Oecumenical Council, as an _organ of the devil_, for holding the heresy of the _Monothelites_; of _John_ XXII. preaching up and propagating, both by his Missionaries and his Legates _a latere_, a doctrine, which he himself retracted on his death-bed; of seven Popes[3] cursing and damning, in emulation of one anther, all who denied a certain tenet[4], and another Pope[5] as heartily cursing and damning all who maintained it, nay and recurring to the _Ultima Ratio_ of the later Popes, the _Fagot_, in order to _root out of the Church_ (these are his very words) _so pestilential, erroneous, heretical, and blasphemous a doctrine_? This occasioned great scandal in the Church, insomuch that some even took the liberty to represent to his Holiness, that the Decrees and Constitutions of one Pope could not be reversed by another. The Pope replied (and what other reply could he make?) _That they were mistaken, since it might be proved by innumerable instances, that what had been decreed wrong or amiss by one Pope or Council, could be rectified and amended by another_. This answer silenced them at once, says our Historian: And well it might; I am only surprised, that the word _Infallibility_ has ever been since heard of. The _Franciscan_ Friers, who had occasioned the dispute, paid dear for it: As they continued to plead the Infallibility of seven Popes against that of one, and obstinately adhered to their doctrine, Pope _John_, losing all patience, ordered all to be burnt alive, who did not receive his Constitution; which was done accordingly, and many of those unhappy wretches chose rather to expire in the flames than to yield. These remarkable transactions are related by several contemporary writers of unquestionable authority, and among the rest by _Nicolaus Eymericus_, who was Inquisitor of the province of _Tarragon_, and has inserted them in his _Directorium Inquisitorum_[6]. Other facts without number, of the same nature, and alike irreconcileable with the other prerogatives claimed by the Popes, as well as with the chief articles of the _Roman Catholic_ religion, will occur in this History, and all so well attested, that nothing, I think, can withstand the force of Truth thus displayed. Logical arguments and controversial reasoning cannot be well adapted to every understanding, and therefore are not always attended with the desired effect, however skilfully managed; but historical facts lie level to the meanest capacities, and the consequences thence deducible are to the meanest capacities plain and obvious. It is true, the Sticklers for the See of _Rome_ have endeavoured to darken the clearest facts, since they could not deny them, as being vouched by their own approved authors; but they have done it in so aukward a manner, with such absurd, ridiculous, and unintelligible interpretations, comments, distinctions, _&c._ that, were it not well known it was their interest to defend that cause, one would be apt to