INTRODÙCTION. 35 § XVI. Yet notwithstandingthese oppositions, theformer opinion, averring the pope's absolute sovereignty, seems to be the genuine doctrine of the Roman church, if it has any. For those divines, by the pope and his intimate confidants, are looked upon as a mongrel brood or mutinous faction, which he by politic connivance does only " tolerate," because he is not well able to correct or suppress them.' He is afraid to be violent in reclaim- ing them to his sense, lest he spend his artillery in vain, and lose all his power and interest with them. Nor, indeed, do those men seem to adhere to the Roman party out of entire judgment or cordial affection, but in compliance with their princes, or upon account of their interest, or at best with regard to peace and quiet. They cannot conveniently break with the pope, because his interest is twisted with their own, so as not easily to be disentangled. For how can they heartily stick to the pope, whenas their opi- nion plainly implies him to be an usurper and a tyrant, claiming to himself and exercising authority over the church which does not rightfully belong to him ; to be a rebel and traitor against the church, invading and possessing the sovereignty due to it; for such, questionless, the Duke of Venice would be should he challenge and assume to himself such a power over his commonwealth as the pope has over Christendom; to be an impostor and seducer, pretending to infallible conduct, which he has not? How can they honestly condemn those who, upon such grounds, shake off such yokes, refusing to complywith the pope till he cor- rect his errors, till he desist from those usurpations and impostures, till he restore to the church its rights and liberties? How are the doctrines of those men consistent or congruous to their practice? for they call the pope monarch of the church, and-' universal pastor of Christians by God's appointment, indefectibly; yet will they not admit all his laws, and reject doctrines which he teaches, particularly those which most nearly touch him,concern- ing his own office and authority. They profess themselves his loyal subjects, yet pretend liberties which theywill maintain against him. They hold that all are bound to entertain communion with him, yet confess that he may be heretical, and seduce into error. They give him the name and shadow of a supremacy, but so that they can void the substance and reality thereof.' In fine, where shouldwe seek for thedoctrine ofthe Roman church ' Nam adhuc videmus ab ecclesia tolerari, qui earn sententiam sequuntur, iv. 2. 2 Manifestum autem schismatis argumentum est, cum quis se communion subtrahit apostolicæ sedis. Balus. not. adAgobard., p. 112. " It is a manifest argument of schism when any man withdraws himselffrom communionwith the apostolic see." 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=