•YALE-wannfEissinnf- - ILUBIRAIgy °

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

ntr>g««MlMt _

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
WAYMARKS IN CHURCH HISTORY.
Crown 8vo. 7j. 6d.
MORALITY IN DOCTRINE. Crown 8vo.
Js. 6d.
LESSONS FROM THE LIVES OF THREE
GREAT FATHERS, St. Athanasius, St. Chry
sostom, and St. Augustine. With Appendices.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE INCARNATION AS A MOTIVE
POWER. Crown 8vo. 6s.
HYMNS AND OTHER VERSES. Small
8vo. 5s.
IONA, AND OTHER VERSES. Small 8vo.
4J. 6d.
LIBER PRECTJM PUBLICARTJM EC
CLESIAE ANGLICANS. A Gulielmo
Bright, S.T.P., ^Edis Christi apud Oxon. Canonico,
Historic Ecclesiastics, Professore Regio, et Petro
Goldsmith Medd, A.M., Eccles. Cath. S. Albani
Canonico Honorario, Collegii Universitatis apud
Oxon. Socio Seniore. Latine redditus. Editio
Quarta, cum Appendice. With Rubrics in red.
Small 8vo. 7.?. 6d.
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY.

THE ROMAN SEE
IN
THE EARLY CHURCH
AND
OTHER STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY

THE ROMAN SEE

IN THE

EARLY CHURCH

AND OTHER STUDIES IN CHURCH HISTORY

WILLIAM BRIGHT, D.D.
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, AND CANON OF
CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY
1896

TO THE MOST REVEREND
WILLIAM DALRYMPLE MACLAGAN, D.D.,
LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK,
THESE PAGES ARE, WITH HIS PERMISSION,
RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED
BY A SON OF HIS METROPOLITICAL CHURCH.

PREFACE
The first and longest of the following
essays is a recension and expansion of
two articles on the Rev. Luke Rivington's
volume, " The Primitive Church and the
See of Peter," which were contributed
to the "Church Quarterly Review" for
October, 1894, and January, 1895. * The
third is a combination, with some abridg
ment, of certain articles on Alexandrian
patriarchs of the fifth century, which may
be found in the " Dictionary of Christian
Biography." Thanks are due to the
Editor of the " Church Quarterly Re
view," and to Mr. Murray, for courteous
1 As in the postscript to the second article, due
notice has here been taken of a pamphlet published
by Mr. Rivington under the title, " A Reply to the
Church Quarterly Review."

Vlll PREFACE.
permission to reprint what has already
appeared in the "Review" and in the
" Dictionary." The second paper may serve as a
companion sketch to " The Episcopate
of St. Basil " in the writer's " Waymarks
in Church History." The fourth, fifth,
and sixth were originally written for a
" Summer Meeting of Clergy " at Oxford.
Christ Church,
February 29, 1896.

CONTENTS
PAGE
I. The Roman See in the Early Church . . i
II. St. Ambrose and the Empire ... . 214
III. Alexandria and Chalcedon  254
IV. The Church and the " Barbarian " Invaders 310
V. The Celtic Churches in the British Isles. 357
VI. The English Church in the Reign of
Elizabeth  422
Additional Note on the Sixth Nicene
Canon  ... . . 481
Index . ....  . 485

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY
CHURCH. 

ERRATA.
Page 2, note i, dele " St."
„ 42, note, line 10, for " adiquid " read " aliquid."
„ 62, note 1, line 24, for " Christian " read " ChristianED. "
,, 115, last line of text, for " 386 " read " 385."
„ 146, note 2, for " rj/ierep^" read " rifxertpa.''
,, 229, line 11, for " Mercurius " read " Mercurinus."
,, 282, line 16, for " its " read " his."
,, 282, line 21, for " Acacias" read "Acacius."
,, 366, note 1, for "Mencria" read " Menevia."
», 372j note 3, for "xxvi. " read "xxvii."
,, 384, note 1, for " Patrick's" read " Columba's."
>j 395> note 2, for " 637 " read " 367."
„ 441, note 1, line 22, for *' afterward she" read " afterwards he.'

vuicncc cliiu ~mcoic~£ita.i auniiy 01 Jjronysius,
of the martyrdoms of Telesphorus, Fabian,
and Sixtus II. We remember the fidelity of
Julius to the cause of faith as impersonated in
St. Athanasius, and of Innocent to the cause of
righteousness as impersonated in St. Chrysostom.
We think of Leo I. as preaching sermons full of
B

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY
CHURCH.
IT would be a pleasant task to dwell on the
many splendid pages — in a true sense, profitable
for edification — which ennoble the long record
of the greatest of Christian bishoprics. English
Churchmen can never forget what they owe to
him who for years kept the heathen Angles in
his heart before he sent Augustine to inaugurate
their Christianity. And looking far beyond
the area of merely national obligation, we see
in St. Clement how the spirit of love can fuse
itself with the spirit of order : we think of the
brotherly tolerance of Anicetus, of the fatherly-
kindness of Soter, of the far-reaching bene
volence and theological ability of Dionysius,
of the martyrdoms of Telesphorus, Fabian,
and Sixtus II. We remember the fidelity of
Julius to the cause of faith as impersonated in
St. Athanasius, and of Innocent to the cause of
righteousness as impersonated in St. Chrysostom.
We think of Leo I. as preaching sermons full of
B

2 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Christ — as expounding the doctrine of the In
carnation with luminous force and " absolute
balance " — as delivering Rome, by the majesty
of his serene courage, from the savage Hun
and the ruthless Vandal. We know what
Christendom owes to some of the great
mediaeval pontiffs, and what examples of
episcopal virtue have been set by several
of their later successors. But the tasks of
history are not always pleasant ; admiration,
reverence, gratitude, are not the only feelings
which they evoke; and so it is that, in con
sidering the historical position of the see
of Rome during the early centuries, we are
immersed, whether we like it or not, in an atmo
sphere charged with controversy — and that, a
controversy simply inevitable while the Roman
Church continues to be what it is. Her
members, if they argue at all, are constrained to
claim primitiveness for that Papal autocracy
which is now the very basis of their whole
system : they may adopt the phrases of a " theory
of development,"1 but they must contend for
1 Mr. Rivington, in his preface to "The Primitive Church and
the See of St. Peter," tells us that the " papacy " of the first five
centuries is to the present papacy as the acorn is to the oak,
ai the child is to the grown man ; and he claims the authority
of Vincent of Lerins (c. 23). But there is development —
and development : forms of expression may be enlarged or

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 3
the propositions laid down by Pius IX. in the
decree Pastor JEtemus, and " approved " (what
ever that may mean) by the "sacred Vatican
Council," on the two main points of the Papal
jurisdiction and the Papal "magisterium" or
teaching office ; and this decree explicitly appeals
to " the ancient and constant faith of the Church
Universal, the tradition received a fidei Chris
tiana exordio" as attesting1 (1) the right of the
improved, new inferences made from Scripture, new arguments
employed, — and, further, new light may be thrown (e.g. by
controversy) on old beliefs, and the bearings and aspects of
Christian truth may be, as Vincent's Commonitory puts it,
' ' more clearly understood, more exactly represented, more
intelligently believed " (cp. Sir W. Palmer, Doctr. of Develop
ment and Conscience, pp. 148, 167, 200, 203, etc.). But
Vincent not only forbids "mutilation," he excludes also the
"addition" of "superfluous" or " alien matter : " " Nihil de
germinis proprietate mutetur," "ut cum dicas nove, non dicas
nova." In his illustration from bodily growth, it is the same
flesh that has expanded ; no new substance has come in to swell
it out : whereas we contend that the papal monarchy, like other
elements of the Roman system, is "alien" from the original
type of Church life. It is not meant that the " alien " ideas found
nothiDg in primitive Christianity to take hold of: the familiar
phrase, " Roman corruptions," implies the contrary. What is
meant is that unprimitive ideas came in and acted as a leaven,
touching this or that primitive element, giving it a onesided and
unhealthy exuberance, producing a fermentation which disturbed
the proportion of the credenda. After all, then, the question
recurs : Was a papacy part of the original Christianity ?
1 It would be a bold proceeding to accept these dogmas and
reject the assertions made by the same authority as to their
substantial primitiveness.

4 THE ROMAN SEE JN THE EARLY CHURCH.
bishop of Rome to a universal jurisdiction, which
is at once " plenary, supreme, ordinary, and imme
diate," and also (2) his infallibility when " defining,
ex cathedra, a doctrine on faith or conduct, as to
be held by the Church Universal," insomuch that
such definitions are " irreformable " in virtue of
their intrinsic authority, '' and not in virtue of
the assent of the Church." It is true that this
infallibility is not identified with a permanent
" inspiration," and is described as being the same
with which Christ "willed His Church, when
so defining, to be endowed ; " and that, to the
disappointment, at the time, of some Papalist
enthusiasts, it was resolved to abstain from
defining more precisely the scope of the Church's
infallibility, and thereby of the Pope's, or the
relation of the one to the other.1 But the
1 "W. G. Ward and the Catholic Revival," p. 261. We are
told, somewhat triumphantly (Rivington, Concl.), that Pere
Gratry, in prospect of death, accepted the Vatican decree, with
the explanation that what he had feared and opposed was a
definition of infallibility as "personal," whereas the decree on
magisterium spoke only of infallibility official, or ex cathedra.
But in his " Second Letter to the archbishop of Malines," he
had dwelt on the fact that the theory of infallibility as held by
Bellarmine, and before him by Melchior Cano, was supported
by forgeries, and was therefore untenable. Now both these
writers disclaimed what they considered the extreme view (as
held by Albert Pighius) of an extra-official or purely personal
infallibility ; and it is the theory which they actually held which
by the Vatican decree is made de fide for Romanists. E.g. Cano's

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 5
language, as it stands, is sufficiently explicit for
our purpose ; and it is obvious that no view of
Papal authority which falls short of it, — for
instance, which reduces that authority to "an
office of inspection or direction," to a presidency
in General Councils, or to an enforcement of
the decrees of such Councils, — or which makes
the Papal voice the mere organ of the col
lective episcopate, — is now within the lines of
Roman orthodoxy. The Papal claims stand out
before us as formulated in the Vatican decree.
Evidence, therefore, which does not profess to
prove the validity of those claims — precisely
of those, and of no others, whether wider or
narrower — makes nothing for the Roman arguer's
purpose : it must be simply put aside as
irrelevant to the discussion. Premising, then,
that in this discussion the terms " Pope," " Papal,"
conclusion is "that the supreme pontiff, when pronouncing
about the faith" "from the apostolical tribunal," "cannot err,"
see Cano de Eccl. Rom. Auct. c. 4, 5, 8 ; and so Bellarmine,
De Rom. Pont. iv. 3, that " when teaching the whole Church,
he can nowise err in things pertaining to the faith." This is
precisely what Mr. Rivington is bound to maintain. Gratry's
explanation, therefore, was hollow, and his submission was
doubtless obtained under a threat of refusal of sacraments.
That a certain "historical introduction to the decree," designed
to reassure certain minds by recognising the consultative function
of the Church as preparatory to a papal definition, was not pub
lished until twenty years later (" W. G. Ward, etc.," p. 262), is
very characteristic of Roman policy.

6 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
or "Papacy" will be used in the sense of the
Vatican Council, and in no other, let us ask
three questions, to every one of which a Roman
advocate must return — not by simple assertion,
but by distinct adequate proof1 — an affirmative
reply. (A.) Did St. Peter act as " the Pope " of
the Apostolic Church? (B) Was he himself
bishop of Rome? (C) Were the bishops of
Rome the acknowledged "Popes" of the primitive
or ancient Church ?

A.
The first of these queries may surely be
dealt with by simply referring to the Acts of the
Apostles, to the passages in St. Paul's letter in
which '' Peter " or " Cephas " is mentioned,2 and,
1 But Mr. Rivington's readers have fair warning as to his
own historical criteria. History is to be read " as the Catholic
Church " (i.e. in effect, the pope) " gives it to us, placing its key
in our hands" (p. 148).
2 Mr. Rivington's adventurous appeal (Reply to Ch. Qu. Rev.
p. 6) to St. Paul's mention of the " head," when he is illustrating
Christians' interdependence by the members of a human body
(1 Cor. xii. 15-26), may be disposed of by observing that this
parallelism runs through seven verses before "head " and " feet "
are mentioned together ; and that when St. Paul comes to apply
it, he mentions, as " set by God in the Church, first, apostles"
in the plural. As for the a priori assumption (put forward as
self-evident by Cardinal Vaughan in his introduction to Mr.
Rivington's volume) that the visible Church, as a body, must
have a single visible head, it obscures a leading feature of

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 7
last but not least, to the letters of St. Peter him
self. These will show that neither the Apostles
as a body, nor the " rock-like " Apostle himself,
regarded the sayings, " Thou art Peter," etc.
" Strengthen thy brethren," " Feed My lambs,
My sheep," as making him, in one word, a Pope.
That he was, during our Lord's ministry, the
Christian supernaturalism, by treating the visible Church as
complete in itself, like any temporal society ; whereas St. Paul,
by speaking repeatedly and emphatically of our Lord Himself
as "the Head," and never once even hinting at any vicarial
headship on earth as attaching to one of the three who " were
regarded as pillars " (Gal. ii. 9), lifts up our view of the visible
Church into a far higher and more spiritual atmosphere, and
represents it as only the smaller part of a great whole, which
extends through the worlds seen and unseen, but has its true vital
centre in the living and invisibly present Christ. In regard to
another passage in the same epistle, it is for Papalists to explain
how a "Christ-party" could have been set up against a
" Cephas-party " if Peter had been acknowledged to be Christ's
representative. In the epistle to the Galatians, even the
rebuke addressed by St. Paul to St. Peter at Antioch is less
significant than St. Paul's pointed disclaimer of any obligation
to, or dependence on, his seniors in the apostolate. He expressly
intimates that after his original mission he allowed three years
to pass before he "went up to visit Cephas" (R.V.) — a phrase
which indicates no more than the natural desire to become
acquainted with so eminent a member of the original apostolic
company. And he takes care to protest that he derived "no
new information " as to his apostolic duties from any of 01
Soitouvres at Jerusalem, among, not above whom, he ranks
St. Peter. This would have been simply impossible if the
" revelation" which he had received had taught him to regard
his host of a fortnight as " the visible head " of the Church, the
supreme medium of communication with her Lord.

8 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
spokesman of his colleagues, the typical Apostle,
and that he retained — to some extent in partner
ship with St. John— a kind of leadership, at any
rate during the period extending to the Council
of Jerusalem, is undisputed ; but out of such a
prominence, or " hegemony," a Papacy cannot
emerge by any process of rightful derivation :
and in the Apostolic period it certainly did not
exist. We find St. Paul appointing Timothy and
Titus as — in the first instance — his delegates :
we find nothing like this in regard to St.
Peter, who himself gives not the faintest hint
of any consciousness of any such office as
Papalism assigns to him. This is not a mere
argument ex silentio ; if St. Peter had been, by
Christ's commission, His unique Vicar, the
monarch and oracle of the growing Church, a
polity so simple and intelligible must have found
expression in Apostolic writings, and could not
have been ignored by the " Vicar " himself.
B.
The second question sends us, in the first
place, to the letters written by St Paul during
his two Roman "imprisonments," in none of
which is there the faintest reference to St.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 9
Peter. Next, let us look to post-Apostolic
writers who were in the best position for knowing
whether St. Peter had acted as local chief pastor
of the Roman Church, in the sense of occupying
its see. St. Clement, whom we may assume to
have held such an office,1 and to have written the
letter of the Roman Church to the Corinthian,
commonly called his epistle, simply ranks St.
Peter with St. Paul in Apostolic endurance and
martyrdom : 2 St. Ignatius implies that they both
spent some time at Rome, and gave Apostolic
injunctions : 3 Dionysius of Corinth, also address
ing the Roman Church, speaks to the same effect,
adding that both were martyred in Italy : and
Caius, about A.D. 200, says that their tombs
were shown at Rome.4 But Irenaeus is more
explicit : he ascribes the " foundation " of the
Roman Church, — evidently in the sense of
settlement, — to the two Apostles Peter and
Paul, and then says that they "entrusted
Linus with the ministry of the episcopate." 5
1 Cf. Bishop Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, i. 69, 81.
2 Clem. Ep. ad Cor. 5. He takes both as samples of
"pillars" of the Church.
3 Ign. ad Rom. 4.
4 Ap. Euseb. ii. 25. Cf. Bp. Westcott, on the Canon of N.T.
187, ed. 4.
5 Iren. iii. 3. 3. The verb (&>cxefpiaw) happens to be the
one which St. Chrysostom uses (in Act. Horn. 33. 2) as to the

io THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
Would such language be natural in one who
believed that this "episcopate" had first been
held by Peter ? Irenaeus adds that " Linus was
succeeded by Anencletus " (in the Latin version,
Anacletus) ; " and after him, in the third place
from the Apostles, Clement received the epis
copate." Here, then, the phrase "from the
Apostles" excludes either Apostle from the "epis
copal " list. It is true that in two passages, as
quoted by Eusebius,1 bishop Hyginus is reckoned
as ninth in the list, which implies either that one
of the two Apostles was the first bishop, or that
the " duplication " of Anencletus and Cletus was
as old as Irenaeus' time, which, as Bishop Light
foot observes, is an " untenable solution." 2 But
against the word "ninth" in these quotations
may in all reason be set the definite catalogue of
twelve Roman bishops given by Irenaeus in the
appointment of St. James to the bishopric of Jerusalem, which
no one imagines any apostle to have previously held.
1 Iren. i. 27. 1 ; iii. 4. 3, ap. Euseb. iv. 11. The succession,
omitting Peter, was (according to Irenaeus) I. Linus ; 2. Anen
cletus ; 3. Clement ; 4. Euarestus ; 5. Alexander ; 6. Xystus
(or Sixtus), whom Irenaeus expressly calls "sixth from the
apostles " in iii. 3. 3 ; 7. Telesphorus ; 8. Hyginus ; 9. Pius ;
10. Anicetus; 11. Soter ; 12. Eleutherus, who, says Irenaeus,
"now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, holds the office
of the episcopate." After Eleutherus came, 13. Victor ; 14.
Zephyrinus ; 15. Callistus.
2 St. Clement of Rome, i. 204.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 1 1
third chapter of his third book, according to
which Hyginus is eighth bishop, Linus being
first of all. The Latin version of Irenaeus reads
"eighth" in the second passage, and Stieren
considers that it originally read " eighth " in the
first passage also. On the whole, then, it is
clear that the " Petrine episcopate " receives no
attestation from Irenaeus, who had sojourned
and studied at Rome : in his view, St. Peter and
St. Paul established the see of Rome, and made
Linus its first occupant. Some twenty years
later, at the end of the second century, Tertul
lian, while still a Catholic, wrote a treatise, the
title of which may be described as " a plea in
bar of the claim of heretics (to represent authentic
Christianity)."1 Here he differs from Irenaeus
by reckoning not Linus or Anencletus, but
Clement, as coming next after St. Peter, " Cle-
mentem a Petro ordinatiwi." But the context
shows that he did not regard Peter as the first
bishop : 2 for he is referring to the episcopal lists
in various Apostolic churches, as running up to
some "first bishop," "appointed and preceded
1 Tertull. de Praescr. Haer. 32.
2 Bishop Lightfoot, indeed, says that Tertullian here "pre
sumably regards Clement as the apostle's own successor in the
episcopate " (St. Clement of Rome, i. 344). But the context is
against this "presumption." See Diet. Chr. Biogr. i. 577.

12 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
by an Apostle or an Apostolic man ; " x and the
relation of Clement to St. Peter is paralleled by
the relation of Polycarp to St. John, so that, as
far as this passage goes, St. Peter was no more
bishop of Rome than St. John was bishop of
Smyrna. There is, indeed, another point of
difference between Irenaeus and Tertullian : the
former links Peter with Paul ; the latter speaks
of Peter only, and in such a way as to suggest
that he had got hold of a story which — perhaps
at a later period 2 — was embodied in the spurious
" Epistle of Clement to James " (i.e. the Lord's
" brother," first bishop, as we call him, of Jeru
salem), to the effect that Peter, at the close of his
own life, laid his hands on Clement and made
1 See Pearson, Minor Works, ii. 373, that such a first bishop
might be called " successor apostoli in ea ecclesia."
2 Rufinus, in the preface to his translation of the Pseudo-
Clementine "Recognitions," says that he "has not prefixed
to this work the letter in which Clement informs James that
Peter ' se reliquerit successorem cathedrae et doctrinse suae,'
because it is of later date, and he had long ago translated and
edited it " (Cotelerius, Patr. Apost. i. 492). But Rufinus, at
the end of the fourth century, may have been mistaken as to the
date of the "letter ; " and even if it had only come to Rome with
the "Recognitions" (i.e. as Salmon would suppose, about a.d.
200-210), the statement that " Peter placed Clement in his own
chair " might well have been current in some " first draft " of the
story. It is therefore needless to discuss the relation of the
"Recognitions" to the Dialogue on "Laws of Countries" by
a disciple of Bardesanes, as to which Hort and Salmon differ
(Diet. Chr. Biogr. i. 258, 577). Cp. Lightfoot, i. 414.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 13
him bishop. Tertullian does not, as we have
seen, say that Peter had been bishop, but rather
implies the contrary: and even if this singular
forgery had been extant and had been read by
him, he might not have taken literally its asser
tion that Peter seated Clement " in his own chair."
However, the one statement, that Peter ordained
(Le. consecrated) Clement, was adopted by Ter
tullian ; and, as to the Petrine episcopate, we
can easily understand that, apart from the
"letter" as it stands, or even apart from the
Ebionitish Pseudo-Clementine literature in its
developed forms, some earlier form of the story
about Peter and Clement might have reached
the West in the latter part of the second
century,1 and two lines of feeling would popu
larise it at Rome. Peter, as " the first " Apostle,

1 Salmon (Infallibility of the Church, p. 360) says that the
real inventor of the story of Peter's Roman episcopate was an
editor of the Clementine romance. Bishop Moorhouse contends
that the substitution of Clement for Linus as first bishop " after "
Peter, with the omission of Paul's name, which Irenaeus had
associated with Peter's, and the inclusion (more or less explicit)
of Peter in the episcopal list, amounted to such a divergence
from the older Roman tradition as "the Clementine fiction"
alone can account for (see Guardian of April 24, 1895). Dr.
Bigg holds that the Ebionitish " Homilies " were a recension of
an orthodox work, which "contained the Clement legend,"
and came into existence about 200. But he dates this recension
in the fourth century (Studia Biblica, ii. 188 ff.).

14 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
and the converter of " Roman sojourners " at
the great Pentecost, would be thought of as in
his own person the appropriate organiser1 of
the " first " in importance among Churches :
and the name of Clement would loom much
larger in the view of Roman Church-people than
that of Linus or of Anencletus ; hence a welcome
would be given to the account (however obtained)
which brought Peter and Clement close together,
as the consecrator and the consecrated. From
this point it would be a short step to make
St. Peter actually the first Roman bishop ; he is
so regarded in the " Chronicle of Hippolytus," as
restored by Bishop Lightfoot,2 although a different
view is implied in the passage quoted by Euse
bius from the " Little Labyrinth," written prob
ably by a Roman presbyter ; s and St. Cyprian
is naturally understood in this sense when he
calls the Roman see " the chair of Peter," and the
" place " vacated by a deceased Roman bishop
1 It was not in the least necessary, in order to this result, that
an actual supremacy, a monarchical power over the apostles and
the whole Church, should be attributed to St. Peter.
2 Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, i. 264.
3 Euseb. v. 28. Victor is reckoned as " thirteenth bishop
from Peter." The author could hardly be Hippolytus, but
might well, as Salmon suggests, be Caius (Diet. Chr. Biogr.
iii. 98).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 15
as the locus Petri. x Can we wonder that a
tradition grew up in the West, extending itself
also into the East, on the basis of a statement
which possessed such attractions as to obscure
its highly suspicious connection with a copious
Ebionitish romance, or that in minds, like so
many in the West, unsuspicious of masked
heresy, the fictitious story of Clement's adven
tures, as it became current, should establish the
notion of Peter's episcopate and Clement's
immediate succession, until, at the end of the
fourth century, Jerome could assert the one
with a detail as to its twenty-five years'
duration, and speak of the other as believed
by " most of the Latins " ? 2 But it has been
boldly suggested 3 that a contemporary of
Irenaeus may probably have handed down the
fact of the Petrine episcopate ; for it is asserted
in the " Chronicle " of Eusebius, and Eusebius in
his "History" quotes from the "Memoranda" of
Hegesippus, to the effect that, " while staying at
1 Cypr. Ep. 59. 14 and 55. 8 (ed. Hartel). He also reckons
Hyginus as ninth bishop (Ep. 74. 2).
2 De Vir. Illustr. I, 15. Cp. Adv. Jov. i. 12, "Clemens
successor apostoli Petri." The " twenty-five years " of Peter's
"episcopate" appear in the Liberian catalogue (a.d. 354).
Lightfoot thinks that twenty-five " might have been adopted as
a convenient round number" (St. Clement, i. 283).
3 Rivington, p. 177.

r6 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Rome, he had made out a list of the succession
of bishops down to Anicetus, and that, when he
wrote, Eleutherus was in the see."1 But the
extract makes no reference to Peter ; and
if the context had affirmed his episcopate,
Eusebius could hardly have passed over so
important an affirmation. As it is, in the
History, Eusebius describes the Apostle's
relation to the Roman Church without hinting
that he became its bishop,2 whereas St. James's
episcopate at Jerusalem is repeatedly asserted.3
Eusebius, in fact, expressly mentions Linus as
" the first to receive the episcopate of the Roman
Church after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter," 4
language which explains the briefer phrase, "first
after Peter," in a passage somewhat further on.5

1 Ap. Euseb. iv. 22. The extract does not in the slightest
degree indicate any notion of a generic and essential superiority
in importance of the Roman over other " successions."
2 Euseb. ii. 14 (where Peter's pre-eminence is accounted for
by his " courage").
* Ib. ii. 1, 23 ; iii. 5, 7 ; vii. 19.
4 Ib. iii. 2. Literally, "the first to have the episcopate
. . . assigned to him." Mr. Rivington remarks that "we
should say that Henry III. was the first king of England after
John, meaning lo include John amongst the kings " (Prim. Ch.
etc., p. 19). We should say so, no doubt, after saying that
John was one of the kings. Only, in the History, Eusebius
does not say that Peter was one of the Roman bishops.
5 Mr. Rivington says that in this passage Eusebius "speaks

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 17
Yet further, he ranks Clement as " third of those
who had acted as bishops after both Paul and
Peter." x Now, before going further, let us observe
that, on the Papal hypothesis, the episcopate of
St. Peter at Rome was a fact of absolutely unique
significance for all Christians ; a fact, therefore,
on which the " father of Church history " must
surely have spoken with unequivocal distinct
ness and emphasis, instead of leaving it to be
read into such a phrase as " from " or " after the
Apostles." a Nor can we, on this showing, explain
why Eusebius records the Roman successions
in the same quiet matter-of-fact style that he
employs as to the Alexandrian and Antiochene.
But then there is the statement in his Chronicle
that Peter "was the first to preside over the
Roman Church." 3 Since we have the Greek
of Linus as the successor of Peter alone" (p. 20). "Successor"
suggests more than is in the text.
1 Euseb. iii. 21.
2 In iv. 1, Eusebius says that Primus was fourth bishop of
Alexandria "from the apostles," and that Alexander at Rome
' ' brought down the succession to a fifth place from Peter and
Paul." So at Antioch, Theophilus was " sixth from the apostles,"
iv. 20. So at Jerusalem, Narcissus is named as "thirteenth from
the apostles," v. 12. Eusebius had adopted the phrase from
Irenaeus. Clearly he did not mean that any apostle had been
bishop of Alexandria, or more than one at Jerusalem; of
Antioch he makes Euodius the "first bishop."
3 See Vallarsi's ed. of Jerome, viii. 659. The Greek, t?;s eV
'PSfqi -irpoTos TrpoeffTTj, is in a fragment. The Greek also calls
C

18 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
here, we need not lay stress on translations.
The original expression does not "directly
call him bishop;"1 but the verb used is that
which in several places of the History repre
sents the episcopal presidency, at Rome or
elsewhere.2 Yet this one passage cannot be
taken to convey Eusebius' adhesion to the
popular Roman theory, as opposed to that com
putation of Roman successions which makes
Linus the first and Eleutherus the twelfth, and
which he formally adopts from Irenaeus in Hist.
v. 6. We need not go further down the stream :
we have seen that the Irenaean computation is
the oldest extant, and that it leaves St. Peter
out of the catalogue : and if Jerome adopts
the later reckoning, which may not unfairly be
named Pseudo-Clementine, he does but report
the tradition which he found current at Rome
when living there under Damasus: while it is
curious that Epiphanius asserts Peter and Paul
Linus "first bishop after Peter." The Armenian version calls
Peter "prelate" (Lat. antistes), and reckons Linus as "second
bishop." Jerome says that Peter "continued as bishop;" but
he translated somewhat freely, representing 6 Kopv<pa?os by
" Christianorum pontifex primus." Later, he is verbally in
consistent, naming " Cletus " and Clement as " second and third
bishops," Linus being "first after Peter."
1 Lightfoot, St. Clement of Rome, i. 215.
2 E.g. Euseb. iii. 21, 34; iv. 11, 19.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 19
to have been jointly "first bishops" of Rome
as well as " Apostles ; " x and both he and
Rufinus, when noticing a difficulty as to whether
Clement was appointed by Peter, or came after
Linus and "Cletus," adopt a solution which
deprives the two latter of any Petrine successor-
ship by placing their episcopates within Peter's
own lifetime.2 The uncertainties as to these
earliest Roman episcopates suggest a question
of some interest. If the Church in the sub-
Apostolic period had understood that the Roman
see was not only, as the Gallican theory main
tains, or maintained, the centre of her unity, but
also, in the Vaticanist sense, the throne of her
monarch and the fountain of her teaching,
would room have been left for inconsistent
traditions as to the first recipients of so
momentous a charge ? 8 Nor is it open to
1 Haer. 27. 6. A sentence in his context is considered by
Lightfoot and Salmon to be a quotation from Hegesippus ; but
it does not follow that Hegesippus is responsible for this assertion
about the two apostles, by which probably Epiphanius means
that both, when at Rome, had supreme charge of its church.
He is not clear whether Clement succeeded "Cletus" in the
ordinary way, or whether he was consecrated by Peter, but
declined to act as bishop until after the deaths of Linus and
"Cletus." 2 Rufinus says he has "received" this explanation (Praef.
in Recogn.).
3 E.g. the Apostolic Constitutions say that " Linus was

20 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
Roman arguers to say that, even if St. Peter
were not actually bishop of Rome, its bishops
could still inherit his peculiar prerogatives,
whatever those were, and represent him, and
in him, specifically, his Master, in their relation,
as bishops of Rome, to the whole Church.
For the very core and essence of their present
claim is to be really his successors, to hold
prerogatives attached to their see by him as
not only its establisher, but its occupant : the
hypothesis is, that he, by becoming the first
bishop of Rome, bound up his supremacy with
that particular bishopric, and transmitted it to
those who throughout all time should sit in
that cathedra which, as the Pseudo-Clementine
fiction words it, might be called "his own."
Take away the Petrine episcopate, and the
Papal claim is a house without a foundation.1

appointed as first bishop by Paul, and after Linus' death
Clement, as second, by Peter." Optatus, followed by Augus
tine, has this order — Peter, Linus, Clement, Anacletus (Augus
tine may have written AmrHcletus). The Liberian Catalogue
has — Peter, Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus.
1 Compare Rivington, p. 6 : "St. Clement was successor of
St. Peter because he was bishop of Rome : he owed his relation
ship to the Divine Head of the Church, viz. that of His vicar,
to his position in the church of Rome." This is explicit enough.
If Teter was bishop of Rome, is Jerome's date for his accession
— A.D. 42 — still maintained?

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 21

Let us now turn to the third question, which
is, of course, our principal subject. Did the
early Church recognise in the Roman bishop,
for the time being, a Supreme Pontiff, in the
sense substantially of the Vatican decrees ? 1
One might go back to a prior question — Did
she believe that St. Peter himself had any
supremacy, as distinct from eminence or leader
ship, among his fellow-apostles, or any universal
jurisdiction beyond what they possessed, so that,
for instance, he could issue commands to St.
Paul, or exact from St. John an account of his
ministry? But, by way of simplifying, let us
inquire into the evidence alleged for an ac
knowledgment, during the early centuries, of
a Papal supremacy in the sense already de
fined. And once for all, except in reference
to a Western patriarchal position, let the
ambiguous term "primacy" be put out of
court. It has all too often been used, on the
Roman side, as a disguise for something that

1

It is understood on both sides that the wording of the Roman
dogma is modern ; the question is, whether the powers repre
sented by it were anciently acknowledged or not.

22 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
far outruns its scope. As a highly elastic
word, capable of meaning comparatively little
or absolutely very much, it has repeatedly
obscured the true issue, and allured an opponent
into admissions of which he did not at the
moment perceive the real bearing.1 Here, then,
is the point : Did the Primitive Church look up
to and obey the bishop of Rome as a veritable
Pope, and that by virtue of Divine rights
inherited from St. Peter?

(I.) The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome.
The first piece of evidence before us would
suggest a different form for the question. Did
the early Roman bishops claim such a position
for themselves as the Vatican decree affirms
to have been theirs from the outset ? The
letter of remonstrance, in the name of the
1 " Primacy may signify primacy in place or primacy in time ;
and again, primacy in place may mean primacy of power or
primacy of honour ; and still again, primacy of power may mean
fifty different things, according as the degree of power is greater
or less " (Christian Remembrancer, April, 1853, p. 389). The
Roman church's "precedence of honour and dignity is a matter
about which there has not been, and need not be, any dispute, "
(Salmon, Infallibility, etc., p. 373).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 23
Church of Rome, to the Church of Corinth,
on the occasion of a factious movement against
certain Corinthian presbyters, is accurately
described by a later Corinthian bishop as
" written by the agency of Clement," x and
hence it is freely called " Clement's epistle."
Now, the tenor of this document shows that no
exercise of jurisdiction by Rome over Corinth
is so much as thought of. It is moral pressure 2
on the part of a great and influential Church,
brought to bear on an inferior Church with
a view of correcting disorders which menace
the general interest of Christian unity, and
the general maintenance of the Christian
moral standard. And, if the Roman Church,
1 Dion. Corinth, ap. Euseb. iv. 23. He is writing to bishop
Soter of Rome ; but he treats both Soter's letter and Clement's
as proceeding from the "Romans" (vp.wii). Mr. Rivington
had quoted Irenaeus' expression about Clement's letter, <ro/ij8(/3<£-
(ovtra avrois (the Corinthians), and translated it "forcing them
together ; " but this has been ' ' corrected " into ' ' bringing them
together." 2 If in c. 63 the Corinthians are urged to "become obedient
to what we have written through the Holy Spirit " (cf. c. 59,
"if some should disobey what has been spoken by" God
"through us"), the obedience is claimed in virtue of the
Scriptural warrant of the expostulation, and the whole plea of
the letter is called an "entreaty." See Salmon, Infallibility,
etc., p. 179 : " Such a letter could clearly not be regarded as an
attempt by Rome to domineer over provincial churches ; " the
Corinthian church authorities "could be grateful for moral
support," etc.

24 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
as such, is not commanding but exhorting the
Corinthian, if she speaks as a sister, not as a
mistress, still less does any undertone of " papal "
authority make itself heard. Nothing but the
strongest kind of preconception could make
so moderate and learned a writer as Duchesne
say that in this letter Clement, at the end of
the first century, ecrit dejd comme tin pape : 1 but
when an Anglo-Roman advocate tells us that
of course the Corinthians would understand
" the Vicar of Christ " to be speaking through
a letter in which Clement simply suppresses
himself, a the assumption is such as to make
one marvel at the condition of mind which
could think it consistent with argumentative
decorum.3 It is true, indeed, that, according to
St. Cyprian, " the bishop is in the Church, and
1 Origines du Culte Chretien, p. 15.
2 Rivington, p. 7. In a later passage we are succinctly in
formed that "St. Clement's brief wss at once obeyed" (p. 132).
3 On the papal hypothesis, it would be not "lowliness," but
unfaithfulness to a trust, which would make a supreme pontiff
thus keep his own name and personality in the background.
For it was to him, not to his church, that the spiritual sove
reignty, on that supposition, had been committed by our Lord ;
and it was the part of true charity to enforce a much needed
admonition by the full sanction of the supposed Petrine
"charter." It must be owned that the modesty which Mr.
Rivington imputes to Clement has not been imitated by his
later successors, who were at least not personally less "un
worthy" than himself.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 25
the Church in the bishop ; " but what has
to be proved is, that, according to the belief
of Christians at the end of the first century,
the "Pope" was in the Roman Church, and
the Roman Church in the " Pope." It will not
do to assume the existence of such a belief, and
then to use it as explanatory of the language
under discussion.

(II.) St. Ignatius.
When St. Ignatius, on his way to martyrdom,
wrote from Smyrna to the Roman Church,
he mentioned neither its bishop nor its clergy.
His silence about the Roman bishop is no
proof that Rome had then no single chief
pastor, unless it also proves that she had then
no priests or deacons ; while he " speaks of
episcopacy as a thing perfectly familiar, at
any rate, to the Church of Rome." J But if
1 Church Quart. Review, xi. 287. Ignatius asks the Romans
to praise God " because He deemed rbv iirio-Koitov ^vplas worthy
to be found in the West" (c. 2), and says that as for the Syrian
church, fiovos aiirty 'Vtiaovs Xptcrbs eirnrKoir^ffei Kal n iji&v
aydwrj (c. 9). "No one can doubt that the idea of Church
government now universal among Catholics is here, and that
the Roman church is supposed heartily to appreciate it. The
saint . . . assumes undoubtedly that the Roman Christians
recognise a difference between the first and second orders of

26 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Ignatius had known, as on the Vaticanist
hypothesis he must have known, that, let us
say, Alexander I. of Rome had what we should
now call "ordinary jurisdiction" in Antioch,
and that he himself held office by his autho
risation, and was responsible to him for the
administration of the Antiochene episcopate,
is it conceivable that in a letter containing
the words, "/ am not giving you directions,
like Peter and Paul," he should send no dutiful
message to his ecclesiastical sovereign, and
should not so much as allude to him when
remarking, " Jesus Christ alone, and your love,
will exercise an episcopate over the Syrian
Church in my stead " ? But then we are re
minded of phrases used by Ignatius in the
beginning of this letter ; the Roman Church,
it is said, " presides in the place of the territory
of the Romans, and has a presidency of love."
The first phrase indicates no more than her
pre-eminence among Italian Churches ; : the
the ministry ; . . . otherwise, supposing the Romans ignorant
of such a distinction, he would give them the notion that Syria
was left, not only without a supreme head, but without any
presbyters at all."
1 Mr. Rivington, indeed, takes it of "the centre, not the
extent, of the presiding authority" (p. 33). " Authority " is
here slipped in, and the gloss means that Ignatius may have
believed in a universal papal supremacy. Is it a natural

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 27
second has been absurdly strained by treating
" love " as a synonym for " the whole Christian
community," x (without any such limitation as
the other clause suggests), whereas it naturally
points to the peculiar conspicuousness of the
Roman Church in the matter of generous
charity, to which, as Bishop Lightfoot aptly
remarks, Dionysius of Corinth bore testimony,
and which Dionysius of Rome exhibited by
sending relief to sufferers in Asia Minor. 2

(III.) Victor and the "Asiatics."
The Paschal controversy is wearisome enough
to the student of Church history, whether he
interpretation ? Apply it to Cyprian de Unit. 5, " Episcopi qui
in ecclesia praesidemus."
1 Mr. Rivington confidently, more suo, pp. 33, 134, adopts
the rendering of i!poKiiSr\)i.ivi\ ttjs aydirris which suits his thesis,
and quotes Dollinger in support of it ; but Dollinger in his later
life expressly said that the earlier edition of his " History of
the Church" required to be altered in every line. See Dr.
Plummer's letter in the "Guardian" of Dec. 12, 1894. Let any
one consider whether Ignatius would have put such an enig
matical expression as " presidency over the love," i.e. over the
Church, into the fore-front of a letter to the matter-of-fact
Romans. Funk's references to other Ignatian passages, in
support of this gloss, are irrelevant; for there "love" is dis
tinctly ascribed to the "brethren," the "churches," etc.
2 Compare Euseb. iv. 23 ; vii, 5 ; Basil, Ep. 70,

28 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
is occupied with Quartodecimanism, with the
diversity of cycles, or with the peculiarities of
the Celtic Easter in Bede. But one starts, so
to speak, with a scene which can repeatedly
be looked back upon with refreshment, when
Anicetus of Rome, unable to convince St.
Polycarp, agrees with him to differ, and invites
him to take his place in the celebration of
the Eucharist. x Some forty years later, bishop
Victor takes a less tolerant line ; but his action
has often been somewhat unfairly described,
and Roman controversialists have adopted that
description in order to extract from the case
a witness for Papal supremacy. We must
distinguish between what Victor did, and what
he " attempted " to do. 2 He did withdraw the
communion of his own Church from the
Quartodecimans of Asia Minor; this act was
within his competency, the consent of his clergy
and people being supposed. He " attempted "
to induce other Churches to act in the same
manner, and so to effect a general exclusion
of the Quartodecimans from Church fellowship.
1 Iren. ap. Euseb. v. 24.
2 Euseb. v. 24. Dr. Salmon observes that he might be
excused for feeling strongly when Blastus was attempting to
introduce Quartodecimanism at Rome (cp. App. to Tert. de
Praescr. 53; Infallibility of the Church, pp. 283, 374).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 29
In this he failed, and drew forth some " rather
sharp rebukes" from St. Irenaeus and other
bishops. The circumstance that Eusebius
first mentions what he attempted, and after
wards his "announcement that the brethren
in Asia were out of communion," must not
mislead us into thinking that the circular
in which this announcement was made was
professedly a ban which should take effect
throughout the Church, instead of being,
as it clearly was, a notification that Rome
had suspended ecclesiastical intercourse with
Ephesus, and a request that the bishops re
ceiving it should do likewise. As far as we
can judge, Irenaeus, for himself and the Gallic
Church, not only declined to act thus, but
exhorted Victor to reconsider his own action.

(IV.) St. Iren„us on the Roman Church.
It is convenient thus to combine, and to con
trast, the positions taken up in this controversy
by Anicetus and Victor. But now let us turn
from Irenaeus' practical line in view of a Roman
bishop's public conduct, to the memorable pas
sage in which, a few years before, in the time of
Victor's predecessor Eleutherus, he had described

30 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
the relation of Churches in general to the '' very
great, ancient, and universally known" Roman
Church.1 What, let us ask, had led him to this subject ?
The Valentinians, against whom he was writing
his great treatise, used to meet the argument
from Apostolic tradition to the received or
Catholic type of Christian doctrine, by the
audacious assertion that the Apostles them
selves, and even Christ as His words were
reported in the Gospels, had " Judaized," or had
spoken at times under an inspiration less than
the highest. Irenaeus replies in effect — as did
Tertullian a few years later — We are quite
able to trace up our theology, through lines of
episcopal succession, to the Apostolic founders
of the Churches : and it is inconceivable that
they would keep back, economically, their real
beliefs from those to whom they were leaving
their own posts of teachership. "But since it
would be tedious to go through all these suc
cessions," let us take a specimen Church — that
of Rome.
Here, before going further, observe the signifi
cance of the motive expressly assigned for
adducing this particular Church— it is done in
1 Iren. iii. 3. 2,

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 31
order to save trouble ; but such a motive would
never have occurred to a believer in the Papal
theory. To proceed, next come the words on
which so much debate has turned, but which,
unfortunately, exist only in a Latin translation :
"Ad hanc [ to this Church], propter potentiorem
[or potiorem], principalitatem, necesse est omnem
convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique
fideles — in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique
conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditio."
First of all, what does principalitatem mean ?
" Antiquity " is a sense which, so far as the use
of principalis goes, might be supported by
several passages in the Latin translation of
Irenaeus : x and principalitas is used some five
times for primary or original being : but the
context suggests the sense of pre-eminence,2
and the Greek may have been irpwriiav. But
does this " more effective " s or " superior emin
ence " belong to the Roman Church, or to Rome
the city ? Irenaeus does not explain ; but if
the city itself had been meant, a word or two
1 Cf. i. 30. 6; ii. 21. 1 ; 28. 4, 5. Tertullian opposes principali
tatem to posteritatem (De Prsescr. Haer. 31).
2 Principalitas — pre-eminence in Iren. iv. 38. 3. Mr. Riving
ton (who relies a good deal on sheer iteration) renders it "sove
reignty " five times within four pages (pp. 32-34).
3 The Latin translation, a little further on, renders liaa)wti.ti\v
yea^v (Clement's Ep. to Cor.) by poientissimas litteras.

32 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
would have been, perhaps, almost necessary, in
order to prevent the quality from being asso
ciated with "the Church," which had just been
mentioned : still, the " city " view has something
to say for itself, and is adopted by Dr. Salmon
and Fr. Puller.1 Let us, however, suppose it to
be the Church of Rome that is thus regarded as
" pre-eminent." What, then, is meant by necesse
est, and what by convenire ad ? Does the first of
these phrases indicate a moral obligation, and the
second mean " agree with " ? Obligation would
have required oportet : while necesse est implies
the simple necessity that something should
take place, the fact that it cannot but happen.
What is that something? That "every other
Church, that is, the faithful who are from all
sides," — as we should say, coming from all
quarters, — "should — convenire ad the Roman
Church," that is — if we take the phrase naturally,
with an eye to ad and to undique — "should
resort to, converge or come together to, that
Church." It is inevitable, St. Irenaeus means,
that Christians from all other parts of the
empire should, from time to time, for various
reasons, visit the Church in the great centre of
1 Infallibility of the Church, p. 382 : The Primitive Saints
and the See of Rome, p. 40.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 33
the empire ; x this is a process which is always
going on, which cannot but go on. If Irenaeus
had meant that other Churches must, as a
matter of duty, agree with the Roman Church,
or even that they would be sure to be found
agreeing with her, one would think that he
would have used language suggesting a dif
ferent translation. For convenire ad would be a
strange Latin equivalent for " agree with." And
further, the ensuing words would have lost their
point, if " agreement with the Roman Church "
had been the idea. For Irenaeus goes on at
once to add a clause which Roman quotations
of the sentence are apt to omit or slur over.2
1 Compare the ninth canon of the Antiochene council of 341,
stating the fact that "all who have business from all sides
(lrwrax&lev) meet (avvrpexi "0 ln tne metropolis." It is possible
that they were actually borrowing from Irenaeus' Greek, then
extant. Of such a " concursus " to Rome Duchesne says,
"Au deuxieme siecle tout le christianisme y afHue." But he
assumes too much when he attributes to the Roman church
at this period a "direction generale" (Origines du Culte
Chretien, p. 15). The word undique must be noted ; it is not
ubique; and iravrax^Bey, in iii. II. 8, refers to the idea of winds
blowing from all quarters. Cp. S. Aug. Ep. 29. 10.
2 This is significantly illustrated in the second chapter of the
Vatican decree. The first words of the sentence are given with
almost verbal exactness, down to "hoc est, eos qui sunt undique
fideles : " then we read "ut in ea sede ... in unam corporis
compagem coalescerent." W. G. Ward is quoted by his son as
having written after the appearance of Pius IX.'s syllabus, "to
which [the local Roman] Church, because of her potentior
D

34 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
"In which (Church)," i.e. the Roman, "the
tradition which comes from the Apostles has
been always preserved by those who are from
all sides," i.e. who flock from all parts of the
empire to the capital. But if the point had
been that other Churches must needs teach just
what the Roman Church taught, whether under
obligation or from circumstances, why go on
to say that it was by members of these same
Churches that the Apostolic tradition was
preserved in the Roman? That fact would
be no reason for, no illustration of, the sup
posed necessity of agreement : but it would
be strictly apposite to the remark that other
Churches were habitually pouring into the
Roman a conflux of their own members, so
that the genuine Christian tradition, deposited
there by Apostolic hands, might be continuously
freshened and reinforced by concurrent testi
monies, representing an identical universally
diffused belief. Take, then, this final clause of
the sentence, with its in qua and its ab his — for
I pass over, as really too absurd for serious
treatment, the assumption that " in " here means
principalitas, all others are to look for doctrinal guidance "
(W. G. Ward and the Catholic Revival, p. 248). Could he, one
asks, have ever read the whole Irenaean sentence ?

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 35
" in communion with,1 or subjection to,"— observe
that, instead of saying that true faith was
preserved by the Roman Church for her multi
farious foreign visitors, it emphasises her
obligation to them, and explains more fully
why she can be taken as a sample of all
Churches ; and is not this quite decisive against
the notion that Irenaeus recognised in her
bishop the "universal doctor" of Christians?
He views her as a reservoir of orthodoxy ; and
herein he assigns to her even a less active part
that that which St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in his
farewell to Constantinople,2 assigns to that city,
1 Mr. Rivington — again (as his habit is) relying on Dbllinger's
early work — endeavours to support this gloss by St. Paul's use of
tv Xpto-Tip (p. 38). Such a parallelism does but exhibit a strange
insensibility to the depth and richness of the Pauline idea.
And in this same chapter of Irenaeus, we have "in every
church," "in the church," "in the church which is at
Smyrna," "in the churches," always with the simple meaning,
"within," or "at."
1 Orat. 42. 10. It is futile to evade the force of this expres
sion by referring to other language of Gregory's, which dwells
on what Constantinople had been in its Arian times, before the
revival to which, as he modestly says, he had "contributed."
Then, no doubt, it was a sad contrast to orthodox Rome ; it
had ceased to stand upright — as he strongly words it, iv $v6o7s
E/ceiro rijs ctirojAtias (Carm. de Vit. 573, 575). But his short work
there as missionary bishop had rehabilitated the Catholic forces,
and secured the influence of a great political centre on the side
of orthodoxy. The description of the Roman city, in the auto
biographical poem just quoted (De Vit, 571), as r^v irp6eSpov

36 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
as now, through the restored Catholic life of her
Church, a "general mart of the faith," i.e. a
centre whither Catholic Christians bring their
own orthodoxy, and take back, so to speak, her
witness in its confirmation. Of course, no one
doubts that St. Irenaeus would have said, for
instance, to a Gallic or an Ephesine Christian
about to visit Rome, "You will get much good
from the great Roman Church — you will return
home with your own faith quickened and in
vigorated by what you have seen of hers : " but
that is not the exact point which he takes in
the sentence which explains why the argument
from the several lines of Church tradition may
be summarised by pointing to Rome. If he had
held what Roman or Papal writers impute to
him, he must have spoken quite otherwise : he
must have used the short-cut argument, " You
Gnostics are at once put out of court by not
' seeking the law at the mouth of Eleutherus ;
he is the Divinely appointed exponent of
Christian doctrine : hear him, and so you will
hear Christ." Papalists have to explain why
this typical Father of the second century took
a different and less compendious method.
™" <*•», does not go beyond precedency, and must be taken
with the context in which new Rome is said to shine in the East,
and old Rome in the West.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 37
(V.) Hippolytus.
When, some forty-five years ago, a treatise
on Heresies, which is now assigned to Hip
polytus, was discovered and published as the
" Philosophumena " of Origen, there was a
disposition among anti-Roman controversialists
to accept en bloc, as unimpeachable evidence,
its bitter attacks on the two Roman bishops
who came next after Victor. We can now see
rather more clearly that, whatever view be taken
of the episcopal position of Hippolytus — whether
it was to the full extent, or in a modified sense,
sectarian and schismatical, — whether he was, in
Dbllinger's phrase, the first "antipope," or, as
Salmon thinks, the head of a separate Greek
congregation in Rome1 — for that he somehow
did act as a bishop in Rome,2 and was not the
regular bishop of Portus Romanus, may be
considered as an accepted fact, — his tone as to
bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus, both in regard
to doctrine and to - administration, is the tone
1 Hippol. and Callist. c. 2 ; Diet. Chr. Biogr. iii. 90.
2 "Rome," says Lightfoot, "was the sphere of his activity."
Yet Lightfoot thinks he was bishop for a fluctuating population
in Portus of various nationalities (St. Clement, ii. 433), and
does not admit that he viewed the actual bishops of Rome as
not bishops dejure.

38 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
of a hostile partisan, and must be largely dis
counted as such. He himself may at that time
have laid himself open to the suspicion of
heresy in one direction, while he charged
Callistus with having incurred it in another ; *
and his asperity in judging of a discipline
milder than severe rigorists would approve,
may warrant us in questioning, or more than
questioning, his fitness to represent the spirit
of the Church or of the Gospel. "Onesided,
hot-tempered, inequitable," even "arrogant,"
are epithets suggested by his tirades : but their
interest for us, with regard to our present
inquiry, is independent of the repulsive features
which remind us of Tertullian in his Montanist
phase;1 the point is, that he nowhere comes
near claiming for himself, as bishop for Rome,
in the position which he denied to Callistus,
anything like a papal jurisdiction over other
Churches ; and that he speaks of acknowledged
and actual bishops of Rome with a freedom
of censure which he could never have used if
1 He thought Callistus a Sabellian; Callistus thought him
an ultra-Subordinationist, and Dollinger considers that the latter
opinion was justified (Hippolytus and Callistus, c. 4).
2 It is apparently Callistus whom TertuUian ironically de
scribed as "pontifex maximus" and "bishop of bishops" (De
Pudic. I), phrases which Mr. Rivington seems to take seriously
(p. 92). '

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 39
the Church in general had regarded them as
her Popes. (VI.) St. Cyprian.
And now we come to a great name, around
which, in this debate on Papal claims, much
controversy has gathered. St. Cyprian's view
of St. Peter's position should be examined
before we consider his action in regard to what
he regarded as "Peter's chair." That view is
contained in some seven passages. It had
been worked out in his mind with great distinct
ness ; he evidently thought it both true and
important ; it is, in effect, that our Lord, accept
ing Peter as the spokesman1 of the Apostles
in general, addressed certain words to him
individually, by way of emphasising that one
ness which He willed to be a characteristic of
the Apostolate, of the Church, and of the
Episcopate which, in and for the Church, was
1 It seems clear that Peter replied to our Lord's question as
spokesman, and that our Lord thereupon addressed him as
being, in point of character, their appointed representative.
The promise of the keys is explained by Isa. xxii. 22 ; from this
passage it is clear that "I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom" is equivalent to "I will make thee My steward."
Either, therefore, the keys were not to be held exclusively by
St. Peter, or the other apostles were not stewards, which is
absurd. See St. Augustine, Serm. 149. 7.

40 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
to succeed the Apostolate in such functions as
were permanently needful.1 Peter was thus
to represent the Twelve, and in them the future
ministry, and the Church which, as Cyprian
says in one passage,2 was "founded on Peter
in the commencement (or origin) of its oneness,
and " — as the next words (et ratione) may be
best understood, " in the expression of," or " by
way of exhibiting," or "bringing out (that
oneness)," or else " in the method or order (of
that oneness)." 3 So again, " in order to mani
fest the oneness, or unity " (i.e. as the context

1 This is fully brought out in Ep. 33, where Cyprian formally
comments on Matt. xvi. 18, 19: "Dominus noster . . .
episcopi honorem et ecclesiae suae rationem " (systematised order)
" disponens . . . dicit Petro, ' Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus,
et super istam petram aedificabo ecclesiam mean . . . soluta et
in ccelis.' Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum
ordinatio et ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut ecclesia super episcopos
constituatur, et omnis actus ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos
gubernetur." Here, if Cyprian had been a Papalist, he would
have added a salvo for the rights of the Church's "sovereign
ruler," from whom all bishops derived their commission, and to
whom they owed entire obedience.
2 Epist. 70. 3: "super Petrum, origine" (not, observe, origineni)
" unitatis et ratione." Mr. Rivington repeatedly mistranslates
the first words by identifying Peter with the "origin." "St.
Peter is " (i.e. according to Cyprian) " the origin of the Church's
unity ; " " This origin of unity which Peter was made ; " "Peter
whom Christ instituted as the origin of unity ;" "Our Lord made
him the origin" (pp. 55, 61, 464, 467).
* Ratio has various shades of meaning in Cyprian's writings.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 41
shows, of the Apostolic college), He by His
own authority arranged the commencement
of that same oneness as (a commencement)
beginning from one person."1 The stress is
laid on such words as ratione (unitatis,) or
manifestaret, which is equivalent to ostendit
in a shorter passage. "Upon whom (Peter)
He built the Church, and from whom He
instituted and showed the commencement of
(its) unity." 2 Peter was to be a living object-
lesson of the principle of unity — this is the
thought. Now, would Cyprian have dwelt
on this idea, which some might call fanciful, —
would he have talked of Peter's individuality
as chosen to illustrate unity, — if he had held
the extremely practical view which Roman
controversialists struggle to extract from his
writings, that Peter exclusively possessed by
divine grant some special and highly important
powers, that he was the divinely ordained centre
of unity, the single visible head of Apostles
and of Christians, by subordination to whom
their unity was to be secured3 — that he was
1 De Unit. 4.
2 Ep. 73, 7. He adds, "potestatem istam dedit ut id
solveretur," etc.
3 Mr. Rivington (p. 48, etc.) imagines that Cyprian recognises
in St. Peter a special office of headship among and over the

42 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
actually, in truth, the universal spiritual ruler ?
The question might well be left to suggest
its own answer; but it is Cyprian himself,
who, in the great context which Roman inter
polations, long used though now abandoned, x
Apostles. This idea has to be "read into" his words. Ep.
33 shows, on the contrary, that the words, "Thou art Peter,"
etc. , were taken by him to be a commission to the episcopate as
such, not to the episcopate as in subjection to the Roman see.
Nowhere does he intimate the opinion fathered on him (cf.
Rivington, p. 61), that "the chair of Peter (i.e. the Roman see)
was the principle of cohesion to the Christian episcopate."
When Cyprian says (Ep. 71. 3), "Nee Petrus quem primum
Dominus elegit, et super quem aedificavit ecclesiam suam . . .
vindicavit sibi adiquid insolenter . . . ut diceret se primatum
tenere, et obtemperari a novellis . . . sibi potius oportere,"
primatus clearly means seniority. Mr. Rivington misreads this,
and mistranslates in the same note (p. 83) Augustine's words,
"primatus apostolorum," " apostolatus principatus," as if they
meant primacy or principality over the apostles, whereas the
immediate context settles the sense — "a posteriore apostolo
Paulo" (De Bapt. ii. ». 2).
1 Their literary history is given in Treatises of Cypr., Lib.
Fath. p. 151. The text, as given by Hartel, quotes Matt. xvi.
18, 19, and proceeds (omitting what Fell adds, "Et iterum
eidem post resurrectionem suam dicit, Pasce oves meas "),
" Super unum aedificat ecclesiam : et quamvis apostolis omnibus
post resurrectionen suam parem potestatem tribuat et dicat.
Sicut misit me Pater, etc. (John xx. 21-23), tamen, ut unitatem
manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem
sua auctoritate disposuit." At this point it is well to contrast
the true text with the falsified, thus : —
"Hoc erant utique et caeteri "Hoc erant utique et caeteri
apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari quod Petrus : sed primatus
consortio praediti et honoris Fetro datur, ut una ecclesia et
et potestatis : sed exordium cathedra una monstretur . . .

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 43
showed to be per se inadequate for Roman
purposes, adds to his sentence about the " mani
festation of unity" in St. Peter the assertion
that "the other Apostles were just what Peter
was, endowed with an equal share of office
[honoris], and of power," although, by Christ's
arrangement, "a beginning started from one
ness," i.e. from one man ; and elsewhere, after
saying, in a passage already referred to, that
"power to loose was given by the Lord to
Peter," he takes care to avoid misconstruction :
"And after His resurrection He addresses the
Apostles also;" then quotes John xx. 21-23,
by way of identifying the power to "remit
sins," thus given to all of them, with the
power to " loose " promised x to one. Here, we
ab unitate proficiscitur, ut
ecclesia Christi una monstretur
. . . Qui ecclesiae renititur " Qui cathedravi Petri, super
et resistit, in ecclesia se esse quam fundata ecclesia est,
confidit?" deserit, in ecclesia se esse
confidit ? "
A fraud like this requires no comment ; but it has been well
said as to the genuine passage, " If, in the time of Cyprian, the
bishop of Rome had been conceived to be the head of unity and
influence in the Church, it is impossible but that our saint would
have seized the opportunity of mentioning it : the supremacy of
the pope would have been a palmary argument in favour of
unity." And this argument, in fact, he does not use.
1 See Fr. Puller, Prim. Saints, etc., p. 351.

44 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
may observe, by the way, the hopeless attempt
sometimes made to limit the phrase, " an equal
share of power," 1 as if the other Apostles were
equal to Peter only in the sacerdotal or in
ordinary apostolic powers, or in the jurisdiction
which they held in " subordination to his supre
macy."2 This, of course, is to make Cyprian
say that their power was not equal to Peter's ;
whereas he says just the contrary. It is to
make him say that Peter had special powers
over his brother Apostles ; whereas he nowhere
even implies it.
At this point we may conclude this brief sur
vey of the Petrine theory of Cyprian, and come
to his dealings with the actual Roman Church.
He calls that Church principalis : 3 it is purely
arbitrary to translate this word by " sovereign," *
1 If Cyprian had believed that St. Peter had a supreme
jurisdiction over the other apostles, he could not, as an honest
man, have written this sentence without a saving clause. The
words in the preceding chapter, "Heresies and schisms arise
. . . because the Head is not sought for," are first of all referred
by Mr. Rivington to our Lord as having instituted the Petrine
headship, and afterwards to the Roman bishop himself. They
refer, in fact, to our Lord as having said to Peter and to the
other apostles what Cyprian is about to quote.
2 Rivington, pp. 6l, 462.
3 Ep. 59. 14.
4 So Rivington repeatedly ; also using the term " ruling,"
and putting them together (p. 58). He refers to Tertullian as

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 45
but it may mean " pre-eminent," i.e. most distin
guished or most conspicuous for historic dignity
or moral influence, although the next words,
" from which (Church) the unity of the priest
hood" (i.e. the episcopate) "took its rise," might be
held to favour the other rendering, " primeval : "
anyhow, the "episcopal unity" is said to arise
out of that Church, because Cyprian, rightly
or not, regarded it as the mother of Western
Churches : to suppose that he viewed it as the
mother of all Churches would be to make him
talk sheer nonsense. But did he mean the
Roman see exclusively when he spoke of the
Novatianist schismatics at Rome as having
" turned away from the bosom of their root
and mother ; " when he exhorted Africans
bound for Rome to "acknowledge and hold
to the root and womb of the Catholic
Church ; " when he spoke of himself and his
brethren as "holding to the head and root
of the one Church "J1 The context shows
having defined the word (principalis) as meaning that which is
over anything (De Anima, 13). But to be over a thing does
not necessarily imply "sovereignty." He quotes Cyprian's
language about Tertullian, "Give me my master : " but the De
Praescr. Hser., where principalitatem is opposed to posteritatem,
is a likelier book than the De Anima to have been much in
Cyprian's hands.
1 Epp. 45. 1 ; 48. 3 ; 73. 2. Mr. Rivington imagines (p. 464)

46 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
that he was thinking of the Catholic Church
herself as such, everywhere present, and
represented, of course, at Rome by Cornelius
the bishop, and his clergy and laity, as at
Carthage by the community of which Cyprian
himself was the head ;— just as, when speaking
of the requirements of a valid Eucharist, he
says that any one who has been misled into
innovations should "return to the root and
origin of the Lord's tradition " x — that is, to
the original tradition itself, to that which St.
Paul had received from the Lord. Again,
is he thinking of the Roman see when he
speaks of "one chair founded by the Lord
upon a rock"?2 Certainly not, but of the
that in the first passage the "mother" is Cornelius himself, as
bishop ! If in the second passage the root and womb mean
Cornelius, why did not Cyprian say, " We have exhorted them
to acknowledge and hold to thee " ? He might fitly tell them
to "acknowledge" or recognise the communion of Cornelius
as Catholic. The third passage is decisive : Cyprian is thinking
of the Church Catholic as a. whole. Mr. Rivington's pretence
that he means "the bishop of Rome who traced to Peter, or
perhaps, more strictly speaking, Peter himself, whom they
reached through Stephen, and not through Novatian" (p. 85),
is clean against the context; the mention of "Novatian" in
that passage points to him as head of the sectarians who
were external to the Church. Cp. Cypr. ad Demetr. 2, where
" springing up as shoots radicis atque originis tui " means "...
from yourself as a root."
1 Ep. 63. 1. 2 Ep. 43. 5. Hartel reads " retram."

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 47
episcopate which he describes, in the Treatise
on Unity, as "one," and the authority of
which, as we have seen, he traces to the great
Petrine passage in St. Matthew. Nor is it
beside the purpose to observe, that when he
speaks of his "brother" Cornelius of Rome
as having ascended ad sacerdotii sublime fasti-
gium, he explains this phrase in the next line
as meaning simply "the episcopate."1 During
the vacancy of the Roman see, he tells the
Roman clergy that he " thought it well to abide
by their opinion," for the sake, as he adds, of
exact co-operation ; 2 and they praise him for
desiring to act with them, while "conscious
that he is responsible to God only as his
judge."3 There is not, in fact, one word in
all his correspondence on Roman Church affairs
which will admit of being interpreted in a
Papalist sense ; and he does not shrink from
1 Ep. 55. 8.
2 Ep. 20. 3. Mr. Rivington twists this into, "he sub
mitted his judgment on that question " — that of the lapsed — " to
the Roman clergy," because it touched "the dogmatic faith"
(p. 86 ; cp. p. 52 : " The aroma of infallibility lingered in the
vacant see "). No, it was on a special point, the treatment of
penitent lapsi who were dying, and Cyprian simply thought it
right to act on the same lines with the Roman clergy. If he
" renders to them an account of his action," it is not out of duty
to Rome, but because he has been misrepresented.
3 Ep. 30. 1.

48 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
admonishing Cornelius, when he thinks that
the Roman bishop shows signs of weakness
in the face of schismatical bluster.1 As for
the case of Marcian, the Novatianist bishop
of Aries, it was perfectly natural for Gallic
bishops, who had not, in that age, a metropolitan,
to write to Stephen of Rome for advice ; and
equally natural that when Stephen, apparently,
hesitated, Cyprian should have been applied
to by Faustinus, bishop of Lyons, and should
then have admonished Stephen, with not a
little of respectful peremptoriness, to write to
the Catholics of Aries and to "the province,"
in order that a Catholic pastor might be substi
tuted for Marcian.2 But on what grounds does
he base his exhortation ? Is Stephen to intervene
as Supreme Pontiff and universal judge ? Not
a word of this. The reason expressly given by
Cyprian is, that all bishops ought to act under
a sense of common interest, in guarding any
part of the whole fold from the pestilent
influence of a false shepherd.8 So again, when
1 Ep. 59. 2. 2 Ep. 68.
3 "Cui rei nostrum est consulere et subvenire, frater carissime
. . . Quapropter facere te oportet plenissimas litteras ad
coepiscopos nostros," etc. Mr. Rivington glosses this by
"letters of plenary authority," "a mandate," "not merely a
papal brief, but also a full exposition of principles " (p. 71).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 49
two Spanish bishops had compromised their
Christian fidelity under persecution, and were
guilty of other grave offences, their sees were
filled up by the regular action of comprovincial
jurisdiction ; but they endeavoured to get re
instated, and one of them deceived Stephen
of Rome into granting him communion as a
bishop. The Spanish Church was perturbed ;
Cyprian was applied to ; he held a Council,
and a letter in its name was sent to Spain,1
insisting that the deposition of the two offenders
must be upheld, notwithstanding the action
taken by " Stephen our colleague " under false
information. To say, as has been said, that
the African bishops did not "dispute the
principle that the Pope could, where just cause
existed, restore a deposed bishop of Spain,"
is but one of too many reckless attempts
to shift the onus probandi? Lastly, on the
Because Cyprian, again, says that Cornelius and Lucius of Rome
censuerunt against Novatianism, and adds, " Quam rem
omnes omnino ubique censuimus, because we could not hold
a different opinion when in us there was the one Spirit," Mr.
Rivington claims this as an expression of his own Church's
doctrine on infallibility (p. 72). Rather, it expresses the old
sense of solidarity among churches.
1 Ep. 67.
2 Rivington, p. 75. Nowhere in the letter is this " principle "
asserted, or even hinted at. For Stephen's error Cyprian
makes allowance, while blaming him to some extent. " Neque
E

50 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
question as to the validity or invalidity of
heretics' baptism, the fact that the Western
Church tradition has for ages pronounced that
Cyprian was wrong, and Stephen of Rome
was right, does not affect the historic signifi
cance of his absolute and persistent opposition
to Stephen's plainly expressed view.1 He
wrote individually to an individual bishop,
Pompeius, charging the bishop of Rome not
only with rashness and incaution, but with
" pride, harshness, obstinacy ; " 2 and implied
that Stephen had threatened to withdraw his
communion from the Africans. Later, Firmilian
of Caesarea in Cappadocia wrote yet more
severely, indeed with passionate indignation,
enim tarn culpandus est ille cui negligenter obreptum est," etc.
In p. 73 we are told that Cyprian "nowhere denies the authority
of the pope as a matter of principle." Where does he admit it ?
1 When Cyprian and his council told Stephen (Ep. 72. 3)
that they believed "etiam tibi pro religionis tuae et fidei veritate
placere quae et religiosa pariter et vera sunt," Mr. Rivington
tries to make placere mean "will be sanctioned by authority,"
although in the same paragraph the theory of each bishop's
independence of action is carefully formulated (p. 88). In Ep.
74. I, Cyprian quotes Stephen's words, "Nihil innovetur,"
etc.: Mr. Rivington comments, " St. Stephen put St. Cyprian on
his obedience" (p. 95). Did Cyprian let himself be "put"
in any such position? He had just said that the words
quoted were but a specimen of "vel superba, vel . . . sibi ipsi
contraria, quae imperite atque improvide scripsit."
8 Ep. 74.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 5 1
and contrasted Stephen's claim to "succeed
Peter on whom the Church was founded " with
what, from his standpoint, he regarded as
Stephen's constructive tolerance of heresy.1
St. Cyprian held another Council of more
than eighty bishops on Sept. 1, 256/* and in
his opening speech made a hit at Stephen :
" No one of us sets himself up as a bishop of
bishops, or constrains his colleagues by the
terror that tyranny can inspire to an unwilling
obedience," etc. The deputies sent by this
synod to Roriie were treated by Stephen as
under a ban : no Roman Churchman was to
open his doors to them ; so that they were
debarred not only from ecclesiastical fellowship,
but from hospitable shelter. This fact is
asserted by Firmilian : and he says more — in
an apostrophe to Stephen he implies that the
latter, in pursuance of his threat, had actually
suspended communion with Cyprian, and with
all other prelates who took the same line about
heretics' baptism.3 This must have been said
1 Firmilian, ap. Cyp. Ep. 75.
2 Reckoned as Cyprian's sixth council, and third on the
baptismal controversy. Cf. Hefele, Councils, i. 94 ff. E.T.
3 " Te a tot gregibus scidisti . . . dom enim putas omnes a
te abstineri posse, solum te ab omnibus abstinuisti " (Ep.
75- 24).

S 2 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
on the warrant of information from Cyprian
himself; and it is confirmed by the statement
of Dionysius of Alexandria, that Stephen wrote
circulars respecting Firmilian and others in
Asia Minor, "to the effect that he would not
hold communion with them."1 Did he ever
recall this step ? There is no ground for
thinking so. Did Cyprian, as Mr. Rivington
is pleased to suggest, "lead the way in the
direction of submission " to Roman authority ? 2
There is nothing to support this imagination
but some words of Jerome about the Africans
" issuing a new decree ; " 3 against it there
1 'ns ol$e ixeivois Kowwqauiv (ap. Euseb. vii. 5). This Mr.
Rivington translates "as neither about to communicate with
them," and adds, " the Greek is simply in the future." Does
this use of the future leave the meaning doubtful ? Fr. Puller's
rendering (to which Mr. Rivington objects) "saying that he
would not communicate with them," is equivalent to that of
Valesius, "sese . . . ab illorum communione discessurum." Mr.
Rivington refers to St. Augustine c. Cresc. iii. 3, as saying that the
Easterns " corrected their judgment," and afterwards describes
them as having "dropped their resistance to the decision of
Rome " (pp. 111,1 14). St. Augustine speaks of " fifty Eastern
bishops," but we have contemporary evidence as to great
numbers; and we know that in the fourth century, Cyril of
Jerusalem generally, and St. Athanasius with special reference
to Arians and many other heretics, denied the validity of
heretical baptism (Procatech. 7 ; Or. u. Ari. ii. 42 ; see Pusey
in Tertull. Lib. Fath. p. 286).
2 Rivington, p. 112.
3 Adv. Lucif. 23. The statement is not guaranteed by other

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 53
is the whole tenor of Cyprian's character and
conduct, plus the sufficiently decisive fact that
the Council of Aries — about sixty-five years
before Jerome wrote — found it necessary to
legislate " about the Africans," forbidding them
in future to " observe their own rule." x

(VII.) The Two Dionysiuses.
Two other points remain to be noticed in
the history of the third century. Dionysius of
Alexandria, in his zeal against the Sabellians,
had used language which was, to say the least,
incautious, and was interpreted as denying the
co-essential Divinity of our Lord. The close
connection between Rome and Alexandria led
some "brethren" to complain of- him to his
namesake Dionysius,2 the only theologian in
evidence. So Vallarsi in loc, adding, " Quin et ipsa disputatio
inter Donatistas et S. Augustinum tale nihil penitus novit."
See Routh, Rell. Sacr. iii. 167.
* " De Afris, quod propria lege sua utuntur ut rebaptizent,
placuit " that baptism administered in the name of the Father,
etc., should not be iterated. Mr. Rivington vainly tries to
limit this in p. ill : " We know from the council of Aries that
some persisted in their erroneous custom." Here "some"
is simply his own gloss. It is to this decision of a " plenary
council " that Augustine often refers as having settled the
question ; e.g. De Bapt. i. s. 28 ; ii. 5, 14 ; iv. 8.
2 This we learn from St. Athanasius, de Sententia Dionysii,

54 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
three centuries among the occupants of the so-
called " infallible chair." Thereupon the Roman
prelate held a synod, which probably approved the
term "co-essential," though it does not appear
in an extant fragment of his treatise or letter
against the Sabellians.1 The Alexandrian
bishop— a model of candour, gentleness,2 and
all episcopal excellences — explained that he
had not rejected the term, and had used words
equivalent to it. And this explanation was
deemed satisfactory. It should be added that
the word " entreating," 3 used by him some four
years earlier as to his remonstrance with Stephen
in the baptismal controversy, might well repre^
sent his humble and charitable temper, without
implying anything like submission. The same
context dwells on "very large synods of bishops"
as having taken a different line from the Roman.4
13 ff., and De Synod. 44. They may have been Egyptian bishops ;
but see Tillemont, iv. 279.
1 See it in Routh, Rell. Sacr. iii. 373. Athanasius makes
Dionysius " express the mind " of the synod to his namesake.
2 " There is none of the early fathers who impresses me more
favourably as a man of earnest piety, good sense, moderation,
and Christian charity" (Salmon, Introd. to N.T., p. 272).
3 Mr. Rivington characteristically amplifies Seifytevos (Euseb.
vii. 5) into "prayers and entreaties " (p. 81).
4 Euseb. vii. 5. Yet Mr. Rivington has represented Stephen
as "feeling compelled," as successor of St. Peter, "to insist on
conformity in Africa to the custom followed in Rome" (p. 96).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 55
And when he asks Stephen's successor for his
" opinion " on a peculiar and difficult case, on
which he is " afraid of making a mistake," it is
the " advice " of a " brother " that he seeks ; x the
words exclude the notion of applying to a
supreme authority for orders, or leaning, as
our Roman author words it, on "the guidance
of the Holy See."

(VIII.) Paul of Samosata, and Aurelian's
Award.
The case of Paul of Samosata, bishop of
Antioch, was a matter of extreme difficulty
and anxiety. The prelate of the capital of the
East, who also held civil office under the power
ful queen of Palmyra, gave scandal not only by
the secularity (to say no more) of his conduct,
but by the combination of two heresies of the
first magnitude — that Jesus was a mere man,
and that the Word or Wisdom of God was a
mere divine attribute. How was he dealt with ?
Not by any authoritative pronouncement from
the Roman see — then filled, as we have just
seen, by one most competent to handle such a
1 Euseb. vii. 9.

5 6 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
question ; but by repeated meetings of a great
Eastern Council. At last, in 269, Paul's skill in
evasion was baffled ; he was convicted and
deposed ; and a circular letter announced the
event to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria,
and to all other bishops, to priests and deacons,
"and to the whole Catholic Church under
heaven," without a single word indicating any
special obligation to Rome. But as the Council
was unable to expel the condemned bishop from
"the church house," as Eusebius calls it, of
Antioch, application was made to the Emperor
Aurelian, who ruled that possession should be
awarded to that prelate — whether Paul or his
orthodox successor — with whom " the Christian
bishops in Italy and in the city of the Romans "
should communicate.1 This imperial test is
very significant : the bishops throughout the
peninsula are co-ordinated with their Roman
brother, and named before him : nay, he himself
is not individually referred to ; he is but con
structively, so to speak, allowed to appear at
all. Is this language, whether it be a quotation
from Aurelian's rescript, or Eusebius' own way
of representing it, compatible with anything like
Euseb. vii. 30. Not, as Mr. Rivington (p. 123) represents
Eusebius's phrase, "the bishops of Italy and the bishop of
Rome."

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 57
Papalism ? When Mr. Rivington refers to these
" bishops of Italy " as merely " a select number "
employed as " the normal organ of papal de
cisions," x in short, "a papal consistory" he simply
exhibits his own entire lack of historical per
ception, his inability to realise the conditions of
ancient Church life.
This Ante-nicene period suggests to Mr.
Rivington a plea which might have been
expected to come in later, a plea for the
validity of the " Popes' " own " witness to their
office." Here the " witness " is greatly exagge
rated ; and at the same time it is forgotten that
not only in mediaeval but in earlier times bishops
might be truly earnest and self-devoted, and
wholly devoid of personal ambition, and yet
be unconsciously affected by the temptation to
aggrandise their own see, and in so doing to
deal in large indiscriminate claims, or to repro
duce, in spite of confutation, assertions which
had become traditional and had done service.2
The manifest impossibility of any vulgar gain
1 A few pages further, we find this " organ " itself ignored :
"St. Felix achieved the peace of the Church by deposing the
bishop of Antioch " (p. 132). Felix I. sat 269-275.
2 On the Roman habit or "principle of making the very
largest demands ... on the chance of their being allowed,"
see Church Quart. Review, xii. 183 ; and Gore, Leo the Great,
p. 101.

58 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
might lay them all the more open to this snare
of great officials ; especially when they were
subject to the mysterious influence which the
old imperial city, the traditional centre of the
spirit of domination, was allowed to exercise
over the rulers of its Church. Tu regere imperio
populos, Romane, memento ! It is not an ignoble
suspiciousness, nor a controversial animus, which
compels us to recognise human nature, with all
its strange involutions and subtle combinations,
in those who sit upon Church thrones, Roman
or other. " Is there no such thing," we may
ask, with a great analyst of character, " as evil
working under a veil ? " x Is zeal for a cause a
guarantee against all wrongdoing in support of
it ? After all these ages of sad experience as
to the leavening malignity of the corruptio optimi,
are we still so simple as to assume that high-
minded ecclesiastics are exempt from the
tendency to fight for the kingdom not of this
world with weapons of the earth, earthy, to
stifle scrupulosity as unpractical, to over-ride
legitimate opposition by despotism, to dream
of serving the All-righteous by injustice, or even,
1 Mozley, Essays, i. 308. He adds, " A Christian is enlight
ened, hardened, sharpened, as to evil : he sees it where others
do not ; . . . it rolls itself in its folds, and he uncovers it," etc.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 59
at last, mentiri pro Deo ? If we think thus,
we must be lingering in dreamland — must have
all too faint a sense of "the imperfections of
religious men," x of the extent to which the salt
may become vapid without entirely losing its
savour. We have seen, in a brief survey of evidence
extending, roughly speaking, through the
interval between A.D. 100 and A.D. 300, what
was the historical position of the Roman Church
and bishopric in a period which, if not altogether
"golden," was yet comparatively simple in its
relations and its requirements. In entering
on the fourth century, we confront a condition
of Church life at once richer in ascertained facts,
and crossed at all points by more intricate
complications. It is a time of "wars of the
Lord," inasmuch as questions arise and are
multiplied which affect the most vital interests
of Christian faith and devotion ; a time of stir
and movement and well-nigh ceaseless agitation,
banishing repose, exacting self-sacrifice, trying
the pith and inmost force of patience, endurance,
and loyalty ; a time of brilliant hopes too soon
overclouded — of apparent victories for the King
dom of Christ, too easily neutralised by the
1 Church, Cathedral and University Sermons, p. 274 ff.

60 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
leavening influence of "the world;" a time of
difficulty and bewilderment for simple souls that
had hoped to walk on a road too plain for
stumbling ; x a time in which the Church needed
guidance at once firm and wise and tender, and
in which she obtained it through two or three
magnificent personalities, pre-eminently through
the " royal-hearted Athanase." On the Roman
theory, -she had throughout this " needful time
of trouble " a single unfailing resource — one
guide who could not fail as a leader, one teacher
"at whose mouth" she could "seek" and be
sure to find "the law." Let us see whether
this theory fits in with the evidence ; whether
it comes out of the facts, or has to be forced into
them. (IX.) DONATISM AND THE ROMAN SEE.
The Donatist schism, arising out of the last
great Heathen persecution, had for one of its
first results the assembling of a Council at
Rome. For the African schismatics, hoping to
deprive bishop Caecilian and the Carthaginian
Catholics of the favour of the Emperor Con
stantine, asked that prince to let their cause
1 Hooker, E. P. v. 42. 11. See the vivid picture in H. S.
Holland's On Behalf of Belief, p. 173.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 6 1
be judged by bishops sent from Gaul. He
thereupon wrote x to Miltiades, bishop of Rome,
whose name was afterwards corrupted into
"Melchiades," and to "Marcus," probably to
be identified with Merocles, bishop of Milan,2
desiring them to act with three Gallic bishops,
to whom he had already sent instructions to
hasten to Rome for the purpose. This is what
a Roman advocate has called "a reference to
Rome,"3 as if a Papal judgment were alone
in question ; and the same writer fastens on a
phrase or two repeatedly used by St. Augustine
as to Melchiades' "council" or "judgment,"*
whereas elsewhere Augustine distinctly repre
sents Melchiades as merely the "president" of
the court of inquiry, and as in that capacity
"giving his own judgment last,"5 or speaks
1 The letter in a Greek version is in Euseb. x. 5. The
original is given in App. to Aug. tom. ix.
2 Diet. Chr. Antiq. ii. 181 1. Anyhow the phrase, "collegis
vestris," applied to three bishops, would suggest that " Marcus "
was himself already a bishop ; and cp. Tillemont, vi. 702,
3 Rivington, p. 140.
4 Aug. Brevic. Collat. iii. s. 31, 33, 36, 38 ; Ad Donat. post
Collat. s. 17, 19, 56. But here Mr. Rivington betrays him
self: he says that Augustine uses this phrase " throughout the
conference with the Donatists in 411 " (p. 141). It was only on
the third day of that conference that this council (of Oct. 10,
313) was discussed as part of the history of the Donatist case.
5 By which vote, says Optatus, De Schism, i. 24, "judicium
clausum est." Cp. Aug. c. Epist. Parm. i. 10.

62 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
of "the judgment of Melchiades and of other
bishops," "the sentences of the bishops and
Melchiades," or of " the bishops who judged
at Rome," x etc. ; and Constantine's own language
is still more pertinent.2 It is, in fact, impossible
1 Cf. Aug. Brev. Coll. iii. 24, 31; Ep. 43, s. 16, "Viri
gravissimi . . . suum temperare arbitrium maluerunt ;" "Mel-
chiadis ultima prolata sententia ; " and s. 19, 20, " Illos epis
copos qui Romae judicarunt . . . tantae auctoritatis episcopos,
quorum judicio," etc. ; Ep. 105. s. 8, "praesidente Melchiade
cum multis collegis suis," " de judicio episcoporum," etc. ; and
Fp. 53- s. 5, "de judicio episcoporum . . . conquestos."
Mr. Rivington has, indeed, made out a charge of inaccurate
translation, on Laud's part, of a passage in Aug. Ep. 43 ;
but he himself (p. 142) had translated " eum confirman
vellet" (Melchiades, in Ep. 43. 16) as if the "confirm
ing" Caecilian in his position were "the pope's" sole act.
This was commented on in Ch. Quart. Review, and thereupon
altered. This passage in St. Augustine's letter is also used by
him (p. 231) as showing that there could be "temporarily,
and by papal dispensation, two bishops) in one city." But
"in" is ambiguous; and the original clearly means that only
one of the rival prelates (i.e. the Catholic) was to be — not by
"papal dispensation," but by act of the council under Mel
chiades' presidency — established as the diocesan. The ex-
Donatist, until another flock should be found for him, was
simply to reside in the city with episcopal rank. It may be
added that Mr. Rivington is pleased to understand the title,
"patrem Christian plebis," given by Augustine to "Mel
chiades," in the Roman sense of " the Holy Father" ! (p. 144).
2 He wrote to Ablavius, the "vicarius," or vice-prefect, of
Africa, describing the inquiry at Rome as conducted both (tarn)
by certain Gallic bishops and by seven of the same communion,
"quam etiam urbis Romae, episcopi" (cp. his earlier letter,
"before" Miltiades and "before" his "colleagues"); and
again, "Cum res fuisset apud urbem Romain ab . . . episcopis

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 63
to extract a genuine witness for Papalism from
the first of the Lateran Councils ; the assertion
that " the ecclesiastical status of the bishops in
Africa rested with Melchiades," x — as if the other
bishops, emphatically mentioned as " judges,"
were simply his " assessors " or advisers, like a
congregation of cardinals at the present Papal
court, — is an assertion and nothing more. But
the Donatists complained, as we learn from
Constantine himself, that the case had been
heard at Rome by " only a few bishops meet
ing within closed doors ; " 2 they therefore
demanded a fuller court, or, as Optatus puts it,
"they determined to appeal from the bishops;"
and an appeal such as they made implies that
what is aimed at is a more authoritative decision.
Constantine therefore arranged for what he
called a plena cognitio in a large Council of
Western bishops, to be held at Aries. On
Papal principles, he ought of course to have
upheld, as by Divine right final, a judgment

terminata ; " and in his letter to Chrestus of Syracuse, Miltiades'
part in the affair is described simply by "praesente quoque
Romanae urbis episcopo."
1 It is added that his "judgment in the matter was, to a
Catholic, final," just as a decision of Leo XIII. would be to
Mr. Rivington himself.
2 Const, to Ablavius.

64 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
affirmed by the Roman see.1 But nothing of
the kind occurred to him, or to any one else
at the time. The Council met; Sylvester of
Rome, who had recently succeeded Miltiades,
was represented by deputies (to call them
"legates" would insensibly suggest a loftier
position than they occupied) ; but, says
Hefele, Marinus of Aries — one of the three
Gallic bishops who had "judged the case at
Rome" — "appears to have presided." The
Council's first letter to Sylvester, after the
close of its proceedings, includes a passage
which bears tokens of corruption, but in which
occur the words, " te qui majores diceceses tenes."
The phrase has been set aside by one writer
as " an anachronism every way ; " 2 but the
request conveyed, that Sylvester could "make
known to all " the conclusion arrived at, was
not unnatural ; and he might be said to " hold
the greater dioceses " in virtue of his control
1 Mr. Rivington evades this by saying that "it was not a
matter which came within the scope of papal infallibility " (p.
146). But did it not, on his own showing, come within the
scope of papal jurisdiction as plenary, absolute, and immediate?
2 E. S. Ffoulkes, in Diet. Chr. Biogr. iii. 831. It is certainly
a curiously abrupt phrase in such a. context, and might suggest
the hand of a later Roman forger (a class only too numerous)
who took " dioceses " in the technical sense of "aggregates of
provinces," and wished to make out that the Roman bishop was,
even in 314, patriarch of " the West."

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 65
over Italian districts which, as nearest to Rome,
had a central position in the empire — "diocese"
being used in its older and vaguer sense.1 The
other letter, which gives the canons at length,
begins significantly. Marinus and the bishops
tell Sylvester " what they have decreed ; " they
do not ask him to confirm their decrees, but
to be the medium of making them universally
known ; and, "in the first place," they proceed,
" as to the observance of the Lord's Paschal
feast, that it be observed by us throughout
the world on one day, and at one time, and
that, according to custom, thou shouldst send2
letters to all." Nothing more natural than that
a bishop seated in the centre of the empire
should there have his peculiar opportunities of
communication ; but in this he would be acting
as the minister of the Council — certainly not as
1 Cf. Suicer in v.
2 " Et juxta consuetudinem litteras ad omnes tu dirigas."
Dirigo is frequently used for sending, e.g. in Leo the Great's
letters. Mr. Rivington, with the Latin before him (for he refers
to " Haddan and Stubbs"), had rendered this clause, "and as
thou shalt by letters, according to custom, direct." This he has
" corrected" into " and that thou shouldst . . . send letters to
all." But still he has not got it quite right ; in another sentence,
"It was a 'custom' for the bishop of Rome to 'direct' the
churches as to the day of" Easter "observance," he has
substituted " inform " for " direct ; " but dirigas does not mean
" inform " the churches, but " send " letters to them. We shall
see more about dirigas further on. F

66 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
the supreme authority whose function it was to
give validity to the canons.
(X.) The Arian Controversy and
the Nicene Council.
The African schism was a wearing and harass
ing trouble to a part of the Western Church. But
it could not be compared, in point of pernicious
effect, to the great heresy which some years later
broke forth at Alexandria, denying the eternity
and the uncreatedness, and therein the true
Divinity, of the Son of God. Consider the situ
ation. Here is a controversy which menaces the
very life of Christian religion ; which affects not
merely, like Donatism, the conditions and
limitations of the Church's purity, the validity
or nullity of ordinances administered by
" unworthy " hands, but the core and basis of
Christian belief and practice — the worship of
Christ and the idea of God. Consider, next, the
Papal assertion that, from the beginning, and
therefore in the fourth century, the Roman
bishop has had a teaching gift which involves
such " assistance " from above as to make
him, when speaking officially, an "infallible"
guide in matters of faith. Could there ever
be a dignior nodus for his intervention, a more

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 67
imperious call for the fulfilment of so unparalleled
a trust? Why did not Sylvester speak ex
cathedra against Arianism, and promulgate from
the fountain-head of orthodox teaching a
decision which for all obedient Christians would
have been an end of all strife ? He did not ;
and nobody asked him to do so. Nobody, as
far as we know, throughout the Church, even
thought of applying for a decisive utterance
from Rome. A new departure had to be taken,
a great experiment had to be made ; the first
CEcumenical Council had to be assembled, to
hear evidence, to debate, and to formulate a
creed. Why — on the Papal hypothesis — was all
this trouble taken, and all this anxiety endured ?
The Roman writer so often already referred to
appears not unconscious of the naturalness of the
question,1 and propounds three substitutes, as we
must call them, for an answer.
(1) The doctrine of infallibility, it is observed,
does not imply that "the Pope" was always "able
to close the question " when dealing " with such
people as the Arians ; " as our Lord Himself
did not convince the Jews at Capernaum or in
the Temple, " His vicar " might be equally
unable to silence heretics. If this is to excuse
1 Rivington, p. 154 ff. So Reply to Ch. Quart. Rev. p. 14 ff.

68 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
Sylvester's inaction, it reflects on the Nicene
Council for putting forth a formulary that could
not compass its object. But the argument is a
paltry quibble ; to "close a question" by winning-
over opponents is one thing, to "close'' it by
stating the truth for the guidance and comfort
of good Christians is another. We are not
asking why — on the above hypothesis — the
Roman bishop Sylvester did not succeed in
doing the one, but why he did not attempt to
do the other. The point is, If Christians then
believed about Sylvester what Roman doctrine
affirms to have been part of Christian belief
from the first as to Roman bishops, — and if he,
too, believed himself to possess an infallible
magisterium when speaking under certain con
ditions, — why was he not appealed to, or why did
he not, ex mero motu, speak ?
(2) Again, it is pretended that Rome had
already done her part when " Pope St. Dionysius
set his seal to the use of the term Homoousion,"
as a safeguard of faith, without imposing it on all
Christians, and had thus in effect "closed the
question." But was the approval of the term by a
Roman Council some sixty years earlier sufficient
for the exigencies of A.D. 319-325? Could it
justify the " Pope " of that later day in not

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 69
republishing the term, or some other equivalent,
in presence of a far greater peril to Christianity ?
But in fact, whatever Dionysius may have said
had no general effect on the Church, for it was
at any rate widely believed that the term was
actually withdrawn (some eight years later),
under pressure of heretical objections, by the
great Council of Antioch in 269,1 and it is certain
that at Nicaea it was only adopted as a last
expedient against Arian evasions. Nor did
Alexander of Alexandria, in his encyclicals put
forth amid the stress and storm of a painful
conflict while Sylvester was sitting quietly in
the Lateran, even once refer to Dionysius of
Rome and his pronouncement as authoritative
in support of the orthodox Christology.
(3) Lastly we are reminded that Sylvester may
have acted, but his utterances may have perished,
for only one Papal letter of the period has been
preserved ; and that, at any rate, the Sixth
CEcumenical Council ascribes " the idea of the
Council not to the Emperor, but to the Pope
himself," and "it is in the highest degree
1 S. Athan. de Synod. 43-45. Mr. Rivington thinks that
although Athanasius "seems to allow this," he was misinformed,
and observes that he says he had not a copy of the synodal letter.
Anyhow he expected that this letter would explain the proceed
ings in question (ib. 47). Hefele believes the statement.

70 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
probable" that Sylvester and Alexander had
planned the Council between them ; that " the
way in which St. Sylvester elected to govern
the Church was by " such a Council ; that thus
the Pope then exhibited his Roman " genius for
government," while "the Emperor hailed" the
proposal of a Council as fulfilling "his own
desire for" Church unity; and that, though "not
needed for the purpose of" a final definition,
because " the decision of the Pope was already
formed," it was "conducive to the ends which
the Holy Father had in view."
If history may thus be developed, by the aid
ofmaybe's, out of a writer's own consciousness,
his work is easy indeed. But perhaps it is not
quite worth doing. The suggestion that the
Catholics of the period, being, by hypothesis,
devout believers in Papal infallibility, could
have suffered a Papal judgment against
Arianism to perish as a document and be
forgotten as a fact, is, to say the least,
injudicious ; and to refer to the Sixth Council
— held 35 S years later — for such a statement as
the one quoted above, when the passage in
question ascribes the assembling of the Nicene
Council to " Constantine and Sylvester," x is to
1 Mansi, Concil. xi. 66i. In his Reply, p. 18, Mr. Rivington

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 7 1
deal somewhat unscrupulously with authorities
invoked. Naturally Constantine would consult
some bishops ; the point is, that there is no real
warrant for ascribing to the bishop of Rome a
specially potential voice in the matter.
The Council met ; and who presided over it ?
Apparently Hosius, bishop of Cordova, the
Emperor's venerated adviser, the "father" of
Western bishops. But did he preside by com
mission from Rome? Not according to any
trustworthy records. He signs first, then two
presbyters ; but it is to them, not to him, that
the delegation from Sylvester is attributed ; x
so that he, a Spanish prelate, takes precedence
of presbyters who represent the Roman see.
As for the authority of Gelasius of Cyzicus,2
adduced in favour of his legatine presidency,
perforce admits this, which in his volume he had in effect denied
(p. 158).
1 A Coptic document, given by Pitra in Spicil. Solesm. i.
513, ff., says, " These are the names of the bishops who signed ;
. . . from Spain, Osius of the city of Corduba, — ' I believe
thus as is above written ; ' Vito and Innocentius " (Vincentius)
"presbyters, — 'We sign for our bishop, who is the bishop of
Rome: he believes thus as is above written.'" For somewhat
fuller forms of this statement, see Mansi, Cone. ii. 691, 697.
The "Vetus Interpretatio " and the " Prisca Editio " also make
" Osius " sign before the " presbyteri urbis Romae."
2 For him and his untrustworthiness, see Diet. Chr. Biogr.
ii. 620. He lived in the latter part of the fifth century.

72 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
a parallelism between his account and that
of Eusebius will exhibit his boldness in falsi
fication.1 He interpolates into the Eusebian
text the legateship of Hosius, adding also,
in order to give a colour of fact, the names
of the " wide-famed Spaniard " and of the two
Roman presbyters ; and what Eusebius says
of Rome and of Sylvester is transferred to
Byzantium and Metrophanes! Well may the
nobly honest Tillemont — objectionable, as a
mere Gallican, and not a " Catholic divine," to
modern Papalists 2 — remark that " one cannot
read the text of Eusebius as Gelasius represents
it without a corruption and a renversement
manifeste of its sense." 3
1 Eusebius. Gelasius.
And of the Spaniards them- And of the Spaniards he,
selves the one widely famed the widely famed Hosius,
was seated with the great holding also the place of Syl-
body (of bishops). vester bishop of the great
Rome, with Vito and Vincent,
presbyters of Rome, were
seated together with the great
But of the imperial city the body. And of the now im-
prelate was absent through perial city, the prelate, named
old age ; but presbyters of his Metrophanes, was absent
were present, and supplied his through old age ; but pres-
place. byters of his were present,
and supplied his place.
2 Rivington, p. 231.
3 Tillemont, iii. 808. Mr. Rivington pleads (p. 164) that

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 73
That Sylvester was himself orthodox, and
that his deputies at Nicaea1 represented his
mind in that respect, may be assumed without
hesitation. But Rome (strange to say, on the
Vatican hypothesis) was not famous for theo
logical study ; and Vincent and Vito were
hardly likely to take an active part in the
discussions in which Athanasius, as yet only
Gelasius "professes to be copying from older lists." What
would be their value against the authority of Eusebius, a
member of the council? Le Quien uses no "holiday terms "
about this passage: "Quae a Gelasio, vel ab altero nugatore,
conficta esse nemo sanus inficiabitur " (Or. Christ, i. 207).
1 They are referred to by a Roman council in a letter to the
Illyrians (Hefele would date it in 369) in which, after " the
318 bishops," we read, "atque ex parte sanctissimi episcopi
urbis Romae directi " (cf. Theodoret, H. E. ii. 22, ed. Gaisford).
It was natural enough that a Roman council should thus mention
the presence of Roman deputies at Nicaea. But we cannot accept
such a phrase, in default of other evidence, as a proof that they
exercised a preponderative influence. In the theological debates
they would not be likely to feel at home. But now as to directi,
which (vid. supr.) means "sent." Mr. Rivington had twice, in
a professed translation, rendered the words " the 318 bishops
directed from the city of the most holy bishop of Rome" (pp. 164,
210), and previously had spoken of "the bishops directed from
Rome " (p. 160). The mistranslation was duly pointed out ;
whereupon, at the end of his " Reply," Mr. Rivington said that
" united with those " should be inserted before " directed from "
in p. 164, and that " and those " should be similarly inserted in
p. 210. Thus the directi would be, not (as he had represented it)
the 318, but only the Roman legates. But the false rendering
was kept. However, in the corrigenda, it is abandoned as to
pp. 160, 164, 210, "and the legates," or "sent," being sub
stituted. In p. 147, as we have seen, the correction is imperfect.

74 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
an Alexandrian deacon, shone supreme. But
we are reminded of a Council's assertion that
the Nicene fathers " referred the confirmation
of all things, and the authority, to the holy
Roman Church." When and where was this
Council held? At Rome itself, just one
hundred and sixty years later, and when Felix
of Rome was in the full career of his strife with
Acacius of Constantinople!1 It is obvious to
remark that we " like not the security ; we think
we do know the sweet Roman hand."
There is a considerable significance in the
fifth of the Nicene canons : it provided for
a right of appeal to provincial synods. Now,
either the see of Rome was then regarded as
jure divino a supreme court of appeal for the
whole Church, or it was not. If it was, then
we may ask, with Collier,2 how the Nicene
fathers came to ignore a jurisdiction so august
in its origin and sanction. If it was not, the
Vatican decree is fundamentally wrong in its
history, whereas it professes to be right ; and
1 Mansi, vii. 1140. The letter is there given as belonging
to 484: but Hefele gives reasons for dating it in 485. The
bishops must have simply accepted, without any attempt at
verifying, the statement which Felix made, probably in good
faith, on the warrant of traditional Roman assertion.
2 Eccles. Hist. Brit. i. 75.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 75
its dogma is closely connected with that
profession. But there is one express reference
in the Nicene canons to " the Roman bishop "
as such. The first sentence of the sixth canon,
in its Greek text, runs literally thus : " Let the
ancient usages which exist in Egypt, and
Libya, and Pentapolis, remain in force, to
the effect that the bishop of Alexandria should
have authority over all these (districts), since
this is customary also for the bishop who is
in Rome ; and similarly, both as to Antioch
and in the other provinces, let the Churches
have their privileges secured to them." Thus
the purview of the opening clause is limited
to the Alexandrian "patriarchate," if we may
for convenience antedate the use of that term.
This reading is confirmed not only by the
Dionysian and Isidorian Latin versions, but
by two others of much earlier date. One, which
may be referred to the fourth century, though
it is known simply as the " Vetus," reads :
" Antiqua per ^Egyptum ac Libyam atque Pen-
tapolim" [or, " per _igyptum atque Pentapolim]
consuetudo servetur ut Alexandrinus episcopus
horum habeat potestatem " [or, " sollicitudinem],
quoniam et urbis Romae episcopo similis mos
est." In all three we have a marked accordance

76 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
with the Greek, the substitution of singular
for plural being unimportant; while a third,
which Mansi gives as sent from Constanti
nople to Carthage in 419, agrees literally
with the Greek, as does the Coptic. These
versions are thus decisive against the reading
produced on Rome's behalf at the Council
of Chalcedon, " Quod ecclesia Romana semper
habuit primatum : teneat autem et _£gyptus,
etc. ; " x and against another Roman version,
or rather paraphrase, which bears the name of
the " Prisca," and reads, " Antiqui moris est ut
urbis Romae episcopus habeat principatum,"
and which goes on to describe this " princi
pals," — " ut suburbicaria loca et omnem pro-
vinciam suam sollicitudine gubernet," adding
that "the bishop of Alexandria is to have
1 It is fair to observe that the version did not claim for the
Roman church a "primatus" over all other churches. For a
"primatus" is to be secured to the church of Egypt (i.e. of
Alexandria), and further on we read, ' ' Similiter autem et qui in
Antiochia constitutus est ; et in coeteris provinciis, primatus
habeant ecclesiae civitatum ampliorum," so that this Roman
translator meant by " primatus," in all three cases, a patriarchal
or exarchal jurisdiction. Or, if he meant more by "primatus"
in the first case, — if he altered the first words of the original
in order to magnify his own church above all others, — he forgot
to adopt a different term for the position ascribed to the Alex
andrian, Antiochene, and other churches of " the large cities ; ''
he did not, in short, remember that, unless he altered more, he
could not make Rome's " primacy " big enough.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 77
the care of all things in Egypt." Nor does
Rufinus' free version commend itself as a
true representative of the original : " Et ut
apud Alexandriam, et in urbe Roma, vetusta
consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille _Lgypti, vel
hie suburbicariarum ecclesiarum sollicitudinem
gerat." x In two of these Latin renderings we
see at once that there is an attempt made to
transfer the mention of the Roman bishop's
authority from an illustrative parallel to a
primary assertion ; whereas in the Greek, the
Roman case is brought in as pro tanto similar
to the Alexandrian ; one " custom " is cited
to back up another. And what was the
custom to be backed up ? That the bishop of
Alexandria should in effect be sole metropolitan,
not only for the single province of Egypt, but
also for the other regions of Libya and
Pentapolis ; 2 and this ample extent of his
jurisdiction was confirmed by the Council.
But by way of meeting an objection on the
1 The gloss about " suburbicarian places " found its way into
the " Vetus." See "Additional Note " at the end.
2 Evidence for the existence of other metropolitans within
this patriarchate in the time, e.g. of Synesius (see Hefele), is
irrelevant, for the hierarchical arrangements of the Nicene period
might naturally have been developed and made more complex,
after the episcopate of St. Athanasius had raised the prestige, and
consolidated the authority, of the great "evangelical throne."

78 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
part of those who were accustomed to see one
metropolitan in each province, it is added that
the case of the bishop of Rome is similar.
The canon does not explain " how ; " but it was
evidently understood at Nicaea that the Roman
was the only metropolitical see for the provinces
of central and southern Italy, with the three
great islands, which were civilly under the
"vicarius urbis." The "suburbicarian Churches,"
or "places," are now identified with the much
smaller district of a hundred miles around
Rome, which was under the " praefectus urbis." x
To pretend that in Nicene times the Roman
see was, in fact though not in name, patriarchal
in regard to the whole West, is to go beyond
historical warrant, and to ignore the subsequent
enactments obtained by Rome from docile
Western Emperors, as we shall see further on.
But to return to the clause adducing the
"custom" in regard to the Roman bishop as
parallel to that which affected Alexandria.
Is it legitimate to treat it as implying that
Rome was " the true norm " of Church govern
ment everywhere ? 2 Assuredly not ; to do
1 See Hefele, Councils, i. 398, E.T., on this sense of "suburbi
carian." Cf. Bingham, ix. 1. 9.
2 Rivington, p. 168. In a note, we are told that this " is the
interpretation given by Nicolas I. in his letter to the emperor
Michael." Mr. Rivington seems unaware that there are five

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 79
so is to thrust on the words a sense which
no natural construction would find in them.
Still more hopeless is the attempt to infer that
Alexandria's jurisdiction over all Egypt, in
the extended sense, had been itself a grant
from Rome,1 that " the Papal legates may have
given the information that the bishops of Rome
had long ago originated, or arranged, or con
sented to, this jurisdiction of Alexandria." 2
such letters. The passage intended is in the fourth : " Si instituta
Nicaenae synodi diligenter inspiciantur, invenietur profecto quia
Romanae ecclesiae nullum eadem synodus contulit incrementum,
sed potius ex ejus forma, quod Alexandrinae ecclesiae tribueret
particulariter, sumpsit exemplum " (Mansi, Cone. xv. 206). And
what if Nicolas I. did say so ? It cost him no trouble to affirm
after this fashion. In the same letter he dogmatically interprets
" primatem diceceseos," in the Latin version of Chalc. can. 9, of
the pope, as " vicar of the first apostle " ! (ib. 201). We know,
too, that having ignored the " false decretals " in 863, he argued
disingenuously for them in 864.
1 Mr. Rivington (p. 169) prefers this explanation. " Taking
the words simply as they stand, the canon may be said to
assert that the subjection of the Egyptian bishops to Alex
andria was customary with the bishop of Rome. That is to say,
the jurisdiction of Alexandria over these bishops had been the
arrangement with respect to them recognised and acted upon
by the bishop of Rome himself, and that consequently things
must remain as they were." The little word «al between <?jrei8?j
and t$ iv rf 'Pd/iri iTaattbny is ignored in this ingenious videlicet.
Thus far we get only the idea of " recognition by," or " cognisance
of," Rome. Then, when the ground has been thus far prepared,
Mr. Rivington leads us a step forward; the word "originated"
glides into the paragraph, and the page-heading boldly affirms
that " the sixth canon bases its judgment on papal authority " !
2 The notion that such information given by "legates"

80 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
But, lastly, the utter silence of this canon as
to any specifically Papal prerogatives x inhering
in the Roman see can hardly be explained
by saying that here its quasi-patriarchal rights
alone were in question, and its Papal character
might therefore, for the time, be left out of
consideration. The rejoinder is obvious ; the
language of the canon is exactly what would
be natural on the part of a Council which knew
nothing of Papal claims, which simply regarded
one chief see as in an analogous condition
to another. It is not what would be natural
on the part of any assembly of Christian
bishops who believed that Christ had given
to the Roman see a plenitude of jurisdiction
which differed, not only in degree but in kind,
from that of any other see whatsoever. Men
who so believed would have taken care to
safeguard in very express terms that unique
prerogative of "the bishop who is in Rome,"
which made him, by Divine commission, so
very much more than a primate or patriarch,
— which set him apart as, in an awfully full
would have decided such a point, or that, if decided, it would
not have been put into plain terms, may be left to refute itself.
1 Hefele condescends to use an ambiguous term here, con
tending that the canon contains nothing contrary to "the
primacy of the holy see." How much does " primacy " cover ?

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 81
and absolute sense, the representative of the
Church's Heavenly Lord.
(XI.) Julius and the Easterns.
Julius I., who governed the Roman Church
for fifteen years from the early part of 337,
added greatly and deservedly to the moral
influence of his see by his unswerving loyalty
to the Nicene faith, and his cordial and effective
support of its great champion in the troubles
which so soon followed on the " first return " of
St. Athanasius.1 It was most probably in the end
°f 339 2 that the " Eastern " Arianisers or " Euse-
bians," bent on ruining the restored archbishop
of Alexandria by reviving old charges, or rather
old libels, and reinforcing them by new ones, —
asked Julius to assemble a Council for a fresh
inquiry into the case, " and, if he pleased, to act
as judge." 8 Obviously these Easterns did not
deem themselves bound to appeal to the bishop
of Rome as to a supreme judge in all ecclesias
tical cases : they invite him to preside over the
1 One of the best letters that a Roman bishop ever wrote was
Julius' letter of congratulation to the Alexandrians in view of
Athanasius' second return. S. Ath. Apol. c. Ari. 52.
2 Those who, like Prof. Gwatkin, date Athanasius' first return
in 337, and his second exile in 339, would date this request at
the end of 338.
3 S. Ath. Apol. c. Ari. 20. G

82 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
trial ; and he, in turn, complies with their request
for a Council by summoning one to meet in
Rome, and inviting both parties to attend it.
Athanasius, having escaped from Alexandria
after the sacrilegious outrages of the spring of
340, appears at Rome, and waits there, im
pressing the bishop and the Church by the
moral grandeur and beauty of his character.
The Eusebians detain the messengers of Julius
until the January of 341, and then write to him
in a querulous spirit, charging him with partiality
to the accused bishop (who, in their view, was
still canonically under deposition by sentence of
the Council of Tyre in 335) — throwing on him
the responsibility for " rekindling the fire of
discord," and insisting that, although his see
was " apostolic," yet " all bishops were of equal
authority, and were not to be esteemed accord
ing to the greatness of their respective cities " —
a clear hint that, in the East, the Roman
Church was suspected of building overmuch
on the dignity of its city. The reply of
Julius,1 which was not written until the late
autumn, contains some points which have been
misapprehended. 1 It is given in Athanasius' Apol. c. Ari. c. 20 ff. See His
torical Writings of St. Athanasius (Oxford, 1881), p. xxvi.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 83
1. The Nicene Council, he says, "agreed,"
and even " prescribed," that the decisions of one
synod might be reversed by another.1 But this
remark (whatever may be its historical basis) has
no bearing on any special function of the Roman
see or Church ; it would hold good just as fully
if the Council, thus supposed to be competent to
re-hear causes decided by synods in Asia, had
been summoned to meet anywhere else than at
Rome. 2. Next comes a sentence to the effect that,
if Athanasius, or Marcellus of Ancyra (whom
the Easterns had condemned as having put forth
a form of Sabellianism), "had given offence,
word should have been written to us all, that so
a just decision might proceed from all" 2 Some
confusion has arisen from not observing that
Julius is here looking back to the past wrong
doings of the Eusebians, when they condemned
Athanasius and others in synods, at Tyre and
Antioch, which were not properly representative
of the collective episcopate. " You acted in this
1 S. Ath. Apol. c. Ari. 22. Robertson thinks this is a " free "
reference to Nic. can. 5, about re-hearings of cases by provincial
synods. Transl. Ath. p. III. But the cases are such as have
been decided by individual bishops.
2 Literally, "that so what was just might be determined by
all " (Ath. Apol. c. Ari. 35).

84 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
way," he says in effect; "you ought to have acted
otherwise, considering that the 'sufferers were
bishops of eminent Churches which Apostles
had personally governed. ' " He illustrates the
word '' all " by saying that " the bishops will be
obliged again to assemble, in order that the
condemnation of those who are found guilty
may take place in the presence of all." But
then he reminds them of a special "custom " in
regard to Alexandrian Church causes, — "that
word should be written first to us, and so a
just decision should proceed from this place"1
(Rome). This must be the passage which
Socrates in the next century so gravely mis
apprehended, as if Julius had quoted a " canon
commanding that the Churches should make no
regulations without the consent of the bishop of
Rome." 2 Papalist advocates are apt to produce
this statement as if it were of primary authority ; 3
whereas it needs to be corrected by what Julius
actually wrote, which refers to Alexandria
simply, in view of its specially close relation to
Rome. Since Athanasius personally was con
cerned, "they ought to have informed the Church
1 Kal oStus zv6ev dplfctrBai ra 8/icaia. This " custom " is mis
represented by Mr. Rivington, as if it applied to any " case of
difference arising amongst bishops" (p. 471).
2 Soc. ii. 17, and cf. Soz. iii. 10. a Rivington, p. 176.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 85
here;" whereas "now they wish us to concur
in a sentence which they had passed by their
own authority without consulting us. This,"
proceeds Julius, " is by no means in accordance
with what the directions of Paul, and the
traditions of the Fathers, have prescribed to
us;" they must allow him to say this,— he is
writing in the common interest, — "for what we
have received from blessed Peter the Apostle,
this I make known to you." This context
refers to the special case of Alexandria; and
whatever Julius understood by "the directions
of Paul" and "the tradition from Peter," he
probably had in mind the associations which
linked the names of the two great Apostles
with that of Mark, the reputed founder of the
Alexandrian see. He then returns to the
general subject of his letter.
(XII.) The Council of Sardica.
The genuineness of the canons ascribed to the
Sardican Council of 343 is open to some doubt,
inasmuch as canons passed by that great
Western synod1 would ordinarily have been
circulated throughout the West, and this would
1 As at Nicaea, so at Sardica, Hosius presided, and signed
first: then "Julius of Rome by his presbyters Archidamus and
Philoxemus " (Ath. Apol. c. Ari. 50).

86 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
have prevented St. Augustine, and the African
Church in his time, from confounding the
"Sardican Council" with the Arian "con-
ciliabulum " of seceders to Philippopolis, which
usurped its name and its rights in a circular
letter.1 But for our present purpose, the
canons in question may be assumed to be really
Sardican ; and one need not spend time in
discussing the bold hypothesis that four Roman
bishops of the fifth century who persisted in
calling them "Nicene" — we shall see ere long
from what motive — were stating the literal fact
as to their origin.2 Another theory, somewhat
1 "Sardicense concilium Arianorum fuit, quod totum (qu. notum)
jamdiu est, ut habemus in manibus, contractum maxime contra
Athanasium," S. Aug. c. Crescon. iii. s. 38. . . . Quod quidem
concilium, ne te lateat, Arianorum est" (ib. iv. s. 52). So in
his Ep. 44. s. 6. The old ecclesiastical historians know nothing
of canons, but only of synodical letters, as put forth by the
true Sardican Council. Cf. S. Athan. Apol. c. Ari. 37 ff.
But in a letter of the Constantinopolitan council of 382 a
"Nicene rule" is quoted, as to inviting "the bishops of the
bordering territory" to meet the bishops of a province when
assembled for the consecration of a new colleague (Theodoret,
v. 9). This is not " Nicene," but has a resemblance to a
sentence in the seventh Sardican canon, but only in its Greek
text. However, Gratus of Carthage in 348 said he "remem
bered" a Sardican decree which is like Sard. 19 (or 15).
2 This is the theory which Mr. Rivington, in p. 178, describes
as " quite possible," but in p. 473 adopts as " the most satis
factory," although he considers the one next mentioned to
be " perfectly tenable " (p. 473). He accordingly supposes the
Sardican "provisions" about appeals to have been Nicene

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 87
less adventurous, would explain the description
of them as " Nicene " by assuming that they
were considered an " appendix and explication
of Nicene directions," and so "were part and
parcel of the Nicene settlement," as the " Con
stantinopolitan " recension of the Creed was
" virtually contained in its Nicene " form. Well,
we know what that " Nicene" form was; what do
we know of any Nicene rulings which could
stand in such a relation to the Sardican? and
what authority had the Sardican Council, not
being oecumenical, to accredit an appendix to
Nicene laws ? The words ascribed in one of
these canons to bishop Hosius, and presently to
be considered, are incompatible with the theory.
And as for the suggestion that Popes might
keep on "speaking of them as Nicene to
Africans," in order to avoid confusion with the
Pseudo-Sardican " conciliabulum," it is utterly
hopeless. These "Popes" did not say, "The
true Sardican Council was orthodox, and its
rules are a legitimate explanation or develop
ment of the Nicene;" what they said was, "These
in very deed, but "preserved, after a while, at Rome only, the
home of accuracy, the metropolis of canonical lore" Among the
many extraordinary assertions in which his volume abounds,
these words may take a foremost place. In his view, the sixth
Nicene canon originally contained such directions. Why then
did the Roman "legate" at Chalcedon read it without them?

88 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
rules are Nicene; " and they knew well how that
assertion would be understood. But now for
the provisions in regard to the see of Rome
contained in the third, fourth, and fifth canons.
They are introduced by a proposal on the part
of Hosius ; " If it is your pleasure, let us honour
the memory of Peter the Apostle ; " a phrase
which is incompatible with an ancient right
acknowledged on all hands.1 But what is the
power thus given, de novo, to Julius 2 of Rome, or
to any " Roman bishop " ? It comes to this : a
1 Hefele denies this, on the ground that " si placet " is often
used in formulating a doctrinal decree, which must express an
old truth : and that "every acknowledgment even of an ancient
papal right is always made out of reverence to St. Peter."
But (a) the matter in question is not doctrinal, but merely one
of judiciary administration, (b) The reference to St. Peter's
memory is made without any salvo, or even an implicit intimation
that " an acknowledged papal right is being referred to," and
in the circumstances such a salvo would have been absolutely
necessary. Mr. Rivington contends that this reference pertains
merely to the third canon, which does not deal with appeals to
Rome strictly so called. But in all reason it must be read with
all the following provisions that refer to Rome, as recommending
them for adoption.
2 This name is in the Greek text (on which see Hefele, ii. 108,
s. 64.) and in the Vetus and the Dionysian. The Prisca and
Isidorian give no name. Mr. Rivington tells his readers that
" some copies have ' Sylvester,' " which would suit his theory.
He does not tell them that no good edition admits this reading,
and that a note to the Codex Canonum in the appendix to St.
Leo's works says bluntly : " Nomen Silvestro pro Julio . . .
substitutum est . . . ut congrueret cum tempore Nicaenae synodi."

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 89
bishop deposed by his provincial synod may
demand a new trial, and appeal to the bishop
of Rome for that purpose (can. 4, 5) ; in which
case his comprovincial judges shall also write to
the same bishop (can. 3), who, if he deems the
appeal reasonable, may send the case to the
bishops of the next adjacent province, and, at
the appellant's special request, may depute one
or more presbyters de latere suo to act with
them, as " holding his authority ; " x and the
previous deposition shall not take effect until it
has been reaffirmed by such a tribunal.
The first remark to be made is suggested by
Mr. Rivington's assertion that "these canons
do indeed condition appeals to Rome, but they
assumetheir necessity, — do not inaugurate them,"
but " suppose that there will be " such appeals.
There is no warrant for such a statement : the
probability of appeals to some quarter is indeed
supposed, and it is deemed desirable to provide
for them: but that they should be made to
Rome is not a presupposition, but a " condition."
Next the " appellate jurisdiction," if so it is to
be called, thus conceded to the bishop of Rome,
is in four respects limited. He may not evoke
1 It is going beyond the text to assume, as does Hefele, that
this means presiding in the court.

go THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
the cause, motu proprio, to Rome.1 He may not,
motu proprio, call the provincial synod to account.
He may not form the new tribunal at his own
pleasure. He may not decide the case per
sonally. The power, in fact, is much less than
was given by the Council of Chalcedon in such
cases to the " exarch " or primate, — as superior
to the metropolitans of his "dicecese," — or to
"the see of Constantinople." One is really
surprised at the complacency with which
such provisions as these (natural enough at
the time) are adduced as serviceable in con
troversy to the cause of a Papal sovereignty.
They are not only inadequate, but actually
damaging. St. Hilary2 gives a Latin version
of a letter, said to be addressed by the Council
to Julius, and containing the sentence, " For this
will seem best and ' valde congruentissimum, si
ad caput, id est ad Petri apostoli sedem, de
singulis quibusque provinciis Domini referant
sacerdotes.'" Hefele admits that it does not
come in naturally, but " interrupts the train of
1 It is not true that "Julius told the Eusebians that they ought
to come to Rome, and have their cause tried there (in exact
accordance with the provisions of the so-called Sardican canons)."
These provisions do not go that length, and Julius' "exhor
tation" was in reply to the Eusebians' own "request" (Ath.
Apol. c. Ari. 20, 22).
2 Fragm. ii. 9-13.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 91
thought." Yet, if it be genuine, it does not go
beyond what would be natural for Westerns to
say of the great primatial and sole " apostolical "
see in the West.

(XIII.) Liberius.
It is an ungrateful task to dwell on the one
instance of weakness and unfaithfulness which is
associated with the name of Julius' immediate
successor, who in other respects was a good and
true man. But as an attempt has been made
which might be called gallant, if it were not so
desperate, to nullify the evidence for the lapse of
Liberius, one must see what that evidence is, and
what it proves. Liberius had been zealous for
Nicene orthodoxy : and when Constantius had
terrorised the Council of Milan in 355, his
attempts to gain Liberius, then at Rome, had
been repelled with a defiant indignation, which,
but for later events, might have seemed to
indicate a " rock-like " constancy.1 But two
1 See the remarks of Newman, The Arians, p. 329. Mr.
Rivington speaks of Liberius on this occasion as "knowing him
self to be the Atlas whom our Divine Lord had appointed to
bear the world of Divine revelation on his shoulders " (p. 189),
because Theodoret in his rhetorical account makes Liberius
say, "The cause of the faith is not weakened because I am
alone." But Theodoret makes him add, " For, in the ancient
story, three only are found to resist the decree " (ii. 16).

92 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
years of exile in Thrace made a difference, the
extent of which must be carefully estimated.
First, according to what is implied in a postscript
to Athanasius' "Apology against the Arians,"
and asserted in a passage of that " History of
the Arians " which has been sometimes thought
to be not throughout of his own writing,1 Liberius,
longing to return home, consented to sign a docu
ment renouncing communion with Athanasius.2
There is no sufficient reason for questioning
these statements, although Mr. Rivington, fol
lowing a Jesuit guide,3 intimates a belief that

1 But see Robertson's St. Athanasius (Lib. Nicene and Post-
nicene Fathers), p. 266.
2 Apol. c. Ari. 89 : " He did not endure to the end the
affliction (Bxfyiv) of banishment." Hist. Ari. 41 : "Liberius . . .
broke down, and, in fear of threatened death, signed " (i.e. against
Athanasius ; cf. ib. c. 31). To refrain from quoting either
passage, and to say that the former " does not speak of a fall,
but merely of Liberius not having completed his term of exile "
(Rivington, p. 186), is most disingenuous. Hefele (who rejects
the evidence of the Hilarian fragment) says that "it is useless
trouble to try to find in these words any other meaning than this,
that he did not hold out," etc., and that both passages are
additions by Athanasius himself. The "History of Arians"
was evidently written piecemeal ; see Robertson, l.c.
3 Stilting, in Vit. Liberii, Act. SS. Sept. 23. " No," exclaims
Mr. Rivington ; " what Liberius did sign for certain was all in
support of Athanasius." When Bellarmine owns "Liberium,
etsi non expresse, tamen interpretative, in haeresim consensisse"
(de Rom. Pont. iv. 9), he must seem to Mr. Rivington to concede
far too much.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 93
they are spurious. But it would be unfair to
cite them as implying that Liberius went
further, and actually signed a heretical creed.
On the other hand, their silence on this point
might be due to a characteristic 'generosity, and
cannot outweigh the evidence of Hilary in his
pamphlet against Constantius, " I know not
whether you showed more impiety in banishing
him (Liberius) than in restoring him," which can
only mean that his restoration was purchased
by a compromise of his orthodoxy. The passage
in St. Hilary's sixth Fragment, in which certain
" letters of Liberius " are exhibited, with fierce
comments anathematising him as a "prevari
cator" or betrayer of trust, involves a well-known
difficulty ; for the creed which he signed, and
which is branded as a " perfidia," is said to have
been framed by Easterns at Sirmium. Now
Hilary, who put the best possible construction
on Semiarian formulas, and, in particular, on the
long Sirmian creed (which was several years
prior to Liberius' exile), could not here be
thinking of it ; and while the short Sirmian
creed of 357 would suit the description, inas
much as he himself calls it a " blasphemia," it
was a Western or Latin composition, drafted by
the bishop of Lisbon in a small meeting at

94 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
Sirmium.1 It is true that a later Sirmian creed,
compiled in 358 by Easterns in a Semiarian
interest out of three older formularies, is identi
fied by Sozomen with the one which Liberius
accepted in substitution for the Nicene ; 2 but
except as such a substitute, Hilary would not
have denounced it as " perfidia." However,
Jerome is distinct in affirming that Liberius
did under pressure sign something " heretical," 3
and, in another passage, that being overcome by
the weariness of exile, " et in hsereticam pravi-
tatem subscribens," he had entered Rome as a
conqueror.4 1 Newman, The Arians, p. 435. This creed is given in
the original Latin by Hilary, De Synodis, 11, and in a Greek
version by Athanasius, De Synodis, 28. It condemns both
Homoousion and Homoiousion, and says, " no one can doubt
that the Father is greater than the Son ... in Godhead." But
it does not absolutely affirm the Anomoion.
2 Soz. iv. 15. Cf. Newman, Arians, p. 437. Dollinger con
siders (Fables respecting Popes, p. 183) that he signed both the
long Sirmian creed and the compilation, the latter involving a
"sacrifice of the Nicene doctrine."
3 De Vir. Illustr. c. 97. The statement cannot be invalidated
by a mistake, as we must consider it, as to the exact date, which
is here implicitly placed at the beginning of the exile.
4 Chronicle, ann. 352. Stilting, of course, treats the incrimina
ting passages as interpolations (Act. SS. Sept. 23, c. 147). Will
it be contended that most of them were forged by the party
which glorified the intruder Felix, and invented the story of a
bloody persecution of his adherents by Liberius on his return ?
Let those who champion Liberius a Voutrance explain the

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

9S

Jerome, indeed, as attached to Damasus
(formerly a partisan of Felix), was not likely to
be partial to the memory of Liberius ; but he
must have known that Liberius had, at any rate
in his later years, been energetically Catholic,
and he was not the man to blacken the name
of a Roman bishop, in a series of biographies
and in a Chronicle, without evidence of a solid
character ; nor would even schismatics like
Marcellinus and Faustinus, themselves bitterly
hostile to Damasus, have ventured, in default
of such evidence, on affirming in the pre
face to their memorial to Valentinian II. and
Theodosius I. that Liberius "manus perfidiae
dederat," and on those terms had regained his
see.1 The impulse which drives Roman advo
cates, in certain awkward cases, to take an
ultra-sceptical line about evidence, is pretty sure
to place them on quaking ground.2
honours long paid by Rome to "pope St. Felix II." (See Vit.
Pontif. i. 58.) Jerome's Chronicle condemns Felix.
1 See this in Sirmond, Op. vol. I. To whatever extent he
lapsed, he lapsed not as a private Christian, but in his public
ecclesiastical capacity as bishop of Rome.
2 Renouf says that Stilting's "article on Liberius is calculated
to impose upon precisely those who have no notion of the
difference between . . . Pyrrhonism and sound criticism " (On
Pope Honorius, p. 44). We need not dwell on the strange per
version of history by which it was once maintained on the Roman
side — as by Anglo-Roman prelates "in their address to queen

96 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

(XIV.) Rome and the Antiochene Schism.
It is well known that the dissension between
the " Eustathian " or Old - Church party at
Antioch and those who, while agreeing with
them in Nicene faith, communicated with
bishops who were in fact crypto-Arian, had
seemed likely to be abated when Meletius,
having been appointed by Arians to the see of
Antioch, made a clear avowal of orthodoxy.1
The Alexandrian Council of 362 defined the
terms of a concordat, whereby the Eustathians,
under their presbyter Paulinus, might enter into
communion with Meletius and his orthodox
adherents. The Council clearly regarded the
Eustathians as in their rights, and advised them
to treat with the other orthodox section, as now,
Elizabeth — that Athanasius was "censured by pope Liberius,
and the emperor reprimanded Athanasius for opposing the head
of the Church. But in this," proceeds Collier gravely (Eccl.
Hist. vi. 290), "they plainly misreport the case; for Atha
nasius never received a rebuke from the emperor for non-
submission to the papal supremacy. Nothing of the modern
pretensions were challenged [i.e. claimed] at that time of day ; "
and Elizabeth reminded the memorialists that " Athanasius was
right, and the pope" (Liberius) "was wrong, in the Arian
contest." 1 Not by "openly avowing his belief in the Homoousion,"
(Rivington, p. 192), but still with sufficient clearness to show his
adhesion to its meaning ; see Newman, Arians, p. 373.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 97
in effect, trustworthy. But in this they were not
acting, as has been maintained,1 under orders
from Rome. It is fatal to such an assumption
that the synodical letter, drawn up by St. Atha
nasius, says not a word to that effect ; and one
passage in a version of a letter of Athanasius to
Rufinianus, which was read in the second Nicene
Council (only 425 years later!2), cannot be
authority for such a statement as that the rules
adopted by the Council for the reconciliation of
ex- Arians had been " drawn up in Rome," and
brought by Eusebius of Vercellae, as "Papal
legate," to Alexandria, where in that capacity
he presided with Athanasius in the Council.3
1 Rivington, p. 190 : " Liberius . . . influenced and authorised
the great bishop of Alexandria to convene a council. . . . The
council at Alexandria adopted the rules laid down by the
Sovereign Pontiff. . . . Liberius had sent his legates, Eusebius of
Vercellae and Lucifer of Cagliari." Here, as in other passages,
bold assertion stands for evidence. Mr. Rivington is somewhat
less cautious than Stilting, who admits that he nowhere finds any
express assertion of this second legation of Eusebius and Lucifer,
but argues that it is "most probable,"./V how could they have
acted with such authority if they had not been papal legates ? As
to the Alexandrian rules having been drawn up at Rome, which
Mr. Rivington asserts in his text, though in a footnote he speaks
less confidently, Stilting says that "fortasse simul innuitur," in
the words quoted as from Athanasius.
2 TavTa Kal iv 'Pd/iy iypojpr), Kal (wreSeJaTO ri 'Vap.atav iKKXriala.
Mr. Rivington refers for this to " Mansi, tom. vii. col. 75, 6,"
— obviously a second-hand reference. It should be " Mansi,
xii. 1030."
3 Rivington, pp. 192-195. He infers from a letter of Liberius
H

98 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
This is pure imagination. Eusebius had
been Liberius' envoy, eight years before, in
conjunction with Lucifer, to Constantius; but
there is no real evidence for their having received
a second commission from Liberius in the
opening of 362, and they both came straight to
Alexandria from their places of exile in the
Thebaid. And when Lucifer took upon him to
consecrate Paulinus as bishop of Antioch,1 and
to Eusebius, written a.d. 354, that one who had then acted
in union with Liberius would not now act save as his legate.
And in a footnote we are told that, " from St. Athanasius' letter
to . . . Jovian, it is evident that Liberius had dealt with the matter
of the lapsed bishops before the council of Alexandria met, —
letters had come from Gaul and Britain." Here it suffices to look
at the letter and the dates. The Council met in the spring of
362 ; the letter to Jovian was written in the autumn of 363, and
it does not say one word about action on the part of Liberius ;
what it does say about the "Spanish and British churches,
with those of the Gauls, all Italy, Dalmatia," is that they
assent to the Nicene creed. As for the statement in a Vercellian
Life of Eusebius, that he and Lucifer were acting as again
" legates " of Liberius, and so carried the Alexandrian decrees
to Rome for his confirmation, it betrays itself. The Life is
described by Mr. Rivington as " published under the authority
of Eusebius's successor, St. Honoratus" (p. 195), and in Act.
SS. 20 May, to which he refers, we find that it is said to give
the statement as on the authority of Honoratus, that St. Eusebius
had four "legations" from Liberius, this to the Alexandrian
synod being the second, and that he and Lucifer, his fellow
legate, carried the "acta concilii," in a Latin translation to
Rome, where Liberius confirmed them, etc. This shows a
much later hand.
1 Gregory of Nyssa says obscurely that " some one attempted
to corrupt Meletius' spouse," the Antiochene church (Orat. de

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 99
thereby defeated the Council's peace-making
scheme, it is wholly arbitrary to assume that he
must have been acting as Rome's represen
tative, and have "decided to use his Papal
faculties," for that, otherwise, the Egyptian
Church would not have ultimately recognised
Paulinus. As to the first point, if Lucifer was
clothed with a "legate's" power, it is all the
more significant that his act was strongly con
demned ; and as to the second, it might well
appear to strict Churchmen, in Egypt or else
where,1 that Meletius was disqualified by his
Arian consecration, and that Paulinus, however
unfortunate were the circumstances of his
elevation to the episcopate, did at any rate
represent those who had never in any respect
Melet.). Mr. Rivington explains it of Euzoius, the new Arian
bishop, and says that iirex^P^ro ( ? the word is Kareirex^p^t)
"would not apply to Paulinus," and that the context "implies a
long interval before Meletius' second exile." But Gregory would
not take account of so mere an alien as Euzoius, while he would
be likely to feel bitterly against Paulinus. The period 362-365
might be called rhetorically a "long interval."
1 At the same time we must recollect that Athanasius did at
one time prepare to recognise Meletius, but was repelled by the
latter's cold reception of his overtures — the result, no doubt, of
a misunderstanding ; whereupon he fell back on his old relations
with the Eustathians, and so with Paulinus as now their bishop.
See Basil, Ep. 89. When Basil tells the Westerns that he leaves
them to "judge whether there was anything culpable in Paulinus'
ordination" (Ep. 263. 5), he is refraining from touching a sore.

ioo THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
compromised their orthodoxy. Thus the breach
became aggravated; St. Basil did all he could
to induce Athanasius, and through him the
West, to recognise Meletius : he failed, as he
could not but fail ; x and he was also bitterly
disappointed that Damasus, who had succeeded
Liberius in 366, did not respond as he had hoped
to the entreaties of the Easterns, under a new
Arian persecution, for effective Western sym
pathy.2 And this leads us to consider Basil's
attitude towards the Roman see.3 Reserving for
consideration in a note a few minor details,4 let
1 See Newman, Church of the Fathers, p. 73.
2 Mr. Rivington lays some stress (p. 209) on Athanasius'
words in his Ep. ad Afros (a.d. 369) : " We have written to our
beloved Damasus . . . concerning Auxentius, who invaded the
church of Milan, and have narrated his proceedings and ex
pressed surprise that, up to this time, he has not been deposed
and cast out of the Church." Now for the comment : " It appears
from St. Athanasius that nothing less than a Roman synod could
authoritatively allay the disquiet abroad : but the value of a
Roman synod could obviously only be rated thus by reason of
its being an expression of the mind of the bishop of Rome "
(i.e. solely). But Athanasius might very well urge the orthodox
chief bishop of central Italy to declare himself explicitly agamst
the heterodox chief bishop of northern Italy. And whereas Mr.
Rivington dwells on the letter of a Roman synod as implying
that the Ariminian council's authority was " nullified " by the
dissent of "the Roman bishop" (p. 210), Athanasius treats that
council as invalidated simply by its opposition to the Nicene
(Ad Afros 3) and as rejected by many bishops.
3 Mr. Rivington imagines (p. 190) that Basil was a bishop in
359-60 !
4 In Ep. 69. 1, Basil writes to Athanasius : " It has appeared

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 101
us take first the letter in which Basil refers to
to us appropriate (axSKovBov) to write to the bishop of Rome,
(and ask him) to take cognisance of (iino-Ki^aaBai) our affairs
and give his opinion (yvdjinv), in order that, since it is difficult
to get any persons sent from thence by a general and synodical
resolution, he himself should act authoritatively (au8ej/TJj<rai) in
the matter, by choosing men capable of enduring a toilsome
journey," etc. Here (a) iino-iU^ao-eai has nothing to do with "a
quasi-episcopal visitation," a visitatorial intervention in the tech
nical sense, on the part of a " superior authority " (Rivington, p.
213 ff.) ; it is the verb used in the very next letter as to the Roman
bishop Dionysius' active sympathy with the sufferings of Cappa
docians : and so we find kSeXtyuv iirio-Ketyis in connection with " a
letter of comfort " (Ep. 242. 2), and r) ruv ao-Bevoivrtov iirlo-Ke\fits
(Ep. 263. 1). (b) By yviipriv is meant not a supreme judgment, but
an opinion (the Latin version has " consilium ") ; and (c) the
authority to be assumed by Damasus is clearly that of a repre
sentative of the Western church in general. Next, in Ep. 214. 2,
Basil says he "hears that adherents of Paulinus are carrying
about letters of the Westerns assigning (itnTpi-novra) to them
selves the episcopate of the church of Antioch." This could
only mean letters in which "Westerns" acknowledged Paulinus
as the bishop of Antioch. (The Latin version has " attribuunt.")
It is absurd to infer that, " according to St. Basil, Rome had the
right to decide," by her inherent "jurisdiction," between two
competitors for that see (Rivington, p. 219). Again, in Ep. 243.
I, while entreating sympathy from Italian and Gallic bishops,
Basil quotes, "The head cannot say to the feet, I have no need
of you ; " but this is no acknowledgment of a papal monarchy ;
and when he says, further on, that, " were it possible, it would be
right iroAAois r)p.as avvSpa^v to your reverences" — words which
Mr. Rivington glosses as implying "some right of hearing appeals,"
(p. 217), i.e. as pertaining to Rome, one may remember that
his words in Ep. 69, "it would be a good beginning if &trirep
iirl Kopvpijv twv ZXwv t);c ai/v avaSpdp.oi)isv TeAsum/TO," are
addressed to St. Athanasius. Again, when in Ep. 263 the
Westerns are asked to warn the Easterns (which Basil himself,
being "suspected by many," could not so well do) against

102 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Liberius as having in a letter "reinstated"
Eustathius,1 — the shifty intriguer, who had
unwarily communicating with certain subtle heretics, what has
this to do with papal "jurisdiction"? Or when, in the same
letter, he urges the Westerns to " give attention " (hmp.iKst.av,
which Mr. Rivington twists into "careful oversight"), and to
say that if the persons in question persist in their (doctrinal)
innovations, the Westerns will "withdraw from them," how
does this imply that "communion with Rome " is sine qua non
for " communion with the Church " ? (p. 226). Again, as to Apol
linaris, one of the persons referred to in Ep. 263, did Basil
treat him "somewhat tenderly" (p. 225), and refrain from
denouncing him until he had heard of that condemnation which
he hoped would come from the West ? Not so. It is true that
in 376 he had written, " I never counted Apollinaris an enemy ;
and on some accounts I even respect the man " (Ep. 244, 3) :
but in this later Ep. 263 he ranks him among wolves in sheep's
clothing (not a specially "tender" phrase), and mentions gross
errors in his books ; and when in Ep. 265 he treats him as an
outsider, he never refers to any Roman censures, but rests purely
on the schismatic attitude and the heterodox speculations of the
man who "at first seemed to be on our side." In this same
letter he deals with the case of Marcellus. Mr. Rivington refers
to Hefele's Councils, ii. 29 ff, E.T., for "a most careful summary
of the case for and against Marcellus" (p. 222, note) ; but he does
not tell his readers that Hefele describes Zahn's unfavourable
judgment as "very noteworthy," and, in effect, adopts it in
p. 105. However, let that question stand as open : Mr. Riving
ton proceeds to argue that, although St. Basil complains of the
Westerns as having confirmed the Marcellian " heresy " (Ep. 239.
2), he might not only consider that they had done so in ignorance,
but might still "believe in the pope as the divinely appointed
monarch of the Church," who (on Roman principles) could in
certain cases "err" (p. 223). But the question which Mr.
Rivington tries to ignore is, Where does Basil, either directly
or implicitly, intimate any such "belief"?
1 The words of Basil, Ep. 263. 3, are : " But what were the
things proposed to him by the most blessed bishop Liberius,

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 103
passed through many phases, and whom Basil
had been compelled by a painful experience
to denounce. The " reinstatement " consisted
simply in a testimony borne by Liberius to
the fact that Eustathius, with two other Semi
arian deputies, had at Rome, in his presence,
signed the Nicene creed (in 366). Fortunately,
we have the letter itself, as preserved by
Socrates ; x it makes not the faintest allusion
to any act of " Papal " jurisdiction ; but there is
no wonder that, on reading it, a Catholic synod
held at Tyana in 367 had recognised Eustathius
as an orthodox bishop. St. Basil was writing
ten years later ; and he tells the Westerns that
"since it was from the West that Eustathius had
gained his power to injure tlte Churches " by his
subsequent relapse, " it was necessary that from
and what he himself agreed to, we know no more than this,
that he brought a letter reinstating him, on showing which
to the council at Tyana, he was restored to his post." For
Eustathius' knaveries, as Tillemont calls them, see Diet. Chr.
Biogr. ii. 386. He was now trying to curry favour with the
dominant Arians (Basil, Ep. 226). What Basil "did not
know" in 377 was whether, besides the Nicene creed which he
knew Eustathius to have signed at Rome (Ep. 244. 5), any other
terms had been proposed to, and accepted by him. Tillemont
thinks that Basil (and the Easterns with him) may have supposed
that he had also professed belief in the divinity of the Holy
Spirit, which he was now, as the context says, prominent in
denying (ix. 270).
> Soc. iv. 12. Cf. Tillemont, vi. 543-

104 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
the West should also come the setting right of
the affair." The context here decisively shows
that Basil, instead of bowing before Papal
" authority," is telling the Westerns, and Rome
in particular, that, as their too facile reliance
on Eustathius' professions has given occasion to
the existing trouble, it is their business to do
what can be done for its abatement.1 The other
piece of evidence is his language regarding
Damasus. In one short letter he says, bitterly
enough, that his brother Gregory might be of
some use as an envoy to "a kindly disposed
person," but, as being wholly unable to flatter,
could make no way at all with " one who sits up
ever so high, and therefore is out of hearing of
those who speak the truth to him from below." 2
This is no doubt very shocking language from a
Roman point of view ; but in the following year,
376, he not only refers to what he calls " the
Western superciliousness," but adds, " I had
meant to write to their coryphceus — not about
1 See the context, Ep. 263. 3. Mr. Rivington has built up a
fabric of misinterpretation on the assumption that the letter in
question was a papal mandate which the obedient Easterns had
simply to register and obey (p. 225). He omitted the critical
words italicised in the text, and thus gave a turn to the " passage "
which is at once disposed of by the context. In his Reply,
p. 28, he pretends that the omission had made no "difference,"
2 Ep. 215-

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 105
Church affairs, save only by way of hinting that
they (Westerns) neither know the truth about
us, nor take the right way to learn it, and
generally that it was not right to mistake
haughtiness for dignity." x Now, unquestionably
members of the Roman communion have at
times, rightly or not, allowed themselves to
complain sharply of some act or some attitude
of the " Holy See." But the point is, that
according to the present Roman contention
Basil knew that Damasus was by Divine right
his lord 2 and master, supreme alike in the East
and the West. Could one who held that belief,
under any amount of momentary irritation, call
a Pope " the coryphaeus of the Westerns " ?
But what was the attitude of Damasus, and of
the Roman Church under him, towards Basil's
1 Ep. 239. It is hopeless to attempt to exempt the "cory
phaeus" from the charge of "not caring to know the truth"
brought against Westerns in general, still less from that of
haughtiness, etc. But, in fairness, it should be remembered that
Basil did not see the best side of Damasus. His questions to
Jerome as to points of Biblical interpretation give * new and
pleasing interest to his personality: see Jerome, Epp. 19. 35.
See also his metrical (if not very poetical) epitaphs on the saints,
on his sister, and others, Galland. Biblioth. Patr. vi. 346 ff.
For an account of his work in opening and adorning the cata
combs, see Roma Sotterranea, E. T. p. 97.
2 Mr. Rivington expressly adopts the phrase, "lordship over
the universal Church" (p- 223).

106 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
friend Meletius? Just after this last letter
of Basil's, Jerome, then living in Syria, wrote
the celebrated letter to Damasus which is so
constantly paraded as evidence of a received
"Papal" doctrine, in which he says he "knows
that the Church was built upon the chair of
Peter, and that whoso eats the Lamb outside that
house is profane."1 What does this effusive
loyalty to Damasus prove as to a general Church
belief ? Nothing whatever ; Jerome, then a lay
ascetic of little more than thirty, — by no means
as yet a Doctor of the Church, — is not echoing
any Eastern language, but simply falling back
on what, doubtless, he had been wont to hear
1 Ep. 15. (a.d. 376.) In Adv. Jovin. i. 26 (seventeen years
later), he denies that St. Peter was the exclusive foundation of
the Church, or the sole holder of "the keys," although adding
that he was made "head of the Twelve " (a.d. 393). In the
famous letter to Evangelus (the date of which is uncertain),
Jerome says that wherever a bishop is, at Rome or at Eugubium,
at Constantinople or at Rhegium, etc., he is "ejusdem sacer-
dotii," and all are " apostolorum successores." Roman arguers
say that this simply refers to the pope "as bishop of Rome,"
and has no bearing on his papal claims. But the very point of
the passage is to deny that a particular Roman custom has any
claim to universal observance: "Si auctoritas quaeritur, orbis
major est urbe " (i.e. than the city, Rome). " Quid mihi profers
unius urbis consuetudinem ? " On the papal theory, Jerome
ought certainly to have put in a salvo here for the universal
jurisdiction attaching to one bishop over all others, and for
Rome's authority as the magistra of all other churches.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 107
some years before, in religious society at Rome.
He requests Damasus to tell him with whom
to communicate at Antioch ; x and in the next
letter observes that Meletius, like Paulinus,
" professes to adhere to " Damasus. This obvi
ously means, to agree with Damasus as to the
faith ; which, indeed, Meletius did. And when,
some three years later, Meletius, at the head of
a large Antiochene synod, put his signature as
" bishop of Antioch " 2 to a doctrinal formulary
of Roman origin (afterwards called " the Tome
of the Westerns "), which was accordingly sent
back to Rome, Damasus would naturally accept
it as a proof of his Catholic orthodoxy, but it
would by no means follow that he recognised
him as bishop of Antioch.8 For here lay the
1 He says, "I abhor Meletius, I ignore Paulinus." It is not
without significance that some three years after he had addressed
this inquiry to Damasus, he attached himself definitively to the
side of Paulinus, and was by him ordained presbyter.
2 Mansi, Cone. iii. 461, 511. Hefele ascribes this formulary
to a Roman council of 369 (Councils, ii. 361, E.T.); Mansi,
with greater probability, to a more recent council of 377 (iii. 466).
Meletius' council was held in October, 379 (cp. Greg. Nyss. tom.
ii. p. 187). St. Basil had died on January I.
3 Damasus does not seem to have interposed when, in his
hearing, Peter of Alexandria told Dorotheus (whom Mr. Rivington
calls " Meletius' agent ") that Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata
"had been numbered among Arians" (not, as Mr. Rivington
too gently puts it in his own words, " as though they were tinged
with Arianism," p. 226) ; see Basil, Ep. 266. 2. And as to his

108 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
pith of the whole question ; while they both
lived, was Meletius, or was Paulinus, the rightful
occupant of the see ? Rome had consistently
upheld Paulinus; if he was the true bishop,
Meletius was pro tanto in schism ; when did
Rome change her mind as between these two
claimants ? There is no evidence of any such
change ; x and there is clear evidence to the
contrary. For after Meletius died in the summer
of 381, St. Gregory of Nazianzus urged the
Council of Constantinople to agree in accepting
Paulinus, on the terms of a concordat arranged
between the two parties, that the survivor should
be acknowledged by both. One of his reasons
was, that "at present the West was alienated," 2
because the majority of Easterns had upheld
" calling Dorotheus ' brother,' but not entering into close inter
course with Meletius," the Roman synod which spoke of "our
brother Dorotheus the presbyter " (Mansi, iii. 460) was referring
to him, as the context shows, not as a special representative of
the claims of Meletius, but as the accredited organ through
whom the Westerns were to be informed of the sufferings
("injurias") of the persecuted Easterns as a body. Even sup
posing Damasus to have been then persuaded of Meletius' anti-
Arianism, that would not prove that he did not regard him as
a pretender to the Antiochene see.
1 It is significant that when Constantius had tried to persuade
the Roman people to recognise both Liberius and Felix as joint
bishops, the circus rang with the cry, " One God, one Christ, one
bishop ! " Theod. ii. 17. Cf. Soz. iv. 15 ; Cypr. Ep. 49. 2.
2 Greg. Naz. Carm. de Vita sua, 1637, \ivov . . . i\ Sicrts,

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 109
Meletius. Was not Rome part of the West ?
And soon afterwards, the bishops of the Council
of Aquileia expressly informed the emperors
that " Paulinus, bishop of the Church of
Antioch," had always " maintained inviolate
the agreement of communion with them,"1
whereas certain others — i.e. some partisans of
Meletius — had been of "unsteady" faith in
times past, and the Council could only wish to
enter into relations with them if their entire
orthodoxy could be ascertained ; but it was
manifestly right to carry out the concordat by
the joint recognition of Paulinus, and for this
purpose the Council requested that a " Council
1 S. Ambros. Ep. 12. 4. This council certainly calls the
Roman church the head of the Roman world, whence " in
omnes venerandss communionis jura dimanant." But the first
phrase is natural in the mouths of Westerns, and the second
implies no more than a centre within a united episcopate.
Mr. Rivington has remarked that St. Ambrose's words about
St. Peter as agens primatum confessionis, non honoris (which
he translates, "not of honour," whereas it means, "not of
office "), fidei, non ordinis, refer to what he was before our Lord
had promised him the keys. How, then, does Ambrose go on to
interpret ' ' this rock " ? " Non de came Petri, sed defide," a faith
common to all the apostles, though confessed by Peter "pro
cceteris . . . immo prce cceteris" (De Incarn. 32). The dictum of
Ambrose, " Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia," is constantly quoted for
papalism without reference to its context. It occurs in a highly
"mystical" passage, which has no reference to any supremacy
as belonging either to Peter or to Rome (in Ps. 40, s. 30). "Quod
Petro dicitur, apostolis dicitur " (in Ps. 38, s. 37).

no THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
of all Catholic bishops might be held at Alex
andria." Would these North-Italian bishops at
Aquileia have written thus, if Meletius before his
death had been recognised by Rome ? They
might believe him to be personally orthodox,
and might reasonably approve of the concordat,
as, indeed, a somewhat later Council at Milan
referred to it, in a letter to Theodosius,1 as an
appropriate healing measure, which they had
some time before asked the emperors to sanction.
But neither of these approvals of the concordat
would in the least imply that Rome had pro
nounced for Meletius as the rightful bishop
before it could become operative. And if she
did not, then, as she was incapable of recognising
two bishops of the same Church, she necessarily
continued to regard Meletius as for the time
an intruder : and with an intruder, as such, she
could hold no communion ; even if she were
willing to admit that by surviving Paulinus he
would be legitimated as successor, she was bound
to regard him as, for the present, not the bishop.
1 Ambr. Ep. 13. 2. The expression, "ut quoniam Antio-
chena civitas duos haberet episcopus, Paulinum atque Meletium,
quos fidei concinere putabamus," does not mean that the council
of Milan had ever regarded them as actually joint diocesans (an
idea foreign to Church order, and abhorrent to the Latin mind),
but simply that as a matter of fact they were two bishops residing
at Antioch. Cp. Gore on the Ministry, p. 164.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH, in
If, as appears to have been the case, the great
synod held at Rome in 383 received Paulinus in
person as bishop of Antioch,1 we cannot imagine
that it did so on the ground that he had suc
ceeded to the rights of the deceased Meletius.
It would be matter of satisfaction to Damasus
that he had never compromised the claims of a
visitor who had been consistently true to the
Nicene faith. (XV.) Gratian's Grant.
We must now go back a few years, to notice
the first of a series of what may be called State
acts which have contributed materially to the
growth of the Roman bishop's power. Damasus
had been repeatedly harassed by accusations
proceeding from the partisans of Ursinus, the
disappointed candidate in that election to the
see which was disgraced by faction-fights result
ing in wholesale slaughter ; and there was also
trouble caused by Donatist and Luciferian
schismatics. A Roman Council in 378 addressed
a letter to Gratian 2 (and as a matter of form to
Valentinian II., as his colleague), referring to a
1 Combine Jerome, Ep. 127. 7, with Soz. vii. II.
2 See the letter and the rescript in Mansi, iii. 624. Gratian
was then only nineteen.

112 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
former imperial decree,1 and asking that it might
be carried out. What does this request amount
to ? If a deposed bishop2 is contumacious, the
Council desires that he may be sent to Rome
by the praetorian prefect of Italy or the vice-
prefect {vicarius) of Rome ; or, if the case arose
" in remoter parts," let it go before the metro
politan ; or, if the metropolitan himself is the
offender, let him be sent to Rome, or be tried
before judges named by Damasus : let an
accused bishop, who suspects his metropolitan,
or any other bishop, of partiality, appeal
(provocare) to the Roman bishop, or to a
Council of at least fifteen neighbour bishops ;
and if Damasus himself is again accused — seeing
that "though equal to his brethren in office
(munere) he excels them prcerogativa apostolicce
sedis," — let him be exempt from ordinary civil
jurisdiction, and allowed to plead before the
emperor himself. Gratian, in his reply, concedes
1 Cf. Tillemont, viii. 392, ascribing this earlier decree to Valen
tinian I. It was aimed at the Ursinians. Gratian was then
nominally associated with his father.
2 Mr. Rivington translates a sentence beginning, " We ask
that your goodness would deign to order, that whoever shall
have been condemned, and shall have determined unjustly to
retain his church " (p. 240). After " condemned " should come
in " either by his (Damasus') judgment or by that of us who are
Catholics. " The omission is significant.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 113
the request,1 but enlarges its scope. For
whereas the Council had been thinking, first of
cases in Italy, as at Parma, Puteoli, etc., and
next of cases in "remoter parts" of the praetorian
prefecture of Italy, which included the Italic,
Illyrian,2 and (Western) African "dioceses" (or
groups of provinces), Gratian speaks of the
praetorian prefects of Gaul and Italy, and the
"proconsuls" and "vicarii," thus associating
with the officials referred to by the council the
head of the vast Gallic prefecture, with his three
" vicarii " and the subordinate provincial gover
nors, and also the proconsul of Africa (in its
narrower sense, as one of the six provinces of
the African "diocese"), who was immediately
under the emperor. Gratian adopts the Council's
phrase " remoter parts ; " but, as used by him, it
must mean the remoter parts of that much wider
region which he contemplates in his rescript,
and which is in fact the whole Western empire.
For as it is impossible that Gratian should use
1 This imperial concession is described by Mr. Rivington, in a
grandiloquent chapter-title, as "The Homage of Kings."
2 See Fr. Puller's Prim. Saints and See of Rome, p. 156, note;
and Bury's Later Roman Empire, i. p. xvii. If the earlier
decree to which the bishops' letter refers had included the Gallic
prefecture, it would have been very much to their purpose to
mention its officials ; but this they did not do. I

1 14 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
the phrase for districts outside the region which
he had just described by mentioning its highest
civil officials, we must interpret it analogously
in the Council's memorial, which had referred, in
similar style, to a smaller area. Here, then, as
Fr. Puller has said, "by 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 act was in some
respects parallel to a later edict which, under
the prompting of Leo the Great, was issued by
Valentinian III.1 But it was not tainted by
overbold generalisations.
But Gratian's act in dividing Illyricum, and
1 Duchesne observes that, until Zosimus, "deceiving himself
as to the character" of Patroclus of Aries, made him his vicar
in respect to the Gallic and Spanish churches, Rome had never
been able to exercise over the Gallic episcopate more than
" une action faible et intermittente : " a significant admission
(Origines du Culte Chret. p. 38). Nor had the Spanish church
of old been accustomed to regard Rome as its patriarchal centre.
When the Priscillianists, having been condemned in 380 by a
council at Saragossa, resolved to seek for Italian support, they
thought not only of Damasus but of Ambrose, whose see of
Milan at this time shared with Rome in the "hegemony of the
West " (ib. p. 32) ; and Priscillian, in his recently recovered
memorial to Damasus (Corp. Script. Lat. Eccl. xviii. p. 34 ff.)
addresses him as "your crown" (= your highness), as holding
an "apostolic see," as "handing on the faith left him by the
apostles," and as "senior omnium nostrum," a phrase quite
inadequate for supreme jurisdiction.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 115
attaching the Eastern part to the dominions of
Theodosius, must have given no small dissatis
faction to Damasus : and he " is said " to have
managed to neutralise it ecclesiastically by
appointing the bishop of Thessalonica his vicar
for Eastern Illyricum.1 It is, however, probable
that Damasus only gave to bishops Ascholius
and Anysius power to represent him in certain
cases, and that a permanent vicariate was first
established by his successor Siricius, to whose
action Leo the Great refers as a precedent for
his own appointment of Anastasius as his
representative.2 Siricius, we may observe in
passing, issued the first authentic "decretal"3
to Himerius of Tarragona, claiming thereby
authority over Spain (A.D. 386).4

, 4

1 Neale, Introd. East. Church, i. 47. See Tillemont, viii. 417.
2 Leo. Ep. 6. 2. See Gore, Leo the Great, p. 103. As Neale
says (following Le Quien) "the council of Chalcedon, while
it subjected to the patriarch of Constantinople the Thracian,
Pontic, and Asian dioceses, gives him no authority over that
of Illyricum ; " but since the reign of Leo the Isaurian (716-741)
Eastern Illyricum has been subjected to Constantinople, and a
series of papal decrees made void. Le Quien denounces this act
of the iconoclastic emperor as " Leonini furoris facinus " (Oriens,
Christ, ii. 25). Duchesne, however, considers that some two
centuries earlier the vicariate had ceased to be effective (Origines
du Culte, p. 42). Ascholius was Acholius to Latins.
3 Littledale, Petrine Claims, p. 169.
4 Siricius is named in a passage of Optatus (ii. 3) as the exist
ing bishop of Rome. Optatus may have added this reference at

n6 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

(XVI.) The Second General Council of
Constantinople.
Theodosius I., by the edict of Feb. 28, 380, J
to which Gratian's name was prefixed with his
own, had "willed that all the people subject
to the empire should adhere to the religion
which had been delivered by St. Peter to the
Romans, and which was known to be followed
by the bishop (potitificem 2) Damasus and by
Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of Apostolic
a later period than that of the composition of his treatise. He
calls Siricius "noster socius ; " but does he say that all churches
ought to obey him ? No ; but only that with him ' ' nobis
totus orbis commercio formatarum (letters of ecclesiastical
communion) in una communionis societate concordat." Certainly
he had just said that Peter, "omnium apostolorum caput," was
the first to sit in the episcopal chair at Rome, ' ' unde et Cephas
appellatus est" (?), "in qua una cathedra unitas ab omnibus
servaretur." Mr. Rivington (p. 38) claims this passage: but the
next words show what is in Optatus' mind ; " Ne coeteri apostoli
singulas sibi quisque defenderent ; ut jam schismaticus . . . esset
qui contra singularem cathedram alteram collocaret." Then,
after giving his list of the Roman bishops, he makes a hit at
Macrobius as the Donatists' bishop at Rome. He means, of
course, not that Peter's see was the only one existing in the
apostolic times, but that no other apostle ever thought of setting
up a chair of his own at Rome, as against Peter's.
1 " Cunctos populos : " Cod. Theod. xvi. 1, 2.
2 Mr. Rivington ventures to claim this phrase as making
Damasus more than h. "bishop," as if he were "the pontiff of
the Christian religion " (p. 245).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 117
sanctity:" and he proceeded to describe this
religion as a belief in the Triune God. Was
this religion, then, thus imposed simply on the
ground that it was held by the Roman bishop ?
The terms of the law refute that supposition.
And when, in the next year, Theodosius
assembled a Council at Constantinople, for
the purpose, mainly, of abating religious dissen
sions in the East, he did so without reference
to Rome. Now Damasus, in the character
of a Western primate or patriarch, would have
no direct responsibility in such a matter ; but
on the modern Papal hypothesis he was very
much more ; and it is obvious that Eastern
prelates who met and acted, in order to the
establishment of orthodoxy, without his sanction
or assent, could not have so much as heard of
the doctrine that, as bishop of Rome, he was
the pastor and teacher of all Christians, the
sovereign ruler of all prelates and their flocks.
The Council, as is well known, passed four
canons : we are now concerned only with the third,
which assigned to the bishop of Constantinople
"the precedence of honour (ra Trptafiiia rjje
rifirjg) after the bishop of Rome, because Con
stantinople was New Rome," implying that the
precedence enjoyed by the bishop of Rome was

118 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
due to the fact that his city was Old Rome, and
so, to a great extent, though not wholly, it was.
It is attempted to discredit this enactment as not
strictly a canon at all, but an arrangement agreed
upon by the bishops who remained at Constanti
nople after the departure of the Egyptians, who
would never have assented to the deposition
of the see of Alexandria from ancient rights
as next in rank to that of Rome. But, as
Hefele says, resentment at the recent Alex
andrian interference in favour of the wretched
impostor Maximus might well have caused the
adoption of this canon by the majority of
the prelates ; and another objection, based on
the authority of the " Prisca Versio," is also
disposed of by the same writer.1 Socrates
himself is boldly claimed in support of this
very intelligible Roman contention : because
he emphasises this opog (as he significantly
calls it) by introducing it before the "con
firmation " of the Nicene creed, and the
prohibition of extra - diocesan intervention,
therefore, it seems, he assists the conclusion
that "it was slipped in amongst the canons"
without due warrant ! And when we are
told that "certain writers," who "speak of
1 Hefele, ii. 352, s. 98.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH, 119
the third canon as though it possessed the
authority of the Church, need to be con
fronted with St. Leo's determined accuracy
in calling it only the decree of 'certain'
bishops," x we " need " only answer that Leo
(as will presently be seen) was much more
likely to be determinedly zWaccurate, when
"confronted" by facts which crossed his own
theory and programme. In the next year, 382,
another Council met at Constantinople, and
a letter was addressed to Damasus, Ambrose,
and other Western bishops or "fellow-ministers,"2
who had invited the Easterns to meet them, in
Council at Rome. An attempt has been made
to extract some testimony to Papalism from
the suave language of this document, as if the
words, " You invited us as your own members,"
suggested that the writers looked to Rome as
their " head ; " 3 as if the expression of a wish
to " be at rest " among the Latins implied that
Rome was their acknowledged "mother,"
1 Rivington, p. 258. Cf. Leo, Ep. 106. 5.
2 Theod. v. 9. Besides Damasus and Ambrose, five others are
addressed by name. The address runs, " To the most honoured
lords, and most religious brethren and fellow-ministers . . . and
the other bishops assembled at Rome."
3 Rivington, p. 270. In the text, "It might perhaps be
freely argued ; " in the note, " The context suggests the above
meaning."

120 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
whereas that title is expressly assigned to
Jerusalem ; as if, by accepting a " tome " or
doctrinal formulary which they describe as
proceeding from a Council at Antioch, but
which was in fact originally framed at Rome,
and which they associate with the "tome" of
" the last year's Council," x they had implicitly
submitted themselves to a Papal magistermm,
whereas they describe both tomes as deserving
acceptance on account of their intrinsic
orthodoxy : as if, when they hoped that the
Westerns would be " well pleased with the
arrangements which they had made, as having
been lawfully and canonically settled among
them," 2 they were in fact requesting a Papal con
firmation of their action, whereas they expressly
describe their own proceedings as definitive, and
request the Westerns' acquiescence on the ground
of "spiritual love, and the fear of the Lord
controlling human prepossessions."
1 This document is referred to in the so-called fifth canon of
Constantinople (belonging, as Mr. Rivington rightly says, to the
council of 382) as " the tome of the Westerns." It is observable
that this council in the letter before us ignores its Roman origin.
2 Mr. Rivington abbreviates thus, "They express a hope that
Damasus and the West will ' congratulate ' them on what they
had done — a courteous ecclesiastical formula to request confir
mation " (p. 276). No, their object is " unanimity."

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 121

(XVII.) The Four Italian Councils.
But we must now look back to the West.
When the Council of bishops, assembled at
Aquileia in the September of 381, wrote their
third letter to the emperors — that is, in
effect, to Theodosius — were they aware of
the proceedings of the Constantinopolitan
Council ? It would appear not. They might
ask for a new General Council to be held at
Alexandria, and to treat " more fully " of the
Antiochene difficulties, without any such cog
nisance ; and had they learned how the Council
of Constantinople had, under factious influence,
set aside the Antiochene concordat, and ap
pointed Flavian to succeed Meletius, they could
not have been content simply to restate their
previously expressed approval of the concordat.
And when thanks are tendered to Theodosius
for " excluding misbelief, and restoring faith and
concord to the Catholics," to what law of his
were these Italian bishops alluding ? Surely to
the first law, that of February, 380, which had
established Trinitarian orthodoxy as the recog
nised religion for all subjects of the empire,
whereas the second law, of July 30, 381, had

122 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
special reference to the East.1 And next, as to
the Council of Milan, held soon after that of
Aquileia, and presided over by St. Ambrose :
its members had heard of the appointment of
Nectarius to the see of Constantinople ; they
had been deceived by Maximus into admitting
his own absurd claim; and they thereupon
complained that the Easterns had acted without
" waiting for their opinion " on the subject.2 It
is pleaded on the Papalist side that by nostram
sententiam they "certainly meant the judgment
of Rome," and thus "invoked the principle" of
what is boldly described as "the Niceno-
Sardican canon." 3 Then why did not they say
1 Episcopis tradi, Cod. Theod. xvi. I. 3. Mr. Rivington
assumes that this Aquileian letter refers to it, and remarks that
" this law of July brings in the name of Nectarius, who was
ordained at that council " of Constantinople in 381 (p. 264). It
does so ; but then it is not the Aquileian, but the Milanese
letter, — not Ambr. Ep. 12, but Ambr. Ep. 13 — which mentions
Nectarius. No doubt the council of Milan had learned with
displeasure what was done by the council of Constantinople.
2 Ambr. Ep. 13. 4.
3 Rivington, pp. 275, 478. He adds, " The council did claim
that the East should act in accordance with its provision," " not
mentioning the canon, but obviously arguing upon its lines."
In p. 478, Mr. Rivington waxes bolder still : " They in effect
invoked the Niceno-Sardican canons." In p. 266 he twice says
that they refer to " the council of Constantinople as compara
tively recent (nuper)." He cannot have even read the original
context, which refers to a council in which Maximus showed a
letter from Peter of Alexandria in his behalf; which he did at a
council in Italy : " ad hoc partium venisse Maximum," etc.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 123
so ? In the context, they tell the emperor that
" Athanasius of holy memory, and Peter, and
very many of the Easterns," had set Maximus a
precedent by "having recourse to the judgment
of the Roman Church, of Italy, and of the whole
West." And the words which close the same
paragraph, and explain the sentence in question,
claim for Westerns " not the chief part in the
inquiry, but a share in a general decision.1 Nor is
this all : towards the end of the same letter, they
argue that if the Easterns had thought it worth
while to invite a single Western bishop, Ascho
lius, to join the Council of Constantinople, much
more was it befitting that they should " submit
to have the question discussed by the prelate of
the Roman Church and by the neighbouring and
Italian prelates." 2 Not much here of a " Papal
appellate jurisdiction," even in its rudimentary
form. 1 "Non prcerogativam . . . examinis, sed consortium . . .
communis arbitrii " (Ep. 13. 4). On this we have two glosses :
" A common judgment is not necessarily one in which all parties
. . . contribute the same amount of authority, but in which all,
head and members as well, join " (p. 275). Where does the
council recognise the idea of a dominant Roman headship over
a general council? The "praerogativa examinis " is rendered an
inquiry "of first instance." But the antithesis excludes the
dilution of "praerogativa."
2 Ambr. Ep. 13. 7. They add, " Si quid unihuic reservatum
est, quanto magis pluribus reservandum est ? "

124 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
The fourteenth letter of St. Ambrose is com
monly connected with the same period. Thus
Hefele dates it in 382, the Benedictines " about"
382. It has been recently assigned to 391, but
for reasons that may well seem insufficient, and
in the teeth of high authorities.1
A Council met at Rome, in accordance with
the desire of the Council of Milan, in 382, but —
which is somewhat remarkable — we have but
few accounts of its proceedings. Paulinus was
present, and was doubtless recognised as the
bishop of Antioch, Flavian being ignored.
Epiphanius also attended. St. Ambrose was
incapacitated by illness soon after his arrival.2
1 Rivington, p. 477. The Apollinarian trouble might well
be matter of anxiety in 382 : see Greg. Naz. Epp. 101, 102,
written in that very year. Instead of there being no Gothic
war known nor " disturbance in Illyricum " (such as this letter
mentions) in 382, we know from Idatius that it was on October
3rd of that year that " universa gens Gothorum in Romaniam se
tradiderunt," the result being a "paxinfida" (so Marcellinus :
" Romano sese imperio dedit mensi Octobrio." Cf. Hodgkin,
Italy and her Invaders, i. 147. Westerns had been thought
unreasonable in asking Easterns to attend a synod in Italy in
382 : the " courteous " letter from Constantinople shows this (see
Tillemont, a. 149), and Ambrose's Ep. 13 was likely enough to
have been misconstrued by Easterns. Theodosius might well
invite Western bishops to the East with the good will of their
own emperor Gratian. See the last words of Ep. 13. Ep. 14.
5, indeed, refers naturally to the preceding letter, and is un
intelligible apart from it.
2 Cp. Ambr. Ep. 15. 10.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 125
Lastly, we come to the Council of Capua,
held in 391, in the hope of terminating the
Antiochene dissension, which had been aggra
vated by the consecration of Evagrius as successor
of Paulinus. Theodosius desired Flavian, whom
almost all the Easterns regarded as bishop of
Antioch, to attend the Council ; but he excused
himself, and thereby, in the opinion of St.
Ambrose, made his case worse than before,
although Evagrius was "not wholly in the
right." The Council, thus baffled, "committed
the judgment of the case" to Theophilus of
Alexandria and his suffragans, as supposed to
be impartial ; and Ambrose adds, on his own
behalf, when writing to Theophilus, "We (i.e. I)
think you should refer to our holy brother the
bishop (sacerdotem) of the Roman Church, for
we feel sure that what you will decide will be
what he also cannot disapprove." x Yet a Papalist
advocate thinks himself justified in giving this
account of the resolution of the synod : " The
contest was remanded to the judgment of The
ophilus . . . and the matter was to be confirmed
1 Ambr. Ep. 56. In the last sentence of the letter a hope is
expressed, "ut nos quoque, accepta vestrorum serie statutorum,
cum id gestum esse cognoverimus quod ecclesia Romana haud
dubie comprobaverit, laeti fructum hujusmodi examinis adipis-
camur. "

126 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
by the Apostolic See."1 Is this a fair way of
dealing with documents, when the reader is not
presented with the original? Of course the sense
is, " Confer with Damasus, for you and he will be
sure to take the same view of the matter."

(XVIII.) Rome and the Africans.
On entering the fifth century, when the
materials for investigation become more abun
dant, Mr. Rivington undertakes to "show that
the Church of North Africa in the days of St.
Augustine held that the bishop of Rome was
the supreme governor of the Church under
Christ, by His Divine appointment." Let us
see how this thesis is maintained.
(i) First, we find the diocesan synod of
Jerusalem taking up the question of Pelagianism
at the instance of the young Spanish priest
Orosius. It was a Western question, for which
Eastern minds were not prepared ; and it was
natural, therefore, that the bishop John and his
priests should agree to refer it to Innocent I.,
and to adopt his decision.2 But on second
thoughts, John brought the case before a synod
1 Rivington, p. 476.
2 " Universi quod file decerneret secuturi" (Oros, Apol. 6).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 127
of Palestinian bishops, who exhibited their
unpreparedness for the task which they under
took by accepting the disingenuous explanations
of Pelagius in the absence of his accusers. On
hearing of this result, the African bishops
met at Carthage, where, four years previously,
Celestius, the keen-witted associate of Pelagius,
had been condemned, and where the question
as to the Fall and as to grace excited the
deepest interest. What wonder if this Council
wrote to Innocent, expressing its hope that
the decisions already given in Africa might
be upheld by the apostolicce sedis auctoritas?
The letter assumes that Pelagianism is a
heresy, and tells Innocent that he ought to
anathematise it. The Numidian prelates,
including St. Augustine, met soon afterwards
at Milevis; their letter to Innocent is much
in the same tone ; but when they refer to
his auctoritas as drawn de sanctarum Scriptu-
rarum auctoritate, they do not mean, as our
author assumes, that his Papal right to
decide such questions was "of Divine institu
tion," but that his teaching is sure to be based
on the Scriptural grounds to which they have
just been referring.1 However, Mr. Rivington
1 The words, we are told, "ought to be written over every

128 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
relies chiefly on Innocent's own replies as if they
had been simply accepted by the African Church.
" From Peter has proceeded the episcopate itself,
and the whole authority of that title.1 . . . The
Fathers decreed, by a judgment not human but
Divine, that nothing done in remote provinces
should be considered final until it came to the
knowledge of this see, so that any just decision
should be confirmed by its entire authority,
page of those treatises which endeavour to enlist the witness of
' the church of North Africa in the days of St. Augustine '
against the supremacy of the holy see " p. 287). We can have no
objection, provided they are given with their context. Earlier
in the letter (Aug. Ep. 176. 3) we find, "Quae contra sanctas
scripturas plurima disserunt." So the council of Carthage
quotes some texts about grace, referring to "numberless " others
which might be gathered "de scripturis omnibus," and then
almost apologises for mentioning the texts cited " quae majore
gratia de sede apostolica praedicas" (Ep. 175. 3).
1 So to the Milevitan council: "All our fellow-bishops are
bound to refer to none but Peter — that is, the author of their
name and office" (Ep. 182). In the case of St. Chrysostom
Innocent knew that no such claims would pass with the East.
But Mr. Rivington misrepresents some words in his letter to five
ndividual African prelates (Ep. 183. 2). He does not say
" that his sentence will have its effect in whatever part of the
world Pelagius may be ; " but that wherever any Pelagians may
be, he "believes that they will easily be set right when they
hear of the condemnation" of their leader. The Latin is
unmistakeable. Mr. Rivington has combined the opening
reference to what Pelagius, " wherever he was," had formerly
done, with the mention of his "condemnation" some eight
lines further. In other words, he has not read the sentence
through. The letters are Innoc. Epp. 24-26.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 129
and the other Churches should take from it1
what they ought to enjoin," etc. Swelling
words these, which it would have been im
possible for Innocent to verify : the " Fathers "
had never made any such decree,2 and if " this
one rescript contains the teaching of the
Vatican Council entire," that teaching rests —
as indeed we have already seen — on apocryphal
history. The plain English of the matter is that
Innocent, in true Roman fashion, was inter
preting an application as broadly as suited him,
and adding a broad assertion to match. But
did the African bishops commit themselves
to these statements by the mere fact of not
challenging them ? Consider their position :
they did really ascribe to the see of Rome,
as " Apostolic3 and Petrine," a very great weight
and a very unique dignity ; their object was
to secure its " auctoritas " on their side against
Pelagianism ; they would not, in such circum
stances, feel bound to criticise its language
about itself, but would dwell on its Catholic
1 Here, in a parenthesis, Rome is assumed to be the fountain-
head of all churches. Such is Roman "accuracy."
2 The language goes far beyond the provisions called
Sardican. So does that of Innoc. Ep. 2. 3.
3 Yet Augustine recognises a plurality of apostolic sees in C.
Faust, xxviii. 2; C. litt. Petil. ii. 118. K

130 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
view of the question at issue. Some phrases
of St. Augustine may be considered in a foot
note.1 But we must give full prominence to
our author's daring, and twice repeated, defence
of " Roma locuta est, causa finita est," as no
more than "the exact equivalent" of certain
words of St. Augustine (pp. 291, 317; cf. 360).
What words? He gives a fair enough trans
lation of — " Jam enim de hac causa [i.e.
Pelagianism] duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem
apostolicam : hide etiam rescripta venerunt :
causa finita est."2 He tells us that it has
been " customary " to represent the words
1 The statement that Innocent had " replied ad omnia in a
manner worthy of the bishop of the apostolic see" must be
taken with the words preceding, that Rome had been informed
by two councils "de hac re," i.e. the discussion as to grace;
and individual bishops, Augustine and four others, had also
written to him "de ipsa causa" (Ep. 186. 2). "The Lord's
testimony," which Augustine says (C. Jul. i. 13) Innocent
"used," was, not any "Petrine" text, but the great saying
prophetic of the Eucharist (John vi. 53).
2 Serm. 131. 10, preached September 23, 417, before
Augustine could know of Zosimus' letter in favour of Celestius,
which must have been a sore disappointment to him. Gratry,
in his second letter, charged the archbishop of Malines with
assigning the "Roma locuta est," etc., to Augustine, and
numbers it among the false passages " put in circulation by the
ignorance and audacity of a school of error." It is important to
observe that twenty-four years earlier Augustine had said to the
Donatists, " Olim jam causa finita est, quod vos non statis in
pace," i.e. because they had broken off from Church unity (Ps.
t. part. Donati, 37).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 131
which we have italicised by the formula in
question, which he describes as doing them
full justice — although it gives no hint what
ever of the purport of what precedes them as
to the reports of two Councils, to which Rome's
utterance was a reply. So then, to suppress
one of the elements in a process, and to ascribe
the whole result to the other, is, in Roman eyes,
a " customary " and a legitimate way of using
a document for a controversial end. In Anglican
eyes, it is a scandalous offence against truth, and
one of a numerous class of "signs" against
Rome.1
1 See a striking article in the Church Quarterly Review, vol.
xxviii. p. 31 ff. entitled, " Certain Graver Aspects of the Roman
Position ; " and see p. 358 of the same volume, on falsified
quotations. In 1849 Pusey wrote, " When the passages of the
Fathers" (adduced on the Roman side) "are spurious, this
makes things worse ; and this is a further difficulty, that practices
grew up through forgeries," etc. (Liddon's Life of Pusey, iii.
208). On such "forgeries" adduced as to "the Glories of
Mary," see Christian Remembrancer for October, 1855, p.
453 ff. It is difficult to keep this subject quite apart from a
certain "Theory of Truthfulness" discussed in the Christ.
Remembr. for January 1854. For one famous fabrication,
which adopted a Donatist libel against St. Marcellinus in order
to make up an early testimony to the principle that the pope
could not be judged by any man, see Mansi, i. 1257 : it was
fashioned, apparently, at Rome, in the days of Symmachus ; it
was introduced into the Roman breviary (April 26) in 1536, and
stood there until, thanks to Leo XIII.'s sense of historical truth,
it was recently removed. It is needless to dwell on other
cases.

132 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
But Zosimus succeeded Innocent ; and
Celestius " deceived " him, but how ? First,
he gave in an evasive written statement, in
which he did not retract the heresy imputed
to him, but did submit himself to "the judg
ment of the Apostolic see." Mr. Rivington
seems afraid of quoting from the extant
fragments of this libellus ; it contained a denial
of peccatum ex traduce, which would be under
stood to mean a denial of original sin. Zosimus
held a solemn inquiry ; he asked Celestius
whether his paper represented his real mind —
which was to acknowledge it to be, as far as it
went, satisfactory. He did extract from Celestius
a condemnation of errors imputed to him,
"according to the condemnation of them by
Pope Innocent ; " but nothing more explicit
could be obtained, and Zosimus, as if still
puzzled, adjourned the case, but then very
inconsistently wrote to the African bishops,
describing Celestius' faith as "entirely sound,"
expressly combining his oral statement with
his libellus, which was, on one point, at least
suggestive of heresy, and declaring that state
ments "so plain and open should leave no
doubt in their minds."1 He next took
1 Cf. Aug. c. duas Epp. Pel. ii. 6 ; Zos. Ep. 3. 3, 5.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 133
account of a long and yet more pointedly
evasive paper sent by Pelagius, containing no
retractation, but rather an implicit reassertion
of his theory, together with a request to be
corrected, if in error, by him " who held
both the faith and the see of Peter." Again
Zosimus was taken in ; he wrote, in terms
of yet stronger remonstrance, to the Africans.
"The letter of Pelagius had most abundantly
cleared him ;"1 he and Celestius were men
of "entirely sound faith," had "never been
separated from Catholic truth," had been
victims of false accusation and hasty censure,
such as even the cautious equity of secular
tribunals should have taught ecclesiastics to
avoid. Mr. Rivington slurs over these points,
and professes to rely on St. Augustine's account
as " answering by anticipation " what Dr. Pusey
has said on the case in the second part of
his Eirenicon.2 But the fact remains, that
1 By way of proving it to be satisfactory, Zosimus remarks
that it quite agreed with Celestius' paper. "Omnia quidem
paria . . . quae Ccelestius ante protulerat, continebant " (Zos.
Ep. 4. I ; Mansi, iv. 353).
2 On Healthful Reunion, p. 219 ff. He notices that Augus
tine did not treat a formal approval of Pelagianism by the
Roman church as "a thing impossible, but as much to be
deprecated (quod absit)." One does not see how, if it had
happened, "Zosimus would have injured sibi, non sedi apos
tolus," as Bossuet persuaded himself (Def. Decl. ix. 35). The

134 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Zosimus (covering his virtual retreat under
something very like bluster 2) assured the Africans
that he had not really taken a final step, tried
to explain away his approval of Celestius, and
afterwards, in a "Tractoria," or circular letter
(which, one would conjecture, was written for
him), absolutely condemned both Pelagius and
Celestius. And before his change of mind could
have been known in Africa, a large council met
at Carthage (May i, 418) and passed several
stringent decrees against Pelagianism. Two
assurance with which Mr. Rivington says that "Dr. Pusey is
mistaken in nearly every assertion that he makes on this
subject" (p. 293), and that "in his handling of that pope's
history" we have "the old story of the conflict between
science and religion," is really a mental and moral phenomenon.
He has inferred the assertion of "the infallibility of the holy
see "from Innocent's words, "Following Peter, we know how to
condemn . . . and to approve " (p. 288). Here, then, is an
occupant of " the holy see " " approving," as " completely
satisfactory," statements at least suggestive of heresy. More
over, he claims the language of an African council (about the
end of 417), decreeing that " Innocent's sentence from the see
of Peter against Pelagius and Celestius should stand, until they
plainly acknowledged " the true doctrine. Here the Africans
were setting the authority of the late "successor of Peter"
against the present— an ingeniously respectful mode of admon
ishing the latter to reconsider his own position.
1 Again we have a Roman bishop using language about his
own see which, if challenged, he could not possibly have sup
ported by evidence. " Quamvis patrum traditio apostolicoe
sedi auctoritatem tantam tribuerit, ut de ejus judicio disceptare
nullus auderet, idque per canones semper regulasque servaverit "
(Zos. Ep. 10. 1, March 21, 418).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 135
years later, Augustine endeavoured to meet
the Pelagian charge of tergiversation against
the Roman clergy by minimising their bishop's
previous mistake, as if he had but provisionally
or contingently acquitted the accused persons
on the faith of their promise to accept his own
decision.1 But this will not pass. Augustine
could not excuse Zosimus by ignoring some
of his most inappropriate words. It was
not simply on the ground of docility, or, as
Mr. Rivington says, of their "profession of
amendment" (a rather equivocal phrase), but
on something more — on the ground of their
written statements — that he had vindicated the
orthodoxy of Pelagius and Celestius ; and
although he was not professing to teach
the Church ex cathedra, he did for the time,
through ignorance and carelessness, acquit
men whose language would have been intel
ligible enough to any one who understood the
theological issue. Is this case, then, an illus
tration of the " charisma " of Popes for the
1 C. duas Epp. Pel. ii. 5. Tillemont has a curious sentence
about this, which ought, perhaps, to propitiate Mr. Rivington :
" The charity of St. Augustine, who was not writing a history
in which he would have been obliged to represent things just as
they were, covers this fault of Zosimus with a modest silence "
(xiii. 726). "The excuse goes beyond the words of pope
Zosimus " (Pusey, p. 222).

136 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
guardianship of Christian doctrine ? Does it
justify such a section-heading as " St. Zosimus'
Support of the Faith "?
(2) The other African case is that of a
wretched offender whom Rome was so impru
dent as to patronise ; and Zosimus reappears
upon the scene. Apiarius, an African priest,
deposed and excommunicated for gross offences,
goes to Rome, and is upheld by Zosimus, who,
being at the time malcontent with the African
church, demands that the appellant's own bishop
shall reinstate him. The African Council of
May 1 met this interference by forbidding any
clerics to carry an appeal out of Africa.1 There
upon Zosimus, according to Mr. Rivington,
" commissioned his legate, Faustinus, to impress
upon the Africans that the principle of his
procedure had been included in the Nicene
canons " (p. 297) — a wording calculated to
" impress upon " the reader that what this
" Pope " called Nicene was Nicene. In fact,
Zosimus affirmed in the instructions to his
legates, that the Nicene Fathers " said " 2 — then
followed one of the canons known as Sardican,
1 A clause, probably added later, says that bishops had " often
been forbidden " to do so. Cf. Mansi, iii. 728 ; iv. 332.
2 "Ita dixerunt in concilio Nicaeno," etc. (Mansi, iv. 404).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 137
sanctioning an appeal on a bishops part to
"the most blessed bishop of Rome." Another
of these instructions made the like claim of
Nicene authority for a Sardican rule allowing
a cleric to appeal from his own bishop to
" neighbouring bishops," a phrase which Rome
would strain to include her own bishop.
The former of these provisions would not
directly touch the case of Apiarius ; but the
bishops who conferred with the "legates" in
September, 418, were unable to say "It is a
Sardican canon," for they knew not the true
history of the Sardican Council ; but they told
Zosimus that they would abide by whatever
was Nicene. On inquiry at Carthage, the
Africans found that the canon produced was
not in their own copies of the Nicene canons ; l
and when Faustinus repeated the citation on
behalf of Boniface I., the successor of Zosimus,
at the Council of May 25, 419, it was resolved
to ascertain the Nicene text by inquiring at
Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch,2 the
1 One of them said afterwards, in the legate's presence, with
fine irony, "I don't know how it was, but we did not find
these words anywhere in our copies" (Mansi, iv. 404). The
speaker was Augustine's intimate friend, the Alypius of his
" Confessions."
2 Faustinus hinted (as we may understand his somewhat dark

138 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
bishop of Rome being requested to do the like
on his own part.1 In the interim the canon as
quoted by Faustinus was to be observed.2 A
letter was accordingly sent to Boniface. In a
very short time, it appears, authenticated copies
were obtained from two of the great Eastern
sees ; 8 and, of course, the canon about appeals to
speech) that it would be sufficient for Rome and Africa to inquire
without consulting the Easterns, and that thus "contention"
would be avoided. His motive was obvious. But the council
did not see it in that light ; and Faustinus gave way for the
moment, but presently, as Van Espen puts it, " made a fresh
attempt negotium ad pontificem trahere" in regard to the other
rule about priests or deacons ; but he was again put aside.
1 The Africans do not "imply that they would be guided by
Italian custom " (p. 298), as such. The passage in the synodical
letter to Boniface is, as Tillemont (xiii. 783) says, "obscure"
("Quae si ibi," etc.; Mansi, iv. 512). But the drift of it
appears to be that they will abide by what is proved to be
Nicene. 2 St. Augustine made a similar "interim" proposal as to the
canon about clergy, but Van Espen thinks it was not carried
simpliciter (Opp. iii. 276, ed. Lovan. 1753)-
3 The bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria are admitted,
in p. 298, to have sent their copies; while "Antioch did not
send her canons. " Then we are referred to p. 474, where we
find that " the supposed letter from St. Cyril and from Atticus,
accompanying their copies . . . is obviously a translation from
the Latin, suggesting that the original was a Latin forgery, and
containing terminology nowhere else found in Cyril's writings."
There are two letters in Latin (Mansi, iv. 513). The Greek of
Cyril's, at the end of his "Epistles," is only twenty-seven
lines long ; and its use of the Latinism o-Kptviov is quite com
patible with genuineness. Atticus' letter is also short. But
it is interesting to learn that Latins as well as Greeks could

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 139
Rome was conspicuous by its absence. But that
is nothing to Mr. Rivington : he considers " the
most satisfactory theory " on the subject to be
simply this, that the Eastern text of the Nicene
canons had been mutilated by those " busy for
gers " the Arians (p. 473 ; cf. pp. 165, 181, 385).
But when the information thus obtained was
transmitted to Boniface at the end of 419, did
the African Church suddenly throw up its case
and sanction episcopal appeals to Rome ? So
it is maintained, on the ground that, three years
afterwards, Antony, the unworthy bishop of
Fussala, appealed to Boniface against a sen
tence which had deprived him of his episcopal
jurisdiction. Boniface, as might be expected,
favoured the appellant : and Augustine wrote
to his successor, Celestine, piteously entreating
that Antony might not be supported by civil or
military "powers" employed to reimpose his
presence on Fussala. This was in 423.1 But
"forge" — always provided that they were not Romans ! Yet
what of the so-called correspondence between African councils
and Damasus (Mansi, iii. 430), in which the Africans are made
to say that " the decrees of all the fathers had reserved the deci
sion of the highest ecclesiastical affairs to his see," and he is
made, in reply, to claim " an episcopal ministry over the universal
catholic church " ? On the text as authenticated by Atticus, see
"Additional Note " at the end.
1 Ep. 209. 9. He quotes I Pet. v. 3. It was years before this,

140 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
in the very next year, as Hefele dates it,1 the
African Church returned to the subject, when
the question of Apiarius had again become
urgent. The council of 419 had accepted the
profession of repentance, and restored him to
his priestly functions. He had relapsed, had
been again deposed, had renewed his applica
tion to Rome, and, as Mr. Rivington ventures
to think, had been " unhappily absolved " by
Celestine. Hereupon, a council met at Car
thage, which put an end to any provisional
acquiescence in the demands of Rome on
the subject of appeals. Faustinus reappeared
as " legate," and tried to bully the African
bishops into receiving Apiarius ; but they
insisted on a full inquiry, which extracted
a full confession from this scandalous client
of three Roman bishops. Then it was that
the Council spoke out. The famous letter
beginning "Optaremus," and addressed to
Celestine, is a great annoyance to Ultra-
montanes, and our author has recourse to two
expedients : 1. While treating it as genuine, as
in 418, that Augustine had gone to Mauritania on some "urgent
church business enjoined on him by Zosimus." See Aug. Ep.
190. I. The business was probably this very case of Apiarius
(Van Espen, Opp. iii. 273).
1 Tillemont dates the council in 426.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 141
" written by the Africans," he contends that it
does not "oppose the principle of Papal juris
diction " x (p. 299), but only objects to its
exercise, in Africa, by legates a latere, like
Faustinus, instead of by a "commission" of
African bishops 2 — and to a " hasty and undue
reversal " of African decisions ; or (with a
parenthetical " if it is genuine ") he represents
"Africa as pleading" by it "for a court of
first instance of a more satisfactory nature,
which would diminish their attendance at
Rome " (p. 1 19 ; observe the suggestio in
"diminish"). 2. Then he shifts his ground.
1 However, five pages further on, it is called "the heated
letter against appeals" and is apparently alluded to as " a forged
letter which does repudiate the supreme jurisdiction of" Rome
(P- 3°4)-
2 Mansi, iv. 515. Not one word in the letter about a "papal
commission " of such bishops. In the sentence which says it is
"incredible that God would give the spirit of justice unicuilibet,
and deny it to many bishops assembled in council," Mr. Riving
ton applies " unicuilibet " to Faustinus. But this is against the
context, which sets the authority of (1) a provincial council,
(2) a council of all Africa, in antithesis to that of " any one you
can think of," of whatever rank or position — this individual
being regarded as residing "beyond sea," i.e. at Rome; while
Faustinus is mentioned as actually present in the African council.
And it is only in a subsequent sentence, as if by afterthought,
that the plan of a legateship a latere is just referred to as un
authorised by "any synod." It was in the Sardican canon,
adduced on Rome's part as "Nicene;" but the Africans had
set that canon aside as not Nicene.

142 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
It is probably spurious — "the gravest sus
picion rests on " it ; and in a later context (for
this author's scepticism vires acquirit eundo)
it is roundly declared "to have every possible
mark of forgery" (pp. 303, 474).1 The motive
1 The objections taken are very weak. The aggrieved tone
is natural under such provocations. Then we are told of the
difference between the fifteen names prefixed to the letter and
the list of fifteen representatives who were appointed by the
council of May, 418 (not "shortly before"), to "represent a
universal synod" (p. 304). Now, first, the list at the head of
the letter does not " differ altogether " from the earlier list ; four
names appear in both. " Antonius" may well be, not (as Mr.
Rivington repeatedly assumes) the disgraced bishop of Fussala,
but the Antonius who signed the Carthaginian letter to Innocent
(Mansi, iv. 321). St. Augustine may have been absent, as con
sidering that he had said his say to Celestine. But next, Mr.
Rivington forgets that the appointment in 418 was for the
business of that year (Mansi, iv. 508 ; cf. Hefele, ii. 42) ;
and the council of 419 appointed a committee of eighteen to
wind up its business, of whom four only had sat on that of 418.
The absence of a. date proves nothing, for this letter alone
remains of the acts of this council ; and the letter to Boniface
(Mansi, iv. 511 ; see Hefele, s. 122) is also undated. But then,
Mr. Rivington, who had made use of that letter in p. 298,
considers it to be "suspicious" in p. 474. He says: "Van
Espen expresses himself as quite nonplussed in regard to the
council from which the letter to Boniface is supposed to have
emanated." An ordinary reader would infer that Van Espen
doubted the authenticity of the letter. But here Mr. Rivington
is in a tangle of errors. He refers to "Jus. Eccl. vii. § 10, art.
2, Lovanii, 1766 ; " a loose reference. It is in his Dissertatio
in Synodos Africanas that Van Espen treats of these councils.
The council of which he says, " Sat obscurum est cujus loci," is
the first held on the affair of Apiarius (Diss. § x. art. 2) ; but he
thinks it was at Caesarea in Mauritania (Algiers), where we know

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 143
for this twofold and broadly incoherent criti
cism is obvious: the letter insists that all
Church matters ought, in all reason, and on
Nicene principles, to be settled by the native
Church authorities ; x it absolutely denies any
distinction, on this point, between the cases
of bishops and of clergy; it dwells on the
impossibility of securing a due examination
of witnesses before a foreign tribunal ; and
it warns Celestine against a course 2 which
would "introduce into the Church the smoky
that Augustine took part in a meeting of bishops (see above).
It is in art. 7 that he comes to the letter to Boniface, and
considers it to have been written (by the committee of bishops)
after the closing of the council of Carthage, begun May 25, 419
(Opp. iii. 273, 278). And then, as to forgery : on Mr. Riving
ton's showing, who should forge? The African church, he
asserts, acknowledged the "supreme jurisdiction of that see
which it called . . . the apostolic see " (p. 304). As if that
phrase, applied to Rome alone in the West, carried with it the
papalist principle, or implied that the Roman bishop was
regarded as "the permanent apostle of the Christian Church " !
(p. 120). Van Espen considers that the canon of "the 20th
council" against " transmarine appeals," read in the Cartha
ginian council of 525 (Mansi, viii. 644), was the resolution of
the council which closed the case of Apiarius.
1 See Cyprian, Ep. 59. 14, on this principle.
2 I.e. that of sending Roman clerics to carry out his orders in
Africa. The reading should be, " Executores etiam clericos
vestros quibusque petentibus [not ' potentibus,' as in Mansi's
text] nolite mittere," etc. Mr. Rivington dwells (p. 359) on
" lest we should seem to introduce," etc. But this is a polite
way of advising him not to present himself in that light.

144 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
arrogance of the world," an expansion of a
phrase used as to the Roman deputy in the
letter to Boniface. And this may suffice about
the Church of Africa.

(XIX.) The Council of Ephesus.
Three questions arise as to the relation of
the Council of Ephesus to the Roman see.
(i) What was the nature of the authority
exercised by Celestine I. when he commis
sioned Cyril to act for him in the case of Nes
torius ? (2) When the Council was summoned,
did this commission "devolve" (as Mr. Riving
ton maintains) upon it ? (3) When it met, did
it (as Mr. Rivington holds) act as Celestine's
instrument and minister ?
(1) It was in the summer of 430 that Cyril
wrote a synodical letter to Celestine, giving an
account of the Nestorian controversy up to that
date. "Long-standing usages of the Church,"
1 It is a pleasure to agree entirely with Mr. Rivington (p. 305)
as to the vital importance of the doctrine secured at Ephesus.
But he might as well have brought out more clearly the differ
ence between a "substantial" and an "accidental" union.
The one secures our Lord's personal Divinity, the other re
duces Him to a pre-eminent saint. This was, in fact, the issue
raised.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 145
he says, " induce him to communicate the facts
to Celestine ; " he feels that he " must needs "
do so, although heretofore he has not written on
the subject either to Celestine or to any other
of their " fellow-ministers " — a phrase which
shows that in this connection he regards the
bishop of Rome as a primus inter pares, and,
having resolved to warn the episcopate at large,
begins naturally with him. He will not sepa
rate himself from the communion of Nestorius
until he has thus informed Celestine, whom,
therefore, he requests rvir&aai to Sokovv.1 Mr.
Rivington understands this as an application for
a final judicial decision which "the Pope alone"
could give. The Latin translation of Cyril's
letter simply renders, "quid hie sentias praa-
scribere;"2 and this is supported by what
follows, for Cyril tells Celestine that he ought
to make known his mind (o-koVov) to the Mace
donian and the Oriental bishops. We shall
presently see that the Oriental bishops did not
regard Celestine as the one supreme judge of
1 Mansi, iv. 1016.
2 Our author, more suo, reiterates his gloss on rmatrat and
rlmos, and infers from such terms that Celestine " resumes in
himself the apostolic government of the Christian Church," etc.
(P- 3J5)- Of course, therefore, he renders Kara£taaov by "deign;"
but see the word as used in Mansi, iv. 1057, for "be so good
as," " think proper," etc. Cf. Basil, Ep. 68.

146 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
such a question. Celestine summons a Council
at Rome, and in its behalf replies to Cyril ; he
calls it " a great triumph for his belief that Cyril
adduces such strong proof in support of it." Is
this the language of a Pope who, as Mr. Riving
ton words it, "at once assumes his infallibility" ?
He desires Cyril to take a certain line of
action as his representative. But here Mr.
Rivington objects to the rendering of an im
portant clause as "join the authority of our
see to your own" (p. 313). He substitutes
"assuming the authority of our see" (p. 309).
But a man who had no official authority might
"assume the authority" of one who appoints
him a plenipotentiary, as a Pope might make a
mere deacon his legate ; and the words, as read
by Cyril in Greek, are " the authority of our see
having been combined (owa^rMrjr/c) with yours,"
so as to recognise in Cyril an authority with
which Celestine's was to be linked.1 Cyril is
told to "act authoritatively as taking Celestine's
place."2 But Celestine proceeds to say that
1 Mansi, iv. 1020. Mr. Rivington says that " there is nothing
in the Latin or Greek exactly corresponding to ' his own ' " (i.e.
Cyril's). He quotes <roi, but leaves out avvatpeeitrris. The Latin,
it is true, has " adscita."
2 T3 WeTfP? TOv r6irov SioSoxp **' i^ovo-ia xpyvdp-wos. Here
BiaSoxy of course implies a delegation.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 147
unless Nestorius, "within ten days after re
ceiving his admonition," gives written assurance
of agreement with the faith of the Roman and
Alexandrian Churches, and of all Christians in
general, Cyril is to " provide for " the Church of
Constantinople, and Nestorius is to know that
he is separated from " our body." Nestorius is
similarly warned that in that case he must
regard himself as "ejected from all communion
with the Catholic Church." x Celestine writes
in a like sense to the orthodox at Constanti
nople ; 2 and to John, patriarch of Antioch, he
writes that this sentence had been uttered by
himself, " or rather by Christ " (a phrase used
also in the letter to Cyril), and that Nestorius,
on failing to give satisfaction, will be in the
position of one " removed from the assembly of
bishops." Mr. Rivington treats this language
as expressing a fully Papal "assumption of
infallibility."3 But Celestine here lays stress
on the complete doctrinal accord between
Cyril and himself ; he is certain that what they
1 Mansi, iv. 1036.
2 This letter has a beautiful passage on St. Athanasius,
followed by a truly Christian reminder as to that everlasting
"country" of which no exile in this world can deprive Christ's
servants. 3 Here he criticises Dean Church (p. 312).

148 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH
thus hold is the very truth revealed in Christ ;
he confidently assumes that it is this, and
nothing else, which all Churches hold ; and he
infers that all Churches will agree with Rome
and Alexandria in excommunicating a bishop
who denies it. This is further illustrated by
Cyril's letter to John of Antioch, written after
he had received the commission of Celestine.1
On Mr. Rivington's showing, Cyril knew that he
and any other bishop must absolutely bow to
Celestine's judgment as being, because his, the
judgment of Christ delivered through His vicar.
If he held this, we know how he must have
written to John. How, then, does he write ?
Does he say, in effect, " You and I, of course,
must obey the bishop of Rome as our sovereign
ruler and our infallible guide"? Nothing like
it. He says : " A clear direction has been
given " (using the word tetxittidki) " by the holy
synod of the Romans " (so above, " the pious
bishops who were found in the great city of
Rome "), " whom it is necessary for those to
follow (TTiffltcrQai) who cling to communion with
the whole West." He adds that "they have
written to Rufus of Thessalonica, and to some
other Macedonian bishops, who always concur
1 Mansi, l.c.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 149
ralg trap avrov \p^<j>oig, and also to Juvenal of
^Elia [Jerusalem]. It is then for your Piety to
consider what is expedient ; for we shall follow
the decisions given" . . . [here Mr. Rivington
proceeds] " by him," meaning Celestine, and the
Greek text has trap' avrov ; but this is clearly
an iteration, by oversight, of the previous trap'
avroi, for the context requires trap avrwv, and
so the Latin version has "quae illi judicaverunt,"
and Cyril adds, " fearing to fall away from the
communion," not (as Mr. Rivington renders)
" ' of such ' " (i.e. " the whole West "), but " of so
many." It is necessary to insist on this, because
Mr. Rivington (p. 315) misrepresents the pas
sage as recognising an "ex cathedra judgment
on a matter of faith " in the sense of the Vatican
decree. Now let us ask whether it is con
ceivable that a patriarch of Alexandria (that is,
of a Church very closely associated with Rome),
if he held what that decree affirms to be of faith,
could sink the obligation of obeying Christ's
Vicar in the " expediency " of keeping on good
terms with "the whole West;"1 or whether, if he

1 So, after the council of Ephesus was concluded', its members
wrote to the emperors, " The synod which has the whole West,
with your great Rome and the apostolic see, cruveSpeiovo-av, and
all Africa and all Illyricum " (Mansi, iv. 1433).

150 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
thought the " Roman synod " the mere " appa
ratus, machinery, or setting,"1 of one man's
sovereign "judgment," he would thus have put
the instrument for the causa efficiens. Next, let
us look at John's letter to his friend Nestorius.
On Vaticanist principles, they both knew that
Celestine as Pope had a "plenary, ordinary, and
immediate" jurisdiction over them and their
Churches ; that, in a word, he was their pastor
and their sovereign, and that to resist him was
sheer rebellion against the Divine " Bishop of
souls." Now, when John would persuade
Nestorius to accept "Theotocos" within the term
(short, he says, but long enough) prescribed by
" my lord Celestine " (6 Kvpiog piov being a
familiar title of respect), does he appeal to any
such relation between the Constantinopolitan see
and the Roman ? By no means. His argument
is : We of the East have just got rid of the
trouble caused by dissension with the West ; 2 if
you stand stiffly out against the adoption of a
word which is really orthodox, " the West, and
Egypt, and perhaps Macedonia," will again
be in formal separation from the East. There
1 See Rivington, p. 428 ; and v. supr. p. 57.
2 Honorius had described the deputation on behalf of St,
Chrysostom as representing " our West."

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 151
is not a word in the letter which can be inter
preted in the Papalist sense.1
(2) There was, we are told, " no limitation in
point of time in respect of" the commission
given by Celestine to Cyril (p. 322). How can
this be, when it expressly specifies " ten days ''
as the period within which Nestorius is to retract
on pain of immediate excommunication ? Cyril
himself not less expressly refers to the " period "
thus assigned ; 2 he describes himself as " acting
in conjunction with the holy synod assembled
at Rome under the presidency of his brother
and fellow-minister Celestine " (words which
Mr. Rivington neglects) when he gives the
third (and evidently the final) warning, " Unless
you adopt the right faith " (i.e. within ten days)
" know that you have no part with us nor any
1 Mr. Rivington is not quite satisfied with its "tone," but
considers that it "urges obedience." Certainly it does not, in
the sense which he requires. He also refers to rhv bpiuBhra
¦tlmov in Cyril's letter to Juvenal of Jerusalem. But Cyril there
gives his reason for sending on Celestine's letter, " to stir up your
zeal . . . and that we may with one heart . . . save our im
perilled flocks " (Mansi, iv. 1060).
2 T)]v bptaBiiaav irpoBeo-p.tav, Ep. ad Nest. 3. 2. It is quite
arbitrary to say that ' ' the very terms of the commission implied
its continuance" beyond that period. Mr. Rivington says, as
if he had read it in black and white, that " the pontiff had left
the execution of his sentence, including its delay (if deemed
advisable), to the synod " (p. 336). When, and in what
words? It was Cyril who had to " execute" it,

152 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH.
place among God's priests and bishops." Is
he not regarding himself as fulfilling the charge
contained in Celestine's letter, and announcing
the Roman and Alexandrian ultimatum ? True,
he had also been instructed, in such case, to
provide a new bishop for Constantinople. But
this was impracticable ; and what Cyril could
do, that he did. Mr. Rivington struggles to
make out that the commission was not "ex
hausted " by his action (p. 322), but survived
to pass on to the Council as summoned by
Theodosius. But a commission cannot be at
once fulfilled and unfulfilled. If it is ful
filled as far as is possible, it is neces
sarily " exhausted." If the recipient is
to take further action, he must get a new
commission. So stood matters at the close
of 430 ; Nestorius had not simply ignored
the requirement pressed upon him ; he had
met Cyril's twelve articles by counter-anathe-
matisms of his own. He was therefore, by
the very terms of the commission, ipso facto
excluded from the communion of Rome and
Alexandria. But Theodosius, under his
prompting, had summoned a General Council
to meet in Ephesus at the ensuing Pente
cost. In the letter of invitation, he had ruled

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 153
that " no new steps should in the interim be
taken by any individuals,"1 and by this, as
Tillemont puts it, he had "arrested, in effect,
the decrees of the Council of Rome." The
action, then, of Celestine in August, and of
Cyril about the end of October, was suspended
by the emperor's act, which cut straight across
the lines of their policy. Indeed, the very
raison d'etre of a General Council was to bring
on the stage a fuller authority than that of one
or of two patriarchs. Naturally, they were dis
appointed ; naturally, they tried to minimise
the effect of the citation, and to think of the
arrangements of August as still somehow in
choate. But in such a case facts must outweigh
words ; and if Celestine, according to Mr.
Rivington, "virtually owned the commission
originally given as still running," or if Cyril
thought that "he was but continuing on the
ground of the original commission," we can
only say that no one can alter the grammatical
scope of his own once published words. The-
vox missa, in that sense, will not " return " for
his convenience. As for Mr. Rivington's asser
tion that the Council was summoned with
Celestine's "consent" (p. 318), he consented
1 Mansi, iv. n 13; Tillemont, xiv. 364.

154 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
in that he made the best of the situation.
But does any one imagine that Theodosius
asked his leave before issuing a peremptory
citation ? x
(3) The Council met in June, 43 1.2 Cyril
presided, partly as bishop of Alexandria, partly
as "managing the place of Celestine," just as
Flavian of Philippi " occupied the place " of
Rufus. Was he, then, commissioned to repre
sent Celestine at the Council ? " It is difficult,"
as Tillemont tersely remarks (xiv. 393), " to see
how the commission of August 430 could
extend to enabling him to act for Celestine at
the Council which was not summoned until
November ; " and Celestine, when writing to
Cyril on May 7th, had said nothing of any such
delegation, nor had he instructed his actual
legates to treat Cyril as their chief, but only
to take counsel with him.3 However, Cyril was
1 Mr. Rivington is following Baronius, Ann. v. 732 : whom
Tillemont dryly criticises, xiv. 759.
2 That Cyril did act impatiently as to the opening, see " Way-
marks in Church History," p. 150 ff. John's message "not to
wait " must be read with his letter to Cyril.
3 Mansi, iv. 556. In a courteously written article in the
"Dublin Review "for April, 1895, Mr. Rivington infers from
Celestine's letter to Cyril "that he did mean Cyril to be
president." The letter neither says nor implies this. Next we
are referred to the council's letter to the emperor as saying " that

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 155
not likely to be punctilious in such a matter,
and "might well assume that Celestine would
not disavow him on that head." x Now let us
look at the conduct of the bishops assembled.
Did they regard themselves as simply Celestine's
agents for the carrying out of his previous sen
tence against a heretic ? This must have been
their view if, however erroneously, they had
regarded the commission of August as " de
volving" upon them. They would then have
had one, and only one, question to ask : Had
Nestorius, at the expiration of his term of grace,
given satisfaction to Cyril, and therefore to
Celestine sent Cyril to supply his place." If Mr. Rivington
had quoted the words (Mansi, iv. 1301) it would have been plain
that they relate to the commission of August, 430. "Even
before this holy synod was convened, Celestine commissioned
Cyril to occupy his place" (i.e. in proposing an ultimatum to
Nestorius), "and now by another letter he has made this plain
to the synod." But the letter here referred to does not name
Cyril at all ; it does name the three Roman envoys. What, then,
is meant by "this"? We have to look back to the earlier
sentences of the synodical letter : " this," in the sentence first
naming Celestine, expressly refers to the function of all bishops
in the exclusion of false doctrine.
1 Mr. Rivington makes a difficulty about Cyril's proposal that
a " second " imperial decree should be read, beside the letter of
citation dated November 19, 430, on the ground that it directed
the bishops to take up the question of doctrine "without any
delay." This "second decree" was the letter in Mansi, iv.
1 1 17, which, however, merely ruled that the question of doc
trine should take precedence of others.

156 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Celestine? Five minutes would have sufficed
for proving that he had done the very contrary ;
and then the Council would have promulgated
the Papal sentence as already "irreversible,"
and as having de jure taken effect against
Nestorius months before, and have proceeded
to take measures for the filling up of the
Constantinopolitan see as having thus de jure
become vacant. Instead of this, the assembled
prelates spent a whole midsummer day, even
until dark,1 in going through the whole mass
of pertinent evidence, after repeated formal
citations calling on "the most religious bishop
Nestorius to present himself among them."2
Even after his third refusal they did not at
once condemn him for contumacy : they
tested Cyril's second letter to Nestorius, which
Celestine had approved, by the Creed of
Nicaea ; but whereas, on Papalist principles,
they should have treated Celestine's letter to
Cyril as decisive, they heard it without remark ;
1 They were escorted home with lights (Mansi, iv. 1241).
2 'SvveSpevaai is used on the first occasion (Mansi, iv. 1 132).
Probably, had he come, he would have had a seat in the midst,
as Dioscorus had at Chalcedon. But until his deposition by
the council, "he was treated as bishop of Constantinople, the
Roman council's decree notwithstanding" (Tillemont, xiv. 364).
He is called "most religious" until the general "exclamation "
against him in Mansi (iv. 1 177), and even once afterwards.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 157
and again, whereas, on that showing, they
should have put in the very forefront Cyril's
third letter, as conveying the Papal ultimatum,
they only listened to it, and abstained from
giving it an express synodical approval. In
stead of simply accepting Cyril's and Celestine's
estimate of the language used by Nestorius, and
treating it as already proved to be heretical,
they professedly inquired whether his letter to
Cyril was, like Cyril's own letter, " in accordance
with what was put forth by the holy Fathers at
Nicaea;" they condemned it as "wholly con
trary " to that standard, and to Cyril's second
letter ; they heard evidence as to his recent
reiterations of heresy ; they read seventeen
extracts from approved theologians ; they went
through twenty passages from the sermons of
Nestorius ; and then, at last, they pronounced
his condemnation.1 Before we come to it, let
1 Mansi, iv. 1169-1212. "He was deposed, not by virtue of
the pope's judgment, which had been read, but on the proofs
which were given of his false teaching" (Tillemont, I.e.).
"Celestine," says Mr. Rivington, "considered himself as, in a
peculiar sense, clothed with apostolic authority which he could
exercise, as we have seen, in the way of deposing the bishop of
Constantinople " (p. 480). But the council deposed that bishop ;
it could not, therefore, have recognised "apostolic authority"
as having already done so. The Dublin Review represents
it as having only taken the most " deliberate method " of
" carrying out the papal judgment." But as " we have seen," if

158 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
us notice Mr. Rivington's remark : " It was
St. Celestine's expressed desire that they should
satisfy themselves as to the heterodoxy of
Nestorius," and so " should give to his judgment
a rational adhesion."1 If this was his " desire,"
it was beyond the scope of the commission on
which, according to Mr. Rivington, they were
acting ; and no " desire " of his was made known
to them until the arrival of the legates — that is,
nineteen days after the memorable 22nd of June.
Mr. Rivington exults over one clause in the
Council's sentence against Nestorius, which he
renders, "necessarily compelled by the canons
and by the letter of our most holy father and
fellow-minister,2 Celestine" (p. 334). It is not

that judgment was binding on the council, Nestorius was a
deposed heretic at the end of 430, whereas the council begins by
treating him as still dans ses droits. Before it opened, his friend
Acacius had dealt with him as not yet irreclaimable.
1 So in the Dublin Review he defines the relation between
pope and council in " catholic theology." The council is indeed
morally bound to agree with whatever the pope has decided as
to doctrine : but it is not to be his unintelligent tool ; it is to
"judge," i.e. to satisfy itself as to the grounds of the papal
decision, and thereby to give a peculiarly " striking character "
to the sole infallible judgment. This is all ! Did bishops who
travelled to ancient councils know this " theology " ?
2 Mr. Rivington takes the first of these two titles in a dis
tinctively papal sense ; and the second, he imagines, means
only that Celestine and the bishops were alike in priesthood !

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 159
"necessarily compelled," but "necessarily" or
" irresistibly urged " or " impelled ; " x but let that
pass. In the missives to Nestorius himself, and
to his clergy, the Council mentions the canons
and not Celestine. The canons, and Celestine's
letter to Nestorius, cannot here be treated as
coordinate; for the Council had not rendered
literal obedience to that letter; its purport
was broadly inconsistent with any laborious
examination of the opinions of the man whom
he had therein branded as a "wolf." The
words, then, cannot be strained into meaning
that " the compulsory nature of the " previous
" Papal decision was presumed " by the synodical
sentence, which " added nothing to its intrinsic
authority ; " they simply indicate that the
Of course it is here used for "fellow-bishop" (supra, pp. 119,
145). Aeirovpyta is frequently used for the "ministry" of a
bishop (see Euseb. ii. 24, iii. 13). In the Acts of Ephesus the
title of archbishop is given six times to Celestine, seventy-six
times to Cyril. To assume that, when bishops call Cyril "holy
father," as they do fifty-five times in the first session, it is as
Celestine's delegate, is to ignore the Eastern usus loquendi. Any
" primate " would be so called. See, too, other cases in Mansi,
vi. 1055 ff. ; vii. 265, 493.
1 'Avayxaias KaTetreixBevres. See Liddell and Scott on this
verb and on kiretya. If we are to be rigorously literalistic as to
this av6tpao-is, we must suppose that the bishops actually " wept
much " while passing it. On avayKalus, cf. Mansi, iv. 1240,
1 301 (letters to the emperor).

160 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
bishops desired to utilise to the utmost the
fact that the greatest see in the Church1 was
on their side, as against the bishop of the
Eastern capital, who was understood to be
patronised by the court, and to have many
sympathisers in the Antiochene patriarchate —
the " Orient" technically so called. They would
be the more disposed to do this because they
had been obliged to act without waiting for
Celestine's envoys. And when, on July nth,
these " legates " appeared in the Council, they
brought a letter from Celestine2 which requires
rather more comment than is given in Mr.
Rivington's text ; but in one of his Appendices
he returns to it, and urges that, although the
Pope speaks of the Apostolic teachership as
having " descended in common to all bishops "
(" hase ad omnes in commune Domini sacerdotes
mandatae praedicationis cura pervenit"), he does
not say that it has descended to them "equally"
(p. 480). We ask in reply : Where does he say
that it has come to him in a unique sense, as
1 If Rome is spoken of at Ephesus as " the apostolic see," is
this, as Mr. Rivington thinks, "a point of tremendous signi
ficance " ? The bishops would not care to magnify Antioch by
emphasising its apostolic character, and Jerusalem was still sub
ordinate to Caesarea.
2 Mansi, iv. 1283.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 161
the teacher of the Church Universal? Where
does he differentiate his own share of the
" teachership " from that of other successors of
the Twelve ? Where does he distinguish his
own position from theirs, as the "priest's" is
distinguished from the " people's " in " common
prayer"? (p. 482). Mr. Rivington, indeed,
pretends that Celestine identifies his relation
to the bishops with that of St. Paul to Timothy
(p. 339).1 This is a peculiarly audacious gloss.
What Celestine says is : —
" We must act by labouring in common, that
we may preserve what has been entrusted [to
us], and hitherto retained per apostolicam sttc-
cessionem? For this is now required of us, to
1 In his "Dublin" article Mr. Rivington still maintains this,
and says that by "we" and "us" Celestine in that passage
means the council: "He is speaking as occupant of the see of
St. Peter and St. Paul, and they occupy the place of St. Timothy
the bishop of Ephesus." This is paltry. Celestine supposes
himself to be present by his envoys at Ephesus. He never even
alludes to his own see as that of Peter's. He never claims any
sole apostolic authority. Still less does he, as the Review
represents him, exhort the council to "execute the sentence
passed ... by the apostolic see."
2 He had said before, "Sanctum est . . . concilium, in quo
utique nunc apostolorum frequentissimae illius quam legimus
congregationis aspicienda reverentia est. Nunquam his defuit
Magister . . . docebat qui dixerat quid docerent . . . qui in apos-
tolis suis se confirmat audiri . . . Haec ad omnes," etc. " Haere-
ditario in hanc solicitudinem jure constringimur [i.e. all bishops]
M

162 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
walk according to the Apostle. . . . We must
take up spiritual arms. . . . The blessed Apostle
Paul admonishes all. who are now stationed in
the place where he ordered Timothy to remain.
. . . The same place, then, the same cause, even
now requires that very duty. . . . Let us, also,
now do and aim at that which Timothy under
took as incumbent on him, ' ne quis aliter sentiat '
[referring to i Tim. i. 3, 4].1 Let us be of one
mind, . . . since the faith which is one is being
struck at," etc.
Is not Fleury warranted in saying that Celes
tine here "places himself in the rank of the
bishops " ? It is true that he refers at the end
quicunque . . eorum vice nomen Domini praedicamus, dum
illis dicitur, ' Ite, docete omnes gentes.' Advertere debet vestra
fraternitas quia accepimus generale mandatum . . . Subeamus
omnes eorum labores, quibus omnes successimus in honore," etc.
So afterwards: "Quae fuit apostolorum petitio deprecantium?
Nempe ut acciperent ' verbum Dei loqui cum fiducia ' . . . Et
vestro nunc sancto conventui quid est aliud postulandum," etc.
1 Eccl. Hist. xxv. c. 47. Mr. Rivington refers to the bishops'
acclamations "to Celestine, the guardian of the faith !" Lite
ralism consistently applied to such language would produce
curious results. Compare the greetings addressed to an emperor
in the sixth session of Chalcedon ; e.g. " O teacher of the faith ! "
(Mansi, vii. 177). When the council applies to Celestine and
Cyril alike the title of "a new Paul," Mr. Rivington is sure
that Cyril was viewed simply as Celestine's representative ; and
when it hails Celestine as -njT Spotyiixf ttjs <rw65ov, this is turned
round, as it were, to mean that the council's "judgment" was
but "an intelligent adhesion to the papal sentence" ! (p. 339).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 163
to what he had " previously ordained " as to be
" carried out " by his three legates ; and there
is also a difficulty as to the text of the final
clause, where the Latin " id quod agitur " is not
in accordance with the Greek btnp av yvwrs.1
Let us now see what follows. The successor
of St. Basil acknowledges that Celestine's
" Apostolical see had previously given a direc
tion,2 and that they had followed and carried
it out ; " but he immediately adds, " by pro
nouncing against Nestorius a canonical and
Apostolical judgment." 3 The bishop of Ancyra
then said that Celestine's letter was a divinely
given proof of the justness of their decision. But
why ? Because it showed his " zeal for the
divine faith."4 In the next session, one of

1 A various reading of the Greek agrees with the Latin.
2 Imrov. The word ¦i/^av, "sentence," precedes.
3 Firmus, Ap. Mansi, iv. 1288. Bossuet: "Sic exsequitur
synodus generalis primae sedis sententiam legitima cognitione et
inquisitione, nee simplicis mandatarii vice, sed canonico et
apostolico dato judicio" (Def. Decl. vii. 13). Mr. Rivington
(who seems to think that the Defensio is not wholly Bossuet's)
does, in fact, reduce the "general council" to the position of a
dignified and intelligent " mandatarius " of the Pope. With
Celestine's letter fresh in memory, a Cappadocian primate was
hardly likely to mean that all "apostolical" authority was
concentrated in Rome.
* Both in his book and in his article, Mr. Rivington quotes
Theodotus without giving this reason for his assertion.

164 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
the legates, more Romano, refers to our Lord's
words to St. Peter, and affirms that the
Apostle "up to this time and always lives
and exercises judgment in his successors;"1
another speaks of himself and his brethren
as sent by Celestine to "execute" his resolves.
But what says Cyril himself? He takes care
(a) to describe the legates as representing, not
only "the Apostolical see," but "all the holy
synod of the bishops of the West," 2 and (b) to
distinguish their action, as Celestine's real
" agents," from the sentence already pronounced
by the synod to which he requests their "assent"
in writing. But does he, then, recognise them as
giving the supreme sanction without which the
act would not be properly valid ? Not a word
like this appears in his speech. But Mr. Riving
ton fastens on the subsequent declaration of the
bishops that the legates had spoken aKoXoiduig
(Lat. consentaned). " It is enough," he exclaims ;
"we ought ... to hear no such accusations as to
Rome's disregard for history as are indulged
1 Mansi, iv. 1295. Mr. Rivington says that "East and West,
at Ephesus, agreed in" this (p. 371). So, again, he assumes
that "the East to a man believed" what a legate said about
" Peter judging in his successors " (p. 382). The notion that
Easterns believed whatever they heard and did not contradict
shows a curious lack of humour.
2 Thus " the West " was not absorbed into Rome.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 165
in by some writers, whose position is absolutely
excluded by the history of the Council of
Ephesus. . . . The teaching of the Vatican decree
on this subject [the Church's government] was
the teaching of the Fathers of Ephesus, and
it was the rule of their conduct " (p. 347). Was
it so, indeed ? We need not repeat the terms
of the decree ; but does this declaration commit
the Council to everything which a Roman envoy
might say about the dignity of his master ?
Does not the context show that the Council
was referring to the legates' agreement with its
decisions ? If we render the word " suitably,"
this would be the ground of the " suitableness "
or consistency. One of them had just said that
they were "bound to affirm [or " confirm "] the
council's teaching,1 according to what had been
done in it" (that is, in view of its recorded
proceedings) : then comes the remark, " Since
they have spoken ukoXovOwq, it follows that
they should make good their own promise,
and affirm [or "confirm"] what has been done
by their signatures ; " whereupon they sign the
minutes, one of them as " entirely assenting to
1 This must be the sense of lavrav StSao-i:a\ias — leg. outSj/,
Lat. "eorum doctrinam." The Latin must be of primary
authority in a " legate's " speech. Mansi, iv, 1299.

1 66 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
(i^arnXovOwv) the last judgment of this holy
and oecumenical synod." Their language would
thus be "appropriate as emphasising" their
" solidarity " with the synod on the one great
question which it had to decide. The word
/3£j3euow is somewhat elastic ; its sense in any
particular passage must be settled by the con
text ; and we learn by Cyril's phrase, " canonical
assent," in what sense the legates were expected
to " confirm " the council's proceedings. We
need only add that in the synodical letters to
Theodosius, Celestine is " commended for having
condemned the heresy before our sentence "
(\pr)<pov), and the legates are said to represent
both him and " the whole synod of the West." x
As to any notion of obedience in the Papalist
sense being due to Celestine from the " CEcu-
menical Council," there is not a single word.
We may well say with Bossuet that at the
outset, " Ipsa synodus intellexit omnia ipso
jure in suspenso esse, atque ex synodi pendere
sententia ; " and that, in the proceedings, the
Council so acted as to show that Celestine's
judgment was not regarded as "ultimum atque
irreformabile." But this, which Bossuet denies, is what his
1 Mansi, iv. 1240, 1301, 1433, 1461.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 167
Church now affirms to have been acknowledged
from the first. Mr. Rivington placidly assumes
that when Cyril in the fourth session spoke of
the Council as having had the task of "con
firming the right definition of the Apostolic
faith," he meant, "of course, the opiadivra
tvttov of" Celestine. But Celestine's "direction"
was not a definition of the faith ; and a little
more acquaintance with ancient dogmatic
phraseology would have saved Mr. Rivington
from this blunder. Just before the Creed was
read, in the first session, the purpose in hand
was stated by Juvenal — " to establish the right
faith,"1 i.e. as formulated by the Nicene Council.
This faith, or rather Creed, was to be confirmed,
not as any bishop's teaching could be con
firmed, but in the sense of being synodically
reaffirmed ; and so, when the African primate's
letter2 had been read, it was summarised by
Cyril as aiming at the " confirmation of the
ancient doctrines of the faith ; " and in his great
letter to John he writes, "We cannot allow

1 A like phrase had been used still earlier (Mansi, iv. 1 133).
2 Mr. Rivington summarises this letter (p. 317) as saying
that "the bishops of Africa have accepted the decision of the
holy see," yet quotes it fairly as referring also to "the judgment
of the bishops agreeing together " as against Pelagianism.

168 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
the Nicene Creed to be unsettled."1 The
Council, too, in its letter to Celestine, speaks
of Nestorius' error as " dislodging from its basis
the economy of the mystery." Mr. Rivington
cites this letter for the sake of two remarks
in it, that the Council felt it a matter of
"necessary duty to report to Celestine all its
proceedings " — which, considering his eminent
position, was natural enough — and that, although
it might "justly and lawfully" have deposed
John, it had "reserved his case for Celestine's
judgment" (p. 353). And here is an illustration
of Mr. Rivington's "ways." He makes the
Council give as its reason for this reservation,
that " the matter concerned one of the ' greater
thrones,' " a phrase taken from a subsequent
paragraph relating (as he himself intimates)
to a different point ; 2 he glosses the assertion
of a right to depose John, as if it depended
1 Cyr. Op. ed. P. E. Pusey, vi. 50. Compare with KparvvBrjvai
(Cyril's phrase), Mansi, iv. 1344, that "the synod decreed
KpaTtiv . . . ttjv irlariv;" and on opov, Cyr. adv. Nest. i. 5,
"the symbol which the Nicene fathers &pio-avTo," and cf. Mansi,
iv. 1361, and Soc. i. 37, etc.
2 The excommunication directed against Cyril and Memnon
by John of Antioch and his supporters (Mansi, iv. 1336). "For
if persons are left free to insult the greater thrones " (or " sees ")
confusion will follow. Thus the council means to include
Ephesus, as well as Alexandria and Antioch, among sees of
this class.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 169
on the presence of Roman legates ; and he
omits the reason actually assigned for not doing
so — "that by forbearance we might overcome
his temerity." Once more, he assumes that
three Cyprian bishops spoke untruly when
they claimed a traditional independence of
Antioch ; x and he affirms this with a positive-
ness which contrasts with the language of such
great scholars as Tillemont and Le Quien.
His reason is, that Innocent I. had pronounced
"that the Cyprians ought to return to their
obedience." But Innocent's letter avowedly
proceeds upon an ex parte statement;2 and
how, on Vatican principles, could a General
Council, even provisionally, reverse the alleged
"decision" of a Pope? He pours scorn on the
suggestion that there may have been some
connection between the African bishops' de
precation — in that previous letter to Celestine
which he wishes to represent as spurious —
of acts which would introduce into the Church
"the smoky arrogance of the world," and the
Ephesine resolution re Cyprus, forbidding
' One of them said: "They cannot prove that from the
apostles' times he of Antioch, or any other, ever imparted to our
island the grace of ordination " (Mansi, iv. 1468).
2 "Cyprios sane asseris . . Quocirca persuademus eis," etc,
(Innocent to Alexander of Antioch ; Mansi, iii. 1055).

170 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
bishops to usurp jurisdiction beyond their own
bounds, "lest under the guise of episcopal
action there should creep in the arrogance
of [worldly] authority." The resemblance is
almost a verbal identity ; it seems to demand
some explanation. Eastern bishops, about
ninety years before, had shown some jealousy
of Roman self-assertion ; is it incredible that
Eastern bishops in 431 should have thought
the words opportune in case of its recurrence ? 1
The greatest Asiatic bishop of the fourth century
had complained of the " haughty bearing " of
that same Roman bishop whose accession,
compromised by sanguinary conflicts, had given
occasion to a Pagan historian to dwell sarcasti
cally on the pomp and wealth which made his
1 Cf. Ath. Apol. u. Ari. 25. In page 359, referring to "Dr.
Bright's imagination," Mr. Rivington says, "he thinks that
the Roman legates at Ephesus may have been absent from that
particular session which dealt with the Cyprian case." And
yet we read, in page 357 ; " This decision was probably arrived
at after their [the legates'] withdrawal, and so was merely a
provisional arrangement pending further inquiry," as if any
resolution arrived at without their presence could of course be
only tentative ; whereas the decree is most absolute in its terms,
and , by authority of " the holy and oecumenical synod, " annuls any
"direction" which may conflict with it. He also denies that
Besulas, an African deacon, represented Africa at the council
(p. 359). But at the end of the list of members we find,
"Besulas deacon of Carthage." He represented his bishop
Capreolus (Mansi, iv. 1128, 1208).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 171
see an object of ambition.1 Eastern prelates
were often shrewd and acute men, and certainly
not simple enough to think the occupants of
"the first see," as such, inaccessible to the
temptation of domineering ; and such of them
as were alive some fourteen years later would
probably feel that their words had been un
consciously prophetic of Leo I.'s attempt to
subjugate the Church of Gaul by the aid of
an imperial rescript, containing language which,
as Tillemont says, "does little honour" to his
memory.2 1 Ammian. xxvii. 3.
2 Valentinian III. was made to say (July 8, 445), "Since the
primacy of the apostolic see has been confirmed by the merit of
St. Peter, the dignity of the city of Rome, and also the authority
of a sacred synod, ne quid p-ater auctoritatem sedis islius
inlicitum prasumptio attentare nitatur ; for then will the peace
of the churches everywhere be preserved, si rectorem suum
agnoscat universitas." But neither the Sardican provisions,
which Leo persists in referring to as Nicene (Epp. 43, 44), nor
the Roman version of Nic. can. 6, would justify this inference,
for which Leo must be held responsible. Valentinian was not
likely to insist on having its validity established. The
rescript orders that "whatever the authority of the apostolic
see has directed, or shall direct, is to be law throughout the
provinces," i.e. of the West. Yet Leo could write of another
bishop, " Propria perdit qui indebita concupiscit" (Ep. 104. 3) :
a pregnant maxim, which sums up our case in regard to his own
see. One ought, perhaps, to notice the argument that if the
canons referred to had really been Sardican, Leo would have
had "no reason for quoting them as Nicene, since, as Sardican,
they would have been a sufficient authority for his purpose " in

172 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.

(XX.) The Council of Chalcedon.
At last we come to the Fourth General
Council. At the end of the trial of Eutyches
in Flavian's Council of Constantinople (No
vember, 448), it seems that, after the assembly
broke up, the condemned abbot, in a low voice,
appealed to certain foreign " synods." What
were they ? According to the " patrician "
Florentius, to whom he had spoken, "the synods
of Rome, and of Egypt, and of Jerusalem." x
writing to the Eastern emperor. But (as Mr. Rivington himself
says, in p. 468) the Sardican council was not known, in the East,
to have put forth any canons ; and in any case a Western synod
could not have had as much "authority" as the Nicene, nor
have suited Leo nearly so well. As is well known, he was bent
on crushing Hilary of Aries, who had withstood him. Hilary
may have dealt over-stringently with bishop Chelidonius : but
the interest of the case lies not simply in his dignified firmness
when protesting against the acceptance of Chelidonius' appeal,
or threatened by Leo's entourage, or put under guard by Leo's
despotic order, but rather in the ground taken by the prefect
Auxiliaris as a peacemaker. He entreats Hilary — not to submit
himself penitently to a spiritual sovereign whom he had affronted,
but — to make some concession to " Roman sensitiveness " (cf.
Honoratus, Vit. Hilar, c. 17). See Dr. Cazenove's signally
equitable treatment of the case, in Diet. Chr. Biogr. iii. 70.
1 Mansi, vi. 817. The monk Constantine's account is set aside
by Mr. Rivington, because he was " convicted of untrustworthi-
ness." But it would have been as well to say what the "ac
count" was. This pertinacious advocate of Eutyches still
thought fit to represent him as having appealed, not only to

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 173
Mr. Rivington ingeniously recasts this : " to an
Egyptian and Jerusalemite, as ivell as to a
Roman Council ; " and then sets himself to
minimise the reference to the two former, and,
with regard to the latter, to sink the " Council "
in the " Pope." We know nothing, he argues,
of any letter from Eutyches, except the one
to Leo : therefore, we may practically treat
the application to Leo as standing alone
(p. 366). This is a "short and easy method,"
indeed ; but it happens that Eutyches, in
449, charged Flavian with ignoring his appeal
to a General Council.1 Then as to Leo's
correspondence with Flavian ; he naturally
thought that Flavian " ought to have written "
to him as soon as Eutyches did. Flavian's first
letter was, in fact, somehow delayed, but in his
second he gives a full account.2 Mr. Rivington
these three " synods," but also to that of Thessalonica (Mansi,
vi. 817). But we may take it as certain that he made no formal
appeal whatever during the council.
1 Mansi, vi. 641. This was said at the Latrocinium. Eu
tyches, as Mr. Rivington says, told " a falsehood " when he
professed to have formally appealed to Leo ; but the point of
interest is that he represented himself as having appealed to
several authorities. In an age of hierarchical solidarity,
the help of any great see might be invoked by a sufferer ; and
so, apparently, Flavian, at the Latrocinium, appealed to Leo
(Ep. 43)-
2 Leon. Ep. 26. The first letter is Ep. 22. Leo had not

174 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
grandiloquently describes him as " invoking St.
Leo's prerogative," acting as a "judge of first
instance," and " bringing Eutyches before Leo "
for a "final peremptory judgment;" and the
heading of page 369 runs, " Flavian prefers a
Papal Brief" — something, we presume, in the
style of documents sealed with " the Fisherman's
ring," and menacing the disobedient with the
"indignation of Almighty God, and of His
Apostles Peter and Paul." He makes the
bishop of Constantinople say, " Deign to give
your decision by means of briefs, in accord
ance with the canonical deposition of Eutyches "
at Constantinople. How many of his readers
will turn to the original ? Those who do so
will find Flavian in no such humble attitude ;
he says, " Be so good as to give assent,1
by a letter of your own, to the deposition
which has canonically taken place ; " and he
adds that nothing now is wanted save Leo's
" impulse and assistance " to tell on the mind
of Theodosius, and to stop the mischievous
scheme for a new Council.2 This is natural
received it when he wrote Ep. 23, Feb. 18, 449. On May 21
he acknowledged receipt of Flavian's letters (Ep. 27).
1 Literally, to vote with, aup^ti^lo-ao-Bat. The Latin has
" suffragari." 2 If Theodosius had recognised Leo's see as "the supreme

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 175
on the theory of a precedency of position
and influence ; but no rotundity of phrase in a
modern Papalist comment can puff it out into
a recognition of Papal monarchy. Nor is there
in the last paragraph of that famous and in
estimable letter to Flavian, which is known as
Leo's " Tome," anything like a claim of real
supremacy ; while, even had the language been
stronger, the oecumenical acceptance of the
Tome had reference to its magnificent exposition
of the great doctrine on which Christianity is
based. In Leo's letter to the unhappy Council which
he afterwards, with excusable exaggeration,
branded as " a meeting of robbers," the object
in view is described : " that all error may be
done away with by a fuller judgment."1 Mr.
Rivington forthwith glosses : " the sentence of
the Pope was to swell out and be completed by
its synodical proclamation, as the sufferings of
Christ are completed by those of His followers "
(p. 377). By aid of this most gratuitous and
court of appeal," he would not have entertained and acted on
this scheme in spite of Leo's objections.
1 Ep. 33. Theodosius had not implied, as Leo chooses to
suppose, that he desired to get an exposition of Peter's confession
"from Peter himself," i.e. from his see. This (as we have
already seen) was a Roman usus loquendi.

176 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
hardly reverent illustration, a Council intended
to be oecumenical is degraded into a mere Papal
consistory; and while Leo's account of the
pledge given by Eutyches, " per omnia nostram
se secuturum sententiam," is translated into a
" promise to obey the Holy See," the part to be
taken by the Council is thus described : " His
legates were to determine with the holy assembly
of the episcopal brotherhood ' what things will
be pleasing to the Lord.'" Is "with" here
intended as an adequate representation of com-
muni vobiscum sententia f
That Leo, alike in his high official position,
and in his force of character and religious
earnestness,1 was the man to stand forward
amid this Eutychian peril, will be admitted by
all who believe in the One Christ as " perfect
God and perfect Man," with gratitude due
to him for that firm theological equipoise
whereby, while the error of the time being is
exposed, no advantage is given to its Nestorian
opposite. He went much too far, we believe, in
magnifying his own bishopric, by consolidating
1 A great man, being also first among bishops, and Roman
patriarch, with the prestige of the " Petrine " tradition, would be
quite strong enough for what Leo succeeded in doing. An
acknowledged spiritual monarch, supreme alike in East and
West, would have done more.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 177
and formulating the " Petrine " ideas which had
long grown up among its clergy ; x but let us not
underrate the significance of his words when, in
attempting to work upon the Eastern court for
the redress of wrongs done by the " Latro
cinium," he speaks as the mouthpiece of " omnes
nostrarum partium ecclesiae, omnesque sacer-
dotes " (even as afterwards he speaks of writings
of his as sent to Constantinople " non solum
apostolicae sedis auctoritate, sed etiam sanctae
synodi, quae ad nos frequens convenerat, unani-
mitate").2 This, according to Mr. Rivington,
refers merely to such bishops as happened to be
in Rome, whose authority, when sitting with him
in synod, was due to him alone — as if they were
but a sort of cabinet council to the Sovereign
of the entire Church. But Leo means Theodosius
to understand that he has the Western Church
at his back ; one is reminded of Cyril's care to
1 See Canon Gore's Leo the Great, p. 99.
2 Epp. 43 and 61. In quoting Ep. 44 Mr. Rivington makes
Leo speak of the " faith which, inspired divinely, we have
received," and claims this as " meaning exactly that divine
assistance which constitutes papal infallibility according to the
Vatican decree " (p. 387). He complacently remarks that
the phrase, " if taken too strictly, goes beyond " that decree.
But the Latin is " fidei quam divinitus inspiratam et accepimus
et tenemus," i.e. the faith as originally communicated by God to
the Church, and so handed down to Leo and to the "holy
synod " in whose name he writes. N

178 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
insist that Celestine and his legates represent
the Western hierarchy. It was on this occasion
that he repeated the claim of Nicene authority
for a Sardican canon ; and if Zosimus and
Boniface had made that claim in good faith,
Leo made it in the face of evidence which
had been in the possession of his Church
for thirty years. Yet all the urgency of
Leo,1 supported by the Western emperor 2 and
princesses, fails utterly with a pious but feeble
prince bred up under the influences of Eastern
Christianity.3 Readers of Gibbon will recollect
1 It is the urgency of entreaty: " Obsecramus — supplicant"
(Ep. 44. 2, 3); " supplicationi nostra;" (Ep. 54. 2); and to
Pulcheria, "obsecrantes . . . supplicationem " (Ep. 45. I, 2.
Ep. 54 was written after the others, but not, as Mr. Rivington
says, in "January," 450 ; he has mistaken the Ballerini's date,
oct. Kal. Jan. = Dec. 25, 449.) As Bishop Andrewes says,
" Audis jam hie mandatum nullum" (Tort. Torti, p. 196).
Mr. Rivington hardly allows this to be observed by his readers.
2 As for Valentinian's letter (Leon. Ep. 55) which, as Mr.
Rivington truly says, "was inspired by Leo," it is a little too
much to assume that Leo's religious "motive" could justify
the claim that he should "judge about the faith and the bishops."
Yet this is modified into a request for a general council in Italy.
3 When Mr. Rivington says, "We know that " Theodosius
' ' had avowed the sovereignty of the see of St. Peter over all the
sees of Christendom by his signature to the ' constitution ' of
Valentinian," re Hilary (p. 393), he forgets the imperial usus
loquendi, which saved the principle of the unity of the empire by
uniting the names of both emperors in the edicts of each. Cf.
Marcian's letters, Leon. Epp. 100, no (" Valentinianus et
Marcianus "), despatched in both names from Constantinople.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 179
his sly allusion to the " fortunate stumbling of
the emperor's horse." x Theodosius dies ; Pul-
cheria and her "nominal husband," Marcian,
ascend the Eastern throne ; and Marcian writes
to Leo as having " oversight and rule in regard
to the divine faith," 2 and offers a new Council in
which, (rofl avBtvrovvTOQ (Lat. te auctore) peace
may be settled among Catholic bishops.3 These
phrases by no means warrant the gloss that at
the future synod Leo's authority should be all-
decisive ; and in the correspondence which fol
lowed we see clearly that when Leo intimated
that he did not want a new council, unless it
was to be held in Italy, Marcian held to his
resolution that a council should be held, and
not in Italy, but near Constantinople. Leo had
to make the best of it, though he did not conceal
Leo had "obtained the 'constitution' from Valentinian, who
was then at Rome " (Tillemont, xv. 83), and it was sent off to
Aetius, then ruling in Gaul. Theodosius' own conduct shows
that he could not have committed himself to the "constitution,"
or acknowledged it as binding in the East.
1 Gibbon, vi. 27.
2 Ep. 73* 'Eirto'KOTrefiovo'av Kal &pxovo~av tt\s Betas iriffrecos.
This cannot mean that Leo was the " ruler of the faith," but
that, as chief Christian bishop, he was that faith's foremost
guardian. 3 The same phrase is used by Pulcheria in Ep. 77 ; Mr.
Rivington quotes it (p. 392) and glosses the very next word,
bpiauaiv (i.e. the bishops), as if Leo were to decide every
thing by his legates "in the council."

180 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
his annoyance : he could not use Marcian as he
had used the wretched Valentinian.1 Even before
Theodosius died, Leo had written to him about
the new bishop of Constantinople, whom he had
reason to regard with suspicion, and he wished
his own Tome to be a test. Be it remembered
that on Vatican principles, as Mr. Rivington
expressly says (p. 415), the Tome " was already
of faith" Yet Leo speaks here with remarkable
moderation : Anatolius should study the Fathers'
writings, and with them Cyril's letter to Nes
torius, and the minutes of the Ephesian Council ;
and " let him not disdain to peruse my letter also,
which he will find to be in full accord with the
pious mind of the Fathers."2 Can words be
1 Mr. Rivington thinks Marcian a signally "holy" emperor.
He was, at any rate, a very ' ' capable " one. See, e.g. Bury 's
Later Roman Empire, i. 135.
2 Ep. 69. In Ep. 70, " I ask that he will assent to Cyril's
letter to Nestorius . . . vel epistolae meae," etc. The Ballerini
(naturally, from their standpoint) argue that vel here = et. But
even taking it so, Cyril's letter and the tome are put side by
side ; both are to be " heedfully considered." Is this like
" dealing with the archbishop of Constantinople as a subject,
and imposing on him the Roman ' form of faith ' " ? (p. 395).
The circumstances fully account for the letter (of a year later)
about two of Anatolius' priests, who had visited Rome and
satisfied Leo of their orthodoxy (Ep. 87). But Mr. Rivington,
in p. 397, italicises a phrase in this letter, "by the teaching of
the Holy Spirit," as if Leo could not ascribe what "he had
learned and taught " to that Divine " instruction " without

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 181
plainer as against the assertion that the Tome,
qua Leo's, was deemed infallible ? No doubt, as
to the bishops who had yielded to the tyranny
of Dioscorus, Leo commissions Anatolius to act
with his envoys, and entrusts him with the carry
ing out of his dispositio1 — a word which suggests
to Mr. Rivington the parenthetical hint, " cf. the
use of dispositio for an imperial edict," so that
Leo may be thus represented as nothing less
than a spiritual emperor; which, indeed, is the
position in effect assigned by authentic Roman
teaching to his present namesake.
At the opening of the Council of Chalcedon,
the " legates " objected to the presence of Dios
corus. Let us hear our author : " The imperial
commissioners wished to resist the decision of
the legates [that he should have no seat in the
Council], but in vain. They had to obey 'the
head of all Churches,' and cause Dioscorus to

assuming to be the infallible teacher of all Christians. Cf.
Leo, Ep. 120, from which Mr. Rivington (p. 415) quotes some
words on the contents of the tome as being "what God had
previously defined by his ministry ; " but further on Leo explains
this by referring to the Scriptural authorities ' ' brought together
in it," as rendering "further doubt" impossible. Leo also says
twice that the council, by its assent, "strengthened" the
tome ; but Mr. Rivington is not satisfied without inserting
"further" and glossing, " It was already of faith."
1 Rivington, p. 396.

i82 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
leave his place. His presence, however, was
required, and he was therefore allowed to sit
in the middle, without, that is to say, a seat as
a constituent member, which was the gist of the
legates' demand" (p. 401).
But Mr. Rivington omits (one is really weary
of having so often to use this verb) the original
insistence of the " legates," " Let him go out, or
else we will go out;" and the remark of the
commissioners, " If you represent a judge, you
must not be an accuser as well." The arrange
ment come to was in the nature of a com
promise ; x but Dioscorus was treated as bishop
of Alexandria until his final act of contumacy.2
The title of " CEcumenical Patriarch," employed
in the Alexandrian petitions to Leo as president,
and to the Council, was obviously put in to
please Leo ; and it must not be inferred from
the Council's silence that such a phrase received
its sanction,3 or, indeed, that the memorialists
1 See Mansi, vi. 581.
2 E.g. in the third citation (Mansi, vi. 1036).
3 If it did, then one might say that the council declared
itself to be composed of angels ; for three of these effusive
memorialists address the council as " your angelical company "
(Mansi, vi. 1009, etc. ; as does one of the bishops, ib. 1063).
This sort of complimenting was not exclusively Eastern : Leo
himself does not shrink from ascribing to emperors a "sacer
dotal energy" and "a sacerdotal mind" (Epp. 24, 115, 155).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARL Y CHURCH. 183
expected to be understood literally. Again,
when Dioscorus is condemned, the dictum of
the "legates," that Leo "by them and by the
Council" deposed him, is to be read with
the successive speeches of bishops.1 Anatolius,
who had his own reasons for wishing to stand
well with Leo, professes to be " altogether of one
Mr. Rivington's phrase, "The term 'universal bishop' . . . was
freely used at the council of Chalcedon " (p. 438), would mislead
an unwary reader.
1 Mansi, vi. 1048 ff. The vote of the " legates " speaking first
is assumed by Mr. Rivington to be the "sentence" of the
Council (p. 405). In this he is following the Ballerini. True,
the legates, as presiding, had repeatedly asked the council
what was its mind as to the penalty merited by Dioscorus, and
the council had replied that the penalty prescribed by "the
canons" should be inflicted (Mansi, vi. 1044). One Lydian
bishop remarked that Dioscorus had been " the first to give
judgment " when he presided at Ephesus (at the Latrocinium),
and requested the legates, as now presiding, to "pronounce"
according to the canons, adding that the whole council was
oifufnitpos with them, a phrase repeated by the bishop of Antioch.
Then the legates made their speech, which Tillemont calls their
"avis." If it was the synodical sentence, why did it conclude
with "the synod \j/ri<pitreTai according to the canons"? and
why was it followed by a series of episcopal pronouncements,
among which the verbs "decide" or "define" occur some
thirty times, and the verb "judge" over seventy, besides such
terms as "I condemn" or "I exclude," or "I assent to the
judgment pronounced by the fathers " (i.e. the leading bishops),
etc. ? Where " I think " occurs, it involves a judicial opinion
or finding. In the subsequent signatures two of the three
legates, speaking as such, profess to "define" (decide)
" together with the synod ; " and three great prelates, speaking
next, use the same phrase without alluding to Rome.

184 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
mind with the Apostolic see ; " out of the other
prelates, a few combine Leo's name with that
of Anatolius ; still fewer combine it with the
Council's ; a large number associate the names
of both prelates with the Council's ; one adds
the name of the bishop of Antioch, but the
great majority refer to the Council or "the
fathers" simply. In the missives to Dioscorus
and to his clergy, the sentence is grounded on
his previous offences plus his contumacy towards
the Council ; and instead of accepting, even
constructively, the position of being Leo's
minister, the Council repeatedly describes the
deposition as its own act.1 No doubt, in the
letter to the Emperor we read that Dioscorus
might have been pardoned if he had not " barked
against the Apostolic see itself, and attempted
to excommunicate the Pope2 Leo." But Mr.
Rivington stops just short of the momentous
1 Mansi, vi. 1096, 1097. E.g. Uaph Trjs . . . (rvv6Sov
KaBaipelo-Bat. Twenty-eight refer to his refusal to plead ; three
to his conduct re Eutyches and Flavian.
2 Mansi, vi. 1099. He is also twice in this context called
"archbishop," a title which, like "pope," was applied by the
Easterns to occupants of pre-eminent sees. In the deposition
votes it is repeatedly given both to Leo and to Anatolius ; and
also once to the bishop of Thessalonica. In the votes as to the
tome, one bishop in the same sentence prefixes " pope " both to
Leo and to Cyril (Mansi, vii. 21). In fact, this title had in the
East a special applicability to the bishop of Alexandria.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 185
words, "He has been fittingly deprived of his
episcopate by the Universal Council." 1
And now as to the treatment of the Tome.
The commissioners propose that the Council
should frame a doctrinal formulary. This is
objected to, on the ground of the Ephesian
Council's "rule" against compiling "another
Creed." 2 " We dare not make another ex
position, for we have in writing those made
by the Fathers" — meaning the Nicene and
" Constantinopolitan " forms of the Creed,3 to
which the commissioners had referred. One
bishop remarks, however, that Eutychianism
has required some new statements of truth, that
Leo has given a " type " or formulary, and that
"we follow him and have signed his letter," as,
1 Mansi, vi. 1099. Because the council tells Pulcheria that
" Christ had used Leo as champion of the truth, as of old He
used Peter," therefore, according to Mr. Rivington's logic, the
council declares Leo to be " the vicar of Christ in his direction
of the Church — a statement which is correctly summed up in the
more modem phrase, 'papal supremacy' or 'infallibility'"
(p. 408) : Q.E.D. ! In one passage, Mr. Rivington ventures
to say that " the invalidity of the Robber-synod was assigned
by the bishops simply and solely to the decision of the bishop of
Rome" (p. 435), as if it did not result from the proceedings re
Dioscorus. See Mansi, vi. 936.
2 See this "rule" in Mansi, iv. 1361. For its purport, I may
refer to my Notes on the Canons, etc., p. 133. nltrris = a
creed. 3 Mansi, vi. 953.

1 86 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
indeed, many bishops had done before the
Council met.1 The bishops exclaim, "We all
say this ; the expositions given are sufficient ;
it is not lawful to make another." Clearly,
" this " refers to what they had said before ; and
Mr. Rivington ought to have recognised that
the " expositions " mean the Creed, and do not,
as he imagines (p. 409), include the Tome, for
the Ephesian "rule," which is referred to as
an authority, would not have excluded any
addition to documents like the Tome, which
did not profess to be a Creed.2 The Creed
was read in both forms, followed by Cyril's
two chief letters, and by the Tome, the last
three documents being hailed with acclama
tions. But the subject was postponed until
a subsequent session, when the Tome was
solemnly accepted by the Council ; but in
what terms ? The remark that the Council
" no more sat in judgment on the Pope and
St. Cyril, as superiors, than a man acts as
1 Anatolius and a synod had done so in the autumn of 450
(Leon. Ep. 77). Others signed later.
2 Leo expressly distinguishes it from the creed (Ep. 165. 10).
In the preceding discussion at Ephesus, " exposition" had been
repeatedly used as meaning "creed." Mr. Rivington is doubly
wrong when he says, " It was (they said) Leo's sentence . . .
which made it unnecessary." Not " unnecessary," but " un
lawful ; " and not because of " Leo's sentence," but of 6 Kav&v.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 187
superior to St. James and St. Paul" when
he propounds a " Harmonia Apostolica " (p.
411), is absolutely gratuitous. The Fourth
Council did not "judge" of Cyril's teaching,
because it had been solemnly adopted by the
Third ; but did it not, in any true sense,
"judge" Leo's? Let us see. The bishops at
Ephesus, in their individual affirmations, had
approved of Cyril's teaching as expressed in
his second letter to Nestorius, because (as many
of them said) they "found," or "saw," or
"recognised," or "understood," or "ascertained"
it to be consonant to the Creed.1 They thus
"judged" it, and thereupon erected it into a
standard. It was so regarded when Leo's
Tome was dealt with at Chalcedon. Now,
here are some of the phrases in which the
bishops adhere to a document proceeding from
the Roman chair, and, according to Mr. Riving
ton, " already irreversible," being " an ex-cathedra
pronouncement,"2 obligatory on all Christian
consciences from the moment of its promul
gation by Leo, simply because it was he who
promulgated it : " I have ascertained — I judge —
1 Mansi, iv. 1 140 ff.
2 Rivington, pp. 397, 415. He assumes that "no orthodox
Christian could" then "seriously maintain that any of the
bishops were free to revise that dogmatic letter " (p. 416).

1 88 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
I am fully persuaded — we find — we have found
— that it is in accordance with the Creed," and,
as many bishops add, "with the teaching of
the Council of Ephesus" or "of Cyril." Or,
" as far as I have been able to perceive," or
"to understand, it agrees — I perceive that it
no way differs — we have proved by examination
that it no way differs — I find in it nothing
divergent — I have found that it agrees — your
Splendours [the commissioners] see that it
agrees," etc.1 Are we to say that such
language implies a real " judgment " when
applied to a writing of Cyril's, but, when
applied to one of Leo's, means only that the
speakers now appreciate the grounds of a
teaching which, independently of such appre
ciation, had a divine right to their submissive
acceptance? Nothing in the Acts could
warrant a distinction prima facie so arbitrary.
If words on a solemn occasion mean anything,
here is a series of declarations in which in
dividual bishops, members of the CEcumenical
Council, accept the Tome because they personally
believe it to be conformable to Church
standards, just as their predecessors had dealt
1 Mansi, vii. 9 ff. The last affirmation is by a bishop from
Pontus (ib. 24).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 189
with Cyril's letter; and thus by their act it
acquires a place among Church standards.1
The series in question, including the statements
of those prelates who had found a few difficulties
in the Tome (as if it tended to Nestorianism)
and had been satisfied by explanations, extends
(with the Latin rendering) over nearly thirty-
seven columns of Mansi's seventh volume. Was
it fair in Mr. Rivington to refrain from giving
any samples of this language ? One may ask
another question : was it quite prudent ? 2
1 Mr. Rivington rightly observes that the acclamation, " Peter
hath spoken [thus] by Leo " meant " that as a matter of fact he
was true to the Apostle's teaching." Yet he adds, "but their
exclamation suggests their belief that it followed from his official
position" (p. 412). Rather, that he himself had spoken in
a manner worthy of that position. Against this Roman convert
of a few years' standing, who insists that the council had no
option as to accepting the tome, one may set a pope, Vigilius,
quoted in "Waymarks in, Church History," etc., p. 229. As
Bossuet says (Def. Decl. Cler. Gall. vii. 17), "placuit Leonis
epistolamad legitimum concilii examen revocare," and he couples
"examen" with "inquisitio" and "judicium,'' meaning that
the bishops recorded the result of such "examen," that they
had previously satisfied themselves of the soundness of the tome.
There is no parallel between this and Leo's offer in 458 to send
clerics to explain the Chalcedonian teaching (Ep. 1623) ; for in
the same letter, as elsewhere, he insists that this teaching is not
open to revision ; whereas it is the merest petitio principii to
assume that his tome was in that position before the " examen."
2 The speech of the legates is partly corrupt ; but Mr.
Rivington has misrepresented it. They do not " describe the
attitude of the synod towards the tome of Leo as being

190 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Coming to the " Definitio Fidei " as ultimately
adopted by the Council, Mr. Rivington makes
the commissioners " ask practically whether the
bishops were prepared to withdraw themselves
from the Supreme Pontiff" (p. 421). We need
not say that there is nothing like "Supreme
Pontiff" in the original, which reads, " from the
most holy Leo," a title by no means, in those
days, equivalent to the " Holy Father " among
Romanists.1 Our author has, indeed, a good
right to emphasise the great service rendered
by Leo's envoys in prevailing on the Council
to substitute " in two natures " for the ambiguous
precisely the same as their attitude towards the council of Nice
and the council of Ephesus " (p. 414). On the contrary, they
ground the claim of the tome to acceptance on its agreement
with the two forms of the creed and with the Cyrilline-Ephesine
dogma (Ideoque — Kal rovrov X'V'", Mansi, vii. II). That is, just
when, on Mr. Rivington's showing, they ought to have pro
claimed, in such language as was appropriate to their time, the
principle of papal infallibility, they, speaking for Leo, take up
quite different ground. Mr. Rivington says of that principle,
" the thing was there " (p. 417). It was not there ; it was con
spicuous by its absence. Something else was there instead.
1 Mr. Rivington tries to produce an effect by a free use of the
phrases, "the Holy See," "His Holiness," etc. Thus, in
p. 337, " Most Holy Father " appears with three initial capitals,
while "fellow-minister" is not so distinguished, and might
almost escape the eye. In two of the passages quoted in pp.
353, 354, "your Holiness" is substituted for the original "your
piety," a common title of all bishops, as indeed was "your
holiness." These are little matters, but worth noting : we see
what is aimed at.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 191
"of two natures," which at first stood in the
" Definitio." But the commissioners, in giving
full support to this request, relied, not on any
" Papal prerogative," but on the argument from
consistency. By accepting the Tome, which
pointedly affirmed that " in the complete nature
of very Man was born very God, whole in what
was His own, and whole in what was ours," the
Council had committed itself to " in." x And
the "Definitio," as revised and promulgated,
has nothing of Papalism in it, and classes the
Tome with Cyril's letter, "inasmuch as it
is accordant with Peter's confession." 2 Mr.
Rivington mentions the address to Marcian,
but slurs over a critical part of the case. The
Council there defends the letter of "the admi
rable prelate of Rome" from the charge of
"innovation" by precedents from earlier
dogmatic letters, and then says, " If it is not
accordant with the Scriptures, and with previous
Fathers, and if it is not manifestly an advocacy
of the Nicene creed, let them confute it." 3
1 " Therefore add to the definition," etc. Mansi, vii. 105.
See Leo, Ep. 28 (the tome), c. 3, and "in both natures," c. 5.
2 "With which letter [of Cyril] the council has reasonably
combined the letter of . . . archbishop Leo," etc. Mansi, vii.
113. Routh, Scr. Opusc. ii. 78.
3 Mansi, vii. 465 (iKeyxerao-av). Marcian is asked to

192 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Theodoret's case is very unsatisfactorily
treated by our author.1 The injured bishop
of Cyrrhos unquestionably uses the technical
term kiriKaXovfievt^ in this application for
Leo's help, and undertakes to abide by Leo's
judgment, whatever it may be. But in the
"confirm by the synod the teaching of the see of Peter ;" and
sixteen passages from fathers are added, in defence of its theo
logy from the charge of "innovation." Yet, according to Mr.
Rivington, it was defide from the first ! This address Hefele re
fers to the fifth session, in which the " Definitio " was adopted.
1 He tea? written, "Theodoret . . . [in Ep. 113] enumerates
the advantages with which the apostolic throne is adorned, viz.
'abundance of spiritual gifts as compared with others, super
abundant splendour, the presidency over the whole world, abun
dance of subjects, present rule, and the communication of her
name to her subjects'" (p. 427). Now, Theodoret (whose
original is referred to in footnotes), after speaking of the
" advantages," goes on to speak of the city of Rome, and
attributes to it ' ' an abundance of good things, for it is the greatest
of all, presides over the whole world, swells with a multitude
of inhabitants, has developed an existing sovereignty, com
municates its name to its subjects," but is "chiefly adorned
by its faith, and by the tombs of Peter and Paul." He then
reverts to the "see," as made most conspicuous by these
apostles — as their see, — as having acquired a new "splendour"
through the orthodox zeal of Leo himself. This gross perversion
of Theodoret's language was pointed out, and has since been
included in the list of corrigenda ; but how? — simply by reading
" is adorned. Rome has ' abundance,' " etc. Any reader might
infer that "Rome" meant "the apostolic throne," which has
been mentioned just before. Is this an' adequate effacement of
such a blot? In p. 33, "Theodoret uses irpoKaBnp.4vn ttjs
otKovpiv-ns of the holy see" is now corrected by "deleting"
the last four words.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 193
letter to the Roman priest Renatus x (of whose
death he was not aware), he hopes that the
" archbishop " of Rome will bid him take refuge
with "your council," and promises to accept
what " you " (vp.wv) may decide. This " council,"
Mr. Rivington insists, would be the mere " ma
chinery " of the purely " Papal judgment ; " but
in another letter Anatolius (a "patrician" to
whom Theodoret wrote seven letters) is asked to
obtain leave for Theodoret to " go to the West
and be judged by the bishops who dwell in
it ; " 2 so that the Council was somehow to
represent the Western Church, which a bishop
wronged in the East would naturally wish to
enlist on his side. As Theodoret must have
expected, Leo, and doubtless some assembly
of Westerns, pronounced in his favour. This,
on Vaticanist principles, should have been
amply sufficient to place him, as a matter of
1 In this letter the Roman see is said to have "on many
accounts the presidency, t^v riyepoviav, over all churches."
Mr. Rivington mistranslates this by his favourite "sovereignty,"
and does not appreciate the significance of the chief reason
assigned — the fidelity of its occupants to the truth.
2 Tots iv iK€ivri, Ep. 119. Tillemont says, " Although Theo
doret, in writing to the pope, speaks as if he had addressed him
alone, we see that it was from the bishops of the West in general
that he awaited the decision of his cause" (xv. 294). The letter
to Florentius (Ep. 117) is considered by Tillemont to be a
circular to these bishops. O

194 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
course, among the constituent members of the
Council of Chalcedon. But it was by no means
deemed sufficient. The commissioners found
that, in face of strong opposition, he could only
take his seat in the midst as a competent
accuser capable also of being accused. He did
not vote, " except on such business as was con
nected with his own justification," i.e. as was
properly doctrinal.1 In the eighth session he
was called upon explicitly to anathematise
Nestorius. Mr. Rivington (applying the Vati
can "principles") thinks that this did not
prejudice the previous Roman judgment, chiefly
because " the legates " themselves " actually gave
the" synodical "decision" in his favour (p. 432).
But the fact remains that the bishops vehe
mently and persistently imposed on him a test
which Leo had not imposed ; that he tried to
satisfy them by something short of it ; that he
was not pronounced " worthy of his see " until
he submitted.2 The " legates " did not " give the
decision," but simply took the lead in giving
a vote ; six bishops followed, of whom five made
no allusion referring to Leo's action, while a

1 See Tillemont, xv. 308.
2 Mansi, vi. 589 ; vii. 188.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 195
sixth seems to include him among "archbishops ; " ]
then all the prelates assented by acclamation,
and the commissioners pronounced that Theo
doret "should regain the Church of Cyrrhos,
according to the judgment of the Council" —
words not exhibited by our author.2
1 Maximus said he had " from the first known Theodoret to
be orthodox — because lie had heard his preaching" (Mansi, vii.
192). Mr. Rivington pleads that the council was here simply
acting under commission from Leo ; but Ep. 93. 2, to which he
refers, merely exhorts the council to "heal the wounds" caused
by the unjust ejection of orthodox bishops. And the council
had not "exclaimed" that Leo had "judged with God," until its
own demand had been complied with.
2 Mansi, vii. 189 ff. Two other cases may be touched on in
a note. Domnus of Antioch had been deposed at the Latro
cinium, and Maximus had been consecrated in his place. If all
the Latrocinian acts were invalidated, Maximus could not be
bishop of Antioch ; but Leo had pronounced in his favour, and
Mr. Rivington holds that this pronouncement was the sole
ground on which Maximus was recognised at Chalcedon, and
that the case "covers everything ever claimed by the holy see
in the way of jurisdiction," so that in recognising Maximus the
council admitted that "the government of the Church was
strictly and properly papal" (p. 434). But Maximus had
already approved himself orthodox by circulars '.' throughout
his provinces" (Leo, Ep. 88. 3) ; so that the council, in accept
ing him from the outset as bishop of Antioch, had not merely
Leo's act to rest upon ; and in the tenth session Stephen of
Ephesus spoke of his appointment as originally "canonical,"
on the ground, apparently, that Domnus had waived his own
rights (Mansi, vii. 260). As for Juvenal of Jerusalem, the
approval of a compromise between him and Maximus, about
jurisdictions, was the act of the council itself, in the seventh
session. The salvo by which, according to Mr. Rivington,

196 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
Lastly, as to the twenty-eighth canon. Mr.
Rivington moralises (in a manner which suggests
some reflections) on the " lust of power " which
possessed the see of Constantinople. This
passion, it seems, is very "infectious in an
imperial centre." Not at all, we suppose, in a
centre which emperors had left open to bishops
like Leo ! But to proceed. " Constantinople,"
says our author, "wished to be in the East
what Rome was as patriarch of the West.
Ylarpiapxiac KXripovcrOewas St. Gregory of Nazian-
zus's condemnation of the East " (p. 440). The
words, in one of his autobiographical poems,
have nothing to do with technical patriarchates ;

Maximus referred to Leo's sanction as necessary to validate
the arrangement, is not in the Greek acts (Mansi, vii. 180), but
only in a manuscript "edited by the Ballerini" (p. 436); and
the legates' speech, even as there given, ignores it (cf. Migne's
Leo, ii. col. 731) ; nor does Leo mention it in his letter of 453.
Mr. Rivington applies his words "in hac solhcitudine " to that
question ; but Leo is speaking of the maintenance of the faith
("nequid sibi haeretica pravitas audeat vindicare"), and it is
immediately afterwards that he urges Maximus to uphold the
"privileges" of Antioch, and to "consult" with him for that
end. He is writing two years after the council (a point over
looked by our author) ; and he does not speak as he must have
spoken if such a salvo had been referred to him ; he only says
that he has not sanctioned any act of his legates on matters not
doctrinal. He does mention Juvenal's earlier "attempts " made
in 431 (Ep. 119. 4). The salvo, then, may be dismissed as a
clumsy Roman invention.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 197
nor do they " condemn the East " at large :
they refer (as Mr. Rivington would have
seen had he looked them up) to ambitious
prelates who wanted promotion to grander
sees.1 As for the " rebuffs which Constantinople
had met with " at Chalcedon, the Council had
not refused to call the " Sojourning Synod " a
synod, but had simply blamed it for condemning
a bishop unheard ;2 and when it declined to
sanction Constantinople's custom as to the
consecration of bishops for a town in Bithynia,
the commissioners added that "whatever was
fitting for the see of Constantinople, with
regard to consecrations within the provinces,
should be considered in due order at the
Council."3 The Roman envoys were present,
so that they and any Eastern prelates interested
had fair warning.4 There was nothing like
stealing a march or springing a mine. When,
1 Carm. de seipso et de episcopis, 799- He has just said,
®povovs pev odv %x°'Te KaL fvpavviSas. In Orat. 42. 23 he uses
"patriarchs" for senior bishops. At Chalcedon the com
missioners extend it to all primates or exarchs (Mansi, vi. 953).
2 Mansi, vii. 92. The o-ivoSos ivSripovtra grew up out of
natural relations between the bishop of Constantinople and
bishops visiting that capital on their own church affairs.
3 Mansi, vii. 313.
' Anatolius told Leo that he had "often informed them about
this very matter " (Leon. Ep. 101. 5).

198 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
at the close of the next day's session, Aetius,
the archdeacon of Constantinople, announced
that his Church had some business to bring
forward, the commissioners " directed the
Council to examine it " without their presence,1
but the "legates" said that "they had no instruc
tions about such a matter." Their game (if
such a phrase may be used) was obvious : they
wanted to avoid being outvoted, and afterwards
to come in and protest against what might have
been resolved upon in their absence ; but, as Mr.
Rivington says, "it turned out that they had
also received orders from Rome to oppose any
attempt at altering the relations of bishops on
the ground of the civil status of their sees"
(p. 442). He means that on the next day, a
"legate," on being challenged, produced some
instructions from Leo to that effect.2 Their
former reply, then, was a falsehood which had
served its purpose. However, the Council could
not have its action stopped by the withdrawal
1 Mr. Rivington's statement that they "refused" to attend
(p- 442) gives a very false impression. Contrast Hefele : " The
commissioners themselves had requested the synod to take in
hand the discussion of the privileges of the see of Constanti
nople (iii. 385, E.T.). He ascribes their absence to " prudential
considerations" in view of their judicial position.
2 Mansi, vii. 443.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 199
of those who professed to be its presidents ; and
the canon ranked as twenty-eighth was passed in
a form which afterwards received a not unim
portant modification. Unquestionably, there
was more of ingeniousness than of ingenuous
ness in the wording, which endeavoured to make
the newly sanctioned patriarchal jurisdiction in
the " Asiatic," Pontic, and Thracian diceceses (i.e.
groups of provinces), a logical consequence of
the precedency conferred on Constantinople in
38 1.1 We are not concerned to defend, as a com
plete statement of the facts, the assertion that
"the fathers with good reason assigned its
privileges to the see of Old Rome, because
that city was imperial," although undoubtedly
it was a main element in the case.2 Nor is it
our business to hold a brief for the see of the
Eastern capital; its prelates and clergy were
just as open to the temptation of self-aggrandise
ment as those of Rome ; but three points must
in fairness be remembered. First, between 381
and 451 Constantinople had been practically
allowed in several cases to exercise authority in
Asia; secondly, the ninth and seventeenth
canons of this very Council had allowed an
1 Cf. Bright, Notes on the Canons, p. 222.
2 Cp. Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, p. 370.

200 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
appeal from primates J in Asia Minor to " the
see of Constantinople ; " thirdly, " Rome herself,"
in Tillemont's phrase, was probably " a cause of
this canon which she opposed so strongly," for
some dissatisfaction at " the legates' presidency "
appears to have been exhibited in the Council,
and it may well be " that the Easterns were glad
to augment the power of Constantinople, as
being most likely to hinder that of Rome from
raising itself higher and higher ; " 2 so that thus
"the canons passed with the consent even
of the principal bishops of Asia" — including
those of Antioch and Jerusalem, and a num
ber of metropolitans, with the deputy of him
of Heraclea, — and several bishops present
abstained from voting, but apparently did
not oppose.3 Next day both commissioners
1 We have already seen a brilliant specimen of papal exegesis
in regard to the ninth canon (p. 79).
2 Tillemont, xv. 710. Mr. Rivington calls a statement to
this effect "strange" when made by Mr. Gore, who, how
ever, was simply following Tillemont. But we know what
papalists think of the great Gallican. As Tillemont fairly
remarks, Ephesus was vacant, and the primate of Pontus and
the metropolitan of Galatia did not sign. But it appeared
afterwards that they felt no strong objection (Mansi, vii. 449 ff.).
3 The number of signataries present was short of 200, but
three metropolitans profess to sign also for twenty-three
suffragans. As Mr. Rivington remarks (p. 441), many bishops
had left Chalcedon. It is observable that Theodoret signed.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 201
and legates reappeared : the former asked for an
explanation of what was said to have been done.
The new canon was accordingly read, whereupon
one " legate," with a truly Roman intrepidity of
assertion as to what had taken place in his
absence, affirmed that the signatures had been
given under constraint. It does not in the least
surprise one that, in spite of the evidence that
" the bishops exclaimed, ' No one was forced,' "
that the commissioners expressly asked the
" Asian and Pontic " signataries whether they
had signed of their own free will, that thirteen
successively replied in the affirmative, and that
" the rest exclaimed, ' We signed voluntarily,' "
Mr. Rivington (without evidence) restricts the
disclaimer of coercion to " some few," thinks the
assertion of the legate " probable," and gravely
adduces in its favour the " fearless " assertion of
Leo to the same effect (pp. 443, 447), as if Leo
would hesitate about repeating "fearlessly"
whatever his legates reported to him on such a
matter.1 But now see how Mr. Rivington deals
1 " Extorlis assentationibus," Ep. 114. 2; cf. Ep. 106. 3.
Mr. Rivington, as we have seen, had already lauded Leo's
"accuracy." This very accurate pontiff informed Anatolius
(Ep. 106. 5), that the third canon of Constantinople had "long
ago collapsed." " He could have known but little of what had
taken place in the East" (Tillemont, xv. 701). Wishes were
apt to make facts for Leo. See above, as to the Sardican

202 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
with the Acts when they speak of a reading of
certain earlier canons. "The legates read the
sixth canon of Nicaea, . . . quoted the sixth
Nicene canon, beginning, 'Rome has always
held the primacy ' " (pp. 443 ff.).1 Here, let us
remark in passing, it is clearly intended to pre
possess the reader in favour of the genuineness
of what they read. But " Aetius is then supposed
to have read first a slightly different version of
the same canon, and then the third of Constanti
nople." (It was not Aetius, but Constantine, an
imperial secretary, to whom Aetius had handed
the codex.) " But this is in the highest degree
improbable," because the Nicene canon could
not throw light on the claims of the see of
Constantinople, which was then only the see of
Byzantium, and the Church of Constantinople
now relied on the third canon of Constantinople,
canon being quoted as "Nicene," and the "constitution" of
Valentinian. Again, the Acts represent the legates, in their
speech re Dioscorus, as calling Leo "pope" and "archbishop
of the great and elder Rome." Leo himself, in 452, writing to
the Gallic bishops, and professing to give the legates' words,
makes them describe him not only as "papa," but as "caput
universalis ecclesia: " (Ep. 103), a phrase which, to say the least,
looks very like a papal addition to words used at Chalcedon.
It may have been what the legates reported to Leo ; but he
would see no harm in " correcting defects" in their language.
1 This commencement is called by Van Espen the character
specialissimus of the Roman codex of the canons (Opp. iii. 14,

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 203
the Nicene canon being its " difficulty." 1 But if
it was ad rem for a legate to quote his version of
a Nicene canon, why was it irrelevant for a Con
stantinopolitan to read its Greek text ? Then
as to the " slight difference " : Mr. Rivington
does not give the Latin version here in parallel
ism with the Greek ; but he more than suggests
(as he had done before) that the Latin represents
the true text, and therefore that the Greek was
at least erroneous. He relies on a subsequent
speech by the " commissioners," that they " per
ceived that by the canons the first place
(ra vptDTua) and distinguished honour were
ed. 1753). The version read by one of the legates is that which
has been termed " antiquissima," but which, as we have seen, is
at variance on this important point with two older Latin versions.
The so-called " Prisca" verbally modifies it by introducing the
reference to "ancient custom." See "Additional Note" at
the end.
1 So in p. 171 : "The occurrence of this sixth canon in what
the archdeacon of Constantinople is supposed to have read is
probably due to the copyists." Here, no doubt, Mr. Rivington
follows Hefele and the Ballerini. But if the legates' version of
the canon was alone read, then the Greek text was practically
thrown overboard by the church of Constantinople at the very
moment at which its exhibition would have been necessary in
order to prove that it was the text. It would be more consistent
to suppose, as Mr. Rivington does, but as Hefele does not, that
the " Greek text " was spurious ; but that view is against Greek
authorities and the best Latin versions. The minutes contain
no remark as to the discrepancy; but "silence" in such a case
would be both courteous and " expressive."

204 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
reserved for the archbishop of Old Rome."1
But so they were, in effect, by the third canon
of Constantinople ; and the commissioners at
once go on, " but that the archbishop of New
Rome ought to enjoy the same privileges of
honour " (meaning, ought to rank next to the
bishop of Rome, and before all others) ; and
they propose some changes in the wording of the
canon, intended to safeguard the rights of local
Churches. But enough has been already said
about the false Latin version; and one is past
being surprised at finding that "the legates'
protest," at the end of the proceedings, is given
(p. 446) without the commissioners' humiliating
rebuff: "All that we have proposed 2 has been
sanctioned by the whole Council."
Yet the letter of the Council to Leo is claimed
by Mr. Rivington as recognising to the full his
universal supremacy, and therefore as nullifying
"the Anglican interpretation" of the canon
1 This was to conciliate the "legates:" and apart from all
question about canons, Rome's position as the "first" see was
undisputed and indisputable.
2 AteXaA^o-apev, interlocuti sumus. Hefele explains, " The
prerogative assigned to the church of Constantinople is, in spite
of the opposition of the Roman legate, decreed by the synod ' '
(not, as Mr. Rivington says, by a "little knot of bishops").
Xlivra is evidently a mistake for nao-a — see the Latin version
(Mansi, vii. 454). npecrjSeia is here explained by rrjs Tipr{s.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 205
which was thus enacted in the teeth of his
envoys' protest. Now, first, the canon must be
taken in its grammatical sense, and not ex
plained away on the score of any expressions
in the letter. Then look at the expressions : l
the bishops call Leo their "head," because by
his legates he was their president, and, as first
among bishops, might fairly be addressed as
their " father." 2 He had " held the position of
interpreting the words of blessed Peter," inasmuch
as they had accepted his Tome expressly on the
ground that it truly represented the purport of
Matt. xvi. 16 ; and by publicly affirming the
true faith they had " used him as an originator
of what was good." " To him had been com
mitted by the Saviour the guardianship of the
Vine " : to him conspicuously and eminently, as
holding a primary place, but certainly not in a
sense generically unique ; for they themselves
had " received authority both to root up and to
plant," and they treated the " definition" as their
own. They requested him to " honour the
decision by adding his own vote " (ijj^oig), and
so to "confirm and assent to " what had been
1 Leon. Ep. 98.
2 Suffragans, in presenting a bishop-elect to the metropolitan
for consecration, are required by our ordinal to address him as
" father."

206 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
done by " the CEcumenical Council " and, as they
do not shrink from adding, " under the guidance
of a Divine command " ; and accordingly they
" make known to him the whole purport (Siva/iiv)
of their proceedings."1 Our author has thus
exaggerated in the Papal interest the force of
language which is otherwise sufficiently ex
plained, especially by the light of acts which
say more than words. Mr. Rivington himself
would not deny that Oriental fluency of " com
pliment " appears in that curious passage which
assumes that the legates only resisted the new
canon that Leo might have the pleasure of
approving it. Was it not also intelligible and
inevitable that Leo, as president, should be
asked to confirm a canon which, although it did
not interfere with his own patriarchate or with
Western Church administration, and therefore
had no relation to Western Church law, did
expressly mention his see, and expressly assign
a cause for the "privileges" which had been
1 Hao~av vp~iv tuv ireirpaypevuv r^jv Zvvapiv iyvwpiaapev ds . . .
Pefialwfflv re Kal o-vyKardBetriv. Anatolius, no doubt, did say
what the council did not say, that "all the force and confirmation
of what was done was reserved for the authority" of Leo
(Mr. Rivington has "corrected" the mistake of attributing this
language to the council, p. 454) ; but, as our author puts it,
he said it "later on" (p. 457). Yes, more than two years later
(Leon. Ep. 132. 4), and when he had a point to gain.

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH, zoj
" given " to it ? Then as to Anatolius' letter : it
says that the Council was summoned to " con
firm the faith of the fathers and the letter of
Leo ; " x but Mr. Rivington himself knows how
to put different senses on " confirming," and the
synod had met, by imperial order, to secure the
right faith, of which Anatolius could truly say
that Leo's letter was in full " accord " with it.
But we have seen in the Acts of the Council an
essential difference between the treatment of the
Creed and the treatment of the Tome ; and if,
as Anatolius says, the bishops " laid on the altar
their definition drafted for the confirmation of
the fathers' faith, in accordance with " the Tome,
he means that the Tome was solemnly approved
as a true expression of that faith. Anatolius
quotes the authoritative statement of the com
missioners, that " the opog " (meaning here the
canon) " of the holy Council 2 was established ; "
and it is honoris gratia, as the Latin version puts
it, that Leo is requested to give it his " approval
and confirmation." And, lastly, as to Leo's letter
on the subject, Mr. Rivington had formerly made
him by implication the Church's " Emperor ; "
he now explicitly makes him the Church's
1 Leon. Ep. 101. I.
2 He charges the legates with " disturbing the synod."

208 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
" King," x but he will not admit what is implied
in the particular line of objection which Leo
through several letters 2 takes up and maintains.
No doubt, in these "majestic and tender"
epistles, he reiterates such dulcet terms as
ambitionis spiritus, improbi desiderii, illicito
appetitu, prczsumptio, intemperanti cupiditati,
prava cupiditas, vanitatis elatio. But although
his real motive may be discerned through this
copious vituperation, and although he pro
fesses to " annul it by the authority of Peter,"
he never takes up a properly Papal ground of
objection as to its merits :s he poses, throughout,
1 " As it is the duty of a king ... so Leo " (p. 460). One
sees why Mr. Rivington is so careful to speak of ancient " popes "
as "reigning" (cf. pp. 175, 185, 201, 215).
2 See Epp. 104-106, etc.
3 Mr. Rivington notices this objection on p. 182 (where, how
ever, the third canon of Constantinople seems to be named by
oversight for the twenty-eighth of Chalcedon), and meets it by
one of his facile assumptions. Canons "' were not a hyper-
papal power, ruling the popes themselves, for they acquired
their force from the popes." Then come two illustrations: (1)
A king is bound to respect the laws — " not because they are
superior to him, but because he is bound by the natural and
divine law to set the example." Has submission to ecclesiastical
absolutism made Mr. Rivington forget the traditions, the basal
ideas, of kingship as understood by Englishmen? He may
consult a Roman Catholic historian : it was part of Richard II. 's
despotic policy to " place himself above the control of the law "
(Lingard, H. Engl. iv. 255 ; cf. "K. Rich. II. "ii. 1, "Thy state
of law is bondslave to the law "). (2) The relation of pope to

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 209
as the champion of Nicene rules, as guarding
the interest of Alexandria and Antioch, of
the privileges or "primacies of provinces," and
of metropolitical sees.1 Being a statesman, and,
so far, a diplomatist, and having to address,
not his own Western, but an Eastern Emperor
and Eastern ecclesiastics, he forbears to rest
on the Papal claim as such, and falls back
on the lower but safer line which might
have been taken up by an Egyptian or
Syrian prelate who looked with jealousy on
Constantinople.2 The inference is too obvious
canons is compared with that of Roman emperors to law : i.e.
the pope is more than the king, he is the autocrat, of the
Church ! (So, indeed, Vaticanism makes him ; see Mr. Glad
stone's Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion, p. 99.) But
in this case Leo keeps his supposed kingship, or emperorship,
in the background. By the way, if the pope has this position,
how can Mr. Rivington venture to say that for Sylvester to have
" sent an authoritative utterance," imposing " the Homoousios "
(usually spoken of as " Homoousion ") on the East, as " a con
dition of Catholic communion," would have been the " ' despotic '
method " (p. 158)? It would have been strictly within the terms
of the Vatican decree.
1 Epp. 104, 105, 106.
2 A bishop (Eusebius) assured the council of Chalcedon that,
when at Rome, he had read the third canon of Constantinople to
Leo, who had approved of it (Mansi, vii. 449). " It is not
easy," says Tillemont, "to harmonise this with what St. Leo
afterwards asserted, that the Roman church had never given its
approval to this canon" (xv. 618). The bishop (who was an
impetuous person) most likely misunderstood Leo's silence,
P

210 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
to need statement; nor need we dwell on the
fact stated by Tillemont after Liberatus, that
"ce canon subsista et fut execute, malgre
I'opposition de S. Leon et de ses successeurs,
parceque les empereurs l'appuyoient." x
In his "Conclusion" (p. 461), Mr. Rivington
professes to give us "the verdict of history."
Does this phrase come well from one for whom
the "verdict" has been dictated before the
professed inquiry has commenced ? and is it
usual to give a verdict before the evidence has
been judicially summarised ? Of this process
there could not be, and there is not, a single
trace in our author's volume. His readers soon
learn what they have to expect : there is very
pretty mnch as Mr. Rivington has misconstrued the silence of
Easterns in certain circumstances. In the very first session of
Chalcedon the legates had recognised Anatolius as ranking next
to Leo (Mansi, vi. 607).
1 Liberatus, Brev. c. 13, says, "And although the apostolic
see even now contradicts, quod a synodo firmatum est imperatoris
patrocinio permanet quoque modo ;" cp. Tillemont, xv. 715, 730;
so also Hefele says (iii. 446), that the Greeks, although for a.
time they "seemed" to yield, ultimately secured what the canon
gave them, and reaffirmed the canon at the council " in Trullo "
(c. 361). At last even the fourth council of Lateran, professing
to " renew the ancient privileges of patriarchal sees," recognised
Constantinople (then in Latin hands) as ranking second after
Rome as supreme (Mansi, xxii. 989).

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 211
little relief from the tedious monotony of un
proved assumption, unwarranted gloss, and
undisguised special pleading. No one will
doubt that he has written throughout under a
sense of religious obligation ; but the Roman
spirit, when it dominates a writer who is himself
a recent proselyte, absorbs all other consider
ations into the supreme necessity of making out
a case for Rome. Judging by the work before
us, one could imagine that spirit as saying to
such a writer, " Hce tibi erunt artes, Romane. No
facts in regard to Church history can be for you
so certain as is the view of it imposed on the
faithful in the Vatican decree of Pius IX. You
will therefore read that view into all your docu
ments. You will assume it as in possession of
the ground, and throw on opponents the task of
proving its absence. Whatever seems to make
for it, you will amplify ; whatever seems to
make against it, you will minimise, or explain
away, or ignore. Such words or acts as imply
deference you will strain into pledges of sub
mission ; such as point rather to independence
you will slur over or disparage. You will
assume that although Popes may err when not
speaking under the conditions of the Vatican
decree, yet what they may say about their own

212 THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH.
rights is practically above question ; and that,
although they have no immunity from ordinary
temptations, they are never betrayed into a love
of power for power's sake. Some generally
received rules of literary scrupulosity you will
leave to men of the world, or to Protestants,
who have no sacred cause to defend quocunque
modo. Loyalty to Rome will determine how
much of a passage or a sentence should be
quoted in the text ; or how far the reader is
to be enabled by footnotes to refer to authorities
and to judge of your accuracy. You will deal
largely in assertion, and in repetition and
reiteration of what has been asserted ; you will
not be afraid of paradox, in maintaining the
genuineness of what has usually been deemed
spurious, or the spuriousness of what has usually
been deemed genuine. You will uphold the
majesty of the Holy See by an air of superb
confidence; you will apply to the defence of
Papal authority the watchword of a great
revolutionist, ' De I'audace, encore de Vaudace,
toujours de I'audace ! ' Such ' boldness ' suits
the Roman genius, and is traditional with
those who have best understood Rome."
A Churchman's " verdict," then, on this bold
attempt to Vaticanise antiquity must be given

THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH. 213
with that sincere regret which is due to Mr.
Rivington's former and unforgotten services in
the promotion of Christian piety, but which can
not be allowed to bar judgment where interests
so serious are concerned. The thing furthest
from the writer's intention would be to do him
any injustice; nor is it needful to dwell on
specimens of lax scholarship or false logic, on
the too frequent absence of all references, or on
the occurrence of references taken at second hand
or misunderstood — a sure evidence of super
ficiality, of what may be called unreal know
ledge. Such things might be complained of on
literary grounds, if it were worth while. But
graver issues are raised by a publication which
is obviously part of a new Roman campaign
against the English Church and the Churches in
communion with her. It is a mere duty to speak
plainly of the most untrustworthy presentation
of a great period of history which has ever come
under the writer's notice ; there is no difficulty
in understanding the influences which have
determined its character ; and the inevitable con
clusion is that, so far from attracting any thought
ful Anglicans to Papalism, it will but confirm
their antagonism to a system which employs —
and requires — such methods of support.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
It was certainly a daring venture of faith when,
in the November of 374, the Christian people
of Milan persistently demanded that their vacant
bishopric should be filled by the appointment
of the governor of their own Ligurian province,
who, although a devout believer, was still un-
baptised. Ambrose was known as a strong
man and a good magistrate, but this popular
election was a step which necessarily relied
on future results for its justification ; and even
after it had then been splendidly justified, the
use of it as a precedent in the case of Nectarius,
without due consideration of moral and mental
dissimilarities, was not altogether fortunate for
the see and church of Constantinople. Yet the
" strangely unanimous " movement of minds
which caught up a child's casual exclamation
as a watchword — " Ambrose for bishop " x — ¦
1 Paulinus, Vit. Ambros. 6,

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 215
might have suggested the proverbial identifi
cation of the vox populi with the vox Dei. Milan
believed itself to be stirred by an inspiration,
to be responding to a Divine call, which
suspended the ordinary rule against sudden
promotion to spiritual offices ; x and the years
that followed would confirm that impression
into something like a certainty of religious
experience. 2 One consideration probably
weighed much with the inhabitants of a city
which, in its character as an imperial residence,
might be said to overshadow Rome itself; the
son of a praetorian prefect, with the high and
forceful qualities which his administration as
"consular" had already indicated,3 was likely
to prove a " statesman," and to make his church
respected by secular powers at a time when
its political eminence was making it a great
ecclesiastical centre, with far-reaching influence
1 Nic. can. 2.
2 It was, after all, with a bolder reliance on instinctive forecast
that the "dux" German was recommended by Amator as his
own successor in the see of Auxerre. But here, too, the
" prophecy " was verified.
3 Basil had this in mind when he wrote to Ambrose, that " He
who of old had raised up a ruler for His people from the sheep-
folds had now drawn a man entrusted with the government of
a nation, a. man of lofty spirit, noble birth, and conspicuous
position, to take charge of the flock of Christ" (Ep. 197.
A.D. 375)-

216 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
that might soon tighten into authority. And
thus, although the episcopal life of Ambrose
is rich in interest on its purely spiritual side,
and eminently in connection with the progress
of a yet greater mind towards Catholic Christi
anity,1 yet its public importance centres mainly
in his relations to State rulers, and to these we
may now confine our attention.

Of the two sons of Valentinian I., Gratian
was fifteen when Ambrose became a bishop,
and had been for seven years nominally
associated with his father in the sovereignty :
Valentinian was only three years old, and
was under the care of his mother Justina, whose
Arianism was to be such a source of acute
trouLle. Gratian succeeded his father in 375,
and had the good sense to baffle an army-plot
by recognising his little brother as a colleague.
He himself was born to be liked or loved, a
kindly and gracious youth, gentle, modest,
temperate, and pure ; but not strong enough,
as he himself felt, to sustain the weight of
undivided empire, and boyishly apt to postpone
1 S. Aug. Confess, v. 23, 24.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 217
business to amusement. Ambrose became very
fond of him, — wrote at his request1 a treatise
explanatory of "the Faith," and ventured on
predictions of success against the Goths which
Gratian's eastward expedition, in 378, was not
destined to verify. When, in 383, the military
discontent provoked by his thoughtless frivolity
had culminated in the revolt of Maximus,
and his own tragical death at Lyons, Ambrose
mourned as for a much loved son,2 but was
immediately called upon to bestir himself in
behalf of the murdered prince's young half-
brother, as now the sole legitimate Western
Augustus. Justina, who dwelt with her son
at Milan, had been busily intriguing against
the Catholic archbishop ; but she felt that, at
a crisis so perilous, her dislike must yield to
political necessity. At her urgent request
he travelled into Gaul ; and his firm tone
doubtless induced Maximus to accept the
compromise proposed by Justina through the
1 See prologue to De Fide, 3. Gratian afterwards requested
him to add a treatise " on the Holy Spirit." Ambrose, in reply,
asks for time (Ep. i. 7).
2 Nine years later he wrote as if the wound was still fresh.
"Doleo in te, fili Gratiane, suavis mihi valde ; plurima dedisti
tuae pietatis insignia ; tu me inter tua pericula requirebas, tu in
tuis extremis me appellabas" (De Ob. Val. 79).

218 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
envoy whom he had sent to Milan before
Ambrose reached his headquarters,1 and who
returned while Ambrose was still with him.

II.
The year of his return to Milan was remarked
by the most important of four attempts, on
the part of the Pagan senators at Rome, to
procure the restoration of the altar of Victory
-to the senate-house. Augustus had originally
erected this altar, with its accompanying statue
of the goddess.2 It had been first removed
either by Constantius or by Constans : Julian,
of course, had replaced it ; and it had continued
for years to be, as before, the visible cherished
symbol of the bond between Rome and the
Pagan worship.3 Senators, as they entered,
threw on the altar a grain or two of incense ;
and while they still saw the proud image in its
old place, they might boast that, in spite of
1 He afterwards reminded Maximus that he had never
promised that Valentinian should visit him (Ep. 24. 7).
2 It was the image of a winged maiden with smooth hair and
bare feet, holding forth a laurel crown. " Pennigerain puellam,"
says Prudentius (c. Sym. ii. 33 ff.).
3 Ambrose represents Valentinian I. as ignorant even of the
existence of the altar (Ep. 17. 16).

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 219
more than forty churches where " the Crucified
One " was adored, and of a numerous Christian
community whose " high priest " bore himself
like a prince,1 and whose creed was owned in
the stately palace of the great Anician family,2 —
"the City" herself, in the sanctuary of her
corporate life, was true to the traditions which
had made her imperial. But Gratian had
deprived them of this satisfaction by taking
away both image and altar ; the Pagan senators
appointed a deputation to remonstrate : but
Damasus forwarded to Ambrose a counter
address from their Christian colleagues, which
had the effect of closing Gratian's presence-
chamber against the Pagan memoralists.3 This
was in 382 : but now, in 384, the Pagan
aristocracy seemed to have a better chance.
The advisers of a boy of thirteen would have
special reasons, in the exigencies of the time
and the weakness of his position, for conciliating
the majority of the noble Roman houses : and
they found an ideal advocate in Symmachus,
prefect of the city, an eminent member of the
Pagan priesthood, a zealous adherent of the
1 See the anecdote in Jerome, c. Joan. 7.
Ante alios . . . Anicius," etc. (Prudent, c, Sym, i. 552).
Ambr. Ep. 17- 1Q-

Z 'C

220 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
official cult, admired for his brilliant oratory
and justly esteemed for his civic virtues.1 His
memorial x is extant, and is full of significance.
Pie does not take the high ground which some
years before might have been natural ; he
pleads, as it were, with bated breath.2 At least,
let the connivance of former emperors be a
precedent ; at least, let the " name of victory "
have the honour which is refused to the numen ;
at least let the fittings of the senate-house be
spared ; let the altar still admonish senators to
respect their official oath. And here comes in
a sceptical admission — "The Divine mind has
distributed various religious rites among various
cities ; and, since our reason is all in the dark,
we are safest in adhering to those which have
been associated with prosperity. Let Rome
herself be imagined to plead for the observances
amid which she has grown old, too old to repent
of using them," and then the assumption is
slided in, — " by which she has won her triumphs.
All national rites, however various, point to the
same object, for the mystery of the universe
1 Cf. Prudent, c. Sym. i. 632 ff.
2 According to the usual form, this "Relatio," though meant
for Valentinian, was addressed to Theodosius and his son
Arcadius as well. See above, p. 178.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 221
cannot be reached by one path only." x In the
remainder of the memorial Symmachus urges
the restoration of the confiscated income of the
Vestals, by which the treasury has not been
a gainer. He remarks that the spoliation has
been followed by an extraordinary scarcity, and
hints that the antecedent was the cause. He
contends that individual bequests of property
to the ministers of the ancient worship ought
in justice to be respected by the government ;
and that if a Christian prince should plead
a conscientious objection to maintaining the
endowments of a religion not his own, the
answer is obvious : " You have no responsibility
in the case, because, if right is right, you have
no option." It is remarkable to find a Roman
magistrate thus broadly intimating that an
emperor is not above, but under the law. But
the main interest of the paper is in its un
derlying agnosticism, which is indicated even
in the loyal aspiration that Valentinian may
be favoured by " sectarum omnium arcana
prcesidia." Ambrose would not wait to see this memorial
1 " Uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tarn grande secretum "
(Relat. 10). "II laisse entendre qu'en realite toutes les religions
se confondent," etc. (Boissier, Fin du Paganisme, ii. 322).

222 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
before writing to warn Valentinian. He urged
in a vehement letter1 that the Pagans should
be content with their own freedom of worship,
instead of dictating to their sovereign. A
straightforward policy would commend itself
even to " Gentiles : " " for every one ought freely
to defend and maintain the honest purpose of
his own mind." Ambrose ventures to assert that
the Christians are a majority in the senate, but
gives a weak answer to the obvious question,
Why, then, did they not vote against the re-
montrance ? 2 He adopts a tone of spiritual
menace : if Symmachus prevails, and the Pagan
demand is conceded, he will have to say to
Valentinian, "Christ's altar spurns your gifts,
now that you have made an altar to images," —
clearly a rhetorical exaggeration ad invidiam.
The emperor must remember that he cannot
escape responsibility for such a concession on
the score of his youth, since "every age is per
fect for Christ " (a proposition which Ambrose
lived to reconsider in regard to the selfsame
prince) ; he should also think twice before
implicitly censuring the act of his late brother
1 Ep. 17. He acknowledges the " merits " of Symmachus.
2 "Non interfuerunt," they absented themselves when the
vote was taken, and memorialised the emperor.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 223
in a like case. But now as to the bishop's
formal reply, written with the memorial before
him : x we see the quondam Roman barrister in
its sharp retorts, and in its "points" taken up
with a view to an immediate impression. If
the Roman gods were to have credit for Rome's
success, then how about her misfortunes?2 It
was, after all, not her religion, but her inherent
valour, that had nerved her arm to such
purpose ; and as it was never too late to learn,
so Rome was not too old to correct her
mistakes. Her advocate had confessed his
ignorance of the " secret '' — which was no secret
at all to Christians.3 The Vestals, for all their
pomp and privileges, were but a scanty band
compared with the multitudes who have
embraced a " virgin life " from no other motive
than devotion. After some remarks as to the
disadvantages which the law still imposed on
Christian clergy, with a taunting challenge to
show as many charities maintained by "the
1 Ep. 18.
2 The altar, he remarks, was standing when Valerian's capture
humiliated Rome.
3 This leads him to notice a Pagan objection, " You worship
one who has died." "That was the death of the flesh, not of the
Godhead" (Ep. 18. 9. Cf. Ambr. de Incarn. Dom. Sacrament.
39, 45)-

224 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
temples " as those of the Church which " spent
her property on the poor," Ambrose replies
to the argument from bad seasons, and meets
the plea for " ancient usages " by pointing to
the universal law of improvement by progress,
as illustrated by the development of the world
out of chaos,1 the increase of light from sunrise
to midday, the gradual ripening of the fruits,
the expansion of the child's mind into the
adult's,2 — and by boldly proclaiming that the
true period of venerable age for the world was
that in which Christianity had been intelligently
welcomed. After touching one or two other
topics,3 he puts aside a Pagan inference from
Gratian's untimely death by treating it as only
one more instance of the revolutions of human
fortune,4 — a line which would seem to a serious
Pagan what a "secularist" view of history
seems to the mind that owns a ruling God.
In truth, the bishop's eagerness to refute
1 This context is the most eloquent in the whole letter (c.
23 ff).
2 He must have been thinking of 1 Cor. xiii. 11, though he
does not quote it. "Nos quoque, aevi rudes, sensus habemus
infantiam ; sed mutati in annos ingenii rudimenta deponimus."
3 One is, that Rome has already admitted many foreign rites
into her system, as those of Cybele, etc.
4 " Human affairs move in orbe quodam atque circuitu " (Ep.
18. 34).

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 225
Symmachus makes him somewhat incautious
in his choice of weapons ; his opponent's
deprecatory conservatism is pushed aside by
a confident liberalism1 which occasionally
becomes verbally rationalistic : it never occurs
to him that a non-religious explanation of
Roman successes is somewhat out of place
in an episcopal rejoinder, or that the "pro
gressive " argument which he urges ad hominem
would be directed by later unbelievers against
Christianity itself, as if it, in turn, had been
outgrown by advancing thought. He was
evidently quite satisfied with his own presen
tation of the case. "Both my papers," he
said, some eight years later, "were read in
the consistory : Valentinian then listened to
my advice, and did nothing but what the
principles of our faith required."2 It may be
added that Symmachus was again employed
in 388 to move Theodosius in the same matter,
and met with a deliberate repulse : s and that a
fourth application in 392 was refused by
1 Boissier, as a French liberal, remarks that French " cleri
cals " can take no benefit from an argument which rather helps
those who would suppress the budget oicuites (Findu Paganisme,
"• 338).
2 Ep. 57. 3. 3 Ib. 4.

226 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
Valentinian without any fresh prompting from
Ambrose.1

III.
And then the scene of conflict shifts : it is no
longer a question about a Pagan altar at Rome,
but about a Christian church at Milan ; and
the antagonist of Ambrose is not Symmachus,
but Justina. She naturally enough desired to
obtain a place of worship for her circle of Arian
dependents,2 in a city which, some ten years
before, had a bishop who disowned the Nicene
Creed. The successor of Auxentius is now
summoned to the imperial consistory, and
ordered to make over to the emperor, for the
use of the Arian court, the "Portian church,"
which stood outside the western wall of Milan.
He steadily refused : the people rose in
menacing strength to back up his refusal : and,
for the moment, the demand was withdrawn —
but only to be renewed on Friday in the fifth
week of Lent, April 4, 385, when he was com
manded to give up a new and larger church
actually within the city. Again he stood firm,
1 On this last case, see Ep. 57. 5 ; De Ob. Val. 19.
2 Gratian had quickly revoked his grant of one.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 227
again he was supported by the people, and
the requirement was modified ; " At least, let
the extramural Portian church be given up."
The people would not hear of either concession ;
and on Palm Sunday, while Ambrose was
explaining the creed x to advanced catechumens
or " competentes," who were to be baptised on
Easter Eve, he heard that the " curtains " which
were adjuncts of the imperial state were being
hung up in the Portian.2 A tumult ensued,
1 On the ceremony of "Traditio Symboli," see Duchesne,
Origines du Culte, p. 289 ; Neale, Essays on Liturgiology,
p. 146. Paulinus says that Ambrose used to do more, in regard
to postulants for baptism, than five bishops of a younger genera
tion could well get through (Vit. Ambros. 38). For Ambrose's
description of the baptismal rites, see his De Mysteriis. On
the stricdy ministerial character of the officiant, see De Sp.
Sanct. i. s. 18: "Non mundavit Damasus . . . Petrus" (of
Alexandria) "... Ambrosius . . . Gregorius; nostra enim
servitia, sed tua sunt sacramenta."
2 Ep. 20. 4. The news made him fear a disturbance ; " but,"
he says, " I continued at my duty, et missam facere ccepi."
The ordinary catechumens had already been ' ' dismissed ; "
and Ambrose goes on, " While I was making the oblation,
I heard that the people had seized an Arian presbyter."
This, together with the word " began," which would hardly be
appropriate for the act of sending away the few competentes,"
suggests that we have here the earliest instance of the use of
"mass" for the liturgy properly so called. Of course the
word is derived from "dismissal," first of catechumens, and
finally of "fideles:" hence the plural form "missae" used by
Gregory the Great. " Missa " is used for " celebration " by Leo,
Ep. 9. 2.

228 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
for which the whole body of tradesmen were
held responsible and severely punished : and,
on Tuesday in Holy Week, the demand was
again peremptorily urged on Ambrose by
"counts and tribunes." The emperor, they
said, had absolute rights over everything.
Ambrose replied, "If he asks me for what is
my own, I will give it, though all I have belongs
to the poor ; but he has no rights at all over
the things that are God's." The demand at
times was limited to one church only, but
Ambrose met it with " Not one." He intimated
that what he feared was a collision between
the people and the troops sent to take posses
sion of the basilica. " Well, but it is your duty
Ap keep the people quiet." He answered some-
1 what evasively : " It is my duty not to excite
| them, but it is only God who can quiet them
| when excited." But the troops, it soon ap
peared, were in sympathy with the bishop :
and after the people, both in the older church x
1 Clearly not the Portian outside the walls, but another
church within the walls which was older than the " new church."
It is not quite clear where Ambrose was then living : from the
"old " church he " went home " on the Tuesday night (Ep. 20.
io). Probably his "home" was in the precinct of the old
church, for on the Wednesday morning, as soon as he goes out,
he finds "the church surrounded by soldiers;" and hears
the indignant groans of the congregation ; the service begins

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 229
where Ambrose remained, and in the "new
church," had given abundant evidence of steady
determination, news came, first, that the
"curtains" were being removed from the new
church, where apparently they had been set up,
and then that the soldiers were recalled, and the
fines of the tradesmen remitted.1
So ended the first serious attempt of the
Arian court against the Catholics of Milan.
The second was made in the January of 386,
by the aid of Mercurius, or, as he called him
self (after Ambrose's heretical predecessor),
Auxentius, an Arian bishop, who drafted a
new edict, by which Valentinian professedly
granted freedom of worship to the adherents
of the (Arian) creed of Ariminum, and menaced
with death any who should either tumultuously
oppose, or even petition against, the execu
tion of the decree.2 Beyond this, there was
in the same " basilica," and, while the lessons are being read,
he hears that the new church is also full, and that his presence
is desired there ; but he sends presbyters instead, etc. (Ep. 20.
11,15). 1 Soldiers themselves, in joyous enthusiasm, brought this last
intelligence, as it was Maundy Thursday, the day, says Ambrose,
"quo in ecclesia pcenitentia relaxatur" (Ep. 20. 26). But
Ambrose foreboded fresh trouble : he knew that the young
emperor was jealous of his influence, and a "chamberlain"
insolently threatened him.
2 See it in Cod, Theod. xvi. j, 4, " Damus copiam cf. ; " and

230 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
no interference with Catholic liberties : but
Ambrose, in his wrath and alarm, regarded the
new law as fraught with all the tragic conse
quences which it might indirectly involve.1 But
he had now to meet a new attack on him
self: he was summoned to dispute with "Aux
entius" on the great doctrinal issue between
them, in presence of the emperor, and of
" umpires " whom each party was to choose :
failing which, he and his adherents might leave
Milan. After consulting some other bishops,
Ambrose wrote his famous letter to Valentinian,2
intimating with dignity and decision that he
could accept neither alternative. He quoted
a rescript given (we know not when) by the
emperor's father, to the effect that in spiritual
cases "the judge ought to be one who is neither
inferior in office nor dissimilar in right," i.e. that
such questions should be tried by bishops
alone.3 When did the emperor ever hear of
" laymen judging as to a bishop in a cause
Soz. vii. 13. The Ariminian creed was of the Homcean, not the
Anomcean or ultra- Arian type.
1 " De templo . . . ejicit. . . . Mercurinus securi . . . cruentas
leges ore dictans," Serm. u. Aux. 23 ff.
2 Ep. 21.
3 Ep. 21. 2. The words which Sozomen (vi. 7) attributes
to Valentinian I. could hardly have been used in view of the
proposed meeting of Eastern Semiarians at Lampsacus.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 231
of faith"? On that showing it would be for
the laymen to teach, and the bishop to listen.
Yet he proceeded to make an offer which was
all but inconsistent with the contention ; let
his rival come to the church, and let the people
of Milan (not "judge," but) "choose" between
them. This, however, he modified in a sub
sequent passage ; he would meet " Auxentius "
in a council, and nowhere else. He made a
homethrust at Valentinian's obvious unfitness
for the office of " chief umpire : " was. a youth,
" still ignorant of the truths of the faith," x
to claim jurisdiction in a doctrinal controversy ?,
And then, with a ready keenness which recalled
his old experience as a " counsel," he observed
that, by ordering this dispute to take place,
Valentinian had in effect suspended his own
new law. As to the suggestion that he should
leave Milan, he could not "betray Christ's
altar " by abandoning his flock : but he ended
by saying that he would place himself at
the emperor's disposal, if only he could be
assured that no Arian would be intruded into
the see.
1 So in Serm. c. Aux. 29: " adolescentem catechumenum,
sacrae lectionis ignarum,"

232 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
It seems that the court, after receiving this
memorial, repeated its demand as to the Portian
basilica. When Ambrose had reiterated his
refusal, he received a definite order to leave
the city : whereupon he took sanctuary, as
it were, within the precincts of the " new "
church, where for several days and nights the
people kept watch with him, while the entrances
were guarded by troops. To calm their agita
tion, the bishop set them to chant psalms
antiphonaUy, and to sing some hymns of his
own. One can imagine x how, while the soft light
of the March evening gleamed and faded along
the columns of the basilica, there rose up and
resounded through the aisles the verses which
gave thanks for the gift of nightly repose, and
which besought of "the One who was the
Trinity " protection for His suppliants : 2 how
invigorating at daybreak would be the appeal
to " the Brightness of the Father's glory," or the
exultant confession of the coinherence of Father
1 Cf. Serm. c. Aux. 19, apparently referring to a Palm Sunday
lection. In 385 that Sunday was March 29.
2 " Artus solutos ut quies
Reddat laboris usui,
Mentesque fessas allevet . . .
Unum, potens, per omnia
Fove precantes, Trinitas."

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 233
and Son.1 The bishop addressed his flock,
giving a narrative of the recent proceedings.
"Who can deny that it is in the church that
a cause of faith is to be pleaded ? " It would
be idle, moreover, to expect an impartial
judgment in the consistory, when the emperor
was already committed by the recent decree.
They need not fear that he would voluntarily
desert them : he " had been wont, they knew,
to pay respect to sovereigns, but not to give
way to them ; " he would remain at his post,
and abide what God might send ; 2 and then,
with characteristic dexterity, he employed the
Catholic dogma as a ground of quietness and
confidence. " Our Lord Jesus is Almighty, —
this is our faith ; therefore, whatever He
commands will be fulfilled." A servant of
Christ was safe in His hands.3 Let them, then,
1 " Splendor Paternae gloriae,
De luce lucem proferens . . .
In Patre totus Filius,
Et totus in Verbo Pater."
These two hymns are the second and seventh of St. Ambrose's
twelve. 2 Writing in 387, he says that he was more than once near
being "martyred" (Ep. 36. 4). An Arian at one time made
preparations for seizing and carrying him off into exile (Paul.
Vit. 12). An attempt on his life failed (ib. 20).
3 Here came in the story of St. Peter's vision and " Domine,
quo vadis?" Serm. c. Aux. 13.

234 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
be tranquil and trustful ; if they heard that
his personal safety was threatened, let them
not lose heart. And after some application of
Scripture lessons recently read, such as the
story of Naboth and the expulsion of the
money-changers, he noticed the imputation
made against him, "You want to be more
powerful than the emperor," — observed that
there was no question of denying to the State
its lawful tribute from church property, — and
put aside the paltry charge of having abused
the people's sensibility by the " religious excite
ment '' of his Trinitarian hymns. One other
sentence, doubtless uttered with all his energy,
must have thrilled the audience with the sig
nificance of a terse formula condensing a great
idea — " The emperor is within the Church, not
above the Church." x
Once more the storm passed by ; once more
Justina had been baffled by Ambrose, and
thought it best again to utilise him in the
interest of her son. Accordingly he undertook,
in the early summer of 387, a second embassy
to Maximus,2 which might; have had some
1 Serm. c. Aux. 36.
2 The Gallic emperor declined, he says (Ep. 24. 2) to receive
him except in full consistory. Ambrose, mindful of his own
dignity, observed that bishops were usually allowed a private

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 235
temporary success had not the situation been
complicated by the alliance between Maximus
and the " Ithacian " party who had procured
the execution of Priscillian. Ambrose, like
Martin, abhorred that deed, and refused to
communicate with bishops who, four years
earlier, had achieved a " bloodstained triumph." x
They avenged themselves by procuring an
order that Ambrose should instantly leave
Treves.2 Maximus lost no time in beguiling
another envoy sent from Milan, and making a
audience ; but he waived that point in order to fulfil his
commission. Maximus asked first for the kiss of peace.
' ' How can I kiss one who does not acknowledge me?"
"Bishop," said Maximus, "you are excited." "If so, it is
with shame at finding myself in a place which does not befit
me." " On that former occasion," said Maximus, "it was your
cajoleries that got round me, and kept me from invading and
conquering Italy." Ambrose replied at length to this charge,
and then asked to have Gratian's corpse given up for fitting
burial. Maximus objected that the sight of it might revive old
feelings for the Valentinian dynasty ; but at the end of this
audience he said that he would treat: they parted with this
understanding. 1 Ep. 26. 3 ; cf. Ep. 24. 12 ; Sulpicius, Hist. ii. 50.
2 His last experience in the great city where he had been born
and bred is worth remembering. His tender heart was moved
by the sad condition of a poor old bishop who was "being sent
into exile when he seemed to be- at the last gasp. " " When
I asked that he might at least be supplied with a cloak and
a down pillow, I was thrust out myself" (Ep. 24. 12). The
bishop's name was Hyginus; he had apparently made some
concessions to the Priscillianists.

236 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
descent into Italy ; Justina and her son were
fain to take refuge in the realm of Theodosius,
who took occasion to read them a lecture
on the consequences of oppressing the true
Church. IV.
The defeat and death of Maximus, in July
of 388, was followed by a prolonged sojourn
of Theodosius in the West. And thus began
the relations between him and Ambrose, — not,
it must be owned, in a fashion which reflects
entire credit on the archbishop.
At Callinicus in Osrhoene, a Jewish syna
gogue had been burned — at the bishop's
instigation, as it was asserted : and certain
monks, provoked by an interruption of their
procession, had burned a village chapel in
which the Valentinianism of the second century
had kept up a pertinacious existence. Theo
dosius ordered that the synagogue should be
rebuilt at the bishop's expense, and that the
monks should be punished ; whereupon Ambrose
remonstrated in a tone which is too like that
of wrongheaded fanaticism.1 If, he said, the
1 Ep. 40.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 237
bishop should refuse obedience, and thus incur
capital punishment, he would be a martyr ;
if he was to obey, he would be a betrayer of
the faith. Or if, being not really concerned
in the incendiarism, he were to take the full
responsibility upon himself, it would be a
" blessed falsehood." The act, indeed, was
one which he, Ambrose, was quite ready to
justify. Under no circumstances ought the
synagogue, as a place where Christ was denied,
to be rebuilt ; if any churchmen were frightened
into paying for its reconstruction, it ought to
bear the inscription, "A temple of impiety,
made out of the spoils of Christians." Public
order must yield to religious interests : in some
well-known cases, even the burning of churches
had been unpunished ; Julian had treated with
indifference the outrages suffered by Christians
under his rule ; ' and as for the Valentinian
chapel, every such place of worship was no
better than a Pagan temple, and the one in
question must have been a rude little building
of no value,— as if on that account its destruc
tion did not signify ; a shabby suggestion which
he applies also to the case of the synagogue.2
1 An argument truly wonderful in its shortsightedness.
2 " Fanum . . . tumultuarie conditum " (Ep. 40. 16). And so

238 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
He proceeds to interpret the fall of Maximus
as a punishment for his unfaithfulness in
requiring a burnt synagogue to be re-erected :
and he does not shrink from telling Theodosius
what Christ will say to him if he carries out his
order ; he will assuredly be hazarding his faith
and risking his salvation, — all for the sake
of Jews. What is to be said of this strange
letter ? That the writer had retained too much
of the old professional habit of special pleading,
and had also been elated by his triumphs over
an Arian court ; and his hatred of Judaism and
of the "residuary" Gnosticism had destroyed,
for the time, his sense of moral proportion,
committed him to a principle which would
canonise any zealot's violence, and blinded
him to the duty of a supreme magistrate, as
God's "minister" for that purpose, to uphold
civil justice and social order. He seems, indeed,
to have had misgivings as to the success of his
remonstrance ; he asks that other prelates may
be consulted, and intimates that the hierarchy
is already discontented at the existing limita
tion of clerical immunity from the oppressive
" curial " obligations. When Theodosius next
the synagogue, "aedificio vilissimo, quid enim in tam ignobili
castro esse potuit ? " (ib. 13).!

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 239
came to church, Ambrose addressed him in
a sermon, abandoning, however, the high ground
which he had taken, and simply requesting
the emperor to pardon the monks for the sake
of Him whose servants they were. Then a
singular scene ensued.1 Theodosius gently,
almost playfully, said to him in a low voice,
"You have been preaching at me." "I preached
what was for your benefit." " Well, my order
about the synagogue was rather harsh, but it
is recalled. As for the monks, they do commit
many crimes." By way of reply the bishop
said, " Set my mind at ease ; let me offer (the
Eucharist) for you." Without answering, the
emperor nodded his head in silence ; Ambrose
did not move towards the altar. " Well,"
said Theodosius, "I will cancel the rescript."
"Wholly?" "Well, I will." "Now," said
Ambrose, " I trust you, I trust you." " Yes,
trust me." Then, at last, Ambrose proceeded
with the celebration. The whole proceeding
needs to be distinctly realised, and remembered
as a warning instance of the errors into which
a one-sided ecclesiastical zeal, refusing to be
balanced and checked by considerations of
1 Ep. 41. 27.

240 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
public morality, could betray a high-souled man
and a true saint.
It was on a far different occasion that he next
came forward as a censor of the emperor's
conduct. In the spring of 390, Milan was
startled by the ghastly news of the wholesale
massacre which, by Theodosius' secret orders,
had avenged a murderous outbreak on the part
of a mob at Thessalonica. What made matters
yet worse was, that Ambrose and other bishops
had at first prevailed on Theodosius to spare
the city, but the malign influence of his minister
Rufinus had brought him back to his original
resolution — too congenial, as it was, to the fiery
Spanish temper which it cost him such painful
efforts to restrain. Repeatedly those efforts
had prevailed ; he had pardoned the outrages
to his statues at Antioch, had recalled the
daughters of Maximus from exile, had granted
at Ambrose's request the release of prisoners
or of criminals condemned. But now the evil
impulse had been dominant ; and the city
where he himself had often resided, and had
received a Catholic baptism, was ¦' deluged,"
in Sozomen's phrase, " with innocent blood," x
for every drop of which he was responsible.
1 Soz. vii. 25.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 241
Ambrose thought it wisest to convey his rebukes
by a letter ; and he took care to write with
his own hand.1 Quoting the words of Ezekiel
about the duty of reproving offenders, and
adverting to the emperor's irascibility as his
acknowledged besetting fault, he spoke of the
" unparalleled " deed of which he and other
prelates, then at Milan, had heard with intense
sorrow. Not one of them had viewed it
leniently ; and Ambrose himself would be com
promised if he did not insist that Theodosius
should regard himself as a Christian man who
had sinned, and was bound to "condemn his
sin instead of excusing it." To bring the matter
to a point — he durst not " offer " if Theodosius
chose to be present; nor could the emperor,
while impenitent, expect to have his offering
accepted by the God who required mercy and
not sacrifice.
Theodosius, unmoved by this letter, set forth
to attend service at one of the Milanese
churches ; Ambrose instantly confronted him
in the court which intervened between the outer
and inner gates, and "refused him permission
to enter." What was said we do not know,
for the speech which Theodoret puts into the
1 Ep. 51. R

242 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
mouth of Ambrose is probably a dramatic
invention ; x but it seems that Theodosius retired
with a clear consciousness of temporary exclusion
from Christian fellowship.
Some eight months passed away, and
Christmas came to gladden the faithful of Milan
with one of their bishop's hymns,2 in which
they hailed the "Divine Son of the Virgin,
from whose manger-cradle beamed forth to the
eye of faith the fresh brightness of a never-
ending day." But one Christian remained
within his apartments, not daring to join in
welcoming the great Birthday. The story that
Theodosius was found by Rufinus sitting alone
and in tears, that Rufinus proposed to intercede
with Ambrose, but was repulsed by him as the
instigator of the massacre, and that Theodosius
afterwards had an interview with the bishop
in a room adjoining the basilica, is probably
in some degree an embellishment of the facts ;
but it appears that the emperor was restored
to communion on the condition of enacting
that thirty days should always elapse between
a capital sentence and its execution ; and it
is certain that when he did re-enter the church
1 Theod. v. 17.
2 The " Veni Redemptor gentium." It was quoted by Celes
tine I. in a Roman synod, as opposite against Nestorianism.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 243
"having stripped off his insignia, he wept in^
the presence of the congregation for the sin
into which he had been betrayed. Nor was
there," Ambrose adds, "a single day of his
after life in which he did not bewail that error." 1
This is, in Milman's phrase,2 " the culminating"
point of pure Christian influence"** wfen

champion and vindicator of outraged humanity.
That an absolute prince of so passionate a
disposition should have submitted to such a
" penance " was a token of the vitality and
reality of his religious convictions ; and
Augustine may be believed when he tells us 3
that general sympathy and admiration were
called forth by the emperor's acceptance of the
"shame that is glory and grace." The crime
had been worthy of an Oriental tyrant, but
the humiliation which ensued was the true
ennobling of Christian monarchy ; for, although
the precedent which it involved might be
abused in the interest of " priestly aggression,"
it was itself the recognition by the civil power,
1 De Ob. Theod. 34. Ambrose there says, " Dilexi virum
qui magis arguentem quam adulantem probaret."
2 Hist, of Christianity, iii. 260; cf. Latin Christ, i. 101.
3 Cf. Civ. Dei. v. 26.

244 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
on genuinely Christian and moral grounds, of
its subjection to an authority which knew no
respect of persons when enforcing amends for
a sin against humanity and against God.

V.
We now approach the closing tragedy of
the dynasty of Valentinian I. Restored by
Theodosius to his throne, the young Western
emperor had given promise of a good reign.
He was affectionate, self-controlled, ready to
profit by advice, " equitable as a judge,"
considerate towards the over-taxed provincials
He had shaken off his Arian associations, and
looked upon Ambrose as a spiritual father ; x
and yet he was still a catechumen. Suddenly,
in his twenty-first year, while staying in Gaul,
he fell into the power of his general, an
ambitious Frank named Arbogast ; alarmed for
his personal safety, and longing to receive from
Ambrose's own hands the baptism which he
had too long deferred, he sent off a palace-
officer to entreat the archbishop to come
quickly. On the third day afterwards, which
1 See Ep. 53. 2. On his character, cf. De Ob. Val. 15 ff.

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 245
was one of the two great baptismal days,
Whitsunday Eve, May 15, 392, he was found
strangled near his palace at Vienne. By
one account, the corpse bore the appearance
of suicide ; but it was most probably so
arranged by' murderers under orders from
Arbogast. The remains were brought to Milan,
and Ambrose pronounced the funeral address,
remarkable as containing the passage which
Hooker quotes,1 as to the efficacy of " desire "
of baptism when the sacrament could not be
obtained. Arbogast proceeded to set up an
emperor in the person of Eugenius, a rhetorician,
who had been secretary of state, and was
probably still at heart a Pagan,2 for his cause
was eagerly embraced by the Pagan party at
Rome, and he permitted the restoration of
the altar of Victory. He wrote in courteous
terms to Ambrose, who, however, foreseeing
the line which he would take, made no
immediate reply ; but afterwards the anxiety
for some persons in whom he was interested
induced him to write to Eugenius in their
behalf. At the outset of 393, Eugenius and
1 De Ob. Val. 51, 53 ; Hooker, E. P. v. 60. 9. Cf. S.
Tho. Aquin. Sum. iii. 68. 2.
2 Soc. v. 25.

246 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
Arbogast came from Gaul into Italy. Ambrose
thought it expedient not to meet them, and
quitted Milan before their arrival, but wrote
to Eugenius, pointing out the inconsistency
between his continued profession of Chris
tianity and his concession to Pagan importunity.1
Excluded by the Milanese clergy from church
service, Arbogast and Eugenius associated
themselves with the hopes and passions of a
Pagan reaction ; and the Frank vowed that
if he returned victorious from the inevitable
contest with Theodosius, he would turn the
great church at Milan into a stable.2 The
contest was decided in the valley of the river
Frigidus,3 on the 6th of September, 394. After a
preliminary battle, in which Eugenius gained
the advantage, Theodosius, then in danger of
being hemmed in by the enemy, resolved to
risk a second engagement ; he could not, he
said, allow the standard which bore the Cross
to retreat before that which bore the image of
Hercules.4 The result was a decisive victory :
1 Ep. 57.
2 Paulinus, Vit. Ambr. 31.
3 On the scenery, see Hodgkin's Italy and her Invaders, i.
159. Cf. Gibbon, iii. 400.
* Ambrose makes Theodosius exclaim at the critical moment,
" Ubi est Theodosii Deus?" (De Ob. Val. 7).

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 247
Eugenius was captured and slain ; Arbogast
fled, and slew himself. Ambrose received from
the conqueror a letter, which he held in one
hand, while celebrating the Eucharist ; and the
victory of Christianity was most appropriately
illustrated by the mercy shown to the sons
of Eugenius,1 and, at Ambrose's request, to
some adherents of his usurpation.2
But when the great emperor unexpectedly
passed away in the beginning of 395, Ambrose
must have felt that the empire had sustained
a loss which in his experience had no parallel.
It was again to be parted between two sove
reigns — and such sovereigns ! Ambrose might
profess, in a solemn discourse, forty days after
the death of Theodosius, that "he had not
entirely departed, for he had left his children, in
whom it was a duty to acknowledge him : " 3 the
word debemus seems to drop from him, as if the
obligation of discerning their father's character
in Arcadius and Honorius was almost too
arduous to be fulfilled. His own emperor was,
if possible, the feebler of the two ; but then he
was more especially under the potent " shield "
1 See Aug. Civ. Dei, v. 26.
2 Cf. Amb. Ep. 62, de Ob. Theod. 4; Aug. Civ. Dei, v. 26.
3 De Ob. Theod. 6.

248 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
of Stilicho,1 instead of being the dupe and
wellnigh the slave of Rufinus. Ambrose was
indignant when Stilicho's officers, in spite of
the urgent remonstances, had dragged away
a criminal from the altar ; 2 but he was able to
do the empire some service by inducing the
chief of a German frontier-people to acknow
ledge his subjection to Rome.8
Stilicho, for his part, understood Ambrose
well enough to be exceedingly anxious when, in
the beginning of 397, the archbishop's health
was obviously failing. He was reported to
have said that ."when Ambrose was gone, the
ruin of Italy would be imminent ; " and, sending
for some Milanese churchmen of high position,
he partly persuaded and partly constrained them
to ask Ambrose to pray for a prolongation of
life — as if the prayers of such a man must
needs be granted. The request, at any rate,
enriched the Church with a saying which
Augustine, in his old age, used often to quote
1 Claudian, 4 Cons. Hon. 433.
2 But he was successful with Stilicho in using his episcopal
privilege of "intercession" for criminals in a case mentioned by
Paulinus, Vit. 43.
3 Paulinus, Vit. 36. Ambrose's letter to queen Frigitil is not
extant. See Ep. 59. 3, on danger to Milan from "barbarici
motus."

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 249
and dwell upon : " I have not," said Ambrose,
"so lived among you as to be ashamed to live
longer ; (but neither am I afraid to die, for
we have a kind Lord."1 The end came very
quietly2 on the morning of Holy Saturday,
April 4, 397. We can well imagine that those
who attended the long Easter Eve services in
the "great church" would remember through life
how they had gazed in awe and grief on the
dead face of their beloved chief pastor ; how,
after the Easter morning Eucharist, they had
followed in the long procession (including even
some Jews and Pagans) which attended the
remains to their last resting-place beneath the
altar of a basilica which he had recently
built, and which is represented by the ninth
century church of " San Ambrogio," which has
been truly called " far the most interesting spot
1 " The last clause recurs in De Poenit. ii. 28. For his feeling
about death, see De Bono Mortis, s. 52.
2 He had lain with hands extended, and lips from time to
time moving inaudibly, from 5 p.m. on Good Friday until after
midnight. It was then that a bishop, who had been watching
beside him, but was taking some rest in another room, seemed
to hear a voice, " Rise, be quick, he is just going," and was
just in time to give Ambrose his last communion with the
Sacrament reserved for such a purpose — as Paulinus says, "to
impart to him the Lord's Body, which he received, and then
expired, carrying with him a good viaticum " (Vit. 47).

2jo ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
in Milan," l especially as containing so venerable
a grave. After looking at a great life-work from a
single point of view, one is specially bound
to remember that it was in fact manysided,
and has a proportionally manifold significance.
Augustine was not merely a "protagonist" in
four controversies ; Gregory the Great was
more than a consolidator of Western Christen
dom ; the investiture contest did not supersede
in Anselm's thoughts the subject of the Cur
Deus Homo ; and monastic reform, the Abelard
speculations, the second crusade — big matters
all of them — had each their share in the interest
of Bernard. The labours which wore out
Ambrose at fifty-six were those of a public
man as we have tried to picture him — a dio
cesan, metropolitan,2 and primate, a "father
in Christ" to his young clergy,3 a student in
moments of daytime leisure, a prolific writer
who at night dispensed with a secretary " because
1 B. Webb, Continental Ecclesiology, p. 205.
2 See especially the important letter to the church of Vercellae,
Ep. 63, on the impending election of a bishop.
3 See the letter to "clerics" tempted to wish for an easier
calling with greater secular advantages, Ep. 81. Cf. De Off.
Ministr. ii. 134: "Episcopus ut membris suis utatur clericis, et
maxime ministris'' (deacons) "qui sunt vere filii."

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 251
he did not wish to give trouble to others ; " a
vigilant opponent, in writing or in discussion,
of heretics, as Arians or Apollinarians, while
he knew and said that " God had not willed to
make His people's salvation depend on logic ;" x
a preacher whom outsiders might find first
attractive and then instructive,2 a spiritual guide
who could melt and win hearts by his sweet
and living sympathy.8 That he was not equally
successful in all branches of work — that he
made some mistakes, or sometimes took up
untenable ground — that his hatred of selfishness
drew from him some sayings which, apart from
their context, sound communistic — that his
comments on Scripture are spoiled for us by
his excessive fondness for "mystical" applica
tion, which often runs into merest fancifulness
— that in his zeal against heresy he sometimes
strains the sense of a doctrinal text 4 — or that
one of his theological treatises struck Jerome as
1 De Fid. i. 42.
2 Aug. Confess, vii. 24. For advice as to preaching, see
Ambr. Ep. 2. 5; De Off. Min. i. ioi.
3 Paulinus (Vit. Ambr. 34) applies to him Rom. xii. 15. On
his tenderness of heart, see Ep. 83 ; on his affectionateness to
his friends, De Off. Ministr. iii. 127, 131, 135 : Epp. 49, 90 ;
and as to his brother, De Exc. Fratris, i. 72.
4 Ep. 35. 8 ; De Fid. ii. 56 : v. 54, 220 ff. But the De Fide
anticipates the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies.

252 ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE.
" pretty and graceful," but wanting in " virile "
force of argument,1 — need cause us no surprise.
His knowledge of human nature comes out in his
treatise on the " Duties of Ministers ; " his classic
culture appears, without a touch of pedantry, in
quotations from Virgil, or Plato, or Aristotle, or
from Greek poems or plays, or from Cicero's
correspondence. All who came near him must
have felt his genuineness of character, his love
of justice and. consistency, his hatred of all
insincerity,2 his candid willingness to profit by
criticism.3 Ascetic as were his habits (he took
no forenoon meal except on festivals) 4 he could
be playful "arid " humorously kindly : the majestic
disciplinarian who put an autocrat under penance
could write about a friend's little grandson as
troubled with a cough and requiring regular
medicine.5 Beneath all his strictness or sternness
1 Rufinus is indignant at this criticism, and says that Ambrose
wrote the De Spiritu Sancto with his heart's blood (Apol. ii.
24, 25).
2 "Quales haberi volumus, tales simus:" De Off. Ministr.
ii. 96.
3 On this last point, see Epp, 46. 2 : 48. 2.
4 Among which, according to the well-known Milanese use
(referred to by St. Augustine), Saturdays were included ; Pau
linus, 38).
5 Ep. 54, a charming little note: " Et me medicum putat,
expectat prandium " (i.e. " looks to me to give him his meal")
" bis ad diem curatur." See, too, Ep. 3, on the "amazingly big "

ST. AMBROSE AND THE EMPIRE. 253
— which sometimes caused him to be mis
construed and misrepresented — there was an
intense love of souls, a truly pastoral spirit,
itself the outcome of a supreme devotion to
Christ as the true Highest Good.1 The motive
force of his life may be summarised in one of
his own terse sentences, "Omnia Christus est
nobis." 2
mushrooms sent him by Felix : ' ' partem direxi amicis, partem
mihi reservavi."
1 Ep. 29. 6 ff.
2 De Virginit. 99. Cf. Ep. 63 fin.: "Ad summam, con-
vertimini omnes ad Dominum Jesum." He once says that in
Christ "et summa universitatis et portio singulorum est" (De
Exc. Fratr. 1. 6) ; compare the "Christian Year," Monday before
Easter.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
DIOSCORUS succeeded Cyril in the see of
Alexandria about midsummer, in A.D. 444,
receiving consecration, according to one report,1
from two bishops only. He had served as
Cyril's archdeacon ; Liberatus says that he had
never been married. It is difficult to harmonise
the accounts given us of his character. On the
one hand, Theodoret, declared in a letter to
Dioscorus, soon after his consecration, that
the fame of his virtues, and particularly of his
modesty and humility, was widely spread ; and
seven years later his people showed their
attachment by defying the authority which had
deposed him.2 On the other hand, after he had
involved himself in the Monophysite heresy, he
not only exhibited a tyrannical disposition, but
was accused of having gravely misconducted him
self in the first years of his episcopate. It was
1 Mansi, vii. 603. 2 Ep. 60.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 255
said that he had, by means of false charges,
extorted money from the heirs of Cyril, in order
to win popularity by lending money without
interest to Alexandrian bakers and vintners, that
they might " supply the people, at a low price,
with the purest bread and the costliest wine." x
A deacon named Theodore complained, at the
council of Chalcedon, that Dioscorus, on coming
to the see, expelled him from his clerical office
merely because he had been patronised by
Cyril. "He made it his aim," said Theodore,
"to expel from Alexandria, or even to put to
death, not only the relatives, but even the friends
of Cyril. He is a heretic — has all along been
an Origenist " (in these words we catch an echo
of the violence with which Theophilus, in St.
Chrysostom's days, persecuted the Tall Brothers
for the alleged offence of Origenism) ; " he has
not kept clear of bloodshed, nor of cutting down
trees, nor of incendiarism, nor of destruction
of houses ; and he has all along led an infamous
life, as I am ready to prove."2 According to
another deacon, Ischyrion, Dioscorus had laid
waste property, inflicted fines and exile, bought
up and sold at a high price the wheat sent
1 Liberatus, Brev. c. 10; cf. Fleury, b. 27, c. 3.
2 Mansi, vi. 1008.

256 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
by the government to Libya, appropriated and
grossly misspent the money left by a lady
named Peristeria for religious and charitable
purposes, received women of notorious character
into his house, and persecuted Ischyrion as a
favourite of Cyril's, ruined the little estate
which was his only support, sent a "phalanx
of ecclesiastics, or rather of ruffians," to put
him to death, and, after his escape, again sought
to murder him in a hospital ; in proof of which
statements Ischyrion appealed to six persons,
one of whom was bath-keeper to Dioscorus.1
According to a priest named Athanasius, Cyril's
nephew, Dioscorus-, from the outset of his epis
copate ("which he obtained one knows not
how," says the petitioner), harassed him and his
brother by using influence with the court, so
that the brother died of distress, and Athana
sius, and his aunts, sister-in-law, and nephews,
were bereft of their homes by the patriarch's
malignity. He himself was deposed, without
any trial, from the priesthood, and became,
perforce, a wanderer for years. According to a
layman named Sophronius, Dioscorus hindered
the execution of an imperial order which
Sophronius had obtained for the redress of
' Mansi, vi. 1012.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 257
a grievous wrong. " The country," he said,
" belonged to him rather than to the sovereigns "
(t&v KparovvTOJv). Sophronius averred that legal
evidence was forthcoming to prove that Dios
corus had usurped, in Egypt, the authority
belonging to the emperor. He added that
Dioscorus had taken away his clothes and
property, and compelled him to flee for his
life ; and he charged him, further, with adultery
and blasphemy.1 Accusations of this sort were
made with so much readiness in that age — as
the life of St. Athanasius himself indicates —
that some deduction must needs be made from
charges brought against Dioscorus in the hour
of his adversity; and wrongs done by his
agents may have been in several cases unfairly
called his acts. Still, it is but too likely that
there was sufficient truth in these denunciations
to demonstrate the evil effects on his character
of elevation to a post of almost absolute power ;
for such, in those days, was the great " Evan
gelical throne." We find him, before the end
of his first year, in correspondence with Leo
the Great, who did not miss the opportunity of
giving directions, as from the see of St. Peter,
to the new successor of St. Mark. He wrote,
1 Mansi, vi. 1029. S

258 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
on June 21, 445, to Dioscorus, that "it would
be shocking (nefas) to believe that the disciple
formed his rules for Alexandria otherwise than
by those of his teacher and consecrator, who
received from the Lord the first place among
apostles ; " therefore, " what we know to have
been observed by our fathers we wish (volumus)
to be retained by you also," as to holding ordi
nations early on Sunday morning, and not at
any other time, and repeating the Eucharistic
celebration on great festivals, in the church, as
often as a fresh congregation might make it
necessary.1 In 447 Dioscorus appears among those who
were indicating their suspicion of the theo
logical character of Theodoret, who had in the
preceding controversy been so much mixed up
with the party of Nestorius. It was rumoured
that the bishop of Cyrrhos, preaching at
Antioch, had practically taught Nestorianism ;
and this charge came to the ears of Dioscorus
by means, says Theodoret, of "some three or
four, or at the most fifteen, persons." The
bishop of Alexandria, who, whatever might be
1 Ep. 9. More suo, Leo ends by saying that Dioscorus'
messenger has learned by visits to Rome "quid in omnibus
apostolicae auctoritatis teneremus."

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 259
his personal feeling as against Cyril's favourites,
deemed himself the lawful inheritor, so to speak,
of Cyril's position as guardian of anti-Nestorian
orthodoxy, wrote to Domnus of Antioch,
Theodoret's patriarch, to state what he had
heard ; x whereupon Theodoret wrote to him in
remonstrance : 2 "I was grieved (excuse me,
my lord, if my sorrow forces me to say it) that
your godly excellence did not keep one of your
ears inviolate" (from calumny). He went on
to express his belief, in orthodox language ;
referred to Theophilus and Cyril as sanctioning
the doctrine of two natures in the incarnate
person of Christ ; observed that " Cyril of
blessed memory had often written" to him,8
and had even desired John of Antioch to
show to him, among other Eastern theologians,
certain of his own writings ; whereupon, he
added, "I read and admired them, and wrote
to Cyril, who replied to me, bearing witness to
1 The Syriac "Acts" of the " Second Council of Ephesus"
(v. infr.) contain a correspondence between Dioscorus and
Domnus. Naturally Domnus stood by the "Reunion," and
Dioscorus resented any slight to the " twelve articles " of Cyril.
2 Ep. 83.
3 A statement, by the way, which might be urged against the
genuineness of the offensive letter about Cyril's death, which has
been attributed to him. To represent that letter as a rough
joke does not much mend the matter for Theodoret.

260 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
my doctrinal accuracy and my good will." The
letter ended by an anathema against all who
should " deny the holy Virgin to be Theotocos,
call Jesus a mere man, or divide the one Son
into two," and by a request that Dioscorus would
pray for him and write back to him. Dioscorus
did write back, but in no friendly tone ; he
assumed the truth of the charge against Theo
doret, "as if it had been proved by torture."1
Theodoret rejoined in "gentle terms," but in
vain. Dioscorus allowed Theodoret's enemies
to anathematise him in open church, and even
rose from his throne to echo the malediction ;
and, Theodoret adds, insisted on the dignity
of the throne of St. Mark, as if Antioch did
not possess "the throne of the great Peter,
the first and coryphaeus of the choir of apostles."
It appears also from this letter of Theodoret
to Flavian of Constantinople, that Dioscorus
frequently inveighed against the Eastern bishops
for having accepted a synodical letter of Proclus
(whom Flavian had recently succeeded), and
thereby compromised the rights of the sees of
Antioch and Alexandria. At the same time,
Dioscorus thought it well to send some bishops
1 So Theod. Ep. 86. In the Syriac Acts, this letter is
ascribed to Domnus.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 261
to Constantinople by way of supporting his
quarrel with Theodoret.1
So stood matters when, in the November of
448, the aged Eutyches, an archimandrite
of Constantinople, and a vehement enemy of
Nestorianisers, who had recently written to
Leo on the subject of the revival of Nes
torianism, and received from him a kind reply,2
was arraigned before a council, of which Flavian
was president, on the ground of maintaining
an opposite error. He clung tenaciously to
the phrase, "one incarnate fvme of God the
Word," which Cyril had used on the authority
(erroneously alleged) of St. Athanasius ; but
neglected the qualifications and explanations
by which Cyril had repeatedly made "one
<j>v<TtQ incarnate" mean simply that Christ
was one in Person with the Word. Thus,
although he was brought to own that, as man,
Christ was "co-essential with us," and freely
confessed that He was "made perfect man,"
his absolute refusal to admit that Christ,
as incarnate, had "two natures," appeared
1 It is fair to remember that Theodoret had mainly himself
to thank for the suspicion that dogged his name. If modern
theological tendencies make Eutychianism seem more destructive
than Nestorianism, they so far seriously mislead.
2 Leo, Ep. 20.

262 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
to his judges to be, in effect, a revival of the
Apollinarian heresy— a denial of the distinctness
and verity of Christ's manhood; and he was
thereupon deprived of his priestly office, and put
under excommunication. When he whispered
to Florentius, the " patrician," after the council
had broken up, "I appeal to the Roman, the
Egyptian, and the Hierosolymitan synods,"1
he would certainly rely most on the second of
the three ; accordingly, his patron, and Flavian's
enemy, the emperor's chamberlain Chrysaphius,
applied to Dioscorus for aid : he would support
him in all his designs, if he would take up the
cause of Eutyches against Flavian.2 Eutyches
himself wrote to Dioscorus, asking him "to
examine his cause,8 and Dioscorus, not only
as opposed to the Syrian school of theology,
but also, doubtless, as nothing loth to strike
a blow against the see of Constantinople, wrote
to the emperor, urging him to call a general
council, in which Flavian's judgment might be
reviewed. Theodosius, influenced by his wife
and his chamberlain — not by his sister Pulcheria
— issued letters (March 30, 449), ordering that
each of the chief prelates (patriarchs, as we may
1 See above, p. 172. 2 Niceph. xiv. 47.
3 Liberatus, c. 12. Cp. Mansi, vi. 820.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 263
call them, and exarchs) should repair with a
certain number of their dependent bishops to
Ephesus by the 1 st day of August next.1 On
May 15 he wrote again, directing that an
archimandrite, Barsumas, should sit in the
council as representing all the Eastern archi
mandrites ; 2 and in other letters, premising
that some Nestorianisers were trying to get
Theodoret invited to the council (contrary to
his orders), he entrusted the chief management
to Dioscorus and Juvenal.3
This council of evil memory 4 — on which Leo
afterwards fastened the name of " Latrocinium,"
or "gang of robbers" — met on August 8, 449,
in St. Mary's church at Ephesus, the scene of
the third General Council's meeting in 431. The
bishops present were about 130 in number.
1 Mansi, vi. 587. * Ib. vi. 593. * Ib. vi. 600.
* The "Acts" of this council, published by the Abbe1 Martin
in a French translation from a Syriac manuscript of a.d. 535, and
defended in his " Pseudo-Synode " against suspicion of forgery,
omit the first session, in which Flavian was condemned, and to
which the synod owes its "melancholy immortality." The Acts
are made to begin with the proceedings against Ibas ; and they
certainly give proof enough of a furious temper expressing itself
in "acclamation." But if, as M. Martin thinks, the records,
destroyed everywhere else, had been carefully preserved in
Monophysite convents, the scribe would be not unlikely to
suppress that part which had brought such special obloquy on
his cause.

264 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
Dioscorus had brought with him to Ephesus
the rough "Parabolani" of Alexandria, "the
strongest support of the secular power of his
see." He assumed the presidency; next to
him sat Julian, or Julius, the representative of
the "most holy bishop of the Roman Church,"
then Juvenal of Jerusalem, to whose " council "
Eutyches had appealed; then, taking a place
below his rank, Domnus of Antioch ; and then
— his lowered position indicating what was to
come — Flavian of Constantinople.1 The re
spective bishops had their notaries or clerks
to take down the proceedings : and it was
afterwards affirmed that the clerks of Dioscorus
had cheated those of the bishop of Ephesus,
had rubbed out their notes, and wrenched
away their inkstands.2 Dioscorus is said to
have peremptorily asked the bishop of Smyrna,
after his arrival at Ephesus, why he had signed
the sentence against Eutyches ? "I signed,"
said the frightened prelate, " what they offered
me."3 The archbishop of Alexandria, in fact,
showed himself throughout a committed partisan.
He did indeed propose the acceptance of Leo's
letter to the council, a letter written at the
same time as, and expressly referring to, the
1 Mansi, vi. 607. 2 Ib. vi. 623. 3 Ib. vi. 689.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 263
famous "Tome" or doctrinal letter to Flavian
which, Tillemont x thinks, was presented along
with it ; 2 he is said to have " sworn seven
times " that it should be read ; but it was only
handed in, not read, — Juvenal moving that
another imperial letter should be read and
recorded. The president then intimated that
the council's business was not to frame a new
doctrinal formulary, but to inquire whether what
had lately appeared — meaning, the statements
of Flavian and Eusebius on the one hand, those
of Eutyches on the other — were accordant with
the decisions of the councils of Nicaea and
Ephesus, — " two councils in name," said he,
"but one in faith. The Holy Spirit sat in
those assemblies (awfiSpsv^e) ; therefore who
ever unsettles their decisions, makes void His
grace." The council loudly expressed its
concurrence.3 Eutyches was then introduced,
and made his statement, beginning, "I commend
myself to the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, and the true verdict of your justice."
After he had finished his address, Flavian
desired that Eusebius, who had been his accuser,
should be called in and heard. Elpidius,
the imperial commissioner, vetoed this proposal
1 Tillemont, xv. 559. 2 Leo, Ep. 44. 3 Mansi, vi. 628.

266 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
on the ground that the judges of Eutyches were
now to be judged, and that his accuser had
already fulfilled his task, "and, as he thought,
successfully : " to let him speak again would be
a cause of new disturbance.1 This view of the
case, however inconsistent with ordinary judicial
instincts, was supported by Dioscorus. Flavian
was baffled, and the council resolved to hear
the acts of the synod of Constantinople which
had condemned Eutyches. The episcopal
deputy of Leo, with his companion, the deacon
Hilarus, urged that "the pope's letter" — probably
including the " Tome " in this proposal — should
be read first, but this was overruled ; Eutyches
openly expressed his suspicion that Julius and
Hilarus had been tampered with by Flavian ;
Dioscorus moved that the "acts" should be
first read, and then the letter of the bishop of
Rome. The reading began.2 At one point
Eustathius of Berytus interrupted the reader
by observing that Cyril's letter to John of
Antioch must be interpreted by his language
1 Mansi, vi. 645. See Gibbon, vi. 27, on the need of "dis
entangling the double involution," whereby the acts of Flavian's
synod are enclosed with the acts of the first session of the
Latrocinium, and these within the acts of the first session of
Chalcedon. 2 Mansi, vi. 649.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 267
on "one nature incarnate, as explained in
other letters." x When the passage was reached
in which Basil of Seleucia and Seleucus of
Amasia had said that the one Christ was in
two natures after the Incarnation, a storm of
wrath broke out. "Let no one call the Lord
' two ' after the union ! Seleucus was not bishop
of Amasia ! Do not divide the Undivided !
This is Nestorianism." " Be quiet for a little,"
said Dioscorus; "let us hear some more blas
phemies. Why are we to blame Nestorius only?
There are many Nestoriuses." 2 The reading
proceeded as far as Eusebius* question to
Eutyches, "Do you own two natures after the
incarnation " ? Then arose another storm :
"The holy synod exclaimed, 'Away with
Eusebius, burn him, let him be burnt alive ! 3
Let him be cut in two, — be divided, even as
he divided ! '" " Can you endure," asked
Dioscorus, "to hear of two natures after the
Incarnation " ? " Anathema to him that says
it ! " was the reply. " I have need of your
1 Mansi, vi. 676. Yet the letters ought to have shown that
Cyril was not a Monophysite.
2 Ib. vi. 685.
3 The Syriac Acts make the bishops afterwards utter this
hideous outcry against Nestorians in general, and Ibas in
particular.

268 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
voices and your hands too," rejoined Dioscorus ;
"if any one cannot shout, let him stretch out
his hand." Another anathema rang out.1
Another passage, containing a statement of
belief by Eutyches, was heard with applause.
"We accept this statement," said Dioscorus.
"This is the faith of the fathers," exclaimed
the bishops. " Of what faith do you say this ? "
asked Dioscorus. " Of Eutyches' : for Eusebius
is impious." 2 Similar approbation was given
to another passage containing the characteristic
formula of Eutychianism : " I confess that our
Lord was of two natures before the Incarnation ;
but after the Incarnation (i.e. in Him as incar
nate) I confess one nature." " We all agree to
this," said Dioscorus. "We agree," said the
council.3 Presently came a sentence in which
Basil of Seleucia had denounced the denial of
two natures after the Incarnation as equivalent
to the assertion of " a commixture and a fusion."
This aroused once more the zealots of the
Alexandrian party ; one bishop sprang forward,
shouting, " This upsets the whole Church : " the
1 Mansi, vi. 737.
2 ao-e&iis, Mansi, vi. 740. Eutyches, in the statement, had
acknowledged that the Son ivavBponn\o-at reKelas.
3 Mansi, vi. 744. The formula ix Sio <pv<rewv was thus
nugatory.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 269
Egyptians, and the monks led by Barsumas,
cried out, "Cut him in two, who says two
natures ! he is a Nestorian ! " Basil's nerves
gave way ; he lost, as he afterwards said, his
perceptions, bodily and mental.1 He began to
say that he did not remember whether he had
uttered the obnoxious words, but that he had
meant to say, " If you do not add the word
' incarnate ' to ' nature ' as Cyril did, the phrase
' one nature ' implies a fusion." Juvenal asked
whether his words had been wrongly reported ;
he answered helplessly, " I do not recollect." 2
He seems to have been coerced into a formal
retractation of the phrase " two natures ; " but
he added " hypostases or persons " as explana
tory of " natures," and professed to " adore the
one nature of the Godhead of the Only-begotten,
who was made man and incarnate." 3 Eutyches
declared that the acts of the Constantinopolitan
synod had been tampered with. " It is false,"
said Flavian. "If Flavian," said Dioscorus,
"knows anything which supports his opinion,
let him put it in writing." Flavian answered,
" You have debarred me from making any just
allegation." Dioscorus answered that he had
1 Mansi, vi. 636. 2 Ib. vi. 748.
3 Ib. vi. 828. Seleucus did the like.

Z70 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
done nothing of the kind : " No one hinders
you, and the council knows it." Flavian
referred to two metropolitans ; they answered by
urging him to speak : " Even now," said Juvenal,
" say whatever you like." Flavian then said that
the acts had been scrutinised,1 and no falsification
had been found in them ; that, for himself, he
had "never glorified God otherwise than by
holding what he then held." Dioscorus called
on the bishops to give their verdict as to the
theological statements of Eutyches. They did
so, acquitting him of all unsoundness, as faithful
to Nicene and Ephesian teaching. Domnus in
timated regret for having mistakenly condemned
him.2 Basil of Seleucia spoke like the rest.
Flavian, of course, was silent. Dioscorus spoke
last, affirming the judgments of the council, and
" adding his own opinion : " the result was that
Eutyches was "restored" to his presbyteral
rank and his abbatial dignity.3 His monks
were then released from the excommunication
which they had incurred at Constantinople.
The doctrinal decisions of the Ephesian council
of 431, in its first and sixth sessionss were then
read. Dioscorus moved that these decisions,
1 By the emperor's orders, in April, 449. Cf. Mansi, vi. 753.
2 Mansi, vi. 836. 3 Ib. vi. 835 ff.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 271
with those of Nicaea, should be recognised as
an unalterable standard of orthodoxy : that
whoever should say or think otherwise, or
should unsettle them, should be put under
censure. "Let each one of you speak his
mind on this." Several bishops assented.
Hilarus, the Roman deacon, testified that "the
apostolic see reverenced those decisions," and
that its letter, if read, would prove this. No
attention was paid to this suggestion. One-
siphorus, bishop of Iconium, whispered to the
prelates who sat next him that the motion
was simply intended to promote the deposition
of Flavian. " God forbid ! " replied Epiphanius
of Perga ; " if any one is to feel the indignation
of Dioscorus, it will be Eusebius. No one will
be so mad as to attempt such a thing against
Flavian." x But Onesiphorus was right. Dios
corus called in some secretaries, who brought
forward a draft of a sentence of deposition
against Flavian and Eusebius. The ground
taken was, that the Ephesian Council had
enacted severe penalties against any one who
should frame or propose any other creed than
the Nicene. Flavian and Eusebius were de
clared to have constructively committed this
1 Mansi, vi. 829.

272 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
offence by "unsettling almost everything, and
causing scandal and confusion throughout the
churches." The practical conclusion was, that
they must be deposed.1 When this document
had been read, Flavian said briefly, " I decline
your jurisdiction : " (one does not see, Tillemont
observes, why he did not say so earlier). Hilarus
uttered one word in his own tongue, — Contra-
dicitur. Onesiphorus, with some others, went
up to Dioscorus, clasped his feet and knees
as in supplication, and passionately entreated
him not to go to such extremities.2 " No, by
the feet of your Piety ! he has done nothing
worthy of deposition ; but if he deserves con
demnation, let him be condemned. . . . You
have priests of your own, you must not for a
priest's sake condemn the bishop." "It must
be," said Dioscorus, in answer ; " if my tongue
were to be cut out for it, I would still say so."
They persisted, and he lost all self-command :
starting from his throne, he stood up on the
footstool so as to dominate the whole assembly
by his voice and presence : " Are you getting
up a sedition ? where are the counts ? " Military
officers, soldiers with swords and sticks, even
the proconsul with chains, entered at his call.
1 Mansi, vi. 907. * lb. vi. 832.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 273
He peremptorily commanded that the bishops
should sign the sentence, and exclaimed with
a fierce gesture of the hand, " He that does
not choose to sign has to do with me'' A
scene of terrorism followed. Those prelates who
were reluctant to take part in the deposition of
Flavian and Eusebius were threatened with
exile, beaten by the soldiers, denounced as
heretics by the partisans of Dioscorus, and by
the crowd of fanatical monks x who accompanied
Barsumas, until they put their names, one after
another, to a blank paper on which the sentence
was to be written out ; fifteen, who held out
longest, were kept in the sacristy of the church
until evening.2 They afterwards protested that
they had signed under terror and compulsion.
Basil of Seleucia declared that he had yielded
because he was "given over to the judgment
of 120 or 130 bishops; had he been deal
ing with magistrates, he would have suffered
martyrdom." " The Egyptians," says Tillemont,
" who signed willingly enough, did so after the
others had been made to sign." 3
Flavian's own fate was the special tragedy of
the Latrocinium. He had lodged in the hands
1 Mansi, vii. 68. 2 Ib. vi. 601 sq., 625, 637, 988.
3 Tillemont, xv. 571 ; cf. Mansi, vi. 601. T

274 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
of the Roman delegates a formal appeal to Leo
and to all the Western bishops.1 It was nearly
his last act. He was brutally treated, kicked
and beaten, by the agents of Dioscorus (we
need not literally accept the phrases or state
ments which imply that their master took part
in this enormity, but Barsumas, it is said, stood
over him and cried, "Stab him.")2 The injuries
which he received were not immediately fatal ;
he was thrown into prison, and then sent into
exile, but died while in the hands of his guards,
three days after his deposition. " Dolore
plagarum," says Liberatus simply, "migravit
ad Dominum," August n, 449. He was
regarded as a martyr for the doctrine of "the
two natures in the one Person" of Christ.3
Anatolius, who had been the official corre
spondent (apocrisiarius) of Dioscorus at Con
stantinople, was appointed his successor.
Dioscorus, desiring to obtain the acquiescence
of Hilarus, tried to frighten him into attending
a second session of the council. But the sturdy
deacon (as he himself tells the story in a letter
1 Not to Rome alone ; see Leo, Ep. 43 ; Tillemont, xv. 374.
2 Mansi, vii. 68.
3 See Alban Butler, Lives of Saints, Feb. 17. "It was the
glory of St. Flavian to die a martyr of the mystery of the
Incarnation," etc.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 275
to Pulcheria,1 succeeded in getting away from
Ephesus and came " per incognita et invia loca "
to Rome. Julius appears to have been less con
spicuously steadfast, but to have refused assent
to the deposition.2 Dioscorus and his council —
as we may well call it — proceeded to depose
Theodoret and several other bishops ; " many,"
says Leo, " were expelled from their sees, and
banished, because they would not accept
heresy."3 Theodoret was put under a special
ban. "They ordered me," he writes,4 "to be
excluded from shelter, from water, from every
thing." The feeble Domnus of Antioch gained
nothing by having retracted his former con
demnation of Eutyches ; he, too, was deposed,
and Maximus was substituted for him by
Anatolius 5 " without any decree of the clergy
1 Leo, Ep. 46. 2 lb. Ep. 48.
3 Ep. 93. 3. Ibas of Edessa, Irenaeus of Tyre, Acylinus of
Byblos, were condemned as Nestorians ; Daniel of Carrhae for
crimes ; Sophronius of Thella for divination, — see the curious
story in the Syriac Acts of a boy being made to look into a phial
or a hole full of oil and water, and asked " what he saw."
1 Ep. 140. This is borne out by Dioscorus' speech in the
Syriac Acts, denouncing divine judgment against any who should
receive or visit Theodoret, sit at his table, or even converse with
him ; see Martin, Actes des Brigandage, p. 125.
5 Leo, Ep. 104. Domnus was accused of Nestorianism
because in addressing catechumens he had dwelt on the dis
tinctiveness of the two natures.

276 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
or people of Antioch." x But as Leo and the
council of Chalcedon afterwards recognised
him (Domnus, probably, making no claim for
himself), it was said in that council that his
appointment was the only act of "the so-called
synod" — the Latrocinium — which could be
regarded as valid.2
The "confusion and scandal," if we may so
apply Dioscorus' words in Flavian's case, which
now pervaded the Eastern Churches, and which
might be summed up in Tillemont's phrase,
" Dioscore regne partout," 3 led necessarily to
efforts for a new CEcumenical Council. It was
impossible to acquiesce in the proceedings of
the " Latrocinium." Leo bestirred himself to
get such a council held in Italy : the imperial
family in the West supported his request, but
Theodosius persisted in upholding the late
council. It was probably in the spring of 450
that Dioscorus took a new step, which was
regarded as exceptionally audacious ; being
at Nicaea, on his way to the court, he caused
ten bishops whom he had brought with him
from Egypt on this second journey, to sign
a document excommunicating the bishop of
1 Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 723.
2 Mansi, vii. 257. 3 Tillemont, xv. 589.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 277
Rome,1 doubtless on the ground that Leo was
endeavouring to quash the canonical decisions
of a legitimate council. His cause, however, was
ruined when the orthodox Pulcheria succeeded
to the empire on the death of her brother,
and gave her hand to Marcian ; this event
opened the way to the assembling of a new
council at Chalcedon on the 8th of October,
4SL In the long list of its members, the deputies
of Leo, two of them being bishops, come
first, then Anatolius, then Dioscorus, then
Maximus, and then Juvenal. At the outset
of the proceedings, Dioscorus sat first among
those bishops who were placed on the right
hand of the chancel. The Roman deputies
came forward from their places on the opposite
side, and desired, in the name of Leo, and
in virtue of his instructions, that Dioscorus
should not sit in the council, but should forth
with go out.2 The " magistrates," who acted as
imperial commissioners (and were the effective
presidents), asked what was charged against
him? Paschasinus, the chief Roman delegate,
answered, "When he comes in" — i.e. after
* Mansi, vi. 1009, 1148; vii. 104. For the time, see Tille
mont, xv. 603, 909. 2 See above, p. 181.

278 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
having first gone out—" it will be necessary to
state objections against him." The magistrates
desired again to hear the charge. Lucentius,
another delegate, said, "He has presumed to
hold a synod without leave of the apostolic
see, which has never been done." x " We can
not," said Paschasinus, " transgress the apostolic
pope's orders." "We cannot," added Lucen
tius, "allow such a wrong as that this man
should sit in the council, who is come to be
judged." "If you claim to judge," replied the
magistrates sharply, "do not be accuser too."
Then, instead of ordering Dioscorus to go out,
they bade him sit in the middle by himself, and
the Roman deputies '' sat down and were silent,"
having got as much as was possible in the circum
stances. Eusebius of Dorylaeum came forward
and asked to be heard against Dioscorus. " I
have been injured by him : the faith has been
injured ; Flavian was killed, after he and I had
been unjustly deposed by Dioscorus. Command
my petition to the emperors to be read." " Let
it be read," said the magistrates. Eusebius sat
down in the middle, near Dioscorus; his petition
1 Rome did not recognise the "second general council" of
381 ; which, in fact, was not then owned as general. Lucentius'
negative assertion showed a Roman indifference to evidence.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 279
was read by Beronicianus, the secretary 1 of the
imperial consistory. It was to this effect : " At
the recent council at Ephesus, this good
(Xjojjotoc) Dioscorus, disregarding justice, and
supporting Eutyches in heresy, — having also
gained power by bribes, and assembled a
disorderly multitude, did all he could to ruin
the Catholic faith, and to establish the heresy
of Eutyches, and condemned us ; I desire,
therefore, that he be called to account, and
that the records of his proceedings against us
be examined." Dioscorus, preserving his self-
possession, answered, " The synod was held by
the emperor's order ; I also desire that its acts
against Flavian may be read." "This is my
request too," repeated Eusebius. But Dioscorus
added, "I beg that the doctrinal question be
first considered." "No," said the magistrates,
"the charge against you must first be met;
wait until the acts have been read, as you your
self desired." The letter of Theodosius, con
voking the late council, was read. The magis
trates then ordered that Theodoret should be
brought in, because Leo had "restored to him
his episcopate," and the emperor had ordered
him to attend the council. He entered
accordingly. The Egyptians and some other

280 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
bishops shouted, "Turn out the teacher of
Nestorius ! " Others rejoined, " We signed a
blank paper ; we were beaten, and so made to
sign. Turn out the enemies of Flavian and
of the faith!" "Why," asked Dioscorus,
"should Cyril be ejected?" (i.e. virtually, by
the admission of Theodoret). His adver
saries fiercely retorted : " Turn out Dioscorus
the homicide ! " Ultimately the magistrates
ruled that Theodoret should sit down, but
in the middle of the assembly, and that his
admission should not prejudice any charge that
might be brought against him. The storm,
however, was not abated until the magistrates
said, in grave reproof, " These outcries do not
befit bishops, nor help either side. Allow every
thing to be done in due order." x The reading
went on ; at the letter giving Dioscorus the
presidency, he remarked that Juvenal, and
Thalassius of Caesarea, were associated with
him, that the council had gone with him, and
that Theodosius had confirmed its decrees.
Forthwith, a cry arose from the bishops whom
he had intimidated at Ephesus: "Not one
of us signed voluntarily. We were overawed
by soldiers." Their attendant clerics swelled
1 Mansi, vi. 592. The shouts are called "vulgar."

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 281
this cry ; and the Egyptians answered, " These
men signed first" — "the council consists of
bishops, not of clerics ; turn out those who
have no place here " (roiig Trspia-crovg).1 Stephen
of Ephesus told how insolently the friends
of Eutyches had treated him. Thalassius
pleaded that he had urged moderation. Another
bishop described the scene of coercion. The
Egyptians scornfully interrupted : " A Christian,
a Catholic, fears no one." Dioscorus coolly said
that if the bishops had not understood the
merits of the case, they ought not to have
signed. The reading was resumed. Flavian
being named, his friends asked why he had
been degraded to the fifth place ? and further
altercation followed as to whether the " scream
ing" came from the clerks of Dioscorus — who,
he said, were but two, — or from others. " Read
on," said the magistrates. The next interruption
was in reference to the suppression, at the
Latrocinium, of Leo's letter. Aetius, arch
deacon of Constantinople, said it had not even
been "received." "But," said Dioscorus, "the
acts show that I proposed that it should be
1 Bishops alone, or representatives of absent bishops, were
constituent members of ancient synods, although clerics and laics
frequently gave information or advice, without voting.

282 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
read. Let others say why it was not read."
"What others?" "Juvenal and Thalassius."
" No, answer for yourself." "I have said already
that I twice proposed the reading." Juvenal,
on being questioned, said, " The chief notary
told us that he had an imperial letter; I
answered that it ought to come first ; no one
afterwards said that he had in his hands a letter
from Leo." Thalassius (evidently a weak man,
though holding the great see of St. Basil) said
that he had not power, of himself, to order the
reading of the letter.1 At another point, the
"Orientals,"2 the opponents of Dioscorus, objected
to the way in which the acts of Ephesus had
represented their words. " We did not say that."
Dioscorus replied, "Each bishop had its own
secretaries : I had mine ; Juvenal had his, etc.
There were many other secretaries of bishops,
taking down the speeches." Stephen of Ephesus
then narrated the violence done to his secre
taries ; Acacias of Ariarathia described the
coercion-scene. When the reader came to
Dioscorus's words, "I examine the decrees of
the fathers" (councils), Eusebius said, "See,
he said, ' I examine ; ' and I do the same."
1 Mansi, vi. 617.
2 The region dependent on Antioch was called specifically the
" Orient." Above, p. 160,

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 283
Dioscorus caught him up : "I said, ' examine,'
not ' innovate.' Our Saviour bade us examine
the Scriptures ; that is not innovating." " He
said, ' Seek and ye shall find,' " was the retort.
One bishop objected to the record of "Guardian
of the faith" as an acclamation in honour of
Dioscorus ; " No one said that." " They want
to deny all that is confessed to be the fact,"
said Dioscorus ; " let them next say they were
not there." At the words of Eutyches, " I have
observed the definition of the council," i.e. the
Ephesian decree against adding to the Nicene
creed, Eusebius broke in on the reading : " He
lied ! There is no such definition, no canon
prescribing this." " There are four copies," said
Dioscorus calmly, " which contain it. What
bishops have defined, is it not a definition ? It
is not a canon : a canon is a different thing." x
The bishop of Cyzicus referred to additions made,
as he asserted, in the council of 38 1,2 to the
original Nicene creed (e.g. " of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary "). The Egyptians dis
claimed all such additions. (Cyril, in fact, had
never acknowledged that revised version of the
Nicene formulary.) There was some further
1 But a canon could be called Spos.
8 See Bright, Notes on the Canons, p. ^j.

284 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
criticism of the profession of faith made by
Eutyches ; whereupon Dioscorus said, and the
words are to be remembered, "If Eutyches
has any heterodox opinion, he deserves not only
to be punished, but to be burnt! My only
object is to preserve the Catholic faith, not that
of any man. I look to God, and not to any
individual ; I care for nothing but my own soul
and the right faith." x Basil of Seleucia described
what had taken place as regarded his own state
ments.2 "If you taught in so orthodox a tone,"
said the magistrates, "why did you sign the
deposition of Flavian ? " Basil, as we have seen»
pleaded the compulsory authority of a council
of bishops. "See," said Dioscorus, "you are
condemned out of your own mouth ; on your
own showing, you betrayed the faith for fear of
men." Others who had given way with Basil
cried out piteously, " We all sinned ; we all ask
pardon." " But," said the magistrates, " you
said at first that you had been forced to sign a
blank paper." The "peccavimus " was reiterated.3
1 Mansi, vi. 633.
2 He added that he anathematised alike those who " divided
the natures" (by assigning each to a different person), and
those who "did not recognise their distinctiveness." To the
fanatical Egyptians this seemed Nestorianism.
3 Mansi, vi. 639.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 285
When the reader came to the failure of Flavian's
attempt to get Eusebius a hearing, Dioscorus
threw the responsibility on Elpidius : so did
Juvenal ; the unfortunate Thalassius only said,
" It was not my doing." " Such an excuse,"
said the magistrates, "is no defence when the
faith is concerned." " If," said Dioscorus, " you
blame me for obeying Elpidius, were no rules
broken when Theodoret was brought in ? "
" He came in as accuser." " Why then does
he now sit in the rank of a bishop ? " " He and
Eusebius sit as accusers," was the answer ; " and
you sit as accused." x Afterwards the magistrates
recurred to this topic : " Eusebius, at Constanti
nople, when he was accusing Eutyches, himself
asked that Eutyches should be present. Why
was not a like course taken at Ephesus ? " No
one answered.2 Further on, after Cyril's letter
to John of Antioch (" Laetentur cceli ") had been
read as part of the acts of Ephesus, the bishops
of Illyricum cried out, "We believe as Cyril
did ! Cyril's memory is eternal ! " Theodoret,
by way of clearing himself, anathematised the
assertion of " two Sons." 3 All the bishops — so
the acts of Chalcedon say expressly — cried out,
" We believe as did Cyril ; we did so believe,
1 Mansi, vi. 644. 2 Ib. vi. 656. 3 Ib. vi. 673.

286 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
and we do. Anathema to whoever does not so
believe." The opponents of Dioscorus then
claimed Flavian as in fact of one mind with
Cyril, as clear of Nestorianism. The Orientals
added, " Leo believes so, Anatolius believes so."
There was one universal protestation of agree
ment with Cyril ; the very magistrates joined
in the shouting, and answered, as it were, for
Marcian and Pulcheria. Then came a fierce
outcry againt Dioscorus, his opponents having
thus, as they thought, established their own
orthodoxy. "Out with the murderer of Flavian
— the parricide ! " His suffragans tried to mend
matters by a loyal shout, " Many years to the
senate, to the emperors ! " The magistrates
asked, "Why then did you receive to communion
Eutyches, who holds the opposite to this belief?
why condemn Flavian and Eusebius, who agree
with it ? " " The records," answered Dioscorus,
" will show the truth." Presently, in regard
to some words of Eustathius of Berytus,
adopting Cyril's phrase, "one incarnate (pvaig,"
as Athanasian, the Orientals cried, " Eutyches
thinks thus, so does Dioscorus." Dioscorus
replied in words which showed that he was
careful to disclaim, even with anathema, all
notions of a " confusion, or conversion," of

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 287
Godhead with or into manhood, in Christ. The
magistrates asked whether the canonical letters
of Cyril, recently read — i.e. his second letter to
Nestorius,1 and his letter to John,2 not including
the third letter to Nestorius, to which the
twelve anathemas were annexed — bore out the
language cited as from Eustathius. Eustathius
himself stepped forth into the midst of the
church, and held up the book from which he
had taken Cyril's language. "If I spoke
amiss, here is the manuscript : let it be
anathematised with me ! " He quoted one of
Cyril's letters, and then explained it ; " One
nature" did not exclude the flesh of Christ,
which was co-essential with us ; and " two
natures " was a heterodox phrase if (i.e. only if)
it was used for a "division" of His person.
" Why, then, did you depose Flavian ? " "I
erred." 3 Flavian's own statement, that Christ
was "of two natures after the incarnation," in one
hypostasis and one person, etc., was then con
sidered ; several bishops, in turn, approved of
it, including Paschasinus, Anatolius, Maximus,
Thalassius, Eustathius.4 The Orientals called
" archbishop Flavian " a martyr. " Let his
1 Mansi, vi. 660. 2 Ib. 665. 3 Ib. v. 677.
* Two of them expressly said that Flavian agreed with Cyril.

288 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
other words be read," said Dioscorus ; " you
will find that he is inconsistent with himself." 1
At this point Juvenal, who had been sitting
on the right side, went over to the left, and the
Orientals welcomed him. Peter of Corinth,
a young bishop, did the same, owning that
Flavian held with Cyril ; the Orientals shouted,
"Peter thinks as does" (St.) "Peter." Other
bishops spoke similarly. Dioscorus, undaunted
by seeing them go over from right to left, said,
" The reason why Flavian was condemned was
plainly this, that he asserted two natures after
the Incarnation. I have passages from the
fathers, Athanasius, Gregory, Cyril, to the effect
that after the Incarnation there were not two
natures, but one incarnate nature of the Word.
If I am to be expelled, the Fathers will be
expelled with me. I am maintaining their
doctrine : I do not deviate from them at all :
I have not got these extracts carelessly, I have
verified them." 2 After more reading, he said,
" I accept the phrase * of two natures,' but I
do not accept 'two'" (i.e. he would not say
" Christ has now two natures "). " I am obliged
1 I.e. " he says elsewhere there are two natures, and Cyril did
not." Dioscorus here misunderstood Cyril.
2 Mansi, vi. 684. Many such passages were forged by
Apollinarians : cf. Leontius ap. Galland. xii. 701.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 289
to speak boldly (avaiaxwrtlv) ; 1 am speaking
for my own soul." Being accused of putting
Eusebius in peril of his life, he replied that he
would answer that to God. " Nay, but you must
answer it to the laws also ; why else have I come
here ? why have you come, if not to meet
charges ? " " Was Flavian," asked Paschasinus,
"allowed such freedom of speech as this man
takes? " " No," said the magistrates significantly,
" but then this council is being carried on with
justice." x Some time later, the Orientals denied
that the whole council at Ephesus had assented
to Eutyches' language ; it was the assent
of "Egyptians, of Dioscorus the homicide."
Eustathius, wishing, he said, to promote a good
understanding, asked whether " two natures "
meant " two divided natures." " No," said Basil,
" neither divided nor confused." 2 Basil after
wards, with Onesiphorus, described the coercion
used as to the signatures.3 The reading went
on until it was necessary to light the candles ; 4
at last the magistrates proposed that, as the
condemnation of Flavian and Eusebius had
been proved to be unjust, Dioscorus, Juvenal,
Thalassius, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius,
'.Mansi, vi. 692. 2 Ib. vi. 744.
3 lb, vi. 827 :. " Soldiers rushed in," etc. * Ib. vi. 901.
U

290 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
and Basil, as having been of chief authority
in the late synod, should be deposed ; but this,
it appears,1 was a provisional sentence, to be
further considered by the council. It was
received with applause, "A just judgment!
Christ has deposed Dioscorus ! God has vindi
cated the martyrs ! "
The second session was held on October 10 ;2
Dioscorus was absent. After some discussion
as to making an exposition of faith, the
usual exclamations were made, among which
we find that of the Illyrians, "Restore Dioscorus
to the synod, to the churches ! We have all
offended, let all be forgiven ! " On the other
hand, the enemies of Dioscorus called out for
his banishment, and the clerics of Constanti
nople said that he who communicated with him
was a Jew.3 In the third session, Saturday,
October 13, the magistrates not being present,
a memorial to the council from Eusebius of
Dorylaeum, setting forth his charges against
Dioscorus, was read.4 It then appeared that
Dioscorus had been summoned, like other
bishops, to the session ; and had sent word
that he was willing to come, but that his guards
1 Mansi, vi. 936, 1041. 2 lb. vi. 937.
3 Ib. vi. 976. * lb. vi. 985.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 291
prevented him. Two priests were thereupon
sent to search for him, but he could not be
found in the precincts of the church. Three
bishops were then sent, with a notary. They
found him, and said to him, " The holy council
begs your Holiness to attend its meeting." " I
am under guard," said he ; "I am hindered by
the officers" (magistriani, the subordinates of
the " master of the offices," or " supreme magis
trate of the palace").1 At last, after consideration,
he said he would not come unless the magistrates
were present : if they were to be present, he
would come and reply to Eusebius. This being
reported in council, Eusebius said that Dioscorus
(who is still called "the most pious bishop")
was resorting to evasion. A second synodical
summons was then sent by the hands of three
other bishops. He pleaded that he was not
well,2 and that he must stipulate for the presence
of the magistrates ; he had requested the
emperor to grant this. " But," said the envoys,
" this is a canonical question that is raised, and
laymen have no business with it. To put off
coming is to strengthen your accusers." ''Let
other bishops," said Dioscorus, " come with me ;
1 See Gibbon, ii, 326.
2 " I told you before that I was ill ; and now I am worse."
" You never said a word about illness," was the rejoinder.

292 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
Eusebius attacks what we did in common."
" No, he accuses you individually." When the
envoys returned, the council resolved to hear
the petitions framed against Dioscorus by the
persons referred to as having complained of him.1
Then a third summons was sent to Dioscorus ;
but he positively and finally refused to come.
He had nothing more to say than what he had
said to former envoys. They begged him to
reconsider it. "If your Holiness knows that
you can answer the charges of Eusebius, and of
those who have to-day presented charges against
you, come and rid God's holy Church of a blot."
" The Catholic Church," said Dioscorus sternly,
"has no blot; God forbid!" "But if your
Holiness knows that you are falsely accused,
the council is not far off; do take the trouble
to come, and refute the falsehood." "What I
have said, I have said ; it is enough." They
returned, and reported their failure. " What
will your Holinesses do?" asked Paschasinus,
addressing the council. "Do you order that
we proceed to ecclesiastical penalties against
him?" "Yes, we agree." One bishop said
bitterly, "When he murdered holy Flavian,
he did not adduce canons, nor proceed by church
1 Mansi, vi. 1005.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 293
forms." "Again I ask," said Paschasinus, as chief
president, "what is your pleasure?" "What
ever your Holiness pleases," said Maximus :
"we will vote with you." Whereupon the
Roman delegates proposed a sentence, to this
effect : " Dioscorus has received Eutyches,
though duly condemned by Flavian, into com
munion. The apostolic see excuses those who
were coerced by Dioscorus at Ephesus, but
who are obedient to archbishop Leo " (as
president) " and the council ; but this man
glories, in his offences. He prevented Leo's
letter to Flavian from being read. These
things might have been condoned, but he has
presumed to excommunicate Leo, and he has
thrice refused to come and answer to charges.
Therefore Leo, by us and the council, together
with St. Peter, the rock of the Church, deprives
him of episcopal and sacerdotal dignity."1
Anatolius, Maximus, and the others, gave their
votes for the deposition. A letter was written
to Dioscorus, announcing that he was deposed
for disregarding the canons and disobeying the
council ; the clerics in attendance on him
received information to the same effect, and
were bidden to take charge of the property of
' Mansi, vi, 1045. See above, p. 183.

294 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
the Alexandrian church until a bishop could
be appointed. Dioscorus at first made light
of the sentence, and said that he should soon
be restored ; the council, hearing of this, put
forth a declaration that the sentence was irrevo
cable. They wrote to the two emperors, reciting
his misdeeds: (i) he had hindered Leo's letter
1 to Flavian from being read at Ephesus ; (2) he
had restored the heterodox and justly deposed
Eutyches to his office, in contempt of Leo's
letter on Eutyches' case ; (3) he had done
injury to Eusebius ; (4) he had received to com
munion persons lawfully condemned ; (5) he
had attempted to excommunicate Leo himself;
(6) he had disobeyed the citations of the council.1
There is little more to be told. The deposition
of Dioscorus was confirmed by the emperor;
he was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, and
died there in 454. His deposition inaugurated
the great schism which to this day has divided
the Christians of Egypt, the majority of whom,
distinguished as Copts, have always disowned
the council of Chalcedon, and venerated Dios
corus as "their teacher" and as a persecuted
saint.2 As to his theological position, there is,
1 Mansi, vi. 1097.
2 Lit. Copt. S. Basil, in Renaudot, Lit. Orient, i. 4.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 295
perhaps, little or nothing in his own words — even
including those which Le Quien cites as decisive
against him — which might not be so interpreted
as to be consistent with orthodoxy. He might
have rejected the formula, "two natures after
the Incarnation," not only as then deficient in
authority, but as, to his mind, suggestive of
Nestorianism ; yet he might not, after all, have
advisedly rejected the great doctrine which
since 451 it has enshrined, i.e. that the Son
of God, as personally incarnate, exists in two
distinct spheres of being. He might have
sympathised with Eutyches for his fidelity to
a dictum of Cyril ; and knowing, as he well
did, the manifold persistency of Nestorianisers,
he might have been honestly anxious lest
Cyril's work should be undone — lest the belief
in the one Christ, God and Man, should be
virtually superseded by the notion of a close
alliance between two Christs. But it is not
his theological mistakes, whatever they were,
which have determined his reputation. And
even as to his conduct, the charges brought
by the Alexandrian petitioners at Chalce
don are too deeply coloured by passion to
command our full belief: a mere profligate
oppressor would not have secured so largely the

296 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
loyalty of Alexandrian churchmen ; nor do we
know how Dioscorus would have answered his
accusers, had the magistrates come to the third
session of the council to ensure order and fair
play. But when we look at his public acts in
449, we cannot but see in them the perversion
of considerable abilities — of courage, resolution,
clear-headedness — under the temptations of ex
cessive power and the promptings of a despotic
self-will. The brutal treatment of Flavian,
which he practically sanctioned, has made
his memory specially odious ; and his name
is conspicuous on a tragical but admonitory
list, the list of the "violent men" of Church
history. Proterius had been presbyter and church-
steward under him, and seems to have incurred
his displeasure by taking an opposite view of
the Eutychian question.1 If so, however, he
must have, to some extent, regained his bishop's
favour ; for he was left in charge of the church
when Dioscorus went to attend the council of
Chalcedon. After his deposition by that
council, the Emperor Marcian gave orders
for a new election to the see. The suffragan
bishops, with the exception of thirteen detained
1 See Ischyrion, ap. Mansi, vi. 1017.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 297
at Constantinople by a resolution of the council,1
were assembled in synod ; and the chief laymen
of the city came as usual to express their mind,
and assent to the prelates' choice.2 There was
great difficulty, however, in coming to a con
clusion ; for the majority of the Alexandrian
Church-people were profoundly aggrieved by
the action of the late council. In their eyes
Dioscorus was still their rightful "pope," the
representative of Cyril and of Athanasius, the
victim of a Nestorianising reaction which had
enlisted the aid of the East and of the West,
The tyranny of a heterodox majority could
never annul a spiritual right. Dioscorus lived,
and had not resigned his charge ; and therefore
the Church which had been " espoused " to him,
could not, without the guilt of " adultery," form
relations with any new bishop. Ultimately,
however, opposition to the imperial mandate
was felt to be impracticable : not a few must
have been wearied by the despotism, or scandal
ised by the conduct, of the deposed patriarch.
-The synod, according to Liberatus, included
four Egyptian prelates who had sat in the
council, and there, after hearing a statement
1 Chalced. can. 30.
2 Liberatus, Brevjar. c. 14.

298 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
of Flavian's read, had followed a number of
other bishops in passing over from the side
where Dioscorus sat, and joining the ranks of
the " Orientals." x It was resolved to elect ; and
then " the opinion of all inclined " in favour of
Proterius, who might be deemed, in one point
of view, the more acceptable, as having held
a post under Dioscorus. He was accordingly
consecrated and enthroned (A.D. 452) ; but the
passions of the Dioscorian and anti-Dioscorian
parties broke out at once into tumultuous dis
sension, which Evagrius likens to the surging of
the sea.2 He adds that Priscus the rhetorician,
then arriving in Alexandria from the Thebaid,
was present at a collision between the populace
and the authorities, when the soldiers were
called out, were pelted, were driven into the
ruinous Serapeum, and there actually burnt to
death. Florus, who united the functions of Au-
gustal prefect and commander-in-chief, punished
this outrage by cutting off the general dole of
bread, closing the baths, stopping the exhibi
tions, and sending for fresh troops from Con
stantinople, whose insolent license, however, did
but aggravate the excitement, until Florus
1 Mansi, vi. 681.
2 T£ Stjptp . . . Kvpaivopevq, Evagr. ii. 5.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 299
found it prudent to meet the people in the
hippodrome, and promise to cancel his restric
tive measures. Theophanes, who wrote about
the end of the eighth century, tells a story which
is probably no more than a story, that the
people on this occasion threatened to stop the
corn-supplies for Constantinople, whereupon
Marcian ordered that the Egyptian corn should
be exported from Pelusium instead of from
Alexandria ; and the Alexandrians, being re
duced to straits, employed the intercession of
Proterius with the emperor.1 Proterius sent to
Leo the usual announcement of his elevation ;
Leo replied by asking for some definite assur
ance of his orthodoxy, and received by the
hands of Nestorius of Phlagon, one of the four
bishops above mentioned, a letter which, as he
expressed it, was " fully satisfactory." 2 There
upon (in March of 454) he wrote again to Pro
terius, advising him to clear himself in his people's
eyes from all suspicion of Nestorianising, by
reading to them certain passages from approved
Fathers,3 and then showing that the " tome " did
but hand on their tradition, and guard the truth
from perversions on either side. Leo took care,
1 Chronograph, i. 165. 2 Epist. 113. 3; 127. 1.
3 He names Athanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril.

300 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
in thus addressing the " successor of St. Mark,"
to dwell on that evangelist's relation to St. Peter
as of a disciple to a teacher ; and he bespeaks the
support of the Alexandrian see in this resistance
to the "unprincipled ambition" of Constantinople,
which in the twenty-eighth canon, so called, of
Chalcedon, had injured the "dignity" of the
other great bishoprics.1 Another question pro
longed the correspondence. The Nicene fathers
were believed to have commissioned the Alex
andrian bishops to ascertain and signify the right
time for each coming Easter, "because," says
Leo, "skill in such computations appeared to be
of old time traditional among the Egyptians."
Leo had accordingly consulted Cyril as to the
Easter of 444 ; and he now, in 454, applied to
Proterius, through the emperor, for his opinion
as to the calculation of the Easter of the next
year, 455, which the Alexandrian paschal table
appeared to him to place too late.2 Proterius,
after studying the subject, as he expressed it,
in the books of the (Mosaic) "law," and in the
writings of " ancient teachers," replied to Leo at
some length.3 The paschal cycle of the " blessed
1 Epist. 129. See above, p. 209.
2 Ib. 121, 127. Cf. Diet. Chr, Antiq. i. 594.
3 Ep. 133, April, 454.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 361
father " Theophilus, representing, as it did, the
mind of that Egyptian Church which was con
fessedly " the mother of such laborious inves
tigations," was demonstrably faultless ; and
Egypt and the East would, in conformity to it,
close the ante-paschal fast1 in the coming year
on Saturday evening, April 23, and keep Sunday,
April 24, as Easter Sunday. He added reasons
in support of this opinion.2
It was doubtless a relief to him to busy him
self in these quiet studies — a distraction of
thought from anxieties which must have been
deepening day by day. Leontius plainly
exaggerates when he says that not a single
Alexandrian would communicate with him : 3
but undoubtedly great numbers of his flock
regarded him as a traitorous hireling, who had
climbed up into a fold bereft of its true shep
herd. He had troubles within the circle of his
clergy ; not long after the council, a priest
1 Cf. Euseb. v. 23. The closing of the fast would be ritually
analogous to our "first evensong of Easter."
2 In his argument he laid stress on the point that the closing
of the fast could never take place on a Sunday evening ; there
fore, when the 14th of the moon fell on a Sunday, as would be
the case, by Alexandrian rules, in 455, the fast must be con
tinued on weekdays until the ensuing Saturday evening. As
Hefele remarks, he assumes " that Christ partook of the Pass
over on Nisan 14" (Councils, i. 329). ' De Sectis, v. I.

302 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
named Timotheus, and a deacon named Peter,
nicknamed Mongus, or " the stammerer," refused
to communicate with him, because in his
" diptychs " he ignored Dioscorus and com
memorated the council of Chalcedon. He
summoned them to return to their duty ; they
refused ; he pronounced against them in synod
a sentence of deposition.1 Four or five bishops
and a few monks appear to have actively sup
ported them, and to have been included in their
condemnation, and in the imperial sentence of
exile which followed it.2 These bishops were
probably among the thirteen whom the Council
of Chalcedon had terrified by its severity.8 The
monks in Egypt, as elsewhere, were generally
attached to the Monophysite position, which
they erroneously identified with the Cyrilline ;
they knew not of, or they could not appreciate,
the explanations whereby Cyril had, as he
thought, safeguarded the formula of " one fyvaig
of God the Word, but that as incarnate." They
took for granted that the late council had to all
intents and purposes been striking at Cyril
through Dioscorus ; and that what was at
1 Liberatus, c. 15 ; Brevic. Hist. Eutych. or Gesta in causa
Acacii, in Mansi, vii. 1062.
2 Epist. jEgypt. Episc. ad Leonem-Aug. in Mansi, vii. 525.
3 See Mansi, vii. 52.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 303
stake was Christ's single and divine personality,
as against the error which had resolved the
Incarnation into a signal association between
the Word and a pre-eminent saint. Thus,
besides those monks who had overtly taken part
with Timotheus and Peter, others apparently
had suspended communion with the archbishop;
and Marcian had found it expedient to address
them in gentle and persuasive terms, assuring
them that the doctrine of " one Christ," symbol
ised by the term Theotocos, had been held
sacrosanct at Chalcedon, and exhorting them
therefore to "unite themselves to the Catholic
Church of the orthodox, which was one."1 But
the schism, once begun, was not thus to be
abated ; the zealous seceders raised a cry, which
has practically never died out, that the Egyptian
adherents of the council of Chalcedon were a
mere state-made church, upheld by the Court
against the convictions of the faithful. Even to
this day the poor remnant of orthodoxy in
Egypt is weighted with a name which in that
connection is a stigma, "Melchites," or "men
of the king." 2 Even after the death of Dioscorus
1 Mansi, vii. 481.
2 Comp. Renaudot, Hist. Patr. Alex. p. 119; Neale, Hist.
Patr. Alex. ii. 7. Both add that the orthodox accepted the term.
They could not well help themselves. Timotheus Salofaciolus

304 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
in exile, Proterius had to see himself ignored and
disclaimed, to know that he was the object of a
hatred that was biding its time, and " during
the greater part of his pontificate," as Liberatus
tells us, to depend for personal safety on the
presence of a military guard. Thus imperilled
and thus protected, " the emperor's bishop " had
to live and to do what work he could — often
surely with much sickness of heart, and with
grave apprehensions as to the future. At last,
in the January of 457, Marcian died, and the
Monophysites thought they saw their oppor
tunity. Some of the malcontent Egyptian
bishops renewed their outcry against the
council ; x and Timotheus, having ventured
back to Alexandria, began those intrigues which
won for him the title of iElurus, "the Cat." He
crept by night into the cells of ignorant monks,
and told them that he was "an angel sent to
warn them to separate from Proterius, and
to chose Timotheus as bishop."2 When his
plans were matured, he called to his aid a force
himself was nicknamed " Basilicus " (Evagr. ii. 11). The term
would have much the same significance as " Erastian " in the
mouth of a Scottish covenanter.
1 Eulogius, in Photius, Bibl. 130, p. 283, ed. Bekk.
2 Theodorus, Lect. I. 8. Timotheus had himself been a monk

ALEXANDRIA. AND CHALCEDON. 305
which had for ages been proverbially terrible —
the familiaris furor1 of the Alexandrian mob,
which had burst forth against the Jews in the
days of Philo, had " polluted every street with
blood " in the reign of Gallienus,2 and by its
very unaccountableness had led a pagan historian
of the fourth century to refer to some oracular
predictions,3 even as in after days it was com
monly said that the mere fracture of a vessel
might be an occasion for stirring the city to
wild tumult.4 It so happened that the " dux "
Dionysius was absent in Upper Egypt ; and
Timotheus found it all the easier to gather a
disorderly following, and to procure for himself
an irregular consecration by two bishops only,
who had been just before deposed for joining
in his revolt, and had been sentenced to exile.
He proceeded to hold ordinations, and do other
schismatical acts ; but after thus playing the
patriarch for a few days, he was expelled on
the return of Dionysius. Then his partisans,
in revenge, — carrying out, it was said by op
ponents, his intentions — rushed to the house of
1 Hist. August, ii. 311.
2 Milman, Hist. Jews, ii. 137 ; Gibbon, i. 414.
3 Ammianus, xxii. 11. 4; cf. ib. 16. 15.
4 Evagr. ii. 8 : ed. Vales. X

306 ALEXANDRIA ANL\ CHALCEDON.
Proterius, and after besetting him for some time
in the adjacent church of Quirinus, pursued him
when he fled into its baptistery, ran him through
with a sword, and completed the bloody work
with many wounds. Six of his clerics perished
with him. The murderers fastened the corpse to
a cord, and dragged it in ghastly procession
across the central place called Tetrapylon, and
then through nearly the whole of the vast city,
with hideous cries, " Look at Proterius ! " it was
beaten as if it could still suffer, torn limb from
limb, and finally burnt, and its ashes "scattered
to the winds " — a scene of horror which recalls
the murder of George the Arian bishop in 36L1
but is aggravated by the fact that the performers
were professing Christians, that the place of the
murder was a baptistery (which, say the fourteen
Egyptian bishops in their narrative to the
emperor Leo, partly quoted by Evagrius, is "awe-
striking even to barbarians and savages "), and,
to add one circumstance which distinguishes
it even from the murder of Hypatia by savage
fanatics, that the time was, according to the
Egyptian bishops, "the festival (Travriyvpig) of
the Passover of salvation," which should mean
1 A similar story was current in Alexandria as to the martyr
dom of St. Mark.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 307
Easter-day, although Liberatus and the Brevi-
culus say it was " three days before Easter, the
day on which Ccena Domini celebratur," i.e.
Maundy Thursday. Easter Sunday in the year
457 was March 31st.1 The biographer of Peter
Mongus, as Evagrius tells us, naturally tried to
make out that Proterius provoked his death by
exciting a disturbance, and that it was inflicted
by soldiers, not by the people. St. Proterius is
venerated as a martyr in the Greek and Latin
Churches, on February 28. Timotheus " the
Cat " was now triumphant ; he kept possession
as a Monophysite patriarch and an open enemy
of the Chalcedonian formula until he was ejected
by the emperor Leo I. in 460. For sixteen years
the Church of Alexandria was at peace under
the kindly rule of Timotheus Salofaciolus
(" Wearer of the White Cap "),2 to whom even
the Monophysite majority were wont to say,
" Though we do not communicate with thee, yet
we love thee." 3 ^Elurus regained possession in
1 For authorities, see Ep. lEg. Episc. in Mansi, vii. 525 ; Leo,
Epist. 156. 5 ; Breviculus Hist. Eutych. in Mansi, vii. 1062 ;
Liberatus, Brev. c. 15 ; Evagrius, ii. 8 ; Theod. Lect. i. 8. See
also Le Quien, ii. 413 ; Neale, Hist. Patr. Alex. ii. 12.
2 See Du Fresne, Gloss. Med. et Inf. Graecit. ii. 1659.
3 Liberatus, 16. This gentleness became weakness when he
inserted the name of Dioscorus in his diptychs, a step for which
he expressed regret to Simplicius of Rome, but which gave

308 ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON.
476, by favour of the emperor Basiliscus, but
died (it was said, by taking poison) apparently
in the autumn of the next year. Salofaciolus,
having overcome a movement in favour of Peter
Mongus, died in 482. John Talaia, an orthodox
priest, was then elected ; but intrigues triumphed
in his exile, and Peter Mongus was placed in
the see by the emperor Zeno, in pursuance of his
plan for uniting both parties by the formulary
called " Henoticon," which, however, in its
natural sense, threw a slur on the Council of
Chalcedon. Peter was a timeserving diplo
matist, who alternately recognised and rejected
the council, thereby provoking the more honest
Monophysites to form a separate communion ; x
and the alliance which Acacius of Constanti
nople 2 was so ill-advised as to contract with him
gave rise to a long schism between the churches
of Old and New Rome. Soon after Acacius'
occasion to one of the many blunders of Eutychius, who ranked
him with his namesake as a "Jacobite" (Ann. ii. 103).
1 Hence they were called the " Acephali."
2 Acacius, unfortunately, had fancied himself slighted by John
Talaia. Pressed by Rome to ascertain distinctly whether Peter
did or did not adhere to the council, and disturbed by hearing of
Peter's anti-Chalcedonian proceedings, Acacius obtained false
assurances from Peter, which he thought it best to accept, and
was thereupon excluded from communion with Rome for patron
ising a heretic.

ALEXANDRIA AND CHALCEDON. 309
death, Euphemius, an uncompromising Catholic,
became patriarch, and excommunicated Peter
for anathematising the council ; but the new
contest thus imminent was prevented by the
death of the clever but worthless " Mongus " in
October of 490.1
1 Reference has repeatedly been made to the Chalcedonian
formula of "one Christ in two natures." As it stands in the
" Definitio Fidei," it clearly excludes the too popular "Keno-
ticism," which supposes our Lord, on becoming man, not only
to have accepted human limitations, or restrained the exercise of
divine prerogatives, within His human sphere of being, but to
have (for the period of His humiliation) absolutely surrendered
His divine attributes, His divine consciousness, His divine
activity, His divine mode of existence, — and therefore, prac
tically, to have ceased to live as God.

THE CHURCH AND THE "BAR
BARIAN" INVADERS.
We are sometimes apt to judge with too
absolute a severity the practical concessions
made by the Church of Patristic days, within
her own sphere of action, to the newly
Christianised, or rather, perhaps, the half-
Christianised, Imperial power. It was certainly
unseemly that Eusebius should write as he
sometimes does write of Constantine ; and
that a sovereign who had not even applied
for baptism should exhort bishops, and argue
about doctrines, in the first General Council,
was, to say the least, anomalous. It was worse
that, in the East, traditions of obsequious
courtiership should infect the Church's current
phraseology ; that in the West, as well as in
the East, some great Churchmen, though
happily not all, should forsake the principle
laid down by St. Athanasius, and welcome
the aid of penal legislation against heresy.

THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 311
Precedents thus formed were, as we know too
well, prolific in scandals that have not yet
exhausted their effect; the Church of France
is at this moment suffering from her former
too close alliance with a despotism that
professed to emulate the zeal of Catholic
Caesars.1 It must not, indeed, be forgotten that
the bold protests of four Western bishops
which astounded the Arian tyrant Constantius,2
and the stringent rebuke addressed by St.
Ambrose to Theodosius as, in the Church's
eyes, "a man"3 who, like other men, had
sinned and must repent, — were specimens of a
counter-influence that could check the excesses
of Caesarism : but still, on the whole, we
must think that Church-leaders in those old
times, as in times nearer to our own, were not
sufficiently " apprehensive " of the secular power
when it "brought them gifts." Yet there is
allowance to be made : it must have been a
dazzling, unsettling experience to deal with
1 See Hassall's " Louis XIV., " p. 288. Nor can we in England
forget how injuriously our own Church was compromised in the
seventeenth century by her association with " government by
prerogative," and with what bishop Andrewes had in mind when
he prayed against rrjs airoBeidaeois tuv (ia<rt\4ur (Greek
Devotions, ed. Medd, p. 151).
2 S. Athan. Hist. Ari. 76. Cp. ib. 44.
3 S. Ambros. Ep. 51. 11. See above, p. 241.

312 THE CHURCH
an Augustus who proclaimed himself a Chris
tian ; and, after that first surprise was spent,
it might well seem to thoughtful Christians
that a close bond between the Church and
the Caesar was the best guarantee for social
order, and therein for " godly quietness."
Might not the Empire, by becoming Chris
tianised, renew its youth, and gather up its
forces to resist the frontier-foes that for
centuries had been threatening its very life?
Had it not been, even in its Pagan days — ¦
even amid its moods of persecuting cruelty
— that very " restraining power " which, accord
ing to St. Paul, was to keep off worse evils
until their appointed "season"?1 and was it
not at least probable that its baptism would
vitalise it afresh, and that, by its alliance with
the kingdom not of this world, it might be
invigorated for a prolonged career of service
alike to religion and to society ?
To such hopes, it would seem, Churchmen
gravely anxious about the future of the world,
as they knew it, would cling tenaciously —
while they could. The fear of the barbarians
had often been a paralysing terror. As far
1 2 Thess. ii. 7. See Tertullian, Apol. 32, with note in
Transl. Lib. Fath.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 313
back as the days of Marcus Aurelius, "the
northern frontier," in Merivale's vivid language,
had been "skirted by a fringe of fire," while
"through the lurid glare loomed the wrathful
faces of myriads, Germans, Scythians, Sarma
tians, all armed for the onslaught in sympathy
or concert." x The policy of " buying them off,"
of trying to " divide," and, if not to " govern,"
yet to avoid blows, had alternated with de
fensive campaigns, as emperors were vigorous
or feeble. In the early part of the third century
the Goths, as Gibbon expresses it, "migrated
from the Baltic to the Euxine;" they tasked the
energies, and triumphed in the death, of one
of the most vigorous of the Caesars, whose name
is associated with a terrible persecution of
Christianity : the confederacy which " deserved,
assumed, and maintained the honourable epithet
of Franks, or Freemen," swept like a storm
through Gaul and Spain into Africa : another
miscellaneous host, which had taken the name of
Alemanni, gave Italy a foreshadowing of future
humiliation, but was ultimately and decisively
beaten back. It was reserved for a prince whose
' Hist. Rom. viii. 360. Cp. Capitolinus, in Hist. Aug. i. 339,
"Tantus autem terror belli Marcomannici fuit," that Marcus
had recourse even at Rome to "foreign rites."

3H THE CHURCH
epitaph truly described him as " Probus impera-
tor, et vere probus," to drive out the German
invaders of Gaul, and not indeed to conquer,
but to fence them off by a wall stretching from
the Rhine to the Danube.1 But the perils
became intensified in the fourth century : Julian's
campaigns could only " suspend for a short time
the inroads of the barbarians ; " Valentinian I.
had to put forth all his energy in securing Gaul
against the Alemanni, and actually died in a fit
of passion excited by the inroads of the Quadi ;
and the relations of his incapable brother Valens
with the Goths had ended in a second Cannae
at Hadrianople. And if a Gothic king, after
enjoying the hospitality of Theodosius, could
liken him to " a god upon earth," 2 the Goths
whom his policy settled within the empire
were at best but dubious "allies," whom any
fierce impulse might turn into enemies.3 The
fifth century opens with the Visigoths' invasion
of Italy;4 and it must have been a day of
dark forebodings at Milan when a Roman
1 See Gibbon, i. 379-393 : ii. 44-46.
2 Athanaric, who died at Constantinople in January, 381.
3 Gibbon, iii. 352 ff. See Socrates, vi. 6, for the revolt of
Gainas. Compare Arbogast in the West.
* The alarm caused is discernible through Claudian's preT
mature exultation over the repulse of the barbarians by Stilicho,
De Bell. Get. 568 ff., 637.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 315
emperor, "distinguished," says Gibbon, "above
his subjects by the pre-eminence of fear as well
as of rank," x resolved on securing himself behind
the marshes of Ravenna, — a day of yet intenser
alarm when a wilder chief, " most savage of all
Rome's foes," 2 gave Roman Pagans an occasion
for saying that the Christian ascendency had
brought on them the peril of his approach.3
Pass a few years, and an event occurs which
is one of the cataclysms of history — Alaric
takes Rome ; and Jerome, on hearing of this
disaster, recurs to a psalm of the Captivity
for language apt to describe it.4 What was
1 See Gibbon, iv. 33. Procopius "thinks he would have
been " content if people (tis) would have allowed him to be
quiet in his palace ; " De Bell. Vand. i. 2.
2 " Rhadagaisus, omnium antiquorum praesentiumque hostium
longe immanissimus. . . . Fervent tota urbe blasphemiae;
vulgo nomen Christi, tanquam lues aliqua, prsesentium
temporum opprobriis gravatur." Orosius, vii. 37.
3 That Rome was long a seat of residuary paganism appears
in the persistence of the unseemly Lupercalian festival until
the pontificate of Gelasius (492-496).
4 "Haeret vox," writes Jerome, "et singultus intercipiunt verba
dictantis. Capitur Urbs qua totum cepit orbem." Ep. 127. 12.
Then, after quoting from Isa. xv. I about the "taking of
Moab in a night," he breaks forth into the first verses of
"Deus, venerunt," and adds the "Quis cladem illius noctis "
of the "second ^Eneid." He must, indeed, have been in some
degree expectant of this catastrophe : for sixteen years before,
Ep. 60. 16, he had recited a list of barbarian invaders as
devastating Scythia, Thrace, Macedonia, Dardania, Dacia,

316 THE CHURCH
its chief significance? That the prestige of
Rome was ruined ; and that thereupon the
hopes of those who had dreamed of a con
solidated and perpetuated empire, a " holy
Roman" State, faithful to Christianity, and
in turn reinforced by it, victoriously repelling
barbarians, and guarding the treasures of a
Christianised civilisation, — gave way in dismal
collapse.Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Dalmatia, etc. — slaughtering clergy,
destroying churches, " stabling their horses ad allaria
Christi:" and had written again in 409, that all between
the ocean and the Rhine had been devastated by "Quadus,
Wandalus, Sarmata, Halani, Gipedes, Heruli, Saxones, Bur-
gundiones, Alemani, . . . Pannonii ;" at Mentz "thousands have
been butchered in the church . . . and Spain is trembling
on the verge of ruin." " Caetera taceo, ne videar de Dei
desperare dementia," etc. Ep. 123. 16. St. Augustine en
deavoured in a discourse, " De Urbis Excidio," to allay the
intensity of a shock by which some Christians' faith might be
disturbed: "Were there not," people asked, "fifty righteous
men in Rome ? " He answered that, in this great catastrophe,
God's mercy had been more conspicuous than His wrath : and
he began his great work " On the City of God " with the
intention of confuting those Pagans who, in the usual Pagan
fashion, attributed the humiliation of the empire to its abandon
ment of the old worship, or, as he expresses it, " imputed to
Christ what that earthly civitas had suffered." The barbarians,
he observed, were, after all, Christians, and " for Christ's sake
they had spared many Romans who were hostile to His name."
"Testantur hoc martyrum loca et basilicae apostolorum, quae
in ilia vastatione urbis ad se confugientes suos alienosque
receperunt," etc. De Civ. Dei, i, 1.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 317
It was, indeed, most natural that a crisis so
unparalleled and so tremendous should be spoken
of under the forms of Old Testament imagery.
It must have been in truth a " day of the Lord,"
" a day of darkness and gloominess, of clouds
and of thick darkness," bringing with it the
onward rush of " a great people and a strong."
" The Lord was " visibly " making the earth
waste, and turning it upside down, and causing
its haughty people to languish, and shaking its
old foundations, and dissolving" its once coherent
strength : its " inhabitants were fleeing from the
noise of the fear to fall into the pit," or " coming
up out of the pit to be taken in the snare." So,
to refer again to Jerome, whose work of com
menting on Ezekiel had been deferred until he
could somewhat recover from the shock of the
awful news, — it was felt, at the moment, that " in
that one city the whole world was ruined : " x the
phrase has a significance, a breadth of appli
cation, beyond anything that Jerome, when he
1 '.'Ita consteraatus obstupui, ut nihil aliud diebus ac
noctibus nisi de salute omnium cogitarem. ... In una urbe
totus orbis interiit" (in Ezech. 1. 1. praef.). Further on he says
that he is interrupted by the arrival of Western fugitives, whose
wounds and destitution are tokens of the " rabies barbarorum "
(1. 7. praef.), and alludes to St. Ambrose's comment (De Fide, ii.
138) on Ezek. xxxviii. 14: "Gog iste Gothus est " (1. 11. praef.).

318 THE CHURCH
thus wrote, was likely to realise. By degrees it
would become manifest that the social system in
the West was too far gone in corruption and
moral decadence to be capable of purification
and healthful self-recovery.1 Again one recurs to
the prophet's phrases : " The whole head was sick,
and the whole heart faint." Salvian of Marseilles2
is a writer whose burning zeal for righteousness,
purity, and Christian consistency, may here and
there lead him to exaggerate the net-result of
shameful facts, and to paint in too hideous
colours the moral condition of Christian pro
vincial life during the first half of the fifth
century. His " noble book," as Kingsley calls it,3
"On the Government of God," takes its title from
the argument with which it opens, and which runs
through the first two parts. The devastations,
the miseries, the terrors of the time had driven
1 " The corruption of Rome's great cities," says Dr. Hodgkin,
"showed in all its hideousness the degradation which might be
achieved by a civilisation without morality and without God."
Italy and her Invaders, i. 521.
2 His "De Gubernatione Dei" was published, says Gibbon,
"after the loss of Africa, and before Attila's war " (iv. 252).
So Tillemont, dating it about 440. This truly estimable man
lived to be called a "teacher of bishops," and died about the end
of the fifth century (Gennadius, de Script. Eccl. lxvii). Tille
mont says he always merited the title of Saint recently given him
by a French martyrologist (xvi. 181).
3 The Roman and the Teuton, p. 34.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 319
many professing Christians — who, as he says,
had "somewhat of Pagan unbelief" hanging
about them — into a despairing scepticism as to an
observant and governing Providence ; "incuriosus
a quibusdam Deus dicitur." It was a trouble
analogous to that which, in Cyprian's days, had
made some men's faith quiver amid the horrors
of a pestilence, — to that which, long afterwards, in
our own King Stephen's reign, made the victims
of Norman tyranny complain that " Christ and all
His Saints were asleep," — to all those piercing
trials of faith under which "the cry goes up,
How long ? " Why does God allow such things ?
Could they go on if He cared about men, if He
had not " forsaken the earth " ? Salvian will not
"pry into the secrets of the Divine counsels ; " but,
premising that he is arguing with a Christian, he
exposes the hollowness of the popular profession
of Christianity. All classes, according to him,
are infected by an epidemic of vice : to have the
disease in a milder form is, " in a sort of way, a
kind of sanctity." The province of Africa is a
volcano of sensuality, a reservoir of all the vices.1
At Carthage, in particular, men in high position
alternately "ascend the sanctuary of Christ " and
1 De Gub. Dei, iii. 9 ; vii. 13, 15-17. He calls Carthage a
city "omnium iniquitatum genexe ferventem."

320 THE CHURCH
do homage to the goddess Ccelestis ; while the
lower classes cannot see a monk in the streets
without cursing and howling at him.1 Every
where in the West the rich oppress the poor ; 2
the town councillors, or " curiales," are tyrants ; 3
the exaction of civic dues and the tenure of high
provincial offices are turned into a means of
self-enrichment.4 Many whose position is thus
made intolerable take shelter among the
" barbarians." 5 The old passion for circus games
and demoralising theatrical exhibitions is not
chastened by any amount of public calamities : 6
at Treves, for instance, the ancient "home of
emperors," — four times already captured by
1 De Gub. Dei, viii. 2, 4. St. Augustine, as a young man, had
seen the foul rites in honour of this African " queen of heaven "
(De Civ. Dei, ii. 4). A monk was known by his pale face, his
" pallium " or cloak, and his close-cropped hair.
2 De Gub. iv. 6, v. 7 : they throw on the poor the burden of
"tributa" which they ought to bear; and see the anecdote in
iv. 15, of a pitiless "man in power."
3 Ib. v. 4 ; iii. 10. They were tyrants because they were also
victims. (Cf. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, ii. 604 ff.)
4 Ib. v. 4, " Exactio publica peculiaris est praeda ; " cf. iii. 10
on " rapina," and iv. 4, "Quid aliud quorumdam quos taceo
praefectura quam praeda? "
5 Ib. v. 5. The name of Roman citizen, he adds, "nunc
ultro repudiatur ac fugitur " (cp. v. 8). So Orosius, viii. 41,
"Qui malunt inter barbaros pauperem libertatem," etc., and
Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. v. 7, contrasting a class of informers
with "the more merciful barbarians."
3 De. Gub. Dei, vi. 12.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 321
barbarians, — Salvian had seen frivolity and
revelry as rampant as ever among " elderly "
Christians of high rank;1 "after devastation,
bloodshed, overthrow, amid the ashes and blood
of slaughtered victims, the people still demanded
their amusements ; " and at one city, only second
to Treves, "the chief men did not even rise from
their banquet when the invaders were actually
within the gates." 2 Was the Church guiltless ?
Alas, " the Lord's priests " too often did not dare
to stand up in defence of the oppressed : they
were silent, or as good as silent — and that
systematically, in order to avoid a collision with
the oppressors.3 He emphasises the failure of
suffering to amend populations which had lost
all moral fibre : 4 when repeatedly " stricken,"
they had " refused to receive correction ; " they
1 De Gub. Dei, vi. 8, 13, 15. In vii. 2 ff. he describes South
Gaul as ^singularly favoured by the gifts of God's natural
providence, and yet profoundly corrupted by vice.
2 Ib. vi. 13.
3 Ib. v. 5 : " Aut tacent. . . aut similes sunt tacentibus."
He even says (Ib. iii. 9) that the Church, which ought to
be " placatrix Dei," had become " exacerbatrix." So, v. 10 :
" Sub specie religionis vitiis ssecularibus mancipati. . . Vestem
tantummodo exuere, — non mentem." Penitents by profession,
he adds, lived so as to make that profession a thing to be
repented of. They abstained from some things lawful, but
indulged in what was unlawful (e.g. in " rapine ").
4 Ib. vi. 12, 16 ; vii. 12. Y

322 THE CHURCH
ran into yet wilder excess of riot, because their
hold on property or life was so insecure ; or they
turned fiercely against religion itself, and called
God " negligent," or " hard " and " unmerciful,"
because of the very woes which they had
deserved.1 It is clear enough from such evidence that
society was wholly disorganised ; Salvian makes
a great point of the bitter hatreds and deep-
seated mistrusts 2 which had cut straight to the
heart of its unity. And if the disease was so
manifold and so deadly, how appalling was the
prospect of more and more inflictions coming
thick and fast from without on the sick man !
The Vandal conquerors of Spain and Africa
were not among the bravest of barbarian races,3
but they were among the cruellest. If we can
trust traditionary evidence, they took a savage
pleasure in torturing bishops and priests in order
1 De Gub. Dei, iv. 8, ii: "Quaedam paganica . . . et in
ecclesiis Dei ante non visa ; " i.e. blasphemies against God.
2 Ib. v. 4: "Quis enem civis non invidet civi?" All classes
come in turn under his censure, including the " negotiatores "
(iv. 14), and the "officiales" and "militantes' (iii. 10). Very
few " nobiles " or "divites" keep clear of crime; some who
abhor it in others practise it themselves. " We see hardly
any corner of all the churches that is not full omni letalittm
peccatorum labe" (iii. n). The malignity of " informers " had
enough to work upon.
3 Ib. vii. 7 ; cf. Hodgkin, ii. 236.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 323
to extort from them church treasures ; and Victor
of Vita gives some horrible details to this effect.1
One instance will suffice as a specimen, — a
venerable prelate "was burned all over his
body with plates of red-hot iron." And one
may imagine that the faithful of Hippo would
take some comfort in knowing that Augustine
had been released from life before the city fell
into Vandal hands. Perhaps we may reasonably
deduct not a little from the tales of horror which
had had sixty years to grow : 2 but, anyhow,
Gaiseric was hard-hearted by nature, and, as
an Arian, intolerant towards the conquered
Catholics ; even if he did not carry out a syste
matic persecution,3 he is at least responsible for
much intermittent severity, which would often,
under the provocation of Catholic constancy,
1 Vict. Vit. de Persec. Vandal, i. 2, 3.
2 The date of Victor's writing (i. 1) was a.d. 487.
3 On this, see Hodgkin's Italy and her Invaders, ii.
281. Even Victor gives with a "fertur" the story of his
saying to some Catholic priests who, having lost churches
and property, asked merely for leave to live in their old
homes, " I have determined to leave not one of your name
and race," and of his having to be persuaded not to drown
them (i. 5). But that he was cruel is undoubted, says Hodgkin
(ii. 245) ; and cf. ib. iii. 489, " While the barbarian Gaiseric
and his son (Hunneric) plunge with blind zeal into the theo
logical fray, cut out the tongues and rack the limbs of Catholic
bishops," etc.

324 THE CHURCH
be carried to inhuman lengths.1 Other bar
baric races would exhibit evil qualities which
inspired repugnance, distrust, or dread : 2 the
Alans were intemperate and rapacious ; the
Goths and Franks were faithless, the Gepidae 3
inhuman, the Huns brutal in their animalism,
and the Saxons (a point worth remembering)
" ferocious in cruelty," — it is Salvian's own
phrase: from Sidonius Apollinaris, his junior
contemporary,4 we learn that this race, in which
we are so much interested, was peculiarly
truculent, — he speaks of its pirates as in later
days men spoke of the buccaneers, and tells us
that they deemed it " a part of their religion to
torture a captive rather than to put a price on
his life." Had he written some twelve years
later, Salvian would have doubtless dwelt on
the devouring fury of the Hunnish invasion,
1 Compare Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. vii. 6, on the per
secution of Catholics by the Visigoth king of Toulouse, Euric,
who forbade Catholic sees to be filled up. Churches were in
ruins, cattle browsed on the " altarium latera," the paths to the
basilicas were obstructed by thorns, and even in towns congre
gations were becoming thin ; there was a danger of failure in the
succession of priests, etc.
2 De Gub. Dei, iv. 14 ; vii. 15.
3 They came from the south of Dacia. They were crushed by
Alboin the Lombard.
4 Ep. viii. 6. For him see Hodgkin, ii. 298 ff. ; Travers
Smith, The Church in Roman Gaul, p. 366 ff.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 325
when the clergy of Metz were massacred on
Easter Eve, — when the bishop of Rheims was
hewn down before his own altar, — when the
bishop of Orleans, according to the noble story
so well told by Gregory of Tours, upheld the
trembling faith of the besieged people until the
combined forces of Romans and Visigoths
brought, just in time, "the aid of the Lord."1
But it is fair to say, with Dr. Hodgkin, that
Attila was warring " on civilisation, not on
religion, for he did not understand it enough to
hate it."
Such were the grounds of serious alarm when
the Church looked the problem in the face —
what should be done, what could be done, with
the barbarians ? Less grave, yet still embarrass
ing, was the fact on which Kingsley liked to
dwell2 — the combination, in many, of huge
strength with boyishness of character. They
were like the children of Anak (" giants seven
foot high," says Sidonius of the Burgundians 3),
1 The graphic touch of the "rising up of something like a
mist," after a "third prayer" (Greg. Turon. ii. 7), may have
been an imaginary addition. But St. Anianus was anyhow " the
hero of Orleans" (Hodgkin, ii. 133).
2 The Roman and the Teuton, p. 6 ; and the opening of
" Hypatia." 3 Septipedes : Sidonius, Carm. 12. He describes them as
"gigantes," with greased hair, and smelling of onions, etc. See

326 THE CHURCH
physically over-developed, mentally — if not as
a rule, yet often enough — untrained, unaccus
tomed to think or forecast, living for the day,
passing — like the Maltese of St. Paul's time — with
childish rapidity from one mood to the opposite.
You might take them on the right side, and
might impress them for the moment ; and yet
the slightest cause, a casual irritation, a passing
cloud of suspicion, might undo all that had been
said. It was a questionable enterprise at the
best, this of gaining influence over a "bar
barian ; " it might be a forlorn hope, it might
be a matter of extreme peril.1 And yet the task
was set before the Church ; something must be
done with the rough wild people that could
exhibit such formidable strength, against which
" Roman " culture had often been found so
helpless. They could not be left to rage and
devastate ; they must somehow be got hold
a humorous translation by Hodgkin, ii. 362. Sidonius describes
Frankish chiefs as yellow-haired, their legs mostly bare, their
feet in ox-leather boots, their bodies in tight-fitting coloured
tunics : lances in their right hands, shields on the left side,
big swords hung in baldrics from the shoulder (Ep. iv. 20).
Procopius says that all the barbarians were fair, yellow-haired,
tall, and with good countenances (De Bell. Vand. i. 2). Cf.
Claudian, De Bell. Get. 419 : " flavis . . Sicambris."
1 Martyrdoms were not infrequent : see the cases of the Black
and Fair Ewalds (Bede, v. 10), and of St. Boniface.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 327
of. The aversion which an educated provincial
ecclesiastic would feel for what he might think
rude animal force, the fastidiousness with which
he would recoil from the harsh or ugly features
of a " barbaric " presence and its surroundings,
the well-founded apprehension which tales of
ravaged districts, captured towns, slaughtered
clergy, profaned altars, would arouse in his
breast, — all these must be surmounted, if he
and his order were to be true to their high
calling. And there were among them men
capable of confronting new conditions of service,
of accepting unfamiliar and distracting responsi
bilities ; men who appreciated the honour of
such a mission, men capable of taking their lives
in their hand, and going forth not knowing
whither they went, because they represented the
kingdom of the Redeemer of all nations, and
could believe that He "had much people" in
races to which the future seemed to belong.1 Or
even without converting the invader, they might
impress him to some good effect, as when Attila
and Gaiseric listened to St. Leo, or when Attila
made Lupus of Troyes his fellow-traveller as far
as to the Rhine. The work of St. Severinus, in
1 " It was time for the Teutonic nations to rejuvenate the
world " (Italy and her Invaders, ii. 546).

328 THE CHURCH
a district which now forms part of Austria,
illustrates the moral fascination which a
thoroughly brave and single-minded priest
could exercise over "barbarians,"1 with the
result of considerably mitigating the sufferings
of provincials exposed to incursions 2 of this or
that horde from the further north : and although
he would never say from what country he came,
Dr. Hodgkin 3 thinks that when he bestowed a
sort of benediction on a tall " young soldier of
fortune," in poor clothing, whose name was
Odovakar, or Odoacer,4 it was an instance in
which a Latin recognised the intrinsic greatness,
1 "He preached, he taught, he succoured, he advised, he
fed, he governed : he turned aside the raids of the wild German
kings" (Kingsley, The Roman and the Teuton, p. 188). His
own words, as reported by his biographer Eugippius, may
summarise his career, "Deus ipse me periclitantibus his homini-
bus interesse praecepit." He appeared amid the break-up of
Attila's kingdom (c. 455). He died Jan. 8, 482, with the last
words of Ps. 150 on his lips ; Eugipp. Vit. S. Sever, c. 43.
The king of the Rugians "consulted him as an oracle;" the
king of the Alemanni said that he had ' ' never in battle trembled
so much " as in his presence.
2 Sidonius introduced " Rogations," or processional litanies,
after the example of Mamertus, by way of securing Auvergne
from Gothic inroads (Ep. vii. 1).
3 Italy and her Invaders, ii. 527 ; cf. iii. 173, 185, on the life
of Severinus.
4 His head touched the low roof of Severinus' cell ; so the
"Anonymus Valesii" ap. Ammian. Marcellin. tom. i. p. 617,
and Eugippius, Vit. S. Sever, c. 7.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 329
and, according to the story, predicted the future
pre-eminence, of a man of Teuton blood.
Another saint who did much to prevent war
between the Empire and the "barbarian,"1
whose pacific exhortations were received favour
ably by a warlike Visigoth king in southern
Gaul, — who obtained from two rival princes in
Italy, and from two Burgundian kings 2 at Lyons
and Geneva, the release of captured enemies, —
who bowed the hearts of even the ferocious
Rugians, — whose moral charm could win from
the great Ostrogoth king of Italy an amnesty
for a defeated party and a remission of taxes
for his over-burdened flock, — deserves to be held
in honour as one of the most beautiful characters
of his time : it is Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia.3
1 See Ennodius, Life of Epiphanius, in Sirmond, Op. i.
1002 ff., for his success in mediating between Ricimer the
"Patrician" and the Western emperor Anthemius, and in
averting Euric's designs against Nepos. Cf. Hodgkin, ii. 4S0,
502. 2 One of these was Gundobad, before whom was held the
ineffective " Collatio Episcoporum," at Lyons, in 499. He was
not persuaded to become a Catholic, but he begged Avitus,
bishop of Vienne, to pray for him. (The Arians had charged
the Catholics with Tritheism.) Galland. Bibl. Patr. x. 794.
Epiphanius, on his embassy to Gundobad, had to cross the Alps
in winter, and face the " deadly cold."
3 For "his sweet and pure figure," see Hodgkin, ii. 480 ; cp.
iii. 220, " the transparent beauty and holiness of his character."

330 THE CHURCH
He is perhaps the best specimen of a class of
prelates whose surroundings in that age forced
them to the front as informal " tribunes of the
people," as the Roman see gained in power by
standing up like "a rock amid the floods,"
and gathering distressed populations under its
shelter.1 It is true that these men were not in the proper
sense missionaries ; but by thinking of the diffi
culties, and even the dangers, which they had
to prepare for and confront, we may form some
estimate of the task undertaken by those who
endeavoured to convert some of the invaders
from heathenism, or to commend to others the
Catholic form of Christianity. In some respects
the latter undertaking was more arduous than
the former : a Vandal conqueror of Africa would
be apt to associate the Nicene doctrine with
a tottering "Roman" empire and a morally
enfeebled and debased civilisation ; a Goth
might look to the rock from whence his fathers'
Christianity was hewn, and deem it a point of
He died in 497, aet. 58. For Theodoric's relations with St.
Caesarius, see Hodgkin, iii. 403.
1 Sometimes the people would deprecate the appointment of
an ascetic to a bishopric, because he would not have weight
with secular officials (Sidonius, Ep. vii. 9).

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 331
honour to adhere to the faith of Ulfilas.1 If the
Arians sometimes adopted a " liberal " tone, and
professed "not to insult the belief" of the
Catholics ; 2 if Theodoric " made no attempts
against the Catholic religion;"3 if even Euric
could listen to a Catholic counsellor, and
liberate an imprisoned bishop ; 4 if an Arian
synod under the Spanish king Leovigild
declined to rebaptise "those who came from
the Roman religion ad nostram catholicam
fidem"* and only required them to accept
Arian confirmation, and to use the Arian
doxology ; 6 if the heresy of the savage Lom
bards, who broke into Italy, and whose name
Gregory the Great so frequently associates
1 References to the contest with barbaric Arianism will be
found in C. of Agde, 60 ; Epaon, 29 ; 1 Orleans, 10 ; 2
Saragossa, I ; Reims, 4.
2 Greg. Turon. Hist. Fr. v. 44.
3 The "Anonymus Valesii," cp. Ammian. Marcell. i. 620.
See Hodgkin, iii. 489, "Even orthodox bishops' loudly praised
his fairness," etc. ; and Oman, Europ. Hist. 476-918, p. 21.
4 Sidon. Ep. viii. 3. Tillemont says that " God preserved
Leo in this barbaric and Arian court for the consolation of His
servants " (xvi. 256).
5 Mansi, ix. 941. Salvian says that the Arian barbarians
deem themselves to be Catholics, and brand us with the name of
"heretics " (De Gub. Dei, v. 2). So Sidonius says that Euric the
Visigoth believed his successes to be rewards "pro religione
legitima " (Ep. vii. 6).
0 " Gloriam Patri per Filium in Spiritu Sancto dare."

332 THE CHURCH
with " swords," x was " not of a militant type,
like " that " of the Vandals ; " 2 yet the old
persecuting spirit, which had clung to Arianism
in the days of St. Athanasius and St. Basil,
blazed out repeatedly in savagery like that of
an old Visigoth queen towards her own grand
daughter who refused to abandon the faith of
the " Co-equal Trinity," 3 and in prolonged and
systematic cruelties such as those which were
inaugurated in Africa by Hunneric's edict
against the " Homoousians," and carried out
until " not a house nor place was left " unvisited
by " torturers." 4 On such exhibitions of Arian
temper it is not to our purpose to dwell ; we
may leave them with the remark that they help
us to appreciate the significance, for European
1 E.g. Ep. v. 40 : " Quae inter Langobardorum gladios hoc
in loco patior ; " and Ep. vi. 60.
2 Hodgkin, v. 158.
3 Greg. Turon. v. 39. The sufferer was Ingunthis, a girl of
sixteen, the daughter of Brunichild and the bride of Hermenigild,
whom she converted. But Hermenigild did little credit to Catho
licism by his rebellion against his father.
4 Vict. Vit. iv. 2; v. 1. In this edict he appeals to the
authority of the council of Ariminum. " He became," says
Procopius, "the most ruthless and unjust of all men to the
Christians (Catholics) in Libya" (i. 8). Gibbon says that he
" tormented the Catholics with unrelenting fury," etc. (iv. 329).
But their bishops told the Arian bishop Cyrila that he had
"kindled this conflagration" (Vict. Vit. ii. 18).

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 333
history, of Clovis'1 baptism as a Catholic in
496, of Recared's success in establishing Catholi
cism by a national Spanish synod in 589, and
of "the final conversion of the Lombards of
Italy before the end of the seventh century." 2
But our interest lies in the problem presented
to Western Churchmen by the heathenism of
Northern invaders.3 Christianity had to be
brought to bear upon them : what points of
contact could it find ? to what elements in
their character could it most hopefully appeal ?
how far, in a word, had they been prepared
to receive it? They were the reverse of a
downtrodden and sorrow-stricken people, to
whom it could offer the strong consolations
1 This softened form of the original Chlodovech, Clodwig, or
Hlodowig, has become still more historic and familiar in
" Louis." 2 Gibbon, iv. 341. So was completed the wo.rk begun by the
Catholic queen Theudelinda. The Suevi, who had been so
powerful in Spain about the middle of the fifth century, gave
up their Arianism about the middle of the sixth. The Bur
gundians had become at once Christians and Catholics about
413 ; see Orosius, vii. 32 (Socrates' account, vii. 30, is a
romance). But they seem to have lapsed into Arianism, though
one of their kings had married a Catholic wife, and his daughter
Chrotechildis was the Catholic wife of Clovis. Burgundy was
conquered by Frankish kings in 534. To us this old realm in
south-east France is interesting for the sake of St. Felix, the
first bishop of East Anglia. Cf. Bede, ii. 15.
3 The Heruli were never converted (Hodgkin, v. 106).

334 THE CHURCH
which carry sufferers through seasons of afflic
tion, and bring them out into a wealthy place.
They were in the high tide, the splendid bloom
and flush, of a success which might well intoxi
cate young conquerors.1 It would be natural
that they should exhibit that pride of strength
which the Greeks of old called vfipig — should
resemble "the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty
nation," 2 whom the prophet depicts as " coming
all for violence," with " faces set eagerly as the
east wind," — should trample down every
obstacle which a strange . religion might set
in their path, and be all the more infuriated
by any attempt to control them in its name.
And yet, as eminent writers have shown, there
were in the Teuton or German race certain
"rude primitive elements" of character, which
might give some response to Christianity when
it addressed them. The historian of "the
Romans under the Empire " observes 3 that
even in the "few pages" bestowed on their
nationality by Latin observers "they have
already acquired a deep reverential sense of
spiritual things ; a profound respect for the
1 Cf. Dean Church, Gifts of Civilisation, etc., p. 315.
2 Hab. i. 6, ff, R.V.
3 Merivale, Conversion of Northern Nations, p. 88.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 335
voice of God speaking with authority through
human organs ; a sense of Divine government
and providence ; a conscience active and in
quisitive ; suspicion, at least, of sinfulness ;
apprehension of punishment ; longing for
forgiveness ; a passion for sacrifice and
atonement, ..." a "spiritual conception of
Deity, a sense of responsibility in regard to
human life," a " fine appreciation of the worth
of the female character," and a "belief in an
immortality" hereafter. To the last but one
of these qualities Salvian alludes, when he
tersely describes the Saxons as "wildly cruel,
but wonderfully chaste," x even as he notes the
same combination in those Vandals who, on
becoming masters of Carthage, turned away
with austere scorn from the ubiquitous seduc
tions of its profligacy.2 " The Teutons," says
Dr. Hodgkin,3 "when they descended upon the
1 De Gub. Dei, vii. 15.
2 Ib. vii. 20, 21.
3 Italy and her Invaders, i. 521. Cf. Gibbon, i. 363 ; and
Dollinger's Gentile and Jew, E.T., i. 61. The "great distinc
tion of the Germans was the sacredness of marriage, and the
consequent consideration and respect for women." He refers
to Tacitus, Germ. 18: " Prope soli barbarorum singulis
uxoribus contenti sunt." Ib. 19 : " Saeptae pudicitia agunt . . .
paucissima in tam numerosa gente adulteria. . . . Nemo illic
vitia ridet, nee corrumpere et corrumpi ' saeculum ' vocatur."

336 THE CHURCH
dying empire, still preserved " what Greeks and
Romans had lost, "that precious inheritance"
from their Aryan forefathers, the idea "of a
strong and pure morality which guarded the
sanctity of the home." 1
Here, assuredly, was something to work
upon. And what was the nature of the required
work ? Let us listen to one whose steady and
luminous judgment makes him a sure guide
over all kinds of ground, theological, moral,
historical. With Teutons, says Dean Church,
"the business of Christianity and the Church
is not so much to comfort as to tame, ... to
lay hold on fresh and impetuous natures, to
turn them from the first in the right direction,
to control and regenerate noble instincts, to
humble pride, to curb luxuriant and self-reliant
strength, to train and educate and apply to high
1 A splendid instance of this is the persistence of the noble
Ostrogothic king Totila (properly, Baduila) in the infliction
of capital punishment on one of his own bodyguards, * valuable
soldier, who had outraged a Calabrian maiden. So, after he
had taken Rome, his kindness protected every woman from
insult, and he "gained great honour iirl o-atppoaiivri " (Procopius,
Bell. Goth. iii. 8, 20). "Baduila . . . showed a moral elevation,
a single-hearted purity of purpose, a chivalrous courtesy, justice,
and piety, worthy of the best of the knights of the Middle Ages"
(Oman, Europ. Hist. 476-718, p. 97). Yet in him, too, the
' ' barbaric " cruelty could flash out — in one case, towards a bishop
who had given him false information (Hodgkin, iv. 526).

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 337
ends the force of powerful wills and masculine
characters." It was a disciplinary function
which the Church had thus to exercise, often
considerately, " sometimes over-indulgently,
always resolutely;" and that innate respect
for lawful authority which lifted the Teuton
"barbarian" so high above the level of the
savage was called forth by his becoming un
expectedly acquainted with the spiritual king
dom which pervaded all " Roman " lands, and
bore itself as distinct from and superior to
all worldly powers. There it was, that " strange
organised polity," with its officials and its
mysterious rites, — "defenceless in the midst
of never-ceasing war, yet inspiring reverence,
ru '.ing by the word of conviction and knowledge
a .d persuasion, arresting and startling the new
conquerors with the message of another world." ]
Or — to quote from those remarkable Bampton
Lectures which, some fifty-three years ago,
awakened in Oxford an interest in the subject
of Missions — " the means adopted for the
conversion and civilisation of the Germanic
tribes were . . . such as peculiarly to set forth
the social life of Christians controlled by an
unseen spiritual Power, by which the rude
1 Cf. Gifts of Civilisation, pp. 309, 317. Z

338 THE CHURCH
warriors were most likely to be attracted, since
it exhibited what they most needed."1 Thus
it was that, in many cases, the work of mis
sions was carried on from monastic centres2
which could exhibit the presence of the new
Kingdom in concrete form and with con
centrated energy ; and herein also lay the
opportuneness of the Church's stately ritual,
as being exactly calculated to impress and
overawe the warriors and chiefs to whom it
came as a surprise. Remigius understood this,
when he prepared his church for the baptism
of Clovis 3 with embroidered curtains and
lighted tapers and fragrant fume of " balsam ; "
when, speaking in the name of an unseen King,
he addressed the convert simply as a "Sica.r.-
brian,"4 and bade him "gently bend his head "
1 Grant, Bamp. Lect. p. 121.
2 Such as those founded by Boniface, and entrusted to men
like Gregory of Utrecht and Sturmi of Fulda. A " parochial
system" was, of course, impossible in the infancy of these Teutonic
churches : it was not established in England during Bede's
lifetime, although some approach was made to it in the churches
with priests and deacons settled in certain parts of the East
Saxon kingdom, which Lord Selborne considers analogous to
the central churches called "baptismal : " see Ancient Facts and
Fictions, etc., pp. 55-61, 121.
3 Greg. Turon. ii. 31.
4 A rhetorical expression ; Sicambrians were supposed to
have become united with the Franks. Gregory adds that
Remigius was " rhetoricis apprime imbutus studiis."

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 339
Our own St. Augustine understood it quite as
well, when, a hundred and one years later, he
approached Ethelbert x in the " isle of Thanet "
at the head of a reverend procession of
monks, with chanted litany and high-raised
silver cross, and " the likeness of our Lord and
Saviour painted on a board." Ethelbert, indeed,
was of different stuff from the fierce Frank,
whose Catholic baptism did not exorcise his
native ferocity ; 2 but that some impression
was made on those who saw and heard Remi
gius, or otherwise came across representatives
of spiritual authority, cannot reasonably be
doubted. If the whole career of the Frankish
kings who belonged to the Merwing race is lurid
with crimes which are among the stumbling-
blocks of Christian history, — if an unbeliever
might take advantage of them to ask, "What
good did a so-called conversion do to men so
incurably brutal ? " if under them Christianity
itself, as Dean Kitchin has said,8 lost much of
1 Bede, i. 25.
2 Fortunatus, the author of the Vexilla Regis, is too often a
mere panegyrist as to Frankish princes ; but in one poem he
praises a lady for "mildness" remarkable in one of "barbaric
origin," iv. 26.
3 Hist, of Fr. i. 74, 85. Gregory tells of one bishop who
was both a drunkard and inhuman (iv. 12). Simony became

340 THE CHURCH
the '< spirit of the Gospel," — still it was some
thing that the favour shown by them to their
Gallo-Roman clergy should amend the con
dition of the Gallo-Roman population ; some
thing that a warlike grandson of Clovis
should " make himself eminent in every form
of goodness," and refuse repayment of a sum
lent for the poor ; x something that another
grandson should exhibit a kindly and peace
making temper ; 2 something that a good bishop
like St. Germanus of Paris should remind a
queen who was pressing on a war between
" brothers," that " where peace and love reigned,
there would be God's lovingkindness ; " 3 and
something, also, that another bishop, Gregory
of Tours himself, should boldly refuse to expel
from sanctuary a fugitive son at the bidding of
Chilperic, — " It is impossible that such a thing
should be done." 4 But we must turn away from
rife in the Gallic church, to the indignation of his great name
sake (S. Gregor. Epp. v. 53; ix. 106, etc.).
1 So says Gregory of Theudebert I. of Austrasia, iii. 25, 34.
But it must be owned that Gregory calls evil good in his
panegyric on Clovis, ii. 40.
2 Guntram, or Gontran, of Burgundy (Greg. vii. 7).
3 For his letter to Brunichild (properly Brunichildis), during
the war between Sigebert and Chilperic, see Greg. Turon.,
appendix, 1343.
4 Ib. v. 14. " Chilpericus " was the Latinised form of
Hilperik. Gregory compares this Neustrian king — who must

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 341'
scenes which are chiefly instructive as indicating
the fatal power of an irrepressible lawlessness x —
together with the faithlessness2 which Salvian
had remarked as a bad point in Frankish dis
positions — to defeat or debase religion, and to
hinder the work of God.
Other "barbarians," as we have seen, were
truer to the best types of Teuton character.
They had an instinctive sense that man was
made for order, that individual passions must
somehow be subjected to law. And they had
their own thoughts about the unseen world.
Their Northern mythology had told of the
slaughter and future revival of the beloved god
Baldr, and had pointed, however vaguely, to some
far-distant overthrow of evil and of death.3 And

needs pose as a theologian, and drew up a Sabellian formulary —
to Nero and Herod (v. 45, vi. 46). He was the wicked husband
of the more wicked Fredegond (or Fredegundis).
1 This lawlessness was specially dominant in Austrasia, while
Neustria was more open to Gallo-Roman ideas. "It is in
Austrasia that one least meets Roman or heterogeneous ele
ments:" (Guizot, Civilis. in France, lect. 19). And yet, as he
shows, it was the Austrasian family 'of Pippin which allied
itself with missionaries and with the papacy. Cp. Bede, v. 11.
2 See Greg. iii. 14, for an instance of cynical contempt for an
oath. 3 Cf. Kemble, Saxons in Engl. i. 367. Loki, the Northern
nations' Satan, and the wolf-god Fenris, who was Death, were
some day to be bound in hell for ever. Merivale, p. 91.

342 THE CHURCH
when, among thoughtful Teutons, the belief in
ancestral gods had become faint, they still
craved fervently for some light on the mysteries
of " whence and whither : " they could not be
contented agnostics or secularists ; as it has
been well said, they " demanded immortality." x
One scene, which Bede has made imperishable,2
represents the attraction thus exercised by the
creed which alone could illuminate the future.
We stand, as it were, in the Witan of the
Northumbrians, assembled some miles to the
south-east of York. The question is, Shall
Paulinus, the bishop sent from the South, be
accepted as a teacher? And after the pagan
chief-priest has frankly declared that he, at
least, has got but little from worshipping Thor
or Woden, one of the thanes present puts
forth a parable. He likens human life, as
they know it, to the rapid flight of a sparrow
through the king's lighted hall on a stormy
winter evening. Out of the darkness, at one end,
the bird issues : into the darkness, at the other
end, it passes out, and so disappears. " Can
1 Merivale, Conv. North. Nations, p. 129. Bishop Daniel of
Winchester advised St. Boniface to suggest — "gently, and with
great moderation," — questions as to the Teutonic mythology
which might undermine the Germans' belief in it.
2 Bede, ii. 13.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 313
the new lore give us any certainty as to what
has gone before our life, and what will come
hereafter ? If so, let us adopt it." x We can
understand how, after this, an event took
place which is too frequently ignored — the
national acceptance, by the Anglian nobles,
and "very many among the common people,"
of the Gospel message brought by Paulinus.
Just thirty years before, the Kentish folk had
been largely won over to Christ by the goodly
promises, the dulcedo doctrince ccelestis, which
came home to them from the lips of our
first archbishop.2 Twenty-six years later, the
heir of the grim old Mercian king who had
been the champion of Saxon heathenism was
led, by "the promise of a heavenly kingdom,
and the hope of resurrection and of future
immortality," to profess his full resolve to
become a Christian : 3 and the king of those
East Saxons who had previously cast off their
unformed faith was similarly impressed by a
Northumbrian king's assurance, that " for those
who would both learn and do the will of the

1 See Maclear, Conversion of the Slavs, p. 34, on the
"bewildered recognition in pre-Christian systems of the un
fathomable mysteries thronging the road of human life," etc.
2 Bede, H. E. i, 26, a lb. jii. 21,

344 THE CHURCH
true God, He had eternal rewards in store ; " :
and when, after his death, some of his own
people again relapsed, they were reclaimed
so effectually as to choose rather " to die under
a pestilence with the hope of resurrection than
to live on amid the foulness of unbelief." 2 It
is needless to add further illustrations ; but
it is well for us occasionally to read in a few
instances the ever-recurring verification of St.
Paul's boldly exultant dictum, that by "bringing
life and incorruption into light, the Saviour
had made death ineffective."8
And yet, with all such an amount of pre
paredness for Christian teaching as we have
any ground for ascribing to the German race
as a whole, the work of a mission among them
required real courage at its outset, and firm
perseverance in its gradual execution. We are
apt to be severe in judging the monks sent
forth by "Gregory our father," because, when
scared in Southern Gaul by reports of Saxon
ferocity, they sent back Augustine with a
petition to be excused from their task. Do
we, when we thus criticise these " Italians "
as fainthearted, remember what devastation
1 Bede, iii. 22. 2 lb. iii. 30.
3 '- Tim. i. 10, KarapyiiaavTos.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 345
and wholesale slaughter had marked the
advance of Saxon and Angle through the
south-east and centre of South Britain, until
the visible presence of a British Church was
confined to the land stretching from Cumber
land to Cornwall ? x If " Saxons " were not so
wantonly cruel at the end of the sixth century
as in the latter part of the fifth, they had
done things during the first period of their
conquest which might well "give pause" to
monks fresh from a quiet home on the Mons
Caelius.2 It must have been a great relief to
hear that the leading "Saxon" king had a
Christian wife, and yet more to withdraw from
his presence with the assurance of protection,
of maintenance, and of licence to preach to his
people. And again, when the work was taken
in hand, there was a risk attending the very
facility which sometimes seemed to prosper it.
Even if a royal convert like Ethelbert had
imbibed the lesson of "no coercion to Chris
tianity,"3 there might be among his subjects
1 "In the conquered part of Britain, the Church, and the
whole organisation of the Church, vanished. . . What the
missionaries found was a purely heathen land ; " Green, Making
of England, p. 144. He adds that this is a proof of the
"displacement of the British people." 2 Bede, i. 15.
3 Bede, i. 26. Contrast the forcible baptism of Saxons under

346 THE CHURCH
a superficial impulse to follow his example
because it was his, or a vague apprehension
that not to do so might involve unpleasant con
sequences ; x or missionaries might be tempted
to promise too much as to the connection
of prosperity with Christianity ; or the effect of
numbers all joining in the cry of "We will
be Christians" might hinder some from duly
counting the cost — a danger which is illustrated
by the frequent mention, in Bede's narrative,
of careful "catechising" as an indispensable
preliminary to baptism.2 Or the sudden shock
of a great calamity, the death of a Christian
king, or the ravages of a pestilence, might
prove that the seed had fallen where it could
find no "depth of earth," — as when the first
thoroughly Christian king of the East Angles
was slain by a heathen, and forthwith the
"province was involved in heathenish error
for three years ; " 3 or when among the East
Charles the Great, and the unchristian mode of propagating
Christianity adopted by Olaf Tryggveson.
1 " Favore vel timore regio " (Bede, ii. 5). Compare iii. 21,
on those Mercians who, evidently to please Peada, accepted the
new faith but did not act up to it, and whom his father Penda
justly scorned as "contemptible wretches." St. Boniface told
bishop Daniel that he could not carry on his work "sine
patrocinio principis Francorum" (Ep. 12).
2 E.g. Bede, ii. 14; iii. 1, 7 ; iv. 16 ; v. 6. s Ib. ii. 15,

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 347
Saxons, as we have seen, the Yellow Plague1
scared one of their kings and " very many
of the people" into "restoring the heathen
temples ;" or when Cuthbert had to "persuade"
some country folk around Melrose that they
could not avert the dreaded sickness by spells
borrowed from their old idolatry.2 Akin to
this hankering after a heathenish past would
be the tendency which for centuries presented
an anxious problem : How much of the old
observances, more or less associated with
heathenism, might the Christianised people be
permitted to retain? Different answers were
given to the question. St. Gregory, at first,
was for ordering the utter demolition of the
temples ; on second thoughts he advised that
they should be simply cleared of idols, and then
1 The Irish name for the great epidemic which caused
such mortality in Britain in the middle of the seventh
century. 2 Bede, iv. 27, from Vit. Cuthb. 9. Compare S.P.G. report
for 1888, about converts in Borneo, who, when terrified by
cholera, set up sheds by the riverside, with little offerings or
tributes of rice, to propitiate the spirit that had "sent" the
disease ; their missionary had to tell them that any such
acknowledgment was sinful for baptised Christians, and that, if
they rebuilt one of these shrines which he had pulled down, he
would hold no more services for them. They submitted, although
twenty of them had suffered from choleraic symptoms. Relapsing
into idolatry is treated of in the 2nd council of Orleans, c. 20,

348 THE CHURCH
hallowed as churches,1 and that the old sacri
ficial feasts, should be turned into occasions
for innocent "convivia" with thanksgiving to
God for His gift of food.2 For, says this
great and wise man in his extant letter, "you
cannot all at once cut away everything from
rough natures ; and he who means to climb
to the highest point, must be content to ascend
by steps, not by jumps." But there were old
usages which could not be thus adopted or
Christianised ; and the decrees of Anglo-Saxon
Councils 8 abound in prohibitions of charms,
incantations, auguries, omens, necromancy, or
heathenish rites connected with wells, with
stones, or with trees. The tenacity of such
quasi-paganism in Christianised Europe is a
vast subject which here can be simply glanced
at,4 but which might receive only too copious
1 St. Boniface, like St. Martin before him, took more drastic
measures. See Willibald's Life of him, c. 8, for the story of
"Thor's oak "at Geismar.
2 Bede, i. 30. Gregory goes on, very remarkably, to adduce
the adoption of animal sacrifice into the worship prescribed to
Israelites, but with new ideas which got rid of its heathenish
character. So the Ark had some likeness to the shrines of
Egyptian gods.
3 Johnson, Early Engl. Canons, i. 244, 378, 415, 513.
4 In Serm. 196, St. Augustine says that, on the preceding
24th of June, the nativity of the Baptist, some Christians had
bathed in the sea, "de solemnitate . . . pagana." See his

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 349
illustration from usages long kept up in out
lying parts of England x (not to speak of the
Confessions, vi. 2, on his mother's abandonment of a practice
which "was very like to heathen superstition;" and Ep. 29,
on the difficulty with which he suppressed it, as carried on at
Hippo (under the name of " Laetitiae"), on the ground of an
earlier permission which, as he explained, was only a concession
to the "weakness" of new converts. See also Serm. 265 in
append, to St. Aug.'s Serm., on the customs of dancing in
heathenish fashion in front of a church, shouting during a
lunar eclipse, paying vows at springs or at trees, or doing no
work on Thursday, etc. On the last two, see Council of
Auxerre, c. 3 ; Narbonne, 15 ; on the use of auguries, Agde,
42 ; on the use of spells muttered over bread or herbs, Rouen,
4. Even in 742, St. Boniface complains to pope Zacharias that
at Rome itself pagan dances, singing, and shouting went on
" when the Kalends of January came in " (comp. C. of Auxerre,
1; 4 Toledo, 11 ; Rouen, 13; and the mass called " Pro-
hibendum abidolis" for that day, in the "Gelasian" Sacra
mentary, ed. Wilson, p. 10), and that women wore "phy
lacteries " in pagan fashion, to the scandal of Teuton visitors,
and to the hindrance of his own mission work. And see the
list of pagan usages to be avoided by Christians in his " Con
cilium Liptinense." The question of "idol-meats " was often a
pressing one, as when king Hacon of Norway, in the tenth
century, was induced to make a compromise as to the eating of
horse-flesh: see Maclear, Apostles of Mediaeval Europe, p. 177-
Comp. 2 C. of Orleans, 20; 4 Orleans, 15.
1 Dr. Atkinson, in his Forty Years in a Moorland Parish,
observes that the folklore surviving in Yorkshire dales shows how
hard was the struggle between the old paganism and the new
Christianity, and how often the Christian teachers had, in a
sense, ' ' capitulated " with elements of the ancient nature-
worship, by turning its spells into benedictions, and associating
its "holy hills" and "holy wells" with Christian ideas of
sanctity.

350 THE CHURCH
Scottish Highlands)1 when their original signifi
cance had been forgotten — as well as from
all the innumerable superstitions connected with
"luck," and witnessing to that deep-seated
fear of unfriendly powers which in Paganism
usurped the place of trust in a Providential
sovereignty. Nor can it be denied that the
amount of superstition distinctly connected
with the reverence for Christian saints would
indirectly tend to retard the spiritual education
of Teuton converts, and to confuse their ideas
of St. Mary or St. Peter, or of a martyr whose
relics were regarded as wonder-working, with
reminiscences of their ancient gods. Yet one
more difficulty must be mentioned : the Pagan
temper might at any time break out in fierce
revolt against the gentleness enjoined by
Christianity.2 This " new law," it would be said,
would turn heroes into weaklings ; and so we
understand why two thegns slew the good
king Sigebert of Essex for no other reason, as
1 See cases described in Good Words for 1889, p. 334 ff.
2 So later, among Scandinavians, there was a "feeling that the
teaching of the ' White Christ ' would weaken the arm of those
who listened to it," would unnerve "the sons of Odin," and
demoralise, as it were, the natures which should rejoice in
battle and defy death ; see Maclear, Conversion of Northmen,
p. 183.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 35 1
they avowed when questioned, than that he
was too ready to spare his foes and forget
all wrongs at the first request for pardon.1
And yet, in spite of hindrances, the conversion
of our Angle and Saxon fathers was effected
more completely and more healthfully than that
of any other " barbarian " race. " In no part of
the world," says Freeman, "did Christianity
make its way in a more honourable manner." 2
In no part of the world, we may add, was there
a national conversion so genuine — so pure, on
the whole, in its dominant motives — or so rich in
examples of Christian nobleness, in lives and
deaths full of truest moral beauty. It is to that
first age of the old English Church that a great
writer, already quoted, refers when he says,8 that
"in its best days it had a straightforward
seriousness of purpose, and a fire, a thoroughness
of faith, among its early converts, which are
very much its own." He grants that the
authority of chiefs trusted and honoured went
for much with the people, and that, sometimes,
the " worse aid of superstition " and even of
" fraud " promoted the success of the missionary
1 Bede, iii. 22.
2 Norman Conquest, i. 29.
3 Church, Beginnings of Middle Ages, p. 68, ed. 1.

352 THE CHURCH
enterprise. But at bottom it was the teaching
itself — " the breadth and greatness of Christian
ideas," the " high solemnities " which gave them
vivid expression, and, as we have already seen,
the wonderful heart-uplifting assurance of
"eternal life" for the faithful servants of Him
in whom that teaching was summed up — the
light which it cast on the mystery of life, of its
purpose and of its issue. Nor can we fail to
trace in the English conversion the well-nigh
irresistible power of consistency between the
teacher's words and his conduct. Bede is never
weary of emphasising this point. He bids us see
and appreciate it in Augustine and his com
panions, in Aidan, in Fursey, in Cuthbert, in
Egbert. Nothing, he means, and in one place
expressly says, can assist a teacher so effectually,
can give such persuasiveness to his teaching, as
the visible carrying-out of what he says in what
he does — in what he is. In the words of an
eminent English historian, it was "in the
missionaries' mouths, and still more in their
lives," that "Christianity taught what the fierce
English warrior most wanted to learn, the duty
of restraining his evil passions, and, above all,
his cruelty." x Another point of importance is
1 Gardiner, Student's Hist, of Engl. , p. 49.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 353
the interest which typical lay Christians were
led to take in the work of the missionaries ;
they become, in a way, effective missionaries
themselves. One need but remember the line
thus taken by Ethelbert and Edwin and Oswald,
and Sigebert of East Anglia, and Oswy himself,
faulty as he was, in regard to the East Saxon
Sigebert. In one of these kingly Christians,
at least, we see also the impressiveness of a
devout family life ; — when we think of the
effect which Anna's household with its simple
fervent piety produced on the mind and heart
of the exiled Kenwalch, we see a power which
may be set over against that very different type
of power, exerted by monastic self-devotion,
of which Dr. Gardiner does not hesitate to
say that " the lesson was all the better taught
because those who taught it were monks," whose
example exhibited the Christian's self-control
"writ large." Again, the alliance sealed in East
Anglia, as well as in Kent, between the Church
and the school, is a fact significant for Church
workers in all times, not least in our own. And,
once more, the story has contrasts and surprises,
and " changings of the hand of the Highest," x
which alternately overawe and exhilarate the
1 Ps. lxxvi. (= our Ixxvii.), II (Vulg.).
2 A

354 THE CHURCH
Christian observer. What strange disappoint
ments of seemingly reasonable expectation, what
heavy trials of patience and faith, in the suc
cessive violent deaths, after brief reigns, of such
kings as Edwin and Oswald ! 1 And then, when
the discipline of check and reverse, and apparent
overthrow of structures half built, has been
accepted, what sudden brightening of the whole
prospect, what splendid discoveries of good
following after evil, when expulsion and hopeless
exile bring a prince who has refused the faith
under influences which lead him to accept it, —
when the son of the chief Pagan king becomes
the agent in Christianising his subjects, and his
brothers and sisters become examples of Chris
tian sanctity ! Nor can we forget the lesson
contained in that variety of instrumentalities
which distinguished the process of English con
version. Italy did her part in Augustine and
Birinus and Paulinus ; Burgundy in Felix ;
Ireland in Aidan and his next two successors,
1 Cp. the failure of Witbert's efforts, after two years' work in
Friesland (Bede, v. 9). If for a moment we look to the further
North, we see St. Anskar, the apostle of the Scandinavians,
.falling back under heavy discouragements on the words of a
senior bishop: "Certus sis quia quod nos pro Christi nomine
elaborare caepimus fructificare habet in Domino." There was
the point : faith assured these workers for God that a result "had
got to " come, in His own time and way.

AND THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS. 355
and, through them, in the missionaries, mostly
English, whom they sent to evangelise the
Midlands and Essex ; Northumbria, which had
owed so much both to Italy and to Ireland, in
Wilfrid, who brought the process to a close in
Sussex and the Isle of Wight.
Thankful may we be for our own national
record of the Church's dealings with that one
"invading" race which, with whatever in
fusions of non-Teutonic blood, has made our
England. More gladly, perhaps, than others can
Englishmen, after such a retrospect, put their
hearts into the last words of the Proper Preface
for Whit-Sunday : " Whereby we have been
brought " — we, in the persons of those our fore
fathers — "out of darkness and error," — the
darkness which those first converts knew too
well, — " into the clear light and true knowledge
of the Father and of the Son." And with
such thankfulness we may loyally cherish the
hope, that whatever tasks may await English
Churchmen in the century which a few years
will inaugurate, whatever strange problems they
may have practically to consider, whatever new
and perhaps unwelcome conditions of work they
may have to accept and to utilise, — He who is
the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, who

356 THE "BARBARIAN" INVADERS.
brought their fathers into the light of the faith,
will exhibit in the children its ever-new in
exhaustible force, will " go before " them, as of
old, along paths " not heretofore " trodden, and
make their strength proportionate to their day.

THE CELTIC CHURCHES IN THE
BRITISH ISLES.
THE old Celtic Churches in our islands present,
as might be expected, a singular contrast to the
Anglian or Saxon type of Church life, which
began to form itself in Kent under the teaching
of the missionaries sent from Rome. If we look
to Wales as the refuge of British Christianity
after Saxon invasion, to Ireland before the
episcopate of St. Malachy, to Scotland before
the reforms of St. Margaret, — we are in presence
of religious phenomena very unlike, in many
respects, to those which characterise the develop
ment of the Church of England properly so-
called. We see, in fact, on a large scale the
workings of the emotional temperament, with
all the attractions of its fervid enthusiasm, its
affectionateness and receptiveness, but also with
all the drawbacks of that fitful impulsiveness
which makes it both unstable in purpose and

358 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
impatient of discipline and law. At present, of
course, we can only attempt to select, and gene
rally to appreciate, the most conspicuous features
of this non-Teutonic Christianity— to distinguish
its strong and its weak points — to see what it did,
and what it failed to do — how it needed, and
how far it received, the touch of a new influence,
which could invigorate by introducing order.

I.
Of the ancient British Church there is, after
all, not very much to say, unless one were to
plunge into the intricacies of legend, or make
up a primeval history out of conjecture.1 There
1 The reader may be referred for details to the Rev. E. J.
Newell's " History of the Welsh Church," a scholarly and vivid
narrative, which, one may hope, will be continued beyond " the
dissolution of the monasteries." It is specially full and inte
resting on the early Welsh saints and religious foundations ; and
it illustrates the affinity between Wales and Ireland with regard
to the predominance of monasticism in a strongly tribal form.
Perhaps it would be too much to expect, in the circumstances, an
entire freedom from "national" bias respecting the contest
between Celtic and non-Celtic churches. But when Augustine's
"prediction" of woe to the British clergy, because they "would
not be at peace with their" Latin "brethren, and refused to
preach the way of life to the English," is thrice exaggerated into
a " curse," one cannot but reflect that (as Mr. Newell observes
in an earlier passage) it was Celtic saints who were adepts in

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 359
can be no doubt that it was founded in the
second century, and it seems highly probable
that it was an offshoot of the Church of Gaul ; if
we please, we may suppose that, as in the days
which followed " the persecution that arose about
Stephen," some Christians from Lyons or its
neighbourhood withdrew to the north of Gaul, and
thence made their way across the Channel, and
deposited the germs which grew into the " British
Church ; " or else, that the name of Christ was
first heard from the lips of some Christian mem
bers of a Roman provincial household. At the
end of the second century, at any rate, it was
believed in Africa that out-of-the-way parts of
the island, not yet entirely Romanised, had
become in a degree' " subject to Christ;"1 but
we know no more until' the beginning of the
" cursing." And when we are told that Bede " half applauds,
as though it were almost a. Christian work, the massacre
of the monks of Bangor Iscoed by the pagan ^Ethelfrith "
(pp. 124, 132), we must demur to such language as unjust. Mr
Newell calls it " stupid to blame harshly the Britons for not
sending missionaries among the pagan English," and pleads that
any such missionaries would have been speedily martyred. But
the point is that they obstinately refused to make the attempt,
and treated English Christianity as "a thing of nought," under
the influence of vindictive race-hatred. However, Mr. Newell
admits " that it was well" that the unorganised Celtic Christi
anity gave way before the Latin.
1 The well-known expression of Tertullian, adv, Judaeos, 7,

360 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
fourth century, when there is fair reason for
accepting as historic the fact of the martyrdom
of St. Alban, and clear evidence of the presence
of bishops of York, London, and one other
British town not certainly identified,1 at the
great Western Council of Aries. Then again
the mist comes down, and we only know that
in general the British Church was faithful to
Catholic Christianity, and, particularly, approved
the decision of the Sardican Council in its favour
of St. Athanasius,2 and also sent three bishops
to the Council of Ariminum, who were ap
parently, like the mass of that assembly,
orthodox in intention, though at last beguiled
or harassed into Arianising ; the one additional
fact, that they were exceptionally poor,3 seeming
1 It is usually thought probable that " Coloniae Londinensium,"
given in the record of this council as the name of the third
episcopal see, is a copyist's mistake, occasioned by the word
"Londinensi" just preceding, and that the true reading is
"Coloniae Legionensium," Caerleon-on-Usk. But see Bevan,
Dioc. Hist. St. David's, p. ii ; Routh, Rell. Sac. iv. 313, would
read " Lindi," Lincoln.
2 He places "Britain" among the countries whose bishops
wrote accepting the Sardican decision (Apol. u. Ari. 1). No
bishops from Britain are recorded as present at Sardica
(ib. 50).
Sulp. Sev. ii. 41 : "Tres tantum ex Britannia inopia pro-
prii publico usi sunt, cum oblatam a caeteris conlationem res-
puissent." (The words "id est Aquitanis, Gallis, et Britannis,"
in the preceding sentence, are probably a gloss).

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 361
to indicate that the insular Church had but a
weak hold on the official classes or the well-to-
do provincials, among whose monuments or
relics, of various classes, very few possess a
Christian significance.1 We hear of Victricius
bishop of Rouen, some thirty years later, as
visiting Britain at the request of continental
prelates, in order to abate a dispute,2 which may
have been a doctrinal controversy. Pelagius is
the only conspicuous figure on the stage of Con
tinental Christianity in the next century who is
authenticated as a Briton ; 3 his heresy — perhaps
as originated by a Briton — proved congenial to
some of his fellow-countrymen ; and the rhetorical
1 Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 37. The most important
discovery in this line is that of the foundations of a basilica or
church among the remains at Silchester. The venerable church
of St. Mary-in-the-Castle, at Dover, has at least traces of Roman
work ; but that it was built as it stands by British workmen in
imitation of Roman models, half a century before the Romans
left Britain, and that, conspicuous as its position was, it escaped
demolition by Saxons, is a theory which even Canon Puclde's
ingenious advocacy will hardly avail to establish.
2 " Pacis me faciendae consacerdotes mei . . . evocarunt . . .
Vobis intra Britannias obsequebar " (Galland. Bibl. Patr. viii.
228. 3 His companion Caelestius is thought to have been an Irish
man ; see Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 290 : although Jerome's words,
"Pelagius habet progeniem Scoticae gentis" (in Jerem. iii.
praef.), might be otherwise understood. Fastidius, a "British
bishop," about 430, seems to have Pelagianised,

362 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
account, adopted by Bede,1 of the visit of the great
Gallic saint and bishop German to our island,
for the purpose of confuting those who upheld
"human presumption" against "the belief in
heavenly grace," — suggests that the native
clergy were but incompetent theologians, while
it also describes the " heretics " as wealthy and
richly attired, and fluent in speech though
superficial in argument. It was not unnatural
that the gratitude of British Catholics should
develop legends "prolonging St. German's stay
in Britain," 2 and assigning to him the foundation
of ecclesiastical colleges in Wales.
But the long attack by invading Saxons and
Angles on the southern part of the island, which
Rome had now left to itself, appears to have
produced not only havoc and devastation, but
great internal confusion among the people whom
it gradually " displaced." We hear no good
report of British princes or ecclesiastics from
Gildas,3 but his invective is too indiscriminate
1 From Constantius of Lyons. Bede, i. 17.
2 Haddan and Stubbs, i. 19. Archd. Pryce considers that he
probably "advised the establishment" of such institutions
(Ane. Brit. Church, p. 124). But see Bevan, Dioc. Hist. St.
David's, p. 34.
3 He speciaUy vituperates king Maelgwyn, who, like Ivan
the Terrible, combined tyranny and cruelty with fits of devotion ;

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 363
to be accepted without considerable deduc
tion ; and, at any rate, in the middle of the
sixth century a religious revival sprang up,
which bore fruit in the creation of schools of
sacred learning connected with monastic foun
dations, and in the lives of some eminent Welsh
saints, among whom the most famous name is
David's. It was then, apparently, that Welsh
episcopacy became regularly diocesan, and two
synods were held for the establishment of whole
some discipline ; but there was no metropolitical
see, as there was no one king of all the Welsh
districts. This was, perhaps, the happiest period
of the Cymric Welsh Church : one is loth to
remember how soon the racial feud, the national
vindictiveness towards the Saxon, impelled the
British clergy to stand obstinately aloof from all
co-operation with the foreign missionaries in
preaching the Gospel to the heathen conquerors
who had wrought them so much evil. A reso
lute adhesion (which Latins would think dogged)
to national usages as to the calculation of Easter,
or the form of the clerical tonsure, — an invincible
at one time he became a monk, but presently relapsed into evil
courses. As for the clergy, they are rather " wolves " than shep
herds : they teach, but they set the worst possible examples :
they do not rebuke sinners, but rather imitate their conduct,
etc.

364 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
suspicion of Augustine's aims, and a very clear
resolution not to acknowledge him, however
definitely commissioned by Rome, as their arch
bishop,1 — conspired to harden them in that
abstention from all share in his mission-work
which may be ascribed rather to antipathy
towards Saxons than to any sense of peril in the
enterprise. The fact, however explained, how
ever estimated, remains unquestionable ; what
ever testimony was borne to Christ by the
words or the sufferings of individuals,2 the
Britons took no part, as a people or a Church,
in the conversion of the English ; on the con
trary, not only did one of their kings 3 join with
Penda the Mercian in his attack on the Christian
king Edwin, but the whole people persisted for
the rest of that century, and longer, in "treating
1 Bede, ii. 2. This determination proves indisputably that
" the British church " did not then acknowledge more than a
primacy of honour in the see of Rome. The suggestion in the
" Dublin Review " for April, 1895, that Augustine went to meet
the British bishops before Gregory had professed (in the letter
given by Bede, i. 29) to make them " subject " to him, would
have astonished Bede. Gildas speaks of all bishops as occupying
"the seat of Peter," language which suggests that he had
imbibed the old African idea of St. Peter's representative
character. 2 Merthyr Tydvil is said to preserve the memory of Tydvil, a
Celtic princess slain by pagan Saxons.
3 Cadwallon: he is usually called a king of North Wales
(Gwynedd).

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 365
the Christianity of the English as no better than
heathenism," and elaborately displaying their
resolution to avoid its contact.1 Considering
the saintly memories which the Welsh would
have best honoured by Christianlike forgiveness
of wrongs, and Christianlike self-devotion in the
cause of the Gospel, this refusal to evangelise,
this acrimoniousness towards the evangelised,
are lamentable enough ; but great allowance has
to be made for the effect of other recollections,
which more than a century of losses and
humiliations had burned deep into the hearts
of a people of whom Giraldus Cambrensis said
that they were "quick to avenge old injuries as
if quite recent." 2 It was not until the middle
of the eighth century that the British Church
entered on that very long process of gradual
absorption, or, if the term be preferred, of
incorporation, into the English, which did not
terminate until the closing years of the thir
teenth, but which did then terminate, once for
all.3 In the first part of this period, the laws of
1 Bede, ii. 20 ; v. 22 ; and Aldhelm's letter to king Geraint.
2 " Velut instantes " (Descr. Camb. i. 17).
3 The approximation began by the adoption of the "Catholic "
Easter, first in North and then (after much resistance) in South
Wales (about 755-809). The other stages were, the claim of
jurisdiction over Wales advanced with success by Anselm of

366 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
king Howel the Good exhibit the clergy as in
privilege and honour ; church censures are put
in force against royal evil-doers; and in the sees
of St. David's and Llandaff we find bishops
famed for wisdom and assiduous in promoting
devotion and sacred knowledge. But the secular
records of the tenth and eleventh centuries are
lurid with internecine war.1 The latter years
of the twelfth century introduce the "irre
pressible" personality of Giraldus, and his
persistent but fruitless attempts to become
bishop, and even archbishop, of St. David's. He
writes too much for effect to be unreservedly
credited ; but any inconsistency between his
pictures of good and evil in the Welsh character
is partly abated by his shrewd remark that the
nation was "intense in everything," and "con
stant in nothing but inconstancy." Their taste
for external devotion, their eagerness for a
Canterbury (previous archbishops having, according to certain
records, consecrated a few Welsh bishops) — the visitation of
Welsh churches by archbishop Baldwin as papal legate — the
visitation by Peckham as archbishop in 1284. See Haddan and
Stubbs, Councils, i. 22 ff. ; and for Cornwall, ib. 673 ff.
1 The names of Bledri and Joseph of Llandaff, and Sulien and
Rhyddmarch of St. David's (all in the eleventh century), should
be held in honour. After the death of the last, " instruction for
scholars ceased at Mencria" (St. David's : Haddan and Stubbs,
i. 298).

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 367
bishop's blessing, their love of pilgrimage, their
respect for sanctuaries, their excessive reverence
for anything like a relic, their frequent desire to
end a life of fighting by dying in the monastic
garb, availed but little to restrain ferocity,
sensuality, and faithlessness, or to suppress the
profane habit of treating churches as so much
family property.1 Welsh history was then a
wild scene, and Welsh bishoprics were often
misused by bad appointments on the part of
English sovereigns : there is evidence that at
the end of the period referred to, the Church was
in need of invigoration and revival ; 2 but the
requisite moving force was not supplied.

II.
Let us turn to our main subject — the develop
ment of Celtic Churches, of the Church as exist
ing under Celtic conditions, in the wider area of
Ireland and Scotland.
Whatever else Ireland owes, or does not owe,
1 Churches, says Giraldus, Descr. Camb. ii. 6, "have as
many persona as there are families of chief men in the diocese,"
sons simply succeeding to fathers. We shall meet with this
Celtic abuse again.
2 " The archbishop " (Peckham) " evidently entertained a low
estimate of the condition of the church in Wales " (Bevan, Dioc.
Hist, St. David's, p. 130).

368 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
to the greater island, whose close vicinity has
been too often fruitful in complications for both,
she is certainly indebted to Britain for her
Christianity. Whatever date be adopted for the
first preaching of St. Patrick, we cannot doubt
that, at any rate before the latter part of the
fourth century, some intercourse between " the
Roman island " and " the barbaric," as they were
still distinctively called in the fifth century, had
sown the seed of the word, here and there, on
the eastern shores of " Erin." But this would
not suffice to form a Church. There would be,
probably, some sporadic cases of believers
dwelling near each other,1 meeting as they could
for worship, teaching their children the faith as
they knew it, and waiting for better times ; the
question is, when did those times set in ? It has
been usual to say — In the days .of Celestine I.
of Rome, who "sent Palladius as first bishop
to those Scots " — i.e. Irish — " who believed
1 The legend was, that before either Palladius or Patrick there
were four bishops in Munster, besides other bishops and ascetics.
But of the Munster bishops, Kieran, Ailbe, Decian, and Ibar,
not one seems to have been prior to Patrick ; see Todd's St.
Patrick, p. 198 ff. (But Todd credits, substantially, a story
about Patrick pointing out to Ailbe a subterranean stone altar
with four glass chalices, in a cave in Co. Sligo, p. 222 ; see
Whitley Stokes, Tripart. Life, i. 95, ii. 313.) Patrick is said
to have ordained Ailbe.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 369
in Christ ; " so Prosper of Aquitaine in his
Chronicle words it, and dates the event in 431,
a year in which he himself was at Rome on
Gallic Church business ; and after Palladius had
practically failed, then came Patrick as Ireland's
true apostle, or, as an Irish homily expressed
it, " the father of the baptism and the belief of
the men of Erin." But to speak of Palladius
first : there can be no doubt of the historical
fact of his coming to Ireland, or of its date :
and it is also practically evident that, although
in another work — the Contra Collatorem —
Prosper says that its result was " to make the
barbarous island Christian," — he was thus far
" talking at large " under the instinct of
magnifying a papal achievement. For the Irish
traditions speak of this Roman missionary as
building a few churches (one of them being
afterwards known as "the Roman's House"),
and then either suffering martyrdom among the
Irish, or abandoning the field in despair, setting
out for Italy, and dying in Britain,1 or, as a later
1 See Whitley Stokes, Tripartite Life of St. Patrick (an in
valuable collection and edition of the Patrician documents), i. 31 ;
ii. 272, 332. The Scottish legend ascribed to " St. Palladius"
a ministry in Aberdeenshire. Against this, see Skene, Celtic
Scotland, ii. 26 ff ; but Bishop Dowden, Celtic Church in Scot
land, p. 41, thinks we are "not entitled to reject . . . the
hitherto prevailing (Scottish) belief" on this point. 2 B

370 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
legend says, in the land of the Picts. In Ireland,
at any rate, his work was ineffective ; but what
can we ascertain as to that greater name of which
Prosper tells us nothing, — as to which Bede is
so strangely silent ? The scepticism which
reduced St. Patrick to a purely mythical figure
may now be treated as obsolete ; but in trying
to get at the facts, we must distinguish first of
all between the principal and the inferior
authorities. The primary documents consist of
his two books — the Confession,1 written late in
his life, and a shorter work, addressed "to the
Christian subjects of the tyrant Corotic," a
" British " king. Next to these come two prayers
or hymns traditionally called his, and a Latin
hymn by his disciple, Sechnall or Secundinus ;
but when we enter the seventh century,2 a few
trustworthy references are mixed up with some
" credulous hagiography " which plunges us, so
to speak, in a rank upgrowth of Patrician
mythology. Let us put aside at the outset all
but the original documents : what do we learn
1 See it in Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, ii. 296 ff., and
Whitley Stokes, Tripartite Life of St. Patrick, ii. 357 ff. It has
been translated, with notes, by Prof. G. T. Stokes, of Dublin,
and Dr. C. H. H. Wright.
2 Tirechan's "notes "and Muirchu's memoir belong to this
century : Fiacc's hymn to the eighth.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 371
from them ? First, that Patrick's father was a
deacon named Calporn — the son (or possibly the
grandson) of a priest,1 and a decurio, or town-
burgess, — who lived in " Britain," and had a farm
at a place called Bannavem Taberniae.2 Here, at
sixteen years of age, when " almost a beardless
boy," Patrick was seized (with many others) and
carried captive into North Ireland, where he was
employed by day and by night in tending the
cattle of his master. And then came the
spiritual crisis of his life. He had, while at
home, committed some fault or sin — "on one
day," he says, " or rather in one hour, when he
was hardly fifteen."3 Although a clergyman's
son, he had had no personal sense of religion ;
he " knew not what he ought to aim at, or what
to avoid ; " he even says that he was " ignorant
of the true God," and " remained in deadening
1 The received text of the Confession describes his father
as " filium quemdam Potiti, filii Odissi presbyteri." But
" filii Odissi" is a marginal addition to the "Armagh
text." Cp. Ep. ad Chr. c. 5.
2 Unidentified : probably on the shore of the Firth of Clyde.
Patrick uses the correct technical name " Britanniae, " which
referred to the five Roman provinces of the island. It is not
natural to take it here, as Lanigan does, of North-west Gaul.
We find " Galliae " elsewhere in the Confession.
3 " Quae in pueritia mea una die gesseram, imo in una
hora. . . . Nescio, Deus seit, si habebam tunc annos quindecim "
(Confess, c. 12),

372 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
unbelief."1 It was under the discipline— in his
own phrase, "the severe chastisement " — of
exile, captivity, and hardship, that the lad was,
as we should say, " converted ; " and then his
"love for God, together with awe and faith, grew
mightily." When out on the wild hills, he would
say a hundred prayers a day, and nearly as
many in one night ; snow and frost were nothing
to him in this fresh devotional fervour, to which,
as an old bishop, he looks back, and owns with
beautiful candour that he cannot regain it.
" Then I used to feel no harm, nor was there
any sluggishness in me, as now I see there is ! "
After six years he contrived to escape ; he was
taken on board a vessel manned by sailors who
were still Pagans,2 yet who trusted him for his
fare. On landing, they took him across some
waste country where food failed them : at last
they found some wild honey, which, however, he
would not taste, because one of them said it was
such as was used in sacrifice.3 " On the sixtieth
1 One might infer that Calporn had been somewhat secularised
by his civil employments.
2 Probably, as Todd suggests, in his volume on St. Patrick
(p. 375), the time spent with them was afterwards looked upon
as the time of his second and brief captivity.
3 The impulse which, he says, he felt to "call on Elias,"
when a violent temptation at this time beset him, was probably
so described with a recollection of Matt. xxvi. 46, 47.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 373
night " he got away and returned to his home :
his parents, rejoicing at his escape from slavery,
begged him with tears, and " with offered gifts,"
to promise not to leave them again ; but " in the
bosom of the night " he saw a man named Vic
torious x coming as from Ireland, who gave him
a letter beginning, "The Voice of the Irish."
While he read it, he thought he " heard in his
mind the voice of dwellers near the wood Foclut,
which is near the Western sea,2 crying, 'We
pray thee, holy youth, to come and walk now
among us.' And," says Patrick, " I was deeply
moved in heart, and could not read any further ;
and so I awoke. Thanks to God, that after
very many years the Lord granted to them
according to their cry." He says that he was
ordained deacon, but does not speak of having
received priest's orders. One sentence, taken
by itself, might seem to imply that he returned
to Ireland as a missionary while still, in some
sense, a young man. "You know, and God
knows, how I have lived among you from my
youth, in belief of the truth, and in sincerity
1 This was afterwards used to invent for the Irish a special
angelic patron called Victor, whom Patrick, in vision, " saw
tracing out lines for the city " of Armagh (Trip. Life, ii. 295,
332> 4°9, 473)-
2 Near Killala, Co. Mayo.

374 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
of heart:" so that on this view we should ascribe
to him a ministerial career in Ireland during
several years previous to his return as a bishop.1
But he may be looking back to the period of
his servitude and conversion ; and while the
words quoted above as to his preaching in the
west of Ireland imply a long interval,2 he
certainly seems to connect his "first spon
taneous journey to Ireland," and his entrance
on " the work as to which Christ had given him
instructions," with circumstances just preceding
his consecration. For, according to the natural
sense of a passage in the Confession, that event
took place "thirty years " after the fault already
referred to,3 which he had confessed, before
his first ordination, to a very intimate friend,
who had then passed it over, and had even
approved of his promotion to the episcopate,
but had unaccountably turned round and pro
claimed the fact as a disqualification. The
objection was overruled as vexatious. But
where and by whom was he consecrated ? He
1 So Whitley Stokes, Trip. Life, i. p. cxxxviii.
2 So Conf. c. 20 : "Non cito acquievi."
3 " Post annos triginta invenerunt me adversus (qu. adversus
me) verbum quod confessus fueram antequam essem diaconus ; "
Confess, c. ii. That the reckoning must be from the com
mission, not from the confession, of this fault, see Lanigan, Eccl.
Hist. Irel. i. 136. He felt the humiliation keenly.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 375
says not a word : it may be conjectured that
" holy men " in Gaul were concerned, but he tells
us nothing about any mission from the Gallic
Church, and nothing — which is more important
— about that mission from Rome on which Irish
Roman Catholics have rested as a certainty, but
which is a transference from the story of Pal
ladius.1 His repeated acknowledgment of a
want of scholarship, which his writing makes
patent enough, is surely fatal to the notion of his
having studied under St. German, which may
perhaps have grown out of a confusion between
Palladius, also called Patricius, and St. Patrick.
Perhaps the most natural supposition is that he
was consecrated in his native country. As he
writes, he looks back on a " laborious epis
copate : " he had gone through many perils, had
"suffered many injuries at the hands of un
believers," and even still could "daily expect to
be slain, or taken by surprise, or reduced to
slavery." But come what might in the future,
1 It is unknown to the authors of the hymns of Secundinus and
Fiace ; and the Catalogue of Saints says only that the " first
order " consisted of Romans, Franks, Britons, Scots. The state
ment inTirechan's notes, that both Palladius, "who was the first
Patricius," and St. Patrick, were sent by Celestine, is a later
addition. Cf. Diet. Chr. Biogr. iv. 205. Muirchu ascribes the
consecration and mission of Patrick to bishop Amatorex (qu.
Amator, the predecessor of German) ; see Tripart. Life, ii. 273.

376 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
he had had great success : he had " baptised
thousands, and had ordained clergy to preach
and to baptise. Many in Ireland who had
formerly worshipped idols and foul things,1 had
become a people of the Lord ; sons of Irish
men and daughters of princes had embraced the
monastic life." Some passages which are not in
the "Armagh text" of the Confession are con
sidered to "bear no sign of want of genuine
ness : " 2 they amplify the account of his labours
in outlying districts : they tell us how he refused
the gifts pressed on him by his converts, while,
on the other hand, he had endeavoured to
conciliate kings by presents, and, on one
occasion, having failed to do so, had been
seized, despoiled of all that he had, and kept
in chains for a fortnight. He had been open-
handed to the poor, and had spent in relieving
their needs the market value of fifteen slaves. And
if there is one passage in this deeply interesting
memoir which beyond others would assure us of
its genuineness, it is that in which Patrick says,
" I put no trust in myself, so long as I shall be
1 Or, "foul idols." Cf. Bp. Dowden, Celt, in Ch. Scotl.
p. 22. The Confession contains a reference to sun-worship ;
Tiiechan's notes mention fountain-worship (Tripart. Life, ii.
323)- 2 Haddan and Stubbs, ii. 296.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 377
in this body of death : for strong is he who is
daily endeavouring to turn me away from the
faith and purity of unfeigned religion, which I
will preserve to the end of my life for Christ
my Lord." The last words of this interesting
autobiography are pathetic : " And this is my
confession before I die" (c. 25). Though
written in a fashion far from methodical, it bears
throughout a stamp of truth :x it illustrates his
character, — his sensitiveness to ungenerous and
supercilious criticism,2 his consciousness of a
want of literary style, his profound personal
humility, — " I was but a stone lying in deep
mud, and He that is mighty came, and in His
mercy took me up, etc." 3 Like Samuel, and
like St. Paul, he disclaims all self-seeking ; no
convert has made him rich. And the all-
sustaining motive of devotion to Christ under
lies his whole account of himself : with a tender
simplicity and a habitual sense of unworthiness,
he thanks God who has often "pardoned his
1 " The Latin is very bad ; there are many places where it is
difficult to make out the sense ; . . . but, on the whole, this work
is full of good sense, and even of intellect and fire, and, what is
better, it is full of piety " (Todd, p. 383).
2 He calls his censors " rhetorici " (c. 5), " Rideat et insultet
qui voluerit," etc. (c. 20) ; compare c. 4.
3 Confess, c. 5. So, " Scio ex parte quod ego vitam perfectam
non didici" (c. 19).

378 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
negligence," and been merciful to him "unto
thousands of thousands, because He saw that I
was ready," i.e. was prepared to do and suffer
anything for His sake.1 His other book, the
letter to the Christian subjects of Corotic, who
has been identified by some with a Welsh
prince, by others with a king of his own native
district in South-west Scotland, exhibits a
sterner side of his character. He utters a
ban against those soldiers of Corotic who have
killed some and captured others of his own
neophytes for whom Christ was crucified ; 2 " the
holy and humble in heart" are exhorted "not
to take food or drink with" these offenders,
likeminded, as he says they are, with " Scots "
and Picts that have fallen away from the
faith,3 and to whom some of his poor converts
1 The book contains a sort of creed, different in wording
from the Nicene. It speaks of the Son as "having been always,
before the origin of the world, spiritually with the Father,
ineffably begotten ante omne principium," etc. "That every
tongue may confess quia Dominus et Deus est jfesus Christus."
Bp. Dowden compares it with the creed in the Antiphonary of
Bangor (Celtic Ch. Scotl. p. 213).
2 He describes these sufferers as " chrismati, in veste Candida,
dum fides flagrabat in fronte ipsorum." Cf. Bede, ii. 14, on the
newly-baptised "albati."
3 These may have been some Irish Picts who had lapsed from
the Christian faith (the Picts of North Ireland, called the
Cruithne, occupied Co. Down and the south of Co. Antrim,

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 379
have been made over. " It is the practice
of Roman and Gallic Christians to send pres
byters to the Franks x and foreign nations, with
thousands of solidi to redeem baptised captives,
whereas Corotic kills them, and sells them to a
nation that knows not God." The fire has cer
tainly kindled when Patrick thus speaks. He
presumes that these Briton soldiers of a pro
fessedly Christian British king think nothing of
Irish Christianity. He is led to refer again to
the impulse which had led him, a freeborn man of
rank, to give himself up to the task of evangel
ising a race that had formerly taken him captive,
together with "his father's male and female
servants ; " so that he has " a portion with
those whom God has called and predestined to
preach the gospel, amid no small persecutions,
even to the end of the earth." At the close of the
letter his gentler spirit prevails, and he hopes that
the " homicides," on hearing the letter read, may
be moved to " repent, and to set free the baptised
captives, and so may live to God and be made
Skene, Celt. Scotl. i. 131) ; or they may have been Gal
loway Picts who had been converted by St. Ninian (v.
infr.). 1 This was before the baptism of Clovis, but late in Patrick's
own life ; he mentions a presbyter whom he had "taught from
infancy" (Ep. i_. 2).

380 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
whole here and for eternity." x All this shows us
the truly human character of a man never to be
named without reverence, whose traditional
grave, under a mound of earth on the south side
of the cathedral of Downpatrick,2 is one of the
most sacred spots in our islands, either for an
Irish or an English Christian. We may accept
a few details on other evidence ; thus, his birth
place is called Nemthor,8 which may be the
older name of Alcluith,4 afterwards called the
"Dun," or stronghold, of the Strathclyde
" Britons " — the mighty twofold rock which
dominates the northern bank of the broad
Clyde ; or, perhaps, with Kilpatrick,8 where is
now a station between Dunbarton and Glasgow.
His original name of Succat had a warlike
significance : it was altered, after a fashion of
which Bede gives some instances, into Patricius.
1 The final ascription or benediction is curious : " Pax Patri
et Filio et Spiritui Sancto."
2 So says Muirchu (Trip. Life, ii. 298), calling the place
Dun Lethglaisse. Another tradition mentions Saul in the same
county (ib. 332). See Todd, St. Patrick, p. 493.
3 Fiacc's hymn, Whitley Stokes, Trip. Life, ii. 405. The
"Lebar Brecc" homily seems to identity "Nemthor" with
" Ail-cluaide," ib. 433.
4 Bede mentions "urbera Alcluith, quod lingua eorum"
(Britons) " significat petram Cluith," i. 12 ; comp. Adamnan,
Vit. Col. i. 15, "petra Cloithc."
5 Diet. Chr. Biogr. iv. 203.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 381
His servitude may be associated with the tower
ing hill of Slemish in Ulster ; his master is
called Miliuc, Milchu, or Milcho, described
by two ancient writers as a heathen man or a
" wizard : " but there is no need to assume his
identity with an Ulster " king " of that name,
and thereupon to date Patrick's birth as early
as 373. This would involve great difficulty, for,
according to the note of time already given, his
consecration at the age of forty-five would have
to be dated thirteen years earlier than the
mission of Palladius ; whereas we can hardly
suppose Prosper to have mistaken in calling
Palladius the " first bishop " of the Irish. But if
we date Patrick's birth near the close of the
fourth century, his captivity would fall within
the second decade cf the fifth, and his ordination
probably soon after 420, while Dr. Todd may be
right in dating his consecration about 440.1
1 Cf. Todd, St. Patrick, p. 394 ff. ; Haddan and Stubbs, ii.
295. It is necessary here to notice Mr. Olden's theory, as set
forth in his "History of the Church of Ireland," pp. 14, 407 ff.,
that St. Patrick was in fact the " Sen-Patrick," or Patrick the
first, "of native records," and that he preceded Palladius, as
a. missionary bishop in Ireland, either by thirty-four or by
twenty-six years. First, let us waive all discussion of Tire
chan' s statement that both were sent by pope Celestine. The
question is not about Tirechan, but about Prosper. Can his
words, quoted above, being those of a contemporary, allow of
the "suspicion that Palladius never came at all"? Or can

382 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
Obviously the date of 432 is bound up with the
unverified tale of his Roman mission. The
legends admit that he failed to convert the arch-
king Loegaire ; ] but those who have stood by
the historic mounds of Tara may be disposed to
believe that the sight of his Paschal fire as
kindled at Slane disquieted the "Druids"
primus episcopus, as used by him in this passage, mean
"primate" or archbishop? Few will deem either suggestion
tenable. Prosper evidently thought that when Palladius
was sent as bishop to the Irish, no one had gone to them,
as bishop, before him. He may have been ignorant of the
existence of older bishops whose work in Ireland is merely
matter of legend ; but could he have been ignorant of such a
ministry as, by hypothesis, Patrick had so long exercised ? and
if Patrick had been at work so many years in Ireland, would
Palladius have been so badly received ? As for the objection
that, if Patrick succeeded PaUadius, " we have the spectacle of a
conscientious missionary arrogating to himself all the credit of"
his predecessor's work, it is surely enough to remark that, accord
ing to all tradition, and on Mr. Olden's own showing, PaUadius'
mission was a "failure." As for continental martyrologies
which say that St. Patrick primus or primum prcedicavit in
Ireland, they do not counterweigh the obvious purport of
Prosper's statement, and were compiled when and where the
unsuccessful mission of Palladius had, not unnaturally, been
forgotten. As for " Sen-Patrick," the title is far more likely
to have been distinctive of a less illustrious namesake than of
the St. Patrick. I am also unable to follow Mr. Olden in his
interpretation of "after thirty years," which he takes to mean
" when I was thirty years old ; " if Patrick had meant this, he
would have said so. See above, p. 371.
1 Variously written ; pronounced Layary (cf. Collier, Hist.
Irel. p. 24), whence Leary. The Ard-righ had an undefined
superiority over the other four kings.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 383
(wizards or seers), who surrounded their monarch
at the central home of Irish royalty. Of the
length of his episcopate we cannot speak with
certainty : and the few facts on which we can
rely • contrast pointedly with the huge morass
of legends, occasionally beautiful,1 sometimes
grotesque, sometimes repulsive or even de
moralising,2 which formed round the primitive
documents as handled in turn by this or that
monastic scribe, in whom a freedom of imagina
tion, or the eager delight in piecing out a
tradition with more and more of " glorifying '*
material, was altogether unfettered by any
scrupulosity about evidence. But something of
Patrick's own spirit may be preserved in the
hymn of courageous faith,3 which represents him
1 E.g. he meets the two daughters of Loegaire, Ethne the Fair
and Fedelm the Red, — catechises, baptises, communicates them ;
they then " sleep in death " (Tirechan). The point of the story
is, that they had asked to see the face of Christ, and are told that
they must receive the Eucharist, and also must die, in order
to enter His presence.
2 E.g. as to the stay on Croagh-Patrick hill, until he obtains
through an angel the granting of certain requests. One is that
outlanders may not dwell in Ireland (Tripart. Life, ii. 477 ; cf.
i. 117, for an amplification of this story.
3 It may be called the "Breastplate" (Haddan and Stubbs,
Councils, ii. 320). Legend-dealers called it the " Deer's Cry,"
because it pleased them to imagine that the liers-in-wait, set by
"druids " to seize Patrick on his way to Tara, were caused by
an illusion of senses to take him for a deer ; see Whitley Stokes,

384 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
as arming himself against "druids,"1 and
"women's spells," and all unholy knowledge,
— by the invocation of the Trinity, by the mani
fold power of the Incarnation, by the sanctity of
angels and of God's servants among men, by the
powers of the elements, and again by the power,
wisdom, eye, ear, word, hand, way, shield, and
host, of God Himself; and his expressed de
pendence on Christ is at least consonant with
the lofty strain — " Christ protect me against
poison, burning, drowning, death-wounds : Christ
be with me, before me, behind me, within me,
below me, above me, — at my right, at my left
... in the heart of every one that thinks of me,
in the mouth of every one that speaks to me, in
the eye of every one that sees me, in the ear of
every one that hears me." " Salvation," the song
i. pp. ci. 49; ii. 381. The mention of powers of nature, air
and fire, wind and sea, etc., has been made an objection to the
Patrician authorship, as if it betokened a "mixed form of
faith " (Borlase, Age of the Saints, p. 59) ; but the form of a
poem allows some license. It is likely enough that the hymn,
as it stands, is post-Patrician, but that it embodies some bene
dictory or supplicatory sayings of his. Another saying may be
genuine : ' ' Let every church that follows me sing Kyrie eleison,
Christe eleison, Thanks be to God." Another hymn called
Patrick's begins, "Altus Prosator Vetustus dierum ; " see an
English version of it in Bishop Dowden's Celt. Ch. in Scotl.
P- 323-
2 See Bp. Dowden, p. 99 ; " druids " here = wizards.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES 385
concludes, " is the Lord's — is Christ's ; may Thy
salvation, Lord, be always with us ! Amen."
The hymn called Fiacc's ends by saying, with
terse significance, that "Patrick was in the
service of Mary's Son." Indeed he was so ;
and we may leave him with that summary
of his work. But what results did it leave?
Not, assuredly, a conversion of all Ireland.
" It is certain," says Dr. Whitley Stokes, " that
the whole of Ireland did not submit to Patrick's
influence." x Not, apparently, a settled Church
— only churches in this and that district, with
Armagh as a sort of centre ; 2 — it would not
be safe to rely literally on the style "canons
of St. Patrick"3 prefixed to a number of old
1 Tripartite Life, i. p. cxliii. Hero-worship ere long created
the belief recorded by Tirechan in the seventh century, that
Patrick " baptised nearly the whole of Ireland " (ib. ii. 332).
Loegaire, it is admitted, was not really converted, and was
buried with heathen rites. Of his next successors, the first cannot
"with certainty" be called a Christian; the second, Lugaid,
Loegaire's son, is said to have "violated the law of Patrick,"
doubtless by practising heathen rites ; and the fifth, Dermid,
was a " self-willed semi-pagan," who favoured St. Kieran, but
violated the privilege of sanctuary, whereupon St. Ruadan, in
554, excommunicated him, and cursed the royal abode at Tara
(McGee, Hist. Irel. p. 29).
2 "Primacy to Armagh," in Fiacc's hymn. In a saying
ascribed to Patrick it is called a " dear dwelling " and a " dear
hill " (Tripart. Life, ii. 487).
3 Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, ii. 328 ff. Another of these
2 C

386 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
Irish Church laws, if only because they presume
the existence of something like a diocesan
system, which was not established in the earlier
Irish Church. And the Catalogue of Three
Orders of Irish Saints,1 attributed by Todd to
a writer of the eighth century, is evidently
made up to suit a theory ; but it is so far
canons, which directs that in cases of difficulty resort is to be had
to the chair of "the archbishop of the Irish," and, if it cannot
be thus settled, " ad Petri apostoli cathedram auctoritatem Romae
urbis habentem," is certainly post-Patrician, and implies a
belief in Patrick's mission from Rome, but was referred to by
Cummian, in the seventh century, as a reason for sending
delegates to Rome, as " children to a mother," for direction as
to the right calculation of Easter.
1 This catalogue is given by Haddan and Stubbs, Councils,
ii. 292. The first order were bishops who had one Head, Christ,
— and one leader, Patrick, — and celebrated one form of mass,
and had one tonsure from ear to ear, and did not decline
" mulierum administrationem et consortia;" (compare the
"spiritual sisters" or " subintroductae "). The second order
consisted chiefly of catholic presbyters, who celebrated diverse
masses and did decline "mulierum," etc.; — they received a mass
from David, Gilla (Gildas), and Doc (Cadoc), Britons. Among
them were two Finnians, Kieran, Columba, etc. The third
dwelt in deserts, and had different tonsures, rites, and Easter
rules. The first order was most holy, the second holy of holies,
the third holy; the first like the sun at noon, the second
like the pale moon, the third like the rising dawn ; again,
like a pervading fire, fire on the hills, lights burning in valleys.
Adamnan says that " a British stranger," Mochta, a disciple of
Patrick, prophesied of the birth and renown of Columba: Vit.
Columb. praef. ii. It may be added that Brigid, or " St. Bride,"
the foundress of Kildare, strangely called " the Mary of Ireland,"
was born about 453 (Lanigan, i. 378).

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 387
valuable that it indicates alternations in the
matter of "sanctity," and this fits in with
what we know of a revival, after decadence,
of religion and of asceticism in Ireland, about
a century after Patrick's death, by the agency
of holy men from Wales.1
Two strong points and two weak points are
conspicuous in this old Irish Church's character.
First, let us do honour to Irish missionary zeal.
It has of late years been usual to lay stress
on the great debt of thankfulness which we
owe to that zeal for its work in the north of
England, and, though more indirectly, in the
Midlands as well ; 2 and all who, while
travelling in Cornwall, have seen the county
studded with local names of saints, have special
reason for appreciating the ministry of Irish
evangelists, among whom some women are pro
minent — St. Breaca, — St. Burian, whose church
towers up over the open country near the
Land's End, — and St. la, who is commemorated
1 Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 115. The collection of
old Irish laws, called Senchus M6r (great laws), claims to be of
Patrick's time, but is later, though it may contain sixth-century
elements (ib. ii. 339). In its introduction both "Laeghaire"
and Patrick are named among its " authors."
2 One little Irish monastery in Sussex was altogether ineffective
in the way of impressing the pagan people (Bede, iv. 13).

388 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
in " St. Ives." x Columba's mission-life belongs
to Scotland ; but there is no more typical
Irish missionary than that Columban whose
name is a prolongation of his, and who left
Ireland for the Continent with companions
who were " the very pick of the Irish nation,"
very soon after the revival above referred to.2
He became a preacher of righteousness to
Frankish royalty in its moral degradation, the
inaugurator of a very strict monastic rule,
and ultimately the vehement and imperious
denouncer of Paganism in the country of Zug
and Zurich. A pious, fearless, self-devoted
man,3 but with not a little of Celtic passion
in his nature ; it is with some sense of relief
that we recur to his gentle and dignified
remonstrance with the Gallic clergy in regard
to the Easter dispute.4 "I entreat you by
1 Borlase, Age of the Saints, p. 63 ff.
2 " Seized with the yearning after foreign travel which seemed
to have taken so many of his countrymen by storm, and eagerly
desirous to preach the Gospel to the pagan tribes on the
Continent," etc ; Maclear, Apostles and Mediaeval Europe,
p. 59. So Baring Gould, Lives of the Saints, Nov. 21 : " The
adventurous temper of his race, the passion for pilgrimage and
preaching," etc. He landed in France in 580, and died near
his monastery at Bobbio in 615.
3 For his fervent devotion to our Lord, see his " In-
structiones," 10. 2 ; 13. 3, etc.
4 Galland. Bibl. Patr. xii. 348. See Prof. Stokes, Ireland
and the Celtic Church, p. 141.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 389
our common Lord, that I may be suffered to
live on amid these woods, in silence, as I have
lived for twelve years, beside the bones of
our seventeen departed brethren, and to pray
for you, as I am bound to do, and have done.
Let Gaul, I pray, find room for us, as room
will be found in the kingdom of heaven, if
we are worthy." But Columban was positive
even to dogmatism in the defence of the Celtic
Easter; and he was mistaken in attributing
to Anatolius of Laodicea, in the third century,
a "Paschal canon" which Celts quoted as
supporting their own methods. Nor did he
show a real appreciation of the question of
"the three chapters," when, after addressing
Boniface IV. as "head of all the Churches of
Europe, and pastor of pastors," he lectured him
as having appeared to compromise the faith by
accepting the decision of "some fifth Council,"
in which it was said that "both Eutyches and
Nestorius had been approved by Pope Vigilius"!1
Here was the perfervidum ingenium Scotorum
1 Ep. 5. 9. He is " devoted to the chair of St. Peter," but
the notion of its infallibility has never occurred to him. "Ut
mundes cathedram Petri ab omni errore, si quis est, ut aiunt,
intromissus " (ib. 8). See, too, his blunt admonition to Gregory
the Great, Ep. 1. 3. He calls Rome the head of all churches,
saving the "praerogativa" of Jerusalem (Ep. 5. 10).

390 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
combined with strange ignorance as to facts :
nor is this the only mistake in his remonstrances
with this pope.1 St. Gall, as his Irish name of
Callech was Latinised,2 was a scholarly pupil
and fellow-labourer of Columban, and survived
him twelve years: Kilian became the apostle
of Franconia ; Fridolin earned for himself the
designation of " the Traveller ; " Ferghil, better
known as "Virgil," got into trouble with
St. Boniface and Pope Zacharias on the subject
of the " antipodes," but afterwards held the
bishopric of Salzburg. Men like these, restless
in their love of movement, indefatigable in
their Christian and ascetic propaganda, founded
monasteries over half Europe, such as those of
Bobbio in Lombardy, Chur in Switzerland, and
Fontenelle in Normandy;3 but, as Milman
observes, they could not perpetuate their peculiar
observances.4 The Continental Church influence,
1 He claimed the second canon of Constantinople as impli
citly sanctioning the Celtic Easter-rule (Ep. 3).
2 With his name is associated that wild tale which may remind
us of the "spirits of flood and fell" in the Lay of the Last
Minstrel. The mountain-spirit asks the water-spirit to help
him to expel the strange preacher ; the answer is, " I would fain
spoil the nets of one of them who is fishing on my lake, but he
is always sealed up in sleepless prayer." Vit. S. Gall, in Pertz,
Monum. Hist. Germ. ii. 7.
3 See a full account in A. W. Haddan's Remains, p. 268 ff.
4 Milman, Lat. Chr. ii. 294.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 391
with its uniformity and its superior culture,
drew these Irish foundations into its sphere.
Another excellent thing in the old Irish Church
was its love of teaching and study. Cummian's
scholarship was the chief motive power in
the adoption of the Continental Easter by
the South - Irish Churches, although Ulster
held out, under the influence of its Columban
monasteries, until the seventh century was
somewhat advanced.1 Our own Bede, who
is so hostile to the Britons, warmly praises
the Irish as "a harmless nation," which, until
a Northumbrian force without provocation
invaded Meath, were "most friendly to the
Angles ; " and he illustrates the remark by the
openhearted, generous hospitality which they
had extended to Anglian students, attracted
to Ireland by the fame of its monastic schools,
— among whom he mentions Egbert, Chad,
and an exiled Northumbrian prince, Aldfrid,
who lived to become the first English scholar-
king.2 And with this zeal for sacred learning
1 The total abolition of the Celtic Easter in Ireland is marked
by a canon which censures the Britons for dissenting "a Romano
more," etc. (Haddan and Stubbs, i. 126).
2 Cf. Bede, iv. 26 (gentem innoxiam et nationi Anglorum
semper amicissimam) ; iii. 27 ; iv. 3. Aldfrid is said to have
written verses in praise of Irish monasteries : " I found in every

392 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
—for what Bede calls the study of Scripture —
must be associated a love for certain kinds
of art. The Irish Academy in Dublin has
treasures of this sort, such as crosiers or the
tops of crosiers, or hand-bells,1 used by the
early Irish saints ; but its finer specimens of
metal-work belong to a much later period.
But missionary enthusiasm and intellectual
activity are not all that a Church requires
for the purposes of its existence. It needs
great church learning, devotion, holy welcome, protection."
"The office of scribe was of" great "importance in an Irish
monastery " (Warren, Lit. and Ritual of Celtic Church, p. 18).
There was a "third part" of Armagh ("Trian Sassenagh")
devoted to schools frequented by " Saxons." There were famous
schools at Clonard and Clonmaenois, and Lismore on the
Blackwater. Aileran of Clonard wrote a tract on the names of
Christ's ancestors (Patrol. Lat. Ixxx. 527). Banchor, or Bangor,
on Belfast Lough, founded by St. Comgall, "must have been a
thoroughly equipped and vigorous seat of learning in the latter
half of the sixth centuiy " (Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Church,
p. 135). He has a chapter on the study of Greek, and even
of Hebrew, in Irish monasteries. The Duke of Argyll, how
ever, considers that Irish Christian book-lore has been much
exaggerated (Irish Nationalism, p. 17). Its most splendid
memorial is the Book of Kells (assigned by Miss Stokes to about
a.d. 700), the copy of the Gospels used in the Columban church
there, and now kept in Trinity College library.
1 One crosier, from Durrow, is called St. Columba's. The
oldest of the bells is the rude iron " bell of St. Patrick," inclosed
in a case of much later date. For it, and for other such bells,
see Miss Stokes's Early Christian Art in Ireland, p. 58 ff. Cases,
or "shrines," were also made for relics and prized manuscripts.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 393
organisation ; and that was what the old Irish
Church so conspicuously lacked. Here the
racial weakness came out. It has been pointedly
said by one who knows the Irish nature x well,
that "its radical error is incoherence; — no
bond, no union ... is sufficient to keep Irish
men together. Law, as a form of order and
coherence, is in itself distasteful to the Irish
Celt. This explains why the Island of Saints,
from the dawn of history until now, has never
yet had a year of harmony and concord."
The Church was abnormally constituted on
lines intensely tribal, and, as such, un-diocesan.2
The tribe — a large clan — was for religious
purposes aggregated round large groups of
monks, who acted as centres of Christian life
to its members.8 The people could not,
perhaps, have been otherwise dealt with ; for
they had no national feeling,4 nothing but
1 Miss Cobbe, in Tinsley's Magazine for 1868.
2 See Skene, Celtic Scotland, ii. 22 ff. The tribe was called
a tuath. A section of it was called afini (Skene, iii. 171).
3 Green, Making of England, p. 284 ; Skene, ii. 64 ff. The
early monasteries were groups of huts or cells of " bee-hive "
form, with a wooden church or chapel (the round towers were
of later date), and enclosed within a cashel or stone wall, and a
rath or earthwork. At Clonard and Bangor there were at
times 3000 and 4000 monks; the smallest convents had 150.
Lands assigned by a tribe to a church were called termon lands.
4 The disintegrating effect of Irish tribalism is well illustrated

394 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
attachment to this or that tribe, and within
it to this or that clan. It followed that Church
government, such, as it was, passed into the
hands of the abbots of monasteries, as near
kinsmen of the respective tribal chiefs, rather
than of bishops. The episcopal character was
bestowed freely and very largely on priests
of conspicuous learning or sanctity ; y but (to
Bede's astonishment when he learned about
this " unusual arrangement " 2 as in force at
Icolmkill or lona) there was no diocesan epis
copal jurisdiction. The multitudinous bishops
were subject, in their own tribal districts,
to the great monastic chiefs,3 saving always
their exclusive right to perform certain
by the failure of even such a hero as Brian Boru to establish a
monarchy, in the proper sense of the word. Ancient Ireland thus
lost her one chance of attaining to national unity.
1 Skene, ii. 21. On the groups of seven bishops in one church,
see ib. 25.
2 Bede, iii. 4. Cf. Reeves's Adamnan, pp. 69, 341 ; Grub,
Eccles. Hist. Scotl. i. 153 ff. ; Skene, ii. 42 ff.
3 So tribal was the monasticism of Ireland, that when the
founder of a monastery was of a different tribe from that of the
chief within whose tribe-district it was founded, the abbot was
still chosen from the founder's old tribe, if within it could be
found a person capable of singing the psalms. The idea was that
the head of the community should belong to the " tribe of the
saint," so as to be tribally the saint's " coarb " or successor.
And even at Armagh the title "coarb" (originally, co-heir of
territory) belonged not to the bishops as such, but to the abbots.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 395
properly episcopal functions, — for which pur
pose certain monasteries kept bishops within
their own precincts, to officiate in ordination,1
etc. And even in the appointment of these
bishops the tribal leaven came in, — they were
usually members of some particular family
within the tribe. And, yet again, the abuse of
hereditary succession in abbacies was a further
result of the tribe's influence on the Church,2
which was thus as effectually stifled in the
grasp of tribalism as the continental Church
* Skene, ii. 43. Reeves's Adamnan, p. 340: "Five bishops
of Hy are mentioned in the Irish annals at various dates."
St. Brigid procured the appointment of a bishop, Conlaeth,
for her own monastic churches ; see Lanigan, i. 406. Archd.
Pryce thinks it probable that a similar arrangement existed in
Wales (Ane. Brit. Ch. p. 166). There is clear evidence from
Adamnan's Life of Columba that he fully recognised the
superiority of the episcopal order : as when bishop Cronan from
Munster visited him, concealing his character ; on the next
Sunday, Columba bids him celebrate ; he asks Columba to
come to the altar, that, "as being two presbyters, they might
break the Lord's bread at the same time," — in later phrase,
might " concelebrate ; " whereupon Columba, looking hard at
him, desires him to ' ' break the bread alone, as is usual with
bishops " (i. 44 ; cf. 1. 36). Well-informed presbyterians have
long given up the notion that the old Celtic church was not
episcopal. 2 Skene, iii. 141. " The office of chief of the Culdees at
Clonmaenois was handed on from father to son for three genera
tions all through the twelfth century " (Stokes, Ireland and
the Anglo-Norman Church, p. 361). Families transmitted
Welsh benefices in the same period. See above, p. 637.

396 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
of the eleventh century in that of feudalism.
Such a system, or rather no-system, charac
teristic of Irish Church life in those old times,
is more than sufficient proof of the beneficent
result for England of the Conference of Whitby,
which in effect determined that the English
Church should not be cast in an Irish mould,
and thereby cut off from order, culture, and
civilisation.1 And this anarchical condition of matters was
closely connected with a yet worse evil. The
Church was unable to tame the Irish nature.
She was in sad truth infected by its wild im
petuosity, its irrepressible tendency to feud and
conflict. Thus, the monastic discipline was
excessively severe ; 2 the passion for austerities
went beyond anything known in Western
Europe. Some cases are mentioned in which
asceticism passed into a self-torture such as
Hindoo devotees would think meritorious.3
1 See Green, Making of England, pp. 318-325.
2 Cf. King, Hist. Ch. Irel. i. 281. See Columban's Paeniten-
tialis on " percussiones " (Galland. Bibl. Patr. xii. 324). But
he says, "Vana est . . . corporalis sola afflictio . . . nisi
comitetur animi fructuosatemperantia." (Instructio 2, ib. 332).
Columba also imposed long penances (Adamn. ii. 39; and cf.
Bede, iv. 25).
3 Whitley Stokes, Tripart. Life, i. p. cxcv. : " We read of
Finnchu suspending himself on sickles inserted in his armpits,"

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 397
But this was only one form of that unbalanced
intensity which, if powerful for good, could also
be powerful for evil. So we find that Irish
ecclesiastics were too apt to throw themselves
into the feuds of their tribes, — feuds perpetu
ally raging, which have left terrible traces in
the laconic records of bellum, occisio, jugu-
latio, combustio, which recur so often in the
" Chronicon Scotorum." x We cannot wonder
that reverence for churches was all too easily
effaced from the minds and memories of Con-
naught men making war in Munster ; but it is
startling to find that the Munster king, Phelim
MacCriffan, who devasted the holy precinct of
Clonmaenois, with another famous monastery
of Columban foundation, was himself both abbot
and bishop.2 Nor can we forget the strange
etc., as if the idea of self-training for a definite moral end had
been simply lost in a wretched superstition.
1 See, too, Annals from the Book of Leinster (Whitley Stokes,
ii. 515 ff.).
2 Phelim is the pronunciation of Feidhlimidh : see Wars of the
Gaedhill (Gael, or Irish) with the Gaill (Foreigners, Norsemen)
p. 44. Prof. Stokes twice records the deeds of this "taker of
the sword." In 833 he slew the monks of Clonmaenois
(Chron. Scot. ) ; in 836 he " took the oratory at Kildare by arms ; "
some years later, after capturing Armagh, he preached every
Sunday for a year to its people, as bishop ! And " the prelates
of Armagh were just as" fierce (Irel. Celt. Ch. pp. 200, 270.
See, too, his Ireland and the Anglo-Norman Ch. p. 364). A

398 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
proneness of Irish saints to forget "of what spirit
they were," as Christians, by a fierce volubility
in cursing their enemies, or the enemies of the
Church ; x as when even the noble Columban
imprecated destruction on the children of hostile
peasants.2 And sometimes they would "fast
against " persons by way of procuring a Divine
judgment upon them.3 Here, surely, was a
mournful proof of corruption and retrogression.
The light had become dimmed, if not darkened;
the world in its roughest and wildest temper
had degraded the Church which should have
drawn it upward, but which found its wrist
stronger than her own, and which had, indeed,
" economised " overmuch in her adaptation of
old Celtic observances superficially Christianised.
much better combination of bishop and king is seen in Cormac
Mac-Cullinan, whose lovely chapel crowns the glories of the
rock of Cashel. But he fell in battle, in 903 or 907.
1 Columba himself went near to this, if he did not reach it.
He prayed against a "malefactor" who departed from lona
deriding him (Adamn. Vit. Col. ii. 22) ; see Bishop Reeves,
Adamnan, pp. 77, 133. A legend said that he "solemnly
cursed " a young Irish prince for throwing mud at the clergy
(Todd, p. 137). Patrick was fabled to have "cursed" very
freely. The word occurs twenty times in Whitley Stokes's
index to the Tripartite Life, etc., under the head of "Patrick."
2 Pertz, Mon. Hist. Germ. ii. 7.
3 Reeves, Adamnan, p. Iiv. Cf. Trip. Life, i. 219,
"Patrick fasted against the king;" and the suggestive note
ib. ii. 560.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 399
So unreal is the dream of a period in which
the " Isle of Saints " is depicted as " a kind of
Hesperian elysium of peace and plenty."1 It
had its saints — many saints, — and also numerous
scholars, some of whom, like Ferghil, or the
famous John the "Scot" — called in classical
phrase Erigena, — were independent thinkers,
whom the ecclesiastical authorities would be
disposed to compare with the Irish Cselestius,
the outspoken associate of Pelagius. But it was
never civilised by its Church, never purged by
her influence of the chronic leaven 2 of savagery
and internecine warfare. A tree is known by its
fruits, and Celtic Christianity cannot avoid the
criterion. No ruins are more pathetic than those
which haunt the memory of the English traveller
in Ireland, — for instance, at Clonmaenois or
Monasterboice ; but their " crown of sorrow,"
the peculiar intensity of their mournfulness,
is appreciated in proportion as one remembers
this dismal failure of a Church so rich in
1 Milman, Lat. Ch. ii. 285.
2 "A hereditary taint," Prof. Stokes calls it, Irel. and Celtic
Ch. p. 201. See the duke of Argyll's Irish Nationalism, pp. 26-
37. There was exaggeration, no doubt, in Giraldus' reproach
addressed to a Dublin synod : " If only Irish bishops since St.
Patrick had been bold enough to correct the disorderliness of
their people ! " (Girald. Op. i. 68, Rolls Series) ; but it had some
foundation. St. Laurence O'Toole had recently died.

400 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
canonised names to fulfil the most obvious
purpose of its mission. We cannot wonder that
the Danish Church, so to call it, settled in
Dublin and a few other towns, held aloof from
the old Irish Church, and looked to Canterbury
rather than to Armagh ; x that disorder became
rife among Irish Churches ; 2 that bishops pro
faned ordination by simony ; that the marriage
bond was popularly disregarded ; and therefore
that it was high time for such a "real reforma
tion of the Irish Church " as was inaugurated by
Gille or Gilbert, the Danish bishop of Limerick,8
and completed by the efforts of Malachy as
1 Stokes, Ireland and Celtic Church, p. 314 ff. The Danes
of Dublin, Waterford, etc., were called Ostmen (see King, Ch.
Hist. Irel. ii. 419 ff.). Of the two Dublin cathedrals, Christ
Church (properly, Holy Trinity) represents the old Danish
minster, and St. Patrick's an older Celtic church outside the
Danish walls.
2 The see of Armagh was held during eight successions by
laymen of the same family. This was the more scandalous,
since from the eighth century at least it had been recognised as
primatial (Stokes, p. 333) ; and we can believe St. Bernard's
statement that this " mos pessimus " was the source of a wide
spread " dissolutio disciplinae " (Vit. S. Malach. c. 10). Other
irregularities were the non-use of chrism at baptism, and conse
cration of bishops by a single bishop (see King, ii. 424, 432).
The latter custom existed also amongst Britons (see Jocelyn, Vit.
Kent. c. 11 ; and Warren, Lit. Celt. Ch. p. 68).
3 King, ii. 439 ff. Stokes, pp. 324, 337. It is curious to find
Lanigan complaining of this prelate's narrow-minded zeal for
ritual uniformity in accordance with Roman models (iv. 27).

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. sp\
primate of Armagh,1 who did indeed bind the
Irish Church, for the first time, closely to Rome, —
for these laxities are sufficient proof that Rome
had not previously governed her,2 — but who
could no otherwise have exorcised the spirit
of secular corruption and moral license. It is
expressly said of him by Prof. Stokes, that he
resigned his see "when he had thoroughly
broken the old clan or tribal idea connected
with " it.3 His death took place on All Saints'
Day in 1148;4 and four years afterwards the
work, begun when Cashel was made a metro
political see for the southern half of the land,5
and carried on when the country was divided
into regular dioceses, was completed when the
synod of Kells gave to Ireland, for the first time,
1 King, ii. 455 ff. Stokes, p. 339 ff.
2 Reverence for the Roman see might exist long before any
idea of subjection to its supremacy. The Stowe Missal, with its
prayer for "our pope, the bishop of the apostolic see," shows
no more than " that the Roman canon was introduced into at
least partial use in Ireland as early as the ninth century " (Warren,
Lit. and Ritual of Celtic Church, p. 204).
3 Stokes, p. 346. Celsus of Armagh, says Bernard, had been
too " timorous " to put down abuses.
* He died like a saint, saying to the Clairvaux monks who
surrounded him, "I have loved God ; I have loved you ; and
love never fails " (Vit. Mai. c. 31).
5 Called " Moa's half," after a legendary king of Leinster ;
the northern half being named after " Conn of the Hundred
Fights." Cf. Olden, Hist. Ch. Irel. p. 118.
2 D

402 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
a regular hierarchical organisation with four
provinces under four archbishoprics, the primacy
being reserved to Armagh. Truly it was no
golden age that succeeded the English invasion ;
but the Celtic wildness was, at any rate, some
what broken in. Although the attempt of the
synod of Cashel, in 1172, to Anglicise the Irish
church was obstructed by the tenacity of Irish
customs, — and the long hostility between the
Celtic and Anglo-Norman elements foreshadowed
and prepared the way for that antagonism of
the native Irish, as a body, to the Reformation
as forced on them from England, which be
queathed such troubles to the future, — yet
for all this, one thing is most certain, and most
needful to be remembered : if Irish history is
like a record of doom — weird, mysterious, well-
nigh hopeless, — the doom goes back to ages
long and long anterior to that in which the
wretched King Dermot of Leinster x procured
the support of Robert FitzStephen and Richard
called "Strongbow." It is not England that
originated the miseries of her unhappy sister
isle. 1 " Ever the prince of evildoers and of cruelty " (Ireland and
the Anglo-Norman Church, p. 8). He was driven out of Ireland
in 1 166: the invasion begun in 1 169. But before his expulsion
he had founded an abbey at Ferns and a priory in Dublin.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 403

III.
Of the primitive Scottish Church it may
be said that it must have existed from, at
any rate, an early period in the fourth century,
if Patrick was born, as is usually said, on the
Firth of Clyde ; for, as we have seen, his grand
father, if not his great-grandfather, was a
presbyter, and he speaks of his contemporaries
as having been inattentive to their "priests."
But the first " apostle " of Southern and Central
Scotland was undoubtedly St. Ninian, a Briton
of Strathclyde,1 trained and consecrated at Rome,
who, as Bede expresses it, " preached the word
to the Southern Picts " 2 as well as to their kins
men in Galloway. The Southern Picts, says
Bede, "dwelt on this side of a range of
mountains which divided them from the
Northern Picts : " — a range extending from the
1 Strathclyde proper extended from Alcluith or Alclyde
(Dunbarton) to the river Derwent in Cumberland (Bp. Forbes,
Lives of SS. Ninian and Kentigern, pp. Ixvi. 331 ; Skene, Celtic
Scotland, i. 235). In a broader sense it took in the modern
Lancashire. Part of Wales was so called in 890.
2 Bede, iii. 4. Bishop Forbes considers these Southern Picts
to have made no permanent settlement south of the Firth of
Forth (Lives of Ninian and Kentigern, p. 280). Skene infers
from a passage in Bede's Life of Cuthbert that Galloway itself
was Pictish in the seventh century (Celtic Scotland, i. 133).

4o4 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
neighbourhood of Ben Nevis to the district
near Aberdeen,1 — their southern frontier being
the Firth of Forth. St. Ninian's immediate task
would be the fuller evangelisation of Strathclyde.
He would penetrate into the extreme south
west, and address the Picts of Galloway ; and
he may well have made visits to the land of
the South Picts proper beyond the wall which
united the two firths. His episcopal see was
Whithern (Whithorn), or "Candida Casa," as
Bede calls it,2 in the present Wigtonshire,
where now the ruins of a small cathedral, on a
woody eminence in full view of the Solway,
represent the older church,3 " built of stone in
a manner unfamiliar to the Britons," and famous
as a centre of study and devotion under the
names of the " Great Monastery " and " Rosnat,"
or "Headland of Learning." 4 His episcopate
1 It was called'the " Mounth " (Bp. Forbes, Lives of Ninian
and Kentigern, p. 279; Skene, Celtic Scotland, i. 230; "the
backbone of the Grampians," ib. iii. 286).
2 It was a restoration or perpetuation of an older name,
"Lucopibia" (Ptolemy), probably a corruption of "Leucoi-
kidia." 3 Bp. Forbes, Calendars of Scottish Saints, p. 422 ; Lives of
Ninian and Kentigern, p. 268 ff). On the associations of the
spot, ib. p. 60. The Arbuthnot missal has a collect for
September 16, " Deus qui populos Pictorum et Britonum per
doctrinam S. Niniani . . . convertisti," etc.
4 Bishop Dowden (Celt. Ch. Scotl. p. 32). Irish students

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 405
may be said to have begun before the death of
St. Martin in 397. The venerable bishop of
Tours, at the very end of his life-work, had
shown kindness to the younger brother whose
tasks lay still in the future ; and the " White
House " was dedicated to his memory, the first
of a multitude of "St. Martin's" churches in
Britain. And long after Ninian had passed
away, his memory, as Bishop Dowden says,
" was a power in Scotland ; " x his name was
popularly turned into " Ringan ; " and among
the numerous chapels dedicated in his honour
is included a rude oratory on the south-west
coast of Shetland.2 But here, too, as in many
other cases, the seed sown appeared to have
struck no deep root. His converts did not hand
down a settled Christianity ; there was not a
little of revival and reconstruction to be
accomplished for the Christianity of South-west
resorted thither ; and a teacher at Whithern is named, Mugentius ;
see Bp. Forbes, Lives of Ninian, etc., p. 292. Viventius,
Mavorius, and Florentius, the three priests commemorated on
the sculptured stones at Kirkmadrine in Wigtonshire, were
probably among Ninian's clergy. See Bp. Dowden, Celt. Ch.
Scotl. p. 16 ; and Haddan and Stubbs, i. 120.
1 Celtic Ch. in Scotland, p. 31. See W. Stephen's excellent
History of the Scottish Church, i. 12.
2 Cp. " The Pirate," vol. ii. c. 5. There were, in fact, two
sanctuaries of St. Ninian in Shetland.

406 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
Scotland when St. Kentigern x was bishop of
Strathclyde, at first when Christianity was the
faith of a small minority, and ultimately under
the powerful patronage of King Roderick the
Bountiful ; 2 and he so endeared himself to his
flock that his real name was obscured in the
appellation of Mungo, "the Loveable."3 His
1 Kentigern is a corruption of Kyndeyrn (chief lord). It was
his work, says Bishop Dowden (p. 50), "to restore the lapsed
and to strengthen the weak " Christians in Strathclyde. We
may trust Jocelyn, his twelfth-century "biographer," when he
says that when Kentigern first became bishop, the Christians of
Cambria (i.e. Strathclyde, then called Cambria) were " perpauci "
(Vit. Kent. u. 2.). The link between Ninian and Kentigern
may be represented by the tradition that Kentigern found
at Glasgow a cemetery which Ninian had hallowed (ib. c.9.),
the link between Kentigern and Columba by the beautiful
legend of their meeting beside the Molendinar burn, when
Kentigern's choir sang, " Via justorum recta facta est," and
Columba's responded, " Ibunt sancti de virtute in virtutem,"
and the two saints exchanged pastoral staves (see Skene, ii. 194,
from Vit. Kent. c. 39). There may well be some truth in both.
2 Properly, Rhydderch Hael, " one of the three liberal princes
of Britain." His victory at Arthuret, near Carlisle, in 573,
established the supremacy of Christianity in Strathclyde,
together with his own kingship ; and he recalled Kentigern,
whom the hostility of a former king, Morken, had obliged to
retire meanwhile into Wales, where he passed twenty years, and
founded the see of St. Asaph. Roderick was one of the many
who had been baptised and instructed in Ireland.
3 From two Welsh words for "amiable" and "dear" (Skene,
Celtic Scotl. ii. 183). Cp. the " Mo" (dear) prefixed to Irish
saintly names. The central platform in the crypt of Glasgow
cathedral is pointed out as " St. Mungo's grave." Kentigern
died about the time of the great overthrow of the Britons and
Dalriad Scots by Ethelfrith at Dawston (Bede, i. 34).

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 407
work, which had Glasgow for its centre, belongs
to the latter half of the sixth century ; and he
was thus a contemporary of the great missionary,
the great abbot, whom Scotland owes to North
Ireland, " Columba of the Churches," who, after
a career in Ireland as a founder of monasteries,
" sailed away," as his biographer, St. Adamnan,
expresses it, "desiring to sojourn abroad for
Christ's sake," and arrived in Hy, I-colm-kill,
or Ioua, which we now soften into lona,1 at the
Whitsuntide of 563. Apparently the fact that
he had been, for a time, under synodical censure
" for certain trivial and venial causes, and, as
it ultimately appeared, unjustly"2 — which is
the brief statement of Adamnan — was ex
aggerated into the story that he had been
provoked by a decision against him in a suit
which he was prosecuting3 to stir up a tribal
war in which his own North-Irish clansmen
were victorious,4 and was thereupon enjoined,
1 Ioua insula, Reeves's Adamnan, p. 259. Hy, "the island,"
is also written Hii, I, or la, etc.
2 Adamn. Vit. Col. iii. 3.
3 As to whether he might keep his copy of a manuscript
belonging to Finnian of Moville. The " arch-king " Diarmaid
ruled that he might not, because " to every cow belongs her own
calf, to every book its copy."
4 The battle of Cooldrevny, near Sligo. The Chronicon Sco
torum (p. 53) says that the victory of the Connaught men over

408 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
by way of penance, to leave his beloved " Erin "
and become a missionary to the heathen Picts
in North Britain. It is not of course unlikely
that an Irishman of exceptional force of
character should have shown at times a fiery
or passionate nature ; and there is evidence that
Columba did so, although an eminent writer
on " Celtic Scotland " x pronounces that the
earliest evidence on the subject discredits
the "popular tradition" about his pugnacity,
vindictiveness, and remorse, and represents his
disposition as predominantly amiable. "He
was," says Adamnan, "angelic in aspect, clear
Diarmaid was won through the prayer of Columbille. The
story is one of three ; two other occasions are named in
which Columba, on one of his subsequent visits to his native
country, was in some degrees connected with tribal warfare.
See Bp. Reeves, Adamnan, pp. lxxvii. 248 ff. Adamnan's book
has been recently edited in a most convenient form, by Dr.
Fowler of Durham. But Bp. Reeves's edition is truly a monu
mental work.
1 Skene, Celt. Scotl. ii. 145, 146. But he admits that " he
may have in some degree, either directly or indirectly, been the
cause of the battle," as being deemed at first somehow responsible
for the blood then shed (ib. 81). The tradition is exquisitely
utilised in Mr. Skrine's beautiful drama on St. Columba. And
undoubtedly there are passages in Adamnan's biography which
exhibit Columba as stern and even resentful, as i. 39 ; ii. 22,
23 ; he does not hesitate to predict the final condemnation of
some offenders, etc. But his " righteous indignation " was clear
of all personal vindictiveness ; see Bp. Dowden, Celt. Ch. Scotl.
p. 109.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 409
in speech, holy in conduct, excellent in dis
position, great in counsel : never did a single
hour pass in which he was not engaged in
prayer, or reading, or writing, or some other
work . . . and amid all this, he was dear to
all, his holy face always cheerful to look at,
his inmost heart gladdened with the joy of
the Holy Spirit." In the same context his
motive for going to North Britain is con
cisely stated in the simple words quoted
above — pro Christo peregrinari volens. That
he was a grand saint, and a man of extra
ordinary courage, perseverance, energy, deter
mination ; — born to guide and sway minds,
and also to win hearts ; — that he maintained
a "sweetness and brightness of disposition"
which called forth a passionate affection and
loyalty ; that he did a great work for the
conversion of the Northern Picts x and the
1 The fortress of king Brude, or Bridei, son of Mailcon (who
reigned from 554 to 584), is thought to have been on Torvean,
south-west of Inverness. The year in which he was baptised by
St. Columba is probably 565 (Skene). Adamnan tells the story
of Columba's thundering chant of Ps. xlv., as terrifying the king
and people while he stood outside the fortress (i. 37). But; we
may say with the duke of Argyll, in his interesting little volume
on "lona," " It is really afflicting that Adamnan gives us no
ray of light on" such questions as, "What were to the " Cale
donian " tribes the attractive elements in the new religion ?

4io THE CELTIC CHURCHES
Hebridean islanders ; l that he founded Churches
among the Christian Southern Picts ; that, in
short, he deserves to be ranked in the very
first rank of illustrious and successful mission
aries; — to say this is but to summarise the
main points of a life-work which, perhaps, is
less generally known than the death-scene
which comes near to Bede's own in tenderness,
pathos, and solemn peace. Persons who knew
little else about Columba have heard of that
Whitsuntide Saturday of 597, when the old
man for the last time fondled his faithful horse,2
What were the arguments addressed to them by Columba?"
However, there is no doubt that "under those limitations
which must always be understood in regard to a national con
version, the kingdom of the Northern Picts was converted by
Columbia and his immediate disciples " (Grub, Eccl. Hist. Scotl.
i. 56).
1 When once staying in Skye, he baptised an old pagan who
"throughout his life had preserved naturale bonum" (Adamn.
i. 33). One of his monks, named Cormac, visited Orkney
(Adamn. ii. 42). He himself settled his pupil Drostan at Deer
in Aberdeenshire. Another of his disciples, Donnan, suffered
" red martyrdom " in Eigg, just after finishing mass, in 617.
2 Tenderness to animals is a feature in several mediaeval
saints, as in Cuthbert : see, too, the stories of St. Serf's robin
and St. Hugh's swan. (Contrast the inhuman neo-Roman
teaching.) Adamnan tells feelingly how the white horse that
carried milk between the cowhouse and the monastery thrust
his head into Columba's bosom, as if he knew ' ' dominum
a se suum mox emigraturum," and began to whine, " et valde
spumans flere," and how the saint said, " Let him alone, he
loves me, let him weep on my bosom," and " maestum a se

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 411
concluded his transcription of psalms with the
verse, " They that seek the Lord shall want no
manner of thing that is good," uttered his
farewell admonition as to " mutual unfeigned
charity,"1 his farewell assurances of heavenly
help ; and then, just after the Sunday morning
had begun, was found by his monks lying before
the altar, his countenance bright, but his voice
gone, — his hand, when raised by a faithful monk,
just "able to make the sign of blessing."2
The 9th of June should be an honoured
anniversary with all who know what Britain
owes to such a life ; not Scotland only,3 but
England, — for it was the inspiration of that
life which sent St. Aidan to Northumbria, and
revertentem equum benedixit ministratorem " (iii. 23). Cp. the
account in the homily on St. Columba, Skene, ii. 503. See, too,
Adamnan, i. 48, on his kind treatment of the wearied crane.
1 Skrine versifies this — " But you,
Who must rule after me, remember . . .
. . . No deed can live but only Love's."
2 Adamn. iii. 23. The duke of Argyll's lona, p. 124. The
story is well told by Stephen, Hist. Sc. Ch. i. 75.
3 " Who are these who rise and hail him ' father,'
Soldier-sons, and all the lands ingather,
Isle and island, height and highland, shore and shore ?
'Neath the shade of our great spirit parted,
Mightier shadow of the mighty-hearted,
Strives a seed and lives a deed for evermore."
(The last lines of Skrine's " Columba.")

4I2 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
thereby, ultimately, evangelists into Mercia, and
so into the East Saxon district.
The splendour of Columba's career,1 as a light
kindled amid the gloom of Pictish heathenism,
contrasts with the dimness which for the most
part predominates in early Scottish Church
history during several centuries after his death.
We know that " the Island of Columba of the
Churches " remained a centre of Christian life
and enterprise, and that the notion that its
theory of the ministry was Presbyterian because
in the district occupied by a " Scotic " or Irish
colony, to which it belonged, its abbot exer
cised the jurisdiction which should normally
have been held by bishops, is purely the result of
ignorance of the peculiar constitution of " Scotic "
1 The pre-Columban period has another saint named Ternan,
who has been called a disciple of Palladius, and who perhaps
brought his relics into South Pictland ; and others, more or less
legendary, as Machan, and the abbess Modwenna. After
Columba, like stars following on sunset, we meet with Modan
of Roseneath, Marnock of Kilmarnock, Malrue of Applecross,
whose name survives in Loch Maree; and Fillan, whom bishop
Forbes places in the eighth century, and whose bell and staff,
after curious adventures, are in the museum of the Society of
Antiquaries of Edinburgh (see Anderson's Scotland in Early
Christian Times, pp. 186-193, 2l6 fQ- Skene considers that
Riagail, Regulus, or "good St. Rule," was a Columban monk
who settled at St. Andrews (Celtic Scotl. ii. 268) ; so A. Lang,
St, Andrews, p. 7 ; and Stephen, Hist. Sc. Ch. i. 177.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 413
Churches.1 The seventh century presents us
with the mission of Aidan and his two successors ;
and the beautiful nobleness and simplicity of
their work, and of the type of character which
they represented, seem to be reproduced in
Cuthbert when, as prior of Old Melrose, he goes
about the dales of Lothian as a representative
of Christian insight and sympathy, and " no one
could hide from him the secrets of the heart.2
An Anglian bishopric is planted on the south
frontier of Southern Pictland, but is swept away
in 685 by the overthrow of Northumbrian
supremacy at the battle of Dunnichen, near
Forfar,3 — a loss which is somewhat compen
sated in 730 by the restoration of Whithern as
an Anglian see.4 The wearisome Paschal con
troversy continues to divide " Saxon " from
" Celt ; " the Roman Easter, step by step, wins
its way on Celtic ground ; the Pictish king
Nectan, convinced by an elaborate letter, in
which Bede's hand may be traced,5 accepts it,
1 See above, p. 394 ; and cp. the full discussion by bishop
Dowden, Celt, Ch. in Scotl. p. 252 ff.
2 Bede, iv. 27 ; cf. Dowden, p. 169.
3 Ib. iv. 12, 26.
4 Ib. v. 23. The bishop was Pecthelm.
" Ib. v. 21. It is the fullest statement which Bedes gives us
of the case for the Roman reckoning. The offensive point in

414 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
and with it the Roman or circular form of the
tonsure, as opposed to the semi-circular, which
Anglian zealots vilified as " Simonian ; " x and
when the monks of Columban convents within
his realm stand out, he expels them in 717 ;2
they withdraw beyond the ridge which separated
Pictland from the " Scotic " kingdom of Argyll
shire ; 3 but already the mother-house itself has
given up its Celtic heritage, and Continental
or " Catholic " ways have been adopted 4 — in
spite of the reclamations of a stiff-backed
the Celtic was, that it allowed the " 14th day of the moon," if
a Sunday, to be kept as Easter-day ; whereas the correct thing
was to make the 15th the earliest possible Easter-day, and the
21st the latest.
1 Adamnan said to abbot Ceolfrid, " Scias, frater mi, quia etsi
Simonis tonsuram ex consuetudine patria habeam, Simoniacam
tamen perfidiam tota mente detestor et respuo ; beatissimi autem
apostolorum principis, quantum mea parvitas sufficit, vestigia
sequi desidero." " It is well," replied Ceolfrid, " but then why
not do so visibly ? " The peculiarity of the Celtic tonsure con
sisted in leaving a small fringe of hair across the forehead and
letting the hair grow behind, so that there was not a complete
corona (Bede, v. 21, "quae in frontis quidem superficie," etc.).
This is confirmed by the figure of an ecclesiastic on a sculptured
stone at St. Vigean's, near Arbroath.
2 Skene, Celtic Scotland, ii. 177 ; Reeves, p. 381.
3 " Britanniae Dorsum," Adamn. i. 34. It was called
Drumalban ; it divides Perthshire from Argyllshire. The
Chronicon Scotorum dates this expulsion of "the family of
Hy " in 713. But see the Introd. p. xliv.
4 At Easter, 716 ; Bede, v. 22. But correct what he seems to
say about Egbert's having established conformity at lona by
Skene, ii. 281.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 415
minority, which actually sets up a rival abbot.
This schism seems to have lasted nearly up to
those dark days in which the Northmen repeat
edly attacked and devastated the holy island,
on one of which occasions an abbot was hewn
in pieces for refusing to give up the silver-gilt
shrine of the founder.1
The expulsion of the Columban monks made
room in eastern Scotland for secular clergy who
followed the "Catholic" usages, and brought
in a peculiar reverence for the names of St.
Peter and St. Andrew. The supposed relics
of the latter apostle were perhaps brought to
Scotland by Acca, when expelled in 732 from
the see of Hexham ; and a bishopric was
founded at Kilrimont, now St. Andrews, in
the middle of the eighth century. But the
monasteries left vacant passed under secular
influence ; and so opportunity was given for a
fresh monastic revival, proceeding from Ireland,
and carried on in eastern Scotland by hermits
who bore the famous name of Culdees, Cele De
or Keledei, that is, either " servants of God " or
" friends of God " — an Irish form of the Con
tinental term " Deicolae." 2 Scottish imagination
1 This was in 825 ; his name was Blathmac (Skene, ii. 300).
2 Thus the institution was not at all peculiarly Irish, although

416 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
has run wild about the Culdees, as if they were
Protestants before the time, the ministers of a
" simple " Christianity divested of Latin accre
tions : and Columba himself has been absurdly
called a Culdee. They were originally solitary
ascetics, who soon became grouped in com
panies ; and the melancholy fact of their story
is that they themselves, after adopting the status
and rule of canons,1 deteriorated very markedly,
and ultimately, at St. Andrews, became a close
corporation of thirteen kinsmen who " performed
their own rite in a corner of a very small church,"
while certain lay "persons" held the main church
without keeping up its services, and divided the
lion's share of its income. The Culdees, in short,
have been idealised by ill-informed controversial-
ism.2 They did nothing, in their whole existence,
the Irish had an extreme, an inordinate admiration for hermit
sanctity (Skene, ii. 159, 249 ; Reeves, Adamnan, p. 366 ; and
Miss Stokes, Early Christian Art in Ireland, p. 158). The first
Culdee settlement in Scotland was established by St. Serf on an
isle in Lochleven, and the anchorites there were regarded with
respect by Queen Margaret.
1 The name "Colidei" was applied, in the tenth century, to
the clergy of York cathedral ; and Professor Stokes mentions
the curious fact that the " Culdees " of Armagh became ulti
mately the vicars-choral, and as such "survived the Reforma
tion, and were incorporated by Charles I." (Ireland and the
Anglo-Norman Church, p. 359).
2 Cf. Chron. of Pictsjand Scots, p. 188 ff. Skene, ii. t. vi.
and p. 356 ff. ; Stephen, Hist. Sc. Ch. i. 269, 310-322,

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 417
for sacred learning; their corporate tone became
secularised, and they drew on themselves, by
their own conduct, discouragement and ultimate
suppression.1 The unsettled condition of Scot
tish affairs at the period which terminated by
the definite preponderance of Scots (originally
from the Dalriad colony in Argyllshire) over
the Picts of eastern and central Scotland, was
reflected in the transition of primacy, as it is
called, — of ecclesiastical headship in a vague
sense, — from lona to Dunkeld,2 from Dunkeld
to Abernethy,3 from Abernethy to St. Andrews,
the bishop of the latter church being called
simply " bishop of Alban."4 This final settlement
belongs to the first part of the tenth century —
perhaps to the year 908, when Constantine II.
and bishop Cellach met on the Moothill, after
wards called the Hill of Belief, at Scone.
An interval of about a century and a half lies
1 Skene, ii. 385 ff.
2 Under Kenneth Macalpine, in 850 (849, says Grub, i. 129).
Skene, ii. 307. The abbot of Dunkeld was also made bishop
of Fortrenn (South Pictland).
3 Skene, ii. 310 (in the reign of Constantine I., son of
Kenneth Macalpine, ace. 863). ' The round tower was then
built by an ex-abbot of Kildare ; that of Brechin belongs to
the latter part of the next century, when Kenneth II. founded
there a church "after the Irish model," Skene, ii. 332.
4 Skene, ii. 324; Grub, i. 172.
2 E

418 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
between this centralisation of Church govern
ment in the place associated with the "first-
called apostle " and the great " Anglicising "
revival which is connected with the name of
Queen Margaret — a name which historians
may well delight to honour.1 Her reforms,
of course, were not theological, but practical ;
and they came just in time to hold up the
Church of her adopted country, when it was
fast lapsing into the apathy of barbarism ; when
its religious tone was relaxed, its standard
of conduct lowered, its ideals forgotten amid
disorders which had become a rule.2 She could
not abate all these evils : after her death the
usurpation of spiritual benefices, even of abbacies,
1 So Freeman, Reign of William Rufus, ii. 20 : " Of the
true holiness of Margaret, of her zeal not only for a formal
devotion, but for all that is morally right, none can doubt." So
Skene, ii. 344 : "There is perhaps no more beautiful character
recorded in history than that of Margaret," etc. Her pathetic
death-scene is well known.
2 See the account in Skene, ii. 346 ff. ; Stephen, i. 234 ff. The
Scottish clergy refrained, out of a mistaken reverence, from
communicating on Easter day ; and Saturday, not Sunday, was
the day of cessation from work. Men used to many their
stepmothers, or their sisters-in-law. It is curious, as Skene
remarks, ii. 337, that Malcolm Canmore, the husband of
Margaret, was descended from a line of lay abbots of Dunkeld,
and that one of her own sons inherited this title. In the chief
monasteries this kind of secularisation had become normal (cf.
Stuart, Preface to the Book of Deer, p. cviii.).

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 419
by laymen of the "founder's kin," survived
through the twelfth century ; and at St.
Andrews the lofty tower of St. Rule, with
the little church adjoining it, is the monument
of a foundation of canons-regular, intended
to absorb the old Culdean society, which
" refused to be reformed," and was " too strong
to be dispossessed."1 But the impulse given
by St Margaret was ultimately irresistible ;
and the blessing which rested so manifestly on
her work was perpetuated to her posterity in
the direct royal line. When, nearly two centuries
after her death, the last of the three Alexanders
perished by that fatal stumble of his horse on
the Fifeshire cliffs,2 the calamity was one which
made itself felt in effects that last to our own
time. For the wars of independence, into which
Scotland was driven by Edward I.'s hard lawyer
like policy, brought with them evil as well as
good. They brutalised the Scottish nobles ;
and the weakened crown, in self-defence, turned
instinctively to the Church, which represented
such culture as was attainable. The practice of
1 This, at least, is the received opinion. The priory was
founded by bishop Robert in 1144.
2 She died in 1093 ; Alexander III. in 1286. He was the
grandson of William the Lion, who was the great-grandson of
St. Margaret.

420 THE CELTIC CHURCHES
endowing bishoprics and monasteries had been
to David the Saint a natural expression of piety;
under the first Stuarts, it seemed equally natural
to heap riches and lands on sacred corporations
by way of counterpoise to a barbarous aristocracy.
And it had demoralising results ; the dispro
portionate amount of such resources in the hands
of high ecclesiastics made the Scottish hierarchy,
in the age before the great catastrophe of the
Reformation, the most corrupt, perhaps, in
Europe x — some few noble examples, such as
those of bishops Kennedy and Elphinstone,
notwithstanding. And when the storm broke,
it was bound to be a tempest ; the changes
carried through under Knox were such as
distinguish a violent revolution, furiously
determined on breaking altogether with the
past ; and they gave to Scottish ideas of reli
gious duty a " dour " and stubborn character
which makes it sometimes difficult for English
Churchmen to appreciate a " righteousness "
1 The writer heard this opinion expressed by the late learned
and saintly bishop Forbes of Brechin. The mediaeval Scottish
Church, which successfully resisted the authority of the see of
York, had no native metropolitan until 1472, and then Graham,
first archbishop of St. Andrews, was persecuted to death by a
combination of adverse forces. Mr. Stephen thinks he was
sincerely bent on "correcting corruptions and abuses" (Hist.
Scott. Ch. i. 475), which became worse after his time.

IN THE BRITISH ISLES. 421
that is linked with so much that is un
lovely. The Celtic element in Scottish Christianity
has long been wholly subordinate; but its
tendency towards a fanatical type of Pres-
byterianism is as significant as the tenacious
Romanism of the Irish, in regard to a point
which English " moderation " is apt to ignore.
The Celt has no patience for balancing co
ordinate principles, no wholesome dread of " the
falsehood of extremes," no appreciation of " a
sober standard of feeling in matters of religion."
But he has a firm hold on some ideas which are
not the less important because he may express
them crudely or onesidedly. He is, in effect, a
witness for the fact that dryness, stiffness, over-
reserve, dislike of enthusiasm, are defects for
which no " correctness," culture, or learning will
compensate ; that a professed representation of
the kingdom of God must exhibit it as a power
in the spiritual order ; that fervour is the first
condition of real worship, and that religion loses
its salt in proportion as it loses intensity.1
1 The Manx Church, though variously connected with Wales,
northern England, and Norway ("Sodor" = the Scotch isles
south of Orkney, long Norse), was fundamentally Irish.

THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE REIGN
OF ELIZABETH.
The interval between the accession of Queen
Elizabeth and the Church movement connected
with the names of Andrewes and Laud is
conspicuous among the transitional periods of
history. Such periods have their importance
and instructiveness, but, as perhaps our own
experience tells us, they give an impression
of incompleteness and unrest. The ground,
as it were, is unsteady beneath our tread ; the
phenomena with which we have become familiar
are passing away, and the old order is giving
place to the new. What will that new order be
like ? how will it deal with problems which are
waiting for their solution — which evidently must
wait for it until elements more or less opposed
have coalesced, or until one has dominated the
other ? Meantime, all is unsettled ; the defini
tive moulding has not taken place. It was so,

THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 423
in regard to the Church, through Elizabeth's
forty-four years, and for most part of the
reign of James I. " The Elizabethan settle
ment " is a convenient phrase, but, as we shall
see, it requires at the least very considerable
qualifications. Undoubtedly this transitional
character was stamped on the great Queen's
reign in its political aspect ; she had to feel the
surge of parliamentary opposition gathering
strength to restrain the personal monarchy ;
before she died she must have foreseen that
" her seat, which had been the seat of kings,"
might prove uneasy for such a successor as the
only prince to whom she could leave it.1 Still,
from the political and social point of view,
her " times " have been most happily called
" spacious : " the nation was exulting in a new
consciousness of energy, was feeling its life
strong within it, was reaching forth, as with
youth renewed, along various paths of enter
prise ; it was an intense relief, after the gloomy
days of a policy more Spanish than English,
which weighed the realm down with its sullen
pressure, to find that in Mary's half-sister was
impersonated a thoroughly national royalty,
that around her could be arrayed all the forces
1 See Gardiner, Hist. Engl. i. 42.

424 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
of national expansion : the people could again
be proud of their sovereign, and assured that
sympathy with them was part of her very life.
No wonder that, with all drawbacks allowed for,
the reign was the most splendid in English
history. But Elizabethan times could not be
called thus " spacious " in their religious or
ecclesiastical aspect. There is in them, when
so regarded, from the first, a pronounced
antagonism of principles; the administration
is restrictive, official authority is unsympathetic,
and seems deficient in ideas ; and resistance is
dogged in its conviction of a mission, and can
easily be exasperated into exhibiting its capa
cities for tyranny. An observer with a faculty
for forecasting might have predicted in the mid-
period of Elizabeth's reign that the two opposing
elements of Anglicanism and Puritanism were
destined to collide with a shock that would
mean civil war.1 I.
The queen's own character is a symbol of the
1 Dr. Gardiner says that " between the controversialists whom
Charles I. had hoped to silence" (by his Declaration) "there
was a difference not to be measured by words or terms," etc.
And thus " the real line of separation between the king and the
house of commons had lain in the religious question" (Hist.
Engl. vii. 39, 123).

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 425
incoherences of her time, as seen from the stand
point of religion. The recently published " Life
of Edward Freeman " contains an extract from
an article of his in the " Quarterly Review " of
June, 1854, in which two "portraits" of her are
sharply contrasted, and " neither of them," says
the writer, " is to be set aside as an entirely ficti
tious one. . . . The longer we contemplate her
chequered nature, the more we are impressed
with the truth of the dictum that in Elizabeth
there were two wholly distinct characters, in one
of which she was greater than man, and in
the other less than woman."1 Antitheses like
these are usually too sparkling to be alto
gether accurate ; human nature does not often
exemplify the combination of "a man's head
with a horse's neck ; " some threads of unity are
discernible running through all inconsistencies :
but still the diversity of features in this won
derful royal figure is manifest enough, and may
illustrate some points in her treatment of Church
affairs. There is an appearance of " facing both
ways ; " her assertions of royal supremacy, em
bodied in statutes or other documents, are as
stringent as her father's ; an Act in her first
1 Dean Stephens, Life and Letters of E. A. Freeman, i.
160 ff.

426 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
year attaches to the crown "all such jurisdiction
as by any spiritual authority hath been or may
be lawfully used over the ecclesiastical estate ; "
and yet in the same context the jurisdiction thus
claimed for the crown is called "ancient" — (a
point on which Mr. Gladstone has laid stress in
his paper on the "Royal Supremacy")1 — and
the object seems to be to exclude all " usurped
foreign power." The famous " supplentes " clause
in her letters patent for Parker's consecration2
includes in its scope deficiencies not only in the
requirements of " the statutes of this our king
dom," but also of'the laws ecclesiastical :" and
a subsequent act, 8 Eliz. cap. I, intended to
overrule objections to the legitimacy of his
status as archbishop, declares that all ordinations
or consecrations performed since the queen's
accession are rightful, " any statute, law, canon,
or other thing to the contrary notwithstanding."
It is at least arguable that such language refers
1 Gleanings of Past Years, v. 197. So Neal says that,
"admitting the court of high commission to be legal, both the
queen and her commissioners exceeded the powers granted them
by law ; for it was not the intendment of the act of supremacy
to vest any new powers in the crown, but only to restore those
which were supposed to be its ancient and natural right" (Hist.
Purit. i. 271).
2 See them in Denny and Lacey's De Hierarchia Anglicana,
p. 207.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 427
to technical impediments, under ecclesiastical
law, attaching in 1559 to any of the prelates
named in the letters patent, or to a want of
legality, .at that time, in the Ordinal of King
Edward. But we cannot wonder that Collier,
for instance,1 is scandalised by the breadth
of the assertion in 1 Eliz. cap. 1 ; it has un
doubtedly a twang of what is popularly called
Erastianism. On the other hand, the royal
Injunctions of that same first year contain an
explanation of the supremacy which Hallam2
describes as " intended not only to relieve the
scruples of Catholics, but of those who had
imbibed from the school of Calvin an appre
hension of what is sometimes, though rather
improperly, called Erastianism — the merging
of all spiritual powers ... in the paramount
authority of the State, towards which the
despotism of Henry and obsequiousness of
Cranmer had seemed to bring the Church of
England." The queen expressly "accepts3 as
good and obedient subjects those who will accept
the oath of supremacy with this interpretation,"
namely, " that her majesty is, under God, to
have the sovereignty and rule over all manner
1 Eccl. Hist. vi. 214. 2 Constit. Hist. i. m.
3 Cardwell, Documentary Annals, i. 233.

428 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
of persons born within these her realms,
dominions, and countries, of what estate, either
ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as
no other foreign power shall or ought to have
any superiority over them." "This interpre
tation," says Hallam, "was afterwards given
in one of the Thirty-nine Articles," i.e. the
thirty-sixth, "which having been confirmed by
parliament, it is undoubtedly to be reckoned the
true sense of the oath." Again, in regard to
ritual, and probably also to dogma, Elizabeth's
own preference would have been for a system
somewhat like that of her father's later years ; J
she would at least have liked to restore the
First Prayer-book of Edward ; she did insist
on the excision of a bitter clause about Papal
"enormities" from the Litany, on the replace
ment of the earlier form of administering the
consecrated elements in combination with the
form of 1552 (which, taken alone, gave a quasi-
Zwinglian impression), and on a statutable
provision (substantially repeated in a rubric)
1 "The queen was a believer in the real presence, and did not
object to the mass except in some few particulars " (e.g. the ele
vation) ; Archd. Perry, Student's Ch. Hist. Engl. ii. 260. He
refers to Ranke, Hist. Engl. i. 233, for this explanation made
by her to Philip II. See her twentieth injunction, " the com
munion of the very body and blood of Christ " (Cardwell, Doc.
Ann. i. 220), copied from the injunctions of 1547.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 429
for the " retention and use of the ornaments "
which had the authority of parliament in the
second year of her brother's reign, until she
should, " with advice " of certain officials, " take
other order,"1 — which, we may say, she never
did.2 In fact, she fairly told Parker that she
would not have agreed to divers orders of the
Prayer-book as re-established, but for a proviso
in the Act of Uniformity allowing her, in case
of "contempt or irreverence in the ceremonies of
the Church, to publish such further ceremonies
as might be most for the . . . reverence of Christ's
holy mysteries," etc.3 Her chapel presented
1 The rubric in the Prayer-book of 1559 (which was inserted
by the queen's sole authority) directs that " the minister . . .
shall use" etc., and quotes, "according to the act of parliament
set in the beginning of this book," words referring to the clause
in the act, " until other order shall be taken by the authority
of the queen's majesty with the advice of her commissioners
... or of the metropolitan," etc. Our present " ornaments
rubric" copies the wording of the act, minus the qualifying
"until," etc., which seems equivalent to legalising the "orna
ments " of 2 Edw. simpliciter.
2 James Parker on the Advertisements, pp. 37-52. Cf. Perry,
Stud. Engl. Ch. Hist. ii. 290, 300 ; Ch. Qu. Rev. xvii. 521. The
point is, that she never formally promulgated these ' ' advertise
ments " by virtue of authority given her under the statute. For
proof that long afterwards, under Whitgift, the "ornaments"
were spoken of as legal, cf. Strype's Whitgift, i. 245, 285.
3 Strype's Parker, ii. 34. The archbishop added that she had
thus ordered the use of wafer-bread, and the placing of the tables
within the choir. On the latter point, the injunctions direct

430 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
what would be now called an extremely
" ritualistic " appearance : on the altar stood a
silver crucifix, with images of the Blessed Virgin
and St. John, and gilt candlesticks lighted during
the service — a grievance and scandal to some of
her own bishops, as Sandys of Worcester and
Cox of Ely.1 Neal says that " when Sandys
bishop of Worcester (afterwards archbishop of
York) spoke to her against " this " crucifix, she
threatened to deprive him."2 The chapel was
served by a surpliced choir and " priests in copes "
(this is Neal's account) ; "the service was sung not
only with the sound of organs, but of cornets,
sackbuts, etc., on solemn festivals ; the cere
monies observed by the knights of the Garter
in their adoration towards the altar, which had
been abolished by King Edward, and revived
by Queen Mary, were retained ; in short," pro
ceeds the historian of the Puritans, " the service
that the holy table shall stand where the altar stood except at
communion, and then in the most " convenient place " within the
chancel. Evidently Elizabeth would have liked to do what was
afterwards practically effected by Laud. She ignores the rubrical
mention of " the body of the church." Doc. Ann. i. 234.
1 Strype's Annals, i. pt. ^. 501. Zurich Letters, i. nos. 24, 28,
29, 31. Strype says that the queen " seemed to have laid these
things aside, but not long after resumed " them (Annals, i. pt. I.
260), i.e. in 1563, but without lights; Z. L. i. No. 57.
2 Hist. Purit. i. 107.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 43'
performed in the queen's chapel, and in sundry
cathedrals, was so splendid and showy, that
foreigners could not distinguish it from the
Roman, except that it was performed in the
English tongue. By this method most of the
Popish laity were deceived into conformity,
and came regularly to church for nine or
ten years." But Elizabeth was at the same
time obliged to make great concessions to a
more distinctly " Protestant " spirit. ' Hardly one
of her political advisers sympathised with
her Catholic inclinations in regard to ritual :
and some of them were definitely in favour of
advance in the Protestant direction, while her
worthless favourite Leicester threw his weight
into the same scale. She could not find men
altogether of her own mind for the episco
pate ; x she had ascertained through the corre
spondence of Sir William Cecil with Edmund
Guest that the commissioners for revising the
Prayer-book would not go back to the standard
1 According to Strype, Wotton, who had been dean of
Canterbury under Pole, was " said by some " to have been
thought of by Elizabeth's advisers for the primacy (Strype's
Parker, i. 71). " It is plain," says Freeman (Hist. Essays, iv.
310), "that Elizabeth hoped to carry with her what we may call
the party of Thirlby and Tunstall," but soon found that this was
impracticable, though many must have desired it.

432 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
of 1549; some of the clergy in the Lower
House of Convocation were at first disposed
to go great lengths in the direction of further
change : x and at last the queen was obliged to
consent to the adoption of a revised series of
Articles, including one — on the case of" wicked "
communicants — which she particularly disliked,
and which she had managed to exclude from
the Latin text of 1563, although it reappeared
in the final text as sanctioned in 157 1 :2 on the
other hand, she secured, apparently by some
what "high-reaching" action, the insertion
of the famous clause which recognised the
authority of the Church in controversies of
1 See Wilkins, Concilia, iv. 239 ff., for a. petition by over
thirty members of the lower house against copes, surplices,
clerical gowns and caps, organ-playing, observance of saints'
days, and for making kneeling at communion and the sign of
the cross in baptism " indifferent." This was not adopted by the
house ; but another, which was for abrogating all holy days but
Sundays and principal feasts of Christ, requiring the minister to
say service with face toward the people, allowing the omission
of the sign of the cross in baptism, leaving the posture at com
munion to the discretion of the ordinary, and abolishing organs,
and all vestures save the surplice, was lost only by a majority of
one, twenty-seven members not voting (Strype, Ann. i. 1. 505).
And the house did adopt a request that the confession at holy
communion might include a " detestation and renunciation of
' the idolatrous mass,' " that every one not intending to com-
municate'.might be obliged to depart before the confession, and
that sponsors should no longer " answer in the infant's name."
" Hardwick, Hist, of Art. pp. 141, 151.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 433
faith.1 It is rather surprising that she allowed
the bill to pass with such limiting phraseology
as seemed to confine subscription to those
articles " which only concerned the confession of
the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the
Sacraments," as if those which concerned Church
polity were not to be deemed binding.2 And
the pressure put upon her by home-circum
stances, imposing a decisively " Reformation "
character on the ecclesiastical arrangements
which she had to accept and authorise, was
seconded by the necessities of her position
among European sovereigns. She could not
practically have held that position without the
support and general sympathy of the Protes
tant powers on the Continent.3 She yielded,
1 See Hardwick, Hist, of Artie, p. 141. It may also be noticed
that whereas in the Edwardian series the Latin title of Art.
31 (32) is "Cselibatus ex verbo Dei praecipitur nemini," in
the Elizabethan it is "De conjugio sacerdotum." Yet the word
"blasphemous," applied to "fables" in Art. 30 (31), was not in
the Edwardian form, which had " forged " instead.
2 So Hardwick, p. 224, on the interpretation of this phrase ;
but another view is taken by Strype, Ann. ii. 1. 105, and Perry,
p. 301. To this act of 13 Eliz. the Commons referred in 1629 as
if it had established their Calvinistic " sense " of the Articles :
cf. Gardiner, Hist. Engl. vii. 41. The canons, and Charles II.'s
act of uniformity, exclude any limitation.
3 Not that she ever meant to unite England absolutely
with those powers : she aimed, says bishop Creighton, at
maintaining for the English Church and State "a mediate
2 F

434 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
therefore, to what it required of her : for, after
all, her personal taste for a stately ceremonial,
or her theoretical inclination towards doctrinal
statements more akin to the "old learning"
than to the " new," were of incomparably less
moment to her than the determination to main
tain her throne against Roman assailants —
among whom Spain was principally to be
reckoned with, — and to make the England
which she thoroughly understood and loved
a power of the first rank among Christian
kingdoms. Elizabeth's conduct towards bishops and epis
copal sees was too often self-willed, overbearing,
and unjust. She was irritated with most of the
prelates, as men practically forced upon her, and
inclined, or more than inclined, towards the
Calvinistic rigorism and the unsightly bareness
of ritual which they had learned in exile to
associate with "the gospel." She visited this
grievance upon them by scolding them for their
slackness in enforcing uniformity x : she threw
position," and she "succeeded in spite of overwhelming diffi
culties " (Laud Commemoration Addresses, p. 9).
1 See her letter to the primate, Jan. 25, 1565, for the repression
of "diversities in opinions and rites:" clearly referring to the
existing Prayer-book law as a standard (Parker, on the Advertise
ments, p. 48). See Strype's Whitgift, i. 338, for Burleigh's

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 435
on them the onus in this task, and she steadily
withheld any express sanction from the "Ad
vertisements " which Parker put forth (having
dropped the title of " Ordinances ") in the hope
of securing a minimum of ritual observance, and
for which some equivocal words in their title
were afterwards supposed to claim the royal
authority.1 Even he, whom she preferred to all
his suffragans, was wearied by what he felt as
her untowardness. Her council contained some
anti-ecclesiastical elements, such as Walsingham
and Knollys. It was one of her worst weaknesses
to allow Leicester to counterwork Parker : she
provoked the wearied primate to say, " I will no
more strive against the stream — fume or chide
who will."2 "In 1573 she allowed the bishops,"
as Archdeacon Perry words it, "to be deli
berately insulted"3 in a letter from the Privy
Council, to the effect that they had connived at
unfavourable opinion of "many" of the bishops, as having
become "worldly" since their consecration; and Whitgift
admits as much as to " some few." Scambler of Peterborough
was probably in his mind. But the prelates as a body were a
poor set.
1 James Parker, on the Advertisements, p. 145.
2 See Hook, Archbishops, new ser. iv. 388. Towards the end
of his life, Parker even thought it possible that he might be
imprisoned (Strype's Parker, ii. 394).
3 Stud. Engl. Ch. Hist. ii. 298. See the letter in Cardwell,
Doc. Ann. i. 387.

436 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
nonconformity : " The fault is most in you."
When Archbishop Grindal remonstrated against
her absolute prohibition of the " prophesyings,"
or theological addresses in clerical meetings,
which she viewed as a form of Puritanical
activity,1 she at first thought of depriving him.
And her behaviour in regard to Church lands
and the revenues of vacant sees was yet worse.
Her " rapacity," as it has been called, was, like
her father's, exhibited to a great extent in the
interest of her ministers or favourites, — Cecil,
Leicester, Walsingham, and others.2 In 1584
1 In this remarkable letter, the very "protestant" writer re
minded the queen of the sin of Uzziah and its punishment, and
took a somewhat " sacerdotalist " line (on the authority of St.
Ambrose), as to the propriety of referring matters which touched
religion, or the doctrine and discipline of the Church, to the
bishops and divines as she referred questions "of law to her
judges;" and he also exhorted her "not to pronounce" on
matters of that kind "too resolutely and peremptorily, quasi
ex auctoritate, as she might do in civil and extern matters "
(Strype's Grindal, pp. 570 ff). The letter was written in 1576.
Parker, by Elizabeth's orders, had stopped the prophesyings in
the diocese of Norwich, in spite of opposition from members of
her own council. " The good old bishop," as Neal calls Park-
hurst (i. 215), had to submit. Cooper of Lincoln had sanctioned
the prophesyings in 1574, with due provision against abuse
(Strype's Ann. ii. 1. 476). Cf. Fuller, ix. 122.
2 "Over-persuaded by some great man, the queen wrote to
archbishop Sandys to lease out" two manors (one being that
of Southwell, his favourite abode) "for seventy years. ... A
few years after, his London house also was earnestly en
deavoured to be gotten from him : " in both cases " he remained

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 437
five sees were kept vacant that the queen might
have the disposal of the incomes ; x and the see of
Oxford was particularly unfortunate in being
thus treated during forty-one years, all told, of
the reign of a queen most gracious to the
University. And yet, heavy as was her hand, and auto
cratic as was her temper, the English Church
owes very much to this kinglike daughter of
Henry VIII. But for her, the forces of division
would have become forces of anarchy and of
disruption, or Calvinism would have crushed
Anglicanism in the germ. She kept the Church
from falling to pieces, or being revolutionised, by
the despotic energy of her grasp, in the character,
not of " Head," but of " Supreme Governor." 2
The condition of matters was far from ideal
under such a system ; a bad precedent was kept
up, and considerable occasion of scandal was
given ; but she carried the Church through its
present and exceptional trials, and thereby
established a claim on its lasting gratitude.
resolute " (Strype's Whitgift, i. 545)- For Whitgift's remonstrance
to Elizabeth in regard to church lands, before he became arch
bishop, see Walton's Life of Hooker. He says that the queen
gave "patient hearing " to " this affectionate speech."
1 Strype's Whitgift, i. 336 ; Perry, ii. 322.
2 The title of "head" was never resumed by the crown.

438 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
II. I.
Puritanism is a somewhat elastic term, and
may be taken to represent various positions, or,
to use an old term, " platforms," in the wide area
of anti-Anglican Protestantism. One has to
distinguish broadly between (i) the malcontent
unconforming Churchmen, who either simply
(a) objected to this or that ecclesiastical cere
mony or usage — for instance, to surplice-wear
ing, — or (b) aimed at a " further reformation "
of the Church of England on the lines of Cal
vinistic doctrine and discipline, and (2) the
thoroughgoing separatists, who held communion
with the Church to have become religiously
unlawful. And this distinction is the more neces
sary because modern separatists, while readily
acknowledging the Church to be a Christian
communion, and to have its own field of religious
usefulness, appear to dislike the term " Dis
senters," and to prefer to call themselves by
that title of " Nonconformists " which was
originally applied to the former class.1 Both
these forms of opinion were represented in the
days of Edward VI. The typical unconforming
Churchman — in Canon Dixon's phrase, "the
1 See Church Quart. Review, xvi. 402 ff.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 439
episcopal founder of Nonconformity " — was
Bishop Hooper, ' who, being designated to the
see of Gloucester, refused to wear the cope,
surplice, and episcopal habit, and only gave way
after some five months, which had ended in a
fortnight's imprisonment.1 But there were
actual separatists 2 in Kent and in Essex
earlier than the date of Hooper's resistance to
Ridley's urgency. Their separation began about
the middle of 1550, and was developed in 1551.
After the accession of Elizabeth we find the same
tendencies to a more moderate and a more
extreme theory of "further reformation." The
persecution under Mary had driven many into
exile ; and a circumstance of great historical
importance for England was that they took
refuge for the most part not among Lutherans,
but among Calvinists, or Reformers strongly
inclining to Calvinism. This was natural ; for
Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr Vermigli (who
went further than Bucer), had held theological
professorships at Cambridge and Oxford, and
had done much to promote the substitution of
the Second Prayer-book for that of 1 549. Dis
sensions, as is well known, broke out among the
1 Strype's Cranmer, i. 302 ff. ; Dixon, Hist. Ch. Engl. iii.
213 ff., 255.
2 Dixon, iii. 206.

440 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
English refugees ; the " troubles of Frankfort "
were a scandal ; x Cox, who upheld the Second
Prayer-book as against a new Calvinistic order
of service, triumphed over Knox and the extreme
party : but, on the whole, the foreign religious
atmosphere had its effect, and those, in par
ticular, who had found at Zurich a secure refuge
came to regard it as a sort of Jerusalem, and
returned with foreign ideals in regard to worship
and discipline.2 The English Church, even as
Edward VI. had left it, seemed to them but
imperfectly purified ; they adhered in theory to
the ground which Hooper had at first taken up,
and objected to all ceremonies of "man's in
venting," and in particular to the use of such
vestures as had been in any way associated with
the unreformed worship : but, in fact, the more
1 See Whittingham's narration of these troubles. It is written
from the Calvinistic point of view, and represents Cox in a very
unfavourable light. He comes to Frankfort in March, 1555, and
finds the English congregation there content, or more than
content, to adopt Genevan forms of worship, under Knox as
their minister : Knox prevails on them to admit Cox and his
friends to membership ; Cox requites this by denouncing Knox,
on political grounds, to the magistrates, and having thus got rid
of him, persuades the magistrates to impose the use of the
English book. The second part of the " troubles " consisted
in a quarrel between Home as pastor and the congregation in
general, whose line is that of spiritual democracy.
2 See Parkhurst, Zurich Letters, i. no. 46, " Egone Tiguri-
norum meorum oblivisci possim ? Non possum, ' dum memor

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 441
eminent among them, who were marked out for
the episcopate, followed the advice given to
Hooper by Peter Martyr, and conformed in the
hope of abolishing what they disliked.1 Of the
clergy in general, very little was required in this
ipse mei,' etc. ' Si canis Tigurinus ad me commearet . . .
plurimi facerem.' " So Sampson : " Valeat et feliciter vivat
Tigurum " (ib. no. 58). Jewel addresses not only Peter Martyr,
but Bullinger, as his "father." Even in 1573 bishop Parkhurst
still regarded Zurich as a model.
1 Cf. Strype, Annals, i. 1. 264, that " Cox, Grindal, Home,
Sandys, Jewel, Parkhurst, Bentham, laboured all they could
against receiving into the church the papistical habits, and that
all the ceremonies should be clean laid aside. But they could not
obtain it," etc. Whereupon " they concluded unanimously not to
desert their ministry for some rites that, as they considered, were
but a few, and not evil in themselves," etc. Sandys wrote, in
1560, that he "hoped the copes would not remain long" (Zurich
Letters, i. no. 31). Home said, in 1565, that they had obeyed
the order to use caps and surplices, in order to keep adversaries
out of the posts which they occupied (ib. no. 64). In 1566,
Jewel wrote, as to the surplice question, " Utinam omnia etiam
tenuissima vestigia papatus . . . e templis . . . auferri possent ! "
(Ib. no. 67 ; see also Grindal, ib. no. 73). He and Home wrote,
in 1567, that they only bore with the cross in baptism and kneel
ing at communion " donee meliora Dominus dederit" (ib. no.
75). Peter Martyr had distinguished between the cap and habit,
as not necessarily superstitious, and ministerial vestures which
"speciem missse referunt" (Zurich Letters, ii. no. 14. This
is the letter in which he says, "Cum essem Oxonii, vestibus
illis albis in choro nunquam uti volui, quamvis essem canoni-
cus"). But soon afterward she thought the so-called "sacred
vestures " might be used " in ccena Domini administranda,"^n>-
vided that those who wore them denounced the use of them ! (ib.
no. 17). But he drew a line at the crucifix.

44Z THE ENGLISH CHURCH
line ; the cope was rarely used,1 the " vestment "
or chasuble never ; it was only a question of the
surplice, and of the clerical dress or apparel (that
is, the square cap, gown, and tippet), which was
ordered for use by the 30th of the royal Injunc
tions of 1559: and when some thirty London
ministers in 1565,2 and thirty-seven in 1566,
refused to comply, they were suspended or
deprived as contumacious. The city was largely
infected with the anti-ceremonial spirit ; the sign
of the cross was sometimes omitted in baptism,
the surplice not always used ; and at the
Eucharist some would receive kneeling, others
standing, others sitting.3 The malcontents must
1 James Parker, on the Advertisements, p. 102. The cope
was ordered for general use in the interpretations of the In
junctions ; but the "advertisements" require it "in cathedral
and collegiate churches."
2 The scene on March 24, 1565, was curious enough. One
minister who had conformed appeared in " a scholar's gown,
priestlike," with a tippet and square cap; the summoned
ministers were bidden by the chancellor of the diocese to look
at him ; would they promise to wear such apparel, " and in the
church a linen surplice? " They must write Volo or Nolo. " Be
brief; make no words." This imperative demand was made in
the name of "the council." Out of 140, all wrote " Volo " but 30..
Strype's Grindal, p. 145. Cp. ib. 154, for the next case. The
word "habits" might include vestures of ministration, but was
commonly used for the out-of-door clerical garb. (Parker, on the
Advertisements, p. 73.)
3 See Neal, ii. 125.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 443
have felt that they were hardly used when
conformity was pressed upon them simply in
the name of " the queen's laws," x and when it
was well known that some bishops, as Grindal
and Sandys,2 disliked not only the cope, but the
surplice, and even the ordinary clerical attire.
To disapprove, and yet to conform, seemed in
consistent to men like Sampson, dean of Christ
Church, and Humphrey, president of Magdalen
College, who compared the surplice to the
" strange apparel " in Zeph. i. 8, and would not
admit, on the authority of Bullinger or Martyr,
that the use of it was per se indifferent.3 Sampson
1 Strype says of Parker, that " the great reason which made "
him "so earnest in urging conformity was, to keep up a vene
ration for law established, and to maintain the authority of the
prince" (Life of Parker, ii. 424). Cp. Strype's Aylmer, p. 93.
2 Sandys, referring to the other ornaments of the second year
of Edward, required by the act of uniformity to be used "until"
the queen should take other order, stooped to use a despicable
quibble, as if it meant " that we shall not be forced to use them,
but that others in the mean time shall not convey them away,
but that they may (i.e. shall) remain for the queen" (Strype,
Ann. i. I. 122). It is difficult to see how an honest man could
thus " gloss " the " text," as he phrased it. He was also, at
first, in favour of " blotting out the collect for crossing the infant
in the forehead," as " seeming very superstitious."
3 Cf. Hooker, v. 29. 6. See their replies to Parker's queries,
Dec. 1564 (Strype's Parker, i. 329). For Sampson's questions
to Bullinger, see Zurich Letters, i. no. 69 ; and another letter
from him and Humphrey (no. 71), which is written in a
tone of disappointment. By this time (July, 1566) they had

444 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
was consistently pertinacious, and Elizabeth by
special order caused him to be both impri
soned and deprived. Humphrey was imprisoned,
but, as Neal says, " obtained a toleration," and
" ten or twelve years after was persuaded
to wear the habits."1 A second stage in the
" nonconforming " movement is associated with
a more important name. In 1571 Elizabeth had
practically blocked a bill for a Puritan revision
of the Prayer-book;2 in 1572 she peremptorily
commanded the Commons to proceed no further
with two bills brought in by a Puritan, which
were to " reform the Church after the pattern of
Geneva."3 Then it was that Thomas Cart-
wright, with other Puritanical divines, put forth
a twofold " Admonition " to the Parliament, in
which the whole existing Church system was
made up their minds, and represent their ' ' departure from their
places," as forced upon them by the bishops. In 1571 bishop
Cox writes to R. Gualter, complaining of such brethren as
" obstreperos, contentiosos," regardless of weak brethren, etc.,
(ib. no. 94). See, on the other side, a letter complaining of the
bishops as inconsistent, and as having tried to " overawe" the
inferior clergy by depriving Sampson (Z. L. ii. no. 62).
1 Neal, i. 139. Cf. Zurich Letters, ii. no. 49 ; Strype's
Parker, i. 369. Both these men died in 1589.
2 Strype, Ann. ii. 1. 93.
3 Perry, ii. 297. The introducer of the bills was Peter Went
worth, who had said to archbishop Parker in 1571, "Make
you popes who list, for we will make you none." Strype says
he had " learnt his lesson from Cartwright " (Parker, ii. 203).

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 445
attacked in terms which would logically conduct
to open schism. They were "bent," says Hooker,
"against all the orders and laws wherein this
Church is found unconformable to the platform
of Geneva." x Whitgift, afterwards primate, was
employed to answer the Admonitions : 2 and
Cartwright, in his rejoinder,3 took the ground
which is familiarised to us by Hooker's elaborate
1 Pref. 2. 10; cp. ib. 3. 9 ; E. P. iii. 7. 4.
2 See Zurich Letters, ii. no. 94, a letter of Gualter's to Cox,
referring to this answer, and criticising the demands of the
Admonition party, as described to him in Cox's letter (Z. L. i.
no. 107). One of them insisted on entire parity among ministers :
another "condemned the order of confirmation." On the
Admonition, as " utterly condemning the present church," etc.,
see Strype's Whitgift, i. 55.
3 For his writings, see Keble's Hooker, i. 47. Cartwright
had used his position as Margaret professor at Cambridge
to promote the Puritanic schemes, and had " condemned
the present constitution of the Church of England " (Strype's
Parker, ii. 39) ; and Whitgift, in 157 1, had procured his
expulsion from the university. Hooker alludes to his " dis
dainful sharpness of wit " (Pref. 2. 10.) ; and Strype quotes his
contemptuous language towards reformers as well as fathers
(Whitgift, i. 105-7). After Whitgift replied to the rejoinder,
Cartwright published a second reply in two parts. Whitaker,
professor of divinity at "Cambridge, himself puritanical in
sympathies, said of the first part, "May I die if I ever saw any
thing looser and even more childish ! " (Whitg. i. 136). The
second part appeared when he had fled abroad, in 1577. Whit
gift thought it needed no reply (ib. i. 576). Cartwright was
passionately in earnest, and ready to "afford the loss of a little
ease and commodity unto that whereunto his life itself, if it had
been asked, was due " (ib. i. 138).

446 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
negation of it. The polity of the Church, in
cluding all its observances, must, according to
Cartwright, have explicit Scripture warrant ; and
nothing that had been abused under Popery
could be retained.1 Here, at last, was a plain
issue, an overt unmistakable challenge to the
Church, inviting a clash of irreconcilable prin
ciples, a conflict which no concessions to scruples
about surplices could have averted or long post
poned. The queen was exasperated, and ordered
all copies of the Admonitions to be given up — an
order more easily issued than enforced. The
bishops, says Parker, were " bearded " by the
patrons of the Puritans,2 or, as he used to call
them, " Precisians." Some prelates who had
strongly inclined that way found it necessary
to draw a line ; but Grindal, after succeeding
1 These are what Strype calls his "two false principles and
rotten pillars " (Whitg. i. 102). See Hooker, iii. 5 ; 7. 4 : iv.
3, 4; 9. 2; 14. 6: v. 28. I.
2 Strype's Parker, ii. 201. The term " Puritan" was imposed
ab extra, as a rendering of " Cathari ; " but Neal calls it " proper
enough to express their desires of a more pure form of worship
and discipline." So Whitgift wrote in 1584 to Burleigh, who
was personally his friend, but thought him too stringent, " I
know I lack not calumniators, especially among those that would
seem most pure ; but it is their manner " (Whitgift, i. 339 ; and
see Hooker on " the purified crew," Keble's Hooker, i. 374).
Burleigh reasonably objected to the practice of putting questions
which the persons summoned were to be bound ex officio mero
(as a matter of sheer duty) to answer. Cf. Fuller, ix. 183 ff.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 447
Parker at Canterbury,1 endeavoured to regulate,
instead of abolishing, the "exercises" called
prophesyings, and, as we have seen, came
thereby into collision with Elizabeth. He was
followed in 1583 by Whitgift, who was a stronger
man, but needed all the firmness which he called
"constancy," and his enemies called severity,2
for the task which the primacy then involved.
For Puritanism, as represented by those who
were bent on revolutionising the Church from
within, instead of seceding from it, had made
full use of the opportunity which it had enjoyed
since the issue of Pius V.'s bull against Eliza
beth in 1570, and the subsequent massacre of
St. Bartholomew in 1572. Three causes may be
assigned for this rapid growth of its ascendency
in the city of London, in Parliament, among the
country gentry, and also among "the common
sort." 3 It could utilise the ever-increasing alarm
and wrath with which England was watching the
designs of the Roman Catholic powers all over
1 He was translated from York in 1576. In November, 1574,
he had received a censorious letter from Sampson, broadly hint
ing that he had " a liking for lordly state " (Strype's Parker, ii.
376). His rules for the "exercises" are given by Strype,
Grindal, p. 327. They are reasonable enough.
2 Strype's Whitgift, i. 326. Neal, i. 405 : "A severe governor
of the church, pressing conformity with the utmost rigour."
3 Cf. Hooker, Preface, 3. 5 ; Strype's Whitgift, iii. 33.

448 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
Europe, and pre-eminently of the dreaded and
abhorred " Spaniard ; " could represent itself as
the one safeguard of Reformation principles, —
imperilled or compromised, as it would contend,
by such a half-and-half policy as that of the
queen and her bishops ; and could contrast their
method with the thoroughgoing completeness,
the logical finish, the "courage of convictions,"
with which its own Genevan theory was upheld
by men who knew their own mind, and were
ready for any sacrifice in the cause of what they
deemed the truth.1 Secondly, we must do justice
to a most legitimate element of strength which
is thus described by Fuller : " What won them
most repute was . . . painful preaching in populous
places," which inevitably contrasted with the
inefficiency of many of the incumbents.2 Like
the Methodist of a later age, the Puritan was
often the only accessible representative of
spiritual earnestness, and commended his whole
system to those who had experienced his care
for their souls. And, lastly, we may attribute
some effect to that dislike and suspicion of
1 This is well stated by Gardiner and Mullinger, Introduction
to Engl. Hist. p. 113.
2 Hooker says that, for lack of men, the bishops were often
obliged to ordain persons "meanly qualified in respect of learn
ing " (v. 81. 5). Cf. Ottley's "Lancelot Andrewes," p. 31.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 449
ecclesiastical authority, as such, which had been
intensified by the experience of Marian times,
but is traceable much higher up to the pre-
reformation days, in which the English laity
had been offended by the arrogance or the
oppressiveness of their prelates. So it was that,
as soon as Whitgift put forth certain "articles" x
for the purpose of maintaining Church order,
some clergymen of his own diocese, — " for the
most part," he says, " young in years and of
very small reading," — took up a violent line
of protest,2 and were backed up by Kentish
gentlemen whom he was obliged to remind
that their clients " differed from " the Church
not "only in rites and ceremonies" — although,
even in regard to these, no Church could
tolerate breaches of order — but "in some points
of substance." s Here was the very point : the
1 The royal supremacy to be acknowledged ; the prayer-book,
with the ordinal, to be approved, and its forms to be exclusively
used ; the thirty-nine articles to be accepted. Whitgift told the
council that he was " ready by learning to defend them against
all mislikers thereof." They are embodied in the thirty-sixth
canon of 1604.
2 One of them proposed an addition to the bidding prayer —
" that God would strike through the sides of all such as go
about to take away from the ministers of the gospel the liberty
which is granted them by the word of God " (Strype's Whitgift,
i. 247). This, of course, meant the archbishop of Canterbury.
3 Ib. i. 274,
2 G

450 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
"Discipline," as the Calvinistic programme of
a Church organisation was called,1 and the
whole set of ideas which centred in it, meant a
great deal more than a rejection of three or
four ceremonies ; they meant " a substitution
of an entirely new idea of the Church for that
on which the Reformation in England had been
based " 2 — a new idea of the Church, and withal
an idea of the Sacraments which would have
required a revision of the Prayer-book, even as
it then stood 3 without the concluding portion of
1 See the story of the " artisan of Kingston " in Keble's
Hooker, i. 150.
2 Dean Church, Pascal and other Sermons, p. 75. So
Dean Paget, The Spirit of Discipline, p. 297 : " A plan had
been devised by which this alien structure might be quietly
built up within the episcopal, and athwart its lines, so as
gradually to supersede it." See also H. O. Wakeman, The
Church and the Puritans, p. 45, and bishop Creighton's
address at the " Laud Commemoration," p. 8. The attorney-
general, after consulting all papers relating to a trial of Puritans
in 1 59 1, told Burleigh that when once they had established
their discipline, they were " resolved not to give allowance of
either bishops or archbishops to be in the church " (Strype's
Whitg. ii. 83). Years before, even the puritanical bishop Pil-
kington saw and said that the malcontents had now plainly
shown their hand,— that "the whole Church polity was
attacked:" although in the same context he lamented that
certain changes were practically impossible (Zurich Letters, i.
no. no).
3 One of the Kentish ministers (not a graduate) said, " The
words of the prayer at baptism, ' Give Thy Holy Spirit to this
infant that it (sic) may be born again,' are not agreeable to the

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 451
the Catechism ; in short, the contest raised issues
of principle which year after year became more
apparent. As the Londoners had shown sym
pathy with Cartwright in 1573, so the great men
who surrounded the throne gave moral support
to the malcontents ; x and the House of Com
mons, in 1584 and 1586, committed itself2 to
their movement in favour of the abolition of
"oaths" of canonical obedience, or "subscription"
to Whitgift's articles, or for the " new model " set
forth in 1580 in a book "on Ecclesiastical Dis
cipline," 3 of which Walter Travers was the chief
author, and which afterwards was revised by
word of God, but contrary to the same." So that here a
far-reaching issue was raised as to the principle of sacramental
efficacy ; and it is significant that Hooper, when he objected to
the episcopal habit, maintained that sacraments did not " confer"
grace, but only "sealed " it (Hardwick, Hist. Artie, p. 94). But
some Sussex ministers were satisfied by Whitgift's explanation
of the form of ordination (which Cartwright had called ridicu
lous and blasphemous), to the effect that the ordaining bishop
only acted instrumentaliter, under Christ as the "only giver of
the Holy Ghost" (Strype's Whitgift, i. 258).
1 We cannot wonder, then, that Robert Beal, clerk to the
council, wrote on that side, and treated Whitgift with great
rudeness in an interview. This sour-tempered lawyer actively
promoted the execution of Mary Stuart.
2 The house also dwelt on the abuses of pluralism and non-
residence. They were defended on the score of clerical poverty.
Pluralities were restrained by canon in 1583, Cardwell, Synod.
i. 145. On nonresidence, cf. Hooker, v. 81. 6.
3 Hooker, iii. 7. 4 ; Strype's Whitgift, i. 345. The book
had been printed in Latin in 1574 : Strype's Ann. iii. 1. 413.

452 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
Cartwright and other " leaders of that faction,"
to use Strype's phrase.
Elizabeth, as we have seen, had imperatively
stopped the progress of two "bills of reforma
tion " sixteen years before. She now showed
herself equally resolute, although she conde
scended to argue the points raised. But the
Puritan ministers, under an absolute con
viction of the sacredness of their cause, persisted
in promoting it, set up in certain counties their
" classical and provincial assemblies," x and
engaged themselves to work for the carrying
out of their " model," by the civil power if
possible, but at any rate somehow.2 And this
emboldened a group of extreme Puritans to
exhibit the worst effects of their system — the
coarseness, bitterness, unmeasured abusiveness
which it encouraged in vehement natures ; the
" Martin Marprelate " libels,3 printed at a secret
1 Strype, Ann. iii. i. 690; Whitgift, i. 554, ii. 6 ff. The
Warwickshire "synod" in 1588 declared the bishops' calling to
be unlawful (i.e. in a religious sense).
2 Ib. i. 503, ii. 18.
3 For the puerile vulgarity (not to speak of the ferocity) of
these writers, see specimens quoted in Strype's Whitgift, i. 553,
570. Whitgift was bidden to " remember his brother Haman,"
and described as more tyrannous even than Bonner. The " lords
bishops "were "swinish rabble, petty popes, who had sinned
against the Holy Ghost ; " the conformist clergy " worshipful
paltripolitans, right poisoned persecuting priests, cogging knaves,

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 453
and moveable press, and boiling over with the
most outrageous language, especially against
Whitgift himself, seem to have acted as a
hindrance to the very cause which they were
intended to help. At first the Church party
were alarmed at the violence of the onslaught ;
but it soon appeared that Puritanism had gone
too far, and this scandalous literature was the
" drunken Helot " which promoted a reaction ;
that reaction was facilitated by the twofold
relief from anxiety about Roman designs which
the nation had derived from the execution of
the Queen of Scots in 1587 and the defeat of
the Armada in 1588 ; x and it was inaugurated
by Bancroft's epoch-making sermon at St. Paul's,
February 9, 1589.2 When he proclaimed his
belief in a Divine basis for episcopal authority,
limbs of Antichrist, ungodly wretches," etc. See, too, Hooker,
Dedic. to bk. v. : "the scurrilous and more than satirical im
modesty of Martinism." One "Tom Nash" answered them
in their own fashion ; see Walton's Life of Hooker. Cartwright
" continually declared against them " (Strype's Whitg. ii. 27).
Cf. the late Aubrey Moore's notes of lectures on Reformation
History (p. 294), that "two things come out in the Marprelate
controversy: (1) puritanism now appears in its true colours
— its attack on episcopacy was not accidental, but essential ;
(2) the attack led to a new and truer setting forth of what
episcopacy is," etc.
1 Keble, Preface to Hooker, p. Ixiv.
2 The date given by Strype and Neal, January 12, is incorrect.

454 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
the Puritan Sir Francis Knollys showed some
perspicacity by trying to ruin him with Eliza
beth, and raising the cry (often since then
repeated by Protestant zealots), " The Royal
supremacy in danger I"1 It is quite true, as
a very candid Nonconformist has remarked,2
that " the Anglo-Catholic spirit had in a measure
manifested itself" from the outset of the English
Reformation ; the tone and spirit of the Prayer-
book, the retention of the historical " Orders,"
the habitual assumption of ecclesiastical
continuity,3 had been so many irresistible
leavening forces ; the influence of those
" Marian " clergy who had conformed under
Elizabeth would tell silently in favour of
safeguards against Protestant extremes. Jewel
did more than he knew by his anti-Roman
1 See Strype's Whitgift, i. 560, and for more about Knollys'
zeal against episcopal pre-eminence, ib. ii. 124 ff. He criticised
Whitgift himself for asserting "that the superiority of bishops
was God's own institution." Elizabeth twice rebuked Knollys
for his puritanism ; ib. 54. It was in the same year that bishop
Hutton (who had once been puritanical) privately stated to
Burleigh and Walsingham (who had become adverse to the
puritans) the case for the apostolic origin of episcopacy.
(Whitgift, iii. 227). " In the end " they seemed convinced.
2 Stoughton, Religion in England, i. 6.
3 E.g. "The service in this church of England these many
years hath been read in Latin," etc. Introd. to B. of CP. of
1549, etc.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 455
appeal to antiquity; the canons of 157 1, though
not without language which Puritans would
approve, struck a chord which was bound to
vibrate when they insisted on "what the
Catholic Fathers and ancient bishops had
inferred from the teaching of" Scripture. In
short, no movement is without antecedents ; it
exists because it has been prepared for. And
thus the " bold speaking " of the future primate
was, in a real sense, a new start for English
Churchmanship : neither the preacher nor his
censors could foresee its results ; but the
impulse thus originated went on increasing
in volume and force,1 until it produced the
" Caroline " Church revival, and developed the
"English Reformation" on lines from which
foreign influences had too long caused it to
diverge. From this date, also, may be reckoned
the decline of nonconforming Puritanism as
a power in the realm, during the remaining
years of Elizabeth.2 But its influence had
1 Andrewes was rising into prominence before Elizabeth died.
Bishop Young, who ordained Laud in 1600, approved of the
patristic turn which his studies had taken.
2 See Perry, ii. 337 : " The latter years of Elizabeth's reign
were almost free from troubles from the puritans." In 1590
Cartwright was repeatedly imprisoned, and required to purge
himself on oath from charges of nonconformity and sedition,
aggravated by a previous engagement not to impugn the church

456 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
been too widely diffused and too energetic to
be defeated " along the line " by the Church's
returning self-assertion. Hooker, some years
later, addressed his "Preface" to "them that
seek, as they term it, the reformation of laws
and orders ecclesiastical," and pointed out the
revolutionary tendencies of Puritanism, while
intimating a fear of its ultimate success; and
if open agitation for the Genevan model had
been abandoned, as too dangerous while the
Tudor queen lived, the Genevan theology which
had possessed the minds of its advocates re
tained a hold over the Universities,1 over most
of the clergy, and over large masses of the
laity, and was transmitted to those who, in
polity. He refused ; he was called before the Star-chamber in
1 59 1, but still refused the oath, and was at last discharged on
"promise to be quiet," — a pledge which he fulfilled. He and
his fellow prisoners had assured Whitgift, that they "had not
alienated their affections from the holy fellowship of the
church" of England. Cf. Fuller, b. ix. 197 ff; Strype's
Whitg. ii. 22 ff., 74 ff, 88; Hook's Archbishops, new series,
v. 153.
1 This is illustrated by the hostility of the Oxford authorities
to Laud as a young man. As to Cambridge, see Cambridge
Transactions during Puritan Period, ii. 17, 71, etc. Cambridge
had, from the puritans' point of view, an advantage denied to
Oxford — a college recently founded " for the extension of the
pure gospel " by Sir Walter Mildmay, in 1584. Emmanuel was
long faithful to its tradition : see J. W. Clark's "Cambridge,"
p. 255. Yet it produced Sancroft.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 457
the first parliament of Charles I., made the
House of Commons look too much like a synod
of Calvinist inquisitors. But it is simple justice
to add that, for men like these, the austere
dogmas which have driven so many into sheer
revolt from Christ were associated with all their
deepest religious convictions and motives, with
all that bound them personally to an unseen
Saviour and Lord.1

II. 2.
But the Puritan movement, in the large sense
of the term, had its Jacobins in the Separatists,
who would keep no terms with the Church, and
regarded it as in truth no Church at all. It was
in their eyes, " at the best, a mingle-mangle of
the elect and the reprobate ; at the worst, a
synagogue of Satan." 2 A National Church
1 See H. O. Wakeman, The Church and the Puritans, p. 43.
2 Ch. Quart. Rev. xiv. 179. Cf. Strype's Whitgift, ii. 191,
quoting Barrow on " the profaneness, wickedness, and confusion
of the people which were there " (in what he called " the parish
assemblies," i.e. the church congregations) "received, retained,
and nourished as members." Barrow was replying to the
"nonconformist," Geo. Giffard. Rogers, Bancroft's chaplain,
represents the separatists as holding that " a confused gathering
of good and bad in public assemblies was no church " (on the
Articles, p. 167).

458 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
was far removed from their ideal ; it would
necessarily include many who were not " God's
people," — in modern phrase, not converted ;
what they wanted was a Church, or rather a
group of absolutely separate Churches, formed
on a basis of sheer individualism : and this
theory seems to have underlain all their hostility
to a system which retained what they regarded
as appurtenances of " Antichrist." The separa
tism which, as we have seen, had begun to show
itself under Edward, reappeared in London at
the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth.1 Some
whose antipathy to the Church was far too
pronounced for any compromise, disowned her
altogether, and worshipped apart, forming them
selves, as Strype puts it, into " clancular and
separate congregations," and " using a book of
prayers framed at Geneva." 2 The matter
became known to the queen, and she ordered
these " dissenters " (so Strype calls them) to be
dealt with at first by remonstrance, and, if
obstinate, by deprivation of their privileges as
freemen of London. About a hundred such
persons were gathered together in Plumbers'
Hall on the 19th of June, 1567 ; they had hired
the hall for a meeting under false pretences —
1 See Zurich Letters, ii. no. 13. 2 Strype's Grindal, p. 169.

IN THE .REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 459
"It was wanted for a wedding." The sheriffs
interrupted the worship, and some of the leading
men were brought before the Lord Mayor and
certain of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners,
including Grindal, bishop of London,1 who
began by rebuking them for telling an untruth.
Their spokesman explained their position, lay
ing stress on the imposition of the "accursed
conjuring garments," the use of "idolatrous
gear" in parish churches, the fact that some
of the London parish priests had held their
cures under Mary,2 and the " persecution of
God's servants" carried on under the present
queen. To men of the temper of these seceders,
persons like Sampson or Humphrey, or even
Cartwright, were weak-kneed and half-hearted.
If the conforming clergy were in their eyes
"formal Protestants, Pontificals, or Tradi-
tioners," 3 the unconforming malcontents,
1 " In that we said to the sheriffs, it was for a wedding, we
did it to save the woman" who was caretaker "harmless."
"Yea," said the bishop, "but you must not lie" (quoting Eph.
iv. 25). Ch. Qu. Rev. xxxvi. 469. They were imprisoned for
about a year, and then, by Grindal's intercession, discharged.
2 Cf. Zurich Letters, ii. no. 62.
3 A congregation of separatists signed a declaration in which
"the church of the traditioners " was charged with main
taining " the discipline of Antichrist ; " the ceremonies in the
prayer-book were denounced as filthy rags, which the signitaries
" would not beautify with their presence " (Neal, i. 211).

460 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
specifically called Puritans, and sometimes
"Reformists,"1 appear to have excited their
special animosity as "false brethren," or even
as "hypocrites," whose principles should have
carried them into actual "separation," who
"said, and did not," who stayed in Babylon
when they knew that it was Babylon,2 etc.
Their chief leader, although he ultimately
conformed, was Robert Brown, who had sepa
rated on the ground of the ceremonial,3 and
written books to prove that the Church was
essentially antichristian, and therefore that to
communicate with it was sinful. He is the
true founder of Congregationalism ; his followers
acquired from him that name of "Brownists"
which appears in Shakspeare's "Twelfth
Night." 4 Another schismatic was Henry
1 See Church Quart. Review, xiv. 181.
2 See Hooker's Preface, 8. I, for a description of this line of
criticism, which he evidently enjoys.
3 Compare Fuller, b. ix. 166 ; Perry, ii. 314. Brown was
well-born, and the ecclesiastical commissioners had to insist
in 1571 that he could not, as chaplain to the duke of Norfolk,
be exempt from their jurisdiction. He afterwards went abroad,
and with Harrison, a schoolmaster, wrote a ' ' book which was
dispersed over England, condemning this church as no church "
(Strype's Parker, ii. 69),
4 Act iii. sc. 2 : "I had as lief be a Brownist as a politician "
(in the unfavourable sense of "politician "). Laud enumerates
various "fundamental" errors as held by some or by all
Brownists: Works, vi. 131. Abbot had denounced them.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 461
Barrow, a lawyer, whose position is defined
in the maxim, "The further from Romish
manners, the purer is our Church," x and who
exhibited the true Puritanic intolerance by
urging that it was the duty of the sovereign
"to exterminate all other religions" than that
which he called the Gospel.2 With John Green
wood, a minister, and many others, he was
imprisoned for the violence of his language,
which was construed as seditious ; 3 and ulti
mately he suffered death, like the young Mar
prelate libeller, John Penry.4 The position
of these men, sometimes called Barrowists, was
1 Strype, Annals, ii. 2. 189.
2 Cf. Gardiner, Hist. Engl. i. 37 ; Ch. Quart. Rev. xxxiv.
358. So untrue is it to represent him as a sufferer for religious
liberty. 3 The 23 Eliz. c. 2 was used in these cases.
4 Barrow and Greenwood were executed in April, 1593.
Penry had begun as a "puritan," but became a separatist. He
suffered a month later. Strype calls " this poor unhappy young
man (little above thirty when he died) a minister well disposed,
and very anxious that the Welsh, his countrymen, should be
better taught," etc., but withal " a hot Welshman who would not
lie still." He kept on writing pamphlets against the bishops
and the council, and ultimately censured the queen herself
(Whitg. ii. 42 ff. 175 ff). Laud remarks that "Penry was
hanged, and Udal condemned and died in prison, for less
than is contained in Mr. Burton's book " (Works, iii. 391).
Udal was condemned for "defaming the queen's govern
ment," but his life was spared at Whitgift's intercession (Whitg.
ii. 40). He disclaimed " Brownism " (ib. ii. 99).

462 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
formally stated in a memorial to the Privy
Council:1 "We, upon due examination and
assured proof" (i.e. out of the Scriptures), "find
the whole public ministry, worship, government,
ordinances, and proceedings ecclesiastical, of
this land, by authority established . . . not to
belong unto, or to have any place or use or so
much as mention in, Christ's Church, but rather
to belong unto and to be derived from the malig
nant synagogue of Antichrist, being the self
same that the Pope used and left in this land."
This is explicit enough.2 The attitude taken
up by these extremists combined with the
disgust which the Marprelate virulence excited
1 Strype, Annals, iv. 131. An imprisoned Brownist named
Francis Johnson, calling himself ' ' pastor of this poor distressed
church," said in a letter to the lord treasurer, "We suffer these
things only for refusing to have spiritual communion with the
antichristian prelacy and other clergy abiding in this land " (ib.
190). So Penry, in his last days, writing to the queen, implies
that the churches where the established worship is carried on
are the tents of Antichrist (Strype's Whitgift, ii. 180).
2 One cannot believe that Barrow and Greenwood would have
conformed to the church, as Strype thinks (Life of Aylmer, p.
162), if they could have been assured that the "descent into
hell" meant only the passing of our Lord's soul into Hades.
Barrow, in one of his requests for a public conference, writes,
"We . . . only make this separation for love we have to keep
the Lord's commandments, and for fear to disobey Him "
(Annals, iv. 242). For a list of "Barrowist errors," see
ib. iv. 202.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 463
to damage Puritanism in all its forms in the
eyes of the " respectable " English public.
III.
And now let us ask, in conclusion, what was
the mind and tone of the " conforming " Church
men, and of their official leaders ? No one who
knows the facts will attribute to the latter class
what would now be called a High-church tone.
Archdeacon Perry does not hesitate to say
that "the main body of" Elizabeth's first
"bishops were both Calvinistic in doctrine and
inclined to Presbyterianism in discipline."
Parker must be excepted from this description ;
yet although a man of learning and merit, and
deserving, in more respects than one, of our
gratitude and sympathy, he sometimes, says
Dean Hook, appeared as "the unconscious
advocate of ultraprotestant notions, to which in
his deliberate actions he was hostile to the last,
or " sometimes acted as if he were an Erastian,
although he was not" x But he strikes us as cold
1 Hook, Lives of Archbishops of Canterbury, new series, vol.
iv. pp. 293, 385. See ib. 321, on Parker's advocacy of a licence
for printing the Geneva Bible. He obliged Magdalen college to
accept Humphrey as president (Strype's Parker, i. 222). But
he disliked the " Germanical natures " of some of the bishops ;
Hook, iv. 271.

464 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
and dry-minded, and the same biographer, while
calling him " great," in effect denies him great
ness by describing him as "a man without
enthusiasm." Of Grindal it suffices to say that
he was gentle and pious, but (as his portrait at
Lambeth seems to indicate) too weak for his
great post, even if he had not been affected by
the Calvinistic influences of his former exile.1
Whitgift was freely charged with holding
"popish opinions," because he upheld epis
copacy, which he ultimately spoke of as
" apostolical and divine ; " 2 but his remarks
in the controversy -between Hooker and
Travers were significant of a highly mili
tant protestantism : " If papists had as their
errors deserved, he did not see how they
should be saved ; " and the proposition, " The
Church of Rome is within the new covenant,"
was corrected by the archbishop into "The
Church of Rome is not as the assemblies of
Jews, Turks, and Painims." 3 And he was con
tent to accept the Lambeth articles, so called —
of which more presently — after their rigid
1 Strype's Grindal, p. 234.
2 In his reply to Beza, 1593; Strype's Whitgift, ii. 170.
In 1583 he used "officium pontificale" for the episcopal
office (Cardwell, Doc. Ann. i. 465).
3 Strype's Whitgift, i. 452. This was in 1585.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 465
Calvinism had received some modifications
from a committee employed to consider them.
If a bishop like Cheyney of Gloucester laid
stress on freewill, or seemed "Lutheran" on
the Eucharist, he incurred suspicion as un
sound ; x and, on the whole, it is clear that
the Elizabethan episcopate took up a theological
position very unlike that which characterised
the Caroline prelates, and was substantially
represented in the Prayer-book revision of 166 1.
But those who in our time patronise the former
class of bishops as frankly protestant, or as un
tainted by "sacerdotalism," must take their
Calvinism along with those merits. They were
swayed in various degrees, yet effectually, by
the commanding authority which the most
systematic intellect and the most imperious
temper among all the Continental Reformers
had won for the mighty "Genevan Pope." It
was not in them to shake off the bondage of
Calvin's ascendency ; 2 but we who can hardly,
1 Strype, Annals, i. 2. 282. Cheyney complained to bishop
Guest that "only" in Art. 28 "took away the presence of
Christ's body in the sacrament:" Guest answered that "the
article was of his own penning," and that the word did not
exclude the presence, but only a " gross " or " sensible " mode
of reception. So Guest wrote to Cecil, Dec. 22, 1566.
2 Hooker lived to write, in reply to his puritan critic, " Safer
2 H

466 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
by any effort, appreciate its pressure must allow
largely for it in estimating the conduct of smaller
men, when set to govern a Church which frater
nised practically with the foreign Reformed. It
was inevitable that, in face of the complex and
formidable hostility of Roman powers secular
and ecclesiastical, English Churchmen should
make common cause with those abroad who
were in peril for resistance to Popery ; " x and
this has to be remembered when we look at the
three celebrated cases (samples, probably, of a
class 2) in which persons not episcopally ordained
were allowed to minister in the Elizabethan
Church. Whittingham had acted with Knox in
appealing to Calvin (his brother-in-law) against
the use, among English exiles, of Edward VI.'s
Second Prayer-book; in 1562, through Leices
ter's influence, he obtained the deanery of
Durham without having received holy orders,
and even without having been regularly admitted
to discuss all the saints in heaven than M. Calvin !" etc. (Keble's
Hooker, i. 133). Even in 1595 Whitgift said that, if men thought
Calvin wrong, they should say so without naming him.
1 It required some courage to write even as Hooker did in
E. P. iv. 13, in reply to claims made for "foreign churches."
2 Yet Whitgift, as archbishop, declared that he "knew none
such : " Strype's Whitgift, iii. 185.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 467
to the Presbyterian ministry at Geneva ; x
his tenure of office was questioned in 1576, on
the ground that he was mere laicus ; he died in
1579 before the inquiry was concluded, but even
archbishop Sandys in the course of it affirmed
that " the Church of Geneva was not touched,"
i.e. its ordinations not impugned, because, " as
far as yet could appear, Whittingham had not
received his ministry by any authority or order
from that Church." Travers' case is connected
with his, because Travers, when his status was
in question, claimed Whittingham's as a prece
dent. He himself, " disliking " the English form
of ordination, had gone to Antwerp, and been
there, in 1578, " made a minister" by Cartwright,
Villers, a French Huguenot, and others, " after
the form of Geneva."2 Whitgift made this a
1 There was some ambiguity, apparently some disingenuous-
ness, as to the evidence. He produced certificates which
mentioned " lot and election," but also " such other ceremonies "
as were used at Geneva, imposition of hands not being named.
The fact was that, as Sandys expressed it, Whittingham was
"made minister by a few lay persons, in a private house at
Geneva, without the knowledge or consent of Mr. Calvin," in
fact, by English exiles alone (cf. Ann. ii. 2. 167 ff. 620 ; iii. I.
468). Why, then, did Whitgift say in 1585, that Whittingham
was " ordained minister by those which had authority in the
church persecuted," although, "had he lived, he had been
deprived, without" (i.e. but for) "special grace and dis
pensation " ? He must have been partly misinformed.
2 Fuller, Ch. Hist. ix. p. 214 ; Strype's Whitgift, i. 477 ;

468 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
ground of objection to his being appointed
master of the Temple ; and when, as " reader,"
he got into controversy with Hooker, the arch
bishop again adduced it as a main reason for
prohibiting him to preach. Travers wrote to
Burleigh in defence of his ministerial position ;
and Whitgift wrote marginal criticisms on the
plea, laying stress on the fact that Travers had
treated his own Church with "contempt," —
denying that by being again ordained in Eng
land he would be "making void his former
calling," — but insisting on the legal requirement
that " such as are to be allowed as ministers in
this Church should be ordered by a bishop."1
The case of Morrison belongs to Grindal's
primacy. In 1582 his vicar-general, acting by
his "express command," granted a license to
minister "throughout the province of Canter
bury" to John Morrison, as having been
admitted, according to the "laudable form of
the Reformed Church of Scotland, to sacred
orders and the most holy ministry by the
imposition of hands."2 The fact seems some-
Ann, iii. 1. 352. So was Robert Wright, who in 1582
confessed himself to be (legally) " a layman " (ib. iii. 1. 1 78. Cp.
cases in Ann. ii. 1. 277, and Cardwell, Synod, ii. 554).
1 Strype's Whitgift, iii. 185.
2 Strype's Grindal, p. 596.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 469
what doubtful, because at the time alleged,
1577, the First Book of Discipline, which
abolished imposition of hands, was still of
authority ; the Second Book, which restored
it, was not formally accepted by the Scottish
Assembly until 1581.1 Nor was "sacred orders"
a phrase of the Scottish Reformed. But the
main point — the non-episcopal character of
Morrison's ordination — was indisputable and
undisputed ; and Grindal here treats it as
both valid and regular. This is the strongest
case of the three, and Grindal may, like Travers,
have relied, from the legal point of view, on
13 Eliz. c. 12,2 as allowing the ministrations of
persons "pretending to be priests or ministers
by reason of any other form of ordering" than
the Edwardian, on their making due subscrip
tion ; but this, as Travers himself admitted,
would apply, in the first instance at least, to
priests ordained according to the old pontifical
under Mary, and would restrict such persons
from officiating until they had subscribed.3 The
1 Grub, Eccl. Hist. Scotl. ii. 217. The Kirk had approved
the first book. But the titular archbishop Douglas had received
imposition of hands when appointed in 1572 (ib. 180).
2 Yet the licence implies some doubt as to legality.
3 See Travers in Keble's Hooker, iii. 554 : more positively
in Strype's Whitgift, iii. 185. Observe the first words of

470 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
wording might seem wide enough to be con
strued as recognising non-episcopal ordinations ;
but even if it had done so expressly, it could
not cancel the requirement of the Ordinal
preface, as it was worded in 1552.1 Individual
bishops might practically set aside that require
ment ; but their acts would be simply violations
of the Church's own law.2 It is truly sig
nificant that, in the circumstances, such a
law was retained as interpreting an ordinal
which supposes the historical ministry of the
Three Orders to be that which God, " the giver
of all good things, had appointed by His Holy
the statute — "That the churches of the queen's majesty's
dominions may be served with pastors of sound religion." And
the third clause directs that " no person shall hereafter be admitted
to any benefice or cure except he then be twenty-three years of
age at the least, and a deacon" Cf. Keble's Serm. Acad, and
Occ. p. 372 ; Hardwick, Hist. Art. p. 224 ; and Denny, Anglican
Orders, p. 202. Strype takes the act to refer to both classes of
persons, but primarily to priests of Roman ordination (Annals,
ii. I. 105; 2. 175).
1 " It is requisite that no man, not being at this present bishop,
priest, or deacon, shall execute any of them " (i.e. "these orders"),
" except he be called, tried, examined, and admitted, according
to the form hereafter following." The clause was re-worded in
1661. 2 See Whitgift's articles of 1583, adopted by his suffragans
and sanctioned .by the queen. One is, that no one but a priest,
or at least a deacon, "admitted thereunto according to the laws
of this realm," shall be allowed to preach. Strype's Whitgift,
i. 229 ; cp. note in Cardwell, Doc. Ann. ii. 23.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 471
Spirit in His Church," and describes as " neces
sary in " that Church the two orders which are
throughout presumed to depend upon the
third for their bestowal.1
As a rule, the palpable defect in the prelates'
insistence on conformity was that they rested
too much on State "law," meaning the Act
of Uniformity, — and on the royal authority
in general. They did not appeal to "Church
principles," for those principles were not as
yet realised. There was little if anything to
relieve the hardness of their line towards those
who scrupled at compliance, or whose ideas
of pure and spiritual religion disposed them
to aim at radical changes. " Why stop at this
or that point, and not go further? Why seek
to stereotype a halting compromise, because the
reigning sovereign's preferences looked back
ward and not forward?" In a word, no man
with high and clear conceptions about the
kingdom of Christ could be satisfied with the
1 The more stress we lay on this connection between the
English church at this period and non-episcopal reformed
bodies, the more significant it is that her formularies provided
no way by which any of their ministers could be admitted to
officiate within her bounds save that which made them
postulants for the " inferior office " of a deacon, as preliminary
to the commission of a "dispenser of the word and sacraments."

472 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
legalism of conformity ; it was not interesting,
it was not beautiful, it was not coherent :
something was needed J which could meet and
outface the religious fervour of the Puritan,
could reply to the claim set up for " the Holy
Discipline " by pointing to the majesty of the
historical Catholic Church. Mr. Keble has
shown, in his monumental preface to Hooker,
how men like Bancroft and Bilson,2 and
the anonymous author of the Querimonia
Ecclesice, " had been gradually unlearning
some of those opinions which intimacy with
foreign Protestants had tended to foster, and
had adopted a tone and way of thinking more
like that of the early Church." They had come
to see that Calvinism would not do. In Hooker
himself it is easy to find traces of the hold
which the great foreign system had early
1 "The higher spirits of the time wanted to breathe more
freely and in a purer air " (Church, Pascal and other Sermons,
P- 77)-
2 Bilson's Perpetual Government of Christ's Church, and
Bancroft's Survey of the Holy Discipline, were both pub
lished in 1593. Bilson contends that certain parts of the
apostolic office are necessary and permanent, and that historically
they have descended to bishops (c. 9 and 13). He became a
bishop in 1596. It has been asked, — Did Hooker's friend,
Saravia, receive Anglican ordination on settling in England ?
Moral probabilities may here outweigh the lack of documentary
evidence. Cf. Firminger, Non-episc. Ordinations, p. 18.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 473
acquired over his mind ; for even in the " fifth
book " he uses somewhat inconsistent language
as to the Sacraments and the Ministry ; x and
although he ultimately came to think of
Episcopacy as properly of " Divine institution,"
he stopped short of some natural inferences
from such a belief.2 Occasionally, he adopts
too much of the tone of a counsel retained
to argue for all that is established ; 3 once or
twice we are annoyed by special pleading,4
or by a careless quotation involving some un
fairness;5 or we wonder whether it ever occurred
to him that his theory of the identity of Church
and State might break down through the
acquisition of civil rights by persons professedly
external to the Church.6 But after all such
deductions, we see in him one raised up to lift
the whole tone of the English Church out of
1 Those who claim Hooker's language in E. P. v. 78. 2, as
"anti-sacerdotal" should consider whether they can approve of
v. 77. 1-8. See too v. 25. 3.
2 See Keble, Preface to Hooker, pp. lxxv. ff. ; and Perry, ii.
346- 3 E. P. v. 19. 3 ; 81. 6. Cf. Dean Church on Bacon,
p. 12.
4 Ib. viii. 5. 2, as to Valentinian I.
5 ib. viii. 6. 8 — a misuse of a canon of Innocent III. : see
Keble's note. Also ib. v. 79. 17, as to Irenaeus.
6 Ib. viii. I. 2. See bishop Barry, in Masters in English
Theology, p. 57-

474 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
confusions, negations, and rigorisms, and to
abate the wild "workings after storm" by the
application of the ideas of reasonable authority,
of balanced moderation, of order and harmony,
of reverence and seemliness, which possessed
him, as Walton tells us, even on his deathbed.
Three permanent lessons may be derived from
his personality and his life-work. First, he
teaches theological students always to look
at immediate questions of detail in the light
of some broad and lofty principle. Secondly,
he teaches them to associate Christian ordi
nances, the instrumental activities of the
kingdom of grace, with the Person and the
work of the Incarnate Redeemer. And thirdly,
he teaches them to control the controversial
temper, to avoid the contagion of odium theo-
logicum; and the lesson is all the more
impressive as coming from one who, as some
well-known passages indicate, had a keen sense
of humour and no small capacity for sarcasm.1
He had become Master of the Temple in 1585 ;
his experience of London Puritanism led him to
1 E.g. E. P. v. 29. 6, 7 ; 34. 2 ; 66. 9 ; 74. 1 ; 75. 2. Cf.
Keble's Hooker, i. 373, ii. 257, for samples of his notes on
passages in the "Christian Letter of certain English Pro
testants," a criticism on the "Eccl. Polity," of which an accoun
is given in Keble's Preface, p. ix. ff.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 475
begin his great work after retiring into Wiltshire
in 1 591 ; he settled in Kent in 1595, after pub
lishing the first four books of the Laws of
Ecclesiastical Polity ; " — the fifth was published
in 1 597 ; he died in his forty-seventh year,
the last of the sixteenth century. Elizabeth,
it is said, expressed " very much sorrow " at the
news of his death ; and James I. was probably
assisted to detach himself from Calvinistic
traditions, as by other converging influences,
so by the satisfaction which, as he told Whitgift,
he had received from Hooker's "grave, com
prehensive, and clear" reasoning, "backed with
the authority of the Scripture, the fathers, and
schoolmen, and with all law both sacred and
civil." James added, "There is in every page
the picture of a divine soul." It was well spoken
by that "witty and well-read"1 royal scholar,
who, after all, was something better than a mere
pedant; and it might be ranked with the yet
graver testimony given by Pope Clement VIII.
after listening to a Latin version of the first
book of the " Polity." 2
The remaining event in Elizabethan Church
history is the episode of the "Lambeth Articles."
1 Macaulay's phrase (Essay on Bacon).
2 Walton's Life of Hooker.

476 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
Both universities were still Calvinistic strong
holds ; and at Cambridge the chair of Divinity
was filled by Whitaker, who maintained pre-
destinarianism as a dogma of faith. The
Margaret Professor Baro, a French refugee,
inculcated a milder theology;1 and in 1595
Barret, a fellow of Caius College, declared in
more stringent terms against what was then
" the received doctrine of assurance," 2 the theory
of reprobation as irrespective of sin, etc. A sort
of retractation was wrung from him : but his
academic censors, not satisfied, referred the case
to the archbishop. It is not, perhaps, unfair to
suspect that Whitgift thought it possible to
utilise the situation by conciliating the more
moderate Puritans in regard to the strictly
1 For Baro's case see Hardwick, Hist. Artie, p. 165 ; Cambr.
Transact, during Puritan Period, ii. 91 ff. In February, 1596, he
complained to Burleigh of certain persons who held "Deum
maximam hominum partem ad interitum de industria hactenus
creasse, et quotidie creare," and that the mefficacy of Christ's
death for many is not caused by their wilful rejection of Him,
" sed quod ipse nolit suam illis mortem prodesse . . . Haec sunt
de quibus hodie accusor." Travers had taught this doctrine of
absolute reprobation, of which Laud wrote in 1641 that his " very
soul abominated" it (Works, vi. 133).
2 Hardwick, p. 167. The Latin term for assurance was
securitas. Whitgift remarked to the Cambridge heads of houses
that "security" was "never taken in good part" (Strype's
Whitg. ii. 229 ; cf. " Macbeth," iii. 5). Saravia, whom he
consulted, also deprecated the affirmation of securitas.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 477
theological issue, and so attaching them to epis
copal government. Yet, on hearing the other
sides, he was disposed to think that, although
Barret was wrong in " giving occasion of these
questions," the Cambridge authorities had been
"rash and peremptory." They answered him
"stiffly;" he rejoined with dignified firmness.
They insisted that their Calvinism, as we should
call it, was " the doctrine that had always since
the Reformation been received andallowed," x and
persevered in their plan of crushing Barret, to
whom, accordingly, eight questions were sub
mitted. His answers were declared to be " not
only insufficient, but for the most part popish
also." Whitgift disapproved them in part,
excused them in part, and evoked the case, so to
speak, to his own tribunal. Whitaker was sent
to confer with Whitgift and other divines, and
out of the conferences emerged "the Lambeth
Articles," — a painfully ominous title, considering
that the changes made at Lambeth in Whitaker's
draft were only sufficient to soften in some
respects the terrible rigour of its Calvinism.2
1 It will be remembered that " to allow," in the English of that
time, meant "to approve:" cf. Ps. xi. 6, P.B. Version; and
Shakspeare, Cymb. iii. 3, etc. Hooker opposes "allowance"
to " patience," v. 19. 5.
2 Cf. Hardwick, Hist. Artie, pp. 174, 363-367. " Quosdam

478 THE ENGLISH CHURCH
The Church was thus in some danger of being
compromised, although the archbishop, as if
alarmed at his own act, represented the " nine
propositions " as merely expressing the " private
judgments" of those concerned.1 But Burleigh
objected to their predestinarianism ; Elizabeth,
says Hook, " condemned them more strongly, if
possible, than her ministers ; " 2 and they were
ad mortem reprobavit " was explained, by Whitgift's committee,
of the unbelieving. They denied any necessity of condemnation
as flowing "ex ipsa praedestinatione." Modifications were
introduced as to " certitudo ; " a certain " power " was recognised
in the will as " consenting to grace." Still, the language goes far
beyond the 17th article. For Hooker's further modifications,
see Keble's Hooker, vol. ii. p. 596. For Overall's position, see
Strype's Whitg. ii. 305. Andrewes criticised the " censure on
Barret," and plainly affirmed that perdition was due to sin, not
to any actus absolutus on God's part, etc.
1 Nov. 24, 1595. Yet two months later the Cambridge
" heads " treated them as authoritative against Baro, who had
explained them away.
2 Hook, v. 160. When Whitgift wrote, "that her majesty
was persuaded of the truth of the propositions," though she
disapproved of their publication (Strype's Whitgift, ii. 284),
he must have persuaded himself incorrectly. Her words against
puritanic schemes in 1584, "I see many overbold with God
Almighty, making too many scannings of His blessed will,"
(Whitg. i. 393), may show how she would criticise the Calvinistic
dogmatism about divine " decrees." On Dec. 5, 1595, she
" required Whitgift to suspend " the propositions. At the
Hampton Court conference, James I. vetoed a request for the
addition of these articles to the thirty-nine (Cardwell's Con
ferences, p. 185). When he sanctioned the Irish articles of
1615, which substantially included the Lambeth propositions,
he may have been thinking of his Scottish settlers in Ulster.

IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 479
happily suppressed. It was not the least of
the great female "Governor's" services to the
Church which she had dominated, but preserved.
When, seven years later, she passed away,
and left her sceptre to the Stuarts, their
attempt to emulate her absolutism under
gravely altered conditions introduced new com
plications into the Church's relations with the
English people, and involved the revival-move
ment in the storms through which it passed
to substantial and final victory.1
1 It is not always remembered that the Anglican body of
doctrine was not completed until the year after Elizabeth's death,
and thirty-three years after her ratification of the articles. It
was in 1604 that the sacramental questions and answers were
added to the catechism. Two years later, the lower (if not the
upper) house of convocation of Canterbury committed itself to
the principle of apostolical succession by accepting the second as
well as the first part of Overall's "Convocation Book." It is
right, however, to add, that Overall as bishop of Norwich
(1618-9) was willing to recognise the Dutch ordination of De
Laune, and to accept him as presented to a. benefice ; but the
presentation fell through, and De Laune was afterwards instituted
to another benefice without any new ordination : see Birch's
Life of Tillotson, p. 185 ff., where the letter in which Cosin
gives this information is further quoted in regard to Whitting
ham. Cosin erroneously imagined that "Whittingham had
judgment finally in his favour, it being declared that ordination
beyond the seas was equivalent to ordination in England, and
that, for the better confirmation of this, a bill . . . passed both
houses, and this statute, which was either 13 Eliz. c. 8 or 8 Eliz.
c. 13, enacted that whosoever, alleged to have been ordained
minister beyond the seas, if he subscribed the thirty-nine articles,

480 THE ENGLISH CHURCH, ETC.
. . . might be admitted to a benefice in the Church of England."
The statement only shows how ill-informed Cosin then was ; and
Birch quotes from a marginal comment on a copy of the letter
which he thinks was " probably" by bishop Burnet, in which it
is questioned as probably so much ' ' hearsay, " the writer adding
that the 13 Eliz. c. 8 "could not be referred to, because Sandys
was not archbishop of York until the 18th of Eliz." (rather, the
19th), and that "Whittingham might retain his deanery by
virtue of his letters patents, though no priest, — nothing being
frequenter than for dignities and prebends to be held by those
who were no priests . . . even in the time of king James."
(It appears that later still, in 1629, Vossius was installed as
prebendary of Canterbury : Elrington's Life of Ussher, p. 113.)
It may be well to add that the act 8 Eliz. c. I (to which Cosin
seems to have made an inaccurate and " unverified " reference)
was clearly intended to correct an oversight in Elizabeth's Act
of Uniformity, which had not expressly revived the legal use of
the ordinal which had been "annexed" to the prayer-book of
1552. It professed to remove certain doubts and objections as
to the legality of consecrations performed according to that
ordinal since the queen's accession ; it did so by affirming them
to have been " duly and orderly done according to the laws of
this realm ; " and it concluded by declaring all persons similarly
consecrated or ordained in the future to be " rightly made," i.e.,
as the whole drift of the statute shows, in a legal sense.

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON THE SIXTH
NICENE CANON.
The Latin version of Nicene and other canons which the
Ballerini distinguish as "Vetus" was printed by them from a
Verona manuscript of the seventh century, containing the
collection made by a deacon named Theodosius. They con
sidered it to have been made from a Greek codex of Alex
andrian origin, extant long before the council of Chalcedon.
For it is prefaced by the words, ' ' Synodus Nicaena sub
Alexandra episcopo Alexandria; imperatore Constantino ; multa
igitur seditione facta beato Alexandro cum suis de mala mente
Arii . . , Constantinus scripsit illi et omnibus episcopis
occurrere, coUigens concilium," etc. Then comes the Nicene
Creed in its original form, and dated by consulates and by
the era of Alexander, with the day of the month. The number
of bishops present is given as 318 : it is added that "studiosi
servi Dei magis curaverunt orientalium nomina episcoporum
conscribere," because the Westerns had not the question of
heresy to the same extent before them. The only signatures
given are those of " Osius, " and of " Avitus " and " Vincentius "
as Roman presbyters. My friend Mr. C. H. Turner, Fellow
of Magdalen College, who has " collated all, or almost all the
manuscripts of Latin versions of the Nicene canons which are
of any importance," has kindly permitted me to see the results
of his re-collation of two other manuscripts of this version, found
by Maassen, assigned to the ninth century, and named after
Freisingen and Wurzburg. Great interest attaches to their
text of the version, because it appears as part of the acts of a
Carthaginian council— that of A.D. 419,— being prefaced by
" Danihel notarius recitavit, Nicheni concilii fidei professio vel
2 I

482 ADDITIONAL NOTE
ejus statuta," etc., and ending with a speech by Aurelius, bishop
(of Carthage), to the effect that these canons as " recited " by
Daniel were from the copy of the Nicene "statutes" which
"our fathers" had brought home with them from the Nicene
council, and which were preserved in the church of Carthage
("apud nos"). The ordinary text of the proceedings of the
Carthaginian council is quite accordant with the above postscript ;
for we read, " Daniel notarius Nicseni concilii professionem fidei
vel -ejus statuta recitavit in concilio Africano " (Mansi, iv. 407).
Although the two German manuscripts in some places virtually
correct the Veronese, and justify the emendations suggested by
the Ballerini, they still do not give a thoroughly literal representa
tion of the Greek. But this amount of verbal laxity attaches
a greater significance to the accordance of the " Carthaginian "
version, if we may so term it, in all three manuscripts, with the
Greek exordium of canon vi., as opposed to that which
Paschasinus so confidently produced at Chalcedon. The same
must be said of another Latin version, which Mr. Turner
identifies with the one sent by Atticus of Constantinople in
reply to the request of the African bishops, and preserved in
a ninth-century manuscript, "nunc Vaticanus Palatinus." It
is headed — "Exemplaria concilii Nicaeni directa sub die vi
kal. Decemb. post consulatum . . . Honorii xii. et Theodosii
viii . . . Bonifatio urbis Rome episcopo " ( = Nov. 26, A.D. 419) ;
and again, between the creed and the canons, (2) " constituta
patrum in magna et sancta synodo apud Nicaeam . . . quae de
greco translata sunt a. Philone (et) Euaresto Constantino-
politano," i.e. the secretaries whom Atticus employed for the
purpose (cp. "per Teilonem et Tharistum" in Mansi, iv. 407).
It is a much more exact version than the one already
described, but in can. vi. it inserts " metropolitanis " before
" ecclesiis." It renders -ra apxaTa iBt) Kpareiru rb. iv Alyirxrtp,
k.t.X., quite literally, "Antiqui mores obtineant qui apud
/Egyptum sunt," etc. Here, then, we have another ancient
testimony against the exordium once current at Rome : and
it is significant that the version of Dionysius Exiguus, agreeing
substantially as it does with the Greek, and sanctioned by the
Roman church, involves an official withdrawal, in the early part

ON THE SIXTH NICENE CANON. 483
of the sixth century, of the incorrect fifth-century clause,
" ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum," represented in
the Italian version which the Ballerini, under the title of
" Antiquissima," printed from a ninth-century manuscript
written for Ingilram, bishop of Chieti, — a version also remark
able for the strange freedoms which it takes with the received
order and distinction of the canons. It appears that this read
ing has the support of another group of manuscripts, representing
a Gallic recension of the original ' ' Isidorian " version, so-called,
in which this "Isidorian" has been altered by the introduction
of the clause from the "Ingilram" ; and that it was current in
Italy (and Sicily) for a considerable time before the council of
Chalcedon. But this does not give it any independent value.
It remains an Italian reading : for there is nothing to show that
the " Ingilram " version circulated outside Italy and its de
pendencies. Mr. Rivington (p. 166) conjectures that the
original reading was, " It is the ancient custom that the Roman
church should hold the primacy." This disturbs the drift of the
context, is clearly suggestive of " conflation," and substantially
represents the text of the " Prisca" version, which is regarded
as a compilation from the text ascribed to Atticus' secretaries
and that of the "Ingilram" manuscript.
Through the kindness of the Rev. G. B. Howard (well known
as the author of "The Christians of St. Thomas and their
Liturgies ") I am enabled to insert his rendering of the sixth
canon from a Syriac manuscript (Add. MSS., 14528, Brit.
Mus.) containing a (Nestorian) translation of the Nicene,
Ancyran, Neocaesarean, Gangran, Antiochene, Laodicene,
Constantinopolitan, and Chalcedonian canons, professing to
have been made " from the Greek, carefully and with lucidity,
in the city Mabug " (Hierapolis in Syria), "in the year 812
of Alexander" (=A.D. 500-1): "Let the peculiar customs
be retained which are in Mitsrin" (Egypt) "and in Libya,
and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria have authority
over all these, forasmuch as to him of Rome also this custom
appertains. And so also in Antiochia, and in these other
provinces, let precedency be retained in the churches."

INDEX

Acacius, patriarch, 74, 308
Adamnan, 407
Aetius, 198, 202, 281
Aidan, 352, 411, 413
Alaric, 315
Alcluith, 380
Aldfrid, 391
Alemanni, 313
Alexander of Alexandria, 69
Alexander I. of Rome, 26
Alexander III., king, 419
Alexandria, see of, 77
Ambrose, 122 ff., 214 ff, 311
Anatolius of Constantinople,
180, 207, 274
Anatolius of Laodicea, 389
Anatolius, patrician, 193
Andrewes, 422, 478
Anencletus, 9 ff.
Anianus, 325
Anicetus, 1, 28
Anna, king of East Angles,
353
Antioch, councils of, 56, 69,
107, 120 ; schism at, 96
Antony of Fussala, 139
Anysius, 115
Apiarius, 136 ff.
Aquileia, council of, 121

Arbogast, 244
Arianism, 66, 96, 251, 332
Ariminum, council of, 229,
360
Aries, council of, 53, 63, 360
Armagh, 385, 400 ff.
Ascholius, 115, 123
Atticus, 138, 482
Athanasius, 1, 60, 73, 82 ff.,
"3, 257, 310
Athanasius, priest, 256
Attila, 327
Augustine, 61, 127 ff., 323
Augustine of Canterbury, 339,
344, 352, 354
Augustus, 218
Aurelian, 56 B
Bancroft, 453, 472
Baro, 476
Barret, 476
Barrow, 461
Barsumas, 263, 269, 274
Basil, ICO ff.
Basil of Seleucia, 268 ff, 284
Bede, 346, 352, 391, 410
Bilson, 472
Birinus, 354
Boniface I., 137 ff.
21 3

486

INDEX.

Boniface IV., 389
Brownists, 460
Bucer, 439
Bullinger, 443
Burgundians, 325, 333, 35 \
Burleigh, 475, 478

Caecilian, 60
Caius, 9, 14
Callistus, 37
Calporn, 371
Calvin, 465
Capua, council of, 125
Carthage, 319 ; councils of,
49 ff, 127, 134, 140
Cartwright, 444, 459, 467
Cashel, synod of, 402
Cecil, 431, 436
Celestine I., 139 ff, 144 ff
Celestius, 127, 132 ff.
Cellach, 417
Celts, 357, 421
Chad, 391
Chalcedon, council of, 172 ff.,
277 ff.
Cheyney, 465
Chrysostom, I, 255
Clement I., 1, 9, 23
Clement VIII., 475
Clovis, 333, 338
Columba, 407 ff.
Columban, 388
Constantine I., 60 ff., 70, 310
Constantinople, council of,
117 ff. ; see of, 196
Constantius, 91, 2l8, 311
Corinth, church of, 23

Cornelius of Rome, 47
Cornwall, saints in, 387
Corotic, 378
Cox, 430, 440
Culdees, the, 415
Cummian, 391
Cuthbert, 347, 352, 413
Cyprian, 14, 39 ff., 319
Cyprus, 169
Cyril, 144 ff, 186 ff, 259 ff.
D
Damasus, 95, 104 ff, 112 ff,
170, 219
David, 363
David, king of Scots, 4 20
Dionysius, the Great, 52
Dionysius of Corinth, 9, 27
Dionysius of Rome, I, 27, 53,
68
Dionysius, the "dux," 305
Dioscorus, 181 ff,, 254 ff.
Domnus, 259, 264, 275
Donatism, 60, 66, III
Dublin, 400 F.
Edwin, 353, 364
Egbert, 352, 391
Eleutherus, 29
Elizabeth, 403 ff., 452, 478
Elpidius, 265
Ephesus, council of, 1440"., 270
Epiphanius, 18, 124
Epiphanius of Pavia, 329
Epiphanius of Perga, 271
Ethelbert, 339, 345
Eugenius, 245
Euphemius, 309

INDEX.

487

Euric, 331
Eusebius, 15 ff.
Eusebius of Dorylasum, 265
ff., 278
Eusebius of Vercellaa, 97
Eustathians, 96
Eustathius of Berytus, 266, 2S6
Eustathius of Sebaste, 102
Eutyches, 172 ff., 261 ff.
Evagrius, 125

Fabian, 1
Faustinus, legate, 136 ff.
Faustinus of Lyons, 48
Faustinus, schismatic, 95
Felix, intruder, 95
Felix of East Anglia, 333, 354
Felix II. of Rome, 74
Ferghil, 390
Firmilian, 50
Firmus, 163
Flavian, 121, 172 ff, 261 ff.
Florentius, 172, 262
Frankfort, 440
Franks, 313, 324, 339
Fridolin, 390
Fursey, 352 G
Gaiseric, 323, 327
Gall, 390
Gelasius of Cyzicus, 71
Gepidas, 324
German of Auxerre, 362, 375
German of Paris, 340
Gilbert of Limerick, 400
Giraldus, 365

Goths, 313, 324
Gratian, m ff, 216 ft.
Gregory I., I, 250, 347
Gregory of Nazianzus, 35, 108,
196
Gregory of Tours, 325, 340
Grindal, 436, 459, 464, 468
Guest, 431, 465 H
Hegesippus, 15
Hilarus, 266, 271 ff.
Hilary of Poitiers, 90, 93
Hippolytus, 14, 37
Hooker, 456, 472 ff.
Hooper, 439
Hosius, 71, 87
Howel, king of Wales, 366
Humphrey, 443, 459
Hunneric, 323, 332
Huns, 2, 324
Hyginus, 10

Ignatius, 9, 25 ff.
Illyricum, 114
Innocent I., 1, 126 ff., 169
lona, 394, 407, 412, 417
Irenaeus, 9 ff., 29 ff.
Ischyrion, 255
Ithacians, 235 J
James, St., 16
James I., 475
Jerome, 15, 52, 94, 106, 315
Jewel, 454

488

INDEX.

John, St., 8
John of Antioch, 147 ff, 259
John " Erigena," 397
John of Jerusalem, 126
John Talaia, 308
Julian, emperor, 218, 257, 314
Julian or Julius, 264, 275
Julius I., I, 81 ff.
Justina, 217, 226, 234
Juvenal, 167, 265, 282
K
Kells, synod of, 401
Kentigern, 406
Kenwalch, 353
Kilian, 390
Knollys, 435, 454
Knox, 420, 440

Lambeth articles, 477
" Latrocinium," council called,
263 ff.
Leicester, earl of, 431, 435,
466
Leo I., emperor, 306
Leo the Great, 1, 119, 171
ff., 257, 264, 299
Leovigild, 331
Liberatus, 210, 254, 274, 304
Liberius, 91 ff.
Linus, 9 ff.
Loegaire, king, 382
Lombards, 331 ff,
Lucentius, 278
Lucifer, 98
Lupus, 327

M
MacCriffan, Phelim, 397
Malachy, 400
Marcellinus, schismatic, 95
Marcellus, 83
Marcian of Aries, 48
Marcian, emperor, 179, 296 ff.
" Marcus " (Merocles), 61
Margaret, 418
Mark, St., 85, 257, 300
Martin, 235, 405
" Martin Marprelate," 452
Maximus of Antioch, 195, 275
Maximus "the Cynic," 118,
122
Maximus, emperor, 217, 234
Meletius, 96 ff., 107
Mercurinus, 229
Metrophanes, 72
Milan, councils of, 91, 122
Milevis, council of, 127
Miliuc, 381
Miltiades (Melchiades), 61 ff.
Morrison, 468 N
Nectan, king, 413
Nectarius, 122
Nestorius, 144 ff.
Nestorius of Phlagon, 299
Nicsea, council of, 66 ff, 83;
canons of, 74 ff, 202 ff,
481 ff.
Ninian, 403 ff.
Novatianists, 45 O
Odoacer, 328

INDEX.

489

Onesiphorus, 271
Optatus, 63 "
Orosius, 126
Ostrogoths, 329
Oswald, 353
Oswy, 353

Palladius, 368
Parker, 426, 435, 463
Paschasinus, 277, 287, 482
Patrick, 368 ff.
Paul, St., 6, 344
Paul of-Samosata, 55
Paulinus of Antioch, 96 ff,
108, 124
Paulinus of York, 342
Pelagius, 127, 133, 361
Penda, 364
Penry, 461
Peter, St., 6 ff.
Peter of Alexandria, 116, 123
Peter of Corinth, 288
Peter Martyr, 439 ff.
Peter Mongus, 302
Picts, 403, 408, 417
Pius V., 447
Pius IX., 3, 211
Polycarp, 12, 28
Probus, 314
Proclus, 260
Prosper, 369, 381
Proterius, 296 ff.
Pseudo-Clementines, 12 ff.
Pulcheria, 179, 262, 277
Puritans, 438 ff, 447
Q
Quartodecimans, 28

R
Recared, 3*33
Remigius, 338
Renatus, 193
Rhadagaisus, 315
Ridley, 439
Roderick of Strathclyde, 406
Rome, councils of, 61, ill,
124 ; precedency of church
of, 22, 31 ff., 204
Rufinus of Aquileia, 12, 19, 77
Rufinus, minister of Theo
dosius I., 240

St. Andrews, 415 ff.
Salvian, 318 ff., 335
Sampson, 443, 459
Sandys, 430, 443, 467
Sardica, council of, 85 ff, 137,
360
Saxons, 324, 335, 345
Scone, 417
Sechnall, 370
Seleucus, 267
" Separatists," English, 457 ff.
Severinus, 327
Sidonius Apollinaris, 324
Sigebert, king of East Angles,
353
Sigebert, king of East Saxons,
35°
Siricius, 115
Sirmium, creeds of, 93
Sixtus II., 1
Sophronius, 256
Soter, I
Stephen of Ephesus, 281

490

INDEX.

Stephen of Rome, 48 ff.
Stilicho, 248
Strathclyde, 403, 4c 6
Sylvester, 64 ff.
Symmachus, 219 ff.

Tara, 382
Telesphorus, 1
Tertullian, 11 ff, 30, 359
Teutons, 334
Thalassius, 282
Theodore, deacon, 255
Theodoret, 192 ff, 258 ff,
275, 280
Theodoric, 331
Theodosius I., 115 ff., 121,
236 ff, 314
Theodosius IL, 177, 262, 276
Theophilus, 125, 255, 259, 301
Timotheus "the Cat," 304 ff.
Timotheus Salofaciolus, 307
Travers, 451, 467
Treves, 320
Tyana, council of, 103
Tyre, council of, 82

Ulfilas, 331
Ursinus, in

V
Valens, 311.
Valentinian I., 314
Valentinian II., in, 216 ff,
244
Valentinian III., 114, 171
Valentinianism, 30, 236
Vandals, 2, 322, 330, 335
Vatican council, decree of, 3
ff, 33, 129, 169, 180, 211
Victor I., 28
Victor of Vita, 323
Victricius, 361
Villers, 467
Vincent and Vito, 73
Visigoths, 329, 332
W
Walsingham, 435
Welsh church, 363
Whitaker, 476
Whitby, 396
Whitgift, 445 ff., 464, 476
Whittingham, 440, 466
Wilfrid, 355

Z

Zeno, 308
Zephyrinus, 37
Zosimus, 132 ff.
Zurich, 440

PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS,' LIMITED,
LONDON AND BECCLES.

39 Paternoster Row, London, E.C.
October 1896.

A SELECT LIST
OF
Jitto ecological 33oofe0
PUBLISHED BY
LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

NEW BOOK BY THE LATE CANON LIDDON.
Sermons Preached on Special Occasions," 1858- 1889.
By the Rev. Henry Parry Liddon, D.D. LL.D. late Canon and
Chancellor of St. Paul's. Crown 8vo. [In the press.

REV. CANON MASON, D.D.
The Conditions of Our Lord's Life upon Earth : being
Lectures delivered on the Bishop Paddock Foundation, in the General
Seminary at New York, 1896, to which is prefixed part of a First
Professorial Lecture at Cambridge. By Arthur James Mason, D.D.
Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and Canon of Canter
bury. Crown 8vo. [Nearly ready.
REV. CANON MASON, D.D.
The Principles of Ecclesiastical Unity : Four Lectures
delivered in St. Asaph Cathedral, June 1896. By Arthur James Mason,
D. D. Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and Canon of
Canterbury. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6d.
' A timely exposition from the Anglican point of view of the relations of the Church of
England with other communions, the possibilities of a nearer approach to them, and the diffi
culties which have to be surmounted.' — Times.

DEAN FARRAR.
The Bible : Its Meaning and Supremacy. By FREDERIC W.
Farrar, D.D. Dean of Canterbury. 8vo. [In the press.
*jf* In this book, which has long been in preparation, the author, while sup
porting the unique grandeur and inestimable value of the Scriptures, points out
the dangerous errors which have sprung from their misinterpretation, and from
humanly invented theories as to the nature of their inspiration.

London, New York, and Bombay : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

2 A Select List of Neiv Theological Books.
THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1895.
Christian Ethics : Eight Lectures preached before the
University of Oxford in the Year 1S95 on the Foundation of the late Rev.
John Bampton, Canon of Salisbury. By Thomas B. Strono, M.A.
Student of Christ Church, Oxford, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord
Bishop of Durham. 8vo. 15J.
' The volume is one of much merit. ... It is a careful, thoughtful, and able treatment
of the important subject which it discusses, and, as it is singularly free from technicalities and
written in a popular style, it addresses itself to a wider range of readers than that of the merely
professional student. Not the least valuable part of it is the copious notes which are appended
to each lecture.' — Scotsman.
* A very scholarly and lucid exposition of the Christian ethic from the English Churchman's
point of view. . . . Candidates for holy orders will find these lectures helpful, especially as Mr.
Strong has taken the trouble to preface them with an admirable analysis.' — Daily Chronicle.
' No more important service could be rendered to the common cause of Christian truth and
genuine morality than to show the vital connection between the two, and this is Mr. Strong's
main object in these admirable lectures.' — Guardian.

THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1893.
Inspiration : Eight Lectures on the Early History and Origin
of the Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration, being the Bampton Lectures for
1893. By W. Sanday, D.D. LL.D. Lady Margaret Professor of
Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. New and Cheaper
Edition, with a New Preface. 8vo. "]s. 6d.

REV. HENRY R. PERCIVAL, D.D.
The Invocation of Saints. Treated Theologically and His
torically. By Henry R. Percival, M.A. D.D. Author of ' A Digest
of Theology,' 'The Doctrine of the Episcopal Church,' &c. Crown
8vo. 5^.
' The object of Dr. Percival is to plead for, let us say, the Litany of Loretto, as a thing not
contrary to the Enghsh Prayer Book, but harmless, and even useful, as a devotion ; and he makes
out a very good case, especially in his explanation of the XXII. Article, which is partly taken from
Tract XC, and partly his own.'— Saturday Review.
' The aim of this book is partly to remove one of the obstacles to the reunion of Christendom,
partly to encourage an ancient practice. The author proves " that the Anglican Church does not
condemn, but is silent, with regard to the practice." He treats the subject carefully from several
standpoints and with much learning, including in his work extensive extracts from the Fathers and
other theologians. — Church Review.
London, New York, and Bombay : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

A Select List of New Theological Books.

BY A CLERGYMAN.
Practical Reflections.
By A Clergyman. With Prefaces by H. P. Liddon, D.D. D.C.L. and
the Bishop of Lincoln. Crown Svo.
GENESIS, 4j. 6d. THE PSALMS, 5*. ISAIAH, 4*. 6d. THE
HOLY GOSPELS, 4*. 6A ACTS TO REVELATION, 6s,
THE MINOR PROPHETS, 4J. 6d, {just published),
' The Reflections are, as hitherto, always terse, practical, and devout ; and while they
make no_ special claim to be exegetical, they will be found to elucidate many of the difficulties and
obscurities of the sacred text. We are sure that, as the Bishop says, they will " assist the reader
of the Prophetic writings to hear in them a living voice, which in the perplexities of modern times
may enable him to know, more clearly and truthfully, the mind and will of God." ' — Church
Times.

REV. EDWIN H. ELAND, M.A.
The Layman's Introduction to the Book of Common Prayer:
being a Short History of its Development. By the Rev. Edwin H.
Eland, M.A. Balliol College, Oxford. With Facsimile. Crown 8vo. $s.
[ A careful piece of work, based upon adequate authorities. . . . Intelligent, interesting, and
trustworthy. ' — Record .
' We recommend it for ordination candidates as a sound piece of work well done.' — Guardian.
' The most readable, concise, and well-written account of the history of the Prayer Book that
has yet been written.' — Parish Magazine.
1 A great advance upon anything previously attempted.' — Illustrated Church News.

SIR EDWIN ARNOLD, M.A.
The Light of the World ; or, The Great Consummation.
A Poem. By Sir Edwin Arnold, M.A. K.CI.E. C.S.I. With 14
illustrations, after designs by W. Holman Hunt. Presentation Edition.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
Publishers' Note. — Through the kindness of the owners of the copyrights, it has been
possible to include in this volume reproductions of some of the most important of Mr. Holman
Hunt's works. The reproduction of the Plains of Esdraelon as seen from the Heights
of Nazareth is given by permission of Mrs. Combe, of Oxford ; that of The Shadow of
Death, by permission of Messrs. Agnew & Son, of New Bond Street ; and of the Finding
in the Temple, by permission of Mr. Lefevre, of King Street, St. James's ; The Light of
the World and The Triumph of the Innocents are included by permission of Mr. Holman
Hunt himself. All the other subjects are engraved from designs made specially for the work by
Mr. Holman Hunt, except the initial letters. Four of these were originally engraved for the
Illustrated New Testament published by Messrs.' Longmans in 1863, and three have been en
graved in the same style specially for this work.
London, New York, and Bombay : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

4 A Select List of New Theological Books.
REV. CANON NEWBOLT, M.A.
The Gospel of Experience; or, The Witness of Human Life
to the Truth of Revelation. Being the Boyle Lectures for 1895, delivered
in the Church of St. Peter, Eaton Square, by the Rev. W. C. E.
Newbolt, M.A. Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul's Cathedral, Select
Preacher before the University of Oxford, 1894-5, and Examining Chaplain
to the Lord Bishop of Ely. Crown 8vo. 5*.

REV. H. R. HEVWOOD.
Sermons and Addresses.
By the late Henry R. Heywood, Vicar of Swinton, Honorary Canon of
Manchester. With 3 Photo-Intaglio Plates from Pictures by Holman
Hunt and Munkacsy. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6d. net.
' These sermons are all practical ; the preacher dwells rather on Christian life than on
Christian thought, though a strong foundation of doctrinal belief underlies his direct exhortations,
and he does not shrink from the simplest and most colloquial language in enforcing his appeals.
One marked feature is the anecdotic illustrations introduced, not, as they sometimes are in
sermons, merely to ornament the style or to stimulate attention, but to make clear the meaning or
to encourage by example.' — Guardian.

REV. WILLIAM BRIGHT, D.D.
The Roman See in the Early Church ; and other Studies in
Church History. By the Rev. William Bright, D.D. Regius Professor
of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. Crown 8vo. Js. 6d.
1 As in the rest of Dr. Bright's writings, we recognise the intellectual and moral powers which
mark an historian. The knowledge of facts is wide and accurate. There is keen appreciation of
the circumstances and methods of life of the times described. The sympathy which gives in
sight into character, and the breadth of mind which can take into view differing features of an
age or an individual, are found here. And his present realisation of past history and eager
enthusiasm for great truths and great men have not deprived the writer of that spirit of fair judg
ment which it is not always easy for those who feel deeply to maintain.' — Church Quarterly
Review. ' These essays are remarkable for terseness and clearness of style, and they abound in items
of useful ecclesiastical information which will be a revelation to most readers.'— Morning Post.

REV. CANON HUTCHINGS, M.A.
Sermon Sketches taken from some of the Sunday Lessons
throughout the Church's Year. By "W. H. Hutchings, M.A. Canon of
York, Rector of Kirby Misperton, and Rural Dean. Vol. I. crown 8vo.
$s. ; Vol. II. crown 8vo. $s.
'The method of the author's first series is here again produced, and preachers are pro
vided with a substratum on which they can raise their own superstructure, and with illustra
tions of plans, which exhibit capable analysis, proportion, coherence, and well-tried methods
of deducing great moral and spiritual lessons. . . . Such a book is far more useful than
many volumes of ordinary sermons, and we hope that numerous readers will imitate Canon
Hutchings' methods and make a wise use of his materials.' — Guardian.
( They are the work of a scholar and a careful theologian, and on every page they bear testi
mony to the fact that an accurate knowledge of dogma is the best foundation for practical teach
ing. We must especially recommend both the clearness with which each point is brought out,
and the fulness and richness of the matter. Each section is simply packed with useful thoughts
or carefully-chosen references ; and yet the whole is concise and readable. The heading of each
division is in large type, so making reference easy, as well as giving an object-lesson to the preacher
of the value of a clear division of his subject.' — Church Quarterly Review.
London, New York, and Bombay:, LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

A Select List of New Theological Books.

DEAN LUCKOCK.
The History of Marriage, Jewish and Christian, in Relation
to Divorce and certain Forbidden Degrees. By Herbert Mortimer
Luckock, D.D., Dean of Lichfield. Second Edition, Revised and
fcnlarged. Crown 8vo. 6s.
'This is a full and scholarly exposition of the marriage law in regard to the questions of
divorce and so-called marriage with a deceased wife's sister.'— Church Times.
' This very careful work consists of two parts-the former dealing with marriage in relation to
divorce, the latter with marriage in relation to the forbidden degrees, more especially that of the
wife s sister. — Guardian. * J

REV. CANON MacCOLL, M.A.
Life Here and Hereafter: Sermons preached in Ripon
Cathedral and Elsewhere. By Malcolm MacColl, M.A. Second
Edition, with New Preface. Crown 8vo. Js. 6d.
' £. volume of sermons of exceptional interest . . . enforcing and illustrating with very great
skill this truth about the unseen world and our relation to it.'— Guardian. .
'Everything that Mr. MacColl writes is suggestive and interesting, and this volume of
sermons forms no exception to this rule. There is a reserve of information and a richness of
imagination in the background.' — Church Times.
' A statement of great truths set forth in a vivid and graphic style, with an original mo'de of
treatment. —Ecclesiastical Gazette.
' We heartily welcome these essays on Christian philosophy— for such they are.'— Church
Review. 'Some striking and even brilliant discourses.' — Manchester Guardian.
' These sermons contain many passages of spiritual elevation and high conception, and the
arguments in favour of continued existence include many that are cogent and reasonable. .
The volume is of a distinctly high class.' — Inquirer.

REV. LEIGHTON PULLAN, M.A
Lectures on Religion.
By the Rev. Leighton Pullan, M.A. Fellow of St. John Baptist College,
Oxford, Lecturer in Theology at Oriel College and Queen's College.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
' The author gives a readable and stimulating account of the doctrine of more recondite
and more technical works on such subjects as the relation of Christianity to prior religions,
the development of various forms of ritual, and the conflict of view between Unitarian and
Trinitarian. The lectures discuss these and a number of other more or less closely allied topics
with a wide learning in the history of the Churches and of theology, and put their matter in a
form which will prove specially attractive to those who are not professed students of divinity.' —
Scotsman. ' There is much luminous suggestion and activity of thought in these lectures. . . .
Throughout the book, however, there are signs of a capacity for handling theological subjects in
a fresh and intelligible manner which is as rare as it is valuable, and the subjects of Christian-
Pagan Ethics, the Personality of Jesus, Christian Worship, and Catholic Dogma are treated
with considerable insight and power.' — Times.
London, New York, and Bombay : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO

6 A Select List of New Theological Books.
REV. CANON MOBERLY, D.D.
Reason and Religion : Some Aspects of their Mutual Interde
pendence. By R. C. Moberly, D.D. Regius Professor of Pastoral
Theology, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
1 These deep thoughts on the mutual interdependence of reason and religion will command
attention in an age which is eager to read not only lighter books on religious subjects, but even
those which require real study to master their contents.' — Guardian.
' There is much that is valuable in this little work.'— Church Quarterly Review.
' A great deal of suggestive matter will be found in the book, especially in his enforce
ment of the proposition that the perception of truth can only be in a very small degree purely
intellectual. ' —Times.
' This is a remarkable book from many points of view. It traces with clearness and precision
the leading points of mutual interdependence which exist between religion and reason, and corrects
some very common fallacies touching such mutual relations.' — National Church.

REVS. ANTHONY BATHE AND F. H. BUCKHAM.
The Christian's Road Book.
Two Parts. By the Rev. Anthony Bathe, Author of ' A Lent with
Jesus ' &c. and Rev. F. H. Buckham.
Part I. Devotions* Sewed, 6d. ; limp cloth, is. ; cloth extra, is. 6J.
Part II. Readings.- With an Introduction by Canon W. J. Knox
Little, M.A. Sewed, is. ; limp cloth, 2s. ; cloth extra, 3s.
The Two Parts complete in one volume, sewed, is. 6d. ; limp cloth, 2s. 6d. ;
cloth extra, 3s. 6d.
' Most of our rural clergy require a book of devotions to give to their people, suitable to
the farm labourer's comprehension. There are numbers of good devotional books, but most of
them are expressed in " dictionary words," and poor people cannot understand them. This book
is very simple and plain. It would make a valuable present to any poor but devout communi
cant, and fill an important void in our devotional literature.' — Church Review.
1 The " Christian's Road Book," Part II., consists of sound, simple readings for a third
part of the Sundays of the year, intended for private or family reading, or in the place of a
sermon in meetings of colonists or onboard ship. We can thoroughly recommend the readings
as dealing well with the main truths and duties of Christianity.' — Guardian.
'The readings are sound and simply expressed,- and we cordially endorse the commendation
of Canon Knox Little, who says in his introduction that they are "plain and practical, and
deal in a simple and straightforward way with the great teachings of the Church on religion and
morality.'"— Church Times.
MISS ELEANOR TEE.
The Sanctuary of Suffering.
By Eleanor Tee, Author of ' This Everyday Life ' &c. With a
Preface by the Rev. J. P. F. Davidson, M.A. Vicar of St. Matthias',
Earl's Court ; President of the * Guild of All Souls.' Crown 8vo. ys. 6d.
'The chief feature of the book will be found in the beautiful way in which the writer dwells
upon the mystery of pain as the great factor ofhuman progress.'— Guardian.
'A thoughtful and profound religious book, evidently written out of deep experience. It
will be welcome to many.' — British Weekly.
' This devotional work is well calculated to soothe the sorrows of the afflicted and the suffering.
It is written in a true Christian spirit, and full of the application of the sweetest and most consola
tory truths of our faith to the souls of the suffering. The passages on the Endless Life and the
movement of Divine Love deserve the highest commendation.' — National Church.
London, New York, and Bombay : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

A Select List of New Theological Books. J
REV. B. W. RANDOLPH, M.A.
The Law of Sinai : being Addresses on the Ten Command
ments delivered to Ordinands. By the Rev. B. W. Randolph, M.A.
Principal of the Theological College, and Hon. Canon of Ely ; Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of Lincoln. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
' Ten very straightforward, manly, and earnest addresses on the Decalogue. Clergymen
who are likely to be preaching upon the Commandments — and they ought to be preached upon
at times— will find this book very helpful.'— Church Bells.
' Written primarily for students preparing for ordination, it deserves to reach a wider circle
of readers, and will be found of a great value alike by the clergy and by the more thoughtful
among the laity. Never was plain teaching on The Law of Sinai, its fundamental and perma
nent value, and its true relation to Christianity, more imperatively called for than it is to-day,
and we welcome these earnest and eloquent addresses as a real addition to the literature of the
subject.' — Guardian.

REV. B. W. MATURIN.

Some Principles and Practices of the Spiritual Life. By the
Rev. B. W. Maturin, Mission Priest of the Society of St. John the
Evangelist, Cowley, Oxford. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
' We have read few books more likely to encourage and insoire those who, conscious of
their own weakness, are striving to serve and follow Chri-t. There is in it a wonderful com
bination of plain practical common-sense with deep Spiritual insight.' — Madras : Christian
College Magazine.
1 This book is full of practical teaching. . . . The sermons are at once orthodox, logical, and,
without any effort t-> make them so, eloquent. But their chief value lies in their practical
character as arising from the great experience the preacher has of the needs of individuals in all
sor.s and conditions of life.' — Church Review.
' These papers are a very valuable addition to our devotional literature. By all, whether in
religion or in the world, who set before themselves a high aim, Fr. Maturin's book will be found
of great value.' — Church Times.

REV. J. B. MOZLEY, D.D.
Ruling Ideas in Early Ages and their Relation to Old
Testament Faith : Lectures delivered to Graduates of the University of
Oxford. By J. B. Mozi,ey, D.D. late Canon of Christ Church, and
Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford. New and
Cheaper Edition. 8vo. 6s.
' Its price ought to put it within the reach of everyone ; and its strong learning and vigorous
common-sense make it wholesome reading in these days, when any hypothes's, however slight,
any fancy however ridiculous, any tneory, however iireverent, is made to do duty for Old
Testament Criticism. Everyone will be the better for reading again Dr. Mozley's masterly
treatment of Abraham and his sacrifice of Isaac, his.lreatment oi the real bearing of the wars of
extirpation of the complicated problem of the morality of Jael's act of vengeance, the law of
goel and h'is theory of progressive revelation tested by the end.'— Church Times.

London, New York, and Bombay : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

8 A Select List of New Theological Books.
REV. ALEX. J. HARRISON, M.A.
The Church in Relation to Sceptics : a Conversational Guide
to Evidential Work. By the Rev. Albx. J. Harrison, M.A. B.D.
Lecturer of the Christian Evidence Society. New and Cheaper Edition.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
' Mr. Harrison modestly calls his really great book " a conversational guide to evidential
work." It is, in its present form, a cheaper edition of the work issued in 1892. Everyone will
welcome it. It is one of the most excellent manuals ever produced.' — Church Bells.

REV. E. F. SAMPSON, M.A.
Christ Church Sermons.
By the Rev. E. F. Sampson, M.A. Student and Tutor and formerly
Censor of Christ Church, Oxford. Crown 8vo. [In the press.

REV. A. G. MORTIMER, D.D.
Catholic Faith and Practice : a Manual of Theological In
struction for Confirmation and First Communion. By the Rev. A. G.
Mortimer, D.D. Rector of St. Mark's, Philadelphia. Crown 8vo.
[In the press.
REV. J. CUNNINGHAM GEIKIE, D.D.
Hours with the Bible : the Scriptures in the Light of Modern
Discovery and Knowledge. By J. Cunningham Geikie, D.D. LL.D.
New Volume. Completing the New Testament Series. ST. PETER to
REVELATION. Crown 8vo. 6s. [In the press.

REV. H. C. POWELL, M.A.
The Principle of the Incarnation, with especial reference to
the Relation between the Lord's Divine Omniscience and His Human
Consciousness. By the Rev. H. C. Powell, M.A. of Oriel College,
Oxford, Rector of Wylye, Wilts. 8vo. [In the press.

REV. ALFRED EDERSHEIM, D.D.
History of the Jewish Nation after the Destruction of
Jerusalem under Titus. By Alfred Edersheim, D.D. Ph.D. New
Edition (the Third). Revised by the Rev. Henry A. White, M.A.
Fellow of New College, Oxford. With * Preface by the Rev. William
Sanday, D.D. LL.D. 8vo. 18s.
' So much valuable information is to be found in this book that to review it as it deserves
would require a smal volume. We have found little to dissent from and much to admire, and,
therefore, can earnestly recommend it to the serious-minded and inquisitive student.'— Spectator.
London, New York, and Bombay : LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
20,000/9/96- Spottiswoode &* Co. Printers, New-street Square, London.

A Selection of Works
IN
THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE
PUBLISHED BY
Messrs. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
London : 39 Paternoster Row, E.C.
New York : 91 and 93 Fifth Avenue.
Bombay : 32 Hornby Road.
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 8vo. 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 8vo. 3s. 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. 3zmo, cloth limp, 6d. each; or cloth
extra, is. each.
OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. By Thomas A Kempis:
THE CHRISTIAN YEAR
THE DEVOUT LIFE. By St. Francis de Sales.
THE HIDDEN LIFE OF THE SOUL.
THE SPIRITUAL COMBAT. By LAURENCE SCUPOLI.
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.
3zmo, is. ; or in paper cover. 6d.
AN ADVENT WITH JESUS. 32*20, is.; or in paper cover, 6d.
WHAT I SHOULD BELIEVE. A Simple Manual of Self-Instruction
for Church People. Small ivo, limp, is. ; cloth gilt, as.
Bathe and Buckham.— THE CHRISTIAN'S ROAD BOOK.
2 Parts. By the Rev. Anthony Bathe and Rev. F. H. Buckham.
Part I. Devotions. Sewed, 6d. ; limp cloth, is. ; cloth extra, is. 6d.
Part II. Readings. Sewed, is. ; limp cloth, zs. ; cloth extra, 3s. ;
or complete in one volume, sewed, is. 6d. ; limp cloth, zs. 6d. ; cloth
extra, 3s. 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. SmaU 8vo.

Vol. I. — The Rejection. 5*.
Vol. II. — The Upper Chamber.
Part 1. 5J.

Vol. III.— The Divine Exodus.
Parts I. and 11. 5s. each.
Vol. IV.— The Life Beyond The

Part 11. 5*. 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, i8mo. With red borders,
i6mo, zs. 6d. The Crown 8vo Edition (5s.) may still le 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. $to. zis.
THE COMPENDIOUS EDITION OF THE ANNOTATED BOOK
OF COMMON PRAYER : Forming a concise Commentary on the
Devotional System of the Church of England. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
DICTIONARY OF DOCTRINAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY.
By various Writers. Imperial 8vo. zis.
DICTIONARY OF SECTS, HERESIES, ECCLESIASTICAL PAR
TIES AND SCHOOLS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT. By various
Writers. Imperial 8vo. 21s.
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 8vo.
•js. 6d.
A COMPANION TO THE BIBLE : Being a Plain Commentary on
Scripture History, to the end of the Apostolic Age. Two Vols, small
8vo. Sold separately.
The Old Testament. 3*. 6d. The New Testament. 3* 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, 3s. 6d.
Body.— Works by the Rev. George Body, D.D., Canon of
Durham.
THE LIFE OF LOVE. A Course of Lent Lectures. i6mo. zs. 6d.
THE SCHOOL OF CALVARY ; or, Laws of Christian Life revealed
from the Cross. i6mo. zs. 6d.
THE LIFE OF JUSTIFICATION. i6mo. zs. Gd.
THE LIFE OF TEMPTATION. i6mo. zs. bd.
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

IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 3
Bright. — Works by William Bright, D.D., Regius Professor
of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford,
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH : And other Studies
in Church History. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
WAYMARKS IN CHURCH HISTORY. Crown 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 8vo. 6s.
THE INCARNATION AS A MOTIVE POWER. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Bright and Medd.— LIBER PRECUM PUBLICARUM EC-
CLESLE ANGLICAN^E. 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. 16s.
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.
i8mo. zs. 6d. ; cloth limp, zs.
Bound with the Book of Common Prayer, 3s. 6d.
Red-Line Edition. Cloth extra, gilt top. i8mo, zs. 6d. net.
Large-Type Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. 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,
i8mo. 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. i6mo. 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
limp, is. Large- Type Edition, Crown 8vo. is. 6d. ; cloth limp, is.
THE STAR OF CHILDHOOD : a First Book of Prayers and Instruc
tion for Children. Compiled by a Priest. With Illustrations. i6mo.
2s. 6d. {continued.

A SELECTION OF WORKS

Carter.— Works edited by the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A, Hon.
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford — continued.
NICHOLAS FERRAR : his Household and his Friends. With Portrait
engraved after a Picture by Cornelius Janssen at Magdalene
College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JOHN KETTLEWELL. With Details
of the History of the Non- Jurors. With Portrait. Crown 8vo. 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. 8vo. zis. Students' Edition. One Vol.
Crown 8vo. 6s. Popular Edition. One Vol. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Devotional Series, 16mo, Red Borders. Each is. 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. $s.
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, zs. 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.
8vo. 245.
JESUS THE MESSIAH : being an Abridged Edition of ' The Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah.' Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
HISTORY OF THE JEWISH NATION AFTER THE DESTRUC
TION OF JERUSALEM UNDER TITUS. New Edition (The
Third). 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 ot Christ
Church, Oxford. 8vo. 18*

IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

5

Eland.— THE LAYMAN'S INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK
OF COMMON PRAYER: being a Short History of its Development.
By the Rev. Edwin H. Eland, M.A., Balliol College, Oxford. With
Facsimile. ¦ Crown 8vo. $s,
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 English Translation. 8vo.

i Corinthians. i6s.
Galatians. 8s. 6d.
Ephesians. 8s. 6d.

Philippians, Colossians, and
Philemon, ios. 6d.
Thessalonians. 7s. 6d.

Pastoral Epistles. ios. 6d.
HISTORICAL LECTURES ON THE LIFE OF OUR LORD
JESUS CHRIST. 8vo. 12s.
Epochs of Church History.— Edited by Mandell Creighton,
D.D.,LL.D.,Bishopof Peterborough. Fcap.%vo. 2s.6d.eacA.
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. Perky, 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 Henrv 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 Adolfhus William Ward, Litt. D.
WYCLIFFE AND MOVEMENTS
FOR REFORM. By Reginald L.
Poole, M.A.
THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. By
H. M. Gwatkin, M.A.

Fosbery.— Works edited by the Rev. Thomas Vincent Fosbery,
M.A., sometime Vicar of St. Giles's, Reading.
VOICES OF COMFORT. Cheap Edition. Small 8vo. 3s. 6d.
The Larger Edition (7s. 6d.) may still is 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 8vo. 3s. 6d.

A SELECTION OF WORKS

Gore.— Works by the Rev. Charles Gore, M.A., Canon of
Westminster.
THE MINISTRY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 8vo. ios. 6d.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Geikie. — Works by J. Cunningham Geikie, D.D., LL.D., late
Vicar of St. Martin-at-Palace, Norwich.
HOURS WITH THE BIBLE : the Scriptures in the Light of Modern
Discovery and Knowledge. New Edition, largely rewritten. Com
plete in Twelve Volumes. Crown 8vo. 6s. each.
OLD TESTAMENT.
In Six Volumes. Sold separately. 6s. each.

Creation to the Patriarchs.
With a Map and Illustrations.

Moses to Judges.
and Illustrations.

With a Map

Samson to Solomon.
Map and Illustrations.

With

With

Rehoboam to Hezekiah.
Illustrations.
Manasseh to Zedekiah.
the Contemporary Prophets,
a Map and Illustrations.
Exile to Malachi. With the
Contemporary Prophets. With
Illustrations.

With With

NEW TESTAMENT.
In Six Volumes. Sold separately.

6s. each.

The Gospels. With a Map and
Illustrations. 2 vols.
Life and Words of Christ.
With Map. z vols.

Life and Epistles of St. Paul.
With Maps and Illustrations.
St. Peter to Revelation. Com
pleting the New Testament Series.
[In the Autumn.

LIFE AND WORDS OF CHRIST.
Presentation Edition. With Map and Illustrations. 2 vols.
Imperial 8vo. 24s.
Cabinet Edition. With Map. 2 vols. Post 8vo. izs.
Cheap Edition, without the Notes. 1 vol. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
A SHORT LIFE OF CHRIST. With numerous Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
OLD TESTAMENT CHARACTERS. With many Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
LANDMARKS OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
ENTERING ON LIFE. A Book for Young Men. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d.
THE PRECIOUS PROMISES. Crown 8vo. zs.
BEN AMMI : being the Story of the Life of Lazarus of Bethany, told,
reputedly, by Himself. [Preparing for publication.

IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

Hall.— THE VIRGIN MOTHER : Retreat Addresses on the
Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary as told in the Gospels. With an
appended Essay on the Virgin Birth of our Lord. By the Right Rev.
A. C. A. Hall, D.D., Bishop of Vermont. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
Harrison.— Works by the Rev. Alexander J. Harrison, B.D.,
Lecturer of the Christian Evidence Society.
PROBLEMS OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCEPTICISM. Cr. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THE CHURCH IN RELATION TO SCEPTICS : a Conversational
Guide to Evidential Work. New and Cheaper Edition, Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
THE REPOSE OF FAITH, IN VIEW OF PRESENT DAY DIFFI
CULTIES. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
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 8vo. 3s. 6d.
CREED AND CHARACTER : Sermons. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
ON BEHALF OF BELIEF. Sermons. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
CHRIST OR ECCLESIASTES. Sermons. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
LOGIC AND LIFE, with other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Hutchings.— SERMON SKETCHES from some of the Sunday
Lessons throughout the Church's Year. By the Rev. W. H. Hutch
ings, M.A. , Canon of York. Vols. I and II. Crown 8vo. 5.1. each.
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, z vols. 8vo. zos. net.
LEGENDS OF- THE MONASTIC ORDERS, as represented in the
Fine Arts. With n Etchings and 88 Woodcuts. 8vo. 10s. 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,
8vo. zos. net.

8 A SELECTION OF WORKS
Jennings.— ECCLESIA ANGLICANA. 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 Nature and Relationships. Crown 8vo. 4s. bd.
THE TYPES OF GENESIS. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THE SECOND DEATH AND THE RESTITUTION OF ALL
THINGS. Crown 8vo. 3s. 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.
THE CHRISTIAN HOME. Crown 8vo. 3s. 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. 3s. 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. bd.
THE LIGHT OF LIFE. Sermons preached on Various Occasions.
Crown 8vo. 3s, 6d.
SUNLIGHT AND SHADOW IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.
Sermons preached for the most part in America. Crown ivo. 3s. 6d.

IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

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. i6mo. zs. 6d. Also a
Cheap Edition, 3zmo. is.; or cloth gilt, i s. 6d. ; or with red borders, zs. 6d.
FIVE MINUTES. Daily Readings of Poetry. i6mo. 3s. 6d. Also a
Cheap Edition, 3zmo. is. ; or cloth gilt, is. 6d.
WEARINESS. A Book for the Languid and Lonely. Large Type.
Small 8vo. 5s.

CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHIES.
Madame Louise de France,
Daughter of Louis XV., known
also as the Mother Terese de
St. Augustin.
A Dominican Artist : a Sketch of
the Life of the Rev. Pere Besson,
of the Order of St. Dominic.
Henri Perreyve. By Pere
Gratry.
St. Francis de Sales, Bishop and
Prince of Geneva.

Nine Vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 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.
Fenelon, Archbishop of Cam-
brai.
Henri Dominique Lacordaire.

DEVOTIONAL WORKS. Edited
Uniform Editions. Nine Vols.
Fenelon's Spiritual Letters to
Men.
Fenelon's Spiritual Letters to
Women.
A Selection from the Spiritual
Letters of St. Francis de
Sales. Also Cheap Edition, 3zmo,
bd. cloth limp ; is. cloth boards.
The Spirit of St. Francis de
Sales.

by H. L. Sidney Lear. New and
ibmo. zs. 6d. each.
The Hidden Life of the Soul.
The Light of the Conspience.
Also Cheap Edition, 3zmo, 6d.
cloth limp ; and is. cloth boards.
Self-Renunciation. From the
French.
St. Francis de Sales' Of the
Love of God.
Selections from Pascal's
' Thoughts.'

Liddon.— Works by Henry Parry Liddon, D.D., D.CL.,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., 36s. Vol. III., \8s.
{continued

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. — continued.
CLERICAL LIFE AND WORK : Sermons. Crown 8vo. &.
ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES : Lectures on Buddhism— Lectures on the
Life of St. Paul — Papers on Dante. Crown 8vo. 5s.
EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS OF PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS. 8vo. 14s.
SERMONS ON OLD TESTAMENT SUBJECTS. Crown 8vo. zs.
SERMONS ON SOME WORDS OF CHRIST. Crown 8vo. $s.
THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.
Being the Bampton Lectures for 1866. Crown 8vo. $s.
ADVENT IN ST. PAUL'S. Sermons bearing chiefly on the Two
Comings of our Lord. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each. Cheap
Edition in one Volume. Crown 8vo. $s.
CHRISTMASTIDE IN ST. PAUL'S. Sermons bearing chiefly on the
Birth of our Lord and the End of the Year. Crown 8vo. 5s.
PASSIONTIDE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 5s.
EASTER IN ST. PAUL'S. Sermons bearing chiefly on the Resurrec
tion of our Lord. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. each. Cheap
Edition in one Volume. Crown 8vo. $s.
SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF
OXFORD. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. each. Cheap Edition in
one Volume. Crown 8vo. 5s.
THE MAGNIFICAT. Sermons in St. Paul's. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d.
SOME ELEMENTS OF RELIGION. Lent Lectures. Small 8vo.
zs. 6d. ; or in paper cover, is. 6d.
Tlie Crown ivo Edition (5s.) may still be had.
SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF H. P. LIDDON, D.D.
Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
MAXIMS AND GLEANINGS FROM THE WRITINGS OF H. P.
LIDDON, D.D. Selected and arranged by C. M. S. Crown x6mo. is.

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. Crown 8vo. 6s.
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. 3s. 6d.
THE INTERMEDIATE STATE BETWEEN DEATH AND
JUDGMENT. Being a Sequel to After Death. Crown 8vo. 3s. bd.
{continued.

IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. n
Luckock. — Works by Herbert Mortimer Luckock, D.D.,
Dean of Lichfield. — continued.
FOOTPRINTS OF THE SON OF MAN, as traced by St. Mark. Being
Eighty Portions for Private Study, Family Reading, and Instructions
in Church. Crown 8vo. 3s. bd.
THE DIVINE LITURGY. Being the Order for Holy Communion,
Historically, Doctrinally, and devotionally set forth, in Fifty Portions.
Crown 8vo. 3s. bd.
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 8vo. 3s. 6d.
THE BISHOPS IN THE TOWER. A Record of Stirring Events
affecting the Church and Nonconformists from the Restoration to the
Revolution. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
LYRA GERMANIC A. Hymns translated from the German by
Catherine Winkworth. Small 8vo. 5s.
MacColL— Works by the Rev. Malcolm MacColl, M.A., Canon
Residentiary of Ripon.
CHRISTIANITY IN RELATION TO SCIENCE AND MORALS.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
LIFE HERE AND HEREAFTER : Sermons. Crown 8vo. 7s. bd.
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 8vo. 7s. 6d. Cheap Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
THE RELATION OF CONFIRMATION TO BAPTISM. As taught
in Holy Scripture and the Fathers. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Maturin.— SOME PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF
THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. By the Rev. B. W. Maturin, Mission
Priest of the Society of S. John the Evangelist, Cowley, Oxford.
Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
Mercier.— OUR MOTHER CHURCH : Being Simple Talk
on High Topics. By Mrs. Jerome Mercier. Small 8vo. 3s. 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 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Moberly.— REASON AND RELIGION : Some Aspects of their
Mutual Interdependence. By R. C. Moberly, D.D., Regius Professor
of Pastoral Theology, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. Crown
8vo. 4s. 6d.

12

A SELECTION OF WORKS

Mortimer.— Works by the Rev. A. G. Mortimer, D.D., Rector
of St. Mark's, Philadelphia.

HELPS TO MEDITATION: Sketches
for Every Day in the Year.
Vol. i. Advent to Trinity. Zvo. 7S.6d.
Vol. n. Trinity to Advent. Zvo. 7s. 6d.
STORIES FEOM GENESIS : Sermons
for Children. Crown Zvo. t,s.
THE LAWS OF HAPPINESS; or,
The Beatitudes as teaching our Duty
to God, Self, and our Neighbour.
xZmo. zs.
SERMONS IN MINIATURE FOR
EXTEMPORE PREACHERS :
Sketches for Every Sunday and Holy
Day of the Christian Year. Crown
8vo. 6s.

NOTES ON THE SEVEN PENE-
TENTIAL PSALMS, chiefly from
Patristic Sources. Fcp. Zvo. 3s. 6d.
THE SEVEN LAST WORDS OF
OUR MOST HOLY REDEEMER:
with Meditations on some Scenes in
His Passion. Crown Zvo. sj.
LEARN OF JESUS CHRIST TO
DIE : Addresses on the Words of our
Lord from the Cross, taken as Teach
ing the way of Preparation for Death.
i6mo. ss.
THE LAWS OF PENITENCE : Ad
dresses on the Words of our Lbrdfrom
the Cross. i6mo. is. bd.

Mozley.— Works by J. B. Mozley, D.D., late Canon of Christ
Church, and Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.

ESSAYS, HISTORICAL AND THEO
LOGICAL. Two Vols. Svo. 24J.
EIGHT LECTURES ON MIRACLES.
Being the Bampton Lectures for 1865.
Crown Zvo. $s. 6d.
RULING IDEAS IN EARLY AGES
AND THEIR RELATION TO
OLD TESTAMENT FAITH.
Zvo. 6s.

SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE
THE UNIVERSITY OF OX
FORD, and on Various Occasions.
Crown Zvo~ 3 c. 6d.
SERMONS, PAROCHIAL AND
OCCASIONAL. Crown 8vo. 31. 6d.,

A REVIEW OF THE
CONTROVERSY. 3s 6d.

BAPTISMAL Crown Zvo.

Newbolt.— Works by the Rev. W. C. E. Newbolt, M.A., Canon
and Chancellor of St. Paul's Cathedral.
THE GOSPEL OF EXPERIENCE ; or, the Witness of Human Life
to the truth of Revelation. Being the Boyle Lectures for 1895.
Crown 8vo. $s.
COUNSELS OF FAITH AND PRACTICE : being Sermons preached
on various occasions. New and Enlarged Edition. Crown 8vo. cs.
SPECULUM SACERDOTUM ; or, the Divine Model of the Priestly
Life. Crown 8vo. 7s. bd.
THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT. Being Ten Addresses bearing on
the Spiritual Life. Crown 8vo. zs. bd.
THE MAN OF GOD. Being Six Addresses delivered during Lent and
the Primary Ordination of the Right Rev. the Lord Alwyne Compton,
D.D., Bishop of Ely. Small 8vo. is. bd.
THE PRAYER BOOK : Its Voice and Teaching. Being Spiritual
Addresses bearing on the Book of Common Prayer. Crown 8vo.
as. bd.

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 8vo. $s. each. Cheaper Edition. 3s. bd. each.
SELECTION, ADAPTED TO THE SEASONS OF THE ECCLE
SIASTICAL YEAR, from the 'Parochial and Plain Sermons,'
Cabinet Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s. Cheaper Edition. 3s. 6d.
FIFTEEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY
OF OXFORD Cabinet Edition. Crown 8vo. $s. Cheaper Edition.
3s. bd.
SERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OF THE DAY. Cabinet
Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s. Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 3s. bd.
LECTURES ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Cabinet
Edition. Crown 8vo. $s. Cheaper Edition. 3s. bd.
*** A Complete List of Cardinal Newman's Works can be had on Application
Norris.— RUDIMENTS OF THEOLOGY : a First Book for
Students. By John Pilkington Norris, D.D.,. late Archdeacon of
Bristol, and Canon Residentiary of Bristol Cathedral. Cr. 8vo. 3s. bd.
Osborne. — Works by Edward Osborne, Mission Priest of the
Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley, Oxford.
THE CHILDREN'S SAVIOUR. Instructions to Children on the Life
of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Illustrated. i6mo. 2s. 6d.
THE SAVIOUR KING. Instructions to Children on Old Testament
Types and Illustrations of the Life of Christ. Illustrated, ibmo. 2s. bd.
THE CHILDREN'S FAITH. Instructions to Children on'the Apostles"
Creed. Illustrated. i6mo. zs. 6d.
Overton.— THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE NINE
TEENTH CENTURY, 1800-1833. By the Rev. John H. Overton,
D.D., Canon of Lincoln, Rector of Epworth, Doncaster, and Rural
Dean of the Isle of Axholme. 8vo. 14s.
Oxenden.— Works by the Right Rev. Ashton Oxenden,
formerly Bishop of Montreal.
PLAIN SERMONS, to which is prefixed a Memorial Portrait. Crown
8vo. 5-r.
THE HISTORY OF MY LIFE : An Autobiography. Crown 8vo. $s.
PEACE AND ITS HINDRANCES. Crown 8vo. is. sewed ; zs. cloth.
THE PATHWAY OF SAFETY ; or, Counsel to the Awakened. Fcap.
8vo, large type. zs. 6d. Cheap Edition. Small type, limp, is.
THE EARNEST COMMUNICANT. New Red Rubric Edition.
3zmo, cloth, zs. Common Edition. 3zmo. is.
OUR CHURCH AND HER SERVICES. Fcap. Zvo. zs. 6d.
{continued.

14 A SELECTION OF WORKS
Oxenden. — Works by the Right Rev. Ashton Oxenden,
formerly Bishop of Montreal — continued.
FAMILY PRAYERS FOR FOUR WEEKS. First Series. Fcap. 8vo.
zs. 6d. Second Series. Fcap. 8vo. zs. 6d.
Large Type Edition. Two Series in one Volume, Crown 8vo. 6s.
COTTAGE SERMONS ; or, Plain Words to the Poor. Fcap. Zvo. zs. 6d.
THOUGHTS FOR HOLY WEEK. i6mo, cloth, is. 6d.
DECISION. i8mo. is. 6d.
THE HOME BEYOND ; or, A Happy Old Age. Fcap. 8vo. is. 6d.
THE LABOURING MAN'S BOOK. iZmo, large type, cloth, is. 6d.
Paget.— Works by Francis Paget, D.D., Dean of Christ Church.
STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER : Sermons. With an
Introductory Essay. Crown Zvo. bs. bd.
THE SPIRIT OF DISCIPLINE : Sermons. Crown 8vo. bs. bd.
FACULTIES AND DIFFICULTIES FOR BELIEF AND DIS
BELIEF. Crown 8vo. bs. 6a.
THE HALLOWING OF WORK. Addresses given at Eton, January,
16-18, 1888. Small 8vo. zs.
PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS. By a Clergyman. With
Prefaces by H. P. Liddon, D.D., D.C.L., and the Bishop of

Lincoln. Crown 8vo.
The Book of Genesis. 4s. bd.
The Psalms. $s.
Isaiah. 4s. 6d.

The Minor Prophets. 41. 6d.
The Holy Gospels. 4s. 6d.
Acts to Revelations. 6s.

Percival.— THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. Treated Theo
logically and Historically. By HENRY R. PERCIVAL, M.A., D.D.,
Author of 'A Digest of Theology,' 'The Doctrine of the Episcopal
Church,' etc. Crown Zvo. $s.
Prynne. — THE TRUTH AND REALITY OF THE
EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE, Proved from Holy Scripture, the
Teaching of the Primitive Church, and the Book of Common Prayer.
By the Rev. George Rundle Prynne, M.A. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Pullan.— LECTURES ON RELIGION. By the Rev. Leighton
Pullan, M.A., Fellow of St. John's College, Lecturer in Theology at
Oriel and Queen's Colleges, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Puller.— THE PRIMITIVE SAINTS AND THE SEE OF
ROME. By F. W. Puller, M.A., Mission Priest of the Society of
St. John Evangelist, Cowley, Oxford. Crown 8vo. js. 6d.

IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 15

Pusey.— LIFE OF EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, D.D.
By Henry Parry Liddon, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D. Edited and pre
pared for publication by the Rev. J. O. Johnston, M.A., Principal
of the Theological College, 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 1 1., 36s. Vol.III.,iZs.
Randolph.— THE LAW OF SINAI : being Devotional Addresses
on the Ten Commandments delivered to Ordinands. By B. W. Ran
dolph, M.A., Principal of the Theological College and Hon. Canon -
of Ely. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Sanday.— Works by W. Sanday, D.D., Margaret Professor of
Divinity in the University of Oxford.
INSPIRATION : Eight Lectures on the Early History and Origin of the
Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration. Being the Bampton Lectures for
1893. New and Cheaper Edition, with New Preface. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THE ORACLES OF GOD : Nine Lectures on the Nature and Extent of
Biblical Inspiration and the Special Significance of the Old Testament
Scriptures at the Present Time. Crown 8vo. 4s.
TWO PRESENT-DAY QUESTIONS. I. Biblical Criticism. II. The
Social Movement. Sermons preached before the University of Cam
bridge. Crown Zvo. zs. 6d.
Strong.— CHRISTIAN ETHICS : being the Bampton Lectures
for 1895. By Thomas B. Strong, M.A., Student of Christ Church,
Oxford, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Durham.
8vo, 13s.
Tee.— THE SANCTUARY OF SUFFERING. By Eleanor
Tee, Author of 'This Everyday Life,' etc. With a Preface by the
Rev. J. P. F. Davidson, M.A., Vicar of St. Matthias', Earl's Court;
President of the ' Guild of All Souls.' Crown Zvo. 7s. bd.
Williams. — Works by the Rev. Isaac Williams, B.D.
A DEVOTIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL NARRA
TIVE. Eight Vols. Crown Zvo. §s. each. Sold Separately.

Thoughts on the Study of the
Holy Gospels.
A Harmony of the Four Gospels.
Our Lord's Nativity.
Our Lord's Ministry (Second Year).

Our Lord's Ministry (Third Year).
The Holy Week.
Our Lord's Passion.
Our Lord's Resurrection.
FEMALE CHARACTERS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. A Series of
Sermons. Crown Zvo. $s.
THE CHARACTERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Crown Zvo. $s.
THE APOCALYPSE. With Notes and Reflections. Crown 8vo. $s.
SERMONS ON THE EPISTLES AND GOSPELS FOR THE SUN
DAYS AND HOLY DAYS. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. $s. each.
PLAIN SERMONS ON CATECHISM. Two Vols. Cr. Zvo. 3s. each.

16 A SELECTION OF THEOLOGICAL WORKS.

Wordsworth.— Works by the late Christopher Wordsworth,
D.D., Bishop of Lincoln.
THE HOLY BIBLE (the Old Testament). With Notes, Introductions,
and Index. Imperial 8vo.
Vol. I. The Pentateuch. z$s. Vol. II. Joshua to Samuel. i$s.
Vol. III. Kings to Esther. 13s. Vol. IV. Job to Song of
Solomon. 25.1. Vol. V. Isaiah to Ezekiel. 25.5. Vol. VI.
Daniel, Minor Prophets, and Index. 13s.
Also supplied in 12 Parts. Sold separately.
THE NEW TESTAMENT, in the Original Greek. With Notes, Intro
ductions, and Indices. Imperial Zvo.
Vol. I. Gospels and Acts of the Apostles. 23J. Vol. II.
Epistles, Apocalypse, and Indices. 37*.
Also supplied in 4 Parts. Sold separately.
LECTURES ON INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. Small Zvo.
Is. bd. cloth, is. sewed.
A CHURCH HISTORY TO A.D. 451. Four Vols. Crown Zvo.
Vol. I. To the Council of Nioea, a.d. 325. 8s. bd. Vol. II.
From the Council of Nicea to that of Constantinople.
bs. Vol. III. Continuation. bs. Vol. IV. Conclusion, To
the Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451. 6s.
THEOPHILUS ANGLICANUS: a Manual of Instruction on the
Church and the Anglican Branch of it. i2mo. zs. 6d.
ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTION ON THE CHURCH. ibmo.
is. cloth. 6d. sewed,
ON UNION WITH ROME. Small Zvo. is. 6d. Sewed, is.
THE HOLY YEAR : Original Hymns. i6mo. zs.6d.andis. Limp,6d.
„ With Music. Edited by W. H. Monk. SauareZv0.4s.bd.
MISCELLANIES, Literary and Religious. Three Vols. Zvo. 3bs.
ON THE INTERMEDIATE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER
DEATH. 3zmo. is.
Younghusband. — Works by Frances Younghusband.
THE STORY OF OUR LORD, told in Simple Language for Children.
With 25 Illustrations on Wood from Pictures by the Old Masters,
and numerous Ornamental Borders, Initial Letters, etc., from Long
mans' New Testament. Crown 8vo. zs. bd.
THE STORY OF GENESIS, told in Simple Language for Children.
With Frontispiece. Crown 8vo. zs. bd.
THE STORY OF THE EXODUS, told in Simple Language for
Children. With Map and 29 Illustrations. Crown 8vo. zs. bd.
10,000/8/96.

Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to Her Majesty,
at the Edinburgh University Press.

' 5' '<