34 II?TRODUCTIOS. [Boox I. ohop of Rome, and J?s C?t. 2. Some Romanism ascfi? i?b?ty ? a co?c?, othe? m ?; a hrge number of them ?si? it m the ? pe?o?ly, independently of a council ? a?ve it. This see? m be a 1o?cal consequence of the ?pe's supremacy. There are ?ree rea?cm in w?ch he is s?d to be ?ible, by ?oae who ?cfibe t?s ?tfibum him. Some ?cribe ?a?bili? to ?m when he decides on f?t? ?. ?e? say he is inf?ble when he decides ?x ?dra, or o?g. W?le a third cica t?nk he cannot e? in any of h? de- cm?ons. Bellatone sa?, "The ?nfiff c?not e? ? ?y c?e, when he teaches the whole church in t?se thin? w?ch ?1ong ? faith." Pontilex, cum totam ecclesi? docet in ?s qu? ad fidera pe?ent, uuHo casu e?e ?test.* In the next chapter he says, Ponfifex non ?test e?re e?ori j?dic?; id est, dum judicat, et debit qu?stionem fidel "The ?ntiff cannot e? by a judic? error; t?t is, when judges ?d defines a question of f?th. ? He ?ds, in chap. v, In decrefia mo?, ? ?ees p?t?ning to m?. Thns we have the doc?e that the ?pe is inertable, when he decides res?c6ng f? or mo?s. ?e? sup?se that he is infallible when he decides e? c?dra, or o?cially. But then it is ve? diffic?t to asce?in what is meant by such a dec,ion. Indeed, the expression is often made use of to t?ow dust in ?e eyes of inquirers, and it h? no unifo? W of meaning. M?y Rom?sm maint?n, that if a decree of ?e ?pe is received even tacitly, or if it is not objected to by the bishops, it becomes ? a?cle of f? or a ride of morals, and is considered as infallibly true. 3. ?e of the principal exercises of pontifical authority is the ?n- de?ation and pmsc?ption of ce?ain b?ks offensive ? the Roman see, ?der tho title of [?s of ?ohiMted ?oks. The flint re,at one w? coerced after a decree of the Council of Trent, delega?ng ?at ?de?ng ? the ?miff. Plus IV. lost no time in preparing such a ?st, wi? ce?ain rules preyed, all of which he sanctioned by the authority ot a b?. The manufacture of new Indices, adap?d ? new emergencies, h? proceeded re?larly from that to the present time. These documenm are ?g?y v?uable, as ?ey form a perm?ent, ?ated, ?d present monument of the doc?n? dep?W ?d prac?cal dishones W of the papal system. 4. No complete collection of the papal bulls c? be found in any of �e comp?ations professing themselves such. There are many re?ons why some should not be published in e?tions issuing from a pa? press. Two of the earliest bulls, in C?na Domi?, do not appear in the Bull?um M?um of Luxemburg. That of Innocent VIII. a?st the Waldenses, in 1487, the ori?nal of which w? de?sited in the pubic lib? in Cambridge, and stolen from ?ence a?utfi?y yea? a?, but printed, aud, therefore, safe in Marl?d's ?d Leger's Hissties, to be found in no papal collection. ?e same may be s?d of the bull and I? Li?m ProJ?2?m of Sixms V. There ? no?ng Roma is so much afraid of ? her o? acre ?d ?numenm, ?le? sh? can get them ? ?e dark, ?at is, ?to her own keeping. ?en Rome ? f?ly s?ken by ?e bulls of her ?s, h? c?&en have no?ng ? do ? ?o.
�
