Page images
PDF
EPUB

tion, easier persuasion, and for giving the members some "notion of the question. And when it judges, it acts by vir "tue of the pontifical authority, derived from the divine, given "it by the pope. For these reasons, the good doctors have "subjected the authority of the council to the authority of the

pontiff, as totally dependent thereon. Without this, it has "neither the assistance of the Holy Spirit, nor infallibility, "nor the power of binding the church. It has nothing but "what is conceded to it by him alone, to whom Christ said, Feed my sheep."

Such was the famous discourse of Lainez, in which I must own, we have much greater reason to admire Jesuitical impudence than even Jesuitical sophistry. So many bold assertions, some of which are flatly contradicted by sacred writ, and others by the most unquestionable records of history, required a man of no common spirit, or, as scripture strongly expresses it, who had a brow of brass, to advance them. Is it possible, that he himself was so ignorant as to believe what he advanced? Or could he presume so far upon the ignorance of his audience, as to think of making them believe it? Or did he imagine that his hearers would be so overborne by his eloquence, his assuming tone and dictatorial manner, as to be thrown into a kind of stupor, and rendered incapable of discovering the notorious falsehoods with which his oration was stuffed? Passing the contradictions to holy writ, a book with which the divines of his day were but beginning to be acquainted, was it prudent to ascribe a power to the papacy not only unheard of in former ages, but which popes themselves had explicity disclaimed? Nothing can be more express than the words of Gregory, surnamed the great, who, though remarkably tenacious of the honours of his see, says, in arguing against the Constantinopolitan patriarch, for assuming the title of universal bishop, "Si unus episcopus vocatur universa "lis, universa ecclesia corruit, si unus universus cadet." If one should fall, the universal church falls with him. Here, taking it for self-evident, that all bishops, without exception, are fallible, he infers the absurdity there is in any one calling himself universal. Again, "Absit a cordibus christianorum "nomen istud blasphemiæ, in quo omnium sacerdotum honor ❝adimitur, dum ab uno sibi dementer arrogatur;" where he no less plainly arraigns the impious usurpation of any one, who, by claiming such a superiority, would strip all other priests of their dignity, and madly arrogate the whole to himself. Was it well-judged to misrepresent so common an author as Cyprian in so flagrant a manner, and make him compare the apostolick (that is, in the Jesuit's dialect, the Roman)

P P

see to the root, the head, the fountain, the sun, in a passage where Cyprian mentions no see whatever, but speaks solely of the necessity of union with the universal church? Cyprian, in writing to popes, and of them, uniformly shows, that he considered them as, in respect of their ministry, entirely on a foot of equality with himself, denominating them brethren, colleagues, and fellow-bishops. Whether he paid an implicit deference to their judgment, let the dispute he had with pope Stephen, about the rebaptization of those who had been baptized by hereticks, testify. By this firmness, he incurred excommunication from the pope; and, in this state. he died, though now worshipped as a saint and a martyr by the very church which excommunicated him.

But not to enter farther into particulars, was it judicious in Lainez, to trust so much to the ignorance of the whole assembly, as not only to quote such men as Cyprian, an eminent and inflexible opposer of papal arrogance, but to talk of the pope's power in convoking councils, and confirming their decrees, as what had always obtained in the church, and was essential to the very being of a council, when every smatterer in ecclesiastick history, and in ancient ecclesiastick writers, must have known, that this practice was comparatively recent? Passing the custom of the earlier, ages, when the imperial authority was used, was it already quite forgotten, that in the very preceding century, the council of Pisa was not convened by any pontiff, and yet proceeded so far as to try and depose two pretenders to the popedom, and elect a third in their stead? Or, had they now no knowledge of the council of Constance, which was still later, and, in like manner, deposed two claimants, one of them the pope, who had convoked it, and, after accepting the resignation of a third, proceeded to the election of a fourth? Or could it be imagined, that the whole audience was so stupid, as not to be sensible, that, if those proceedings at Constance were null, there was no vacancy made by the deposition of John and Benedict, consequently that the council's election of Martin, following thereon, was null, consequently that Pius the fourth, the pope then feigning, had no right, as he derived his title lineally from an usurper, who, by creating cardinals whilst he himself was destitute of authority, had perpetuated, in his successours, the failure of his own title, and consequently, that there was an irreparable breach made in the succession to the popedom? Was it possible, that they should not perceive, that the subversion of the authority of that council, an authority claimed over popes, was the subversion of the title of Martin the fifth, and that the subversion of the title of Martin the fifth, was

the subversion of the title of all succeeding popes to the end of the world?

How curiously does Lainez argue from the metaphor of sheep, that the christian people, indeed the whole church, clergy as well as laity, (the pope, the one shepherd of the one sheepfold, alone excepted) have no more judgment in directing themselves than brute beasts. He does not, indeed, so cleverly account how that superiour sort of being, the pope, can think of choosing any of these irrational animals, as partners in the ministry with him, to assist in guiding and directing their fellow-brutes. I admire the wonderful fetch by which he makes Jesus Christ, when he commissioned the twele apostles, act in ordaining eleven of them, (though no distinction is pointed out in the history) merely in the name of Peter, and as Peter's substitute; borrowing back, for this purpose, part of the authority exclusively conferred on him. He is, indeed, greatly at a loss (these deputy-apostles, or apostles of the apostle Peter, unluckily behaved so properly) to find an instance of Peter's so much boasted authority in judging and correcting them. But we are at no loss to find an instance wherein, on Peter's behaving improperly, Paul not only op-posed, but publickly and sharply rebuked him. The passage well deserves your notice. You will find it in the epistle to the, Galatians, ii, 11, &c. When Peter was come to Antioch, says Paul, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed: for before that certain came from fames, he did eat with the Gentiles, but when they were come, he withdrew, and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch, that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter, before them all, If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? Was this a treatment from a mere delegate to his principal, nay more, from one of the sheep, those stupid irrational animals, to his shepherd, (for mark, that according to Lainez, Peter was the sole shepherd, they all, in respect of him, were sheep) from a fallible member of the church to Christ's only vicar, to the infallible head and pastor? What matter of triumph would there have been here to the Ro manist, if the case had been reversed, and Peter had, in a manner, to appearance, so authoritative judged and rebuked Paul? Our ears would have been stunned with the repetition of a demonstration, so irrefragable, of the supremacy of Pe ter, and consequently of Rome. Yet there would have been no real ground of triumph had it been so. If any regard is

[ocr errors]

to be had to the accounts of inspiration, it is manifest, that none of them, though apostles, were infallible; and that as they were all, by their vocation, brethren and equals, and expressly called so by their master, in a passage wherein he prohibits their either giving or assuming a superiority one over another, it was their duty to correct one another in love, and not permit a brother unadmonished to persist in any practice truly blame-worthy. Passing, however, the article of correction, of which it appears, that Peter, the only infallible apostle, was the only person of the society that ever stood in need; what evidence have we, of any authority, in other respects, exercised by Peter over the sacred college? Does he ever call them together, to assign them their several charges, and give them instructions in relation to the duties of their office? or, Do they ever have recourse, to him for the proper information in regard to these? Not a vestige, to this purpose, do we find in the acts of the apostles, where, if there had been such a thing, it could hardly have been omitted; nor is there the least suggestion, that points this way, in any of the epistles. Nay, not one of the apostles do we find sent on any mission whatsoever by him. We have, indeed, as I had occasion to remark in a former discourse, a notable instance, in which Peter and John were sent on a mission by the other apostles, who were at Jerusalem at the time, but not a single example of an apostle, who received either direction or orders of any kind from Peter.

But it would be trifling to enter more into particulars. Who sees not that, by this Jesuit's way of commenting, not only there is no evidence, that any powers were conferred on the other apostles, or on the church, but it would have been impossible for the inspired writers themselves to give us evidence that there were? For, however clear and decisive their expressions might have been, this brief reply would have cut them down at once: "All such passages are to be understood "solely in respect of the church's head, which is the pope." Suffice it then to say of the whole piece, as we may say with the greatest justice, that it is a mass of falsehoods and chicanery. Some things are affirmed in opposition to the fullest evidence, many things are assumed without any evidence, and nothing is proved.

But it is of some consequence to consider the reception it met with in the council, as this consideration will serve to show the different sentiments which prevailed at that time among Roman catholicks, in relation to hierarchy, and ecclesiastical dominion. This, together with some remarks on the present state of the papacy, shall be reserved for the subject of another lecture.

LECTURE XXI.

IN my last lecture, in order to give you some idea of the sublimity and plenitude of the spiritual power and prerogatives, I claimed in behalf of his holiness, by the partisans of the see of Rome, and, at the same time, to give you some taste of their manner of supporting their claims from scripture and antiquity, I exhibited to you the substance of a speech on episcopal jurisdiction, delivered by the jesuit Lainez in the council of Trent. I made also a few strictures on his mode of probation. But as it is of more consequence, for understanding the present state of parties and opinions in the Romish church, to know the reception which the jesuit's sentiments met with in the council, I reserved this for a principal part of the subject of my present lecture. I shall therefore begin with it.

Of all the orations that had yet been delivered in the coun❝cil, there was not one, says our historian, more commended, " and more blamed, according to the different dispositions of the "hearers, than was this of Lainez. By the pontificii, or pa"pists, (so do even Roman catholicks term the minions of "Rome, and sticklers for every claim made by the papacy) it

was cried up as most learned, bold, and well-founded; by "others it was condemned as adulatory, and by some even as "heretical. Many showed that they were offended by the asperity of his censures, and were determined, in the following congregations," (so the meetings holden for deliberation and debate were named) "to attack his speech on every occa "sion, and point out the ignorance and temerity which it be❝ traved.

"The bishop of Paris having, when he should have given "his sentiments, been confined by sickness, said to every body "who came to see him, that when there should be a congre "gation that he could attend, he would deliver his opinion

« PreviousContinue »