called infallible. For let it be observed, that this man at Rome was twice absolved as guiltless, (both times indeed without a trial) first by pope Zozimus, then by pope Celestine, both now worshipped as saints by the Romanists.

It were easy to show, were it proper to descend into more particulars, that the conduct of Leo, on occasion of the appeal of Celedonius, of Besancon, from the diocesan synod of Arles, in reversing their sentence, restoring the deposed bishop, and the procedure of the pontiff soon after against Hilarius, bishop of Arles, and exarch of the seven Narbonnese provinces, who had presided at the synod above-mentioned; whom he not only cut off from his communion, and, as far as in him lay, degraded, but every where defamed by his letters, were equally precipitate, unjust, and scandalous. In this attempt, however, on the rights of the Gallican church, Rome seems to have been more successful, through a peculiar felicity in the juncture, than in those formerly made on the churches of Africa. The prince then upon the throne, Valentinian the third, was both weak and credulous, and one over whom the pontiff appears to have had an unlimited influence. The pope, therefore, on this occasion, glad to recur to the secular arm, easily obtained from the emperour a rescript, exactly in the terms he desired, confirming all that he had done, commanding all the Gallican bishops to yield implicit obedience to the decrees and awards of the pontiff, and enjoining the magistrates of the several provinces to interpose their authority, in compelling those who should be summoned to Rome to obey the summons. Many attempts were used by Hilarius to effect a reconciliation; but he found it was utterly impracticable, except on such conditions as an honest man will ever account totally unworthy of regard, the sacrifice of truth, and the surrender of those rights and liberties of his church and people, with which, as a most sacred depositum, he had been intrusted. In this state, therefore, which surely a modern papist would think desperate, unreconciled to Christ's vicar, and as a rotten member cut off from the body of the faithful, being cut off from all connexion with the church's visible head, died the famous Hilarius, bishop of Arles. And what shall we say of Roman consistency, when we reflect, that this very excommunicated, cursed, anathematized Hilarius, (I cannot say by what strange oversight) as well as pope Leo, who, to the last, treated him in the man. ner we have seen, are both at present first rate saints in the Roman kalendar? What account can the Romish church give of this? If you be curious to know, you may consult Baronius, or any other of the hireling writers of that communion, whose business in brief it was to explain nonsense, darken facts, confound the judgment, and reconcile contradictions.

In what further concerns the matter of appeals, I shall only, without multiplying instances, refer you to what happened in the cases of Talia, bishop of Alexandria, charged with simony and perjury; the two Gallican bishops, Salonius and Sagittarius, who had been convicted, before a synod at Lyons, of the crimes only of murder, adultery, robbery, and house-breaking, but whose merit in appealing to the apostolick see cancelled all in an instant, and procured, without further inquiry, a declaration of their innocence, and restoration to their bishopricks; and who, (I speak of the two last) in confidence of their security under the pope's protection, soon relapsed into the same enormities, were deposed a second time, and shut up in a monastery to prevent a second recurrence to Rome. You may observe, also, the case of Hadrian, bishop of Thebes, in Thessaly; of Honoratus, archdeacon of Saloni, in Dalmatia; that of John, bishop of Lappa, in Crete; and that of Wilfrid, of York, in England. For many centuries you will find, that the judgment of the apostolick see, as it affected to be styled, in contradistinction to others, was uniformly in favour of the appellant.

If history had given us no information about the persons, or cases, there would still be a strong presumption that, in so considerable a number, some had deserved the treatment they had received from the provincial, diocesan, or national synod, to which they had belonged. As the matter stands, there is the clearest historical evidence, that the far greater part of them had been justly degraded, and could never have obtained the patronage or countenance of any power, which did not make every consideration of religion and equity give way to her ambition.

What but this favourite maxim can account for the many falsehoods and forgeries, to which she so often recurred, in support of her exorbitant claims. The ignorance and superstition of the dark ages that ensued, (for those I have had occasion to refer to in this, and my two preceding lectures, are but as the evening twilight, compared with those which followed) soon gave scope for attempting the very grossest kinds of imposition. And the friends and patrons of the hierarchy were not remiss in using the opportunity while it lasted. The fruits of their diligence, in this way, were fictitious councils as well as canons, and fictitious decrees of real councils, false deeds of gift, such as the instrument of donation of Rome and all Italy, made, as was pretended, by the emperour Constantine to pope Sylvester, and his successours in the popedom, the decretal epistles of the popes, not to mention the little legerdemain tricks of false miracles, and other

such like artifices. For the lying spirit, which had gotten possession of the head, quickly diffused itself throughout the members; and every petty priest supported his particular credit among the people by the same arts, exhibited, as it were, in miniature, which were on a larger scale displayed by the pontiff, for the support of the great hierarchal empire. It must be owned, the greater part of their forgeries, especially Constantine's donation, and the decretal epistles, are such barefaced impostures, and so bunglingly executed, that nothing less than the most profound darkness of those ages could account for their success. They are manifestly written in the barbarous dialect, which obtained in the eighth and ninth centuries, and exhibit those poor, meek, and humble teachers, who came immediately after the apostles, as blustering, swaggering, and dictating to the world in the authoritative tone of a Zachary, or a Stephen.

But however gross the artifices were, they were well suited to the grossness of the people, in times wherein almost all vestiges of literature and arts were buried in the ruins of the fallen empire. These acts and decretals had accordingly, for several centuries, a powerful effect in imposing on mankind; an effect which continued, whilst its continuance was of principal moment, when all the little remains of knowledge in the world were in the hands of those, who considered it as their interest to deceive the people, and keep them in ignorance. Thus the progress, as well as the coming, of this power, has been indeed after the working of Satan, in signs and lying wonders, and all deceivableness of unrighteousness.

Indeed, such sacrifices of truth to what was called the cause of the church have always been regarded as among the most harmless of their innumerable expedients. The term pious fraud was, in most places, and for several ages, not introduced sarcastically, as it is used with us at present; nor was it imagined to connect ideas incompatible with each other; but employed to denote an artifice not only innocent but commendable. The patrons of sacerdotal power had every advantage therefore their tricks, when undiscovered, wrought powerfully in their favour; and when discovered, (such was the woful superstition of the times) were, on account of the supposed holy purpose to be effected by them, easily excused by all, and highly approved by many.

It is true, that now, since the restoration of letters, men's sentiments, on these subjects, are very much altered. Those graceless devices have been, for the most part, fully detected. and exposed; insomuch, that all the learned and ingenuous part, even of Roman catholicks, quite ashamed of them, have

long since abandoned their defence. But Rome may now laugh at a detection, which can never restore things to the state they were in before those frauds were employed. What has been at first produced solely by imposture, comes, through the slow but sure operation of time and immemorial custom, to acquire a stability totally independent of its origin. When that is the case, the discovery is not able to shake the fabrick, to which the imposture originally gave a being. Antiquity supplies the place of truth. Custom rules the world, and is the principal foundation of obedience in all the governments that and ever were, upon the earth. It is but one of a thousand that is capable of examining into the origin of things: the remaining nine hundred and ninety-nine have no reason to assign for their obedience but custom, or what they are wont to see exacted on the one hand, and complied with on the other. A set of customs, gradually established, may, in like manner, be gradually abolished; but the discoveries of the learned (though not totally ineffective) have not a very sudden, and a very sensible effect upon them.

are,

+

I shall, in my next lecture, proceed to illustrate, in other instances, the particular attention which Rome invariably gave to the great object, POWER; and consider how far the very best of her pontiffs sacrificed every other consideration to its ad>

vancement.

I PROCEED, in this lecture, to illustrate, in other instances, the particular attention which Rome invariably gave to the great object, power. The proof that I am now to produce is different in kind from the former, but still corroborative of the same capital point in her policy, which was to make every con-s sideration of truth and right give place to her ambition.

rece For this purpose, I shall not recur to those pontiffs, who were far from reaching even the low standard of virtue, recom mended in the latter part of the Julian maxim, aliis rebus pie tatem colas. And that there were popes, who, in no part of their conduct, showed that they either feared God, or regarded men, all persons, popish and protestant, who have the least acquaintance with church history, will readily admit. But I shall recur to one, who was thought, as much as any that ever sat in the papal chair, to mind the better part of the apophthegm, and was observant of piety, equity, and charity, in cases which did not interfere with the favourite pursuit; and shall clearly evince, that he was not a less rigid observer of the former part of it, regnandi gratia jus violandum est; that he did not hesitate at any means, falsehood, and injustice, the prostitution of reli gion, and of the most sacred rites of humanity, when these could be rendered instrumental in promoting the primary papal object, POWER.

The pope I intend to produce as an example, is no other! than Gregory the first, a man at present adored in the church of Rome, as one of her most eminent saints, and respected as one of her most learned doctors. The Greeks, I know, were wont to style him, (as it would seem) contemptuously, Gregory Dialogue, on account of some silly dialogues which he wrote. Yet even those are not inferiour to some of the productions of their own approved authors in the same period. His pontificate commenced towards the end of the sixth century, and extended to the beginning of the seventh.