Page images

and their successors; not," observes Bishop Bramhall," to St. Peter, as a single Apostle, and to his successors alone, either at Antioch, or at Rome, as if all the rest were but delegates for term of life-wherein they agreed justly with us;—that, as each particular Bishop is the respective head of his proper Church, so Episcopacy, or St. Cyprian's, Unus Episcopatus, the conjoint body of Bishops, is the ecclesiastical head of the militant Church."-Just Vind. p. 120.

In like manner, in the debates which took place in an early session of the Council of Trent, respecting the title by which that Council was to be designated, it is apparent, that a large body of the Prelates, amongst whom the French were the most conspicuous, held the opinion, that the Council, independently of the Pope, was the true representative of the Church: -an opinion inconsistent with his supremacy by divine right. The Pope's legates took the alarm, and evaded the question respecting the title of the Council, until they could receive further instructions from the Court of Rome. The purport of those instructions, when they arrived, was this ;-"that they should on no account whatever permit the authority of the Pope to be brought into discussion.*-Hist. Counc. Trent. B. ii. S. 58.

*“On en fit la lecture, (d'un decret concernant la manière dè vivre chrétienment &c.) et comme il ne portoit d'autre Titre que la formule envoyée de Rome, Sacrosancta Synodus,' &c. les François demandèrent fortement, qu'on y joignit ces mots, Ecclesiam universalem representans;' et la plus

We have a still more unequivocal declaration of the opinion of the Gallican Church, in a conference held with the Protestants at Smalcald, Anno Domini, 1535. Bellay, the French king's envoy, was instructed on that occasion to declare, that it was the opinion of his master, "that the Roman Pontiff held his primacy, by kuman, and not by divine, right; and that his prerogatives ought to be abridged."

grande partie des Evêques applaudit à cet avis. Mais les Légats, se souvenant que cette formule n'avoit été employée que par les Conciles de Constance et de Bâle, et que de suivre cet exemple servît en renouveller la mémoire, leur donner de l'autorité, ouvrir les portes aux difficultés qu' eût à surmonter l'Eglise Romaine en ces tems là; et ce qu'ils appréhendoient le plus, si l'on se servoit de ces paroles, *représentant l'Eglise universelle,' donner occasion à quelqu' un de vouloir y faire joindre celle-ci qui tient sa puissance immédiatement de Jesus Christ, et à qui chacun de quelque dignité, qu'il soit, même le Pape, est oblige' d' obéir", ils s'y opposèrent ouvertement et en termes formels, comme ils le mandèrent à Rome." Histoire du Concile de Trente trad par Courayer. liv. 2. s. 33.

"Le Pape chargea ses Légats de trois choses- La première, &c.........La troisième, de ne souffrir jamais, sous quelque pretexte que ce fût, qu' on vint à disputer de l'autorité du pape. Les Légats répondirent au Pape....que jusqu' alors, il n'y avoit eu point d'occasion de parler de l'autorité du Pape au Concile, si non au sujet de la clausé, 'Représant l'Eglise universelle'....Que plusieurs desiroient encore cette addition, mais qu'ils l'éluderoient autant qu'il étoit possible, et que s'ils étoient contraints de l'admettre, ils feroient ensorte que ce ne fût qu'en marquant la manière de cette représentation, c'est à dire, ‘par le moyen du chef' ; mediante summo Pontifice,. .qu'avec cette condition, Rome y gagneroit plus qu'elle n'y perdroit."-Ibid. liv. 2. S. 58.


Seckendorf de Lutheranismo, lib. 3. p. 105. add. 1. That, in this declaration he spoke the sentiments also of the Gallican Church, is manifest from this circumstance, observes Courayer, that," in the following article regarding Transubstantiation, a distinction is made between the tenets of Francis and those of bis divines;" the same distinction would, without doubt, have been observed respecting the former article, if any difference of opinion had existed.

The light in which the Papal power was regarded by Francis and Henry, and by the Gallican and English Churches, was at that time much the same. Both parties supposed that it was of human origin. Francis proposed, that it should be modelled afresh and restricted;-Henry denied, that it had ever been legitimately exercised in England, and took the more decisive step of renouncing it altogether. But neither party conceived, that communion with the Bishop of Rome was essential to the unity of the Christian Church; or that Christians ceased to be Catholics, in ceasing to pay obedience to the Roman See.-The opinions of the Gallican Church in recent times, appear not to have been more orthodox, in the Romish sense of the term, respecting the Pope's Supremacy, and the necessity of communion with him. "An union," says Dr. Dupin, in the Commonitorium addressed to Archbp. Wake, in the name of the Sorbonne divines, "between the English and French Bishops and Clergy,

may be completed, or at least advanced, without consulting the Roman Pontiff; who may be informed of the union as soon as it is accomplished, and may be desired to consent to it; that, if he consents to it, the affair will then be finished; and that even without his consent, the union shall be valid: that in case he attempts to terrify by his threats, it will then be expedient to appeal to a General Council." We," says Archbp. Wake, animadverting on these concessions of the French divines, “honestly deny the Pope all authority over us; they pretend in words to allow him so much as is consistent with what they call their Gallican privileges; but let him never so little use it contrary to their good liking, they protest against it, appeal to a General Council, and then mind him as little as we can do. In earnest, I think we treat his Holiness, not only with more sincerity, but more respect than they for to own a power, and yet keep a réserve to obey that power, only so far, and in such cases, as we make ourselves judges of, is a greater affront, than honestly to confess, that we deny the power, and for that reason, refuse to obey it." Corresp. ap Mosheim. v. 6.` Append. No. 9.




On the infallible authority of the Church, in Communion with the See of Rome.

It should appear, then, from what has been stated, that though the Church of Christ be composed of several independent members, it in reality constitutes but one body, or congregation of believers, by having "one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism;" its parts being, also, closely compacted together by the bands of christian charity; and that the Romish notion of a supreme monarchy, as instituted by Christ to cement the unity of the Church, is neither warranted by Scripture, nor yet by the testimony of primitive antiquity; and that it has not been universally held, even in modern times, amongst the members of the Romish communion.

And here it might be supposed, that the controversy would end. But this is by no means the case. It is further asserted by the Romanists, that a promise of infallibility has been made by Christ to his Church; in virtue of which, its interpretations and decisions are to be taken as the voice of God himself; and that, though the Church cannot be supposed to


« PreviousContinue »