THE PRIMITIVE SAINTS AND THE SEE OF ROME > The Primitive Saints AND THE SEE OF ROME BY R W. PULLER OF THE SOCIETY OF S. JOHN THE EVANGELIST, COWLEY WITH A PREFACE BY EDWARD, LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN SECOND EDITION LONDON LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST i6»h STREET 1893 All n'shts reserved CONTENTS. PAGB Preface by the Bishop of Ltxcolx xi Author's Preface xxvi PART I. THE POPES HAVE NO DIVINELY GIVEN PBIMAGY OF JURISDICTION. LECTURE I. The See of Kome in the First Three Centuhies. — I. \ The The The The Two Tlie The The The controversy with Rome a necessity points to be discussed Roman claims, as defined at the Vatican Council essential equality of all bishops in early times modifying cross-principles : (i.) Metropolitical authority and civil precedence . (ii.) The influence of the apostolic sees . . . order of civil precedence governed the situation , position of the Bishop of Rome in ante-Nicene times Paschal controversy in the time of Victor . witness of S. Irenseus in regard to the see of Rome Note on Canon XXVIII. of Chalcedon .... 10 16 18 21 23 31 20,21 LECTURE II. The See of Rome in the First Three Centuries. — II. The Clementine Romance^ and S. Cyprian. The Clementine romance and the Petrine legend . . . . 44 " The most blessed Pope Cyprian " of Carthage 51 S. Cyprian on the " ecclesia principalis " ....... 52 S. Cyprian denounces appeals to Rome 56 ivil7G600 vl CONTENTS. TKCT. The episode of Marcianus of Aries 60 The episode of Basilides and Martialis 67 The dispute about the baptism of heretics 72 •• The harsh obstinacy of our brother Stephen " 76 The excommunication of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian .... 81 The Eoman Church makes amends 86 'Note on The teaching of the Clementine romance ahout S. James 4^) The alleged martyrdom of Pope Stephen .... 86 The peace-making efforts of S. Denys ..... 87 LECTUEE III. The Relation of S. Petee to the Apostolic College and TO THE Church. Summary of the two previous lectures 91 « Thou art Peter " 92 The varying patristic interpretations of " the rock " .... 96 S. Augustine's anti-Donatist ballad 98 S. Augustine's change of view 100 The true interpretation of " the rock " 107 Leadership not jurisdiction 113 The witness of Scripture against the Eoman theory : The mission to Samaria 116 James, Cephas, and John reputed to be pillars .... 117 The president of the Council of Jerusalem 121 Scripture nowhere clearly connects S. Peter with Eorae . 126 Note on S. ClemenVs remonstrance with the Corinthian Church 91, 92 Tlie apostolic rank of 8. James, the Lord's brother 119, ]20 The dignity of the see of Jerusalem 120 Bishop Lightfoot on S. Peter's primacy .... 123 The Oxford translation of S. Chrysostom on the ^c/8 124, 125 LECTURE IV. The Growth of the Papal Power from the Peace of the Church to the End of the Pontificate of Damasus. Summary of the previous lectures 228 The world admitted within the enclosure of the Church ... 131 CONTENTS. irii PAGE The lowering of the spiritual tone of the clergy 134 This lowering process traced at Rome during the pontificates of— S. Julius 138 Liberius . « ih. Damasus 140 The Council of NicsBa and the Roman see 142 The Council of Sardica and the Roman see 148 The Emperor Gratian makes Damasus Patriarch of the West , 154 Damasus creates a Roman vicariate at Thessalonica .... 160 The Eustathian schism at Antioch 163 S. Jerome's letter to Damasus 167 S. Basil's letters about Damasus 171 S. Meletius presides over the second Ecumenical Council . . 174 He dies out of communion with Rome, during the session of the Council 176 'Note on The aggresdons of various 'patriarchs .... 129, 130 The Eastern Church and the Sardican canons . 153; 154 LECTURE V. The GrROWTH of the Papal Power during the Sixty Years WHICH FOLLOWED THE DeATH OF DaMASUS. The effects of Gratiau's rescript 177 Legislative authority exercised through decretal epistles . . 178 " Blessed Peter lives and judges in his successors " . . . . 182 Resistance in the West to the new state-created patriarchal yoke 185 The case of Apiarius of Sicca 187 The Councils of Carthage in 418 and 419 ib. The African letter to Pope Boniface 191 Pope Celestine receives Apiarius to communion after his second condemnation 195 The African letter to Pope Celestine 197 The case of Anthony of Fussala 203 The case of S. Hilary of Aries 206 The rescript of Valentinian III 212 Concluding remarks on the later developments of the papal power 216 Note on the question whether S. Leo excommunicated S. BUary 211,212 CONTENTS, PART II. COMMUNION WITH THE ROMAN SEE IS NOT THE NECESSARY CONDITION OF MEMBERSEIF IN TEE CATHOLIC CHURCH. LECTURE VI. The Unity of the Church. — I. PAGB Summary of the preceding lectures • . 219 Cardinal Wiseman's statement 220 The Roman theory of unity 221 Contrast between the Catholic doctrine and the Roman theory . 222 The testimony of Holy Scripture in favour of the Catholic doctrine — The analogy between Israel and the Church 225 Our Lord's prayer for unity at the Last Supper .... 230 The testimony of the Fathers in favour of the Catholic doctrine — The action of the Catholic episcopate in the time of Pope Victer 235 The witness of S. Cyprian and of S. Firmilian .... 237 The case of S. Meletius of Antioch 238 S. Basil on " the true Church of God " ib. The Council of Antioch in 379 2 iO The compact between S. Meletius and Paulinus . . . . 244 The letter of the Council of Aquileia proves that S. Meletius was never in communion with the "West . . . 247 S. Flavian and S. Chrysostom 253 Damasus excommunicates S. Flavian and his consecrators . 255 S. Chrysostom out of communion with Rome till he was fifty-one years old 256 S. Chrysostom's veneration for S. Flavian 257 He warns those who go over to the Roman communion, of the wickedness of that proceeding 258 The Eustathians under Evagrius 262 S. Flavian and S. Chrysostom enter into communion with Rome on their own terms 264 Note on The difference between the visibility of the Church and the visibility of the unity of the Church . . 225 The position of the high priest in the Israelite polihj 230 CONTENTS, ix PAGK "Note on The Ultramontane theory of mediate communion , 243 The letter of the Council of Milan 249 The date of PauUnua' death, and his alleged canonization ..«•...«.. 262, 2G3 LECTUKE VII. The Unity of the Church. — II. The Acacian Troubles. The growth of the power of the Eoman see after the rescript of Valentinian III 267 Tiie quarrel with Acacius 269 Felix III. deposes and excommanieates Acacins 272 The invalidity of this act ih. The spurious Nicene canon alleged in its defence ..... 276 The completeness of the breach between Kome and the East . . 279 Felix refuses to communicate with Euphemius 282 The description of the situation by Cyril of Scy thopolis , , . 284 The Eastern saints during the schism — S. Elias of Jerusalem . 285 S. Macedonius of Constantinople 287 Catalogue of other Eastern saints, who lived during the scliism 288 Notes on these saints 292 The importance of their testimony 302 How the Acacian troubles came to an end — Justin succeeds to Anastasius 304 The day of the great acclamations 305 The Ubellus of Pope Hormisdas 306 The Patriarch John's preamble to the Ubellus .... 309 The majority of the Eastern bishops refuse to sign . . . -U I Pope Hormisdas waives his Ubellus, and peace ensues . . 313 Father Bottalla's extraordinary account of this episode . 314 The witness of the East against the papal theory . , . 316 The African Church excommunicates Pope Vigilius .... 317 S. Mennas of Constantinople also excommunicates him . . . 318 S. Eutychius and the fifth Ecumenical Council act in defiance of his wishes ib. The pope confesses that the devil had deceived him, and retracts ih. The saints of Como, who were never in communion with Kome . 319 X CONTENTS. PACK S. Columbanus justifies the bishops who refused to communicate withKome 319 The true conditions of Catholic Communion 320 Christ the only Head of the Church 321 The certainty of the Church's ultimate reunion 323 Note on The president of the Council of Ephesus .... 2C8 TJie canonical method of deposing a patriarch . 273, 274 TJie relations of the Acoemetss ivith Rome during the schism 201 JTie " impudent attempt " of Pope Honorim to defend heretical doctrine 307, 308 APPENDIX. Note A.-^The excommunication of S. Cyprian , , , . . 325 Note B.— Concerning passages from S. Cyprian's works, which are quoted by Ultramontanes in support of their contention that S. Cyprian held the papal theory . 334 Addendum to Note B 357 Note C. — St. Peter's primacy, as held by representative Anglican divines "... 364 Note D. — On our Lord's words to S. Peter (S. John xxi. 15-17), " Feed My lambs ; " «* Tend My sheep ; " " Feed My sheep" 371 Note E. — On a passage in S. Jerome's treatise against Joviniau 392 Note F. — S. Chrysostom's view of S. Peter's position in con- nection with the election of S. Matthias to the apostolate 396 Note G.— The 350 martyrs of Syria Secunda 401 Index .,...,.,.,, 4C9 PREFACE I REMEMBER Seeing, some few years ago, in Dr. Pusey's own handwriting, a letter written in answer to a friend who had asked him to recommend the most important works in refutation of the Soeinian heresy. Dr. Pusey's answer was to this effect — that such a question would indeed admit of an answer of con- siderable length, but for himself he had always con- sidered the first fourteen verses of the first chapter of S. John's Gospel to be quite sufficient. The title of this book, The Primitive Saints and the See of Borne, has reminded me of this incident. The way of the truth is one : the paths of error are many, and in many of them there is much to be seen that is attractive, and for a time pleasant ; but in the end they do not satisfy, not leading us to that perfect rest of head and heart which is only to be found in the way of truth. In the writings of the Primitive Churchy we do not xii PREFACE. see at once how many possible errors are excluded and refuted by them until we have the later dis- tortions and confusions of the faith brought before us. When these later errors are placed beside the rule of the one faith, the fact of their variation, and the degree of it, becomes apparent. Hence, as new forms of error spring up, it is neces- sary to look again at the one rule of the faith, that we may not be deceived. This is the object of the present book. The Fathers of the first four centuries are so unconscious of the claims made by the Roman Church at the present time, and in the Middle Ages, in the matter of jurisdiction, that a reader of those early writings would not think of collecting the accu- mulative evidence on the subject which they afford until the modern claims had been pressed upon him. For this reason Father Puller at once states the position which he holds to be inconsistent with the teaching of the great writers of the earlier centuries, by quo- tations of Roman documents of the highest authority. He begins with the dogmatic definition of Pope Boni- face VIII. in his bull, Unam Sanctam : ^ — " We there- fore declare, assert, and define that for every human creature it is altogether necessary to salvation that he be subject to the Roman pontiff!" Afterwards^ ' p. 2. « pp. 5, G. PREFACE, xiii he cites from the decrees of the Vatican Council of the year 1870 that "the Roman Church, by the appointment of the Lord, holds the chief authority of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction belonging to the Roman pontiff is a truly episcopal power," and "an immediate power." Further, that all the pastors and all the faithful, whether taken separately or taken altogether, are bound to the authority of the pope " by the obli- gation of true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in things per- taining to discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." It is added that " this is the teaching of the Catholic faith, and that no one can deviate from it without the loss of faith and salvation." Such assumptions are so contradictory to the honest interpretation of the writings and acts of the Church of the first centuries, that it is difficult to see how they could ever be made, except through ignorance or the blinding influence of ambition Bishop Butler has remarked that " people are too apt inconsiderately to take for granted that things are really questionable, because they hear them often disputed. This, he says, is so far from being a con- sequence, that we know demonstrated truths have xlv PREFACE. been disputed, and even matters of fact, the objects of our senses." ^ It would seem as if the converse of this principle were also true, and that people are to apt incon- siderately to take for granted that what is con- fidently asserted must necessarily be true. Some false principle of this kind has, we feel sure, un- consciously it may be, induced many minds to yield assent to the constant repetition of the groundless assumptions of the modern Roman claims with regard to jurisdiction. We have long been convinced that the modern Koman Church has unduly magnified the question of jurisdiction, and has endeavoured to clothe it with a degree of mystery and terror which it does not possess. The chief practical factor in jurisdiction is really negative, and is based on human considerations with a view to the preservation of order, and as a safe- guard against the human infirmities of ambition and the love of power, in the exercise of the truly mys- terious powers conveyed by ordination and conse- cration. So Bishop Wordsworth says, " The episcopal ofiice is of divine institution, and cannot, in its spiritual nature and ministrations, be afiected by any ^ Charge to the Clergy of Durham, 1751, p. 310. Oxford Edition, ISJO. 1 PREFACE, XV human laws; the actual exercise of authority of bishops as diocesans, metropolitans, and patriarchs, may depend for its distribution and apportionment upon secular circumstances, and be subject to modifications from civil authority after ecclesiastical consultation." ^ And so Father Puller has expressed his own belief. "To sum up this part of our subject. By divine right all bishops were inherently equal, but by custom and ecclesiastical legislation the bishops of the metropolitical sees acquired certain rights which were delegated to them by their brother bishops. Moreover, among the most important Churches a certain order of precedence grew up, which corre- sponded with the civil dignity of the cities in which those Churches existed; and, finally, the Churches which were founded by the apostles were treated with peculiar reverence." ^ In his Epistle to the Romans, S. Paul, more than once, leaves the particular point in dispute, and recalls those to whom he is writing to the consider- ation of some first principle, or generally accepted truth, by which in reality the point at issue was governed. "God forbid: for theh how shall God judge the world ? " ^ or, " Nay ; but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God ? " * * Theophihis Anglicanm, pt. i. ch. xii., p. 117, 2nd edit. * p. 18. -' iii. G. * ix. 20. XVI PREFACE, Some method of this kind is what is wanted in dealing with the modern Roman claims. Instead of allowing the mind to be unduly biassed by the sup- posed interpretation of particular passages, it should be recalled to make an honest judgment on the general object and meaning of the writer from whose works the passage in question is taken. Is it pos- sible, we would ask, that the great Fathers of the early centuries could have commented as they did upon the great Petrine texts, " On this rock I will build My Church," and " Feed My sheep," if they had seen in them authority for asserting the vital necessity of obedience to S. Peter and to his successors in the particular see of Rome ? 1 Can we conceive that S. Irenseus or S. Cyprian could have written and acted as they did if they had regarded the Bishop of Rome as the infallible and supreme authority over the whole Church ? Could the Fathers of the Council of Nicaea have passed the canons which we know they passed if they had recognized the papal supremacy ? We need to bring our minds to the consideration of such words as Dr. Bright has given us in his notes on the sixth canon of Nicaea : " The omission (of a saving clause acknowledging the unique and sovereign position of the Bishop of Rome) is a proof, if proof PREFACE. xvii were wanted, that the First (Ecumenical Council knew nothing of the doctrine of papal supremacy." ^ These simple primary facts are of great importance, for we must remember that the last word has by no means yet been spoken with regard to the mediaeval and modern claims of Rome. Only, alas ! about one-third of the world is as yet Christian, even in name. The great world of India and China, as it becomes acquainted with the history of the Church, must make up its mind upon these assumptions. It is of the utmost importance that we should present the truth to the independently educated Heathen mind in the most exact and strongest form possible. The great Eastern Church rejects those claims with unshaken confidence. The intellectual Protestant world in Europe resents them. With ourselves in England, the increased knowledge of history is enabling us to see with increasing clearness the human origin out of which many of those ecclesiastical claims have sprung, and the human infirmities which have supported and developed them. The increased study of history in our universities is a marked feature of the last fifty years. Formerly, the requirements of candidates for ordination, with * Ji^otei on the Canons of the First Four General Councils^ by W. Bright, D.D., p. 21. Oxford : 18S2. b xvili PREFACE, regard to Church history, were limited, ahnost exclusively, to a knowledge of the first three or four centuries, and of the Reformation, which left them in blank ignorance of the very thousand years in which the claims of the papacy grew up. This ignorance on our part gave a great opportunity for the strong assertions of the advocates of the Roman claims. Now the study of mediaeval history has enabled us to appreciate more fully the truth of the quotation with which the late learned Archbishop of Dublin concludes his lecture on " The papacy at its height " in the time of Innocent III., when he speak? of it as " the grandest and most magnificent failure in human history." ^ Father Puller has brought out very clearly J how much in the Roman claims to jurisdiction may be traced to the merely human source of the Rescript of Gratian, towards the close of the fourth century. Yet "the new system," he adds, " applies only to the West." " There is not a word in the Rescript about the Eastern empire." " It is limited, local ; " '' pati^iarchal, not papal." And the patriarchal jurisdiction over Gaul, Britain, Spain, and Africa "was the creation of the State, not of the Church."^ The same is true of the Rescript of » Mediseval CJiurch Histonj, by Archbishop Trench, p. 162. 1877. « pp. 155-160. « pp. 158, 159. PREFACE. xlx Valeutinian III., which formed a new starting-point in the development of the papal power.^ Viewed in connection with the persistency of the Roman assumptions generally, the failure of the repeated attacks of Roman writers upon the validity of Anglican orders is very encouraging. Nothing could have been stronger than the assertions which have been made. The historical facts of the consecra- tion of Parker and of Barlow have been disputed, but no candid weigher of historical evidence would now doubt them. The validity of the form used in ordination and consecration has been denied, but the better liturgiologists of the Roman communion have shown that such denial would be suicidal. Attempts have been made to hang the weight of the validity of our orders upon the subtle thread of intention, but here in truth we agree ; " Intentio faciendi id quod facit Ecclesia, quod Christus insti- tuit" we heartily accept.^ Indeed, one of the latest » pp. 212-215. "" 2 Cf. Hooker (Eccles. Pol. v. Iviii. 3) : " Inasmuch as sacraments are jtions religious and mystical, which nature they have not unless they proceed from a serious meaning, and what every man's private lind is, as we cannot know, so neither are we bound to examine, lerefore always in these cases the known intent of the Church merally doth suffice, and where the contrary is not manifest, we lay presume that he which outwardly doth the work, hath inwardly the purpose of the Church of God." And Elementa Thcol. Dogm., XX PREFACE, writers against Anglican orders has honestly admitted that "it is very unfortunate that the Nag's Head story was ever seriously put forward; for it is so absurd, on the face of it, that it has led to the suspicion of Catholic theologians not being sincere in the objections they make to Anglican orders." ^ Quite so. And this compels us to mention what we would willingly, if sorrowfully, pass over in silence — the worse than merely human element on which much of the Roman claims are based; the false documents, the forgeries ; and the unaccountable false use of true documents, such as the quotation of the fifth canon of the Council of Sardica by the Roman legates at the Council of Carthage as a canon of the (Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. " The Council of Nicaea was venerated in Africa, as elsewhere, and its canons received as authoritative." But "when the legates quoted the Sardican canon as if it were Nicene, the African bishops at Carthage must have been thoroughly puzzled. They thought that they knew the Nicene canons well, and this canon quoted vol. vii. p. 135. Schouppe, S.J. 1870. " Non requiritur intentio faciendi id quod facit Ecclesia Eomana ; sed sufficit intentio generalia faciendi quod facit Ecclesia." * T\ie Question of Anglican Orders Diseussedf by the very Reverend T. H. Estoourt, M.A., F.S.A., Canou of St. Chad's, Birmingham, p. 154. 1873. PREFACE. xxi by the legates whieli allowed appeals to Rorne^ was completely new to them." ^ The whole case of Apiarius is most instructive. We may compare with it the false quotation, as from the sixth canon of Nicsea, which was made by the Roman legate Pas- chasinus at the Council of Chalcedon.^ There is perhaps an element of comfort to be derived from the recognition of the existence of these forgeries. On the one hand, it frees us from the necessity of any longer straining our minds to account for facts which appear in all honesty so unaccountable. On the other, it may mitigate the moral responsibility of those who have honestly based their words and actions upon them, believing them to be genuine. It is, for example, hard to understand how any one familiar with the writings of S. Irenoeus, could speak of S. Peter as the sole founder of the Roman see. The anti-Pauline Clemen- tine romance may explain the source from which this invention was derived.^ The interpolations in the writings of S. Cyprian, the supposed decretals of the early popes, given in Isidore's decretals, and woven into the decretum of Gratian and the later canon law, and into the theological sj^stem of the > See pp. 188, 189. ' See Dr. Briglit's iVofes (as before), p. 198. » See pp. 48, 49, xxii J'REFACE, schoolmen, — all these, and other like inventions, have had much to do with building-up the papal system, and have given confidence to the modern assumption of universal jurisdiction. It is much to be wished that the writings of the schoolmen, as a whole, should be seriously taken in hand by a competent body of scholars, so that they might be thoroughly edited, and the statements contained in them tested by the knowledge which we now possess. A valuable residuum would, I have no doubt, remain in all the branches of scientific knowledge; but it would be a residuum. Not all their assertions could be accepted. The same is to be wished with regard to canon law. The contributions which have been made by Von Schulte ^ and others ought to be attended to and fol- lowed up. Hitherto Roman writers have too often made their assertions, and then retired into the dark places of the schoolmen and the canon law, as into a wood ; and we, from ignorance, have been afraid to follow them. The whole ground wants clearing, and sowing with the good seed of the truth. But this is perhaps travelling beyond the limits 1 Die Gefchichte der Quelhn und Literatur des Qxnonisclien JReclUs, . . . von Dr. Joh, F. von Schulte. 1875. PREFACE, xxiii of the present volume, The Frimitive Saints and the See of Rome. The book should be studied carefully, in order that the contrast between the modern Roman claims and the teaching of the primitive saints may be seen in detail, and the importance of the contrast may be fully appreciated. The latter part is chiefly occupied with the contra- vention of the Roman position, as expressed by Cardinal Wiseman : " According to the doctrine of the ancient Fathers, it is easy at once to ascertain who are the Church Catholic, and who are in a state of schism, by simply discovering who are in communion with the see of Rome and who are not." ^ The impossibility of accepting this statement is very fully and ably shown from the history of S. Meletius, S. Flavian, S. Chrysostom, and many others, who during their lifetime were the recognized leaders and champions of the Church, and who were reckoned among the saints after their death, though their lives were lived, in part or altogether, out of communion with the see of Rome.^ While the historical force of the book cannot be » pp. 220, 221. 2 "S. Meletius, even while president of this second General Council, was still out of communion with the West " ^The Councils of xxiv F RE FACE, felt without a careful study of its contents, there is one element of power which it possesses for which I cannot refrain from expressing my most sincere thanks : I mean the brilliancy of the Christian spirit which runs through it all. This is in a measure a new and a most powerful factor in our controversy with Rome. The self-devotion and zeal of many in the Eoman communion have been a great weight in the scale when the mind has become weary of arguing. The yfiiK.y\ ttiotiq has a persuasive force of great and deserved value. It partakes of the mysterious power of personal influence, and is the result, not of mere intellectual cleverness, but of character and life. A light of new brilliancy seems to be thrown on these old records, as they are represented to us by one who has voluntarily renounced those worldly comforts and advantages which most of us in the Church of England have claimed it to be our rightful liberty to enjoy. Nothing but the pure desire to state the truth, that so the light and life and love which the Church from A.D. 51 to A.D. 381, by the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., p. 306. J. H. Parker. 1857). " S. Hilary died on May 5, at the age of forty-eight. He was, like Meletius, a man of acknowledged sanctity outside the Roman communion "( If/sfor?/ of tlie Church from A.D. 313 to 451, by W. Bright, p. 389. Parker. 1860), PREFACE, XXV belong to the Body of Christ, by virtue of her union with her Divine Head, might be with us in their fullest perfection, could have induced this author to write a book of controversy. It is this perfect charity and chivalrous confidence in the truth, through the power of the Holy Spirit, which gives us new hope that, in God's good time, Wisdom will be justified of her children ; and that, as we are each and all indwelt by the Holy Spirit in greater fulness, we shall be taught by the same Spirit to speak the truth in love, and to " grow up into Him in all things, which is the Head, even Christ : from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love/' ^ So may the Saviour's prayer be fulfilled, " that they may be one even as We are One." ^ EDWARD LINCOLN. 1 Epb, iv. 15, 16. « S. John xvii. 22. AUTHOR'S PREFACE The first ^ve lectures printed in this volume were delivered in the Church of All Hallows-on-the-Wall, in the city of London, to an audience consisting of clergymen, working for the most part in the parishes of London and its suburbs. They were delivered at the request of an association of East End incumbents, which is known by the name of " Our Society," on five consecutive Thursday mornings in Lent, 1892. These ^ve lectures deal with the claim to a supremacy or primacy of jurisdiction, as of divine right, which is made on behalf of the Eoman pontiffs. The two remaining lectures have been written subsequently, and deal with the theory that communion with the see of Rome is the necessary condition of communion with the Catholic Church. I have not thought it necessary to devote any lecture to the consideration of the crowning claim of the papacy to doctrinal infallibility, because, if I am not mistaken, this claim to infallibility is usually set forth as a consequence logically involved in the doctrine that the pope has a primacy of jurisdiction, AUTHOR'S PREFACE. xxvii and thai he is the necessary centre of communion.^ I have preferred to deal with these_fcwQ, more funda- mental claims. If they can be shown to be un- j warranted, it will evidently follow that the logical ' superstructure, which has been built upon them, is baseless. I wish particularly to call attention to the fact that, in dealing with the historical argument against the papal claims, I have not attempted to cover the whole ground, even within the limits of the first six centuries, beyond which period I do not profess to go. If I had made any such attempt, this book would have ^' become so voluminous, that it would probably have secured very few readers, and the object which I had in view, when I undertook to prepare it, would be defeated. I have been obliged to make a selection among the historical episodes and passages from the writings of the saints, which throw light on my general subject, in order that I might be able to treat the episodes and passages so selected with some fulness of detailed statement and discussion. I particularly regret that I have been unable to discuss the history of the Roman pontificate in relation to the four ^ great heresies connected with the names of Arius, Pelagius, NestoriuSjiind Eutyches, and also that I have been able to say so very little about the third, fourth and fifth of the Ecumenical Councils, and less than I could have wished about the first and second. In the third lecture and in the earlier part of the » Compare Bottalla, ThQ Infallibility of the Pojpe, pp. 3, 4. xxviii AUTHOR'S PREFACE, sixth lecture 1 heave discussed the witness of Holy Scripture in regard to the two fundamental papal claims. The rest of the book is mainly taken up with an appeal in regard to those claims to the acts and writings of the great saints of the Primitive Church. It was the fact that such an appeal con- stitutes the main argument of the book, which decided me in the choice of its title. I do not think that it is necessary for me to vindicate the importance of such an appeal. The genuine sons of the Church of England have always professed themselves to be ready to abide by it, and the traditional theology of the Roman communion has been accustomed to assign a very high place to the witness of the Fathers. If there are any Roman Catholics in the present day who shrink from the appeal to the saints of the Primitive Church, it is desirable that they should be encouraged to declare their opinions openly. While we shall sincerely grieve at the declension from the Catholic standard which such a change of front would betoken, the explicit abandonment of the traditional argument of the Church's defenders will at any rate show how hopeless it is to defend the modern claims of the papacy by an appeal to the witness of the Primitive Church. New doctrines need new theological methods to uphold them. As for us, we are content to stand upon the old paths. As I have said, my appeal is mainly to the acts and writings of the saints of the Primitive Church ; and for the purposes of this argument I acknowledge none AUTHOR'S PREFACE. xxix as saints except those whose sanctity the Church has recognized in some formal way. [it was not until theH twelfth century that in the West the canonization of ( saints was reserved to the pope. In the earlier times \ the right of decreeing the recognition of the sanctity of this or that servant of God appertained, in the first place, to the bishop of the diocese to which he belonged. Such a decree would, when first promul- gated, be authoritative only within the bishop's own sphere of jurisdiction ; but, if it was approved and accepted by other bishops, it would gradually acquire ^ a wider and in many cases an ecumenical authority. In later times, before the twelfth century, the decrees of canonization usually emanated from the Provincial Synods.^ In the great patriarchal sees there was sometimes a tendency to canonize patriarchs who can hardly be said to have deserved the honour. The Bollandists have noted this tendency in regard to some of the occupants of the see of Constantinople, but the same thing might be said with truth concern- ing some Roman popes. In dealing with the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, I have not felt bound to use the title of saint in every case in which the name » Mabillon, Ada SS. ord. S. Bened., torn. vii. pp. lix., Ix., Prsefat. in soec decim., §§ 91, 92 ; cf. Benedict. XIV., De serv. Dei heatif. et heat, canoniz.j lib. i. cap. vi. § 9, 0pp. torn. i. p. 17, ed. 1767. The saints, to whose testimony appeal is made in this book, are for the most part venerated throughout the Church, both in the East and in the West. In some few cases the veneration of this or that saint may, according to circumstances, be confined to the East or to the West. Where the veneration is purely local, as in the case of the ten saintly bishops of Como (p. 319), attention is called to the fact. xxJ£ AUTHOR'S, PREFACE. of this or that bishop has found a place in the local calendar. Although these lectures were originally addressed to a clerical audience, I hope that they may be found to have some interest for that large and increasing- body of laymen who recognize the importance of these questions. Having this object in view, and feeling sure that in any case some of those whom I should most wish to interest in the main argument of my book, would be repelled by the frequent occurrence of quotations in the Latin and Greek languages, I have tried to keep Latin and Greek as much as possible out of the text of the lectures, and to relegate quotations in those languages to the notes. I have not scrupled to lighten my o\yn labour by using any accessible translations of patristic passages which I wished to quote in English. I do not think that I have ever done so without care- fully comparing the translation with the original, and without correcting any expression occurring in the translation which seemed to need correction. I hope that I have not anywhere transgressed the rules of Christian courtesy. The nature of my argu- ment is of such a character that I have been compelled at times to criticize and controvert the statements and arguments of others ; but I should be extremely sorry if there was a single word which might seem to be either uncharitable or consciously unfair. I had written thus far, when I received a copy of the Preface with which the Bishop of Lincoln has AUTHOR'S PREFACE. xxxi enriched my book. I wish to express my gratitude to him for the Preface itself, and for his kindness in finding time to write it in the midst of his unceasing pastoral labours. Perhaps I ought to have foreseen that his affection would lead him to speak of me in a way that I do not deserve. May our Lord reward him, both now and in the world to come, for the manifold ways in which he has poured out his good- ness upon me, ever since the old Cuddesdon days, more than a quarter of a century ago. I desire also to thank Dr. Bright for taking the trouble to read over the proof-sheets of the fifth lecture, and for making several helpful suggestions in regard to the treatment of the case of Apiarius. My thanks are also due to other kind friends, who have been good enough to answer questions, and who have in that way put me in the right track, and enabled me to solve various problems. But I must specially record my gratitude to my friend the Rev. V. S. S. Coles, of the Pusey House, who read care- fully through the manuscript of this book, and whose remarks have led me to add here and there notes which will, I think, strengthen the general argument. Lastly, I must thank my friend and brother, the Rev. P. N. Waggett, for his careful correction of the proof-sheets of the whole book, and for the help which he has given me in the work of making the index, and in other ways. F. W. P. The Mission House, Cowley S. Johit Feast of S. Patricic, Ib'J'd. NOTE TO SECOND EDITION This second edition is practically a reprint from the first with a very few corrections, mostly verbal. I had not expected that the first edition would have been exhausted so soon, and I have been too much occupied with other work to take advantage of the reviews of my book which have appeared. I hope, however, that, if a third edition is called for, I shall be able to prepare for it by carefully con- sidering what my critics, whether favourable or adverse, have written. I am very grateful to some of them for their very helpful reviews, and for the kind words which they have used about myself and my book. F. W. P. The Mission House, Cowley S. John, September 2, 1893. LECTURE I. THE SEE OF ROME IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. — I. I AM to speak to you, my dear brothers, in these lectures about the controversy which we, who belong to the English branch of the Catholic Church, have con- tinually to carry on with the upholders of the claims of the Roman papacy. I suppose that most of us would very much prefer to keep aloof from controversy ; or, if we must have it, we should wish to spend our time and labour in doing battle with the materialists and positivists and agnostics who set themselves to under- mine the very foundation of the Christian faith. If it were possible, we should like to treat our Roman Catholic neighbours as brethren, differing from us in certain matters of more or less importance, but whose work, taken as a whole, we could accept as a sub- stantial aid in the struggle with sin and unbelief. Now, undoubtedly there are English Roman Catholic writers and workers whom we can regard in this more favourable light. We thank God for their writings and for their work, and we desire to profit by their wholesome teaching and by their good Christian ex- ample. Unfortunately, when we consider the Roman B 1 'the RdMANSEE IN ANTE-NICBNE TIMES. [i. communion in England as a whole, we are obliged to admit that there is another side to the matter. One very prominent aspect of that communion is the controversial position which she takes up in regard to the spiritual status and spiritual claims of our Mother, the Church of England. I do not complain of this controversial attitude. If a man sincerely believes that the Roman pope is infallible, and that com- munion with him is one of the divinely ordained conditions of salvation ; if he adheres to the doo^matic definition of Pope Boniface YIII. in his Bull Unam Sanctam, in which occurs the following passage : "We therefore declare, assert, and define that for every human creature it is altogether necessary to salvation that he be subject to the Roman pontiflT; " ^ — I say that, if a man holds with sincerity such a faith as that, he is bound to do what he can, as opportunity may offer, to bring his neighbours and fellow-country- men to the same belief with himself; and here, in England, he will almost necessarily have to take up a position of controversial antagonism to the claims of the English Church. But then, on the other hand, we, who repudiate these papal theories ; we, who hold 1 ti pono subessG Romano Pontifici, omni humane creature declara- mus, dicimus, et diffinimus omnino esse de necessitate salutis." This bull is in the Eegestum of Boniface VIII., in the Vatican library. A heliotype copy of it was published in 1888, in a work entitled Speoi- mina palxograpMca Begestorum Bomanorum Fontificum ah Innocentio III. usque ad Urhanum V. (see the Bevue des Questions Historiques for July, 1889, tome xlvi. pp. 253-257). The bull is also to be found among the Extravagantes Communes of the Corpus Juris Canonic/', lib. i. tit. viii. cap. i. (ed. Friedberg ii. 1245, 1246). I.] THE kOMAN SME IN ANTE-MCENE TIMES. % that ttose theories were the offspring of ambition and ignorance, and that they have been spread by violence and forgery, and who with all our hearts accept the Church of England as historically the authentic representative of the Catholic Church of Christ in this country ; — we, I say, are forced almost aofainst our will to do battle from time to time on behalf of our spiritual mother; and we are, there- fore, bound to equip ourselves with some sufficient knowledge of the controversy between England and Rome, so that whether in public or in private we may be able to strengthen our people against those who would undermine their faith in the Catholicity of the Church to which they belong. Moreover, for the sake of our own peace of mind, it is of tha highest importance that we should become solidly convinced that in our controversy with Rome about the papal claims, the truth is substantially on our side. It was the sense of the importance of helping my brethren to have clear and true views on this matter, which led me to accede to your secretary's invitation to give this course of lectures. I confess that I enter on them with fear and trembling ; not from any doubt as to the side on which the truth lies, but from my consciousness of the very imperfect way in which I shall be able to handle the subject, and from the dread that I may do more harm than good by my treatment of it. I will ask your prayers that I may be helped and guided to say what shall tend to pro- mote God's glory, and the Church's well-being, and 4^ THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. [i. the good of souls. ' I will do my utmost to be fair and /' accurate. If I make slips, as may very easily happen, I shall gladly correct them, when they are pointed out ; I do not want to win a victory by any assertions or arguments which will not stand the test of in- vestigation. I hope sincerelj^ that no mistakes will be made, the exposure of which would endanger the solidity of the proof of those central facts on which the argument really hinges. And now to come more directly to our subject. I cannot, of course, attempt in five lectures to cover the whole ground of this far-reaching controversy. I must make a selection ; and I select the papal claim to a primacy of jurisdiction,^ because the discussion of that claim will take us into the very heart of the matter. I propose, if I have time, to deal with the following divisions of the subject : — 1. The position of the see of Eome during the first three centuries. 2. The relation of S. Peter to the Apostolic College and to the Church. 3. The origin and growth of the papal jurisdiction. 4. The truth about the unity of the Church.^ My purpose is to deal with these different points • In the sixth and seventh lectures, which were not delivered with the others, I have discussed the cognate but not identical claim which is made on behalf of the pope, when it is asserted that he is the necessary centre of communion for the whole Church. 2 The fourth heading is dealt with in the two lectures (the sixth and the seventh) which constitute the second part of this book (see pp. 219-324). 1.3 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 5 with special reference to their bearing on the modern Eoman claims, and it will therefore be well to set those claims before you in their most authentic form. We could not have them in a more authentic form than in the decrees of the Vatican Council of the year 1870. That Council is accepted by the pope and by the Koman Catholic hierarchy and by the whole Eoman Catholic Church as an Ecumenical Council. It was in their view an Ecumenical Council, over which the pope himself presided. The decrees were promulgated by Pope Pius IX. from his presidential throne. There were 535 votes registered, of which 533 were in favour of the decrees with which we are dealing, and two only were adverse.^ After the sus- pension of the Council, the decrees were accepted by all the other bishops of the Eoman communion. In quoting the Vatican decrees, I am quoting an authority which cannot be gainsaid by any member of the Eoman Catholic Church. What, then, do these decrees say in reference to the jurisdiction of the Eoman pontiff? They say, or rather the pope and the Council say in them, that " the Eoman Church, by the appointment of the Lord, holds the chief authority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction belonging to the Eoman pontiff is a truly episcopal power," and that "it is an immediate ^ * After the voting, the pope, rising from his seat, said, "Decreta et Canones, qui in Constitutione modo lecta continentur, placuerunt Patribus omnibus, duobus exceptis : Nosque sacro approbante Concilio, ilia et illos, ut lecta sunt, defluiraus et Apostolica auctoritate coa- firmamna " {ColUdio Lacensis, torn. vii. coll. 487, 488). 6 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. [i. power." They go on to say that all the pastors and all the faithful, whether taken separately or taken all together, are bound to the authority of the pope "by the obligation of true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in things pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world." They add that " this is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and that no one can deviate from it without the loss of his faith and salvation." They further teach that, in consequence of the apostolic primacy which the Roman pontiff enjoys ^'ttre divino, "he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that recourse may be had to his judgment in all causes which appertain to the jurisdiction of the Church ; " " that the judgment of the apostolic see cannot be revised by any one, and that no one may pass judgment on its decisions ; wherefore those who affirm that it is allowable to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council as to an authority higher than the pope, are wandering from the straight pathway of truth." They pronounce an anathema on " any one who asserts that the Roman pontiff has only an office of inspection or direction, but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church ; " or "that he has only the chief part, and not the total plenitude, of that supreme power." ^ Assuredly, if these decrees truly represent the ^ These passages are quoted from the Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesid Chriiti, ^Yhich was passed by the Council aud confirmed T.] THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 7 mind of our Lord, we must accept the view commonly attributed to Cardinal Cajetan, namely, that " the Church is the born handmaid of the pope." ^ And we are not to suppose that it is the theory of the Roman Church that this teaching about the power of the pontiff is some late development un- known to antiquity. On the contrary, the pope, when he promulgated the decree from which I have been quoting, expressly stated, in his own name and in the name of the Council, that he rested his teach- ing on the plain testimony of Holy Scripture, and that in this definition he was adhering to the clear and perspicuous decrees of his predecessors, the Roman pontiffs, and of the general Councils. This, then, is the teaching, the truth of which we are to investigate. And we are to begin this morning by considering the position of the see of Rome during the first three centuries. ^ The local Church of Rome was organized in early times in precisely the same way as the local churches in other cities.^ Each local Church was governed by by the pope at the fourth session, on July 18, 1870 (of. Collect. Lacens., vii. 482-487). * Of. Apol. Tractat. de Comparat. Auctorit. Papas et Condi., cap. i. I must confess that I have some doubts as to whether this passage, when taken with its context, bears out the common idea about its meaning. 2 Some modern Protestant writers suppose that the episcopate did not exist at Rome until the second century. Bishop Lightfoot, on the other hand, says concerning the names of S. Linus and S. Anen- cletus, the two bishops of Rome who, according to tradition, immedi- ately followed the apostles and preceded S. Clement, " I see no reason to question that they not only represent historical persons, but that they were bishops in the sense of monarchical rulers of the Roman 8 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. [i. a bishop, who had his priests and deacons to assist him. When the bishop of any Church died, his successor was normally chosen from among the priests or deacons who formed the clergy of that Church. This was the rule at Rome, as it was the rule elsewhere. The bishops of the various Churches looked on each other as brothers and colleagues. "When Cornelius, Bishop of Rome, writes to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, he begins his letter as follows : "Cornelius to Cyprian, his brother, greeting;" and he concludes with the words, " Fare thee well, dearest brother." ^ And when Cyprian replies, he writes in the same strain : " Cyprian to Cornelius, his brother, greeting ; " and he goes on, " You have acted, dearest brother, with diligence and affection, in dispatching to us in haste Nicephorus the acolyte." ^ We have various letters written by S. Cyprian to other Roman bishops besides Cornelius, as, for example, to Lucius and to Stephen, and they are all written in the same tone of perfect equality. Similarly, when S. Cyprian writes to another African bishop about the Roman pope, he alludes to him, not as a superior, but as an equal. To Pompeius, Bishop of Sabrata, Cyprian says, " Since you have desired to be 'informed what answer our brother Stephen returned to my letter, I have sent you a copy of that answer; on reading Church, though their monarchy may have been much less autocratic than the episcopate even of the succeeding century " {S. Clement of Some, ed. 1890, i. 340 ; compare i. 68). » S. Cypriani Ep. xlviii., Oj7j3. ed. Ben., p. 6% * Ep. xlix., p. G3. I.] THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 9 which you will more and more discover his error." ^ Stephen is, of course, the pope. All the bishops, wherever their sees might be, were held to be successors of the apostles, both as regards order and as regards jurisdiction; so that, as the great Belgian canonist. Van Espen, says, " The bishops receive by succession the very authority of the apostles, so that whatever the apostles had of episcopal power — that is, of power concerned with the government of the Church — has been transferred by them into the bishops, as their successors in the Church's administration and government." ^ It is important to notice that Van Espen, following the early writers, teaches that the bishops succeed to the apostles, not only in matters connected with order, such as the power of confirming and ordaining, but also in matters connected with jurisdiction, such as the administration and government of the Church. More- over, he says that in their governing authority the bishops succeed not merely to this or that apostle, but to all of them in common ; in other words, each bishop inherits the whole episcopal jurisdiction of the apostolic college.^ To use the words of S. Cyprian : 1 Ep. Ixxiv., p. 138. One may also notice that S. Cyprian, writing (Ep. Hi., p. 66) to the Bishop Antonianus, speaks of " our colleague Cor- nelius " (" Cornelium collegam nostrum "), and of " our brother bishop Cornelius" ("Cornelio co-episcopo nostro"); and writing {Ep. in., p. 8) to the priests and deacons of Eome about Pope Fabian, he calls him " that good man my colleague " (" boni viri coUegje mei "). ' Jus Eccl. Univ.y i. xvi. 1, 7. Dr. Neale describes Van Espen as " the first canonist of his own or of any age " (History of the Church of Holland, p. 175). He was born in 1646, and died in 1728. ? By what may be called the by-laws of the Churcli, the bishops 10 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. [i. "The episcopate is one; it is a whole in which each enjoys full possession" (" Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur ").^ And the result of this primitive teaching, as Van Espen points out, is that " essentially, and setting aside later legislation, all bishops are equal in their power and authority in governing the Church." ^ Having laid down the doctrine of the essential equality of all bishops, not only as regards order, but I also as regards jurisdiction, as a foundation, we go on to notice two cross-principles, which came in after- ^ wards, and which in practice modified that equality. The first cross-principle is the special authority which gradually grew up in the Church of the prin- cipal city of each of the geographical regions which are, under ordinary circumstances, restrained from exercising their jurisdiction outside of their own particular diocese ; but in a Provincial Synod they legislate for the province, and in an Ecumenical Synod for the Church at large. * S. Cypr. Be Unit. Eccl, 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 195. The transla- tion is from the English version of S. Cyprian's treatises in the Library of the Fathers, edited by Newman. Archbishop Benson (Smith and Wace, i. 745), describing S. Cyprian's teaching in this passage, says, " The apostleship, continued for ever in the episcopate, is thus universal, yet one; each bishop's authority perfect and inde- pendent, yet not forming with the others a mere agglomerate, but being a full tenure on a totality, like that of a shareholder in a joint- stock property." Mr. Kivington (Authority ^ p. 102) translates the passage, as I have done. The expression " in solidum " is a technical legal phrase. Examples of its use may bo found under the second title of the 45th book of the Digest (vol. ii. pp. 677-G80, ed. Mommsen, 1870). To give one instance — Priscus Javolenus says, " Cum duo eandem pecuniam aut promiserint aut stipulati sunt, ipso jure ct singuli in solidum debentur et singuli debent : ideoque petitiong acceptilatione[ve] unius tota solvitur obligatio." ' Suppl. in Jus Univ. Eccl, i. xvi. i. 7, 1.1 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. ii collectively made up the Roman empire.^ As a rule, Christianity would get a footing first in the metro- polis of each region. The other lesser cities would be evangelized by missions sent forth from thence; and so the suffragan sees would look on themselves as daughters of the metropolitical see. The metro- politan bishop was the natural centre of unity for the bishops of the province. When a see became vacant, it would be the metropolitan who would call together his brother bishops to consult about the appointment of a worthy pastor tP succeed to the empty throne ; and the metropolitan would naturally preside at the preliminary meetings for consultation and election, as well as at the consecration service itself. If troubles arose among the bishops, whether heresies or schisms or quarrels or other wrong-doings, or if new and difficult questions emerged, concerning which it seemed desirable that the neighbouring bishops should act together, it would be natural for the bishops to meet in synod, and it would also be natural that the metropolitan should take the initia- tive and summon his brethren; and the metropolis would normally be the obvious place of meeting. Under such circumstances the metropolitan would of course preside, and in most cases he would be ' In some cases the limits of the ecclesiastical province did not coincide with the limits of the civil province. Geographical facilities of access made themselves more felt than the provincial boundaries, as laid down by the imperial government ; e.g. the Bishops of Tyre and Ptolemais, in the province of Syria, attended a synod at Coesarea, in Palestine, in the latter part of the second century (cf. Duchesne Orifjines du Culte Chretien, pp. 18, 19). 12 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES, [i. entrusted by the synod with the duty of seeing that its decisions were carried out. Thus by the natural course of events, and by the free action of the essentially co-equal prelates, a certain precedence and pre-eminence, and, more than that, a certain right of initiative and of inspection and of administration, would by common consent be lodged in the occupant of the metropolitical see.^ But the very fact that what we may call the provincial system grew up naturally, and adapted itself to the varying geogra- phical and ethnographical and political circumstances of the different regions, would necessarily result in a great want of uniformity. In some places the eccle- siasticpJ provinces would be very small. In other places they would be very much larger. The bishops of the great cities of the empire, such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, would naturally ex- tend their influence over a far wider area than would the bishops of places like Thessalonica or Corinth. Thus there would be large provinces and small pro- vinces, and the metropolitan of a large province would normally be a more important person than the metro- politan of a small province. And again, while the ^ Compare Mohler, On the Unity of the Church, part ii. cliap. ii. §§ 57-60 (French translation, pp. 189-198, ed. Bruxelles, 1839). Mohlcr's summary of this chapter is worth noting : " Les communautes voisities se reunissent, et leurs eveques forment un tout uni ensemblo qui se cree un organe et uu centre dans la personne du me'tropolitain," etc. There is an admirable paragraph describing the natural process by which the office of the metropolitan grew up, in an article by Father de Smedt, S.J., the President of the Bollandists, in the lievue des Questions Ilistoriques for October, 1891, pp. 424:, 425. The title of the article is Vorrjanisation des EfjJises Chretlennes au Hi" circle. lO T!tE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 13 system was growing up^ there would be no necessary uniformity in regard to the measure of power which was delegated by the bishops of the province to the metropolitan. In a small province containing several flourishing churches, the suffragan bishops would maintain a very independent position, delegating only the rtiinimum of initiative and direction to the metropolitan. In a large province containing one very important central Church and a great number of relatively weak Churches, there would be a strong centralizing tendency, and the metro- politan bishop would be entrusted with very large powers over his suffragans. Such was eminently the case with the Churches in the two chief cities of the empire, Rome and Alexandria. The Bishop of Rome presided, as metropolitan, over the bishops throughout Central and Southern Italy; and ulti- mately the three islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica were aggregated to his province.^ Similarly, the Bishop of Alexandria was the ecclesiastical centre, not only for Egypt, but also for Libya and the Pentapolis ; and both at Rome and Alexandria the metropolitan bishops exerted an authority over their suffragans which was quite abnormal, and which tended to obscure the inherent equality of the various members of the episcopal body. Doubtless this tendency did not show itself fully during the first three centuries, and perhaps during those centuries there was nothing actually unhealthy ; but un- ' Cf. Duchesne, Origines du Culfe Chr^ien, p. 30. 14 TnE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. &. doubtedly the great concentration of authority which gradually grew up in those sees constituted a germ, which might easily develop into a source of danger.^ I hope that I have now made it clear, that the civil importan ce of the city in which an episcopal see was erected very often reacted on the ecclesias- tical relations of the bishop of that see to the bishops of the cities round about. Moreover, in the case of the leading cities of the empire, such as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Carthage, Ephesus, their relative civil pre- cedence was reproduced in the hierarchy of the Church. T hus t he/city of Rome^as the capital^f the empire ; and as a result the Bishop of . Bome took precedence of the other bishops in the Church. /Alex- andria was the second city's in the empire, and the Bishop of Alexandria ran'^d next to the Bishop of Rome in the order of the Catholic episcopate ; and so on with the rest. And this precedence carried with it 1 Cf. Duchesne, Origines du CuHe Chr^ien, p. 375, n. 2, as regards the relations of the Bishop of Rome to his suburbicarian suffragans. In illustration of the statement in the text, so far as it deals with Alexandria, I would refer to the article on "Synesius" in Smith and Wace (iv. 779). The writer of the article says, " Equally notice- able is the unqualified obedience which Synesius, though himself Metropolitan of Pentupolis, cheerfully yielded to the 'apostolic throne' of Alexandria. *It is at once my wish and my duty to consider whatever decree comes from that throne binding upon mc,' he writes, to [the patriarch] Theophilus. The unquestionablo superiority of Alexandria to all the cities of Eastern Africa had given to the Patriarch of Alexandria an authority over the bishops of those cities unsurpassed, even if it was rivalled, by the supremacy of Rome in that day over the bishoprics of Central and Southern Italy," See also Dr. Bright's Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, pp. 17, 18, 207-209. I.] THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. is influence. In all organized bodies the highest person is most often made a referee or arbitrator, simply because he is highest. People natur ally consult the one who stands first. Under normal circumstances, he is the natural spokesman and representative of the whole body on occasions when some spokesman or representative is needed. And what takes place in other organized bodies necessarily took place and still takes place in the Church. We have on ly to look at our own English branch of the Church, and we see it taking place on a large scale there. The ^Vbris- dictio n of the Arch bishop jofjDanter bury is confined to the province of Canterbury ; ^ but just because he is, by the consent of all, acknowledged to be the first bishop on the roll of the Anglican episcopate, there- fore his i^^^f^encG extends throughout the whole Anglica.n communion. He naturally presides in the Lambeth Conference; he has the chief share in de- ciding what subjects shall be discussed there; his advice is continually asked in regard to matters occurring in the colonial Churches; in a very true sense the care of all the Churches is upon him ; and all this comes to him simply because he is first. No canon gives him the influence, no pretence of a primacy, by divine right. He wields this influence simply because, in the providence of God, he stands ^ There are a few scattered colonial and missionary dioceses which belong to no colonial province, and which look to the Archbishop of Canterbury as their quasi-metropolitan ; but they may be considered to be appendages of the province of Canterbury. Their position is abnormal, and in time they will doubtless get more into line. i6 T^HE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. [i. first on the list. And we may see in liim a picture of what, in early days, took place in regard to the Bishop of Kome, and also in their measure in regard to the Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and the rest. Thus the principle of inherent equality, without being in any way abrogated, was modified by the first cross-principle of metropolitical authority and of civil precedence. The second of the cross-principles which modified the inherent equality of all bishops was the special influence which attached to those sees which had been founded by the apostles. These sees were called the apostolic sees, and the Churches in which they were erected were called the apostolic Churches. They were the original mother Churches which had received their instruction in the faith directly from the apostles, and had been ordered by them in all matters of discipline, and had had their first bishops consecrated by them. Other Churches, whether near or far away, had in their first beginnings received the light of the gospel either immediately or mediately from one or other of them. And a certain halo of reverence and of special influence distinguished them from the Churches which could not boast of an apos- tolic founder. When disputes , arose in regard to matters of faith or discipline, and the question to be answered was. What was the teaching of the apostles ? What was the custom of the apostles ? it was a very common practice to consult the nearest apostolic Church, not as if it were infallible, but ag - ^ I.] THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 17 having received the apostolic deposit of faith and discipline at first hand from one or more of the apostles, and as therefore being more likely to have retained that deposit free from all alloy. Without pretending to give an exhaustive list of the apostolic Churches, one might name the following in the order of the dates of their apostolic foundation: First,^ Jerusalem,! " the mother of all Churches," as the Fathers of the great Council of Constantinople, of the year 382, style it in their letter to Pope Damasus and the other Western bishops ; t hen AntiochJ that "most ancient and truly apostolical Church," as the same Council describes it ; then Philippi, then Thessa- v ^ lonica, then Corinth, then Ephesus, then Rome, then Alexandria, then Smyrna. We cannot say for certain Ff that any apostle was ever at Alexandria, but it was considered to be an apostolic see because its first bishop — S. Mark — had received his mission, and probably his consecration, from S. Peter, whose cate- chist and interpreter he had been. And similarly Smyrna was apostolical because S. Polycarp was constituted bishop of that see by S. John.^ This is how Tertullian, arguing with heretics, speaks about the apostolic Churches : " Come, now," he says, " thou that wilt exercise thy curiosity to better purpose ia the business of thy salvation, go through the apos- tolic Churches, in which the very seats of the apostles, at this very day, preside over their own places; in which their own authentic writings are * Tertullian, Be Prsescr. Exr.t xxxii. zjr l8 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. [i. read, speaking with tlie voice of each, and making the face of each present to the eye. Is Achaia near to thee ? thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedonia, thou hast Philippi, thou hast the Thessalonians. If thou canst travel into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. But if thou art near to Italy, thou hast Rome, where we also {i.e. we in Africa) have an authority close at hand."^ No one ever suggested that the special influence which attached to the apostolic sees, and the reverence which was yielded to them, was a matter of positive divine appointment. It was the natural reverence of Christians for the holy apostles, and for everything which seemed in a special way to have come in contact with the apostles. ^,_to_,sunoL.Tiip this part of our subject, by divine right all bishops were inherently equal, but by custom and ecclesiastical legislation the bishops of the metropolitical sees acquired certain rights which were delegated to them by their brother bishops. Moreover, among the most important Churches a certain order of precedence grew ud, which corre- sponded with the civil dignity of the cities in which those Churches existed ; and, finally, the Churches which were founded by the apostles were treated with peculiar reverence. If we now confine our attention to the more powerful Churches which took the lead in eccle- siastical matters, it will be worth while to^askjthe I uestion^ whether their influence mainly rested on » Be Puxscr. Jlxr., sxxvi. I.] THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 19 the ciyjl_dignit^ of the city, or on the apostolical character of the see. I think that there can be no I doubt that their influence mainly resulted from the ( civil dignity of the city. Fq t exampl e, during the ^ greater part of the firsts three centuries the see of Jeru- salem, which in the apostolic days had been the most influential of all sees, exerted very little influence on the general course of Church aflairs. The city had been destroyed by Hadrian, and the new city was comparatively feeble and uninfluential. So, again, Philippi and Corinth, which were apostolical, had much less influence than Carthage, the capital of Africa, which made no pretence to an apostolical foundation. If we compare Antioch with Alexandria, we find that both S. Peter and S. Paul had spent some time in Anti och, whereas Alexandria could only trace back to S. Mark the Evano^elist, and throuo^h him indirect^ to S. Peter. Judged by apostolical pretensions, Antioch ought to have ranked before Alexandria ; but Alexandria was the second city of the empire, and Antioch was the third,^ and the order of civil dignity governed the situation. The Church of Alexandria, though only quasi-apostolical, ranked second, and " the truly apostolical Church " of Antioch ranked third. And doubtless as it was with all the , other Churches, so it_was with Rome. If vrc ask ^ Tillemont (ii. 92) speaks of Alexandria as being "cette grande ville qui estoit la premiere de I'Empire apres Rome." Josepbus (J)e Hello Jud., iii. 2, 0pp. ed. Havercamp, 1726, ii. 221, 222), speaking of Anticcb, says tbat " in size and otber advantages it indisputably held the third place in the Roman world." 20 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. [i. why the Church of Rome ranked first, the true a nswer undoubtedly is that Rome was the imperial city, the capital of the civilized world. -T^The primacy hinged on that. \ The fact that S. Peter and S. Paul had been the ^apostolical founders of the Roman Church, and had been martyred there, would never by itself have resulted in the primacy of that Church, any more than the fact of Jerusalem being the place where the Saviour died and rose again, and where the Church had come fully into existence on the day \ of Pentecost, availed in default of civil dignity to i| secure any commanding position for the Church of \ the holy city. The apostolicity of the Roman Church immensely added to its influence and helped to attract to it the reverence of Christians all over the world, ^but the imperial position of the city of Rome was the determining factor which secured for it the primacy. Undoubtedly the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon was historically right, when in its twenty-eighth canon it defined that "the Fathers properly gave the privileges to the throne of the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city." ^ * The truth of the statement in the text does not in any way depend on the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon, being a canon of ecumenical authority. S. Leo, and the West following S. Leo, rejected the canon. But it still remains the fact that the Council as a whole passed it, and that the East in practice obeyed it ; and there can bo no doubt that, whether the decree was or was not ecumenically binding, its statement about the origin of the privileges of the Roman see was historically correct. The divine origin of the jurisdiction claimed by the popes is a fundamental dogma among modern Roman Catholics, or rather it is, in their view, the fundamental dogma. One would think that Roman Catholic students of the canons must be somewhat I I.] THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. 21 The position could not be more accurately stated. The primatial privileges of the Roman see were not of divine institution]^ they_were "given by the Fathers'/ and they were given on the ground of iKeimperial authority and dignity of the city. To sum up what has been said in regard to the Roman Church. After the destruction of Jeru- puzzled to find a great Ecumenical Council, in which all manner of circumstances combined to give a most commanding position to tho pope, passing a canon which lays down as an obvious undeniable truth that the privileges of the Koman see were given to it " by the Fathers," because Rome " was the imperial city." For a good account of the enacting of the twenty-eighth canon, and of the way in which, not- withstanding the pope's protests, the canon practically held its ground, see a powerful article in the Church Quarterly for October, 18S9, entitled, A Roman Proselyte on Ancient Church History, pp. 131- 133. The Abbe Duchesne, one of the most learned, if not the most learned, of living French ecclesiastics, and who, in everything that he writes, is refreshingly fair and straightforward, describes {Origines du Culte Clir^tien, p. 24) how the popes refused to accept the canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon, which regulated the precedence and jurisdiction of the see of Constantinople ; but he candidly adds, "Mais leur voix fut pen ecoutee; on leur accorda sans doute des satisfactions, mats de pure ceWmonieJ' In ante-Nicene times even ceremonial satisfactions would have been refused, as the histories of Popes Victor and Stephen show. Mr. Richardson (What are the Catholic Claims ? p. 93) attempts to reply to the Fathers of Chalcedon by asking tlie question, " Can any one point to a human grant of tho primacy to Rome ? " The inconclusiveness of the argument implied in that question may be shown by asking another. Can any one point to a human grant of the primacy over Africa to Carthage ? or of the primacy over Palestine to Csesarea? Yet who supposes that the jurisdiction of those sees was secured to them by the jus divinum ? Compare the remarks of Mohler and of Father de Smedt, to which reference is made in the note on p. 12. It ought to be observed that, when the Fathers of Chalcedon attributed the privileges of the Roman see to the fact that it was the imperial city, they were merely repeat- ing what the second Ecumenical Council had implied in its third canon, seventy years before (see Dr. Bright's Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, p. 93, 1st edit.). 22 THE ROMAN SEE IN ANTE-NICENE TIMES. [i. y salem, which during the first forty years after Pente- cost had been the natural metropolis of Christendom, the Churches which had been constituted in the great cities of the empire took the lead in the order of their civil precedence, with the Church of Rome necessarily in the first place. The mere fact of hold- ^ ) ing the first place was a cause of growing influence. One result of the pre-eminent influence of the Roman see was that the ecclesiastical province over which it acquired metropolitical jurisdiction was much larger than any other province in the Church, ex- cept the province over which the see of Alexandria, which ranked next to Rome in honour, presided. The see of Rome had also the glory of having been L founded by the two great apostles, S. Peter and S. Paul, who were martyred outside the walls, and whose bodies were reverently treasured and had in ^honour by the Roman Church. The Roman see was, therefore, very eminently an apostolic see, and it rj^) was the only apostolic see in the Western or Latin- speaking portion of the Church. In the East apos- tolic sees in some sense abounded. In the West there was but one, and that one was the primatial see of the whole Church. No wonder that the Bishop of Rome was held in high honour, and was the natural person to take the initiative in movements affecting the whole body. But we must be careful not to exaggerate in this matter. There was a marked I primacy of honour and influence, bi^t there was no prima cy of jurisdiction. The inherent jurisdiction of I.] THE kOMAN SEE m ANTE-NICENE TIMES. i% t he Roman see was exactlx_the same as the inherent jurisdiction of every other see in Christendom. Its acquired or delegated jurisdiction was limited to the suburbicarian provinces of Central and Southern Italy with the adjacent islands. Outside those provinces throughout the Church, but specially in the West, Rome had influence;^but no jurisdiction. Similarly the Bishop of Alexandria's acquired jurisdiction was limited to Egypt, Libya^ and the Pentapolis, but his influence extended over the whole Church, and specially over the East. ^^ , In the preceding statement I have tried to set before you a true view of the relations of the various sees to each other, and specially of the relation of the Bishop of Rome to his brothers and colleagues in the episcopate during the first three centuries. The justi- fication of that statement will be perceived if the facts of early Church history and the writings of the early Fathers are studied. As I am giving a lecture, and not writing an exhaustive treatise, I can only discuss a small selection of facts and passages, but I honestly think that the selection which I shall make will be a fair selection. I propose, then, to consider — 1. The Paschal controversy in the time of Pope Victor : 2. The famous passage of S. Irenreus about the \^man Church : "^ TJi&Jiktory of S. Cyprian of Carthage. l.X^The bishops of Proconsular Asia, whose metro- polis was Ephesus, had been accustomed ever since *<" 24 THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. [r the time of the apostles to keep tlie feast of Easter on the day of the Paschal full moon, whether that day fell on a Sunday or on any other day of the week. The bishops in all the other provinces of the Church, both in the East and in the West, kept Easter on the Sunday following the Paschal full moon. The bishops of the province of Ephesus asserted that they had received their custom by tradition from S. John ; and one can hardly doubt that that assertion of theirs was true, because S. Polycarp^ssured the Roman pope Anicetus that he had always kept the feast so " with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had lived." ^ However, the Churches, which kept Easter on Sunday, also claimed that they had received their custom by tradition from the apostles. During the greater part of the second century the two customs went on side by side, and yet the Church was not disturbed by any serious dissension in connection with this matter. On the 'contrary, when the Christians from Asia came to Rome, they were allowed to keep the feast on their own Asiatic day, although the Roman Church itself kept the feast always on the Sunday. This large- hearted tolerance was exhibited by the five Roman bishops, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus,^ whose pontificates lasted from about a.d. 118 to about A.D. 165. It seems probable that Pope Soter, the successor of Anicetus, forbade the Asiatic Christians who came to Rome to keep their Asiatic > Euseb., B.. E.^ v. 24. " Tillemont, iii. 103 / THE PASCHAL. CONTROVERSY. 25 Easter in Rome its elf.. J , He appears to have required all Catholic Christians living in Eome to keep the feast together on the Sunday after the full moon; but he remained in peace and fellowship with the bishops of Asia, who in their own province of Asia went on celebrating the festival on the day of the full moon. Soter's successor, Eleutherus, followed on the same lines. B ut Victo r, who succeeded Eleutherus, and who governed the Roman Church from about A.D. 188 to about A.D. 198, determined to make an effort to establish uniformity, and to suppress altogether the Asiatic custom. He appears to have written letters in the name of his Church to the various metropolitans, begging them to summon their Provincial Synods, and to discuss in them the question of the proper day for the celebration of the Easter festival. It is im- portant to notice exactly what the pope's action was at this initial stage. He was the first bishop in the Church, and it was most fitting that he should take the initiative. What he did was to ash the other metropolitans to summon their synods. He did not command them to do so ; he ashed them. Polycrates, the Bishop of Ephesus, writing later on to Victor and to the Roman Church, says: "J could also mention the bishops that were present [at the synod in Ephesus], whom you requested {ri^K^crar^) me to summon." ^ The word agtow seems to be the right * Euseb., H. E., v. 24. Tilleraont (iii. 633) expresses Polycrates' meaning thus : " Polycrate (lit que Victor Tavait pr/e d'assembler les EvSques de I'Asie." 26 The paschal controvers\\ [i. word to express requests made by one Church to another Church. Thus, after the death of S. Poly- carp, the Church of Smyrna wrote a short account of his martyrdom to the little Church of Philomelium, in Phrygia. Towards the conclusion of the letter the Smyrnseans say, " Ye indeed Q^equested (j7$tw(Tarf) that the things which happened should be shown unto you at greater length." ^ S. Clement of Rome uses the word a^ioa) three times of entreating or heseecJdng God.^ So Pope Victor, who had no juris- diction in the province of Asia, requested Polycrates the metropolitan to exercise the authority which he possessed, and to convoke (jitera/caXav) the bishops of his province. In compliance with the request of the Roman Church, synods were held in many provinces, as, for example, in Palestine, in Pontus, in Gaul,^ in Osrhoene, and elsewhere. There was a unanimous determination throughout the Church, except in Asia, that Easter should be celebrated on Sunday. Victor held his own local synod in Rome ; and in communi- cating its decision to Polycrates he appears to have threatened that if the Asiatics persisted in their custom, they would be cut off from the communion of the Roman Church. Polycrates, with the consent * Mart. Pol, XX. " S. Clem. Eom. ad Cor., li. liii. and Iv. ' Perhaps in Gaul the synod was diocesan rather than provincial. It Bcems probable that in the time of Victor there was only one bishopric in Gaul, the seat of which was at Lyons. See an article by Iho Abbe Duchesne, entitled Uorigine dee dioceses ^piscopaux dans Vancienne Gaule^ which appeared in the B\illetin et M^moires de la Socid^ Rationale des Antiqnairea de France, tome 1. pp. 387-390 (Paris: 1889). I.] THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY, 27 of the Asiaticjbisliops, replied in a letter full of in- teresting details, addressed, not to Victor only, but to the whole Roman Church, in which he says, "I am not scared by those who terrify us [with threats], for they, who are greater than I, have said, ' We ought to obey God rather than men.' " ^ " Upon this," Euse- bius says, "Victor, the Bishop of the Church of the Romans, forthwith endeavours to cut off the Churches of all Asia, together with the neighbouring Churches, as heterodox, from the common unity; and he pro- scribes them by letters, and proclaims that all the brethren there are utterly (ap^rjv) separated from comonunion. However, these measures did not please all the bishops. They exhort him, therefore, on the other side to pursue peace and unity and love towards his neighbours. Their writings too are extant, very severely upbraiding (7rXT?KrfKwr£jOov KaOaTTToixivtJv) Victor. Among these also was Irenseus, who, in the name of those brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintains indeed that the mystery of the Lord's resurrection should be celebrated only on the Lord's day ; but he also becomingly ad- monishes Victor^ not to cut off whole Churches of God, which preserve the tradition of an ancient custom. . . . And this same Irenaeus, bearing out liis * Euseb., H. E; v. 21. S. Jerome (De illustrihus virig, cap. xlv., 0pp. ed. Vallars., 1735, ii. 874) translates Polycratea' words as follows : " Non formidabo eos qui nobis minantur." 2 The historian Socrates (£f. E., v. 22. 16, ed. Hussey, lSr)3, ii. G26) says that S. Irenceus "strongly inveighed against (yiyyaiws Karedpaixey) Victor " on this occasion. 28 THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. [i. name, and a peacemaker in temper, exhorted and mediated in ways like these for the peace of the Church. He also wrote, not to Victor alone, but to very] many other rulers of Churches respecting the question which was agitated." ^ We learn from S. Anatolius of Laodicea, who wrote about eighty years after the event, that S. Irenaeus appeased the whole quarrel, and that both sides continued to ob- serve their traditional custom. S. Anatolius mentions that in his day the Asiatic Churches still continued to celebrate Easter on the day of the full moon.^ There are various points in this narrative to which it may be well to call your attention. Polycrates was a man whose orthodoxy, as Eusebius tells us,^ was notorious, and he is described in the Synodicon as a very holy person;^ and yet when Pope Victor required him to alter his day for keeping Easter, and threatened him with excommunication if he refused, he replied that he was not scared by Victor's threats. He evidently had not been brought up in the teaching which was so clearly set forth by the Vatican Council. Polycrates, though he must have been educated among those who knew S. John, had not been taught that all the pastors and all the faithful are bound to the authority of . the pope " by the obligation of true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in things pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church," Still less » Euseb., H. E., v. 2i. * Tillemont, iii. 109, 110. » H. K, V. 22. * Tillemont, iii. 107. I.] THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY, 29 did he know that "none can deviate from this teaching without the loss of his faith and salvation." From the point of view of the Vatican Council, Poly- crates' letter was a wicked act of rebellion, and all the bishops of Asia, by consenting to that act of rebellion, became partakers in their metropolitan's guilt. But the Fathers of the Church were wholly unconscious of that view of the matter. When S. Jerome writes a short life of Polycrates, he says nothing about rebellion or any other wrong-doing, but quotes the most important part of Polycrates' . letter, including his refusal to conform himself to Victor's decision, as a proof of the ability and weight of the man.^ Moreover, S. Irenseus, and numbers of other Catholic bishops, took the same view. No doubt they thought that there had been wrong-doing ; but in their view, not Polycrates, but Victor was the culprit. They " very severely upbraided " Victor. As far as we know, they said nothing to Polycrates. But perhaps for our purpose the most important point to notice is that nobody seems to have si|^- posed that communion with the Catholic Church de- pended on communion with the Roman see. Victor wrote letters, in which he announced that all the Asiatic brethren were "utterly separated from com- munion." It was, of course, in the Roman bishop's power to exclude them from the communion of the Roman Church. In those days it. was in the power of every bishop to decide who was to be in the com- * S. Hieron., Be Viris Ulustribus, cap. xlv. 30 THE PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. [i. munion of his Church, and who was to be excluded. But exclusion from the communion of the Roman Church, though it might lead to exclusion from the communion of the Catholic Church, did not neces- sarily involve such exclusion. Therefore Eusebius tells us that, while Victor, speaking for his own Church, announced that the Asiatics were "utterly separated from communion," he at the same time " endeavowred to cut them off, as heterodox, from the common unity." He endeavoured, but he failed in his endeavour. The other bishops objected to Victor's proceeding. They refused to withdraw their com- munion from Polycrates. He therefore remained united to the common unity of the Catholic Church, although cut off from the communion of the Eoman Church. AA very important principle underlies this fact. Evidently, in the second century the Church was in no way the born handmaid of the Roman pontiff. The theory set forth in the Vatican decrees was unknown. The Roman Church was not held to \0 the necessary centre of unity. We may also gather from this whole history that it is a very dangerous thing to attempt to learn the rightful authority of the Roman popes from the claims whicli they make. The Roman popes, with very few ex- ceptions, have been much too fond of putting forth baseless claims. But the right way of dealing with such claims, if we may judge by the example of S. Irenseus and other lioly bishops of his time, is to inveigh against the claimant strongly, and to upbraid I.] THE WITNESS OF S. IREN^US. V- him severely, and to refuse to give in to his claims. That was how the Catholic Church dealt with Pope Victor in the closing decade of the second century. He evidently learnt a salutary lesson, and withdrew his abortive excommunication ; and after that every- thing went on as if nothing had happened. 2. I now pass from _tbe_JP^schal controversy, in wh ich S. Iren seus^jook such a prominent part by opposing the unchristian action of the Roman pope, and I proceed to consider the famous passage in that same Father's treatise. Against all Heresies, which Roman Catholics are very fond of quoting, but which, if it is properly considered, is seen to be wholly irreconcilable with the papal claims. S. Irenseus, in his controversy with the various Gnostic sects, is appealing to the tradition of the true faith which has been handed down from the apostles. He says, " It is within the power of all, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world in every Church: and we are able to enumerate thefee whom the apostles appointed to be bishops in the Churches, and their successors, quite down to our own tmie^ who neither taught nor knew anything like what these [heretics] rave about. . , . But because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions in all the Churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome by the two most 32 THE WITNESS OF S. JREN^US. [r. glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; — we point, I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men, which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, either on account of self- pleasing, or of vain glory, or of blindness and per- verse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings. For to this Church, propter potentiorem principali- tatem, it is necessary that every Church should resort — that is to say, the faithful, who are from all quarters ; in which [Church] the tradition which is from the apostles has ever been preserved by those who are from all quarters." ^ I have left the words " propter potentiorem principcditate'in " untranslated, because their interpretation is disputed ; and it will be desirable to study carefully the closing sentence in which they occur, and thus to arrive at their probable meaning. I had better read this closing sentence in the Latin. S. Irengeus, of course, wrote it ii^Greek, but unfortunately the Greek of this passage is not extant, and we must make what we can of the ancient Latin translation. That translation runs as follows : " Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter poten- tiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea qusQ est ab Apostolis traditio." The first point to be dis- cussed is the meaning of the phrase, " convenire ad." ' Contra Omnes HtereteSf iii. 3. 1, 2. I.] THE WITNESS OF S. IRE N^ US. 33 Does S. Irenseus mean to say that it is necessary that every Church should agree tuith the Church of Eome ? or that every Church should resort to the Church of Rome ? The Italian Jesuit Perrone, quoting and adopting the comment of Dom Massuet, rejects the second of these two interpretations as ahsurdissi- onum;'^ and v^ith Perrone and Massuet agree the greater number of Ultramontane writers and some Gallicans.^ I hope to show you that this rejected interpretation is not only not absurd, but is almost certainly the true explanation. I find that the word convenire is used in the Vulgate one hundred and eleven times. In ninety- seven places it means " resort to " or " assemble ; " and in ten places it is translated,^ "agree with," usually in the sense of making a bargain or agreement with another person. It is clear that the more usual meaning of convenire is to " resort to." But the point can be pressed more closely home. I find that in twenty- six passages the verb convenire is followed by the preposition ad, and in every one of these passages " convenire ad " means " to resort to " or " come together to." * It would per- * Prxlectiones Theologicx, edit. 184], ii. 425. 2 As instances of Roman writers who translate the expression con- venire ad, "resort to," one might mention R. I. Wilberforce, iu his Principles of Church Authority (p. 134), written when he was passing from the Anglican into the Roman communion ; and Thomassinus, in his Traits des Edits, et des autres moiens pour maintenir VUnit^ de VEglise Catholique, torn. i. p. 37, edit. 1703. ' In the Douay Version. * It has been suggested that the original Greek expression used by S. Irenasus, which has been translated "couveinre ad," was avfi^aiueiv irpos : but can any instance be cited from ancient Latin translations of 34 THE WITNESS OF S. IREN^US, [i. haps be rash to lay down a universal negative, and to say that " convenire ad " never means " agree with ; " but undoubtedly its normal meaning is " re- sort to," and the onus prohandi lies on those who teach that in this passage of S. Irenaeus it ought to be understood in an abnormal meaning. Passages in Latin authors could, no doubt, be found in which " convenire cum " is to be understood in the sense of " agree with ; " but we have to do here with the ex- pression " convenire ad" and not with the expression " convenire cum" It is amusing and instructive to notice that Perrone, on one occasion, makes a slip in quoting this passage of S. Irenaeus, and substitutes cum for ad} There are several touches in the wording of the passage which we are considering, which corrobo- rate the view of the meaning of "convenire ad" which I am urging. When S. Irenseus says that it is necessary that every Church should resort to the Church of Rome, he feels that some explana- tion is needed, because it is physically impossible for one Church to resort to another Church, and absolutely impossible that every Church in the world should assemble in one city, however great. Greek authors in whicli convenire ad is given as the translation of (Tvfxfiaiviiv irpSs? Certainly no instance of such a rendcriug occurs in the Bible. In twelve passages convenire ad in the Vulgate corre- sponds with (Tvvdyeffeui or iTTKrvvdyeadat, usually followed by vpSs, once by c'ttj. In other cases various Greek expressions, such as ipXfO'Oai 'irp6s, crvvepx^O'Oci'i "fp^Sj ipx^o^ai ety, avviropiv^aQs.i irpSs, K.r.K., arc the Greek equivalents of convenire ad, » TrxlecU. Tliecll^ ii. 408. I I.] THE WITNESS OF S. IREN^US. 35 S. Irenaeus therefore glosses the expression, " omnem ecclesiam," and adds, " hoc est eos qui sunt undique iideles." This gloss would have been quite super- fluous if " convenire ad " had meant " agree with." It is easy to see how every Church can agree with another Church; there is need of an interpretation when we are told that it is necessary that every Church should resort to another Church, and accor- dingly an interpretation is given. S. Irengeus tells us that when he says " every Church," he means the faithful from all quarters. They are in the habit of resorting to Rome, and in them the local Churches to which they belong may be said to resort thither. Again, if S. Irenapus had meant to say that it is necessary that other Churches should agree with the Church of Rome, he would never have used the word livayKy], which was, no doubt, the Greek word corre- sponding to "necesse est." He would have used some word like ^ft (oportet), implying moral obli- gation. When the faithful from all quarters came to Rome, they were not pressed by any moral obli- p-ation to come there. Doubtless the necessities of their business compelled them to come to the great metropolis. Again, if S. Irenaeus had meant to say that it is necessary that the whole Church should agree with the Church of Rome, he would, when he came to explain what he meant by the whole Church, have used the word uhique, and not undique. Agreement with the Church at Rome in no way implies any need to journey thither. Christians 36 THE WITNESS OF S. IRENMUS. [i. could agree remaining where they were, scattered everywhere (uhique). But S. Irenaeus uses undique, which seems to denote the normal situation of their various homes, with an implied contrast with their present place of sojourning. Undique would appear to stand here for the ablative, which can be used of the place from which a person comes. Its primd facie meaning is "from all quarters'' not " every- where." It is most natural that the idea conveyed by undique should occur in a sentence in which con- venire ad also occurs ; ^ for the true meaning of con- venire ad implies a journey, and so a change of location. The faithful from all quarters came to Rome on their business ; and they necessarily brought with them, written on their hearts and memories, the apostolic tradition of the faith, which each had learnt in his own local Church. Thus in Rome the tradi- tion of the faith Avas preserved not merely by the local Church — that is, by the Roman clergy and the Roman laity — but there was an inflow of Christians from all the other Churches in the world, and the tradition of the faith was found to be everywhere one, and so the apostolic tradition was preserved with great security in Rome by those who came thither ^ As illustrating this combination of undique with convenire ad in the same sentence, one may compare S. Mark i. 45, where we are told (K. V.) that " Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert places : and they came to him from every quarter " ("et conveniebant ad eum undique" — Vulg.). However, it is fair to point out that in this verse of S. Mark undique is more closely combined with convenire ad, than is the case in the p'lssa^'c fro.'n S. Irenwus. l] the witness of S. IRENMUS. 37 from all quarters.-^ Local exaggeration or one-sided- ness was warded off by the fact that all Churches were present there in the persons of those of their members who had occasion to resort thither. But the faithful everywhere (uhique) scattered over the world could not preserve the apostolic tradition in the Roman Church (in qud).^ They could preserve it in their own Churches. But S. Irenseus says that ' It is worth noting that Koman controversialists, in quoting tho Irenasan passage, sometimes omit the words " ab his qui sunt undique." For example, F. Lockhart omits them in The Old Religion, pp. 30, 31 (3rd edit). No one would accuse F. Lockhart of omitting important words intentionally, but one may fairly suppose that he habitually thought of the passage apart from those words. ^ Messrs. Addis and Arnold {Catholic Dictionary, p. 673, note 3, s.v. " Pope "), translate the IrenaB.in passage thus : " For with this Church, because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree — that is, the faithful everywhere — in which (i.e. in communion with the Eoman Church) the tradition of the apostles has ever been preserved by those everywhere." This interpretation is open to many objections. It deserts the natural interpretation of convenire ad, and gives to that phrase a meaning, which is either impossible or highly improbable. It also deserts the natural meaning of undique; and, finally, it deserts the natural meaning of in qua. The writer of the article in a note says, " ' In qua,' ' in which ' — i.e. ' in union with which,* or ' in the unity of which.' " This is surely a very strained explanation. The writer feels the necessity of justifying his sugges- tion, and quotes three passages in order to do so. He says, " Cf. ' Sa- lutem in, eo dtdit ' (iii. 12. 4): 'Quod perdideramus in Adam* (iii. 18. 1) ; and ' In qua una cathedra [sc. Petri] unitas ab omnibus servaretur ' (Optat. Schism. Don. ii. 2)." In the two passages cited from S. Irenseus the preposition " in " preserves its natural meaning. God gave salvation in Christ ; and we lost in Adam the image of God. But the faithful everywhere are not in the local Church of Rome, except so far as they resort thither. The passages quoted from S. Irenseus do not justify the proposed meaning of '* in." The passage from S. Optatus is more to tho writer's purpose, but it supplies an example of a most unusual meaning of " in," a meaning not to be adopted in other passages except under the stress of absolute necessity. 38 THE WITNESS OF S. IRENMVS. fi. they preserved it in the Roman Church, and that they could only do by resorting thither ; he therefore uses the term uitdique, and not ubique. That Christians from all parts of the world did come to Rome for business purposes in the time of S. Iren?eus is certain. We have already seen that eight Popes in succession had to make arrangements of one sort or another as to when the Asiatic Christians, who might happen to be in Rome, should keep their Easter; and if they came from Asia, no doubt they also came from Antioch, and Alexandria, and Carthage, and Greece, and Gaul. The Abbe Duchesne, a first-rate authority, speaking of the Quarto-deciman Asiatic Christians, says that they came to Rome on secular business.^ He says this incidentally, without any reference to the passage in S. Irenseus. But the matter is too plain to require any laboured proof. It was not only at Rome that the influence and authority of the local Church was increased by the conflux of Christians who flocked to the capital for business purposes. We find the same thing taking place in a less accentuated form in the metropolis of each province. The famous Council of Antioch, of the year 341, says, in its ninth canon, "It is right that the bishops in each province should know that the bishop who presides in the metropolis receives ^ " II y avait tonjoiirs h, Eorae des fideles Asiatiques de passage, appc^les dans la capitale par leiirs affaires, commerciales et autres" {lievue des Qtiestions Uistoriques, torn, xxviii. p. 13. 18(S0), 1.3 THE WITNESS OF S. IRENMUS. 39 also the care of the whole province, because all who have business resort to the metropolis from all quarters; wherefore it seemed good that he should enjoy precedence in dignity."^ The reason given — that " all who have business resort to the metropolis from all quarters " — seems like an echo of the pas- sage in S. Iren98us. The old Latin translation of the canon by Dionysius Exiguus recalls the Latin of the Irensean translator. Dionysius says, "Propter quod ad metropolim omnes imdique, qui negotia videntur habere, concurrant" ^ The principle comes out still more clearly in \ regard to Constantinople, after the imperial court ] had been moved thither from Rome. S. Gregory Nazianzen, in the touching farewell oration which he delivered in the great church of Saint Sophia in the presence of the second Ecumenical Council, when he was resigning the bishopric of Constantinople, de- scribes the imperial city thus : he calls it " the eye of the world, . . . the bond of union between the East and the West, to which the extremities of the earth resort from all quarters {iravTaxod^v awTpixu^ i.e. undique concurrunt), and from whence they start afresh (apx^Tm), as from the common emporium of the faith." ^ The same causes which in 381 gave the proud title of/' the common emporium of the faith" ^ Concilia, torn. ii. col. 589, ed. Coleti, Venet., 1728. a Coleti, ii. 599, 600. ' S. Greg. Naz. Orat. xlii. cap. 10, 0pp. ed. Ben., i. 755. The word upxeraiy as used here, is somewhat difficult of interpretation. Tho Benedictine editors translate it, incipiunt 40 THE WITNESS OF S. IREN^US. [i. to Constantinople, the new Rome on the Bosphorus, operated with similar results in regard to old Rome in the time of S. Irenaeus. If we now return to the Irenaean passage, we see that the whole wording of the passage from beginning to end, and the analogous passages in regard to the chief cities of other provinces, and specially in regard to Constantinople, compel us to interpret S. Irenseus' words of the influx of Christians to Rome as the metropolis of the empire. They came to that great metropolis on account of their secular business, but their presence powerfully reacted on the preservation of the apostolic tradition of the faith in the local Church of Rome, which thus became "the common emporium of the faith." The context, therefore, imperatively demands that we should interpret the fTopter potentiorem principalitatem of the secular dignity and imperial authority of the city of Rome, rather than of any world-wide spiritual jurisdiction in the Church of Rome. The flocking in of men bent on business was produced by the principalitas of the city, not by the principalitas of the Church,'^ though no doubt the ultimate result was to give a primacy of influence to that Church. S. Irenaeus does not here allude to that result. His eye is fixed on the con- servative action in regard to the preservation of the * Doubtless some few, such as Hegesippus or S. Justin Martyr or S. Irenajus, might come to Rome to investigate the Christian tradition in the greatest of tho apostolic Clnirches, but they would be the exception. To limit S. IrenjBus' words to them would be evidently absurd. 1.] THE WITNESS OF S. JREN^US. 41 faith in the Church of Rome, which resulted from the perpetual presence within it of the representatives of all the other local Churches of the world, who neces- sarily had to resort to the city, impelled thither by the pressure of their affairs. Even if, for the sake of argument, we allowed that the potentior principalitas was to be understood of the Church, and not of the city,^ all the more wonderful would be the absence of all reference to the infallible authority of the Pope as the security for the preservation of the apostolic tradition of the faith. That is the point on which S. Irenseus has his eye. He is giving reasons why he enumerates the succession of the Roman bishops rather than the succession of the bishops of other Churches, as guaran- teeing that the apostolic teaching has been con- tinuously handed down. His reasons must seem very tame to those who believe in the Vatican decrees. They would say that by a divine promise the see of S. Peter remains always unharmed by any error, and that the definitions of the Roman pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not through any consent of the Church.^ They would therefore point * I think that every one must, in fairness, concede two things : (1) that, apart from the context, the disputed words would very natu- rally be referred to the Church, which had just been mentioned; and (2), that no one can say that they must refer to the Church. In order that that interpretation should be tlie only possible one, it would have been necessary that S. Ireuaius should have written, *' propter ejus potentiorera principalitatera." It is the context which really settles the matter in favour of the reference to the city. ' " Omiics veuerabilcs Patres . . et sancti Doctores orthodoxi 42 TkE WITNESS OF S. IREN^EUS. [i. the poor gnostic wanderer to that infallible fountain of truth which God has established in the see of Rome. But S. Irenaeus is able to offer no such com- fort. He refers first to the various Churches all over the world as manifesting the apostolic tradition. Then he mentions specially the very great and very ancient Roman Church, and he says that to it, because of the potentior 'principalitcbs, the faithful come flocking in from all quarters, and that the apostolic tradition is preserved in the Roman Church — by whom ? by the infallible Pope ? No ! by these Chris- tians who have come to Rome from the other local Churches. From an Ultramontane point of view, this is truly a tame ending; so tame that we may be quite certain that S. Irenreus knew nothing about papal infallibility. And if he knew nothing about it, that means that S. Polycarp had taught him nothing about it ; and that, again, means that S. Polycarp had learnt nothing about it from S. John. It thus appears that, even on the hypothesis that the potentior principalitas is to be understood of the Church of Rome rather than of the city of Rome, the whole passage witnesses against the modern Roman claims; but I have no shadow of doubt myself that S. Irenaeus, when he wrote the words, , . . plenissiino scientes Lane Sancti Petri sedem ab oiuui semper errore illibatam permanere, secundum Domini Salvatoris nostri pollici- tationem." "Docemus et divinitus revelatum dogma esso definimus . . . Romani Pontificis definitiones ex sese, non autem ex consensu Ecclesiae, irreformabiles esse " (Constit. Dorjmat. Prim, de Ecclcsid Christi, cap. iv. ; Colkctio Lacensis^ vii. 486, 487). I.] THE WITNESS OF S. IREN^US. 4^ intended to describe the imperial authority of the city, and consequently that the passage is silent, not only about the infallibility, but also about the primacy and supremacy of the Roman see.^ I must apologize for having treated this passage at such great length, ^*^Jbut it is a passage of extreme importance in our con- troversy with Rome,^ and I humbly think that the time which has been spent on it has not been wasted. ' Dr. Pusey, in an appended note to his sermon on The Rule of Faith, p. 64, evidently accepts the Benedictine reading "propter poUorem principalilatem," and translates it, "on account of its higher ori>iinaI;'* applying the words to the Church, and not to the city. But, writing in all humility, as befits me, when venturing to differ from so profound a scholar, I am bound to say that the context seems to me to be decisive in favour of applying the words to the city ; and, when the words are so applied, the more generally received reading " potentiorera," makes excellent sense, though *' potiorem " would do as well, or almost as well. I see that Dr. Salmon {Infallibility of the Church, 2nd edit., pp. 381-383) explains the passage exactly as I have explained it; and Bishop Pearson (De Surcess. Prim Rom. Episc.f i. xiii. iv.. Minor Theohqical Works, ii. 429, edit. Churton) does the same, and so does Bishop Stillingfleet {Tiatvmal Account, Part II. chap, vi., Worhs, edit. 1709, vol. iv. pp. 423-426); to whom may be addt d Dr. Cyriacus, a learned ecclesiastical historian belonging to the orthodox Church of Greece (see the Church Quarterly for July, 1882, p. 313): and Dollinger, in his Considerations for the Bishops of the [^Vatican'] Council respecting the question of Papal Infallibility, published in October, 1869 (Declarations and Letters, pp. 15, 16) ; and the Abbe Gruettee (La Papaute Schismatique, pp. 37-45). 2 The author of the article " Pope," in Addis and Arnold's Catho- lic Lictiovary, says (p. 672), " The most important testimony to the authority of Ftomo in the first ages of the Church is that of Irensous ; " and then he proceeds to quote the passage which we have been con- sidering, and he quotes no other. ( 44 ) LECTURE II. THE SEE OF ROME IX THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. — 11. The Clementine Romance, and S. Cyprian. 1 OUGHT now to pass on to the history of S. Cyprian; but it will be well, in the first place, to allude to an event which probably intervened between the time of the writinof of S. Irenaeus' treatise and the time of S. Cyprian, and which had a very far- reaching and a very evil effect on the later fortunes of the Church of Rome. It seemed but a little seed, but it has borne abundant fruit, and that not of a wholesome kind. Towards the end of the second cen- tury, a book found its way to Rome which purported to be written by S. Clement of Rome. It was really a heretical romance, written by some unknown author in the interests of the Ebionitish sect. It has come down to our time in two principal forms — the one called The CWnientine Homilies ; the other, The Clementine Recognitions. But there seems to have been a form older than either of these, which was known as TJie Circuits of Peter.^ To one or more of these editions of the romance wa,s prefixed a spurious epistle, purporting to have been addressed, after the death of * There are also still extant two shorter and probably later forma, commonly called Tlie Epitomes. il] the CLEMENTINE ROMANCE. 45 S. Peter, by S. ^lenaent to S. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and describing how S. Peter, before his death, consecrated S. Clement to be his successor, as Bishop of Rome. In this spurious letter S. Peter is represented as speaking a good deal about his chair ; but it is not the throne of government of the uni- versal Church, but "the chair of discourse,"^ or, as we should say, the pulpit in the local community at Rome.^ S. Peter is represented as saying, shortly 2 According to the Clementine romance, there is a chief ruler of Ilia universal Church ; but the holder of that office is not S. Peter, nor his lloroan successor, S. Clement, but S. James, the Lord's brother, " the hiihop of hisliops, who rules Jerusalem, the holy Church of the Hebrews, and the Churches everywhere excellently founded by the Providence of God " (Epistle of Clement to James, in the salutation). S. Peter receives a charge from S, James to send to him his discourses and his acts year by year (see Homilies, i. 20, and Recognitions, i. 72). Apostles, teachers, and prophets, who do not first accurately compare their preaching with that of James, are to be shunned (see Homilies, xi. 35). They are not to be believed " unless they bring from Jerusa- lem the testimonial of James, the Lord's brother, or of ichosoever may come after him " (Recognitions, iv. 35). James is styled " the arch- bishop" (Recognitions, i. 73). S. Peter says, "Widle we abode in Jericho . . . James the bishop sent for me, and sent me here to Caesarea '* (Recognitions, i. 72). Altogether, S. Peter is represented as quite subordinate to S. James. Before S. Peter leaves Caesarea to start on his missionary circuits, he consecrates ZacchsBus to be bia successor at Caesarea, compelling him "to sit down in his own chair" (HomilieSf in. 63). The account of Zaccliaeus' nomination and conse- cration to the bishopric of Caesarea (Homilies, iii. 60-72) is curiously like the account of the consecration of Clement to the bishopric of Kome, as given in the letter to James. In both cases it is a consecra- tion to a local bishopric, and not to a monarchy over the universal Church. Taken as a whole, the Clementine romance is entirely un- Petrine and un-Koman. Nevertheless, there are two points in it, on" which the Roman Church fastened. It teaches that S. Peter was tho local Bishop of Rome; and it teaches that S. Clement and tiierefore also the other popes wore S. Peter's successors in his Roman chair. 46 THE CLEMENTINE ROMANCE, [n. before his death, to the assembly of Roman Chris- tians, " Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. Since » . . the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands on this Clement as your bishop ; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse," etc.-^ Then Clement is repre- sented as kneeling before S. Peter, and entreating him, declining the honour and the authority of the chair.^ However, S. Peter insists ; and, after giving a somewhat lengthy charge, he lays his hands on Clement, and compels him " to sit in his own chair." ^ All this is, of course, pure romance. No one now dreams of attaching the smallest importance to the story as being in any way historically true ; but in the third and fourth and following centuries it was accepted as true. Even when the discourses and teacliing attributed to S. Peter were perceived to be heretical, and were rejected, yet the framework of the story was supposed to be a true account of what had actually happened. Now, it appears that one great object of the author of the romance was to depreciate S. Paul S. Peter is represented as speaking of S. Paul as " the man who is my enemy," who leads the Gentiles to reject "my preaching of the law."* S. Paul's ' See The, Epistle of Clemtnt to James (prefixed to The Clementine Homilies), cap. ii., Clem. Rom. Homilise^ cd. Dressel, p. 11. - Cf. cap. iii., p. 12. ^ €^S. Paul has disappeared, and it is evident that the Clementine romance is already exerting its baleful influence. According to that romance, Clement was placed by S. Peter in his oiun chair ; Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and Clement was the second. The real inventor of the story of S. Peter's Roman episcopate appears to have been the unknown heretic who wrote the romance.^ When we pass from the ' I)e Prescript. Hser.y cap. xxxii. The next writer after Tertullian, who mentions S. Peter's name without the name of S. Paul as the starting-point from which to number the Roman bishops, appears to be the anonymous author of the treatise called The Little Labyrinth, quoted by Eusebius (U. E., v. 28). Bishop Lightfoot (S. Clement of Rome, i. 271 ; ii. 378-380, ed. 1890) is much inclined to identify this author with S. Hippolytus. Dr. Salmon (Smith and Wace, iii. 98) argues against the Hippolytan authorship, and ascribes the treatise to Caius, who was a contemporary of S. Hippolytus. In their time the popular acceptance of the Clementine myth at Kome had resulted in the omission of S. Paul's name, when the succession of the Eoman bishops was being traced up to its source. '^ Dr. Cyriacus, Professor in the University of Athens, in his Ecclesiastic d History (1881), takes the same view (see Church Quar- terly for July, 1882, p. 312) ; so also does Dr. Salmon {Infallibility, p. 360, 2nd edit.; and Introduction to the New Testament, p. 15, 4th edit. 1889) ; and apparently Bishop Lightfoot agrees. Pie says, " The Eastern Romance of the Clementines, however, made him [Clement] the immediate successor of S.Peter, and so first on the list. . . . TJiis story was so flattering to the corporate pride of the Roman Christians in the unique position which it assigned to Clement, that it rapidly spread and largely influenced popular opinion in Rome"(-S'. Clement of Rome, i. 344; and compare ii. 501, 502, ed. 1890). E 56 THE CLEMENTINE ROMANCE. [n. second century into the third, we must be on the watch for references to the chair or see of Peter. No one had any suspicion that the Clementine romance was a lie invented by a heretic. The story was accepted on all sides. Some like S. Cyprian accepted it, but without allowing it to modify to any appreciable degree the traditional teaching of the Church. Others, more closely connected with the Church of Rome, fastened on the notion of the chair of Peter, and used that notion to provide an apostolic basis for the growing claims of the Roman see. I do not wish to be misunderstood ; I firmly believe, on what seems to me conclusive evidence, that the Roman Church was founded by the two great apostles, S. Peter and S. Paul, who also were martyred there, and whose bodies remain there to this day. But it is one thing for two apostles jointly to found a Church, and it is another thing for one of them to be its first local bishop. S. Peter and S. Paul were the apostolic founders; S. Linus was the first local bishop ; and, as S. Irenaeus says, the ministry of the episcopate was committed to him by the two apostles If the author of the Clementine romance had not been an Ebionitish heretic, with an inherited hatred of the memory of S. Paul, the world would never have heard of the chair of Peter. It is strange how, from the very first, the Roman claims have been based upon forgeries.^ ^ It is worth noticing that the spurious Epistle of Clemout io James, which eo misled Western Christians in the early centuries, was 11.J ^. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. St I now invite your attention to the history of S. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and I hope to make clear to you how, from beginning to end, his whole action is absolutely inconsistent with the teaching =''"*^. about the papacy set forth in the Vatican decrees. I have already pointed out the way in which S. Cj^prian corresponds with the various popes with whom he was contemporary, on terms of complete equality. He speaks of them and addresses them as his brothers and his colleagues. And it must not be supposed that this familiar style of address was due to the primitive simplicity of the Christians of that age. On the contrary, when the priests and deacons of Rome have occasion to write to S. Cyprian, they conclude their letter thus : " Most blessed and most glorious Pope, we bid you ever heartily farewell in the Lord."^ And again, when the same priests and deacons of Rome, writing to the clergy of Carthage, have occasion to refer to S. Cyprian, they say: "We have learnt . . . that the blessed Pope Cyprian has, for a certain reason, retired." ^ It is clear, therefore, that, whatever may have been the simplicity of Christians in the third century, it did not preclude the use of respectful titles in letters to by no means forgotten in the Middle Ages. The pseudo-Isidore set it in the fore-front of his collection of papal decretals : of. Dtcretalcs Pseudo-lsidor., ed. Hinsch., 1863, pp. 30-36. ^ " Beatissime et gloriosissime Papa." Ep. cler. Komani ad Cypri- cmum, inter Cyprianicas xxxi., 0pp. ed. Ben., p 45. - "Benedictum Papam Cyprianum." Ep. cler. Kom. ad cler. Car- thag., inter Cyprianicas ii., 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 7. 52 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [ii. persons in authority; and we may safely draw the conclusion that when S. Cyprian, writing to the Boman bishop, calls him his dear brother and colleague, he so writes because he naturally thinks of the Roman pope as an equal ; whereas the priests and deacons of Rome, the body of officials, which is now known as the College of cardinals, realized that S. Cyprian, as a bishop, was exceedingly superior to themselves in rank, and that it was their duty to address him with words of reverential respect, such as " most blessed Pope," " most glorious Pope," and the like. The episode in S. Cyprian's life which throws most light on his view of the relation of the Roman see to the rest of the Church, is undoubtedly his controversy with Pope Stephen about the validity of heretical baptism. But it will be well to refer first of all to some other incidents in his career, w^hich took place at an earlier stage, and were un- connected with the heat of controversy, so that we may be in a position to judge whether his action in regard to Stephen was a new departure, or whether it was not rather the carrying out of his normal principles. We will take first a passage from one of his letters to Pope Cornelius, part of which is usually quoted by Roman Catholics as decidedly in their favour. Their view proceeds from a misconception as to the meaning of certain words which S. Cyprian uses. The passage, taken as a whole, is irreconcilable with the papal ir.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 53 system. S. Cyprian is writing to the pope to warn him against a ringleader of schism named Fortu- natus, who had been consecrated to be an opposition Bishop of Carthage by an excommunicated heretic bishop named Privatus. These schismatics had already been condemned by a large council of Catholic bishops held at Carthage under S. Cyprian's presidency. But now, having secured the consecration of their ring- leader, they sent legates to Rome to try and induce Cornelius to recognize them as the true Church of North Africa. A short time before a similar schism had broken out in Rome. Cornelius had been con- secrated pope, and the schismatics had consecrated Novatian to be opposition pope ; and both pope and anti-pope had sent legates to Carthage to induce Cyprian to declare himself on their side, and to grant them his communion. Noio the parts were reversed, and Carthage was the scene of the schism. As soon as Cyprian heard that the schismatics of Carthage had sent legates to Rome, he wrote to Cornelius, his " dearest brother," to put him on his guard. He says, "Having had a pseudo-bishop ordained for them by heretics, they dare to set sail, and to carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter, atqiie ad ecclesiaTn principalem, unde unitas sacer- dotalis exorta est"'^ I need say nothing about the expression, " chair of Peter," as applied to the see of ^ " And to the mother-Clmrch [of the West], whence the united body of [Western] bishops sprang." JSp. Iv., ad Cornelium, 0pp. ed« Ben., p. 86. 54 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [ii. Rome. By the time of S. Cyprian Western Christians had learnt from the Clementine romance to apply the title to the Roman see. But what does S. Cyprian exactly mean, when he describes the Roman Church as the " ecclesia principalis, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est " ? I have no doubt that he means that the Roman Church is the mother-Church of Italy and Africa, whence the whole episcopate of those countries was derived. The word "principalis" is used by African writers in the sense of ancient or 'prhncGval. So Tertullian, wishing to state that truth comes first and falsehood afterwards, con- trasts the " 'princijpalitas YQriiQiis>^' with the '' poste- ritas mendacitatis ; " ^ in other words, the " antiquity of truth" with the "lateness of falsehood."^ The "ecclesia principalis" is the ]prini(Bval Church, the mother-ChMYoh. ; in the words of S. Irenseus, " that very ancient Church, founded at Rome." ^ Not, of course, that S. Cyprian thought that the Church of Rome was the mother- Church of the world. Ob- viously that would not be true. The Church of Jerusalem is necessarily the mother-Church of the whole world. To use the words of S. Irenoeus,'^ the Church of Jerusalem is "that Church from ^Y]lieJl ^ Tert. Be Pnescr., xxxi. * Compare S. Augustine's use of the word prlncipale in a passage quoted on p. 102, and see the ancient Latin translation of S. Ireiitous, Contra omnes Hssrems^ v. xiv. 1, 2; v. xxi. ]. Dii Caiige, in liis Olossarium^ s.v. " Principalis," interprets the word to mean '• Primns, primajvus, antiquior" (torn. v. p. 417, tdit. IS 15). ' Contra omnes IJxreses, in. iii. 2. * iii. xii. o. II,] .S*. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 55 every Church had its origin : " it is " the metropolis, the mother-city of the citizens of the new covenant." But, though the Church of Rome is not the mother- Church of the world, yet it is the mother-Church of Italy and of Africa and of the greater part of the West. The original bishops who evangelized Africa were no doubt consecrated at Rome.^ The episcopate of Italy and Africa issued out from Rome. S. Cyprian often calls the united episcopate, either of the whole Church or of some notable part of it, by such terms as these, " collegium sacerdotale," " col- legium sacerdotum;" here he uses the expression, ^'unitas sacerdotalis." ^ He means by all these ex- pressions the episcopal body, considered as forming * Cf. S. Greg. Magn., Begistr. Epistt. lib. viii., Ep. xxxiii. ad Bominicum^ 0pp. ed. Ben., 1705, torn. ii. col. 921. " Cf. Ep. Hi. ad Antonianum, 0pp. ed. Ben., pp. 66-76. Compare Hincmar (De divortio HI. et Theut), quoted by Milman (Latin Christianity, ii. 292, note, 2a(l edit., 1857) : " Nostra setate Hludovicum Aiiirustum a regno dejectum, post satisfactionem, episcopalis unani' mitaa, saniore cnncilio, cum populi consensu, et ecclesise et regno restituit." Compar*^ also the letter of the bishops of (Northern) Italy to the bishops of lUyricum, preserved in the 12th Hilarian Frag- ment {0pp. S. Hilar. Pictav., ed. Ben., 1693, col. 1359) ; they say, " Quicumque igitur nostrx unanimitntis optat habere consortium . . . qua) sunt nostrse sententiso comprobare festinet." I am not aware that the genuineness of this letter lias been questioned ; but, whether genuine or not, it illustrates S. Cyprian's expression, " unitas sacer- dotalis." A still better illustration may perhaps be found in S. Aujj;us- tine's statement about the promise of the keys to S. Peter. In his 295th Sermon (0pp. ed. Ben., 1683, v. 1194) he says, "Has enim claves non homo unus, sed unitas accepit Ecclesix.*' Here "unitas Ecclesise '* evidently means, not the unity of the Church in the ab- stract, but the united society or body of the Church. It was the society which received the keys, not an attribute of the society. Similarly, S. Cyprian's " unitas sacerdotalis " meaus the united bod^' of the bishops. 56 S. CYFJ^IAI\rS WITNESS, [ii. a imify. Some Roman Catholic writers have sup^ posed that S. Cyprian is intending to teach that the Roman see is the perennial fountain of unity. But the original Latin will not bear that interpretation. S. Cyprian does not say, "unde unitas sacerdotalis exoriticr," but "unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est" He is referring to a historical fact which took place long before, namely, the original derivation of the true canonical episcopate of North Africa from the mother-Church of the West.^ But to return to S. Cyprian's letter to Cornelius. After referring to S. Paul's commendation (in his Epistle to the Romans)^ of the faith of the Roman Christians, he goes on, " But what is the occasion of the schismatics going to you, and of their announcing that a pseudo- bishop has been set up against the true bishops ? for either they are well pleased with what they have done, and persevere in their wickedness ; or, if it dis- pleases them and they desist [from their schism], they know whither they should return."^ He meant to say, " What is the good of their going to Rome ? If they want to be restored to the unity of the Church they ought to know that they must come to me and my colleagues here in Africa." He shows that this is » Mr. Gore (The Church and the Ministry, 1st edit, p. 169, n.), speaking of the words " unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est," says, " These last words mean, I suppose, simply that Peter's priestliood was the first given." Such an interpretation harmonizes thoroughly witli S. Cyprian's general teaching, but I feel a difficulty about referring the word "unde " to " Petri; " it seems more natural to refer it to the whole phrase, "Petri cathedram atque . . . ecclesiam principalem." ' pom. i. 8. ' Fp. Iv. ad Cornelium, Ojip. cd. Ben., p SQ, n.l S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 57 his meaning by the words which follow. He says, "For since it has been decreed by our whole body, and is alike equitable and just, that every cause should be there heard where the offence has been committed ; and a portion of the flock has been assigned to the several shepherds, which each is to rule and govern, having hereafter to give account of his administration to the Lord ; it therefore behoves those over whom we are set, not to run about from place to place, nor, by their crafty and deceitful bold- ness, break the harmonious concord of bishops, but there to plead their cause, where they will have both accusers and witnesses of their crime; unless jperhajps some few desperate and abandoned men count as inferior the authority of the bishops appointed in Africa, who have already given judgment concerning them, and have lately, by the weight of their decision, condemned those persons' consciences, entangled in the bonds of many sins. Already has their cause been heard; already has sentence been given con- cerning them." In this passage S. Cyprian says that African Christians have no right " to run about from place to place," and appeal from the judgment of the African bishops to the Roman pope. He thus flatly contradicts the decree of the Vatican Council, which declares that " in all causes which appertain to the jurisdiction of the Church," " recourse may be had to the judgment of the Roman pontiff;" and we must observe that the Council bases this declaration on the fact that the pope "presides over the universal S8 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [u. Church " "by the divine, right of the apostolic pri- macy." ^ If the theory about the papacy set forth by the Vatican Council is right, S. Cyprian was guilty of repudiating one of the prerogatives of ''the true vicar of Christ," which flows immediately from his divinely given primacy of jurisdiction. Nay, S. Cyprian goes further ; he implies that no Christians are likely to consider the Roman pope to have a better right than the African bishops to deal finally with the case of these African schismatics, except " some few desperate and abandoned men." ^ i^ is for Ultramontanes, who profess to venerate S. Cyprian and the early Church, to consider whether they are prepared to accept his teaching on this point ; and if not, why not. From the Ultramontane point of view, S. Cyprian is dealing with no minor matter, but with the fundamental question of the relation of the divinely appointed head of the Church to the subordinate members. And then consider. To whom did S. Cyprian write these clear statements of truth ? He wrote them to S. Cornelius, the pope ; and he begs the pope to read this letter of his to the clergy and people of the local Church of Rome. He says, " Though I am aware, dearest brother, that by reason of the mutual love which we owe and manifest towards each other, you always read my epistles to ' See p. G. ~ The principle laid down by S. Cyprian in the passage disciissod iu the text was still in full force in tlie African Church 170 years later, ill the time of S. Aurclius and S. Augustine. Compare the letter of t!ic Council of Carthage to Pope Celestiue, quoted on p. 19D. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 59 the very eminent clergy who there preside with you, and to your most holy and flourishing people ; yet now I both exhort and beg of you, to do at my re- quest, what on other occasions you do of your own accord and of courtesy, and read this my epistle."^ Evidently S. Cyprian knew perfectly well that there was nothing in his letter which would give pain to S. Cornelius. The Catholic teaching concerning the true method of the Church's government was held at Rome in those days, no less clearly than at Carthage.^ * E'p. cit, 0pp., p. 89. If S. Cyprian liad thought that he was bound to the authority of the pope " by the obligation of true obedi- ence," "svhy does he speak only of " the mutual love, which we owe and manifest towards each other"? It would seem more natural for a fallible subordinate, writing to his infallible superior, to allude in some way to the great condescension shown by that superior in making a practice of reading publicly the subordinate's letters in the assemblies of his local Church. S. Cyprian's words are perfectly appropriate, if he was writing to an equal ; they seem very inappro- priate, if he was writing to the vicar of Christ, the monarch of the militant Church. "An incidental proof of the fact that the Cyprianic principles of Churcli government were held at Eome in that age, is supplied by a letter addressed by the Eoman clergv to S. Cyprian during a vacancy of the Koman see. S. Cyprian had written to them, giving an account of his resolutions about the treatment of the lapsed. In their reply they say, " To Pope Cyprian, the priests and deacons abiding at Eome send greeting. Although a mind conscious to itself of uprightness, and relying on the vigour of evangelical discipline, and made a true witness to itself in regard to [its fulfilment of] the divine command- ments, is accustomed to be satisfied with God as its only Judge, and neither seeks the praises nor fears the charges of any other; yet they are worthy of double praise, who, knowing that their conscience is subject to God as its only Judge, do yet desire that their acts should have their brethren's approval" (Ep. clcri Romani ad Cyprianum, inter Cyprianicas xxxi., 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 42). If the Archbishop of Paris were to write to the authorities at Rome in the present day during a vacancy in the papal see, reporting the arrangements mado 6o S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [ii. The whole Church would have agreed in repudiating the false theories set forth by the Vatican Council. I am not professing to write an exhaustive mono- graph on S. Cyprian's teaching about the government of the Church; and it is impossible for me, within the limits assigned to me, to attempt to deal with the various misrepresentations of his sentiments which have been from time to time devised by Roman Catholic controversialists.^ A careful consideration of the context, or of parallel passages in other writings of his, will generally suffice to make his meaning clear. Any one who wishes to go more fully into the subject will find much to help him in Archbishop Laud's Conference with Fisher, and also in a review of Wilherforce on the Supremacy, which appeared in the Christian Remembrancer for April, 1855. I proceed to give an account of an incident in S. Cyprian's life, which has been represented as bearing witness to the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman see.^ The facts of the case are these : — Marcianus, Bishop of Aries, had joined himself to the Novatian schism, by him in regard to an important question of discipline, they would hardly return the answer which their predecessors in the third century returned to S. Cyprian. There would probably be some reference to the fact that a pope would soon be elected, who would be able to ratify what the archbishop had done ; and there would assuredly bo no stress laid on the principle that the judgment of the archbishop is subject to God only, nor surprise expressed at his having reported to Rome tlie determinations at which he had arrived. * In the Appendix to these Lectures I have dealt with those Cyprianic passages which have been twisted into a Roman sense (see Note B, with its Addendum^ pp. 334-363). 2 Our knowledge of this incident is entirely derived from S. Cyprian's Ep. Ixvii. ad Stephanum, 0pp. ed. Ben., pp. llo-rll7. n.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 6l but still retained his position as chief pastor of the Church in Aries. It appears that metropolitans were not instituted in Gaul until the end of the fourth century or the beginning of the fifth.^ There was, therefore, no leading bishop in Gaul to take the initiative in proceeding against Marcianus. No doubt in such a case any bishop would have the right to take steps for bringing about the assembly of a council. But, as often happens on similar occasions, what is everybody's business is no one's business. People are shy of putting themselves forward. More- over, Tillemont ^ thinks that possibly the bishops of Gaul had never had occasion to depose a bishop before, and that they would, therefore, wish to be supported by the authority of the leading prelates of the Church in other countries before they girded themselves for their task. Anyhow, the bishops of Gaul, and amongst them Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote to Pope Stephen, the second successor of S. Cornelius, asking him, apparently, to give them advice and guidance in their difficulty. The Bishop of Rome was the natural person for the bishops of Gaul to write to. He was not only the first bishop in the whole Church, but he was also the nearest metropolitan to Gaul, and his see was the nearest ' Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chrd'tien, p. 31. See also the re- marks of the Ballerini in their Ohservationes in Dissert, v. Quesnell., part. ii. cap. v. (0pp. S. Leon., torn. ii. coll. 607, et seq., ed. Migne), and in their disquisition, De Antiq. collection, et collector, canonunt, part i. cap. V. § 4 (Opp. S. LeoQ., iii. 43, 44). 2 iv. 132. 62 ^. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [ii. apostolical see to them, and, in fact, the only apos- tolical see in the West. If any help was to be got from outside, Rome was the obvious place for the Galilean bishops to apply to. Doubtless if Gaul had been situated near Egypt, the bishops of Gaul would, under similar circumstances, have applied for help and counsel to the Bishop of Alexandria.^ Or if it had been near Syria, they would have gone to the Bishop of Antioch. It w^ould seem as if Stephen had been somewhat remiss in giving the advice for which he had been asked. The Bishop of Lyons, therefore, wrote more than one letter to S. Cyprian at Car- thage, who was the second great metropolitan in the Latin-speaking portion of the Church ; and S. Cyprian came to the conclusion that he would write to Stephen to urge him to help the afflicted Church of Gaul. No doubt S. Cyprian held that he had a perfect right to help that Church himself. But as he Avas living far away, and had only heard from Faustinus, whereas Stephen was near at hand, and had had an appli- cation from all the Galilean bishops, it was more fitting that the answer should come from Stephen. In his letter to Stephen, S. Cyprian begins by laying- down the principle that it is the duty of the bishops generally to give their help in such a case : ' It is ours, dearest brother, to advise and come in aid. . . . Wherefore it behoves you to write a very full letter to our fellow-bishops established in Gaul, that they no longer suffer the froward and proud Marcianus ... to * See note on p. 14. ti.] ^. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS, ^^ insult over our college {i.e. the Catholic episcopate), because he seemeth as yet not to be excommunicated by us, who this long while boasts and publishes that ... he has separated himself from our com- munion. . . . How idle were it, dearest brother, when Novatian has been lately repulsed and cast back and excommunicated by the priests of God throughout the world, were we now to suffer his flatterers still to mock us, and to judge respecting the majesty and dignity of the Church ! Let letters be addressed from thee to the Province \i.e. the region of Gaul in which Aries is situated], and to the people dwelling at Aries, whereby, when Marcianus has been excommunicated, another may be substituted in his room, and the flock of Christ ... be again collected too^ether." ^ Thus S. Cyprian presses on Stephen the duty of writing a letter of counsel and help to those who had begged to be advised and helped. It was not the case of a new heresy or schism arising ; that could hardly have been settled without a council of bishops. Nor was it a case in which the facts were doubtful. Mar- cianus himself boasted that he had separated himself from the Catholic communion. All that was needed was that the bishops of Gaul should be encouraged to do their duty and excommunicate their erring brother, and that then a new bishop should be elected, and consecrated, and be peaceably accepted by the Church people of Aries. But again I must point out that, while S. Cyprian thought that, under » Ej). cit.i Opp.f pp. 115, IIG. 64 6-. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [ii. the circumstances, Stephen was the appropriate person to convey the counsel of the Church at large to the Galilean brethren, he takes good care to make it clear that essentially the duty was one which might have been discharged by any other bishop, whose advice might have been asked. He does not write to Stephen in the style of the Vatican decrees. He does not say, " You have the ' full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church,' and this your ' power is ordinary and immediate over all and each of the Churches, and over all and each of the pastors and of the faithful ; ' " ^ but he says, " For therefore, dearest brother, is the body of bishops so large, united together by the glue of mutual concord and the bond of unity, that if any of our college should attempt to introduce heresy . , . the rest may come in aid, and as good and merciful shepherds gather the Lord's sheep into the fold. . . . For what greater or better office have bishops, than by diligent solicitude and wholesome remedies to provide for cherishing and preserving the sheep ? . . . For al- though we are many shepherds, yet we feed one flock, and ought to gather together and cherish all the sheep which Christ has acquired by His own Blood and Passion. . , . Signify plainly to us who has been substituted at Aries in the room of Marcianus, that we may know to whom we should direct our brethren, and to whom w^rite. I bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily farewell."^ It seems almost * Collectio Lacensis, vii. 485. ' Ejp. oif., Ojyp., pp. IIG, 117. llj S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 65 incredible that any one should have discovered in this letter of S. Cyprian an argument for the modern Roman claims. Every sentence in it, almost, is a contradiction of the papal theory. The pope is urged, no doubt, to write and give his advice ; but it is carefully pressed upon him that he is to write as one of the College of bishops, to all of whom it belongs to provide for the. cherishing and preserving of the sheep. H.e is to write, because application has been specially made to him. If the application had been made to S. Cyprian by the bishops of Gaul, un- doubtedly he would have felt that he was fully entitled to do all that was necessary. About the same time he did receive a similar application from some of the Churches in Spain, and he wrote very vigorously to them, bidding them abide by the action of the bishops of their province, and pay no atten- tion to a mistaken dictum of Pope Stephen. But in the present instance the application of the Galilean episcopate had been made to Stephen, and therefore S. Cyprian had no locus standi for directly inter- fering. Rather more than a hundred years afterwards, in A.D. 390, we find the bishops of Gaul again in need of external help and counsel. They were still without the full metropolitical system. But by that time Milan had become the metropolitical see of North Italy, and Milan was nearer to Gaul than Rome. The Galilean bishops, therefore, applied for advice and help to S. Ambrose of Milan, as well as F b^ 3. CYPklAN'S WITNESS. \ii, to Siricius of Kome ; and they got what they needed from the two great prelates to whom they wrote. The trouble which was then disturbino: them was very similar to the trouble about Marcianus. It had to do with the schism of the Ithacians. Eleven years later the Ithacian question came again to the front, and the Galilean bishops applied this time to S. Venerius, the second successor of S. Ambrose, and to him only.^ The council of the bishops of the province of Milan was held at Turin, and in its sixth canon it decreed as follows : " If any should wish to separate themselves from the communion of Felix [the friend of the Ithacians], they shall be received into the fellowship of our peace, in accordance with the former letters of Ambrose of blessed memory, and of the bishop of the Roman Church." ^ Here we notice that Milan is put first, and Rome second. Doubtless this order would have been unusual outside the province of Milan; but in that province it was the natural order to use, so long as the Catholic system of Church government prevailed. The bishops of Milan and Rome were brother-metropolitans, and the Milanese prelate was more to the bishops of the Milanese province than the Bishop of Rome was. They therefore naturally gave him precedence in their own province. Of course, if the Fathers of the * Hefele gives a.d. 401 as the date of the Council of Turin. Sir- mondus (ap. Golet.^ ii. 1387), Tillemont (x. 679), and Duchesne (^Origines^ p. 34) agree that it was a Provincial Council of the province of Milan. 2 Concilia, ii. 1383, ed. Colcti. 11.3 ^. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 67 Council had supposed that the Bishop of Rome was the infallible vicar of Christ, having immediate epis- copal jurisdiction in Milan, Turin, and everywhere else, they would certainly have given a different turn to the wording of their canon. But those dreams had not then been invented. Let us now return to S. Cyprian. We have a letter written by him in the name of a Council of African bishops to certain Churches in Spain, which needed comfort and help.^ Two Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, had in the course of the Decian persecution become what was technically called '' libellatics ; " in other words, they had made an unworthy and sinful compromise with idolatry. S. Cyprian tells us that in the public proceedings before the ducenary procurator Martialis had appeared, and had put in a declaration that he had denied Christ and had conformed to idolatrous worship. Basilides must have made some com- promise of a similar kind, for they had both " been contaminated with the profane lihellus of idolatry." Martialis had also joined himself to one of the heathen collegia or guilds, and had in connection with this guild frequented for a long while " the foul and filthy feasts of the Gentiles ; " Avhile Basilides, when lying sick, had blasphemed against God ; and there were many other heinous sins in which both had become implicated. Basilides, pricked by his * Ep. Ixviii., ad clerum et plehee in Hispania consistentes^ 0pp. ed. Ben., pp. 117-121. 68 ^. CyPRIAI^'S WITNESS, [ii. conscience, had confessed his blasphemy, and had voluntarily laid down his bishopric, and had betaken himself to do penance, accounting himself most happy if he might hope to be admitted some day to lay com- munion. It appears that Basilides' resignation was accepted by the bishops of the province, and that Martialis was by them deposed and excommunicated ; and the vacant sees were soon filled by the conse- cration of Sabinus as successor to Basilides, and of Felix as successor to Martialis. Afterwards Basilides went to Rome and deceived Pope Stephen, who was ignorant of the true state of the case, and admitted him to communion as a bishop of the Church ; ^ and Basilides, furnished with letters of communion from the pope, returned to Spain and canvassed to be restored to the see which he had resigned. Martialis seems to have followed the same course. At any rate, in some way, not fully described, he tried by ^ A question may be raised as to the precise'character of the pope's action in this case ; whether, that is, he simply admitted the deposed bishops to his communion, notwithstanding the sentence of the Spanish bishops, which would be bad enough; or whether he attempted in any way to declare authoritatively that they were restored to their bishoprics, which would be far worse. The learned French Roman Catholic theologian, Dupin, in the appendix to the 5th (a1. Gth) volume of the Nouvelle Bibliotheque dea Auteurs Ecdesiastiques (pp. 185-188), argues in favour of the first of these explanations. Whatever it was that the pope did, S. Cyprian and the African bishops held that it was wrong, and advised the Spanish bishops to ignore it. In the text I have preferred to take the more charitable view of Stephen's action. On pp. 70, 71 will be found a short account of a similar application made by the " Tall Brothers " to S. Chrysostom, whose action was much more in accordance with the canons than was that of Stephen II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS, 69 " deceit " to get put back into his bishopric. Certain bishops, following the pope's bad example, admitted both Basilides and Martialis to their communion. The result of all this was that the Churches in Spain were thrown into confusion; and in their trouble they wrote to S. Cyprian for his advice and aid. Their application was discussed in a synod, consist- ing of thirty-seven African bishops, over whom S. Cyprian presided. It is interesting to observe what action S. Cyprian and the African synod took. Did they say with the Vatican Council that " the judgment of the apostolic see cannot be revised by any one, and that no one may pass judgment on its decisions " ? Did they say that "all the pastors and all the faithful are bound to the pope by the obligation of true obedience " ? Did they therefore exhort the Spanish Catholics to restore the deposed bishops to communion, and to take counsel with the pope as to their being reinstated in their sees ? or, if that seemed impossible, did they suggest that a humble petition should be sent to Rome, begging that the case might be reheard ? They say nothing of the kind. They say that Felix and Sabinus are in full canonical possession of their sees; and that the mistaken action of the pope "cannot rescind an ordination rightly performed." They say that the effect of what took place at Rome was not to efface but to increase the crimes of Basilides. They say that, although some of the bishops (and the pope was one of them) think that the heavenly discipline of 70 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [ii. the Church is to be neglected, and rashly com- municate with Basilides and Martialis, this ought not to disturb our faith, since the Holy Spirit threatens such bishops in the Psalms, saying, " But thou hatest to be reformed, and hast cast My words behind thee : when thou sawest a thief, thou consentedst unto him, and hast been partaker with the adulterers." They express their belief that these bishops, who are mingled in unlawful communion with sinners who abstain from doing penance, are polluted with the commerce of the guilty, and being joined in the guilt are not separate in the punishment. Finally, they exhort the Spanish Catholics to pay no heed to the action of the pope, and to refuse to communicate with the two profane and polluted bishops, who had been deposed. The whole incident illustrates admirably the Catholic system of Church government. The sentence of the synod of the province is held to be final. The pope's decision in regard to a matter which had taken place outside his jurisdiction, is considered to have no force in itself. It is neither able to reverse nor suspend the decision of the province. The Spanish Churches are exhorted to ignore it ; and all who act upon it are warned that they will share in the guilt and in the punishment of the miserable men whose actions had caused all the trouble. We learn also from this incident that when any Church was in trouble, it could apply for help to any foreign Church which it might select.^ It might apply to Rome, if it * ChuroU history is full of the records of such applications, macio n.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS, 71 chose, as the bishops of Gaul did in the case of Marcianus ; but it might apply also to Carthage, if it preferred that course, as the Catholics of Spain did in the present instance. The African bishops had normally no right to exercise jurisdiction in Spain, any more than the Bishop of Kome had either in Spain or in Gaul; but they could give advice and comfort, and could help to strengthen the Spanish Churches in maintaining the wholesome discipline of the gospel. S. Cyprian's action in this Spanish dispute is an admirable illustration of what S. Gregory Nazianzen meant, when he said that Cyprian " presided not only over the Church of Carthage and over Africa, . . . but also over all the countries of the West, and over nearly all the regions of the East and of the South and of the North." ^ It is scarcely necessary to add that this presidency which S. Cyprian exercised was not (outside of Africa) a presidency of jurisdiction, but a presidency of love and honour, and, as a consequence, of influence. either by Churches or by individuals. To name one celebrated case, ■which occurred about a century and a half later. When the " Tall Brothers " had been most unjustly excommunicated by Theophilus of Alexandria, thoy took refuge with S. Chrysostom at Constantinople, who very rightly refused to admit them to the participation of the Mysteries, until their case had been judicially investigated ; but he permitted them to be present at the Holy Sacrifice among the con- sistentes ; and he wrote to Theophilus, " desiring him to receive them back into communion, as their sentiments concerning the Divine Nature were orthodox" (cf. Sozomen., H.E., viii. 13). It need hardly be said that S. Chrysostom had no jurisdiction over Theophilus. » Oral., xxiv. 12, 0pp. eel. Ben., i. 445, 72 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS, [ii. Hitherto 1 have been speaking about acts and words of S. Cyprian, which are generally held to have preceded the breaking out of the quarrel between Carthage and Rome on the subject of the validity of heretical baptism.^ Let us now proceed to consider the light which that quarrel throws on the position of the see of Rome in the Cyprianic age. I shall not attempt to go fully into the con- troversy, but shall confine myself strictly to that which has a bearing on our general subject. The rough outline of the dispute must be familiar to every one here. S. Cyprian, and the African bishops generally, rebaptized converts from the sects, whether they had been previously baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity or not. The Africans considered that all baptism administered by persons living in heresy or schism was invalid. With the Africans agreed the bishops of Asia Minor, under which term I include Phrygia, Cappadocia, Cilicia, and other neighbouring provinces. The Roman Church accepted the baptism of heretics and schismatics as valid when the right form was used, and refused to rebaptize converts from heresy or schism, but admitted them into the Church, after proof of repentance and faith, by con- firmation. Both sides appealed confidently to ancient tradition and custom. S. Firmilian, Bishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia, says that the custom of rebaptizing heretics, which was maintained in Asia Minor, was * Possibly, however, the case of the Spanish bishops may have occurred during the baptismal controversy^. n.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 73 based on that which had been " delivered by Christ and His apostles."^ "Nor do we," he says, "re- member that this ever had a beginning among us, since it has ever been observed here." On the other hand, the very able author of the treatise Be Beho.ptismate speaks of the usage upheld by Stephen as agreeing with " most ancient custom, and with the tradition of the Church," and as being " an old and memorable and most established observ- ance of all the veteran saints and believers," and which has in its favour "the authority of all the Churches." ^ Both sides had a great deal to say for themselves. We in England at the present day follow the practice which was upheld by Stephen, but we have no right to say that it is the only allowable practice. The controversy has never been decided by an authority which binds the whole Church. It is very commonly supposed that the Council of Nicsea settled the matter in favour of the custom of Pope Stephen, but that is a mistake, S. Athanasius, who must have known if any such action had been taken, says, " How should not the baptism which the Arians administer be wholly vain and profitless, having a semblance but nothing real as an aid to holiness ; " ^ * Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianieas Ixxv., Opp. ed. Ben., p. 149. 2 Lib. de Bebapt. ap. S. Cyprian, 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 353. Dr. Mason, speaking of the authorship of this treatise, says, " It seems safe to consider " it " as the production of one of the prelates in the entourage of Stephen" (Relation of Confirmation to JBaptism, p. 124). =» Cf. Orat. ii., contr. Ariann., §§ 42, 43. See Dr. Pusey's Note G on TertulUan (Lib. Fatli. tr., pp. 286, 287), and Dr. Bright's Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, pp. 67, 68 74 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [n. and the post-Nicene Eastern Fathers for the most part teach that baptism administered by heretics is invalid, even though the right formula be used ; but they also hold that the Church can, by a high exercise of its authority, validate that which of itself would be invalid. This seems to be the view of the Eastern Church up to the present time.^ However, our busi- ness is with the controversy between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen. The question had been discussed for more than a year in Africa before it was brought to the knowledge of Stephen. But in a.d. 256 a council was held at Carthage, at which seventy-one bishops were present. S. Cyprian presided ; and in the name of the council he wrote to Stephen, reporting the decision at which the assembled bishops had arrived.^ He informs the pope that the council had determined that those " who have been baptized without the Church, and have among heretics and schismatics been tainted by the defilement of profane water, when they come ... to the Church . . . ought to be baptized;" and he concludes his letter thus: "These things, dearest brother, by reason of our mutual respect and single-hearted afiection, we have brought to thy knowledge, believing that what is alike religious and true will, according to the trutli (NicflBa, xix.). On the whole subject see The Minister of Baptism^ by the Eev. W. Elwin, a very learned and thorough book ; but Mr. Elwin hardly does justice, as it seems to me, to the strength of the argument in favour of the validity of heretical baptism. » See Elwin, pp. 80, 8G, 132, 267, 268 ; compare Gore's Churcli and the Ministry (1st edit., p. 194, n. 2). - Ep. Ixxii, ad Stephanum, 0pp. ed. Ben., pp. 128, ISO, II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 75 of thy religion and faith, be approved by thee also." We must observe that S. Cyprian hardly seems to realize that he is writing to one on whom had '' been divinely conferred the gift of never-failing truth and faith," ^ as was the case if the Vatican decrees are true. He does not submit the decision of his province to the pope's infallible correction. He tells his correspondent that the African decision is " alike religious and true," and he expresses his belief that, as the pope is also a religious man, he will agree with what has been decided. No doubt he had a shrewd suspicion that the pope would disagree, and he there- fore adds, "But we know that some will not lay aside what they have once imbibed, nor easily change their resolves, but, without interruption to the bonds of peace and concord with their colleagues, retain certain peculiarities which have once grown into usage among themselves." He then proceeds to add that he does not propose to enforce the African view by cutting off the pope from his communion if he disagrees ; he considers that this is a matter in which the two views may co-exist side by side in the Church. His words are : " In this matter we neither do violence nor give the law to any one, since each bishop hath, in the administration of the Church, his own choice and will free, hereafter to give an account of his conduct to the Lord. We bid you, dearest brother, ever heartily, farewell." How is it possible to sup- pose that S. Cyprian could have written in this strain, ^ Colleclio Lacensis, vii. 48G, 487, 76 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [ii. if he had believed the pope to be the infallible monarch of the Church ? His words breathe through- out the spirit of brotherly equality. To this letter Pope Stephen wrote a harsh reply, which unfortunately has not been preserved, although small fragments of it may be found embedded in the letters of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian. S, Cj^prian, when referring to it, speaks of the " proud," " imperti- nent," "inconsistent remarks," which Stephen had written "rashly and improvidently." He asks, "Why has the harsh obstinacy of our brother Stephen burst forth to such a degree ? " He asks again, " Does he [Stephen] give honour to God, who, the friend of heretics and the enemy of Christians, deems the priests of God, maintaining the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, worthy of excommunica- tion?"^ It is evident from these words that the pope had threatened to excommunicate the African Church if the bishops of that Church continued to maintain their practice in regard to the rebaptism of * J?p. Ixxiv. ad. Fompeium contra epistolam Stephani, 0pp. ed. Ben., pp. 138-140. S. Augustine was referring to S. Cyprian's indignant remarks about Stephen in this letter to Pompeius, when he said (De Bapt.f V. 25, 0pp. ed. Ben., ix. 158), " I will not review what he poured out against Stephen under irritation, because there is no^ need to do so." S. Augustine, who was arguing against the Donatists, had been reviewing the principal points in this letter of S. Cyprian, but the latter's personal remarks about Stephen had no bearing on S. Augustine's controversy with the Donatists, though they have a bear- ing on our controversy with Kome. S. Augustine adds that " although S. Cyprian was very much moved by his indignation, yet it was in a brotherly way" (quamvis commotius, sed tameu fraterne indig-- Ijaretur^. n.] 5. CYPRIAI^'S WITNESS. 77 heretics. Stephen was therefore attempting to issue a command, and to enforce it by every weapon that he had at his disposal. If it be indeed true, as the Vatican Council teaches, that " all the pastors and all the faithful , . . are bound to the authority of the pope by the obligation of true obedience, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in things pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world," ^ now was the time for S. Cyprian and the African bishops to show that they realized their obligation. What actually happened was this: S. Cyprian convoked another Council, at which eighty-five bishops were present. At its first meeting, in his opening speech, he said, "It remains for us each to deliver our sentiments on this matter, judging no one, nor removing any one, if he be of a different opinion, from the right of communion. For no one of us sets himself up to he a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop, according to the absolute inde- pendence of his liberty and power,* possesses a free » See p. 6. 2 "Pro licentid libertatis et potestatis susb." On the meaning of the word Ucentia, as an attribute of the episcopal authority, see BiBhop Sage's Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age^ chap, v., sections xl.-xliv. (Works, vol. iii. pp. 244-250, edit. 1846). It should be observed that " S. Cyprian uses the singular throughout. No one can judge or be judged by any other one. He does not say, no one can be judged by all, as though he were independent of the college collectively as well as individually, but the only One (unus et solus) who can judge a bishop is Christ Himself" (see an article on Jurisdiction^ by John Walter Lea, Union Beview for 1866, p. 363, u.). 7^ ^. CYPRIANS WITNESS. fit. choice, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has the power both of setting us up in the government of His Church, and of judging our pro- ceedings."^ Obviously, when S. Cyprian says, "No one of us sets himself up to be a bishop of bishops, or by tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to the necessity of obedience," he is alluding to Stephen's haughty attitude and to his threats of excommuni- cation. So plain is the reference, that even Cardinal Baronius admits it.^ But if the pope be by divine appointment all that the Vatican Council has de- clared him to be, what words could be too strong to denounce S. Cyprian's attitude towards Stephen ? On that hypothesis he was an insolent rebel ; and his eighty-four colleagues, who made no protest, were sharers in his sin. Now, it so happens that S. Au- ^ Concilium Carthaginense, 0pp. S. Cypr. ed. Ben., pp. 329, 330. 2 Of. Baron., Annall, s.a. 258, § 42, ed. Antverp., 1617, ii. 521. In his own suburbicarian region the pope was practically a bishop of bishops, as his brother of Alexandria was in Egypt and Lybia (see note on p. 14). There is no reason to suppose that either of these prelates ever called themselves by that proud title. Tertullian, after he had become a rigid Montanist, applied the title *^hishop of bishops" in bitter irony either to Zephyrinus (a.d. 198-217) or to Callistus (a.d. 217- 222), who had been modifying the antique rigour of the penitential discipline of the Roman and of the suburbicarian Churches (see TertulL, De Pudicit, cap. i., and compare S. Hippol., Philosoplmm.f ix. 7). S. Cyprian implies that Stephen, by his arrogant threats, *' constituted himself (se constituit) a bishop of bishops " outside his own province. But the Africans would not give place in the least degree to these threats, or to the baseless claim which, either consoiously or unconsciously, was implied in them. n-l S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. ^9 gustine has quoted these very words of S. Cyprian, and it is interesting to observe the impression which they made on him. Does he reprobate them as being rebellious ? or does he try and excuse them by some charitable interpretation only half concealing his disapproval ? He does neither of these things. He expresses his unqualified admiration.^ He says, " Quid mansuetius ? quid humilius ? " " What can be more gentle ? What more humble ? " What fills him with admiration is that S. Cyprian^ does not retort on Stephen the threats of anathema which the latter had so lavishly poured forth.^ S. Augus- tine quotes S. Cyprian's words again further on, and he there remarks that they prove that S. Cyprian's "soul was peace-making and overflowing with the milk of charity." * S. Augustine makes these lauda- tory remarks because he is absolutely unconscious of any taint of rebellion or of impropriety in S. Cyprian's attitude^ when he uttered these words. S. Augustine equally with S. Cyprian accepted the Catholic system of Church government, and knew nothing of the theories which the Vatican Council afterwards for* > S. Aug., Be Bapt.t lib. iii. cap. 3 (0pp. ed. Ben., 1688, torn. IXi col. 110). * S. Jerome also dwells on the fact that S. Cyprian had put forth his views on the rebaptizing of heretics, without anathematizing those who disagreed with him ; and he specially quotes S. Cyprian's letters to Stephen and Jubaianus, to show that he did not propose to enforce his views either on th6 pope or on other bishops, by separating them from his communion (cf. Dial. adv. Luciff., 25, 0pp. ed. Vallars., ii. 198, 199). 3 Cf. S. Aug., De Bapt, v. 25, 0pp., ix. 158. * Be Bapt, vi. 6, 0pp., torn. ix. col. 164. 8o S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. Cii. mulated and imposed under pain of anathema. S. Cyprian's words produced the same impression on him as they do on us, because his view and our view, in regard to the government of the Church, are substantially the same; whereas his view and the Ultramontane view are separated by an impas- sable gulf. S. Augustine's favourable judgment of S. Cyprian's general attitude is the more remarkable, because on the particular point in dispute he agreed absolutely with Stephen, and was therefore in dis- agreement with S. Cyprian. But he agreed with Stephen, not because he thought that Stephen was infallible, but because he considered that the doctrine and practice which Stephen maintained had been afterwards accepted by the Church. He never once suggests that S. Cyprian was wrong in having held to his own opinion in defiance of the pope's definition. He says that "without doubt holy Cyprian would have yielded, if the truth of this question had been thoroughly sifted, and declared, and established by a plenary council." ^ But why should Cyprian need to wait for a plenary council, when the infallible pope had spoken, and had threatened to excommu- nicate those who differed from him? The answer, of course, is that nobody dreamed that obedience was due to the pope.^ Assuredly the eighty-five bishops who sat in council at Carthage took this view. They * De jBajpf., ii. 4, O^^p., torn. ix. col. 98. * Archbishop Benson says (Smith and Wace, i. 755), " Cyprian is totally unconscious of any claims made by the [Roman] see, and resists Stephen purely as an arrogant individual." n.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 8i unanimously upheld the invalidity of heretical bap- tism, and repudiated the view put forth by Stephen, disregarding his threat of excommunication. Having come to this decision, the council sent certain bishops ^ of their number as legates to the pope, to announce to him what they had decided. When these legates reached Rome, Stephen "would not admit them even to the common intercourse of speech ; " ^ and "he commanded the whole brotherhood, that no one should admit them into his house ; so that not only peace and communion, but shelter and hospitality were denied them."^ These facts we learn from S. Firmilian's letter to S. Cyprian; a letter written in Greek, but translated by S. Cyprian into Latin,^ and forming part of the Cyprianic correspondence, which happily still remains. S. Firmilian also tells us that Stephen carried out what he had threatened, and cut off the Church of North Africa from his communion.^ ^ "Legates episcopos" (E'p. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., 0pp. ed. Ben., p. ]50). * Ep. S. Firmil., ut supra. ' Loc. cit., pp. 150, 151. * Bossuet (Gallia Orthodoxa^ cap. Ixx.) says, "Consensit ei [so. Firmiliano] Cyprianus, ejusque epistolam Latinam fecit, et ad ecclesias edidit." Compare Tillemont, iv. 158. The Bollandist Father Bossue (Acta S8., torn. xii. Octobr. p. 491), after mentioning that Rigal- tius and Dom Maran were of opinion that S. Firmilian's letter •was translated into Latin by S. Cyprian, says, " Similiter sentiunt Tillemontius aliique passim." Compare Archbishop Benson's note x., in Smith and Wace, i. 751. ^ '* Te a tot gregibus scidisti. Excidisti enim te ipsum." " Quid cnim humilius aut lenius quam cum tot episcopis per totum mundum tlissensisse, pacem cum singulis vario discordiaB genera rumpentem, modo cum Orientalibus .*. . modo vobisciim, qui in meridie cstis" (Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., Opp.^ p. 150). G 83 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [n. Moreover, the pope, either at the same time or shortly before, excommunicated the Churches of Cappaclocia, Cilicia, Galatia, and the neighbouring provinces, because they agreed with the Church of North Africa in the matter of the rebaptizing of heretics. The excommunication of the Asiatics is mentioned not only by S. Firmilian, but also by S. Denys the Great of Alexandria,^ who, though agreeing with Stephen on the disputed question of heretical baptism, strongly disapproved of the high-handed way in which he was trying to enforce his views. The excommunication of the Africans is not only distinctly mentioned by S. Firmilian, but is implied in the way in which the pope treated the African bishops who came to Rome as legates from the Carthaginian council.^ It must have been after Stephen had separated S. Cyprian from his com- munion ^ that the latter sent a letter to S. Firmilian ^ Euseb., B.. E.y vii. 7. To avoid confusion between S. Dionysiua the Great of Alexandria and his contemporary S. Dionysius of Kome, I have used the English form, Denys, when speaking of the Alexandrian saint. * According to primitive practice, even ordinary Christian laymen, when travelling, if they brought letters of communion from their own bishop, were received in hospitality, and diligently cared for, as well- known and dear friends (cf. Sozom,, v. 16). This was the con- tesseratio hospitalitatis spoken of by Tertullian as a mark of com- munion between different Churches (De Frxscript. hxret., xx.). When the pope forbade hospitality to be shown to the bishops sent as legates by the North African Church, he was manifesting in the most public fashion that the Roman see had completely separated herself from the communion of that Church. Tillemont (iv. 155) rightly says, "Cette action paroist une rupture entiere." The whole of Tillcmont's 49th article on S. Cyprian should be studied. ' For further proof that Stephen not merely wrote threats, but II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS, 83 of Csesarea. This prelate was himself a saint, and was the friend of saints. S. Denys the Great speaks of him as one of the most illustrious bishops of his time.^ He was closely united in brotherly love with S. Gregory the Wonder-worker. The srreat Council of Antioch,^ which condemned Paul of Samosata, and which was held shortly after the deaths of S. Denys and of S. Firmilian, couples them together, describing them as " men of blessed memory" (rovq /uLaKaplrag). S. Basil quotes S. Fir- milian as an authority on doctrine.^ S. Gregory of Nyssa, preaching a panegyric on S. Gregory the Wonder-worker, compares the virtue of S. Firmilian to the virtue of S. Gregory. The Church has been accustomed to celebrate his festival on the 28th of October. Even Cardinal Baronius, who for very obvious reasons excluded his name from the Roman Martyrology, is obliged to admit that " scarcely any of his contemporaries appeared to surpass him in learning and sanctity."^ It was natural that the glorious S. Cyprian, when in trouble, should write to his brother saint of Cappadocia. I have already actually separated S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian from his communion, see note A. in the Appendix, pp. 325-333. 1 Euseb., S. E., vii. 5. - "Le plus celebre Ooncile qui ait ete tenu dans I'Eglise avant celui de Nicee" (Tillemont, iv. 308). Cardinal Newman, in an article which appeared in the Atlantis in July, 1858, and which its author republished in 1871, as note iv., appended to the third edition of the History of the Avians (p. 443), speaks of the Fathers of this council as being " bishops of the highest authority." * Tillemont, loc. cit. * Baron. Annall, s.a. 258, § 47. 84 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS, [n. referred to S. Firmilian's reply; but it will be well to make one or two quotations from it, as illustrating the view which great saints of the third century took of Stephen's action. S. Firmilian says that, though in past times there have been in different provinces much variety in the way in which the sacra- mental ordinances have been celebrated, yet hitherto there had not been on that account any " departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. This Stephen has now dared to make, breaking the peace with you [Cyprian], which his predecessors ever maintained with you in mutual affection and respect."^ From another passage we learn that Stephen had laid stress on the fact that he was the successor of S. Peter in S. Peter's own chair. This is the first occasion on which history records the produc- tion of the story, which had its roots in the Clementine romance, as a ground for papal claims. Would that it had been the last as well as the first ! This is how S. Firmilian alludes to Stephen's boast. He says, " I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in Stephen, that he who so boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buikleth anew many Churches. ..." " Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by succession the chair of Peter, is roused by no zeal against heretics."^ Further on * Ep. S. Firmil., inter Cyprianicas Ixxv., 0pp., p. 144. « Ep. cit, 0pp. S. Cypr., p. 148. II.] S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 85 S. Firmilian apostrophizes Stephen indignantly. He says, " What strifes and dissensions hast thou stirred up through the Churches of the whole world ! And how great a sin hast thou heaped up against thyself, when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks For thou didst cut thyself off ; deceive not thyself ; for he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all. . . ." ^ " This is to have kept the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, to cut himself off from the unity of charity, and in all things to make himself an alien to the brethren, and with the fury of contumacious discord to rebel against the Sacrament and the faith." ^ These are doubtless strong words. They are the fervent utter- ances of a saint indignant at the schismatic course which was being taken by the bishop of the first see in the Church.^ Stephen had no right to com- plain. He had dared to call the blessed S. Cyprian a "false Christ," a "false apostle," a "deceitful worker," * and it was quite time that the prelates of ' Op-p. S. Cypr., p. 150. * Ibid., p. 151. ' Dom Maran, the Benedictine editor of S. Cyprian's works, rightly says that '* the love of unity breathes through the whole of Firmilian's Epistle" (F«Y. S. Cypr., cap. xxxii., 0pp. S. Cypr. ed. Ben., col. cxx.). Baluzius makes a similar observation {0pp. S. Cypr. ed* Ben., p. 513). * S. Firmilian, in his letter to S. Cyprian, quotes these reviling words of Stephen (p. 151); Dom Maran points out that we have also S6 S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS, \n, the Church should speak out in no faltering terms of his arrogant attitude and action. This task S. Firmilian undertook ; and we may be sure that S. Cyprian approved, because there is no doubt that it was he who translated S. Firmilian's letter into Latin, that it might edify and instruct the Western portion of the Church.^ Shortly afterwards, under the Emperor Valerian, the persecution broke out afresh, and Stephen is said to have died a martyr's death. If he did so die, we may hope that he purged away in that second bap- tism whatever was amiss in his life.^ The dispute about baptism still went on in the time of his suc- S. Cyprian's own witness that the words were actually used by Stephen, because Cyprian "translated Firmilian's epistle into Latin, or at least authorized its publication" {Yita S. Cypr., cap. xxx., 0pp. S. Cypr. ed. Ben., col. cxii.). It is obvious that Stephen would never have used, in a public document, such words about a great prelate like the Bishop of Carthage, if he had been still in communion with him. * See note on p. 81. 2 The Eoman Church invokes him as a saint. But it must be observed that Bishop Pearson throws doubt on the alleged martyrdom of Stephen. He says (Annal Cypr.^ s.a. 257, § v., p. 60), " Pontii tamen verba prsetereunda non sunt : * Jam de Xysto bono et pacifico sacerdote, ac propterea beatissimo martyre, ab urbe nuntius venerat,' quibus Stephanum videtur perstringere, eumque negare, aut omnino martyrium subiisse, aut si subierit, verum et beatum martyrem fuisse." The Abbe Duchesne evidently takes the same view as Pearson. He says (Liber PontificaliSy p. 154, note 1), "II semble done que I'ancienne tradition liturgique, anterieure h. la Passio Stephani ait ete muette sur son martyre. Et ceci s'explique d'autant mieux que Saint Augustin ne parait en avoir rien su (vide Tillemont, Hist. Eccl.f iv. 594), et que le diacre Pontius, biographe de S. Cyprien, se sert en parlant de Xystus ii., d'une expres^sion qui semble exclure le martyre de son pre'dccesseur (c. 14., p. cv., Hartel)." Compare also Lib. Pont^ p. xcvii. iij S. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. 87 cesser, S. Xystus;^ but Xystus was "a good and peace-making bishop," ^ and he seems to have undone the harsh acts of his predecessor, and thus to have brought back the Roman Church into full unity with the Churches of the East and of the South.^ As it ^ This is clear from the letters of S. Denys the Great, parts of which are preserved by Eusebius {R. E.^ vii. 5, 7, 9). 2 " Bonus et pacificus Sacerdos." As has been already pointed out, they are the words which are used concerning Xystus by S. Cyprian's deacon and biographer, S. Pontius ( Vita S. Cypr. per Pont. Diac, ap. 0pp. S. Cypr. ed. Ben., col. cxlii.). ' There is clear proof that S. Dionysius, the successor of S. Xystus, was in full communion with S. Firmilian (cf. S. Basil., Ep. Ixx. ad Damasum, 0pp. ed. Ben., 1730, iii. 164). I am inclined to tliink that " the good and peace-making " Xystus may have annulled the acts of his predecessor, or, at any rate, may have receded from them, in conse- quence of the letters of S. Denys of Alexandria (cf. Tillemont, iv. 160, 161). S. Denys wrote first to Stephen on the very grave diffi- culties which would arise out of his harsh action, and "entreated him " to follow a gentler course ; but on Stephen he seems to have produced no effect. If Stephen had yielded, the controversy would haye come to an end. S. Denys then wrote twice to two Koman priests, namely, Dionysius, afterwards pope, and Philemon, and he seems to have led them to change their views, so that they were more inclined to peace. Speaking of the way in which Stephen had thrown the Asiatic Churches "into strife and contention," he says in one of his letters to Philemon, *' I cannot endure" it. Then he wrote two letters, still on the same subject, to Pope S. Xystus, in one of which he recounts his previous efforts on behalf of peace We may well believe that the " peace-making " propensities of the " good " Xystus prompted him to accede to the entreaties of his brother-saint of Alex- andria, and to recede from the separatist position which Stephen had taken up. There was a final letter on baptism addressed by S. Denys and the whole Church of Alexandria to S. Xystus and the whole Church of Kome. This may well have been a letter of con- gratulation on the restoration of peace to the Church. Eusebius im- plies that in this final letter the whole subject of the rebaptism of heretics and of the toleration of variations of discipline in connection with that matter was reviewed at length. The preceding summary of S. Denys' action is based on Euseb., H. E., vii. 5, 7, 9. 88 ^. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. [li. was in the Paschal controversy, so it was in the Bap- tismal controversy ; it was Rome that was compelled to give way, as it was Rome that had advanced un- justifiable claims. Africa and Asia Minor retained their baptismal discipline unchanged, and had the joy of welcoming back the Roman Church after its wan- derings into the straight path of Catholic peace and charity. This happened before the martyrdom of S. Cyprian. Perhaps it was to make some atonement for the outrageous way in which he had been treated by Stephen, that the Roman Church has paid such special honour to S. Cyprian ever since his glorious death. His name is apparently the name of the only man, neither martyred at Rome nor belonging to the local Church of Rome, which finds a place in the canon of the Mass, as used to this day in the Roman Church.^ It seems to me probable that his name was inserted in the canon by Pope S. Dionysius, the successor of S. Xystus. This latter died five or six weeks before S. Cyprian, and S. Dionysius was consecrated to the Roman see a few months after S. Cyprian's martyrdom, that see having remained vacant during the interval ; so that, if S. Cyprian's name was inserted at the time when his death was still fresh in the minds of all Catholics, the insertion would have taken place by S. Dionysius' authority. It is interesting to notice that S. Denys the Great speaks in one of his letters of his namesake of Rome, » The names of the apostles and of other saints mentioned in Holy Scripture must of course be excepted. ii.j S. CYPRIAI^'S WITNESS. £9 as having ''formerly held the same opinion as Stephen " ^ in regard to that pope's high-handed policy of excommunication. The words seem to imply that S. Dionysius had changed his mind, and had been led to favour a more Christian mode of action. Following up this clue, it is worthy of observation that S. Dionysius, during his pontificate, wrote to the Church of Csesarea in Cappadocia,^ while S. Firmilian was still its bishop, to console it for the sufferings inflicted on it by the barbarians. He even sent agents into Cappadocia to ransom Christians of S. Firmilian's diocese, who had been carried away into captivity. I like to think of this great pope making some reparation for the treatment which S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian had received at the hands of his predecessor Stephen. On the whole I submit that, whether we look at the history of the Paschal controversy in the time of Pope Victor, or to the celebrated passage about the Roman Church in the great treatise of S. Irenaeus, or to the line of action which S. Cyprian pursued in his dealings with the popes of his day,^ we find that 1 Euseb., B. E., vii. 5. 2 S. Basil., Ep. Ixx. ad Damasum, 0pp. ed. Ben., 1730, iii. 164. S. Firmilian was Bishop of Csesarea during the whole of the pontificate of Dionysius, with the exception of the last two months. They both died in the year 269 ; S. Firmilian in October, and S. Dionysius in December. ' I have discussed certain passages in S. Cyprian*s writings, which are quoted by Ultramontanes as if they favoured the papal claims, in note B, with its Addendum, in the Appendix, pp. 334-363, to which the reader is referred. 90 "S-. CYPRIAN'S WITNESS. \n, the witness of the first three centuries is entirely adverse to the papal theory set forth in the Vatican decrees, and that it bears out that view of the posi- tion of the Roman see which I attempted to sketch in my first lecture. ( 91 ) LECTURE III. THE RELATION OF S. PETER TO THE APOSTOLIC COLLEGE AND TO THE CHURCH. In my two previous lectures I adduced various his- torical facts and various passages from the writings of the Fathers, which seemed to me to prove that the view of the papal authority laid down in the Vatican decrees was not accepted by the Church during the first three centuries of our era. The con- ditions under which these lectures are given prevent my attempting any exhaustive treatment of the question, but I have not consciously kept back any facts or passages belonging to those centuries which would in my opinion avail to rebut or qualify the general conclusion at which we arrived.^ I believe that that conclusion is in complete agreement with * A friend has suggested that it would be well that I should refer to the genuine epistle of S. Clement of Borne to the Corinthian Church, in which he, suppressing his own name, and writing in the name of his Church, uses an urgent tone in remonstrating with the Corinthian Christians on the subject of their impious rebellion against their duly appointed presbyters. I can see no expression in that epistle in any way implying a claim on the part of S. Clement to exercise jurisdiction as pope over the Corinthian Church. As Dr. 92 S. PETEk'S PRIMACY, tni. the truth. The Church at large, during the ages of persecution, did not recognize in the Roman see any primacy of jurisdiction outside the suburbicarian pro- vinces, and still less did it recognize in that see any gift of infallibility. We may, therefore, enter on the consideration of t he sc riptural evidence with the expectation of find- ing that the papal claims find no solid support in the Bible. It would be strange indeed' if the New Testament pointed plainly to the pope as the infallible monarch of the Church, and yet that the great saints and martyrs of the first three centuries should ignore such a fundamentally important prin- ciple of Church polity. Such an argument might be inapplicable, if we were dealing with some very abstract question of theology. But if a great body like the Church had been subjected by its Divine Founder to an infallible king, it could hardly exist for three centuries without there being very evident proofs that the rule of such infallible king was one of the chief factors in its life. Government is not an abstract theory, but a practical fact. Let us, however, approach the study of the scrip- tural evidence in a teachable and dispassionate spirit, desiring to perceive, and having perceived to accept, whatever our Lord and His apostles intended to teach. Salmon observes (Infallibility, p. 379, 2nd edit.), The tone " is only that of the loving remonstrance which any Christian is justified in offering to an erringibrother." The reader is referred to Dr. Salmon's treatment of the whole subject of this remonstrance (In/aUibility, pp. 377-379, 2nd edit.). m.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. 93 I suppose that all will agree that, if the doctrine of the papal monarchy is taught anywhere in Holy Scripture, it is taught in the promise made by our Lord to S. Peter at Csesarea Philippi, as we find that promise recorded in_S^Matt. xvi. 17-19. The Vatican decree quotes this passage and also the passage in the last chapter of S. John's Gospel, in which our Lord is recorded to have said to S. Peter, " Feed My lambs," " Feed My sheep," and it deduces, from what it calls " this plain teaching of Holy Scripture," the conclusion that "a primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was promised and given immediately and directly to blessed Peter the apostle by Christ the Lord." Following the guidance of the Council, let us proceed to consider the first of these two passages,^ which, if I am not mistaken, is allowed by every one to be the fundamental passage. It will be well, I think, to quote the whole passage together with the verses which immediately precede it ; and I will read them first of all as they stand in the Revised Version. S. Matthew says, " Now when Jesus came into the parts of Csesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying. Who do men say that the Son of man is ? And they said. Some say John the Baptist; some Elijah: and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them. But who say ye that I am ? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And * The other passage, contained in S. John xxi. 15-17, is discussed in Note D. in the Appendix, pp. 371-391, 94 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [iii. Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah : for flesh and blood hath not re- vealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in V heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art I Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church ; ^ and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The Authorized Version and the Douay Version have " the gates of hell " in- stead of " the gates of Hades ; " but of course those two expressions, as used here, are identical in meaning, and in other respects the Authorized Version and the Douay Version agree substantially with the Revised Version in their translation of the promise to S. Peter. The question before us is, W hat d oes^jha t promis e mean ? If the view taken by the Vatican Council is correct, we have here the creation, or at any rate the promise of the creation, of a permanent insti- tution of the most transcendantly important kind. Christ is creating, or at any rate is promising to ! create, an office, the holder of which shall be His sole / vicar and representative in the supreme government / of His Church. Dr. Murray of Maynooth, referring to this passage, says that *' Peter was thus established by our Lord as the means of imparting to the Church indefectibility and unity, and of permanently securing these properties to her. Peter was invested with 1 supreme spiritual authority to legislate for the whole m.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. 9$ Church ; to teach, to inspect, to judge, to proscribe erroneous doctrine, or whatever would tend to the destruction of the Church; to appoint to offices or remove therefrom, or limit or extend the jurisdiction thereof, as the safety or welfare of the Church would require: in one_word, to exercise as supreme head, and ruler, and teacher, and pastor all spiritual func- tions whatever that are necessary for the well-being or existence of the Church." ^ This is how a learned professor at Maynooth describes the office which he considers to have been promised to S. Peter by the words recorded in S. Matthew, and afterwards to have been conferred on him, and 'from time to time, as occasion has arisen, to have been conferred also on his successors in the see of Kome. Now, if this really was our Lord's meaning, this passage is a passage of the most tremendous importance. On that hypo- thesis, one could not but agree with Cardinal Bellar- mine when he first puts the question,^ " What are we dealing with, when we deal with the papal primacy ? " and tEen proceeds to answer his own question thus : " We are dealing with the principal matter of Chris- tianity " {de summa rei Gliristianoe). Similarly the Jesuit Perrone says, " When we are treating about the head of the Church, we are treating about the principal point of the matter on which the existence and safety of the Church herself altogether depends."^ ' Quoted from the Irish Annual Miscellanyy iii. 300, by Dr. Salmon (Infallibility of the Church, 2nd edit., p, 333). I ^ Quoted by Perrone, PrxUcit. Theoll., edit. 1841, torn. ii. pars i., p. 308, n. ' Perrone, loc. cit 96 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [m. Similarly, M. de Maistre says, " The sovereign pontiff is the necessary, only, and exclusive foundation of Chris- tianity. To him belong the promises, with him dis- y appears unity, that is the Church ; " and again, " The supremacy of the pope is the capital ^bgma^ithout which Christianity cannot subsist." ^ I say once more, If our Lord, by His promise to S. Peter, meant to declare that He would create a permanent representa- j tive of Himself to be the infallible monarch of His Church on earth, as the Vatican Council teaches, : .then I think that we should all aofree with'Bellar- [ mine, Perrone, and De Maistre, and we should hold that in this passage of S. Matthew we have delivered to us a dogma of the most fundamental character. Surely, therefore, if this view be the true view, when we come to examine the comments of the holy Fathers on this passage, we shall find them unanimously agreeing in the interpretation which they give. Even if they differed about some minor points, yet they will be in complete accord as to the substance. But when we proceed to investigate the comments of the Fathers, we do not find that unanimity which on the Romanist hypothesis would have been anticipated. (The Fathers are by no means agreed in holding that the rock was S. Peter himself. It is true that that is decidedly the more common opinion and the oldest ; ^ but, nevertheless^ some^Jiold that j^ie rock is Christ, and others that it is the doctrine of our Lord's God- * Du Pope, Discours Prelim., i. 13, and iv. 5, quoted by Allies, Church of England cleared from Schism, 2nd edit., p. 358, n. Til.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. 97 head, which S. Peter had confessed, when he said, « Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Hving God." ^ But any candid Roman Catholic who looks care- fully into the matter will be astonished when he examines those passages in which the "rock" is interpreted of S. Peter himself. He will be amazed to find that hardly any of them connect the building of the Church on S. Peter with any successors to S. Peter in the see of Rome. It is true that a fair number of such passages might probably be found in the writings of the popes or of papal legates and other similar officials, from the time of Pope Damasus (circa A..D. 370) onwards.^ But, apart from the popes and ^ In the Liturgy of S, James, at the point in the service where the consecration of the Gifts has just been consummated by the Epiklesis, the priest prays that the Body and Blood of our Lord " may be to those •who communicate of them, for remission of sins and for life everlasting, ... for the strengthening of Thy holy Catholic Church, voliich Thou didst found upon the rock of the faith, that the gates of Hades should not prevail against it." These words occur both in the Greek and in the Syriac forms of the Liturgy, and therefore belong to its more ancient portion (see Hammond's Ancient Liturgies^ pp. 43, 72). In the Roman Missal, the collect for the Vigil of S. Peter and S. Paul runs as follows : " Grant, we beseech Thee, Almighty God, that we whom Thou hast established on the rock of the apostolic confession (quos in apostolicsB confessionis petra solidasti) may be shaken by no disturb- ances." I quote these two Liturgical interpretations of "the rock," partly because of their great interest, and partly because I have not noticed them in the ordinary catenas illustrating the patristic inter- pretation of our Lord's promise to S. Peter. 2 Quotations from such sources will not count for much in a con- troversy of this kind. Our contention is that the idea of a divinely appointed supremacy over the whole Church, as a prerogative of the Roman see, arose very largely out of the exorbitant claims made by the popes. It follows that exaggerated claims in favour of the papacy when they occur in the vnritings of the popes or of other persons living, so to speak, in a papal atmosphere, and when they stand xx H 98 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [iir. their entowragey I only know of two such passages anterior to the age of S. Leo {circa a.d. 450). One of these occurs in a certain letter written by S. Jerome when he was a young man, about which letter I hope to be able to say something in my next lecture ; ^ and the other occurs in a popular controversial ballad written by S. Augustine for the benefit of the Dona- tists in the early portion of his ecclesiastical career, about two years after he had been ordained priest. In that ballad, the argument of which appears to be mainly taken from the writings of S. Optatus of Milevis,^ S. Augustine says, " Number the bishops even from the very seat of Peter, and see every suc- cession in that line of Fathers : that [seat] is the ( rock against which the proud gates of hell prevail not."^ At first sight S. Augustine, in this passage, appears to identify the Roman see with the " rock." But it is worthy of notice that S. Augustine does not say, " Number the bishops in the very see of Peter," but " Number them even from the very seat of Peter." The "seat of Peter" seems to be the marked contrast with the general teaching of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, cannot be quoted, at any rate controversially, on the papal side. We regard them as the proofs of papal ambition. In connection with this subject, it is surely permissible to refer in nil reverence to our Lord's own words : " If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true " (S. John v. 31). » See pp. 167-176. 2 Tillemont, xiii. 197. » S. Aug. Op2J., ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 8 :— " Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede, Et in ordine illo patrum quis cui succedit vidoto : Ipsa est petra, quam non vincunt superbse inferorum portfe." m.3 S, PETER'S PRIMACY. 99 st arting-point of the successio n, not the succession itself ; and, if so, it would have to be understood as equivalent to the apostolate of Peter (cf. S. Aug., Gontr. Ejpist. Manich., cap. iv., O^pp., viii. 153, where there is a very similar passage) ; so that the " rock " would be, not the long succession of Roman bishops, but S. Peter in his apostolical office, and in his primacy of order among the apostles, in consequence of which, as S. Augustine would add, he was the symbol of the whole Church. If this was what S. Augustine meant, the passage in the anti-Donatist ballad will fall into line with a few passages in other early writings of his. Otherwise it stands alone. On this interpretation S. Augustine's argument may be thus paraphrased: You Donatists are a compara- tively new body ; we Catholics can trace up the suc- cession of our bishops to the very apostles them- selves, and in particular in the great apostolical see of the West we can give the whole line of names reaching up to the primate apostle, the rock of the Church. This is exactly the argument which S. Augustine does use in his epistle to Generosus {Ejp, liii., 0pp. ed. Ben., 1688, ii. 120, 121). In that case there was a special reason for dwelling on the suc- cession of names reaching up to the apostles, because the Donatist priest, to whom the saint is replying, had been boasting to Generosus of the succession of Donatist bishops in the Donatist see of Cirta. But S. Augustine, while tracing the line of Roman bishops up to S. Peter, avoids any identification of them with lOO S, PETER'S PRIMACY. [iii. t he " rock." S. Peter, he sa ^gg^jwgg cajledjhe " rock " b ecause h e symbolized " the wh ole Church." Of course the notion of S. Peter having been the first local Bishop of Rome, is the direct or indirect outcome of the Clementine romance. It will be inferred from these remarks that I do , not myself think that in his ballad S. Augustine intended to identify the Roman see with the " rock ; " but let us give our opponents the benefit of the doubt — if there be a doubt. Then I say, Is it not very remarkable that S. Augustine, who in his later life wrote many anti-Donatist treatises, never once recurs to this argument, and never once brings in the idea of S. Peter's successors in the see of Rome as included in the rock ? S. Augustine often refers to our Lord's promise to S. Peter. In his earlier writings he occasionally interprets ^ the " rock " as meaning S. Peter; and, following S. Cyprian, he thinks that S. Peter, as the leading apostle, was the representative and symbol of the whole Church Militant, just as he also thinks that S. John^ was the symbol of the whole Church Triumphant. But I in his later writings he always takes the view that the " rock " >v as Christ, and not S. Peter ^ I though he still continues to hold that S. Peter 1 is the symbol of the Church. It is important to V notice that according to this later view S. Angus- • In Psalm, xxx. Enarr., iii. § 5 (0pp. ed. Ben,, 1691, iv. 15G) ; In Psalm. Ixix. § 4 (iv. 714). « In Johann. Evang. cap. 21, Tractat. cxxiv. (0pp. ed, Ben., 1690, torn. iii. pars 2, coll. 822-824). iii.T S. PETER'S PRIMACY. idi tine^not only affirms that the "rock" meant our Lord, but he at the same time denies that it meant S. Peter. This precludes the notion that he was suggesting a secondary meaning, which might be accepted as true, side by side with the primary meaning. The later interpretation excludes the earlier. I will quote one example o£ this later method of interpretation. S. Augustine, in a sermon on our Lord walking on the water, and on S. Peter sinking, says, "The gospel just read . . . teaches us to con- sider . . . the Apostle Peter as the type of the one only Church. For this Peter, first in the order of the apostles, most ready in the love of Christ, often answers singly for all. He it was, at the question of the Lord Jesus Christ as to whom men said that He was, when the disciples gave in answer the various opinions of men, and the Lord again inquired and said, ' But whom say ye that I am ? ' — Peter it was who answered, 'Thpu_art„ the Christ, the Son of the living God. One for many he gave the answer, being the oneness in the many.^ Then the Lord said unto him, ' Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- Jonah, b ecause flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My ^ " Unitas in multis ; " that means, I suppose, that S. Peter as leader had a certain uniqueness of position among the many apostles, which qualified him to be the fitting spokesman for the rest ; or per- haps it may more probably mean that S. Peter, bein^ one apostle, gave the answer on behalf of the many apostles, because he sym- bolized the unity of the Church, which is made up of many members. The great terseness of S. Augustine's phrase makes it difficult to say with certainty what his meaning was ; but one test of a true inter- pretation must be its harmony with tlie saint's general line of teaching in regard to S. Peter's position. tQ2. S.^' PETER'S PRIMACY. iwi. Father which is in heaven.' Then. HcLadded, 'And I say unto_thee ' — as if He would say, ' Because thou hast said unto Me, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ' — ' I also say unto thee, T^gu art^Peter.' ^mon he was called before ; but this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in figure to signify the Chu rch. For because Christ is the Kock (Petra), Peter (Petrus) is the Christian people. For the Rock (Petra) is the mother- w^ord or root- word {Petra cnvn i . principale nomen est)} T herefor e Peter (Petrus) is ifrom Petra, not Petra from Petrus : as Christ JLajiot I called from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. 'Thou art, therefore,' saith He, 'Peter; and upon this Rock which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast recognized, saying, " Thou art t he Christ, the Son qf^ the living God," I will build My Church. Upon Me I will build thee, not Me ^ upon thee.' " ^ S. Augustine, at the end of his career, when he was seventy-four years old, wrote his two books of Retractations, and in the first of them he calls attention to the fact that in his later writiners he had given an interpretation of the " Rock " differing from that which he had given in his earlier years. * Notice the word principale as used here. It illustrates the mean- ing of a passage from S. ^Cyprian, which I discussed in my second lecture (see p. 54). * Serm, Izxvi. de verbb. Evang. Matth. 14, \Opp. ed. Ben., 1683, V. 415. The teaching of this homily was very familiar to our forefathers in the middle ages. From it are taken the 7th, 8th, and 9th lessons at Mattins on the feast of S. Peter's chains (August 1), in the Sarum Breviary (^Brev. Sar., fasc. iii. coll. 572-574, ed. Cantab. 1886). III.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. 103 The passage is interesting, and is very pertinent to our subject, so I will quote it. S. Augustine says, " While I was still a presbyter, I wrote a book against the Epistle of Donatus,^ ... in which I said, in a certain place concerning the Apostle Peter, that the Church is founded on him as on a rock : which meaning is also sung by the mouth of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose, where he says of the cock — ' Repentance once the crowing cock Brought to the Church's promised rock.' ' But I know that I have afterwards in very (many places so expounded the Lord's saying, * Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,' as to be understood of Him whom Peter confessed, saying, ' Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And so Peter, named from this Eock (viz. Christ), would typify the person of the Church, which is built upon this Rock, and hath received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was iiot_,.,§aidLJo liim, ' Thou art the Rock ' {Fetra), but ' Thou art Peter' (Petrus). But Christ was the Rock, whom Simon con- fessing, as the whole Church confesses Him, was called Peter. But of these two meanings let the reader choose the more probable." ^ There can be no question which * The book is, unfortunately, not extant, ' S. Ambrose's hymn is, in most Western breviaries, appointed to be sung at Lauds on Sundays after Epipliany and on the three Sundays which precede Lent. In some breviaries it is also appointed to be used on the Sundays after Trinity. 3 Betractt, lib. i. cap. xxi., Op2). ed. Ben., 1G89, i. 32. It should 1C4 3'. PETER'S PRIMACY. [in. of these two S. Augustine thought the more probable, when he wrote his books of Eetractations, and in fact during the whole of the latter part of his life. But the important point for us to notice is the fact that S. Augustine appears to be completely unconscious that he is dealing with a dogmatic passage of high im- portance. In his early days as a priest he put forth a view which might perhaps be twisted into some likeness to the Ultramontane interpretation which now prevails in the Roman communion ; not that S. Augustine had ever really conceived of the Ultra- montane theory in its entirety ; but still, so far as words go, he wrote three lines in his anti-Donatist ballad which Ultramontanes are very glad to quote. As far as we know, in all his voluminous writings he never again, even in appearance, identified the " rock " with the Roman see. Two or three times — I hardly think more — he identified the " rock " with S. Peter. Afterwards he almost always explains the " rock " as meaning Christ. He could not possibly have be noticed that S. Augustine does not say, "The reader shouhl accept both of these meanings, the one as the primary, the other as the secondary interpretation ; especially he should be careful to hold in any case that the * rock ' means S. Peter, because on that inter- pretation mainly depends the scriptural proof of 'the principal matter of Christianity.' " But he says, " Let the reader choose tho more probable." In S. Augustine's view the two meanings are mutually exclusive. As during the whole of S. Augustine's later life he adhered to the view that the " rock " means Christ, it must be said that he gave up his earlier view that the " rock " means Peter. He did implicitly " retract " and " contradict " and " withdraw " what ho had said in his anti-Donatist ballad ; although ho certainly never intended to express in that ballad the modern papal theory. I make these remarks in reply to Mr. Eivington's words in Atiihority, p. 33. 111.] ^. PETER'S PRIMACY. 105 changed his view on any matter of dogmatic im- portance without explaining the rationale of his change. If he did it nowhere else, he would have done it in his Eetractations. The fact that he made the change without making any such explanation, shows conclusively that in his opinion no important dogma depends for its scriptural proof on our Lord's promise to S. Peter ; and he therefore certainly did not hold the view of the Vatican Council, that in that promise of our Lord the Holy Scripture plainly teaches us that Christ promised to S. Peter a primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church, and that that primacy, by Christ's appointment, was to be per- petuated in S. Peter's successors in the Roman see.^ Even if, for the sake of argument, we granted that he held that view when he was a newly ordained priest, it is quite certain that he must have given it up after he had become a bishop. We may, therefore, set aside the lines from the ballad. Understood as Roman Catholic controversialists profess to under- stand them, they do not really represent S. Augustine's mature teaching. As I have already observed, if we except the popes and their belongings from the time of Damasus onwards, the other Fathers, before the time of S. Leo, who interpret the " rock " of S. Peter, in no way connect the passage with S. Peter's supposed successors ^ The Council anathematizes all who deny that " ex ipsius Christl Domini institutioue " S. Peter is to have a perpetual line of successors in his primacy, and that the Eoman pontiff is such successor. 100 ^. PETER'S PRIMACY. [ur. in the Roman see. Some, like Tertullian, think that the promise was fulfilled by S. Peter's having taken the lead in founding the Church on the day of Pentecost, and in having admitted the Gentiles into the Church when he commanded that Cornelius the centurion should be baptized. Others, like S, Cyprian and S. Firmilian, hold that all bishops inherit the promise made to S. Peter, and that therefore the Church is founded on the bishops. The one view about which, outside Rome and its surroundings, there seems to be a conspiracy of silence among the Fathers anterior to S. Leo, is the view set forth by the Vatican Council. Such a conspiracy of silence is simply inconceivable, if the Vatican teaching truly expresses the doctrine originally delivered to the Church by the apostles. It is what we should naturally expect to find if the Vatican teaching is " a fond thing vainly invented," and foisted into the Church at a later date by ambition and ignorance. I hope that I have made it clear that there is no one authoritative tradition in regard to the true interpretation of the promise to S. Peter. One might, indeed, fairly say that there is a consensus ^patrnm excluding the Vatican interpretation. But setting the Vatican view aside as out of the ques- tion, a Catholic will find himself in good company, whether he interpret the " rock " as meaning the true faith in our Lord's Messiahship and Godhead, or as meaning Christ, or as meaning S. Peter. All these various interpretations are perfectly consonant HI.] ^. PETER'S PRIMACY. to7 with the Church's teaching about herself; but, of course, only one of them can be the true meaning which our Lord intended to express when He first uttered the words.^ Dogmatically they are all admissible, but exegetically one of them is right, and the others are wrong. Let us, therefore, now proceed to consider the passage with the view of determining, so far as we can, what our Lord really meant to promise to S. Peter. I shall confine myself for the present to that part of the promise which is contained in the words, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church." To my mind it appears most probable that our Lord intended, when He used the expression "this rock," to signify by it S. Peter. The apostle had been confessing his faith in the Messiahship and in the divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus. It was the first open confession of faith in those great facts, which had been made by any of the apostles since the Lord had gathered the twelve together into one band, and ^ Though the various intei-pretations are all dogmatically admissible, they cannot all be held together as the true interpretation of our Lord's words. To build the Church on the ever-living ChriaiL i« one thing ; to build on S. Peter's evangelizing labours wrought long agoTs" another thing; to build on the universal episcopate is a thinl thing ; to build on the true faith is a fourth thing. In these different connections the expression " build upon " is used in varying shades of meaning, and our Lord, when Ho spoke to S. Peter, cannot have intended us to understand the word "rock," as used by Him, to denote at the same time a living divine Person, a doctrine, the work of a man who died eighteen centuries ago, and an order of men living all over the world and sharing in an office which is perpetuated from generation to generation. io8 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [m. had given them their preliminary mission to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.^ This confession of the true faith by S. Peter was a great moment in the pro- gress of the events which were preparing the way for the manifestation of the kino^dom of God. The truth had been inwardly revealed to him, and his loyal heart' enabled by preventing grace, had grasped the great verity which the Father set before him; and so he answered our Lord's inquiry and said, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the livinsr God." It was fittinor that our Lord should reward His servant's faith by some signaljtoken of His approval ; and so the Lord answers, " Blessed art thou, Simon Bar- Jonah : for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church : and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," etc. Our Lord's words evidently convey a promise to >S^. Peter. One feels that if our Lord had said, " Thou art Peter, and upon Myself I will build My Church," such a promise would hardly seem suitable to the situation. Moreover, Christ is here the Builder, and it seems awkward to have the Builder and the Foundation one. It must als o be remember ed that our Lord spoke in Aramaic, and that in that language the word for Peter and the word for rock are identical. Our Lord's words may be represented thus : " Thou art Cepha, and upon this Cepha I will build My Church." If no tolerable sense » S. Matt. X. 5. G. III.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY, 109 could be assigned to the passage when Cepha the figurative rock is identified with Cepha the person, it might then seem permissible to search for other in- terpretations ; but, if the 'prima facie interpretation yields a good meaning, it ought to be given prece- dence. And surely in this case the prima facie interpretation does yield an excellent meaning, which is borne out by parallel passages in the New Testa- ment. We nowhere read in the New Testament of the Church being built upon the true faith, but we do find that S. .Paul, writing to the Gentile Christians at EphesuS;, says, " Ye are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets ; "3 and we do find that S. John in the Apocalypse, describing the Church triumphant, the holy city, the new Jeru- salem, says that " the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb/'V It is clear, therefore, that the notion of the Church being built upon apostles is a scriptural notion. ^Let us try^ and_discover what is exactly conve yed b y that_notion. ) And, first of all, we must observe that in the passage from the Epistle to the Ephesians prophets are joined with the apostles — " Built upon the foundation of the apostles a nd proph&ts ." Who^are these prophets ? It seems evident, from two other passages in this same Epistle, that S. Paul is alluding, not to the Old Testament prophets, but to the New Testament prophets^ who in » Eph. ii. 19, 20. « Key. xxi. 14. no S, PETER'S PRIMACY. [in. the earliest days, while the Church was being founded, constituted a degree of the sacred ministry inferior only to that of the apostles ; as it is written, " He gave some to be apostles ; and some, prophets : and some, evange- lists." ^ And so, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, S^_Paul ^ays, " God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets." ^ The apostles and pro- phets, therefore, on whom the Church is founded , are the leaders and chiefs of those evangelical labourers who, by their preaching and teaching, brought the first generation of Christians to the knowledge of Christ, and gathered them into the Church. They organized and took the lead in the work of foundation, and so to them has been granted the high honour of being called the foundation of the Church. It is thus that the ad- mirable Roman Catliolic commentator Estius explains the passage. He says that the apostles and prophets constitute the foundation of the Church, "through their ministry, in so far as they announced to men the doctrine of salvation through Christ only, which they had received from God." ^ With Estius agrees the Jesuit commentator, Cornelius a Lapide.'* And so Bishop Barry, in his note on the passage, says, " The apostles and prophets are the foundation ... as setting forth in word and grace ^g i m who is the Corner-stone." ^ I have not come across any com- mentators, either ancient or modern, either Romanist, » Eph. iv. 11 ; cf. iii. 5. 2 1 Qq^. xii. 28. » Estius, in Eph. ii. 19, 20. ■• A Lapide, in loc. * Bishop Barry, in loc.^ in the New Testament Commentary for Enrjliih Headers, edited by Bishop Ellicott. til] S. PETER'S FRIMACY, in Anglican, or Protestant, who suppose that either in the passage in the Epistle to the Ephesians or in the passage in the Apocalypse, the bishops, as successors of the apostles, are to be joined with them as sharing in the glory of being the foundation of the Church. To the bishops is committed the duty of building the upper stories of the temple; the apostles laid the foundation, and by their founding labours have merited to be themselves styled the foundation. As Cornelius a Lapide says. The apostles "are the Church's foundations and founders (for these two expressions come back to the same meaning)." ^ These parallel passages seem to suggest the true interpretation of our Lord's promise to S. Peter. We know that S. Peter and the other apostles are the foundations of the Church, because he and they are co-founders of the Church.^ What is there to make us suppose that he is also a foundation of the Church in some totally different sense, of which we have no trace elsewhere in the Bible ? If we look to the last clause of the promise, we shall find a signal confir- mation of this view, that what was promised to S. Peter was to be actually conferred on all the apostles equally. The last clause of our Lord's promise to S. Peter runs thus : " Whatsoever fhou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ihovb * A Lapide, in Apoc. S. Joh., xxi. 14. 2 Father Bottalla (Supreme Authority of the Pope^ p. 60) says very truly, " The apostleship had only one definite task to perform that of laying the foundations of the Church. Those once laid, the apostleship gave way to the ordinary and regular government." 112 S. PETER'S PRIMACY, [m. shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." ^ B.ut shortlj afterwards, as is recorded in S. Matt, xviii., our Lord made this very same promise to all th^ apostles. He said, "Verily I say unto yow, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."^^ If all the apostles were intended to share in the power promised to S. Peter in the last clause, there seems no reason why they should not share in the honour promised to him in the first clause.^ What, then, was the special reward which he received? Why, this — that as he was the first to confess publicly the Messiahship and divine Sonship of the Master, so to hir}i first were promised the honours and labours and powers of the apostolic office. Up to the time of his confession our Lord had revealed nothing plainly concerning His Church. He had never hitherto used the word " Church. " Now for the first time He speaks of His Church, and He makes known to S. Peter that he is to be a foundation of it, and a ruler over it. Whether the others are to share with S. Peter, is for » S. Matt. xvi. 19. » S. Matt, xviii. 18. ' After what has been said in the text about the first and last clauses of the promise to S. Peter, it seems unnecessary to set out at length an elaborate proof that the middle clause of the promise — " I will give uuto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven " — belongs to all the apostles, and not to S. Peter only. The reader is referred to Dr. Pusey's Note K on The keys given to the Church in the person of S. Peter, in the Oxford translation of TertuUian, pp. 514, 515 ; and to Launoy's Epistle to Hadrianus Vallantius (Lib. ii., Ep. v., Opp, ed. 1731, torn. v. pars ii. pp. 213-242). 111.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY, 113 the present kept back. Surely this precedence in designation was a fitting reward for S. Peter's prompt- ness in confession. Moreover, other results flowed out of this precedence. It was not the first time that he had been singled out as the leader. When our Lord originally separated the twelve, we are told that " He called unto Him His twelve disciples ; " ^ and the evangelist goes on to say that " the names of the twelve apostles are these : The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew, his brother]"^ and then the rest are enumerated. Evidently on that earlier occasion, our Lord named S. Peter's name first. So that not once, but twice, the Lord seemed to sanction the view that S. Peter was to be the leader. All the apostles were peers and equals; all were to be founders and foundations of the Church ; all were to have the power of binding and loosing ; all after the Resurrection received authority to remit and retain sins ; all were commissioned to go into all the world to preach, and to disciple, and to baptize. But among these equals S^ Peter was singled out by our Lord to be the leader — the first.^ He was iDvimus inter pares. And accord- ingly in everything connected with the foundation of the Church he took the lead. It was he who proposed that steps should be taken to fill up the gap in the apostolic college caused by the death of ' S. Matt. X. 1. \'» S. Matt. x. 2. ' See Note C. in the Appendix, pp. 364-370, for tbe teaching of representative Anglican divines on the subject of S. Peter's primacy of order among the apostles. I tr4 ^. PETJSR'S PRIMACY. {m. the traitor Judas. It was he, standing up with the eleven, who preached the great Pentecostal sermon I on the Church's Pentecostal birthday. He^took the initiative and was the chief agent in the jirst miracle that was wrought — on the lame man at the beautiful gate of the temple, though S. John was associated with him. He was the spokesman, when the first punishment was inflicted on members of the Church who had sinned, as appears from the history of Ananias and Sapphira. He with S. John went to confirm the newly baptized Samaritans, and so was the principal agent for conveying the sanction of the apostolic college to the extension of the Church into that border-land between Judaism and heathenism. He with S. John confronted Simon Magus, the first heretic. Above all, as he himself pointed out to the other apostles, " God made choice among them, that by his mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and should believe ; " ^ in other words, he first opened the door of the Church to uncircumcised Gentiles by the instruction and baptism of Cornelius and his friends. Thus were the foundations of the Church laid by the combined action of all the apostles, but in that founding work S. Peter had the leadership, and took the initiative. I do not doubt that this recognized leadership resulted from the pre- cedence in designation to the apostolic office, which came to him as a reward for his priority in confessing the full truth about our Lord. The reward was most » Acts XV. 7. in.] S. PETER'S PRlMACV. 115 real and most marked, though it did not involve any primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles, nor was it ever intended that either the primacy of honour which S. Peter did enjoy, or the supposed primacy of jurisdiction of which there is no trace in Scripture,^ should be perpetuated for all time in a divinely instituted monarchy over the Church of God, to be inherited by the supposed successors of S. Peter in the Roman see. Surely it must be allowed to be most significant that the New Testament, which is so clear on the subject of S. Peter's leadership in the foundation of the Church, is so absolutely silent in regard to any jurisdiction over the other apostles being vested in him, or exercised by him. But the papal theory, if it is to establish for itself a scriptural basis, must bring forward scriptural proofs of the exercise of supreme jurisdiction over the Church by S. Peter. No amount of leadership avails for proving juris- diction. When S. Paul and S. Barnabas were carrying out their first missionary journey, S. Paul's superior gifts soon established him in the position of leader. He was the " chief speaker." ^ The members of the expedition, of whom S. Barnabas was one, are described as " Paul and his company." ^ But will any one maintain that S. Paul had any primacy of juris- diction over S. Barnabas ? The idea is, of course, * On the meaning of our Lord's words, " Feed My sheep," see Note I), in the Appendix, pp. 371-391. ^ Acts xiv. 12. ' Acts xiii. 13- ii6 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. Cm. absurd. ^Leadership and jurisdiction are two wholly different things. The distinction is quite understood at Rome. The Vatican Council strikes with its anathema any one who says that S. Peter received from our Lord " only a primacy of honour " — that is, a leadership, " but not a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction." But we go further in this matter. As we deny that there are any passages of Holy Scripture which prove that supreme jurisdiction over the other apostles was ever exercised by S. Peter, so we are also prepared to assert that the general tenor of Scripture is adverse to the claim which is made on his behalf. If S. Peter had a divinely given primacy of juris- diction over the other apostles, it seems very strange that they, when they heard that Samaria had re- ceived the Word of God, should " 8end to them Peter and John." ^ One could understand a vassal kingdom, not exactly sending, but petitioning, its king to undertake the oflSce of pleading the cause of his kingdom in the court of the suzerain. If a king did undertake such an office, it would be inconceivable that other nobles should be joined with him as members of the delegation. They might accompany him as part of his suite; they would never share with him in the duty which he had undertaken to fulfil. But if even a vassal king would never be sent by his subjects to represent them in the higher court of the * Acts viii. 14. III.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY, 117 suzerain, now much less would a wholly independent sovereign be sent by the lesser rulers of his people to carry out some plan on which they had decided. The fact that the apostles sent S. Peter and S. John to confirm the Samaritans, is proof positive that S. Peter was not the supreme ruler of the others. That t wo equ al apo_stles should be sent by the college of apostles — that is natural. That the su'bject apostles should send their supreme pontiff and also one of their fellow-subjects on a joint mission — that is incredible. Again, if S. Peter occupied in the apostolic Church the position which is claimed for the pope by the Vatican Council, how is it conceivable that S. Paul, writing to the Galatians and describing his third visit to Jerusalem, should say that, " when they per- ceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellow- ship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision." ^ How could he possibly put S. James before S. Peter in an enumeration of the leading apostles ? ^ and how could he possibly say of ' Gal.ii.9. 2 It is no answer to this to say that in other Epistles S. Paul gives Cephas priority over all other apostles. Supposing that he does, it will only show that S. Peter had a primacy of order among the twelve. But the fact that in this place, where S. Paul is speaking of Jerusalem, he puts the local bishop before S. Peter, proves clearly to my mind that S. Peter's position was quite different from the position of the pope. The pope would never be named second by any Boman Catholic in such an enumeration. In connection with this ii8 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [m, S. Peter, if he was the foundation of the Church in a special sense — ^in a sense, that is, in which the other apostles were not the foundation, — how could he possibly say of such a one that he along with two other apostles " were reputed to be pillars " ? Let us try and imagine a parallel case in modern times. Suppose that two distinguished Roman Catholic missionary bishops, whose line of action had been called in question, should have come to Rome during the Vatican Council, and should there have been granted an audience by the pope ; and suppose that there should have been present at the audience two other prelates, leading members of the council ; let us say, the Archbishop of Paris and the so-called Archbishop of Westminster. Can we imagine one of the two missionary bishops writing afterwards to his accusers, and describing his interview at the Vatican in such terms as the following ? Can we imagine his saying, "When they perceived the grace that was given unto me. Archbishop Manning,^ Pope Pius IX., matter, it may be well to warn the reader that in 1 Cor. xv. 5 no precedence is given by S. Paul to S. Peter, because he is narrating the historical order of events. Nor can 1 Cor. i. 12 be referred to ; because S. Paul's natural courtesy would make him give precedence to the senior apostle over himself, and ApoUos was not of apostolic rank. It is, I think, fair to quote 1 Cor. ix. 5 in favour of S. Peter's primacy of order. ( * Perhaps it will be said that Archbishops Manning and Darboy had not that gift of apostolic infallibility which belonged to S. James and S. John, and that therefore the disparity of position which separated the archbishops from the pope is greater than that whicli separated the two subject-apostles from S. Peter. But such an argument goes only a very little way towards getting over the difficulty. If S. Peter had a divinely given primacy of supremo III.] S. PETEI^S PRIMACY, 119 and Archbishop Darboy, who are reputed to be pillars, gave to me and my companion the right hands of fellowship " ? Such a statement coming from a devout Roman Catholic, who accepts the doctrine set forth in the Vatican decrees, would be absolutely impossible. Why, then, was it not only possible but natural to S. Paul to use such language ? Because he did not hold the doctrine of the papal primacy which was set forth in the Vatican decrees. Be- cause it had never entered his mind that such a doctrine would ever be devised and propagated by , Christian men. / But perhaps some one will reply that, if any primacy, even if it be only of honour and influence, is granted to S. Peter, there is a difficulty in account- ing for his being named after S. James. I see no difficulty whatsoever within S. James' own city and diocese. Outside the jurisdiction of the Church of Jerusalem, S. Peter would certainly, I should suppose have been named before S. James. And if he had had immediate actual jurisdiction over all the pastors and all the faithful throughout the universal Church, he would have been named before S. James in Jerusalem as well as elsewhere. But if he only had a primacy of honour, then as soon as Jerusalem had been erected into a diocese, and an apostle like S. James ^ had become its local bishop, S. James alone jurisdiction over the other apostles, he could never have been named second, and it could never have been said of him that he with otliers " were reputed to bo pillars." * Although S. James was probably not one of the twelve, jet it 120 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [iii. would have ordinary jurisdiction within the city, and therefore, according to every principle of Catholic order, S. James, being himself an apostle, ought of right to take precedence.^ In a previous lecture I pointed out an analogous case.^ Within the province seems clear that, like S. Paul and S. Barnabas, lie was ranked among the apostles. In Acts ix. 27, S. Luke says that Barnabas took Paul " and brought him to the apostles " (irphs rovs aiTO(TT6Kovs). But S. Paul himself, describing the same event in Gal. 1. 18, 19, says, " I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas. . . . But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Bisliop Lightfoot, commenting on Gal. i. 19, expresses his opinion that the plural word aTroardXovs |n Acts ix. 27 is " iu favour of " the view that S. James was an apostle. But it is fair to add that he holds [why, I know not] that " this argument must not be pressed." However, after a careful dis- cufision of the exact meaning of Gal. i, 19, he arrives at the result that " it seems . . . that S. James is here called an apostle." Estius (in Zoc), says that there is " no one who denies that James, the brother of the Lord, was an apostle." Compare also 1 Cor. xv. 7. ^ It should perhaps be mentioned that there are traces in the early Church of an idea that the bishopric of the Church of Jerusalem, the mother-Church of Christendom, was a higher dignity than the apostolate. Thus S. Clement of Alexandria [a.d. 190-203], in his 'TTTOTuTTcco-eis (quotcd by Eusebius, U. E., ii. 1), writes, " They say that after the ascension of the Saviour, Peter and James and John, as being those who received the chief honour from our Lord, strove not after glory (/t^ eiriSiKaCeaeai B6^r)s), but chose James the Just Bishop of Jerusalem." So Kufinus (H. E., lib. ii. cap. i., ed. Basil., 1535, p. 24), giving the sense rather than literally translating the passage of S. Clement just quoted, speaks of S. James as " the bishop of the apostles ; " and S. Hesychius "the Theologian" (Migne's Patrol. Grxc.y xciii. 1480) calls him " the exarch of the apostles " (but concerning S. Hesychius, see p. 122). However, it is quite possible that this notion of the bishopric of Jerusalem being the highest dignity in the Cliurch may have been derived from the Clementine romance, in which S. James is represented as a sort of hyper-apostolic pope (see p. 45, n. 2). The grain of truth which lay at the bottom of these fancies was undoubtedly the fact that in Jerusalem S. James, after his elevation to the episcopal throne, took precedence of S. Peter and the othey apostles. * See pp. 66, 67. III.] S, PETER'S PRIMACY. 121 of Milan, the Council of Turin (a.d. 401) naturally names S. Ambrose of Milan before the pope. That could not be done now, because the pope is supposed to have ordinary jurisdiction jure divino at Milan and at Turin and everywhere else. But in the fifth century it was otherwise ; and it was also otherwise in the age of the apostles. S. Peter, when in Jeru- salem, was ecclesiastically S. James' guest; and in his own house the host naturally takes precedence of the guests. S. Paul therefore adopts the natural and right order, if rightness and naturalness in such a matter are to be determined by Catholic principles'of jurisdiction. He adopted an order which is indefensible and inexplicable, if the teaching of the Vatican decrees is accepted as true and apostolic. These observations will help us to understand why S, James apparently presided at the Council of Jeru- salem. It will be allowed on all hands that, if any one presided at that Council — and one hardly sees how such an assembly could be carried on without a president — it was either S. James or S. Peter who occupied that post. Now, the order of proceedings in the Council, as set forth by S. Luke in Acts xv., was as follows. There was first of all "much disputa- tion."^ Then there was a speech by S. Peter, who recalled what had happened to Cornelius and his friends at the time of their conversion ; how God had given them the Holy Ghost, even as He had given ' So Liddell and Scott translate the vfQid, (rvC^TTjffiSf referring specially to Acts xy. 7. 122 S. PETER'S PRIMACY. [iii. Him to the apostles and to the Jewish Christians. Then S. Peter appeals to the Council not to put an unbearable yoke on the neck of the new Gentile Christians ; and he expresses his view that the whole Council believes that all Christians, whether Jewish or Gentile, are equally saved by the grace of Christ and he implies that consequently circumcision and the keeping of the Mosaic law cannot be set forth as conditions of salvation.^ Then followed speeches from S. Paul and S. Barnabas, rehearsing the miracu- lous attestations of their work among the Gentiles, showing that it had God's approval.^ Then finally S. James, after recalling what S. Peter had said about God's dealings with Cornelius, and after showing that all this work among the Gentiles had been predicted long before by the prophets,^ proceeds to formulate a decision, which he sets forth for the Council to adopt. " Wherefore," he says, " my judgment is (^ib tytb icpivit)), that we trouble not them which from among the Gentiles turn to God, but that we write unto them that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what ^is strangled, and from blood."^* Such was the order of proceedings » Acts XV. 7-11. 2 Acts XV. 12. ' Acts xv. 14-18. * Acts XV. 19, 20. S. Hesychius, "the Theologian" (5 eeo\6yos\ an illustrious doctor of the Church, who flourished a.d. 412-438, hits the nail on the head when he says (Migne's Fatrol Grscc^ xciii. 1480), " Peter makes a speech in the assembly, but James legislates " (HeVpos dr]fjLr]yope7, dAA' 'Uku^os vo/jLodiTil). In these words S. Hesychius expresses accurately and tersely the relative positions of S. James and S. Peter at the Council, as they are set forth in S. Luke's narrative. Nevertheless, though the passage expresses the truth, I should not lay stress on it in controversy, because S. Hesychius was a priest of iiT.] S. PETER'S PRIMACY. 123 at that Council; and in regard to them I observe, first, that S. Peter spoke neither first nor last ; nor did he formulate any decision for the Council's acceptance ; nor did he promulgate his own authori- tative judgment as settling the matter. After much previous debating {awZnTi^aiiUig), he, as a member of the Council, spoke, and recalled certain important events in which he had borne an important part, and which ought to be taken into account in arriving at a decision. His speech is, of course, a weighty speech, but neither in the time when it was delivered nor in its substance is it the speech of a president.^, When S. Peter had finished, S. Paul and S. Barnabas went on with the debate, and contributed additional facts which would help to bring the Council to a right decision. Then S. James speaks last, just as inl the great Council of Carthage, about the baptism of heretics, S. Cyprian, the president, gives his own the Church of Jerusalem. No candid person will press statements about S. Peter written by Koman popes or by Antiochene Fathers ; and, similarly, it is unsafe to go to the Church of Jerusalem to learn about S. James. * Bishop Lightfoot (;S^. Clement of Eome, ed. 1890, ii. 490), con- trasting S. Peter's marked primacy in the early days of the Church, as recorded in the first twelve chapters of the book of the Acts of the Apostles, with the silence about him in the later apostolic history, says, " In the first part he is everything; in the subsequent record he is nowhere at all. He is only once again mentioned in the Acts (xv. 7), and even here he does not hear the chief part. Where the Church at large, as an expansive missionary Church, is concerned, Paul, not Peter, is the prominent personage ; where the Church of Jerusalem appears as the visible centre of unity, James, not Peter, is the chief agent (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 9, 12). Peter retains the first place as missionary evangelist to the Hebrew Christians [and to tlicir unconverted Hebrew brethren], but nothing more," 124 ^' FETOR'S PRIMACY, [m. opinion last.^ And S. James' speech is eminently the speech of a president. It formulates the decision. It introduces the authoritative word KplvM. It immedi- ately prepares the way for that unanimous act of the whole Council to which they allude in their synodical letter, when they say, " It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you (Gentiles) no greater burden than these necessary things," and then they enumerate the things which S. James had mentioned in his presidential summing up. That final synodical act appears to be based on S. James' speech. Altogether it seems quite clear that S. James pre- sided on this occasion, as we should naturally expect would be the case. No wonder that S. Chrysostom, in his homily on this passage in the book of Acts, says, " This James was bishop, as they say, and there- fore he speaks last ; " and a little further on he adds, "Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but he [James] here more mildly ; for thus it behoves one in high authority to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part."^ * S. Cyprian, as president, had also made an opening speech, in which he referred to the opinion on rebaptisra wliich he liad ex- pressed in his letter to Jubaianus ; but his synodical judgment was reserved to the end, and was delivered after his eighty-four colleagues had spoken. So in the third and fourth sessions of the Vatican Council, the Fathers of the Council first of all expressed their judg- ment on the decrees and canons which had been proposed, and finally Pius IX., who presided, concluded the matter by declaring his own supreme sentence. ^ The English rendering is taken from the Oxford translation of S. Chrysostom's Thirty-third Homily on the Acts (p. 456). That translation agrees accurately with the Greek text in the New College III.] ^. PETER'S PRIMACY. I25 Evidently, in the opinion of S. Chrysostom, S. James, who was an apostle equally with S. Peter, took pre- cedence of him in this council, as being bishop of the city where the council was held, and therefore presi- dent thereof. Such a view is irreconcilable with the papal theory as set forth in the Vatican decrees. I might go on to refer to other passages of the New Testament, as, for example, to S. Paul's rebuke of S. Peter at Antioch, to the way in which he deals with the parties at Corinth, who named themselves Manuscript (torn. ii. fol. 1 02), except that the Oxford translator has substituted " James " for " lie." I have replaced the " he," but have retained the Oxford " James " within brackets. The Greek text has ovTos. The New College codex is one of tlie four manuscripts that give what is called " the old text" which, as the Oxford translators say- in their Preface to Part II. (p. ix), is " incomparably better," as well as "older" than the text given in the Benedictine edition. Mr. Eivington, in Dependence (pp. 24, 25), makes what must be called a desperate attempt to make out that " the antithesis is between James and the Judaizers, not James and Peter." The only answer that need be given, is to refer the reader to the Oxford translation of the whole passage, with its context. The interpretation suggested by Mr. Eivington is simply impossible. Mr. Gore has replied to some other remarks of Mr. Eivington, in which the latter deals with an earlier sentence of the same homily, and in which he relies on the unfortunate Benedictine text. See the Preface to the third edition of Mr. Gore's Roman Catholic Claims, which is reprinted in the fourth edition (pp. xiv, XV.). Second thoughts are not always best. Mr. Eivington says that in his controversy with Bishop Meurin he " was misled " by the Oxford translation. The real fact is that the Oxford translators have accurately given the meaning of the genuine text. Afterwards Mr. Eivington was really " misled " by the Benedictine editors. Mr. Eivington " reprehends " the Oxford translators for putting " James " as the translation of ckcIuos in the earlier passage. That rendering accurately gives the meaning ; and the translators gave fair warning in their Preface to Part II. (p. xiii.), that they proposed "to give faithfully, though not always literally, the sense." They have cer- tainly, in this case, fulfilled their promise. ii6 ^. PETER'S PRIMACV. \m. after himself, and Apollos, and Cephas, and Christ ; to the tone of absolute independence of any superior human authority which pervades S. Paul's writings ; to the whole tone of S. Peter's own epistles ; but I think that I have said enough to justify the assertion which I made that the general tenor of Scripture is adverse to the claim which is made on S. Peter's behalf. I would add that, if S. Peter's connection with the see of Rome is a fact of such fundamental impor- tance, as would be the case if the theory set forth by the Vatican Council were true, it is most extra- ordinary that there is no clear allusion in the New Testament to that connection. / Believing, as I do, that the words of S. Peter in 1 S. Pet. v. 13, " She that is in Babylon, elect together with you," refer to the Church in Rome, I grant that there is in that passage an obscure allusion to a connection between S. Peter and the Church of Rome. He was evidently at Rome when he wrote his first Epistle, and in friendly relations with the Roman Church, whose salutation he sends to the Christians in various pro- vinces of Asia Minor. But the New Testament no- where certifies to us that S. Peter shared in the work of founding the Church of Rome, nor that he joined with his brother apostle in the consecration of Linus, its first bishop, however true those facts may be. Still less does it give any sanction to the fable of his having been himself the first bishop of Rome, nor to t he groun dless theory that he transmitted to his inj S. PETER'S PRIMACY. i^'j supposed successor^-- i ii tlh at_see_a primacy of juris- diction over the universal Church, which he never claimed for himself. If, as De Maistre thought, " the supremacy of the pope is the capital dogma without which Christianity cannot subsist," why is there nothing about it in the Scriptures of truth ? ( 128 ) LECTURE IV. THE GROWTH OF THE PAPAL POWER FROM THE PEACE OF THE CHURCH TO THE END OF THE PONTIFICATE OF DAMASUS. In my last lecture I tried to show you how Holy Scripture bears witness against the notion that S. Peter received from our Lord any primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church. We have seen also in previous lectures how the great saints and rulers of the Church during the first three centuries repudiated the idea that the bishops generally were subject to the pope. On the other hand, we have seen how various causes combined to give to the Roman see a leadership in the early ages; not a divinely instituted leadership, but a leadership growing up out of the circumstances of the time, and gladly accepted by the Church, as being for the time a useful arrangement. We have g-lso seen how the Clementine romance seemed to provide a connecting link between S. Peter's primacy of honour and influence, which was naturally recognized in him in virtue of his having IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 129 been the first to be designated by Christ to the apostolic office, and that later primacy of honour and influence which, as the Council of Chalcedon said, was properly given by the Fathers to the throne of the elder Kome, because that was the imperial city. We have seen how, on at least two occasions during the first three centuries, the Koman popes advanced unjustifiable claims, and attempted to meddle autho- ritatively with Churches not subject to their jurisdic- tion ; and how on the last of these two occasions the unhistoric theory .that the see of Rome was the see of Peter, and that it inherited S. Peter's privileges, whether real or supposed, was pleaded as a justification of the wrongful claim. We went on to notice how the Church, led by its great saints, resisted those attempts, and how in consequence the Roman bishops had to give way, and to content themselves with the primacy of honour which had been conferred upon them. We have also seen to what portentous lengths the popes have gone, as time went on; and what enormous authority they now claim, as of divine right, over the universal Church. Now, of course the development of this claim had a history ; ^ and it will be my object in this lecture ^It may be well, in a note, to point out that the attempt to trans- form uncanonically privileges of precedence and honour into a far- reaching jurisdiction is by no means peculiar to the see of Eome. Otherjsees, which enjoyed from one cause or another a special pre- eminence of honour, did exactly the same thing. Fallen human K I30 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [iv. and in the nextto set before you some of the stages in that development, and some of the historical cir- cumstances, out of which the growth in the papal power became possible. I can only deal with the matter in a very imperfect way, owing to the nature is the same all the world over. Thus the second Ecumenical Council, by its third canon, gave to the Bishop of Constantinople " the prerogative of honour next after the Bishop of Eome." This was a grant of precedence not of jurisdiction. Seventy years later the fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, gave by its twenty-eighth canon patriarchal jurisdiction to the see of Constantinople in Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. The way had been prepared for this new departure by a series of uncanonical acts of interference on the part of the Constantinopolitan prelates in the Church affairs of those three exarchates. Dr. Bright gives a summary account of these acts in his note on the ninth canon of Chalcedon (Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils^ pp. 157-lGO). Similarly the Council of Nicaea, in its seventh canon, gave or rather confirmed to the see of Jerusalem a certain right of precedence, reserving, however, to the Palestinian Csesarea its metropolitical dignity. As time went on, the bishops of Jerusalem endeavoured to make themselves independent of Cajsarea. " Immediately after the Council of Nicaea, the Bishop of Jerusalem, Maximus, convoked, without any reference to the Bishop of Ceesarea, a synod of Palestine, . . . and proceeded further to the consecration of bishops" (Hefele,i.407,E.T.> There was a"contest about precedency" between Acacius of Csesarea and S. Cyril of Jerusalem. Nevertheless as late as 415 John of Jerusalem obeyed the summons of Eulogius of Caesarea and attended a Provincial Council at Diospolis. At the Council of Ephesus in 431, Juvenal of Jerusalem put forward a monstrous claim, asserting that the Bishop of Antioch, who had patriarchal rights over all the provinces of Palestine, ought himself " to be subject to the apostolic see of Jerusalem " (Bright's Notes, pp. 23, 24). There followed a long contest between tiiis Juvenal and Maximus of Antioch. At last the latter, weary of the controversy, agreed that the three provinces of Palestine should be released from their subjection to his see, and should constitute a now patriarchate, of which the Bishop of Jerusalem should be the head; and this arrangement was finally sanctioned by the Council of Chalcedon. It is only fair to the popes that the mncanonical aggressions of their brother patriarchs should be chronicled. IV.3 THE PAPACY IM THE FOURTH CENTURY. 131 limitations of time which necessarily restrict the length of a lecture ; and I propose to dwell specially on the earlier rather than on the later stages of the growth. I intend to point out from time to time indications of the continuance of the earlier and truer teaching, which has never died out, and which we can have no doubt that God will preserve and guard in His Church unto the end. But, in passing from the Church of the first three centuries to the Church of the fourth and subsequent centuries, we must bear in min d the great change w hich took _place in the^whole condition of the Church in consequence of the conversion of Constan-s tine to Christianity, and all that followed there-' from. I cannot attempt to describe that change, but i ts mag nitude can hardly be exaggerated. One may say w^ith S. Jerome that " the Church under the emperors^ was greater in power and wealth, but she was less in virtues : " (potentia et divitiis major, sed virtutibus minor.^) Or, perhaps, still more accurately, one may say with the late Bishop Wordsworth of Lincoln, "In the ante-Nicene age the world had been arrayed against the Church ; but in the next period the World worked in the Church; and it caused more injury to the faith [and, one may add, to Christian life] than when arrayed against it."^ To put plainly what is implied in Bishop Words - vvorth's statement, the world broke into the Church * In vita Malchi, 0pp. ed, Vallars, ii. 41, « Church History, ed. 1882, ii. 3. i 132 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [iv. and established itself there, and has remained there ever since. No doubt there were all along tares mingled with the wheat. The Church of the first three centuries was never, except perhaps on the day of Pentecost, in an absolutely ideal condition. But yet during the ages of persecution, the Church as a whole was visibly an unworldly institution. It was a spiritual empire in recognized antagonism with the world-empire, ^^ut from the time of the con- version of Constantine, A.D. 312, and still more com- pletely from the time of Theodosius the Great, A.D. 379, the Church and the world seemed, in : some respects at any rate, to have made terms witli each other. The world, without ceasing to be the world, was no longer outside, but had been admitt^ed mfAm the sacred enclosure. And that Roman world of the fourth century, what a detestable world it was ! On this point Christian writers of every school seem to be agreed. The fervent and eloquent Roman Catholic Montalembert quotes and adopts the words of the Protestant Guizot, who says, "The sovereigns and the immense majority of the people had embraced ( Christianity ; but at bottom civil society was pagan ; j it retained the°institutions, the laws, and the manners of paganism. It was a society which paganism, and not Christianity, had made." ^ Montalembert adds that " this paganism . , . was paganism under its most degenerate form . , . Nothing," he says, " has ' Guizot, Histoire de la Civilization en France^ lect. ii., quoted in Montalembert'a Monka of the West (English trans., 1861, i. 263). IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 133 ever equalled the abject condition of the Romans of th¥ empire. . . . "With the ancient freedom, all virtue, all manliness disappeared. There remained only a society of officials, without strength, without honour, and without rights. . . . We must acknowledge that in this so-called Christian society, the moral poverty is a thousand times greater than the material, and that servitude has crushed souls more than bodies. Everything is enervated, attenuated, and decrepit. Not a single great man, nor illustrious individual rises to the surface of that mire. Eunuchs and sophists of the court govern the state without control, experiencing no resistance but from the Church.'* These last words guard Montalembert's meaning.^ He is speaking of civil society, which was now nominally inside the Church ; but, side by side with this Christianized paganism, the Church still handed oil/the glorious traditions which had been bequeathed to her by the age of the martyrs. Though it may be true that the civil society of the fourth and ^fijfth_ centuries produced no great men, yet the hierarchy of the Church produced a galaxy of heroes. Let me name only five, S^ Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostom, and S. Augustine. A religious insti- tution which can produce such splendid names is undoubtedly still full of life; but nevertheless the Church which had admitted the world within her precincts, was in a very different condition from the Church during the first three centuries of her » Montalembert, op. cit, pp. 264, 269, 271, 272. s-4i 134 I^H^ PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [iv, existence. Speaking of the great saints of the post- Nicene epoch, Montalembert says, " That long cry of grief, which echoes through all the pages which Christian writers and saints have left to us, strikes us at once with an intensity which has never been surpassed in the succession of time. They felt themselves attacked and swallowed up by pagan corruption. Listen to Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine, Salvian especially; listen to them all! They denounced the precocious decay and disgraceful downfall of the Christian people, who had become a prey to vice. r They saw with despair the majority of the faithful I precipitate themselves into the voluptuousness of i paganism. The frightful taste for bloody or obscene spectacles, for the games of the circus, the combats of the gladiators, all the shameful friyolibies^ all the prostitutions of persecuting Kome, came to assail the new converts, and to subjugate the sons of the martyrs. . . . However great a margin we may leave for exaggeration in these unanimous complaints, they undoubtedly prove that the j)oUtjcal_ victory of Christianity, far from having assured the definite triumph of Christian principles in the world, had provoked a revival of all the vices which the Chris- tian faith ought to have annihilated." ^ It was impossible for the effects of this decay of Christian life to be confined to the ranks of the laity. 1 That decay necessarily also affected many of the [ clergy, and even of the bishops. There were, no > Montalembert, op. cif., pp. 255, 256. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 135 doubt, in that age many saintty bishops, priests, and deacons. But there were also time-serving bishops, worldly bishop s, courtier bishops, heretical bishops, ambitious and haughty bishops. The emperors set the example of giving immense donations ot* lands and money to the various Churches, especially to the great Churches in the principal cities of the empire ; and, most of all, these gifts were lavished on the primatial Church in Rome, the capital city of the civilized world. And the example of the emperors was followed by all classes of society. The property of each Church, or at any rate the income, was at , the disposal of the bishop for the time being ; and so '^ it came to pass that, especially in the more important , Churches, the office of bishop became an object of , ambition for worldly-minded men. A pagan his- torian, Ammianus Marcellinus, speaks of the great wealth which the Roman bishops owed to the dona- tions of the matrons ; and he says that it ought not to be wondered at, that the candidates for the Roman episcopate were ready to sacrifice everything to obtain it. The popes, he tells us, ride in chariots splendidly attired, and sit at a profuse, more than imperial table. He goes on to say that it had been happy for them if they had followed the example of many of the bishops in the provinces, who, by their frugal and simple mode of life, commended their pure and modest virtue to the Deity and to all His true worshippers. Ammianus Marcellinus makes these remarks with special referen ce to thg contests, ai^i^ 136 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [it. even bloodshed, which disgraced the Eoman Church on the occasion of the election of Pope Damasus in A.D. 366.^ Another pagan, Vettius Pr£etextatus, who was generally esteemed for the integrity of his life, and who occupied the high post of prefect of the city, used to say laughingly to Pope Damasus, " Make me Bishop of Rome, and I will become a Christian to-morrow." It is S. Jerome who mentions this fact.^ We have a startling proof of the worldliness which had crept into the very sanctuary of the Church, in an edict of the Emperor Valentinian I. addressed to Pope Damasus, and which had to be publicly read in the churches of Rome. The emperor '' admonished the ecclesiastics and monks not to frequent the houses of widows and virgins; and he menaced their diso- bedience with the animadversion of the civil judge The director was no longer permitted to receive any gift, or legacy, or inheritance, from the liberality of his spiritual daughter: every testament contrary to this edict was declared null and void, and the illegal donation was confiscated for the use of the treasury. By a subsequent regulation, it would seem," so Gibbon tells us, " that the same provisions were ex- tended to nuns and bishops ; and that all persons of the ecclesiastical order were rendered incapable of receiving any testamentary gifts, and strictly con- fined to the natural and legal rights of inheritance." ^ * De Broglie, HEglise et V Empire Romain au iv Siecle, Part iii. i. 40. ^ Lib. contra Joann. Jerosol., § 8, Ojjp. ed. Vallars,, 1735, ii. 415. ' See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the lioman Empire^ chap. xxv. Murray's edit., 18G2, iii. 253. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 137 Perhaps it will be said that this was an unfair and tyrannical enactment o£ the civil power. Let us, then, hear how S. Jerome comments on it. He says, in a letter to the priest Nepotianus, " The priests of idols, players, charioteers of the circus, harlots even, can freely receive legacies and donations, and it has been necessary to make a law excluding clerics and monks from this right. Who has made such a law ? the persecuting emperors ? No ; but Christian emperors. I do not complain of it. I do not com- plain of the law, but I complain bitterly that we should have deserved it. Cautery is good ; it is the wound which requires the cautery which is to be regretted. The prudent severity of the law ought to be a protection, but our avarice has not been restrained by it. We laugh at it, and evade it by setting up trustees." ^ S. Ambrose also refers to the law in terms, which imply that it was needed.^ I think that I have said enough to show that the nominal conversion of the empire lowered the spiritual tone of the Church at large, and of the clergy no less than of the laity ; and undoubtedly it was in large cities like Rome that the poison of worldliness worked the chief harm. No doubt, in the earlier decades of the fourth century, the bishops who succeeded one another in the Roman see, as in other great sees, had received ^ B^. lii., Oi?p. ed. Vallars, 1734, i. 258, 259. Compare -S'. Jerome^ by the Eev. E. L. Cutts, chap. xi. ' S. Ambros., E^. xviii., ad Valentiniamim, § 1^ 138 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [iv. their training during the ages of persecution ; but as time went on the Church was more and more governed by bishops who had been brought up amid the full sunshine of worldly prosperity. The bishops were elected by the clergy and people, and if the tone of the clergy and people gradually deteriorated, such deterioration would be sure in the end to show itself in the character of those who were chosen to fill the episcopal thrones. It is obvious that the pro- cess of deterioration would not go on with the same rapidity in all the different leading centres of Church life. Some would be more sheltered from evil in- fluences ; others would be more exposed to them. It will, I think, be well to fix our attention specially on the Church of Rome, and to consider the characters of three popes who succeeded each other in that see, occupying it during the half century which inter- i vened between A.D. 337 and a.d. 385. The names of these three pontiffs were Pope S. Julius, Pope Liberius, and Pope Damasus. All that we know of Pope S. Julius, his steady support of S. Athanasius, and the friendship of that great man which he enjoyed, his letter to the Arian- izing bishops of the East, his letter to the Church of Alexandria, his reputation throughout the Church in the East as well as in the West, the absence of any charges against him, all combine to set him before us as worthy of the high position which he held. Pope Liberius comes before us with a less satis- factory record. There must have been something IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 139 noble about the man, otherwise he could never have held his ground so heroically when he withstood the Emperor Constantius face to face, and, declining all gifts of money from his persecutor, went into exile at Beroea for two years, remaining firm in the confession of his faith in the Consubstantial, and in his fellow- ship with S. Athanasius. It seems, moreover, quite clear that Liberius was much beloved by his flock in Rome. But then afterwards, as we all know, he failed. He yearned to get back to his beloved people. He withdrew his communion from S. Athanasius. He put his signature to some document, whatever it was, which compromised the faith. Cardinal Baronius, whose opinion may safely be accepted in such a matter, conjectures that his envy of the fortune of the anti-pope Felix, and his longing for the adulation to which he had been used at Rome, were the Delilah that deprived this Samson of his courage and strength.^ After his return to Rome Liberius recovered him- self, and stood firm in his profession of the Nicene faith. But I think that Ammianus Marcellinus, who was a contemporary, implies that Liberius ^ must have * See the article on Liberius in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Cliriatian Biography, iii. 722. 2 If we are to believe what S. Jerome tells us in his Chronicon, the clerp:y of the Roman Church, in the time of Liberius, was in a very unsatisfactory condition. Among the entries in the Chronicon, for the year 352. occurs tlie following statement: " When Liberius was driven into exile on account of the faith, all the members of the Roman clergy swore that they would acknowledge no other bishop. But when Felix was intruded into tiie episc^opate by the Arians. most of the clerici perjured themselves" (^Opp. S. Hieron, ed. Vallars., viii, 395, 396). 140 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [iv. sanctioned and used the grandeur and luxury which he, the historian, attributes to the Roman bishops, because it was, in his opinion, the desire for such things which led the two competitors for the Roman see, when it was rendered vacant by the death of Liberius, to proceed to such disgraceful extremities of tumult and bloodshed. The pontificate of Liberius coincided with a very critical time in the history of the Church, and it cannot be said that, taken as a whole, his pontificate was worthy of the exalted position which he occupied.^ ': ^amasus, the successor of Liberius, began his i episcopate most unhappily. In the riots between his ; partisans and the supporters of his rival Ursinus, 137 persons were killed in one day, and others died afterwards of their wounds. We cannot say for certain that Damasus was responsible in whole or in part for this terrible scandal, although, according to the statement of his opponents, he led his followers on to the attack. It seems in any case clear that the J slaughter was committed by his supporters, even if ' he in no way sanctioned it. It was surely a terrible thing to mount an episcopal throne through streams \ of human blood. One cannot help feeling that a saint, even if personally innocent, would have re- signed all claim to the see under the circumstances. Ammianus Marcellinus divides the blame equally ^ The Abbe Duchesne (Liler Fontijicalu^ p. cxxiii) filtributes to Liberius " une ambition deplace'e et uue grande faibleesc de carac- IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTUItY. 141 between the two competitors.^ Passing on from this unhappy commencement, there can, I think, be no doubt that Damasus was accustomed to use a great deal of worldly pomp and luxury. The words of Ammianus Marcellinus and of Pr^etextatus have been already quoted, and their witness harmonizes with certain observations of S. Basil. That great saint, writing about a projected visit of his brother, S. Gregory Nyssen, to Rome, says, " For my part I do not see who are to accompany him, and I know that he is entirely without experience in ecclesiastical matters ; and, while he would be sure to meet with respect and to be valued by a considerate jpersoUy I know not what advantage could arise to the whole Church from the intercourse of such a one as he, who has no mean adulation in his nature, with one high and lifted up" (he, of course, means Damasus),^ " sitting on I know not how lofty a seat, and so not oMe to catch the voice of those who tell him the truth on the ground." ^ S. Basil here describes Pope Damasus as a haughty, inconsiderate person, who expected to be addressed in a tone of flattery. S. Jerome, speak- ing of the Roman clergy in the time of Damasus, paints in vivid colours the pride of the deacons, and * Mr. Barmby (Smith and Wace, iv. 1069), speaking of Ammi- anns Marcellinus, says that '' though not a Christian," he " writes of the Christians ia a friendly spirit, and shows no bias on the one side or the other of the contest between Damasus and Ursinus." =^ Tillemont (ix. 225) says, " Cost a dire visiblemeut avec le Pape Damase, dont S. Basile parle i9i." ' Ep. ccxv. Dorothea Freshytero, 0pp. S. Basil., ed. Ben., 1730, torn iii. p. 323. 142 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [iv. the foppishness and avarice of some of the priests. Altogether one feels that, however it may have been before, a spirit of worldliness had got hold of a large number of the Roman clergy of all orders in the time of Damasus. It is easy to see that a worldly clergy k presiding over a very wealthy Church, which, by the 0%- (consent of all, enjoyed a primacy of honour in relation /to the whole Church, which not lonor before had had jits jurisdiction enlarged by the action of the Council j of Sardica,^ and which even in ante-Nicene times ( had made unwarrantable claims, would be likely to j exaggerate their own pre-eminence, and to initiate f a policy of aggression on other Churches less favour- ., / ^^^y situated. This is exactly what happened. But before we proceed to consider that policy and the various ways in which it showed itself, it will be desirable to recall certain events which took place earlier in this fourth century, and which throw light on our general subject. In the year of our Lord 325, t he fir st Ecu menical Cguncil.was summoned to meet at Nic^ea by the Emperor Constantine. It i s important that we should realize what were the relations in which S. Silvester, the Bishop of Rome, stood to that great gathering, which represented the whole Catholic Church. If S. Silvester was the infallible monarch of the Church, and was so recognized, his sovereign position ought to come out clearly in the history of the Council. But, as a matter of fact> it does not appear that S. ' See pp. 148-154. I iv.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 14^ Silvester had anything to do with the convoking of the Council. It was convoked by the emperor, and -- there is no particle of proof that he consulted S. Silvester before doing so. Nobody attributed any "I share in the convocation of the Council to the pope until the end of the seventh century — three centuries and a half after the event. Neither is there any reason to suppose that S. Silvester presided in the Council, either personally or by his legates. Eusebius, speaking of Silvester, says, "The bishop of the imperial city was absent on account of his old age, but his presbyters were present and filled his place." ^ These presbyters were two in number, Vincentius and Vito, but they neither signed first nor were they the chief presidents. To quote Cardinal Newman's words, " Hosius^ne of the most eminent men of an age of saints, was president."^ He was- Bishop of Cordova, in^ Sgain, and was the prelate who had the greatest influence with the emperor, and he was probably appointed by the emperor to preside.^ Some Ultramontanes suppose that he presided as the chief legate of the pope ; but none of the early historians speak of him as holding any such position.* Vin- centius and Vito are the only legates whom they mention. Gelasius of Cyzicus> at the end of the fifth * Be Yit. Const, iii. 7. 2 TJie Arians of the Fourth Century, 3rd edit., 1871, p. 257. ' Even the Ultramontane Ballerini consider that it is most probable that Marinus of Aries presided at the Council of Aries (a.d. 314) by the emperor's orders (cf. Ballerinn. ohss, in dissevL V. Quesnell., pars. ii. cap. v. § 4). * E.g. Eusebius, Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen, 144 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [iv. century, is the first person who suggests the idea that Hosius was also a legate; but Gelasius' authority is of the weakest kind.^ We may safely say that Silvester neither convoked the Council, nor did he preside in it by his legates, nor was the Council confirmed by him in any special way. In one sense, of course, each bishop who was absent from the Council, and who accepted its decisions, confirmed it by that acceptance. But the decision of the Council was enforced on the Arian heretics without anybody waiting to find out whether the pope agreed or disagreed with what had been done.^ If Silvester was the infallible monarch of the Church, he certainly adopted the strangest methods for asserting his in- fallibility and his sovereign authority. He simply said nothing about either of them, but he behaved just as he ought to have behaved if he was the first bishop in the Church and nothing more. But the Council of Nicsea th rows light in other ways on the position of the Roman see. In the sixth * Dupia calls him " a sorry compiler, who gathered all he met with relating to his subject, both bad and good, without examining whether it was true or false." Mr. Precentor Venables says that "his work is little more than a compilation from the ecclesiastical histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, to which he has added little but what is very doubtful or manifestly untrue : " see Smith and Wace, s.v. Gelasius (13), ii. 622 ; and compare Mansi, ii. 753. ^ See Bossuet's Defensio, pars iii. lib. vii. cap. vii. Bossuet says concerning the dogmatic decree of the Nicene Council, " Facto Patrum decreto, adeo res transacta putabatur, ut nulla mora inter- positd, nullo expectato sedis apostolical speciali decreto, omnes ubiquo terrarum episcopi, Christiani omnes, atque ipse imperator, ipsi etiam Ariani, tamquam divine judicio cederent." IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, 145 canon there is a reference to the Church of Rome. In that canon the Council decreed as follows : " Let the ancient customs prevail, namely, those in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis : that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over all these, since the same is customary for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and other provinces, that the privileges be secured to the Churches,"^ etc. This canon ratifies the ancient custom that the Bishop of Alexandria should retain his fulness of jurisdiction over the various provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. That jurisdiction was very great, as I observed in a previous lecture. But the canon goes on to cite the case of the Roman see as parallel to the case of the Alexandrian see. It says, " since the same is customary for the Bishop of Rome." Rufinus explains that Rome had the care of the suburbicarian Churches, as Alexandria had of the Egyptian and Libyan Churches. The Council says not a word about any Roman primacy of juris- diction over the whole Church. It puts side by side the privileges of the second see and the privileges of the first see. The bishops of both sees were powerful bishops, — powerful metropolitans, — if you will, power- ful patriarchs, though it is practically certain that in the Nicene age they were neither of them, strictly speaking, patriarchs with subject metropolitans.^ But whatever they were, the nature of their authority ' On the spurious addition to this canon, in which it is said that the Eoman Church always had the primacy, see pp. 277, 278. « Cf. Tilleraont, x. 790. L 146 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [iv was identically the same. The canon implies a certain primacy in Kome, because it proposes Rome as, in a sort of way, the model; but the primacy implied by the canon is_ obviously a primacy of ^ honour, not a universal supremacy of jurisdiction. If that had been thought of, it would have been safe-guarded. Moreover, if that had been thought of, Rome would hardly have been mentioned as a precedent for the limited jurisdiction of Alexandria. If you are discussing the privileges of this or that peer, you are hardly likely to illustrate your argu- ment by referring to the prerogative of the king. But again the Council of Nicaea throws light on the question whether the see of Rome had a primacy of jurisdiction over all Churches, by its decree in re- gard to appeals. The fifth canon allows persons who think that they have been unjustly excommunicated by their bishop to complain to the Provincial Synod, and the synod is to determine whether the complaint is a just one, and to make some decree in accordance with ^its determination. Not a word is said about any appeal from the decision of the Provincial Synod, either to some greater synod, or to a patriarch, or to Rome. The Provincial Synod js &et forth as the final authority for each province. Now, the Vatican Council decrees that because the Roman pontiff pre- sides over the universal Church hy the divine right of his apostolic primacy, therefore " he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and recourse may be had to his judgment in all causes which pertain to the jurisdic- J IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 147 tion of the Church." Why did not the Council of Nicsea safeguard this divine right of its infallible monarch ? Is it not marvellous that on the very first occasion when the whole Church has an oppor- tunity of meeting together by representation in an Ecumenical Synod, the one matter in which it seems to take no interest is the divinely given prerogatives of its head ? If it alludes to the Eoman see in a casual way in its sixth canon, it is only to speak of its minor rights as the local metropolitan see of Central and Southern Italy. Concerning any general powers belonging to Rome as the court of appeal for the whole Catholic Church, it preserves an absolute and, I must add, a significant silence. It is silent, not because it consciously repudiates, but because t he idea had not crossed the minds of the Saints and Fathers who composed the Council. Undoubtedly, if the idea had been presented to the synod, and if any claim on behalf of the pope had been urged as a matter of divine right, there can be no question that a repudiation of such claim would have been made in unmistakable terms. But as a matter of fact the claim was not made, and therefore the whole conception which underlies the Vatican decrees was ignored. From whatever point of view we regard that wonderful assembly, the first Ecumenical Council we find in it a perpetual witness against .the. thgory that modern papalism has any foothold in primitive tradition and practice. The Nicene Council set the seal of its ecumenical approval on that system of 148 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [iv. Church government which was in use during the first three centuries, and for which the Church of England contends at the present day. We now pass from the Council of Nicsea to the Council of Sardica,\ which was held eighteen or nine- teen years later, in" A.D. 343 or 344. This Council is of very great importance in its bearing on our sub- ject, because it really did give to the pope a certain measure of jurisdiction outside the limits of the suburbicarian Churches. The Council was intended to be an Ecumenical Council, and when it passed the canons to which I am alluding, it intended to give to the pope the right of receiving appeals from all parts of the Church, from the East no less than from the West. As things turned out, the Council was not accepted by the Church as ecumenical, and at the present day no one attributes to it that character.^ Almost all the Eastern bishops, who had been summoned, withdrew in a body, and the Council, as it was actually held, consisted of about ninety -five Western bishops and only six Easterns. Some of its acts were accepted by the whole Church, as, for ex- ample, its declaration that S. Athanasius, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza, were innocent of the charges brought against them; and also its de- position and excommunication of the principal re- vivers of Arianism; but the disciplinary canons * Nalalis Alexander, in the seventeenth century, argued in favour of the ecumenicity of the Sardican Council, but his assertion was condemned by the Roman censors (see Hefele's Ilistorij of the Church Councils, vol. ii. p. 176, English trans.). ivj THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 1^9 passed by the Council were not received in the East until the end of the seventh century, and even then many of their provisions were considered as applying only to the Churches of the West.^ But even in the West itself the canons were by no means universally received. In Africa they were not known in the fifth century. However, although these canons were by no means universally accepted, they are of very great importance in the history of the growth of the papal power. During the years which had elapsed since the Council of Nicsea, there had been a great deal of confusion in the Church. As we have seen, the Council of Nicsea decreed that the affairs of each province should be administered by the synod of that province ; no provision was made for any appeal to a higher authority than the Provincial Synod. But, as a matter of fact, appeals had from time to time been made to the emperors, and they had com- mitted the hearing of some of those appeals to such synods as they chose to convoke. Much trouble had arisen in consequence. The great S. Athanasius had been condemned on the most frivolous grounds by a Synod of Tyre, which had no sort of jurisdiction over him, except what it got from the emperor, and twice he had been banished from his see by the imperial authority. He had been supported by Pope S. Julius of Rome, who had recognized the ecclesias- tical nullity of the proceedings of his opponents, and the futility of the charges made against him, and * See the note on pp. 153, 154. 150 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [iv. had granted to him the communion of the Church of Rome. In fact, during all these eighteen years the Church of Rome had played a very good part. \ It had maintained loyally the Catholic faith as de- fined at Nicsea, and it had supported the orthodox bishops who were suffering persecution at the hands of the Arianizing emperors and of the Arianizing cabal of Eastern bishops who looked to Eusebius of Nicomedia as their ringleader. When compared with the confusion which reigned in the East, Rome and the West seemed a quiet haven of refuge. We need not wonder that a great Western council, such as the Council of Sardica was, should think that the time had come for providing some canonical method of appeal from the decisions of Provincial Councils which should take the place of the uncanonical ap- peals to the emperor, which had become frequent. ! And what could be more natural than to substitute ( an appeal to the Bishop of Rome, who enjoyed a i primacy of honour which was recognized by the ^ whole Church ? Not that the Council of Sardica intended that the Bishop of Rome should personally hear the appeal, but they proposed that, if, on being appealed to, he thought that a rehearing ought to be granted, he should have the right to appoint bishops who should hear the appeal. The Council of Sardica only proposed to grant this right of ap- peal to Rome in the case of a bishop who should have been deposed by the synod of the province to which he belonged; and part of their arrangement tv.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 151 was that, if the pope chose to grant a rehearing and \/0 appoint judges, he should be bound to nominate bishops from the neighbourhood of the province in which the case had arisen ; although he was also to have the power, if he chose to use it, of sending legates of his own to preside in his name over the court of appeal. There was no thought of giving to the pope any right of evoking the cause to Rome. The appeal was to be heard out in the provinces, in the neighbourhood of the place where the cause had arisen. Such were the main provisions of the famous canons of Sardica,^ which conferred an appellate jurisdiction of a strictly limited kind on the Roman pope. Before discussing the light which they throw on our general subject, it will be well to quote some of the clauses of one of these canons. In the third canon, "Hosius the bishop said ... if any of the \ bishops shall have been condemned in any matter, i and thinks that he has right on his side, and wishes that a new council should be convoked ; if it please j you, let us honour the memory of S. Peter the apostle, and let the bishops who have judged the case [in the Provincial Synod] write to Julius, the Roman bishop, and if he shall determine in favour of a new trial, let there be a new trial, and let him appoint judges," etc. It seems most strange that Roman Catholics should refer with any pleasure to these canons of Sardica. According to the view laid down by the Vatican ^ According to Hefele's numbering, they are the third, fourth, and fifth canons. 132 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [iv. Council, the supremacy of the pope belongs to him jure divino, and as a consequence of that supremacy every member of the Church, whether he belongs to the clergy or to the laity, has an inherent right of appealing to his judgment in any matter appertaining to the jurisdiction of the Church. But here we have the fathers of the Council of Sardica carrying a reso- lution, so to speak, in favour of the Roman see, and determining that, in honour of the memory of S. Peter, they will in certain rare cases give to the pope a very restricted right of determining whether there shall be a rehearing, and of appointing bishops who shall form the court of appeal, and of deputing one or more legates to preside in that court. And all this is proposed by Bishop Hosius tentatively — " si vobis placet " — " if it please you." On the papalist theory, the whole proceeding must appear insufferably im- pertinent. It did not so appear to S. Athanasius and to the other Fathers of the synod, because they knew nothing of the theory which underlies the Vatican decrees. They thought that they were conferring an extraordinary privilege on the Roman see, by giving to it a certain measure of jurisdiction outside its own suburbicarian domain, and that they were thus honouring the memory of S. Peter, whose suc- cessor Julius was reputed to be. So they thought, and they were quite right. The new privilege which they then conferred was extraordinary Their in- * Archbishop De Marca of Paris (De Concord. Sac. et Imp. vil. iii. viii.) rightly says, " Tlie words of the canon prove that the institution d IV.] THE PAPACY IN" THE FOURTtr CENTURY. 15^ tention was to add to the primacy of honour which the see of Eome ah-eady possessed, a primacy of jurisdiction — of limited jurisdiction, no doubt, but still a primacy of jurisdiction, and one which should affect the whole Church. They failed in carrying out their full design, because these canons were never received in the East in such sense as to be applicable (without modification) to the East;^ and they were of this right was nein. * If it please you,* says Hosius of Cordova, the president of the council, 'let us honour the memory of S. Peter the apostle.' Ho says not that the ancient tradition was to be confirmed, as was wont to be done in matters which only require the renewal or explanation of an ancient right." * The Sardican canons were included in the collection of John Scholasticus, the schismatic patriarch of Constantinople, who was intruded by Justinian into the place of S. Eutychius ; and they re- ceived a certain recognition at the Trullan Council, along with other documents, more or less inconsistent with them, as, for example, the canons and letters of the Councils of Carthage in the time of S. Aure- lius, whicli expressly rejected the Sardican system of appeals. Pope Nicholas I. (Coleti, ix. 1297), in his first letter to Photius, alleged the 10th (al. 13th) canon of Sardica, in proof of the uncanonical character of Photius' elevation to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople ; but Photius, who was the most learned man who ever sat on that throne, absolutely denied, in his reply, that those canons were received in the Constantinopolitan Church (Migne's Patrol. Grxc, cii. 600, 601). The later Greek canonists, finding them in some way sanctioned by the Trullan Council, interpret the canons which deal with the appeal to Eome as applying, in the letter, only to the Churches of the AVest. They hold that, so far as they are applicable to the East, the appeal is to the see of Constantinople, which is new Eome (cf. Beveridge's Synodicout i. 486, 489). But, when we pass from the theories of canonists to the actual practice of the Church, we find that tlie Sardican discipline about appeals was never carried out in the East. The Councils of Antioch, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, had worked out a totally different scheme of appeals, in which the pope docs not appear at all. And the real fact is that it is very difiScult to discover much trace of the actual carrying out of the Sardican system, even in t54 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. tix, only received in certain parts of the West. But in whatever Western provinces they were received, they had the effect of aggregating those provinces for certain purposes to what may now be called the Roman patriarchate. The ultimate effect of these canons was to revolutionize the whole theory and practice of ecclesiastical government, at any rate within the Latin portion of the Church. For here we have the first beginning of that which, in the course of ages, was enlarged by accretion and suc- cessful usurpation into that plenitude of power which, wherever it is acknowledged, makes the Church to be the bond-servant of the pope. "' Having thus considered the two great Councils of Nicsea (a.d. 325) and Sardica (a.d. 343 or 344) in their bearing on our general subject, we are in a position to revert to the pontificate of Damasus, who occupied the Roman chair from A.D. 366 to A.D. 384. I have already implied several times that this pontificate constitutes a fresh starting-point in the history of the growth of the papal claims. It was during the episcopate of Damasus that a worldly spirit became very marked among many of the members of the clergy of the Roman Church. It was /alsoj during his time that, by legislative action on the^art of the emperors, a certain measure of coactive jurisdiction was conferred by the state upon the popes. My limits will not allow me to treat this branch of the the West, before the ninth century. Compare De Marca's De Concord, Sac. et. Imp., lib. vii. capp. iv. et seqq. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE POURTH CENTURY. ^55 subject in much detail, but I propose to illustrate my statement by reference to a certain decree of the Emperor Gratian, which was promulgated in response to the petition of a synod held at Rome under the presidency of Damasus. The synod was held in the year 378/ and it petitioned Gratian to give orders that if any bishop, after being condemned, should wish wrongly to keep possession of his bishopric, or if, when summoned to be tried by his brethren, he should contumaciously refuse to come, he should be brought to Rome either by the prefect of the prsetorium of Italy, or by the vicarius of the city of Rome ; or, if the trouble arose in the more distant parts, that the duty of trying the case should be committed to the local metropolitan ; or, if the metro- politan was himself the guilty party, that he should be ordered to go without delay to Rome, or to such judges as the Bishop of Rome might appoint. They further asked that, if the accused bishop should for any reason doubt the fairness of his metropolitan, or of any other of his episcopal judges, he should have the right to appeal to the Bishop of Rome, or to a synod of at least fifteen of the neighbouring bishops.^ ^ The synodical letter is addressed to Gratian and Valentinian II. , no mention being made of either Valens or Theodosius ; and the im- perial reply runs also in the name of the same two emperors. Tille- mont (viii. 775, 776) and Coleti (ii. 1190) conclude that both letter and reply must be assigned to the latter portion of the year 378, between the death of Valens in August, 378, and the accession of Theodosius in January, 379. Mansi agrees ; and so does F. Kyder (^Catholic Controversy, p. 68, 2nd edit.). - Cf. Coleti, Concilia, ii. 1189. It is clear from the letter of the t56 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, tiv. Such was the request which the Synod of Rome,jn the year 378, sent to the young Emperor Gratian, who was only nineteen years old. The bishops who sat in this council came from various parts of Italy .^ Presumably, they were the pope's suburbicarian suffragans. T he em peror granted to them all that they asked; and when one comes to look into his rescript, one discovers that, by the addition of about five words, he gave to them a great deal more than they asked. They had asked that contumacious bishops should be compelled by the prefect of the priBtorium of Italy, or else by the vicarius of the city of Rome, to come to Rome to be tried. This mention of the officials who were to coerce the re- fractory prelates limits the scope of the application of the enactment, for which the synod petitioned, to Italy and Illyricum.^ The emperor in his rescript synod, and also from the emperors' reply, that earlier in the rei<^n of Gratiau, apparently when he ^\as the colleague of his father Valen- tinian I., there had been some imperial decree enacting that the Bishop of Home should have the right to try the other bishops of the Churches. That earlier decree, jDrobably made in 3G7, would seem to have covered the whole ground of the synod's petition. The synod asks for no new law, but for the better execution of the earlier law. It says, "Idcirco statuti imperialis non novitatem sed firmitudinem postulamus " (Coleti, ii. 1188). The earlier decree was evidently called forth by the schism of the anti-pope Ursinus; but it was probably restricted in its scope to the provinces comprised within the civil jurisdiction of the prefect of the prsetorium of Italy. If it had referred to the Western empire generally, the Koman Synod of 378 would assuredly have laid stress on the fact, and that synod's petition would have asked for the renewal of such a far-reaching jurisdiction (see p. 157). ' *' Ex diffusis Italise partibus . . . congrcgati." ' The prefecture of lUyricum was at that time administered by tho IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, 157 brings in the prefect of the prsetorium of Gaul and the proconsuls of Africa and Spain, and thus extends the system of appeals, which he is establishing, to the whole of the Western empire, to Gaul, Britain, Spain, and Africa, as well as to Italy and Illyricum.^ It sometimes seems to me that ecclesiastical historians have hardly done justice to the immense importance of this act of imperial legislation. B^ one stroke of his pen the Emperor Gratian created, so far as the civil power could create, a patriarchal jurisdiction over the whole Western empire, and vested it in the Bishop of Rome. The powers granted by the rescript go far beyond anything which was attempted by the Council of Sardica. At Sardica there was no question of any one being tried at Rome. But, according to the Prefect of Italy. The very learned Jesuit, Daniel Farlati (Illyricum Sacrum, torn. i. p. 84, ed. 1751), says, *' Illyricum integrum, nuUaque sui parte diminutum Valentinianus in suS, potestate rctinuit, ejusque l^lenam administrationem Prxfecto Prsstoriano Ilali.i; reliquit, vel mandavit, ad quern paucis ante annis Jovianus, vcl Julianus oamdem revocaverat. Usee forma et descriptio Imperii atquc Illyrici rctenta est sub Gratiano et Valentiniano juniore." So Sextus Petronius Probus was Prefect of Italy and also of Illyricum from 3G8 to 375 (see Tillemont, Jlistoire des EmiJereurs, v. GS5, G86, cd. 1701); and Mamertinus from 362 to 365 (Tillemont, Op. cit, v. 21); and it seems probable that Hesperius, tiie sou of the poet Ausonius, admiuibtered the prefectures of Italy and Illyricum in 378 (see Tille- mont, Op. cit., tom. V. p. 712 et seq.; and Jac. Gothofred., Cod. Theodos.f tom. vi. p. 366, ed. Lugd., 1665). On the two prefectures being held during the reigns of Valentinian and Gratian by one prefect, compare Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, ii. 3, 4. * The Roman synod in its petition had used the words : " seu ab illustribus vuis praifectis prsetorio Italia) vestra?, sive a vicario." Gratian in his rescript says, " aut ab illustribus virisprajfectis prajtorio Gallix atque Italise, sive a proconsulihus, vel vicari/s" (Coleti, Concilia, ii. 1191). 1 58 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [iv. rescript, all the metropolitans of the Western empire are liable to be dragged to Kome, whether they will or no, by the secular arm, in order that at Rome they may be judged by the pope. Moreover, bishops w^ho are dissatisfied with the judgment of their metro- politan and his synod may appeal to Rome, and the appeal may apparently be heard by the pope in person ; whereas, according to the canon of Sardica, all that the pope could do was to order a rehearing of the case by bishops of the provinces bordering on the province of the accused. We have no reason to suppose that the bishops of Gaul or Spain or Africa had ever wished that this new system should be made applicable to them, or that they assented to it. Even Damasus himself and his Italian synod had not pro- posed such an enormous extension of the Roman patriarchate. The emperor seems to have thrown in Gaul, Britain,^ Spain, and Africa, as if he thought that he might as well do the thing thoroughly while he was about it. But w^e must observe carefully that there is jnot a. word in the rescript about the Eastern em^re. Let no one suppose that it was a recognition by the state of the inherent primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church which Ultramontanes suppose to have been granted by our Lord to S. Peter, and to his successors, the popes. The^ new system applies only to the West. It is limited, local. It^s_there- fore patriarchal, not papal. Moreover, its extension > Britain was, in the time of Gratian, under the civil jurisdiction of the prefect of the prjetorium of Gnul. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 159 t o Gaul, Britain, Spain, and_ Africa had no s^^nodical action for its basis. The patriarchal jurisdiction over those countries was the creation of the state, not the creation of the Church. Ecclesiastically, the new legislation, so far as it applied to those more remote countries, was null and void. Still it was law, and the powers given to the pope were capable of being enforced by the whole might of the Roman empire. Was I not right in saying that the pontificate of Damasus forms a new point of departure in regard to all matters connected with the growth of the papal jurisdiction ? I sometimes think that the Roman pontiffs, having acquired this vast extension of juris- diction by the act of the civil power without any concurrence of the Church, were driven to devise some presentable theory which should constitute a religious basis for the new authority which they had acquired. Their vague claim to be successors of S. Peter would be an obvious basis to put forward. That claim being really unhistorical and baseless, there could be no definition of the privi- leges conferred by it, either in scripture or tradition. This absence of authoritative definition would leave them free to plead their succession from S. Peter as a religious basis for jurisdiction derived from the emperor. / Whether Damasus did so plead it I cannot" say, but I find in the decretals of Siricius, the suc- cessor of Damasus, a new way of speaking about the privileges supposed to be inherited by the Roman see from S. Peter. I must, however, finish what I i6o THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [iv. have to say about Damasus before passing on to Siricius. A few months after the Emperor Gratian had issued the rescript which so greatly enlarged the power of the pope, he joined Theodosius to himself as a partner in the government of the empire, and he assigned to Theodosius the East, while he reserved the West as his own immediate share. The empire had been divided in this way on previous occasions, but Gra- tian's partition did not proceed exactly on the old lines. Hitherto as a rule the whole of Illyricum had belonged to the West. Now Gratian divided Illyricum into two parts, and united Eastern Illyricum to that part of the empire which he committed to Theodosius.^ Damasus saw very clearly that there was great danger that Eastern Illyricum would pass away from his sphere of influence, or rather (to use what would now be the more accurate expression) from his juris- diction, unless something was done to safeguard his rights. We may be certain that the canons of Sardica, though they were not at that time known in Africa, were well known in Eastern Illyricum. Sardica is itself situated in Eastern Illyricum, and three of the Sardican canons ^ dealt with local matters connected with the Church of Thessalonica, the most powerful see in Eastern Illyricum. If the canons of Sardica were in * Tillemont (llidoire des Empereurs, ed. 1701, torn. v. pp. 71G-718) eliows that Gratian gave Eastern Illyricum to Theodosius, when he made him Emperor, i.e. in 379. Compare Duchesne (Origines, p. 41) ' Namely, the sixteenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth, according to Ilefelc'fl numbering. I iv.l THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. i6i force there, then undoubtedly Damasus had a certain jurisdiction of a limited kind in the Eastern Illyrian provinces.^ But besides the jurisdiction conferred by the canons of Sardica, there v^as the new and much fuller jurisdiction quite lately conferred by Gratian. The rescript of Gratian had, I believe, been issued before the partition of Illyricum, and if so, it doubt- less had force of law there.^ Damasus would be very loth to lose those fair provinces from his patriarchate.^ At the same time, it would not be very easy for him to interfere otherwise than exceptionally in the affairs of provinces which belonged to the Eastern emperor. He therefore gave a commission to Ascholius, Bishop of Thessalonica,^ creating him his vicar in Eastern ' It is worth mentioning that one of the Sardican canons on appeals to Rome, namely, the fourth, was proposed by a bishop of Eastern Illyricum, Gaudentius of Naissus, in Dacia. - It is fair to add that some great authorities assign the rescript of Gratian to 380 or 381 ; that is to say, to a date later than 379, when Illyricum was divided. I may mention Hefele (CounciUy ii. 292, E.T.) and Duchesne (Liber Pontificalis^ p. 214). If their view be correct, the Canons of Sardica miglit seem to be the sole basis of the pope's claim to jurisdiction over Eastern Illyricum, since Gratian's rescript, wliich was limited in its scope to the Western division of the empire, would have given him no autiiority there. But it must be remembered that there had been an earlier decree of Gratian (see note on pp. 155, 156), which conferred certain large powers on the Eoman bishop. I , think that it is almost certain that in that earlier decree mention had been made of the Praetorian Prefect of Italy, whose sphere of adminis- tration extended at that time over the whole of the undivided Illy- ricum. If that be so, the pope had in any case acquired through the action of the state patriarchal powers throughout Illyricum, before the division of that prefecture in 379, and ray argument will remain unaf- , fected, even though Gratian's second rescript be assigned to 380 or 381. ' Cf. Duchesne, Origines, p. 41. * The fact that this commission was granted to the Bishop ot M 1 62 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [iv. lUyricum, and authorizing him to exercise the powers which belonged to himself as Patriarch of the West.^ This was the first instance of the popes attempting anything of this kind. Until the Council of Sardica there would have been no ground for such action, because up to that time the popes had no jurisdiction of any sort or kind outside the suburbicarian pro- vinces. But Gratian's rescript had made Damasus a very great potentate, a sort of spiritual prefect of the prsetorium throughout the West; and as the prefects had their vicars, so the popes would think that it was natural for them to have vicars also. Accordingly Ascholius of Thessalonica was empowered by Damasus to exercise whatever jurisdiction he, the pope, possessed in the provinces of Eastern Illyricum.^ Thessalonica shows that the vicariate was created by the pope after Illyricum had been divided. Sirmium, not Thessalonica, had been the capital of the undivided Illyricum. * If Damasus had thought that there was any possibility of makinjf good a claim to universal jurisdiction over the whole East, there would have been as much necessity for him to create vicars in Egypt and Syria and Asia Minor as in Eastern Illyricum. 2 The proof of this statement may be seen in the letters of Pope Innocent I. to Anysius and Kufus, two successive bisliops of Tliessa- lonica, in which he confirms to Anysius and imparts to Eufus vicarial powers over Eastern Illyricum, and in which he refers to the similar action taken by his predecessors, Damasus and Siricius, in favour of Ascholius, the predecessor of Anysius, and of Anysius himself (cf. Coleti, Concilia, v. 8i5, 846). The letters of Damasus to Ascholius are lost ; for the two which were read at the Roman Council under Boniface IL, in a.d. 531, have nothing to do with this particular subject, and appear to me to be spurious. The original letter from Siricius to Anysius is also lost, but a second letter referring to some of the con- tents of the first is extant (cf. Coleti, ubi siipr.). Duchesne, in an article entitled L'lllyricum eccUsiastique (Byzantinische Zeilsclirij% crster Band, p. 543, 1892), seems to pass over the action of Damasus iu 1 v.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 163 While the see of Rome was thus enlarging the bounds of its jurisdiction in the West by the help of the imperial power, its relations with the East re- mained unchanged, so far as jurisdiction was con- cerned. No doubt the East was conscious that a great ecclesiastical power was rising in the West, but it was a power to which it owed no allegiance, but only the debt of Christian brotherhood and charity, and the respect due to the see which had the primacy of honour. The attitude of the East towards Rome comes out very clearly in connection with the schism of Paulinus at Antioch. The origin of that schism goes as far back as the year 330, when S. Eustathius, the orthodox Bishop of Antioch, was deposed on false charges of Sabellianism and immorality, by Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Csesarea, and other bishops, who sympathized with Arianism. The Emperor Con- stantine banished S. Eustathius from Antioch; but before the saint departed he enjoined on his people the duty of patiently continuing in the Church of Antioch, even though Arianizing bishops might be set over them. They were to remain and strengthen the faith of the poor and uninstructed, and to do what they could to resist the wolves who would otherwise ravage the flock.^ S. Chrysostom, who tells us this, adds that events showed the wisdom of the this matter, and to suppose that the vicariate of Thessalonica was created by Siricius. I do not understand how the clear statement of Pope Innocent can be got rid of ; but, whichever view is finally adopted, my argument remains unaffected. * Cf. S. Chrys. Rom, in 8. Eustathium, § 4, Opp, ed, Ben., ii. 609. ; 1 64 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [n% saint's counsel, for the great mass of the Catholics refused to set up any separate conventicles, but attended the principal churches of the city, even when the bishops thrust in by the Arianizing em- perors were heretical ; and so the flock remained Catholic, though it had a succession of heretical chief pastors.-^ At last, by the good Providence of God, a saintly and orthodox bishop, Meletius, who had for- merly occupied the see of Sebaste in the Lesser Armenia, was appointed Bishop of Antioch. Catho- lics and Arians united in electing him, the Arians supposing him to be Arian, and the Catholics having reason to believe that he was Catholic. In his first sermon he plainly declared his sentiments, and openly professed the Catholic faith in its fulness in the presence of the Arian Emperor Constantius. Now, it happened that there was a small body of ardent Catholics in Antioch who had, ever since the banish- ment of S. Eustathius, held aloof from the main body of the Antiochene Church, and had worshipped sepa- rately, having as their leader a worthy priest named Paulinus. There was, no doubt, much to be said in justification of the course which they took, although it was in opposition to the council of S. Eustathius, whom they specially professed to follow, and after * Tillemont (x. 524) says that these Arianizing bishops of Antioch " were not visibly separated from the communion of the universal Church, and most of them concealed their heresy somewhat ; " but this can hardly be said of Stephen, who was excommunicated by name at the Council of Sardica. It is, however, most probable that the pro- ceedings of that council remained unknown for several years to Iho Church people of Antioch. iv.j THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 165 whose name they were commonly called Eustathians. But now that at length the bishop, accepted by the great majority of the Church people in the city, was thoroughly Catholic, there was a splendid opportunity for healing the schism. However, Paulinus and his party still held aloof. A few months after Meletius had been enthroned in the episcopal chair, the very celebrated and very influential Council of Alexandria was held under the presidency of S. Athanasius. This Council carefully considered the position of affairs at Antioch, and it recommended that the whole body of Catholics in that city should unite to- gether.^ It accordingly appointed a commission, headed by S. Eusebius of Vercellae, which was to proceed to Antioch and bring aboiit the mucli- desired reunion. Unfortunately a hot-headed bishop from Sardinia, named Lucifer, who immediately afterwards broke away from the Church with his followers, reached Antioch before the commission sent by S. Athanasius and by the other Fathers of the Council of Alexandria. Instead of reuniting the two parties of Catholics, and inducing them all to acknowledge S. Meletius as bishop, which was obviously the right thing to do,^ Lucifer consecrated ^ Dom Montfaucon, the Benedictine editor of S. Chrysostom, in the Monitum to S. Chrysostom's homily De Anathemate (0pp. S. Chrys. e;l. Ben., Vonet., 1734, torn. i. p. 690), describes the action of S. Atha- nasius thus : " Athanasius in Synodo Alexandrina anno 362, totis viribus nitebatur, ut Eustathiani Meletianis adjungerentur, omnesque Catholici unum Mdetium Episcopum agnoscerent." * See Cardinal Newman's Arians of the Fourth Century^ 3rd edit., 1S71, pp. 374, 375. 166 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [ir. Paulinus the priest of the Eustathians. Thus the schism was made tenfold more difficult to heal. Bishop was now pitted against bishop. But the blame of the schism must be laid on Lucifer who consecrated, and on Paulinus who allowed himself to be consecrated. This grievous scandal took place in the year 362. S. Gregory of Nyssa describes it as an attempt to corrupt the chastity of the Church of Antioch, which Church, however, remained faithful to her pastor, S. Meletius, who was espoused to her.^ The great majority of the orthodox Christians of Antioch were in the communion of S. Meletius, while a small minority followed Paulinus. Apparently for some years the Roman Church was undecided as to which side should receive her support ; but in the year 875 Pope Damasus openly declared himself in favour of Paulinus, and wrote letters to him treating him as the one Catholic Bishop of Antioch, and ignoring altogether the claims of S. Meletius. Two years later, in 377, Pope Damasus went further, and in the pre- sence of Dorotheus, a priest whom S. Basil had sent to Rome, spoke of S. Meletius and of the glorious S. Eusebius of Samosata as if they were Arian heretics. One cannot help seeing a certain analogy between the state of things in Antioch at that time and the state of things in England now. The Church of Antioch under S. Meletius numbered in its fold the great majority of those who held the Catholic faith, as the Church of England does at the present day * S. Greg. Nyss. Oral. Funchr. in S. Melet, 0pp. ed. Migne, iii. 8o7. IV.] THE PAPACY IN TIIE FOURTH CENTURY. 167 The minority of separatists under Paulinas had the support of Damasus and the Roman Church, and thus occupied a position in some way parallel to the Romanist communion in this country, though there can be no question that Paulinus would have rejected with horror the Vatican decrees, if they had been proposed to him for his acceptance. All the great saints of the Eastern Church, and above all S. Basil, supported S. Meletius. They were on the spot, they knew the facts, and they treated S. Meletius with the greatest veneration as a saint, and as the occupant of the apostolic throne of Antioch.^ They communicated with him, although Rome ignored him ; they rejected the communion of Paulinus, although Rome supported him. Towards the end of the year 376 a fresh com- plication added to the confusion. The heresiarch Apollinaris openly separated himself from the Church, and consecrated Vitalis, or Vitalius, to be the Apolli- narian Bishop of Antioch. This made a third bishop in that unfortunate city. Three years before there had arrived in Antioch a young man, twenty-seven years old, who was destined to play an important part in the history of the Church. His name was Jerome. He was a Latin, born in Dalmatia, but ^ In the year 379 a great council of Eastern bishops was held at Antioch. One hundred and forty-six prelates attended, amongst ■whom were S. Eusebius of Samosata, S. Pelagius of Laodicea, S. Eu- logius of Edessa, and S. Gregory of Nyssa. As Tillemont (viii. 367) says, it was one of the most illustrious councils ever held in the Church. S. Meletius presided. The whole East accepted him as tho rightful bishop, though he was rejected by the Church of Rome. i68 THE PAPACY IN THE POVRTH CENTURY, [iv. catechized and baptized at about tlie age of twenty in Rome. He was a member of the local Roman Church, and had formed his conceptions of the position of the Roman Church in Rome itself, where, as I have said, he received his instruction in Chris- tianity. He came to Syria to practise the ascetic life, and he established himself among the monks of the desert of Chalcis. After he had stayed among these monks for about four years he began to find his position uncomfortable, on account of the disputes at Antioch. As a member of the Roman Church, he would naturally sympathize with Paulinus, who was in communion with Pope Damasus. But the monks for the most part would be in communion with S. Meletius, who was the bishop generally recognized in Antioch and the East. S. Jerome therefore wrote a curious letter to the pope, asking for directions as to what he was to do. Any one who is acquainted with S. Jerome's writings, knows that he is a writer who never minces his words. He is apt to exaggerate. He throws himself violently into one side of a dis- puted question, and perhaps a few years afterwards he throws himself with equal violence into the oppo- site side of that same question. God forbid that I should even seem to depreciate the many noble qualities and noble gifts which he possessed ; but no one is faultless, and S. Jerome would have been the last person to claim faultlessness for himself.^ * Ultramontane writers make no scruple about pointing out S. Jerome's faults, when it suits them to do so. The Jesuit, Father IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 169 Certainly, if ever there was a case when a man might be excused for exaggerating the authority of the Roman see, such an excuse might be pleaded on behalf of. S. Jerome. A Latin, living in the East, and suffering continual personal annoyance arising out of the religious divisions of the East, he might well turn to Rome, the Church of his baptism, which was living in comparative quiet, and was basking in the sun- shine of the world's favour, and was supporting faithfully the traditional teaching of the Church, and might seek for direction from the great pontiff who ruled in the capital of the empire, and who, in S. Jerome's view, sat in S. Peter's own chair. Prac- tically at the time when S. Jerome wrote, the whole West was Catholic, and Rome was the centre of the West ; while the East was suffering persecution from an Arian emperor, and was split and divided and weakened. Twenty years before, when Pope Liberius had given way, and had surrendered the Nicene formula/ and when, shortly afterwards, the Western bishops were deluded into signing an Arian creed at the Council of Ariminum, no one would have looked to the pope or to the West for trustworthy guidance. Bottalla, in Lis treatise on the Infallibility of the Pope (ed. 1870, p. 185), speaking of S. Jerome, says, "This holy Doctor's tendency to give too ready credence to unauthorized rumours is well known. Thus, as is pointed out by Zaccaria, he represents S. Chrysostom as an Origenist, and he adopts the falselioods spread abroad by the adherents of Faulinus to the prejudice of S. Meletius of AntiochJ* ^ Hefele admits that Liberius " renounced the formula dfioovaios,'' and that he "renounced the letter of the Nicene faith "(History of the Church Councils, vol. ii. pp. 235, 24G, Eng. trans.). t70 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [iv. Then S. Athanasius stood alone against the world. But things were altered now, and S. Jerome wrote in his perplexity to Pope Damasus as follows : " Since the East tears into pieces the Lord's coat, . . . there- fore by me is the chair of S. Peter to be consulted, and that faith which is praised by the apostle's mouth, thence now seeking food for my soul, whence of old I received the robe of Christ. ... I speak with the successor of the fisherman, and the disciple of the Cross. Ii_^who follow; none^ as my chief but Christ, am associated in communion with thy Blessed- ness, that is, with the^ee of Peter. On that rock the Church is„built,IJknow. Whoso shall eat the Lamb outside that house is profane. If any one shall not be in the ark of Noah, he will perish when the flood prevails. ... I know not Vitalis [the Apollinarian] ; I reject Meletius ; I am ignorant of Paulinus. Wjb.oso gathereth not with thee scattereth; that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist." ^ As far as I know, in all the writings of the Fathers during the first four centuries this passage stands alone. Of course, no Catholic would dream of departing from the general teaching of the Fathers in order to adhere to the exaggerated statements of one young man, who was in sore perplexity.^ We can make excuses » Ep. XX., OpTp. ed. Vallars,, i. 37, 38. Tillemont (xii. 44) gives 37G as the date of this letter. * That he was a young man appears clearly from his own state- ment. Three years before he wrote the above-quoted letter to Damasus, he had written a letter (^Ep. xiv.) to his friend Heliodorus. Later on he describes this letter to Heliodorus as having been written *'dum esscm adolescens, imino pene pucr" (cf. Ep, Hi. ad Nepotian.. IV j THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 17! for him, we can try and see how he ever came to use such words, but we unhesitatingly set them aside as exaggerated and unworthy. If they are taken lite- rally and accepted, we must say that all the glorious Eastern saints of that age were living in deadly sin. They were supporting those who were "profane;" they were communicating with those who were " not in the ark," and who were off " the rock." Take S. Basil as an example. He was the great leader of the Catholic army of the East; fighting a tremendous battle with heresy; undoubtedly the most heroic man of his time. Not a comparative novice like S. Jerome, who had only been baptized ten years before; but a man in the maturity of his power, forty-seven years old, the metropolitan of the great see of Csesarea in Cappadocia. He also had before him the same question to decide. Should he com- municate with Meletius, whom Kome rejected, or with Paulinus, whom "Rome supported ? He decided the question by communicating with Meletius and by rejecting Paulinus. It is doubtful whether the ideas expressed in S. Jerome's fine phrases had ever presented themselves to his mind. If they had, he had seen through their shallowness. Moreover, he had had some experience of what Pope Damasus was like, and whether he really was a rock from which a man might derive solid support. Over and over again he had written to Damasus to ask him, living, 0pp., i. 252). If he was " pene puer " ia 373, he was certainly a young man in 37G. 172 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [it. as he was, in comparative peace and quiet, to help the Eastern Churches which were suffering perse- cution ; but nothing was done, although much might have been done. It was proposed in the year 376 that fresh letters should be written to the West, to be sent by a zealous priest named Dorotheas. S. Basil, writing to S. Eusebius of Samosata, says, " For myself, then, I do not see what one should send by him, or how agree with those who send. . . , It occurs to me to use Diomed's language [to Agamemnon in the Iliad about Achilles] : ' Would that thou hadst never sued for aid,'^ since, saith he, the man 'is arrogant.' For indeed disdainful tempers, treated with attention, are wont to become more contemp- tuous than usual." S. Basil is, of course, speaking of Damasus. He goes on, " And if the Lord should be gracious unto us, what other support do we need ? But if the wrath of God "remain upon us, what help can we get from Western superciliousness ? They who neither know nor endure to learn the truth, but, preoccupied with false suspicions, are doing now just what they did before in the case of Marcellus, * Hiad^ ix. 694, 695. We may suppose that the whole passage was running in S. Basil's mind ; I therefore subjoin the late Lord Derin 'b translation (Homer's Iliad, ix. 805-811): — "Would tiiat thou ne'er hadst stooped with costly gifts To sue for aid from Peleus' matchless son ; For he before was over-proud, and now Thine offers will have tenfold swollen his pride. But leave we him according to his will, To go or stay : he then will join the fight, When his own spirit shall prompt, or Heaven inspire." IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 173 when they quarrelled with those who reported to them the truth, and by their own action supported heresy. For I myself, without concert with any, was minded to write to their leader [Damasus] : nothing indeed about ecclesiastical matters, except so much as to hint that they neither know the truth of what is going on among us, nor accept the way by which they might learn it ; but generally about the duty of not attacking those who are humbled by trials, and of not taking disdainfulness for dignity, a sin which of itself is sufficient to set a man at enmity with God." ^ It is worth while to quote, by the way, Bossuet's comment on this passage. He says, " It is clear that the confirming of heresy was roundly and flatly, without any excuse, without any attempt to modify, imputed by Basil to two decrees of Roman pontiffs de fide!' " What I gather from the whole passage is that S. Basil had no conception of the Bishop of Rome being the divinely appointed monarch of the Church.^ He thought of him as a 1 Ep. 239, 0pp. ed. Ben., 1730, iii. 368. 2 Gallia Ortliodoxay cap. Ixv., CEuvres^ ed. Versailles, 1817, torn, xxxi. p. 138. ' One may illustrate S. Basil's conception of the papal office, as described in the text, by the salutation prefixed to the letter which S. Mcletius, S. Basil, and thirty other Eastern bishops sent to Pope Damasus and other Western bishops by the hands of the Milanese deacon, S. Sabinus, in the year 372. The salutation runs as follows : " To the most religious and holy brethren and fellow-ministers, the like-minded bishops of Italy and Gaul, Meletius, Eusebius, Basil, etc, send greeting in the Lord" (S. Basil, Ep. 92, 0pp. ed. Ben., iii. 183). Tillemont (ix. 668, 669) shows that the term " Italy " in this salutation includes Homo and the suburbicarian Churches. S. Basil in his 213rd Epistle {0pp. iii. 372) addresses Damasus and the 174 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. [iv. very powerful bishop, as, of course, he was, but still as one who was essentially his equal, to whom he owed no allegiance, with whose help he could dispense, and whose actions or inaction he was entitled freely to criticize. If S. Jerome in his younger days thought otherwise, his opinion must be quoted for what it is worth, either as his own personal view, or at most as the theory which he had imbibed at Rome. It was not the general view of the saints or of the Church. It does not represent the tradition received from the apostles. And practically what did S. Jerome gain by f ollov/- ing the lead of Damasus ? Why, this ! that he joined himself to the separatist body of which Paulinus was bishop, and rejected the communion of S. Meletius, the true occupant of the apostolic see of Antioch. Five years after his letter to Damasus, he must have had his Romanizing views somewhat rudely shaken. By that time the Eastern Church had got out of its difficulties. The persecuting Emperor Valens was dead. The orthodox Theodosius was on the throne. The second Ecumenical Council was assembled jit Constantinople, and S. Jerome himself was residing in that city. The Ultramontane historian. Cardinal Orsi, tells us that " perhaps there has not been a council in which has been found a greater number of Western bishops in similar terms. Mansi (iii. 468), speaking of tlio sending of the first of these letters, says that the Eastern bishops "synodicam Sabino tradnut Damaso deferendara." Imagine the Anglo-Roman bishops of the present day writing in this fi\shion to Pope Leo XTII. and to the bishops of Italy and France. IV.] THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. 175 confessors and saints." ^ There were gathered S. Gregory of Nazianzus, S. Gregory of Nyssa, S. Peter of Sebaste, S. Amphilochius of Iconium, S. Pelagius of Laodicea, S. Eulogius of Edessa, S, Cyril of Jerusalem, and many more. And who was the pre- late who was recognized by all as worthy of presiding over this wonderful assemblage ? Cardinal Orsi shall tell us. " But above all," he says, " S. Meletius was pre-eminent, both for the dignity of his see, and for the excellency of his virtue." ^ We must remember that S. Meletius was still out of communion with Rome. Damasus still supported the separatist body under Paulinus, and still refused letters of communion to Meletius. However, that blessed saint, though rejected by Rome, was accepted with veneration by the Church ; and by the agreement of all he took his seat in the presidential chair of the second Ecumenical Council.^ According to S. Jerome's youthful view, he was off " the rock," he was " outside the ark," he was among " the profane." One may fairly suppose that this object-lesson on a large scale must have driven ' » Or&i, l&t. EcG.y xviii. 63 (torn. viii. p. 135, ed. Eora. 1751) : " Dimo- doche non v'e forse concilio, nel quale si sia trovato un maggior numero di confessori, e di santi." 2 " Sopra tutti pero risplendeva si per la dignita dclla sede, si per reccellenza della virtU s. Melezio," ' Orsi (xviii. 64, torn. viii. p. 137) says, " II capo, il condottiere, il padre, e la guida di questa sacra adunanza finche egli visse, fu s. Melezio, e dopo la sua morte s. Gregorio, e finalmente dopo la sua dimissione Nettario." Orsi here enumerates the three prelates, who in succession presided over the Council, viz. S. Meletius, S. Gregory of Nazianzus, and finally Nectarius. Hefele {Councils, Eng. trans., ii. 344) says, " Meletius of Antioch at first presided, and after his death Gregory of Nazlanzue."^ 176 THE PAPACY IN THE FOURTH CENTURY, [iv. those fancies out of S. Jerome's mind. I do not think that he ever again recurs to them.^ While the Council was still going on, S. Meletius died, still out of communion with Kome.^ One may say that he was canonized there and then. The saints vied with each other in preaching his panegyric. We still possess S. Gregory Nyssen's discourse on the occasion. The people flocked to get strips of linen which had touched his body. That body was embalmed and transported with all honour to Antioch ; and five years afterwards, S. Chrysostom, preaching on his festival, tells us of the devotion which the faithful of Antioch felt towards their glorious saint.^ Even Rome had ultimately to alter her views ; and though the pope repudiated and insulted him as an Arian during his life, the Roman Church invokes him as a saint now that he is dead. His name is entered in the Roman Martyrology on the 12th of February. I think that I was justified in saying that, however much Pope Damasus might have succeeded, with the help of the imperial power, in enlarging his jurisdic- tion in the West, the East continued firm in her traditional belief and practice, and acknowledged no '\ jurisdiction, but only a primacy of honour, in the occupant of the papal chair. ^ See Note E. in the Appendix, pp. 392-395. ^ Tillemont (xvi. 6G2) says, " Si tons ceux qui meureut hors de la communion de Eorae, ne peuvent meriter le litre de Saints et de Con- fesseurs, c'estoit a lui [Baronius] k faire effacer du Martyrologo S. Melece et S. Flavien d'Antioche, S. Elie de Jerusalem, et S. Daniel Stylite." I have discussed more fully the question whether S. Meletius died out of communion with Kome on pp. 238-253. • Horn, in 8. Melet., 0pp. ed. Ben., 1734, ii. 518-523. I ( '77 ) k LECTURE y. THE GROWTH OF THE PAPAL POWER DURING THE SIXTY YEARS WHICH FOLLOWED THE DEATH OF DAMASUS. Ix my last lecture I tried to show you how the popes began, in the middle of the fourth century, to acquire jurisdiction outside the suburbicarian Churches. We saw that the Council of Sardica gave to them a strictly limited power of receiving appeals in the case of deposed bishops. But as the canons of Sardica were for a long while neither received nor known in the East, and were only received in certain parts of the West, the jurisdiction derived from the Sardican canons did not go very far. But then we saw how, during the pontificate of Damasus, the Emperor Gratian conferred on the pope a very large measure of jurisdiction over the bishops of the whole Western empire. This jurisdiction received from the emperor had no canonical basis, but it was felt to be a power with wdiich the Western Churches had to reckon ; because the pope, when acting in accordance with the provisions of Gratian's rescript, was able to enforce tyS FROM DAMASUS TO LEO, [v. his authority upon contumacious bishops by the help of the secular mag'strates. The result of this was to give a certain legally authoritative character to all the official acts of the popes, and amongst those acts to the letters ^ which they from time to time sent out in response to the requests for advice which came to them from the provinces. From very early times it had been customary in the West to consult the see of Rome as being the only Western apostolic see. There was a similar custom in the East of consulting the various Eastern apostolic sees. Whether in the East or in the West, the apostolic sees were consulted, because they were presumed to have retained in special purity the original deposit of tradition, which they had received from the apostles. The answers which arrived from Rome or from other apostolic sees were received with great respect, although it was not supposed that they had the force of law. Sometimes it would happen that some specially valu- able letter written by an occupant of one of the great sees, or even occasionally by some bishop of an inferior see who might be in high repute for sanctity and learning, would be received by some Council as stating accurately the law or custom of the Church, and such a letter would, by the action of the Council^ * Gratian's rescript made the pope the court of final appeal for tlic bishops of the "West, and the normal court of first instance for the metropolitans of the "West, but it did not define the law which he was to administer. This omission left it free to the popes to make their own law, and they were able to give to their decretal letters a force equivalent to that of the canons. v.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 179 become a canonically authoritative document. This happened not infrequently in the East. For example, the Church in the East accepted as of binding authority what were called the canonical epistles of S. Denys the Great of Alexandria, of S. Gregory the wonder-worker of Neocsesarea, of S. Peter and of S. Athanasius, both of Alexandria, of S. Basil of Csssarea, of S. Gregory of Nyssa, of S. Gregory of Xazianzus, of S. Amphilochius of Iconium, of Timothy, of Theophilus, and of S. Cyril, all of Alexandria, and of S. Gennadius of Constantinople.^ In the West, although the popes must often have written letters o£ advice in reply to inquiries, we do not find that any of their letters were accepted as having legal force, until we come to the letters of Siricius (who followed Damasus) and his successors. No doubt Pope Stephen had tried, in the time of S. Cyprian, to legislate for the whole Church, by means of letters, on the subject of the baptism of heretics ; but he failed. However, in the time of Siricius the pope had become, by the action of the state, a great potentate in the West, and some of the Western provincial Churches were prepared to accept his replies to their inquiries as having force of law. Under these altered circumstances the popes not unnaturally assumed a more authoritative tone. They no longer gave mere advice, but they laid down the law, and in some cases threatened bishops, who should disobey, with the penalty of being cut off * See the second canon of the Council in TruUo (Coleti, Concilia, Vii. 1315). l8o FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [v. from the communion of the Roman Church. They still professed, however, not to be making new law,^ but to be authoritatively declaring what was the already existing law. But often, under cover of de- claring the old law, they really made new law. For example, old laws might belong to different categories. Some laws would be general laws binding the whole Church, or at any rate binding the whole West, others would be local laws or customs received only at Rome and in the suburbicarian region. The popes, writing to distant provinces in Spain, Gaul, or elsewhere might refer to local Italian customs as old laws, and set them forth as binding on distant Churches,^ and thus, by the authority of their decretal epistle, make them to become law in places where hitherto they had had no canonical force. But it must be observed that this legislative or quasi-legislative action of the popes through decretal ' Compare the letter of Pope Innocent I. (a.d. 402-417) to Victricius of Rouen (Coleti, iii. 8) ; " Non quo nova prascepta aliqua imperentur, sed ea qusB per desidiam aliquorum neglecta sunt, ab omnibus obser- vari cupiauius." Pope Innocent has copied this sentence, almost Avord for word, from tlie letter of his predecessor Siricius to the bishops of Africa (Coleti, ii. 1225). 2 Compare the letter of Pope Innocent I. to Decentius of Eugubium in which he says that the Churches throughout Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, and the adjacent islands ought to follow tlie customs of the Roman Church. He proceeds to give a number of liturgical and ritual directions, e.g. as to the point in the altar service, when the kiss of peace is to be given, and the like. He gives the Roman rule, and asserts that the Western Churches ought to conform themselves to it (cf. Coleti, iii. 4). That was doubtless the papal view, but it was not carried out. The traditions of Gaul, Spain, and even of North Italy, were entirely opposed to such liturgical conformity. See Duchesne, Origines du Culle Chr^tien^ chap. iii. pp. 81-99, et pasUm. I v.] FROM DA MAS US TO LEO. i8i epistles was confined to the West. It was a very rare thing for any Eastern prelate to write to Rome such letters of inquiry on matters of discipline as often came from Western Churches. I do remember one such case. Alexander, Bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter of inquiry to Pope Innocent I. {circa 415) ; and Innocent sent an answer, but it never became part of the Eastern canon law. On the contrary, one very important portion of Innocent's letter, in which he laid down that the Bishop of Antioch ought to have patriarchal jurisdiction over the Bishops of Cyprus, was practically annulled, if it ever had any force, by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus held sixteen years afterwards, which declared that, if the state- ment of facts contained in the petition of the bishops of Cyprus was correct, they were to remain free, and (to use the technical expression) autocephalous.^ As may be supposed, the decision of the Council pre- vailed over that of the pope ; although that is hardly an accurate way of stating the case, for the pope's decretal could have had no legal or canonical force in the East. It follows, from what I have said, that the quasi- legislative authority of Rome which was exercised after the time of Damasus through the papal decretals, being an authority which was only received in the West, was part of the pope's 'patriarchal power. It was not a power belonging to his pri- matial position with reference to the whole Church,} * The Church of Cyprus remains nutocephalous to this day. l83 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [t. The fact is, that as primate of the whole Church he had no jurisdiction, but only honour and influence : as state-made Patriarch of the West he had a juris- diction derived from the emperor : in these Western provinces, where the canons of Sardica were re- ceived, he had, over and above his state-given authority, a very limited jurisdiction derived from the synodical action of the Church : and, finally, in the suburbicarian Churches he had a very full and commanding metropolitical jurisdiction derived from ancient custom — that is to say, if we go to the bottom of the matter, derived from the delegation or con- cession of the bishops of Central and Southern Italy, and regulated and confirmed, as time went on, by the canons of councils. As we have seen, it was in the time of Damasus that the state made the pope Patriarch of the West, and it was in the time of Damasus' successor Siricius that the first decretal epistle having force of law any- where outside the suburbicarian region was issued. It was addressed to Himerius, Bishop of Tarragona in Spain. That letter to Himerius was the beginning of the long line of the genuine papal decretals. In later ages, when it was believed that the popes had always from the beginning been monarchs of the Church, men must have thought it strange that the decretals should begin with Siricius. And so in the ninth century the pseudo-Isidore forged decretals, which he attributed to the earlier popes, from S. Clement of Rome, who, according to the old mistake, was supposed to be S, v.] FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. 183 Peter's immediate successor, onwards. But I must not be tempted into discoursing now about the forged decretals. If we %.^ our attention on the genuine decretals, we find that Pope Siricius and his successors were ashamed to base their asserted legislative authority on the rescript of the Emperor Gratian; they therefore, as I intimated in my last lecture, fell back on their vague claim to be successors of S. Peter in his chair; and in their decretals they began to speak in a semi-mystical way of S. Peter living on in them, and acting and judging and defining through them. Let me give a few examples. Pope Siricius in his first decretal to Himerius says, " We bear the burdens of all who are heavily laden ; or rather the blessed Apostle Peter hears them in us ; for he, as we trust, in all things protects and defends us who are the heirs of his government." ^ Similarly Xystus III., who became pope about thirty-four years after the death of Siricius (viz. in a.d. 432), says in one of his letters that "the blessed Peter in his successors has delivered that which he received."^ Thus the popes of that age taught that S. Peter was in some sense in them, his successors, bearing the burdens of the heavily laden, and delivering in them and through them the deposit of the faith which he had originally received. And this doctrine about S. Peter living and acting in the popes, which was being put forth by the popes, was naturally repeated by papal legates and by other persons closely connected with ' Coleti, Concilia, ii. 1213. « Coleti, iii. 1697, i84 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [v. the Roman see. Thus we find Philip, one ot* the papal legates at the Council of Ephesus, saying that " the most blessed Peter, the prince and head of the apostles, . . > up to the present time and always lives and judges in his successors."^ We must certainly say that all this is new doctrine ; new and therefore false ; an attempt to give a religious sanction to the great position which the Roman pontiffs had acquired mainly through the legislative action of the state. It would be easy to quote further illustrations of the increasing tendency to make large and baseless claims on behalf of the Roman see, which may be found in the letters of Pope Innocent (402-417), Pope Zosimus (417-418), Pope Boniface (418-422), and their successors ; but what I have said under this head is, I think, sufficient. One more point, however, ought to be noticed. Practically these popes of the early part of the fifth century did not attempt to legislate for the East, or to exercise in any specially papal way jurisdiction over it. They probably knew that their claims would be ignored or repudiated. They pressed their new theories on the West especially on those parts of the West which lay outside the suburbicarian provinces, and which had only recently been brought within their jurisdiction by the action of the State. They asserted their new claims on Gaul, and on lUyricum, and on Spain, and on Africa. Having no valid ground for this new jurisdiction of a religious » Coleti, iii, 1153. T.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 1S5 or ecclesiastical character, all that they could do was to refer perpetually to S. Peter, and to the rights which they inherited from him. But of course, any divinely instituted rights coming to the popes from S. Peter as primate, if they existed at all, would be universal in their range. The popes were thus forced to lay down principles which applied to both East and West, though for the present they did not urge them on the East. They were building up a Western patriarchate, but the arguments which they used, if they w^ere sound, really pointed to a universal patriarchate — in other words, to an ecumenical papacy. As time went on, they must have felt this; and when the opportunity presented itself in the time of S. Leo, and still more in the time of S. Leo's successors,^ the claim to ecumenical jurisdiction came openly to the front. But how did the Western provinces accept the new patriarchal yoke which was being pressed upon them ? Naturally, the way in which it was received varied according to circumstances. Apparently the patriarchal authority of Kome was received with least opposition in Eastern Illyricum, the most eastern division of the West.^ On the other hand, it * E.Q. Felix III., Gelasius, Symmaclius, and Hormisdas. 2 Ecclesiastically, Eastern Illyricum belonged to the West, Even there the bishops protested, when the popes first began to receive appeals from the decisions of the local synods. In the time of Pope Innocent I. (circa 414) the Macedonian bishops objected to the pope rehearing the cases of Bubalius and Taurianus, who had been con- demned in Macedonia : see the eighteenth epistle of Innocent in Dom Constant's collection of the Letters of the Koman pontiffs (i. 841, i86 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO, [v. met with the sturdiest rejection in Africa. The great Church of North Africa was at the height of its glory, and, one may add, of its sanctity. It had splendid traditions reaching back to the time of S. Cyprian and to the still earlier times of the second century. In the beginning of the fifth century, it was illuminated by the combined holiness and genius o f S. Augusti ne. And S. Augustine was but one, although the greatest, among a number of saints ; as, for example, to name two of them, S. Aurelius of Carthage and S. Alypius of Tagaste. The African Church had from early times been accustomed to act as one body under the leadership of the Bishop of Carthage. But the Bishop of Carthage,_though leader, had no exaggerated authority. His relation to the African bishops was very different from the relation of the Bishop of Alexandria to the Egyptian bishops, and from the relation of the Bishop of Rome to the suburbicarian bishops. Everything in Africa seemed to bear on it the stamp of primitive freedom. Consequently the African bishops were not at all disposed to accept meekly the new claims which were being put forth by the popes. I might illustrate this statement by referring to the various episodes which occurred during the course of the Pelagian controversy, but for my present purpose I prefer to speak of the case of Apiarius. 842). Dom Coustant, commenting on tho words of Innocent, says, *' Hence we may conclude that Bubalius and Taurianus, having been judged l)y the Macedonians, had appealed to tho apostolic see, and that the Macedonians were indignant that their judgment should be reviewed." FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 1S7 Apiarius was a priest of the Church of Sicca, a place situated in what was called the proconsular province, the province of which Carthage was the metropolis. He fell into certain sins — we are not told the details in regard to them — and he was deposed and excommunicated, though perhaps with some informality, in the year 418 by Urban, Bishop of Sicca, who had been a pupil of S. Augustine. Apiarius appealed from his bishop to Pope Zosimus. Probably he knew that if he appealed to the Provin- cial Synod, the witnesses of his crimes would be forth- coming, and his condemnation would undoubtedly be ratified. He therefore appealed^ to distant Rome. Cardinal Baronius tells us^ that Zosimus received the appeal, and admitted Apiarius to communion, and restored him to the exercise of his priestly functions. Apparently Apiarius, when he was in Rome, made various counter accusations against his bishop Urban, poisoning thereby the mind of Pope Zosimus. Where- upon Zosimus sent three legates, namely, Faustinus, Bishop of Potentia, a city in the March of Ancona, and two Roman priests, Philip and Asellus. These three Zosimus sent as legates to Africa. After their arrival a Council was held in the autumn at Car- thage, at which the Roman legates were present. They said that they had been charged by the pope to treat with the African bishops about four points. 1 The appeal must have been made before the great Coimcil of May, 418; compare p. 195. 2 Amial. Eccl, s.a. 419, torn. v. pp. 463, 464, ed. X658, 1 88 FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. [v. They asked (1) that the African bishops should be allowed to appeal to the Roman See ; (2) that bishops should not go so often to the imperial court ; (3) that priests and deacons, if rashly excommuni- cated by their bishop, should be allowed to appeal to the neighbouring bishops ; (4) that Bishop Urban of Sicca should be excommunicated or even sent to Rome, if he did not amend his ways. They quoted, in support of the first point, the fifth canon of Sardica, which, as I showed in a previous lecture, granted a very limited right of appeal to Rome. But the legates did not quote it as a canon of Sardica, but as a canon of the Ecumenical Council of Nicsea. The canons of Sardica were not accepted in Africa as authoritative; and, in fact, although Gratus, Bishop of Carthage, had been there, all recollection of the true Council of Sardica seems to have completely passed away from the mind of the African Church.^ But the Council of Nicsea was venerated in Africa as elsewhere, and its canons were received as authorita- tive. When the legates quoted the Sardican canon as if it were Nicene, the African bishops at Carthage * At tho Council of Cartilage, held in the year 348, Bishop Gratus referred to the Council of Sardica by name, and recalled the provisions of the 15th {al. 19th) Sardican canon (Coleti, ii. 7-1'J). But the only Council of Sardica known to S. Augustine in 397, when ho wrote to Eleusius {Ep. xliv., 0/;p. ii. 103), and in 406, when ho wrote against Cresconius (Contra Crescon.^ iii. 34, et iv. 44, 0pp. ix. 454, 509), was the Arian Conciliabulum of Philippopolis. The reference to the Council of Sardica, in the jeport of the speech of Bishop Novatus, at tho Council of Carthage, in May, 419 (Coleti, iii. 446), has evidently crept into Ihe text from the ujargiu. v.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 189 must have been thoroughly puzzled. They thought that they knew the Nicene canons well, and this canon quoted by the legates, which allowed appeals to Eome, was completely new to them. It was not in the copy of the Nicene canons which Bishop Caeci- lian of Carthage, who had been present at the Council of Nicgea, had brought' back with him to Africa ; nor in any of the other copies, whether in Greek or Latin, which were preserved in the archives of the Church of Carthage.-^ However, the bishops behaved in the most conciliatory way, and wrote to Pope Zosimus, telling him that the canon quoted by his legates was not in their copies of the Nicene canons, but that they would provisionally consent to observe it until further investigation had cleared the matter up. It is not certain whether Pope Zosimus ever received this letter, as he died in the latter part of December in that year, and was succeeded by Pope Boniface. On May 25, of the following year, 419, a general Council, at which all the African provinces were represented, was held at Carthage under the presidency of S. Aurelius, the bishop of that see. Next to S. Aurelius sat Valentinus, the Primate of Numidia. After him Faustinus, the papal chief legate. Then followed in due^order all the African bishops who were present, 2 l7Jn_ number, including S. Augustine and S. Alypius. * At the Council held in May, 419, S. Alypius, speaking of tlie canons alleged by Faustinus, said, evidently with a twinkle in his eye, "When we inspected the Greek copies of this Nicene Synod, somehow or other, I know not why, we utterly failed to find them there "(Coleti,iii. 445). t90 PROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [V. Last of all sat the two Koman priests, Philip and Asellus, the junior legates of the pope. The Council \ determined, in spite of the protest of the legate Faustinus, that they would write to the bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, and ask them to send to Carthage authenticated copies of the Nicene canons, as preserved in the archives of their several Churches, so that the question might be once for all settled whether the canon alleged by Pope Zosimus and his legates was really a genuine canon of Nicsea or not. They also determined to write to the new Pope Boniface, inviting him to make similar inquiries. Moreover, they ratified the action of the Council held the year before, when Faustinus first arrived in Africa ; and determined that provisionally they would act upon the canons alleged by the pope ; that, if on inquiry it should clearly appear that those canons were really Nicene, they would accept them absolutely, and act upon them in the future ; but that, if it should appear that the pope had made some mistake, a Council should be convoked which should decide what was to be done. As for Apiarius, he besought the Council to grant forgiveness to him, and then the legate Faustinus interceded for him, and so it was determined that he should be restored to communion and to the exercise of his priestly ministry, but that he should be required to remove out of the diocese of Sicca, where he had given much scandal. The Council could not help observing that, even if the canons alleged by the legates were really T.I Prom damasus to leo. I9t Kicene and consequently binding in Africa, they gave no authority to the pope to summon bishops to Kome, nor to restore priests to communion in Rome when they had been excommunicated in their own diocese or province. Zosimus, while quoting the canons of Sardica to the Africans, had in no way observed them himself. The Council therefore, in its letter to Pope Boniface, writes as follows : " To the most blessed lord and honourable brother Boniface ; . . ." then, after a summary of what had taken place, they continue, " We took care also to intimate last year by our letter to the same Zosimus, bishop of venerable memory, that we would for a short time permit these rules to be observed without any injury to him, until we had investigated the statutes of the Nicene Council. And now we request of your Holiness to cause us to keep whatever was really ordained by the Fathers at Nicaea, and also to take care that those rules, which are written in the instructions brought by the legates, be really carried out by you in Italy;" and then they quote the words of the Sardican canons alleged by the legates. They go on to say, " These rules we have at all events inserted in the acts of our Council until the arrival of the genuine copies of the Nicene Synod. And should they be there contained, . , . and should they also be observed strictly by you in Italy, we request that we should by no means be compelled to endure such treatment as we are unwilling to mention, or should suffer what is unbearable." In other words^ the 192 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO, [v. Council means to say, "If your alleged canons are really Nicene we will keep them, but we must beg that they be kept strictly by you also. There must be no pretence of undoing our African sentences in Home, as Zosimus professed to restore Apiarius ; and there must be no claim to summon our bishops to Rome, as was threatened by Zosimus in regard to our brother Urban, Bishop of Sicca.^ Such modes of action are unmentionable and unbearable." Then remembering that Zosimus was now dead, and that Boniface was pope, they continue, " But we trust, by the mercy of our Lord God, that while your Holiness presides over the Roman Church, we shall not have to endure such arrogance as that (non sumus jam istum typhum passuri) ; and that a course of proceed- ing shall be maintained towards us such as ought to be observed, even without our having to speak about it." ^ Such was the style in which this great Council of more than two hundred bishops, under the guidance of such glorious saints as S. Augustine, S. Aurelius, and S. Alypius, thought that it was right and proper for them to address the pope. I leave you to consider whether any Roman Catholic synod would think of writing such a letter now. On the principles of the Vatican Council, they could not do it. On our Anglican principles, or rather on our Catholic prin- * The African fathers had quoted in their letter at full length the Sardiean canons, which require that, in the case of an appeal to Rome, the rehearing shall take place, not at Rome, but in the country where the cause began. ' The whole letter is given by Coleti (iii. 528-530). v.] FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. 193 ciples, it would be the most natural thing in the world. How does this come about ? It comes about, because S. Augustine and the African saints thought of the pope substantially as we should have thought of him, if, with our present views, we had lived in the fifth century.^ But the modern Roman Catholics, who accept the Vatican Council, think of him in a totally different way. We are quite content to find ourselves, in such a matter, on S. Augustine's side. Before we go on with the story, we ought to notice that the pope did not apparently venture to base his claims to receive appeals on any inherent right of his see derived from S. Peter. It was very well to do that when writing to simple-minded bishops in Illyria or Spain, but when writing to Africa, he knew that he was dealing with bishops, some of whom were the most learned and able theologians then alive. To use Petrine arguments of the Roman sort when in controversy with them, would be to run the risk of having the whole fallacy of those arguments exposed with all the force and persuasiveness of such a pen as S. Augustine's. Pope Zosimus no doubt felt that discretion was the better part of valour, and there- fore humbly based his claim on the grant of the Church, as expressed in the canons which he alleged, and which he wrongly called Nicene. T his highl y discreet meth od of proceed ing ought to be remem- ' Of course the extravagant papalism of later times, and especially the decrees of the Vatican Council, have forced us into a position intd ■which S. Augustine was not forced. O 194 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO, \y. bered. It is very characteristic. However, though in one sense the pope may have acted discreetly, his whole proceeding was so utterly un-Catholic, that it called forth from the African Church a well- deserved rebuke. The pope's action, in their view, was "in- tolerable," "unmentionable," and the outcome of " arrogance ; " and they do not hesitate to use these very plain expressions when reviewing the whole matter in a letter to Zosimus' successor. There is, of course, in all this no cause for surprise. It is what one would expect from such great saints. But to return to our ^^ory. Towards the end of the year 419, replies from S. Atticus, Bishop of Con- stantinople, and from S. Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, arrived in Carthage. These two prelates sent correct copies of the Nicene canons, which were found to tally with the copies already at Carthage. Naturally the Sardican canons alleged by Kome were not among them. A Council might have been convened at once to put an end to the provisional acceptance of the Sardican system of appeals. But apparently the African Church preferred to wait until a con- venient opportunity for reopening the matter oc- curred. Nothing is more remarkable throughout this history than the wisdom and moderation of the great men who at that time guided the African Church. The fitting opportunity did not in their judgment present itself until five, or, as some say, seven years had passed. During that interval or parenthesis appeals to Rome from Africa were r.j FROM JbAMASUS TO LEO. 195 allowed in the case of bishops, in accordance with the agreement. The matter was reopened in conse- quence of fresh scandals arising in connection with Apiarius. Since his restoration to communion he had been living at Tabraca, in the proconsular pro- vince. Here he acted in such a way that the inhabi- tants were obliged to accuse him of enormous crimes, and he was cut off from communion. Instead of attempting to justify himself, he went off to Rome, pretending that he had appealed to the pope, although he certainly never did appeal in any formal way. Of course the African bishops would never have allowed a mere priest to appeal to Rome, for such an appeal was not allowed even by the canons of Sardica. Appeals to Rome by priests were unknown in Africa until Apiarius, in his previous trouble, had first led the way. The African Church had promptly taken measures to prevent the repetition of such an irregular proceeding^ by passing a canon in the great Council of May, 418, which concluded as follows: "Whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea [i.e. to Rome], may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa." ^ It is there- ^ Compare Hefele, ii. 463, Eug. trans. 2 Hefele's Councils^ Eng. trans., ii. 461; see also p. 403. It is worth while quoting the extraordinary explanation of this canon, given by Father Bottalla, S.J., a professor in S. Beuno's College, North Wales. He says (Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 15l), " The African Synod, in the above-mentioned canon, ibrbade nothing but the formal and judicial appeal of the inferior clergy to the see of Eomc ; it did not, and it could not, forbid their private recourse to tlie supreme pastor of the Church; and if, under any exceptional 196 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [v. fore evident that on this second occasion Apiarius did not appeal in any formal way. Such a formal act would not have been allowed. He simply slunk off to Rome, and besought the pope to admit him to communion. By this time Boniface was dead, and Celestine had succeeded him. Celestine, without any communication with Africa, restored him to commu- nion. It seems most extraordinary that pope after pope should have acted in this scandalous manner. Apparently, in order to assert the papal jurisdiction over Africa, the popes were willing to break the most fundamental canons of the Church, and to run the risk of presenting the Roman Church to the eyes of the world as an accomplice in foul and enormous crimes. Pope Celestine went on to add insult to injury. He wrote to the African Church expressing his joy at finding Apiarius innocent, although he had never had any opportunity of hearing what the ac- cusers of that wicked priest had to say; and then, to make things worse, he sent him back to Africa to be readmitted to communion, and with him he sent, as legate, that same Bishop Faustinus who had given such just cause of umbrage to the African Church on the previous occasion. When Faustinus circumstauccfc', the pope saw fit, he mi<,'ht suspend the effect of the general canon, and enable the condemned priest or deacon to lay a formal and judicial appeal before las court." Arsuredly, if the Fathers of the African Church had accepted all tliis, they would never have ventured to meddle with a matter so completely beyond their control. In their letter to Celestine they expressly call on tlie pope to reject these private appeals to liis see, which they describe as "iraproba refngia," a very proper title for sucli scandalous transactions. v.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO, 197 arrived, a general Council of all Africa was convoked;^ and the bishops, under the presidency of S. Aurelius of Carthage, wrote an admirable letter to Celestine. It was addressed "to the most beloved lord and honourable brother Celestine." They begin by ex- pressing the wish that, as Celestine had written to them about Apiarius with joy, so they could make their reply concerning him with similar joy. Then the gladness on both sides would be better founded, and the pope's satisfaction in regard to Apiarius would appear less hasty and precipitate. Then they proceed as follows, and I will give their exact words. They say, " When our holy brother and fellow-bishop Faustinus arrived, we assembled a Council ; and we believed that he had been sent with that man, in order that as by his help Apiarius had formerly been restored to the priesthood, so now by his exertions tlie same Apiarius might be cleared of the very great crimes charged against him by the people of Tabraca. But the course of examination in our Council brought to light such great and monstrous crimes, as to over- bear Faustinus, who acted rather as an advocate than as a judge, and who manifested rather the zeal of a lawyer engaged for the defence than the impar- tiality of an umpire. For first he vehemently op- posed the whole assembly, inflicting on us many aflronts under pretence of asserting the privileges of the Church of Rome, requiring that we should ' Accorrling to Hefele in a.d. 424 ; according to Tillemout in A.p. 42G. 198 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [v. receive Apiarius back into communion, because your Holiness, believing him to have appealed, though he was unable to prove that he had appealed, had re- stored him to communion. But to act in such a way was quite unlawful, as you will also better see by reading the acts of our synod. After a most labori- ous inquiry carried on for three days, during which, in the greatest affliction, we investigated the various charges against him, God the righteous Judge, strong and patient, put a complete stop to the obstacles raised by our brother-bishop Faustinus and to the evasions of Apiarius himself, by which he was trying to conceal his execrably shameful acts. For his foul and disgusting obstinacy was overcome, by which he endeavoured to cover up, through an impudent denial, all this dirty mire; for our God put pressure upon his conscience, and published even to the eyes of men the secret things which He was already condemning in that man's heart, a very sty of wickedness; so that, notwithstanding his crafty denial, Apiarius suddenly burst forth into a confession of all the crimes with which he was charged, and of his own accord convicted himself of every kind of incredible infamy; and thus he changed to groans even the hope we had entertained, believing and desiring that he might be cleared from such shameful blots ; except indeed that he mitigated by one consolation this our sorrow, in that he released us from the labour of a longer inquir}^, and by confession had applied some sort of remedy to his own wounds, though, sir and I v.] FROM DAMASUS TO LEO, 199 brother (domine frater), it was done unwillingly and with a struggling conscience. Premising, therefore, our due regards to you,^ we earnestly beg of you, that for the future you do not easily admit to a hearing persons coming to Rome from Africa, nor choose to receive to your communion those who have been excommunicated by us ; because your reverence will readily perceive that this has also been decreed by the Nicene Council. For, although this seems to be there forbidden in respect of the inferior clergy or the laity, how trucIi Tnore did the Council will this to he observed in the case of bishops, lest those who have been suspended from communion in their own province might seem to be restored to communion hastily or precipitately or in some undue way by your Holiness.^ Let your holiness reject, as is worthy of you, that bad taking shelter with you of priests and of the clergy of lower degree, both because by no ordinance of the fathers has this right been with- drawn from the African Church, and the Nicene decrees have most plainly committed the inferior clergy and the bishops themselves to their m^tro- folitans? For they have ordained with great pru- ^ " Praefato itaque debitse salutationis officio." 2 *'Vel festinato vel prsepropere vel indebite." The pope had no right to receive to his communioa African Christians who had been excommunicated by the African Church, until they had been restored by their own Church. If he did so, he would be acting hastily and precipitately and in an undue way. The great principle on which the Council insists, is "that all matters shall be terminated in the places where they arise." Mr. Riviugton (Dependence, pp. 226, 227) has failed to realize this. ? It will hardly be believed tliat Father Bottalla, speaking of this 20O FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [v. dence and justice that all matters shall he terminated in the places ivhere they arise; and they did not think that the grace of the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any province, by which grace the bishops of Christ would discern with prudence and maintain with constancy whatever was equitable; especially since any party, who thinks himself wronged by a judgment, may appeal to the synod of his province, or even to a general Council [of all Africa]; unless it he imagined hy any one that our God can inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerahle m^ultitude of hishops assemhled in council" I must break off here to point out how faithfully the great African Church had guarded the tradition which she possessed nearly two hun- dred years before, in the time of S. Cyprian, wlio, you will remember, implied that no Christian would letter {Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 142), says that the African fathers "made no objection to appeals of bishops to the Roman pontiff, but only to those of the inferior clergy." He goes on to say (p. 143), " The African Church never denied the right of the pope to receive appeals in the case of bishops and even of priests. Such a denial waa impossible, since that Church had always looked upon the Roman bishop, as not only its patriarch, but also the supreme pastor of the universal Church." Father Bottalla's argument may be retorted upon himself. As the African Church clearly did deny the right of the pope to receive appeals in the case of bishops ard also of priests, it follows, on Father Bottalla's principles, that that Church did not look on the pope either as its patriarch or as "the supreme pastor of the universal Church." It is fair to add that all Roman Catholic divines are not like Father Bottalla. Tillcmont (xiii. 862-866, and 1031-1039) and others, candidly admit what ought never to have been denied. The Council of Carthage, under S. Aurc- lius, waa carrying on the old principle laid down by S. Cyprfan (see p. 07). T.] FROM DA MAS US TO LEO. 201 be likely to think that the authority of the bishops in Africa was inferior to the authority of the pope except some few "desperate and abandoned men." I now continue my quotation from the letter of the Council of Carthage to Pope Celestine. They go on to say, "How shall we be able to trust a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send thither the necessary witnesses, whether on account of the weakness of sex, or of advanced age, or through any other impediment ? ^ For that any legates a latere should be sent by your holiness, we can find ordained by no synod of the fathers." Then they go on to say that the Sardican canon, quoted by Faustinus, is not a genuine Nicene canon, as was made apparent by the authentic copies of the canons of Nicsea, which they had received from Alexandria and Constanti- nople. Finally, they conclude their letter thus. They say, "Moreover, refrain from sending any of your clergy to execute your orders, refrain from granting this, lest it should seem that we are intro- ^ The whole of this reasoning is just as valid for the case of bishops as for the case of the inferior clergy. It goes to prove that "a?Z matters" should "be terminated in the places where they arise." There is a passage in S. Augustine's forty-third (al. 162nd) letter, addressed to Glorius and others (Opp. ed. Ben,, ii. 91), which is some- times quoted as if it implied that African bishops could appeal to Eome from the sentences of the regular ecclesiastical tribunals in Africa, but tliat priests and deacons could not so appeal. Such a view proceeds from a complete misunderstanding of the passage and of the circumstances connected with the origin of the Donatist schism, to which S. Augustine is referring. It would take too long to deal with the matter in a note. The reader may be referred to Archbishop De Marca, de Concord, Sac. et. Imp., lib. vii. cap. xvi. §§ vi.-ix., coll, 10,53-1056, ed. Bohmer, 1708; and to Tillemout, vi. 16, IG. 202 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [v. ducing tlie smoky arrogance of the -world into the Church of Christ, which sets before those who desire to see God the light of simplicity and the splendour of humility. For now that the miserable Apiarius has been removed out of the Church of Christ for his horrible crimes, we feel confident respecting our brother Faustinus, that, through the uprightness and moderation of your Holiness, the charity of the brethren will by no means have to endure him any longer in Africa. Sir and brother, may our Lord long preserve your Holiness to pray for us." ^ Such was the celebrated letter ^ of the Church of North Africa to Pope Celestine. I cannot imagine a more complete repudiation of the papal idea. That idea involves the principle that jure divino every member of the Church, whether clerical or lay, has an inherent right to have " recourse to the pope's judgment in all causes which appertain to the jurisdiction of the Church." The African fathers absolutely deny that right. Because if they had believed in it, they must have safeguarded it. No » Coleti, iii. 532-034. 2 Bossuet (Def. decl. cler. Gall. xi. 14, (Euvres, xxxiii. 334, ed. 1818) calls this letter " nobilem illam epistolam." The Ultramontane Lupus naturally calls it " infelicissimam, et scatentem erroribus," and the synod which wrote it he describes as " erraticam, deviam ac prajvaricatoriam." The unfortunate Lupus, with his Ultramontane ideas, continually finds himself completely out of sympathy with tho great saints of the fourth and fifth centuries. They and he lived in two different worlds of thouglit. They in all the splendour and freedom of the Catholic faith, he in the prison-house of Ultramontanism. Bossuet well describes his pettifogging criticisms on tho African Fathers who wrote this letter, as " incpta, ne dicam impia " (p. 337). vj FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. 203 Christian man would pass over and ignore a matter of divine revelation. No assembly of Christian subjects could venture to dictate to their divinely appointed sovereign, that he should refrain from using one of his divinely given prerogatives. Ultra- montane writers ask of us impossibilities when they ask us to believe that. Let them say, if they like, \ that the African Church was wrong, heretical in fact, in regard to that matter which, in the opinion of De Maistre, is the "necessary, only, and exclusive i foundation of Christianity ; " but, as honourable men, / let them refrain from pretending that the Church of/ North Africa, in the time of S. Augustine, believed inl the principles laid down by the Vatican Council.) Such a pretence is an impertinence and an act of folly, which must alienate every person of good sense and Christian simplicity who is cognisant of it. Let the Church of S. Augustine, S. Aurelius, and S. Alypius be branded as heretical, if the Ultra- montanes choose to have it so ; we for our part are quite willing to stand side by side with those great saints, and to share their condemnation. There is the possibility, some may think the probability, that at the awful tribunal of our Lord hereafter the note of heresy may be otherwise assigned. It is hardly worth while to refer to the absurd cavil which the Romanists^ make, when they set forth, as if it overthrew the whole argument which arises out of the synodical letter which has been sq » K^, Father Bottalla, loc. cii. 204 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO, [v. largely quoted, the fact that Anthony, Bishop of Fussala, appealed in A.D. 421 (or 422) to Pope Boni- face from the decision of a Council in Numidia, which had passed sentence on him ; and that at a later stage S. Augustine wrote to Pope Celestine (Boniface having died on the 4th of September, 422), imploring him not to reinstate Anthony in the see of Fussala, thereby acknowledging his right to do so.^ Will it be believed that the whole of this transaction happened during that interval of %n^ or seven years when the African Church, in pursuance of its temporary compact, > Cf. S. Aug. E'p. ccix., 0/52?. ^cl. Ben., ii. 111-1%^, It appears from this letter that Anthony argued that he ought either to have been deprived of the episcopate altogether, or to have been left in possession of his see of Fussala. His contention was that a bishop could not be punished with a minor penalty. In his reply to this argument, S. Augustine, writing to the pope, naturally looks about for precedents of minor penalties being inflicted, on bishops in sentences, which had been sanctioned by the see of Rome. He says, " There exist examples, in cases in which the apostolic see either pronounced judgment or ratified the judgment of others, in which bishops for certain faults have neither been deprived of the honour of the episcopate, nor been left altogether unpunished. I will not search out cases very remote from our times, but I will mention recent cases." Then ho mentions three cases of bishops, who had been punished recently with minor penalties. All the cases had arisen in the African province of Mau- ritania Cassariensis. As Tiliemont (xiii. 1030) suggests, fhey may all have belonged to the period between 418 and 424 (or 426), during which the African Church allowed appeals to Rome. In some of tiiese cases Rome may have ratified the African sentence ; in others Rome may have softened a more stringent sentence, and may have appointed a minor penalty. As for the "cases very remote from our times," which S. Augustine declines to search out, they may have been cases which arose in tlio suburbicarian region, in which the pope was metropolitan, or in Eastern Illyricum, where appeals to Rome wero aliov/ed. The explicit statements of the Council of Carthage can- not be overthrown by doubtful hypotheses concerning precedents of which we kuo-,v nothing. v.] FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. 205 allowed bishops to appeal to Rome ? The argument declucible from S. Augustine's action in this matter falls entirely to the ground, and ought never to have been put forward. But there is one point connected with this case of Anthony of Fussala which it may be well to notice. When Pope Boniface sent messengers into Africa with letters ordering that Anthony should be reinstated in his see, if he had made a true statement of his case to the pope, the people of Fussala were threatened with coercion by the secular arm, and they were told that soldiers would be sent to Fussala to force them to obey the sentence of the apostolic see. Here we see the effects of Gratian's rescript. The decisions of the pope in such a case, though they had no canonical force in Africa except under the temporary compact, had complete legal validity, and they could be enforced by the whole power of the Roman empire. No wonder that in places where the bishops did not rise to the height of heroic sanctity which cha- racterized S. Auofustine and some of his African brethren, the local Churches gave way to the papal pretensions, and accepted law and justice from the pope's mouth. There is nothing more absolutely certain in the history of the Church than that the papal jurisdiction'^ outside the suburbicarian pro- ' It may be well to call attention to the fact that I am dealing in the text with papal jurisdiction. The primacy of honour and inlluence enjoyed by the Roman Church, as an apostolic Cliurch planted in the metropolis of the civilized world, can be traced back to sub-apostolic times. 2o6 PROM DAMABUS TO LeO. \y, vinces mainly arose out of the legislation of the state. One may truly say that Erastianism begat it, and forgery developed it. I except, of course, the very restricted jurisdiction given at Sardica by canons which were at first only received in a small part of the Western Church, and which were never received in the East as applicable to the East. Let us now jpass from Africa to Gaul, and inquire how the new papal claims were treated there. I might draw your attention to the case of Proculus, Bishop of Marseilles, a man of saintly life, who was treated in a very unbecoming manner by Pope Zosimus. That pope ventured to summon Proculus to Rome, but to this summons Proculus paid no attention ; and Zosimus took steps to deprive him of his see, no doubt trusting to the aid of the civil power to secure that these uncanonical acts, which constituted an invasion of the jurisdiction of the provinces of Gaul, should practically take effect. But the death of Zosimus put an end to the whole afiair. I prefer, however, to dwell on the case of S. Hilary of Aries, because his righteous resistance to the arbitrary interference of Pope S. Leo, though it con* stitutes an additional reason for honouring his holy memory, was nevertheless the occasion of the issuing of another imperial rescript, which enlarged the papal power, and did much to rivet its chains on the Churches of the Western empire. S. Hilary was Metropolitan of Aries, a see which appears to have enjoyed, in the fifth century, a certain pre-eminencd V.I Prom damasus to leo, 207 among the metropolitan sees of Gaul. He was a gi-eat friend of S. German of Auxerre, a saint to whom our own island is so greatly indebted, in that he was God's instrument for putting down Pelagianism in the British Church. In the year 444 S. Hilary was visiting S. German at Auxerre. While he was there, various illustrious persons and others came to him and to S. German, bringing complaints against Chelidonius, Bishop of Besan9on. I am bound to say that the complaints would not strike us, in the nineteenth century, as anything very serious. But S. Hilary and S. German would, of course, look at them according to the ideas of the fifth century, and according to the actual discipline of the Church at that time. It appears that Chelidonius had, as a layman, married a widow; and the canons ordered that such a person should never be consecrated to the episcopate, even after his wife's death. A rule of that kind had been formulated at the Council of Valence, in the year 374,^ and it appears also in the decretal epistle of Pope Siricius to Himerius of Tarragona.^ Moreover, it was thoroughly accepted by S. Leo, and by the whole Western Church of that age. It was a sort of extension of S. Paul's rule, that a man who had been the husband of more than one wife was not a proper person to be ordained.^ Chelidonius had also, before his ordination, held some judicial office, in the fulfilment of which he had been obliged to condemn various people to death ; » Coleti, ii. 1067. " lb., ii. 1217. » 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. 2o8 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. [v. and according to the ecclesiastical law this fact dis- qualified him for the episcopate. There was no question that if the allegations were well-founded, then, according to the canons of the Church in that age, Chelidonius ought to be deposed. Accordingly a Council was summoned to meet at Besan^on, at which both S. Hilary and S. German were present, and S. Hilary presided. The Council determined that the facts were proved, and that Chelidonius ought to resign his office. This he apparently refused to do. and consequently the Council proceeded to depose and excommunicate him, as a rebel against the authority of the Church.-^ Thereupon Cheli- donius went to Rome, and complained that he had been unjustly condemned. Tillemont says that Pope S. Leo, apparently without any investigation, ad- mitted Chelidonius at once to communion. Herein, as Tillemont points out, S. Leo seems to have followed the example of his predecessors, Zosimus and Celes- tine, who, without proper inquiry, admitted the miserable Apiarius to communion when he took refusre with them. The Roman Church seems to have been so possessed with the desire of domination, that it thought nothing of overthrowing the funda- mental rules on which the discipline and unity of the Church rest.^ When S. Hilary heard what had * After Chelidonius* deposition Importunus was consecrated to fill the vacant see (see Tillemont, xv. 85). * I think that the words used in the text are a not unfair dcscrii)- tiou of the general spirit of the Roman Church, from the time of DamasuB onwards ; but I am not prepared to say that, iu his admis- v.] FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. 209 happened at Rome, he started off on foot in the middle of winter, and, crossing the Alps, he arrived, still on foot, in the eternal city. He visited first the tombs of the two great apostles and the relics of the martyrs, and then he went to pay his respects to the pope. He begged him, very deferentially, to see that the Church's rule was not broken by the admission of persons to communion in Rome who had been formally excommunicated in Gaul. S. Hilary in no way proposed to accept S. Leo as judge in this matter. The pope had no ground for claiming such a position. All that S. Hilary wished to do was to state clearly the facts of the case, and to beg the pope to maintain in Rome the discipline of the Church.^ S. Hilary had a great deal to put up with sion of Chelidonius to comnmnion, when that excommunicated bishop arrived in Rome, S. Leo was actuated by any wrong motive. In all probability he was firmly persuaded that he had a right to receive an appeal from the decision of a Galilean synod, and to rehear the case in Rome ; and he may also have supposed that the effect of the sentence of the court below was suspended until the appeal had been heard. Holding tliese ideas, he would seem to himself to be acting rightly when he admitted Chelidonius to communion, although, according to the earlier discipline of the Church, which had never been canonically altered, his action cannot be justified. The primi- tive discipline is admirably illustrated by an interesting episode in the history of the Roman Church. When the heretic Mareion, who had been excommunicated by his father, the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus, arrived in Rome about the year 140, and begged to be admitted to communion, the rulers of the Roman Church declared that they were unable to act in the matter contrary to the decision of Mareion 's venerated father (Cf. S. Epiph., Panar., hsBr. xlii.). 1 It seems evident that the canons of Sardica were not received as binding in Gaul in the time of S. Hilary. If the limited appeal to liome, allowed by the Council of Sardica, had been accepted by the P 210 FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. [v. during his sojourn in the city. His biographer, S. Honoratus of Marseilles, tells us that he in no way feared those who threatened him ; that he overcame those who disputed with him ; that he did not yield to the powerful ; that, even though he was in danger of his life, he would in no way admit to his com- munion a man whom he, in conjunction with such great men as S. German of Auxerre and the other Galilean bishops, had condemned.^ While he was in Rome he attended a synod of bishops, at which Chelidonius also was present, and, apparently, he shocked the delicate Roman ears by the plainness of speech which he used in asserting the indepen- dence of the Church in Gaul.^ He would not plead his cause before S. Leo, who, as S. Hilary rightly felt, had no jurisdiction in the matter. To the Roman mind this was insolence, and accordingly S. Hilary was actually put under arrest. As usual, the Church of Rome, in order to gain its point, fell Gallican Church, S. Hilary could never have told S. Leo "se ad officia non ad causam venisse" {Yit. Hilar. Arel.y cap. xvii.). He would have had to allow that Chelidonius had a right to appeal, though he might have insisted that the appeal should be heard in Gaul, and not in Kome. ' See S. Honoratus' Vita S. JELilarii Arelatensis, in Quesnel's edition of S. Leo's works, ed. 1700, i. 369. * S. Leo (JEp, X. cap. iii., 0pp. ed. Bailer.), speaking of S. Hilary's conduct at this synod, says that he uttered things " which no layman would have dared to say, and to which none of the bishops would listen " (qua) nuUus laicorum dicere, nullus sacerdotum posset audiro). In the preceding chapter of his letter, S. Leo had said tliat S. Hilary " would not suffer himself to be subject to the blessed Apostle Peter" (ut se beato Apostolo Pctro non patiatur esse sub- jeotum). v.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 211 back on the help of the civil power. However, when things had come to that pass, S. Hilary felt that it was time for him to return to Gaul. He therefore slipped aw^ay from his guards, and got back to Aries in the middle of February. S. Leo then acquitted Chelidonius, and issued an order that he should be re-established in his bishopric, on the ground that there was no proof that he had ever married a widow. Chelidonius was apparently re-established in his bishopric by the strong arm of the state. But S. Leo went further in the matter. He seems to have listened to all the tittle-tattle brought to his ears by those who felt aggrieved in any way by S. Hilary's saintly severity and apostolic spirit of discipline, and who were encouraged by what had happened to send their complaints to Kome. Tille- mont and Fleury assert that S. Leo actually separated S. Hilary from his communion.^ Whether this be so » See Tillemont xv. 80, 89 ; and Fleury, md. Eccl., 1. xxvii. § 5 (torn. vi. p. 269, ed. 1722). It is quite certain that S. Hilary did not communicate with S. Leo during the whole time that he was in Kome, for S. Leo (Ep. x. cap. vii.) says of him that " he thought it right to withdraw himself by a shameful flight (turpi fuga), having no share in the apostolic communion, of which he did not deserve to partake; God, as we believe, bringing this about, "Who, in a way unexpected by us, both drew him to our judgment seat, and also brought to pass his secret departure in the midst of the investigation, to prevent his sharing in our communion." It seems to me tliat S. Leo implies that during the process of the investigation S. Hilary could not communicate with the Eoman Church, but that he probably would have done so if he had remained to the end. It is to me uncertain whether S. Hilary's inability to communicate with S. Leo during the course of the investigation was the result of S. Leo's action, or of S. Hilary's own unwillingness. If the first view is correct, then S. 212 FROM DAMASUS TO LEO. \y or not, the pope certainly professed to deprive him of his metropolitical authority, and he made various other arrangements in regard to the Churches of Gaul which could not be justified by the canons, and which, as Tillemont observes, were not carried out.^ It seems to have been because S. Leo feared that the bishops of Gaul would not pay much attention to his revolutionary decrees, that he applied again to the civil power ; that so, however much his orders might Hilary must have been authoritatively Buspended from communion, and so far Tillemont and Fleury would be justified. If the second view is correct, we have the spectacle of a great saint going to Kome and staying there for some time, but refusing to communicate with the pope. S. Hilary would hardly have acted in that way if he had held the Vatican doctrine of the papacy. Whichever way the question is decided, my argument remains unaffected. S. Hilary's disciple and biographer, S. Honoratus, tells us that while in Rome S. Hilary was threatened, was in peril of his life, and was put under arrest {Yila S. Hilar. Arelat.^ cap. xvii.). The knowledge of these facts may mitigate our view of the ^^shainefulness" of his flight. Even Ultramontane historians have been compelled to acknowledge that S. Leo's coutluct towards S. Hilary was, to say the least, unfortunate. Thus Cardinal Baronius, speaking of an angry letter written by S. Leo's successor, Pope Hilary, against another great light of the Church of Gaul, S. Muiuertus of Vienne, says, " There is no cause for wonder that the Roman pontiff, Hilary, should have so ve- hemently attacked Mumertus, a man, as events proved, illustrious by his sanctity ; for in these litigious cases it is very easy for any one to be deceived. Sometliing very similar happened to S. Leo, iclio inveiglied most bitterly against S. Uihiry for very much the same reason. Who does not know that it often happens that the ears of pontiffs are filled with false accusations, by which they are deceived ? and, when they imagine that they are acting in accordance ^•ith justice, they are really harassing the innocent" (Baron., .47jnaZ. Ecd. B.a. 4G4). * Tillemont, xv. 80, 81, 85, 86 ; compare the remarks of Stephan. Baluzius in Do Marca'.-j 7>e Concord. Sac. et Imp., v. xxxiii., coll. G31- 63G. ed Bohmer, 1708. v.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 213 be lacking in canonical validity, they might, at any rate, be clothed with all the majesty of the imperial authority. The Emperor Valentinian III. was then ruling in the West. He was a feeble and con- temptible prince," stained with every vice, who murdered with his own hands Aetius, the only great man in his service. It was to this Valentinian that S. Leo applied for help in his contest with S. Hilary. The emperor did all that S. Leo wished, and addressed a rescript, in the year 445, to that same Patrician Aetius whom he afterwards killed. In this rescript the emperor says, among other things, that " the peace of the Churches will then only be preserved, when the whole body of them acknowledge their ruler. Hitherto this has been inviolably observed; but now Hilary of Aries, as we have learnt from the faithful report of the venerable man, Leo, the Roman pope, has, with contumacious daring, attempted cer- tain unlawful things, and thus an abominable con- fusion has invaded the Churches north of the Alps." Towards the end of the rescript the emperor adds, " We decree, by a perpetual edict, that nothing shall be attempted contrary to ancient custom, either by the Gallican bishops or by the bishops of other provinces, without the authority of the venerable man, the pope of the eternal city ; but whatever the authority of the apostolic see has sanctioned or shall sanction, let that be held by them and by all for a law ; so that if any of the bishops shall neglect, when summoned, to come to the tribunal of the Roman ii4 FROM DAMASt/S TO LEO. [y. prelate, let him be forced to come by the civil governor of the province."-^ Thus did the decrepit autocracy of the dying empire plant in the home of freedom, the Church of God, the hateful likeness of itself. This rescript of Valentinian goes far beyond the rescript of Gratian. It makes the pope's word law, and it makes the bishops his humble servants.^ It is grievous to think that so noble a man as S. Leo really was, should have stained his history by his share in this degrading act of legislation. The Koman Catholic Tillemont justly observes, that those who have any love for the liberty of the Church, and any knowledge of her discipline, will agree that this rescript will redound through all ages as little to the honour of Leo, whom it praises, as it does to the hurt of Hilary, whom it condemns.^ Succeeding popes knew well how to use such a law in their own interest. In the meanwhile, the blessed Hilary* spent the '* Constitutio Valentiuiani III. Augusti, inter Leontnas Ep. xi., 0pp. S. Leon., ed. Bailer. 2 The subsequent history shows what an effect it had in Gaul. The Gallican bishops were much more compliant with the papal claims, after the promulgation of Valentinian's constitution, than they had been previously. » Tillemont, xv. 83, 84. * When S. Hilary got home to Aries, he showed the Christian meekness of his spirit by sending first the Priest Ravcnnius, and afterwards the Bishops Nectarius and Constantius, to pacify S. Leo's wrath. However, he would not yield on the main point; and his friend Auxiliaris, the Prefect of Borne, who had acted as host to the Bishops Nectarius and Constantius, urged him to use " a certain soft- ness " iquddam teneritudine) in his messages, which would conciliate "the ears of the Romans" (mires Romanorum). Tillemont (xv. 85), after quoting this letter of Auxiliaris, observes that we are not told V.;) FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 2*5 four remaining years of his saintly life working out his own salvation and promoting that of his people. He gave himself to prayer and preaching, and the practice of good works; he redoubled his austerities; he helped the poor of his diocese with gifts, and consoled them by his sympathy.^ At length he died, and, if Tillemont is right, he was at his death still out of communion with Rome. His body was carried to S. Stephen's Church, the people crying out with one accord, "This day has for ever brought to an end the reproaches of an unjust accusation."^ S. Honoratus, who was present, tells us that the saint's remains were nearly torn to pieces by the crowds who pressed around to touch them. Thus was gathered into the joys of Paradise one more of the long line of saints who have withstood the usurpations of the Roman pontiffs, and who, in many cases, have died outside their communion. One is thankful to know that after S. Hilary's death, S. Leo spoke of him^ as a man " of holy memory ; " * and his commemoration occurs that S. Hilary followed the prefect's advice, or that he made any further efifort to appease S. Leo. » Tillemont, xv. 89. - " Hsec dies querelas injustae imputationis perpetuo resecavit " {Jit. S. Hilar. Arel., ap. 0pp. S. Leon., ed. Quesnel, 1700, 1. 371). ' Ep. xl. ad EpisGopos per Arelatensem Galliss provinciam constitutos 0pp. S. Leon., ed. Bailer. * These words of S. Leo would not of themselves prove that S. Hilary died in the Koman communion. In a letter to Bishop Pasclia- sinus (Ep. Ixxxviii. cap. iv., ed. Bailer.), and also in a letter to (lie Emperor Marcian (Ep. cxxi. cap. ii.), S. Leo calls Theophilus of Alexandria a man " of holy memory." Now, Theophilus had been 2i5 t^kOM DAMASVS TO LEO. [v. on the 5th of May in the Roman martyrology. It is well for the Church in all ages to meditate on the example of such saints, and to celebrate their names with honour from generation to generation. It will not be possible for me in these lectures to trace the further development of the papal power, as it shows itself in the authentic records of the history of the Church. The rescript of the Emperor Valen- tinian III. formed a new starting-point, and all manner of causes combined together to help forward the evil growth. The barbarian invasions of the West, the Mohammedan conquest of the East and of Afirica, the long succession of successful forgeries which formed a chain of which the forged decretals of the pseudo-Isidore constituted only one link, the final breach between the East and the West, the temporal sovereignty which the popes acquired, the Crusades, the close alliance between the State and the Church, the dependence of the later monastic orders and of the friars on the Roman see, the systematizing labours of the schoolmen and the canonists, working as they did so largely on spurious authorities, — all these causes, and many more, helped to develop the papal power from what we see that it was in the time of S. Leo, into what it became in the time of Bellarmine and into what it is now, as set forth in the Vatican decrees. The thing itself excommunicated by the Roman Church for what lie had done against S. Chrysostom, and he died outside the Roman communion (see Tillemont, xi. 495). v.] FROM DAM ASUS TO LEO. 217 is not of God. It is of the earth earthy. It is im- possible to exaggerate its weakening effect on those portions of the Church which have accepted it. For a long while its worst excesses were rejected by the noblest provinces of the Koman communion, as, for example, by the illustrious Church of France. Now it seems as if its deadening influence had been bound upon the whole of that communion by the Vatican decrees of 1870. We ought to thank God every day that in His great mercy He has delivered the Church of England from that bondage. We must indeed mingle with our thanksgivings the deepest penitence and humiliation, when we think how unfaithful we have been in our use of our freedom ; when we think of our lack of discipline, of our miserable Erastianism, of our worldliness, of our Laodicean self-satisfaction, of our very imperfect grasp of certain aspects of primitive truth. We may, however, in all humility hope that in some degree we are improving. Thank God! it is no part of our creed that the Church which we love is without spot or wrinkle.^ We are free to see our faults, and to confess them, and to do what we can to amend them. The more we strive to amend what we see to be wrong, the more will our vision be purged, so that we shall become conscious of evil which we had not before suspected. Let us pray that we may be more and more weaned from ' Cf. S. August., de Perfect, jmtit horn., cap. xv. § 85 (Opp. ed. Ben., 1G90, X. 183); see also S. Aug., Hetractt., lib. i. cap. vii. § 5 (0pp. ed. Ben., 1689, i. 10). h^ 5iS t^ROM DAMASVS TO LEO, [V. trust in all mere earthly supports. It is not enough that we reject the earthliness of the 'pa'pacy; we must seek to be freed from all relimice on the earthly accidents of our ecclesiastical position, on our con- nection with the State, on our ancient endowments, on our social position. I do not say that we are necessarily to agitate for a revolution in these matters. The time may arrive when such an agita- f tion may become necessary. But what we are bound ' to do is to wean our hearts from all reliance on these things, and to struggle continually against all that is corrupt and wrong, which may have crept into tthe Church in consequence of them. Our only j:eal strength is in our true Head, Jesus Christ our Lord. r If the Church had kept the eyes of her heart fixed j on our Lord in the fourth century, as they had been fixed during the three previous centuries, that inroad of worldliness could never have taken place. It was the inroad of worldliness which in the West resulted in the papacy. We have got rid of the papacy, but /^ we have not got rid of the worldliness. We need to live in much closer fellowship with our ascended King, not only in our individual life, though that, of course, must form the foundation, but also in our ecclesiastical life. We have to bring home to ourselves the living. union which exists between Christ and the Church. No matter what clouds of danger and diffi- culty are lowering on the horizon, threatening the ship of the Church with an overwhelming storm, we have Christ with us in the ship, and He has pledged His v.] FROM DAMASVS TO L£0. 218^* word thalJETe will bring us safely through. People often fly over to Rome, because they are so conscious of the terrible difficulties which threaten the Church on all sides, and they think somehow that a compact organization under an earthly head would give the Church the strength she needs. Alas! the earthly head, being no part of the institution of Christ, does not reveal the heavenly Head, but hides Him. It is the power of the heavenly Head which we are to trust. It is His organic connection with the Church that we are to realize. It is His guidance which is pledged to us. It is His Headship which will reveal itself most marvellously in the hour of greatest need, to those who are looking to Him. If we do not look to Him, we shall certainly be swept away, either into heresy, or into unbelief, or into the false unity of the papal communion. All those things are doomed to an awful ending. But through all the terrors of the last times Christ will purge and protect His own Church, and guard the faith of His people, who are trusting in Him and looking for the day of His glorious appearing. j" L^ ( 219 ) PAET II. LECTURE VI. THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. — I. Ix the preceding lectures I have spoken of the position of the Roman see during the first four and a half centuries of our era ; of its primacy of honour and influence, and of the causes which brought about that primacy ; of its metropolitical jurisdiction over the suburbicarian Churches from the earliest times ; and of the patriarchal jurisdiction over the Churches of the Western empire which it gradually acquired during the fourth and fifth centuries, partly through the legislation of the Council of Sardica, but mainly through the action of the civil power. We have noticed the upgrowth in Rome of the notion of the popes being in some sense successors of S. Peter in S. Peter's own chair, and attention has been called to the great use which was made of this notion to give an appearance of apostolic and even of divine sanction to claims whose real origin was partly synodical, but mainly secular ; and we have observed how the use of th?se Petrine arguments during the process of 223 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [vi. building up the Western patriarchate prepared the way for the claim of an ecumenical jurisdiction over the whole Church, which was unmistakably put forth in the time of S. Leo. We have had occasion to notice over and over again how the great saints of the Church, especially in the East and in Africa and in Gaul, repudiated the papal jurisdiction, when from time to time an attempt was made to put it in force outside the suburbicarian limits ; and we have seen how entirely the supporters of the definitions of the Vatican Council concerning the papal primacy fail, when they attempt to prove those definitions by an appeal to Holy Scripture. I propose in these supplementary lectures to drop the discussion of the origin and growth of the papal jurisdiction, and to deal with the cognate subject of the claim of the Roman see to be the necessary centre of communion for the whole Church. The discussion of this claim will, I hope, throw light on the true nature of the Church's unity, a very important point which is often much misunderstood. In order that we may know precise^ what the Roman claim is, I will quote a remarkable passage from a remarkable article by the late Cardinal ; Wiseman.^ He says, *' According to the doctrine of ' the ancient Fathers, it is easy at once to ascertain who are the Church Catholic, and who are in a state * The article appeared in the Dublin Review for August, 1839. It is the famous article ia which occurred a sentence quoted from S, Augustine, which produced the strange effect on Newman so graphically described in the Apologia (pp. 211-213, ed. 18C4). ^i.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 221 of schism, by simply discovering who are in com- \ munion with the see of Kome, and who are not."^ Thus, according to the teaching of this distinguished Koman Catholic prelate and divine, who was in every sense a representative man, communion with the Koman see is a test of fellowship with the Catholic Church ; those who are out of communion with the Roman see are in schism ; and this statement is put forth, not as the description of the de facto state of things in this or that age of the Church's history, but as "the doctrine of the ancient Fathers," which is presumably in accordance with the revealed will of God, and therefore obligatory for all time. It is obvious that the theory of the Church's unity which underlies Dr. Wiseman's statement is the notion that that unity is always visible; that the different provinces and patriarchates into which the Church militant is divided are at all times in visible communion with the see of Rome, their divinely appointed centre, and, as a consequence, in communion with each other. If at any time any patriarchate or province ceases to be in communion with the pope, it necessarily on this theory ceases for the. time to be in fellowship with the Catholic Church ; it has lapsed into schism. Such is the view which ^ Dublin Eeview^ vol. vii. p. 163. The Jesuit Perrone (Prsdectt. Theoll, Tractat de Loco. Theoll.^ part. i. sect. ii. cap. ii. prop, iii, n. 576, ed. 1841, vol. ii. pars i. p. 408) inculcates the same teaching. {Speaking of the Fathers, he says, "Opponebant hsereticis et schismaticis auctoritatem ecclesiae romanse qudcuvi si quivis haud communicarct ^ frustra speraret sese ad ecdesiam pertinere.'* • ' '^ ' 222 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [vi. is held, I suppose, universally by modern Roman Catholics, which is implied in the second paragraph of the third chapter of the Vatican dogmatic decree, '' de Ecclesid Christi" but which to us seems so strange, and, in the face of the acts and writings of the saints, so absolutely untenable. Not that we make light of the importance of visible unity. The fundamental law of the Church is the law of love ; and to whatever degree the main body of the Church is dominated by that law, there will be a proportionate yearning for visible unity, and a readiness to give up a great deal in order to attain to it. The different members of the Church, or a majority of them in the various provinces, being inwardly united by love, the provincial or national Churches will manifest the love which dwells in the hearts of the faithful,^ by external fellowship and intercommunion. Moreover, intercommunion is not merely an outcome and expression of love; it is in itself a sacred duty which cannot be set aside except in obedience to some higher law. But this visible unity, at which the Church is bound to aim, and which expresses the supernatural love which dwells in her, is no mechanical unity resulting from an iron necessity ; it is produced by the action of the Holy Ghost, who dwells in the Church and in the hearts of the Church's members, and by the free co-operation ^ Obstacles resulting from past unfaithfulness may hinder at times this manifestation of love, but the spirit of unity and the tcudenfy to unity are inseparable accompaniments of true love. vl] the unity of the church. 223 of their sanctified wills. On the Roman theory, the external unity of the Church is a mechanical unity ; it is a unity which cannot be broken. Those who are in fellowship with the pope are in the Church, those who are not in fellowship are outside. On this theory, the visible unity of the Church is not the outcome of the free co-operation of the members of the Church with the unifying influences of the Spirit of God ; it is the rigidly necessary result of the way in which the Church is defined. It would be hardly conceivable that any one should on this theory pray that the Church may be visibly one;^ the Church Tfiust be visibly one at all times, for the Church con- sists of the pope and those who are in visible com- munion with him. No amount of sin and unbelief can suspend or mar this Roman unity. The area of its fold may be diminished, but the external unity itself cannot be touched or affected. Very different is the primitive idea of visible unity, which is also our own. According to the primitive idea, visible unity is no mere logical deduction from a definition ; it is the outcome of the unifying operation of the ^ It is true that in the baptismal service we pray that the child may be regenerated, although we are quite certain that it will be regenerated. But there is no analogy between such a prayer and a prayer for the visible unity of the Church offered by one who holds the Ultramontane theory of visible unity. Our certainty concerning the regeneration of the child depends upon our trust in God, and in His faithfulness to His promises ; but on the Ultramontane theory the visible unity of the Church is the necessary consequence of the defi- nition of the Church. It does not depend on the action of God, or on the promise of God. We can no more pray for it than we can pray that two and two may make four. Q 224 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [vi. Holy Spirit, which may be thwarted, and which often has been thwarted. The faithful, and more espe- cially the rulers of the Church, have to pray and labour continually that this unity may be maintained when it exists, and may be recovered when at any time it is lost. It is the good gift of our ascended Lord, for which we are dependent on Him. No doubt there is an underlying invisible unity which never ceases. All true parts of the Church are united by their profession of one faith in essentials, by their possession of the same spiritual powers transmitted from Christ and His apostles through the unbroken succession of the episcopate, by their ad- herence to the fundamental laws of the Church's polity and discipline, and above all by their organic union with their invisible Head and Centre, Christ our Lord. In this sense the Church is always one.^ But that essential unity is perceived by faith, and not 'by sight. The Church must never be content with the invisible unity which never fails. It is her duty to do all she can t o manifest to _the wo rld, by the visible intercommunion of her various parts, that she is indeed indwelt by the spirit of unity and love. From what has been said, it will have been gathered that according to the Roman idea the Church is always visibly one ; but according to the primitive teaching, the visible unity of the Church, though a * On account of this abiding invisible unity, we are always able to confess our faith in "the one holy catholic and apostolic Church." Ti.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 223 great blessing which is always to be aimed at, is nevertheless not strictly necessary.^ The essential unity of the Church remains, even though the outward unity may from time to time be broken. It will be well, before investigating the teaching of the Fathers, to whom Cardinal Wiseman rightly appeals, to consider whether Holy Scripture throws any light on the matter. I shall not attempt to exhaust the scriptural argument, but shall set before you two principal points, one connected with the Old Testament, and the other with a passage in our Lord's great prayer, which He offered just before His entrance on His Passion. It seems to me that some considerable light comes to us, in regard to the matter which we are consider- ing, from the history of God's ancient people, Israel. If we have any true perception of the relation between the old covenant and the new, we shall expect to find some close analogies between the organization and history of Israel and the organiza- tion and history of the Church ; and so in fact we do. The^Israelite nation was organized in twelve_ tribes \ * It must always be remembered that there is a great difference ' between the visibility of the Church and the visibility of the unity of \ the Church. The Church militant is always a visible body ; it is not ' always a visibly united body. The distinction is sometimes overlooked. It may be worth noticing that the distinction between the two ideas was clearly perceived by the divines and canonists who were appointed to prepare materials for the Vatican Council. In the ** Schema Constitutionis dogmaticse de Ecclesid Christi Patrum examini propoai' tuniy' the fourth chapter has for its title, " Ecclesiam esse societatem visibilem," and the fifth chapter has the title, " De visibili Ecclesice unitate" (see the Collectio Lacenm, torn. vii. coll. 568, 569). B 225 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [vi. ^i^®L_t^^iZ§-tei^^l princes.^ These princes were co-ordinate one with the other. No one of them had jurisdiction over the rest. It may perhaps be allowed that Judah at the first start had a slight pre- eminence in honour. During the journey through the wilderness, they of the camp of Judah " set forth first." ^ But there was no central monarchy. The Lord God was the King of Israel and the only King ; and when He saw fit He raised up heroes sometimes from one tribe and sometimes from another,^ to act as His people's leaders in war, and as their supreme judges in peace. The organization seems to have been devised in such a way as to leave the people dependant on God for the preservation of their national unity. There was no permanent supreme controlling power here on earth. The people were not headless, but the Head was invisible. The con- stitution, to be workable, pre-supposed a lively faith. In later times the people's faith grew weak. They came to Samuel and said, " Make us a king to judge us like all the nations ; " ^ and so they " rejected " the Lord, that He " should not be King over them." ^ As Samuel said to them some time afterwards, " Ye said unto me. Nay ; but a king shall reign over us : wlien the Lord your God was your King." ^ So the Lord " gave them a king in His anger ; " "^ and first Saul, and » Numb. i. 4-16. * Numb. ii. 9. ' "E.g. Joshua from Ephraim, Gideon from Manasseh, Jephthah from Gad, Samson from Dan. * 1 Sam. viii. 5. * 1 Sam. viii. 7. • 1 Sam. xii. 12. ' Hos. xiii. 11. VI.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 227 then David, and then Solomon, reigned over them. It is most interesti ng to noticeh ow, so long as the people were content v^ith their twelve co-ordinate princes, and looked only to their invisible King to keep them one, their unity was preserved. But very soon after they had established an earthly monarchy, the germs of a schism began to manifest themselves. When, after the overthrow of Absalom, King David crossed back over the Jordan, " the men of Israel came- to the king, and said unto the king. Why have our brethen the men of Judah stolen thee away ? " ^ And they said to the men of Judah, " We have ten parts in the king, and we have also more right in David than ye. , . . And the words of the men of Judah were fiercer than the words of the men of Israel." ^ The whole passage shows clearly that the quarrel between the north and the south had begun.^ And at last the separation took place ; and Rehoboam reigned in the south, and Jeroboam in the north. The visible unity of the people of God was suspended. But the people remained one. God's people were not limited to the two tribes who followed the house of David. When the prophet, who was Elisha's messenger, poured the oil on Jehu's head, he said unto him, " Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel, I have anointed thee king over the 2^eople of the Lord, even over Israel." * Israel had its great saints and prophets as well as Judah. One 1 2 Sam. xix. 41. * 2 Sam. xix. 43. ' Compare Blunt's Undesigned Coincidences^ pp, 162-175 (8th edit.). * 2 Kin^s ix. 6. 228 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [vi. may almost say that in Elijah and Elisha Israel had greater saints than Judah ; and the prophet expressly tells us that Samaria " did not commit half of Jeru- salem's sins."^ Notwithstanding the suspension of visible unity the essential unity of the nation con- tinued. S. Paul speaks of "the promise made of God unto our fathers ; unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain." ^ I cannot doubt that this history of Israel was a prophecy of the Church of the new covenant. The Church, which is the new Israel, was organized by our Lord under twelve co-ordinate apostles. The apostles and their successors the bishops were the earthly guardians of the Church's unity ; but in some sense the earthly organization was incomplete. There was no one central authority, no one per- manent controlling power here on earth. The Church's Head was to be on high, within the veil. The constitution of the new Israel, as of the old, pre-supposed a living faith animating the mili- tant Church and keeping it dependant on its Head. If the Church militant were a merely human creation, it would need, like other human societies, " a head in the same order of life as the rest of the body."^ But the Church is a divine creation; and though it has a human Head, that Head is the Incarnate Son of God enthroned in glory, organically > Ezek. xvi. 5. • Acts xxvi. 6, 7 ; cf. S. James i. 1. • See the Kev. L. Rivington's Axdhority, p. 5. VI.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 229 united to the Church on earth, the permanent Source of her essential unity, and perfectly able to secure her visible unity, whenever He sees that her faith and love and humility and unworldliness make it safe and desirable to grant to her that boon. In the early ages of the Church the Lord Jesus did grant to His Church the gift of visible unity. The Church was persecuted and unworldly and full of faith and love, and the Lord took care that her essential unity should be manifested visibly. Afterwards the Church ' made terms with the world, and the world was admitted within the sacred enclosure, and some leading portions of the Church began to cry out like ( Israel of old, "Nay; but a king shall reign over ) us." Some were prepared to subject the Church to r the emperor, " the divine head," ^ as he was called by the imperial commissioners at the Council of Chal- cedon. Others were willing to subordinate the whole Church to the usurped jurisdiction of the Roman pontiffs. But the mere fact that the notion of an earthly head^ should be seriously entertained was a token of how grievously the Church had fallen from her primitive fulness of realization of the things unseen. As the West came more and more under ^ ttT 0€ta Kopvcpyj (Coleti, iv. 1461). ^ The Bishop of Rome may be called " head" in two senses. He may be called " head," as possessing from very ancient times a primacy of honour among bishops, just as the Duke of Norfolk may be called the head of the English nobility. He may also bo called "head," as possessing a supposed primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church. It is in this latter sense tliat the word is used in the text. 230 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. [vt. the dominion o£ the papal head at Kome, it became increasingly evident that the Church would lose, at any rate for a time, her visible unity. Our Lord would not allow His Church to remain visibly united under any head but Himself; and so in process of time the East and the West became separated, and later on Rome withdrew her communion from Eng- land. The analogy b etween Israel and th e Church as regards this matter has been singularly complete.^ And now to pass to a very important New Testa- ment passage, which is often quoted as if it favoured the Roman theory that the Church is at all times_a visibly united body. Our blessed Lord prayed on * It may be objected that, though there was no king at first in Israel, there was a high priest. But the high priest had, by the original constitution, no controlling power over the nation. The twelve tribal princes were not dependant on him. The Lord God was the only King. When the nation asked for a king, they did not reject the high priest ; they rejected God. The high priest went on as before, at the head of the ministers of worship. The appointment of a king was not the substitution of one visible governor for another ; it was the substitution of a visible for an invisible head. Among the Israelites the government of the people was not entrusted to tho priesthood ; but in the Church the bishops are not only priests but princes, and it is as princes that they act as guardians of the Church's unity. If the Roman theory were true, tho pope would be not only the high priest but also the monarch of the Cliurch ; and it would be as monarch that he would claim to be the centre of unity and the possessor of supreme jurisdiction. If the history of Israel before the Babylonish captivity is to help us in the present discussion, we must fix our attention on its kings and princes, rather than on its priests and Levites. It need hardly be added that, when I speak of tlio bishops as princes, I am alluding not to any co-active jurisdiction which may in this or that country be granted to them by the civil power, but to the inherent spiritual jurisdiction whicli they inlicrit from the apostles. VI.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 231 the nighfc of His Passion, not only for EEis jostles, but, as He said, " for them also that believe on Mo through their word ; that they may all be one ; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also rn^y^e^|one]injis: that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me" (S. John xvii. 20, Vl)} This was undoubtedly a prayer which was intended t o resu lt in the unity of Christian believers, and the unity of which our Lord spoke was a visible unity. It was to be a unity which the world could perceive, and which would, when perceived, draw the world to faith in the divine mission of Christ. So far we shall all agree. But t hen the R omanargument goes on to assert, that what our Lord prayed for must necessarily be granted in all ages of the Church as a permanent gift. It is supposed that Christ's prayer for visible unity is equivalent to a divine promise that visible unity shall never fail. Surely that is a very^ doubtful hypothesis. The final object of the prayer was that the world should believe in the divine mission of Christ ; but the world as a whole \ has never yet believed in our Lord's divine mission, c ^ The passage discussed in the text is admitted by Eoman Catholics to be a passage of primary importance in connection with the teaching of Holy Scripture about the unity of the Church. Mr. Allies, in the third section of his treatise on the See of S. Peter (ed. 1866, p. 113/.), in which he deals with the unity of the Church as being " the end and oflSce of the primacy " of the pope, starts with a discussion of S. John xvii. And Father Bottalla, in the first section of his book on " The supreme authority of the pope" (ed. 1868, pp. 8-10), begins his dis- cussion of unity by a consideration of our Lord's words recorded in S. John xvii. 20-23. 232 THE t/NITY OF THE CHURCH. [vi. Doubtless the time will come when it will do so. The time will come wiien " the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea ; " ^ when " the kingdom of the world " shall " be- come the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." '^ I quite believe that that future conversion of the world will be brought about by a very wonderful restoration of visible unity to the Church, connected, it may be, with the future conversion of Israel;'^ for, as S. Paul says, "What shall the receiving of" Israel "be, but life from the dead?"* But the point to be noticed is that, though our Lord prayed Avith the intention that, as the result of His prayer, the world should believe in Him, that result has not yet been produced.^ Our Lord's prayer, so far ' Isa. xi. 9. * Kev. xi. 15. ' The Jesuit, Father Kuabeubauer, quotes and adopts a very apposite passage from Cornelius a Lapide, bearing on this matter. He says, " Bene notat Lap. : ' tunc enim Antichristi regno everso Ecclesia ubique terrarum regnabit et fiet tarn ex Judteis quam ex Gentilibua unum ovile et unus pastor'" (Knabenb., Comment, in Daniel, vii. 27, p. 202, ed. 1891). * Rom. xi. 15. * When our Lord says (S. John xvii. 20, 21), " Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believe on Me through their word ; that ('(va) they may all be one ; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that (iVa) they also may be [one] in us : that (tvo) the world may believe that Thou didst send Mo ; " we are not to understand that our Lord is praying directly either for the visible unity of believers or for the conversion of the world. He prays for believers in general, as He had prayed for the apostles (vers. 11-15 and 17-19), that the Father would ''keep them" and ''sanctify them." That was the immediate intention of his prayer. But our Lord looks forward beyond the immediate intention. He wishes the faitliful to be *' kept " and " sanctified," in order (hat (J{va) they may bo one iu VI.: THE ClNITV OF THE CHURCH 233 as it deals with t>u}_cori v^i'si<^T^ <^f fhp. \vr>v1c|^ is not equivalent to a promise applicable to all ages. And if the plain facts which history records, and which we see around us, compel us to this conclusion in regard to one object of the prayer, who shall venture to say that the same principle is not applicable to the other object? especially as the two objects of the prayer are so closely connected. Why may not the visible unity of all believers be reserved for the future, as the conversion of the world is evi- dently reserved for the future ?^ Moreover, it seems "^ clear that the visible unity, which is to result in the Father and in the Son, and in order that Qlua) that unity visibly manifesting itself may result in the conversion of the world. Tlio Church's visible unity and the world's conversion are the ultimate objects of His prayer. Compare the parallel prayer for the apostles in verse 11, in which the immediate intention and the ultimate object ar*:) also distinguished. ^ Mr. Kichardson ( What are the Catholic Claims ? p. 30) enumerates twelve claims, which he makes on behalf of the Roman communion. He formulates the fourth of these claims thus: "That not only did Christ pray to His Eternal Father for this visible unity, but that He also proclaimed the immediate answer to His prayer by the words, * And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them, that they may be one as We also are One,' etc. (John xvii. 22)." On p. 49 he appears to identify this gift of "glory " with " the outward expression of unity." All this is very strange and novel exegesis. The Fathers interpret the passage quite differently, and so does the great Jesuit commentator Maldonatus. S. Gregory Nyssen (in illud, Tunc Ipse Filius subjicietur, 0pp. ed. Migue, i. 1320, 1321) understands the "glory" to be the gift of the Spirit. S. Augustine and S. Bede understand it of the future glory in the world to come. S. Chrysos- tom and his followers understand it of the gift of miracles. Maldo- natus understands it of the love which our Lord felt for His followers. In any case the " glory," which our Lord had given, cannot be <♦ the outward expression of unity." Our Lord implies that that is to bo the ultimate result of the gift; it is not the gift itself. 234 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH [yi. the conversion of the world, will be an unmistak- able fact which the whole world will recognize. ; Its recognition will not dejDend on the world's accepting the private theory of one particular body , of Christians. Roman Catholics may choose to ( imagine that they are_ the . only^^eople who really believe in Christ through the word of the apostles, and that, as they are visibly united, the first of the two objects, mentioned by our Lord in S. John xvii. 20, 21, has been attained in them. But it is evident that such a very partial realization of unity is no adequate fulfilment of our Lord's intention. What the world sees at present is a disunited Christendom ; what our Lord desired was a completely united Christendom ; and until that is attained, the promise implied in His great praj^-er remains unfulfilled. It > is impossible to deduce from these words of Christ a pledge that the visible unity of the Church shall never fail. The true deduction from what we are told about our Lord's prayer is just the opposite. If those for whom our Lord prayed constitute a body which of necessity is always visibly one, we should be obliged to say with all reverence that on that most sacred night our Lord had offered a needless prayer. We may gather, from the fact that He prayed, that the unity for which He prayed was a difficult thing, which could only be accomplished through the mighty power of the grace of God. Our Lord had in view a unity which would be brought about by the shedding forth of the Spirit of love, and VI.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 23^ by the Church's complete surrender of herself to the influences of that Spirit of love. He was not prayino^ for a unity, which should be the logically necessary outcome of a definition. Such a unity as our Lord prayed for is set before us in the history of the primitive Church, and such will be the visible unity of the finally reunited Church. For the present the Church and the world have made terms with each other; l ove h as grown cold, and disun ion is the necessar y result. It is for us to labour and pray, and thus prepare the way , for those " times of refreshing," ^ which we know, on the sure testimony of Holy Scripture, are to come at last. But on this question of the nature of the Church's visible unity, and on the cognate question as to whether communion with the see of Rome is a necessary condition of membership in the Catholic Church, Cardinal Wiseman appeals to " the doctrine of the ancient Fathers." To the Fathers, therefore, let us go. We shall have to reconsider, from a different point of view, some incidents of Church history which have already been discussed in the lectures dealing with the jurisdiction of the papal see, but I hope that I shall be able to avoid monotonous repetition. It will be remembered that Pqpe^ Victor (a.d. 188- 198) "proscribed the Asiatic Christians by letters," and proclaimed that they " were all utterly separated from communion," ^ because they kept Eas ter on the » Acts iii. 19. * Euscb., B. E., v. 24. 2^6 THE UNITY OF THE CHURCIt. [yi, day of tlie Paschal full moon, on whatever day o£ the week that event might happen to fall. This, as far as I remember, was the first occasion when, on any large scale, the Church had an opportunity of show- ing by her action whether she really held the principle enunciated by Cardinal Wiseman, that communion with the see of Rome is the test which enables Catholics to be distinguished from schismatics. The Asiatic brethren were " entirely " (apdriv) cut off from the communion of the pope. The question arose. Were they entirely cut ofi* from the unity of the Church ? Eusebius tells us that " Victor en- deavoured to cut off the Churches of all Asia, to- gether with the neighbouring Churches, as heterodox, froTii the common unity ? " ^ The pope endeavoured, but did not succeed. Separation from the communion of the pope did not decide the question of separation from the unity of the Catholic Church, even though the crime for which the Asiatics had been condemned was the most serious one of " heterodoxy." The pope decreed that they were heterodox, but the great majority of the bishops held them to be orthodox, and they maintained their communion with Polycrates of Ephesus and his colleagues, and severely rebuked * Dom CovLsiant (Roman or um Pontificum Epistt,, torn. i. col. 100, ed, 1721) says, " Neque propterea seciim pngnare credondus est Eusebius cum Victorera dicit conatum esse Asianos abscindere. Et abscidit enim re verfi, Asianos, cum eos a communione suS, removit ; et couatus est ab Ecclcsice corpora segregare, cum ceteris Episcopis ad idem prrestandum et Uteris et exemplo auctor fuit. At plerlque emu potius commoneudum ceusuerunt, ut in proposito uoii permaneret." VI.] THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. 237 the pope for his obstinacy,^ until at last he gave way, and the peace of the Church was restored. Assuredly Cardinal Wiseman's theory is not borne out by the episode of the Paschal controversy. In a previous lecture I have gone so fully into the history of the baptismal controversy in the time of S. Cyprian, that there is no need to traverse the ground again. I will only recall the fact that Pope Stephen cut off from his communion S. Cyprian and the whole North African Church,^ and also S. Fir- milian and the Churches of Cappadocia and of the neighbouring provinces ; but those great saints main- tained their ground, knowing well that they retained their membership in the Catholic Church, although deprived of the communion of the Roman see ; and the whole Church, from their day to ours, has justified their view on this point, erven though, in regard to some other aspects of the general controversy, the Africans and Asiatics would find few supporters at the present time. I hardly suppose that any one will be ready to come forward in defence of the notion that S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian and the Churches of the East and of the South were all in schism after Stephen had cut them off" from his com- munion ; but undoubtedly they must be pronounced to be schismatics, if Cardinal Wiseman's principle is a trustworthy test. ^ Pope Nicholas I. confessed that " Videamus Victorem papam . . . pajiie a totius EcclesisB praesulibus pertinacise redargutum " (Coleti, ix. 1360). « See Note A. in the Appendix, pp. 325-333. 23S S. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH, [vi. I pass on to the consideration of the case of S. Meletius of Antioch, and of the Eastern saints who communicated with him. I have given the outlines of S. Meletius' history before.^ During twenty years, namely, from 361 to 381, he presided as bishop over the great Church of Antioch ; and during the whole of that time he was excluded from the communion of the Roman see ; and during the last six years of his episcopate his rival, Paulinus, the Bishop of the Eustathians, was recognized by the pope as the legitimate Catholic Bishop of Antioch. It will, I think, throw light on the way in which Cardinal Wiseman's principle would have been viewed by great saints of the early Church, if I quote from a letter which S. Basil the Great wrote to the Count Terentius on the occasion of the arrival in Antioch of the letters recognizing Paulinus, which were written by Pope Damasus in the year 375. S. Basil says that he hears that the brethren of Paulinus' party are " carrying about letters from the Westerns which commit the bishopric of the Church of Antioch to them, and which defraud (of his due) the most ad- mirable bishop of the true Church of God, Meletius.^ . . . However, since we accuse no one, but, on the contrary, wish to be in charity with all men, espe- cially with those of the household of faith, we con- gratulate those who have received letters from Rome ; and if, moreover, he [Paulinus] should have some ' Sec pp. 1G3-176. UapaXoyiCSfxeva Se rhv dav/j.aaiTaToy inicTKOvov ttjs a\T]9iyrjs rod Qfov tKK\r](rlas McAtrtoy. VI.] S. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCII. 239 honourable and grand testimony (concerning him- self), we pray that it may prove true, and be con- firmed by his actions. But not because of this shall we he able to persuade ourselves either to ignore Meletius, or to lose thought of the Church under him, or to consider the questions, about which from the beginning the separation arose, as small matters, or to think of them as having little profit towards the aim of godliness. As for me, if any one, having received a letter from men, should pride himself upon it, not only shcdl I never suffer myself because of this to shrink back ; but, even if such a letter should have come from heaven itself, but should not agree with the sound word of the faith, I am not able to consider such a one as being in communion [with myself] in sacris"^ (koivcovov rdv ajiuyv). It should be noticed how in this passage S. Basil speaks of the Church under S. Meletius as " the true Church of God," with which he holds communion, although on Cardinal Wiseman's principle it was no true Church, but a schismatic body. Moreover, S. Basil declares that the " letters of onen " — that is, the letters from the pope — will not make him shrink back. He says that the matters in dispute have a close bearing on orthodoxy,^ 1 Ep. 214, 0pp. ed Ben., 1730, iii. 321. 2 S. Basil is no doubt referring, at any rate primarily, to the dispute in regard to the use of the word "hypostasis." S. Basil and the other Cappadocian Fathers, and the East generally, spoke ordinarily of three *' hypostaseis " in the one God. Paulinus, following what might tlien be called the Western usage, spoke of one *' hypostasis." S. Meletius' and S. Basil's phraseology Jias ultimately prevailed through- out the Church, both in the East and in the "West. In reality the two 240 ^. MELETIUS OP ANTIOCH, [vi. and that he would not communicate with an unsound man, even if he received letters from heaven itself.^ Thus he clearly lays down that the papal decision is not decisive on the question of orthodoxy. He does not excuse S. Meletius on the ground of invincible ignorance, or on the ground that circumstances over which he had no control prevented his being in the Roman communion. Such a line would have been impossible, for there was nothing to prevent S. Mele- tius from being in the communion of Rome. He had only to submit to Paulinus, and he would be in that communion at once. The pope had declared, with all the authority of the Roman see, that Paulinus was the true Bishop of Antioch ; but S. Meletius differed from the pope on that point, and S. Basil agreed with S. Meletius. Consequently S. Basil held not only that S. Meletius was a Catholic, but that his followers con- stituted the true Church of God in Antioch, and S. Basil would not hold communion in sacris with Paulinus.^ But S. Meletius was upheld against Paulinus and his powerful supporter, not only by S. Basil, but by all the Catholic bishops of Syria and Asia Minor. In parties were Bubstantially at one in their doctrinal teaching, though they differed as to the precise meaning which should be attached to the word hypostasis^ when used in theological statements; and in consequence expressed the faith, which they held in common, by formulas which were apparently irreconcilable. * S. Basil is, of course, referring to S. Paul's words in Gal. i. 8. * Doni Maran, in his preface to the third volume of the Benedictine edition of S. Basil (p. xi), says, speaking of S. Basil, " Non immerito ergo coramunionem cum Paulino ineundam negabat; quippe cum iniri non posset, quin Meletius rejiceretur, qui solus Antiochioe legit imus crat episcopus." vij S. MELET2US OF ANTIOCH. 24I the year 379 S. Meletius presided over a great Council held at Antioch, at which 146 prelates attended among whom were some illustrious saints.^ It was at this Council that the Eastern bishops under S. Mele- tius received and signed a dogmatic letter, drawn up two years before by a Council held at Rome under the presidency of Pope Damasus.^ This letter is called "the tome of the Westerns" in the 5th canon of the second Ecumenical Council. A copy of this letter with the signatures of the Antiochene Fathers at- tached, was sent to Rome, and was preserved there in the archives of the Church. The signature of S. Meletius, as president of the Council, stands first.^ Father Ryder, of the Birmingham Oratory, considers that the fact that this document was laid up in the Roman archives is a proof that S. Meletius " had been admitted" "to immediate communion with Rome, althougfh his rio^ht to the see of Antioch was not ad- mitted to the prejudice of Paulinus." ^ Mr. Rivington * See the note on p. 167. The codex Vaticaniis gives 1G3 as the number of bishops present at the council. 2 Hefele(ii. 291, 361,362, Eng. trans.) supposes that the Roman letter or tome was drawn up at a Council held in 369. Merenda, in his Gesta S. Damasi (Migne's Patrol. LaU xiii. 190, 191), thinks that the "tome of the Westerns" really consisted of three dogmatic letters which were put forth by Roman Councils in 369, 374, and 377. The first of these letters is extant, and fragments of the others remain. The subscriptions of the Antiochene Fathers immediately follow the fragments of the synodical letter of 377 ; and I belieye that it was that letter, and no other, which was signed at Antioch. Mansi (iii. 463-46S) agrees, but in some details his discussion of the matter needs to be corrected by Merenda. 3 Coleti, ii. 1047, 1081; Mansi, iii. 461, 462, and 511. * Ryder's Catholic Controversy, 2nd edit., p. GO. S 242 ^. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCI^. fvi. says, with even less appearance o£ reason, that S. Mele- tius' "subscription" "proves ... to demonstration " that he was " living in communion with Eome " ^ two years afterwards, when he presided over the second Ecu- menical Council. It is difficult to see how S. Meletius' subscription could "prove to demonstration" anything of the kind. The preservation of a document of that sort in the Koman archives might, under some cir- cumstances, be accepted as fairly good proof that the signatories were in communion with the Koman Church. But such an inference cannot safely be drawn in the present case, for S. Meletius signs dis- tinctly as Bishop of Antioch. His subscription is thus worded : " I Meletius, Bishop of Antioch, con- sent to all the things written above, so believing and holding ; and if any one holds otherwise, let him be anathema." If the acceptance and preservation of a document so signed is to be considered as a proof that S. Meletius was " in immediate communion with Rome," we must go further, and say that it was also a proof that he was recognized at Rome as the Bishop of Antioch. But such a view is quite irre- concilable with facts to be presently mentioned. In the meanwhile, it is easy to explain how the document may have got into the Roman archives. It is most probable that among the 146 signatories there were some, perhaps many, who had always been in good relations with the Roman see. Damasus himself had hardly got to the point of considering all those who * Eivington's Authorittj, 2nd edit., p. 93. VT.] ^. MELET2VS OF ANTIOCH, 243 were outside his communion as being therefore out- side of the communion of the Catholic Church, and as imparting the taint of schism to those Churches which maintained friendly relations with them. We cannot suppose that Damasus considered the whole East to be in schism, because the Eastern bishops communicated with S. Meletius and rejected Paulinus. He never refused his communion to S. Basil. Rome herself, in the fourth century, would hardly have accepted Cardinal Wiseman's theory, that those who are not in communion with the see of Rome are necessarily in a state of schism.^ It follows, therefore, that there were probably some, and perhaps many, of the Fathers of the Council of Antioch who were in friendly relations with Damasus. One or more of these bishops would send to Rome the copy of the " tome of the Westerns," to which were appended the 146 signatures of the Easterns. The pope, having received the document from a friendly source, and * Some Ultramontane writers, when confronted with the case of S Meletius, attempt to get out of their difBculty by replying that Mele- tius was at any rate in " mediate communion " with the see of Rome, because of his communion with S. Basil, who himself communicated with Pope Damasus. This argument seems to make the see of CsEsarea the centre of communion for the whole Church. It would be interesting to know whether, in the nineteenth century, it is held to be allowable for a bishop who is out of communion with Rome, to exercise authority in a city, in which there is another bishop recognized by the pope ; and whether it would be said, concerning euch a rebellious bishop, that he was in " mediate communion " with Rome, because the Archbishop of Goa might choose to ignore the papal decision, and to grant his communion to the rebel. The whole notion of " mediate communion " seems to me to be irreconcilable with the modern papal theory. ^44 "S; MELETWS OF ANTIOCH. [vi. perceiving its great importance as establishing the fact that the schism at Antioch rested on no funda- mental difference of belief, would naturally lay it up in his archives; but it is unreasonable to contend that such an action proves that S. Meletius was ad- mitted to immediate communion with the Roman see. As I have hinted above, subsequent events show clearly that S. Meletius never was in communion with the Western Church. But let us trace the course of the history. It appears to be admitted that the Antiochene Council of 379 failed to heal the breach which divided the Catholics under S. Meletius from the Eustathians under Paulinus. Father Ryder, after mentioning the Council, says that S. Meletius " soon after entered into terms of communion with his rival." ^ Tillemont (viii. 368) shows that the Protes- tant Blondel was wrong in supposing that a compact between the two parties was made at the Council? But undoubtedly a compact was made later on, pro- bably in the spring of the year 381. On the 10th of January in that year, the Emperor Theodosius published at Constantinople his constitution " Nulhis hoereticis," in which he ordered that all Churches which were in the hands of heretics should be given over to the Catholics. On the 28th of February of the previous year, he had published at Thessalonica another constitution, the " Cunctos populos," in which he had declared that he wished all his subjects * Loc. cit. 2 Compare also Hefele (ii. 291, Eug. trans.). VI.] S. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH. 245 to accept the faith as held by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria, who were, of course, the two prelates of highest dignity in the Catholic Church. The emperor entrusted to a high official named Sapor the duty of seeing to the execution of the law of January, 381.^ When Sapor came to Antioch, he found great difficulty in deciding which party ought to be put in possession of the Churches. The Catholics under S. Meletius, the Eustathians under Paulinus, and the Apollinarians under Vitalis, all claimed to hold the same doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity that was held at Eome by Damasus and at Alexandria by Peter. Finally Sapor decided in favour of S. Meletius. It is clear that at the time of Sapor's visit the breach was still unhealed. Very soon after this decision of Sapor, S. Meletius left Antioch for Constantinople, to attend the second Ecumenical Council, at which he presided, and in the course of which he died. It must have been during the very short interval which came in be- tween Sapor's visit and S. Meletius' final departure from Antioch,^ that a compact was at last made ' Tillemont, in his Histoire des Empereurs (note vii. on Theodosius I., torn. V. pp. 728, 729, ed. 1701), shows by very convincing reasons tliat it was to carry out the law of January, 381, that Sapor came to Antioch. ^ The second Ecumenical Council commenced its sessions in May, 381 ; and the emperor's decree, which Sapor had to administer, was dated January 10, 381. When allowance has been made for Sapor's journey from Constantinople to Antioch, and. for S. Meletius' journey from Antioch to Constantinople, it will be seen that the interval between Sapor's visit and S. Meletius' departure could not be more than three months at the outside. It was, iu fact, probably less. 246 S. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH. [vi. between the saint and his rival. S. Meletius had been for a long time most desirous of entering into some arrangement which should put an end to the scandal of the division, or at any rate prevent its perpetuation ; but hitherto his efforts had been with- out fruit. However, at length Paulinus relented, and the two parties came to an agreement, according to the terms of which, whenever either of the two bishops died, the survivor was to be recognized as the one legitimate bishop of the whole body of or- thodox Christians in Antioch. So far as I know, there is no proof that the agreement settled anything beyond the question of the succession to the see. We are not told that S. Meletius and Paulinus communi- cated together, or that intercommunion was estab- lished between the two bodies of Christians.^ Of course, no personal agreement between S. Meletius and Paulinus could bring the latter into communion with the episcopate of the Eastern Church, or the former into communion with Kome and the West. There is no sort of reason to suppose that the other bishops, either of the East or of the West, were in Merenda (De Sancti Damasi Gestis, cap. xii. ; Migne's Patrol Lat., xiii. 181) holds that Sapor did not arrive at Antioch until March, 381. * Socrates (H. E.y v. 5) says that " the people had peace, and so no longer quarrelled with ono another." Two Catholic bishops in the same city, each with his own flock, was such an unusual spectacle in the early Church, that, if it had been part of the compact that the two bodies should actually communicate together, one would have expected the particulars to bo recorded. However, if any one thinks that inter-communion was established between the two parties, I havQ no wish to gaineay him. VI.] S. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH. 247 any way parties to the compact. It seems probable that the whole thing was done in a hurry, and that S. Meletius had to leare for Constantinople before any consultation with the Church elsewhere could be had.-"- Information concerning the compact was, however, sent to the West. An important synod, representing Northern Italy, Pannonia, Gaul, and Africa, met at Aquileia in September, 381, under the presidency of S. Valerian of Aquileia, and under the leadership of S. Ambrose of Milan; and a letter of that synod, addressed to the three emperors, Gratian, Valen- tinian II., and Theodosius, makes two references to the compact (pactum) which had been concluded between the two orthodox parties at Antioch. In that letter the substance of the compact is accurately stated, and the emperors are requested to take care that, when one of the two bishops dies, the Churches shall remain under the government of the survivor, and that no attempt shall be made to consecrate a bishop to succeed in the place of the one who should have passed away.^ Further on in the letter the synod refers again to the compact, and expresses its wish that it should remain in force.^ When this » Sozomen (vii. 3), after describing the termination of the contest, says, " AVhen these things had thus come to pass, Meletius proceeded to Constantinople." 2 " Oblatas pietati vestrae opinamur preces nostras, quibus ^uxla partium pactum poposcimus, ut altero decedente penes superstitem ecclesiso permaucrcut, nee aliqua superordinatio attentaretur" (Coleti, ii. 1186). = " Facto, quod stare yolumns." 248 S. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH. [vi. letter was written, the Aquileian Fathers did not know that the compact had practically come to an end two or three months before. S. Meletius had died in. May or June, during the session of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, and that Council had decided to ignore the compact, and to authorize the election and consecration of a new Bishop of Antioch in succession to S. Meletius, no account being taken of the claims of Paulinus. The fact was that S. Meletius died before the compact had been accepted and ratified by the bishops.^ The episcopal college could not be bound by the private agreement made between S. Meletius and Paulinus, in regard to matters which affected not only the diocese of Antioch, but also the whole of the Antio- chene province and patriarchate, and in some degree the whole Eastern Church. It is, I think, allowable to express regret that the bishops at Constantinople ^ Socrates (v. 5) and liis imitator Sozomen (vii. 3) tell us that six leaders among the clergy of Antioch, belonging to either party, took an oath at the time when the compact was made, by which they bound themselves to take no part in any election to the bishopric, and to refuse to be themselves elected, so long as either S. Meletius or Faulinus was alive. These historians also tell us that S. Flavian, who actually succeeded S. Meletius, was one of those who took the oath. If 80, S. Flavian's episcopate originated in a violation of his sworn promise. It would require very much stronger evidence to make me believe that so illustrious a saint could be guilty of such a crime ; or that so many great saints, as were then found among the bishops of the East, could have become accomplices in that crime. Tillemont (viii. 371, and x. 527) evidently disbelieves the story. However, even if the story were true, the oaths of the Antiocheno clergy would only bind themselves. They could not swear away the rights of the bishops. VI.] S. MELET2US OF ANTIOCIL !49 did not voluntarily ratify the compact in the in- terests of peace. What they actually did was canon- ically legitimate, but it may be doubted whether it was either wise or charitable ; and S. Gregory Nazi- anzen resigned the bishopric of Constantinople and withdrew from the Council in testimony of his dis- approbation of what was being done. But to return to the Council of Aquileia. We liave seen that, when they wrote their letter to the emperors in September, 381, they supposed that S. Meletius was still alive.^ But in various parts of the letter they imply that S. Meletius had not yet been admitted to their communion, nor were they willing to admit him to their communion at the Council which they were then holding. They say, "Paulinus, who has always maintained his communion with us inviolate, is reported to be troubled by the dissen- sions of others, whose faith in former times vacil- ' Tliree or four months later a Council of the bisliops of North Italy was held at Milan under the presidency of S. Ambrose. This Council also addressed a letter to the Emperor Theodosius (Coleti, ii. 1193). In the course of this letter the Council refers to the fact that in the letter from their previous Council at Aquileia they had written that " the city of Antioch had two bishops, Paulinus and Meletius," and tliey called to mind the arrangement about the succession, which they had urged the emperors to maintain in force ; but they go on in their letter irom Milan to eay that " now, Meletius having died, and Paulinus remaining as the survivor, ... it is reported that, contrary to justice and ecclesiastical order, a fresh bishop has been, not exactly substituted in the place of Meletius, but rather superposed." This passage from the Milanese letter proves to demonstration that the Council of Aquileia had not heard of S. Meletius' death. The news of that event reached North Italy during the interval between tho Council of A(juileia and the Council of Milan. 250 S. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH, [vi. lated. And these last we should wish to admit to our fellowship, if it can be done, and if a full belief recommends them (si fieri potest, et si fides plena commendat); but in such a way that the privilege of our long-established fellowship be still maintained with the other side. And our care for these persons [S. Meletius and his flock] is not unnecessary. First of all, because, when a common fellowship has been established, no cause of complaint should be allowed to remain ; and, secondly, because some time ago we received letters from both parties, and specially from those who were causing the dissension in the Church of Antioch [that is, the party of S. Meletius]; and unless we had been hindered by an incursion of the hostile [Goths], we had arranged to send certain of our number, who would have acted as mediators and arbitrators to restore peace, if it were possible. But because at that time, owing to public disturbances, our desires could not take effect, we think that our petition should be offered to your piety, by which we pray that, according to the compact made between the parties, if one dies the Churches may remain subject to the survivor,^ and that no intrusive conse- cration (super or dinatio) should be attempted. And so we beseech you, most clement and Christian emperors, to convoke the whole body of Catholic bishops to a Council to be held at Alexandria, luho onay fully discuss and settle the question as to who are to be admitted to communion, and luho are to * ".Ut altero decedente penes superstitem ecclesiaj permanercut." VI.] S. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH, 351 have their cortvinunion with us maintained."'^ It seems perfectly clear from this letter that S. Meletius, up to the time of his death, was still cut off from the communion of the Western Church, which was so fully represented at Aquileia.^ It is true that the Roman Church was not represented there. The Roman Church was at that time harassed by a domestic trouble. The anti-Pope Ursinus was once more disputing possession of the Roman see with Damasus.^ But, if the pope had granted his com* munion to S. Meletius, it is in the highest degree improbable that S. Ambrose and the rest of the West should have been ignorant of the fact, and that they should be petitioning the emperors to summon an Ecumenical Council at Alexandria to decide whether or no communion should be granted to S. Meletius and to his flock. There is not any ' Coleti, ii. 1186. 2 S. Gregorj^ Nazianzen, in his Carmen de Vila sua (1611-1616, 0pp. ed. Ben., 1840, ii, 758), describes the dispute in the Ecumenical Council as to the succession to the see of Antioch after S. Meletius' death. He gives in verse the substance of the speech which he made, counselling that Paulinus should be left undisturbed. In this speech the following passage occurs : *' As long as the divine bishop [Meletius] was in the midst, and it was not clear how ever they of the West would receive the man, for hitherto they had been wrath, it was in a way pardonable to grieve somewhat these self-styled defenders of the canons [viz. Damasus and the Western bishops]. For a meek man [like Meletius] is an antidote to auger." S. Gregory seems clearly to imply that the dissension with the West continued during S- Meletius' life, but peace followed, when, on his death, Paulinus was left sole bishop (/LLoudOpovos, cf. 1586) ; and S. Gregory is anxious that that peace should not be disturbed by the election of a successor to the saint. ' Hbfele (ii. 375, E.T.). 252 S. MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH, [vi., shadow of a proof that the pope had, without inform- ing the rest of the West, admitted S. Meletius to his communion, and to assert that he must have done so seems to me to be entirely unreasonable. I sub- mit that it has now been conclusively shown that S. Meletius presided over an Ecumenical Council, when for years he had been occupying the great see of Antioch in defiance of the pope, who recog- nized his rival, and when, in consequence, he had been excluded from the communion of Rome and of the West.^ I submit, further, that it has been shown that he died in this condition ; and that, if Cardinal Wiseman's theory is true, he was a schismatic in life and a schismatic in death; and that consequently tlie second Ecumenical Council ^ and all that wonder- ful galaxy of saints, which rendered it so specially illustrious, were all implicated in the deadly sin of schism. It must further be noticed that, havinsf, on the Roman hypothesis, died in schism, he was never- theless canonized, first by the Council, and afterwards by the Western Churches, and specially by the Church * It must be remembered that the Vatican Council, in the consti- tution De Ecd. Christi (cap. iii.), declared that it was part of the Catholic teaching, from which no one can deviate and be saved, that " all pastors of whatever dignity " and " all the faithful " " aie bound to the jurisdiction of the Koman pontiff by the duty of true obedience" " in things which pertain to the discipline and government of tlie Church diffused throughout the whole world," " so that, unity of com- munion being preserved with the Roman pontiff, the Church of Christ may bo one flock under one supreme pastor." S. Meletius seems hardly to have realized the truth of this teaching. * It was this Council which enlarged the Nicene Creed and brouglit it substantially into its present form, excepting always the " Filioque " clause, which was long afterwards added in the AVest, VI.] ^. FLAVIAN AND S. CHRYSOSTOAt 253 of Rome, in whose Martyrology his name occurs. All these incredible propositions must be maintained, un- less people are willing to admit that Cardinal Wise- man's theory is untenable, or at any rate that it does not agree with the teaching of the Fathers of the fourth century. But if so, Cardinal Wiseman was imprudent when he appealed to the Fathers. After all, is it not safer, from the Roman point of view, to brand the appeal to the Fathers as treason ? Let us now consider the case of S. Flavian, the successor of S. Meletius, and that of S. Chrysostom, who was the spiritual son of both those great saints. As we have seen, it was the second Ecumenical Council which determined, whether wisely or un- wisely, that Paulinus' claims to the see of Antioch should be ignored, and that a bishop should be chosen and consecrated to take the place of S. Meletius. S. Flavian, who was probably more than seventy years old, and who had been for forty years, first as a layman and afterwards as a priest, a prominent leader of the Catholics at Antioch, was consecrated to fill the patriarchal throne of that city.^ S. Chrysostom describes how the sorrow of the faithful at the death of Meletius was changed into joy by the consecration of Flavian. It seemed to them that Meletius had risen from the tomb, and in the person of Flavian 1 The title '* patriarch " had hardly come into use ; but the sixth Nicene Canon siiows that Antioch had for a long time possessed special privileges, such as were afterwards called '* patriarchal." Cf. 8. Hieron., Lib. contra. Joann. Jerosul., § 37 (0pp. ed. Vallars, ii. 447). See also Duchesne's Origines du culte, pp. 19-21. ^54 -S". FLAVIAN AND S. CHRYSOSTOM. [vi. was seated once more in the pontifical chair.^ Flavian was acknowledged as the true bishop by all the sufiragans of the Antiochene province and patri- archate, and also by the episcopate of the three exarchates of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace. But Egypt and the West recognized Paulinus. In the summer of the year 382, the majority of the bishops who had attended the second Ecumenical Council met aofain in synod at Constantinople, and addressed a synodical letter to the Western bishops, who were holding a Council at Rome. The Blessed Theodoret gives the letter at full length, in proof, as he says, of the manly spirit and wisdom of the bishops.^ In the course of their letter they inform their Western brethren^ that the episcopate of the province of Antioch and of the patriarchate of the East * " have canoiiically ordained the most reverend and most re- ligious Flavian to be bishop of the very ancient and truly apostolical Church of Antioch."^ But the Western bishops in their Council at Rome took a different view of the matter. They had always sup- ported Paulinus, and they continued to support him * S. Clirys., Serm. cum Preab. fuit otdin.j 0pp. ed. Ben., i. 442. « Theodoret, H. R, v. 8. ' The letter is addressed "to the very honoured lords and most reverend brethren and fellow-ministers, Damasus, Ambrose, Britton, Valerian," etc. * rris avaTo\iK7J5 SioiK^creas. The Constantinopolitan Fathers add tliat the whole of the local Church of Antioch was consenting to Flavian's ordination, and as it were with one voice gave him honour. They also state tliat they themselves had Synodically received tliis "legitimate ordination." » Theodoret, H. E., v. 9. vrj S. FLAVIAN AND S. CHRYSOSTOM. 21% now. Sozomen tells us that "the bishop of the Romans and all the priests {i.e. bishops) of the West were not a little indignant; and they wrote the customary synodical epistles to Paulinus, as Bishop of Antioch, but they entered into no communication with Flavian ; and they treated Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Beroea, and those who acted with them, the consecrators of Flavian/ as guilty persons, and they held them to be excommunicate." ^ Thus the old state of things went on. The orthodox of Antioch continued to be divided into two camps, as they had been divided ever since the banishment of S. Eustathius in 330. The great majority acknow- ledged S. Flavian as the true bishop, and he enjoyed the communion of the Church throughout the Eastern empire, with the exception of the bishops of Egypt, Cyprus, and Arabia. The small body of the Eusta- thians still clung to Paulinus, who was recognized by Rome and the West. Of course, if the theories of the Vatican Council and of Cardinal Wiseman are true, S. Flavian and Diodorus and Acacius were excommunicated schismatics, and the whole Eastern episcopate, who supported them and communicated with them, were fawtores schismaticorum. However, the blessing of God seemed to rest upon them. It was at Antioch, in the midst of this nest of so-called schismatics, that S. Chrysostom was growing day by day in sanctity, and was becoming famous for the * rubs djU0l AiSBcopou . . . Koi 'AKaKiov. * Sozom., //. E., Yii. 11. 256 ^. FLAVIAN AND S. CHRYSOSTOM. \yt. eloquence and unction and fruitfulness of his preach- ing. As may be supposed, when the fact that he was a great Eastern saint and doctor is remembered, he took no heed of the papal pronouncement against S. Flavian. Antioch was an Eastern see, and the Eastern bishops had sanctioned Flavian's consecration, and had determined that it was canonical, as in fact it was. In such a matter it was for the Eastern bishops to judge ; and S. Chrysostom, being well versed in the Church's law^s, threw himself heart and soul into S. Flavian's cause. His whole life had hitherto been spent out of communion with Komc. In A.D. 369, when he was about twenty-two years old, he had been baptized by the great S. Meletius, and in the following year had been admitted by him into the minor order of readers. In 381, S. Meletius, lust before leaving Antioch for the last time, had raised S. Chrysostom to the diaconate, and five years afterwards, early in the year 386, the saint was ordained priest by S. Flavian. It was not until twelve years later that S. Chrysostom, after his elevation to the episcopal throne of Constantinople, entered into communion with the see of Rome. He was then fifty-one years old, and the main bulk of his homilies and commentaries had been by that time written. When we are reading any of S. Chrysos- tom's works, or when they are being quoted con- troversially either on the one side or the other, it is desirable that we should remember that in the majority of cases what is being read or quoted was VI.] S. FLAVIAN AND S. CHRYSOSTOM. 2^7 written by the saint at a time when, according to Cardinal Wiseman's theory, he was living in schism. The mere statement of such an absurd consequence appears to me to constitute of itself a disproof of the theory which logically leads to it. I said that S. Chrysostom threw himself heart and soul into S. Flavian's cause. In many of his sermons he gives expression to the feelings of veneration and affection which he entertained for his saintly bishop and leader. On one occasion, after quoting the great promise to S. Peter, " Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church," he says that the apostle inherited the name of Peter, " not because he did miracles, but because he said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' " " Thou seest," he continues, " that his very being called Peter took its beginning, not from working miracles, but from ardent zeal. But, since I have mentioned Peter, another Peter occurs to me, our common father and teacher, who, being his successor in virtue, has also inherited his see. For this too is one of the privi- leges of our city, that it received at the beginning for its teacher the first of the apostles."^ Thus did S. * S. Chrys., Horn, in Inscript Aott.y ii., 0pp. ed. Ben., iii. 70. S. Chrysostom goes on to mention that, while Antioch had yielded up S. Peter's body to the imperial city of Rome, she had nevertheless kept S. Peter himself, because she kept S. Peter's faith. I think that it is quite possible that S. Chrysostom, in the ardour of his love and veneration for the apostolic founder of the Church of Antioch, may have been betrayed sometimes into an exaggerated tone, when speak- ing of S. Peter (but see Note F. in the Appendix, pp. 396-400). It is, however, to be noted that he never connects the Petrine primacy with any supposed primacy of jurisdiction in the see of Rome. As has been T ^58 ^. FLAVIAN AND S. CHRYSOSTOM. [vi. Chrysostom regard S. Flavian, though excommuni- cated by Rome, as " another Peter," the successor of the apostle in virtue, as he was also, according to the belief of that age, Peter's successor in the episcopal throne of Antioch. In another homily he speaks of S. Flavian as his " tenderly loving father." ^ In another preached, when the bishop was not present, he speaks of his " fervent, fiery, warm charity, which could not be restrained." ^ But such passages are too numerous to quote, and would become weari- some. But as S. Chrysostom was full of affection and admiration for S. Flavian, so also he is very earnest in warning his flock against the dreadful sin of leaving the true Church of Antioch in order to "go over" to the Eustathian schismatics who enjoyed the communion of Rome. In his eleventh Homily on the Ephesians, he says, " If we desire to partake of that Spirit which is from the Head, let us cleave one to another. . . . Nothing will so avail to divide the Church as love of authority. Nothing so provokes God's anger as the division of the Church. . . . When the Church is warred upon by her own children, it disgraces her mentioned already, he was, during the greater part of his life, out of communion with the see of Rome, and consequently he would not be likely to magnify the Roman claims. But he had a great devotion to S. Peter, and it is conceivable that in his homilies, when he is giving expression to that devotion, his fervid rhetoric may have carried him beyond the strict limits of accurate statement. ^ T(^ iroTpl <{>i\o G^n- sidering the slowness of communication in those times, and the magnitude of the work to be done, it must remain doubtful whether, in the distant diocese of Sarug, which was beyond the Euphrates reunion was accomplished before S. James' death in November. 2 Cf. J. B. Abbeloos, de Vitd et Scriptis Sancti Jaeohi Batnarum Sarugi dissertatio Mstorico-theologica (Lovan. 1SG7). » Ada SS., tom. xii., Octobr., p. 830. * Hid., }). 824. 296 THE AC A CIA N TROUBLES. [vii. lives of him have come down to us, one by Cyril of Scythopolis, the other by Theodore, Bishop of Petra, who had been his disciple. He is credited with miraculous and prophetic gifts. Baronius calls him, "the celebrated Theodosius, great in name and illustrious in deeds ; " ^ he also describes him as " most holy." ^ He was out of communion with Eome from the age of sixty-one to the age of ninety-eight. He lived to the age of one hundred and six, so that he survived the reunion of the patriarchate of Jerusalem with the West eight years. S. Gabriel the Archimandrite was one of the dis- ciples of S. Euthymius the Great. He became abbot of S. Stephen's monastery at Jerusalem, and died there, out of communion with Rome, in the year 490. His feast is celebrated on January 26. S. Cyriacus the Anchorite w^as ordained deacon at the age of thirty-six, in the year 484, the very year when the breach of communion between the East and the West took place. He had already been nineteen years living the monastic life. He was ordained priest at the age of fifty-two, in the year 500, in the middle period of the schism. Baronius applies to him the epithet of '' saiictissimus." ^ He was gut of communion with Rome from the aofe of thirty-six to the age of seventy-three. He died at the age of one hundred and eight, in the year 556. » Annal. Eccl, s.a. 511, torn. vi. pp. 617, 618, ed. 1658. » Ihid., 8.a. 491, torn. vi. p. 468. » Ibid. VII j THE ACACIAN TROUBLES, 697 He is commemorated in the Roman Martyrology on September 29. S. John the Chuzibite was one of the wonder- working saints. He was a disciple of S. Sabas, and was illustrious for his sanctity and miracles in the laura of Chuziba. John Moschus, in the Pratum Spirituale (cap. 25), tells how, when S. John was abbot of that laura, he was accustomed to see some visible token of the descent of the Holy Ghost at the consecration of the Holy Eucharist. There is also an account of one of his miracles in Evagrius' History.^ Before the pacification of the Church he had ceased to be abbot of his laura, and had become Bishop of Caesarea, and in that capacity took part in the synod at Jerusalem, which was held in the year 518.^ All the members of that synod were out of communion with Rome. He wrote a defence of the faith of Chalcedon. S. Zosimas the Wonder-worker was a friend of S. John the Chuzibite, and like him was endowed with the gifts of prophecy and miracles. Evagrius recounts several instances of the saint's exercise of these gifts.^ In one of these S. John the Chuzibite took part ; and from the fact of S. Zosimas speaking of him as "the Chuzibite," one would suppose that it took place before S. John's elevation to the epis- copate. On the other hand, S. John was at Caesarea when this miracle was worked, and that fact may » H. R, iv. 7. 2 ^cta SS., Octobr., torn. xii. p. 587/. » H. Ky iv. 7. ^98 THE ACACIAM TROUBLES. [vii. indicate that he had ah-eady become Bishop of Coesarea.^ If the miracle was worked before S. Jolin s consecration, S. Zosimas' thaumaturgic powers must have been developed when he was out of com- munion with Rome. If it took place afterwards, the point must remain doubtful. S. Zosimas is commemorated in the Roman Martyrology on November 30. S. Sabas the Great was, as Alban Butler truly says, "one of the most renowned patriarchs of the monks of Palestine." He was the superior general of the anchorites who lived under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, just as S. Theodosius the Coenobiarch was the superior of the coenobites in the same region. The details of his wonderful and most edifying life have been preserved for us by Cyril of Scythopolis, his biographer; and the English reader may study them in the pages of Alban Butler. S. Sabas was out of communion with Rome from the time that he was forty-five to the time that he was eighty-two, and it was during those years that the most striking events of his life happened, and that his most heroic deeds were ac- complished. The Roman Martyrology says of him, "He shone out as a wonderful example of sanctity * S. Zosimfls himself was abbot of a monastery at a place sixty miles away from Caosarea, yet he used to visit that city ; so there is no reason why S. John, when he was Abbot of Chuziba, may not have (lone the same. The fact that he was elected to the see of Csesarea ini?;ht tend to show that he was known to the clergy and to the faitliful of the place, and that he had therefore visited it, when he V as au abbot VII. j THE AC A CI AN TROUBLES. 299 in Palestine, and he laboured strenuously for the Catholic faith against those who impugned the holy Council of Chalcedon." Those strenuous labours belong to the period when, according to the teaching of Cardinal Wiseman, he was living in schism. He died in the year 532, at the age of ninety-three. A church and monastery were built at Rome in his honour ; and the monastery, which he himself founded in the wildest part of the rocky desert to the west of the Dead Sea, is visited to this day by most travellers in Palestine. S. John the Silentiary was born in the year 454. He became Bishop of Colonia, in the province of Armenia Prima, in 481. He resigned his see in 491, and lived as an anchorite in Palestine until his death in 558. He was out of communion with Rome from the age of thirty to the age of sixty- seven. He lived to be one hundred and four. Some of the most remarkable events of his life, and some of his most wonderful miracles, took place while he was out of communion with Rome. Cyril of Scy- thopolis, who knew him, wrote his life in the year before he died. The Eastern Church keeps his feast on the 8th of December, but his name occurs in the Roman Marty rology on the 13th of May. I have reserved for the last the saints of the patriarchate of Alexandria, because of the peculiar circumstances of that patriarchate during the time of the schism. Between the years 482 and 538 the patriarchs of Alexandria were all of them Monophy- 3o6 THE ACACIAN TROUBLES. [vii. sites. Nevertheless, both the orthodox Church of the East and also the Latin Church celebrate the memories of S. Aretas and the martyrs of Negran in Southern Arabia, and also of S. Elesbaan, the King of Ethiopia. It is most unlikely that these persons would have been venerated as saints if they had been Monophy sites, and yet it is difficult to clear them of having lived in communion with Timothy II., the Patriarch of Alexandria from 520 to 537, who certainly was a Monophysite. All that can be said is, that at any rate in the earlier years of his epis- copate Timothy may have concealed his Monophysite belief.^ That he was in fact a Monophysite has been proved by the discovery of a treatise written by him against the Council of Chalcedon, among the Syriac MSS. of the British Museum.^ S. Aretas and the martyrs of Negran were put to death by orders of the Jev/ish king of the Homeritse, Dhu'n Navvas, in the year 522 (or 523), in a manner so cruel that the memory of it is preserved in the Koran,^ written a hundred years later. The number of martyrs was altogether 4252, as is mentioned in the very accurate acts of their martyrdom. Out of this great number, S. Aretas, the governor of the city, and 340 of the chief men are commemorated in the Roman Martyrology on October 24. The » The earlier years of Timothy's episcopate coincided with the reigu of the Emperor Justin, who was very much opposed to Monophysitism. ■•^ Cf. Acta SS., torn, x., Octobr., pp. 710, 711. • In the Surah of the Zodiacal signs, the 85th. vn.] THE AC AC I AN- TROUBLES. 301 memory of the others is celebrated on July 27. The news of this massacre was communicated to the rest of Christendom by Simeon/ Bishop of Beth Arsam, who had been sent, in A.D. 524, by the Emperor Justin as an ambassador to one of the Arabian kings. Simeon gives the details in a letter to the Abbot of Gabula, in which he expresses a hope that the news of the martyrdom may be spread throughout the Church, and that the martyrs may receive the honour of commemoration.^ The Bollandist Father Carpentier thinks that it is probable that the public veneration of these martyrs began at Constantinople within five years of their glorious death, and that a commemoration of them was inserted into the typicum of S. Sabas during the lifetime of that saint.^ There seems to be no doubt that these Arabian Christians acknowledged the Bishop of Alexandria as their patriarch;^ nevertheless the Bollandist stoutly maintains that they were not themselves tainted with heresy.^ I incline to believe that he is right, though the question is surrounded with difficulties. There can, however, be no difficulty in deciding that they were out of communion with Rome. Timothy of Alexandria may have concealed his Monophysitism from fear of the emperor,^ but * Assemani decides that Simeon was Catholic, and not Monophysite. "^ See the article on S. Elesbaan by the Dean of Christ Church, in Smith and Wace, ii. 73. ' Acta SS., torn, x., Octobr., p. 715. Ihid., p. 713. * Ibid., pp. 695, 701, 713. * Ibid., p. 711 ; ettora. xii. pp. 317, 319. 502 THE ACACIAN TROUBLES, [vii. he did not share in the general pacification of the Church, which took place in the years 519-521. When Pope John I. came to Constantinople in the year 525, he said Mass in Latin on Easter-day, and communicated with all the bishops of the East exceipt Timothy of Alexandria} The Acts of S. Aretas tell us that during the Eastertide of that, very year " the most blessed Bishop Timothy, having assembled in the church of the holy Apostle Mark all the orthodox and a multitude of monks from Nitria and Scete, decreed that there should be a day of inter- cession,^ and celebrated a vigil, and on the morrow, when he had concluded the Eucharistic service, he placed the Divine Oblation in a silver vessel, and sent It by a presbyter to the King of the Ethiopians,"^ that is to S. Elesbaan, and exhorted him to go and lead his army against the wicked tyrant Dhu'n Navvas. I must not dwell any longer on these Alexandrian saints, but must refer the reader to Father Car- pentier's disquisitions on S. Elesbaan and also on S. Pantaleon and his eight companions in the twelfth volume of the Bollandist October. I lay less stress on the Alexandrian saints than on those of the other patriarchates, because they lived in a barbarous » Cf. Pagi, Critica, ii. 525, ed. 1727. * iichpvif \iTaveiav : the word Xirat/eia may mean a litany, or a procession, or a supplication. This public service of intercession for S. Elesbaan took place at Alexandria, in April 525. Easter-day fell that year on March 30 (cf. Acta SS., tom. xii., Octobr., p. 319). • Acta SS., tom. s., Octobr., p. 743. til] the ACACIAN troubles. 303 country, and there is a shade of uncertainty about their orthodoxy.^ S. Macedonius and S. Elias and S. Flavian II sat on the great patriarchal thrones of Christendom, and knew perfectly well that they were out of communion with Kome, and that they, as patriarchs, were responsible for the separation of the whole East from Rome ; and S. Sabas and S. Theodo- sius and S. John the Silentiary are among the shining lights who rendered illustrious the lauras and monas- teries of Palestine. The united testimony of these and of others like them, of whom I have spoken, proves conclusively that the saints of the Eastern Church, in the time of the Acacian troubles, knew nothing of Cardinal Wiseman's doctrine that "it is easy at once to ascertain who are the Church Catholic and who are in a state of schism, by simply discovering who are in communion with the see of Rome and who are not." Pope Gelasius probably did hold something of this sort ; for, as we have seen, he compelled the ex-legate Misenus to " strike with an everlasting anathema " Acacius and his successors and " all those who follow and com- municate with them ; " and it was only on condition of Misenus doing this that the pope restored him to communion and to his episcopal see.^ But we for our * But it must be remembered that Eomanists cannot object to their evidence being brought forward, because the Koman Church com- memorates them as saints. I refer to S. Aretas and other martyrs of Negran, and to S. Elesbaan. * See pp. 280, 281. Tillemont (xvi. 658), when he describes Misenus' curses against those who communicated with Acacius, says very truly 304 THE AC AC I AN TROUBLES, [vii. part wholly decline to accept the witness of the popes in their own favour. We have in this case the popes on one side, and a large body of saints on the other, and we feel that it is safer to follow the saints ; and the more so because the saints were handing on the traditional teaching of the Church. The mantles of S. Cyprian and of S. Basil and of S. Chrysostom had fallen upon them. The reader will naturally want to know how this Acacian trouble came to an end. It would take too long to go into the matter fully, but I will give a brief account of how it came about. The persecuting Emperor Anastasius died in July, 518. He was succeeded by Justin, who had risen from the ranks. Justin was a rough soldier, who could neither read nor write, but he had one great advantage over his predecessor, in that he was fervently attached to the Catholic faith. At that time John the Cappadocian was Patriarch of Con- stantinople. He had succeeded the Monophysite Timothy,^ who had been intruded into the see by Anastasius when S. Macedonius was banished.^ During the whole of Timothy's episcopate the faith- ful people of Constantinople, who had been well "That is to say, he cursetl more than half the Church, and among others S. Sabas, S. Theodosius, S. Daniel the Stylite, S. Elias of Jerusalem, etc. That is terrible 1 " It is indeed terrible, but it is the natural outcome of Gelasian principles. * Timothy removed from the diptychs the names of Euphemius and of S. Macedonius, and also the entries referring to the Council of Ohalcedon and to S. Leo, the author of the Tome. . « See p. 287. VitO THE ACACIA N TROUBLES. 305 trained in orthodoxy by their holy patriarchs Euphemius and S. Macedonius, refused to communi- cate with the heretical intruder. Their joy was great when Justin came to the throne ; and on the Sunday following they flocked to the church, and when the Patriarch John and the rest of the clergy entered, a strange proceeding took place. The con- gregation burst into acclamations, which lasted for hours. " Long live the emperor I " they said : " Long live the empress ! " " Long live the patriarch ! " *' Thou art orthodox, of whom art thou afraid ? " " Why do we remain without communion ? " " Why have we not communicated for so many years?" " We wish to communicate from \hj hands ! " " Let the holy synod [of Chalcedon] be put on the dip- tych s ! " " An orthodox emperor reigns, whom dost thou fear ? " " The faith of the orthodox people is conquering ! " " Long live the new Constantine ! " *' Long live the new Helena I" " Bring back the relics of Macedonius at once I " " Restore the relics of Macedonius to the church!" "* Let the names of Euphemius and Macedonius be given a place at once I " " Put the four [ecumenical] synods on the diptychs ! " *' Put Leo the Bishop of Rome on the diptychs ! " " Long live the orthodox emperor ! " " Bring the diptychs at once ! " ^ There is a curious record of all these acclamations, which was solemnly read out before the important Council of Con- stantinople, at which S. Mennas presided in the year * 1 have given merely a selection from the long list of acclamations. Ao6 THE ACACIAN TROUBLES. [vir. 536. The record goes on to say, "Then the most holy and most blessed Archbishop and Ecumenical Patriarch John, receiving the diptychs, ordered the four holy synods to be entered, . . , and also the names of Euphemius and Macedonius of holy memory, the defunct Archbishops of this Royal City, and also the name of Leo, who was Archbishop of Rome. Then with a great voice all the people, as with one mouth, exclaimed, 'Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He hath visited and redeemed His people;' " ^ and so at last the patriarch was able to accomplish the holy service of the altar. Thus, after a period of unsatisfactory vacillation in regard to the faith, brought about by the intrusion of the heretic Timothy, the Church of Constantinople was happily restored to orthodoxy ; ^ but it was still out of communion with Rome. However, the new emperor was quite determined that the whole Church throughout his empire should be bound together in a fellowship which should be visibly one. He there- fore wrote to Pope Hormisdas, and the Patriarch John also wrote. Hormisdas replied cordially, but made it quite clear that, if the East wished to be in communion with the West, the name of Acacius must be expunged, and a certain formulary {lihellus), which had been sent from Rome to Constantinople in > Coleti, V. 114&-115G. ' It will be remembered that the great body of the Chtirch had remained orthodox all aloug, but a heretical emperor had intruded a heretical bishop into the Bce. til] the ACACIAN- troubles. 367 the time of the Emperor Anastasius, must be signed. In the following year (a.d. 519) legates arrived from Rome, bringing this formulary with them. It con- tained a very high-flying statement of Hormisdas' claims on behalf of his see, such a statement as no Eastern bishop or saint had ever signed before. It is only fair that the most important clauses of this formulary should be set forth in full. The words are, of course, the pope's words ; but he requires the Eastern bishops to sign them, if they wish to be admitted to his communion. The formulary runs as follows : " The first point of salvation is, that we should keep the rule of right faith, and in no way deviate from the tradition of the Fathers : because it is not possible to pass over the determination of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church.' These words are proved by their efiects, for in the apostolic see the Catholic religion is always kept inviolable.^ Wishing, * This was a dangerous argument to use. It may be doubted ■whether Hormisdas would have inserted this clause if he could have foreseen that one of his successors, S. Leo IL, would in the year 683 write to the Emperor Constantino Pogonatus concerning Pope Honorius as follows, " We anathematize Honorius, who, instead of labouring to keep this apostolic Church pure by the teaching of apostolic tradition, suffered it, the immaculate, to be polluted through his profane be- trayal," or, as the last words run in the Latin form of the epistle, " attempted to subvert the immaculate faith by a profane betrayal " (Coleti, vii. 1156). The same Pope S. Leo IL, having included his predecessor Honorius in a list of heretics, says, 'MM these^ preaching one will and one operation in the Godhead and Manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, impudently attempted to defend heretical doctrine " (Ep.y Leonis Papfie IL, ad Ervigium regem Hispanise, ap. Coleti, vii. 1462). It is important to remember that, according to the teaching of the popes, 3o8 THE AC AC IAN TROUBLES, tvii. therefore, not to fall from this faith, and following in all things the ordinances of the Fathers, we anathe- matize all heresies, but especially the heretic Nestorius, . . . and together with him we anathema- tize Eutyches and Dioscorus, . . . w^ho were con- demned in the holy Council of Chalcedon, which we venerate and follow and embrace ; . . . joining him to these, we anathematize Timothy the parricide, sur- named the Cat and his disciple Peter [Mongus] of Alexandria. . . . We similarly anathematize their accomplice, who became their follower, Acacius, formerly Bishop of Constantinople ; and those, more- over, who persevere in their communion and fellow- ship : for if any one embraces the communion of these persons, he falls under a similar judgment of condemnation with them. . . . We approve and embrace all the epistles of blessed Leo, Pope of the city of Rome, which he wrote concerning the right faith. Wherefore, as we have said before, following in all things the apostolic see, we preach all things, they themselves are liable " to defend heretical doctrine in an impudent manner." This teaching was faithfully handed down in tlie Roman see ; and so we find that Pope Adrian VI. in his Quxstiones de Sacra- mentis in quartum Sententiarum librum (fol. xxvi. coll. iii., iv.), when treating of the minister of Confirmation, discusses the question, " Utrum papa possit errare in his quae tangunt fidem " ? He replies, " Dico primo quod si per ecclesium Romanam intelligat caput ejus* puta pontifex, certum est quod possit errare, etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem, hceresim per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo. Plures enim fuerunt pontifices Romani heeretici." I quote from the edition published by Pope Adrian in 1522 during his pontificate, under his own eye at Rome. It must be remembered that Acacius had never explicitly " defended heretical doctrine," as Honorius did, nor asderted heresy in a decretal, us other popes did. VII.] THE ACACIAN TROUBLES. 309 which have been by her decreed ; and consequently I hope that I shall be in one communion with you, the communion which the apostolic see preaches, in which is the whole and perfect entirety (soliditas) of the Christian religion. We promise for the future that at the celebration of the holy mysteries there shall be no mention made of the names of those who have been separated from the communion of the Catholic Church — that is, of those who do not agree in all things with the apostolic see. . . ."^ The Patriarch John knew well that the emperor was determined that the Church of Constantinople should come into communion with the Church of Rome. His own record was not one that could bear investi- gation, nor had he any large share in the courage and firmness of the saints. He had been syncellus or confidential chaplain to his heretical predecessor ; and he had been appointed to his present exalted position by the heretical Emperor Anastasius, who had compelled him to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, as the price to be paid for his elevation to the patriarchate. In the present conjuncture he knew that, if he was to retain his see, he must sign the Roman formulary ; but, poor-spirited as he was, he was not prepared to sign it as it stood. He insisted on prefacing it by a preamble. After the usual compliments to his "brother and fellow- minister" Hormisdas, he says, "When I received your letter, I rejoiced at the spiritual charity of your » Coleti, V. 622. 110 THE ACACIAN TROUBLES. [vii. Holiness, because you are seeking to unite the most holy Churches o£ God according to the ancient tradition of the Fathers, and you are hastening to drive away those who have torn the rational flock of Christ. Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what I have written, I too, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee : for 1 hold the inost holy Churches of your elder and of our new Borne to he one Church ; I define that see of the Apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to he one see" ^ Then he expresses his complete assent to everything that was done at the four Ecumenical Councils, concerning the confirmation of the faith and the state of the Church, and denounces all disturbers of the same, and then proceeds to adopt and make his own the words of the papal formulary. It will be noticed that by means of this preamble the Patriarch John managed to blunt very considerably the edge of the formulary; for, by identifying in some curious fashion his own see of new Eome with the papal see of old Rome, he managed to claim for the Constantinopolitan see a share in all the special privileges which in the formulary were assigned to the Western apostolic chair. However, the document, as modified by the patriarch, was accepted by the legates, and intercommunion was once more estab- lislied between Rome and Constantinople. Rome could congratulate herself on having won a very substantial victory, in so far as the name of Acacius ' Coleti, V. 621, 622, VII.] THE ACACIAN TROUBLES, 311 was struck out of the Constantinopolitan diptychs. Rome also won for a time another victory, which was less to her credit. By command of the pope,^ the legates insisted on the names of Euphemius and S. Macedonius- being also removed from the diptychs. Those names had been triumphantly replaced a few months before, namely, on the day of the great acclamations. However, as part of the price to be paid for the reunion of the Church, they were now once more removed. But, as has been already stated,^ no long time elapsed before they were again re- placed; and since then S. Macedonius has been reckoned by the Constantinopolitan Church as one of the saints, and venerated accordingly.^ The formulary which the legates had brought was signed not only by the Patriarch John, but also by the other bishops who happened to be in Con- stantinople at that time. It was probably signed by all, or almost all, the bishops of Thrace, and by some of those in Pontus and Asia. But Justinian, the Emperor Justin's nephew, wrote to the pope in the year 520, that "a considerable part of the Eastern bishops ^ could not be compelled, even by the use of fire and sword, to condemn the names of the bishops who died after Acacius." Incidentally we learn from this passage what sort of pressure was put upon the bishops to compel them to accept the Roman demands. » Cf. Coleti, V. 613. 2 g^e p. 288. » Cf. Acta SS., torn, iii., April, p. 373. ^ "Pars orientaliuni non exilis" (Coleti, v. 667). 312 THE ACACIAN TROUBLES, [vii. The Patriarch Epiphanius, who had succeeded John the Cappadocian, wrote at the same time to Hormis- das, and told him that "very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia, and above all of the patriarchate of Antioch, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops." Consequently, Epiphanius recommends the pope to follow "the pathway of humility" in his eflfort to reunite the Church.^ The Emperor Justin also wrote to much the same effect, and speaks of "the threats and persuasions" used to induce the clergy and laity of these dioceses to agree to the removal of the names ; but " they," he says, " esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was their people's glory." Then he urges the pope to abate his demands, "in order to unite everywhere the venerable Churches, and especially the Church of Jeinisalem, on which Church all bestow their good will, as being the mother of the Christian name, so that no one dares to separate himself from that Church." ^ The pope, in his answer to the emperor, urges him to use force to compel uniformity.^ He at the same time wrote to the Patriarch Epiphanius, empowering him to represent himself, so that who- ever was admitted to communion with the Church of Constantinople was to be reckoned as being in communion with the Church of Rome. He also begs Epiphanius to send him a list of those whom he » Coleti, V. 669. « ittU, v. 672, 673. ' lUd., v. 681. vii] THE ACACIAN TROUBLES. 313 shall thus admit, and to state the contents of the declaration of faith which each should make on his reception;^ and he inserts a concise statement of doctrine, the substance of which is to be enforced on all who are received. This statement of doctrine has reference to our Lord's Incarnation, and there is nothing in it bearing on the prerogatives of the see of Rome.^ So it came to pass that in the end the pope receded from the extreme claims which he had made at first, and left the whole matter practi- cally in the hands of Epiphanius. The larger part of the Eastern Church was admitted back into com- munion with the West on its own terms, and not on the pope's terms.^ The Eastern bishops had all along been ready to give pledges of the orthodoxy of their faith ; ^ but they had rightly refused to give way by subjection to the usurping claims of the Roman see. Throughout the patriarchates of Antioch and Jeru- salem, and in the greater part of the exarchates of Pontus and Asia, the names of Euphemius and of S. Macedonius were never expunged from the diptychs, and the bishops refused to append their signatures to the obnoxious formulary of Hormisdas.^ We are » Coleti, V. 1121, 1122. 2 i^i^ ^ y 1103, 1124. ^ Except that the name of Acacius was probably removed from the diptychs. * I except, of course, the patriarchate of Alexandria, which liad been cut off from the communion of the Church of Constantinople by Euphemius in the year 490, and which was still given over to Monophysite misbelief. The see of Alexandria was not admitted back into fellowship with the rest of the Church until the consecration of the Patriarch Paul by S. Mennas of Constantinople in a.d. 538. ^ The very learned historian Pagi, of the order of the Conventual 314 THE ACACIAN TROUBLES, [vii. indeed told by Father Bottalla (Supreme Authority of the Pope J p. 115) that " all the bishops of the Eastern Church, with their patriarchs and their emperor, signed the formula of union, amidst shouts and tears of universal joy;" and by "the formula of union " Father Bottalla means the original formu- lary of Hormisdas. He goes on to say that "this precious document of the faith of the East, signed by all the patriarchs, and accepted, of course, by the whole Western Church, has a weight of authority not less than that of a definition of faith pronounced by an Ecumenical Council." This passage is thoroughly characteristic of the way in which history is written by some Ultramontane controversialists. As we have seen, instead of the formula having been signed by "all the bishops of the Eastern Church," it was signed by about half the bishops of one out of the four Eastern patriarchates ; the patriarch himself Minorites, arrives at the same result. He says, " "We come to this con- clusion, namely, that Hormisdas, who at first wished to compel the Eastern bishops to subscribe the formulary put forth by himself, and offered to them by his legates, at last yielded to their opposition. For, if he had insisted on their subscribing that formulary, there would have been no need for Epiphanius to report to him what the lihelli, or professions of faith, set forth by the aforesaid bishops contained, and with what form of words they subscribed. ... It appears, therefore, that the Eastern bishops were at length admitted to the communion of the apostolic see, although they had not condemned Euphcmius and Maccdonius, and had not allowed their names to be expunged from the diptychs. That the name of Maccdonius remained on tho diptychs, in which it had been inscribed, and was restored to those from wliich it had been removed, is clearly proved by the sacred cultus which the Greeks pay to him, as appears from their meuaa" (I'agi, Critica, ii. filD, cd. 1727). vn.] THE ACACIAN TROUBLES, 315 refusing to sign it, until he had prefixed a preamble which took away almost all its point. And, again, instead of the formulary being " a precious document of the faith of the East," it was drawn up by the pope, and was pressed upon the East by the emperor with threats of fire and sword; and yet, notwith- standing those threats, it was rejected by the majority of the Eastern bishops. Even if it had been signed by them all, it would be ludicrous to compare the authority of such a document so signed with the authority of " a definition of faith pro- nounced by an Ecumenical Council." The formulary had not been synodically accepted in a free Council, and therefore did not bind future generations. Each bishop, who freely signed, was personally bound by his own signature, but he could not bind his successors. The Church's laws, whether dogmatic or disciplinary, are not made in such a fashion as that. To crown his other enormities. Father Bottalla informs us in the note that " Eusticus — who wrote under Justinian, the successor of Justin — says that the formulary of Hormisdas was signed by 2500 priests (sacerdotes bishops) of the Eastern Church." Eusticus says nothing of the kind. What he does say is that the Council of Chalcedon was "an Ecumenical Synod, which has often been confirmed by the harmonious judgment of all the Churches, not only by the encyclical letters^ [of various patriarchal and pro- ^ These are, I imagine, the synodical letters printed by Coleti (iv. 1S31-193-1); they are, for the most part, addressed to the Emperor Leo. 3i6 THE ACACIAN TROUBLES. [vit. vincial Councils] in the reign of [the Emperor] Leo, but also by the lihtlli (professions of faith) of per- haps 2500 bishops in the reign of the Emperor Justin, after the schism of Peter [Mongus] of Alex- andria and of Acacius of Constantinople." ^ Rusticus is no doubfc right when he says that all these 2500 libelli contained an explicit acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon ; but he nowhere identifies these lihelli with the original formulary of Hormisdas, nor does he suggest that they were all worded in accordance with one pattern. If he had committed himself to either of these statements, he would have come into collision with our contemporary sources of informa- tion; as it is, his testimony harmonizes completely with the whole body of facts which has reached us through other channels. Here I must bring to a conclusion what I propose to say at the present time on the subject of the Acacian troubles. To my mind the history of those troubles shows clearly that the great Eastern saints of the fifth and sixth centuries had no conception of the papacy as the divinely appointed and necessary centre of communion. If they really thought that to be out of communion with the pope was equivalent to being out of communion with the Catholic Church, one would be bound to say that their actions would prove that they were very wicked men. On that hypothesis, they were content to remain outside the * Rustic, contra Acephaha iUsputat. (Migue, Patrol. Lat^ Ixvii. 1251). Vir,] THE ACACIAN TROUBLES, 317 Church for thirty- five or thirty-seven years. Nay, more; some of them were content to die in that appalling condition. No one, who knows anything of primitive theology, could suppose that S. Mace- donius and S. Elias and S. Sabas and their brethren held the common Protestant notion that it does not matter whether you are in the Church or out of it. Assuredly they believed, as every one believed, that "extra eeclesiam nulla salus." If, therefore, they supposed that the Church was restricted to that body of persons who were for the time being in com- munion with the pope, they manifested a most culpable carelessness about their salvation, seeing that they took no pains to get back into the Catholic unity. Let those who choose to do so, throw mud at those holy men. I, for my part, entirely disbelieve in the theory of their wickedness ; but that is equivalent to saying that I entirely disbelieve in the notion that they accepted the modern Roman teaching about the relation of the papacy to the unity of the Church. I should much like to pursue the history of the Church Catholic and of the Roman see through the century which followed the pontificate of Hormisdas. One would have to tell of how the great and illustrious Church of North Africa, meeting in council under the presidency of Reparatus of Carthage, " synodically separated Vigilius, the Roman bishop, the condemner of the three chapters, from Catholic communion, reserving, however to him a place of l8 THE ACACIAN TROUBLES. tvit. repentance;"^ and of how in February, 552, S. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, anathematized the same Pope Vigilius, and was himself anathema- tized by the pope.^ The two prelates were reconciled in the following June; and two months afterwards S. Mennas died in the odour of sanctity; he is venerated by the Roman Church as a saint on August 25. One would have to narrate the very remarkable proceedings of S. Eutychius of Constan- tinople and the fifth Ecumenical Council ; of how it anathematized the person as well as the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and also certain writings of Ibas and of the Blessed Theodoret ; although it must have known well that it was acting in defiance of the wishes of Pope Vigilius, who was in Constantinople at the time, and who refused to come to the Council. One would have to tell how for six months the Pope refused his assent to what had been done by the Council, but how at last in a letter to S. Eutychius he confessed that it was the devil who had deceived him, and had led him to despise brotherly charity, so that he was carried away into discord, but that now he wishes to retract his former opposition, and to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, and such » This was in a.d. 550 (cf. Coleti, v. 1395, 1396). Surely the mere fact that a Western Church like the African could act in this way, is proof ixDsitivo that the papal theory was unknown in that age to the Church at large. On that theory such action would have been suicidal. ' Dom Constant, in his Dissertaiio de Vigilii Papx Gestis, § 88, ap. Cardin. Pitr., Analect. Novissim. Spic. Solesm,, p. 427, says, "Nobis autem non displiect quod Theophaues de mutuo Vigilii in Mcuam, et Men83 in Vigilium anathemate scribit." VII.] THE ACAC2AN TROUBLES. 319 writings *o£ the same Theodore and of Ibas and of Theodoret as had been condemned by the Council.^ One would have to narrate the history of the dissensions which arose in the West in consequence of Yigilius having assented to the decrees of the Fifth Council ; of how the bishops of Tuscany, Liguria, Venetia, and Istria withdrew from com- munion with the Roman see; and of how the province of Aquileia remained out of communion with the pope for nearly one hundred and fifty years.^ One would have to point out that many who lived and died at that time outside the Roman communion, have since been reckoned among the saints. To give one instance, ten bishops of Como,^ who were never in communion with the pope, are venerated as saints by the Church of Como to this day, and this venera- tion has been sanctioned by the Congregation of Rites. One might go on to quote the celebrated letter written by the glorious missionary S. Columbanus to Pope Boniface IV., in which he justifies the refusal of many of the bishops of North Italy to communicate with the papal chair. It is true that S. Columbanus makes some mistakes in his historical statements, but the principles which he lays down show that he had no notion of accepting the papal theory.* But, » Coleti, vi. 239-246. 2 From a.d. 557 to a.d. 698. ' These ten bishops' names are these : S. Flavian I. (Feb. 26) ; S. Adalbert (June 3) ; S. Agrippinus (June 17) ; S. Martinianus (Sept. 3) ; S. John II. (Oct. 3) ; S. John III. (Oct. 20) ; S. Octarianus (Oct. 23) ; S. Benedictus (Oct. 30) ; S. Flavian II. (Nov. 26) ; S. Eubianus (Dec. 16); of. Acta SS., torn, x., Octobr., pp. 106-108, * He says to the pope in one passage of his letter, " Rightly do 320 THE AC A CIA N TROUBLES. [vii, interesting as these subjects are, I must resist the temptation to discuss them. Enough has been said, I think, to show that Cardinal Wiseman committed a rash act when he appealed to " the doctrine of the ancient Fathers " in favour of his theory, that " it is easy at once to ascertain who are the Church Catholic, and who are in a state of schism, by simply discovering who are in commmunion with the see of Rome, and who are not." ^ No ! the ancient Fathers taught a doctrine concern- ins: the distinction between Catholics and schismatics, and concerning the true nature of the unity of the Church, which differs very widely from the teaching of the Vatican Council and of Cardinal Wiseman. In ancient times, if the question arose, Is such and such a bishop a prelate of the Catholic Church ? various points would have to be investigated before an answer could be given. It would have to be considered whether the bishop had been validly ordained in the line of the apostolical succession ; whether the faith which he publicly professed was in agreement with the doctrinal tradition of the Church ; whether he was the canonical occupant of his see ; whether the see itself had been canonically erected. These would seem to be the principal questions which would need to be satisfactorily answered in such a case. It is quite certain that the mere fact of being in com- your juniors resist you, and rightly do they refuse to communicate with you" {Ep. v. ad Bonifacium Fapam iv., § ix., Migne, Patrol, Lat, Ixxx. 279. » See pp. 220, 221. viij THE ACACIA]^ TROUBLES, lit munion with the pope or out of communion with the pope would in no way be a certain test of a bishop's status. S. Meletius was out of communion with Damasus, yet his people constituted " the true Church of God'' at Antioch.^ Paulinus was in communion with Rome, yet his position was illegitimate ; he had "illegally mounted the throne;" his partisans were guilty of " dividing the Churchy ^ According to the teaching of the Fathers, the true canonical bishops of the Catholic Church con- stituted a college, of which Christ our Lord was the one and only Head. If they, as a whole, were looking to Him, and depending on Him, He was able and willing to safeguard the visible unity of the episcopal body. If their faith in their in- visible Head failed, if they began to put their trust in secular princes or in an ecclesiastical monarch of their own creating, they ran the risk of experiencing the withdrawal of the Lord's hand, and of losing, at any rate for a time, the precious gift of visible unity. Even so, each separate section of the canonical episcopate remained united to our Lord, and through Him, and through the common faith and the funda- mental institutions of the Church, retained an organic union with the other sections. The invisible unity remained, though the visible unity was in abeyance. Even in our present divided condition the Lord still governs His Church, and through her begets new * S. Basil. Ep.^ ccxiv., 0pp. ed. Ben., iii. 321. 2 S. Chrys., Eom. xi. in Epist. ad Ephes., 0pp. ed. Ben., xi. 86, 89. 22i THE ACACIAN TROUBLE^. tvii. children, and feeds and guides those whom He has begotten ; but how miserably weakened is the divided Church's witness in the face of the unbelieving world, and how feeble is her use of her supernatural weapons in her warfare with Satan and his spiritual hosts of wickedness ! Assuredly, if we long for the restoration of the Church to her ancient spiritual glory, we must yearn for the restoration of her visible unity. For this we must pray, for this we must work. But that unity can only be restored in accordance with the institution of Christ. If we could have a perfect unity by some human device of our own, by building up a papacy into a great tower of Babel, to prevent our being "scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth," ^ it would but result in an increase of confusion. The Church can be united under Christ's Headship, and under His only. He has not chosen lo appoint one great ecclesiastical potentate as His vicar, to represent His Headship over the Church. Each bishop is Christ's vicar for the diocese over which he presides; but for the whole Church the Invisible Head appoints an Invisible Vicar,^ even the Holy Ghost, whose principal instrument in the external government of the Church is the collective episco- pate. Therefore the only way which will really lead » Gen. xi. 4. * TertuUian {d& Pra&script. HsereL, cap. xxviii.) and S. Jerome (Horn. xxii. in Luc., 0pp. ed. Vallars., vii. 314) both call the Holy Ghost the Vicar of Clirist. S. Jerome says, " When the Lord Jcsua came, and sent the Holy Ghost, His Vicar (Vicarium Suum), every valley was exalted." Compare S. John xiv. 16. vii.i THE ACACIAN TROUBLE^. 323 towards a restoration of visible unity, is a more com- plete subjection of the bishops to the Holy Ghost. We ought to pray for a great outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon the whole of the Catholic episcopate, that so in all parts of the Church the rust of party- spirit and prejudice and ignorance and worldliness and ambition may be purged away, and by the mysterious unifying power of the Spirit, those who have long been severed may be drawn together, and obstacles to unity may be removed, and the attraction of love may bind and unite, and the whole body of the Church's rulers may look up to Christ in faith and trust, and from Him receive their impulse and direction. May our Lord hasten this in His own time. AVe know not whether it is our Lord's purpose to accomplish this unifying work before His return. It may be that, in punishment for His people's sins, the visible unity of the Church will remain suspended until the Church herself has been purged through the fires of the last great persecution, which shall be in the days of Antichrist. It may be that the out- pouring of the Spirit will not be granted until Israel "shall turn to the Lord," when "the veil is taken away." ^ It may be that the prophecies of the con- version of the world shall find their fulfilment in that new order of things, which shall issue out of Christ's "appearing and kingdom,"^ when the nations shall be ruled with a rod of iron by the saints who have 1 2 Cor. iii. 16. 22 Tim. iv. 1. 324 THE ACACIAN TROUBLES. [vii. overcome,^ and who have been caught up to be with our Lord.^ We must not venture to be over-con- fident in regard to the sequence of future events. But we know that all God's promises shall be wonderfully fulfilled in due season. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. Ultimately " the Lord shall be King over all the earth : in that day shall the Lord be one, and His Name one."^ Ultimately "all flesh shall come to worship before Me, saith the Lord." ^ Ultimately the world shall believe that the Father sent the Son, because the followers of Christ, who believe in Him through the apostolic word, shall be " perfected into » Eev. ii. 26, 27. ' 1 Thess. iv. 17. • Zech. xiv. 9. * Isa. Ixvi. 23. • Of. S. John xvii. 20-23. 1 APPENDIX. NOTE A. The Excommunication of S. Cyprian (see pp. 82, 83). Some Roman Catholic writers have done their best to make out that Pope Stephen, in his dealings with S. Cyprian, never proceeded beyond threats of excommunication, and that no actual rupture took place. It is difficult to under- stand how such a view could ever have been seriously taken by candid persons ; but it is easy to see that Ultra- montanes would shrink from admitting that so illustrious a saint as Cyprian persisted in upholding the opinion concerning baptism which he had inherited from his predecessors, although the retaining of that opinion had resulted in his being separated from the communion of the Roman Church. If S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian were really excommunicated, and if they nevertheless refused to alter either the teaching or the practice condemned by Rome, then it is clear that neither of these saints nor their colleagues in Africa and Asia Minor could have con- sidered that communion with the pope was an essential matter. It would follow from this conclusion that their witness would have to be reckoned as adverse to the truth of the Ultramontane theory concerning the papacy. Having thus pointed out the importance of the (Question, I proceed to discuss it. 325 APPENDIX. NOTE A, I have quoted in my second lecture the clear state- ments of S. Firmilian on the subject of the excommuni- cation, but it will be worth while to repeat them in this place. That great saint, writing to S. Cyprian, after mentioning the fact that there had been in various matters a diversity of practice in the different provinces of the Church, says, "And yet there has not been on that account at any time any departure from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church. This Stephen has now dared to make, breaking the peace with you [Cyprian], which his predecessors ever maintained with you in mutual affection and respect." ^ And further on in the same letter S. Firmilian apostrophizes Stephen, and says, "How great a sin hast thou heaped up against thyself, when thou didst cut thyself off from so many flocks ! For thou didst cut thyself off. Deceive not thyself. For he is truly the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of the unity of the Church. For while thou thinkest that all may be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone from all." ^ Then he goes into particulars about the way in which Stephen had treated the bishops sent to Rome as envoys or legates by the synod of the North African Church ; how Stephen " would not admit them even to the common intercourse of a conference," and how " he commanded the whole brother- hood that no one should receive them into his house ; so that not only peace and communion, but shelter and hospitality, were denied them on their arrival." ^ Yet in the face of all this Mr. Rivington says, " There is no evidence that S. Cyprian was ever under excommunication."'* It seems incredible that such a statement should be made. » Eg. S. Firmil., inter Ctjprianieas Ixxv., 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 14+ « Ep. cit., p. 150. 3 Ep. cit., pp. 150, 151. Authonty, p. 103, 2nd edit, S. CYPRIAN'S EXCOMMUNICATION. 327 Evidence there clearly is, and more of the same kind might have been quoted. Later on Mr. Rivington reveals to us the theory by which he gets rid of the plain evidence of S. Firmilian. He says that, as the sentence, in which the statement concerning S. Cyprian's excommunication occurs, "contains a most exaggerated account of the situation, we may feel ourselves at liberty to regard this statement ajso as exaggerated." -^ But how does he know that the account of the situation is exaggerated ? Our only knowledge of the embassy of the legates from Carthago to Rome is derived from this letter of S. Firmilian. I am not aware that that embassy is mentioned by any other writer. There is, therefore, no counter-evidence which might lead us to suppose that S. Firmilian had given an exaggerated description of the treatment accorded to the legates. S. Firmilian had just received despatches ^ from S. Cyprian containing, no doubt, an account of the whole transaction ; and it would be inconceivable that, in writing back to S. Cyprian, he should falsify the account received from him ; and still more inconceivable that, if per im- possihile he had done so, S. Cyprian should have translated his letter into Latin and published it to the world. How can any nineteenth-century writer pretend to know better than these great saints of the third century the details of what happened in Rome on the occasion of the visit of the legates ? If one may set aside evidence in such a way as that, history becomes an impossibility, and universal scepticism is the inevitable result. What Mr. Rivington's theory really means is that he thinks that S. Firmilian lied, and that S. Cyprian translated and published his lies. I am aware that other Roman Catholic writers have taken * Autliority, p. 105. 2 The despatches were carried from Carthage to Cappadocia by the deacon Rogatianiis, 328 APPENDIX, NOTE A, the same line as Mr. Rivington. The fact is that thej are driven into a corner, and that the simplest way of escape is to deny the truth of the evidence, however well attested it may be. But, in justice to our brethren of the Roman communion, it must not be supposed that their best writers follow such a hopeless course. Such a course would be impossible to. a historian like Tillemont ; but I prefer to quote an authority from the south side of the Alps. I know of no greater name among Ultramontane historians of the last century than that of Archbishop Mansi of Lucca, best known by his great edition of the Councils.^ Mansi, in his animadversion on Natalis Alexander's dis- sertation concerning the subject which we are discussing, says, " So openly does Firmilian write to S. Cyprian that Pope Stephen broke the peace, and that he accordingly deprived them of his communion, that it seems that it cannot be doubted that he went beyond threats and at length pronounced sentence of excommunication against them." Mansi proceeds to quote S. Firmilian's words, and to show that they are decisive in favour of his position. Then he adds, " But the answer of Natalis appears to be altogether futile. He says that Firmilian has described a mere threat of excommunication in the same terms as if it had really been fulminated, because he took up his pen when he was somewhat angry with Stephen. I say again that such an answer appears to me to be altogether futile, because it would necessarily follow that Firmilian had forgotten all the rules of Christian behaviour and of honesty, if, in order that he might excite odium against Stephen, he had lied in so serious a matter. . . ? And who, I ask, could * The Jesuit professor of theology in the university of Innsbruck, Father Hurtcr, in his useful Nomendator Literarius (iii. 101), speaking of Mansi, says, " De illo jam agemus, qui tota hac epocha omnium fuit celcberrimus deque Ecclesia atque re literaria optirac mcritus." ' "In re tan> gravi mentitus csset" S. CYPRIAN'S EXCOMMUNICATION. 329 conceive that, if Stephen had done no more than threaten, Firmilian would have compared him to the traitor Judas, and would have charged him with insolence, wickedness, and folly ? Assuredly these are the words of one who is impatiently bearing a wound which he has received, and who is kindled with wrath against the man who has inflicted on him a deadly wound. . . . It. is clear that Stephen broke the peace and refused communion, because he did not refrain from excommunicating Firmilian, Cyprian, and the others." ^ Mansi goes on to quote the letter of S. Denys of Alexandria to Pope S. Xystus II., a fragment of which has been preserved by Eusebius. In that letter S. Denys, speaking of Stephen, says, "He therefore had written previously concerning Helenus (of Tarsus) and concerning Firmilian, and concerning all those in Cilicia and Cappadocia and Galatia and the neighbouring nations, saying that he would not communicate with them (ws ovSe c/cetVots Kotvcov>io-a)v) for this same cause, namely, that they rebaptize heretics."^ S. Denys in his letter, so far as it has been preserved to us, dealt entirely with Stephen's * Animadvers. in Dissert, xii. Art. i., ap. Natal. AUxandr. Hist, Eccl, ed. 1786, Bingii ad Khenum, torn. vi. pp. 222, 223. 2 Euseb., H. E., vii. 5. I have appended the original Greek of S. Denys' summary of the operative part of Stephen's letter, the English translation of which is italicized in the text. Mansi rightly translates these words as follows : " quod neque cum illis com- municare vellet ; " and Baronius renders the passage in the same way. I mention this, because Valesius has seriously altered the sense by translating S. Denys' words thus : " sese ab illorum communione dis- cessurum." There is a difference between announcing that in the future you will not communicate with certain people, and announcing that in the future you will separate from their communion. The first formula implies that separation has already been effected, or is being effected by the document in which the formula occurs. The second formula threatens a separation in the future. S. Denys represents Stephen as having effected the separation, and not as having merely threatened it. 330 APPENDIX. NOTE A, relations with the Eastern bishops, and says nothing of his relations with the Church of North Africa ; but Mansi points out that if the pope excommunicated the Easterns he must have also excommunicated the Africans, since the latter entirely agreed with the former in their teaching and practice.^ Thus the witness of S. Denys corroborates the witness of S. Firmilian and of S. Cyprian. Here we have a threefold cord, which will not easily be broken bv any amount of a priori Ultramontane reasoning. When it is once admitted that three contemporary writers of such high character, and of such esteem in the Church, as the three saints mentioned above, agree in their witness that an excommunication was not merely threatened but also pronounced and promulgated,^ and when it is also admitted that there is no shred of contemporary evidence on the other side, the discussion might fairly be brought to an end ; but Natalis Alexander and others lay stress on the fact that S. Augustine, writing a century and a half later, seems to have thought that the estrangement between Kome and Carthage never amounted to a breach of com- ^ On this point Natalis Alexander would have agreed with Mansi. His words are express : " Una erat causa Firmiliani et Oypriani ; . . . non est igitur verisimiie quod Firmiliauum communione privaverit Stephanus cum Orieutalibus suis, et Oyprianum cum Africanis pace et communione frui permiserit" (Jlui. Eccl, ed. 1786, tom. vi. p. 218). 2 The objection might be raised that, if Eusebius had supposed that Stephen had actually excommunicated the Easterns, he would have given an exact account of how the breach was healed. If Eusebius had lived some centuries later, when a papal excommunica- tion was the direst thing that could happen to any Christian com- munity, he would no doubt have done so ; but Eusebius would not tliink of the matter quite in that light. In H. E., v. 24, he gives an account of the excommunication of the Asiatics by Pope Victor, and he describes S. Irenseus' mediation, as here he describes S. Denys' peace-making efforts, but neither there does he make mention of tho plosc of the dispute, S. CYPRIAN'S EXCOMMUNICATION. 331 munion.^ It is true that Tillemont does not so understand S. Augustine. He thinks that S. Augustine admits that the pope withdrew his communion from S. Cjprian, but he supposes that S. Augustine holds that, as S. Cyprian did not retort on the pope by a counter-excommunication, but remained united to him by the bond of charity, the breach was not complete.2 Out of respect for the great name of S. Augustine, I will consider whether his view of the matter can really avail to counterbalance the evidence of the three contemporary saints, whose witness has been discussed above ; and for the sake of conciseness I will take no account of Tillemont's explanation of S. Augustine's meaning, and I Avill assume that the saint really supposed that Stephen never withdrew his communion from S. Cyprian and from the other African bishops. On that view of the case, I have no hesitation iu saying that S. Augustine's representation of the matter cannot possibly avail to counterbalance the direct testimony of S. Firmilian and S. Cyprian, confirmed as it is by the corroborative evidence of S. Denys ; for there is every reason to believe that S. Augustine had not got the full evidence before him. The contemporary evidence of the excommunication of S. Cyprian, which has come down to us, is primarily contained in S. Firmilian's letter, as translated and published by S. Cyprian. But that letter was not in the collection of the Cyprianic correspondence on the subject of the rebaptizing of heretics, which was in the hands of S. Augustine. The collecting of S. Cyprian's letters was a work of time. We now possess seven letters, either written by or to S. Cyprian on the question of re- baptism ; but S. Augustine had only five of these in his ^ Cf. S. Aug., He Baptismo contra Donate v. 25, 0pp. ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 158, et De unic. Bapt. contra Petil., cap. xiv., Opp-t ix. 538. * Tillemont, iv. 150, 151, 332 APPENDIX. NOTE A. collection. In his controversy with the Donatists he -svas obliged to go most minutely into the arguments about baptism contained in the Cyprianic documents. He discusses them clause by clause.^ He actually takes the trouble to reply separately to each of the eighty-six speeches made by the eighty-five bishops who satin the great Council of Carthage,^ over which Cyprian presided, and which was the last of the Cyprianic Councils on rebaptism.' So it comes to pass that we know exactly what documents S. Augustine possessed, and what were missing ; and we find that he never refers either to the synodical letter * written to Stephen by S. Cyprian in the name of the second of the three Councils on rebaptism, or to the letter ^ addressed to S. Cyprian by S. Firmilian.^ S. Augustine was quite aware that documents existed bearing on the controversy about. baptism in the time of S. Cyprian, which had not * S. Aug., Be Baptismo contra Vonatistas, libb. ii., iii., iv., v. ' S. Cyprian, as president, made two speeches, the first and the last. ' Op. city libb. vi., vii. * S. Cypr., Ep. Ixxii. * Ep. Ixxv. ^ S. Augustine's words, in his refutation of the speech of Crescens of Cirta (JDe Bapt contra. DonaL, vi. 15, 0pp. ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 171), show clearly that S. Cyprian's synodical letter to Stephen, which had been known to Crescens, was not known to hira. Compare Mr. C. H. Turner's Note appended to Dr. Sanday's Essaij on the Chelten- ham Lid (Studia Biblica et Ecclesiasticay iii. 324, 325). In his third book against Cresconius (^Opp. ed. Ben., 1688, ix. 435), S. Augustine implies that Cresconius had referred to "the letter of certain Orientals," as witnessing to their approval of S. Cyprian's doctrine about rebaptism. He quotes in the second chapter some words from Cresconius, which seem to me to imply that this letter was a synodical epistle expressing the formal assent of some Eastern synod to the conclusions of the third Carthaginian Council on rebaptism. I doubt if S. Augustine had seen the letter ; and the fact that it was written, not by one man, but by several, seems to me to be a proof positive that it was not the letter of S. Firmilian, with which we are acquainted. Tillemont (iv. 158) gives further reasons for concluding that S. AuguBtine had never seen S. Firmilian's letter to S. Cypri^q, S. CYPRIAN'S EXCOMMUNICATION 333 come into his hands. He says in one place, " Not all the things which were transacted among the bishops at that time were committed to memory and to writing, and not all the things which were so committed have come to my hnowledgey ^ It is clear from all this that the whole evidence, as we now possess it, was not before S. Augustine ; and in point of fact the last of the Cyprianic documents of which he had knowledge was the summarized report of the proceedings at the final Council on rebaptism. But that Council preceded the excommunication ; ^ and it is therefore no matter for wonder that S. Augustine was unaware of the fact that a complete rupture finally took place. To put the whole matter briefly. The principal evidence for the excommunication is to be found in S. Firmilian's letter. That letter was not known to S. Augustine. It is perfectly clear from that letter that both S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian Avere excommunicated. We thus know of their excommunication from themselves. It seems unreasonable to set aside the best possible contempo- rary evidence in deference to certain dicta of S. Augustine, who lived a century and a half later, and who had never seen the document which constitutes the principal proof. It is plain that the objections raised by Natalis Alexander have no real solidity. I submit that the excommunication of S. Cyprian and S. Firmilian and their colleagues by Pope Stephen must be accepted as historically true. * Be Bapt. contr. Bonat, ii. 4, 0pp., ix. 98. * Tillemont, iv. 155 ; and compare the Acta SS., torn. iv. Septembr.j pp. 305, 306, where Father Suyskens, S.J., the author of the Bol- landist Life of S. Cyprian, replies to Dom Maran's arguments, and shows that the African legates who were rejected by Stephen were sent by the third Council on rebaptism, and not by the second. ( 334 ) NOTE B. Concerning passages from S. Cyprian''s icorks, which are quoted hy Ultramontane s in support of their con^ tention that S. Cyprian held the papal theory (see p. 89). S. Cyprian's witness in favour of the Catholic system of Church government and against the papal theory is consis- tently maintained throughout his acts and writings. But the Ultramontane divines naturally do what they can to discover passages which may seem to qualify the crushing force of his testimony against the later claims of Rome. Without attempting to exhaust the subject, I will take the passages from the Cyprianic documents which are quoted by Father Bottalla as supporting his views {Supreme Authority of the Pope, pp. 10-13), and will point out how consistemt they are with S. Cyprian's general teaching in regard to the organization of the Church. Father Bottalla says, "The Fathers and all Christian antiquity acknowledge the closest connection between the unity of the Church as represented by Christ, and the headship of one universal pastor." In proof of this state- ment Father Bottalla quotes S. Cyprian's letter to Magnus {Ep. Ixxvi., ed. Ben., p. 153). S. Cyprian there says, " Wherefore the Lord, intimating to us a unity that cometh of divine authority, declareth and saith, * I and the Father are one.' To which unity reducing His Church, He MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OP S. CYPRIAN. 335 further saith, *And there shall be one flock and one shepherd. ' " ^ S. Cyprian is quoting two passages from the tenth chapter of S. John's Gospel. The words of the second passage, as they were spoken by our Lord, referred to the one flock of the Catholic Church, consisting of Jews and G-entiles, under Himself the one Shepherd. S. Cyprian, however, in his application of the passage, somewhat varies from the original meaning. He is showing that each local Church forms an organized unity under one head, the bishop. This is a very favourite subject with S. Cyprian. Magnus had asked him whether Novatians, on their con- version to the Church, ought to be rebaptized. S. Cyprian says. Yes, " for the Church is one, and, being one, cannot be both within and without. For if it was with Novatian, it was not with Cornelius. But if it was with Cornelius, who by a legitimate ordination succeeded the Bishop Fabian, . . . Novatian is not in the Church ; nor can he be accounted a bishop, who, despising the evangelic and apostolic tradition, succeeding to nobody, has sprung from himself." The Novatian schism arose out of a dispute in the local Church of Rome. Two bishops, Cornelius and Novatian, claimed each of them to be the legitimate Bishop of Rome. It was not a question of the rights of the pope as against the rights of some other bishop or bishops. The question was. Which of two claimants was the rightful Bishop of Rome ? S. Cyprian held that S. Cornelius was undoubtedly the true bishop. He had been consecrated first, and his election and consecration had been carried out in a thoroughly canonical and orderly way. He was the true successor to the previous Bishop, Fabian* I give my own translation in the text. The Latin runs as follows : " Idcirco Dominus insinuans nobis unitatem de divina auctoritate venientem ponit et dieit : Ego et Pater unum sumus. Ad quam unitatem redigens ecclesiam suam denuo dicit : Et erit unm grex et units x)cistor." 336 APPENDIX. NOTE B. Afterwards Novatian was consecrated in an entirely un- canonical manner, when the see was no longer vacant. Novatian succeeded to nobody. It will now be evident that when S. Cyprian quotes our Lord's words, "There shall be one flock and one shepherd," he is referring to the local Church at Rome, and he is showing that the Roman flock had already its one shepherd, Cornelius, and that consequently Novatian was a schismatical intruder, and that those who communicated with him shared in his guilt, and according to S. Cyprian's notion ought to be rebaptized. There is not a single word in the whole epistle which deals with *' the headship of one universal pastor " over the whole Catholic Church of Christ. So far from that being the case, the letter was written by S. Cyprian in the course of the controversy about rebaptism, which cul- minated in his excommunication by Stephen ; and the whole letter is intended to prove to Magnus that the theories about the validity of schismatic baptism, which were favoured at Rome, were altogether wrong. Father Botalla was unfortunate in his first Cyprianic quotation. Let us pass on to his second proof. He says, " The same doctrine was inculcated by those confessors of Christ who returned from the Novatian schism to the unity of the Church." These confessors were members of the local Roman Church, who had been im- prisoned for the faith after the martyrdom of Pope S. Fabian in January, 250. For a whole year they witnessed a good confession for Jesus Christ. However, in the year 251 some of them were beguiled into giving their support to the party of Novatian, who was commencing his schism at Rome. S. Denys of Alexandria and S. Cyprian wrote letters of remonstrance to them, and finally they were led to see their mistake, and to sue for readmission into the Church. On their readmission, they confessed their error MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN, 337 and made a profession of allegiance to S. Cornelius, as being their legitimate bishop. The whole dispute turned on the question, Who was the rightful Bishop of Rome ? Both Cornelius and Novatian claimed to be the Bishop of the Catholic Church at Eome, and each one accused his rival of being the head of a schismatic body. The con- fessors' profession on their readmission Avas as follows : " We acknowledge that Cornelias is Bishop of the most holy Catholic Church [in this city], chosen by God Almighty and Christ our Lord. We confess our error ; we have suffered from imposture. We were circumvented by crafty and perfidious speeches. For although we seemed, as it were, to have held a kind of communion with a schismatic and heretic, yet our mind was ever sincere in the Church. For we are not ignorant that there is one God, one Christ the Lord, Whom we confessed, one Holy Ghost, and that there ought to be one bishop in a Catholic Church." ^ I have added in brackets the words *' in this city," which express the true meaning. I see that Tillemont does the same. He says (iii. 460), "S. Cornelius reports word for word the act by which the confessors recognized him as the sole bishop of the Catholic Church [in Rome]." The confessors call the body adhering to Cornelius " the most holy Catholic Church," in contrast with the schismatic body adhering to JSTovatian. Father Bottalla tells us that " the name of Catholic Church is applied " in this passage " to the Church of Rome exclusively — that is, to S. Peter's chair — on account of its being the centre, the root, the source, and the matrix of Catholic unity." But such an interpretation is obviously very far-fetched. The relation of the so-called chair of S. Peter to Catholic unity was not in dispute. The question was. Who was the true occupant * E-p. Comelii ad Cypr,y inter Cyprianicas xlvi., Opp, ed. Ben., pp. ee, 61. 2 A 338 APPENDIX. NOTE B. of that chair ? Which was the legitimate Catholic flock in Rome ? Father Bottalla proceeds, *'Iii the same sense Pope Cornelius, in his epistle to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, used the following expression, pointing out the crime of Novatus : ^ * This assertor of the gospel did not know that there can be but one bishop in the Catholic Church.' " ^ Unfortu- nately, Father Bottalla makes a slip in his translation of this passage. It should be, " that there can be but one bishop in a Catholic Church," not "in the Catholic Church." S. Cornelius, who wrote to Ins brother of Antioch in Greek,^ used the expression, Iv KadoXucfj iKKkqcT la., not Iv ry KaOoXiK-rj iKKXrjCTLa. When this correction has been made, it will be at once perceived that the passage is useless for Father Bottalla's purpose. On the contrary, it helps to show that I have rightly interpreted the pro- fession of allegiance made by the penitent confessors, for that profession was doubtless either drawn up or sanctioned by S. Cornelius ; and the plain meaning of his letter to Fabius may be safely used to clear up phrases, if there are any, which may be thought ambiguous in the profession. But let us now go back to Father Bottalla's statement that the Church of Rome is " the centre, the root, the source, and the matrix of Catholic unity." Truly, if that could be solidly proved, I should not care to write this book ; and for the first time in my life I should begin to fear that the faith which God in His great mercy has ever given me in the Catholicity of my mother the Church of Eng- land, has been the result of some illusion. Father Bottalla * Father Bottalla, following Eusebius, calls the anti-pope Novatus; but Eusebius is mistaken. The man's real name was Novatiau. Novatus was a different person. ^ Cf. Euseb., H. E., vi. 43. » Valesius, the editor of Eusebius, conclusively shows in a note that the letter was written in Greek, as we have it in Eusebius. MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. .339 refers in a note to S. Cyprian's forty-fifth letter, addressed to S. Cornelius ; and he quotes S. Cyprian's words, "the root and womb of the Catholic Church," ^ by which words he supposes that S. Cyprian means to describe the Roman Church, as being the centre and source of Catholic unity. We English Churchmen have been taught that the Catholic Church diffused throughout all the world, in her essential unity, is the root and womb and mother and head of individual Catholics and of particular local Churches, wherever they may be, whether at Rome, or at Canterbury, or at Oxford, or elsewhere. The whole Church is organi- cally connected by the joints and bands of the apostolic faith and of the apostolical succession with the apostolic Church, which was set up on earth by our Lord ; and the whole Church is also organically connected, through her episcopate and through the Sacraments and through the operation and indwelling of the Holy Ghost, with her ascended Head, our Lord Jesus Christ, who holds the angels of the Churches in His right hand.^ All local Churches derive their being, as Churches, from her. As Tertullian well expressed the matter, " These Churches, so many and so great, are but that one primitive Church from the apostles, whence they all spring. Thus all are the primitive, and all apostolical, while all are one."^ Therefore the whole Church in her unity is the mother and womb and root of the particular local Churches ; and each local Church, if she is abiding in Catholic unity, is the local representative of the whole, and shares in the attri- butes of the whole ; so that each local Catholic Church becomes, in consequence of her relation to the whole, the mother and womb and root of the individual Catholics who belong to her. This is true of the particular local Church 1 " Ecclesise Catholicse radicem et matricem " (Op^?. S. Cypr., ed. Ben., p. 59). - Cf. Key. i. 20. ^ Be Frxscr. Hxr., xx. 340 APPENDIX. NOTE B. of Rome, but it is true equally of all other local Churches. So we English Catholics have been taught, and so S. Cyprian in his day believed. I will refer to a few passages which occur in his letters, so as to illustrate his view. In April, 251, the Council of Carthage, hearing of the dispute at Rome as to the succession to the bishopric of the Church in that city, sent two African bishops, Caldonius and Fortunatus, to Rome with instructions that they were to endeavour to pacify the quarrel between the followers of Cornelius and the followers of Novatian, and also that they were to ascertain the truth as to whether the election and consecration of Cornelius had been canonical, and whether the charges brought against him by Novatian were supported by any solid evidence. Later on, when the African Church had been fully satisfied that Cornelius was the legitimate Roman bishop, S. Cyprian wrote to him concerning the recent mission of Caldonius and Fortunatus as follows : ** We lately sent, dearest brother, our col- leagues Caldonius and Fortunatus ; that not only by the persuasion of our epistles, but by their presence and the advice of you all, they might endeavour, as far as they could, and labour effectually to bring the members of the divided body to the unity of the Catholic Church and to join them [to it] by the bond of Christian love. But since the self-willed and inflexible obstinacy of the adverse party has not only refused the boso?n a?id emhimce of her who is their root and mother,^ but has also, with discord increasing and widening worse and worse, appointed a bishop for itself, and, contrary to the- mystery of the divine appointment and of Catholic unity once delivered, has set up an adulterous and opposed head without the Church ; ... we have directed our letters to you." * Here * " Kadiois et matris sinum atque complexum rccusavit." Ep. xlii. ad Cornelium, 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 56. MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OP S. CYPRIAN. 34! it is evident tliat what S. Cyprian calls " the root and mother " is the unity of the Catholic Church, represented no doubt at Eome by the legitimate Bishop Cornelius and his flock of adherents. Cornelius and his party are not " the root and mother " because the pope is the centre of unity to the whole Church, but because they were recog- nized as legitimate by the whole Church, and because they joined in communion with her, and therefore represented her in Eome. In another letter, written about the same time, S. Cyprian urges the confessors who had got entangled in Novatian's party to "return to the Church your mother and to our brotherhood." ^ They were to return to the Church their mother by recognizing Cornelius as their true bishop, who was himself recognized by the Catholic episcopate. The question whether Cornelius as pope had a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, did not arise. It was to the motherhood of the Church at large, not to any supposed ecumenical motherhood of the Roman see as such, that they were pressed to return.^ I ^ " Ad ecclesiam matrem et ad nostram fraternitatem revertamiui '* {Ep. xliv. ad Confessores Momanos, 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 58). 2 I do not for a moment deny that the local Roman Church was in a certain sense the mother-Church of large parts of the West, and more especially of the suburbicarian Churches; but there is no allusion to Eome's position as the original spring of evangelization in the West, and as the ecclesiastical metropolis of Central and Southern Italy, in these expressions of Cyprian. He is dealing with a much more vital fact, namely, the motherhood which appertains to the Catholic Church—" our brotherhood," as he calls it, a society extending all over the known world. So in his seventy-third Epistle to Jubaianus {0pp. ed. Ben., p.^137), in a passage where there is not the remotest allusion to Eome or to the local Church of Eome, he says that, when heretics understand that all baptism outside the Church is invalid, "they hasten to us more eagerly and more promptly, and implore the privileges and gifts of Mother Church " (munera ac dona ecdesise matris implorant). And still more appositely, in his forty-third epistle which he sent to Cornelius, enclosing it as a covering letter along with his letter to the confessors, he says, referring to his letter to the confessors. 342 APPENDIX. NOTE B, pass on to the letter quoted by Father Bottalla, givmg first a short explanation of the circumstances under which it was written. While the two African bishops, Caldonius and Fortunatus, were making their investigations in Rome, their colleagues in Africa determined that Cornelius should not be publicly recognized in Africa as the Roman bishop. The canonicity of his election had been disputed, and it was necessary that all doubts should be removed before the African Church committed herself as championing his side. It was therefore determined that, until a final decision should be given, official letters to the Roman Church should be addressed to the priests and deacons of that Church, and not to Cornelius. This rule had been broken at Adrumetum through a mistake, and letters from that colony had been directed to Cornelius himself ; but after a visit which S. Cyprian paid to Adrumetum, the mistake was rectified, and all subsequent letters to the Roman Church Avere for a time directed to the priests and deacons of that Church, and not to the bishop.^ Cornelius noticed the change, and noticed also that the change had come about in consequence of S. Cyprian's visit to Adru- metum, and he not unnaturally supposed that S. Cyprian was inclined to favour the claims of the anti-pope Novatian. Accordingly he wrote to S. Cyprian to expostulate. S. Cyprian in his reply gave a full explanation of the whole matter, and animadverts on the way in which the simplest incidents get misreported and misrepresented. Then he goes ** In my letter I would prevail with them, from mutual affection, to return to their mother^ that is the Catholic Church " (ad matrem suam, id est ccclesiam catholicara). But the passages in which the whole Church is called our mother are practically innumerable. * These letters would, in the great majority of cases, be letters of commcudation, introducing this or that African Catholic, who might be travelling to Eume, to the authorities of the Church in the imper al city, and certifying to the fact that the bearer was in full communion with the Catholic Church. MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIOm OF S. CYPRIAN. 343 on to saj, "We, who furnish all who sail hence with instructions, lest in their voyage thej any way offend, know well that we have exhorted them to hold the root and icomb of the Catholic Churchy^ Evidently S. Cyprian meant by these words to warn his people against attending schismatic worship when away from Africa, and to urge them to find out, in every place where they might sojourn, the legitimate bishop who was recognized by the whole body of Catholic bishops. The Church in communion with the legitimate bishop would be the true representative of the Catholic Church at large, and would in a subordinate way share with that Church the prerogative of being " the root and womb " of the children of God. Persons sailing from Africa would more often be on their way to Rome than to any other place, because Rome was the capital of the empire, the metropolis of the civilized world. S. Cyprian therefore would certainly intend that his advice should be of help to his people, if they should chance to be in Rome ; and in fact the reference to that advice in this letter to Cornelius shows that in S. Cyprian's mind the advice had a special bearing on the existing circumstances of the Roman Church. This fact will enable us to reject at once Father Bottalla's view that the Roman Church was itself " the root and womb," as being the centre of unity to the * " Nos enim singulis navigantibus, ne cum scandalo uUo navigarent, rationem reddentes, scimus nos hortatos eos esse ut ecclesm catholicse radicem et matricem agnoscerent ac tenerent " {Ep. xlv. ad Cornelium, 0pp. ed. Beu., p. 59). The word "matrix" sometimes means "stem," which would agree well with '' radix " (root), and would suit the sense as well as the more usual meaning " womb." But the fact that in Ep. xlii. S. Cyprian had joined radix with mater, seems to me to make the meaning **womb" the more probable. Bnssuet, in his Instruction Pastorale sur les Promesses de VEglise {CEuvretf, ed. 181Gj xxii. 411, 412), favours the meaning "stem." He understands the *^ radix et matrix," as I do, of the Church's unity :— "cette tige, cett© racine de I'unite' " (p. 412). 344 APPENDIX. NOTE n. whole Catliolic Cliurcli. For, on account of the schism raging in the local Church of Rome, the difficulty was to decide which was the true Church of Rome. If the Roman Church was itself "the root and womb," then, whether they joined Cornelius or Novatian, they would suppose that they had adhered to " the root and womb." But S. Cyprian's advice was evidently meant to help them to discriminate. He in effect tells them, "You must adhere to that party which shall prove itself to have a right to the communion of the Catholic Church. When you are on the spot, and know the circumstances, you will soon be able to find out which of the two parties has the better right. If you cannot decide, you must wait and see how the matter will be decided by the bishops in Africa and elsewhere. Whatever you do, take care to adhere to that party only which either is already or immediately will be, in fellowship with the Church at large. You must avoid separatist cliques, and abide in Catholic unity. So my advice is, Hold to the root and womb of true Chris- tians — I mean, your mother the Catholic Church." ^ I do not doubt that S. Cyprian felt sure in his own mind that S. Cornelius was the legitimate bishop ; but he was precluded for the present from openly telling his people to communicate with the party of Cornelius, because, as I have said, the matter was supposed to be in suspense until the return of the two African legates.^ I will quote one more passage which throws light on ' From what I have said, it will, I hope, be clear to those of my readers who know Latin, that in the expression, '^ecclesise calholicx radicem et watricem" the words " ecclesix catholicse " are in the genitive of apposition^ so that the whole expression signifies, "the root and womb, which is the Catholic Church." ' Baronius says that the African bishops had "suspended com- munion " (communicationem suspenderant) both with Cornelius and with Novatian, until the legates' return {Annall.y s.a. 254). Mistaken interpretations of s. cyfrian. 345 S. Cyprian's use of tlie word "root" (radix). In his epistle to Jubaianus S. Cyprian undertakes to prove that the followers of Novatian ought to be rebaptized on their reconciliation with the Church. In the course of his argument he says, *' We, who hold the head and root of the one Church, know assuredly and are confident that to him [Novatian], being outside the Church, nothing is awful ; and that baptism, which is one, is with us, where he also himself was formerly baptized." ^ Here it is clear that the Church herself is "the head and root" of individual Catholics. S. Cyprian cannot possibly mean that the pope or the Church of Rome is " the head and root," for he is contrasting himself Avith Novatian, who claimed to be the true Bishop of Rome. In such an argument S. Cyprian could not say, " I hold to the Church of Rome and to the pope, and therefore I know that Novatian can do nothing lawful ; " because Novatian would naturally answer, " I am the pope ; I am the head and root of the one Church." In the controversy with Novatian it was impossible to rest the Catholic cause on any supposed prerogative of the Roman Church, because both sides claimed to have the Roman Church with them. S. Cyprian rests the proof on the general consent of the episcopate spread throughout the world. He could plead that consent with crushing force against Novatian. It is the universal Church gathered up into its main organ of government, the college of bishops, which is " the head and root " of true Catholics.^ Moreover, in this * " Nos autem, qui ecclesiaB unius caput et radicem tenemus, pro certo sciraus et fidimus nihil illi extra ecclesiam licere, et baptisma, quod est unum, apud nos esse, ubi et ipse baptizatus prius fuerat " {E']^, Ixxiii. ad Juhaianum, 0pp. ed Ben., p. 130). 2 So in his treatise on The Unity of the Church (0pp. ed. Ben., p. 195), in a celebrated passage in which he contrasts the oneness of tlie whole Church with the multiplicity of the progeny of the Church, S. Cyprian says, " Yet is there one head, one source, one mother, abundant in the results of her fruitfuluess " (unum tamen caput est, et origo 34^ APPENDIX. NOTE A particular controversy about rebaptism S. Cyprian was opposing Pope Stephen. Almost immediately after the letter to Jubaianus was written he must have received an epistle from the pope, threatening him with excommunica- tion, and in the autumn of that same year he actually was excommunicated. It would have been absurd to base his argument in favour of baptizing Novatians on his fellow- ship with Stephen, who was treating him as a heretic because he baptized Novatians. These various passages, as it seems to me, throw light on each other. If we compare them together, they are seen to teach the same doctrine. In S. Cyprian's view, the Church Catholic is our mother,^ and she who is our mother una, et una mater fsBCunditatis successibus copiosa). The argnraent requires us to interpret these expressions of the Church Catholic in her entirety; but care must be taken to read the treatise in an unin- terpolated edition, such as Hartel's. Father Bottalla (Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 12) has the couragje to assert that " un- questionably " these expressions and others like them, occurring in the passage of the De Unitate, to which I am referring, denote " tlio primacy and the authority of S. Peter." In the whole treatise there is not a word about any peculiar authority eitlier in S, P.-ter or in the Roman see. Peter, as the first-chosen apostle, is historically the first bishop, and so the commencement of the episcopate, and consequently he is a fitting symbol of the unity of tlie Church. But in the passage with which we are dealing S. Cyprian has passed on from the symbol to that which is symbolized, and from the historically first bishop to *' the one and undivided episcopate " which governs " the Church " which " is spread abroad ; " and it is a perversion of his whole argu- ment to interpret " the sun " and " the root " and " the fountain " of Peter and of Peter's authority. These expressions set forth the relation of the whole Church in her unity to her separate members, that is to her manifuld "progeny," to use S. Cyprian's expression. For proof, I can only refer the reader to the treatise itself, where the meaning is so plain that no comments can make it plainer. It is evident that Father Bottalla has been deceived by the interpolations. The words which he quotes in the note are taken from one of them. On these interpolations, see pp. 350, 353, 354. » See pp. 310, 311. MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 347 is also our root,^ and she who is the root, out of which we grow, is also the womb," in which we were conceived by grace, and the head by which we are governed. There is in them no trace of Father Bottalla's idea,^ that S. Cyprian held that the Church of Rome is " the centre, the root, the source, and the matrix of Catholic unity." I have treated at length concerning this Cyprianic phrase, *' the root and matrix of the Church." I must try and deal in a more summary way with S. Cyprian's state- ments about S. Peter. As we might expect, S. Cyprian holds the scriptural and Catholic teaching about S. Peter's leadership among the apostles, which resulted from the ' See pp. 343-345. "" See pp. 343, 344. 'It must surely have been through forgetfulness of the state of affairs at Rome during the first few months of the Novatian schism, that Father Bottalla has quoted two passages from S. Cyprian's epistles, as if they proved that S. Cyprian held that " to be in com- munion with the Bishop of Rome is equivalent to being in commuuion with the whole Catholic Church." The first passage occurs in S. Cyprian's forty-fifth epistle (C^jp. ed. Ben., p. 59), which was addressed to Pope Cornelius. Owing to the schism in Rome, the African Church had, as we have seen, suspended commuuiuu with both Cornelius and Novatian. When at length the question was cleared up, and it was made evident that Cornelius was the legitimate Catholic bishop, it was agreed that all the African bishops should send letters to Cornelius, *' that so," as S. Cyprian says, " all our colleagues might approve of and uphold thee and thy communion — that is, the unity and charity of the Catholic Church." The second passage occurs in the fifty-second letter, whicli is addressed to Antonianus (Ojjp. ed. Ben., p. 66), and is practically to the same effect as the other. To uphold Cornelius and his flock and to reject Novatian and his followers, when once it had been proved that Cornelius was the legitimate bishop, was in fact to support the unity of the Catholic Church as against schism, and the charity of the Catholic Church as against factiousness. The words could have been written concerning the legitimate bishop of any see. They have nothing to do with any special Roman privilege. Such arguments as these of Father Bottalla's seriously damage the cause on behalf of which they are Used. 348 APPENDIX. ^OTE A fact that to him first the apostolic office was promised (or given),^ and which showed itself by the initiative which he so largely took in the first founding of the Church. I have dealt with this subject in my third lecture, to which I must refer my readers.^ The point which is characteristic of S. Cyprian is the stress which he lays on the symbolical character which he assigns to S. Peter. That apostle, as primus inter pares, is the symbol of the Church Militant ; ^ just as, according to the teaching of S. Augustine, S. John, the beloved disciple, who leaned back on the Lord's breast at the supper, is the symbol of the Church Triumphant.* This teaching of S. Cyprian about the symbolical character of S. Peter was thoroughly assimilated and reproduced by S. Augustine. Take one passage as a sample. In his 29oth sermon, preached on the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul, S. Augustine says, " Among these [the apostles] almost everywhere it was granted to Peter alone to represent the Church (gestare personam Ecclesiae). On account of this character, which he alone bore of representing the whole Church, was it granted him to hear the words, ' To thee will I give the'keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For these keys not one man, but the unity of the Church received. Hereby then is the excellence of Peter set forth, that he was an emblem of the whole body and of the unity of the ' See the note on pp. 351, 352. « See pp. 111-115. ' Mr. Rivington says (Authority, pp. 96, 97), " How could Peter bo a symbol of unity, unless he bore a special relationship to the other apostles ? " He did bear a special relationship to them. He was the first-called apostle, and so he naturally became the leader of the baud ; but he was not their ruler or king, and his leadership ended with himself. It was a leadership in founding, and it involved no jurisdiction over the other apostles for himself, nor any jurisdiction over the universal episcopate for his supposed successors at Rome. S. Peter's precedence in designation was no doubt the reward of hia personal faith and loyalty and courage. * Compare p. 100. MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 349 Church, when it was said to him, * I give to thee,' what in fact was given to alL"^ It was not that S. Peter possessed the power of the keys in some supereminent sense. Tlie other apostles possessed that power equally with him. But he, as the first-called apostle, was fitted to symbolize the Church in her unity, so that it should be understood that the power of the keys was given to the unity of the Church — that is, to the united body or society of the Church. This was exactly S. Cyprian's view. I will quote in illustration the opening passage of the argument of S. Cyprian's treatise on the Unity of the Church. S. Cyprian says, " The Lord saith unto Peter, * I say unto thee,' (saith He,) * that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one he builds His Church ; and although to all His apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power,^ and says, ' As My Father sent Me, even so send I you ; receive ye the Holy Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they shall be retained ; ' yet in order to manifest unity. He by His authoritative utterance [to S. Peter] arranged for that same unity an origin beginning from one. Certainly the other apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power ; but the commence- 1 S. August., 02?2). ed. Ben., 1683, v. 1194. It should be noted that S. Augustine, when he has occasion in another place (J)e Bapt, lib. iii. cap. xviii., 0pp. ed. Ben., ix. 117) to treat of the commission to remit and retain sins, given to the ten apostles on Easter day, says that they all " represented the Church" (gerebant personam Ecclesise). 2 " Super unum sedificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis omnibua post resurrectionem suara parem potestatem tribuat," etc. 350 APPENDIX, NOTE P. ment starts from unity, that the Church may be set before us as oue.^ Which one Church in the song of songs, the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Person of our Lord, designates, and says, * My dove. My undefiled is but one ; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her.' He who holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith ? He who strives against and resists the Church is he assured that he is in the Church ? " ^ Now, I put it to any candid Konian * " Tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipieatein sua auctoritate disposuit. Hoc erant utique et ceteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio prsediti et honoris et potes- tatis, sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur, ut ecclesia Christi una monstretur." It seems to me that the word "auctoritas" in this passage should, according to a well-known use of the word, be taken in a concrete rather than in an abstract sense ; but, if any one should think otherwise, my argument will not be aifected, as it in no way depends on my suggestion being adopted. The passage quoted iu this note is a good illustration of the meaning of another passage, which occurs in the synodal epistle of S. Cyprian's first Council on rebaptism. This epistle was no doubt written by S. Cyprian, and is numbered as the seventieth. The Council says, " Et baptisma unum sit et Spiritus Sanctus unus et una ecclesia a Christo Domino nostro super Petrum origine unitatis et ratione fundata ; " of which passage the sense may be thus expressed, " There is both one baptism, and one Holy Ghost, and one Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, for an origin and showing forth of unity" {Opj^. ed. Ben., p. 125). The ablatives seem to be without construction, and to have a general reference to the sentence. ' " Qui ecclesisB renititur et resistit in ecclesia se esse confidit ? " (Op2?. ed. Ben., pp. 194, 195). In the text I have translated this passage from the latest critical edition of S. Cyprian's works, by Hartel, published in 1871 at Vienna. Cardinal de Fleury, the Prime Minister of France under Louis XV., forced the Benedictines to insert the interpolated passages, which had been expunged from every critical edition, and which had been erased by Baluzius, who prepared the edition, which after his death was brought out and fathered by them (see Chiuiac do la Bastide Duclaux' Ilistoire des Capitulaireg des Roi8 Frangois, pp. 220-228, ed. 1779). The evidence against the ioterpolatious is overwhelming. MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 351 Catholic, Is this the way that he would write on the great subject of the Church's unity ? Perhaps such a one rejoiced, when he perceived that S. Cyprian starts his argument with the Petrine text about " the Hock,'''' But the very fact that he begins by quoting that text, makes his subsequent comment on it the more significant. Why, when he is dealing at length with such an important subject as the Church's unity, does he say nothing about that institution which Roman Catholics consider to be the divinely ordained source and guarantee of unity ? Why is there nothing about Peter's jurisdiction over the Church ? Why is there nothing about the infallible popes, the successors of S. Peter, who are supposed to be the principle and centre of unity ? You may read the whole treatise on unity from beginning to end, and you will not find one single word about Rome, or about the pope, or about any papal juris- diction derived from S. Peter. S. Cyprian sees in S. Peter, not the guarantee of unity, but, as being the first-designated apostle, the symbol of unity. The apostolate was promised, or, as S. Cyprian would perhaps have said, give?! ^ to S. Peter • It is curious that the majority of the Fathers seem not to have noticed that our Lord's words to S. Peter, recorded in S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19, convey a 'promise, not a gift. S. Chrysostom (Horn. liv. in Matty 0pp. ed. Ben., 1741, vii. 548) does indeed speak of the words as containing "two promises" (uTrocrxeo-ewz/ 5yo); but the Fathers iu general speak as if the apostolical authority were then and there given. And yet the Lord's words are quite unmistakable: "I will give (j5(i}(T0}) unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc. Later on, the promissive nature of the words was generally acknowledged. Theophylact (torn. vii. p. 647, in Malt. Horn., Ixv. 4, quoted by Mr. Gore, Rom. Cath. Claims, 4th edit., p. 87) acknowledges it very explicitly. In a treatise addressed to Ladislas, King of Poland and Hungary, in 1441, the University of Cracow speaks of our Lord's " verba promissiva, Tu es Petrus, et tibi dabo," etc. (cf. Launoi., lib. i. ep. X., ad Christoph. Fauvaeum, 0pp. ed. 1731, tom. v. pars i. p. 105). Baluzius, the writer of the notes to the Benedictine S. Cyprian, says (,0pp. S. Cypr. ed. Ben., p. 414), speaking of the words Tibi 353 APPENDIX. NOTE B. first, ia order that, a beginning being made from one, unity might be manifested^ and the Church he set before us as one. To a Romanist all this must seem very poor and thin. To an English Catholic it is meat and drink ; for it sets forth, both in what is said and in what is not said, the very central truth about the polity of the Church which he has received to hold. Notice how twice over in this short passage S. Cyprian insists that S. Peter received no peculiar poAver, that " the other apostles were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power." Can anything be more frigid, I had almost said senseless, than the Ultramontane reply that S. Cyprian is speaking of the power of order and not of the power of jurisdiction ? that the apostles were all equally with S. Peter bishops, but that S. Peter, though no more than a bishop in order, dalo daves, ** Quamvis istic claves non dentur Petro, se^promittantur" etc. And even Father Bottalla (Supreme Authority of the Pope, p. 33), says, " Although Peter by a prophetic name, and by an explicit promise of an eminent office, had been designated by Christ to be the head and the ruler of His Church, yet Christ, as long as He remained on earth, did not invest him with the high dignity of oecumenical pastor." The Gospel record makes it clear that the apostolate was promised to S. Peter first (S. Matt. xvi. 18, 19) ; afterwards it was promised to all the twelve (S. Matt, xviii. 18); finally it was conferred on the whole body simultaneously on the evening of the day of our Lord's resurrection (S. John xx. 21-23). This was the actual order of events; but I am inclined to think that S. Cyprian thought that, while all the twelve received precisely tlie same com- mission, and were invested with precisely the same ecumenical jurisdiction, S. Peter was actually made an apostle some little time before the others. This, S. Cyprian thinks, was done for symbolical reasons, to show forth the unity of the Church, that the commence- ment of the Church might start from unity. Tlie symbolism is equally preserved if the truer view be accepted. Unity may be conceived to be set forth by the promise of the apostolical office being made to one first, and later on to the others ; while the equality of the apostles is well brought out bv the simultaneous conferring of the apostolate on Easter day* MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 353 was a bishop of bishops — yea, was the monarch of the Church in jurisdiction ? Why does not S. Cyprian say that ? The subject of the Church's unity required some treatment of the central jurisdiction. So S. Cyprian felt ; but he knew of no more central jurisdiction than the jurisdiction of the apostolic college ; and when he passes on to later times, he knows of no more central jurisdiction than " the one and undivided episcopate " (episcopatum unum atque indivisum). When in after ages the papal idea began to grow up in the Eoman Church, it was felt how unsatisfactory from the papal point of view S. Cyprian's teaching was, and a remedy for the supposed mischief was sought. It is generally sap- posed that Pope Gelasius proscribed his writings, as well he might, for night and day are not in more direct contrast than Gelasius and Cyprian. In a decree ascribed to that pope lists of books recommended and books proscribed are given, and the works of Thascius Cyprianus occur as an item in the prohibitory index. Afterwards some person or persons unknown forged certain sentences about the grievous consequences of deserting the see of Peter, and inserted them into S. Cyprian's treatise.^ This just supplied the lacking papal element ; and a few lines were enough to give a different turn to the whole argument. Some have supposed that it was after these interpolations had been forged that another clause, irreconcilable with the above- mentioned item, crept into the copies of the Gelasian decree. According to this other clause, S, Cyprian's writings, instead * Ultramontane writers suggest that the interpolations were marginal notes, which crept into the text by the carelessness of copyists. With every wish to be charitable, I feel no doubt myself that the forgery was deliberate. Anyhow, whether forged or not, they very con- veniently got into the text, and entirely changed the impression produced by the whole argument. 2 B 354 APPENDIX. NOTE B. of being rejected, were placed first on the list of works commended to the faithful for study.^ But let us pass to another Cyprianic passage about S. Peter. In his twenty-seventh epistle, which is addressed to the lapsed, S. Cyprian writes as follows : " Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a bishop and the ordering (rationem) of His Church, speaks in the Grospel, and says to Peter, *I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build My Church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence the ordination of bishops and the ordering (ratio) of the Church runs down through the changes of times and successions, so that the Church is settled upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers."^ Notice, again, how the great Petrine passage suggests to S. Cyprian, as it suggests to us, not the government of the Church by popes, but the government of the Church by bishops, S. Peter was not the pope over the apostles, but one among them ; the first called,^ and therefore the natural leader and spokesman and representative, but with no larger jurisdiction * The decree with its two irreconcilable clauses is given in Ooleti (v. 387, 390). « 0pp. ed. Ben., pp. 37, 38. * The author of the article " Pope,'* in the Catholic Dictionary by Messrs. Addis and Arnold (p. 671), says very strangely, " Peter, of course, was not chosen first in order of time." One can only suppose that the writer has confused the calling of S. Peter to be a disciple, as recorded in S. John i. 41, 42, with his calling to be an apostle, as recorded in S. Matt. x. 1, 2. As we have already seen, S. Cyprian held that S. Peter was not only called first, but that he was also consecrated first. This notion is doubtless based on a mistake, but it ought to be kept in mind, if we would understand S. Cyprian aright (see the note on pp. 351, 352). MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN, 355 than the others. What he was, they all were, namely, founders and foundations and rulers of the Church of Grod. Their successors in their ruling office, and therefore his successors, were the bishops. S. Peter might or might not have special diocesan successors in particular sees, such as Antioch or Rome. S. Cyprian says nothing here about such local successions. Even if there were such local successions they would be, from S. Cyprian's point of view, accidental, not essential or vital. The vital point was and is that the bishops everywhere inherit the whole ordinary jurisdiction of the apostolic college. They are all the successors of the apostles, and as of the others, so specially of the representative apostle, Peter. " The Church is settled upon the bishops." This is good Catholic teaching, which it has been the glory of the English Church to treasure up, and hand down, and consolidate, as the basis of her whole system of polity. We are grateful to the Latin communion for some precious things, which she has guarded more faithfully than we have guarded them ; but in regard to other matters, and specially in regard to the divinely ordered constitution of the Church, it is for her to learn from us. I think that the teaching of S. Cyprian about the relation of S. Peter to the Church's unity and to the episcopate, which I have gathered from these two passages, will suggest the true interpretation of several other passages in the holy martyr's writings, and will make it unnecessary for me to treat them at length. I append them to this note in an Addendum^ so that the reader may be in possession of all the Cyprianic passages which have been quoted in favour of the papal theory. 1 have now fulfilled my promise^ to deal with the various » See pp. 357-363. 2 I have dealt with the passage in -which S. Cyprian calls the 356 APPENDIX. NOTE B. passages from the Cyprianic documents which are quoted by Father Bottalla in support of his notion that S. Cyprian acknowledges " the closest connection between the unity of the Church, as represented by Christ, and the headship of one universal pastor." I confidently assert that the meaning of each one of the quoted passages has been misrepresented by Father Bottalla. I of course exonerate him from any intentional deceit ; but the fact remains that the meaning of the passages has been misrepresented. I do not believe that the idea of a " headship of one universal pastor " over the whole Church ever entered S. Cyprian's mind, either as a thing to be accepted or rejected.^ His whole notion of the Church presupposed a college of essentially co-equal bishops owning no divinely appointed personal superior, excepting only our Lord Jesus Christ. In one sense this note does injustice to S. Cyprian. The necessity of disproving Father Bottalla's statements has compelled me to dwell on those few sentences in the Cyprianic documents, which might conceivably be twisted Church at Eome the cathedra Petri et ecclesia prinGipalis, in my second lecture. See pp. 53-56. * Compare Archbishop Benson's words quoted in the note on p. 80. If any one supposes that S. Cyprian was conscious of a claim made on the part of Pope Stephen to be the " universal pastor " of the Church, then it will follow that the saint deliberately rejected the papal idea (see the passage quoted on pp. 77, 78). Either way his witness is diametrically opposed to the Ultramontane theory set forth in the Vatican decrees. It should be remembered that those decrees assert that the supremacy of S. Peter and of his supposed successors, the popes, over the whole Church is not a new development, but is due to the immediate institution of Christ, and has been known to all the ages of the Church's history. In this connection it is worth while recalling a statement made by the late Cardinal Pitra, a learned Ultramontane, who occupied the post of "Librarian of the Holy Bomau Church." He says that there is no place in the history of Christian Rome " pour la conception rationaliste d'un lent progres du taint Si^ge" ^Analecta Novissimaf 1885, torn. i. p. 15). MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 357 into a papal meaning. I hope that I have successfully untwisted them. But S. Cyprian's whole view must be gathered, not from those few passages, but from his writings at large, and still more from his actions. S. Cyprian was the most glorious saint and the most illustrious Church- ruler of his age. The whole Church has venerated him with special honour ever since his martyrdom : we know more about him than about any other post-apostolic saint of the first three centuries : the circumstances of his life led him to deal specially with matters connected with the government of the Church : and both his writings and the story of his life remain as a perpetual witness against the papal and in favour of the episcopal constitution of the Church of God. Addendum to Note B. In this Addendum I propose to collect such passages from S. Cyprian's writings as have been or might be quoted in favour of the papal theory, and which have not been discussed either in the second lecture or in Note B. It will not be necessary for me to comment on them at any length, because I trust that what I have written on pp. 347-355 will enable the reader to perceive at once S. Cyprian's meaning. 1. In his Epistle to Quintus, S. Cyprian says, "For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim anything to himself inso- lently, nor arrogantly assume anything ; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come ; nor did he despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of truth, and readily yielded to the legitimate argument which Paul pressed ; furnishing 35S APPENDIX. ADDENDUM TO NOTE B. thereby a lesson to us both of concord and patience, that we should not obstinately love our own opinions, but should rather adopt as our own those which at any time are use- fully and wholesomely suggested by our brethren and colleagues, if they be true and lawful." ^ According to S. Cyprian's view, which has been discussed in the note on pp. 351, 352, the apostolate was given to S. Peter before it was given to the other apostles, and to him it was given, when the Lord said to him, " On this rock I will build My Church." S. Peter had no greater powers than the other apostles, but his seniority by consecration made him the symbol of the Church's unity. S. Cyprian holds that for a short time he was the only foundation, the other apostles not having received their powers until some time had elapsed ; and so, on this view, the Church may be said to have been built on S. Peter in a certain pre-eminent way. This is the meaning of the " super quern cedijicavit ecclesiam suam^'' When S. Peter and S. Paul are com- pared as regards their apostolic office, there is no question that the former had a priority both in time and order. But S. Cyprian points out that, if in consequence of this priority S. Peter had expected S. Paul to obey him, he would have been guilty of insolence and arrogance. In other words, S. Peter had no primacy of jurisdiction. S. Paul was his " brother and colleague." 2. In his epistle to Jubaianus, S. Cyprian says, " To Peter, in the first place, upon whom He built the Church, and whence He appointed and shewed forth the origin of unity, the Lord gave that power, namely, that whatsoever * *♦ Nam nee Petrus, quern primum Dominus elegit, et super quem sedificavit ecclesiam suam, . . . vindicavit sibi aliquid insoleuter aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere et obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere . . . qusB aliquando a fra- tribus ct collegia nostris utiUter et salubriter suggeruntur . . ." {E'p. Ixxi. ad, Qiiintum, 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 127). MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 359 he should loose on earth should be loosed iu heaven." ^ The comment on the previous passage applies also to the first clause of this one. The appointment and manifesta- tion of the origin of unity through S. Peter's priority of consecration is illustrated by the passage from the De Unitate, quoted and discussed on pp. 349-353.^ 3. In one of his epistles to S. Cornelius, S. Cyprian says,^ "Peter, however, on whom the Church has been built by the same Lord, one speaking for all, and answer- ing in the voice of the Church, says, ' Lord to whom shall we go ? ' " After what has been said previously, there is no need to make any comment here. 4. In an earlier part of the same letter, S. Cyprian had said, "For this has been the very source whence heresies and schisms have taken their rise, that obedience is not paid to God's bishop (sacerdoti), nor do they reflect that there is for the time one bishop (sacerdos) in a Church [i.e, in each Church], and one judge for the time ^ " Nam Petro primum Dominus, supra quern sedificavit ecclesiauij et unde unitatis originein instituit et ostendit, potestatem illam dedit ut id solveretur in cselis quod ille solvisset in terris " (E'p. Ixxiii. ad Juhaianurriy 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 131). The conclusion, which S. Cyprian draws from this premiss, is not that the pope is the monarch of the Church or its necessary centre of unity, but that " they only, who are set over the Church, and are appointed by the law of the gospel and the ordinance of the Lord, may lawfully baptize and give remission of sins, . . . and that no one can usurp to himself, against bishops and priests, what is not in his own right and power." As usual, S. Cyprian sees in the promise of our Lord to S. Peter the institution of the episcopate. 2 I have already pointed out (see pp. 845, 346) the very strained re- lations which existed between S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen when this letter was written. S. Cyprian was on the verge of being excommuni- cated by Kome, and would certainly not insert passages at such a time in support of the necessity of union with Kome. '^ ' "Petrus tamen super quern SBdificata ab eodem Domino fuerat ecclesia unus pro omnibus loquens et ecclesise voce respondens ait : ' Domine ad quern ibimus ' " (^Ep. Iv. ad Corneliiim, Opp, ed. Ben., p. 83). 36o APPENDIX. ADDENDUM TO NOTE B. in Christ's stead ; whom if the whole brotherhood would obey, according to the divine injunctions, no one would stir in anything against the college of bishops (sacer- dotum)." ^ It need hardly be said that in S. Cyprian's writings, as in the writings of many of the other Fathers, the word '^ sacerdos'''' almost always means bishop^ and hardly ever presbyter. I should not have loaded my pages with this passage if I had not noticed that it is quoted by some Ultramontane writers as if it proved that the pope is the **one judge," Avho judges the Avhole Church "in Christ's stead." The wording of the passage and the whole argument of the epistle show that S. Cyprian is speaking of the functions of each bishop in his own Church, and not of any supposed ecumenical functions of the pope in regard to the Church universal. 5. In his epistle to Florentius Puppianus, S. Cyprian says, "There (S. John vi. 67-69) speaks Peter, upon whom the Church was to be built ; teaching and showing in the name of the Church that, although a contumacious and proud multitude of such as will not obey may with- draw, yet the Church does not depart from Christ, and they are the Church who are a people united to the bishop (sacerdoti), and a flock adhering to their own pastor."^ * " Neque enim aUunde hsGreses obortje sunt aut nata sunt schismata quara inde quod sacerdoti Dei non obtenipcratur, nee unus in ecclesia ad tempus sacerdos et ad tempus judex vice Cliristi cogitatur . . ." (Op^p. ed. Ben., p. 82). I will insert here a few references to passages, in which bishops are styled " Vicars of Christ," or " Vicars of the Lord." Ambrosiaster says that a bishop " vicarius Domini est " (in 1 Cor. set. 10; ap. S. Ambros. 0pp., vii. 173, ed. Ben., 1781, Venct.). Pope Hormisdas, in a letter to tlie bisliops of Spain, describes bishops as " Vicars of Christ " (Coleti, v. 604). The same expression is useJ of bishops by the Synod of Compiegne in the year 833, by that of Thionville in 844, and by that of Meaux in 845 (Coleti, ix. 801, 942, 961). * "Loquitur illic Petrus, super quern sedificanda fuerat ecclesia . . . ct illi sunt ecclesia, plcbs sacerdoti adunata ©t pastori suo grex MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S, CYPRIAN. 361 The words about S. Peter will be understood from previous explanations. Tlie definition of the Church at the end of the passage contains no allusion to the pope. It speaks of the flock in each diocese adhering to their own bishop. 6. In the treatise De Bono Patientise, S. Cyprian says/ "Peter likewise, 0:1 whom the Church was founded by the good pleasure of the Lord, lays it down in his Epistle." Comment is needless. 7. In an epistle addressed to his Carthaginian flock, S. Cyprian says,^ " There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded by the word of the Lord on Peter (super Petrum).^ Another altar cannot be set up, nor a new priesthood made, besides the one altar and one priesthood." S. Cyprian is warning his people against the schism of Felicissimus, who had set up a separate altar at Carthage and had got five Carthaginian priests to join him. S. Cyprian explains that in each local Church there is but one episcopal chair ; one priest- hood — that is, the one true bishop and the clergy adhering to him; and one altar. The "one chair" — that is, the episcopate of the one canonical bishop — is founded on Peter, for according to S. Cyprian and the Fathers generally all legitimate bishops are the successors of Peter.* In the adhserens " [(Ep. Ixix. ad Florentium Puppianum^ 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 123). ^ "Item Petrus, super quem ecclesia Domini dignatione fundata est, in epistola sua ponit " (De Bon. Pat., 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 250). ' Deus unus est, et Christus unus, et una ecclesia, et cathedra una super Petrum (al. petrara) Domini voce fundata. Aliud altare con- stitui aut sacerdotium novum fieri prseter unum altare et unum sacerdotium non potest " (Ep. xl. ad plehem, 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 53). * Some manuscripts read "super petram," "on the rock." The sense would be the same. I follow Hartel in the text. The Benedic- tines read " petram." * See the passages from S. Cyprian, to which I have referred or which I have quoted and discussed on pp. 346, 354, 355. Compare also a passage from S. Chrysostom quoted on p. 383, and see S. Greg. 362 APPENDIX. ADDENDUM TO NOTE B. words " the one chair " there is not the most remote aUusion to the episcopal chair of the bishops of Rome. Thp see of Rome was at that time vacant, and there had been as yet no Roman condemnation of the Carthaginian schismatics. It was against Cyprian that they were rebelling, and it is his own chair of which he is speaking.^ Any Carthaginian Christian who separates himself from the one Bishop of Carthage "remains without the Church." It is to me most astounding that Mr. Rivington should have quoted the passage about " the chair," as if it referred to " the Church of the Romans." "^ I have now gone through the whole of my collection of Cyprianic passages, which have been quoted by Ultra- montanes in proof of their idea that S. Cyprian held the papal theory. I have not intentionally withheld any passage, though of course it may easily happen that I may have failed to notice one or more. I feel morally sure that I have quoted all those on which stress is usually laid. I submit very confidently my case to the candid reader. I do not believe that in any one of these passages there is the smallest ground for supposing that S. Cyprian intended to teach papalism. If this is all that Ultramontanes can discover in his writings, which may seem to favour their cause, they had much better say nothing about him. His real view of the authority of the bishops of Rome is set Nyss., Be Castigat, 0pp. ed. Migne, iii. 311, and Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gall, lib. viii. capp. 12, 13, 0pp. ed. 1817, xxxii. 602-611. Accord- iiig to the Fathers, the bishops are all successors of the apostles, and therefore of S. Peter, the representative apostle. * Sometimes the Fathers describe *'the one episcopate" as tlie apostolic chair; so S. Basil in his 197th epistle (0pp. ed. Ben., iii. 288) congratulates S. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, on his elevation to the episcopate, and he says, " The Lord Himself translated you from among the judges of the earth to the chair of the apostles " (M t5> KudeSpav ruu airoaTSKwp). « Authority, v. 90. MISTAKEN INTERPRETATIONS OF S. CYPRIAN. 363 forth in numerous passages of his letters and treatises, and above all by his acts. Fully to discuss those passages and those acts would require a volume. I have given a short account of some of them in my second lecture -^ and in note A.^ The defenders of the English Church may safely stake their case, so far as it relates to the papal claims, on the witness borne by S. Cyprian. May the prayers of that blessed martyr draAV down upon the Church of England and upon us her children a full measure of the divine blessing and protection I » See pp. 51-90. « See pp. 325-333. ( 3^4 ) NOTE C. S. Peier^s pj-imacy, as held by representative Anglican divines (see p. 113). I HA.VE been surprised to notice that Mr. Rivington, in his book entitled Dependence (p. 33), says that, " as an AngHcan," he *'for a long while held, as a more logical view, that S. Peter excelled the others in natural qualities only ; " and in an earlier book entitled Authority^ he commits himself to the extraordinary statement that " the idea that all the apostles were equal, except in natural qualities," is " a fundamental point of Anglican teaching." "^ I cannot imagine what can have led him into such a com- plete misapprehension. The EngKsh divines, handing on the tradition of the Fathers, no doubt teach that the apostles were equal, not only in regard to order, but also in regard to jurisdiction. They deny altogether that any one apostle had jurisdiction over the others ; or that the jurisdiction of any one apostle over the Church was of a different kind from the jurisdiction of each of the other apostles over the Church. But while doing full justice to the doctrine of the Fathers about the equality of the apostles, they also do justice to the scriptural and patristic teaching about S. Peter's priority of place, to his leadership or foremanship in the apostolic college. I do not know that any of them identify that leadership with S. Peter's superiority in * Authority, p. 69. ' Compare also Authority, pp. G9, 70. ANGLICAN DIVINES ON S. PETER. 365 natural qualities, or suppose that it simply arose out of those natural qualities without any reference to acts and words of our blessed Lord. Even if English divines of repute could be found, who held such a view (which I doubt), yet assuredly the general tradition of the English Church has been the other way ; and it would be absurd to say that ^he view held by Mr. Rivington, when he was an Anglican, is " a fundamental point of Anglican teaching." No doubt, S. Peter's leadership among the twelve does not occupy the same important position in Anglican teach- ing that it occupies in Romanist teaching. From the nature of the case, a priority of place is a much less important matter than a supremacy of jurisdiction ; and the difference of view in the estimate of importance is greatly intensified when the priority of place is supposed to belong to S. Peter personally, whereas the supremacy of jurisdiction is supposed to belong to him officially, and to have been transmitted by him to a long line of successors. From the English point of view, it is a matter of no doctrinal importance whether or no S. Peter's priority of place was retained by him to the end of hi.s life ; or, again, whether it had reference to the whole body of the apostles, or to the apostles of the circumcision only. Such questions may afford interesting points for scriptural or patristic investi- gation, but whichever way they might be decided, they would not affect the substance of our faith ; nor would that faith be affected, if we came to the conclusion that, with the evidence at our disposal, they do not admit of any certain answer. S. John and S. James, his brother, had a certain priority along with S. Peter during our Lord's lifetime, and, according to S. Clement of Alexandria, thev retained that priority after the Ascension ; ^ but it would l^e ' See note on p. 120. 366 APPENDIX. NOTE C, difficult to say whether their priority, such as it was, re- mained to the end, and whether it related only to the twelve, or to other apostles also. Would S. John have taken pre- cedence of S. Paul, or would S. Paul have taken precedence of S. John ? Individual Fathers may perhaps speculate on the matter, but I feel sure that nothing certain has been revealed, and that such questions do not touch the faith. Our English divines, if they happen to touch on these minor questions, abound each in his own sense. But as regards the more important point of S. Peter's leadership of the apostolic college, at any rate during our Lord's life- time and during the earlier years of the Church's history, the stream of Anglican teaching has, I should suppose, been quite clear. Let me give a few examples, which happen to come to hand. Archbishop Potter of Canterbury (a.d. 1737-1747), in his Discourse of Church Government (2nd edit., pp. 75- 80), discusses the matter very fully. He says that" some of the apostles were superior to the rest, both in personal merit and abilities, and in order of placed He proceeds to prove this by quoting passages from Holy Scripture ; and then states again the conclusion at which he arrives, namely, that " some of the apostles had a pre-eminence above others." Then he goes on to say that " it may be observed farther, that in most places Peter is preferred before all the rest ; whence our Lord often speaks to him, and he replies before, and, as it were, in the name of the rest." Having adduced various passages from the New Testament in proof, he concludes, that "from these and the like passages, it is evident that Peter was thQ foreman of the college of apostles whilst our Lord lived on earth ; and it is plain that he kept the same dignity at least for some time after His Ascension." Then he elaborates this ANGLICAN DIVINES ON S. PETER, 367 last point out of the earlier part of the Book of the Acts, and, summing up the result of the argument, he says that " it is evident that S. Peter acted as chief of the college of apostles, and so he is constantly described by the primitive writers of the Church, who call him the Head, the President, the Prolocutor, the Chief, the Foreman of the Apostles, with several other titles of distinction." The archbishop goes on to discuss the qualifications of S. Peter, Avhich rendered him fit to be selected to occupy this position of precedence. It is notorious that the Fathers differ very much among themselves on this point ; some hke S. Jerome thinking that it was because S. Peter was the eldest,^ others like Eusebius holding that it was because he was the stronger character, others with greater probability regarding it as the reward of the apostle's great confession. The archbishop says, " Whatever was the true reason of this order, which we will not pretend to determine, since the Scriptures are silent, it is certain that nothing more was founded on it than a mere priority of place ; and that neither Peter nor any other apostle had any power or authority over the rest." This he proceeds to prove by the testimony of Holy Scripture, and then he solidly explains the texts which have been misinterpreted by the Romanists, as if they made in favour of their theory of the papal supremacy. Finally, the archbishop shows how the Church was governed by the apostles after they had ceased to live together at Jerusalem, and had dispersed into different parts of the world. I have given an account of Archbishop Potter's treat- ment of this subject at some length, as a specimen. The views of others may be given more succinctly. Archbishop Bramhall of Armagh (a.d. 1661-1663), in his Just Vindication of the Church of England (chap, v.. Works, ed. 1842, i. 152, 153) says, "All the twelve » See p. 392. 368 APPENDIX. NOTE C. apostles were equal in mission, equal in commission, equal in honour, equal in all things, except priority of order, without which no society can well subsist." And on p. 154 he speaks " of S. Peter's . . . principality of order." So again in his Schism Guarded (chap, i.. Works, ii. 371), replying to his Romanist adversary, Serjeant, the arch- bishop says, " If he [Serjeant] had not been a mere novice and altogether ignorant of the tenets of our English Church, he might have known that we have no controversy with S. Peter, nor with any other about the privileges of S. Peter. Let him be 'first, chief, or prince of the apostles,' in that sense wherein the ancient Fathers styled him so. . . . The learned Bishop of Winchester,^ (of whom it is no shame for him to learn) might have taught him thus much, not only in his own name, but in the name of the king and Church of England : * Neither is it questioned among us whether S. Peter had a primacy, but what that primacy was ; and whether it were such an one as the pope doth now challenge to himself, and you challenge to the pope ; but the king ^ doth not deny Peter to have been the prime and prince of the apostles.' "* Bishop Bull, in his reply to Bossuet's queries ( Works, ed. 1846, ii. 295), cites and adopts the first of the passages which I have just quoted from Bramhall, so that it is clear ^ Bishop I Andrewes. ^ James I. ' See Andrewes' Hespons. ad Apolog. Bellarm., cap. i., ed. 1851, p. 17. As I hope that what I write may be of some benefit to readers who may not be acquainted with the Latin language, I observe that when Bishop Andrewes speaks of S. Peter as "the prince of the apostles," he does not mean to ascribe to him any monarchical or princely jurisdiction over his brethren. In the Latin the word " princeps" means a person who is Jirst^ either in time or order. S. Peter is " princeps apostolorum," as being the first in order among them. The English expression, " prince of the apostles," may easily be misunderstood by less instructed persons. Archbishop Bramliall, translating Bishop Andrewes, and writing for scholars, uses the expression without fear of being misinterpreted. ANGLICAN DIVINES ON S. PETER. 369 that he held that S. Peter was invested with a " priority of order " in the college of apostles. Barrow, in his Treatise of the Papers Supremacy (^Suppos. i., Works, ed. 1818, vol. vi. pp. 48 ff.), discusses carefully four different kinds of primacy, which may belong to a person in respect of others. They are (1) a primacy of merit ; (2) a primacy of repute ; (3) a primacy of order ; and (4) a primacy of jurisdiction. He admits that S. Peter, in respect of the original apostles of the circumcision, possessed the first two kinds of primacy ; and he denies that he had any primacy of jurisdiction over any of the apostles either of the circumcision or of the Gentiles. As regards the primacy of order, Barrow is less clear than the other divines to whose opinions I have referred. He thinks that this privilege " may be questioned ; " but at the same time he admits that there are probable arguments which may be brought forward in its favour, and he grants that the Fathers " generally seem to coun- tenance it." He enumerates various acts and words of our Blessed Lord which specially concerned S. Peter, and he concludes that by this manner of proceeding "our Lord may seem to have constituted S. Peter the first in order among the apostles, or sufficiently to have hinted His mind for their direction, admonishing them by His example to render unto him a special deference." He gives a very much larger space to the arguments in favour of the primacy of order than to the arguments against it ; and I can hardly doubt that he personally inclined towards the view that S. Peter had such a primacy, as the more probable, though in his judgment the probability did not amount to a moral certainty. Having referred to some of the great names of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, I will quote the words of a much-respected bishop who has been lately 2 c 37d APPENDIX. NOTE d called to his rest, and whose Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles has gone through thirteen editions. Bishop Harold Browne says, " We may readily admit that S. Peter had a certain priority among his brother apostles assigned to him by our blessed Lord ; " and this priority he further defines to be a " priority of order," which did not involve " a primacy of poAver or pre-eminence of jurisdiction." The bishop supports his position with considerable fulness, arguing from Scripture and the Fathers. I have now quoted Archbishop Potter, Archbishop Bramhall, Bishop Andrewes, Bishop Bull, Dr. Isaac Barrow, and Bishop Harold Browne ; and, with the excep- tion of some slight reserve on the part of Dr. Barrow, they all express very clearly their belief in S. Peter's primacy of order. I have carefully avoided any reference to such writers as Bishop Forbes of Brechin or Dr. Pusey, who might be challenged as representing only one school of theological opinion ; and I should certainly suppose that a view handed on with such a large measure of unanimity by such representative prelates and theologians, agreeing as it does with the consentient witness of the Fathers, may claim to be considered the normal tradition and teaching of the English Church. I say again that I cannot conceive on what grounds Mr. Rivington can have been led to suppose that the negation of S. Peter's primacy of order " is a fundamental point of AngUcan teaching." I am afraid that, if Archbishop Bramhall had been dealing with him, he would have said that he was a " mere novice " and "ignorant of the tenets of our English Church." It is hardly likely that any of my Anglican readers should have fallen into such a curious mistake. If there should be any such, I would urge them to take care lest they also oscillate in this matter from an extreme on the one side to a contrary and far more harmful extreme on the other side. ( 371 ) NOTE D. On our horde's loords to S. Peter (S. John xxi. 15-17), "Feed My lambs i"" " Tend My sheep ;" ''Feed My sheep'''* (see p. 115). I PROPOSE in this note to discuss the second great passage, to which reference is made by the Vatican Council in its dogmatic decree concerning " the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter." It will be remembered that the Council sets forth, as the scriptural basis of the doctrine declared and defined in that decree, two utterances of our Lord to S. Peter, namely, first, the promise made at Caesarea Philippi, which begins with the words, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church ; " and, secondly, the injunction repeated three times with slight changes in the words used, when our Lord appeared to S. Peter and six other disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias after His resurrection from the dead. On what the Council calls " the manifest teaching " of these two passages it builds up its theory that, " when compared with the other apostles, whether taken separately or collectively, Peter alone was invested by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction,"^ and that this primacy **was * " Solum Petrum prsB csBteris Apostolis, sive seorsum singulis sive omnibus simul, vero proprioque jurisdictionis primatu fuisse a Christo Instructum" {Colledio Lacensis, vii. 483). 372 APPENDIX. NOTE D. conferred upon blessed Peter himself immediately and directly." 1 have dealt with the first of these two passages in the third lecture. I now proceed to quote the second passage together with the whole context, as it is translated in the Eevised Version : " When they had broken their fast, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these ? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord ; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him, Feed My lambs. He .saith to him again a second time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me ? He saith unto Him, Yea, Lord ; Thou knowest that I love Thee. He saith unto him. Tend My sheep.^ He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me ? Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me ? And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knowest all things ; Thou knowest that I love Thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed My sheep." ^ All manner of interesting questions suggest themselves to us in connection with this wonderfully beautiful episode ; but for our present purpose the really important problems to be solved are these : Why was this injunction given to S. Peter rather than to the other apostles ? and again, Was any power then and there communicated to S. Peter ? or was it rather that he was authorized and enjoined to use a power previously given ? and once more. Of what sort was the power which our Lord was imparting, or the exercise of which He was enjoining ? The Roman reply to these questions is this — that our Lord intended to make S. Peter pope, and to give him a ' In place of " Tend My sheep " (voifiaive rh. vpSfiaToi /xov), the Douay version, following the Vulgate, repeats the previous formula, " Feed My lambs'* Apart from this variation, the Douay differs in this passage in no substantial point from the Revised. 2 a John xxi. 15-17. " FEED MY SHEEPy 373 primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church, including the apostolic college ; and that this primatial jurisdiction, which was to be transmitted to his successors in the see of Rome, was communicated to him then and there by our Lord's words, "Feed My lambs,'* and " Feed My sheep." I am not aware that any of the great Fathers of the first five centuries take this view, though the germ of it could doubtless be found in the writings of the popes of the fifth century and of persons closely connected with them. Setting aside the theories held by what Mr. Gore has called the papal school,^ there are two views which find favour with the Fathers. They are not necessarily exclusive of each other, and in fact some of the Fathers seem to have held them in combination ; but logically they are quite independent, the one of the other. They agree in this, that they suppose that the right and duty of shepherding and feeding the sheep and the lambs belong to S. Peter as an apostle, rather than as the foreman of the apostles. It is his apostolic jurisdiction which he is enjoined to use, or which is being committed to him ; and the " sheep " which he is to feed are not his brother shepherds and co-apostles, but rather such members of the ' It is obvious that, if our Lord really intended by the " Fasce ores " to institute a papal monarchy over the Church, in the persons of S. Peter and of his supposed papal successors, then these words are the operative words by which, as De Maistre would say, "the necessary, only, and exclusive foundation of Christianity " was laid. Had that heen the case, the great Fathers of the Church would with one voice have dwelt on such a fundamental fact. Unfortunately for the Komanist view, they none of them, when commenting on the text, allude to the supposed fact. They are absolutely unconscious of it. Our Roman friends must not be surprised if, under such circumstances, English Catholics decline altogether to discuss the papal interpreta- tion. It is as much out of court as the Zuinglian interpretation of '* Hog est Corpus Meum^ or the Socinian interpretation of " Verhum caro factum est" 374 APPENDIX, NOTE D. flock of Christ as are spiritually full-grown, and capable of appreciating " solid food ; " while the " lambs " are the babes in Christ, who need to be fed with "spiritual milk."^ So far the two views agree, but in other points they diverge. According to the first of these two views, our Lord addresses His injunction to S. Peter because he is the primate-apostle, and therefore the representative or symbol of the whole body of the apostles and of the unity of the Church. The others receive the injunction or the com- mission, whichever it was, in him, their representative. The Fathers, who take this view, in no way suppose that any primacy oi jurisdictio7i over the other apostles is being given to S. Peter ; it is because he is the first in order that our Lord addresses him, although what our Lord says applies equally to all the apostles. This is S. Augustine's view.^ According to the second view, S. Peter is addressed because of his previous fall. In consequence of that fall he had either lost his apostolic commission, or, at any rate, was doubtful whether he ought to use it ; and he needed either to have it restored to him, or to be encouraged and enjoined to act upon it. This is the view of S. Cyril of Alexandria.^ For myself, if it is not impertinent to say so, I have no sort of dogmatic objection to the first of these views. It » Compare 1 Cor. ii. 6; iii. 1, 2 ; Heb. v. 12-14 ; 1 S. Pet. ii. 2. 2 See the passage from S. Augustine's 295th sermon, quoted on p. 382. ' See the passage from S. Cyril's commentary on S. John xxi. 15-17, quoted on pp. 389, 390. It may be observed that Bishop Moberly, in his Discourses on the Great Forty Days (2nd edit., 1846, p. 190), seems to hold in combination both S. Cyril's view and S. Augustine's: he says, " Though his [Peter's] fall was great, greater than that of all who forsook their Lord and fled, yet was his restoration great too, for lie was again chosen of [i.e. among] them all to be the one to receive, as representing all, the great pastoral commission." ** FEED MY SHEEPr 375 liarmonizes thoroughly with Catholic principles of faith and discipline. But, exegetically, I venture to think that the second view is by far the more probable. I will try to make this clear. When we look at the context of the passage we see an evident allusion to that boasting of S. Peter which led the way to his fall. Our Lord had said to the apostles on the night of the last supper, " All ye shall be offended in Me this night ; " and Peter had replied, " If all shall be offended in Thee, I will never be offended." ^ The boast had been made publicly, and now our Lord asks publicly the question, " Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these ? " S. Augustine thinks it probable that the accounts of the boasting, given by S. Matthew, S. Luke, and S. John,^ represent three sepa- rate occurrences,^ and, if so, our Lord's thrice-repeated question would correspond with the threefold boasting ; but, however that may be, the fact that the interrogation by the Sea of Tiberias contains an allusion to the boast in the upper room can hardly be denied ; and this prepares us to see a close connection between the threefold injunc- tion, " Feed My lambs," " Tend My sheep," " Feed My sheep," which follows the three interrogations, and the threefold denial which followed the boasting. It was absolutely necessary, after those terrible denials, that some public utterance should be made by our Lord certifying S. Peter and the Church that those denials were not only forgiven, so far as S. Peter's own condition in the sight of God was concerned, but that he was at liberty to use, and in fact bound to use, that apostolic office, which had been promised to him at Csesarea Philippi, and the funda- » S. Matt. xxvi. 31, 33. 2 S. Matt. U.8. ; S. Luke xxii. 33 ; S. John xiii. 37. ' Cf. S. Aug., De Consens. Evang., lib. iii. cap. ii. (0pp. ed. Ben., 1^90, torn. iii. pars ii. col. 102). 376 APPENDIX. NOTE D. mental powers of which he had received in common with the other apostles on the evening of Easter day in the upper room. S. Peter had then been made an apostle, but the remembrance of his fall might well have made him doubt whether he ought to exercise the jurisdiction given to him. Every student of Church history knows how S. Jerome, though he was made a priest, never in the whole course of his life ventured to exercise the powers of his office. It was of the utmost importance that, in the case of S. Peter, who was the leader of the apostolic college, all doubt should be removed, and his right to exercise his authority be put beyond the reach of question ; and accord- ingly our Lord granted to him a special authorization, three times repeated, so as to blot out the effects of his threefold fall. I think that it might be held, with some show of probability, that the threefold repetition of the injunction to feed and tend the Lord's flock implied that the three denials were so completely done away, that S. Peter was not only assured of his full and undoubted right to exercise his apostolic office, but was also restored to the leadership which had naturally resulted from his precedence in desig- nation to that office. The threefold repetition made it evident that, notwithstanding his denials, he was not to be considered to have forfeited his primacy of honour. I hope that this investigation of the close connection which binds the episode of the " Pasce oves " to the events of the night in which our Lord was betrayed, will go far to justify S. Cyril's view, that it was in consequence of S. Peter's fall that the '* Pasce oves " was addressed to him, rather than to any of the other apostles, or to the apostolic college. When we consider the words which our Lord used, and compare them with a parallel passage in one of S. Peter's Qwn Epistles, we seem to find a confirmation of the view " FEED MY sheep:' 377 which has ah-eady been suggested, that our Lord's word 3 did not, strictly speaking, convey a commission, but were rather an injunction to use the apostolic commission pre- viously bestowed. For, when S. Peter wrote to the pres- byters of the Churches of Asia Minor, and said, " Tend the flock of God, which is among you," ^ he was not imparting to them the priestly office ; he was enjoining them to exercise the office which they had previously received from the Holy Ghost, when they were ordained. Before passing on to the patristic interpretation of our Lord's words, I will make one further observation, sug- gested by the direct consideration of the words themselves. It seems clear that those words do not of themselves imply any grant of jurisdiction to S. Peter over the other apostles. Our Lord does not say, " Act as a shepherd to thy brethren and co-apostles," but "Feed My lambs," and " Tend " and " Feed My sheep." The words evidently have reference to the pastoral office which S. Peter was going to fulfil towards the sheep and lambs of Christ's flock after the Lord Himself had ascended into heaven. Our Lord was accustomed to speak of the future members of His Church as the sheep of His flock. So, for example, in the Gospel of the Good Shepherd, He says, "Other [Gentile] sheep I have, which are not of this [Jewish] fold : them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice ; and they shall become one flock, one shepherd." ^ Our Lord Himself is "the great Shepherd of the sheep," ^ and He appoints His ministers to be the under-shepherds, to " take heed unto all the flock," and to " tend the Church of God." * That pastoral ministry began with the apostles, who were the first set of under-shepherds, and to each of vrhom was. given pastoral authority over the whole flock. ' 1 S. Pet. V. 2. 2 S. John x. 16. 3 Heb. :5iii. 20. * Acts xj. ?8. 378 APPENDIX. NOTE D. If it were clearly revealed in other parts of Holy Scripture that S. Peter was the supreme under-shepherd, having jurisdiction over the other apostles, then it might be per- missible to suppose that such supreme jurisdiction was being communicated to S. Peter by our Lord, when He said, " Feed My sheep," and that consequently on that particular occasion the inferior under- shepherds were num- bered among the sheep.-^ But there is no trace in other parts of Holy Scripture of such a supremacy, and therefore there is no reason for numbering the apostohc shepherds among the sheep in the passage which we are considering. The wording of that passage, taken by itself, suggests apostolic, not primatial, jurisdiction. Gathering up the results of our study of S. John xxi. 15-17, it seems probable that our Lord, by the words, " Pasce oves Meas^'' was not giving a new commission to S. Peter, but was authorizing and enjoining him to use a commission previously bestowed ; and it seems clear that that commission was not a commission to be primate, with a rule over the other apostles ; but a commission to be an apostle, with a rule over the sheep and lambs belong- ing to the Church of God. It also seems clear that the reason why this injunction and authorization was needed * During the three years of our Lord's ministry in the days of His humiliation, the twelve constituted our Lord's special flock, and He Himself was their visible Shepherd. That was before they received their apostolic commission. That period culminated in the night in which our Lord was betrayed : and, referring to the events of that night, He applied to them all, including S. Peter, the title of sheep. He said, " All ye shall be offended in Me this night : for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad " (S. Matt. xxvi. 31). But after our Lord's resur- rection, in preparation for His departure, He commissioned those disciples to be apostles ; and so, while they all, including S. Peter, remained sheep in relation to our Lord, they became shepherds in relation to the Church. " FEED MY sheep:' 379 by S. Peter, and was not needed by .the others, is to be found in S. Peter's fall, when he denied the Lord. I proceed now to investigate the interpretations of our Lord's words to S. Peter, which are to be found in the writings of the Fathers. They refer continually to our Lord's injunction to feed the sheep, but when they speak of it in connection with the apostolic age, they assume that all the apostles shared in the commission ; or, if S. Peter is specially mentioned, they point out that he is the representative of the Church, or the symbol of her unity, or else they dwell on his fall. They seem to take pains to make it clear that S. Peter had no authority given to him, which was peculiar to himself. And again, when the Fathers speak of our Lord's injunction in connection with post-apostolic times, they dwell on the fact that the bishops, as the successors of the apostles, or as the suc- cessors of Peter, have inherited the pastoral commission. A modern Romanist naturally dwells on the papal power as guaranteed by the Pasce oves ; the Fathers, ignoring the papacy,^ consider that our Lord was instructing or empowering the episcopate. 1 cannot attempt any exhaustive catena, but I will give specimens of the teaching of both Latin and Grreek Fathers. S. Cyprian, writing to Pope Stephen, says, " Although we [bishops] are many shepherds, yet we feed one flock, and ought to gather together and cherish all the sheep which Christ has acquired by His own Blood and Pas- sion."'"^ I quote this passage, although it does not ex- plicitly refer to our Lord's words to S. Peter; but they must have been in S. Cyprian's mind when he wrote. He was writing to the pope, and asking him to help the ^ The papal school of the fifth and later centuries must, of course, be excepted (see pp. 97, 98). 2 S. Cypr., E]p. Ixvii, ad Stephanum (0pp. ed, Ben., p. 116), 38o APPENDIX, NOTE D. Church in Gaul. That was surely a good opportunity for pressing on him the duty of exercising the supremo pastoral ofiBce, which is supposed by Romanists to belong to the Roman successors of S. Peter. But instead of that, S. Cyprian puts all bishops on an equality in their pastoral functions, and urges the pope to interfere in Graul, not as having primatial jurisdiction there, but as belonging to the college of bishops, who all "feed one flock, and ought to gather together and cherish all the sheep" of Christ.^ Even the Romanizing interpolator of S. Cyprian's treatise on the Unity of the Churchy after inserting a reference to the Pasce oves, proceeds a few lines lower down to say concerning the apostles, " They all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the apostles with one-minded concord."* The interpolator evidently held that, though for symbolical reasons the words were spoken to S. Peter only, the injunction or commission applied to all the apostles. It is clear that he considered that our Lord was dealing with apostolic, and not with primatial jurisdiction. S. Augustine is very clear and express. In his treatise, De Agone Christiano, he is proving in opposition to the Luciferians that the Church is right in dealing mercifully with penitents. In the course of his argument he says, *' Not without cause among all the apostles doth Peter sustain the person of this Church Catholic ; for unto this Church were the keys of the kingdom of heaven given, when they were given unto Peter ; and when it is said unto him, it is said unto all, * Lovest thou Me ? Feed * For a full account of the circumstances under which this letter was written, and for the reason why S. Cyprian asked Pope Stephen to interfere, see pp. GO-65. ' S. Cypr., De Unit. Eccl, 0pp. ed. Ben., p. 195. " FEED MY SHEEPr 381 My sheep.' " ^ S. Augustine means that S. Peter, as being the apostle who was the special example of penitence, was fitly chosen to be the representative and first in order among the rulers of the Church, which has ever dealt mercifully with penitents. He represented the Church when the keys were given to him, so that it was the Church which really received them ; and similarly it was to the Church and to " all " her rulers that our Lord was really speaking when He said, " Feed My sheep." It was no solitary papal power that was then communicated, but that pastoral authority which belonged first to the apostles, and afterwards to the bishops. Again, in his forty-seventh homily on S. John's Gospel, S. Augustine says, " Hold ye then, how the Lord Jesus Christ is both Door and Shepherd : Door, by opening Himself ; Shepherd, by entering in through Himself. And indeed, my brethren, that He is Shepherd, He hath given to His members also : thus Peter too is shepherd, and Paul shepherd, and the other apostles shepherds, and good bishops shepherds. But Door, none of us calleth himself ; this He hath kept proper to Himself, the way by which the sheep enter in." ^ In S. Augustine's view the pastoral authority is common to all the apostles, and to their successors the bishops.^ It does not occur to him * S. Aug., Be Agone Christiano^ cap. xxx., 0pp. ed. Ben., vi. 260. Ou S. Augustine's teaching about S. Peter as the symbol of the Church, see pp. 99-103. 2 S. Aug., in Joh. Evang. tract xlvii., 0pp. ed. Ben., torn. iii» pars ii. col. 608. ' I add in a note two more passages from S. Augustine, which bring out with great clearness the thought that what was enjoined on S. Peter in the Pasce oves was equally enjoined on all the apostles. In his 296th sermon, preached on the Feast of S. Peter and S. Paul, he discusses at some length our Lord's word, by which He com- mended His sheep to S. Peter. Then he adds, " That which was commeutled to Peter, that which was enjoined on him, not Peter only 38i APPENDIX. Note D, to refer to the popes as having a pastoral authority of a higher sort. It need hardJy be added that when, in his homilies on S. John's Gospel, S. Augustine reaches the last chapter, and comments on the Pasce oves, he says not a word about any authority in S. Peter over the other apostles, nor about any primatial jurisdiction in the Roman see. Strange, that when treating expressly of what is supposed by many Ultramontanes to be the fundamental proof-text of the papal power, he should so completely ignore an institution which, from their point of view, is " the principal matter of Christianity " ! ^ Passing to the Greek Fathers, I begin with S. Chrysostom. There are two passages in the treatise which has ever been considered S. Chrysostom's masterpiece,^ the De Sacerdotio, in which he makes clear how he understood the Pasce oves. In the first chapter of the second book the saint is showing that the undertaking of the burden of the epis- copal office is the greatest evidence of love to Christ. He naturally bases his argument on S. John xxi. 15-17, and he says, "It was not Christ's intention [by the words, *Feed My sheep'] to show how much Peter loved Him, because this already appeared in many ways, but how much He Himself loves His Church ; and He desired that we should all learn it, that we also may be very zealous but also the other apostles heard, kept, observed, and chiefly the Apostle Paul, the partner of his death and of his festival" {0pp. S. Aug., ed. Ben., v. 1199), And in the previous sermon, the 295th, lie says, " Tlio Lord commended to Peter himself His sheep to feed. For not he alone among tho disciples merited to feed the Lord's sheep: but when Christ speaks to one, unity is commended ; and [He speaks] to Peter first (primitus), because among the apostles Peter is first" (Opp., V. 1195). This last passage exactly expresses S. Augustine's view, as I have described it on p. 374. * See Bellarmine, quoted on p. 95. * Compare Tillemont, xi. 14. ^'FEED MY SHEEP." 383 in the same work. For why did God not spare His Son and Only-begotten, but gave Him up, although He was His Only One ? That He might reconcile to Himself those who were His enemies, and make them a people for His own possession. And why did He shed forth His Blood ? To purchase those sheep whom He committed to Peter and to his successors " ^ (rot? /xer kKilvov). " I follow Mr, Allnatt in translating rots fter iKelvov by " ^o his successors^ ^ Those words give the sense very accurately and idiomatically. It is amusing to notice how Mr. Allnatt prints these words in capital letters, evidently imagining that of course S. Peter's successors must be the popes. It is needless to say that S. Chrysostom knew nothing of papal successors of S. Peter in his primatial office. According to S. Chrysostom's teaching, the bishops generally were S. Peter's successors, as they were also the successors of the other apostles. The whole argument of the De Sacerdotio requires us so to understand the words ; and if further proof were needed, it would mani- festly appear from the fact that, when S. Chrysostom wrote this treatise, he neither was nor ever had been in communion with the Church of Rome, and in fact he remained outside of that communion for at least sixteen more years, perhaps for as many as twenty-five.^ S. Chrysostom's object in the De Sacerdotio was to » 0pp. S. Chrys., ed. Ben., i. 372. * Allnatt's Cathedra Petri, 2nd edit., p. 43. Mr. Allnatt's book I3 a painstaking but very unscholarly catena of patristic passages, which, as he supposes, are favourable to the Roman claims. The book may be of great use to any one who has the opportunity of testing the passages by investigating their context and meaning. To other persons such an uncritical performance can only be a snare and a delusion. 2 The Be Sacerdotio may have been written as eariy as a.d. 372. S. Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome utitil he became Bishop of Constantinoplo in a.d. 397. Compare pp. 255-257. 384 APPENDIX. NOTE D. comfort and encourage his friend Basil, who had just been consecrated to the episcopate. In the second chapter of the second book he says to Basil, *' You are going to be set over all that is God's, and to do those things, in doing which [Christ] said that Peter would be able to outdo the other apostles ; for saitli He, ' Peter, lovest thou Me more than these ? Feed My sheep.' " ^ It is evident from both these passages that S. Chrysostom held that our Lord, in saying, " Feed My sheep," was committing to S. Peter apostolical or episcopal authority. S. Peter's office was the same as Basil's office. Basil, as a bishop, was one of S. Peter's successors. The notion of papal or primatial jurisdiction over the other apostles does not occur to S. Chrysostom. But, though S. Chrysostom attributes no jurisdiction over the other apostles to S. Peter, he fully recognizes his primacy of order, his leadership ; and as a loyal son of the Church of Antioch, Avhich was accustomed in the fourth century to look on S. Peter as its founder, he often employs his great rhetorical powers in eloquently setting forth that leadership. But it will be found that he knows well how to magnify the primacy of order without suggesting a primacy of jurisdiction. This comes out markedly in his eighty- eighth homily on S. John's Gospel, which also throws light on his interpretation of the Pasce oves, S. Chrysostom begins that homily thus : "There are indeed many other things which are able to give us boldness towards God, and to shew us bright and approved, but that which most of all brings good-will from on high is tender care for our ' Tta.v dSeX^wv) ; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, *If thou lovest Me, rule over the brethren ^ S. Chrys., ITom. Ixxxviii. in Joli. Ev., § 1, Opp, ed. Ben., viii. 525. In Ills commentary on Gal. i. 18 (Opp., x. 677), S. Chrysostom says that S. Paul went to visit S. Peter, though " he was in no need of Peter nor of his voicej but was equal in honour with him." 2 D 3S6 Appendix. notM A (TTpo'ca-raao twi/ aSeAcjScoi/) ; and the warm love which thou clidst ever manifest, and concerning which thou didst boast/ shew thou now ; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.' " A few lines lower down S. Chrysostom says, " But He [our Lord] asketh him the third time, and the third time givetli him the same injunction, to shew at what a price He setteth the rule ^ over His own sheep (t^v Trpoorao-tav twv otKetwv TrpoySarwv), and that this especially is a sign of love towards Him." S. Chrysostom repeats over and over again in this passage his view that our Lord, by the words " Feed My sheep," committed to S. Peter " the rule over the brethren," or, in other words, " the rule over His own sheep ; " that is to say, that our Lord gave to S. Peter apostolical authority over the Church. Some Ultramontane writers have tried to make out that " the brethren " here mentioned are the apostles, and that consequently S. Chrysostom held that S. Peter received jurisdiction over the apostles. But this is very far-fetched. It is plain on the surface that " the brethren " and " the sheep " are identical.^ It is the flock * I have translated ^yaX\i6.aa^ " thou didst hoasL" The word kyaXKiaofiai has that sense in the Ixx. version of Jerem. xxx. 4 (xhx. 4 — Heb.) ; cf. Isa. xli. 16, 17. Hesychius gives yavpia as one out of two meanings of aydkAerat (of. Hesycli., Lcxic, ed. Alberti, 174G i. 31), and ayaWtdofxai is a late form of aydWo/nai. The nioro usual meaning of the word is, "fo rejoice." The allusion is, of course, to S. Peter's boasts on the night of our Lord's betrayal, which boasts led to his fall. ^ I have translated irpoi'a-raij.ai, the verb, and Ttpoaraaia^ the sub- stantive, by the word " rule" It is the rendering usually adopted in the Revised Version of the New Testament, in passages connected with Church offices (e.g. Rom. xii. 8; 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12; and v. 17). =» The word " brethren " (d5eA(/)oO is very commonly used in Holy Scripture in the sense of Christians, e.g. in Acts vi. 3; ix. 30; x. 23; xi. 2D; 1 Cor. v. 11; xv. G; Phil. i. 14, etc., and it continued to bo used in the Church in the same sense, as may be seen from the patristic passages cited in Suicer's Thesaurus, s.v. a5eA(^(^y. The " FEED MY sheep:' 3^7 of Christian believers that Christ commits to Peter, but of course not to Peter alone. All the apostles shared with him in his rule (Trpoo-rao-ta) over the Church. So S. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of S. Peter and S. Paul, as being both of them " the rulers of the Church " (ot ttJ? eKKXTyo-tas Trpoo-Tarai) ; ^ and S. Chrysostom calls S. John " the pillar (o o-TvXo?) of all the Churches throughout the world, who hath the keys of heaven ; " ^ and in this eighty-eighth homily on S. John he says that S. Peter and S. John " were about to receive the charge of the world" (t^s olKovfiivrjs Trjv Ittitpo- Trr/v).^ Again, of S. Paul he says that " he had the care, not of one household, but also of cities, and of peoples, and of nations, and of the whole world.'''' ^ Ecumenical jurisdiction belongs to the very essence of the apostolical office.^ How, then, does S. Chrysostom account for the fact that it was to S. Peter, and not to the others, that our Lord addressed the authoritative words, " Feed My sheep " ? He says that our Lord spake those words to S. Peter " to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done awayy According to S. Chrysostom's view, the Dominican Mamaclii {Orig. et Antiq, Christ, i. 6, quoted by Mr. Allies in his Throne of the Fisherman, p. 73, note 1), says, " Invaluit prreterea apud nostros nomen fratrum, quod est a Christo servatore in Ecclesiam introductum, itaque deinceps propagatum est, ut non modo ab Apostolis sed etiam a Christianis omnibus usurparetur." 1 S. Cyr. Hierosol., Catech., vi. xv., 0pp. ed. Ben,, 1720, p. 96. 2 S. Chrys., Horn. i. in Joh. Ev., § 1, 0pp. ed. Ben., viii. 2. ' Horn. Ixxxviii. § 2, 0pp. viii. 528. * Ilom. XXV. in Ep. ii. ad Cor., § 2, 0pp., x. 614. * S. Cyril of Alexandria, in [his commentary on Jacob's benediction of the Patriarch Dan, after saying that " the glorious and admirable choir of the holy apostles are set for the government of believers, and have been by Christ Himself appointed to judge," goes on to observe in reference to these same apostles, " We have had for governors, and have received for ecumenical judges (^Kpiras oiKovfieviKois), the holy disciples" (S. Cyril. Alex., Glaphyr. in Gen., lib. vii., Opy. ed. Aubert., 1638, tom. i. pars ii. pp. 228, 229). 388 APPENDIX. NOTE D. Pasce oves restored to S. Peter the apostolical office, which had heen suspended, so far as he was concerned, in conse- quence of his denial of the Lord.-^ S, Chrjsostom's view of the Pasce oves, and of the sort of power which was entrusted by our Lord to S. Peter when He gave him the pastoral commission, has now, I hope, been made clear. But, at the risk of being tedious, I will quote one more passage from this eighty-eighth homily on S. John, because it has been misunderstood, as if it implied that S. Peter had jurisdiction over S. John ; and the misunderstanding, if it were admitted, would affect the interpretation of the whole homily. Commenting on the words, " Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also reclined on His breast at supper ; . . . and saith. Lord, and what shall this man do ? " ^ S. Chrysostom says, " Wherefore hath he re- minded us of that reclining ? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to shew us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, this very man was even entrusted with the rule over the brethren " (that is, as we have seen, was restored to his apostolic office), and not only doth not commit to another what relates to him- self, but himself now puts a question to his Master con- cerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks." S. Chrysostom is not guilty of the absurdity of attempting to prove that S. Peter had jurisdiction over S. John, ' So in his fifth homily, De Posnitentid, S. Chrysostom says, " After that grievous fall (for there is no evil so bad as denial), but yet after 80 great an evil He again restored Mm to his former honour and entrusted to him the care of the universal Church (ttjs oiKovfisviKTJs iKK\naias) I and (what is greater than all), He shewed to us that he Jiad more love to the Master than all the apostles, for, saith He, * Peter, lovest thou Me more than these? ' " (^Opp. S. Chrys., ed. Ben., ii. 311)' « S. John xxi. 20, 21. "FEED MY sheep:' 389 because he put a question to our Lord about S. John. If there were any force in such an argument, it would follow that at the last supper, when S. John questioned our Lord at the request of S. Peter, S. John must have had jurisdic- tion over S. Peter, which no one has ever supposed. S. Chrysostom's point is that, after the complete forgive- ness of S. Peter's denial and his full restoration to the apostolic office, he, to use S. Chrysostom's words, was ^' of good cheer," ^ and was filled with holy " boldness." Euthy- mius Zigabenus, who follows S. Chrysostom point by point in his commentary on this passage,^ takes exactly the same view of the matter, and evidently understood S. Chrysostom's argument in the way which I have tried to set forth.' But to return to the point of main interest in regard to the Vasce oves, namely, the reason which moved our Lord to speak those words to S. Peter rather than to the other apostles. S. G-regory Nazianzen is very explicit. Speaking of S. Peter, he says, "Jesus received him, and by the triple questioning and confession He healed the triple denial."'* But of all the Fathers S. Cyril of Alexandria is perhaps the fullest and the most satisfying in his treatment of this aspect of the subject. Commenting on S. John xxi. 15-17, » See p. 385. 2 Migne's Patrol. Grsec, exxix. 1500. 2 It may be added, in general confirmation of the view which I have taken of S. Chrysostom's meaning in this homily, that the Bene- dictines decide that it was preached at Antioch, and therefore at a time when S. Chrysostom was out of communion with Home (see pp. 25G, 257). He cannot possibly have drawn from the Pasce oves the deductions which modern Eoman Catholics draw from it, or he would not have been content to remain outside the flock, which, on their view, was being tended by the one divinely appointed universal shepherd, the necessary centre cf communion. * S. Greg. Naz,, Oral, xxxix. § xviii., Opp. ed. Ben., i. 689. 390 APPENDIX. NOTE D, he says, " When he [Peter] comes, Christ asks him more severely than the others, whether he loves more than them, and this took place three times. Peter assents and con- fesses that he loves, saying that He [Christ] is the Witness of his inward disposition. At each of his confessions separately he hears that he is charged with the care of the rational sheep. . . . Will not some one say with good reason. Wherefore did He ask the question of Simon only, although the other disciples were standing by ? And what is the meaning of * Feed My sheep,' and the like ? We say then that Saint Peter had already been appointed (Kex^LpoTovTjTo) to thc divine apostolate together with the other disciples : for our Lord Jesus Christ Himself named them apostles, as it is written. But when it fell out that the events connected with the plot of the Jews had come to pass, and in the meaowhile he had somewhat stumbled — for Saint Peter, overwhelmed with excessive terror, thrice denied the Lord — Christ heals the ill effects of what had happened, and demands in various terms the triple confession, setting this, as it were, against that, and providing a correction equivalent to the faults. . . . Therefore by the triple confession of blessed Peter the offence of triple denial was abolished. But by the Lord's saying^ ' Feed My sheep^ a renewal., as it were, of the apostolate already conferred upon him is understood to have taken place., wiping away the intervening reproach of his falls, and destroying utterly the littleness of soul arising from human infirmity,''''^ Nothing could be clearer or more consistent with the Gospel narrative, except that for myself I think it more probable that tho " Feed My sheep " was rather an injunction to exercise the apostolate, which had already been renewed, than itself the act by which the renewal took place. But » S. Cyril. Alex, in S. Joann., lib. xli. cap. i., ed. Phil. Pusey, 1872, iii. 164-lGO. *' PEED MY sheep:' 391 that is a minor point. The important matter is that S. Cyril holds that the pastoral office spoken of by our Lord, was not primatial, but apostolical, and that the whole incident was necessitated by S. Peter's fall, which had resulted in S. Peter's apostolate being, so to speak, suspended, on which account it needed to be renewed. Reviewing the whole of this discussion, it appears that, whether we study the passage as it occurs in S. John's Gospel, or whether we consult the comments on it to be found in the writings of the great Fathers of the Church, we find no trace of the papal interpretation. I verily believe that S. Leo invented that interpretation, or rather the germ of it. Whether he did or not, there is a consensus of the great Fathers in favour of the view that S. Peter had authority to feed the sheep and lambs of Christ's flock, because he was an apostle, and not because he had any primatial jurisdiction over the other apostles. In other words, the Anglican view of the passage is the Catholic view, and the Roman view is an un-Catholic view, and is in fact a grievous perversion of our Blessed Lord's meaning. On investigation, it appears that the whole of the supposed scriptural basis for the teaching of the Vatican Council about the pope's jurisdiction^ collapses. ^ I have not discussed S. Luke xxii. 32, because the Vatican Council makes no reference to that passage in the first chapter of the Consti- tution De Ecclesid Christie in which it sets forth what it considers to be the scriptural basis of its doctrine concerning the papal primacy of jurisdiction. Later on, in the fourth chapter of the same Ci)ustitution, the Council does quote S. Luke xxii. 32 in connection with its teacli- ing about papal infallibility ; but that is a subject, on which in thi3 book I do not enter (see Preface, p. xxvi.). ( 393 ) NOTE E. On a passage in S. Jerome's treatise against Jovijiian (see p. 175). There is a passage in S. Jerome's treatise against Jovinian (lib. i. § 26, 0pp. ed. Yallars., ii. 279) which has been curiously misunderstood, as if it favoured tlie Romanist view of S. Peter's relation to the other apostles, whereas in truth the passage, taken as a whole, is in thorough agreement with the ordinary Catholic teaching on that subject. S. Jerome is proving to Jovinian that S. John the Evangelist was a virgin disciple ; and he says, " If he was not a virgin, let Jovinian explain why he was more beloved than the other apostles. But you reply that the Church is founded on Peter, though that same thing was done in another place upon all the apostles, and all of them receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the solidity of the Church is established equally upon them all ; still among the twelve one is therefore chosen, that by the appointment of a head an occasion of dissension may he taken away (schismatis tollatur occasio). But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin ? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder, lest one, who was still a young man and almost a boy, should be given precedence before meu of mature age (progressaB astatis hominibus praeferretur) ; and lest the good Master, who felt bou7id tQ O.V A PASSAGE IN S. JEROME. 393 remove from His disciples an occasion of strife (qui occasionem jurgii debuerat auferre discipulis), and who had said to them, * My peace I give unto you ; peace I leave with you,' and who had also said, 'Whosoever would be great among you, let him be the least of all ' — [lest He, I say,] should seem to furnish a cause of grudge against the young man whom He loved. . . . Peter was an apostle, and John was an apostle, the first married, the second a virgin. But Peter ivas nothing else than an apostle (sed Petrus apostolus tantum) ; John was both an apostle, and an evangelist, and a prophet." The Romanists are accus- tomed to quote a few words out of this passage in order to show that in it S. Jerome taught the doctrine that S. Peter was (and by implication the reigning pope is) the divinely appointed centre and root of unity in the Church. They say that S. Jerome teaches that S. Peter was appointed a head, that " the occasion of schism might be removed.''^ But, if S. Jerome had thought that S. Peter was invested with such a headship as that, his whole argument would have crumbled to pieces. He wants to show the complete equality of the apostles in their relation to the Church. But if one of them had been appointed by our Lord the necessary centre of unity, that equality would have existed no longer. The solidity of the Church would not in that case be " equally established upon them all." S. Jerome, as a matter of fact, attributes to S. Peter a very different kind of headship. It is like the headship of the foreman in a jury, or like the headship of the Duke of Norfolk among our English peers. Such a headship, which is in fact a mere primacy of order, would not affect the equality of the apostles in their relation to the Church. The Romanist mistake has arisen from ,not noticing that S. Jerome, when he says that our Lord took away an occasion Qf dissension, is referring to the disputes which used to 394 APPENDIX. NOTE E. take place among the disciples as to which of them should be greatest. S. Jerome thinks that our Lord gave a primacy of order to one of the twelve that " an occasion oj dissension might he taken away"*"* (schismatis tollatur occasio) ; just as he also thinks that " the good Master " chose S. Peter, the elder, rather than S. John, the younger, to be the head, in order that He might remove another " occasion of strife '* (occasionem jurgii). It was no doubt the word ^^ schisma''^ which caused the mistake. That word is sometimes used in the technical sense of schism. But it is also used both in Latin and Greek in the untech- nical sense of dissension. For example, S. John uses the word (TxtV/xa in three passages of his Gospel (S. John vii. 43 ; ix. 16 ; x. 19) ; and always in the sense of a dissension, or dispute, or angry division of opinion. In the Vulgate, S. Jerome has rendered the word crx^crfia by " dissensio '* in S. John vii. 43 and in S. John x. 19 ; but in S. John ix. 16, where the sense is precisely the same, he has used the word "5cAi5wa." No one would suggest schism as the right English translation of S. Jerome's '''schisma^^ in S. John ix. 16 ; it there plainly means dissension ; and the whole argument requires that a similar meaning should be attributed to it in the treatise against Jovinian. In a letter to Evangelus (^Ep. cxlvi., 0pp. ed. Vallars., i. 1076) S. Jerome speaks of one among a body of presbyters being made a bishop "as a preventive against schism" (in schismatis remedium). Here the word ^^ schismatis ^^ has undoubtedly its technical meaning, schism. The sense of the word varies according to the context. It is worth noticing that S. Jerome wrote his treatise against Jovinian in the year 393, twelve years after the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, and eight years after his departure from Rome in considerable wrath with the Roman clergy. The admirable teaching on the equality of the apostles, which ON A PASSAGE IN S. JEROME, 395 is contained in this treatise, illustrates Mr. Gore's view that S. Jerome changed his tone about the position and privileges of the Roman bishop after the death of Damasus at the end of the year 384 (see Gore's Church and the Ministry, 1st ed., p. 172). Closer acquaintance with the local Roman Church seems to have led S. Jerome to re- consider some of the views which he had expressed in his letters to Damasus, and thus a remedy was provided for the somewhat papalizing tone which he had imbibed in Rome during his catechumenate. S. Jerome's faith was in fact purified, and brought up to the normal level of the faith of the saints. ( 396 ) NOTE F. S. Chrysosioin's vieio of S. Peter'' s position iii connection ivith the election of S. Matthias to the apostolate (see p. 257). I HAVE admitted that it is quite possible tliat S. Chrysos- tom, though he never connects the primacy of S. Peter with any prerogatives of the see of Rome, may nevertheless have been so filled with veneration for the apostle whom he regarded as the founder of the Church of Antioch, as to be led to speak of him occasionally in an exaggerated way. But the reader must be warned against accepting the account given by Mr. Rivington of S. Chrysostom's views about S. Peter's position in relation to the election of S. Matthias to the apostolate.^ Mr. Rivington says that " when S. Chrysostom asks the question, * Might not Peter by himself have elected ? * he answers categorically, emphatically, * Certainly.' " In this passage Mr. Rivington has fallen into two mistakes. He has, in the first place, been misled by the corrupt Benedictine text, which, in the case of S. Chrysostom's Homilies on the Acts, is entirely un- trustworthy.^ But, in the second place, even if it were possible to accept the Benedictine text,'^ Mr, Rivington has » Authority, p. 73, 2nd ed. * See note 2, on pp. 124, 125. ' The passages of S. Chrysostom referred to in this Note occur in his third Homily on the Acts (Opp. ed. Ben., ix. 23-25, and in the Oxford translation, pp. 37-40). THE ELECTION OF S. MATTHIAS. 397 Inisunclerstood S. Chrysostom's teaching, as there set forth. I will take these two points in their order. The first is per- haps rather a matter of form than of substance. The second is substantial. 1. The Oxford translators, having before them "the old text," that is to say, the genuine text of these Homilies on the Acts, translate the passage, from which Mr. Eiving- ton quotes, as follows : ^' Then, why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself "i What was the motive ? This ; that he might not seem to bestow it of favour. And besides, he was not yet endowed with the Spirit." The question, " Might not Peter by himself have elected ? " and the categorical, emphatic answer, " Certainly," are not to be found in the genuine text. There is no trace .of them in the New College manu- script ; ^ and evidently there was no trace of them in the Paris manuscripts used by the Oxford translators. But to this it may be answered that even the Oxford trans- lation implies that conceivably Peter might have made the election himself, though in that translation there is no such categorical statement of the fact as appears in the Benedictine text. That is true, but S. Chrysostom's real meaning will be better understood by a consideration of what I have to say about Mr. Rivington's second mistake. 2. Mr. Rivington tells us^ that " S. Peter called on the apostles ' to elect one in place of Judas, to supply the number of twelve in the apostolic college." This account can hardly be considered accurate. S. Peter was address- ing, not " the apostles," but " the brethren," ^ or, as 8. ^ Torn. i. f. 65. « Authority, p. 72. » Ti^e italics are mine. * Acts i. 15. "In diebus illis exsurgens Petrus in medio fratrum dixit (erat autem turba hominum simul fere centum viginti)" — Vulgate. The Revised Version is in close agreement with the Vulgate. 39^ APPENDIX. NOTE P, Clirysostom read in his copy of the Acts, " the disciples,^' of whom there were about a hundred and twenty present. S. Chrysostom dwells on the fact that some of those who were addressed were women. Commenting on S. Peter's words, " Men and brethren," ^ he says, " See the dignity of the Church, the angelic condition ! No distinction there, neither male nor female, I would that the Churches wore such now." S. Chrysostom lays the greatest stress on the fact that the choice of the new apostle, or at any rate the selection of the two names, was committed " to the whole body " of the Church. S. Chrysostom nowhere in this passage contrasts S. Peter with the other apostles ; but he contrasts the multitude of brethren, sometimes with S. Peter and sometimes with the whole choir of the apostles. According to the reading of the Benedictine editors, S. Chrysostom, speaking of the apostles, asks the question, ** Why of their own selves do they not make the election .^ " Thus, so far from saying that " S. Peter called on the apostles to elect," he draws attention to the fact that they did not elect. Further on S. Chrysostom says, " Observe how Peter does everything with the common consent [of the whole body of brethren], nothing autocratically, nor imperiously. And he did not say simply thus : * Instead of Judas we elect this man.' " 2 Notice how S. Chrysostom * S. Chrysostom accounts for S. Peter, rather than anybody else, having stood up in the midst of the hundred and twenty to address the others, by three considerations, namely, (1) the ardour of his cha- racter ; (2) his apostolic office ; '* he had been put in trust by Christ with the flock ; " (3) " he had precedence in honour " (two of tho " oW Compare Coleti, torn. v. coll. 599/. with coll. 1224, 1225. ' Coleti, V. 1184-1188. ' 2 Faustinus, Bishop of Potentia, 268; papal legate in Africa, 187, 189; sent back to Africa as legate, by Celestine, 196; African bishops beg that tliey may not have to endure his presence, 202 Felicissimus, a Carthaginian schismatic, 361 Felix III., Pope, 185, 267, 269 ; his dealings with Acacius. during the latter's lifetime, 271-279 ; his dealings with Euphemius, 282, 283 Felix, antipope, 139, 267 Felix, the friend of the Ithacians, 66 Felix, Spanish bishop, successor to Martialis, 68 Firmilian, S., 237 ; on rebaptizing heretics, 72 ; his letter trans- lated by S. Cyprian, 81 ; his sanctity, 83 ; his " love of unity," 85 ; died two months before S. Dionysius, 89 ; was really excommunicated by Pope Stephen, 325-333 ; his letter to S. Cyprian not known to S. Augustine, 331, 332 Flavian I., S., of Antioch, 248, 274 ; his case considered, 253- 266 ; joy at consecration of, 253 ; acknowledged by almost the whole East, 254 ; refused com- munion by West, 255 ; declined to submit his case to Theophi- lus, 264 ; enters into com- munion with Pope Siricius, 265; death of, 266; name of, " enrolled in the register of the saints," 266 Flavian II., S., of Antioch, 175, 289, 294, 303, 402 Flavian, S., of Constantinople, 268 Fleury, Cardinal de, 350 Fleury, the historian, thinks that S. Leo excommunicated S. Hilary of Aries, 210, 211 Forbes, Bishop of Brechin, 370 Fortunatus, Bishop, 340, 342 Fortunatus, a schismatic bishop at Carthage, 53 Fravitas, of Constantinople, 282, 283 Gabriel, S., the Archimandrite, 289, 296 Gaudentius, of Naissus, 161 Gaul, only one bishopric in, at first, 26; no metropolitans in, till circa a.d. 400, 61 Gelasius, of Cyzicus, an untrust- worthy historian, 143, 144 Gelasius, Pope, 185, 269, 277, 303, 353; speech of, at Council of Eome (A.D. 495), 280, 281 ; ac- clamations addressed to, 281 Gennadius, S., of Constantinople, 179 German, S., of Auxerre, 206, 209 Gibbon, 136 Gore, Mr., 351, 373, 395; on S. Cyprian's words, " uude unitas 2 F 4i8 INDEX. sacerdotalis exorta est," 56; on Eiistem view of heretical baptism, 74 ; his reply to some remarks of Mr. Eivingtoii, 125 Gothofredus, 157 Gratian, Emperor, 183, 247; liis rescript imparting a coactive patriarchal jurisdiction to pope throughout Western empire, 155-161 ; an earlier decree of liis imparting coactive juris- diction to pope within the pro- vinces subject to the Prfctorian Prefect of Italy and Illyricum, 155, 156, 161 ; divided Illyri- cum into two parts in a.d. 379, and gave Eastern Illyricum to Theodosius, 160 ; left popes free to make their own law, 178 ; eflfects of rescript of, in Africa, 205 Gratian, the Canonist, xxi. Gratry, Pere, 277 Grains, Bishop of Carthage, 188 Gregory, S., the Great, 55 Gregory, S., Xazianzen, 179, 249 ; on Constantinople, " the com- mon emporium of the faith," 39 ; on S. Cyprian's presidency over East and AVest and South and North, 71 ; present at second Ecumenical Council, 175 ; presided over it after the death of S. Meletius, 175 ; calls Pope Damasus " a self-styled defender of the canons," 251, 285; on the Va^ce oves, 389 Gregory, S., Nysseu, 83, 141, 166, 167, 175, 176, 179, 233, 361, 362 Gregory, S., Tliaumaturgus, 83, 179 Guettee, AbM, 43 Guizot, 132 Hammond, Mr., 97 Hefele, 66, 148, 151, 160, 161, 169, 195, 241, 244, 251, 278 Hegesippus, 40 Helenus, of Tarsus, 329 Heliodorus, 170 HenoHcon, the, 270, 291 Hesperius, the Praetorian Prefect of Italy and Illyricum in a.d. 378, 157 Hesychius, S., the theologian, • 120, 122 Hesychius, 386 Hilarian fragment, quoted, 55 Hilary, S., of Aries ; his contro- versy with S. Leo, 206-216; presided at the Council of Be- san9on, 208 ; begged S. Leo not to break the canons, 209 ; shocked S. Leo by his plainness of speech and by his indepen- dence, 210 ; " will not suffer him- self to be subject to the blessed Apostle Pet-r," 210; was put under arrest, 210 ; did not com- municate with 8. Leo while in Rome, 211 ; perhaps excom- municated by S. Leo, xxiv., 212 ; charitably tried to pacify S. Leo, 214 ; died in the odour of sanctity, 215 ; is commemorated in the Roman Martyrology, 216 Hilary, Pope, 269; vehemently attacked S. Mamertus, 212 Himerius, of Tarragona, 182, 207 Hincmar, 55 Hippolytus, S., 78 ; supposed to be the author of the Little Laby- rinth^ 49 Holland, Neale's History of the Church of, 9 Homer, Iliad of, quoted by S. Basil, 172 Homilies, Clementine, 44-46 INDEX. 419 Honoratus, S., of Marseilles, the disciple and biographer of S. Hilary of Aries, 210-215 Honorius, Pope, 307, 308 Hooker, quoted, xix. Hormisdas, Pope, 185, 269, 287, 293, 306, 307, 308, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 360, 401, 402, 403, 404, 406 Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, 143, 144, 151-153, 268 Hurter, Father, S.J., 328 Hyginus, S., Pope, 24 Hypostasis, varying use of the word, 239, 240 Ibas, 318, 319 Illyricum, praetorian prefecture of, administered by the Prefect of Italy from a.d. 362 to a.d. 379, 156, 157; papal vicariate in Eastern, created, 161, 162; Eastern, belonged ecclesiasti- cally to the West, 185, 291 Importunus, succeeded Chelido- nius at Bescan9on after the latter's deposition, 207 Innocent I., Pope, 162, 180, 181, 184, 185, 273 Innocent III., Pope, xviii. Intention, doctrine of, xix., xx. Interpolations, in S. Cyprian's treatise on The Unity of the Church, xxi., 346, 350, 353, 354 ; quoted, 380 Irenseus, S., 330, admonished Pope Victor, 27 ; the famous passage about the Koman Church in the treatise Against all Heresies by, 31-43; preserved the genuine order of the Koman bishops, 47 ; Dr. von Dollinger on, 48 Isidore, S., 265, 266 Israel, analogy between organiza- tion of, and organization of Church, 225-230; position of the high priest in, 230 Ithacians, schism of, 66 James, S., his supremacy over the Church, according to the Cle- mentine romance, 45; named before S. Peter in Gal. ii. 9, 117; outside Jerusalem this order would not have been adopted, 119-121 ; probably not one of the Twelve, yet an apostle, 120 ; called by Kufinus "the bishop of the apostles," 120 ; and by S. Hesychius, " the exarch of the apostles," 120; apparently presided at the Council of Jerusalem, 121-125 ; his "judgment" at that Coun- cil, 122, 124; he "legislates," 122 James, S., of Sarug, 289, 294, 295 James I., King, on S. Peter's primacy, 368 Javolenus, Priscus, 10 Jerome, S., 47, 79, 98, 131, 134, 136, 137, 253, 285, 367 ; trans- lates Polycrates' words, 27 ; writes his life, 29; describes the worldliuess of the Roman clergy, 141, 142; summary of his earlier life, 167 ; faults in, pointed out by Father Bottalla, 168, 169 ; his famous letter to Daraasus, 170 ; it does not re- present the apostolic tradition, 173; misled by Damasus into joining the Eustathians, 174; on the true vicar of Christ, 322 ; meaning of a passage in treatise against Jovinian by, 392-895 ; faith of, purified, 395 Jerusalem, Church of, the vari- ations of its influence, 19; its 420 INDEX. lack of civil importance, 20; the mother-Church of the whole world, 54, 55; bishopric of, supposed by some to be a dig- nity superior to the apostolate, 120 ; its precedence confirmed by Council of Nicaja, 130 ; but it was subject to metropolitan of Csesarea, 130 ; given patri- archal jurisdiction by Council of Chalcedon, 130; "no one dares to separate himself from," 312 Jerusalem, Council of, order of proceedings at, 121-124; its synodical act and its letter, 124 John, S., constituted S. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, 17, 49 ; kept Easter in the quarto-deciman way, 24; the symbol of the Church Triumphant, 100, 348 John, S., the Chuzibite, 289, 297 John, S., the Silentiary, 289, 299, 303 John, of Antioch, 291 John, the Cappadocian, Patriarch of Constantinople. 288, 291, 304-306, 309-311, 405, 406 John I., Pope, 302 John, of Jerusalem, 130 John, Scholasticus, a schismatic patriarch of Constantinople, 153 John, a monk of Syria Secunda, 403 John Talaia, Patriarch of Alex- andria, 269-271 Josephus, on civil precedence of Antioch, 19 Jovinian, 392 Julius, S., Pope, 138, 149, 151, 152 Justin Martyr, S., 40 Justin, Emperor, 292, 300, 301, 304, 305, 312, 316, 405 Justinian, Emperor, 153,292, 311, 315 Juvenal, of Jerusalem, 130 Keys, the promise of the, 112 Knabenbauer, Father, S.J., 232 Koran, the, 300 Labyrinth, the Little, 49 Ladislas, King of Poland, 351 Lapide, Cornelius a, 110, 111, 232 Laud, Archbishop, his Conference with Fisher, 60 Launoy, 112, 351 Lea, John Walter, on the Cypri- anic view of the independence of bishops, 77 Leo, S., 98, 105, 185, 261, 270, 304-306, 308, 391 ; his contro- versy with S. Hilary of Aries, 207-216 ; obtained a rescript in favour of the authority of the Roman see from Valentinian IIL, 213, 214, 268 ; spoke of S. Hilary as a man *' of holy memory," 215 ; his Tome sanc- tioned by the Council of Chal- cedon, 268 ; first systematically expounded Petrine texts in the papal sense, 269 Leo n., S., Pope, 307 Leo XIIL, Pope, 174 Leo, Emperor, 315, 316 Liberius, Pope, 138-140, 267; heroically withstood the em- peror, 139 ; withdrew his com- munion from S. Athanasius, 139; compromised the faith, 139 ; according to Duchesne, was ambitious and feeble, 140 ; surrendered the Nicene for- mula, 169 Lightfoot, Bishop, on S. Linus INDEX. 421 . and S. Anencletus, 7; ou the glorification of Eome in the Clementine romance, 47 ; iden- tifies the author of the Little Lahyrinth with S. Hippo! ytus, 49 ; on the influence exercised by the Clementine romance, 49; on the apostolic rank of S. James, 120 ; on S. Peter's primacy in the early days after Pentecost, 123 Linus, S., 126 ; a monarchical bishop, 7 ; first Bishop of Rome, 48, 50; received episcopate from S. Peter and S. Paul, 48, 50 Liturgy of S. James, its inter- pretation of " the rock," 97 Lockhart, Father, 37 Lucifer, a Sardinian bishop, who started a schism, consecrated Paulinus, 165, 259 Lucius, Pope, 8 Lupus, Christianus, 202 Lyons, only see in Gaul at first, 26 Macedonius, S., of Constantinople, 287, 288, 291, 303-306, 311, 313, 314, 317, 402 Maistre, M. de, 96, 373 Maldonatus, S.J., 233 Mamachi, O. P., 387 Mamertinus, Praetorian Prefect of Italy and Illyricum from a.d. 362 to A.D. 365, 157 Mamertus, S., of Vienne, vehe- mently attacked by Pope Hilary, 212 Manning, Archbishop, 118, 119 Man si, Archbishop of Lucca, 155, 173, 241 ; on S. Cyprian's ex- communication, 328-330 Maran, Dom, 81, %^, 240, 333 Marca, Archbishop de, of Paris, 152, 154, 200, 212 Marcellus, of Ancyra, 148, 172, 271 Marcianus, of Aries, S. Cyprian's letter about, 60-65 Marcion, a heresiarch, 208 Marinus, of Aries, 143 Mark, S., first Bishop of Alex- andria, 17 Maronites, the, 295 Martialis, a Spanish bishop de- posed as a libellatic, 67 Martyrology, the Roman, 83, 285, 287, 292, 293, 294, 297, 298, 299, 300, 401; S. Meletius' name inserted in, 176, 253; Paulinus' name not inserted in, 263 Mason, Dr., 73 Mass, Roman Canon of, preserves genuine order of Rom an bis hops, 47,48 Massuet, Dom, 33 Matagne, Pere, S.J., 295 Maximus, Bishop of Antioch, 130 Maximus, the Cynic, 274 Maximus, Bishop of Jerusalem, 130 Meletius, S., of Antioch, 173, 290, 321; formerly Bishop of Se- baste, 164; appointed Bishop of Antioch, 163; ignored by Pope Damasus, 166; spoken of by Damasus as if he were an Arian, 166 ; supported by S. Basil and all the Eastern saints, 166; presided over second Ecumenical Council, while still out of communion with Rome, 174, 175, 245 ; died during the Council, out of com- munion with Rome, 176; was canonized ct once, 176; his 422 INDEX name inserted in the Roman Martyrology, 176 ; his case more fully considered, 238-253 ; presided over the Council of Antioch in a.d. 379, 241; signed the Tome of the Wes- terns, 241 ; made a compact with Paulinas in a.d. 381, 244- 247; was out of communion with Eome till his death, 249- 252 Mennas, S., of Constantinople, 305,313; anathematized Pope Vigilius, 318 Merenda, 241, 246 Metropolitans, special authority of, 10-14; origin of, 11, 12, 38, 39 Meurin, Bishop, 125 3Iilan, metropolitical see of North Italy, 65, 121 Miseniis, of Cumse, 271, 272, 303; anathematizes the whole Eastern Church, 279-281 Missal, Roman, its interpretation of « the rock," 97 Moberly, Bishop, on "Feed My sheep," 374 Mohler, on origin of metropoli- tans, 12 Montalembert, M. de, on the pagan corruption which in- vaded the Church, 132-134 Montfaucon, Dom, 164, 261 Moschus, John, 297 Murray, Dr., on the promise to 8. Peter, 94, 95 Natalia Alexander, 148, 270, 328, 329, 330, 333 Neale, Dr., 9, 293 Nectarius, of Constantinople, 175, 274 Nectarius, of Digne, 214 Negran,the 3911 martyrs at, 289, 300, 303 Nestorius, of Constantinople, 268, 308, 404 New College manuscript of S. Chrysostom on the Acts, 124, 125, 397, 398 Newman, Cardinal, 10, 83, 143, 165, 220 NicsBa, Council of, xvi., 130, 142- 148, 276-278 Nicephorus, acolyte, 8 Nicholas I., Pope, 153, 237 Nicole, on the excommunication of Acacius, 283, 284 Novatian, an anti-pope, 53 ; pas- sages about, in S. Cyprian's letters, explained, 335-347 Novatus, an African bishop, 188 Optatus, S., 37, 98 Orsi, Cardinal, description of second Ecumenical Council by, 174, 175 Paget, Dean, of Christ Church, 301 Pagi, Father, 313, 314 Palladius, of Antioch, 282, 286 Pantaloon, S., 290, 302 Parker, Archbishop, xix. Paschal controversy, 23-31 Paul, S., an apostolical founder of the Roman Church, 20, 32, 48, 50 ; martyred at Rome, 20 ; his work ignored by the Cle- mentine romance, 46, 47, 50 ; puts S, James before S. Peter, when enumerating the pillar- apostles, 117-119 ; probably re- cognizes S. Peter's primacy in 1 Cor. ix. 5, 118; his rebuke of S. Peter at Antioch, 125; his tone of independence, 126 ; INDEX. 423 comparison of, with S. Peter, 358 Paul, of Alexandria, 313 Paul, of Samosata, 83, 273 Piiulinus, leader of the Eusta- thians at Antioch, 163, 164; consecrated by the firebrand, Lucifer, 165, 166 ; supported by Damasus, 166 ; rejected by S. Basil and the Eastern saints, 167, 238-243, 321; makes a compact with S. Meletius, 244-- 247 ; claims of, passed over by second Ecumenical Council, 248, 249, 253; supported by Council of Kome (a.d. 382), 254, 255 ; date of death of, 262 ; was never canonized, 263 ; con- secrated Evagrius to be his successor, 263 Pearson, Bishop, 43, 86 Pelagius, S., of Laodicea, 167, 175 Perrone, Father, S. J., 3;^>, 34, 95, 221, 278 Peter, S., an apostolic founder of the Roman Church, 20, 32, 48, 50 ; martyred at Eome, 20 ; the first Bishop of Rome according to the Clementine romance, 49 ; promise made by our Lord to, at Csesarea Philippi, discussed, 93-115; his precedence in con- fession rewarded by priority in designation, 112; his leader- ship in the work of founding the Church, 113, 114 ; his sup- posed primacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles dis- proved by Scripture, 116-127 ; the symbol of the Church Mili- tant, 99-103, 348, 351, 352, 358; sent to Samaria by his brother apostles, 116, 117 ; " re- puted to be a pillar," 117-119; his name placed between those of S. James and S. John, 117- 121 ; his speech at the Council of Jerusalem, 121-123; obscure allusion in 1 Pet. v. 13 to his connection with Rome, 126 ; the years of, 281 ; teaching of Anglican divines about, 364- 370 ; meaning of Christ's pas- toral charge to, 371-391; I, is part in the election of S. Mat- thias, 396-400 ; his spurious epistle to S. James prefixed to the Clementine Homilies, 46 Peter, S., of Sebaste, 175 Peter I., S., of Alexandria, 179 Peter II,, of Alexandria, 245 Peter Mongus, of Alexandria, 270-272, 280, 281, 282, 308, 316, 404 Peter the Fuller, of Antioch, 280, 281, 404 Peter, of Apamea, 294, 401, 406 Philemon, a Roman priest, 87 Philip, Zosimus' legate at Car- thage, 187; Celestine's legate at Ephesus, 183 Philomelium, Church of, 26 Photius, of Constantinople, 153 Pitra, Cardinal, 293, 318; says that there is no place in his- tory "for the rationalist con- ception of a slow progress of the holy see," 356 Polycarp, S., 17, 24, 26, 42, 49 Polycrates, of Ephesus, 25-30 Pontius, S., the biographer of S. Cyprian, 86, 87 Pope, jurisdiction of, as defined by Vatican Council, 5; had primacy of honour and influ- ence, 22 ; decision of. in a matter outside his jurisdiction had no force, 70 ; was able to 424 INDEX. enforce his etate-given autho- rity by the help of the magis- trates, 177, 178 ; was left free by Gratian's rescript to make and enforce his own law, 178 ; under cover of declaring old law, often made new law, 180 ; the nature and origin of his various kinds of power, 181, 182; was not the necessary centre of communion, 235-321 Popes, referred to : Linus, 7, 48, 50 ; Anencletus, 7, 48 ; Clement, 45-48, 91, 92; Xystus I., 24; Telesphorus, 24 ; Hyginus, 24-; Pius, 24 ; Anicetus, 24 ; Soter, 24; Eleutherus, 25; Victor, 25-31, 235-237; Zephyrinus, 78; Callistus, 78; Fabian, 9, 336; Cornelius, 8, 9, 52-59, 335-347; Lucius, 8; Stephen, 8, 9, 60-90, 325-333; Xystus II., 86, 87, 88; Dionysius, 82, 87, 89 ; Silvester, 142-144, 268 ; Julius, 138, 149, 151, 152; Liberius, 138-140, 169 ; Dama- Bus, 135, 136, 138, 141, 154- 162, 166, 169, 170-173, 242, 243; Siricius, 179-183, 265; Innocent I., 162, 180, 181, 184, 185, 273; Zosimus, 184, 187- 194, 206 ; Boniface L, 184, 189, 190-192, 204; Celestine, 196- 205, 268; Xystus III, 183; Leo I., 207-215, 268-270 ; Hi- lary, 211, 269; Simplicius, 269- 271 ; Felix IIL, 271-279, 282, 283; Gelasius, 280, 281 ; Ana- stasius II,, 269 ; Symmachus, 185, 2()9; Hormisdas, 287, 293, 295, 306-308, 312-316, 401-406 ; John I., 302 ; Boniface IL, 162 ; VigiliuB, 317-319; Gregory L, 55; Bonifaco IV., 319, 320; Honorius, 307, 308; Leo II., 307 ; Nicholas L, 153, 237 ; Inno- cent III., xviii.; Boniface VIII., 2; Benedict XIV., xxix. ; Pius IX, 5, 119, 124 ; Leo XIII., 174 Potter, Archbishop, on S. Peter's primacy, 366, 367 PrsBtextatus, Vettius, 136, 141 Probus, Sextus Petronius, Prae- torian Prefect of Italy and lUyricum from a.d, 368 to 375, 157 Proculus, of Marseilles, 206 Provinces, large and small, 12, 13 Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, xxi., 50, 51, 182, 216 Pusey, Dr., xi., xxiv., 43, 73, 112, 370 Quien, Le, Father, O.P., 157 Kavennius, a priest of Aries, afterwards bishop, 214 Rebaptismate^ De, author of trea- tise, 73 Recognitions, Clementine, 44, 45 Reparatus, of Carthage, excom- municated Pope Vigilius, 317 Revue des Questions Historiques, 2, 12, 38 Richardson, Mr., 290 ; attempts a reply to the Fathers ot Chalcedon, 21 ; his novel inter- pretation of S. John xvii. 22, 233; his private canonization of Paulinus, 263 Rigaltius, 81 Rivington, Mr., 10, 104; misled by the corrupt Benedictine text of S. Chrysostom on tho Acts, 125; referred to, 199, 228, 242, 326-328, 348, 362, 364, 365, 370, 384, 396, 397, 400 "Rock," the, of the Church. INDEX. 425 patristic interpretations of, 96- 107 ; the most common and the oldest opinion is that S. Peter is the, 96; but the Fathers hardly ever connect the Boman see with, 97, 98; the true in- terpretation of, 107-115 Komanus, S., the Melodist, 288, 293 Rome, Churcli of, organization of local, 7 ; centralizing tendency in, 13 ; extent of province de- pending on, 13; Bishop of, took precedence over other bishops, 14 ; reason of this pre- cedence, 20; S. Peter and S. Paul martyred at, 20, 22 ; only apostolic see in the West, 22 ; jurisdiction of, in ante-Nicene times, 22, 23 ; the faithful came on business to, 36, 38 ; tradition was securely preserved in, 36 ; called ecclesia principalis by S. Cyprian, 53, 54; appeals to, denounced by S. Cyprian, 56- 58 ; emperors lavished gifts on, 135 ; the greater part of the clergy of, perjured themselves in the time of Liberius, 139; Council of Nicsea silent about appeals to, 147 ; a quasi-appeal to, permitted by Council of Sardica, 150-152; received from emperor coactive patriarchal jurisdiction over West, 154-162; from early times was consulted by Western Churches, 178 ; ap- peals to, forbidden by African Church, 195 ; was out of com- munion with the Eastern Church from a.d. 484 to a.d. 519, 279 Rome, Council of, under Da- masus (a.d. 378 or 380), peti- tioned Emperor Gratian to confirm his previous grant of coactive jurisdiction to the pope, 155-158 Rufinus, 120, 145 Rufus, of Thessalonica, 162, 291 Rusticus, 315, 316 Ryder, Father, 155, 241, 244 Sabas, S., the Great, 285, 289, 297, 298, 299, 301, 303, 304, 317 Sabinus, S., 173, 174 Sabinus, Spanish bishop, 68 Sage, Bishop, on the licentia of episcopal authority, 77 Saints, canonization of, by whose authority decreed, xxix. Sallustius, of Jerusalem, 283 Salmon, Dr., 43, 46, 49, 92, 95 Salvian, on the decay of Christian morality, 134 Samaria, mission of S. Peter and S. John to, 116, 117 Sampson, S., the Receiver of Strangers, 288, 292 Sapor, 245, 246 Sardica, Council of, 157, 158, 160, 161, 206, 209, 278 ; account of, 148-154 ; to what extent its canons were received in the East, 153, 154; canons of, quoted as Nicene, 188 Schoolmen, xxii., 216 Schouppe, Father, S.J., xx. Schulte, Dr. von, xxii. Sergius, a monk of Syria Secunda, 403 Severus, intruded Patriarch of Antioch, 286, 294, 401, 406 Silvester, S., Pope, 142-144, 268 Simeon, of Beth Arsam, 301 Simplicius, Pope, 269-271 Siricius, Pope, 66, 159, 162, 179, 180, 182, 207, 261; on tho 426 INDEX, burden of the heavily laden being borne in the popes by S. Peter, 183 ; enters into com- munion with S. Flavian and S. Chrysostom, 2G5 Sirmondus, Father, S.J., 6G 8mcdt, Father de, S.J., 12 Smyrna, an apostolic see, 17 ; S. Polycarp constituted its bishop by S. John, 17; Church of, wrote account of S. Polycarp's martyrdom, 26 Socrates, 27, 143, 144, 246, 248, 262, 266 Soter, S., Pope, 24 Sozomen, 71, 82, 143, 144, 247, 248, 255, 262, 266 Spain, Churches in, thrown into confusion by Pope Stephen's action, 69 Specimina palaiographica Iteges- torum, 2 Stephen, of Antioch, excommuni- cated by Council of Sardica, 164 Stephen, Pope, 179, 237, 356; treated as an equal by S. Cyp- rian, 8; his "error," 9 ; his deal- ings and relations with S. Cyp- rian, 60-90; his "proud" and "impertinent" remarks, 76; his excommunication of S. Cyprian, 81, 82, 325-333 ; his treatment of the Carthaginian legates, 81 ; dwells on his see being the chair of Peter, 84 ; " an apostate from the communion of tbe unity of the Church," 85; called S. Cyprian "a false apostle," 85 ; is invoked as a saint by the Roman Church, 86 ; his martyrdom doubted, 86 Stillingtleet, Bishop, 43 Suflfragan Churclies, daughters of metropolitical, 1 1 Suicer, 386 Suyskens, Father, S.J., 333 Symeon, S., Stylites, 293, 294, 401 Symmachus, Pope, 185, 269 Synesius, Bishop, his subjection to the see of Alexandria, 14 Syria Secunda, the 350 martyrs of, 289, 294, 401-407 Talaia, John, Patriarch of Alex- andria, 269-271 Tall Brothers, their appeal to S. Chrysostom, 68, 71 Taurianus, a Macedonian bishop, 185 Telesphorus, S., Pope, 24 Tertullian, 82; on the apostolic Churches, 17 ; makes S. Clement S. Peter's successor, 47, 49; speaks ironically of the pope as " bishop of bishops," 78 ; on the true Vicar of Christ, 322 ; quoted, 329 Theodore, of Mopsuestia, 318, 319 , of Petra, 296 Theodoret, 143, 144, 254, 262, 318, 319 Theodoric, King, 403 Theodosius, S., the Ccenobiareh, 289, 295, 296, 298, 303, 304 Theodosius the Great, Emperor, 132, 155, 160, 174, 244, 247, 249, 262, 273 Theophanes, S., 287, 318 Theophilus, Patriarch of Alex- andria, 14, 71, 179, 262, 263, 273; died out of communion with Rome, 216; called by S. Leo a man " of holy memory," 215; consecrated S. Chrysostom. 264; sent S. Isidore to Rome, 265 Theophylact, 351 Thessalouica, see of, 160; papal INDEX. 427 vicariate grauted to Bishop of, 161, 162, 163 Thomassinus, translates convenire ad " resort to," 33 Tillemont, 19 et passim Timothy I., of Alexandria, 179 Timothy II., of Alexandria, 300, 301, 302 Timothy the Cat, 280, 281, 308 Timothy, intruded Patriarch of Constantinople, 304, 306 Trench, Archbishop, xviii. Trullo, Council in (a.d. 691), 153, 179 Turin, Council of, 66, 121 Turner, Mr. C. H., 332 Tyre, Council of (a.d. 335), 149 Unam Sanctam, bull, 2 Unity of Church, Eoman theory of, 221, 222 ; Koman theory of, contrasted with Catholic doc- trine about, 222-225 ; teaching of Holy Scripture about, 225- 235; summary of truth about, 321-323; will ultimately be visible and perfect, 323, 324 Urban, Bishop of Sicca, 187, 188, 192 Ursinus, anti-pope, 140, 141, 156, 251 Valens, Emperor, 155, 174 Valentinian I., Emperor, 136; in conjunction with his son Gra- tian conferred on pope coactive jurisdiction over bishops in provinces subject to the PrsB- torian Prefect of Italy and lUyricum, 156, 157 Valentinian II., Emperor, 155, 247 Valentinian III., Emperor, mur- dered Ji^tius, 213 ; enlarged by a rescript the state-given juris- diction of the Roman see, 213, 214; this rescript of, a new starting-point in the develop- ment of papal claims, 216 Valentinus, Primate of Numidia, 189 Valerian, S., of Aquileia, 217 Valerian, a persecuting emperor, 86 Valesius, 329, 338 Van Espen, first canonist of his own or of any age, 9 ; on bishops as successors of apostles, I 9; on essential equality of bishops, 10 Vatican Council, promulgation of decrees of, 5 ; theory set forth by, unknown in early times, 30; teaching of, contradicted by S. Cyprian, 57, 58: quotes " Thou art Peter " and " Feed My sheep " in support of papal supremacy, 93; anathematizes those who deny that popes succeed to S. Peter in his primacy, 105; and also those who ascribe to S. Peter only a primacy of honour, and not a primacy of jurisdiction, 116 Venables, Mr. Precentor, 144 Venerius, S., of Milan, 66 Verhoven, Father, S.J., 292 Victor, Pope, 25-31, 235-237, 330 Victricius, S., of Eouen, 180 Vigilius, Pope, excommunicated by the Church of North Africa, 317; anathematized by S. Mennas of Constantinople, 318 ; confessed to S. Eutychius that the devil had deceived him, 318; consequences of his ac- ceptance of the Fifth Council, 319 428 INDEX. VincentiuB, a legate of S. Silvester at the Council of Nicaea, 143 Vitalis, of Truentiira, 271, 272 Vitalis, an Apollinarian bishop, 167, 169, 245 Vito, ft legato of S. Silvester at the Council of Nicaea, 143 Vulgate, meaning of convenire ad in, 33 Wilberforce, R. I., translates con- venire ad '* resort to," 33 ; Be- vieto of his book on the supre- macy, 60 Williams, Mr. George, 401 Wiseman, Cardinal, 299, 303, 320 ; makes communion with Rome to be the test of Catholicity, 220, 221; asserts that this is the doctrine of the Fathers, 220; his theory not held at Rome in the fourth century, 243 Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, xiv.., 131 Xystus I., S., Pope, 24 Xystus IL, S., Pope, 329; «a good and peace-making priest," 86, 87 ; died five or six vveeka before S. Cyprian, 88 Xystus III., Pope, says that S. Peter in his successors has de- livered that which he received, 183 Zaccaria, 169 Zacchasus, 45 Zeno, Emperor, 270 Zephyrinus, Pope, 78 Zigabenus, Euthymius, 389 Zosimas, S., the Wonder-worker, 289, 297 Zosimus, Pope, 184, 189, 191, 192; received Apiarius' appeal, 187; his death, 189 ; discreetly bases his claim on the canons, and not on the privilege of Peter, 193, 194; treats Proculus of Marseilles unbecomingly, 206 THE END. PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES. BT TEE SAME AUTHOR, i CONCERNING THE FAST BEFORE COMMUNION. A Paper read before the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament. LONDON: J. MASTERS AND 00. NEW YORK: JAMES POTT AND CO. January 189(3. A Selection of Works IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE PUBLISHED BY Messrs. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO. 39 Paternoster Row, London, E.G. Abbey and Overton.— THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. By Charles J. Abbey, M. A. , Rector of Checkendon, Reading, and John H. Overton, D.D., Canon of Lincoln and Rector of Epworth. Crown Bvo. 7s. 6d. Adams.— SACRED ALLEGORIES. The Shadow of the Cross —The Distant Hills— The Old Man's Home— The King's Messengers. By the Rev. William Adams, M.A. Crown Zvo. 35. 6d, The four Allegories may be had separately, with Illustrations. i6mo. IS. each. Aids to the Inner Life. Edited by the Rev. W. H. HUTCHINGS, M.A., Rector of Kirby Misperton, Yorkshire. Five Vols. ^2mo, cloth limp, 6d. each; or cloth extra, xs. each. With red borders, 2J. each. Sold separately. OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. By Thomas X Kempis. THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. THE DEVOUT LIFE, By St. Francis de Sales. THE HIDDEN LIFE OF THE SOUL. THE SPIRITUAL COMBAT. By Laurence Scupoli. Barry.— SOME LIGHTS OF SCIENCE ON THE FAITH. Being the Bampton Lectures for 1892. By the Right Rev. Alfred Barry, D.D., Canon of Windsor, formerly Bishop of Sydney, Metro- politan of New South Wales, and Primate of Australia. Bvo. i2j. 6d. Bathe.— Works by the Rev. Anthony Bathe, M.A. A LENT WITH JESUS. A Plain Guide for Churchmen. Containing Readings for Lent and Easter Week, and on the Holy Eucharist. oflmo, IS. ; or in paper cover, 6d. AN ADVENT WITH JESUS, s^mo, u.; or i7i paper cover, 6d. WHAT I SHOULD BELIEVE. A Simple Manual of Self- Instruction for Church People. Small Bvo, limp, xs. ; cloth gilt, zs. Bathe and Buckham.— THE CHRISTIAN'S ROAD BOOK : Part I. Devotions. By the Rev. Anthony Bathe and Rev. F. H. Buckham, Fcap. Bvo. Sewed, 6d.; limp cloth, xs,; cloth extra, is. 6d. A SELECTION OF WORKS Benson.— THE FINAL PASSOVER : A Series of Meditations upon the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. By the Rev. R. M. Benson, M. A., Student of Christ Church, Oxford. Small %vo. Vol. I. — The Rejection. 5J. Vol. IL— The Upper Chamber. Part I. ss. Fart II. c^s. Vol. in. —The Divine Exodus. Parts I. and ii. 5^. each. Vol. IV.— The Life Beyond the Grave. 5^. Bickersteth.— YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, AND FOR EVER: a Poem in Twelve Books. By Edward Henry Bickersteth, D.D., Bishop of Exeter. One Shilling Edition, iBmo. With red borders^ i6mo, 2s. 6d. The Crown Sva Edition iss.) may still be had. Blunt.— Works by the Rev. John Henry Blunt, D.D. THE ANNOTATED BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: Being an Historical, Ritual, and Theological Commentary on the Devotional System of the Church of England, /s^o. 21J. THE COMPENDIOUS EDITION OF THE ANNOTATED BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER : Forming a concise Commentary on the Devotional System of the Church of England. Crown %vo. xos. 6d. DICTIONARY OF DOCTRINAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY. By various Writers. Imperial Zvo. 21s. DICTIONARY OF SECTS, HERESIES, ECCLESIASTICAL PAR- TIES AND SCHOOLS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT. By various Writers. Imperial Zvo. 21J. THE BOOK OF CHURCH LAW. Being an Exposition of the Legal Rights and Duties of the Parochial Clergy and the Laity of the Church of England. Revised by Sir Walter G. F. Phillimore, Bart., D.C.L., and G. Edwardes Jones, Barrister-at-Law. Crown Zvo. •js. 6d. A COMPANION TO THE BIBLE : Being a Plain Commentary on Scripture History, to the end of the Apostolic Age. Two Vols, small Zvo. Sold separately. The Old Testament. 3J. 6d. The Nev^^ Testament. 35. 6d. HOUSEHOLD THEOLOGY : a Handbook of Religious Information respecting the Holy Bible, the Prayer Book, the Church, etc., etc. Paper cover, i6mo. is. Also the Larger Edition, 35. dd. Body.— Works by the Rev. George Body, D.D., Canon of Durham. THE LIFE OF LOVE. A Course of Lent Lectures. xQnuo. 2s. 6d. 6d. THE SCHOOL OF CALVARY ; or, Laws of Christian Life revealed from the Cross. i6mo. zs. 6d. THE LIFE OF JUSTIFICATION. i6mo. zs. 6d. THE LIFE OF TEMPTATION. i6mo. zs, 6d. IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. Boultbee.— A COMMENTARY ON THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. By the Rev. T. P. Boultbee, formerly Principal of the London College of Divinity, St. John's Hall, Highbury. Crown 8vo. 6s. Bright.— Works by William Bright, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. WAYMARKS IN CHURCH HISTORY. Crow?i 8vo. 7s. 6d. MORALITY IN DOCTRINE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. LESSONS FROM THE LIVES OF THREE GREAT FATHERS: St, Athanasius, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. Crown Bvo. 6s. THE INCARNATION AS A MOTIVE POWER. Crown Zvo. 6s. THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH ; and other Studies in Church History. Crow7i 8vo. Bright and Medd.— LIBER PRECUM PUBLICARUM EC- CLESIyE ANGLICANS. A Gulielmo Bright, S.T.P., et Petro Goldsmith Medd, A.M., Latine redditus. Small 8vo. 7s. 6d. Browne.— AN EXPOSITION OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES, Historical and Doctrinal. By^ E. H. BROWNE, D.D., formerly Bishop of Winchester. 8vo. x6s. Campion and Beamont.— THE PRAYER BOOK INTER- LEAVED. With Historical Illustrations and Explanatory Notes arranged parallel to the Text. By W. M. Campion, D.D., and W. J. Beamont, M.A. Small 8vo. 7s. 6d. Carter.— Works edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A., Hon. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. THE TREASURY OF DEVOTION : a Manual of Prayer for General and Daily Use. Compiled by a Priest. \8mo. 2s. 6d. ; cloth limp, 2s. Bound with the Book of Common Prayer, 3s. 6d. Red-Line Edition. Cloth extra, gilt top. \8mo, 2S. 6d. net. Large-Type Edition. Crown Svo. y. 6d. THE WAY OF LIFE : A Book of Prayers and Instruction for the Young at School, with a Preparation for Confirmation. Compiled by a Priest, x8mo. IS. 6d. THE PATH OF HOLINESS : a First Book of Prayers, with the Service of the Holy Communion, for the Young. Compiled by a Priest. With Illustrations. \6mo. is, 6d. ; cloth limp, is. THE GUIDE TO HEAVEN : a Book of Prayers for every Want. (For the Working Classes.) Compiled by a Priest. i8mo. is. 6d. ; cloth limpt IS, LargC'Type Edition. Crown 8vo. is. 6d, ; cloth limp, is. \continued A SELECTION OF WORKS Carter.— Works edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A., Hon. Canon of Christ Church, Oxiordi— continued. SELF-RENUNCIATION. i6mo. zs. 6d. THE STAR OF CHILDHOOD : a First Book of Prayers and Instruc- tion for Children. Compiled by a Priest. With Illustrations. x6mo, 2J. 6d. NICHOLAS FERRAR : his Household and his Friends. With Portrait engraved after a Picture by Cornelius Janssen at Magdalene College, Cambridge. Crown Zvo. 6s. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JOHN KETTLEWELL. With Details of the History of the Non- Jurors. With Portrait. Crown Zvo. 6s. Conybeare and Howson.— THE LIFE AND EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL. By the Rev. W. J. Conybeare, M.A., and the Very Rev. J. S. HowsON, D.D. With numerous Maps and Illustrations. Library Edition. Two Vols. Svo. zis. Students' Edition. One Vol. Crown Zvo. 6s. Popular Edition. One Vol. Crown Zvo. y. 6d. Creighton— PERSECUTION AND TOLERANCE : being the Hulsean Lectures preached before the University of Cambridge in 1893-4. By M. Creighton, D.D., Lord Bishop of Peterborough. Crown Zvo. 45. 6d. Devotional Series, ISmo, Red Borders. Each 2s. 6d. BICKERSTETH'S YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, AND FOR EVER. CHILCOT'S TREATISE ON EVIL THOUGHTS. THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. FRANCIS DE SALES' (ST.) THE DEVOUT LIFE. HERBERT'S POEMS AND PROVERBS. KEMPIS' (A) OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. WILSON'S THE LORD'S SUPPER. Large type. •TAYLOR'S (JEREMY) HOLY LIVING. HOLY DYING. * These two in one Volume. 55. Devotional Series, 18mo, without Red Borders. Each is. BICKERSTETH'S YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, AND FOR EVER. THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. FRANCIS DE SALES' (ST.) THE DEVOUT LIFE, HERBERT'S POEMS AND PROVERBS. KEMPIS (A) OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. WILSON'S THE LORD'S SUPPER, Large type. ♦TAYLOR'S (JEREMY) HOLY LIVING. • HOLY DYING. * These two in one Volume, as. 6d. IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE, Diggle— RELIGOUS DOUBT : its Nature, Treatment, Causes, Difficulties, Consequences, and Dissolution. By the Rev. John W. Diggle, M.A,, Vicar of Mossley Hill and Hon. Canon of Liverpool, Author of ' Bishop Eraser's Lancashire Life.' Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Edersheim.— Works by Alfred Edersheim, M.A., D.D., Ph.D., sometime Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint, Oxford. THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH. Two Vols. Zvo. 24s. JESUS THE MESSIAH : being an Abridged Edition of ' The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.' Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. PROPHECY AND HISTORY IN RELATION TO THE MESSIAH : The Warburton Lectures, 1880-1884. Svo. i2j. HISTORY OF THE JEWISH NATION AFTER THE DESTRUC- TION OF JERUSALEM UNDER TITUS. Revised by the Rev. Henry A. White, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford. With a Preface by the Rev. William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Bvo. i8j. Ellicott.— Works by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES. Greek Text, with a Critical and Grammatical Commentary, and a Revised Enghsh Translation. 8vo. I Corinthians. i6j Galatians. 2,s. 6d. Ephesians. Bj. 6d. Pastoral Epistles. 10^. 6d. HISTORICAL LECTURES ON THE LIFE JESUS CHRIST. Svo. I2j. Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon. 10s. 6d. Thessalonians. 7s. 6d. OF OUR LORD Epochs of Church History.— Edited by Mandell Creighton, D.D., LL.D. ,Bishopof Peterborough. Fcap.Zvo. 2s.6d.eack. THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN other lands. By the Rev. H. W. Tucker, M.A. THE HISTORY OF THE REFOR- MATION IN ENGLAND. By the Rev. Geo. G. Perry, M.A. THE CHURCH OF THE EARLY FATHERS. By the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D. THE EVANGELICAL REVIVAL IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. By the Rev. J. H. Overton, D.D, THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. By the Hon. G. C. Brodrick, D.C.L, THE UNIVERSITY OF CAM- BRIDGE. By J. Bass Mullinger, M.A. THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE MIDDLE AGES. By the Rev. W. Hunt, M.A. THE CHURCH AND THE EASTERN EMPIRE. By the Rev. H. F. TozER, M.A. THE CHURCH AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE. By the Rev. A. Carr, M.A. THE CHURCH AND THE PURI- TANS, 1570-1660. By Henry Offley Wakeman, M.A. HILDEBRAND AND HIS TIMES. By the Rev. W. R. W. Stephens, M.A. THE POPES AND THE HOHEN- STAUFEN. By Ugo Balzani. THE COUNTER REFORMATION. By Adolphus William Ward, Litt. D. WYCLIFFE AND MOVEMENTS FOR REFORM. By Reginald L. Poole, M.A. THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. By H. M. GwATKiN, M.A. A SELECTION OF WORKS Fosbery.— Works edited by the Rev. Thomas Vincent Fosbery, M.A., sometime Vicar of St. Giles's, Reading. VOICES OF COMFORT. Cheap Edition. Small Svo. y. 6d. The Larger Edition (js. 6d.) may still be had. HYMNS AND POEMS FOR THE SICK AND SUFFERING. In connection with the Service for the Visitation of the Sick. Selected from Various Authors. Small Svo, y, 6d. Fremantle. — THE WORLD AS THE SUBJECT OF REDEMPTION. Being an attempt to set forth the Functions of the Church as designed to embrace the whole Race of Mankind. (The Bampton Lectures, 1883.) By the Hon. and Rev. W. H. Fremantle, M.A., Dean of Ripon. New Edition, Revised, with New Preface. Crown Svo, 7s. 6d, Gore.— Works by the Rev. CHARLES GORE, M.A., Canon of Westminster. THE MINISTRY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Svo. ioj. 6d. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. Goulbum.— Works by Edward Meyrick Goulburn, D.D., D.C.L., sometime Dean of Norwich. THOUGHTS ON PERSONAL RELIGION. Small Svo. 6s. 6d. Cheap Edition, y. 6d. ; Presentation Edition, 2 vols, small Svo, los. 6d. THE PURSUIT OF HOLINESS : a Sequel to • Thoughts on Personal Religion. ' Small Svo. ^s. Cheap Edition, y. 6d. THE GOSPEL OF THE CHILDHOOD : a Practical and Devotional Commentary on the Single Incident of our Blessed Lord's Childhood (St. Luke ii. 41 to the end). Crown Svo. 2s. 6d. THE COLLECTS OF THE DAY: an Exposition, Critical and Devo- tional, of the Collects appointed at the Commvmion. With Preliminary Essays on their Structure, Sources, etc. 2 vols. Crown Svo. Ss. each. THOUGHTS UPON THE LITURGICAL GOSPELS for the Sundays, one for each day in the year. With an Introduction on their Origin, History, the modifications made in them by the Reformers and by the Revisers of the Prayer Book. 2 vols. Crown Svo. ids. MEDITATIONS UPON THE LITURGICAL GOSPELS for the Minor Festivals of Christ, the two first Week-days of the Easter and Whitsun Festivals, and the Red-letter Saints' Days. Crown Svo. Ss. 6d. FAMILY PRAYERS, compiled from various sources (chiefly from Bishop Hamilton's Manual), and arranged on the Liturgical Principle. Crown Svo. y. 6d. Cheap Edition, iSmo. ij. IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. Harrison.— Works by the Rev. Alexander J. Harrison, B.D., Lecturer of the Christian Evidence Society. PROBLEMS OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCEPTICISM. Cn 8m 7s. 6d. THE CHURCH IN RELATION TO SCEPTICS : a Conversational Guide to Evidential Work. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. THE REPOSE OF FAITH, IN VIEW OF PRESENT DAY DIFFI- CULTIES. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Heurtley.— WHOLESOME WORDS : Sermons on some Im- portant points, of Christian Doctrine, preached before the University of Oxford by the Rev. C. A. Heurtley, D.D., late Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Edited, with a Prefatory Memoir of the Author, by the Rev. W. Inge, D.D., Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford. Crown Bvo. 5J. Holland.— Works by the Rev. Henry Scott Holland, M.A., Canon and Precentor of St. Paul's. GOD'S CITY AND THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM : Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. PLEAS AND CLAIMS FOR CHRIST. Crown Zvo. 3^. 6d. CREED AND CHARACTER : Sermons. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. ON BEHALF OF BELIEF. Sermons. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. CHRIST OR ECCLESIASTES. Sermons. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d. LOGIC AND LIFE, with other Sermons. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. HutcMngs.— SERMON SKETCHES taken from some of the Sunday Lessons throughout the Church's Year. By the Rev. W. H. HuTCHiNGS, M.A., Canon of York. Crown 8vo. $s. Ingram.— HAPPINESS IN THE SPIRITUAL LIFE; or, •The Secret of the Lord.' By the Rev. W. C. Ingram, D.D., Dean of Peterborough, Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. INHERITANCE OF THE SAINTS ; or, Thoughts on the Communion of Saints and the Life of the World to come. Col- lected chiefly from English Writers by L. P. With a Preface by the Rev. Henry Scott Holland, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Jameson.— Works by Mrs. Jameson. SACRED AND LEGENDARY ART, containing Legends of the Angels and Archangels, the Evangelists, the Apostles. With 19 Etchings and 187 Woodcuts. 2 vols. 8vo. 20J. net. LEGENDS OF THE MONASTIC ORDERS, as represented in the Fine Arts. With 11 Etchings and 88 Woodcuts. 8vo. tos. net. LEGENDS OF THE MADONNA, OR BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. With 27 Etchings and 165 Woodcuts. 8vo. 10s. net, THE HISTORY OF OUR LORD, as exemplified in Works of Art. Commenced by the late Mrs. Jameson ; continued and completed by Lady Eastlake, With 31 Etchings and 281 Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Svo. 20s. net 8 A SELECTION OF WORKS Jennings.— ECCLES I A ANGLICAN A. A History of the Church of Christ in England from the Earliest to the Present Times. By the Rev. Arthur Charles Jennings, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Jukes.— Works by Andrew Jukes. THE NEW MAN AND THE ETERNAL LIFE. Notes on the Reiterated Amens of the Son of God. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE NAMES OF GOD IN HOLY SCRIPTURE : a Revelation of His Natm-e and Relationships. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. THE TYPES OF GENESIS. Crown 8m -js. 6(L THE SECOND DEATH AND THE RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. THE MYSTERY OF THE KINGDOM. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d. THE ORDER AND CONNEXION OF THE CHURCH'S TEACH- ING, as set forth in the arrangement of the Epistles and Gospels throughout the Year. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d. Knox Little.— Works by W. J. Knox Little, M.A., Canon Residentiary of Worcester, and Vicar of Hoar Cross. SACERDOTALISM, WHEN RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD, THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Crown 8vo. 6s. SKETCHES IN SUNSHINE AND STORM : a Collection of Mis- cellaneous Essays and Notes of Travel. Crown 8vo. js. 6di THE CHRISTIAN HOME. Crown 8vo. 3J. 6d. THE HOPES AND DECISIONS OF THE PASSION OF OUR MOST HOLY REDEEMER. Crown 8vo. zs, 6d. CHARACTERISTICS AND MOTIVES OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. Ten Sermons preached in Manchester Cathedral, in Lent and Advent. Crown 8vo. zs, 6d, SERMONS PREACHED FOR THE MOST PART IN MANCHES- TER. Crown 8vo. 3J. 6d. THE MYSTERY OF THE PASSION OF OUR MOST HOLY REDEEMER. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d. THE WITNESS OF THE PASSION OF OUR MOST HOLY REDEEMER. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d. [continued. IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 9 Knox Little.— Works by W. J. Knox Little, M.A., Canon Resi- dentiary of Worcester, and Vicar of Hoar Cross. — continued. THE LIGHT OF LIFE. Sermons preached on Various Occasions. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. SUNLIGHT AND SHADOW IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. Sermons preached for the most part in America. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. Lear.— Works by, and Edited by, H. L. Sidney Lear. FOR DAYS AND YEARS. A book containing a Text, Short Reading, and Hymn for Every Day in the Church's Year. remo. zs. 6d. Also a Cheap Edition, '^'^tno. is.; or cloihgili^ \s. 6d. ; or with red borders, 2s. 6d. FIVE MINUTES. Daily Readings of Poetry. i6mo. ss. 6d. Also a Cheap Edition, s2mo. is.; or cloth gilt, \s. 6d. WEARINESS. A Book for the Languid and Lonely. Large Type. Small 8vo. 5s. THE LIGHT OF THE CONSCIENCE. i6mo. zs. 6d. 32mo. is. ; cloth limp, 6d. CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHIES. Madame Louise de France, Daughter of Louis xv., known also as the Mother T^r^se de St. Augustin. A Dominican Artist : a Sketch of the Life of the Rev. P6re Besson, of the Order of St. Dominic. Henri Perreyve. By P^re Gratry. St. Francis de Sales, Bishop and Prince of Geneva. Nine Vols. Crown Zvo. y. 6d. each. The Revival of Priestly Life in the Seventeenth Century IN France. A Christian Painter of the Nineteenth Century. Bossuet and his Contempora- ries. F^nelon, Archbishop of Cam- BRAI. Henri Dominique Lacordaire. DEVOTIONAL WORKS. Edited by H. L. Sidney Lear. New and Uniform Editions. Nine Vols. i6mo. zs. 6d. each. F^nelon's Spiritual Letters to Men. F^nelon's Spiritual Letters to A Women. A Selection from the Spiritual ~ Letters of St. Francis de Sales. The Spirit of St. Francis de Sales. The Hidden Life of the Soul. The Light of the Conscience. Self-Renunciation. From the French. St. Francis de Sales' Of the Love of God. Selections from Pascal's ' Thoughts.' lo A SELECTION OF WORKS Liddon.— Works by Henry Parry Liddon, D.D., D.C.L.,LL.D., late Canon Residentiary and Chancellor of St. Paul's. LIFE OF EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, D.D. By Henry Parry Liddon, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D. Edited and prepared for publication by the Rev. J. O. Johnston, M.A., Principal of the Theological College, and Vicar of Cuddesdon, Oxford ; and the Rev. Robert J. Wilson, D.D., Warden of Keble College. With Portraits and Illustrations. Four Vols. 8vo. Vols. I. and II., 361. Vol. III., i8j. CLERICAL LIFE AND WORK : Sermons. Crown Zvo. ss. ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES : Lectures on Buddhism— Lectures on the Life of St. Paul— Papers on Dante. Crown 8vo. ss. EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS OF PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 8vo. 14s. SERMONS ON OLD TESTAMENT SUBJECTS. Crown 8vo. ss. SERMONS ON SOME WORDS OF CHRIST. Crown 8vo. sj. THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. Being the Bampton Lectures for 1866. Crown 8vo. 5^. ADVENT IN ST. PAUL'S. Sermons bearing chiefly on the Two Comings of our Lord. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. each. Cheap Edition in one Volume. Crown 8vo. 5J. CHRISTMASTIDE IN ST. PAUL'S. Sermons bearing chiefly on the Birth of our Lord and the End of the Year. Crown 8vo, 5J. PASSIONTIDE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. sj. EASTER IN ST. PAUL'S. Sermons bearing chiefly on the Resurrec- tion of our Lord. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. 31. 6d. each. Cheap Edition in one Volume. Crown 8vo. sj. SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. 3J. 6d. each. Cheap Edition in one Volume. Crown 8vo. 5^. THE MAGNIFICAT. Sermons in St. Paul's. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. SOME ELEMENTS OF RELIGION. Lent Lectures. Small 8vo. zs. 6d. ; or in paper cover, is. 6d. The Crown Zvo Edition (55.) may still he had. SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF H. P. LIDDON, D.D. Crown 8vo, 3J. dd. MAXIMS AND GLEANINGS FROM THE WRITINGS OF H. P. LIDDON, D.D. Selected and arranged by C. M. S. Crown i6mo. is. DR. LIDDON'S TOUR IN EGYPT AND PALESTINE IN 1886. Being Letters descriptive of the Tour, written by his Sister, Mrs. King. Crown Svo. 5J. IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE, ii Luckock.— Works by Herbert Mortimer Luckock, D.D., Dean of Lichfield. THE HISTORY OF MARRIAGE, JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN. IN RELATION TO DIVORCE AND CERTAIN FORBIDDEN DEGREES. New and Enlarged Edition. Crown Zvo. ds. AFTER DEATH. An Examination of the Testimony of Primitive Times respecting the State of the Faithful Dead, and their Relationship to the Living. Crown 8vo. s-f. 6d. THE INTERMEDIATE STATE BETWEEN DEATH AND JUDGMENT. Being a Sequel to After Death. Crown Zvo. 35. (id. FOOTPRINTS OF THE SON OF MAN, as traced by St. Mark. Being Eighty Portions for Private Study, Family Reading, and Instructions in Church. Crown Svo. s^-. 6d. THE DIVINE LITURGY. Being the Order for Holy Communion, Historically, Doctrinally, and devotionally set forth, in Fifty Portions. Crown 87/0. 3J. 6d. STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. The Anglican Reform— The Puritan Innovations— The Elizabethan Reaction — The Caroline Settlement. With Appendices. Crown Svo, ^s. 6d. THE BISHOPS IN THE TOWER. A Record of Stirring Events affecting the Church and Nonconformists from the Restoration to the Revolution. Crown Svo. y. 6d. LYRA GERMANIC A. Hymns translated from the German by Catherine Winkworth. Small Svo. 5^. MacColL— Works by the Rev. Malcolm MacColl, M.A., Canon Residentary of Ripon. CHRISTIANITY IN RELATION TO SCIENCE AND MORALS. Crown Svo. ds. LIFE HERE AND HEREAFTER : Sermons. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d. Mason.— Works by A. J. Mason, D.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge. THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL. A Manual of Christian Doctrine. Crown Svo, 3J. 6d. THE RELATION OF CONFIRMATION TO BAPTISM. As taught in Holy Scripture and the Fathers. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d. Mercier.— OUR MOTHER CHURCH : Being Simple Talk on High Topics. By Mrs. Jerome Mercier. Small Svo. y. 6d, Milne.— THE DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE OF THE EUCHARIST as deduced from Scripture and the Ancient Liturgies. By J. R. Milne, Vicar of Rougham, Norfolk. Crown Svo. $s. 6d. 12 A SELECTION OF WORKS Mortimer.— Works by the Rev. Alfred G. Mortimer, D.D., Rector of St. Mark's, Philadelphia. HELPS TO MEDITATION: Sketches for Every Day in the Year. With an Introduction by the Right Rev. the Bishop of Springfield. Vol. I.— Advent to Trinity, ^vo. ys. 6d. Vol. II.— Trinity to Advent. Zvo. js. 6d. SERMONS IN MINIATURE FOREX TEMPORE PREACHERS : Sketches for Every Sunday and Holy Day of the Christian Year. Crown Zvo. 6s. NOTES ON THE SEVEN PENE- TENTIAL PSALMS, chiefly from Patristic Sources. Fcf. Zvo. 3^. 6d. STORIES FROM GENESIS: Sermons LEARN OF JESUS CHRIST TO DIE : Addresses on the Words of our Lord from the Cross, taken as Teaching the Way of Preparation for Death. ■i6mo. as. THE LAWS OF HAPPINESS; or, The Beatitudes as teaching our Duty to God, Self, and our Neighbour. iSmo. 2s. THE LAWS OF PENITENCE : Ad- dresses on the Words of our Lord from for Children. Crown 8vo. 4s. ' the Cross. i8mo. is. 6d. Mozley.—Works by J. B. Mozley, D.D., late Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford. ESSAYS. HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL. Two Vols. 8vo. z^s. EIGHT LECTURES ON MIRACLES. Being the Bampton Lectures for 1865. Crown 8vo. ^s. 6d. RULING IDEAS IN EARLY AGES AND THEIR RELATION TO OLD TESTAMENT FAITH. Lectures delivered to Graduates of the University of Oxford. 8vo. los. 6d. SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD, and on Various Occasions. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. SERMONS, PAROCHIAL AND OCCASIONAL. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. A REVIEW OF THE BAPTISMAL CONTROVERSY. Crown Svo. 3s. 6d. Newbolt.— Works by the Rev. W. C. E. Newbolt, M.A., Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul's Cathedral, Select Preacher at Oxford, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Ely. COUNSELS OF FAITH AND PRACTICE : being Sermons preached on various occasions. New and Enlarged Edition. Crown Svo. ^s. SPECULUM SACERDOTUM ; or, the Divine Model of the Priestly Life. Crown Svo. 7s, 6d. THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT. Being Ten Addresses bearing on the Spiritual Life. Crown Svo. zs, 6d. THE MAN OF GOD. Being Six Addresses delivered during Lent a the Primary Ordination of the Right Rev. the Lord Alwyne Compton, D.D., Bishop of Ely. Small Svo. is. 6d. THE PRAYER BOOK : Its Voice and Teaching. Being Spiritual Addresses bearing on the Book of Common Prayer. Crown Svo. as. 6d. IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 13 Newman.— Works by John Henry Newman, B.D., sometime Vicar of St. Mary's, Oxford. PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS. Eight Vols. Cabinet Edition. Crown Svo. ^s. each. Cheaper Edition, y. 6d. each. SELECTION, ADAPTED TO THE SEASONS OF THE ECCLE- SIASTICAL YEAR, from the 'Parochial and Plain Sermons,' Cabinet Edition. Crown Svo. 5s. Cheaper Edition. 31. 6