to its general feelings, and of course encouraged its propagation, but never pretended to enforce it as an article of Catholic faith, or ventured to attach any marks of censure to the contrary opinion.

This latter opinion, the ancient and unadulterated doctrine of the Catholic Church, prevailed over Germany, the Austrian empire, Poland, the Low Countries, and England; and in France was supported by the whole authority of the Gallican church, and by the unanimous declaration of all the Universities. So rigorously indeed was their hostility to papal infallibility enforced, that no theologian was admitted to degrees, unless he supported in a public act the four famous resolutions of the Gallican church against the exaggerated doctrines of some Italian divines relative to the powers of the Roman See. These resolutions declare, that the Pope, though superior to each bishop individually, is yet inferior to the body of bishops assembled in council; that his decisions are liable to error, and can only command our assent when confirmed by the authority of the Church at large; that his power is purely spiritual, and extends neither directly nor indirectly to the temporalities or prerogatives of kings and princes; and, in fine, that his authority is not absolute or despotic, but confined within the bounds prescribed by the canons and the customs of the Church. This doctrine was taught in all the theological schools, that is, in all the Universities and seminaries in France, as well as in all the abbies; and was publicly maintained by the English Benedictin college at Douay.

The conclusion to be drawn from these observations is, first, that no Catholic Divine, however attached to papal prerogative,

ever conceived an idea so absurd as that of ascribing infallibility to the person of the Pontiff; and secondly, that those theologians who ascribed infallibility to papal decisions when clothed with certain forms, gave it as their opinion only, but never presumed to enforce it as the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Therefore, to taunt Catholics with papal infallibility as an article of their faith, or to urge it as a proof of their necessary and inevitable subserviency to the determinations of the Roman court, argues either a great want of candour, or a great want of

information.

Before we close these observations, we will indulge in a momentary retrospect of past ages, and contemplate the consequences of pontifical domination during the middle centuries, when there was much barbarism and more ignorance in Europe, and when its provinces were, with little variation, abandoned to misrule and to devastation. The ambition of the Popes is a threadbare subject, and their pride, their cruelty, and their debauchery, have been the theme of many a declamation, and lengthened many a limping verse. But the candid reader who, in spite of prejudices howsoever early instilled, and howsoever deeply impressed, can contemplate truth, oculo irretorto, will perhaps agree with me in the following reflections, and acknowledge in the first place; that if amidst the confusion of a falling empire, of barbarian invasion, and of increasing anarchy some and even many disorders should find their way into episcopal palaces, and infect the morals even of bishops themselves, it would be neither unexpected nor surprising; in the second place; that if we admit the constant flattery and compliance which environ the great to be an extenuation of their vices, we must surely extend our indulgence, in some degree at least, to the

ambition and pride of the Popes, flattered for ages, not by their courtiers and dependants only, but by princes, by monarchs, and even by emperors; and thirdly, that with so many inducements to guilt, and so many means of gratification, no dynasty of sovereigns, no series of bishops of equal duration, have produced fewer individuals of demeanour notoriously scandalous. This observation has, if I do not mistake, been made by Montesquieu, who declares that the Popes, when compared with the Greek Patriarchs, and even with secular princes, appear as men put in contrast with children. This superior strength of mind and consistency of conduct may, justly perhaps, be ascribed to that spark of Roman spirit and Roman firmness which has always been kept alive in the pontifical court, and has ever marked its proceedings. In fact, at a very early period, when the Emperors were oftentimes semi-barbarians, born in distant provinces, and totally unacquainted with the Capital, the Pontiffs were genuine Romans born within the walls of the city; and it is highly probable that a far greater portion of the elegance and of the urbanity, as well as of the simplicity and the modesty of Augustus's family, might have been observed in the palace of Urbanus or Zephyrinus, than in the courts of Caracalla or Heliogabalus. This observation is still more applicable to the Pontiffs and Emperors of the succeeding centuries, as the latter, from Diocletian downwards, had assumed the luxury and cumbrous pomp* of Asiatic despots, insomuch that the court of Constan

* See Eusebius's description of the dress of Constantine, when he appeared in the Council of Nice.-De Vita Constantini, lib. 111. Kɛq. 1.

tinople bore a much nearer resemblance in dress and ceremonial to that of Artaxerxes, than to that of Augustus. We may therefore easily imagine, that the manners of Gregory the Great and of his clergy were, notwithstanding the misfortunes of the times, far more Roman, that is, more manly, more simple, and for that reason more majestic than those of Justinian. This natural politeness still continued to be the honourable distinction of the pontifical court till the ninth century, when the visits of the French sovereigns to Rome, and the frequent intercourse between them and the Popes, contributed not a little to soften the manners of the former, and to extend the blessings of civilization to their subjects *.

From this period the Roman Pontiffs assumed the character of the Apostles and Legislators, the Umpires and Judges, the Fathers and Instructors of Europe, and at the same time acted the most brilliant part, and rendered some of the most essential services to mankind on record in human history. Had their conduct invariably corresponded with the sanctity of their professsion, and had their views always been as pure and as disinterested as their duty required, they must have been divested of all the weaknesses of human nature, and have arrived at a degree of perfection which does not seem to be attainable in this state of existence. But, notwithstanding the interruptions occasioned from time to time by the ambition and profligacy of some worthless Popes, the Grand Work was pursued with spirit; the barbarian tribes were converted; Europe was again civilized, pre

* Le regne seul de Charlemagne, says Voltaire, an author not very partial to Rome, eut une lueur de politesse, qui fut probablement le fruit du voyage a Rome.

served first from anarchy, and then from Turkish invasion, next enlightened, and finally raised to that degree of refinement which places it at present above the most renowned nations of antiquity. Thus, while the evils occasioned by the vices of the Pontiffs were incidental and temporary, the influence of their virtues was constant, and the services which they rendered mankind were permanent, and may probably last as long as the Species itself. Hence, not to allude again to the virtues of the earlier Popes, and to the blessings which they communicated to nations during the middle ages, to them we owe the revival of the arts of architecture, of painting, and of sculpture, and the preservation and restoration of the literature of Greece and of Rome. One raised the dome of the Vatican; another gave his name to the Calendar, which he reformed; a third rivalled Augustus, and may glory in the second classic era, the era of Leo. These services will be long felt and remembered, while the wars of Julius II. and the cruelties of Alexander VI. will ere long be consigned to oblivion. In fact, many of my readers, whatsoever opinion they may entertain of the divine right of the Roman Pontiffs, may be inclined with a late eloquent writer*, to discover something sublime in the establishment of a common Father in the very centre of Christendom, within the precincts of the Eternal City once the seat of empire now the Metropolis of Christianity; to annex to that venerable name sovereignty and princely power, and to entrust him with the high commission of advising and rebuking monarchs, of repressing the ardour and the intemperance of