SECTION VIII.

THE DIVINE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE AND THE GENERAL COUNCILS SYNODS OF CONSTANCE AND OF FLORENCE.

I. THE task we undertake in this section, is to prove that the doctrines contained in the Four Articles of 1682 concerning Papal authority, are not only in contradiction with other doctrines admitted in the Gallican system, but, also, that they were unheard of in the early Church. Nevertheless, since the second part of this work will be altogether devoted to the consideration of Papal infallibility, we shall in this section confine ourselves to examining the Second of the Gallican Articles, which maintains the superiority of general councils to the Pope. It runs thus-" The decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Constance, enacted in the Fourth and Fifth Session, approved by the holy Apostolic See, confirmed by the practice of the whole Church and of the Roman Pontiffs, and religiously observed by the Gallican Church, are to remain in their full vigour." And it is added, that "The Church of France does not approve the opinion of those who attempt to represent these decrees as void of authority, or as intended only for the time of schism." According to what is here said to be the teaching of the Gallican Church, the Synod of Constance ruled that the general council is superior to the Pope, even in the normal state of the Church; and that decrees to this effect had been approved by the Pope himself, and confirmed by the practice of the whole Church.

At the same time a profession is made of belief that the Pope possesses by divine right the plenitude of authority in spiritual matters.

II. Before turning our attention to these two singular assertions of the Gallican Articles, we will notice their evident inconsistency with the doctrine of that divine supremacy which they maintain. For if the Pope

is the visible head of the Church, and therefore of all the bishops, who, as a part of Christ's flock, were entrusted to him, how can he be inferior to the council? The council, in reality, detached from the Pope, is nothing but a headless corpse; and it would be foolish to inquire whether such a body is superior to the head. The head represents the principles of direction and command over all the members, which so adhere to it as to coalesce in the unity of a human body. As the body without the head is a lifeless trunk, so the assembly of the bishops without the head of the Church cannot represent the body of the Church -the mystical body of Christ and the abode of the Holy Ghost. Should such a separation take place in the Universal Church, the Church would cease to exist. Christ did not establish his Church as a corpse deprived of its head, but as a perfect and living body, in which He was eternally to dwell by His Holy Spirit. As, therefore, it is impossible that the gift of indefectibility should depart from the Church, so it is absurd to imagine that the true visible head of the Church can detach itself from the mystical body of Christ. It is, consequently, absurd to institute comparisons between the body and the head in a state of real separation, and yet in a state of life and action. On this account, the question whether or no the Pope be superior to the council, having no meaning, is absurd. What existence can a council have without the Pope? The council represents the Universal Church; but the Universal

Church does not exist apart from its visible head, which is the centre of its unity and the fountain of its life. The question, therefore, as proposed by the Gallicans, is absurd in its very terms, unless a denial be implied of the vital organization of the Church under one head, and consequently of the divine supremacy of the Pope. But were it possible to compare the whole of the bishops in a general assembly with the Pope, in what sense could the subordination of the Pope to such an assembly be maintained? Are not all the bishops sheep and lambs entrusted to the care of Peter, and in him to that of all his successors? Were not the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter? Was not he appointed the rock on which the whole Church should be built? If so, how can he be subordinate to them? How could they be otherwise than in the number of his lambs and sheep? How could they cease to be founded on him, and kept under his supreme jurisdiction? The idea which the Fathers and the Doctors in every age conceived of the constitution of the Church, of itself excludes and condemns the Gallican error, that the assembly of the bishops is superior to the Pope.

III. We have in the preceding section traced the origin of what is called Gallicanism, and have given the names of the authors who originated it, with the reasons which led them into their error-Gerson, D'Ailly, and their faction, who confounded the normal with the abnormal state of the Church. When a Pope has been canonically elected and universally acknowledged, he is divinely empowered to rule the Universal Church; and clergy and people of every rank are subject to him. But when the validity of his election is contested, at least, when the opinion of a large part of Christendom is adverse to it, he cannot enforce his authority over the whole Church; nor are submission and

obedience to be required from those who call in question the canonicity of his election and regard him as an intruder. If this party come to the resolution of choosing another Pope, and consider him as the true Vicar of Christ, then a material breach of unity, a material schism, separates the members of the same Church: but as all still acknowledge one head, one centre of authority over the whole Church, according to Christ's. institution, they have not formally broken the bond of unity, since they are only doubtful as to the person who by canonical election has inherited the divine right of supremacy in the Church. This was the case in theWestern schism. Now, since the Church has the right to existence in accordance with the constitution of Christ, it has, consequently, the right of pronouncing a final sentence on the fact of the election of the two Popes,. and of restoring the external bonds of unity and charity to all. In this way we see that during such a schism the bishops of Christendom have the right and duty to assemble together with or without the contending Popes, in order to ascertain the truth concerning the contested election, and to find out the fittest means of restoring personal unity in the headship of the Church. But having once declared the legitimate Pope,. whom all should obey, and reinstated the Church in its normal position, their task is at an end, and the helm of the Church passes of itself into the hands of the Pope lawfully elected and universally recognised. Hence, general assemblies of bishops, such as those of Pisa and Constance, up to the time of the election of Martin V., are not councils, properly speaking, either general or particular, because they do not represent the Church in its normal state, and they have no other authority except that of giving to the Catholic Church: a visible head, to whom St. Peter's power is divinely transferred. They cannot, consequently, be said to be

in any manner superior to the Pope; because, during that state of uncertainty and material schism, the Pope is not visible to the Church, nor is he able to exercise his divine power over it. They have no mission but that of dissipating the clouds which keep the true Pope from the eyes of the true Church; or, if that be not possible, of choosing canonically a new Pope, who shall be acknowledged by all as the Vicar of Christ. But when the lawful Pope appears, these assemblies cease to have any legal authority and existence in the Church, unless they receive the sanction of the new Pontiff and are presided over by him and his legates. This is the doctrine of all antiquity, which was so universally and firmly held in the Church when the Western schism broke out, that the opposite opinion was suspected of heresy, and generally condemned. We need not quote many authorities on this point, as this truth was explicitly admitted by Gerson himself. He says that at the time of the Council of Constance, God enlightened the minds of all, that they might understand that the Pope was subordinate to the general synod.551 But before that council, as he acknowledges, the doctrine of the Pope's superiority to the council was so universally maintained, that those who dogmatised in the opposite sense were suspected of heresy, or were considered to be guilty of it.552 This admission of Gerson

551 "Benedictus Deus qui per hoc sacrosanctum Constantiense concilium illustratum divinæ legis lumine, dante ad hoc ipsum vexatione præsentis schismatis intellectum, liberavit Ecclesiam suam ab hac pestifera, perniciosissimaque doctrina (namely, that the Pope is superior to the general council)."-Ibid, consid. x., p. 127.

552 "Ante celebrationem hujus sacrosanctæ Constantiensis Synodi sic occupaverat mentes plurimorum, literarum magis quam literatorum ista traditio, ut oppositorum dogmatizator fuisset de hæretica pravitate vel notatus vel damnatus."-Gerson: De Potestate Ecclesiastica, consid. xii., p. 135 (pt. i. Op. Edit. Parisiis, 1606).