Графични страници
PDF файл

cepted the authority of the Roman bishop.". If they will have these things allowed for good, why be Councils called? But if they command them to be void, why are they left in their books for good ?

Sect. 8. But be it so. Let the bishop of Rome, alone, be above all Councils—that is to say, let some one part be greater than the whole. Let him be of greater power, let him be of more wisdom, than all his :: and in spite of

e “Quasi Romanæ Ecclesiæ legem Concilia ulla præfixerint, cum omnia Concilia per Romani pontificis auctoritatem, et facta sint, et robur acceperint : et in eorum statutis Romani pontificis, patenter excipiatur auctoritas.," De Elect. et eleeti Potest. Cap. Significasti. #

[" The whole we speak of, is the whole Church of CHRIST. And I trow, by your learning, the Pope is a part, or member of the same. Otherwise ye must tell us, that the Pope is no part of the Church of CHRIST. Which thing, all circumstances considered, were not hard to be granted.

" But 'the Pope,' say you, being but a part, is greater than the whole Church. Ergo, say I, it must needs follow, that the part is greater than the whole.-GERSON, the director of the Council of Constance, saw this, and uttered it above a hundred and fifty years ago. These be his words : 'Quærere utrum,' &c. "To demand whether the authority of the Pope be greater than the authority of the Church, is as much as if a man would demand whether the whole be greater than the part.' (De Potest. Eceles. Consid. 7.).Defence, p. 533.

This reasoning is inserted, because it has a specious show, and because JEWELL seems to lay stress upon it. But surely it is false ! The Pope is a part of the Church ; therefore when he dissents, the Council, however general, cannot be the whole: and however unfounded and untrue the assertion may be, it involves nothing absurdum in se, to say that the dissentient part is greater than the remainder.]

("Some of your friends have said : Si totus mundus,' &c. - If the whole world should give sentence in any matter against the Pope, it seemeth we ought rather to stand with the Pope's judgment. (IX. Quæst. 3. Nemo. In Glossa.) ALBERTUS PIGHIUS saith : Certius est judicium,' &c. 'The judgment of the Pope is more certain than is the judgment of a General Council

, or of all the whole world.' (Eccles. Hierarch. Lib. VI. cap. xiii.) Another saith : 'Potestas solius Papæ,' &c. "The power of the Pope alone exceedeth the power of all the Church beside.' (PETRUS DE PALUDE De Potest. Papa, Art. 4.) Another saith : 'Papa non potest, &c. ** The Pope cannot submit himself to a General Council. (Jo. ANDREE in Extr. de Judiciis. Cum venissent.)

Upon these worthy foundations ye have built up the Pope's infinite and universal power.

"All this notwithstanding, others of your more indifferent doctors would have told you another tale. S. BERNARD saith : Quæ major superbia,' &c. What greater pride can there be than that one man should esteem his own judgment more than the judgment of all the Church, as if he only had the SPIRIT OF GOD (Cited by Picus

JEROME's head let " the authority of one city be greater than the authority of the whole world." h

How then, if the Pope have seen none of these things ; and have never read either the Scriptures, or the old fathers, or yet his own Councils ?i-How if he favour the Arians, as once Pope Liberius did ?k or have a

MIRANDULUS in Quæst. An Papa sit supra Concilium ?) Whereunto Picus MIRANDULUS addeth these words : 'Imo, simplici potius,' &c. 'Nay, we ought to believe a simple plain countryman, or a child, or an old woman, rather than the Pope and a thousand bishops, if the Pope and the bishops speak against the Gospel, and the others speak with the Gospel.' (In eodem loco.)"-Defence, p. 533.

JEWELL goes on to quote, at considerable length, the opinions of the bishops assembled in the Councils of Ferrara (A. D. 1438) and of Basle, (A. D. 1431-1440) and that of Cardinal Cusanus, (De Concord. Lib. II. cap. xvii.) to the same effect with those of BERNARD and Picus.

PETRUS DE PALUDE, quoted in the former part of this note, and in several in preceding pages, was an eminent doctor of the Sorbonne, and teacher of scholastic theology, in the fourteenth century. He was made titular Patriarch of Jerusalem by Pope John XXII. in 1329, and died in 1342.

John ANDREE made himself celebrated by his lectures on the Canon Law, delivered in the public schools of Padua and Bologna, in the early part of the fourteenth century, and by his published commentaries on the same subjects. His morals were no better than the specimen of his theology quoted by JEWELL; for several scandalous anecdotes are told concerning him.

Picus MIRANDULUS distinguished himself among the restorers of learning in the fifteenth century, by his thirst for various knowledge, his wonderful capacity, and his liberal affection for the arts and sciences. He was born a prince, but resigned his dignity for literary leisure, and after having almost monopolized the admiration of the good, and the envy of his unsuccessful rivals in learned pursuits, died at the early age of thirty-three, in 1494. Things almost incredible are related of the extent of his erudition, and his publications prove that it was united with a solid judgment, and fervent piety.]

h Epist. ad Evagrium. [See Note bon page 35.]

i {"Concerning the Pope's great and high learning, ALPHONSUS DE CASTRO saith : 'Constat,' &c. It is certainly known, that sundry Popes have been so unskilful in learning, that they never understood their grammar.' (Contra Hæres. Lib. I. cap. iv.) And this he speaketh, not of one Pope only, but of sundry."'-Defence, p. 536.

ALPHONSO DE CASTRO was a native of Spain, and accompanied Philip II., the husband of the bloody Mary, into England. He attained considerable eminence among the Romanists as a theologian, and was nominated to the Archbishopric of Compostella in Spain, at the time of his death, in 1558. His historical and controversial work Against Heresies, (quoted by JEWELL;) is the most esteemed of his productions.)

[" Where we say "Liberius favoured the Arians,' that, ye say, is stark false. And yet, ye know S. JEROME is the reporter of that false hood. (HIERON. de Eccles. Scriptor, in Fortunatiāno) 'But S. JEwicked, and a detestable opinion of the life to come, and of the immortality of the soul, as Pope John had, but few years since ?! or, to increase his own dignity, do now corrupt other Councils, as Pope Zosimus corrupted the Council holden at Nice in times past ; and

ROME,'ye say, 'was deceived. In such reverence and regard ye have the doctors and learned fathers of the Church. Ye believe them no farther than ye list.-If S. JEROME's authority suffice you not, ye may also take the authority of S. AUGUSTINE. For S. AUGUSTINE saith, as he is alleged by Cardinal CUSANUS, (De Concord. Lib. II. cap. v.) that Pope Liberius gave his hand and consent unto the Arians.”—Defence, p. 538.

JEWELL goes on to quote the consentient testimonies of several modern writers, which it is needless to quote, as at the present day the fact of the (perhaps constrained) approbation of Arianism by Pope Liberius, is admitted as incontestible by all.]

1 [That John XXII. who succeeded Clement V. in the Papacy, at Avignon, in 1316, and died in 1344, maintained opinions respecting the future state of the soul contrary to the Romish standard of faith, is now admitted even by historians of that Church. HARDING raises many cavils against Jewell's statement of the fact, with the view of discrediting the whole story; and thus gives occasion to five folio pages of reply in the Defence. Without entering into the minute details, it may suffice to remark that there is error on both sides : on that of HARDING in denying, on that of JEWELL in exaggerating, or misunderstanding, the error of Pope John. That Pontiff merely denied the beatific vision of the Deity by the souls of the faithful in the interval between death and the final judgment: an error, (if such it be,) surely undeserving of the names of heresy or 'detestable opinion The history of the propagation of this notion by the Pope ; of the opposition made to it by Philip, king of France, and, in subservience to him, by the French divines; of the Pope's endeavours to maintain it; of his reluctant efforts to conciliate his opponents without relinquishing his opinion; and of his final tardy retractation on his deathbed so far as it was inconsistent with the doctrine of the Church;'-furnishes a melancholy scene of weakness, bigotry, and disingenuous equivocation.)

m [" The whole story standeth thus : One Apiarius, a priest of the church of Sicca, in Africa, as it appeareth a very ill man, being justly excommunicate, both by his own bishop, and also by a great number of other bishops together in the Council there, appealed from them all unto Zosimus, then bishop of Rome (A. D. 419]. Zosimus, without further knowledge of the cause, never hearing the other party, pronounced Apiarius to be innocent, and restored him to the communion ; and understanding there was a council gathered together in Africa touching the same, sent thither Faustinus the bishop of Potentia, with two other priests of Rome, Philip and Asellus, not only to see that the said Apiarius, without any further trial, might be restored unto his right, but also to make plea in the open Council

, that it should be law. ful for any priest to appeal from his own ordinary, or metropolitan, or Council, unto the apostolic see of Rome. The bishops of Africa answered, that there was no law it should be so. Faustinus laid forth a canon

do say that those things were devized and appointed by the holy fathers, which never once came into their

of the Council of Nice, not made by the authority of the bishops there but only devized by the bishop of Rome. The bishops there, among whom was S. AUGUSTIN, that famous learned father, thought it was a forged matter, and therefore said, they would send unto Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, for the very original copies of the said Council: and desired the bishop of Rome to do the same; and said, that in the mean while they would do as they had done before. (Conc. Carthag. VI. Can. 3 et 4.) Upon this message, and return of the answer with the true authentic copies from Cyril the bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus the bishop of Constantinople, it appeared plainly unto the world that the Canons were corrupted, and that the Pope had falsified that holy Council; and to the intent to advance his apostolic see of Rome, had devized.privileges and prerogatives of his own.-The bishop of Rome, when he saw he was taken with the maner, and found an open falsary, (forger,] for that the Canons of his making disagreed from the very originals, thought it good policy to say, The originals were burned by the Arians, and so no true copy now remaining, but his only. And therefore he imagined a letter to be written in the name of Athanasius, and other bishops of Egypt, unto Marcus the bishop of Rome ; wherein they besought him for a copy of the Nicene Council, for that all their books were utterly destroyed. But this shift was too simple fop he writeth unto Marcus the bishop of Rome, of the burning of the books; and yet Athanasius himself certainly knew, that Marcus was dead at the least nine years before that burning happened.”—JEWELL'S Reply to Harding's Answer to the Sermon at Paul's Cross.

JEWELL goes on, in that work, to adduce other internal evidence proving the grossness of the forgery of the letter of Athanasius, brought to bear out the first falsification of the Nicene Canons. In the Defence, his attention is occupied with the subterfuge of Harding, who, unable to defend the spurious Canons of the Nicene Council, changed his ground, and to save the memory of Zosimus from the odious charge of forgery, contended that although not Nicene canons, they were the genuine canons of another Council held at Sardica (-4. D. 347]; and that as such they had been produced by the Pope. JEWELL shows, from Cardinal CUSANUS, 1. that it is very doubtful whether the Canon cited by Zosimus was really passed by the Council of Sardica; 2. that if it were, it was not cited as such by the Pope, but deceitfully, by a false title ; and 3. that the authority of the Council of Sardica was so far from being equal with that of Nice, as contended by HARDING, that it was neither a General Council, nor free from suspicion of heresy:His remarks on the whole transaction are just and forcible ; "If this were all the fault, yet were it a great fault for Christ's Vicar, and St. Peter's successor, in maintenance of his own inordinate ambition, to allege one Council for another, and therewith to face down two hundred and seventeen bishops in general Council. If it were the Council of Sardie and not of Nice, why then did Pope Zosimus so often and so stoutly allege it for the Council of Nice? How durst he say he had seen it, he had read it, and had the very true copy of it in his library at Rome? Why did he cause the bishops of Africa to send so many hundred miles, to Constantinople in Thrace, to Alexandria in

thought ? and, to have the full sway of authority, do wrest the Scriptures, which thing, as CAMOTENsis saith, is an usual custom with the Popes ?"—How if he have renounced the faith of CHRIST, and become an apostate, as LYRANUS ° saith many Popes have been ?-Yet, for

Egypt, and to Antioch in Syria, to search the originals of the Council of Nice, himself knowing there was no such thing written in the Council of Nice ? Was this plain dealing ? Was this no corruption of a Council ? The Law saith : 'Magna negligentia culpa est: Magna culpa dolus est.' 'Great negligence is a fault, and a great fault is guile and falsehood.? — Yet Pope Boniface, (the successor of Zosimus,] to save the credit of the see of Rome, was forced to say, and publish openly, that the said Alypius, and Aurelius the bishop of Carthage, and S. Augustine the bishop of Hippo, and two hundred and fourteen other bishops, that had espied and revealed this falsehood, were all inflamed and led by the devil. And one of your own sudden doctors of Louvain saith : 'Hæc omnia, &c. 'All these decrees (of those Councils, of Carthage and Africa,) are abolished, and repealed, and trodden under foot, as dreams, and fables, and things superfluous. (COPUS, p. 93.) This is the weighing of your Councils. if they like (suit) you, they are the express voices of the Holy Ghost. If they like you not, they are 'dreams, and fables, and things superfluous.'"-Defence, p. 543, 544.]

n His words, alleged by CORNELIUS AGRIPPA, (De Vanit. Scient.) be these : “Angelis præcipiunt: potestatem habent in mortuos. Vim faciunt Scripturis, ut habeant plenitudinem potestatis. Ipse Papa jam factus est intolerabilis : ejus pompam et fastum nullus tyrannorum unquam æquavit. Legati Romanorum Pontificum sic bacchantur in provinciis ac si ad flagellandam Ecclesiam Satan egressus sit a facie Domini.” They lay their commandments upon the angels of GOD : they have power over the dead. They wrest and rack the Scriptures, that they may have the fulness of power. The Pope himself is now become intolerable. No tyrant was ever able to match him in pomp and pride. The Pope's Legates keep such revel in kingdoms and countries, as if Satan were sent abroad from the face of the Lord, to scourge the face of the Church."

[HARDING in his Reply denies any knowledge of such a writer as CAMOTENSIS, unless that were an error of the press for CARNOTENSIS, and JEWELL meant Ivo CARNOTENSIS. JEWELL denies that there is any error of the press, declares that he means a bishop named John CAMOTENSIS, and expressly distinguishes him from John SarisburiENSIS, who, he says, is otherwise called RuperTUS CARNOTENSIS.Yet I cannot help suspecting that, after all, the writer whom JEWELL quotes, confessedly at second-hand, is John of SALISBURY, called also, from his bishopric, CARNOTENSIS; a learned scholastic theologian of the twelfth century, who in his writings freely inveighed against the Papal tyranny, at the time when the lordly usurpations of the bishop of Rome were at their height.}

. [" In his notes upon the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew, among others ye shall find these words : 'Ex hoc patet, quod Ecclesia non consistit in hominibus, ratione potestatis vel dignitatis ecclesiasticæ vel secularis : quia multi principes et summi pontifices inventi sunt apos,

« ПредишнаНапред »