













THE

CHURCH OF ENGLAND

CLEARED FROM

THE CHARGE OF SCHISM,

UPON

TESTIMONIES OF COUNCILS

AND

FATHERS OF THE FIRST SIX CENTURIES.

BY

THOMAS WILLIAM ALLIES, M. A.

RECTOR OF LAUNTON, OXON.

LONDON:

JAMES BURNS, 17, PORTMAN STREET,

PORTMAN SQUARE.

1846.

       *       *       *       *       *


LONDON:
R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.

       *       *       *       *       *


ADVERTISEMENT.

       *       *       *       *       *

The writer of the following pages is more and more convinced that the whole
question between the Roman Church and ourselves, as well as the Eastern
Church, turns upon the Papal Supremacy, as at present claimed, being of
divine right or not. _If it be_, then have we nothing else to do, on peril
of salvation, but submit ourselves to the authority of Rome: and better it
were to do so before we meet the attack, which is close at hand, of an
enemy who bears equal hatred to ourselves and to Rome; the predicted
Lawless One, the Logos, reason, or private judgment of apostate humanity
rising up against the Divine Logos, incarnate in His Church. _If it be
not_, then may we take courage; for the position of the Church of England
being tenable, all the evils within her pale, which we are now so deeply
feeling, will, by God's blessing, be gradually overcome. As to practical
abuses in her, who will venture to say they are so great as in the Roman
Church of the tenth century, when the First See was filled successively by
the lovers of abandoned women, who made and deposed Popes at their will?
Our cause being good, all that we have to deplore of actual evil should
lead to more earnest intercession, more continued striving after that love
which breathes itself forth in unity, but should not shake the confidence
of any obedient heart in our mother's title. When the Donatists made the
crimes of individuals an excuse for breaking unity, St. Augustin reminded
them, that the crimes of the chaff do not prejudice the wheat, but that
both must grow together till the Lord of the harvest send forth his angels
to make the separation.

The writer will not conceal that he took up this inquiry for the purpose of
satisfying his own mind. Had he found the Councils and Fathers of the first
six centuries bearing witness _to_ the Roman supremacy, as at present
claimed, instead of _against_ it, he should have felt bound to obey them.
As a Priest of the Church Catholic in England, he desires to hold, and to
the best of his ability will teach, all doctrine which the undivided Church
always held. He finds by reference to those authorities which could not be
deceived, and cannot be adulterated, that while they unanimously held the
Roman primacy, and the patriarchal system, of which the Roman pontiff stood
at the head, they as unanimously did not hold, nor even contemplate, that
supremacy or monarchy which alone Rome will now accept as the price of her
communion. They not only do not recognise it, but their words and their
actions most manifestly contradict it. This is, in one word, his
justification of his mother from the sin of Schism. If true, it is
sufficient: if untrue, he knows of no other.

But should any opponent think these pages worthy of a reply, the writer
warns him, at the outset, that he must in fairness discard that old
disingenuous trick of using testimonies of the Fathers to the primacy of
the Roman See in the episcopal and patriarchal system, in order to prove
the full papal supremacy, as now claimed, in a system which is nearly come
to pure monarchy. By this method, because the Fathers recognise the Bishop
of Rome as successor of St. Peter, they are counted witnesses to that
absolute power now claimed by the Roman pontiff, though they recognise
other Bishops, in just the same sense, to be successors of the holy
Apostles; or though they call every Bishop's see the see of Peter, as the
great type and example of the episcopate. What such an one has to establish
in order to justify the Roman Church, and to prove that the English and the
Eastern are in Schism, is, that Roman doctrine, as stated by Bellarmine,
which is really the key-stone of the whole system, that "Bishops succeed
not properly to the Apostles," "for they have no part of the true apostolic
authority," but that "all ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends
immediately from the Pope," and that "the Pope has, full and entire, that
power which Christ left on the earth for the good of the Church."[1] Let
this be proved on the testimony of the first six centuries, and if it be
true, nothing can be more easy than to prove it, as the contradictory of it
is attempted to be proved in the following pages, and all controversy will
be at an end. We claim that it should be proved, for even De Maistre, who
has put forward this theory with the least compromise, declares, "There is
nothing new in the Church, and never will she believe save what she has
always believed."[2]

       *       *       *       *       *


THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND CLEARED FROM
THE CHARGE OF SCHISM.

The course of events, for some time past, has been such as to force upon
the most faithful sons of the Church of England the consideration of
questions which they would rather have left alone, as long ago settled; for
the nature of these questions is such, not to speak of their intricacy and
painfulness, as almost to compel the student to place himself, as it were,
_ab extra_ to that community, which he would rather regard with the
unreasoning and unhesitating instinct of filial affection. One of these
questions, perhaps the first which directly meets and encounters him, is
the charge of Schism brought against the Church of England on account of
the events of the sixteenth century, and her actual state of separation
from the Latin communion, which has been their result. Time was, and that
not long since, when it might have been thought a sort of treason for one
who ministers at the altars of the Church of England, and receives by her
instrumentality the gift of Life, so much as to entertain the thought,
whether there was a flaw in the commission of his spiritual mother, a flaw
which, reducing her to the condition of a sect, would invalidate his own
sonship. And certainly the treatment of such a question must be most
painful to any one, who desires to be obedient and dutiful, and therefore
to be at peace. How can it be otherwise, when, instead of eating his daily
portion of food in his Father's house, he is called upon to search and
inquire whether indeed he have found that house at all, and be not rather a
fugitive or an outcast from it. Such, however, is the hard necessity which
is come upon us. Let no one imagine that it is our _choice_ to speak on
such subjects. We are in the case of a beleaguered soldier in an enemy's
country; he may not think of peace; he must maintain his post or die; his
part is not aggression, but defence: the matter at issue is the
preservation of all that he holds dear, or extermination. The question of
_schism_ is a question of salvation.

But over and above the general course of events which forces us to
reconsider this question, circumstances have taken place in the past year
which we may boldly pronounce to be without a parallel in the history of
the Church in England since she became divided from Catholic communion.
Those who have followed with anxious sympathy that great restorative
movement which, for twelve years, has agitated her bosom,--those who have
felt with an ever increasing conviction, as time went on, and the different
parties consolidated and unfolded themselves, that it was at the bottom a
contest for the ancient faith delivered to the saints, for dogmatic truth,
for a visible Church, in whom, as in a great sacrament, was lodged the
presence of the Lord, communicating Himself by a thousand acts of spiritual
efficacy, against the monstrous and shapeless latitudinarianism of the day;
against the unnumbered and even unsuspected heresies which have infected
the whole atmosphere that we breathe; against, in fine, the individual will
of fallen man, under cover of which the coming Antichrist is marshalling
interests the most opposite, and passions the most contradictory; and
further, those not few nor inconsiderable, we believe, who, by God's grace,
owe to the teaching of _one man_ in particular a debt they never can
repay,--the recovery, perchance, of themselves from some form of error
which he has taught them to discern, or the building them up in a faith
whose fair proportions he first discovered to them,--these will feel with
deeper sorrow than we can express the urgency of the occasion to which we
allude. For how, indeed, could the question, whether the Church of England
is fallen into schism, or be, as from the laver of their regeneration they
have been taught to believe, a member of that one sacred Body in which
Christ incarnate dwells,--how could this question be so forced upon their
minds, as by the fact that her Champion, whom they had hitherto felt to be
invincible, who had seemed her heaven-sent defender, with the talisman of
victory in his hands, of whom they were even tempted to think

                  Si Pergama dextra
  Defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent,

that he, who fighting her battles, never met with his equal, unsubdued by
any foe from without, has surrendered to his own doubts and fears;
self-conquered, has laid down her arms, and has gone over to the camp
opposed. Henceforth she has ranged against her those powers of genius and
that sanctity of life, to which so many of her children looked as to a
certain omen of her Catholicity. They felt that she who bore such children,
must needs be the spouse of God. It is no wonder that many others, of no
mean name among us, and whom we could ill afford to spare, have had their
doubts and disquietudes determined by such a fact as this. For the first
time, I repeat, in the history of the Church of England have earnest and
zealous children of hers, who desired nothing but their own salvation and
the salvation of others, found no rest for the sole of their feet within
her communion. Men who set out with the most single-minded purpose of
defending her cause, nay, of winning back to her bosom alienated
multitudes, of building her up in a beauty and a glory which she has not
yet seen, and one, especially, who has been the soul of that great movement
to restore her,--these have now, after years of hard fighting spent in her
service, quitted her, and proclaim that all who value their salvation must
quit her likewise.

These are some of the special circumstances which force upon the most
reluctant the question of Schism. It was the privilege of other days to
feed in the quiet pastures of truth. We have to seek the path to Heaven
through the wilderness of controversy, where too often "the highways are
unoccupied, and the travellers walk through byways." But it is a question
which cannot be put off or thrust aside. No instructed Christian, who has
any true faith or love, can bear the thought that he is out of the one fold
of Christ. The question cannot be put off, for it will brood upon him in
his daily devotions and labours; a doubt as to the justice of his cause
will paralyse all his exertions. It cannot be thrust aside; for the
imputation of heresy on another has no tendency to answer the charge of
schism against oneself. It must be met openly, honestly, and without
shrinking. The charge of Schism touches immediately the Christian's
conscience, for this reason, that, if true, it takes away from his prayers,
his motives, his actions, his sufferings, that one quality which is
acceptable to Almighty God. Here it is most true, that "all, which is not
of faith, is sin:" he who does not believe, at least, that he is a member
of the one Church, whatever outward acts he may perform, cannot please his
Judge. In the words of one who himself gave his goods to feed the poor, and
shed his blood for the testimony of Jesus,[3] "if such men were even killed
for confession of the Christian name, not even by their blood is this stain
washed out. Inexpiable and heavy is the sin of discord, and is purged by no
suffering. He cannot be a martyr who is not in the Church; he can never
attain to the kingdom, who leaves her with whom the kingdom shall be." "A
man of such sort may indeed be killed, crowned he cannot be." Therefore the
charge of Schism, when once brought before the reflecting mind, cannot be
turned aside,--it must be met and answered: if it is not answered, at least
to the conviction of the individual, it leaves upon the whole of his
obedience the stain of insincerity, which is fatal. In this respect it is
more pressing and imperious, more fatal, even than that of heresy. I
observe this, because, in the comments I have seen on the painful
departures of friends from among us, and in exhortations not to follow
them, it has not seemed to be always recognised. When men leave us on the
ground that we are in schism, surely all censure of them, and all defence
of ourselves, is beside the mark, which does not meet and rebut this
particular accusation. Under this no man can rest: it is useless, it is
sinful, to ask him to rest, unless you can remove the imputation. To talk
of "disappointment, or a morbid desire of distinction, or impatience under
deficiencies, want of discipline, or sympathy in spiritual superiors," and
such-like causes, as being those which have impelled a man to the most
painful sacrifices, and "in the middle of his days to begin life again," is
surely both untrue as regards the individual, and futile as to preventing
others doing like him, when the ground of schism among others is alleged by
himself, and is felt to lie at the bottom. Could we prove that the Church
of England is clear both of enunciating heresy in her formularies, and of
allowing it within her pale, it would in no respect answer this charge of
schism against her, except so far as the _à priori_ presumption, that she
who is clear of the one would be clear of the other also. But it would
remain to be met and answered specifically.

Moreover, I must confess that this is a point on which I, for one, cannot
write in the spirit of a controversialist. I must state, to the best of my
poor ability, and to the utmost reach of my limited discernment, not only
the truth, but the whole truth. I cannot keep back points which tell
against us. Gibbon charges Thomassin with telling one half the truth, and
Bingham the other half, in their books upon the ancient discipline of the
Church. Whether this be true or not, I cannot, in my small degree, do
likewise. I have found Bishop Beveridge, in his defence of the 37th
Article, quote, in several instances, part of a paragraph from ancient
Fathers, because it told for him, and omit the other part, because it told
against him. And, in considering the celibacy of the clergy, it is usual to
find Protestant writers enlarging on the fact, that St. Peter was married;
and that the Greek Church has always allowed its parish priests to be
married; while they keep out of view that St. Peter's marriage preceded his
call, and that the Eastern Church never allowed those who were already in
holy orders, to marry, but only to keep those wives which they had taken as
laymen. Or again, in deference to the circumstances of the English Church,
writers conceal the fact, that the whole Church of the East and West, on
the authority, as to the first point, of the express Word of God itself,
has never allowed a person who married twice, or who married a widow, to be
in holy orders at all. I have observed Bingham, when he treats of celibacy,
alluding triumphantly to the biography of St. Cyprian, by Pontius, to prove
that an ancient saint, martyr, and bishop, of the third century, was a
married man; but taking care to leave out the express notice of Pontius,
that, from his conversion, he lived in continence. Those who wish to see on
the Roman side another sort of unfairness alluded to in the Advertisement
may look to the 6th Chapter of the 1st Book of De Maistre, on the Pope,
where they will find a host of quotations to prove the Supremacy, which
only prove at the outside the Primacy; and by far the greater number of
them might be paralleled by like expressions which are addressed to other
bishops, but of which fact no mention is made. They are assumed in a sort
of triumphant strain to prove the point in question, while, to the student
of antiquity, their weakness, or, sometimes, their irrelevancy, only proves
the reverse. This sort of disingenuousness is so common on both sides, that
it may be said to be the besetting sin of controversialists. If, however,
there be any question in which perfect candour is requisite, it is surely
this of schism. Would it not be a most miserable success to be able to
deceive oneself, or others, as to whether one is or is not within the
covenant of salvation? The special pleader in such a case is surely the
most unhappy of all men; for he deprives himself of the greatest of
blessings. He seems to win his cause, while he most thoroughly loses it;
for if a man be indeed out of the ark of Christ's Church, what benefit can
one possibly render him equal to that of bringing him within it? I write,
then, with the strongest sense of responsibility on this subject, and shall
not be deterred from making admissions, if truth require them, which seem
to tell on the other side, and which have accordingly been shrunk from, or
slurred over, by our defenders in former times.

And this leads to another consideration. The charge of Schism against the
Church of England is, that by rejecting the Papal authority in the
sixteenth century, she lost the blessing of Catholic communion, and ceased
to belong to that One Body to which salvation is promised. Now, in such a
matter, the Church of England must be judged by principles which have been,
from the first, and are still, recognised by all Christendom. Whatever
obedience we may owe, in virtue of our personal subscription, to articles
or other formularies, drawn up in the sixteenth century, it is obvious they
can decide nothing here. What I mean will be best shown by an example.
Suppose a person were to take the 6th Article, and set upon it a meaning,
not at all uncommon in these days, viz. that the Church of England therein
declares, that Holy Scripture is the sole standard of faith; and that every
man must decide for himself, what is, or is not, contained in Holy
Scripture; and that he, searching Holy Scripture for the purpose, can find
nothing whatever said about the Papal authority;--it is obvious, that such
a mode of arguing would be utterly inadequate either to terminate
controversy, or, one would think, to quiet any troubled conscience: for
whether or no this be the meaning of the 6th Article, the whole Greek and
Latin Church would reject with horror such propositions as the first two
put together, as being subversive of the very existence of a Church, and of
all dogmatic authority. It is a valid argument enough to an individual to
say, You have signed such and such documents, and are bound by them: but if
he is in doubt whether the documents themselves be tenable, they cannot be
taken to prove themselves. The decision of a province of the Church in the
sixteenth century cannot be quoted to prove that that decision is right,
for it is the very thing called in question. It is the Reformation itself
which is put on trial; it cannot appeal to itself as a witness; it must be
content to bring its cause before a judge, whose authority all will
admit,--and that judge, need we say, must be antiquity, and the consent of
the undivided Church. And the Church of England, it must be admitted, has
not shrunk from this appeal. Her often-quoted canon enjoins her ministers,
in that part of their duty wherein most is left to their private judgment,
"to teach nothing which they wish to be held and believed religiously by
the people, save what is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New
Testament, and what the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops, have
collected out of that very doctrine." Thus she spoke in the year 1571. The
Church had then passed through fifteen centuries of a chequered, but
superhuman, and most marvellous existence. Her continuous life implies a
continuity of principles, ruling her from the beginning; and any
controversy which affects her well-being, as does that concerning the
integrity or loss of a great member, must be judged according to those
principles. The present position of the Church of England may be merely a
provisional one, I firmly believe that such is the fact; but if she is to
claim the allegiance of her children as a part of the Catholic Church, it
must be proved that such her position is tenable upon the principles which
directed that Church when undivided. In short, I propose honestly, though
briefly, to meet this imputation of schism by an appeal to the authority of
the first six centuries: an authority, which no Roman Catholic can slight
or refuse.

Let us go back to the first period at which the universal Church, emerging
from the fires of persecution, is found acting as one body. United, indeed,
it had ever been from the day of Pentecost, in charity, in doctrine, in
sacraments, in communion. The Christian people, scattered throughout the
wide precincts of the Roman empire, and speaking its various tongues, was
one in heart and spirit--"A peculiar people," like none other: the Bread
which they ate, and the Cup which they drank, made them One living Body.
But so long as the Church was engaged in a fierce and unrelenting conflict
with the Paganism and despotism of the empire, she could hardly exhibit to
the world her complete outward organization. So, although in the intervals
of persecution, important provincial councils had been held, and though it
was felt to be necessary for discipline that local synods should take place
twice every year, yet not until the year 325, at the Council of Nicea, does
the whole Church meet in representation; the immediate cause of that
assemblage being a heresy so malignant as to threaten her existence, and
which could be repressed by no less energetic means. That is a strongly
marked and important point in her existence, throwing light upon the
centuries preceding, and establishing irremovable landmarks for those
ensuing, at which we have full means for judging what her constitution and
government were. As the decrees of the 318 Fathers established for ever the
true doctrine concerning the Eternal Son, so do they offer an imperishable
and unambiguous witness concerning the discipline and hierarchy of the
Church. What was schism then, is schism now; what was lawful and compatible
with Christian Sonship and privileges then, is so now. What then is the
view they present us with? We find the Bishops throughout the whole world
recognised, without so much as a doubt, to be the successors of the
Apostles, invested with the plenitude of that royal Priesthood which the
Son of God had set up on the earth in His own Person, and from that Person
had communicated to His chosen disciples, and so possessed of whatever
authority was necessary to govern the Church. Thus spoke a fresh and
unbroken tradition, so universal and so unquestionable that no other voice
was heard beside. Thus the Episcopal power may be safely recognised as of
divine appointment: in truth it is scarcely possible to have stronger
evidence than we have of this. One of the most learned of those who are
opposed to us on the charge of schism, thus sums up the decisions "of all
the Fathers and all the Councils of the first ages." "The Bishop represents
Christ, and stands in his place on earth. As therefore the Priesthood of
Christ embraces all sacerdotal authority and complete power to feed the
flock, so that while we may indeed distinguish and define the various
powers included in that fullness and perfection, yet it is a great crime to
dissever and rend them in any way from each other, just as we distinguish
without dividing the attributes and perfections of the Godhead itself; so
the Episcopate in its own nature contains the fullness of the Priesthood,
and the perfection of the Pastoral office. For Christ received the
perfection of the Priesthood from His Father, when He was sent by Him.
Moreover the perfection of the Priesthood, or both the Episcopal powers,
(_i.e._ the Sacerdotal and the Pastoral,) He gave at once to His Apostles
when he sent them as He himself was sent by the Father. Lastly, that same
perfection they transmitted to Bishops, sending them as they themselves
were sent by Christ." "Whence Bishops are Fathers by the most noble
participation of divine Fathership which is on earth; so that here that
expression of Paul is true--'From whom every Fathership in heaven and earth
is named.' For no greater Fathership is there on the earth than the
Apostolical and the Episcopal." _Thomassin_, Part I. Liv. i. ch. 2.

And, viewed in itself, this power was sovereign and independent in every
individual Bishop, who was the spouse of the Church, the successor of the
Apostles, and of Peter, the centre of unity; able, moreover, to communicate
this authority to others, and to become the source of a long line of
spiritual descendants. But was this power in practice exercised in so
unmodified a form? Would there not have been not only imminent danger, but
almost certainty, that a power unlimited in its nature, committed to so
large a body of men, who might become indefinitely more numerous, yet were
each independent centres of authority, instead of tending to unity would
produce diversity? Accordingly we find, together with the apostolical
authority, admitted to be lodged in the Episcopal body in general, a
preponderating influence exercised by certain sees, viz. by Rome in the
West, and by Alexandria and Antioch in the East. Under these leading
Bishops are a great number of metropolitans; and others, again, like the
Bishops of Cyprus, have their own metropolitan, but are not subordinate to
either of the three great sees. Next to these, rank the Bishops of Ephesus,
Cesarea, and Heraclea, who preside respectively over the provinces of Asia,
Cappadocia, and Thrace, and were afterwards called Exarchs. And the source
of this preponderating influence is to be traced to the fact that the
Apostles laid hold of the principal cities, and founded Churches in them,
which became centres of light to their several provinces, and naturally
exercised a parental authority over their children. The three great
Bishops, though not yet called Patriarchs, or even Archbishops, seem to
have exercised all the power of Patriarchs. No general Council would be
binding without their presence in person, or by deputy, or their subsequent
ratification. Moreover, among these, the Bishop of Rome, as successor of
St. Peter, has a decided preeminence. What the extent of that preeminence
was, had not yet been defined; but it is very apparent, and acknowledged in
the East as well as in the West. It does not seem, indeed, that his
authority differed in _kind_, but only in _degree_, from that of his
brethren, especially those of Alexandria and Antioch. The Apostolical
Canons, more ancient than the Council of Nice, and representing the whole
East, say:--"The Bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first
among them, and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence
without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his
own parish, (_i.e._ diocese,) and the country places which belong to it.
But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of
all, for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the
Lord Jesus Christ." Canon 34. The Council of Nicea mentions the sees of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome in precisely similar terms:--"Let the ancient
customs be maintained, which are in Egypt and Libya, and Pentapolis;
according to which the Bishop of Alexandria has authority over all those
places. For this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome. In like manner in
Antioch, and in the other provinces, the privileges are to be preserved to
the Churches." Canon 6. That is, as it would seem, let the Bishop of
Alexandria have the power to consecrate Bishops in the three provinces of
his Patriarchate, for the Bishop of Rome does the same in his, _i.e._ in
the suburbicarian provinces, or in Italy, south of the province of Milan,
and in Sicily. This precedence or prerogative of Rome, to whatever extent
it reached, was certainly, notwithstanding the famous 28th Canon of
Chalcedon, not either claimed or granted merely because Rome was the
imperial city. It was explicitly claimed by the Bishop of Rome himself, and
as freely conceded by others to him, as in a special sense successor of St.
Peter. From the earliest times that the Church comes before us as an
organized body, the germ at least of this preeminence is observable. From
the very first, the Roman Pontiff seems possessed himself, as from a living
tradition which had thoroughly penetrated the local Roman Church, with a
consciousness of some peculiar influence he was to exercise on the whole
Church. This consciousness does not show itself here and there in the line
of Roman Pontiffs, but one and all, whatever their individual characters
might be, seem to have imbibed it from the atmosphere which they breathed.
St. Victor, and St. Stephen, St. Innocent, St. Leo the Great, and St.
Gregory, are quite of one mind here. That they were the successors of St.
Peter, who himself sat and ruled and spoke in their person, was as strongly
felt, and as consistently declared, by those Pontiffs who preceded the time
of Constantine, and who had continually to pay with their blood the price
of that high preeminence, as by those who followed the conversion of the
empire, when the honour of their post was not accompanied by so much
danger. We are speaking now, be it remembered, of the feeling _which
possessed them_. The feeling of their brother Bishops concerning them may
have been less definite, as was natural: but, at least, even those who most
opposed any arbitrary stretch of authority on their part, as St. Cyprian,
fully admitted that they sat in the See of Peter, and ordinarily treated
them with the greatest deference. This is written so very legibly upon the
records of antiquity, that I am persuaded any one, who is even very
slightly acquainted with them, cannot with sincerity dispute it. I cannot
think Mr. Newman has the least overstated the fact when he says, "Faint
they (the ante-Nicene Testimonies to the authority of the Holy See) may be
one by one, but at least they are various, and are drawn from many times
and countries, and thereby serve to illustrate each other, and form a body
of proof. Thus, St. Clement, in the name of the Church of Rome, writes a
letter to the Corinthians, when they were without a Bishop. St. Ignatius,
of Antioch, addresses the Roman Church, and it only out of the Churches to
which he writes, as 'the Church which has the first seat in the place of
the country of the Romans.' St. Polycarp, of Smyrna, betakes himself to the
Bishop of Rome on the question of Easter;" (but the Pope, St. Anicetus, and
he, not being able to agree as to the rule of keeping Easter, agreed to
retain their several customs; a fact which is as much opposed to the
present notion of the Roman Supremacy, as any fact can well be.) "The
heretic, Marcion, excommunicated in Pontus, betakes himself to Rome. Soter,
Bishop of Rome, sends alms, according to the custom of his Church, to the
Churches throughout the empire, and, in the words of Eusebius,
'affectionately exhorted those who came to Rome, as a father his children.'
The Montanists, from Phrygia, come to Rome to gain the countenance of its
Bishop. Praxeas, from Africa, attempts the like, and for a while is
successful. St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the
Asian Churches. St. Irenæus speaks of Rome, as 'the greatest Church, the
most ancient, the most conspicuous, and founded and established by Peter
and Paul,' appeals to its tradition, not in contrast, indeed, but in
preference to that of other Churches, and declares that 'in this Church
every Church--that is, the faithful from every side, must meet,' or 'agree
together, _propter potiorem principalitatem_.' 'O Church, happy in its
position,' says Tertullian, 'into which the Apostles poured out, together
with their blood, their whole doctrine.' The Presbyters of St. Dionysius,
Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to St. Dionysius, of Rome;
the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The Emperor Aurelian
leaves 'to the Bishops of Italy and of Rome' the decision, whether or not
Paul, of Samosata, shall be dispossessed of the see-house at Antioch. St.
Cyprian speaks of Rome as 'the See of Peter, and the principal Church,
whence the unity of the Priesthood took its rise, ... whose faith has been
commended by the Apostles, to whom faithlessness can have no access.' St.
Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself
from various Churches of the East. Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by St.
Cyprian, have recourse to Rome. Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes
himself to Rome, and gains the ear of St. Stephen."[4]

It must be observed that the _extent_ of this authority, in the Chief See,
has not been defined; but, whatever it was, it did not interfere with the
divine right of the Bishops to govern each in his own diocese. They derived
their authority by transmission from the Apostles, as the Bishop of Rome
from St. Peter; the one was as much recognised as the other. They were not
his _delegates_, but his _brethren_. Frater and Co-episcopus _they style
him_, as he styles them, for hundreds of years after the Council of Nicea;
owing him, indeed, and willingly rendering him the greatest deference, but
never so much as imagining that their authority was derived from him. This
fact, too, lies upon the face of all antiquity, and is almost too notorious
to need proof. If, however, any be wanted, it is found in the names which
Bishops bore both then, and for a long time afterwards, and in their mode
of election and their jurisdiction. For their names: "It must first be
confessed," says a very learned Roman Catholic, who, in his humility,
shrunk from the Cardinalate offered to him for his services to the papal
see, "that the name of Pope, of Apostle, of Apostolic Prelate, of Apostolic
See, was still common to all Bishops, even during the three centuries which
elapsed from the reign of Clovis to the empire of Charlemagne;" and he adds
presently: "These august names are not like those vain and superficial
titles with which the pride of men feeds itself; they are the solid marks
of a power entirely from Heaven, and of a holiness altogether Divine."[5]
Indeed, the view which every where prevailed was that so admirably
expressed by St. Cyprian: "Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in
solidum pars tenetur."[6] "The Episcopate is one; it is a whole in which
each enjoys full possession." St. Isidore, of Seville, says: "Since also
the other Apostles received a like fellowship of honour and power with
Peter, who also were scattered throughout the whole world, and preached the
Gospel; whom, at their departure, the Bishops succeeded, who are
established throughout the whole world in the seats of the Apostles."[7]
But Pope Symmachus (A.D. 498-514) has expressed the equality and unity of
the Episcopate and Apostolate between the Pope and all Bishops, by the
highest and most sacred similitude which it is possible to conceive. "For
inasmuch as after the likeness of the Trinity, whose power is one and
indivisible, the priesthood is one in the hands of various prelates, how
suits it that the statutes of the more ancient be broken by their
successors?"[8] We are told by the same author: "Pope Hormisdas (A.D.
514-523) prescribed, and all the Bishops of the east subscribed, after the
Patriarch John of Constantinople, a formulary of faith and of Catholic
Communion, where, among other remarkable points, this is worthy of
particular attention:--that as all Churches make but one Church, so all the
thrones of the Apostolate, and all the Sees of the Episcopate, spread
through all the earth, are but one apostolic see, inseparable from the see
of Peter." This is the view of St. Augustin, expressed again and again in
his writings, especially when he is explaining those remarkable words of
our Lord to St. Peter, on which Roman Catholics ground the _scriptural_
proof of his Primacy. "For it is evident that Peter, in many places of the
Scriptures, represents the Church, (_personam gestet Ecclesiæ_) chiefly in
that place where it is said, 'I give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
Heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.' What! did
Peter receive those keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive
them, and John and James not receive them, and the rest of the Apostles? Or
are not those keys in the Church, where sins are daily remitted? But since
in meaning hinted, but not expressed, (_in significatione_), Peter was
representing the Church, what was given to him singly, was given to the
Church. So, then, Peter bore the figure of the Church: the Church is the
body of Christ."[9] So St. Chrysostom: "But when I speak of Paul, I mean
not only him, but also Peter, and James, and John, and all their choir. For
as in a lyre there are different strings, but one harmony, so, too, in the
choir of the Apostles, there were different persons, but one teaching;
since one, too, was the Musician, even the Holy Spirit, who moved their
souls. And Paul signifying this, said: 'Whether, therefore, it were they or
I, so we preach.'"[10] How little, on the one hand, the pre-eminence of St.
Peter's see derogated from the apostolicity of other Bishops, or, on the
other hand, their distinct descent and jurisdiction hindered them from
paying due deference to the Chief See, is apparent likewise in these words
of St. Jerome: "But, you say, the Church is founded upon Peter; although,
in another place, this self-same thing takes place upon all the Apostles,
and all receive the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, _and the strength of the
Church is consolidated equally upon them_: nevertheless, for this reason,
out of the twelve one is selected, that, by the appointment of a head, the
occasion of Schism may be taken away."[11] Thomassin doubts whether at the
Council of Nicea, or even at that of Antioch, sixteen years afterwards, the
name even of Archbishop was yet in use; the highest title used in those two
Councils being that of Metropolitan. St. Epiphanius quotes a letter of
Arius to Alexander, of Alexandria, in which he only gives him the quality
of Pope and Bishop, but nowhere that of Archbishop.

So much for the equality of the names of Bishops in the fourth century,
which recognises the essential equality and unity of their office. The laws
in force respecting their consecration and jurisdiction are as decisive.
Every Bishop, after being elected by the Clergy and people, and the
assembled provincial Bishops, was consecrated by the Metropolitan of his
province, except, indeed, in the Patriarchate of Alexandria, where the
Primate, as we have seen, and not the Metropolitans under him, consecrated
all Bishops. Where a Metropolitan had no immediate superior, in case of a
vacancy, the Bishops of his own province consecrated him, as in the case of
Carthage. Whatever might be the particular privileges of Patriarchs and
Metropolitans, as a general rule, no one Bishop had direct jurisdiction in
the diocese of another. The Bishops of the great sees, specially Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch, announced their accession to each other, together
with a profession of the orthodox faith. But as for any jurisdiction
emanating from Rome to the great Bishops of the east, such a thing was
never even imagined. Let us even rest the whole question on this important
point, for it is absolutely necessary to the Papal theory; and I do not
think any vestige of such a doctrine can be found in the first six
centuries. At least, let it be shown; for, to assert it in the face of
Canons which imply a system the very reverse of it, is merely begging the
whole question. That in cases of difficulty, or disputed succession, or
heresy, or schism, the voice of the Bishop of Rome would have great weight,
is, indeed, indisputable. When the ship of the Church was in distress, whom
should we expect to see at the rudder but St. Peter? Thus St. Jerome,
himself baptized at Rome, naturally looks to Rome in this difficulty. Mr.
Newman says:[12] "The divisions at Antioch had thrown the Catholic Church
into a remarkable position; there were two Bishops in the see, one in
connexion with the East, and the other with Egypt and the West,--with
which, then, was Catholic Communion? St. Jerome has no doubt upon the
subject. Writing to St. Damasus, he says: 'Since the East tears into pieces
the Lord's coat, _and foxes lay waste the vineyard of Christ, so that among
broken cisterns, which hold no water, it is difficult to understand where
the sealed fountain and the garden inclosed is_, therefore by me is the
chair of St. Peter to be consulted, and that faith which is praised by the
Apostle's mouth, _thence now seeking food for my soul where of old I
received the robe of Christ. Whilst the bad children have wasted their
goods, the inheritance of the Fathers is preserved uncorrupt among you
alone. There the earth from its fertile bosom returns the pure seed of the
Lord a hundred fold: here the grain buried in the furrows degenerates into
darnell and tares. At present the Sun of Righteousness rises in the West;
but in the East that fallen Lucifer hath placed his throne. You are the
light of the world: you the salt of the earth: you the vessels of gold and
silver: but here the vessels of earth or wood await the iron rod and the
eternal flame.' Therefore_, though your greatness terrifies me, yet your
kindness invites me. From the Priest the sacrifice claims salvation; from
the Shepherd the sheep claims protection. Let us speak without offence: I
court not the Roman height: I speak with the successor of the Fisherman,
and the disciple of the Cross. I, who follow none as my chief but Christ,
am associated in communion with thy blessedness; that is, with the See of
Peter. On that rock the Church is built I know. Whoso shall eat the Lamb
outside that house is profane.... I know not Vitalis (the Apollinarian);
Meletius I reject; I am ignorant of Paulinus. Whoso gathereth not with
thee, scattereth; that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist."[13]

Considering all the circumstances of the case, no one can wonder at St.
Jerome's application. When it is remembered that the Roman See, up to that
time, had been free from all suspicion of heresy, and that the Arian
controversy was the one in question, and that he himself, of full manhood,
had been baptized, and had lived at Rome, the force of his language is
hardly surprising. His words certainly prove, what, I suppose, no student
of antiquity can doubt, the Primacy of the Roman See: but could there be a
greater unfairness than to apply their bare letter to a state of things
totally changed? or to consider expressions proving the _primacy_ of Rome,
as claimed in the fourth century, to prove equally a _supremacy_ as claimed
in the nineteenth, which is as different from the former as one thing can
well be from another. This very St. Meletius, a man of pre-eminent sanctity
of life, the ordainer of St. Chrysostom, dies, it would appear, out of
communion with Rome, and has ever been accounted a saint in the Western as
well as in the Eastern Church.

But to recur to the point of jurisdiction at the time of the Nicene
Council. It is beyond question, both from the acts of that Council, and
from the Apostolic Canons, which represent the Eastern Church in the second
and third centuries, that, whatever the pre-eminence of Rome might consist
in, there was no claim whatever to confer jurisdiction on Bishops out of
the Roman Patriarchate, then comprising Italy, south of Milan, and Sicily.
Even differences, any where arising, were to be settled in Provincial
Councils. "It is necessary to know, that, up to the Council of Nicea, all
ecclesiastical affairs had been terminated in the Councils of each
Province; and there had been but very few occasions in which it had been
necessary to convoke an assembly of several Provinces. The Council of
Nicea, even, only speaks of Provincial Councils, and orders that all things
should be settled therein."[14] The testimony and conduct of St. Cyprian
will illustrate the Roman Primacy, to which Mr. Newman claims him as a
witness. And such he is beyond doubt. In his fifty-fifth letter, which
begins, "Cyprian to his brother Cornelius, greeting;" he complains bitterly
to that Pope that Felicissimus and his party "dare to set sail, and to
carry a letter from schismatical and profane persons to the see of Peter,
and to the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its
rise; nor consider that they are the Romans whose faith had been praised by
the preaching of the Apostle, to whom faithlessness can have no access."
This Mr. Newman considers a pretty strong testimony in his "cumulative
argument" for the authority of Rome. It would be as well, however, to go on
a little further, and see what was the cause of St. Cyprian's vehement
indignation. It was, that Felicissimus ventured _to appeal to Pope
Cornelius_, when his cause had already been heard and settled by St.
Cyprian, at Carthage. "But what was the cause of their coming and
announcing that a Pseudo-Bishop had been made against the Bishops? For,
either they are satisfied with what they have done, and persevere in their
crime, or, if they are dissatisfied, and give way, they know whither they
may return. For, since it has been determined by all of us, and is both
equitable and just, that the cause of every one be heard there where the
crime has been committed, and _to every shepherd a portion of the flock is
allotted, which each one rules and governs, as he is to give an account of
his doings to the Lord_, it is certainly behoving that those over whom we
preside should not run about, nor break the close harmony of Bishops with
their deceitful and fallacious rashness, but should plead their cause where
they may find both accusers and witnesses of their crime; _unless to a few
desperate and abandoned men the authority of the Bishops seated in Africa
seem less_, who have already judged concerning them, and have lately
condemned, by the weight of their sentence, their conscience, bound by many
snares of crimes. Their cause has been already heard, their sentence
already pronounced; nor is it becoming to the judgment of priests to be
reprehended by the levity of a fickle and inconstant mind, when the Lord
teaches and says, 'Let your conversation be yea, yea; nay, nay.'" Let any
candid person say, whether he who so wrote to one whom he acknowledged as
the successor of St. Peter, could have imagined that there was a Divine
right in that successor to re-hear not only this, but all other causes; to
reverse all previous judgments of his Brethren by his single authority;
nay, more, to confer on all those Brethren their jurisdiction "by the grace
of the Apostolic See."[15]

Another letter of St. Cyprian to another Pope, St. Stephen, will set forth
both his view of the Primacy, and of the Episcopal relation to it. He
wishes St. Stephen to write a letter to the people of Arles, by which their
actual Bishop Marcian, who had joined himself to the schismatic Novatian,
might be excommunicated, and another substituted for him. This alone shows
how great the authority of the Bishop of Rome in such an emergency was. But
the tone of his language is worth considering. It is just such incidents as
these which are made use of by Roman Catholic controversialists in late
times to justify the full extent of Papal power now claimed.[16] "Cyprian
to his brother Stephen, greeting. Faustinus, our colleague at Lyons,
dearest brother, hath more than once written to me, signifying what I know
has certainly been reported to you also, both by him, and by the rest of
our brother-Bishops, in that province, that Marcian of Arles, has joined
himself to Novatian, and has departed from the unity of the Catholic
Church, and from the agreement of our body and priesthood.... This matter
it is our duty to provide against and remedy, most dear brother, we, who
considering the Divine clemency, and holding the balance of the Church's
government, so exhibit to sinners our vigorous censure as not to deny the
medicine of Divine goodness and mercy to the restoration of the fallen and
the healing of the wounded. Wherefore it behoves you to write a very
explicit letter to our fellow Bishops in the Gauls, that they may not any
longer suffer our order (_collegio nostro_) to be insulted by Marcian,
obstinate, haughty, the enemy both of piety to God, and of his brethren's
salvation.... For, therefore, most dear brother, is the numerous body of
priests joined together in mutual concord, and the bond of unity, that _if
any one of our order_ attempt to make a heresy, and to sever and lay waste
the flock of Christ, the rest may fly to the rescue, and, like useful and
merciful shepherds, collect the Lord's sheep into a flock.... For, although
we are many shepherds, yet we feed one flock; and we ought to collect and
cherish all those sheep which Christ sought with His own blood and
passion.... For we must preserve the glorious honour _of our predecessors_,
the blessed Martyrs, Cornelius and Lucius," (the last Popes,) "whose memory
we indeed honour, but which you much more, most dear brother, who are
become their successor, ought to distinguish and preserve by your weight
and authority. For they being full of the spirit of God, and made glorious
martyrs, determined that reconciliation was to be granted to the lapsed,
and set down in their letters, that, after a course of penitence, the
advantage of communion and peace was not to be refused them. _Which thing
we all have everywhere entirely determined._ For there could not be in us a
difference of judgment in whom there is One Spirit." Now, might it not be
stated, that St. Cyprian wrote to Pope Stephen, to request him to depose
Marcian, Bishop of Arles? But how much is the inference from this fact
modified by the language of Cyprian himself? It is just such a letter as an
Eastern Primate would have written to the Patriarch of Alexandria, or of
Antioch, to request his interference at a dangerous juncture. It bears
witness, not to the present Papal, but to the Patriarchal, system. It
tallies exactly with the spirit of him who wrote elsewhere, to the lapsed,
"Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we are bound to observe, regulating
the honour of the Bishop, and the constitution of his Church, speaks in the
Gospel, and says to Peter, 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter,' &c.
Thence, according to the change of times and successions, the ordination of
Bishops and the constitution of the Church has descended, _so that the
Church is established upon the Bishops, and every act of the Church is
directed by the same, its governors_. This being established by Divine
law,"[17] &c. It is evident that, if the see of Peter, so often referred to
by St. Cyprian, means the local see of Rome, it also means the see of every
Bishop who holds that office, whereof Peter is the great type, example, and
source.

But it was reserved for a more celebrated controversy, fully to bring out
St. Cyprian's view of the relation of the Bishop of Rome to the rest of the
Episcopal body: I mean, of course, the controversy whether heretics should
be admitted into the Church by rebaptization or by the imposition of hands.
I most fully believe, be it observed, that Cyprian acknowledged the Roman
Primacy, that he admitted certain high prerogatives to be lodged in the
Roman Pontiff, as St. Peter's successor, which did not belong to any other
Bishop. It is this very thing which makes his conduct the more remarkable.
He took a very strong view on one side of the controversy in question: and
St. Stephen took an equally strong one on the other. St. Stephen, we all
know, turned out to be right. That fervent Pontiff, it may be remarked,
when St. Cyprian would not give up his view, seemed inclined to treat him
much as St. Gregory the Seventh did a refractory Emperor, or St. Innocent
the Third, the dastard tyrant John. This may be very satisfactory to the
modern defenders of Papal omnipotence, but St. Cyprian's conduct is not so
at all. St. Cyprian called a Council of Bishops of the provinces of
Carthage and Numidia; they attended to the number of seventy-one, and
decided that heretics should be rebaptized. St. Cyprian informs the Pope of
the decision of himself and his colleagues. After saying that they had
found it necessary to hold a council, he proceeds--[18]"But I thought I
ought to write to you and confer with your gravity and wisdom concerning
that especially which most belongs to the authority of the priesthood, and
to the unity alike and dignity of the Catholic Church derived from the
ordering of a Divine disposition.... This, most dear Brother, we have
brought to your knowledge on account both of the honour we share with you,
and of our single-hearted affection, believing that what is both religious
and true is acceptable to you also according to your true religion and
faith. But we know that some are unwilling to give up an opinion they have
once imbibed, nor easily change their mind; but, without interruption to
the bonds of peace and concord with their colleagues, retain certain
peculiarities which have once grown into usage among themselves." (Such is
the manner in which St. Cyprian mentions a judgment deliberately expressed
by a Pope on a matter of high discipline, which involved a point of faith.)
"In which matter we too do violence and give the law to no one, inasmuch as
_every Bishop has the free choice of his own will in the administration of
the Church, as he will give an account of his acts to the Lord_." St.
Stephen received this decision of the African Council so ill, that he would
not even see the Bishops who brought it, nor allow the faithful to offer
them common hospitality. So important in his eyes was the matter in
dispute. St. Cyprian reports his answer in a letter to his Brother-Bishop
Pompeius, in which he says, [19]"Although we have fully embraced all that
is to be said concerning the baptizing of heretics, in the letters of which
we have sent to you copies, most dear Brother, yet, because you desired to
be informed what answer our Brother Stephen sent me to our letters, I send
you a copy of his rescript, after reading which you will more and more mark
his error, who attempts to assert the cause of heretics against Christians
and against the Church of God. For amongst other either proud or
impertinent or inconsistent remarks, which he has written rashly and
improvidently, &c.... But what blindness of mind is it, what perverseness
to refuse to recognise the unity of the faith coming from God the Father
and the tradition of Jesus Christ our Lord and God.... But since no heresy
at all, nor indeed any schism, can possess outside (the Body) the
sanctification of saving baptism, why has the harsh obstinacy of our
Brother Stephen burst forth to such a degree?" &c.... "Does he give honour
to God, who, the friend of heretics and the enemy of Christians, deems the
priests of God, maintaining the truth of Christ and the unity of the
Church, worthy of excommunication?" St. Stephen had inflicted this on the
African prelates, until they should give up their judgment on the point in
question.... "Nor ought the custom, which has crept in _among certain
persons_, to hinder truth from prevailing and conquering. For custom
without truth is but old error."... "But it is hurried away by presumption
and contumacy that a person rather defends his own perverseness and falsity
than accedes to the right and truth of another. Which thing the blessed
apostle Paul foreseeing, writes to Timothy and warns, that a Bishop must
not be quarrelsome, nor contentious, but gentle and teachable. Now he is
teachable, who is mild and gentle to learn patiently. For a Bishop ought
not only to teach, but also to learn, because he teaches better who daily
improves and profits by learning better." Even as we copy this language
used concerning a Pope by a great Bishop and Martyr of the third century,
who elsewhere writes, [20]"That our Lord built His Church upon Peter alone,
and though He gave to all the apostles an equal power, yet in order to
manifest unity He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same
unity as to begin from one;" we feel the contrast to be almost overpowering
with the tone in which the first Patriarch of the Latin Church, however
good his cause might be, would now venture to address the Supreme Pontiff.
Towards the conclusion of this letter he says, instead of admitting that
the Pope's judgment terminated the matter--"This now the priests of God
ought to do, preserving the Divine precepts, so that if in anything truth
has been shaken and tottered, we may return to the fountain-head of the
Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolical tradition, and that the rule
of our acting may spring thence, whence its order and origin arose."

After receiving the Pope's rescript, and his excommunication, St. Cyprian
convoked another Council of the three provinces of Africa, Numidia, and
Mauritania, which was held at Carthage on the 1st of Sept. 256. It was
attended by eighty-five Bishops, among whom were fifteen Confessors, beside
Priests and Deacons, and a great part of the people. St. Cyprian opened it,
observing: "It remains for us each to deliver our sentiments on this
matter, judging no one, nor removing any one, if he be of a different
opinion, from the right of Communion. _For no one of us sets himself up to
be a Bishop of Bishops, or by fear of his tyranny compels his colleagues to
the necessity of obedience, since every Bishop according to his recognised
liberty and power possesses a free choice, and can no more be judged by
another than he himself can judge another. But let us all await the
judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has the power both
of setting us up in the government of His Church, and of judging our
proceedings._"[21] The Bishops delivered their judgments _seriatim_,
finishing with St. Cyprian, and unanimously ratified what they had agreed
upon before, that heretics should be admitted into the Church by baptism,
and not merely by the imposition of hands: and thus an African Council of
the third century treated a judgment of the Pope, and his sentence of
excommunication until they altered their practice.

But these last words of St. Cyprian are so remarkable in themselves, and
have such a bearing on the present Papal claims, that they deserve further
notice. Now, lest we should imagine that St. Cyprian was hurried away by
the ardour of his defence of a favourite doctrine, and his sense of the
Pope's severity, into unjustifiable expressions concerning the rights of
Bishops, it so happens that we possess the comment of the greatest of the
Fathers on these very words. St. Augustin, writing 140 years after, and
fully agreeing with the judgment of Pope Stephen, as had the whole Church
finally, quotes the whole passage. "'It remains for us each to deliver our
sentiments on this matter, judging no one, nor removing any one, if he be
of a different opinion, from the right of communion.'[22] There he not only
permits me without loss of communion further to seek the truth, but even to
be of a different judgment. 'For no one of us,' saith he, 'sets himself up
to be a Bishop of Bishops, or by fear of his tyranny compels his colleagues
to the necessity of obedience.' What can be more gentle? What more humble?
Certainly no authority deters us from seeking what is the truth: 'since,'
he says, 'every Bishop according to his recognised liberty and power
possesses a free choice, and can no more be judged by another than he
himself can judge another:' certainly, I imagine, in those questions which
have not yet been thoroughly and completely settled. For he knew how great
and mysterious a sacrament the whole Church was then with various
reasonings considering, and he left open a freedom of inquiry, that the
truth might by search be laid open.... I cannot by any means be induced to
believe that Cyprian, a Catholic Bishop, a Catholic Martyr, and the greater
he was the more in every respect humbling himself, that he might find grace
before God, did, especially in a holy Council of his colleagues, utter with
his mouth other than what he carried in his heart, particularly as he
adds--'But let us all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
singly and alone has the power both of setting us up in the government of
His Church, and of judging our proceedings.' Under appeal then to so great
a judgment, expecting to hear the truth from his colleagues, should he
offer them the first example of falsehood? God avert such a madness from
any Christian, how much more from Cyprian. We possess then a free power of
inquiry, admitted us by Cyprian's own most gentle and true language."

Who can conclude otherwise than that St. Augustin in the year 400, as St.
Cyprian in the year 256, was utterly ignorant of any such power as is now
claimed for the See of Rome, under cover of that original Primacy to which
both these great saints have borne indubitable witness? For the words of
St. Cyprian, attested and approved by St. Augustin, contain the most
explicit denial of that power lodged in the see of Rome as distinct from an
Oecumenical Council, by which alone, if at all, the Church of England has
been declared schismatical and excommunicate.

These are Bishops of the West speaking, but the East also must give its
voice. St. Dionysius of Alexandria, and many other Eastern Prelates, among
the rest Firmilian, Metropolitan of Cesarea, in Cappadocia, supported St.
Cyprian on the question of rebaptization. The latter had been informed of
St. Stephen's strong judgment and decided proceedings in the matter, who
had threatened to separate the Bishops of the East also from his communion,
if they did not comply with his rule. Firmilian wrote a long letter to
Cyprian, which contains very remarkable expressions. He alludes in it more
than once to the Primacy of St. Peter, and to that of Stephen as descending
from him. [23]"But what is the error, and how great the blindness of him
(_i.e._ the Pope) who says, remission of sins can be given in the meetings
of heretics, nor remains in the foundation of the one Church which was once
fixed by Christ upon the rock, may be hence understood, because to Peter
alone Christ said, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven;
and again, in the Gospel, when on the Apostles alone Christ breathed and
said, Receive the Holy Ghost: whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and
whose ye retain, they are retained. _Therefore the power of remitting sins
was given to the Apostles and the Churches which they, being sent by
Christ, set up, and to the Bishops who have succeeded them by ordination in
their stead_.... And here I am justly indignant at this so open and
manifest folly of Stephen, because, glorying as he does in the rank of his
Episcopate, and maintaining that he holds the succession of Peter, upon
whom the foundations of the Church were laid, he introduces many other
rocks, and sets up new buildings of many Churches, while he affirms, on his
own authority, that Baptism is in them.... Nor does he perceive that the
truth of the Christian rock is clouded over by him, and in a manner
abolished, who thus betrays and deserts unity.... You Africans can say
against Stephen, that, when the truth became known to you, you relinquished
an erroneous custom. But we join custom also to truth, and to the custom of
the Romans oppose a custom indeed, but that of truth, holding from the
beginning this which has been delivered down from Christ, and from the
Apostles." He had said before, "One may know that those who are at Rome do
not in all things observe what has been delivered down from the beginning,
and vainly allege the authority of the Apostles, even by this, that in
celebrating Easter, and in many other sacred rites, one may see there is
among them certain variations; nor are all things there kept as they are
kept at Jerusalem; just as in very many other provinces also, according to
the diversity of places and names, there are variations; nor yet on this
account have the peace and unity of the Catholic Church ever been departed
from. Which now Stephen has dared to do, breaking peace towards you, which
his predecessors always kept with you, in reciprocal love and honour;
casting, too, shameful reproach (infamans) on the blessed Apostles, Peter
and Paul, as if they had handed this down, &c." The letter concludes with
an apostrophe to Stephen, which only a regard to truth induces us to quote,
so painful is its vehemence, though it proves _ex abundanti_ the point we
are upon: "And Stephen is not ashamed to assert this, that remission of
sins can be given through those who are themselves in all their sins....
But thou art worse than all heretics; for whilst many, acknowledging their
error, come to thee thence to receive the true light of the Church, thou
assistest the errors of those so coming.... Nor understandest that their
souls will be demanded at thy hand, when the day of judgment is come, who
to the thirsting hast denied the Church's draught, and hast been the cause
of death to those who would live. And moreover thou art indignant! See with
what ignorance thou venturest to censure those who strive for the truth
against falsehood. For who had most right to be angry at another; he who
supports the enemies of God, or he who argues for the truth of the Church
against him who supports God's enemies? except that it is evident that the
ignorant are also passionate and wrathful, whilst, through lack of wisdom
and discourse, they readily betake themselves to passion, so that it is of
none other than thee that Holy Scripture says, 'The passionate man prepares
quarrels, and the wrathful man heaps up sins;' for what quarrels and
dissensions hast thou caused through the Churches of the whole world! But
how great a sin hast thou heaped upon thyself, _when thou didst cut thyself
off from so many flocks; for thou hast destroyed thyself. Do not be
deceived. Since he is the true schismatic who has made himself an apostate
from the communion of the Church's oneness; for whilst thou dost fancy that
all can be excommunicated by thee, thou hast excommunicated thyself alone
from all_.... This salutary advice of the Apostle how diligently hath
Stephen fulfilled! preserving humility of feeling and lenity, _in his first
rank_, (primo in loco.) For what could be more humble or gentle, than to
have disagreed with so many Bishops throughout the whole world, breaking
peace with one and the other on various grounds of discord, now with the
Eastern, as we are sure you are aware, now with you in the South; episcopal
deputies from whom he received with such patience and mildness, that he did
not even admit them to an interview; moreover, so mindful of the claims of
charity and affection, that he charged the whole brotherhood, that no one
should receive them into his house?" &c.

Concerning this remarkable history, Fleury says:[24] "It is not known what
was then the issue of this dispute. It is certain that it still continued
under Pope Saint Sixtus, successor of St. Stephen: this is seen by the
letters that St. Dionysius of Alexandria wrote him; and it does not appear
that St. Cyprian or Firmilian changed their mind." (So that St. Cyprian
died under excommunication from Pope Stephen.) "Still St. Cyprian is
counted among the most illustrious martyrs, even in the Roman Church, which
names him in the Canon of the Mass, in preference to Pope St. Stephen; and
the Greeks, in their Menologium, honour the memory of Firmilian. With
reason, since we shall see him preside over the first Council of Antioch,
against Paul of Samosata; and the Fathers of the second Council, writing to
the Pope, name Firmilian, of happy memory, as they do Dionysius of
Alexandria. Why the error of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilian hurt not their
sanctity is, that they always preserved on their part the unity of the
Church, and charity, and that they maintained in good faith a bad cause,
which they believed good, _and upon which there had not yet been a decision
received by unanimous consent of the whole Church_. Thus St. Augustin
speaks of it, _not counting as a final decision the decree of Pope St.
Stephen, though true in its matter, and clothed with all the force that he
could give it. No one of the ancients has accused these holy Bishops of
obstinacy for not having obeyed this decree_. The decision of Pope St.
Stephen respecting the baptism of heretics has prevailed, because it was
the most ancient and the most universal, and consequently the best.... At
length this question was entirely set at rest by the authority of the
universal Council, that is to say, at the latest, at the Council of Nicea."
Most fair and just: St. Cyprian and St. Firmilian may have innocently erred
in such a matter; but what of the way in which they treated the Pope? Could
they be ignorant of the constitution of that Church of which they were
Primates, Saints, and one a Martyr? If his decision was final, must they
not have known it? If his primacy involved their obedience, must they not
have rendered it? But if they were his deputies, as the present Roman claim
would have it, who can express their rashness? Had they been right, and the
Pope wrong, according to the present tenets of the Latin Church, obedience
had been better than sacrifice. In truth, they would have anticipated the
noble submission of the Archbishop of Cambrai, and yielded at once to the
chair of St. Peter, whatever had been their conviction as to the truth of
their views; but the Archbishop of Carthage, the sternest defender of
ecclesiastical unity and discipline which even the Church of the Fathers
produced, knew not that he had any such duty towards the See of St. Peter.

Nay, and St. Augustin knew it not either. It was no more the belief in his
day than in St. Cyprian's. The Donatists alleged against him in the
question of Baptism the authority of Cyprian in this great Council of
Carthage. This leads him to make a very important statement--"You are wont
to object against us Cyprian's letters, Cyprian's judgment, Cyprian's
Council: why do you assume the authority of Cyprian for your schism, and
reject his example for the peace of the Church? But who is ignorant that
canonical holy Scripture, as well of the Old as of the New Testament, is
contained in its own certain limits, and is so preferred to all subsequent
letters of Bishops, that no doubt or discussion at all can be held
concerning it, as to whether that be true or right, which is acknowledged
to be found written in it: but that the letters of Bishops which either
have been or are written after the confirmation of the canon, may be
reprehended both by the reasoning, peradventure more full of wisdom, of
some one in that matter more skilled, and by the weightier authority and
more learned judgment of other Bishops, and by Councils, if haply there has
been in them any deviation from the truth; and that Councils themselves,
holden in particular regions or provinces, yield, beyond all question, to
the authority of plenary Councils, which are made out of the whole
Christian world: and that former plenary Councils themselves are often
corrected by subsequent ones, when by some practical experience what has
been hidden is laid open, and what lay concealed is recognised, without any
puffing up of sacrilegious pride, without any haughty exhibition of
arrogance, without any strife of livid envy, with holy humility, with
Catholic peace, with Christian charity."[25] Here, where, in a _dignus
vindice nodus_, we should have expected some mention of the Chief See, and
St. Peter's rights, all is referred to the voice of Bishops in
Council,--that See, in which, according to Bellarmine, the plenitude of all
the power resides which Christ left in His Church, is not even spoken of.
He proceeds--"Wherefore holy Cyprian, the more exalted, the more humble,"
(in a matter for which he was excommunicated by the Pope, and in which, if
the present Papal theory be true, his conduct was to the last degree
insolent, and unjustifiable,) "who so loved the example of Peter as to
say,--'Showing, indeed, an instance to us of concord and patience, that we
should not pertinaciously love our own opinion, but should rather count for
our own any useful and sound suggestions, which at times are made by our
brethren and colleagues, if they be true and lawful:' he sufficiently shows
that he would most readily have corrected his judgment, had any one pointed
out to him that the Baptism of Christ might be given by those who had gone
out (from the Church) in the same manner that it could not be lost when
they went out: on which point we have already said much. Nor should we
ourselves venture to make any such assertion, were we not supported by the
unanimous authority of the whole Church: to which he too, without doubt,
would yield, if the truth of this question had at that period been
thoroughly sifted, and declared, and established by a plenary Council. For
if he praises and extols Peter for having with patience and harmony
suffered correction from a single younger colleague, how much more readily
would he himself, with the Council of his province, have yielded to the
authority of the whole world, when the truth was laid open? because,
indeed, so holy and so peaceful a soul might most readily agree to one
person (_i.e._ the Pope), speaking and proving the truth; and this,
perhaps, was really the fact, but we know not. For not all which at that
time was transacted between Bishops could be committed to posterity and
writing, nor do we know all which was so committed. For how could that
matter, involved in so many clouds of altercations, be brought to the clear
consideration and ratification of a plenary Council, unless first for a
long time throughout all the regions of the world it had been thoroughly
tried, and made manifest by many discussions and conferences of Bishops on
the one side and on the other? But wholesome peace produces this, that when
obscure questions have been long under inquiry, and, through the difficulty
of ascertaining them, beget various judgments in brotherly discussion,
until the pure truth be arrived at, the bond of unity holds, lest in the
part cut off the incurable wound of error should remain." He considers Pope
Stephen here, even when he was right, as one of many _brethren_, who had a
right to be deferentially heard, but no more. As in another place, arguing
with these same Donatists, he distinctly considers the case of the judgment
of the Roman Pontiff being erroneous. "The Donatists,"[26] says he, "chose
with a double purpose, to plead their cause with Coecilian before the
Churches across the sea; being doubly prepared, that if they could by any
skilfulness of false accusation have overcome him, they might to the full
satiate their desire: but if they failed in this, might continue in the
same perversity, but still as if they would have to allege, that they had
suffered in having bad judges: this is what all wrong suitors cry, though
they have been overcome by the plainest truths: as if it might not be
answered them and most justly retorted,--Let us suppose that these Bishops
who judged at Rome," (Pope Melchiades and his Council,) "were not fair
judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church,
where the cause might have been tried even with those very judges, so that
had they been convicted of false judgment their decision might be
reversed."

Nay, it appears, the cause of the Donatists, after being decided by Pope
Melchiades, was reheard, and that, not by a plenary Council, but by other
Bishops of the West, deputed by Constantine. "Know,"[27] says St. Augustin,
"that your first ancestors carried the cause of Coecilianus before the
Emperor Constantine. Demand this of us, let us prove it to you, and if we
prove it not, do with us what you can. But because Constantine dared not to
judge in the cause of a Bishop, he delegated the discussion and terminating
of it to Bishops. This took place in the city of Rome under the presidency
of Melchiades, Bishop of that Church, with many of his colleagues. They
having pronounced Coecilianus innocent, and condemned Donatus, who had made
the schism at Carthage, your party again went to the Emperor, and murmured
against the judgment of the Bishops in which they had been beaten. For how
can the guilty party praise the judge by whose sentence he has been beaten?
Yet a second time the most indulgent Emperor assigned other Bishops as
judges, at Arles, in Gaul, and from them your party appealed to the Emperor
himself, until he too heard the cause, and pronounced Coecilianus innocent,
and them false accusers." Did he who wrote these words mean to censure
Constantine for granting a second hearing after the judgment of Pope
Melchiades?

"Basilides," says Mr. Newman, "deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome,
and gains the ear of St. Stephen." This, however, is only half the case. It
comes to the knowledge of St. Cyprian that he has done so. Let us take
Fleury's account.[28] "As Basilides and Martial still endeavoured to force
themselves back upon their sees, Felix and Sabinus, their legitimate
successors, went to Carthage with letters from the Churches of Leon,
Asturia, and Merida, and from another Felix, Bishop of Sarragossa, known in
Africa as attached to the faith, and a defender of the truth. These letters
were read in a Council of thirty-six Bishops, at the head of whom was St.
Cyprian, who answered in the name of all by a letter addressed to the
Priest Felix, and to the faithful people of Leon and Asturia, and to the
Deacon Loelius, with the people of Merida." In this letter he says,
"Wherefore,[29] according to Divine tradition, and Apostolic observance,
that is to be kept and observed, which is observed by us also, and
generally throughout all the provinces, that in order rightly to celebrate
ordinations, the nearest Bishops of the same province should meet together
with that people for whom the head is ordained, and the Bishop should be
chosen in the presence of the people, which is most fully acquainted with
the life of every one, and has observed the conduct of each individual from
his conversation. And this we see was observed by you in the ordination of
our colleague Sabinus, so that, according to the suffrage of the whole
brotherhood, and the judgment of the Bishops, who were either present, or
had sent you letters about him, the Episcopate was conferred upon him, and
hands laid upon him in the place of Basilides. Nor can it invalidate a
rightful ordination, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes and
the laying bare his conscience even by his own confession, going to Rome
deceived our colleague Stephen, who was far removed and ignorant of the
thing as it was really done, that he might make interest for an unjust
restoration to that Episcopate from which he had been rightfully deposed.
It comes to this, that the crimes of Basilides have been rather doubled
than wiped away, since to his former sins, the crime of deceit and
circumvention has been added. _Nor should he be so much blamed, who through
negligence was overreached_, as the other execrated, who fraudulently
deceived. But if Basilides could overreach men, God he cannot," &c. If the
appeal of Basilides to Stephen proves the Roman Primacy, what does the
subsequent appeal of the people of Leon, Asturia, and Merida, to Carthage,
prove? And if the restoration of Basilides by Stephen, proves that he
possessed that power, what does the subsequent pronouncing of that
restoration void by Cyprian and his brother Bishops, without even first
acquainting Stephen, prove?

In truth, all the acts of St. Cyprian's Episcopate, of which we have given
several in illustration, are an indisputable assurance to the candid mind
that he treated the Roman Pontiff simply as his brother,--his elder
brother, indeed,--holding the first see in Christendom, but, individually,
as liable to err as himself. And it is equally clear that St. Augustin, a
hundred and forty years later, did not censure him for this. What we have
seen, is this. In the matter of Fortunatus and Felicissimus, Cyprian
rejects with vehement indignation their appeal to Rome: in the case of
Marcian of Arles, he writes as an equal to Pope Stephen, almost enjoining
him what to do: in the question of rebaptizing heretics, he disregards St.
Stephen's judgment, and the anathema which accompanies it; and how strong
St. Firmilian's language is we need not repeat, who declares that St.
Stephen's excommunication only cut off himself: in the case of Basilides,
he deposes afresh one whom Stephen had restored.

Such are the illustrations afforded by the preceding century to what we
have stated was the unquestioned constitution of the Catholic Church at the
time of the Council of Nicea; viz. that while the three great Sees of Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch exercised a powerful but entirely paternal
influence on their colleagues, that of Rome having the undoubted primacy,
not derived from the gift of Councils, or the rank of the imperial city,
but from immemorial tradition as the See of St. Peter; yet, at the same
time, the fullness of the priesthood, and with it all power to govern the
Church, were acknowledged to reside in the whole Episcopal Body. "The
Bishop," says Thomassin, quoting with approbation a Greek writer, as
representing the doctrine of the early Fathers, and of the universal Church
since, "is the complete image in the Church on earth of Him who in the holy
Trinity alone bears the name of Father, as being the first principle
without principle, and the fruitful source of the other Persons, and of all
the divine perfections.... The Bishop communicates the Priesthood, as He
who is without principle in the Godhead, and is therefore called
Father."[30] The Apostolic Canons, and those of the Council of Nicea, are
the legislative acts bearing witness to this order of things: the conduct
and words of St. Cyprian, St. Firmilian, and St. Augustin, which we have
instanced, and an innumerable multitude of other cases, exhibit it in full
life and vigour; while, on the other side, there is absolutely nothing to
allege.

The history of the Church during the three hundred years following the
Nicene Council is but a development of this constitution. The problem was,
how to combine in the harmonious action of One organized Body those
Apostolical powers which resided in the Bishops generally. The Patriarchal
system was the result. As the Church increased in extent, her rulers would
increase in number. This multiplication, which would tend so much to
augment the centrifugal force, was met by increased energy in the
centripetal: the power of the Patriarchs, and specially of the Bishop of
Rome, grew. It is impossible, in my present limits, to follow this out, but
I propose to give a few specimens, as before, in illustration.

In so vast a system of interlaced and concurrent powers as the Church of
Christ presented, differences would continually arise; and in so profound a
subject-matter as the Christian revelation, heresies would be continually
starting up: to arrange the former, and to expel or subjugate the latter,
the Bishops, says Thomassin, having already more than once appealed to the
Christian Emperors for the calling of great Councils, saw the danger of
suffering the Imperial authority to intervene in ecclesiastical causes, and
sought to establish a new jurisprudence on this head.[31] "The Council of
Antioch (A.D. 341), and that of Sardica (A.D. 347), which were held almost
at the same time,--the one in the East, the other in the West,--set about
this in a very different manner, aiming, however, at the same end. The
Council of Antioch ordered that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, who should
have been condemned by a provincial Council, might recur to a larger
Council of Bishops; but that if they carried their complaints before the
Emperor they could never be reestablished in their dignity." "One must in
good faith admit, that this regulation had much conformity with what had
been practised in the first ages of obscurity and persecution, for it was
in the same way that extraordinary Councils had been held, such as were
those of Antioch against Paul of Samosata, Bishop of that great city. It
was the Metropolitans and Bishops of the neighbourhood who assembled with
those of the Province where the flame of a great dissension had been
kindled. The Council of Sardica, urged by the same desire to break through
the custom which was introducing itself, of having recourse to the Emperor
for judgment of spiritual causes of the Church, bethought itself of another
means, which was not less conformable to the practice of the preceding
centuries, and which had, beside that, much foundation in the Holy
Scriptures. For Jesus Christ, having given the Primacy, and the rank of
Head, to St. Peter, above the other Apostles, and having given successors
as well to the Apostles, to wit, all the Bishops, as to St. Peter, to wit,
the Roman Pontiffs; moreover, having willed that His Church should remain
for ever one by the union of all Bishops with their Head, it is manifest,
that if the Bishops of a province could not agree in their Provincial
Council, and if the Bishops of several provinces had disputes between each
other, the most natural way to finish these differences was to introduce
the authority of the Head, and of him whom Jesus Christ has established as
the centre of unity of His universal Church."

Accordingly, at the Council of Sardica, attended by St. Athanasius, then in
exile, and about a hundred Western Bishops, after the secession of the
Eastern or Arian portion, Hosius proposed, "If two Bishops of the same
province have a disagreement, neither of the two shall take for arbitrator
a Bishop of another province: if a Bishop, having been condemned, feels so
assured of his right, that he is willing to be judged anew in a Council,
_let us honour, if you think it good, the memory of the Apostle St. Peter_:
let those who have examined the cause, write to Julius, Bishop of Rome; if
he thinks proper to order a fresh trial, let him name judges; if he does
not think that there is reason to renew the matter, let what he orders be
kept to. The Council approved this proposition. The Bishop Gaudentius
added, that, during this appeal, no Bishop should be ordained in place of
him who had been deposed, until the Bishop of Rome had judged his
cause."[32]

"To make the preceding Canon clearer, Hosius said, 'When a Bishop, deposed
by the Council of the province, shall have appealed and had recourse to the
Bishop of Rome, if he judge proper that the matter be examined afresh, he
shall write to the Bishops of the neighbouring province to be the judges of
it; and if the deposed Bishop persuade the Bishop of Rome to send a priest
from his own person, he shall be able to do it, and to send commissioners
to judge by his authority, together with the Bishops; but if he believes
that the Bishops are sufficient to settle the matter, he will do what his
wisdom suggests to him.' The judgment which Pope Julius, together with the
Council of Rome, had given in favour of Athanasius and the other persecuted
Bishops, seems to have given cause to this Canon, and we have seen that
this Pope complained that they had judged St. Athanasius without writing to
him about it."

Such is the modest commencement of that power of hearing episcopal causes
on appeal, which has been the instrument of obtaining the wonderful
authority concentrated by a long series of ages in the see of Rome. However
conformable to the practice of preceding centuries, as Thomassin says, this
may have been, this power is here certainly _granted_ by the Council, _not
considered as inherent in the see of Rome_. And this one fact is fatal to
the present claim of the supremacy. To use De Maistre's favourite analogy,
it is as though the States General or Parliament conferred his royal powers
on the Sovereign who convoked them, and whose assent alone made their
enactments law. Accordingly, like the whole course of proceedings in these
early Councils, it is incompatible with the notion of the Pope being the
monarch in the Church. We may safely say, history offers not a more
wonderful contrast in a power bearing the same name, than that here
conferred on Pope Julius in 347, and that exercised by Pope Pius the
Seventh in 1802. On the bursting out of the French revolution, out of a
hundred and thirty-six Bishops more than a hundred and thirty remained
faithful to God and the Church: some offered the testimony of their blood;
the rest became confessors in all lands for Christ's sake, in poverty,
contempt, and banishment. After ten years, the civil governor, who had
lately professed himself a Mahometan, proposes to the Pope to re-establish
the Church, but on condition of himself nominating to the sees, and those
not the ancient sees of the country, but a selection from them, to the
number of eighty. Thereupon the Pope requires those eighty Bishops and
Confessors who still survived, and whom he acknowledged to be not only
blameless, but martyrs for the name of Christ, to resign into his hands
their episcopal powers. Of his own single authority he abolishes the
ancient sees of the eldest daughter of the Western Church, constitutes that
number of new sees which the civil power permits, and treats as schismatics
those few Bishops who disobey his requisition. I do not presume to express
any blame of Pope Pius; I simply mention a fact. But it seems to me,
certainly, that those who would entirely recognise the power and precedence
exercised by Pope Julius, are not necessarily schismatics because they
refuse to admit a power not merely greater in degree, but different in
kind, and to set the High Priesthood of the Church beneath the feet of one,
though it be the First of her Pontiffs.

The restrictions under which, according to the Council of Sardica, the Pope
could cause a matter to be reheard, are specific. Much larger power is
assigned in the fourth General Council, that of Chalcedon, to the see of
Constantinople, in the ninth Canon, which says, "If any Bishop or Clergyman
has a controversy against the Bishop of the province himself (_i.e._ the
Metropolitan), let him have recourse to the Exarch of the diocese, or to
the throne of the Imperial city of Constantinople, and plead his cause
before him."

But, between these two Councils of Nicea, A.D. 325, and Chalcedon, 451, the
whole Patriarchal system of the Church had sprung up, and covered the
provinces of the Roman Empire with as it were a finely reticulated net. The
system may be said to be built on two principles, recognised and enforced
in the Apostolic Canons, and consistently carried out, from the Bishop of
the poorest country town up to the primatial see of Rome. These principles
are, "the authority of the Metropolitan over his Bishops in important and
extraordinary affairs, and the supreme authority of Bishops in the ordinary
government of their particular bishoprics. With this distinction, that the
Metropolitan even cannot arrange important and extraordinary affairs but
with the counsel of his suffragans, whilst every Bishop conducts all the
common and ordinary affairs of his Diocese without being obliged to take
the advice of his Metropolitan."[33] This latter principle, it will be
seen, expresses the essential equality and unity of the High Priesthood
vested in Bishops by descent from the Apostles, to which St. Cyprian bears
such constant witness, so that it may be said to be the one spirit which
animates all his government: while the former, leaving this quite
inviolate, builds together the whole Church in one vast living structure.
For as the Bishops of the province have their Metropolitan, and their
spring and autumn Councils under him, so the Metropolitan stands in a like
relation to his Exarch, or Patriarch; and of the five great Patriarchs of
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, who are found at
the Council of Chalcedon to preside over the Church Catholic, that of Rome
has the unquestioned primacy, and is seen at the centre, sustaining and
animating the whole. "The most important of all the powers of
Metropolitans, Exarchs, and Patriarchs, was the election of Bishops, the
confirmation and consecration of Bishops elected. For all the other degrees
of authority were founded on this one, which rendered the Metropolitan the
Father, Master, and Judge of all his suffragans."[34] "And so that famous
Canon of the Council of Nicea, (the 6th,) which seems in appearance only to
confirm the ancient right of the three first Metropolitans of the world to
ordain the Bishops of all the provinces of their dependence, establishes in
effect all the rights and all the powers of the Metropolitans, because it
establishes the foundation on which they all rest. 'If any one be made a
Bishop contrary to the sentence of his Metropolitan, the great Synod
declares that he should not be a Bishop.' Nothing is juster than to found
the right of a holy and paternal rule on the right of generation. For by
ordination the Bishops engender not children indeed, but Fathers, to the
Church." This system continued unimpaired in the whole Church, at least to
the time of St. Gregory the Great. It offers, I think, an unanswerable
refutation to what must be considered the strongest argument of the Roman
Catholics for the Supremacy, that there could be no unity in the Church
without it, as a living organized body; history says, there _was_ unity,
with five co-ordinate Patriarchs, and an Episcopate twice as numerous as
that of the present Latin Communion. In the Latin Church itself, this
system was only gradually overshadowed by another system which sprang from
the excessive development of one of its parts; in the Greek and Russian
Church, it continues down to this day; whatever ecclesiastical constitution
we still have ourselves, is a part of this system. And by reference to, and
under cover of this, which if not strictly of Divine right, as is the High
Priesthood of Bishops, approaches very nearly indeed to it, and was the
effluence of the Spirit of God ruling and guiding the Church of the
Fathers, we must justify ourselves from the damning blot of schism. We
cannot, dare not, do this upon principles such as "the right of private
judgment"--"The Bible alone is the religion of Protestants,"--and the like,
which lead directly, and by most certain consequence, to dissent, heresy,
and anarchy. God forbid that they who profess to be members of the One holy
Catholic Church should, urged by any unhappiness of their provisional and
strange position, take up Satanic and Antichristian arms. No! if we may not
hope for that system under which Augustin and Chrysostom laboured and
witnessed, we will have nothing to do with those who destroy dogmatic faith
altogether, and break up the visible unity of the Church of Christ into a
multitude of atoms. _Quot homines, tot voluntates._ We cannot so relapse
into worse than a second heathenism, and with the unity of Pentecost
offered us, deliberately choose the confusion of Babel.

But over and above his natural eminence in the Church, which I have
attempted to describe, a concurrence of events in the fourth century tended
to give a still greater moral weight to the voice of the Bishop of Rome.
While the other great sees of the Church were vexed with heresy or schism,
his was providentially exempted from both. The same century witnessed
Coecilianus of Carthage, judged and supported by Pope Melchiades, while the
Donatist schism all that century long rent Africa in twain; and St.
Athanasius, of Alexandria, driven from his see, and persecuted by the whole
East, received and justified by Pope Julius; and St. John Chrysostom, too
good by far for a corrupt capital and a degenerate court, in life
protected, and in death restored, by Pope Innocent. We have seen St. Jerome
appeal to Pope Damasus, to know which of three competitors for the
Patriarchal throne of Antioch was the right Bishop. But it is impossible to
describe the confusion and violence which the Arian heresy, and the cognate
heresies concerning the Person of our Lord, wrought throughout the Church
and Empire. In all these the Roman Patriarch was beheld immovable,
supporting, with his whole authority, what turned out to be the orthodox
view. What Mr. Newman asserts is, moreover, entirely in accordance with the
Patriarchal system, as we have attempted to describe it, "that the writers
of the fourth and fifth centuries fearlessly assert, or frankly allow, that
the prerogatives of Rome were derived from apostolic times, and that
because it was the See of St. Peter." I confess that these words set me
upon the search, and that I have found such testimonies in abundance; but
then they are invariably to the Bishop of Rome _as holding the first see,
not as_ Episcopus Episcoporum: _they bear witness to the Patriarchal
system, not to the Papal_. For instance, all lovers of truth would be
obliged to Mr. Newman to point out, in all the works of St. Augustin, a
single passage which is sufficiently distinct and specific to justify the
Papal claims, nay, which does not consider the Pope the first Bishop, and
_no more_. It is little to say I have searched for such in vain. But in a
Western Father, whose extant writings are so voluminous, and whose personal
history is almost a history of the Church during the nearly forty years of
his episcopate, and who continually gives judgment on all matters
concerning the Church's government and constitution, it would seem
impossible but that such a testimony should be found, if a thing so
wondrous as is the Papal Power then existed. On the contrary, St. Augustin,
continually explaining those often cited passages of Scripture, on which
mediæval and later Roman writers ground the Papal prerogatives, that is,
Thou art Peter, &c., Feed my sheep, &c., says specifically, that Peter
represents the Church. One of these passages we have already quoted. Take
another. "And I say unto thee, because thou hast said to me; thou hast
spoken, now hear; thou hast given a confession, receive a blessing;
therefore, and I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; because I am the Rock,
thou art Peter; for neither from Peter is the Rock, but from the Rock,
Peter; because not from the Christian is Christ, but from Christ the
Christian. And upon this Rock I will build my Church; _not upon Peter,
which thou art, but upon the Rock which thou hast confessed_. But I will
build my Church, _I will build thee, who in this answer representest the
Church_."[35] Again, in a passage which conveys that old view of Cyprian,
that every Bishop's chair is the chair of St. Peter. "For as some things
are said which would seem to belong personally to the Apostle Peter, yet
cannot be clearly understood unless when they are referred to the Church,
which he is admitted, in figure, to have represented, on account of the
Primacy which he held among the disciples,--as is,--I will give to thee the
keys of the kingdom of Heaven;--and if there be any such like."[36] Again:
"For Peter himself, to whom He entrusted His sheep as to another self, He
willed to make one with Himself, that so He might entrust His sheep to him;
that he might be the Head, the other bear the figure of the Body, that is,
the Church; and that, as man and wife, they might be two in one flesh."[37]
Again: "The Lord Jesus chose out His disciples before His Passion, as ye
know, whom He named Apostles. Amongst these, Peter alone almost everywhere
was thought worthy (_meruit_) to represent the whole Church. On account of
that very representing of the whole Church, which he alone bore, he was
thought worthy to hear, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of
Heaven. _For these keys not one man but the unity of the Church received._
Here, therefore, the eminence of Peter is set forth, because he represented
the very universality and unity of the Church, when it was said to him, I
give to thee what was given to all. For that you may know that the Church
has received the keys of the kingdom of God, hear what in another place the
Lord says to all his Apostles: Receive the Holy Ghost. And presently:
Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted to him; whosesoever ye retain,
they are retained. This belongs to the keys concerning which it was said,
What ye loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven; and what ye bind on
earth, shall be bound in Heaven. But this He said to Peter. That you may
know that Peter then represented the whole Church, hear what is said to
him,"[38] &c. "For deservedly, after His resurrection, the Lord delivered
His sheep to Peter himself to feed; _for he was not the only one among the
disciples who was thought worthy to feed the Lord's sheep_. But when Christ
speaks to one, unity is commended; and to Peter above all, because Peter is
the first among the Apostles."[39] Again: "As in the Apostles, the number
itself being twelve, that is, four divisions into three,"--(he seems to
mean, that there was a mystical universality betokened in the number four,
as a mystical unity in the number three,)--"and all being asked, Peter
alone answered, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And it is
said to him, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, _as if
he alone had received the power of binding and loosing; the case really
being, that he singly said that in the name of all, and received this
together with all, as representing unity itself; therefore one in the name
of all, because unity is in all_."[40] This, written at so many different
times, was evidently the view preferred by this great Father;[41] and be it
observed, that while, on the one hand, there is a total silence as to the
local see of Rome, on the other hand, there is in these words a specific
denial of the present Roman doctrine, that all spiritual jurisdiction
throughout the whole Church is derived from the see of Rome _alone_. That
jurisdiction is derived from the see of Rome, and the other Apostolic Sees
in conjunction, is the truth of the Patriarchal system; that it is derived
from the see of Rome, as distinct from them, and without them, is the
exaggeration of the Papal system.

I may remark here, that St. Leo the Great does apply these passages both to
St. Peter personally, as distinct from the other Apostles, and to the Roman
Pontiffs, as his successors, distinct from all other Bishops. St.
Augustin's different application is the more remarkable.

The strongest expressions respecting the power of the Roman see, which I
have been able to find in the works of St. Augustin, are contained not in
his proper works, but in two letters of Pope St. Innocent, written in
answer to the synodical letters of the Council of Milevi,--"who thought fit
likewise to communicate their judgment to the Pope St. Innocent in order to
join the Apostolical authority to their own."[42] Their own words
are,--"What we have done, Sir and Brother, we have thought good to intimate
to your holy charity, that the authority of the Apostolical See may also be
added to what we, in our mediocrity, have ordered, to protect the salvation
of many, and also to correct the perversity of some."[43] They were writing
concerning a point nearly touching the common faith, _i.e._, in
condemnation of Pelagius. The Pope in his answer, praises them,
that--"Guarding, according to the duty of priests, the institutions of the
Fathers, ye resolve that those regulations should not be trodden under
foot, which they with no human but Divine voice decreed: viz., that
whatever was being carried on, although in the most distant and remote
provinces, should not be terminated before it was brought to the knowledge
of this see: by the full authority of which the just sentence should be
confirmed, and that thence all other churches might derive what they should
order; whom they should absolve; whom, as being bemired with ineffaceable
pollution, the stream, that is worthy only of pure bodies, should avoid; so
that as from their parent source all waters should flow, and through the
different regions of the whole world the pure streams of the fountain well
forth uncorrupted."[44] And in like manner to the Bishops of Numidia, at
the same Council. "Ye do, therefore, diligently and becomingly consult the
secrets of the Apostolical honour, (that honour, I mean, on which beside
those things that are without, the care of all the Churches awaits,) as to
what judgment is to be passed on doubtful matters, following in sooth the
direction of the ancient rule, which you know, as well as I, has ever been
observed in the whole world. But this I pass by, for I am sure your
prudence is aware of it: for how could you by your actions have confirmed
this, save as knowing that throughout all provinces answers are ever
emanating as from the Apostolic fountain to inquirers? Especially, so often
as a matter of faith is under inquiry, I conceive that all our brethren and
fellow-Bishops ought not to refer, save to Peter, that is, the source of
their own name and honour, just as your affection hath now referred, for
what may benefit all Churches in common, throughout the whole world. For
the inventors of evils must necessarily become more cautious, when they see
that at the reference of a double synod they have been severed from
ecclesiastical communion by our sentence."[45]

There is certainly an indefiniteness about these expressions, which may be
made to embrace anything; but they do not fairly mean more than that
supervision of the faith which belonged to the office of the first of the
Patriarchs. Moreover, they come from a Pope; in St. Augustin's mouth, they
would have much more force. They show us, besides, what a tendency there
was in the power of the Patriarch continually to increase, as being the
centre of appeal to so many, not only Bishops, but Metropolitans. Nay, at
this very time, within less than a century, a rival power had grown up in
the East, in the See of Constantinople, which, from a simple bishopric,
under the Exarch of Heraclea, threatened to push aside the Patriarchs of
Alexandria and Antioch; and, by virtue of the Imperial residence at, or
near Constantinople, to exercise as great an influence through the whole
East, as Rome did in the West. If this happened where there was no
Apostolic See to build upon, but simply the privileges of the royal city,
how much more in the case of Rome, which stood alone in the West the single
object of common reverence; "since it is well known," says this same Pope
Innocent, "that there were no churches founded by any one, either in Italy,
the Gauls, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or in the adjacent islands, unless by
those whom the Apostle St. Peter, or his successors, had appointed
Bishops."[46] So that the Pope, on the Patriarchal theory, was the common
father of the whole West.

In the latter years of St. Augustin's life, the important question of
appeals from African Bishops to Rome was settled. Apiarius, a priest, had
been excommunicated by his Bishop, and appealed to the Pope. The Bishops of
Africa would not agree to the Pope's claim, that the causes of clergy,
condemned by their own Bishop, should be brought before the neighbouring
Bishops; nor that Bishops should appeal to Rome. The Pope alleged the
Canons of Nicea, (not, be it observed, an inherent power in his see to
judge Bishops;) the Bishops of Africa said they could not find those Canons
in the copies which they had. They agreed, however, to be thus treated,
provisionally, for a short time, till they were better informed of the
decrees of Nicea. It turned out that, by the Canons of Nicea, the Pope
meant those of Sardica, to which the African Bishops refused obedience. The
end of this was, that Pope St. Coelestine restored Apiarius to communion,
and sent him back to Africa, with Faustinus, his Legate. "At his arrival,
the Bishops of Africa assembled a Council, in which Aurelius, of Carthage,
and Valentine, Primate of Numidia, presided. Thirteen more are named, but
the name of St. Augustin does not appear among them. This Council having
examined the affair of Apiarius, found him charged with so many crimes,
that it was impossible for Faustinus to defend him, though he acted the
part rather of an advocate than of a judge, and violated all right in the
opposition he maintained against the whole Council, under pretence of
supporting the privileges of the Church of Rome. For he wanted Apiarius to
be received to the communion of the Bishops of Africa, because the Pope had
restored him to it, believing that he had appealed, though he could not
prove even the fact of his appeal. After a debate of three days, Apiarius
at last, stung with remorse, and moved by God, confessed, on a sudden, all
the crimes of which he had been accused, which were so infamous and
incredible as to draw groans from the whole Council; after which he was for
ever deprived of all ecclesiastical administration.

"The Bishops wrote a synodical letter to Pope Coelestine, in which they
conjure him, for the future, not to receive to his communion those who have
been excommunicated by them; since this was a point ruled by the Nicene
Council. For, they added, if this be forbidden with respect to the minor
Clergy, or Laymen, how much more did the Council intend its observance in
respect to Bishops? Those, therefore, who are interdicted from communion in
their own provinces, ought not to be restored by your Holiness too hastily,
and in opposition to the rules; and you ought to reject the Priests, and
other Clergy, who are so rash as to have recourse to you. For no ordinance
of our fathers has deprived the Church of Africa of this authority, and the
decrees of the Nicene Council have subjected the Bishops themselves to
their respective Metropolitans. _They have ordained with great wisdom and
justice, that all matters should be terminated in the places when they
arise; and did not think that the grace of the Holy Ghost would be wanting
in any province to bestow on its Bishops the knowledge and strength
necessary for their decisions; especially, since whosoever thinks himself
wronged, may appeal to the Council of his province, or even to a General
Council, unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual
with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of assembled
Bishops. And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the
sea, since it will not be possible to send thither the necessary witnesses,
whether from the weakness of sex, or of advanced age, or any other
impediment? For that your Holiness should send any one on your part we can
find ordained by no Council._"

"With regard to what you have sent us by our brother, Faustinus, as being
contained in the Nicene Council, we find nothing of the kind in the more
authentic copies of that Council, which we have received from our brother,
the Bishop of Alexandria, and the venerable Atticus, of Constantinople, and
which we formerly sent to Boniface, your predecessor, of happy memory. For
the rest, whoever desires you to delegate any of your clergy to execute
your orders, we beseech you not to comply, lest it seem that we are
introducing the pride of secular dominion into the Church of Christ, which
ought to exhibit to all men an example of simplicity and humility. For as
to our brother Faustinus, since the wretched Apiarius is cut off from the
Church, we depend confidently on your goodness, that, without violating
brotherly charity, Africa shall be no longer forced to endure him. Such is
the letter of the Council of Africa to Pope St. Coelestine."[47]

I confess it was not without astonishment that I first read this passage of
history; so exactly had the African Bishops, in 426, when the greatest
father of the Church was one of them, anticipated and pleaded the cause of
the English Church, in 1534. It is precisely the same claim made in both
instances, viz. that these two laws should be observed, on which the
stability of the government of the whole Church Catholic rests; as
Thomassin remarks:--first, that the action of the Bishop in his own
diocese, in matters proper to that diocese, should not be interfered with;
secondly, that the action of the Metropolitan with his Suffragans, in
matters belonging to his province, should be left equally free. Who ever
accused the African Bishops, and St. Augustin, of schism, for maintaining a
right which had come down to them from all antiquity, was possessed and
acted on all over the Church, was specifically enacted at the greatest
Ecumenical Council, and recognised in every provincial Council held up to
that time? This was all that the Church of England claimed; she based her
claim on the unvarying practice of the whole Church during, at least, the
first six centuries. We repeat, it is not a case of doubt, of conflicting
testimony, in words elsewhere quoted, "of Popes against Popes, Councils
against Councils, some Fathers against others, the same Fathers against
themselves; a consent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of
another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age."[48]
It is the Church of the Martyrs, the Church of the Fathers, of Athanasius,
Basil, Gregory, and Chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustin, and Gregory the
Great, bearing one unbiassed indisputable witness, attested in a hundred
Councils, denied in none, for the Patriarchal system, and against a power
assumed by one Bishop, though the greatest, most venerable, and most
illustrious in his own see, to interfere, dispense with, suspend, or
abrogate, the authority of the Bishop in his Diocese, and of the
Metropolitan in his Council; to exercise singly, by himself, powers which
belong only to an Ecumenical Council, and to annul the enactments of at
least the first four Ecumenical Councils. Had an advocate been instructed
to draw out the abstract case of the English Church, he could not have
described it more exactly than the African Bishops in stating their own.
True, indeed, it is, that the African Bishops were maintaining a right
which not only had never been interrupted, but was universal; while the
English Bishops resumed a power which had been surrendered, not only by
them, but by all the west of Europe, for many hundred years. Accordingly,
the African Bishops did not suffer even a temporary suspension of communion
with Rome, for having both condemned afresh Apiarius, whom the Pope had
restored, and explicitly refused permission to the Pope to interfere in the
ordinary government of their dioceses; while the English Church has ever
since been accused of schism by the rest of the Latin communion. This
decision of the African Bishops, in the year 426, is a proof that the Canon
of the Council of Sardica, conferring, in certain cases, the power of
ordering a cause to be reheard on the Pope, and the most favourable to his
authority of any Canon of an ancient Council, was yet not received even
throughout all the West.

In the year 402, St. Augustin wrote a letter to the Catholics, commonly
called his treatise "on the Unity of the Church." The bearing of this book
on the controversy respecting schism between ourselves and the Roman
Catholics is very remarkable. The Saint refers triumphantly to most express
passages from the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, our Lord's own teaching,
and that of His Apostles, bearing witness to the catholicity of the Church,
an "Ecclesia toto terrarum orbe diffusa." He challenges his adversaries,
the Donatists, to produce a single passage, which either restricted the
Church to the confines of Africa, or declared that it would perish from the
rest of the world, and be restored out of Africa. His test seems decisive
against the Donatists, and against all those who in after times have
restricted the Church to one province, or have declared the Roman Church to
be so corrupt that it is not a part of the true Church. For if it be not,
then the promises of Christ have failed. But while it annihilates the
position of the Donatists, and of the Puritan or Evangelical faction in
these present times, it leaves unassailed that of Andrewes and Ken. St.
Augustin every where appeals to the Church spread throughout the whole
world, as being, by virtue of that fact, the one communion in which alone
there was salvation, and this upon the testimony of the Holy Scriptures
only. "To salvation itself, and eternal life, no one arrives, save he who
has Christ for his head. But no one can have Christ for his head, except he
be in His Body, which is the Church, which like the Head itself we ought to
recognise in the Holy Canonical Scriptures, nor to seek after it in the
various reports, opinions, doings, sayings, and sights of men."[49] But in
the whole book there is not one word about the Roman see, or the necessity
of communion with it, save as it forms part of the one universal Church. It
is not named by itself any more than Alexandria, or Antioch. Any one will
see the force of this fact who has but looked into the writings of late
Roman Catholic authors. He will see how unwearied they are in setting forth
the necessity of the action of the Roman see; how they consider it, and
rightly, the centre of their system; how they are ever crying, "Without the
sovereign pontiff there is no true Christianity."--_De Maistre._ The
contrast in St. Augustin is the more remarkable. The creed of the Council
of Trent says, "I acknowledge one holy, catholic, and apostolic Roman
Church, the mother and mistress of all Churches: and I promise and vow true
obedience to the Roman Pontiff, successor of the blessed Peter, Prince of
the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ." This is distinct and unambiguous:
just as much so is St. Augustin's "orbis terrarum." "For this the whole
world says to them (the Donatists,) an argument most briefly stated, but
most powerful by its truth. The case is, the African Bishops had a contest
between themselves; if they could not arrange between themselves the
dissension which had arisen, so that the wrong side should either be
reduced to concord, or deprived, and they who had the good cause remain in
the communion of the whole world through the bond of unity, there was
certainly this resource left, that the Bishops beyond the sea, where the
largest part of the Catholic Church is spread, should judge concerning the
dissensions of their African colleagues,"[50] &c. No doubt the Bishop of
Rome was one, and the most eminent of these Bishops beyond the sea; but St.
Augustin refers the decision of the Donatist controversy not to him
specially, but to the Bishops generally. This is the very principle, for
which the Eastern Church for a thousand years, and the English Church for
three hundred, have contended against the Church of Rome. I know not
whether what St. Augustin says or what he does not say is strongest against
the present Roman claim; but I think his _silence_ in his book "De Unitate
Ecclesiæ" absolutely convincing to any candid mind. Let us hold for an
infallible truth his dogma, "Securus judicat orbis terrarum;" but the Latin
communion is not the "orbis terrarum." In truth, the papal supremacy at
once cut the Church in half; the West, where the Pope's was the only
apostolical see, unanimously held with him; the East, with its four
patriarchs, as unanimously refused his claim, as a new thing which they had
never received. Even De Maistre observes, (Liv. 4. ch. 4,) "It is very
essential to observe that never was there a question about dogmas between
us at the beginning of the great and fatal division."

Again, St. Augustin has five sermons on the day of the Apostles Peter and
Paul; he enlarges, as we might expect, on their labours and martyrdom; on
the wonderful change of life which grace produced in them, the one thrice
denying, and then thrice loving; the other, a blasphemer and persecutor,
and then in labours more abundant than all. He speaks of their being joined
in their death, the first apostle and the last, in the service and witness
of Him, who is the First and the Last; of their bodies, with those of other
martyrs, lying at Rome. But not one allusion is there in all these to the
Roman Pontiff; not a word as to his being the heir of a power not committed
to the other Apostles. On the contrary, on the very occasion of St. Peter's
festival, he does say, "What was commended to Peter,--what was enjoined to
Peter, not Peter alone, but also the other Apostles heard, held, preserved,
and most of all the partner of his death and of his day, the Apostle Paul.
They heard that, and transmitted it for our hearing: we feed you, we are
fed together with you." "Therefore hath the Lord commended his sheep to us,
because he commended them to Peter."[51] Thus Peter's commission is viewed
not as excluding, but including that of all the rest; not as distinguished
from, but typical of, theirs. Yet at this very time Roman Catholics would
have us believe that the successor of Peter communicated to all Bishops
their power to feed the Lord's flock; and that such a wonderful power and
commission is passed _sub silentio_ by the Fathers.

The very same principles which the Great Voice of the Western Church
proclaims in Africa, St. Vincent of Lerins repeats from Gaul. Take the
summary of his famous Commonitorium by Alban Butler. "He layeth down this
rule, or fundamental principle, in which he found, by a diligent inquiry,
all Catholic pastors and the ancient Fathers to agree, that such doctrine
is truly catholic as hath been believed in all places, at all times, and by
all the faithful. By this test of universality, antiquity, and consent, he
saith all controverted points in belief must be tried. He sheweth, that
whilst Novatian, Photinus, Sabellius, Donatus, Arius, Eunomius, Jovinian,
Pelagius, Coelestius, and Nestorius expound the Divine oracles different
ways, to avoid the perplexity of errors we must interpret the Holy
Scriptures by the tradition of the Catholic Church, as the clue to conduct
us in the truth. For this tradition, derived from the Apostles, manifesteth
the true meaning of the Holy Scripture, and all novelty in faith is a
certain mark of heresy; and in religion nothing is more to be dreaded than
itching ears after new teachers. He saith, 'They who have made bold with
one article of faith, will proceed on to others; and what will be the
consequence of this reforming of religion, but only that these refiners
will never have done, till they have reformed it quite away?' He elegantly
expatiates on the Divine charge given to the Church, to maintain inviolable
the sacred depositum of faith. He takes notice that heretics quote the
Sacred Writings at every word, and that in the works of Paulus Samosatenus,
Priscillian, Eunomius, Jovinian, and other like pests of Christendom,
almost every page is painted and laid on thick with Scripture texts, which
Tertullian also remarks. But in this, saith St. Vincent, heretics are like
those poisoners or quacks, who put off their destructive potions under
inscriptions of good drugs, and under the title of infallible cures. They
imitate the father of lies, who quoted Scripture against the Son of God,
when he tempted Him. The Saint adds, that if a doubt arise in interpreting
the meaning of the Scriptures in any point of faith, we must summon in the
holy Fathers, who have lived and died in the faith and communion of the
Catholic Church, and by this test we shall prove the false doctrine to be
novel. For that only must we look upon as indubitably certain and
unalterable, which all, or the major part of these Fathers have delivered,
like the harmonious consent of a general council. But if any one among
them, be he ever so holy, ever so learned, holds any thing besides, or in
opposition to the rest, that is to be placed in the rank of singular and
private opinions, and never to be looked upon as the public, general,
authoritative doctrine of the Church. After a point has been decided in a
general council, the definition is irrefragable. These general principles,
by which all heresies are easily confounded, St. Vincent explains with
equal elegance and perspicuity." "The same rules are laid down by
Tertullian in his book of Prescriptions, by St. Irenæus, and other
Fathers."--_Lives of the Saints_, May. 24.

But not a word is there here of the authority of the See of Rome deciding
of itself what is, and what is not, error; or of its Communion of itself
being a touchstone of what is, and what is not, the Catholic Church. These
are necessary parts of the Papal Supremacy; instead of which St. Vincent
holds universal consent.

Now let us hear Bossuet speaking of St. Vincent's rule. "These things then
are understood not by this or by that Doctor, but by all Catholics with one
voice, that the authority of the Church Catholic agreeing is most certain,
irrefragable, and perspicuous. Christians must rest on that agreement, as a
most firm and divine foundation; from whom nothing else is required but
that in the Apostles' Creed, that believing in the Holy Spirit they also
believe the holy Catholic Church; and claim for her the most certain
authority and judgment of the Holy Spirit, by which they are led captive to
obedience. Which entirely proves that this indefectible power both lies and
is believed to lie in consent itself; and this clear and manifest voice
dwells altogether in the agreement of the Churches; in which we see
clearly, on the testimony of the same Vincent of Lerins, that not a part of
the Church, but universality itself, is heard: For we follow," saith he,
"the whole in this way, if we confess that to be the one true faith which
the whole Church throughout the world confesses." And a little after, "What
doth the Catholic Christian, if any part hath cut itself off from the
communion of the universal faith? What surely, but prefer the soundness of
the whole body to that pestilent and corrupted member?[52]

"Thence floweth unto General Councils that certain and invincible authority
which we recognise in them. For it is on no other principle that Unity and
Consent have force in Councils, or in the assembled Church, than because
they have equal force in the Church spread through the whole world. For the
Council itself hath force, because it represents the whole Church; nor is
the Church assembled in order that Unity and Consent may have force, but it
is therefore assembled, that the Unity which in itself has force in the
Church, everywhere spread abroad, may be more clearly demonstrated in the
same Church assembled, by Bishops, the Doctors of the Churches, as being
the proper witnesses thereunto.

"Hence, therefore, is perceived a double method of recognising Catholic
truth; the first, from the consent of the Church everywhere spread abroad;
the second, from the consent of the Church united in Ecumenical or General
Councils; both which methods I must set forth in detail, to show more
clearly that this infallible and irresistible authority resides in the
whole body of the Church."

He then proceeds to show that the type or form of all Ecumenical Councils
was taken from the first Council held at Jerusalem by the Apostles. He
notes these particulars: First, there was a great dissension, the cause of
it: then, that the chief Church, in which Peter sat, was then at Jerusalem;
whence it became a maxim, that Councils should not be regularly held
without Peter and his Successors and the First Church in which he sits.
Thirdly, it was as universal as could be. Fourthly, all were assembled
together. Fifthly, the question was stated, next deliberated on, lastly
decided by common sentence; which all became rules for future Councils.
Sixthly, the discussion is thus stated in the Acts, "when there had been
much disputing." Seventhly, the deliberation is opened by Peter, whence it
became a custom that the President of the Council should first give
sentence. Eighthly, Paul and Barnabas give their testimony, in confirmation
of Peter's sentence; and James expressly begins with Peter's words--"Simon
hath declared," whence the custom that the rest give their voice at the
instance of the President. "They do not, however, so proceed as if they
were altogether bound by the authority of the first sentence, but
themselves give judgment; and James says, 'I give sentence.' Then he
proposes what additions seemed good to the principal question, and gives
sentence also concerning them." Tenthly, "The decree was then drawn up in
the common name, and adding the authority of the Holy Spirit, 'It seemed
good unto us being assembled with one accord,' and 'It seemed good to the
Holy Ghost and to us;' there then lies the force, 'to the Holy Ghost and to
us:' not, what seemed good to Peter precisely, but, to us; and led by the
Spirit, not Peter alone, but the unity itself of the holy Council. Whence,
too, Christ said that concerning the Spirit whom he was about to send: 'But
when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall teach you all truth:' you,
saith He, the Pastors of the Churches, and the Masters of the rest. Hence,
the Spirit is always added to the Church and the holy congregation. 'I
believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy Church, the Catholic Church:' and with
reason therefore, and carefully was the maxim which we have mentioned laid
down of old by our Doctors: 'The strength of Councils resides not in the
Roman Pontiff alone, but chiefly in the Holy Spirit and in the Catholic
Church.'

"Eleventhly: when the matter had been judged by common sentence, nothing
was afterwards reconsidered, nor any new dissension left to any one; but
the decree was carried to the Churches, and the people are taught to keep
the decrees which were decreed, in the Greek 'judged,' by the Apostles and
Elders which were at Jerusalem.

"This we Catholics urge with common consent against heretics who decline
the commands and authority of Councils: which would have no force, unless
together with the authority we also prove the form, and place the force
itself of the decree, not in Peter alone, but in Unity, and in the Consent
of the Apostles and the Pastors of the Church."[53]

In another place he says, 'In ecclesiastical acts we do indeed find that
the Catholic Church is affirmed by Chief Pontiffs and Councils to be
represented by Ecumenical Synods, which contain all its virtue and power,
which we are wont to mean by the word "represent." But this we do not read
of the Roman Pontiff, as affirmed either by the Pontiffs themselves, or by
Ecumenical Councils, or any where in Ecclesiastical Acts.[54]

I have been unable to find any testimony of St. Chrysostom to the
transmission of St. Peter's primacy over the whole Church to the Bishop of
Rome. He has, however, a passage about Rome which is worth transcribing;
for sometimes, as we have just seen, as much is proved by what is _not_
said, as by what _is_ said. Speaking then of St. Paul, he writes:--"Rather
if we listen to him here, we shall surely see him there; if not standing
near him, yet we shall see him surely shining near to the King's throne,
where the Cherubim ascribe glory, where the Seraphim spread their wings.
There with Peter shall we behold Paul--him that is the leader and director
of the choir of the saints,--and shall enjoy his true love. For if, being
here, he so loved men, that having the choice "to depart and be with
Christ," he chose to be here, much more there will he show warmer
affection. Rome likewise for this do I love, although having reason
otherwise to praise her, both for her size, and her antiquity, and her
beauty, and her multitude, and her power, and her wealth, and her victories
in war. But passing by all these things, for this I count her blessed;
because, when alive, he (Paul) wrote to them, and loved them so much, and
went and conversed with them, and there finished his life. Wherefore the
city is on that account more remarkable than for all other things together,
and like a great and strong body, it has two shining eyes, the bodies of
these saints. Not so bright is the heaven when the sun sends forth his
beams, as is the city of the Romans sending forth everywhere over the world
these two lights. Thence shall Paul, thence shall Peter, be caught up.
Think, and tremble, what a sight shall Rome behold, when Paul suddenly
riseth from that resting-place with Peter, and is carried up to meet the
Lord. What a rose doth Rome offer to Christ! with what two garlands is that
city crowned! with what golden fetters is she girdled; what fountains does
she possess! Therefore do I admire that city; not for the multitude of its
gold, nor for its columns, nor for its other splendours, but for these the
pillars of the Church."[55] Had St. Chrysostom felt like a Roman Catholic
could he have stopped there? Loving Rome for possessing the blessed and
priceless bodies of the two Apostles, could he have failed to mention the
sovereignty of the universal Church, which together with his body Peter had
left enshrined at Rome? Would it not have seemed to him by far the greatest
marvel at Rome, as it has to a late eloquent partisan, that Providence has
placed "in the middle of the world, to be there the chief of a religion
without its like, and of a society spread everywhere, a man without
defence, an old man who will be the more threatened, the more the increase
of the Church in the world shall augment the jealousy of princes, and the
hatred of his enemies."[56] "This vicar of God, this supreme pontiff of the
Catholic Church, this Father of kings and of nations, this successor of the
fisherman Peter, he lives, he raises among men his brow, charged with a
triple crown, and the sacred weight of eighteen centuries; the ambassadors
of nations are at his court: he sends forth his ministers to every
creature, and even to places which have not yet a name. When from the
windows of his palace he gazes abroad, his sight discovers the most
illustrious horizon in the world, the earth trodden by the Romans, the city
they had built with the spoils of the universe, the centre of things under
their two principal forms, matter and spirit: where all nations have
passed; all glories have come: all cultivated imaginations have at least
made a pilgrimage from far: Rome, the tomb of Martyrs and Apostles, the
home of all recollections. And when the Pontiff stretches forth his arms to
bless it, together with the world which is inseparable from it, he can bear
a witness to himself which no sovereign shall ever bear, that he has
neither built nor conquered, nor received his city, but that he is its
inmost and enduring life, that he is in it like the blood in the heart of
man, and that right can go no further than this, a continuous generation
which would make the parricide a suicide." Such feelings as these are what
any Churchman must habitually entertain, who looks on the Roman Pontiff as
at once the governing power and the life of the Church. Could, then, St.
Chrysostom have beheld in Rome the Church's heart, whence her life-blood
courses over the whole body, and have seen no reason to love her for that?
or have stated that she was more remarkable for possessing even the bodies
of the blessed Apostles than for all other things together? What Roman
Catholic would so speak now? The power of the Roman Pontiff in the Latin
Communion is actually such, that Lacordaire's words respecting the city of
Rome apply to the whole Church; to destroy that power would be to destroy
the Church herself; the parricide would be a suicide. But how can this
dogma be imposed upon us as necessary to salvation, if St. Augustin, St.
Chrysostom, and the Church of their day knew it not? or let it be shown us,
how any men who did know it, could either have written as they write, or
have been silent as they are silent.

We may sum up St. Augustin's view of the relation of the Roman Pontiff to
his brother Bishops in his own beautiful words to Pope Boniface: "To sit on
our watch-towers and guard the flock belongs in common to all of us who
have episcopal functions, although the hill on which you stand is more
conspicuous than the rest."[57] My object in these remarks throughout has
been to show, that a denial of either of these truths is a violation of the
Church's divine constitution. The Papacy has greatly obscured the essential
equality of Bishops; its opponents have avenged themselves by explaining
away the unquestionable Primacy of St. Peter, and its important action on
the whole Church.

What this Primacy was, and how it was exercised at a most important crisis
of the Church, I will now endeavour to show. Five years after the decision
of the African Bishops about appeals, the third Ecumenical Council
assembled at Ephesus,--and here, as in other cases, I prefer that another
should speak, and he the most illustrious Prelate of France in modern
times.[58] "In the third general Council of Ephesus, and in those which
follow, our whole argument will appear in clearer light, its Acts being in
our hands; and there existing very many judgments of Roman Pontiffs _on
matters of faith_, set forth with the whole authority of their see, which
were afterwards re-considered in general Councils, and only approved after
examination, than which nothing can be more opposed to the opinion of
infallibility. And as to the Council of Ephesus, the thing is clear. The
innovation of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, is known; how, by
denying to the Virgin Mary the title of 'Mother of God,' he divided into
two the person of Christ. Pope St. Coelestine, watchful, according to his
office, over the affairs of the Church, had charged the blessed Cyril,
Bishop of Alexandria, to send him a certain report of the doctrine of
Nestorius, already in bad repute. Cyril declares this in his letter to
Nestorius; and so he writes to Coelestine all the doctrines of Nestorius,
and sets forth his own: he sends him two letters from himself to Nestorius,
who likewise, by his own letters and explanations, endeavoured to draw
Coelestine to his side. Thus the holy Pontiff, having been most fully
informed by letters from both sides, is thus inquired of by Cyril. 'We have
not confidently abstained from communion with him (Nestorius) before
informing you of this; condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment, that
we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who cherishes
such erroneous doctrine.'" And he adds, that his judgment should be written
to the other Bishops also, "that all with one mind may hold firm in one
sentence." Here is the Apostolic See manifestly consulted by so great a
man, presiding over the second, or at least the third, Patriarchal See, and
its judgment awaited; and nothing remained but that Coelestine, being duly
consulted, should perform his Apostolic office. But how he did this, the
acts themselves will speak out.

"And first, he approves of Cyril's letters and doctrine; for he writes to
him thus: 'We perceive that you hold and maintain all that we hold and
maintain:' and to Nestorius, 'We have approved, and do approve, the faith
of the Prelate of the Church of Alexandria:' and he threatens him with
extremities, "If you preach not that which Cyril preaches.' Nothing could
be said more marked. Nor does he only approve Cyril's doctrine, but
disapproves, too, the perverse dogma of Nestorius: 'We have seen,' he says,
'your letters containing open blasphemy;' and that distinctly, because he
was unwilling to call the Blessed Virgin 'Mother of God:' and he decrees
that he should be deprived of the episcopate and communion, unless, within
ten days from the date of the announcing of the sentence, he openly rejects
this faithless innovation, which endeavours to separate what Scripture
joineth together, that is, the Person of Christ. Here is the doctrine of
Nestorius expressly disapproved, and a sentence of the Roman Pontiff on a
matter of faith most clearly pronounced under threat of deposition and
excommunication: then, that nothing be wanting, the holy Pope commits his
authority to Cyril to carry into execution that sentence, 'associating,' he
saith to Cyril, 'the authority of our See, and using our person, place, and
power:' so to Nestorius himself; so to the Clergy of Constantinople; so to
John of Antioch, then the Bishop of the third or fourth Patriarchal See; so
to Juvenal, Bishop of the Holy City, whom the Council of Nice had ordered
to be especially honoured: so he writes to the other Bishops also, that the
sentence given may be duly and in order made known to all. Cyril proceeds
to execute his office, and performs all that he had been commanded. He
promulgates and executes the decrees of Coelestine; declares to Nestorius,
that after the _ten_ days prescribed and set forth by Coelestine, he would
have no portion, intercourse, or place with the Priesthood. Nothing
evidently is wanting to the Apostolical authority being most fully
exercised; but whether the sentence put forward with such authority, after
a great dissension had arisen and mention been made of an Ecumenical
Council, was held to be final, the succeeding acts will demonstrate.

"We have often said--we shall often say--that it is the constitution of the
Church only in extraordinary cases and dissensions to recur, of necessity,
to an Ecumenical Council. But in the usual order even the most important
questions on the faith, when they arise, are terminated by the consent of
the Church being added to the decree of the Roman Pontiff. This is clearly
manifest from the cause of Nestorius. We confess plainly that the sentence
of Coelestine would have been sufficient, as Cyril hoped, to repress the
new heresy, had not great commotions arisen, and the matter seemed of such
a nature as to be referred to an Ecumenical Council. But Nestorius, Bishop
of the royal city, possessed such influence, had deceived men's minds with
such an appearance of piety, had gained so many Bishops, and enjoyed such
favour with the younger Theodosius and the great men, that he could easily
throw everything into commotion; and thus there was need of an Ecumenical
Council, the question being most important, and the person of the highest
dignity; because many Bishops, amongst these almost all of the East, that
is, of the province of Antioch, and the Patriarch John himself, were ill
disposed to Cyril, and seemed to favour Nestorius; because men's feelings
were divided, and the whole empire of the East seemed to fluctuate between
Cyril and Nestorius. Such was the need of an Ecumenical Council.

"To this must be added the prayers of the pious and orthodox; here were
most pious monks, who had suffered much from Nestorius for the orthodox
faith, and the expression, 'Mother of God,' supplicating the Emperor 'for a
sacred and Ecumenical Council to assemble, by the presence of which he
should unite the most holy Church, bring back the people to one, and
restore to their place the Priests who preached the pure faith, before that
impious doctrine (of Nestorius) crept wider.' And again, 'We have asked you
to call together an Ecumenical Council, which can most fully consolidate
and restore the tottering.' Here, after the judgment of the Roman Pontiff,
a firm and complete settling of the tottering state of things is sought for
by the pious in an Ecumenical Council.

"The Emperor, moved by these and other reasons, wrote to Cyril,--'It is our
will that the holy doctrine be discussed and examined in a sacred Synod,
and that be ratified which appeareth agreeable to the right faith, whether
the wrong party be pardoned by the Fathers or no.'

"Here we see three things: first, after the judgment of St. Coelestine,
another is still required, that of the Council; secondly, that these two
things would rest with the Fathers, to judge of doctrine and of persons;
thirdly, that the judgment of the Council would be decisive and final."

"He adds, 'those who everywhere preside over the priesthood, and through
whom we ourselves are and shall be professing the truth, must be judges of
this matter; on whose faith we rest.' See in whose judgment is the final
and irreversible authority.

"Both the Emperor affirmed, and the Bishops confessed, that this was done
according to the Ecclesiastical Canons. And so all, and Coelestine himself,
prepared themselves for the Council. Cyril does no more, though named by
Coelestine to execute the pontifical decree. Nestorius remained in his
original rank; the sentence of the universal Council is awaited; and the
Emperor had expressly decreed, 'that before the assembling and common
sentence of the most holy Council, no change should be made in any matter
at all, on any private authority.' Rightly, and in order; for this was
demanded by the majesty of an universal Council. Wherefore, both Cyril
obeyed and the Bishops rested. And it was established, that although the
sentence of the Roman Pontiff on matters of faith, and on persons judged
for violation of the faith, had been passed and promulged, all was
suspended, while the authority of the universal Council was awaited. This
we have seen acted on by the Emperor, acquiesced in by the Bishops and the
Pope himself. The succeeding acts will declare that it was approved in the
Ecumenical Council itself.

"Having gone over what preceded the Council, we review the acts of the
Council itself, and begin with the first course of proceeding. After,
therefore, the Bishops and Nestorius himself were come to Ephesus, the
universal Council began, Cyril being president, and representing
Coelestine, as being appointed by the Pontiff himself to execute his
sentence. In the first course of proceeding this was done. First, the
above-mentioned letter of the Emperor was read, that an Ecumenical Council
should be held, and all proceedings in the mean time be suspended: this
letter, I say, was read, and placed on the acts, and it was approved by the
Fathers, that all the decrees of Coelestine in the matter of Nestorius had
been suspended until the holy Council should give its sentence. You will
ask if it was the will of the Council merely that the Emperor should be
allowed to prohibit, in the interim, effect being given to the sentence of
the Apostolic See. Not so, according to the acts; but rather, by the
intervention of a General Council's authority, (the convocation of which,
according to the discipline of those times, was left to the Emperor,) the
Council itself understood that all proceedings were of course suspended,
and depended on the sentence of the Council. Wherefore, though the decree
of the Pontiff had been promulged and notified, and the ten days had long
been past, Nestorius was held by the Council itself to be a Bishop, and
called by the name of Most Religious Bishop, and by that name, too, thrice
cited and summoned to take his seat with the other Bishops in the holy
Council; for this expression, to take his seat, is distinctly written; and
it is added, in order to answer to what was charged against him. For it was
their full purpose that he should recognise, in whatever way, the
Ecumenical Council, as he would then afterwards be, beyond doubt,
answerable to it; but he refused to come, and chose to have his doors
besieged with an armed force, that no one might approach him.

"Thereupon, as the Emperor commanded, and the Canons required, the rule of
faith was set forth, and the Nicene Creed read, as the standard to which
all should be referred, and then the letters of Cyril and Nestorius were
examined in order. The letter of Cyril was first brought before the
judgment of the Council. That letter, I mean, concerning the faith, to
Nestorius, so expressly approved by Pope Coelestine, of which he had
declared to Cyril, 'We see that you hold and maintain all that we hold and
maintain;' which, by the decree against Nestorius, published to all
churches, he had approved, and, wished to be considered as a canonical
monition against Nestorius: that letter, I repeat, was examined, at the
proposition of Cyril himself, in these words: 'I am persuaded that I have
in nothing departed from the orthodox faith, or the Nicene Creed; wherefore
I beseech your Holiness to set forth openly whether I have written this
correctly, blamelessly, and in accordance with that holy Council.'

"And are there those who say that questions concerning the faith, once
judged by the Roman Pontiff on his Apostolical authority, are examined in
general Councils, in order to understand their contents, but not to decide
on their substance, as being still a matter of question? Let them hear
Cyril, the President of the Council; let them attend to what he proposes
for the inquiry of the Council: and though he were conscious of no error in
himself, yet, not to trust himself, he asked for the sentence of the
Council in these words: 'whether he had written correctly and blamelessly,
or not.' This Cyril, the chief of the Council, proposes for their
consideration. Who ever even heard it whispered, that after a final and
irreversible judgment of the Church on a matter of faith, any such inquiry
or question was made? It was never so done, for that would be to doubt
about the faith itself, when declared and discussed. But this was done
after the judgment of Pope Coelestine: neither Cyril, nor any one else,
thought of any other course: that, therefore, was not a final and
irreversible judgment.

"In answer to this question, the Fathers in order give their
judgment,--'that the Nicene Creed, and the letter of Cyril in all things
agree and harmonise.' Here is inquiry and examination, and then judgment.
The acts speak for themselves: we say not here a word.

"Next that letter of Nestorius was produced, which Coelestine had
pronounced blasphemous and impious. It is read: then at the instance of
Cyril it is examined, 'whether this, too, be agreeable to the faith set
forth by the holy Council of the Nicene Fathers, or not.' It is precisely
the same form according to which Cyril's letter was examined. The Fathers,
in order, give judgment that it disagreed from the Nicene Creed, and was,
therefore, censurable. The letter of Nestorius is disapproved in the same
manner, by the same rule, by which that of Cyril was approved. Here, twice
in the same proceeding of the Council of Ephesus, a judgment of the Roman
Pontiff concerning the Catholic Faith, uttered and published, is
re-considered. What he had approved and what he had disapproved, is equally
examined, and, only after examination, confirmed.

"These were the first proceedings of the Council of Ephesus in the matter
of faith. We proceed to review what concerns the person of Nestorius, in
the same proceeding. First, the letter of Coelestine to Cyril is read and
placed on the Acts; that, I mean, in which he gave sentence concerning
Nestorius: on which sentence, as the Fathers were shortly, after full
consideration, to pass their judgment, for the present it was only to be
placed among the Acts. In the letter of Coelestine there was no special
doctrine: it only contained an approval of Cyril's doctrine and letter, and
a disapproval of those of Nestorius; concerning which letters of Cyril and
Nestorius, the judgment of the Holy Council was already past, so that it
would be superfluous to add anything to them.

"But for the same reason, the other letter of Cyril being read,--that, I
mean, which executed the sentence of Coelestine,--nothing special was done
concerning that letter, but it was only ordered to be placed on the Acts.

"After these preliminaries, judgment was to be pronounced on the person of
Nestorius. Inquiry was made, whether what Coelestine had written to
Nestorius, and what Cyril had done in execution, had been notified to
Nestorius; it was certified that it had been notified, and that he had
remained still in his opinion: and that the days had elapsed, both which
were first fixed by St. Coelestine, and, afterwards by the Emperor,
convoking the Council. Next, for accumulation of proof, testimonies of the
Fathers are compared with the explanations of Nestorius: the huge
discrepancy shows Nestorius to be an innovator and heretic. A decree is
made in these words. The holy Council declares,--'Since the most impious
Nestorius has neither been willing to obey our procedures, nor to admit the
Bishops deputed by us, we have, necessarily, proceeded to the examination
of what he has impiously taught: finding, therefore, partly from his own
letters, partly from his discourses, that he holds and preaches
impiety,--compelled by the holy Canons, and by the letters of our most holy
Father, our fellow-minister, Coelestine, Bishop of the Roman Church,--we
have come to this sentence: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, by this most holy
Council, declareth Nestorius to be deprived of his dignity."' You see the
Canons joined with the letters of Coelestine in terms, indeed, of high
honour, which tend to set forth the majesty of the Apostolic see. You see
the Council carry out what Coelestine decreed, and thus compelled it comes
to a painful judgment, but that a new one, and put forth in its own terms
in the name of Christ; and after, by legitimate inquiry, it was evident
that all had been done rightly and in order.

"Finally, the sentence pronounced by the Council, is written to the most
impious Nestorius: 'The holy Council to Nestorius, another Judas: know thou
hast been deposed by the holy Council. So he, who before the inquiry of the
holy Council was called the most religious Bishop, after this inquiry, is
presently set forth as most impious, as another Judas, and as deposed by an
irrevocable sentence, from his episcopal seat.

"Thus a most weighty matter is completed by the most weighty agreement;
that same which we have asserted gives validity to everything in the
Church: and the order of the judgment is plain in itself. That is, sentence
is put forth by Coelestine; it is suspended by the Convocation of a General
Council; it is heard and examined; it is corroborated by a new and
irrevocable judgment, united with the authority of the whole Church. This
the Fathers declare in their report to the Emperor: 'We have removed
Nestorius from his see, and canonically deprived him; highly extolling
Coelestine, Bishop of Great Rome, who before our sentence had condemned the
heretical doctrines of Nestorius, and had anticipated us in giving judgment
against him.' This is that unity, this that agreement, which gives
invincible and irresistible force to ecclesiastical judgments.

"So every thing is in harmony, and our judgment is supported. For in that
the holy Council approves and executes the judgment of the Apostolical see,
on a matter of faith and on a person, it does, indeed, recognise the
legitimate power and primacy of the said see. In that it does not approve
of its judgment, until after legitimate hearing and renewed inquiry, it
instructs us that the Roman Pontiff is, indeed, superior to all Bishops,
but is inferior only to a General Council, even in matters of faith. Which
was to be proved.

"In the mean time, the Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and the Presbyter
Philip, had been chosen by Coelestine to be present at the Council of
Ephesus, with a special commission from the Apostolic see, and the whole
Council of the West. So they come from Rome to Ephesus, and appear at the
holy Council, and here the second procedure commences.

"Wolf, of Louvain, amongst other records of antiquity, has put forth the
charge of Coelestine to his Legates, and his instructions, as Coelestine
himself calls them. In these he charged them, to defend the dignity of the
Apostolic see; 'not to mix themselves with the dissensions of the Bishops,
whose judges they should be,' in conjunction, that is, with the Council:
'to confer on proceedings with Cyril, as being faithful.' We shall now
review what they did, in compliance with these orders: and by this we shall
easily show that our cause is confirmed.

"First, they bring forward the letter of St. Coelestine to the Council, in
which the charge committed to his Legates is thus expressed:--'We have
directed our holy brethren to be present at the proceedings, and to execute
what we have ordained.' Hence, it is evident, that the Council of Ephesus
was employed in executing the Apostolical judgment. But of what sort this
execution is, whether it be, as they will have it, mere obedience, or by a
legitimate hearing of the Council itself, and then by a certain and
infallible judgment, the ensuing proceedings will show.

"After reading the letter of Coelestine, the Legates, in pursuance, say to
the Bishops;--'According to the rule of our common faith, command to be
completely and finally settled what Coelestine hath had the goodness before
to lay down and now to remind you of.' This is the advantage of a Council;
after whose sentence there is no new discussion, or new judgment, but
merely execution. And this the Legates request to be commanded by the
Council, in which they recognise that supreme authority.

"Firmus, Bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, answers for the Council;--'The
Apostolical and holy See of the Bishop Coelestine hath prescribed the
sentence and rule for the present matter.' The Greek words are, hath first
set forth the sentence and rule, or type, which expression is afterwards
rendered, form. We will not quarrel about words; let us hear the same
Firmus accurately explaining what the thing is:--'We,' says he, 'have
charged to be executed this form respecting Nestorius, alleging against him
the Canonical and Apostolic judgment;' that is, in the first procedure, in
which, after examination and deliberation, we have seen the decree of
Coelestine confirmed. Thus a general Council executes the sentence of the
First See, by legitimate hearing and inquiry, and not as a simple
functionary; but after giving a canonical and apostolical judgment. Let the
Pope's decree, as is due to the authority of so great a See, be the form,
the rule; which same, after convocation of a Council, only receives full
authority from the common judgment.

"It behoved, also, that the Legates, sent to the Council on a special
mission, should understand whether the proceedings against Nestorius had
been pursued according to the requisition of the Canons, and due respect to
the Apostolic See. This we have already often said; wherefore, with reason,
they require the acts to be communicated, 'that we too,' say they, 'may
confirm them.' The proceedings themselves will declare what that
confirmation means.

"After that, at the request of the Legates, the acts against Nestorius were
given them, they thus report about them at the third procedure:--'We have
found all things judged canonically, and according to the Church's
discipline.' Therefore judgments of the Apostolic see are canonically, and,
according to the Church's discipline, re-considered, after deliberation, in
a General Council, and judgment passed upon them.

"After the Legates had approved the acts against Nestorius communicated to
them, they request that all which had been read and done at Ephesus from
the beginning, should be read afresh in public Session, 'in order,' they
say, 'that obeying the form of the most holy Pope Coelestine, who hath
committed this care to us, we may be enabled to confirm the judgment also
of your Holiness.' After these all had been read afresh, and the Legates
agreed to them, Cyril proposes to the holy Council, 'That the Legates, by
their signature, as was customary, should make plain and manifest their
canonical agreement with the Council.' To this question of Cyril the
Council thus answers, and decrees that the Legates, by their subscription,
confirm the acts; by which place, this confirmation, spoken of by the
Council, is clearly nothing else but to make their assent plain and
manifest, as Cyril proposed. This true and genuine sense of confirmation we
have often brought forward, and shall often again; and now congratulate
ourselves that it is so clearly set before us by the holy Council of
Ephesus.

"But of what importance it was that the decrees of Ephesus should be
confirmed by the authority of the Legates of the Apostolic see, as says
Projectus, one of the Legates, is seen from hence; because, although Cyril,
having been named the executor of the Pope's sentence, had executed it in
the Council, yet he had not been expressly delegated to the Council, of
which Coelestine had yet no thought, when he entrusted Cyril to represent
him. But Arcadius, Projectus and Philip, being expressly sent by Coelestine
to the Council, confirmed the acts of the Council, in virtue of their
special commission, and put forth in clear view by all manner and testimony
the consent of all Churches with the chief Church, that of Rome.

"Add to this, that the Legates, sent by special commission to the Council
of Ephesus, bore the sentence, not only of the Apostolic see, but also of
the whole West, whence the Presbyter Philip, one of the Legates, after all
had been read afresh, and approved by common consent, thus sums up; 'It is
then established according to the decree of all Churches, for the Priests
of the Church, (Eastern and Western,) either by themselves, or by their
Legates, to take part in this consent of the Priesthood, which was
pronounced against Nestorius.'

"Hence it is clear how the decrees of the Churches themselves mutually
confirm each other; for all those things have force of confirmation, which
declare the consent and unity of all Churches, inasmuch as the strength of
ecclesiastical decrees itself consists in unity and mutual agreement. So
that, in putting forth an exposition of the faith, the East and the West,
and the Apostolic see and Synodical assemblies, mutually confirm each
other; whence, too, we read that acclamation to Coelestine, in the Council
of Ephesus:--'To Coelestine, guardian of the faith, (to Coelestine agreeing
with the Council,) one Coelestine, one Cyril one faith of the Council,'
(one faith of the whole world.)

"These acclamations, then, of Catholic unity being heard, Philip, the
Legate, thus answers:--'We return thanks to your holy and venerable
Council, because, by your holy voices, as holy members, you have joined
yourselves to a holy head; for your blessedness is not ignorant that the
blessed Peter is the head of the whole faith, or even of the Apostles.'
This, therefore, is the supreme authority--the supreme power--that the
members be joined with each other, and to the Roman Pontiff, as their head.
Because the force of an ecclesiastical judgment is made invincible by
consent.

"Finally, Coelestine himself, after the conclusion of the whole matter,
sends a letter to the holy Council of Ephesus, which he thus begins; 'At
length we must rejoice at the conclusion of evils.' The learned reader
understands where he recognises the _conclusion_; that is, after the
condemnation of Nestorius by the infallible authority of an Ecumenical
Council, _viz._ of the whole Catholic Church. He proceeds: 'We see, that
you, with us, have executed this matter so faithfully transacted.' All
decree, and all execute, that is, by giving a common judgment. Whence
Coelestine adds, 'We have been informed of a just deposition, and a still
juster exaltation:' the deposition of Nestorius, begun, indeed, by the
Roman see, but brought to a conclusion by the sentence of the Council; to a
full and complete settlement, as we have seen above: the exaltation of
Maximianus, immediately after the Ephesine decrees substituted in place of
Nestorius: this is the conclusion of the question. Even Coelestine himself
recognises this conclusion to lie not in his own examination and judgment,
but in that of an Ecumenical Council.

"And this was done in that Council in which it is admitted that the
authority of the Apostolic See was most clearly set forth, not only by
words, but by deeds, of any since the birth of Christ. At least the Holy
Council gives credence to Philip uttering these true and magnificent
encomiums, 'concerning the dignity of the Apostolic See, and Peter the head
and pillar of the Faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, and by
Christ's authority administering the keys, who to this very time lives
ever, and exercises judgment in his successors.' This he says, after having
seen all the acts of the Council itself, which we have mentioned, so that
we may indeed understand, that all these privileges of Peter and the
Apostolic See entirely agree with the decrees of the Council, and the
judgment entered into afresh, and deliberation upon matter of faith held
after the Apostolic See."

The letter of Pope Coelestine, received with all honour as that of the
first Bishop in the world, recognises likewise the authority of his
brethren. It began thus: "The assembly of Priests is the visible display of
the presence of the Holy Ghost. He who cannot lie has said, 'Where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them:'
much more will He be present in so large a crowd of holy men; for the
Council is indeed holy in a peculiar sense,--it claims veneration as the
representative of that most holy Synod of Apostles which we read of. Their
Master, whom they were commanded to preach, never forsakes them. It was He
who taught them, it was He who instructed them, what they should teach
others; and He has assured the world, that in the person of His Apostles
they hear him. This charge of teaching has descended equally upon all
Bishops. We are all engaged in it by an hereditary right; all we, who
having come in their stead, preach the name of our Lord to all the
countries of the world, according to what was said to them, 'Go ye and
teach all nations.' You are to observe, my brethren, that the order we have
received is a general order, and that He intended that we should all
execute it, when he charged them with it as a duty devolving equally upon
all. We ought all to enter into the labours of those whom we have all
succeeded in dignity."

"Thus Pope Coelestine acknowledged that it was Christ Himself who
established Bishops in the persons of His Apostles, as the teachers of His
Church: He places Himself in their rank, and declares that they ought all
to concur in the preservation of the sacred deposit of Apostolical
doctrine."[59]

The importance of this testimony will be felt by those who remember that
Bellarmine specifically denies that the government of the Church resides in
Bishops generally; and that in this he is at least borne out by the last
three centuries of Roman practice.

Bossuet proceeds to remark as follows:--"From this doctrine of St.
Coelestine we draw many conclusions: first, this,--that Bishops in the
Apostles were appointed teachers by Christ Himself, not at all by Peter, or
Peter's successors. Nor does a Pontiff, seated in so eminent a place, think
it unworthy to mix himself with the rest of the Bishops. 'We all,' he says,
'in the stead of the Apostles preach the name of the Lord: we all have
succeeded them in honour.' Whence it is the more evident that authority to
teach was transmitted from Christ, as well to Coelestine himself, as to the
rest of the Bishops. Hence that the deposit of sacred doctrine is committed
to all, the defence of which lies with all; and so the faith is to be
settled by common care and consent; nor will the protection of Christ, the
true Master, be wanting to the masters of Churches. This Coelestine lays
down equally respecting himself and all Bishops, successors of the
Apostles. Then what agrees with it: that as the Apostles, assembled on the
question concerning legal rites, put forth their sentence as being at once
that of the Holy Spirit and their own, so too shall it be in other most
important controversies; and the Council of the Apostles will live again in
the Councils of Bishops. Which indeed shows us, that authority and the
settlement of the question lies not in the sentence of Peter alone, or of
Peter's successors, but in the agreement of all.

"Nor, therefore, does Coelestine infringe on his own privilege in reckoning
himself with the other successors of the Apostles; for as the other Bishops
were made successors to the other Apostles, so he, being made by Christ
successor to Peter their chief, everywhere takes precedence of all by
authority of Peter, as we read set forth and acted on in the same Council.

"Thus in the third holy General Council, and in those first ages, we both
prove against heretics, that the power of the Apostolical See everywhere
takes precedence and leads all, and, what is of the most importance, in the
name of Peter, and so as instituted by Christ. Not less do we show to
Catholics, that the final and infallible force of an ecclesiastical
judgment is seated there, where to the authority of Peter, that is, of the
Pope, is added the authority and agreement of Bishops also, who are
throughout the whole world in the stead of Apostles; which alone the Church
of France demands,"[60]--and, we may add, the Church of England.

Again; compare the spirit of St. Coelestine's words with the spirit that
dictated the following to De Maistre, whom we might leave alone, if he were
not the exponent of a theory now in the greatest vogue in the Roman
Church;--a theory, indeed, which those must accept, who leave us, without
any chance of modification; for it is not Bossuet's most Catholic doctrine,
but Bellarmine's, which is acted on and taught now. "I do not affect to
cast the least doubt upon the infallibility of a general Council. I merely
say, that it only holds this high privilege from its head, to whom the
promises have been made. We know well that the gates of hell shall not
prevail against the Church. But why? On account of Peter, on whom she is
founded. Take away this foundation, how would she be infallible, since she
exists no longer? Unless I am deceived, in order to be something, one must
first exist."[61]

Again: "We see that for two centuries and a half religion has done very
well without them (General Councils), and I do not think that any one
thinks of them, in spite of the extraordinary needs of the Church, for
which the Pope will provide much better than a General Council, if only
people knew how to avail themselves of his power."[62]

It must not be forgotten that this same Council of Ephesus, which allows
none but heretics to refuse to the blessed Virgin the title and the honour
of 'Mother of God,' confirms by its eighth Canon the Episcopal and
Patriarchal system, and bears the strongest testimony against the Roman. It
runs thus: "The most beloved of God and our fellow-bishop Rheginus, and
Zeno and Evagrius, the most religious Bishops of the Province of Cyprus,
have declared unto us an innovation which has been introduced contrary to
the laws of the Church, and the Canons of the holy Fathers, and which
affects the liberty of all. Wherefore since evils which affect the
community require more attention, inasmuch as they cause greater hurt; and
especially since the Bishop of Antioch has not so much as followed an
ancient custom in performing ordinations in Cyprus, as those most religious
persons who have come to the holy Synod have informed us, by writing and by
word of mouth; we declare that they who preside over the holy Churches
which are in Cyprus, shall preserve, without gainsaying or opposition,
their right of performing by themselves the ordinations of the most
religious Bishops, according to the Canons of the holy Fathers and the
ancient custom. The same rule shall be observed in all the other Dioceses,
and in the Provinces everywhere, so that none of the most religious Bishops
shall invade any other Province, which has not heretofore from the
beginning been under the hands of himself or his predecessors. But if any
one has so invaded a Province and brought it by force under himself, he
shall restore it, that the Canons of the Fathers may not be transgressed,
nor the pride of secular dominion be privily introduced under the
appearance of a sacred office, nor we lose by little the freedom which our
Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, has given us by His own blood.
The Holy and Ecumenical Synod has therefore decreed, that the rights which
have heretofore, and from the beginning, belonged to each province, shall
be preserved to it pure and without restraint, according to the custom
which has prevailed of old, each metropolitan having permission to take a
copy of the things now transacted for his own security. But if any one
shall introduce any regulation contrary to what has been now defined, the
whole Holy and Ecumenical synod has decreed that it shall be of no
effect."[63]

It must be allowed that De Maistre has very good reasons for disliking
General Councils.

Nine years after this Council, St. Leo the Great became Pope, whose long
and able Pontificate will afford us the best means of judging what the
legitimate power of the Roman See was, and how it tended to the
preservation and unity of the whole Church. He lived at an important
crisis, when the barbarous tribes of the North were about to burst over the
Empire and the Church; the system of which, had it not been consolidated by
himself, his immediate predecessors and successors, might have been
dissolved and broken up into fragments.

I will first show, by a few quotations, that St. Leo had no slight sense of
his own duty and dignity among his brother Bishops. We will then see how
his actions, and the way in which they were received by others, supported
his words.

In a sermon on the anniversary of his consecration, after noticing with
pleasure the number of Bishops present, he continues, "Nor, as I trust, is
the most blessed Apostle Peter, in his kind condescendence and faithful
love, absent from this assembly, nor does he disregard your devotion,
reverence for whom has drawn you together. And so he at once rejoices at
your affection, and welcomes the observance of the Lord's Institution in
those who share his honour; approving that most orderly charity of the
whole Church, which in Peter's see receives Peter, and slackens not in love
to so great a shepherd, even in the person of so unworthy an heir." On a
like occasion,--"Although, then, beloved, our partaking in that gift be a
great subject for common joy, yet it were a better and more excellent
course of rejoicing, if ye rest not in the consideration of our humility:
more profitable and more worthy by far it is to raise the mind's eye unto
the contemplation of the most blessed Apostle Peter's glory, and to
celebrate this day chiefly in the honour of him who was watered with
streams so copious from the very Fountain of all graces, that while nothing
has passed to others without his participation, yet he received many
special privileges of his own. The Word made flesh already dwelt in us, and
Christ had given up Himself whole to restore the race of man. Wisdom had
left nothing unordered; power left nothing difficult. Elements were
obeying, spirits ministering, angels serving; it was impossible that
Mystery could fail of its effect in which the Unity and the Trinity of the
Godhead Itself was at once working. _And yet out of the whole world, Peter
alone is chosen to preside over the calling of all the Gentiles, and over
all the Apostles, and the collected Fathers of the Church: so that though
there be among the people of God many priests and many shepherds, yet Peter
rules all by personal commission_ (propriè), _whom Christ also rules by
sovereign power. Beloved, it is a great and wonderful participation of His
own power which the Divine condescendance gave to this man: and if He
willed that other rulers should enjoy ought together with him, yet never
did He give, save through him, what He denied not to others._ In fine, the
Lord asks all the Apostles what men think of Him; and they answer in common
so long as they set forth the doubtfulness of human ignorance. But when
what the Disciples think is required, he who is first in Apostolic dignity
is first also in confession of the Lord. And when he had said, 'Thou art
Christ, the Son of the living God,' Jesus answered him, 'Blessed art thou,
Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but
My Father, which is in heaven:' that is, Thou art blessed, because My
Father hath taught thee; nor opinion which is of the earth deceived thee,
but heavenly inspiration instructed thee; and not flesh and blood hath
shown Me to thee, but He, whose only-begotten Son I am. And I, saith He,
say unto thee, that is, as My Father hath manifested to thee My Godhead, so
I, too, make known to thee thine own pre-eminence. For thou art Peter; that
is, whilst I am the immutable Rock, I, the cornerstone, who make both one,
I, the foundation beside which no one can lay another; _yet thou also art a
rock, because by My virtue thou art established, so that whatever is Mine
by sovereign power, is to thee by participation common with Me_. And upon
this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it: on this strength, saith He, I will build an eternal temple, and
My Church, which in its height shall reach the heaven, shall rise upon the
firmness of this faith. This confession the gates of hell shall not
restrain, nor the chains of death fetter; for that voice is the voice of
life. And as it raises those who confess it unto heavenly places, so it
plunges those who deny it into hell. Wherefore it is said to most blessed
Peter, 'I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' The
privilege of this power did indeed pass to the other Apostles, and the
order of this decree reached to all the rulers of the Church, but not
without purpose what is intended for all is put into the hands of one. For
therefore is this entrusted to Peter singly, because all the rulers of the
Church are invested with the figure of Peter. The privilege, therefore, of
Peter remaineth, wheresoever judgment is passed according to his equity.
Nor can severity or indulgence be excessive, where nothing is bound,
nothing loosed, save what blessed Peter either bindeth or looseth. But at
the approach of His passion, which would disturb the firmness of His
disciples, the Lord saith, 'Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have
you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy
faith fail not, and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren, that
ye enter not into temptation.' The danger from the temptation of fear was
common to all the Apostles, and they equally needed the help of Divine
protection, since the devil desired to dismay, to make a wreck of all: and
yet the Lord takes care of Peter in particular, and asks specially for the
faith of Peter, as if the state of the rest would be more certain, if the
mind of their Chief were not overcome. _So then in Peter the strength of
all is protected, and the help of Divine grace is so ordered, that the
stability, which through Christ is given to Peter, through Peter is
conveyed to the Apostles._

"Since, therefore, beloved, we see such a protection divinely granted to
us, reasonably and justly do we rejoice in the merits and dignity of our
Chief, rendering thanks to the Eternal King, our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus
Christ, for having given so great a power to him whom He made chief of the
whole Church, that if anything, even in our time, by us be rightly done and
rightly ordered, it is to be ascribed to his working, to his guidance, unto
whom it was said,--'And thou, when thou art converted, strengthen thy
brethren:' and to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, in answer to the
triple profession of eternal love, thrice said with mystical intent, 'Feed
My sheep.' And this, beyond a doubt, the pious shepherd doth even now, and
fulfils the charge of his Lord; strengthening us with his exhortations, and
not ceasing to pray for us, that we may be overcome by no temptation. But
if, as we must believe, he everywhere discharges this affectionate
guardianship to all the people of God, how much more will he condescend to
grant his help unto us his children, among whom on the sacred couch of his
blessed repose he resteth in the same flesh in which he ruled. To him,
therefore, let us ascribe this anniversary day of us his servant, and this
festival, by whose advocacy we have been thought worthy to share his seat
itself, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ helping us in all things, Who
liveth and reigneth with God the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and
ever." I have before me similar passages in abundance; but these are enough
to show how far the teaching of St. Leo, as to his own office, agreed with,
how far went beyond, that of St. Augustin. The combination of the
Patriarch's, and still more of the universal Primate's, power with that of
the Bishop, is a nice point. If this be pushed too far, it issues in a
monarchy; if the other alone be allowed, it converts the one kingdom of
Jesus Christ into an unlimited number of petty republics. On the one hand
there is danger pregnant to the high priesthood of the Church; on the other
hand, to the sacrament of unity. The one-sided development of St. Leo's
teaching has produced the Papacy, in which the Bishops, who represent the
Apostles, are no longer the brethren, co-ordinate in authority, but the
delegates, of St. Peter's successor: but the one-sided development of St.
Cyprian's teaching has rent into pieces the seamless robe of Christ. Yet
this need not be so: in the bright days of the Church of Christ it was not
so. Surely the first six centuries of her existence are not a dream; and
that beautiful image of St. Augustin not an imagination, but what he saw
before his eyes: "to sit on our watch-towers, and guard the flock, belongs
in common to all of us who have episcopal functions, although the hill on
which you stand is more conspicuous than the rest."

A Pontiff so deeply and religiously impressed with the prerogatives of St.
Peter's successor was likely to be energetic in discharging his duties. In
truth we behold St. Leo set on a watch-tower, and directing his gaze over
the whole Church: over his own West more especially, but over the East too,
if need be. He can judge Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, as well
as Eugubium, and is as ready too. Wherever Canons are broken, ancient
custom disregarded, encroachments attempted, where Bishops are neglectful,
or Metropolitans tyrannical, where heresy is imputed to Patriarchs, in
short, wherever a stone in the whole sacred building is being loosened, or
threatens to fall, there is he at hand to repair and restore, to warn, to
protect, or to punish. But still they are brethren, they are equals, they
are fellow-apostles, with whom he has to act, over whom he presides. If
Peter was reproved by Paul, and yet the glorious Apostles laboured,
witnessed, fought together, and together rest in Roman earth, then may the
successors of the Twelve remonstrate with, nay, reprove and resist the
successor of the Chief of the Twelve. If he is vicar of Christ, so are
they. We have already seen examples of this, we shall find others, without
schism.

It had become the custom of the Roman Pontiffs, at least as early as St.
Damasus, (366--384,) and St. Siricius, (384--398,) to charge some one
prelate, in each province where their influence extended, to represent the
Roman Church; to report any infractions of discipline, or innovations on
the faith; to announce the election and consecration of Bishops. Thus
Anastasius of Thessalonica presided over the ten Metropolitans of Illyricum
in Pope Leo's name. The Primate of Arles represented him in southern Gaul;
and others in Spain; and so on. It is even said that all the Primacies of
western Europe were in their origin derivations thus made from the Primacy
of St. Peter. An authority, which was exercised on the whole for the good
of all, seems to have been generally submitted to by the Bishops of the
different provinces: doubtless every Bishop felt his hands strengthened in
his particular diocese, and had an additional security against any
infraction of his rights by his brethren, when he was able to throw himself
back on the unbiassed and impartial authority of the Bishop of Rome. An
authority, however, which in its commencement professed to be the especial
guardian of the Canons, and to protect and maintain all in their proper
place, was very liable to abuse, and had an inherent tendency to increase,
and to absorb the power of the local Bishops and Metropolitans in the
indefinite pretensions of the Patriarch. We have seen the resistance
offered to the Pope in the case of the wretched Apiarius by the African
Church, and now the Church of Gaul furnishes a defender of the rights of
Metropolitans against Pope Leo in one of the holiest and most apostolical
of its ancient Bishops.

St. Hilary of Arles, of noble birth, of splendid ability, having in the
world the highest prospects, was converted to God by the prayers of St.
Honoratus. Thereupon he sold his large possessions, and bestowed them on
the poor, and retired to the desert of Lerins. His friend, St. Honoratus,
was shortly after made Bishop of Arles, but he could not persuade St.
Hilary to remain there with him. Within three years he died, and St.
Hilary, who was attending him in his sickness, hastened, as soon as all was
over, to return to his monastery. But it was in vain: he was pursued,
brought back by force, and ordained, in spite of himself, Metropolitan of
the first See in Gaul, at the age of twenty-nine years. At forty-eight he
died, worn out with the severe labours and ascetic life he had imposed on
himself. The nineteen years of his episcopate were devoted to the most
incessant exertions as Bishop and Metropolitan. Unwearied in energy,
unbounded in charity, gifted with extraordinary eloquence, a severe
defender of discipline, yet winning others to follow where he was ready to
go before himself, he becomes the soul of the three or four provinces over
which the See of Arles then presided. He is connected in some degree with
ourselves, as having probably held one of the chief places in that great
council of the Gauls in the year 429, which sent St. Germanus and St. Lupus
into Britain to resist the Pelagians. He belonged to the same monastery as
St. Vincent of Lerins, and at the same time. It is certain, also, that he
was a great friend of St. Germanus, and often conferred with him. On one of
these occasions great complaints were brought to the two saints against
Celidonius, Bishop of Besançon, for having formerly married a widow, and
for having condemned persons to death. St. Hilary judged Celidonius in a
provincial council, which declared that, having been husband of a widow, he
could not keep his bishopric, and that he ought voluntarily to quit a
dignity which the rules of Scripture permitted him not to hold. He was
accordingly deposed.

"Celidonius,[64] finding himself deposed, had recourse to Rome, where he
complained that he had been unjustly condemned. It seems that St. Leo,
without further examination, at once admitted him to his communion, in
which he may have followed what Zosimus and Coelestinus did in respect of
the miserable Apiarius, priest of Africa. But I know not what Canon or what
rule of the Church justifies such a proceeding. St. Hilary learnt this at
the severest time of winter. Nevertheless, all the discomforts and dangers
of this season gave way to the ardour of his zeal and faith. He undertook
to pass the Alps, and to go on foot to Rome; and this he accomplished,
without having even a horse either to ride or to carry baggage. Being come
to Rome, he first visited the relics of the Apostles and Martyrs. Next he
waited on St. Leo; and having paid him the greatest respect, he besought
him very humbly to please to order what respected the state of the Churches
according to immemorial practice. Persons were seen attending at Rome on
the holy altar who had been juridically and justly deposed in Gaul: he was
obliged to address to him his complaints of this; and, if they were found
correct, besought the Pope at least to stop by a secret order this
violation of the Canons. If not, he would not trouble him further, not
being come to Rome to bring an action, and make accusations, but to pay to
him his respects, to declare to him the state of things, and to beseech him
to maintain the rules of discipline. There is reason to believe that St.
Hilary maintained that St. Leo had no right at all to take cognizance of
this cause as judge, meaning, doubtless, that the Church of France was in
the same condition as that of Africa, and had the same power to terminate
causes which arose there, without an appeal elsewhere being allowed. St.
Leo even sufficiently assures us that this was St. Hilary's view; and he
takes occasion from it to accuse him of unwillingness to be subject to St.
Peter, and to recognise the Primacy of the Roman Church: which would prove
that all the holy Bishops of Africa did not recognise it, and give heretics
a great advantage. St. Leo, on the other hand, maintained not only that the
Churches of the Gauls had often consulted that of Rome in various
difficulties--which had nothing to do with the matter in question--but,
also, that they had often appealed to the Holy See, which had either
altered or confirmed judgments pronounced by them. If we may be allowed to
regard the depositions of St. Leo and St. Hilary as the claims of different
parties, and to examine the matter to the bottom, according to the light
which history sheds on it, we may say that we do not find that the Gallican
Church had hitherto admitted, up to that time, any appeal to the Holy See;
and that Zosimus, having wished to claim the right of judging Proculus,
Bishop of Marseilles, Proculus always maintained himself, in spite of all
the efforts of this Pope. Meanwhile, as St. Leo, sufficiently jealous of
the greatness of his See, found himself opposed by St. Hilary in a point of
this importance, it is not surprising that he was susceptible of the bad
impression given him of the conduct of this great saint, as we shall see
hereafter. 'I dare not examine,' says the historian of St. Hilary, 'the
judgment and the conduct of two men so great, especially now that God has
called them to the possession of His glory. I confine myself to saying,
that Hilary singly opposed this great number of adversaries; that he was
not shaken by their menaces; that he laid the truth before those who would
listen to it; that he prevailed over those who would dispute with him; that
he yielded not to the powerful; in short, that he preferred running the
risk of losing his life to admitting to his communion him whom he had
deposed together with so many great Bishops.'

"Had St. Leo only required to have the affair reheard in the Gauls,
agreeably to the Canons of Sardica, the only ones which the Church had
hitherto made in favour of appeals to the Pope, St. Hilary would, perhaps,
have consented; that is, if he were better acquainted with this Council
than they were in Africa. But it is not apparent that such a rehearing was
mentioned. And as to suffering the matter to be judged at Rome, St. Hilary,
besides the other reasons which he might have, considered, doubtless, with
St. Cyprian, that the proofs of the facts on which judgment must be made
cannot be transported thither. So the Gallican Church has always maintained
itself in the right, that appeals made to Rome be referred back to the
spot. Though St. Hilary had protested that he was not come to engage in any
dispute, nevertheless he did not refuse to take part in a conference, in
which St. Leo heard him, together with Celidonius. Several Bishops were
there. Notes were made of all that was said. St. Leo says that St. Hilary
had nothing reasonable to answer; his passion carried him away to say
things that a layman would not have dared to utter, and that the Bishops
could not listen to. He adds that this haughty pride touched him to the
quick, and that, nevertheless, he had used no other remedy than patience,
not wishing to sharpen and increase the wounds which this insolent language
caused in the soul of him who held it: that moreover, having received him
at first as his brother, he only thought of soothing rather than vexing and
paining him; and that indeed he did this to himself sufficiently by the
confusion into which the weakness of his answers threw him. It is clear
that St. Hilary would not answer on the main point of Celidonius's affair,
because he maintained that St. Leo could not be judge of it. And we must
not be surprised that the Romans found much insolence in the inflexible
firmness with which he maintained it. Doubtless it was this pretended
insolence which caused him even to be put under guard, which may surprise
us in the case of a Bishop, and in an affair purely ecclesiastical. Among
the insolent and rash expressions of which St. Leo in general complains, he
remarks, in particular, that St. Hilary had often demanded to be condemned,
if he had condemned Celidonius contrary to the rules of the Canons. He
wished, then, that we should judge others by the rule which fully justifies
St. Hilary. The saint, seeing that his reasons were not listened to, would
not wait St. Leo's sentence. He preferred withdrawing secretly, while this
affair was still being examined. So he escaped from his guards, and though
it was still winter, left Rome, and returned to Arles, perhaps in February
(445): so that when they sought for him to speak further on this matter, it
was found that he was gone. St. Leo failed not to proceed, reversed the
judgment delivered against Celidonius, declared him absolved and acquitted
of the accusation of having married a widow, and restored him to his rank
of Bishop, which he had already done at first, without having examined the
affair."

There were other accusations made against St. Hilary, into which we need
not enter. St. Leo wrote a very severe letter about him to the Bishops of
Gaul: he accused him "of raising himself against St. Peter, and being
unwilling to recognise his Primacy, as if all those who believe that a
successor of St. Peter passes the bounds of the Canons were enemies of the
Primacy of the Holy See. That would be to arm against the Popes in favour
of heretics a great number of Fathers, of Saints, and of Councils."[65] The
result was that he took away from St. Hilary his rights of Metropolitan,
and conferred them on the Bishop of Vienne, who had claims upon them. But
this measure was so disliked by the suffragans of Arles, that he restored
the See of Arles to most of its privileges under Ravennius, the successor
of St. Hilary. However, this matter had even more important consequences.
We will let the Roman Catholic historian, as before, describe them. "St.
Leo apparently feared that the Bishops of the Gauls would not be
sufficiently submissive to what he had ordered. And though he had made it a
charge against St. Hilary that he had employed an armed force in affairs of
the Church, for all that he recurred himself to the imperial power against
him. He represented him to the Emperor Valentinian the Third as one who
rebelled both against the authority of the Apostolic See, and the majesty
of the Empire, and obtained of this prince, who was then at Rome, a
celebrated rescript, addressed to the Patrician Aetius, general of the
armies of the Empire, by which, under pretext of maintaining the peace of
the Church, he forbids undertaking any thing whatever without the authority
of the Apostolic See, or resisting its orders, which, says he, had always
been observed inviolably up to Hilarius. He orders all Bishops to hold as
law all that the authority of the Pope establishes, and all magistrates to
compel by force to appear before the tribunal of the Bishop of Rome all
persons cited thither, if they refused to go. It may be seen by what
happened about this time to Atticus, Metropolitan of Nicopolis, in Epirus,
how scandalous this employment of force was, and how opposed, according to
St. Leo himself, to the gentleness of the Church. Valentinian adds, that
the sentence given by St. Leo against St. Hilary, had no need of any one to
be executed in the Gauls, since the authority of so great a Pontiff has a
right to give any order to the Churches. He goes so far as to make it a
charge against St. Hilary, to have deposed and ordained Bishops without
consulting the Pope. He even names him a criminal of State on the score of
his being charged with having employed the force of arms to establish
Bishops, and to place them on a throne where they had only to preach peace.
This law is dated the 6th of June, 445, and it is this which fixes the time
of all this history. It is undoubtedly very proper, as says Baronius, to
show that the Emperors have greatly contributed to establish the greatness
and authority of the Popes. This is not the place to make other reflections
upon it; but we cannot forbear saying that, in the mind of those who have
any love for the liberty of the Church, and any knowledge of its
discipline, this law will always as little honour him whom it praises as it
will injure him whom it condemns. Pope Hilary quotes this law, and avails
himself of the authority it attributes to the decisions of Rome."[66] It
would be presumptuous to add a word to the judgment of one who has made the
first centuries of the Church his especial study. St. Hilary, on his return
to Arles, made many attempts to reconcile the Pope to him, but all were
fruitless, as he would not give up the point in dispute. "It seems," says
Tillemont, "that he continued resolved to do nothing in prejudice of the
rights he believed to belong to his Church, but that seeing the two great
powers of Church and State united against him, he remained quiet and
silent, occupied only in the work of his salvation, and that of his
people." During the four years he survived, he redoubled his austerities
and good works: he died in the odour of sanctity; and after his death, "St.
Leo, though still persuaded that he was a presumptuous spirit, calls him
'of holy memory.' Yet, we have neither proof nor probability that he had
restored him to his communion, from which he had cut him off."[67] His name
occurs in the Roman Martyrology.

Thus an encroachment, which had failed in Africa, succeeded through a
conjuncture of circumstances, especially the intervention of the civil
power, in Gaul. Of course it was made the stepping-stone to further
advances. This one specimen may give us a notion how the lawful power of
the Patriarch and the recognised pre-eminence of the one Apostolic See of
the West had a continual tendency to develop, and won, by degrees,
unlimited control over the original and acknowledged rights of the Bishops
and Metropolitans. Still, even in the hands of St. Leo, this was merely an
extraordinary interference. Ravennius, the successor of this very St.
Hilary, was elected and consecrated by the Bishops of his province, who
then announced it to Pope Leo, and received a congratulatory answer.[68] He
says himself to the Bishops of the province of Vienne, "It is not for
ourselves that we defend the ordinations of your provinces, which perhaps
Hilarius may, according to his wont, falsely state to you, to render
disaffected the mind of your Holiness; but it is for you we claim them
through our solicitude." And again: "Decreeing this, that if any one of our
brethren in any province die, he who is known to be the Metropolitan of
that province, should claim to himself the ordination of the Priest."[69]

So long as the election and consecration of Bishops and Metropolitans were
thus free and canonical, the greatness of the central See could never
depress and extinguish the essential equality of the Episcopate. Let it be
remembered that St. Leo, with all his power and influence, consecrated no
other Bishops than those of Southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, which
were the bounds of his proper patriarchate; there his authority was direct
and immediate; but in Africa, the Gauls, Spain, Illyricum, and the West
generally, it was only properly exercised in matters beyond the range of
the Bishops and Metropolitans. We suppose it is impossible to define a
power which was to correct and restore in emergencies. The Bishops of the
province of Aries afterwards besought Pope Leo to restore the primacy to
Arles, and render, A.D. 450, this undoubted testimony to the Primacy of the
Roman Church, and to the connexion between the rights of the Metropolitan
and the Patriarch:--

"By the Priest of this Church (Arles) it is certain that our predecessors,
as well as ourselves, have been consecrated to the High Priesthood by the
gift of the Lord; in which, following antiquity, the predecessors of your
Holiness confirmed by their published letters this which old custom had
handed down concerning the privileges of the Church of Arles, (as the
records of the Apostolical See doubtless prove;) believing it to be full of
reason and justice, that as through the most blessed Peter, Prince of the
Apostles, the holy Roman Church holds primacy over all the Churches of the
whole world, so also within the Gauls the Church of Arles, which had been
thought worthy to receive for its Priest St. Trophimus, sent by the
Apostles, should claim the right of ordaining to the High Priesthood."[70]

The view on which St. Leo acted in these proceedings against St. Hilary is
very plainly set forth in certain of his letters. Thus, "To our most
beloved Brethren, all the Bishops throughout the province of Vienne, Leo
Bishop of Rome.... The Lord hath willed that the mystery of this gift (of
announcing the Gospel) should belong to the office of all the Apostles, on
the condition of its being chiefly seated in the most blessed Peter, first
of all the Apostles; and from him, as it were from the head, it is His
pleasure that His gifts should flow into the whole body, that whoever dares
to recede from the rock of Peter may know that he has no part in the divine
mystery. For him hath He assumed into the participation of His indivisible
unity, and willed that he should be named what He himself is, saying, 'Thou
art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church:' that the rearing of
the eternal temple by the wonderful gift of the grace of God might consist
in the solidity of Peter, strengthening with this firmness His Church, that
neither the rashness of man might attempt it, nor the gates of hell prevail
against it."[71] So to his vicar the Bishop of Thessalonica, whom he was
erecting into an Exarch over the ten Metropolitans of Eastern Illyricum:
"As my predecessors to your predecessors, so have I, following the example
of those gone before, committed to your affection my charge of government;
that you imitating our gentleness might relieve the care _which we in
virtue of our headship_ (principaliter), _by Divine institution, owe to all
Churches_, and might, in some degree, discharge our personal visitation to
provinces far distant from us; since you can readily ascertain, by near and
convenient inspection, what in every matter you might either by your own
zeal arrange, or reserve to our judgment." "For we have entrusted your
affection to represent us on this condition, that you are called to a part
of our solicitude, but not to the fulness of our power.... But if in a
matter which you believe fit to be considered and decided on with your
brethren," (the Bishops of the province,) "their sentence differs from
yours, let every thing be referred to us on the authority of the Acts, that
all doubtfulness may be removed, and we may decree what pleaseth God. For
to this we direct all our solicitude and care, that the unity of mutual
agreement and the maintenance of discipline be broken by no dissension, nor
neglected by any slothfulness.... For the compactness of our unity cannot
remain firm, unless the bond of charity bind us into an inseparable whole;
because, 'as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the
same office, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one
members one of another.' For it is the joining together which makes one
soundness, and one beauty in the whole body: and this joining together, as
it requires unanimity in the whole body, so especially demands concord
among Priests. For though these have a like dignity, yet have they not an
equal jurisdiction; (_quibus cum dignitas sit communis, non est tamen ordo
generalis_;) since even amongst the most blessed Apostles, as there was a
likeness of honour, so was there a certain distinction of power; and the
election of all being equal, pre-eminence over the rest was given to one.
From which type (_forma_) the distinction between Bishops also has arisen,
and it was provided by an important arrangement that all should not claim
to themselves power over all, but that in every province there should be
one, whose sentence should be considered the first among his brethren; and
others again seated in the greater cities should undertake a larger care,
through whom the direction of the Universal Church should converge to the
one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere disagree from its head."[72]

I think it fair to admit that the germ of something very like the present
papal system, without, however, such a wonderful concentration and
absorption of all power, is discernible in these words. I shall give
further on, Bossuet's interpretation of their most remarkable expression.
But it is also certain that such is not the view of the Church's government
set before us by St. Cyprian, St. Augustin, St. Vincent of Lerins, and the
Fathers generally, nor the one supported by the acts of the ancient Church.
There is a very distinct tone in the teaching and acts of St. Leo, and the
other Popes generally, from that of the contemporary Bishops and Fathers
who had not succeeded to St. Peter's own see. It consists in dwelling on
the Primacy so strongly, as quite to throw out of view the apostolic powers
of other Bishops; whereas these latter dwell upon the apostolic powers of
the episcopate generally; and, while they admit St. Peter's Primacy and
that of the Roman see, place the government of the Church in the harmonious
agreement of all. St. Leo's view, rigorously carried out, as it has been by
the later Roman Church, substitutes St. Peter singly, for St. Peter and his
brethren; and this usurpation, I repeat, we have to admit afresh, or else
be accounted heretics and schismatics.

Now, as to the government of which St. Leo had the ideal before him, I must
first remark that it was _new_. He says himself to the Bishop of
Thessalonica: "The government of Churches in Illyricum, which we commit in
our stead to your affection, following the example of Siricius of blessed
memory, who to your predecessor Anysius of holy memory _then first
committed with a certain charge_ the supporting of the Churches of that
province, which he desired to be maintained in discipline."[73] That is, it
was scarcely sixty years since Pope Siricius had selected the Bishop of the
Metropolis to keep a watch over the maintenance of the canons. And now Pope
Leo was already requiring the Metropolitans to consecrate no Bishop without
first consulting the Bishop of Thessalonica as his vicar.

Secondly, this proceeding on the part of the Popes was not submitted to
generally, even throughout the West. The "Codex Ecclesiæ Africanæ" is full
of prohibitions against even appealing to "Bishops beyond the sea," _i.e._
the Pope. In St. Augustin's time, as we have seen, they positively forbad
the Pope's interference with their internal government, and only submitted
to it after they had been enfeebled by the irruption of the Vandals.

Thirdly, this power was set up very much indeed by help of the imperial
authority. The process, in fact, of centralizing in the Church, ran
completely parallel with that in the State. The law of Valentinian, above
mentioned, is a strong proof of this. Of course the object of the emperors
was to control the action of the Church through one Bishop made the chief.
But it is somewhat remarkable that that Church which maintains a standing
protest against the interference of the State with spiritual matters, (a
protest for which she is worthy of all respect and admiration,) should owe
to the support of the State, in different periods of her history, very much
more of her power than any other Church. It may be that God rewards the
fearless maintenance of spiritual rights by the grant of that very temporal
power which threatens them with destruction.

Now as we have had St. Jerome in a noted place appealing to Rome, and
acknowledging her primacy, let us take another passage of his which, I
think, implicitly denies St. Leo's view. Arguing then against the pride of
the Roman deacons, in which city, as they were only seven in number, the
office was in higher estimation than even the priesthood, which was
numerous, he observes, "Nor is the Church of the Roman city to be
considered one, and that of the whole world another. Both the Gauls, and
the Britains, and Africa, and Persia, and the East, and India, and all
barbarous nations, adore one Christ, observe one rule of truth. If you
require authority, _the world is greater than the city_. Wherever a bishop
is, be it at Rome, or Eugubium, or Constantinople, or Rhegium, or
Alexandria, or Tanæ, he is of the same rank, the same priesthood. The power
of riches, and the humility of poverty, make a bishop neither higher nor
lower. But all are successors of the Apostles. But you say, how is it that
at Rome a priest is ordained upon the testimony of a deacon? Why allege to
me _the custom of a single city_? Why defend against the laws of the Church
a fewness of number, which is the source of their pride?"[74] The very
force of St. Leo's view lies in the exact contradictory of St. Jerome's
words: viz. _the city is greater than the world_, and this alone justifies
and bears out the present claim of the Roman see, and its attitude both to
those within, and to those without, its pale.

But fourthly, had this government, as imaged out by St. Leo, been submitted
to not only in Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Illyricum, but throughout the West
generally, all this would still be nothing for its catholicity, and
therefore its binding effect, unless it had been allowed by the East. Now
we have the strongest proof that it never was so allowed. This
interference, and much more, the centralization pointed at, as it never
would have been tolerated, so neither was it attempted, in the
patriarchates of the East. There was far less danger of the patriarchal
power becoming excessive, when it was possessed by five, who were a check
to each other. St. Leo's influence and authority in the West were balanced
by the exercise of like influence and authority in the East, originally by
the sees of Alexandria and Antioch, and at this and later times still more
by that of Constantinople. And though throughout the East the Bishop of
Rome was reckoned the first of these in rank, yet the Easterns were
governed entirely by their own Patriarchs. So far from there being any
authority delegated by Rome to the Eastern Patriarchs, there was no appeal
from them to Rome, that is to say, in a matter belonging to their
particular government; for as to the general faith of the Church, in any
peculiar emergency or violation of the usual order of procedure, there was
an appeal, if not lawful, at least exercised, to any of the Patriarchs.
Thus Theodoret of Cyrus, unjustly deposed by Dioscorus of Alexandria in the
Latrocinium of Ephesus, flies "to the Apostolic throne" of St. Leo; "for in
all things it is becoming that you should have the primacy. For your throne
is adorned with many advantages. It has the sepulchres of our common
Fathers and teachers of the truth, Peter and Paul. These have made your
throne exceedingly illustrious. This is the height of your blessings."[75]
Though a supplicant, he addresses him only as first Bishop of the Church,
not as monarch. It is a virtual denial of the present Papal authority,
because a silence, where it would have been put forward, had it been known.
So the heretic Eutyches, before the council of his own Patriarch, "when his
deposition was read, appealed to the holy synod of the most holy Bishop of
Rome, and Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and Thessalonica."[76] Thus St.
Isidore of Spain, in the sixth century, says: "The order of Bishops is
fourfold; that is, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Bishops. In
Greek a Patriarch is called the first of the Fathers, because he holds the
first, that is, the Apostolic place, and therefore, because he holds the
highest rank, he has such an appellation, as the Roman, the Antiochene, and
the Alexandrine."[77] Accordingly Gieseler says, "At the end of this
period," (A.D. 451,) the four Patriarchs of the East "were held in their
patriarchates for ecclesiastical centres, to which the other Bishops had to
attach themselves for maintenance of ecclesiastical unity; and in
conjunction with their patriarchal synod they formed the highest tribunal
of appeal in all ecclesiastical matters of the patriarchate; whilst, on the
other hand, they were treated as the highest representatives of the Church,
who, through mutual communication with each other, were to maintain the
unity of the universal Church, and without whose concurrence no decrees
concerning the whole Church could be made."[78]

But no more certain proof of the independence of the Eastern Church can be
given than the Synodical Epistle of the Council of Constantinople to the
Pope and the Western Bishops. This was a Synod of purely Eastern Bishops,
held in 381, which afterwards, by the consent of the Western Church, became
Ecumenical. This Council "arranged, without any reference to the West, the
affairs of the Oriental Church, and was even quite openly on the side of
the party of Meletius, rejected by the Westerns; just so the interference
attempted by the Italian Bishops in the matter of Maximus, the
counter-Bishop of Constantinople, remained quite disregarded."[79] They
write thus: "To our most honoured Lords and pious brethren and
fellow-ministers, Damasus," of Rome, "Ambrosius," of Milan, "Britton,
Valerianus, Ascholius, Anemius, Basilius, and the other holy Bishops
assembled in the great city of Rome, the holy Synod of orthodox Bishops
assembled in the great city of Constantinople greeting in the Lord."[80]
Then after informing them what they had decreed concerning the highest
matters of the faith, they go on--"But as to the management of particular
matters in the Churches, both an ancient fundamental principle, ([Greek:
thesmos],) as ye know, hath prevailed, and the rule of the holy Fathers at
Nicea, that in each province those of the province," _i.e._ the Bishops,
"and if they be willing, their neighbours also, should make the elections
according as they judge meet. In accordance with which know ye both that
the rest of the Churches are administered by us, and that Priests of the
most distinguished Churches have been appointed. Whence in the, so to say,
newly-founded Church of Constantinople, which by the mercy of God we have
snatched as it were out of the jaws of the lion, from subjection to the
blasphemy of the heretics, we have elected Bishop the most reverend and
pious Nectarius, in an Ecumenical[81] Council, with common agreement, in
the sight both of the most religious emperor Theodosius, and with the
consent of all the Clergy and the whole city. And those," the Bishops,
"both of the province and of the diocese[82] of the East, being canonically
assembled, the whole accordant Church as with one voice honouring the man,
have elected the most reverend and religious Bishop Flavian to the most
ancient and truly apostolical Church of Antioch in Syria, where first the
venerable name of Christian became known: which legitimate election the
whole Synod hath received." (And this notwithstanding the Bishop Paulinus,
who was received by Rome and the West, had survived St. Meletius, and was
then alive. So that they would not, even when such an opportunity occurred,
accept the Bishop in communion with Rome--a fact on the one side, which I
suppose may weigh against those words of St. Jerome on the other, "I know
not Vitalis; Meletius I reject; I am ignorant of Paulinus." Quoted, p. 26.
It seems that though the test of communion with Rome satisfied St. Jerome,
it did not satisfy an Ecumenical Council.) "But of the Church in Jerusalem,
_the mother of all Churches_, we declare that the most reverend and
religious Cyril is Bishop, both as long since canonically elected by those
of his province, and as having struggled much against the Arians in
different places. Whom, as being lawfully and canonically established by
us, we invite your piety also to congratulate, through spiritual love, and
the fear of the Lord, which represses all human affection, and accounts the
edification of the Churches more precious than sympathy with, or favour of,
individuals. For thus, by agreement in the word of faith, and by the
establishment of Christian love in us, we shall cease to say what the
Apostle has condemned--I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. For
all being shown to be Christ's, who in us is not divided, by the help of
God we shall keep the body of the Church unrent, and shall stand with
confidence before the tribunal of the Lord."

Here is the whole East, in the year 381, long before the schism, announcing
to the Bishops of Rome, Milan, Aquilea, and the West, the election of its
Patriarchs, and exercising as an ancient incontestable right that liberty
of self-government, according to the canons, for continuing to do which
very thing, and for nothing else, the Latin Church accounts both the Greek
and English Church schismatic. Now the Eastern Church, as its own rituals
to this day declare, always acknowledged St. Peter's primacy, and that his
primacy was inherited by the Bishop of Rome; but it is apparent at once
that it never received, nay most strongly abhorred, that system of
centralization of all power in Rome, which St. Leo seems to have had before
his eyes. Its most holy and illustrious Fathers never submitted to this
domination. St. Basil had already complained of the Western pride, ([Greek:
dutikê ophrus].)[83] St. Gregory of Nazianzum is that very Archbishop by
whose voluntary cession and advice Nectarius is elected. St. Gregory of
Nyssa, and Peter, brothers of St. Basil, are in this council, and so St.
Cyril of Jerusalem. And yet Bellarmine will have it that Bishops who so
wrote and so acted received their jurisdiction from Rome; and what is far
more important, if they did not, the present Papal theory falls to the
ground.

When Gieseler speaks of "the principle of the mutual independence of the
Western and Eastern Church being firmly held in the East generally,"[84] of
course it must be understood that there can be no independence, strictly so
called, in the Church and Body of Christ. Independence annihilates
membership and coherence. Accordingly, I am fully prepared to admit that
the Primacy of the Roman See, even among the Patriarchs, was a real thing;
not a mere title of honour. The power of the First See was really exerted
in difficult conjunctures to keep the whole body together. I am quite aware
that the Bishop of Rome could do, what the Bishop of Alexandria, or of
Antioch, or of Constantinople, or of Jerusalem, could not do. Even merely
as standing at the head of the whole West he counterbalanced all the four.
But I accept _bona fide_ what Socrates and Sozomen tell us. I believe they
had before them neither the Papal Empire of St. Gregory the Seventh, nor
the maxims of the Reformation. They are unbiassed witnesses. Sozomen then
tells us, that when St. Athanasius, unjustly deposed, fled to Rome for
justice, together with Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, and
Asclepas of Gaza, "the Bishop of the Romans, having inquired into the
accusations against each, when he found them all agreeing with the doctrine
of the Nicene Synod, admitted them to communion as agreeing with him. _And
inasmuch as the care of all belonged to him on account of the rank of his
See, he restored to each his Church_. And he wrote to the Bishops
throughout the East, &c., which they took very ill;"[85] so ill, indeed,
that they afterwards pronounced a sentence of deposition against the Pope
himself. Again, Pope Julius "wrote to them, accusing them of secretly
undermining the doctrine of the Nicene Synod, and that, contrary to the
laws of the Church, they had not called him to their Council. _For that it
was an hierarchical law to declare null what was done against the sentence
of the Bishop of the Romans._"[86] That is, in matters concerning the state
of the whole Church, as was this cause of Athanasius. So Socrates says, in
reference to the same matter, that Pope Julius asserted to the Bishops of
the East, that "they were breaking the Canons in not having called him to
their Council, _the ecclesiastical Canon ordering that the Churches should
not make Canons contrary to the sentence of the Bishop of Rome_."[87] These
passages mark the prerogative of the First See: yet are they quite
compatible with the general self-government of the Eastern Church. No
doubt, when the Patriarchs of the East were at variance, all would look for
support to him who was both the first of their number, and stood alone with
the whole West to back him.

And thus again in St. Leo's time a very extraordinary emergency arose,
which still further raised the credit of the Roman Patriarch. Dioscorus of
Alexandria, supporting the heretic Eutyches, had, by help of the Emperor,
deposed and murdered St. Flavian of Constantinople: Juvenal of Jerusalem
was greatly involved in this transaction. Dioscorus had then consecrated
Anatolius to be the successor of St. Flavian, and Anatolius had consecrated
Maximus to Antioch, instead of Domnus, who, too, had been irregularly
deposed after St. Flavian. Now, had Dioscorus been otherwise blameless, his
consecrating Anatolius, of his own authority, to Constantinople, and
Anatolius then consecrating Maximus to Antioch, without the participation
of Rome, was an infringement of the just rights of the Primacy; as a
Patriarch could not be deposed without the concurrence of the First See.
Thus the whole East was in confusion. A heretic had been absolved; one
Patriarch murdered, two deposed; and of the other two, one was chief agent,
and the other not clear, in these transactions. No wonder that at the
Council of Chalcedon, the Bishop of Rome appeared at the head of the West,
both to vindicate his own violated rights, for Dioscorus had even deposed
him, and as the restorer of true doctrine, and the deliverer of the Church.

But I must now quote, at considerable length, the argument of Bossuet, and
his statement as to where the sovereign power in the Church resides. We
have already seen what he has said respecting the Council of Ephesus; and
his observations on that of Chalcedon and the four succeeding Councils are
equally important. His argument, which was intended for the justification
of the Gallican Church, really reaches to that of the Greek and English
Church also; and it is of the very utmost value, as it rests upon
authorities which are sacrosanct in the eyes of every Catholic--the
proceedings and decrees of Ecumenical Councils. Let it only be remembered,
that I quote no German rationalist, no one who denies either the doctrine
or hierarchy of the Church; but a Catholic prelate, the most strenuous
defender of the faith, and one who, in the great assembly of his brethren,
cried out, "If I forget thee, Church of Rome, may I forget myself; may my
tongue dry, and remain motionless in my mouth, if thou art not always the
first in my remembrance, if I place thee not at the beginning of all my
songs of joy."[88]

The question then at issue is, whether the Bishop of Rome be the first of
the Patriarchs, and first Bishop of the whole world, the head of the
Apostolic college, and holding among them the place which Peter held, all
which I freely acknowledge, as the testimony of antiquity; or whether he
be, further, not only this, but the source of all jurisdiction, uniting in
his single person all those powers which belonged to Peter and the Apostles
collectively: an idea which, however extravagant, is actually maintained at
present in the Church of Rome, is moreover absolutely necessary to justify
its acts, and to condemn the position of the Greek and English Church.
Bossuet, who fought for the Gallican liberties, fought for the Anglican
likewise.

"Let[89] us now review the Acts of the General Council of Chalcedon. The
previous facts were these. The two natures of Christ were confounded by
Eutyches, an Archimandrite and Abbot of Constantinople, an old man no less
obstinate than out of his senses. He then was condemned by his own Bishop,
St. Flavian of Constantinople, and appealed to all the Patriarchs, but
chiefly to the Roman Pontiff. Leo writes to Flavian, and 'orders everything
to be laid before him.' Flavian answers and requests of Leo 'that, making
his own the common cause and the discipline of the holy Churches, he
should, at the same time, decree that the condemnation of Eutyches was
regularly passed, and by his own words should strengthen the faith of the
Emperor.' He added, 'For the cause only needs your support and definition;
and you should, by your own determination, bring it to peace.' This means,
it is plain and clear, it has yet few followers, and those obscure, and of
no great name. He ends, 'For so the heresy which has arisen will be most
easily destroyed, by the cooperation of God, through your letters; and the
Council, of which there are rumours, be given up, that the holy Churches be
not disturbed.' This, too, is in accordance with discipline, for heresies
to be immediately suppressed, first by the Bishop's care, then by that of
the Apostolic See: nor is it forthwith necessary that an universal Council
be assembled, and the peace of all Churches troubled.

"After the proceedings had been sent to Leo, he writes to Flavian, most
fully and clearly setting forth the mystery of the Lord's incarnation, as
he says himself, and as all Churches bear witness; at the same time he
praises the acts of Flavian, and condemns Eutyches, yet with the grant of
indulgence, should he make amends. This is that noble and divine letter
which was afterwards so warmly celebrated through the whole Church, and
which I wish to be understood so often as I name simply Leo's letter.

"And here the question might have been terminated, but for those incidents
which induced the Emperor Theodosius the younger to call the Synod of
Ephesus. He was the same who had appointed the First Council of Ephesus,
under Coelestine and Cyril.

"Of this Synod St. Leo writes to Theodosius, at first, 'that the matter was
so evident, that for reasonable causes the calling of a Synod should be
abstained from.' And Flavian likewise seemed to have been against this. But
after the Emperor, with good intentions, had convoked the Synod, Leo gives
his consent, and sends the letter to the Synod, in which he praises the
Emperor for being willing to hold an assembly of Bishops, 'that by a fuller
judgment all error may be done away with.' He mentions that he had sent
Legates, who, says he, 'in my stead shall be present at the sacred assembly
of your Brotherhood, and determine, by a joint sentence with you, what
shall please the Lord.'

"Here are three points: first, that in questions of faith it is not always
necessary for an Ecumenical Council to be assembled. Secondly, that Leo,
great Pontiff as he was, did not decline a judgment, if the cause required
it, after the matter had been judged by himself. Thirdly, that, if a Synod
were held, it behoved that all error should be done away with by a fuller
judgment, and the question be terminated by the Apostolic See, by a joint
sentence with the Bishops, in which he acknowledges that full force of
consent, so often mentioned by me.

"But after Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria, the protector of Eutyches, had
done every thing with violence and crime, and not a Council, but an
assembly of robbers downright, had been held at Ephesus, then, when the
Episcopal order had been divided, and the whole Church thrown into
confusion, under the name of the Second Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, Leo
himself admits that a new general Council must be held, which should either
remove or mitigate all offences, so that there should no longer be either
any doubt as to faith, or division in charity. Therefore he perceived that
schisms, and such a fluctuation of minds respecting the faith itself, could
not be sufficiently removed by his own judgment. And the Pontiff, no less
wise and good than resolute, demanded a fuller, firmer, greater judgment,
by the authority of a General Council, by which, that is, all doubt might
be removed.

"But the Emperor Theodosius would not hear of a new Council, so long as he
thought that due order had been preserved at Ephesus. 'For the matter was
settled at Ephesus by the deposition of those who deserved it; and a
decision having been once passed, nothing else can be determined after it.'
Here the difference between the judgments of Roman Pontiffs and of General
Councils is very evident; the judgment of the Roman Pontiff being
reconsidered in a Council, whereas after a Council, so long as it is held a
lawful one, nothing can be reconsidered, nothing heard.

"But as Theodosius shortly afterwards died, the Emperor Marcian, upon
understanding that the Ephesine assembly had used violence, and acted
otherwise against the Canons, and was therefore refused the name and
authority of an Ecumenical Council by most Bishops, but chiefly by the
Roman Pontiff, could not deny the calling of a new Council to Leo's
request. So the Council of Chalcedon took place, and all admitted that
there were certain dissensions on matter of faith so grave, that they can
only be settled by the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

"All know that more than six hundred Bishops assembled at Chalcedon. The
Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius presided over the holy Council in Leo's
stead. Magistrates were assigned by the Emperor to direct the proceedings,
and restrain disorder; but to leave the question of faith and all
ecclesiastical matters to the power and judgment of the Council.

"But in this Council two things make for us: first, the deposition of
Dioscorus; secondly, the sentence of the Council respecting the approval of
Leo's letter.

"With Dioscorus they thus proceeded: when, upon being cited, he refused to
present himself to judgment, and his crimes were notorious to all,
Paschasinus, Legate of the Apostolic See, asks the Fathers,--'We desire to
know what your Holiness determines:' the holy Synod replied, 'What the
Canons order.' The Bishop Lucentius said, 'Certain proceedings took place
in the holy Council of Ephesus by our most blessed Father Cyril; look into
their form, and assign what form you determine on.' The Bishop Paschasinus
said, 'Does your piety command us to use Ecclesiastical punishment? Do you
consent?' The holy Council said, 'We all consent.' The Bishop Paschasinus
said, 'Again I ask, what is the pleasure of your blessedness?' Maximus,
Bishop of the great city of Antioch, said, 'We are conformable to whatever
seems good to your Holiness.' Thus the initiative, and form, as it was
called, was to be given by the Apostolic See. And so the Legates, after
recounting the crimes of Dioscorus, thus pronounced: 'Wherefore, holy Leo,
by us and this present Council, together with the most blessed Apostle
Peter, who is the rock and ground of the Church, and the foundation of the
right faith, hath declared him cut off from all sacerdotal power.'
Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, said, 'As our most blessed Archbishop
and Father Leo, so Anatolius.' The rest to the same effect: 'I agree; I am
of the same mind; I agree to the condemnation made by the Council; I
declare, I decree the same:' and the subscription, 'I, Paschasinus, declare
and subscribe;' 'I, Anatolius, declare and subscribe;' and so the rest.

"Thus from Peter the head and source of Unity the sentence began, and then
became of full force by common agreement of the Bishops, just as that first
Council of the Apostles is always represented.

"By this is understood the letter of the Emperor Valentinian to the Emperor
Theodosius: 'We ought to defend with all devotion, and preserve in our
times uninjured, the dignity of the veneration due to the blessed Apostle
Peter: so that the most blessed Bishop of the Roman city may have power to
judge concerning the faith and Bishops.' Not, however, alone, but with the
condition added by the Emperor, 'That the aforesaid Bishop,' at least, in
those causes which touch the faith and the universal state of the Church,
'may give sentence after assembling the Priests from the whole world.' That
is, by a common decree, as both Leo himself had demanded, and as we have
seen done in the Council itself.

"With the same view, the Empress Pulcheria writes to Leo concerning
assembling the Bishops, 'who,' she says, 'when the Council is made, shall
decree, at your instance, concerning the Catholic confession, and
concerning Bishops.'

"The Emperors Valentinian and Marcian write the same to Leo: that, 'by the
Council to be held,' every thing should be done at his instance: first
laying this down, that he 'possessed the first rank in the Episcopate, as
to faith.'

"Hence it is very plainly evident, that, in the usual order, both the Pope
should have the initiative, and the Bishops sitting with him should be
judges; and that the force of an irreversible decree lies in agreement: the
very thing to which the Empress Pulcheria bears witness, in her letter to
Strategus the Consular, who was ordered to protect the Council from all
violence: 'that the holy Council, holding its sittings with all discipline,
what has been revealed by the Lord Christ should be confirmed in common by
all, without any disturbance, and with agreement.'

"Meanwhile, it is evident that proceedings are at the instance of the
Pontiff, yet so that the force of the decree lies, not in the sole
authority of the Pontiff, which no one then imagined, but in the consent
itself and approval of the Council: and that the Fathers and the Council
decree together, judge together, and the sentence of the Council is the
sentence of the Pope; which, when the consent of the Churches is added, is
then held to be irreversible and final, which is all I demand.

"Another important point treated in the Council of Chalcedon, that is, the
establishing of the faith, and the approval of Leo's letter, is as follows.
Already almost the whole West, and most of the Easterns, with Anatolius
himself, Bishop of Constantinople, had gone so far as to confirm by
subscription that letter, before the Council took place; and in the Council
itself the Fathers had often cried out, 'We believe, as Leo: Peter hath
spoken by Leo: we have all subscribed the letter: what has been set forth
is sufficient for the faith: no other exposition may be made.' Things went
so far, that they would hardly permit a definition to be made by the
Council. But neither subscriptions privately made before the Council, nor
these vehement cries of the Fathers in the Council, were thought sufficient
to tranquillize minds in so unsettled a state of the Church, for fear that
a matter so important might seem determined rather by outcries than by fair
and legitimate discussion. And the Clergy of Constantinople exclaimed, 'It
is a few who cry out, not the whole Council which speaks.' So it was
determined that the letter of Leo should be lawfully examined by the
Council, and a definition of faith be written by the Synod itself. So the
acts of foregoing Councils being previously read, the magistrates proposed
concerning Leo's letter, 'As the Gospels lie before you, let every one of
the most reverend Bishops declare whether the exposition of the 318
Fathers, and, after that, of the 150 Fathers, agrees with the letter of
holy Leo.'

"Since the question as to examining the letter of Leo was put in this form,
it will be worth while to weigh the sentences, and, as they are called, the
votes of the Fathers, in order to understand from the beginning why they
approved of the letter; why they afterwards defended it with so much zeal;
why, finally, it was ratified after so exact an examination of the Council.
Anatolius first gives his sentence. 'The letter of the most holy Leo agrees
with the Creed of the 318 and the 150 Fathers; as also with what was done
at Ephesus under Coelestine and Cyril; therefore I agree and willingly
subscribe to it.' These are the words of one plainly deliberating, not
blindly subscribing out of mere obedience. The rest say to the same effect:
'It agrees, and I subscribe.' Many plainly and expressly, 'It agrees, and I
therefore subscribe.' Some add, 'It agrees, and I subscribe, as it is
correct.' Others, 'I am sure that it agrees.' Others, 'As it is concordant,
and has the same aim, we embrace it, and subscribe.' Others, 'This is the
faith we have long held: this we hold: in this we were baptized: in this we
baptize.' Others, and a great part, 'As I see, as I feel, as I have proved,
as I find that it agrees, I subscribe.' Others, 'As I am persuaded,
instructed, informed, that all agrees, I subscribe.' Many set forth their
difficulties, mostly arising from a foreign language; others from the
subject matter, saying, that they had heard the letter, 'and in very many
points were assured it was right: some few words stood in their way, which
seemed to point at a certain division in the person of Christ.' They add,
that they had been informed by Paschasinus and the Legates 'that there is
no division, but one Christ; therefore,' they say, 'we agree and
subscribe.' Others, after mentioning what Paschasinus and Lucentius had
said, thus conclude: 'By this we have been satisfied, and, considering that
it agrees in all things with the holy Fathers, we agree and subscribe.'
Where the Illyrian Bishops, and others who before that examination had
expressed their acclamations to the letter, again cry out, 'We all say the
same thing, and agree with this.' So that, indeed, it is evident that, in
the Council itself, and before it, their agreement is based on this, that,
after weighing the matter, they considered, they judged, they were
persuaded, that all agreed with the Fathers, and perceived that the common
faith of all and each had been set forth by Leo.

"This was done at Chalcedon; but likewise before that Council our Gallic
Bishops, at a synod held in Gaul, wrote thus to Leo himself, concerning
receiving his letter: 'Many in that letter of Leo to Flavian with joy and
exultation have recognised what their faith was assured of, and are with
reason delighted that, by tradition from their fathers, they have always
held just what your Apostleship has set forth. Some rendered more careful,
congratulate themselves every way on being instructed by receiving the
admonition of your blessedness, and rejoice that an occasion is given them,
in which they may speak out freely and confidently, and each one assert
what he believes, supported by the authority of the Apostolic See.'

"The Italian (Bishops) agree, at the instance of Eusebius, Bishop of Milan,
'for it was evident that that (letter of Leo to Flavian) had the full and
vigorous simplicity of the faith; was illuminated likewise by statements
from the Prophets, by authorities from the Gospels, and by testimonies of
Apostolic teaching, and in every point agreed with what the holy Ambrose,
moved by the Holy Spirit, put in his books concerning the mystery of the
Lord's incarnation. And inasmuch as all the statements agree with the faith
of our ancestors delivered down to us from antiquity, all determined that
whoever hold impious opinions concerning the mystery of the Lord's
incarnation, are to be visited with fitting condemnation, as they
themselves agree, according to the sentence of your authority.'

"See here an authoritative sentence in the Roman Pontiff; and also the
agreement of the Bishops to the instance of the Roman Pontiff, and that
granted after inquiry into the truth. On these terms they gave their
approval, and their subscription, and decreed that a letter, agreeing with
the apprehensions of their common faith, and found and judged to be such by
them, was of universal authority by the union of their sentences with the
Apostolic See. Which wonderfully accords with what we have just read in the
sentences of the Fathers of Chalcedon.

"This is that examination of Leo's letter, synodically made at Chalcedon,
and placed among the acts; of which examination Leo himself thus writes to
Theodoret: 'What God had before set forth by our ministry, He hath
confirmed by the irreversible assent of the whole brotherhood, to show that
what was first put forth in form by the First See of all, and then received
by the judgment of the whole Christian world, really proceeded from Himself
(that in this too the members might agree with the Head.)'[90]

"He proceeds: 'For in order that the consent of other sees to that which
the Lord appointed to preside over all the rest should not appear flattery,
or any other adverse suspicion creep in, persons were found who doubted
concerning our judgment.... The truth, likewise, itself is both more
clearly conspicuous, and more strongly maintained, when after-examination
confirms what previous faith had taught.' Here he speaks distinctly of
examination, and that most free. 'In fine, the merit of the priestly office
shines forth very brightly, when the authority of the highest is preserved,
without the liberty of the lower seeming to be at all infringed. And the
end of the examination profits to the greater glory of God, when it has
confidence enough to exert itself so far as to prevail over the opposite
opinion. So that what is in itself proved to be heterodox may not seem
overcome, merely because it is passed over in silence,' Lastly, 'the letter
of the Apostolic See, confirmed by the assent of the whole holy
Council'[91] is proposed as a most certain and perfect rule of faith, not
again to be reconsidered. Here is what Leo considered to be irrevocable, or
rather not to be mended, which no one can be blamed for holding together
with the world and the Fathers of Chalcedon: the form is set forth by the
Apostolic See; yet it is to be examined, and that freely, and every Bishop,
the highest and the lowest, to pronounce judgment in a body concerning
decreeing it.

"They conceived no other way of removing all doubt; for after the
conclusion of the synod, the emperor thus proclaims: 'Let then all profane
contention cease, for he is indeed impious and sacrilegious, who, after the
sentence of so many priests, leaves any thing for his own opinion to
consider.' He then prohibits all discussion concerning religion; for, says
he, 'he does an injury to the judgment of the most religious Council, who
endeavours to open afresh, and publicly discuss what has been once judged,
and rightly ordered.'

"Here in the condemnation of Eutyches is the order of Ecclesiastical
judgments in questions of faith. He is judged by his proper Bishop Flavian:
the cause is reheard, reconsidered by the Pope St. Leo;" (let it be
remembered that Eutyches likewise appealed to Alexandria, Jerusalem, and
Thessalonica;) "it is decided by a declaration of the Apostolic See: after
that declaration follows the examination, inquiry, judgment of the Fathers
or Bishops, in a General Council: after the declaration has been approved
by the judgment of the Fathers no place is any longer left for doubt or
discussion.

"To the same effect Leo: 'For no longer is any refuge or excuse allowable
to any, on plea of ignorance, or difficulty of understanding, inasmuch as
for this very purpose the Council of about six hundred of our brethren and
fellow-Bishops met together hath permitted no skill in reasoning, no flow
of eloquence, to breathe against the faith built on a divine foundation.
Since, through the endeavours of our brethren and representatives, by the
help of God's grace, (their devotion in every procedure being most entire,)
it hath been fully and evidently made manifest, not only to the priests of
Christ, but to princes also, and Christian powers, and to all ranks of the
clergy and people, that this is the truly Apostolic and Catholic faith,
flowing from the fountain of Divine goodness, which we preach, and now with
the agreement of the whole world defend pure and clean from all pollution
of error.'[92]

"Thus at length supreme and infallible force is given to an Apostolic
decree, after that it is strengthened by universal inquiry, examination,
discussion, and thereupon consent and testimony."

[93]"We add a third point, important to our cause, respecting the
restitution of Theodoret to his see. After, then, by order of the Bishops,
he had openly anathematized Nestorius, 'the most illustrious magistrates
said, all doubt respecting Theodoret is now removed; for he hath both
anathematized Nestorius before you, and has been received by Leo, most holy
Archbishop of old Rome, and has willingly accepted the definition of faith
set forth by your piety, and moreover hath subscribed the epistle of the
aforesaid most holy Archbishop Leo. It is fitting, therefore, that sentence
be pronounced by your most acceptable holiness, that he may recover his
Church, as the most holy Archbishop Leo has judged.' All the most reverend
Bishops cried out, 'Theodoret is worthy of his See. Leo hath judged after
God.' So then the judgment put forth by Leo concerning his restoration to
his See would have profited Theodoret nothing, unless, after the matter had
been brought before the Council, he had both approved his faith to the
Council, and the judgment of Leo been confirmed by the same Council. This
was done in the presence of the Legates of the Apostolic See, who
afterwards pronounced that sentence on confirming Leo's judgment, which the
whole Synod approved."

Let any one of candour consider these Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, and
then say, which of these two views agrees with them, viz. that St. Leo was
first Bishop of the Church, looked up to with great reverence as the
special successor of St. Peter, and representative of the whole West; or
that he was beside this the only Vicar of Christ, the source and origin of
the Episcopate, from whom his brethren received their jurisdiction, which
is the Papal idea of the middle ages. For on the truth of this latter view
depends the charge, that the Church of England is in schism.

What follows may perhaps assist our solution of the question. At this very
Council of 630 Bishops, the largest ever held in ancient times, and where
the credit of the Roman Pontiff was so great, a very celebrated Canon was
enacted concerning the rank of the Bishop of Constantinople. The Pope's
legates attempted, by absenting themselves, to prevent its being enacted,
but that only led to its being confirmed the next day, in spite of their
opposition. The circumstances were as follows, and they seem to deserve our
most stedfast consideration, from their bearing upon the great subject we
are considering, the Papal Supremacy.

"On the same day, being the last of October, the fifteenth session was
held, at which neither the magistrates nor legates were present: for after
the formula of faith had been agreed to, and the private business brought
before the Council had been despatched, the Clergy of Constantinople asked
the legates to join them in discussing an affair concerning their Church.
This they refused, saying, that they had received no instructions about it.
They made the same proposal to the magistrates, and these referred the
matter to the Council. When the magistrates and legates therefore had
retired, the rest of the Council made a Canon respecting the prerogatives
of the Church of Constantinople."[94] To make the scope of this clear we
must observe, that the See of Constantinople had been now for at least
seventy years the chief See of the East: at the second Ecumenical Council,
held in 381, at Constantinople, it is declared in the third canon, that
"the Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the
Bishop of Rome, because that Constantinople is New Rome." It seems that in
the interval that Bishop had not only taken precedence of Alexandria and
Antioch, and reduced under him the Exarchs of Pontus, Thrace, and Asia, but
that his authority was very great throughout all the East. Theodoret
says,[95] that St. Chrysostom governed twenty-eight provinces. Accordingly,
in its famous 28th Canon, the Council of Chalcedon only confirmed an
authority to the Bishop of Constantinople which he had long enjoyed and
often exceeded. It ran thus: "We, following in all things the decisions of
the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the Canon of the 150 most religious
Bishops which has just been read, do also determine and decree the same
things respecting the privileges of the most holy city of Constantinople,
New Rome. For the Fathers properly gave the primacy to the throne of the
elder Rome, because that was the imperial city. And the 150 most religious
Bishops, being moved with the same intention, gave equal privileges to the
most holy throne of New Rome, judging with reason, that the city which was
honoured with the sovereignty and senate, and which enjoyed equal
privileges with the elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like her in
Ecclesiastical matters, being the second after her. And (we also decree)
that the Metropolitans only of the Pontic, and Asian, and Thracian
Dioceses, and, moreover, the Bishops of the aforesaid Dioceses who are
amongst the Barbarians, shall be ordained by the above-mentioned most holy
throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; each Metropolitan of the
aforesaid Dioceses ordaining the Bishops of the Province, as has been
declared by the divine Canons; but the Metropolitans themselves of the said
Dioceses shall, as has been said, be ordained by the Bishop of
Constantinople, the proper elections being made according to custom, and
reported to him."

"The Legates,[96] being informed of what had passed, demanded that the
Council should assemble again, and the magistrates be present. On the
morrow, therefore, being Thursday, the 1st November, the twelfth
sitting[97] was held. The magistrates were there with the Legates, and the
Bishops of Illyria, and all the rest. After they had taken their seats,
Paschasinus spoke, having asked permission of the magistrates, and said,
that he was astonished that so many things had been done the day before in
their absence, which were contrary to the Canons and the peace of the
Church, for which the Emperor was labouring with so much application and
zeal. He demanded the reading of what had passed the day before. And
Aetius, (Archdeacon of Constantinople,) having said that it was the Legates
themselves who had refused to be present at the deliberation, presented the
Canon which had been drawn up with the signatures of the Bishops. After the
signatures had been read, Lucentius said the Bishops had been surprised,
and compelled to sign. This is what St. Leo repeated often in the letter
which he wrote concerning this twenty-eighth Canon, accusing Anatolius of
having extorted the signatures of the Bishops, or of having surprised them
by his artifices. Nevertheless, upon the reproach of Lucentius, all the
Bishops cried out that no one had been forced. They protested again
afterwards, both all in common, and the principal by themselves, that they
had signed it of their full consent. Anatolius also maintains to St. Leo,
that the Bishops took this resolution of their own accord.

"The Legates continued to oppose the Canon, and showed that they had an
express order of the Pope to do so. They alleged that the Canon was
contrary to the Council of Nicea, of which they read the sixth Canon, with
the celebrated heading--'The Roman Church has always had the primacy,'
which is also found added in the ancient Roman code. The same Canon was
afterwards read as it is in the original Greek, and the Canon of the second
Ecumenical Council, to which the Legates answered nothing.

"The magistrates having next begged the Bishops who had not signed the day
before, to give their opinion, Eusebius, of Ancyra, represented with much
gentleness and modesty, that it was better for the Church that ordinations
should be made upon the spot by the Council of the province. Thalassius
then spoke a single word, but I know not his meaning."

Thereupon "the magistrates[98] said,--'It appears, from the depositions,
first of all, that the primacy and precedency of honour ([Greek: ta
prôteia, kai tên exaireton timên]) should be preserved according to the
Canons for the Archbishop of Old Rome, but that the Archbishop of
Constantinople ought to enjoy the same privileges, ([Greek: tôn autôn
presbeiôn tês timês],) and that he has a right to ordain the Metropolitans
of the Dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, in the manner following. In
each metropolis, the clergy, the proprietors of lands, and the gentry, with
all the Bishops of the province, or the greater part of them, shall issue a
decree for the election of one whom they shall deem worthy of being made a
Bishop of the metropolis. They shall all make a report of it to the
Archbishop of Constantinople, and it shall be at his option either to
enjoin the Bishop elect to come thither for ordination, or to allow him to
be ordained in the province. As to the Bishops of particular cities, they
shall be ordained by all, or the greater part, of the comprovincial
Bishops, under the authority of the Metropolitan, according to the Canons,
the Archbishop of Constantinople taking no part in such ordination. These
are our views, let the Council state theirs.' The Bishops shouted, 'This is
a just proposal: we all say the same: we all assent to it, we pray you
dismiss us:' with other similar acclamations. Lucentius, the Legate,
said,--'The Apostolic See ought not to be degraded in our presence; we,
therefore, desire that yesterday's proceedings, which violate the Canons,
may be rescinded; otherwise let our opposition be inserted in the Acts,
that we may know what we are to report to the Pope, and that he may declare
his opinion of this contempt of his See, and subversion of the Canons.' The
magistrates said,--'The whole Council approves of what we said.' Such was
the last Session of the Council of Chalcedon."

The remarks of Tillemont on this Canon are significant, and worth
transcribing.[99] "It seems," he says, "to recognise no particular
authority in the Church of Rome, save what the Fathers had granted it, as
the seat of the empire. And it attributes in plain words as much to
Constantinople as to Rome, with the exception of the first place.
_Nevertheless I do not observe that the Popes took up a thing so injurious
to their dignity, and of so dangerous a consequence to the whole Church._
For what Lupus quotes of St. Leo's 78th (104th) letter, refers rather to
Alexandria and to Antioch, than to Rome. St. Leo is contented to destroy
the foundation on which they built the elevation of Constantinople,
maintaining that a thing so entirely ecclesiastical as the Episcopate ought
not to be regulated by the temporal dignity of cities, which, nevertheless,
has been almost always followed in the establishment of the metropolis,
according to the Council of Nicea.

"St. Leo also complains that the Council of Chalcedon broke the decrees of
the Council of Nicea, the practice of antiquity, and the rights of
Metropolitans. Certainly it was an odious innovation to see a Bishop made
the chief, not of one department, but of three; for which no example could
be found save in the authority which the Popes took over Illyricum, where,
however, they did not claim the power to ordain any Bishop."

Now I suppose any Roman Catholic would observe that this Canon is entirely
opposed to the present Papal theory: he would say that St. Leo and the West
for that very reason refused to receive it. The opposition, beyond all
question, is such, that it is quite impossible to reconcile them. Let any
one, then, read through the 104th letter of St. Leo to the Emperor
Mauricius, the 105th to the Empress Pulcheria, and the 106th to Anatolius
himself, and he will see that St. Leo bases his opposition to it throughout
on its being a violation of the Nicene Canons: there is not a word in all
the three letters about any violation of the rights of St. Peter. May we
not quote, alas! St. Leo's words, in these letters, to St. Leo's successor.
"He[100] loses his own, who lusts after what is not his due.... For the
privileges of the Churches, instituted by the Canons of the holy Fathers,
and fixed by the decrees of the venerable Nicene Synod, cannot be plucked
up by any wickedness, or changed by any innovation. In the faithful
execution of which work, by the help of Christ, I am bound to show
persevering service; since the dispensation has been entrusted to me, and
it tends to my guilt, if the rules of the Fathers' sanctions, which were
made in the Nicene Council for the government of the whole Church, by the
teaching of God's Spirit, be violated, which God forbid, by my connivance;
and if the desire of one brother be of more weight with me than the common
good of the whole house of the Lord." This to the Emperor. To the Empress,
thus:--"Since no one is allowed to attempt[101] anything against the
statutes of the Fathers' Canons, which many years ago were based on
spiritual decrees in the city of Nicea; so that if any one desires to
decree anything against them, he will rather lessen himself than injure
them. _And if these are kept uninjured, as it behoves, by all Pontiffs,
there will be tranquil peace and firm concord through all the Churches.
There will be no dissensions concerning the degree of honours; no contests
about ordinations; no doubts about privileges; no conflicts about the
usurpation of another's right; but under the equal law of charity, both
men's minds and duties will be kept in the due order_; and he will be truly
great, who shall be alien from all ambition, according to the Lord's words,
'Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister, &c.'" But to
Anatolius, thus:--"Those[102] holy and venerable Fathers, who in the Nicene
city established laws of ecclesiastical Canons, _which are to last to the
end of the world_, when the sacrilegious Arius with his impiety was
condemned, live both with us and in the whole world by their constitutions;
and if anything anywhere is presumed upon contrary to what they appointed,
it is without delay annulled, &c."

But _what_ the violation was he likewise states: it is not any wrong done
to his own see personally. He says to the Empress: "But[103] what doth the
prelate of the Church of Constantinople desire more than he hath obtained?
Or what will satisfy him, if the magnificence and glory of so great a city
satisfy him not? It is too proud and immoderate to go beyond one's own
limits, and, trampling on antiquity, to wish to seize on another's right.
And, in order to increase the dignity of one, to impugn the primacy of so
many Metropolitans; and to carry a new war of disturbance into quiet
provinces, settled long ago by the moderation of the holy Nicene Council,"
&c.

To Anatolius himself he says: "I grieve--that you attempt to infringe the
most sacred constitutions of the Nicene Canons; as if this were a
favourable opportunity presented to you, when the See of Alexandria may
lose the privilege of the second rank, and the Church of Antioch its
possession of the third dignity; so that when these places have been
brought under your jurisdiction, all Metropolitan Bishops may be deprived
of their proper honour."[104] "I oppose you, that with wiser purpose you
may refrain from throwing into confusion the whole Church. Let not the
rights of provincial Primacies be torn away, nor Metropolitan Bishops be
deprived of their privileges in force from old time. Let no part of that
dignity perish to the See of Alexandria, which it was thought worthy to
obtain through the holy Evangelist Mark, the disciple of blessed Peter;
nor, though Dioscorus falls through the obstinacy of his own impiety, let
the splendour of so great a Church be obscured by another's disgrace. Let
also the Church of Antioch, in which first, at the preaching of the blessed
Apostle Peter, the name of Christian arose, remain in the order of its
hereditary degree, and being placed in the third rank never sink below
itself."

So then it was not St. Peter's Primacy, nor his own proper authority in the
Church, which St. Leo conceived to be attacked by this Canon; but he
refused to be a party to "treading under foot the constitution of the
Fathers"--to disturbing "the state of the universal Church, protected of
old by a most wholesome and upright administration."[105] So the Emperor
Marcian, Anatolius, Julian of Cos, beseech Leo to grant this, without so
much as imagining that they are injuring _his_ rank by asking it. I see not
how it is possible to avoid the conclusion, that the power of the First
See, even as its most zealous occupant viewed it, was quite different from
that power which was set up in the middle ages. This is only one of a vast
number of proofs which distinguish the Primacy from the present Supremacy.
And it is the more valuable, because St. Leo certainly carries his notion
of his own rights as universal Primate further than any Father of his time.
I shall have occasion to make a like remark presently in the matter of St.
Gregory's protest.

But, indeed, such a Canon as this being passed in the most numerous
Ecumenical Synod, in spite of the opposition of the Pope's Legates, speaks
for itself. I am well aware that St. Leo refused to receive it, that, "by
the authority of the blessed Peter, he annulled it by a general
declaration, as contrary to the holy Canons of Nicea."[106] Accordingly it
was not received in the West; but it nevertheless always prevailed in the
East, and the Popes ultimately conceded the point it enacted. And[107] from
the hour it was enacted to this, it has remained the law of the Eastern
Church; and the Patriarchal power, which in the Western Church has
developed into the Papal, has remained attached to the throne of
Constantinople in the other great division of Christ's kingdom.

The ninth Canon of Chalcedon also says:--"If a Clergyman has any matter
against his own Bishop or another, let him plead his cause before the
Council of the province. But if either a Bishop or Clergyman have a
controversy against the Metropolitan of the same province, let him have
recourse either to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the
imperial city of Constantinople, and plead his cause before it." I remark
this, because it is a far greater power of hearing appeals granted to the
Bishop of Constantinople, than was granted to the Bishop of Rome a hundred
years before at the Council of Sardica.

Now, let us be fair and even-handed. If the great influence and authority
exercised at the Council of Chalcedon by St. Leo is to be acknowledged as
witnessing the Roman Primacy, let us also grant, that unless the Acts and
the Canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils are to be swept away as
waste paper before the omnipotence of Papal prerogative, then the ancient
decrees of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, offer an
insurmountable barrier to the present claims of Rome. But concerning the
Canons of Nicea, St. Leo, at least, says:--"I hold all ecclesiastical rules
to be dissolved, if any part of that sacrosanct constitution of the Fathers
be violated."[108] St. Gregory repeats:--"I receive the four Councils of
the holy universal Church as the four books of the Holy Gospel."[109] Mr.
Newman says, "that the definition passed at Chalcedon is the Apostolic
Truth once delivered to the Saints, is most firmly to be received from
faith in that overruling Providence, which is by special promise extended
over the Acts of the Church."[110] Does it not equally follow that the
Church government recognised as immemorial, and enforced at Nicea,
Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, _and the doctrine which is involved
therein_, are likewise to be maintained, and that none who appeal to them
with truth, as practised by themselves, whatever else they may fall into,
can be guilty of schism?

The hundred and thirty years between the death of St. Leo and the accession
of St. Gregory, were years of trouble, confusion, and disaster: "the stars
fell from heaven, and the powers of the heavens were shaken." The Western
empire was overthrown; barbarians and heretics obtained the mastery in
Italy, and generally in the West; there was but one fixed and central
authority to which the eyes of churchmen could turn with hope and
confidence in the whole West, that of the Roman Pontiff.

I select the following points as bearing on our subject:--

In the year 536 we have one of those rare instances in which the Primacy of
Rome is seen acting on the Eastern Church, but in perfect accordance with
the Canons and the Patriarchal system. The Pope Agapetus had been compelled
by Theodatus, king of the Goths, to proceed to Constantinople, in order
that he might, if possible, prevail upon Justinian not to attempt the
recovery of Italy. Not having wherewith to pay the expenses of his journey,
he had been compelled to borrow money on the sacred vessels of St. Peter's
Church. On arriving at Constantinople he refused to see the new Patriarch
Anthimus, or to receive him to his communion, both because he was suspected
of heresy, and had been translated from the See of Trebisond. Anthimus
refused to appear in the Council that the Pope held at Constantinople to
judge him; so he was deposed, and returned his pallium to the Emperor.
Mennas was elected in his stead by the Emperor, with the approbation of all
the Clergy and the people, and the Pope consecrated him in the church of
St. Mary. "Pope Agapetus wrote a synodal letter to Peter, Patriarch of
Jerusalem, to acquaint him with what he had done in this Council. 'When we
arrived,' said he, 'at the court of the Emperor, we found the See of
Constantinople usurped, contrary to the Canons, by Anthimus Bishop of
Trebisond. He even refused to quit the error of Eutyches. Therefore, after
having waited for his repentance, we declare him unworthy of the name of
Catholic and Bishop, until he fully receive the doctrine of the Fathers.
You ought likewise to reject the rest whom the Holy See has condemned. We
are astonished that you approved this injury done to the See of
Constantinople, instead of informing us of it; and we have repaired it by
the ordination of Mennas, who is the first of the Eastern Church ordained
by the hands of our See.'"[111] I find this Pope presently called by the
Easterns, 'Father of fathers,' 'Archbishop of ancient Rome,' 'Ecumenical
Patriarch.' This latter title is also given to Mennas. I shall have more to
say about it hereafter; but it is remarkable that it was first given, so
far as we have any record, to Dioscorus,[112] by a Bishop in some complaint
made to him at the Latrocinium of Ephesus; but Justinian gives to the
Patriarch of Constantinople the title, "to the most holy and blessed
Archbishop of this royal city, and Ecumenical Patriarch."[113]

The Pope shortly after dies at Constantinople, and a Council is held, at
which the Patriarch Mennas presides, the Bishops who had accompanied the
defunct Pope taking rank after him. He writes to the Patriarch Peter of
Jerusalem, and informs him of the acts of this Council. Peter assembles his
Council at Jerusalem: the procedure which took place at Constantinople was
there found canonical, and the deposition of Anthimus was confirmed. Here
the same facts which prove the Pope's Primacy refute his Supremacy: and
this is not an isolated incident, but one link in a vast and uninterrupted
chain of evidence.

I find in the laws of the Emperor Justinian just at the same time, looking
at them merely as facts, a full confirmation and recognition of the
Episcopal and Patriarchal constitution of the Church. In 538, the Emperor,
in an edict, addressing the Patriarch Mennas, says, "Wherefore we exhort
you to assemble all the Bishops who are in this imperial city ... and
oblige them all to anathematize by writing the impious Origen ... that your
Blessedness send copies of what you do on this subject to all the other
Bishops, and to all the superiors of monasteries.... We have written as
much to Pope Vigilius and the other Patriarchs".... "The Patriarch Mennas,
and the Bishops who were at Constantinople, subscribed to this: it was then
sent to Pope Vigilius, to Zoilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, to Ephrem of
Antioch, and to Peter of Jerusalem, who all subscribed to it".... "There
are three great laws of the year 511, of which the first regulates
ordinations:" those of the Bishops were still in the hands of the several
clergy, laity, and Metropolitans.... "The second law of the 18th March
enacts, that the four General Councils shall have the force of law, that
the Pope of Rome is the first of all the Bishops, and after him the Bishop
of Constantinople."--"Bishops cannot be called to appear against their will
before secular judges for any cause whatsoever. If Bishops of the same
province have a difference together, they shall be judged by the
Metropolitan, accompanied by the other Bishops of the province, _and may
appeal to the Patriarch, but not beyond_. Likewise if an individual, clerk
or lay, has a matter against his Bishop. The Metropolitan can only be tried
before the Patriarch."--"Simony is forbidden ... still it is allowed to
give for consecrations, according to ancient customs, in the following
proportion. The Pope and the four Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem, may give to the Bishops and the Clergy according to
custom, provided that it exceed not twenty pounds of gold. The
Metropolitans and the other Bishops may give a hundred gold solidi for
their enthronement," &c.[114]

So, again: "Therefore let the most holy Patriarchs of each Diocese propose
these things to the most holy Churches under them, and make known to the
Metropolitans, most beloved of God, what we have ratified. Let these again
set it forth in the most holy Metropolitan Church, and notify it to the
Bishops under them. But let each of these propose it in his own Church,
that no one in our commonwealth be ignorant of it."[115]

"We charge the most blessed Archbishops and Patriarchs, that is, of elder
Rome, and Constantinople, and Alexandria, and Theopolis and
Jerusalem."[116]

But Pope Pelagius I. himself says: "As often as any doubt ariseth to any
concerning an Universal Council, in order to receive account of what they
do not understand--let them recur to the Apostolical Sees.--Whosoever then
is divided from the Apostolical Sees, there is no doubt that he is in
schism."[117]

St. Augustin had said long before, "What hath the See of the Roman Church
done to thee, in which Peter sat, in which Anastasius sitteth now: or of
the Church of Jerusalem, in which James sat, and where now John sitteth:
with which we are joined in Catholic unity, and from which ye in impious
fury have separated."[118]

We now come to the dark and sad history of Pope Vigilius. And here I am
glad that another can speak for me. Bossuet says: "The acts of the Second
Council of Constantinople, the fifth general, under Pope Vigilius and the
Emperor Justinian, will prove that the decrees of the third and fourth
Councils were understood in the same sense by the fifth as we have
understood them. And this Council received the account of them near at
hand, and transmitted it to us."[119]

"The three chapters were the point in question; that is, respecting
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret's writings against Cyril, and the letter
of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. The question was whether that
letter had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon. So much was admitted
that it had been read there, and that Ibas, after anathematizing Nestorius,
had been received by the Council. Some contended that his person only was
spared; others that his letter also was approved. Thus inquiry was made at
the fifth Council how writings on the faith were wont to be approved in
former Councils. The acts of the third and fourth Council, those which we
have mentioned above respecting the letter of St. Cyril and of St. Leo,
were set forth. Then the holy Council declared--'It is plain, from what has
been recited, in what manner the holy Councils are wont to approve what is
brought before them. For, great as was the dignity of those holy men who
wrote the letters recited, yet they did not approve their letters simply or
without inquiry, nor without taking cognisance that they were in all things
agreeable to the exposition and doctrine of the holy Fathers, with which
they were compared.' But the acts proved that this course was not pursued
in the case of the letter of Ibas; they inferred, therefore, most justly,
that that letter had not been approved. So, then, it is certain, from the
third and fourth Councils, the fifth so declaring and understanding it,
that letters approved by the Apostolic See, such as was that of Cyril, or
even proceeding from it, as that of Leo, were received by the holy Councils
not simply, nor without inquiry."

Pope Vigilius afterwards, when consenting to this Council, "acknowledges
that the letter of St. Leo was not approved at the Council of Chalcedon
until it had been examined and found conformable to the faith of the three
preceding Councils; and this avowal is the more important in the mouth of a
Pope."[120]

"Again, in the same fifth Council the acts against the letter of Nestorius
are read, in which the Fathers of Ephesus plainly pronounce, 'that the
letter of Nestorius is in no respect agreeable to the faith which was set
forth at Nicea.' So this letter also was rejected, not simply, but, as was
equitable, after examination; and Ibas condemned, who stated that Nestorius
had been rejected by the Council of Ephesus without examination and
inquiry.

"The holy Fathers proceed to do what the Bishops at Chalcedon would have
done, had they undertaken the examination of Ibas' letter. They compare the
letters with the acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The holy Council
declared--'The comparison made proves, beyond a doubt, that the letter
which Ibas is said to have written is, in all respects, opposed to the
definition of the right faith, which the Council of Chalcedon set forth.
All the Bishops cried out, 'We all say this; the letter is heretical.'
Thus, therefore, is it proved by the fifth Council that our holy Fathers in
Ecumenical Councils pronounce the letters read, whether of Catholics or
heretics, or even of Roman Pontiffs, to be orthodox or heretical, according
to the same procedure, after legitimate cognisance, the truth being
inquired into, and then cleared up; and upon these premises judgment given.

"What! you will say, with no distinction, and with minds equally inclined
to both parties? Indeed we have said, and shall often repeat, that there
was a presumption in favour of the decrees of orthodox Pontiffs; but in
Ecumenical Councils, where judgment is to be passed in matter of faith,
that they were bound no longer to act upon presumption, but on the truth
clearly and thoroughly ascertained.

"Such were the acts of the fifth Council. This it learnt from the third and
fourth Councils, and approved; and in this argument we have brought at once
in favour of our opinion the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus,
Chalcedon, and the second Constantinopolitan."[121]

The point here taken up by Bossuet, and proved upon indisputable authority,
is of the greatest importance, viz. that the decree of a Roman Pontiff, _de
fide_, and he, perhaps, the greatest of the whole number, was judged by a
General Council, and only admitted when it was found conformable to
antiquity. It settles, in fact, the whole question, that the Bishop of Rome
is indeed possessed of the First See, and Primate of all Christendom; but
that he is not the sole depository of Christ's power in the Church, which
is, in truth, the Papal idea, laid down by St. Gregory the Seventh, and
acted upon since. The difference between these two ideas is the difference
between the Church of the Fathers and the present Latin Communion in the
matter of Church government, in which they are wide as the poles asunder.

The history of Pope Vigilius further confirms the truth of what we have
said. Bossuet proceeds: "In the same fifth Council the following acts
support our cause.

"The Emperor Justinian desired that the question concerning the
above-mentioned three Chapters should be considered in the Church. He
therefore sent for Pope Vigilius to Constantinople. There he not long after
assembled a Council. The Orientals thought it of great moment that these
Chapters should be condemned, against the Nestorians, who were raising
their heads to defend them; Vigilius, with the Occidentals, feared lest
thus occasion should be taken to destroy the authority of the Council of
Chalcedon; because it was admitted that Theodoret and Ibas had been
received in that Council, whilst Theodore, though named, was let go without
any mark of censure. Though then both parties easily agreed as to the
substance of the faith, yet the question had entirely respect to the faith,
it being feared by the one party lest the Nestorian, by the other lest the
Eutychean, enemies of the Council of Chalcedon should prevail.

"From this struggle many accusations have been brought against Vigilius,
which have nothing to do with us. I am persuaded that everything was done
by Vigilius with the best intent, the Westerns not enduring the
condemnation of the Chapters, and things tending to a schism." The facts
here alluded to, but for obvious reasons avoided by Bossuet, are as
follows, very briefly. Vigilius on the 11th of April, 548, issues his
'Judicatum' against the three Chapters, saving the authority of the Council
of Chalcedon. Thereupon the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and Dalmatia, with
two of his own confidential Deacons, withdraw from his communion. In the
year 551, the Bishops of Africa, assembled in Council, excommunicate him,
for having condemned the three Chapters. At length the Pope publicly
withdraws his 'Judicatum.' While the Council is sitting at Constantinople
he publishes his 'Constitutum,' in which he condemns certain propositions
of Theodore, but spares his person; the same respecting Theodoret; but with
respect to Ibas, he declares his letter was pronounced orthodox by the
Council of Chalcedon. Bossuet goes on: "however this may be, so much is
clear that Vigilius, though invited, declined being present at the Council;
that nevertheless the Council was held without him; that he published a
'Constitutum' in which he disapproved of what Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas
were said to have written against the faith; but decreed that their name
should be spared, because they were considered to have been received by the
fourth Council, or to have died in the communion of the Church, and to be
reserved to the judgment of God. Concerning the letter of Ibas, he
published the following, that, understood in the best and most pious sense,
it was blameless; and concerning the three Chapters generally, he ordered
that after his present declaration Ecclesiastics should move no further
question.

"Such was the decree of Vigilius, issued upon the authority with which he
was invested. And the Council, after his constitution, both raised a
question about the three Chapters, and decided that question was properly
raised concerning the dead, and that the letter of Ibas was manifestly
heretical and Nestorian, and contrary in all things to the faith of
Chalcedon, and that they were altogether accursed, who defended the impious
Theodore of Mopsuestia, or the writings of Theodoret against Cyril, or the
impious letter of Ibas defending the tenets of Nestorius; and who did not
anathematize it, but said it was correct.

"In these latter words they seemed not even to spare Vigilius, although
they did not mention his name. And it is certain their decree was confirmed
by Pelagius the Second, Gregory the Great, and other Roman Pontiffs....
These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing
the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the faith, the decrees of sacred
Councils prevailed over the decrees of Pontiffs, and that the letter of
Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff, could
nevertheless be proscribed as heretical."

Compare with this history the following remark of De Maistre, "that Bishops
separated from the Pope, and in contradiction with him, are superior to
him, is a proposition to which one does all the honour possible in calling
it only extravagance."[122]

After all this Fleury says: "At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to
the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the
Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in
charity in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be
ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the
example of St. Augustin. He says, that, after having better examined the
matter of the three chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. 'We
recognise for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned
them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others
for the defence of the three chapters.'"[123]

Nor can I think it a point of little moment that Bishops of Rome were at
different times deposed or excommunicated by other Bishops. As in the
second century the Eastern Bishops disregard St. Victor's excommunication
respecting Easter; and in the third St. Firmilian in Asia, and St. Cyprian
in Africa, disregard St. Stephen's excommunication in the matter of
rebaptizing heretics; so when the Bishops of the Patriarchate of Antioch
found that Pope Julius had received to communion St. Athanasius, and others
whom they had deposed, they proceeded to depose him, with Hosius and the
rest.[124] This was in the fourth century. In the fifth, Dioscorus, at the
Latrocinium of Ephesus, attempts to excommunicate St. Leo. In the sixth, as
we have just seen, the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and Dalmatia, all of the
West, separate Pope Vigilius from their communion, and the former
afterwards solemnly excommunicate him. It matters not that in all these
cases the Bishops were wrong; I quote these acts merely to prove that they
esteemed the Bishop of Rome the first of all Bishops indeed, yet subject to
the Canons like themselves, and only of equal rank. For on the present
Papal theory, such an act, as we have seen le Père Lacordaire affirm, would
be merely suicidal,--pure insanity. It is in utter contradiction to the
notion of an ecclesiastical monarchy.

In like manner we find portions of the Church, as that of Constantinople,
again and again out of communion with the Roman Pontiff, but they do not
therefore cease to be parts of the true Church. So Gieseler states that in
consequence of jealousies about the condemning the three Chapters the
Archbishops of Aquileia, with their Bishops, were out of communion with
Rome from A.D. 568 to 698.[125] A reconciliation takes place, and communion
is renewed. Facts of the same nature, and applying closely to our own
position, are mentioned by Bossuet;[126] viz. that the Spanish Bishops, not
having been present at, nor invited to, the sixth General Council, did not
receive it as Ecumenical, though invited to do so by the Pope of the day,
until they had themselves examined its acts, and found them accordant with
previous Councils. And as to the second Nicene, or seventh General Council,
the Gallic Bishops, with Charlemagne at their head, long refused to receive
it, though supported by the Pope, because neither they nor other
Occidentals were present at it. "Nor were they in the mean time held as
heretical or schismatical, though they differed on a point of the greatest
moment, that is, the interpretation of the precepts of the first table,
because they seemed to inquire into the matter with a good intention, not
with obstinate party spirit."[127] Yet Pope Adrian had himself written
against them.

Now all these various facts, from the first Nicene Council, converge
towards one view, for which, I think, there is as full evidence as for most
facts of history,--that the Pope, to the time of St. Gregory the Great, and
indeed long afterwards, was but the first of the Patriarchs, who, in their
own Patriarchates, enjoyed a co-ordinate and equal authority with his in
the West. I suppose De Maistre acknowledges as much in his own way, when he
says, "The Pope is invested with five very distinct characters; for he is
Bishop of Rome, Metropolitan of the Suburbican Churches, Primate of Italy,
Patriarch of the West, and, lastly, Sovereign Pontiff. The Pope has never
exercised over the other Patriarchates any powers save those resulting from
this last; so that except in some affair of high importance, some striking
abuse, or some appeal in the greater causes, the Sovereign Pontiffs mixed
little in the ecclesiastical administration of the Eastern Churches. And
this was a great misfortune, not only for them, but for the states where
they were established. It may be said that the Greek Church, from its
origin, carried in its bosom a germ of division, which only completely
developed itself at the end of twelve centuries, but which always existed
under forms less striking, less decisive, and so endurable."[128] The
confession of one who travesties antiquity so outrageously as De Maistre is
curious at least:--and now let us proceed to the testimony of St. Gregory.

And, assuredly, if there was any Pontiff who, like St. Leo, held the most
strong and deeply-rooted convictions as to the prerogatives of the Roman
see, it was St. Gregory. His voluminous correspondence with Bishops, and
the most notable persons throughout the world, represents him to us as
guarding and superintending the affairs of the whole Church from the
watch-tower of St. Peter, the loftiest of all. Let one assertion of his
prove this. Writing to Natalis, Bishop of Salona in Dalmatia, he says,
"After the letters of my predecessor and my own, in the matter of Honoratus
the Archdeacon, were sent to your Holiness, in despite of the sentence of
us both, the above-mentioned Honoratus was deprived of his rank. _Had
either of the four Patriarchs done this, so great an act of contumacy could
not have been passed over without the most grievous scandal._ However, as
your brotherhood has since returned to your duty, I take notice neither of
the injury done to me, nor of that to my predecessor."[129] The following
words in another letter will elucidate his meaning here. "As to what he
says, that he (a Bishop) is subject to the Apostolical See, _I know not
what Bishop is not subject to it, if any fault be found in Bishops. But
when no fault requires it, all are equal according to the estimation of
humility._"[130] And again, writing to his own Defensor in Sicily, a part
of the Church most under his own control, "I am informed that if any one
has a cause against any clerks, you throw a slight upon their Bishops, and
cause them to appear in your own court. If this be so, we expressly order
you to presume to do so no more, because beyond doubt it is very unseemly.
For if his own jurisdiction is not preserved to each Bishop, what else
results but that the order of the Church is thrown into confusion by us,
who ought to guard it."[131] Gieseler says: "They (the Roman Bishops)
maintained, that not only the right of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal
in the West belonged to them, but the supervision of orthodoxy, and
maintenance of the Church's laws, in the whole Church; and they based these
claims, still, it is true, at times, upon imperial edicts, and decrees of
Councils, but most commonly upon the privileges granted to Peter by the
Lord."[132] And I suppose if the Primacy of Christendom has any real
meaning, it must mean this, that in case of necessity, such as infraction
of the Canons, an appeal may be made to it. So undoubtedly St. Gregory
understood his own rights. What his ordinary jurisdiction was, Fleury thus
tells us:--"The Popes ordained clergy only for the Roman (local) Church,
but they gave Bishops to the greater part of the Churches of Italy."[133]
"St. Gregory entered into this detail only for the Churches which specially
depended on the Holy See, and for that reason were named suburbican; that
is, those of the southern part of Italy, where he was sole Archbishop,
those of Sicily, and the other islands, though they had Metropolitans. But
it will not be found that he exercised the same immediate power in the
provinces depending on Milan and Aquileia, nor in Spain and the Gauls. It
is true that in the Gauls he had his vicar, who was the Bishop of Arles, as
was likewise the Bishop of Thessalonica for Western Illyricum. The Pope
further took care of the Churches of Africa, that Councils should be held
there, and the Canons maintained; but we do not find that he exercised
particular jurisdiction over any that belonged to the Eastern empire, that
is to say, upon the four patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem,
and Constantinople. He was in communion and interchange of letters with all
these Patriarchs, without entering into the particular management of the
Churches depending on them, except it were in some extraordinary case. The
multitude of St. Gregory's letters gives us opportunity to remark all these
distinctions, in order not to extend indifferently rights which he only
exercised over certain Churches."[134]

Now in St. Gregory's time a discussion arose, which served to draw forth
statements on his part most remarkably bearing on the present claims of the
See of Rome. In the year 589 Gregory, Patriarch of Antioch, accused of a
grievous crime, appealed to the Emperor and his Council. He accordingly
went to Constantinople, and was tried. All the Patriarchs of the East in
person, or by their deputies, attended this trial, the Senate likewise, and
many Metropolitans; and the cause having been examined in several sittings,
Gregory was absolved, and the accuser flogged through the city and
banished. At this Council John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople,
took the title of Universal Bishop. Immediately the Roman Pontiff Pelagius
heard of it, he sent letters by which, of St. Peter's authority, he
annulled the acts of this Council, save as to the absolution of Gregory,
and ordered his deacon, the Nuncio, not to attend the mass with John. But
he left the contest about the name Ecumenical, or Universal, Bishop or
Patriarch, to his successor Gregory. We have many letters of Gregory on the
subject, of which I will give extracts. The Pope foresaw the great danger
there was that the Patriarch of Constantinople would reduce completely
under him the other three Eastern Patriarchs, and perhaps attempt to gain
the Primacy of the whole Church; for this, among other reasons, neither St.
Leo, nor any of his successors, had ever allowed in the West the 28th Canon
of Chalcedon, giving him the next place to Rome. And now this title of
Ecumenical, combined with the fact that the Bishop of that See was, from
his position, the intermediary between all the Bishops of the East and the
imperial power, seemed to point directly to such a consummation. He was the
natural president of a Council continually sitting at Constantinople, which
might be said to lead and give the initiative to the whole East.
Accordingly St. Gregory appears in this matter the great defender of the
Patriarchal equilibrium. "Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, and
Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch."[135]... "As your venerable Holiness is
aware, this name Universal was offered by the holy Synod of Chalcedon to
the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, a post which by God's providence I fill.
But no one of my predecessors ever consented to use so profane a term,
because plainly, if a single _Patriarch is called Universal, the name of
Patriarch is taken from the rest_. But far, far be this from the mind of a
Christian, that any one should wish to claim to himself that by which the
honour of his brethren may seem to be in any degree diminished. Since,
therefore, we are unwilling to receive this honour when offered to us,
consider how shameful it is that any one has wished violently to usurp it
to himself. Wherefore let your Holiness in your letters _never call any one
Universal, lest in offering undue honour to another you should deprive
yourself of that which is your due_.... Let us, therefore, render thanks to
Him, who, dissolving enmities, hath caused in His flesh, that in the whole
world there should be one flock and one fold under Himself the one
Shepherd.... For because he is near of whom it is written, 'He is king over
all the children of pride,' what I cannot utter without great grief, our
brother and fellow-Bishop John, despising the Apostolic precepts, the rules
of the Fathers, endeavours by this appellation to go before him in
pride.... So that he endeavours to claim the whole to himself, and aims by
the pride of this pompous language _to subjugate to himself all the members
of Christ, which are joined together to the one sole head, that is,
Christ_.... By the favour of the Lord we must strive with all our strength,
and take care lest by one poisonous sentence the living members of Christ's
body be destroyed. For if this is allowed to be said freely, _the honour of
all the Patriarchs is denied_. And when, perchance, he who is termed
Universal perishes in error, presently no Bishop is found to have remained
in the state of truth. Wherefore it is your duty firmly, and without
prejudice, to preserve the Churches as you received them, and let this
attempt of diabolic usurpation find nothing of its own in you. Stand firm,
stand fearless; _presume not ever either to give or receive letters with
this false title of Universal_. Keep from the pollution of this pride all
the Bishops subject to your care, that the whole Church may recognise you
for Patriarchs, not only by good works, but by your genuine authority. But
if perchance adversity follow, persisting with one mind, we are bound to
show, even by dying, that we love not any special gain of our own to the
general loss." So, likewise to the Bishops of Illyricum he says--"Because
as the end of this world is approaching, the enemy of the human race hath
appeared in anticipation, to have for his precursors through this name of
pride, those very priests who ought by a good and humble life to resist
him; I therefore exhort and advise that no one of you ever give countenance
to this name, ever agree to it, ever write it, ever receive a writing
wherein it is contained, or add his subscription; but, as it behoves
ministers of Almighty God, keep himself clean from such-like poisonous
infection, and give no place within him to the crafty lier-in-wait; _since
this is done to the injury and disruption of the whole Church, and, as we
have said, in contempt of all of you. For if, as he thinks, one is
universal, it remains that you are not Bishops_."[136] To Sabinianus, then
his Deacon, afterwards his successor--"For to consent to this nefarious
name, is nothing else but to lose our faith."[137] "Gregory to the Emperor
Mauricius"[138]... "Concerning which matter, my Lord's affection has
enjoined me in his commands, saying that scandal ought not to grow between
us, for the term of a frivolous name. But I beg your Imperial Piety to
consider, that some frivolities are very harmless, some highly injurious.
When Antichrist at his coming calls himself God, will it not be very
frivolous, but yet cause great destruction? If we look at the amount of
what is said, it is but two syllables, (_Deum_,) if at the weight of
iniquity, it is universal destruction. _But I confidently affirm that
whoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, in his
pride goes before Antichrist_; because through pride he prefers himself to
the rest. And he is led into error by no dissimilar pride, because like
that perverse one, he wishes to appear God over all men; so, _whoever he is
who desires to be called sole Priest_, he lifts up himself above all other
Priests. But since the Truth says, 'every one who exalteth himself shall be
abased,' I know that the more any pride inflates itself, the sooner it
bursts."

"Gregory to the Emperor Mauritius."[139] ... "But since it is not my cause,
but God's, and since not I only, but the whole Church, is thrown into
confusion, since sacred laws, since venerable synods, since the very
commands even of our Lord Jesus Christ are disturbed by the invention of
this haughty and pompous language, let the most pious Emperor lance the
wound, &c.... _For to all who know the Gospel, it is manifest that the
charge of the whole Church was entrusted by the voice of the Lord to the
holy Apostle Peter, chief of all the Apostles._ For to him is said, Peter,
lovest thou me? Feed my sheep. To him is said, Behold, Satan hath desired
to sift you, &c. To him is said, Thou art Peter, &c. _Lo he hath received
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is
given to him, the care of the whole Church is committed to him, and the
Primacy, and yet he is not called Universal Apostle._ And that holy man, my
fellow-priest, John, endeavours to be called Universal Bishop.... Do I, in
this matter, most pious Lord, defend my own cause? is it a private injury
that I pursue? the cause of Almighty God, the cause of the universal
Church. Who is he, who, in violation of the statutes of the Gospel, in
violation of the decrees of Canons, presumes to usurp a new name to
himself? _Would that he who desires to be called universal may exist
himself without diminution to others!_... If, then, any one claims to
himself that name in that Church, as in the judgment of all good men he has
done, the whole Church (which God forbid!) falls from its place, when he
who is called Universal falls. But far from Christian hearts be that
blasphemous name, in which the honour of all Priests is taken away, while
it is madly arrogated by one to himself! Certainly, to do honour to the
blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, this was offered to the Roman Pontiff
by the venerable Synod of Chalcedon. But no one of them ever consented to
use this singular appellation, that all Priests might not be deprived of
their due honour by something peculiar being given to one. How is it, then,
that we seek not the glory of this name, though offered us, yet another
presumes to claim it, though not offered?"

John had been succeeded by Cyriacus at Constantinople: and he writes
further,[140] "Gregory to Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch.... I thought it
not worth while on account of a profane appellation to delay receiving the
synodical letter of our Brother and Fellow-Priest Cyriacus, that I might
not disturb the unity of the holy Church: nevertheless, I have made a point
of admonishing him respecting that same superstitious and haughty
appellation, saying that he could not have peace with me unless he
corrected the pride of the aforesaid expression, _which the first Apostate
invented_. But you should not call this cause of no importance; because, if
we bear this patiently, we corrupt the faith of the whole Church. For you
know how many, not only heretics, but even heresiarchs, have come forth
from the Church of Constantinople. And, not to speak of the injury done to
your honour, if one Bishop be called Universal, the whole Church tumbles to
pieces, if that one, being universal, falls.[141] But far be such folly,
far be such trifling, from my ears. But I trust in the Almighty Lord, that
what He hath promised, He will quickly perform: every one that exalteth
himself shall be abased." In another most interesting letter he
communicates to the Bishop of Alexandria, that "while the nation of the
English, placed in a corner of the world, was remaining up to this time in
unbelief, worshipping stocks and stones, by the help of your prayers I
determined that I ought to send over to it a monk of my monastery, by the
blessing of God, to preach there. After permission from me, he has been
made a Bishop by the Bishops of Germany, and, assisted by their kindness,
reached the aforesaid nation at the end of the world; and even at this
present moment I have received accounts of his safety and labours; for
either he, or those who have gone over with him, are distinguished among
that nation by so great miracles, that they seem to imitate the powers of
Apostles by the signs which they show forth. On this last feast of the
Lord's Nativity more than ten thousand English are reported to have been
baptized by this our brother and fellow-bishop, which I mention that you
may know what you are doing among the people of Alexandria by your voice,
and in the ends of the world by your prayers."[142]--"Your Blessedness has
also taken pains to tell me that you no longer write to certain persons
those proud names, which have sprung from the root of vanity, and you
address me, saying, _as you commanded_, which word _command_ I beg you to
remove from my ears, because I know who I am, and who you are. For in rank
you are my Brother, in character my Father. I did not, therefore, command,
but took pains to point out what I thought advantageous. I do not, however,
find that your Blessedness was willing altogether to observe the very thing
I pressed upon you. For I said that you should not write any such thing
_either to me or to any one else_, and lo! in the heading of your letter,
directed to me, the very person who forbad it, you set that haughty
appellation, _calling me Universal Pope_. Which I beg your Holiness, who
are most agreeable to me, to do no more, because _whatever is given to
another more than reason requires is so much taken away from yourself_. It
is not in appellations, but in character, that I wish to advance. Nor do I
consider that an honour by which I acknowledge that my brethren lose their
own. For my honour is the honour of the Universal Church. My honour is the
unimpaired vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured, when the true
honour is not denied to each one in his degree. _For if your Holiness calls
me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you admit me to be,
Universal._ But this God forbid. Away with words which inflate vanity, and
wound charity. Indeed, in the holy Synod of Chalcedon, and by the Fathers
subsequently, your Holiness knows this was offered to my predecessors. Yet
none of them chose ever to use this term; that, while in this world they
entertained affection for the honour of all Priests, in the hands of
Almighty God they might guard their own."

As to what Gregory says about the Council of Chalcedon offering this title,
Thomassin says,[143] "It authorized at least by its silence the title of
Ecumenical (Patriarch), which was given to Pope Leo in several requests
there read." It appears these requests really were the complaints of two
Alexandrian Deacons against Dioscorus.[144] How very different it was to
pass over without reprobating a title bestowed in documents which came
before it, from itself conferring that title, is plain at once. In just the
same way it had been given at the Latrocinium to Dioscorus. However, the
title Ecumenical has been constantly since, and is now, borne by the
Patriarch of Constantinople; no doubt a very innocent meaning may be given
to it. The remarkable thing is, that Gregory has pointed out in such
precise unmistakeable language a certain power and claim, which he
inferred, rightly or wrongly, would be set up on this title Ecumenical, and
which he pronounces to be a corruption of the whole constitution of the
Church.

Perhaps, however, the most remarkable passage remains yet to be quoted. It
is in a letter to the Patriarch John himself. "Consider, I pray you, that
by this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and
the grace, poured out upon all in common, contradicted. And in this,
indeed, you yourself will be able to increase just so much as you purpose
in your own mind; and become so much the greater, as you restrain yourself
from usurping a proud and foolish name. And you profit in the degree that
you do not study to arrogate to yourself by derogating from your brethren.
Therefore, most dear brother, with all your heart love humility, by which
the harmony of all the brethren and the unity of the holy universal Church,
may be preserved. Surely the Apostle Paul, hearing some say, I am of Paul,
I of Apollos, I of Cephas, exclaimed, in exceeding horror at this rending
of the Lord's Body, by which His members attached themselves, as it were,
to other heads, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in
the name of Paul? If he then rejected the members of the Lord's Body being
subjected to certain heads, as it were, besides Christ, and that even to
Apostles themselves, as leaders of parts, what will you say to Christ, _who
is, as you know, the Head of the Universal Church, in the examination of
the last judgement_,--_you, who endeavour to subject to yourself under the
name of Universal, all His members_? Who, I say, in this perverse name, is
set forth for imitation but he, who despised the legions of angels joined
as companions to himself, and endeavoured to rise to a height unapproached
by all, that he might seem to be subject to none, and be alone superior to
all. Who also said, 'I will ascend into heaven: I will exalt my throne
above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation,
on the sides of the North. I will ascend above the height of the clouds: I
will be like the Most High.'

"For what are all your brethren, the Bishops of the Universal Church, but
the stars of heaven? Whose life and language together shine amid the sins
and errors of men, as among the shades of night. And while you seek to set
yourself over these by a proud term, and to tread under foot their name, in
comparison with your own, what else do you say, but 'I will ascend into the
heaven. I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.' Are not all the
Bishops clouds, who rain down the words of their preaching, and shine with
the light of good works? And while your brotherhood despises them, and
endeavours to put them under you, what else do you say but this, which is
said by the old enemy: 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds?' And
when I see all these things with sorrow, and fear the secret judgments of
God, my tears increase, my heart contains not my groans, that that most
holy man, the Lord John, of such abstinence and humility, seduced the
persuasion of those about him, hath proceeded to such pride, that in
longing after a perverse name, he endeavours to be like him, who, desiring
in his pride to be as God, lost even the grace of that likeness to God
which had been given him; and so forfeited true blessedness, because he
sought false glory. _Surely Peter, the first of the Apostles, a member of
the holy universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, what else are they but the
heads of particular communities? and yet all are members under one head._
And to comprehend all in one brief expression, the saints before the law,
the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the
body of the Lord, are disposed among members of the Church, and no one ever
wished to be called Universal. Let, then, your Holiness acknowledge how
great is your pride, who seek to be called by that name, by which no one
has presumed to be called who was really holy."[145]

Now had these passages occurred in the writings of some ancient saint, who
was generally opposed to the authority of the Roman See, had they belonged
to a Patriarch of Antioch, or Constantinople, jealous of his own rights,
they would surely have had their weight, as testimonies to a fact, not mere
opinions of the speaker. They would have borne witness to no such thing as
they reprobate having, till then, been allowed or thought of. Or, had they
been isolated statements, not borne out by contemporaneous or antecedent
documents, but standing alone, uncontradicted indeed, but unsupported, they
would still have told. How, then, are we to express their weight, or the
full assurance of faith which they give us, as being the deliberate,
oft-repeated, official statements of a Pope, than whom there never was one
more vigorous in defending or in exercising the rights of his See? As being
supported and borne out, and in every possible way corroborated by the
facts of history, the decrees of Councils, the innumerable testimonies of
all parts of the world, the everyday life of the living, breathing Church
for six hundred years? In an early work, Mr. Newman had said, "What there
is not the shadow of a reason for saying that the Fathers held, what has
not the faintest pretensions of being a Catholic Truth, is this, that St.
Peter, and his successors, were and are universal Bishops; that they have
the whole of Christendom for their own diocese, in a way in which other
Apostles and Bishops had and have not."

In his last work he has retracted, saying, "Most true, if, in order that a
doctrine be considered Catholic, it must be formally stated by the Fathers
generally from the very first: but, on the same understanding, the doctrine
also of the Apostolic succession in the Episcopal order has not the
faintest pretensions of being a Catholic truth."[146]

Now these words of Mr. Newman seem to imply that the expressions of
Fathers, or the decrees of Councils, look towards this presumed Catholic
truth, tend to it, and finally admit it, as a truth which they had been all
along implicitly holding, or unconsciously living upon, and at last
recognised and expressed. On the contrary, to my apprehension, they hold
another view about the See of Rome, and express it again and again. It is
not a point on which there is variation or inconsistency among them. I have
as clear a conviction as one can well have that St. Augustine did _not_
hold the Papal theory. I think the words that I have quoted from him prove
this. Moreover, the Fathers generally express a view about other Bishops
which is utterly incompatible with this theory as now received, which by no
process of development can be made to agree with it. And I confess that I
am unable to understand the meaning of words, if this so-called "Catholic
truth" of the Pope being the universal Bishop, is not distinctly considered
in these passages of St. Gregory, formally repudiated for himself as well
as for others, and the very notion declared to be, in any case whatsoever,
_that of the Pope being specially named_, blasphemous and antichristian.
Could heretics say any thing of the kind against the doctrine of the
Apostolical succession, out of the first six centuries, they would have an
advantage against the Church, which, thank God, they are far from
possessing.

And it is of no small importance that we have here speaking a Pope, one to
whom twelve centuries have given the name of Great, one who, with St. Leo,
stands forth out of the ancient line of St. Peter's heirs as an especially
legislative mind. Every Catholic is bound to take his words without
suspicion. Now St. Gregory asserts, as we have seen, the right of his See
to call _any_ Bishop to account, even the four Patriarchs, in case of a
violation of the Canons; declaring at the same time that, when the Canons
are kept, the meanest Bishop is his equal in the estimation of humility.
Even while arguing against this title he says, "To all who know the Gospel
is manifest that the charge of the whole Church was entrusted by the voice
of the Lord to the holy Apostle Peter,"--"and yet he is not called
Universal Apostle;" but this title, he asserts, and the theory implied in
it, is devilish, an imitation of Satan, an anticipation of Antichrist. What
else can we conclude but that which so many other documents prove, that
this Primacy over the whole Church, the ancient and undoubted privilege of
the Bishop of Rome, was something quite different from what he is here
reprobating? For St. Gregory, least of all men, was so blind as to use
arguments which might be retorted with full force against himself. And yet,
any one reading these words of his, and not knowing whence they came, would
suppose they were written by a professed opponent of the present Papal
claims. For in these letters St. Gregory acknowledges all the Patriarchs as
co-ordinate with himself, acknowledges our Lord to be sole Head of the
Church, declares the title of Universal Bishop blasphemous and
Antichristian, expressly on the ground that it is a wrong done to the
Universal Church, to every Bishop and Priest: "If one is universal, it
remains that you are not Bishops;" declares, moreover, that St. Peter
himself is only a member of the Universal Church, as St. Paul, St. John,
St. Andrew, were other members, the heads of different communities. This
may be said to be the precise logical contradictory of De Maistre's
assertion, that "the Pope" is "the Church," in which he assuredly only
expresses the Papal idea. Rarely, indeed, is it that any controversy,
appealing to ancient times, can have a testimony on all its details so
distinct, and specific, and authoritative as this: and yet it may be said
no more than to crown the testimony of the six centuries going before it.
That during this period the Bishop of Rome was recognised to be first
Bishop of the whole Church, of very great influence, successor of St.
Peter, and standing in the same relation to his brethren the Bishops that
St. Peter stood in to his brother Apostles; this, on the whole, I believe
to be the testimony of the first six centuries, such as a person, not
wilfully blind, and who was not content to take the witness of a Father
when it suited his purpose and pass it by when it did not, would draw from
ecclesiastical documents. I have set it forth to the best of my ability, as
well where it seemed to tell against the present position of the Church of
England, as in those many points in which it supports her.

What then is our defence on her part against the charge of schism? It is
simply this. That no one can now be in the communion of Rome without
admitting this very thing which Pope Gregory declares to be blasphemous and
anti-Christian, and derogatory to the honour of every Priest. This is the
very head and front of our offending, that we refuse to allow that the Pope
is Universal Bishop. If the charge were that we refuse to stand in the same
relation to the Pope that St. Augustin of Canterbury stood in to this very
St. Gregory, that we refuse to regard and honour the successor of St.
Gregory with the same honour with which our Archbishops, as soon as they
were seated in the government of their Church, and were no longer merely
Missionaries but Primates, regarded the occupant of St. Peter's See, I
think both the separation three hundred years ago, and the present
continuance of it on our part, would, so far as this question of schism is
concerned, be utterly indefensible. But this is _not_ the point. It may
indeed be, and frequently is, so stated by unfair opponents. The real point
is, that, during the nine hundred years which elapsed between 596 and 1534
the power of the Pope, and his relation to the Bishops in his communion,
had essentially altered: had been, in fact, placed upon another basis. That
from being first Bishop of the Church, and Patriarch, originally of the ten
provinces under the Præfectus Prætorii of Italy, then of France, Spain,
Africa, and the West generally, he had claimed to be the source and channel
of grace to all Bishops, the fountain-head of jurisdiction to the whole
world, East as well as West; in fact, the 'Solus Sacerdos,' the 'Universus
Episcopus,' contemplated by St. Gregory. There is a worldwide difference
between the ancient signature of the Popes, 'Episcopus Catholicæ Ecclesiæ
Urbis Romæ,' and that of Pope Pius at the Council of Trent, 'Ego Pius
Catholicæ Ecclesiæ Episcopus.' It has been no longer left in the choice of
any to accept his _Primacy_, without accepting his _Monarchy_, which those
who profess to follow antiquity must believe that the Bishops of Nicea,
Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, Augustin and Chrysostom, the West
and the East, would have rejected with the horror shown by St. Gregory at
the first dawning of such an idea. And, whereas Holy Scripture and
antiquity present us with one accordant view of the Universal Church
governed by St. Peter and the Apostolic College, and, during the first six
centuries at least, as the Bishop of Rome is seen to exercise the Primacy
of St. Peter, so his brother-Bishops stand to him as the College of
Apostles stood to St. Peter: instead of this, which is the Church's divine
hierarchy, instituted by Christ Himself, the actual Roman Church is
governed by one Bishop who has an apostolical independent power, whilst all
the rest, who should be his brethren, are merely his delegates, receiving
from his hand the investiture of such privileges as they still retain. If
St. Gregory did not mean this by the terms 'Solus Sacerdos,' 'Universus
Episcopus,' what did he mean? That the Pope should be the only Priest who
offered sacrifice, or the only Bishop who ordained, confirmed, &c. is
physically impossible. Nor did the title of the Bishops of Constantinople
tend to this: but to claim to themselves jurisdiction over the co-ordinate
Patriarchs of the East, as the Popes have since done over the Bishops of
the whole world. We have no need to consider what is the amount of this
difficulty to Roman Catholics themselves: the same Providence which has
placed them under that obedience, has placed us outside of it. Our cause,
indeed, cannot be different now from what it was at the commencement of the
separation. If inherently indefensible then, it is so now. But if then
'severe but just,' the lapse of three centuries in our separate state may
materially affect our relative duties. I affirm my conviction, that it is
better to endure almost any degree of usurpation, provided only it be not
anti-Christian, than to make a schism: for the state of schism is a
frustration of the purposes of the Lord's Incarnation; and through this,
not only the English, and the Eastern Church, but the Roman also, lies
fettered and powerless before the might of the world, and bleeding
internally at every pore. How shall a divided Church meet and overcome the
philosophical unbelief of these last times? or, the one condition to which
victory is attached being broken, crush the deadliest attack of the old
enemy? But the schism is made; let those answer for it before Christ's
tribunal who made it. Now that it is made, I see not how a system, which is
not a true development of the ancient Patriarchal constitution, but its
antagonist, according to St. Gregory's words, can be forced upon us, on
pain of our salvation, who have the original succession of the ancient
Bishops of this realm, if any such there be, and the old Patriarchal
constitution, 'sua tantum si bona norint.' I ground our present position
simply on the appeal to tradition and the first six centuries.

Not that there is any abrupt break in the testimony of history there; but
it is necessary to put a limit somewhere. Otherwise the seventh century
supplies us with the remarkable fact of Pope Honorius condemned, by the
sixth Ecumenical Council in 681, as having connived at and favoured the
Monothelite heresy, condemned more than forty years after his death; a fact
which utterly destroys the new dogma of the infallibility of the one Roman
Pontiff by himself; and which Bellarmine and Baronius can only meet by
attempting to prove that the acts of the sixth Council have been falsified,
though they had been received for genuine by the seventh and eighth
Councils, and for nine hundred years; and the letter of St. Leo,
immediately after that Council, falsified also, in which he condemns the
Monothelites, and amongst them Honorius, "who did not adorn this
Apostolical See with the doctrine handed down from the Apostles, but
endeavoured to subvert the undefiled faith by a profane tradition." The
condemnation of the Council runs as follows:--"Having examined the letters
of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus, and the answer of Honorius to
Sergius, and having found them to be repugnant to the doctrine of the
Apostles, and to the opinion of all the Fathers, in execrating their
impious dogmas, we judge that their very names ought to be banished from
the Holy Church of God; we declare them to be smitten with anathema; and,
together with them, we judge that Honorius, formerly Pope of ancient Rome,
be anathematized, since we find, in his letter to Sergius, that he follows
in all respects his error, and authorizes his impious doctrine."[147]

It appears, likewise, that as the letter of St. Cyril was read and approved
in the third Council, and that of Pope St. Leo in the fourth, so that of
Pope St. Agathon was read and approved in the sixth, and that of Pope
Adrian the First in the seventh, A.D. 787. But here it may be well to give
Bossuet's summary. "This tradition" (_i.e._ that the supreme authority in
the Church resides in the consent of the Bishops) "we have seen to come
down from the Apostles, and descend to the first eight General Councils;
which eight General Councils are the foundation of the whole Christian
doctrine and discipline, of which the Church venerates the first four, in
St. Gregory's words, no less than the four Gospels. Nor is less reverence
due to the rest, as, guided by the same Spirit, they have a like authority.
Which eight Councils, with a great and unanimous consent, have placed the
final power of giving decisions in nothing else but in the consent of the
Fathers. Of which the six last have legitimately examined the sentence of
the Roman Pontiff even given upon Faith, and that with the approval of the
Apostolic See, the question being put in this form, as we read in the
Acts--'Are these decrees right, or not?'

"But we have seen that the judgment of a General Council never was so
reconsidered, but that all immediately yielded obedience to it. Nor was a
new inquiry ever granted to anyone after that examination, but punishment
threatened. Thus acted Constantine; thus Marcian; thus Coelestine; thus
Leo; thus all the rest, as we have seen in the Acts. The Christian world
hath acknowledged this to be certain and indubitable.

"To this we may add the testimony of the admirable Pope St. Gelasius: 'A
good and truly Christian Council once held, neither can nor ought to be
unsettled by the repetition of a new Council.' And again: 'There is no
cause why a good Council should be reconsidered by another Council, lest
the mere reconsideration should detract from the strength of its decrees.'
Thus what has received the final and certain judgment of the Church, is not
to be reconsidered; for that judgment of the Holy Spirit is reversed,
whenever it is reconsidered by a fresh judgment. But the judgment put forth
by a Roman Pontiff is such, that it has been reconsidered. It is not
therefore that ultimate and final judgment of the Church.

"Nor is that sentence of Gregory the Great less clear, comparing the four
General Councils to the four Gospels, with the reason given; 'Because being
decreed by universal consent, whoever presumes either to loose what they
bind, or bind what they loose, destroys not them but himself.'

"So then our question is terminated by the tradition of the ancient
Councils and Fathers. All should consent to the power of the Roman Pontiff,
as explained according to the decree of the Council of Florence, after the
practice of General Councils. The vast difference between the judgment of a
Council and of a Pontiff is evident, since after that of the Council no
question remains, but only the obedience of the mind brought into
captivity; but that of the Pontiff is upon examination approved, room being
given to object,--which was to be proved."[148]

Here the real question at issue is, whether the Bishop of Rome be First
Bishop, or Monarch, of the Church. Now, I have endeavoured to delineate,
from the Fathers and from Councils, what the true Primacy of the Roman See
is. What is now required from us to admit as terms of communion is--"That
the ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends immediately from the Pope;"
"the government of the Church is monarchical, therefore all authority
resides in one, and from him is derived unto the rest;" "there is a great
difference between the succession to Peter and that to the rest of the
Apostles; for the Roman Pontiff properly succeeds Peter not as Apostle, but
as ordinary Pastor of the whole Church; and therefore the Roman Pontiff has
jurisdiction from Him from whom Peter had it: but Bishops do not properly
succeed the Apostles, as the Apostles were not ordinary, but extraordinary,
and, as it were, delegated Pastors, to whom there is no succession.
Bishops, however, are said to succeed the Apostles, not properly in that
manner in which one Bishop succeeds another, and one king another, but in
another way, which is two-fold. First, in respect of the holy Order of the
Episcopate; secondly, from a certain resemblance and proportion: that is,
as when Christ lived on earth, the twelve Apostles were the first under
Christ, then the seventy-two Disciples: so now the Bishops are first under
the Roman Pontiff, after them Priests, then Deacons, &c. But it is proved
that Bishops succeed to the Apostles so, and not otherwise; for they have
no part of the true Apostolic authority. Apostles could preach in the whole
world, and found Churches ... this cannot Bishops." ... "Bishops succeed to
the Apostles in the same manner as Priests to the seventy-two
Disciples."[149] Again: "But, if the Supreme Pontiff be compared with the
rest of the Bishops, he is deservedly said to possess the plenitude of
power, because the rest have fixed regions over which they preside, and
also a fixed power; but he is set over the whole Christian world, and
possesses, in its completeness and plenitude, that power which Christ left
on earth for the good of the Church."[150] He proceeds to prove this by
those passages of Scripture:--'Thou art Peter,' &c.; 'Feed my sheep,' &c.;
which we have seen St. Augustin explaining as said to St. Peter in the
person of the Church, while he expressly denies that they are said to him
merely as an individual. "These keys not one man but the unity of the
Church received:" "he was not the only one among the Disciples who was
thought worthy to feed the Lord's sheep," &c. What Bellarmine here says,
is, assuredly, both the true Roman view, and moreover _absolutely necessary
to justify that Church in the attitude she assumes and the measures she
authorizes towards other parts of the Church. And if it be the ancient
Catholic doctrine, it does justify her_. That it is _not_ the ancient
doctrine, I think I have already shown; but let us hear what Bossuet says
of it. "One objection of theirs remains to be explained, that Bishops
borrow their power and jurisdiction from the Roman Pontiff, and therefore,
although united with him in an Ecumenical Council, can do nothing against
the root and source of their own authority, but are only present as his
Counsellors; and that the force of the decree, as well in matters of faith
as in other matters, lies in the power of the Roman Pontiff. Which fiction
falls of itself to the ground, even from this, that it was unheard of in
the early ages, and began to be introduced into theology in the thirteenth
century; that is, after men preferred generally to act upon philosophical
reasonings, and those very bad, before consulting the Fathers.[151]

"But to this innovation is opposed, first, what is related in the Acts of
the Apostles respecting that Council of Apostles, which the letter of St.
Coelestine to the Council of Ephesus, and the proceedings of the fifth
Ecumenical Council, proved to be as it were repeated and represented in all
other Councils. But if any one says that, in this Council, the Apostles
were not set by Christ to be true judges, but to be the counsellors of
Peter, he is too ridiculous.[152]

"Secondly, is opposed that fact which we have proved, that the decrees and
judgments of Roman Pontiffs _de fide_ were suspended by the convocation of
an Ecumenical Council, were reconsidered by its authority, and were only
approved and confirmed after examination made and judgment given. Which
things undoubtedly prove that they sat there not as counsellors of the
Pope, but as judges of Papal decrees.

"And they must indeed be legitimately called together, that they may not
meet tumultuously; but, when once called together, they judge by the
authority of the Holy Spirit, not of the Pope: they pronounce anathemas,
not by authority of the Pope, but of Christ; and we have seen this so often
pressed upon us by the Acts, that we are weary of repeating it.

"Add to this that expression of the first Council of Arles to St.
Sylvester: 'Had you judged together with us, our assembly had exulted with
greater joy:' and in the very heading of the Council to the same Sylvester:
'What we have decreed with common consent, we signify to your charity.'
Relying then on this authority of their Priesthood, they judge concerning
most important matters; that is, the observation of the Lord's passover,
that it may be kept on one day all over the world: concerning the
non-iteration of Baptism, and the discipline of the Churches. Instances of
this kind occur everywhere. But it is a known fact, that even by particular
Councils, where the Pope presided, his decrees, even when present, were
examined and confirmed by consent; the Fathers equally with him judged,
decreed, defined, and we have seen this a thousand times written on the
Acts.

"But in a matter so clear, they have only one thing to object drawn out of
antiquity, the saying of St. Innocent, 'that Peter is the author of the
Episcopal name and honour.'[153] And again,[154] 'whence the Episcopate
itself and all the authority of that name sprung.' And of St. Leo,[155] 'If
he willed that anything should be enjoyed by the other heads (that is, the
Apostles) in common with him (Peter), he never gave save through Peter
whatever he denied not to the rest.' And elsewhere also, 'that Christ
granted to the rest of the Apostles the ministry of preaching on this
condition, that he poured into them, as into the whole body, his gifts from
Peter, as from the head.'[156] Whence also came that expression of Optatus
of Milevi: 'For the good of unity, the blessed Peter was thought worthy to
be preferred to all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the
kingdom of heaven to be imparted to the rest,'[157]--and that of Gregory of
Nyssa, 'Through Peter He gave to the Bishops the keys of heavenly
honours.'[158] And that of St. Cæsarius of Arles to Pope Symmachus: 'As
from the person of the blessed Apostle Peter the Episcopate takes its
beginning, so is it necessary that by suitable rules of discipline your
Holiness should plainly show to every Church what they ought to
observe.'[159]

"If they push these and such like expressions to the utmost, they will come
to assert that the Apostles were appointed by Peter, not by Christ, or by
Christ through Peter, but not by Him immediately and in person: as if any
other but Christ called the Apostles, sent them, and endued them with
heavenly power by the infusion of His Spirit; and Peter and not Christ
said: 'Go ye, teach, preach, baptize, receive, and, as My Father sent me,
even so send I you.'

"I am aware that John of Turrecremata, and a few others, thinking that the
words now quoted of St. Leo and others cannot be defended by them
sufficiently, unless the Apostles also received their jurisdiction from St.
Peter, have been hurried away even into this folly, against the most
manifest truth of the Gospel. Which fiction Bellarmine himself has
confuted.

"But this being the greatest absurdity, it will appear that what follows is
the teaching of the Fathers quoted.

"First; the episcopal authority and jurisdiction is contained in the keys,
and in the power of binding and loosing, which is clear of itself.

"Secondly; it is evident from the Gospel History that Peter was the first
in whom that power was shown forth and appointed. For, although Christ said
to all the Apostles, 'Receive the Holy Ghost,' (John xx. 22,) and
'whatsoever ye bind,' &c., 'whatsoever ye loose,' &c. (Matt, xviii. 18);
yet, what He said to Peter had gone before, 'I will give to thee the keys,'
&c. (Matt. xvi. 19).

"Thirdly; both these two, that is, both what was said to Peter and what was
said to the Apostles, proceed equally from Christ: for He who said to
Peter, 'I will give to thee,' and 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind,' said also
to the Apostles, 'Receive ye,' and 'Whatsoever ye shall bind.'

"Fourthly; that is therefore true which Optatus says of Peter: 'For the
good of unity, he alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be
imparted to the rest.' For, in truth, these which were given to Peter in
the 16th Matt. were to be imparted afterwards to the Apostles, Matt. 18th,
and John 20th, but to be imparted not by Peter, but by Christ, as is clear.

"Fifthly; that also is true which Cæsarius says, 'The Episcopate takes its
beginning from Peter:' he being the first in whom, through the ministry of
binding and loosing, the Episcopal power was shown forth, begun,
entrusted.'

"Sixthly; hence, also, is true what Innocent says,--'that the Episcopate,
and all the authority of that name, sprung from Peter,' because he, first
of all, was appointed or set forth as Bishop.

"Seventhly; for this cause, Peter is called by the same Innocent the author
of the Episcopate; not that he instituted it,--not that the Apostles
received the power of binding and loosing from him,--for the Scriptures
everywhere exclaim against this; but that from him was made the beginning
of establishing that power among men, and of appointing or marking out the
Episcopate.

"Eighthly; to make this clearer, and that it may be easily perceived what
means that expression, 'through Peter,' which we read in Leo, we must
review the tradition of the ancient Church, drawn from the Scriptures
themselves.

"It is plain, then, that when the Lord asked the Apostles, 'Whom say men
that I, the Son of Man, am?' Peter, the chief of all, answered in the
person of all, 'Thou art the Christ:' and afterwards Christ said to Peter,
thus representing them, 'I will give to thee,'--'Whatsoever thou shalt
bind:' by which it appears that in these words, not Peter only, but in
Peter, their chief, and answering for all, all the Apostles and their
successors were endued with the Episcopal power and jurisdiction.

"All which Augustin includes when he writes, 'All being asked, Peter alone
answered, Thou art Christ, and to him is said, I will give to thee, &c., as
if he alone received the power of binding and loosing, the case really
being, that he said that singly for all, and received this together with
all, as representing unity.'[160] Than which nothing can be clearer."

He then quotes passages from St. Cyprian and St. Augustin, which I have
already brought; adding, "In Peter, therefore, singly, Cyprian acknowledges
that all Bishops were instituted, and not without reason; the Episcopate,
as he everywhere attests, being one in the whole world, was instituted in
one. And this was done to establish 'the origin of unity beginning from
one,' as he says.

"But most of all does Augustin set forth and inculcate the common
tradition. For, not content with having said that once in the place above
mentioned, he is very full in setting forth this view of that doctrine.
Hence he says, 'In Peter was the sacrament of the Church;'" and other
passages I have already quoted. "Whence, everywhere in his books against
the Donatists, he says, 'The keys are given to Unity.'

"The sum, then, is this. The Apostles and Pastors of Churches being both
one and many,--one, in ecclesiastical communion, as they feed one flock;
many, being distributed through the whole world, and having allotted to
them each their own part of the one flock; therefore, power was given to
them by a two-fold ratification of Christ: first, that they may be one, in
Peter their chief, bearing the figure and the person of unity, to which has
reference that saying in the singular number, 'I will give to thee,' and
'Whatsoever thou shall bind,' &c.: secondly, that they may be many, to
which that has reference in the plural number, 'Receive ye,' and
'Whatsoever ye shall bind:' but both, personally and immediately from
Christ; since He who said, 'I will give to thee,' as to one, also said,
'Receive ye,' as to many: nevertheless, that saying came first, in which
power is given to all, in that they are one: because Christ willed that
unity, most of all, should be recommended in His Church.

"By this all is made clear; not only Bishops, but also Apostles, have
received the keys and the power from Christ, in Peter, and, in their
manner, through Peter, who, in the name of all, received that for all, as
bearing the figure and the person of all."

He then shows that this tradition had gone down even to his own times:
"This holy and apostolic doctrine of the Episcopal jurisdiction and power
proceeding immediately from, and instituted by, Christ, the Gallic Church
hath most zealously retained." "Therefore,[161] that very late invention,
that Bishops receive their jurisdiction from the Pope, and are, as it were,
vicars of him, ought to be banished from Christian schools, as unheard of
for twelve centuries."

It is precisely "this very late invention" which is urged against the
Church of England. Unless this be true, her position in itself, supposing
her to be clear of heresy, with which, at present, I have nothing to do, is
impregnable.

Such is the most Catholic interpretation by which Bossuet sets in harmony
with the teaching of all antiquity a few expressions, which are all that I
have been able to find that are even capable of being forced into
accordance with the present Papal system, and which, as soon as they are so
forced, contradict the whole history of Councils, and the whole life of the
most illustrious Fathers.

Now there is no doubt that Bellarmine's doctrine is the true logical
development of the Papal Theory; it alone has consistency and completeness;
it alone is the adequate expression of that prodigious power which was
allowed to enthrone itself in the Church during the middle ages; it would
fain account for it and justify it. Grant but its postulate, that the Pope
is the sole vicar of Christ, and all which it requires must follow. On the
other hand, that school which ranks Bossuet at its head, and which sought
to limit, in some degree, by the Canons the power of the Roman Pontiff, and
maintained that Bishops were, _jure divino_, successors of the Apostles, in
a real, not in a fictitious sense, however well-founded in what it
maintained on the one side, was certainly inconsistent. It gave either too
much or too little to the Roman See;--too much, if its own declarations
about the succession of Bishops and the authority of General Councils be
true, and founded in antiquity, as we believe; too little, if the Pope be
indeed the only Vicar of Christ on earth, and the supreme Ruler of His
Church; for then these maxims put their partisans very nearly into the
position of rebels, and, in truth, brought the Gallican Church to the brink
of a schism, in 1682. However this may be, that school is extinct; the
ultramontane theory alone has now life and vigour in the Roman Church. It
seems to absorb into itself all earnest and self-denying minds, while the
other is left to that treacherous conservatism which would use the Church
of Christ as a system of police, for the security of worldly interests.
What the ultramontane theory is, we see from Bellarmine. It proclaims that
the government of the Church is a monarchy, concentrating in one person all
the powers bestowed by Christ upon the Apostles. In this the student of
history is bound to declare that it stands in point-blank contradiction to
the decrees of General Councils, to the sentiments of the Fathers, and the
whole practice of the Church for the first six hundred years; for much
longer indeed than this, but this is enough. Well may Bossuet ask, "if the
infallible authority of the Roman Pontiff is of force by itself before the
consent of the Church,--to what purpose was it that Bishops should be
summoned from the farthest regions of the earth, at the cost of such
fatigues and expense, and Churches be deprived of their Pastors, if the
whole power resided in the Roman Pontiff? If what he believed or taught was
immediately the supreme and irrevocable law, why did he not himself
pronounce sentence? Or if he pronounced it, why are Bishops called together
and wearied out, to do again what is already done, and to pass a judgment
on the supreme judgment of the Church? Would not this be fruitless? But all
Christians have imbibed with their faith the conviction, that, in important
dissensions, the whole Church ought to be convoked and heard. All therefore
understand that the certain, deliberate, and complete declaration of the
truth is seated not in the Pope alone, but in the Church spread
everywhere."[162] "This too is certain, that when General Councils have
been holden, the sentence of the Roman Pontiff has generally preceded them;
for undoubtedly Celestine, Leo, Agatho, Gregory the Second, Adrian the
First, had pronounced sentence, when the third, fourth, sixth, seventh
Councils were held. What was desired therefore was, not a Council for the
Pontiff about to give judgment, but, after he had given judgment, the force
of a certain and insuperable authority."

In fact, on this theory, as we have seen above, St. Cyprian, St. Firmilian,
St. Hilary of Arles, the African Bishops in 426, the Fathers of Chalcedon
in 451, in passing their famous 28th Canon, the Fathers of Ephesus in 431,
in passing their 8th, the Fathers of Constantinople in 381, in passing
their 2d and 3d Canons, and in the synodal letter addressed to the Pope and
the Western Bishops, the Fathers of Nicea, in passing their 6th, nay, all
ancient Councils whatever, in all their form and mode of proceeding, were
the most audacious of rebels. But what are we to say about the language of
St. Gregory? Did he then betray those rights of St. Peter, which he held
dearer than his life? When he wrote to Eulogius of Alexandria, "If your
Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you
admit me to be--universal. But this God forbid:" are we to receive
Thomassin's explanation, that he meant, as Patriarch, he was not universal,
but, as Pope, he was, all the time? or when he says to the same, "in rank
you are my brother, in character my father," was Eulogius at the same time,
as Bellarmine will have it, merely his deputy? "In the beginning, Peter set
up the Patriarch of Alexandria, and of Antioch, who, receiving authority
from the Pontiff (of Rome), presided over almost all Asia and Africa, and
could create Archbishops, who could afterwards create Bishops."[163] And
this, it appears, is the key which is to be applied to the whole history of
the early Church. Those Bishops, Metropolitans, Exarchs, and Patriarchs,
throughout the East, who had such a conviction of the Apostolic authority
residing in themselves as governors of the Church, who showed it in every
Council in which they sat, who expressed it so freely in their writings and
letters: St. Augustin, again, in the West, himself a host, who speaks of a
cause decided by the Roman Pontiff being reheard, of "the wholesome
authority of General Councils," who assents to St. Cyprian's proposition,
that "every Bishop can no more be judged by another, than he himself can
judge another," with the single limitation, "certainly, I imagine, in those
questions which have not yet been thoroughly and completely settled;" who,
in a question of disputed succession, which more than any other required
such a tribunal as the Papal, had it existed, appeals not to the authority
of the Roman See, but to the testimony of the whole Church spread
everywhere, not mentioning that See pre-eminently; or when he does mention
"the See of Peter, in which Anastasius now sits," mentioning likewise "the
See of James, in which John now sits:"--all these were nothing more, at the
same time, than the Pope's delegates, and received through him their
jurisdiction.

Can a claim be true which is driven to shifts such as this for its
maintenance? Or can the truth of Christianity and the unity of the Church
rest upon a falsehood? Is infidelity itself in such "a hopeful
position,"[164] as regards Christianity, that it is really come to this,
that we must either receive a plain and manifest usurpation, or be cast out
of the house and kingdom of God? That we must reject the witness and
history of the first six hundred years of the Church's life on the one
hand, or be plunged into the abyss of infidelity on the other? If it be
true that the Pope is Monarch of the Church, which is the present Papal
theory, the Church of England is in schism. If it be not true, she is at
least clear of that fatal mark. All that is required for her position is
the maintenance of that Nicene Constitution which we have heard St. Leo
solemnly declare was to last to the end of the world, viz. that every
province of the Church be governed by its own Bishops under its own
Metropolitan. And who then but will desire that the successor of St. Peter
should hold St. Peter's place? Will the Patriarch of Constantinople, or the
Archbishop of Moscow, or the Primate of Canterbury, so much as think of
assuming it? Be this our answer when we are accused of not really holding
that article of the Creed "one Catholic and Apostolic Church." Let the
Bishop of Rome require of us that honour and power which he possessed at
the Synod of Chalcedon, _that, and not a totally different one under the
same name_, and we shall be in schism when we do not yield it. At present
we have no farther separated from him than to fall back on the constitution
of the Church of the Martyrs and the Fathers.

But, it may be said, is the Catholic Church unanimous on the one hand, and
the Anglican communion, restricted to one small province, left alone in her
protest on the other? Did not she, whom they would call "the already
decrepit rebel of three hundred years," submit from 596 to 1534 to that
very authority which she now denies? It would be quite beyond my present
limits to trace, as I had first purposed, the Roman Bishop's power from
that point at which it stood when St. Gregory sent our Apostle Augustin
into England, to that point which it had reached in the thirteenth century,
and which it strove to maintain in the sixteenth. I can only now very
briefly point out a few of the steps in that most wonderful rise. The two
centuries, then, which succeeded St. Gregory, were even more favourable to
this growth than those which went before. While the confusion and violence
of secular governments by the breaking in and settlement of the various
northern tribes were greater than ever,--while the ecclesiastical
constitution was all that yet held together the scattered portions of the
shattered Western empire--the single Apostolical See of the West, whose
Bishop was in constant correspondence with the spiritual rulers of these
various countries, whose voice was ever and anon heard striving to win and
soften into mercy and justice those temporal rulers, would be, as it were,
"a light shining in a dark place." The Bishops, everywhere miserably
afflicted by their own sovereigns, found a stay and support in one beyond
the reach of the feudal lord's violence. The benefit they thus derived from
the Roman Patriarch was so great, that they would be disposed to overlook
the gradual change which was ensuing in the relation between themselves and
him, the deference which was deepening into subjection. Or, if here and
there, what Leo would have called "a presumptuous spirit," such as Hincmar
of Rheims, or our own Grossetête, in after times, set himself against the
stream, it would all be in vain. However good his cause might be, if he did
not yield, he would be beaten down like St. Hilary of Arles. Moreover, as
the great heresy of Mahomet invaded and hemmed in three of the Patriarchal
Sees of the East, their counterpoise to the originally great influence of
the Roman See was removed. Political separation from the East, and the
difficulty of communication, would of themselves greatly tend to this
result. To this must be added the great increase of power which the house
of Charlemagne, for their own political purposes, bestowed on the Roman
See; it was worth while building up a popedom for an imperial crown. De
Maistre says, "The Popes reign since the ninth century at least."[165] But
it is a somewhat naïve confession, "The French had the singular honour, one
of which they have not been at all sufficiently proud, of having set up,
humanly, the Catholic Church in the world, by raising its august head to
the rank indispensably due to his divine functions; and without which he
would only have been a Patriarch of Constantinople, miserable puppet of
Christian sultans, and Musulman autocrats." Just, too, when it was most
difficult to detect imposture, and to refer to the acts of ancient
Councils, that singular counterfeit of the false decretals made its
appearance, which so wonderfully helped the Roman Patriarchs in
consolidating the manifold structure of their authority. This, indeed,
assailed the Bishops of the West by their most reverential feelings, and
added to the force of a great present authority, almost always beneficially
exercised, the weight of what seemed an Apostolical tradition. Besides
these causes, the Popes found in the several monastic orders throughout
Europe the most unceasing and energetic pioneers of their power. From the
very first there appears to have existed a desire to exchange the present
superintendence of the local Bishop for the distant authority of the Pope.
The great orders, indeed, were themselves so many suspensions of the
Episcopal system. With reason do the statues of their founders adorn the
nave of St. Peter's, not only as witnesses of the Church's exuberant life,
but as those whose hands, more than any others, have helped to rear that
colossal central power, of which that fane is the visible symbol. Thus the
Papal structure was so gradually built upon the Patriarchal, that no one
age could accurately mark where the one ended and the other began, but all
may see the finished work. It requires no microscopic eye to distinguish
the authority of St. Leo or St. Gregory from that of St. Innocent the
Third. The poet spake of a phantom what is true of a great reality:--

          "Mobilitate viget, viresque acquirit eundo,
  Ingrediturque solo, et caput inter nubila condit."

That power, for which the heroic and saintly Hildebrand died in exile,[166]
if exile there could be to him who received the heathen for his
inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for his possession; for
which our own St. Anselm, forced against his will to the Primacy, stood
unquailing in the path of the Red King, most furious, if not the worst, of
that savage race, whose demon wrath seemed to justify the fable of their
origin; for which St. Bernard, the last of the Fathers in age, but equal to
the first in glory, wrote and laboured, and wore himself out with vigils,
and wrought miracles; for which our own St. Thomas shed that noble blood,
which sanctifies yet our primatial Church, an earnest of restoration and
freedom to come; that power, for which St. Francis, the spouse of holy
poverty, so long neglected since her First Husband ascended up on high, and
St. Dominic--

                  l' amoroso drudo
  Della fede Cristiana, il santo atleta,
  Benigno a' suoi, ed a' nemici crudo;[167]

and one greater yet, the warrior saint, Ignatius, raised their myriads of
every age and of both sexes, armed in that triple mail of poverty,
chastity, and obedience, "of whom the world was not worthy;"--that power,
to which have borne witness so many saintly Bishops, poor in the midst of
poverty, and humble in the exercise of more than royal power,--so many
scholars, marvellously learned,--so many, prodigal of labour and blood, who
are now counted among the noble army of martyrs,--so many holy women, who
have hidden themselves under the robe of the first of all saints, and
followed the Virgin of virgins in their degree;--that power is, indeed, the
most wondrous creation which history can record, and one to which I am not
ashamed to confess that I should bow with unmingled reverence, had not
truth a yet stronger claim upon me, and did not the voice of the early
Church, its Fathers, Councils, and Martyrs, sound distinctly in my ears
another language. Still, human and divine, ambition and Providence, are so
mingled there, that I would not utter a word more than truth requires. I
should even be compelled to give up the strongest individual conviction,
acknowledging the weakness and liability to err of any private judgment;
acknowledging, moreover, that a single province of the Church, if opposed
to all the rest, is certain to be in error, were it not that, besides the
voice of antiquity, we have witnesses the most legitimate, the most
time-honoured, the most unswerving in their testimony,--witnesses who take
away from our opponents their proudest claim,--nay, a claim which, if real,
would be irresistible,--that of being, by themselves, the Catholic Church.

Let it never, then, be forgotten, that any argument which would prove the
Church of England to be in schism would condemn likewise the Eastern and
Russian Church. It is not the Catholic Church against a revolted province,
as our adversaries would have us believe; it is the one Patriarch of the
West, with his Bishops, against the four Patriarchs of the East, with
theirs, and that great and, as yet, unbroken phalanx of the North, which
Constantinople won to the faith of old, and which now promises to beat back
the tide of heresy and infidelity from the beleaguered Sees of the East. On
this point of schism, at least, they bear witness with us. The causes,
adverted to above, which were so influential in exalting the great fabric
of Roman power in the West, did not act upon the East,--nay, acted in the
inverse direction. The See of Constantinople still remains where the
Council of Chalcedon placed it, where the Emperor Justinian recognised it
to be, the second See of the world: and it has ever since refused to admit
that Rome was _first_ in any sense in which itself was not _second_. This
may serve to set in a clear light the vast difference between the
legitimate power of the First See, and the claim to give jurisdiction to
all Bishops. The systems, of which these are expressions, are in truth
antagonistic. Constantinople maintains still that constitution of the whole
Church which St. Gregory accused its Bishops of undermining. The evil which
he foresaw has come from his own successors: "the cause of Almighty God,
the cause of the Universal Church," the privileges and rights of Bishops
and Priests, as against one "Universal Pope," are borne witness to now, as
they have ever been, by the immutable East. Here, at least, are no
sympathies with the heresiarchs of the sixteenth century: the Synod of
Bethlehem has anathematised Luther and Calvin as decidedly as the Council
of Trent. Here was no Henry the Eighth fixing his supremacy on a reluctant
Church by the axe, the gibbet, the stake, and laws of premunire and
forfeiture: no State using that Church as a cat's-paw for three hundred
years, and ready now to offer it up a holocaust to the demon of liberalism.
Here is the ancient Patriarchal system, the thrones of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, subsisting still. Here is the same body
of doctrine, the same seven sacraments, the same Real Presence, the same
mighty sacramental and sacerdotal system, which Latitudinarian and
Evangelical, statesman and heretic, dread while they hate, as being indeed
the visible presence of Christ in a fallen world,--the residence of a
spiritual power which controls and torments the worldling, while it
disproves and falsifies the heretic. Here is all that the Roman Catholic
claims as tokens of the truth for himself: but there is one thing more, the
same protest that we make against the monarchical, as distinct from the
patriarchal, power, the same appeal back to early Councils, and the
unambiguous voice of those who cannot be silenced or corrupted, the Fathers
of the Church. In the Fathers of the undivided Church, the East and the
North and the West, so long severed, meet: we are not alone, who have with
us, on the very point which divides us from our Mother Church, the still
unbroken line of successors from St. Athanasius and St. Chrysostom. There
is no break in the descent or in the doctrine of the Eastern Churches.
There is the same dogmatic, the same hierarchical fabric, subsisting now as
when St. Gregory addressed Anastasius of Antioch, and Eulogius of
Alexandria. It may suit the purposes of unfair Roman controversialists to
brand them as schismatics, and overcome, by calling them a name, their own
most formidable opponents: but history cannot be so overcome. They have
_never_ admitted the Papal sway, any more than the Fathers who passed the
28th Canon of Chalcedon: they have, indeed, admitted the Roman _Primacy_,
as those same Fathers admitted it; for the very system, for which they are
witnesses, is not complete without the Bishop of Rome stands at the head of
it: the _due_ honour of Rome is involved in the due honour of
Constantinople; and, we may add, the due honour of Canterbury: the same
temper, the same persons, who reject the one, hate the other. What we say
they never have admitted is, that which has really worked the disunion of
the Universal Church, as St. Gregory foretold it would, the doctrine which
is the centre of the present Papal system, which alone makes all its parts
cohere, and justifies all its acts, and triumphs over all appeal to
argument, and all testimonies of antiquity, viz., that, "the Pope is set
over the whole Christian world, and possesses in its completeness and
plenitude that power which Christ left on earth for the good of the
Church."[168] They have never for a moment admitted that the Bishops of the
Universal Church were the Pope's delegates, and received their jurisdiction
from him. _We_ fight, it must be admitted, at some disadvantage with our
opponents. The long subjection which our Church yielded to Rome, the
manifold obligations under which we lie to her, the complete unsettling of
the ecclesiastical and doctrinal system in the sixteenth century, the
horrible vices of those who effected the change, the connection with those
whose doctrine has now worked itself out into Socinianism, infidelity, and
anarchy, the inability we have ever since been under of shaking ourselves
completely clear of them, the thoroughly unsatisfactory position of the
state towards us, as a Church, at present,--all these things are against
us,--all these things tell on the mind which really lives and dwells on
antiquity, and looks to the pure Apostolic Church. Still, though they
weaken, they do not overcome our cause. But from all these objections the
witness of the Eastern Churches is free. They were never subject to Rome,
but to their own Patriarchs; they derived not their Christianity from her:
the Priesthood, and the pure unbloody sacrifice, and the power to bind and
to loose, remain undisputed among them: the Eastern mind cannot conceive a
Church without them. They have received no reformation from those whose
lives were a scandal to all Christian men: they are not mixed up with the
Lutheran or Calvinistic heresy: nor has Erastianism eaten out their life.
Yet, if we are schismatics, so are they, and on the same ground. Moreover
the Roman Church has again and again treated with them as parts of the true
Church. It is only in comparatively modern times, that as the hope of
re-union became fainter, the line of denying their being members of the One
Body has been taken up. I have seen even so late as the time of Clement the
Eighth a letter of that Pope to the Czar, in which he treats him as already
belonging to the Church. Moreover the Eastern Church has put forth the best
and most convincing sign of Catholicity, _life_: to her, _since her
separation from Rome_, and to this particular attention must be claimed, is
due the most remarkable conversion of a great nation to the Faith which has
taken place in the last eight hundred years--Russia with her Bishops, her
clergy, her monasteries, her convents, her Christian people, her ancient
discipline, her completely organised Church system, her whole country won
from Paganism by the preaching of Monks and Missionary Bishops, is a
witness to the Greek Church (which who shall gainsay?) that she is a true
member of the One Body. The Patriarch of Constantinople exercised that
charge which the Council of Chalcedon gave him, and ordained Bishops among
the barbarians, and the Spirit of God blessed their labours, and the whole
North became his spiritual offspring. Rome cannot show, since she has been
divided from the East, a conversion on so large a scale, so complete, so
permanent. And on that great mass she has hitherto made no impression. It
is a complete refutation of her claim to be _by herself_ Catholic, that
there exists out of her communion a Body of Apostolic descent and
government, with the same doctrinal system as her own, with the ascetic
principle as strongly developed, with the same claim to miracles,--with
all, in fact, which characterises a Church; a Body, moreover, so large,
that, supposing the non-existence of the Roman Communion, the promises of
God in Scripture to His Church might be supposed to be fulfilled in that
Body.[169] And this Body, like ourselves, denies that particular Roman
claim, for which Rome would have us and them to be schismatic. And it has
denied it not merely for three hundred years, but from the time that it has
been advanced. Truly all that was deficient on our side seems made up by
the Greek Church. And this living and continuous witness of a thousand
years is to be added to that most decisive and unambiguous voice of the
whole undivided ancient Church.

I have, throughout these remarks, considered the Church of Christ to be
what, at the Councils of Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, she so manifestly
appeared, one organic whole; a Body, with One Head, and many members; as
St. Gregory says, Peter, and Paul, and Andrew, and John; a kingdom with One
Sovereign, and rulers, an Apostolic College appointed by that Head, with a
direct commission from Himself. I believe that no other idea about the
Church prevailed up to St. Gregory's time. It follows that all so-called
national churches, unless they be subordinate to the law of this kingdom,
are so many infringements of the great primary law of unity, in that they
set up a member instead of the Body. St. Paul, in the 12th chapter of the
1st Epistle to the Corinthians, has clearly set forth such, and no less, to
be the unity of Christ's Body. Certainly it is a difficulty, that we must
admit this essential law to be at present broken. But I do not think it
fair to argue against a provisional and temporary state, such as that of
the Church of England is confessed to be--which, too, has been forced upon
her--as if it were a normal state, one that we have chosen, a theory of
unity that we put forth over against the ancient theory, or the present
Roman one. Nay, thousands and ten thousands feel, the whole rising mind of
the Church feels, that we are torn "from Faith's ancient home," that we
groan within ourselves, waiting until God in his good time restore a
visible unity to His Church, till the East and the West and the South be
one again in the mind of Christ. Who but must view it as a token of that
future blessing, that public prayers have been offered up in France and
Italy for such a consummation? Let us begin to pray for each other, and we
must end by being one. Let _us_, too, pray that the clouds of error and
prejudice, the intense blind jealousy on one side, the cruel and
disingenuous temper on the other, may be subdued by the Spirit of God, who
in some great and blessed Pentecost shall draw long alienated hearts
together, and mould them into a union closer than has ever been, against an
attack the last and most terrible of the foretold enemy, the tokens of
whose coming are at hand.

But the Roman Catholic, who seems to escape this difficulty, and points to
his communion as one organic whole, falls into another. Grant that it is
one, but it is at the expense of ceasing to be Catholic: it has lost all
the East and the North, and part of the West. Thus, in this choice between
difficulties, it seems the least to suppose that the unity of Christendom
may be for a time suspended, during which the several parts of Christ's
Body retain communion with the one Head, and thence derive life, though
active communion with each other is suspended. A less difficulty, I say,
than to cut off, not merely our own Church, but the seventy millions of the
Eastern Church, having a complete inward identity with the Roman, from the
covenant of salvation, merely because that intercommunion is prevented by a
claim to spiritual monarchy, which was unknown in the best ages of the
Church, and has been resisted ever since it was set up. If this view be
true, we should expect that the several parts, though living, would yet be
languishing, and far from that healthy vigour which they ought to possess;
that the Great Head would give manifold warnings of the injury done to His
Body. Now, it is very remarkable that the circumstances, no less of the
Latin than of the Eastern and the Anglican Church, exactly agree to this
expectation. I need not speak on this point of the second and third; but I
cannot help thinking that they who have suffered themselves to be driven by
fearful scandals out of our bosom, who have brooded over acknowledged but
unrelieved wants, till the duty of patient long-suffering has been
forgotten, close their eyes to the state of France, Spain, and Italy, under
what they have now learnt to call _by itself_ the "Catholic" Church. Yet
are there tokens abroad which men of less spiritual discernment might lay
to heart. Does the "obscene rout" of Ronge and Czerski, bursting forth from
the bosom of the Roman Church, awake no misgiving? Fearful, when viewed by
Scripture and antiquity, as the state of England is, (an argument which is
now being used against our communion with such effect on tender and loving
minds,) he must be bold who would venture to say that the relation of the
French Church to the French nation in the last century, or its relation
even now, greatly as the present French Church is to be admired and
sympathised with, does not offer as much ground for fearful apprehension,
as much reason to dread, lest the terms on which victory is promised to the
Church over the world have been essentially broken. I fear there is no
doubt that two-thirds of the French capital are not _Christian_, in any
sense of the word; and probably the proportion is as great in the larger
towns. How did this state of things arise? How has nearly the whole
intellect of that country become infidel? From the French Revolution, it
will be answered. But how could that great Satanical outburst have ever
taken place, had the Church of Christ, free from corruption, as those who
have left us believe, and throned in the possession of sixteen hundred
years, with its numberless religious houses, its unmarried clergy, and
great episcopate, been discharging its functions, I do not say aright, but
with any moderate efficiency? Surely the acts of the States General were as
bad as those of Henry the Eighth; yet its members were Catholics, in full
communion with the Roman See. Surely the ecclesiastical legislation of
Napoleon was as uncatholic as that of a House of Commons; yet it was
sanctioned by Concordat with the Pope. But if manifold corruptions did not
unchurch the Gallican communion in the last century,--if the mass of a
great nation, which the Church once completely possessed, but has now
surrendered to active unbelief, does not invalidate her claim to be a pure
communion at present, why are such things alleged as so fatal a mark
against us? God forbid that one should mention such things without the
deepest sorrow; but when our troubles, and difficulties, and relations with
the state, and the alienated hearts of our people, and the absence of
external discipline and inward guidance, and the misery of our divisions,
are alleged to prove that we are out of the pale of the Church, these
things ought to be weighed on the other side. There ought not to be
different measures on different sides of the Channel. I forbear to speak of
the state of Spain, Portugal, and much of Italy; but I imagine that the
worst deeds of the Reformation were at least paralleled by what the Church
has had to endure there from the hands of her own children. I believe that
our own most sad corruptions have, too, their counterpart among Churches in
communion with the Apostolic See.

But to conclude. As our defence against the charge of Schism rests upon the
witness of the ancient Church, thus fully corroborated by the Eastern
Communion, so our whole safety lies in maintaining the clear indubitable
doctrine of that Church. I have avoided the whole question of _doctrine_ in
these remarks, both as leading me into a wider field than that which I am
obliged to traverse so cursorily at present, and as distinct from the
question of Schism, though very closely connected with it. No one can deny
that it is not sufficient for our safety to repel one single charge: but
this charge was the most pressing, the most specious, and one which
requires to be disposed of before the mind can with equanimity enter upon
any other. My conclusion is, that upon the strictest Church principles,--in
other words, upon those principles which all Christendom, in its undivided
state, recognised for six hundred years, which may be seen in the Canons
and Decrees of Ecumenical Councils, our present position is tenable at
least till the convocation of a really Ecumenical Council. The Church of
England has never rejected the communion of the Western, and still less
that of the Eastern Church: neither has the Eastern Church pronounced
against her. She has only exercised the right of being governed by her own
Bishops and Metropolitans. There is, indeed, much peril of her being forced
from this, her true position,--a peril lately pointed out by the author of
"The real Danger of the Church of England." I need say little where he has
said so much, in language so well-timed, so moderate, and from a position
which cannot be misrepresented. I will only add, that I cannot conceive any
course which would so thoroughly quench the awakened hopes of the Church's
most faithful children, as that her rulers, which I am loth even to
imagine, at a crisis like the present, should seek support, not in the rock
of the ancient Church, in which Andrewes, Laud, and Ken, took refuge of
old,--not in the unbroken tradition of the East and West, by which, if at
all, the Church of Christ must be restored,--not in that great system which
first subdued and then impregnated with fresh life the old Roman Empire,
delaying a fall which nothing could avert, and which lastly built up out of
these misshapen ruins all the Christian polities of Europe,--not in that
time-honoured and universal fabric of doctrine to which our own Prayer-book
bears witness, but in the wild, inconsistent, treacherous sympathies of a
Protestantism, which the history of three hundred years in many various
countries has proved to be dead to the heart's core. Farewell, indeed, to
any true defence of the Church of England, any hope of her being built up
once more to an Apostolical beauty and glory, of recovering her lost
discipline and intercommunion with Christendom, if she is by any act of her
rulers, or any decree of her own, to be mixed up with the followers of
Luther, Calvin, or Zuingle: with those who have neither love, nor unity,
nor dogmatic truth, nor sacraments, nor a visible Church among themselves:
who, never consistent but in the depth of error, and the secret instinct of
heresy, deny regeneration in Baptism, and the gift of the Holy Spirit in
Confirmation and Orders, and the power of the keys in absolution, and the
Lord's Body in the Eucharist. That is the way of death: who is so mad as to
enter on it? When Protestantism lies throughout Europe and America a great
disjointed mass, in all the putridity of dissolution,

  "Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, _cui lumen ademptum_,"

judicially blinded, so that it cannot perceive Christ dwelling in his
Church, while she grows to the measure of the stature of the perfect man,
and making her members and ministers His organs--who would think of joining
to it a living Church? Have we gone through so much experience in vain?
Have we seen it develop into Socinianism at Geneva, and utter unbelief in
Germany, and a host of sects in England and America, whose name is Legion,
and who seem to be agreed in nothing else but in the denial of sacramental
grace, and visible unity; and all this at the last hour, in the very
turning point of our destiny, to seek alliance with those who have no other
point of union but common resistance to the tabernacle of God among men? A
persuasion that nothing short of the very existence of the Church of
England is at stake, that one step into the wrong will fix her character
and her prospects for ever, compels one to say that certain acts and
tendencies of late have struck dismay into those who desire above all
things to love and respect their spiritual mother. If the Jerusalem
Bishopric, promoted, (at the instance of a foreign minister, not in
communion with our Church,[170] and who has recorded in the strongest terms
his objection to _her_ apostolical episcopacy,) by two Bishops on their
private responsibility, without any authority from the Church of which they
are indeed most honoured, but only individual rulers, be the commencement
of a course of amalgamation with the Lutheran or Calvinistic heresy, who
that values the authority of the ancient undivided Church, will not feel
his allegiance to our own branch fearfully shaken? The time for silence is
past. There is such a thing as "propter vitam vivendi perdere causas." It
must be said publicly that such a course will lead infallibly to a schism,
which will bury the Church of England in its ruins. If she is to become a
mere lurking-place for omnigenous latitudinarianism; if first principles of
the faith, such as baptismal regeneration, and priestly absolution, may be
indifferently held or denied within her pale,--though, if not God's very
truths, they are most fearful blasphemies,--the sooner she is swept away
the better. There is no mean between her being "a wall daubed with
untempered mortar," or the city of the living God. I speak as one who has
every thing commonly valuable to man depending on this decision; moreover,
as a Priest in that communion, whose constitution, violently suspended by
an enemy for one hundred and thirty years, yet requires that every one of
her acts, which bind her as a whole, should be assented to by her
Priesthood in representation, as well as by her Episcopacy. If the grace of
the sacraments may be publicly denied by ministers of the Church, nay, by a
Bishop ex cathedrâ, with impunity, in direct violation of the most solemn
forms to which they have sworn obedience, while the assertion of Christ's
Real Presence in the Eucharist draws down censure on the most devoted head,
the communion which endures such iniquity requires the constant
uninterrupted intercession of her worthier children, that she be not
finally forsaken of God, and perish at the first attack of antichrist.

       *       *       *       *       *


R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.

       *       *       *       *       *


NOTES

[1] Bellarmin. de Rom. Pont. Lib. iv. 25; iv. 24; i. 9.

[2] De Maistre, du Pape. Liv. i. ch. i.

[3] S. Cyprian de Unit. Ecc. 12.

[4] "Development," &c. p. 22.

[5] Thomassin, Part i. lib. i. ch. 4. De l'ancienne discipline de l'Eglise.

[6] St. Cypr. de Unit. 4. Oxford Tr.

[7] Quoted by Thomassin, _ut sup._

[8] Ibid.

[9] S. Aug. Tom. v. 706, B.

[10] S. Chrys. Tom. ii. 594, B.

[11] St. Jerome, tom. ii. 279, Vallarsi.

[12] Development, p. 279.

[13] The words in italics are left out by Mr. N.

[14] Thomassin, Part i. liv. i. ch. iii.

[15] Of a passage in this letter, De Maistre says (Du Pape, liv. i. ch. 6):
"Resuming the order of the most marked testimonies which present themselves
to me on the general question, I find, first, St. Cyprian declare, in the
middle of the third century, that heresies and schisms only existed in the
Church because all eyes were not turned towards the Priest of God, towards
the Pontiff who judges in the Church _in the place of Jesus Christ_." A
pretty strong testimony, indeed, and one which would go far to convince me
of the fact. Pity it is, that when one refers to the original, one finds
that St. Cyprian is actually speaking of himself, and of the consequences
of any where setting up in a see a schismatical Bishop against the true
one. After this, who will trust De Maistre's facts without testing them?
The truth is, he had taken the quotation at second hand, and never looked
to see to whom it was applied. It suited the Pope so admirably that it must
have been meant for him. But I recommend no one to change their faith upon
the authority of quotations which they do not test.

[16] Epist. 67. De Marciano Arelatensi.

[17] S. Cyp. Ep. 29.

[18] Ep. 73.

[19] Ep. 74.

[20] De Unit. Ecc. Oxf. Tr.

[21] Op. St. Cypr. p. 329. ed. Baluz.

[22] Tom. ix. p. 110.

[23] S. Cyp. Ep. 75.

[24] Liv. VII. sec. 32.

[25] Tom. ix. 97. G.

[26] Tom. ii. 96. F.

[27] Tom. ii. 299. C.

[28] Fleury, liv. vii. 23.

[29] Ep. 68. S. Cypriani.

[30] Liv. i. ch. 2, sect. 5.

[31] Liv. i. ch. 3, sect. 8.

[32] Fleury, Liv. xii. xxix. Conc. Sard. Can. 3, 4, 7.

[33] Thomassin, Part I. liv. i. ch. 40. sect. 2.

[34] Idem, ut supra.

[35] St. Aug. Tom. V. 1097. B.

[36] Tom. IV. 1215. E.

[37] Tom. V. 240. F.

[38] Tom. V. 1194. E.

[39] Tom. V. 1195. E.

[40] Tom. III. Part ii. 800. G.

[41] He allows that Peter _may_ be called the rock. Tom. i. 32, E.

[42] Fleury 23, 30. Oxf. Tr.

[43] St. Aug. Tom. II. 618. B.

[44] St. Aug. Tom. ii. 635. F.

[45] Tom. ii. 639. B.

[46] Quoted by Fleury, 23, 32. Oxford Tr.

[47] Fleury, Liv. 24, 35. Oxf. Tr. See the original: Codex Eccl. Afric.
138.

[48] Chillingworth, quoted by Mr. Newman, "Developement," p. 4.

[49] Tom. ix. 372. F.

[50] Tom. ix. 340. A.

[51] Tom. v. 1199. D. 1202. F.

[52] Def. Cleri. Gall. Pars ii. lib. xii. ch. 5.

[53] Def. Cleri. Gall. Pars ii. lib. xii. ch. 7.

[54] Ibid. lib. xiii. ch. 19.

[55] St. Chrys. Tom. ix. 757. A.

[56] Lacordaire, Sur le Saint Siège.

[57] St. Aug. Tom. x. 412. B. quoted in Fleury, Oxf. Tr. 3. 93.

[58] Def. Clerc. Gall. Pars ii. lib. xii. c. 10.

[59] Fleury, 25-47. Oxf. Trans.

[60] Ut sup. ch. 14.

[61] Du Pape, Liv. i. ch. 2.

[62] Id. Liv. i. ch. 4.

[63] Hammond's Translation.

[64] Tillemont, tom. xv. p. 72.

[65] Tillemont, tom. xv. p. 81.

[66] Tillemont, tom. xv. p. 83.

[67] Tillemont, tom. xv. p. 89.

[68] St. Leo. Ep. 40.

[69] St. Leo. Ep. 10. Edit. Ball.

[70] Ib. Ep. 65.

[71] Ep. 10.

[72] St. Leo. Ep. 14, cap. i. xi.

[73] S. Leon. Ep 6, cap. 2.

[74] St. Jerome, Ep. 146. Vallarsi.

[75] Theodoret, Ep. in Epist. S. Leonis, 52.

[76] Mansi, 6, 817, quoted by Gieseler, tom. i. part ii. p. 192.

[77] Isidorus, Hisp. Etymol. 7, 12, quoted by Gieseler, ut sup. p. 406.

[78] Gieseler, tom. i. part ii. pp. 191, 192.

[79] Gieseler, tom. i. part ii. p. 205.

[80] Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. ch. 9.

[81] Observe this Council so called by the Greeks before it was received by
the West.

[82] It must be remembered that Diocese, in the language of this time,
means the several provinces comprehended in a Patriarchate. It was the
civil term.

[83] S. Bas. M. Ep. 239.

[84] Gieseler, tom. i. part ii. p. 202.

[85] Sozomen, Hist. iii. ch. 8.

[86] Ibid. Hist. iii. ch. 10.

[87] Socrates, Hist. ii. ch. 17.

[88] Bossuet, Sermon sur l'Unité de l'Eglise.

[89] Bossuet, Def. Cleri Gall. Pars ii. lib. xii. ch, 15, 16, 17.

[90] S. Leon. Ep. 120.

[91] Ib. c. 4.

[92] S. Leon. Ep. 102.

[93] Ch. 18, ibid.

[94] Fleury, Liv. xxviii. 29. Oxf. Tr.

[95] Theod. lib. v. ch. 28, quoted by Tillemont.

[96] Tillemont, tom. xv. p. 711.

[97] The sittings are variously counted.

[98] Fleury, liv. xxviii. xxx. Oxf. Tr.

[99] Tillemont, tom. xv. p. 707.

[100] S. Leon. Ep. 104, cap. 3.

[101] S. Leon. Ep. 105.

[102] Ep. 106, cap. 4.

[103] Ep. 105, cap. 2.

[104] Ep. 106, cap. 2-5.

[105] Ep. 107.

[106] Ep. 105, cap. 3.

[107] Tillemont, tom. xv. p. 731.

[108] S. Leon. Ep. 107.

[109] S. Greg. Ep. lib. iii. 10.

[110] On Development, p. 307.

[111] Fleury, liv. xxxii. 54.

[112] Gieseler, vol. i. part. ii. p. 192.

[113] Nov. i. 1-7, quoted by Gieseler.

[114] Fleury, liv. xxxiii. 4, 5, 6.

[115] Nov. vi. Epilogus.

[116] Nov. cxxiii. c. 3.

[117] Ad Valerianum, Mansi, ix. 732.

[118] Contra litt. Petiliani, ii. 51, all quoted by Gieseler.

[119] Bossuet, Def. Cleri Gall. pars ii. lib. xii. cap. 19.

[120] Fleury, liv. xxxiii. 52.

[121] Bossuet, _ut sup._

[122] Du Pape, liv. i. ch. 3.

[123] Fleury, Liv. xxxiii. 52.

[124] Sozomen, lib. iii. ch. 11.

[125] Tom. i. part ii. 410.

[126] Def. Cleri Gall. pars ii. lib. xii. cap. 29.

[127] Id. cap. 31.

[128] Du Pape, liv. iii. ch. 7.

[129] S. Greg. Ep. lib. ii. 52.

[130] Lib. ix. 59, Gieseler.

[131] Lib. xi. 37, Gieseler.

[132] Gieseler, tom. i. part ii. 401.

[133] Liv. xxxiv. 60.

[134] Liv. xxxv. 19.

[135] Ep. S. Greg. lib. v. 43.

[136] Lib. ix. 68.

[137] Lib. v. 19.

[138] Lib. vii. 33.

[139] Lib. v. Ep. 20.

[140] Lib. vii. 27.

[141] I cannot but consider St. Gregory's words to contain one of the most
remarkable prophecies to be found in history; for this assuming the title
and exercising the power of universal Pope has actually led not only to the
concentration of all executive power in the Roman See, but to the
conviction, among its warmest partisans, that the whole existence of the
Church depends on the single See of Rome. Take the following from De
Maistre: "Christianity rests entirely upon the Sovereign
Pontiff."--"Without the Sovereign Pontiff the whole edifice of Christianity
is undermined, and only waits, for a complete falling in, the development
of certain circumstances which shall be put in their full light."--"What
remains incontestable is, that if the Bishops, assembled without the Pope,
may call themselves the Church, and claim any other power but that of
certifying the person of the Pope in those infinitely rare moments when it
might be doubtful, unity exists no longer, and the visible Church
disappears."--"The Sovereign Pontiff is the necessary, only, and exclusive
foundation of Christianity. To him belong the promises, with him disappears
unity, that is, the Church."--"The supremacy of the Pope being the capital
dogma without which Christianity cannot subsist, all the Churches, which
reject this dogma, the importance of which they conceal from themselves,
are agreed even without knowing it: all the rest is but accessory, and
thence comes their affinity, of which they know not the cause."--Du Pape,
Discours Préliminaire; Liv. i. ch. 13; Liv. iv. ch. 5. Could we have any
stronger witness to the antagonism between the Papal and Patriarchal or
Episcopal System? Or can any words be spoken more opposed in tone than
these to the writings of Fathers and decrees of ancient Councils? Or are
they who say such things wise defenders of the Church or promoters of
unity?

[142] Lib. viii. 30.

[143] Part i. liv. i. ch. 11.

[144] Mansi, vi. 1006. 1012, quoted by Gieseler.

[145] Lib. v. 18.

[146] Proph. Office, p. 221. Development, p. 10.

[147] Sect. 13. March 28, 681, translated in Landon's Councils.

[148] Bossuet, Def. Cler. Gall. pars ii. lib. xii. cap. 34.

[149] Bellarmin de Pont. Rom. lib. iv. cap. 24, 25.

[150] Bellarmin de Pont. Rom. lib. i. cap. 9.

[151] Def. Cleri. Gall. pars ii. lib. xiii. cap. 11.

[152] Bossuet is very moderate. St. Chrysostom says, (on Acts, Hom. 33,)
"James was Bishop in Jerusalem, and so speaks last;" and presently, "There
was no pride in the Church, but much good order. And see, after Peter, Paul
speaketh, and no one rebukes him: James waits and starts not out of his
place, for _he was entrusted with the government_." What would St.
Chrysostom say to Bellarmine's doctrine?

[153] Ep. S. Innoc.; in Op. S. Aug. tom. ii. 618; see above, p. 59.

[154] Ibid, quoted above, p. 60.

[155] St. Leo. Serm. in Anniver. Assumpt. quoted above.

[156] Ep. 10.

[157] Optat. l. ix. contra Parmen.

[158] Greg. Nyss. T. 2. 746.

[159] Cæsar. Arel. Epist. ad Symm.

[160] Quoted above, p. 58.

[161] Cap. xiv. lib. xiii. pars 2.

[162] Bossuet, Def. &c. Pars ii. lib. xiii. cap. 20.

[163] De Rom. Pont. lib. iv. cap. 26.

[164] Developement, p. 28.

[165] Du Pape, liv. ii. ch. 6; and Discourse Préliminaire.

[166] See the account of his death in Bowden's Life.

[167] Dante, Paradiso, xii. 55.

[168] Bellarmine, quoted above.

[169] I owe this observation to a friend who has had great opportunities of
judging about the state of the Russian Church.

[170] "Introduction to Die Zukunft Kirche. The work advocates the
introduction of Episcopacy into the German Church, but not the Apostolical
Episcopacy of the English Church, which M. Bunsen condemns in terms as
strong as any which have been used by any opponent of the Bishopric. 'If
ever and at any time the Episcopate, in the sense of Anglicanism, should be
raised into a distinctive mark of Churchdom among us, not constitutionally
and nationally (?) it would, in my opinion, be striking the death-blow to
the innermost germ of life in the Church.' He will exert every energy, and
shed the last drop of his blood in order to preserve the Church of the
German nation against such an Episcopacy,"--_English Churchman_, April 30,
1846. There are solemn words, which have found an echo in many hearts, "May
that measure utterly fail, and come to nought, and be as though it had
never been!"







