should be lodged somewhere in the Church, it cannot be in the diffusive body of Christians, who can never be collected; nor in a council, whose assembling depends on various circumstances. It must, therefore, be vested in a living judge, that is, in the Pope. Whereas others think the whole body, which holds communion with Rome, is infallible, for though a Pope should err, a General Council has authority to proceed against him; and thus, though he should fall into error, the See might preserve its infallibility. From these controversies, however, we derive an argument against the existence of infallibility in general; since, if it existed, it were natural to know where it is lodged. The latter opinion we shall consider hereafter; the former we shall now discuss. And, with respect to it, we assert that,

1. The Primitive Church did not acknowledge the claim of infallibility.

If infallibility belonged to the See of Rome,

it is unaccountable that the Church should continue for many ages without its being pretended to, even in times when that see was not only claiming all the rights that belonged to it, but demanding many that were rejected. That such is the fact, however, appears from numerous instances: (1.) They claimed the right of receiving appeals from the African Churches, and founded this claim on a canon falsely quoted from the council of Nice. In this contest they were opposed by those Churches, without ever asserting their infallibility.

a

(2.) Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches for observing Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, instead of the Lord's day after

a

Apiarins, a presbyter of Sicca, was deposed by Urbanus the Bishop of his diocese, in consequence of some irregularities of which he was guilty. He immediately appealed to Zosimus Bishop of Rome, who restored him to his office. When this information was brought to the African Bishops, they unanimously exclaimed against the interference of Zosimus, as contrary to the canons of their Church, which forbid any minister who had been deprived by one Bishop from being restored by another. Zosimus, however, to support his claim, had two canons copied from the council of Sardica, and sent his legates to the council assembled for the purpose at Carthage, A. D. 419, with orders to assert that these canons were contained in those made at Nice. The African Bishops having never heard of them, sent to Cyril of Alexandria, and others, for authentic copies of the council of Nice, and when these arrived the forgery was discovered. See Bower's Lives of the Popes, v. 1. P. 370.

it, according to the Roman custom. In this contest, he never claimed infallibility.a

(3.) When Pope Stephen quarrelled with Cyprian about the rebaptising of heretics, the latter and Firmillian were so far from submitting to his authority, that they treated him with the freedom used by equals, and a severity that showed they did not think him infallible."

(4.) When the East was distracted with the disputes occasioned by the Arian Controversy, it was decreed, in consequence of the partiality in the Councils which were held there, that appeals should be made to Pope Julius and his successors. Here was a suitable opportunity to assert this infallibility, yet it never was mentioned.

(5.) When Byzantium was made the imperial City and called Constantinople, it had a patriar. chal dignity attached to it, and the second and fourth general Councils expressly decreed its equality to Rome in all things, except merely in rank and order. This shows that any reverence

a See Mosheim's Hist. v. 1. cent. ii. p. ii. c. iv. sec. xi. It may be observed that these facts are equally conclusive against the Pope's supremacy.

b See Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 1. 5. c. 23, 24. Cypr. Ep. 74 and 75.

This decree was made in the council of Sardis A. D. 347, but there is every reason to consider the canons of this council spurious and corrupted. See Conc. Sard. can. 3. and 7. and Mosheim's Hist. v. i. cent. iv. p. ii. c. ii. sec. vi. and note.

See Conc. Constant. can. 3. and Con. Chalc. c. 28.

paid to the Pope was due to the rank of the city of which he was Bishop.

a

(6.) When Pope Liberius condemned Athanasius, and subscribed the doctrines of Semi-Arianism, his conduct was not regarded as a new decision on the subject, nor was any argument derived from it. On the contrary, he was universally condemned, and when he repented, he was again owned by the Church. This is unaccountable on the supposition of his infallibility.

(7.) Pope Honorius was condemned by the sixth general Council as a Monothelite in the presence of the Pope's legates, and was anathematised by several of his successors. Nor does it affect the force of the argument, whether he was justly condemned or not; the proof still remains of the sense of the Eastern and Western Churches on these two points, that a Pope might be a heretic, and being such, he might be held accursed for it.

In the succeeding ages however, the Bishops of Rome were enabled during the confusions that followed in the western parts of Europe, to ex

a See Bower's Lives of the Popes, v. i. p. 126; and Cave's Hist. Lit. p. 141. Ed. Lond. 1688.

b The sect of the Monothelites arose in the beginning of the seventh century. They held that Christ had two natures, the divine and human, but that the wills of these combined in such a way as to form but one operation, whence they derived their name. They were condemned in the sixth general council at Constantinople A. D. 680° -See Mosheim's Hist. cent. vii. p. ii. c. v. sec. iv.