« PreviousContinue »
« unless, as being in their places, in the way that a bishop sucu ceeds his predecessors, and not as being ordained by them. " He replied to what some had inferred, that the pope might " then leave off making bishops, choosing to be the only bi. « shop himself. He admitted that ordination is divine, that ¢ in the church there is a multitude of bishops, coadjutors of “ the pontiff, and therefore that the pontiff is obliged to pre. 6 serve the order, but that there is a great difference between ď saying that a thing is de jure divino, and that it is appointed “ of God. Things instituted de jure divino, are perpetual, and
depend on God, alone, at every time, both universally and “ 'particularly. Thus baptism, and all the other sacraments, 66 wherein God operates singularly in each particular, are de u jure divino. Thus the Roman pontiff is of God. For when « one dies, the keys do not remain with the church, for they. * were not given to her. But when the new pope is created, * God immediately gives them to him. But it happens other. « wise in things barely of divine appointment ; inasmuch as " from God comes only the universal, whereas the particulars +6 are executed by men. Thus St. Paul says, that princes and * temporal powers are ordained of God; that is, from him 66 alone comes the universal precept, that there should be t. princes ; nevertheless, the particulars are made by civil laws. « In the same manner bishops are ordained of God; and St.
Paul says they are placed by the Holy Ghost for the govern. * ment of the church, but not de jure divino. The pope, how. Wiever, cannot abolish the universal precept for making bi. “ shops in the church, because it is from God; but each par« ticular bishop, being only de jure canonico, may, by pontifical * authority, be removed. And to the objection made, that a 'the bishops would be delegates, and not ordinaries, he an* 'swered : It behoveth us to distinguish jurisdiction into fun. * damental and derived, and the derived into delegated and
ordinary. In civil polities, the fundamental is in the prince, *the derived is in all the magistrates. And in these, ordina*ries are different from delegates, because they receive the
authority diversly, though they all derive equally from the * same govereignty; but the difference consists in this, that * the ordinaries are by perpetual laws, and with succession : " the others have singular authority either personal or casual. “ The bishops, therefore, are ordinaries, being instituted, by o pontifical laws, dignities of perpetual succession in the & church. He added, that those passages, wherein Christ to seems to give authority to the church, as that wherein he * says, that it is the pillar and basis of the truth, and that other, * Let him who will not hear the church be to thee as a heathen and
"a publican, are all to be understood solely in respect of its "head, which is the pope. For this reason the church is in “fallible, because it has an infallible head. And thus he is " separated from the church who is separated from the pope,
its head. As to what had been urged, that the council could " have no authority from Christ, if none of the bishops had “ any, he answered, that this was not to be regarded as an obu
jection, but as a certain truth, being a very clear and necesó
sary consequence of the truly catholick doctrine he had “demonstrated; nay, added he, if each of the bishops in coun6 cil be fallible, it cannot be denied, that all of them together « are fallible ; and if the authority of the council arose from the " authority of the bishops, no council could ever be called ge"neral, wherein the number of those present is incomparably « less than the number of those that are absent. He mention.
ed, that in that very council under Paul the third, the most momentous articles concerning the canonical books, thie aus " thority of translations, the equality of tradition to scripture;
had been decided by a number less than fifty : that if multi«tude gave authority, these decisions had none at all. But " as a number of prelates, convened by the pontiff, for the pur “ pose of constituting a general council, however few, derives “not the name and efficacy of being general from any other 6 cause than the pope's designation, so likewise he is the sole a source of its authority. Therefore, if it issue precepts, or “ anathemas, these have no effect, unless in virtue of the pon. 6 tiff's future confirmation. Nor can the council bind any by cits anathemas, further than they shall be enforced by the con" firmation. And when the synod says, that it is assembled “ in the Holy Ghost, it means no more than that the father's 6 are assembled, by the pope's summons, to discuss matters, « which, when approved by him, will be decreed by the Holy s Ghost. Otherwise, how could it be said, that a decree is 6 made by the Holy Ghost, which may, by pontifical authority, « be invalidated, or has need of further confirmation : and " therefore, in councils, however numerous, when the pope is 't present, he alone decrees, nor does the council add any thing 6 but its approbation ; that is, it receives. · Accordingly, the “ authentick phrase has always been, Sacro approbante concilio'; “ nay, in determinations of the greatest weight, as was the de. "« position of the emperour Frederick the second, in the gene“ ral council of Lyons, Innocent the fourth, a most wise pontiff, “ refused the approbation of the synod, lest any should ima.
(6 gine it necessary : he thought it enough to say, sacro presente 1." concilio. Nor ought we hence to conclude, that a council is <superfluous. It is convened for the sake of stricter inquisis
estion, easier persuasion, and for giving the members some « notion of the question. And when it judges, it acts by vira, " 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, 5 Feed my sheep.”
Such was the famous discourse of Lainez, in which I must own, we have much greater reason to admire Jesuitical im. pudence 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 diso covering 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, și 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)
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 å 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 bap: tized 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 mariyr 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 assem. bly, 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, niust 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 deposë two pretenders to the popedom, and elect a third in their štead? Or, had they now no knowledge of the council of Constance, which was still latèr, and, in like manner, depos. ed 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 there. ön, was null, consequently that Pius the fourth, the pope then reigning, 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 hiin, 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 opposed, 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 fumes, 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 himn, 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 Fews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live us do the
Fews ? 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 man. ner, , 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