Page:The whole familiar colloquies of Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam.djvu/272

268 FAMILIAR COLLOQUIES. I will tell you in brief. I would so demean myself that the whole world should see that there was a prince of the church that aspired after nothing but the glory of Christ and salvation of mankind. That would infallibly take away all invidiousness from the name of pope, and gain him solid and lasting glory. But, by the way, from worse to better. We have digressed from our first proposition. Bu. Well, I will bring you to rights again by and by. But do you say, then, that the pope’s laws are binding to the whole church? Fi. I do say so. Bu. What! to the punishment of hell? Fi. They say so. Bu. And are the bishops’ laws obligatory in like manner? Fi. I think they are, every one in his own diocese. Bu. And those of abbots too? Fi. I am in doubt as to that; for they receive their administration upon certain conditions, nor have any power to burden their inferiors with constitutions without the concurrence of the whole order. Bu. But what if a bishop receive his function upon the same conditions? Fi. I doubt as to that.

Bu. Can the pope annul what a bishop has constituted? Fi. I believe he can. Bu. Can nobody annul what the pope decrees? Fi. No, nobody. Bu. How comes it about that we hear of the resuming of popes’ constitutions under this title, that they have not been rightly instructed, and that the constitutions of former popes have been antiquated by later, as deviating from piety? Fi. Those were surreptitious and temporary things; for the pope, considered as a man, may be ignorant of person and fact. But that which proceeds from the authority of an universal council is a heavenly oracle, and is of equal authority with the gospel itself, or at least very near it. Bu. Is it lawful to doubt concerning the gospels? Fi. By no means; no, nor the councils neither, rightly assembled by the Holy Spirit, carried on, published, and received. Bu. What if any one should doubt whether there is any council so constituted? as I hear concerning the council at Basil, which has been rejected by some; nor do all approve of that of Constance. I speak of those that are accounted orthodox, not to mention the late Lateran council. Fi. Let them that will doubt at their own peril. I will not doubt for my part.

Bu. Had Peter, then, the authority of making new laws? Fi. He had. Bu. And had Paul too, and the rest of the apostles? Fi. Yes, they had every one in their own churches committed to them by Peter or Christ. Bu. And have the successors of Peter a like authority with Peter himself? Fi. Why not? Bu. And is there the same regard to be had to the pope of Rome’s letter as to the Epistle of St. Peter himself, and as much to the constitutions of bishops as to the Epistles of St. Paul? Fi. Nay, I think, and more too, if they command and make it a law by authority. Bu. Is it lawful to doubt whether Peter and Paul wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Fi. Nay, let him be accounted an heretic that doubts of that. Bu. And do you think the same of the ordinances and constitutions of the popes and bishops? Fi. I do as to the popes, but I should make some question as to the bishops, but that it seems a part of piety not to be suspicious of any person unless there be very good grounds for it. Bu. But why will the Holy Spirit suffer a bishop to err rather than a pope? Fi. Because that error is the most dangerous that proceeds from the head. Bu. If the constitutions of prelates are of such