144 INFALLIBILITY. duce against the infallibility of' the pope, in any one or all of' the cases alread? mentioned. I. Popes/urve co?tr?d/cted !,o/?. For example, Gregory, summed the Great, about the conclusion of the sixth century, says :--" ! confi* denfly say, that whosoever calls himself the universal priest, or desires to be so called, in his arr%o?nce is a forerunner of antichrist."* Yet this tide and office have been strenuously claimed and used by suc ceeding popes, who declare that the Roman pontiff may be called ,?/v?'se/b?s/u?. Thus Gregory VII. declares "th? the Roman pon- tiff alone can be properly called universal."t Innocent I. and his followers till Pope Golasius asserted t/? commun/on of/nfants as neces- sary, which was condemned by s?bsequent popes. Popes Leo and Gelasius condemned comm?n/o? /? one kind, while all modern popes enjoin it. Gregory the Great condemned the worslu? of ?mages, the tide of u?iver#a? b/?kop, and the ca?on/c/? of the boo'ks of Maccabees. Stephen �I., in a provincial council held at Rome, annulled all the acts of Formesus, one of his predecessors. $ohn IX., his successor, in a council held at Ravenna, annulled Stepben's acts with respect to Formesus. Bergins annulled the acts of Formesus a second time. Some popes acknowledged their own fallibilit?. Innocent IV. taught that a pope is not to be obeyed when his commands are heretical Urban �., Gregory XI., and Clement VI. disavowed every thing which they had advanced contrary to the faith, either in consistory or couneil.$ 2. The fact that severa? ]?opes Aave been. k?retic?, and condom__ned as such, proves unequivocally that they cannot be infallible. Pope �igilius erred, as Dope, in first condemning and then approv- ing the decision of the fifth general council, held A.D. 553. 9 Pope Liberius, in the fourth century, erred, as pope, in comtemuisg Athanasius, and in consenting to the heretical faith of the Ar/ans, and holding communion with them. On this account he was analhe- matized by Hilary. u Honorins, who was made pope in 626 and died in 638, became a ?[o?ot?lite, that is, he believed there was in Christ but oo? w///and one at/on. Forty-two years after his death he was condemned in the cil of Constantinople, held A.D. 680, and he must of conse- quence be a heretic, if it be true that a general council cam?ot err. The most celebrated Roman doctors acknowledge the heresy of Ho- norius. Pigbins and Baronins deny that b? held to this doctrine; but Du Pin proves it beyond contradiction. He says: "Honorius was � fayouter of heresy, because he forbad,' spe?iug both of one and two operations in Jesus Christ. He was a heretic, because he owned but one will in Jesus Christ: and &e Roman Church hath so plainly �cknowledged that Pope Honorins did advance the error of the Mono- thelites, that in her ancient breviary she declares that he was con- demned, with the other Monothelites, for maintaining the doctrine of
- "Era) fidenter dice, qued quioquis ee universalera mtcerdotem vocat, vol vocari
deddera?, in elatione sun, antichristurn prmcurrit."--4Dreg..M?a,x. Ep., lib. vi, ep. 30. ,, Romanus tifex 'ure dicutur universalis E , lib its ep 55 f Quodeelus pou .I ' ? P' �. ��
- t See Barrow on Supremacy, pp. 393-400. Ousley, 134, for several instances of
'71 d'. _magr_eee_n?___nL Pin, Ec. Hist., vol. is p. ?09. Meeheim, cent. 5, part it, ch. ;it, see. L Pin, vol is p. t90, where he provera at large tim bmsy of Liberia.
�
