but twice in the Scripture: once given by CHRIST to PETER only," Feed my sheep';" again, by PETER to others, "Feed the flock allotted to you." And if the bishops had received any jurisdiction from CHRIST, it would be equal in all, and no difference between patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops; neither could the Pope meddle with that authority, to diminish or take it all away, as he cannot in the power of order, which is from GOD. Therefore he advised them to beware, lest by making the institution of bishops de jure divino, they take away the hierarchy and bring in an oligarchy, or rather an anarchy. He added also, that to the end PETER might govern the Church well, so that the gates of hell might not prevail against it, CHRIST being near unto his death, prayed effectually that his faith might not fail, and gave him order to confirm the brethren, i. e. he gave him a privilege of infallibility in judgment of faith, manners and religion, binding all the Church to hear him, and to stand firmly in that which should be determined by him. He concluded, that this was the ground of Christian doctrine, and the Rock upon which the Church was built. Then he censured those who held there is any power in bishops received from CHRIST, because it would take away the privilege of the Roman Church, that the POPE is the Head of the Church, and Vicar of CHRIST. And it is very well known what is constituted by the old Canon, Omnes sive Patriarchæ, &c. i. e. that he that taketh away the privileges of the Church of Rome is a Heretic. He said it was a mere contradiction to say the Pope is Head of the Church and the govern

ment Monarchical, and then say that there is a power or jurisdiction not derived from him, but received from others.

'In resolving the contrary arguments, he discoursed that according to the order instituted by CHRIST, the Apostles were ordained Bishops, not by CHRIST, but ST. PETER, receiving jurisdiction from him only, and many Catholic doctors do hold that this was observed, which opinion is very probable. But the others who say the Apostles were ordained bishops by CHRIST, do add, that his Divine Majesty in so doing did prevent the office of PETER, by doing for that one time, that which belonged to him, giving to the Apostles that power which they ought to receive from PETER, even as GOD took some of the spirit of Moses, and divided it amongst the seventy judges. So that it is as much as if they had been ordained by, and received authority from PETER; who therefore did remain subject unto him, in respect of the places where, and the manner how to exercise the same. And howsoever it is not read that PETER did correct them, yet this was not for want of power, but because they did exercise their charge aright. And he that shall read the renowned and famous Canon, Ita Dominus, will assure himself, that every good Catholic ought to defend, that the Bishops, successors of the Apostles, do receive all from PETER. He observed also, that the Bishops are not successors of the Apostles, but only because they are in their place, as one Bishop succeedeth another, not because they have been ordained by them. To those who inferred, that therefore the Pope might

:

refuse to make Bishops, and so himself remain the only man, he answered, it was God's ordination that there should be many Bishops in the Church, to assist him, and therefore that he was bound to preserve them but there is a great difference between saying that a thing is de jure divino, and that it is ordained by GOD. Those, de jure divino, are perpetual, and depend on GOD alone, both in general, and in particular, at all times. So Baptism, and all the Sacraments are de jure divino, in every one of which God hath his particular work, and so the Pope is from GOD. For when the Pope doth die, the keys do not remain to the Church, because they are not given to it; but a new Pope being created, GoD doth immediately give them unto him. Now it is not so in things of divine ordination, in which the general only proceedeth from GOD, and the particulars are executed by men. So St. Paul saith, that princes and temporal powers are ordained by GOD, i. e. that the general precept, that there should be princes, cometh only from him, but yet the particulars are made by the civil laws. After the same manner Bishops are by divine ordination; and St. Paul saith they are placed by the Holy Ghost to govern the Church, but not de jure divino. Therefore the Pope cannot take away the general order of making Bishops in the church, because it is from GOD, but every particular Bishop, being de jure canonico, may be removed by the Pope's authority. To the opposition that then the Bishops would be delegati and not ordinarii, he answered that there was one jurisdiction fundamental, and another

derived and the derived is either delegate or ordinary. In civil commonwealths the fundamental is in the Prince, and the derived in all the magistrates: neither are the ordinaries different from the delegates, because they receive authority from divers persons, yea, all do equally derive from the sovereignty; but the difference standeth, because the ordinaries are by a perpetual law and succession, and the others have a particular authority, either in regard of the person or the case. Therefore the Bishops are ordinaries, because they are made by the Pope's law a dignity of perpetual succession in the church. He added, that those places, where authority seemeth to be given to the Church by CHRIST, (as these, that it is a pillar and foundation of truth, that he who will not hear it shall be esteemed an Heathen and a Publican) are all understood in regard of its head, which is the Pope, and therefore the Church cannot err, because he cannot, and so he that is separated from him who is Head of the Church, is separated also from the Church. Το those who said the Council could not have authority, if none of the Bishops had, he answered that this was not inconvenient, but a very plain and necessary consequence; yea, if every particular Bishop in Council may err, it cannot be denied that they may err all together and if the authority of the Council proceeded from the authority of Bishops, it could never be called general, because the number of the assistants is always comparably less than that of the absent. He told them that in this Council, under Paul III. principal articles were defined concerning

:

the Canonical Books, interpretations, parity of traditions with the Scriptures, by a number of five, or a less all which would fall to the ground if the multitude gave authority. But as a number of Prelates, assembled by the Pope to make a general Council, be it how small soever, hath the name and efficacy to be general from the Pope only, so also it hath its authority; so that if it doth make precepts or anathematisms, neither of them are of force but by virtue of the Pope's future confirmation. confirmation. And when the Synod saith, that it is assembled in the Holy Ghost, it meaneth that the Fathers are congregated, according to the Pope's intimation, to handle that, which, being approved by him, will be decreed by the Holy Ghost ; otherwise, how could it be said that a decree was made by the Holy Ghost, and could be made to be of no force by the Pope's authority, or had need of greater confirmation? And therefore in the Councils, be they never so frequent, if the Pope be present, he only doth decree, neither doth the Council anything but approve, i. e. receive the decrees; and therefore it hath been always said, sacro approbante concilio; yea, even in resolutions of the greatest weight, (as was the deposition of the Emperor, Frederic II. in the general Council of Lyons) Innocent IV. a most wise Pope, refused the approbation of the Synod, that none might think it to be necessary, and thought it sufficient to say, sacro præsente concilio. And for all this the council cannot be said to be superfluous, because it is assembled for better inquisition, for more easy persuasion, and to give satisfaction to men. And when