Skip to main content

Full text of "The Church of England cleared from the charge of schism : by the decrees of the seven ecumenical councils and the tradition of the Fathers"

See other formats

; II 
"':r ø _ '-
 .h _ ç:;J?;- """ //, 
r ..,...< 

. 2>. 

. J
 LÇ--/ð7__ p

0':;.A' 1'''';- J!.. ./ 
 cfÞ / 


.. 'rvt"'
1LC..1 1J2...c





















AND 377, Sl'RAJSD, LOl\DO:'. 






 LOV!';) I








D 01<' HIS 1\L\.TURER AGE. 

Peast of the Purification, 


SINCE the first edition of this work was published, a pro- 
fessed reply to it liaS appeared entitled, " The Unity of the 
Episcopate considered" &c. I may appear to some called 
upon to take some notice of this reply. Therefore, though in 
my opinion the second and enlarged edition of my book, 
which was nearly concluded before I saw 1\Ir. Thompson's, is 
the best answer to him, I will here make some few more 
specific remarks upon his work. 
In the first place its moral tone and temper are such, that 
I feel great regret at being on opposite sides of the argu- 
ment with its author. 
But, secondly, I cannot consider it in any respect an an- 
swer to my book. The author himself tells us: "Tile object 
of these pages is not to adduce facts, or to reason from them, 
but simply to state principles, and to shew their natural 
connexion with a certain great primary Idea:" p. 124. 
Now the object of my book is precisely what he disclaims, 
to adduce facts and to reason from them, and by them to 
shew that certain principles which are now set forth, and 
a certain great primary Idea, which is now made the basis 
of the whole Christian Church, were not held in ancient 
times, nor so long as the East and 'Vest were united in 
Communion. The proper refutation of my book would be 
to shew by this same unquestionable evidence of facts, that 
these principles, and especially this great primary Idea, 'Were 
held from the beginning of the Church, and formed part of 
the divine deposit of the Faith. J\Iy work is simply histori- 




cal O'roundpd U p on the acts and witness of the Churcn, and 
, b 
upon the lives and writings of ner Saints. lV'ry cnallenge 
was plain and straightforward: viz., the claim which you 
make is modern, unsupported, nay denied by the wnole his- 
tory of the Church down to tIle separation of the East and 
1Vest. The proper answer to it is equally plain and straight- 
forward, viz., this claim is the ancient original claim, and 
thesc are the documents on which it rests. 
I can assure Mr. Thompson that I anxiously look for such 
a reply: and that, if it is not made, I shall be compelled to 
helieve that it cannot be made. 
But l\ir. Thompson's reply consists in vigorously asserting 
and reasserting, and assertin.fJ over and over again the very 
primary Idea which is in dispute, without any proof of its 
truth. Had he proved it, he would, in my opinion, have 
done a great work: he would have settled the controversy 
for all sincere persons. But to assert it proves nothing. 
In general, however, the author keeps most faithfully to 
his purpose" not to adduce facts, or to reason from them, but 
simply to state principles, and to shew their natural con- 
nexion with a certain great primary Idea." 
The great primary Idea is, in l\ir. Thompson's own re- 
peated statements, this. 
Christ" gave the one Episcopate to one, i. e. to St. Peter: 
He gave it to him alone, 'Whole and entire, and tllen He made 
the rest partakers of it in union with St. Peter, each receiv- 
ing it whole and entire in union with him, who alone of all 
possessed it in himself, wholly, and in its fulne.ys. The Epi- 
scopate which IIe gave first to Peter alone He conferred- 
not anothpr, or a similar Episcopate, but the same-on the 
whole Apostolic body, with Peter at its head; not on that 
body, as well as on Peter, (for then thcre would have been 
two sovereign powers,) but on tlte body of wlticll Peter was 
the ltead-in other 'words th'e 'I.oot and source:" p. 23. 



And again: "It is not that the rest were taken into joint 
government with ';peter, so as simply to be co-rulers, co- 
adjutors with him:" p. 25. 
"Peter was complete in himself; the rest without him 
wóuld have been incomplete, as is a body without its head. 
In all things else they were his equals, that only thing ex- 
cepted, which he was to them and not they to him. One only 
could be that which Peter was-the centre of the system, the 
keystone of the arch:" p. 31. 
"The keys were given to Peter personally; but they were 
given because of the character and office with which he was 
invested, viz., the headship of the Church. In this character 
it was that the keys were gi,-en. They were given to the 
unity which began in ]lim, and was centred in him. He 
was no longer a common person, or an individual Apostle, 
but, the chief organ, or head, of a body-the origin and bond 
of corporate oneness:" p. 37. 
"The Church was built on Peter singly, but on the rest 
of the Apostles, not singly, but as consolidated with that 
foundation which Christ laid in His chief Apostle. It is one 
solid mass of which Peter is the first-laid stone, and not the 
first laid only, but that on which the structure rests, and out of 
which it springs-the stone which is imperishable, and which 
cannot be moved out of its place:" p. 40. 
"On it Christ placed His Church, and on the rest only 
as they were in solid union with it:" p. 40. 
"Peter represents the uuity of. that Body, and is him- 
self the ordained head and source of it. He represents that 
which also consists in, and depends upon, him. He is t]w 
ceutre of unity, and its origin. Unity begins from him, not 
merely in mailer of time, but in its essence:" p. 48. 
The "ultimate form" of the "unity and universality of the 
Church" "is in Peter:" p. 49. 
"As the unity of each particular Church exists in, 



and depends upon, its Bishop, so the unity of the Universal 
Church exists in, and depends vpon, St. Peter, or !tis suc- 
cessor:" p. 49. 
"Each (Apostle) had what Peter had, with this only differ- 
ence, that Peter had of himself, what they had by being in 
union with Peter:" p. 25. 
" The mission of the Apostles was extraordinary in them, 
and (except in tlte case of Pete-r) was to ter'Jninate with their 
lives:" p. 23. 
" The unity of the Episcopate, as originating in one, viz., 
Peter, and existing in him alone, or in the whole Episcopal 
Body with its head:" p. 59. 
"The Catholic doctrine is-that Christ conferred the Epi- 
scopate, i. e. the full and universal power of governing the 
Church, upon the Apostles. lIe conferred it upon them, as I 
have said, not individually, but corporately, not s
but collectively, and in im
epa'rable union with Peter:" p. 60. 
"The jurisdiction which the other Apostles possessed, 
they possessed by union with Peter, but the jurisdiction which 
Peter possessed he possessed in ltilïlself. The jurisdiction of 
the rest depended upon their union with Peter, not Peter's 
jurisdiction upon his union with them :" p. 66. 
""Then the Apostles founded Churches, they did not com- 
municate to those whom they placed over them that U ni- 
versal mission which they themselves had received, but con- 
ferred upon tlwm a restricted and limited power. And 
moreover, in conferring it, they did it not of their single 
independent authority, but in virtue of their corporate union 
with one as their head, viz., Peter:" p. 67. 
"The Church seems to have been possessed from the 
first with the simple primary Idea, that the Apostolic body 
in indissoluble union witlt Peter, as its head, composed the 
one Episcopate, and was the source of all authority and 
jurisdiction:" p. 96. 



"The whole Church is in ltim (the Pope,) as each particular 
Church is in its Bishop:" p. 97, note. 
'c 'Yhat is this Apostolic or Episcopal body whidl is thus 
supreme? It is, as I have shewn, the Bishops of the 
Church in union with Peter as their head,. it is their union 
l.vitlt tlwir head, which constitutes their corporate exist- 
ence:" p. 135. 
cc The Pope is not simply a member of that body, but he is 
tlwt which gives to the body its oorporate existence, and con- 
stitutes it a whole:" p. 136. 
"The Episcopate is one; it was given to one, viz., Peter, 
by Christ Himself; the rest had part in it by union with Pete'l"; 
they had part in the whole by union with him to whom the 
whole was given. N ow, one of the attributes of the Episco- 
pate is infallibility; hence Peter, who received it as a whole, 
received also in himself the power of infallible judgment. 
But to Peter were added the rest of the Apostles, who, in 
virtue of their extraordinary powers, were all personally 
iufallible judges in matters of faith. Yet they were so, not 
separately, but only in union with Peter. Peter had singly 
that and all other attl'ibutes, of whic1t they also had full pos- 
session as united with him. But as has been shewn" (i. e. 
asserted) "in the case of sovereignty and universal jurisdic- 
tion, no Bishop, or union of Bishops, succeeded to the ex- 
traordinary powers of any Apostle or numher of Apostles. 
It is only in their corporate capacity that the Bishops of 
the Church succeed to the Apostolic college, and to those 
attributes which are inseparable from the one Episcopate; 
but the Pope, as successor of St. Peter, possessing all the 
personal prerogatives of the head of the Apostolic body, pos- 
sesses in himself the fulness of the Episcopate, and with it the 
inseparable attribute of infallibility:" pp. 144, 145. 
cc As Christ, when about to establish His Church, set up 
unity in one, viz., Peter, so when He associated the other Apo- 


F.CO);,D t:Drno

sties in this unity, and in the fulness of the Episcopate, He 
did not take away from Peter any part of that which He had 
already conferred upon him. By associating them with him, 
He did not make him divide amongst them that which he 
already possessed as a whole; but as he already possessed 
in himself the unity and fulness of the Episcopate, so he con- 
tinued to possess it, as well as the supreme pOll"er which resides 
in that unity:" p. 107. 
:àir. Thompson's great pl'imary Idea is contained in tlmt 
part of these quotations which is in italics: and it would 
scem as if constant repetition were intended to bave tIle 
effect of proof. Now I admit that the Idea is simple enough 
to understand, and, moreover, of such immense importance 
that the truth or falsehood of it win decide the whole con- 
troversy between the Roman and other Communions. But 
on what proof does it rest? 
The proof, I presume, in :àlr. Thompson's mind, though 
implied in his book rather than stated, is the passage of 
l\fatt. xvi. 18, 19. On the ground of this passage alone in 
Scripture can he assert that Christ" gave the one Episcopate 
to one, i. e. to St. Peter: He gave it to him alone, whole 
and entire, and then lIe made the rest partakers of it in 
union with St. Peter, each receiving it whole and entire in 
union with him, who alone of aU possessed it in himself, 
wboUy, and in its fulness :" p. 25. And the time at which 
Christ made the rest partakers of it of course can only be 
that marked in John xx. 21-3. 
Now every pal't of Scripture, speciaUy of our Lord's own 
words, is fun of inscrutable depth and meaning, and, if it is 
to be admitted as a Canon of Scripture interpretation, that 
whatever is said of Peter in the New Testament is said of 
the Bishop of Rome, as his single successor, and if, besides, 
our Lord did confer in these words the Episcopate on Peter 
alone, whole and entire, and then made the rest partakers of 



it in union with St. Peter, so that His words would con,-ey 
the Idea, that Peter alone of all possessed it in himself 
wholly and in its fulness, then, if hotlt those premises are 
true, I might draw some such conclusion from them as 1\Ir. 
Thompson does. 
But, in the first place, it will be seen at great length in 
my book, that the greatest Fathers of the Church, St. Au- 
gustine, St. Cyril, and St. Chrysostome, did not suppose 
the Bishop of Rome to be intended at all, any more than 
any other Rishop, in this passage: nor in that of John, 
"Feed 1\ly sheep." St. Leo is the great author of this opinion, 
and the succeeding Popes after 11Ïm; and in medieval times 
it was recei,-ed generally in the 'Yest: but from the first 
time that this Idea and its consequences were presented to 
the Eastern mind, down to tIle present hour, it has by the 
voice of its greatest Saints and Patriarchs, and the acts of 
Ecumenical Councils, firmly and consistently denied it. I 
mean it has maintained that the same power of the keys 
was hestowed upon the Apostles and their successor.
, as upon 
Peter and his successors: not hy vÜ"tue of their union with 
him, but in virtue of their corporate union in Christ, their 
sole Head. 
I conceive therefore that the first premiss is not proven, 
viz., that it is a Canon of Scripture interpretation that what- 
ever is said of Peter in the New Testament is said of the 
Bishop of Rome as his single successor. 
Neither is the second premiss proven, for these words of 
our Lord do not convey any such Idea as l\Ir. Thompson 
draws from them. And here I cannot sufficiently wonder 
at the oversight which he makes. He snpposes that the 
words, "Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I win build 
:ßly Church; and the gates of hell shaH not prevail against 
it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be 



bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth 
shall be loosed in heaven," are not a promise of a po" er to 
be hereafter bestowed, but a power then and there actually 
bestowed. 'Vhereas the power here promised to Peter, as to 
his brother Apostles in l\Iatt. xviii. lR, was first conferred 
on all the Apostles to,qether, by our Lord in the evening of 
the Resurrection, So that, following most strictly our Lord's 
words, we find that Peter never for one instant possessed the 
Episcopate by himself: or before the rest of the Apostles. 
The fulfilment of the promise made in J\latt. xvi. to the 
Church represented by her first A postle Peter, and in J\fatt. 
xviii. to the same Church in the person of all her Apostles, 
was given to all the Apostles together as described in John 
xx. 21-3. Peter received his Apostolic powers in the same 
and no other words as the rest of the Apostles: in l'cceiving 
them he was no wise distinguished from them. Those words 
conveyed the power of jurisdiction as well as orders, which 
together make up the Episcopal character. "As J\fy Father 
hath sent l\fe, even so send I you. And when lIe had said 
this, He breathed on them and saith unto them, Receive ye 
the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins ye remit, they are re- 
mitted unto them: and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are 
retained." The Idea which 1\lr. Thompson has so elabo- 
rately and repeatedly expressed is, as regards these passages 
of Scripture, a pure fiction. It has absolutely no founda- 
tion. The Idea which he so pointedly rejects is the very one 
"hich our Lord's words convey: viz., that He bestowed the 
whole Episcopate on the Twelve as co-rulers, and in their 
persons on the whole undivided Episcopate of His Church, 
under Himself their sole Head: the breath of His mouth 
was their commission: His Spirit dwelling in them is the 
pledge of its continuance to the end. They hold it by cor- 
porate union not with Peter, that is, any more than with 
each other, but with IIim. Before this commission on the 



evening of the Resurrection the Episcopate did not exist-it 
had been promised to Peter, it had been p'i"omised to the 
Apostles: but the dispensation itself did not allow of its 
being given before our Lord rose from the dead. In the 
p1'omise He had said-I will build-I will give-what ye shall 
bind shall be bound,-what ye shall loose shall be loosed. 
In the fulfilment He said, whosesoever sins ye remit they m'e 
remitted: whosesoever sins ye retain, they are 1'elained. ãv 
TtvCJJV àcþijTE Tàr; áJLapTlar; àcþlEVTat aVToÎs. ãv TLVCJJV KpaTijTE, 
KEKpáT7}VTat. Let 
Ir. Thompson, or anyone else, shew when 
Peter ever received the Episcopate whole and complete in 
As regards holy Scripture therefore 1\fr. Thompson's pri- 
mary Idea is a mere baseless assertion. As to antiquity, 
the immense preponderance of its testimony is likewise 
against it. In vain does 1\ir. Thompson try to torture a 
passage or two of St. Cyprian and of St. Augustine into 
his vicw: in vain, by resting exclusively on one or two ex- 
pressions of St. Optatus and others, and putting out of sight 
all that on the other side the CllU10ch did and spoke, does he 
try to give it the witness of antiquity. I do not ask any 
body to believe my assertion; let him bear this primary 
Idea in his mind, and then see if the history of the Church 
down to the very division of the East and 'Vest will endure 
it. 1\11'. Thompson supposes that all who are not in the 
Roman Communion are smitten with blindness, and cannot 
enter into the true idea of unity. Being a convert of a few 
months standing he informs us what is "the Catholic faith" 
on that point. It may surprise him to learn that I began 
this inquiry with assuming that the Ultra-montane Idca 
was true, and that I have been beaten out of it step 
by stcp by the sheer and irresistible strength of facts: 
so that no one Idea seems to me so thoroughly contra- 
dicted hy the whole history of the Church down to the 



reception of the fal:5e Decretals, as that very primary Idea 
which he asserts. 
It is indeed my full conviction, for which the grounds will 
be seen in the last chapter of my book, that the Pope's U lli- 
versal Bishopric, and all the exaggeration of power attendant 
on it, were introduced into Western Europe under cover of 
a fraud, viz., under the pretended authority of those early 
Roman Pontiffs whose letters were forged in the false Decre- 
tals. "\Vhen fiye hundred years later these Decretals were 
found to be supposititious, the system which had grown up 
under their shelter was too deeply rooted to be changed: 
the Bishops of Rome having once enjoyed a real plenitude of 
power would not be contented with that moderate portion 
which they possessed in the time of the Ecumenical Councils. 
They would have all or nothing, and the consequence has been 
the permanent estrangement of the East from the "rest, and a 
most grievous dislocation of the 'Yest itself. But how the de- 
nial of a claim, which really rests upon a fraud, can be a "alid 
ground for imputing schism, I cannot conceive. That which 
the East and we have rejected, is, not the Pope's Primacy as 
it was understood and practised in the time of the Seven 
Ecumenical Councils, but the Universal Bishopric of which 
Nicholas I. laiù the foundations, Gregory VII. reared the 
structure, and Innocent III. completed the building. God 
forbid that I should assert or believe that those illustrious 
Pontiffs were conscious of the fraud: I doubt not that they 
believed that the work to which they set themselves was a 
holy work, the work of God: but it is not the less true that 
Nicholas 1. and the succeeding Pontiffs made use of the 
false Decretals to build up their spiritual monarchy, and that 
the new principles contained in them became the basis of 
Gratian's Decretum, and consequently of the Church's dis- 
cipline in the West. 
But, when this fraud was discovered, the defendcrs of the 



Pope's unlimited power, the great 
chool of St. Ignatim
Loyola, set themselves with unexampled energy, skill, and 
unity of purpose, to build up the breach. Theirs are those 
very clever, but arbitrary, divisions which }'Ir. Thompson 
assumes to be "the Catholic Faith:" i. e. the separation of 
the Bishop's power into that of orders, and that of juris- 
diction, allowing that all Bishops are equal a
 to the first, 
but restricting the last to the Pope: the asserting that St. 
Peter's power was ordinary, but that of the Apostles extra- 
ordinary: that St. Peter had a successor to all his power, but 
the Apostles none to theirs: that the Bishops are successors 
of the Apostles only as to orders, not as to jurisdiction: that 
the Pope's jurisdiction comes from Christ immediately, but 
that of other Bishops from the Pope: that the Apostles were 
equal to each other in all points but one, viz., that the exercise 
of all their powers depended upon union with Peter, which 
totally destroyed their equality. 
These and such like are very clever, but wholly arbitrary, 
and moreover e:c-post-faclo defences of the plenitude of 
Papal power, which was really introduced by the belief of 
'Vestern Europe in the authenticity of the false Decretals. 
It will be seen in the latter part of my book that Bossuet 
and Van Espen reject in the strongest terms proposition
1r. Thompson considers part of the Catholic belief. 
J\1r. Thompson's great primary Idea, therefore, however 
often repeated, is based on no warranty of Scripture, but 
even condemned by the words and møde in which Scripture 
describes the institution of the Apostolate and Episcopate. 
How contrary it is to antiquity my whole book will shew. 
But, thirdly, it destroys, as I conceive, the unity of the 
Apostolate, and of the Episcopate. If St. Peter "alone of 
all possessed the Episcopate in himself, wholly and in its 
fulness," p. 25; if" he is the ordained head and source of 
the Body," and" represcnts that which also consists in and 

X\ 1 


depends upon him;" if "unity begins in him not merely 
in matter of time but in its essence," p. 48; if "the unity 
of the Episcopate exists in Peter alone, or in the whole 
Episcopal body with its llead," p. 59; if" the jurisdiction 
which the other Apostles possessed, they possessed by union 
with Peter: but the jurisdiction which Peter possessed, he 
possessed in himself," p. 66; if" it was the union of the 
Apostles with their head, i. e. Peter, which constituted tlwir 
corporate existence," p. 135, and if, accordingly, the Pope 
cc is not simply a member of that body, but he is that which 
gives to the body its corporate existence, and constitutes it 
a whole," then it is quite evident that this is not H Episco- 
patus unus cujus a sillgulis in solidum pars tenetur." St. 
Peter's power extinguished that of the other Apostles, as 
those of his successor extinguish the power of all other 
Bishops. St. Peter, according to the power here attributed 
to him, could depose the eleven, and elect another eleven: 
or the Pope depose the whole of his brother Bishops, and 
choose a fresh Episcopate. Venerable Brethren they may 
be called, but in point of fact, as Van Espen shews a, they 
would be simply Vicars; and St. Peter first, and the Pope 
after him, the sole Bishop of the Church, the" Uniyersalis 
Episcopus" in the very sense which St. Gregory reprobated 
as antichristian. 
Ir. Thompson's view (C of the Catholic 
Faith" is this, that if a thousand Bishops sat in a General 
Council on disputed points of faith or discipline, and nine 
hundred and ninety-tiÏne gave their deci:sion on one side, 
and the Pope, being the thousandth, 011 the other, the Pope's 
decision would be that of the Church, and all Catholics would 
be bound to receive it as such: and in case the nine hundred 
anù ninety-nine held out, the Pope might proceed to depose 
them, and name others in their stead. For the "ultimate 
form" of unity, and all the powers of the Episcopate, reside 

a See helow, l"h. 



in him singly: and they, however many, without him are 
"not a body at all a:" but he without them possesses the 
gift of infallibility, the ultimate expression of the Church's 
divine power. 
Now it is very conccivable that our Lord might have ap- 
pointed such a government of His Church as this: I do not 
find the Idea at aU hard, as 
Ir. Thompson seems to sup- 
pose it; our Lord might have willed to leave a spiritual 
monarch on earth as His representative, with officers de- 
pendent on him, and owing all their powers to their cor- 
porate union with him: causing the ultimate form of unity 
to reside in the monarch himself, as His vicar, and all power 
of jurisdiction to flow from his person. All this is very con- 
ceivable, but is it i'rue? Is it the spiritual government of 
which we see the institution in holy Scripture: and the 
working in the holy Church Catholic? Is it that "Episco- 
patus unus cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur?" That 
government of which St. Cyril b wrote to a brother Patriarch, 
" One is the solicitude of Bishops, though we be divided by 
space?" Of which Pope St. G.regory wrote, "Surely Peter, 
the first of the Apostles, is a member of the holy r niversal 
Church; Paul, Andrew, Jolm, what else are they but the 
heads of particular communities? and yet all are members 
under one Head." Who said likewise to a brother Patri- 
arch, "I beg your Holiness to call me no more Universal 
Pope, because whatever is given to another more than 
reason requires is so much taken away from yourself. . . . 
For if your Holiness call me Universal Pope, you deny that 
you are yourself what you admit me to be, Universal. But 
this God forbid." Is it that government of which even in 
1054 Pope St. Leo IX. wrote, that his predecessors, Cl con- 
sidering that the chief of the Apostles himself is not found 
· See the assertion of Desirant, b Tom. vi. Epist. 205. D. p.(a -yàp 
quoted by Van Espen, infra, p. 437. .q TW/I Ifpfw/I cppo/lTls leal fi T07rlIeWS 
Mr. Thompson, however, goes far be- litVPl}/oA.f8a. 
yond him. 




called Universal Apostle, utterly rejected that proud name 
(of Universal,) by which their equality of rank seemed to be 
taken away from all Prelates tllroughout the world, in that a 
claim was madefoT one upon the whole C ?" 
And this brings me to another point. The equality of the 
Episcopate, the' par dignitas' of Pope Leo IX., is utterly 
destroyed by Mr. Thompson's theory. It is utterly futile to 
divide the Episcopate into two parts, orders and jurisdiction, 
allow all Bishops to be equal as to the first, but one only to 
hold the second, and term this still, "unus Episcopatus, cujus 
a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." It may be a government 
of wonderful power from its concentration, and under which 
wonderful deeds have been done: but it is no longer one in 
which'" unus Episcopatus,' 'par dignitas' is held by a 'col- 
legium,' as St. Cyprian says to the Pope. Nor that of which 
he wrote: " 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 aU 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." Powerful words, which have re- 
ceived the approval of St. Augustine. The Papal govern- 
ment, on the contrary, is a most highly centralized absolute 
Now the sovereignty of the Church as instituted by our 
Lord lies in that one Episcopate which He instituted on the 
night of His resurrection: a body bound together in corporate 
unity with its Head, who is Christ Himself: the first member 
of this body, primus inter pares, Peter was, but not its head, 

c "Quo videbatur par dignitas 8U1>- dum uni ex toto arrogaretur."-l\Iallsi 
trabi cunctis per orbem præsulibus, xix. () 
o. c. 



except indeed in that derived and imperfect sense in which 
the Primate of a particular Church is said to be its head. 
The very fault with which I should charge Mr. Thompson is, 
that he makes the Pope the Head of the Church in the sense 
in which Christ alone is her Head. I reject, as much as he 
can, the notion of each Bishop by himself being sovereign: 
I cannot but wonder that he should put such a meaning 
upon me, which was contrary to the tenor of my whole book. 
But I reject equally the notion, that one single Apostle, or 
one single Bishop, ever was, or is, sovereign, and possesses, 
or possessed, the whole Episcopate complete in himself. 
'Vhat Peter possessed, I would give to Peter's successor, 
because the Church did so; but this is a power which Peter 
cannot be shewn ever to have possessed: which destroys the 
equality and parity of his brother Apostles: as it destroys 
the unity and parity of the Episcopate. I entirely agree 
with l\löhler's thoughtful words, that "Peter set forth his 
position by his acts d ," and what follows from this is, that 
such as Peter was in the Apostolic college, Peter's suc- 
cessor was to be in the Episcopal. The same author says, 
"Whether the Primacy of a Church belongs to the essence 
of the Catholic Church was very long doubtful to me: I 
was even decided to deny it: since the organic binding 
together of all parts in a whole, which the Idea of the 
Catholic Church demands downright, and is itself, seemed 
to be fully attained by the unity of the Episcopate, as it was 
up to this point developed: on the other side it strikes the 
eye at once that the history of the first three hundred years 
is very sparing in materials which make all doubt utterly 
impossible e." He goes on to view St. Peter's Primacy, deve- 
loped in the Acts of the Apostles, as foreshadowing that of 
his successor, in the whole Church: a beautiful and philo- 

d "Petrus beurkuudete faktisch seine Stellung." Einheit in der Kirche, 
e lb., 





sophic view, which I readily accept. But the controverS)T 
in point is not this. It is whether that Primate, having at 
a certain point in the Church's history changed his Primacy 
into a Monarchy on the strength of forged documents, which 
change produced on two separate occasions a grievous rent 
in the Church, every Christian is bound to submit to that 
Monarchy, on pain of being guilty of 
chism, because the 
Church once allowed and accepted that Primacy. 
These remarks are sufficient, I think, to shew, that 
Thompson's great primary Idea is baseless, and that his 
theory on the unity of the Episcopate in fact destroys that 
unity, by merging it in the monarchy of a single Bishop: 
it is, to use a similitude which he has taken up, as if the 
defender of the unity of the Godhead should destroy the 
distinction of Persons: whereas the one Godhead is that 
wherein the three Persons are One: and the one Episcopate 
is that wherein all Bishops are One. ' 





Introduction. Necessity of considering the question of Schism 5 
A state of Schism involves the loss of all Christian privileges 7 
The subject not to be treated controversially 9 
Formularies of the English Church cannot be appealed to as the law 
in this matter, but the decision of the undivided Church 10 


State of the Church Catholic at the Council of Nicea 
St. Leo's respect for the Nicene discipline 
Supremacy of the Episcopate universally acknowledged 
l\Ietropolitical system 
Order of the Catholic Hierarchy 
Canons of the Apostles 
Of Antioch and Nicea 
Roman Primacy 
Testimonies to it quoted by.Mr. Newman 
Danger of one-sided quotation 
Essential unity and equality of the Episcopate 
'Witnessed by St. Augustine, Origen, St. Basil, St. Chrysostome, and 
St. Jerome 
Election and jurisdiction of Bishops . 
Witness of Pope Julius 
Influence of Bishop of Rome in a case of disputed succession: St. 
Points which modify St. Jerome's statement 
Language of St. Basil on the other side 
Inference from this language 
Instances of general supervision exercised by the Bishops of the 
greater Sees 




'Vitness of St. Basil respecting St. Athanasius 30 
Of Pope St. Julius 31 
Of St. Dionysius of Alexandria 32 
Of St. Athanasius tb. 
Of St. Gregory Nazianzene respecting St. Athanasius 3:3 
Of Tillemont respecting St. Basil ib. 
Of St. Basil respecting Peter of Alexandria . 34 
Of St. Chrysostome respecting St. Eustathius of Antioch ib. 
Of St. Gregory N azianzene respecting St. Cyprian ib. 
Episcopal jurisdiction 35 
Supreme authority of Provincial Councils in the first ages, according 
to De l\Iarca . ib. 


\Vitness of St. Cyprian to the self-government of the several Pro- 
vinces and to the Roman Primacy. 38 
1. Appeal of Felicissimus ib. 
2. Deposition of l\Iarcian 39 
3. Controversy on rebaptization of heretics 41 
Comment of St. Augustine 44 
St. Cyprian supported by St. Firmilian 45 
And by St. Dionysius of Alexandria 48 
St. Basil on the question of Baptism 49 
Remarks of Tillemont and Fleury 50 
Judgment of St. Augustine in this question on St. Cyprian's conduct 51 
Judgment of a General Council after the Pope's judgment 54 
4. Case of Basilides 55 
Summary of St. Cyprian's relation to the Roman Pontiff 56 


Pope St. Victor and the Asian Churches 57 
Acts of St. Irenæus interpret his words (H 
Testimony of St. Irenæus fi2 
Testimony of Tertullian û3 
Testimony of the Emperor Constantine 64 
Case of Paul of Samosata 65 
Deposed by an Eastern Council 67 
The \Vest could not reconsider Eastern judgments 68 
Case of l\Iarcion 69 
Answer of the Roman Clergy to his demand of being received by 
them 70 
Summary of the Nicene Period 71 




SECT. 1. 


Completion of the Patriarchal System 73 
Beginning of the Roman Bishop's power of hearing Episcopal causes 
on appeal 74 
Canons of the Council of Sardica ih. 
The Primacy in 347 . 76 
The Supremacy in 1802 77 
Two great Principles of the Patriarchal System ib. 

Great increase of influence to the Roman See founded on its orthodoxy 79 
Letter of the Council of Sardica to Pope Julius 
Letter of the Emperor Constantius to the Council of Rimini 
Independence and self-government of the East 
Circumstances preceding the Second Ecumenical Council 
Schism of Antioch 
Council of Constantinople summoned by Theodosius 
Presided over by St. Meletius 
St. Gregory of N azianzum on the feeling of the East towards the 'Vest 
Addition to the Nicene Creed by the Council 
Canons of discipline . 
Fleury, Tillemont, and De Marca on the Second Canon 
Fleury on the Third Canon 
St. Leo disowns these Canons: strong proof of Eastern self-govern- 
Council of Aquileia 
And of Italy . 
Expressions of St. Ambrose 
Answer of the Emperor Theodosius to the Italian Bishops 
Second Council of 382 
Their letter to the 'Vestern Bishops 
Council at Rome in 382 
Result from the above facts . 
Summary of the Second Ecumenical Council 
Proof of Eastern self-government 
Subsequent history of Flavian of Antioch 
St. Chrysostome ordained Reader and Priest out of Communion with 
Rome . 108 



. 103 
. 105 
. 106 



 OF (,O

The line of Flavian carries on the succession 
Conduct of St. Cyril towards Rome . 
Inference from the conduct of Atticus of Constantinople, Alexander 
.of Antioch, and St. Cyril of Alexandria 
Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria 
Result from these histories 


. 111 


Testimony of St. Augustine: the promises to Peter not as a 
particular Apostle, but to the Church, of which he is therein the 
type ib. 
Peter the type of the Church: Christ the Rock 113 
Peter a type of different classes of Christians 114 
The keys given to the Church 115 
Peter the type of returning penitents ib. 
The keys not given to Peter alone but to the Church 116 
And the commission to feed the sheep ib. 
Peter the type of the life of faith: John of fruition to come 117 
In what sense Peter was the figure of the Church 121 
Sum of St. Augustine's testimony on the Scriptures alleged to prove 
the Supremacy ib. 


Reference made to the Roman See throughout the 'Vest 121 
Pope St. Innocent and the Councils of Milevi and Carthage 122 
Right of receiving Reports possessed by the Roman See 124 
This right of receiving Reports not bestowed by Councils 125 
The two African Synods refer one of the :Majores Causæ to the Pope 127 
The Pope inferior to a General Council 128 
The Pope only an individual Bishop: his heresy fatal only tó him- 
self, not to the Church, according to St. Augustine 129 
Force of this language ib. 
Contrast of his language respecting a General Council 1:30 


Appeals from Africa to the Roman Pontiff ib. 
Case of Apiarius 131 
The Pope sends Legates to Africa 132 
Great Council at Carthage of 217 Bishops 133 
They declare that they will maintain what has been ordered by the 
Nicene Council ib. 
Conduct of the Legate Faustinus 134 
Speech of St. Augustine in the Council 1:35 




Faustinus requests reference to be made to the Pope: the Council 
orders that the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constanti- 
nople, be applied to for genuine copies of the Nicene Canons 135 
Restoration of Apiarius, and compromise ib. 
Letter of the Universal Council of Africa to Pope Boniface . 136 
They permit the Pope's rules to be observed till they have searched 
the statutes of the Nicene Council. ib. 
Suspension of the dispute for seven years 138 
The Sardican Canons quoted by the Pope for the Nicene ib. 
Second excommunication of Apiarius, and appeal to the Pope, who 
restores him ib. 
Letter thereupon to Pope Celestine from the Universal Council of 
Africa 139 
:;\Iaintains the Nicene discipline 140 
That Bishops are not to be judged by the Bishop of Rome, but by 
their own )Ietropolitans . 141 
Censures the sending of Legates a lale1'e ib. 
Inference from the above history 142 
Remarks of De Marca ib. 
Contrast of medieval claims . . 143 
Judgment of Bossuet on tills history. ib. 
Importance of this case to the cause of the English Church 144 


St. Augustine on the Unity of the Church 
His arguments against the Donatists 
His sermons on the day of SS. Peter and Paul 
'Vitness of St. Vincent of Lerins 
Agreement of St. Basil 
Bossuet on St. Vincent's rule . 
The Council of Jerusalem the type of all future Councils 





Importance of the witness of the Greek Fathers 
1. Witness of St. Basil the Great 
Letters to St. Athanasius 
Letter to Pope Damasus 
To Eusebius of Samosata 
To the Bishops of Italy and Gaul 




To the 'Vesterns 
To the same 
To the Bishops of Gaul and Italy 
St. Basil's position and influence 
Letter to the Count Terentius 
To the Patriarch 1\1eletius 
Summary of St. Basil's conduct towards Rome 


2. St. Gregory of N azianzum 
Parallel between Rome and Constantinople 
His view of the Apostolic College 


3. St. Athanasius: mention of Roman Bishops 
Dilemma if Hosius was Papal Legate at Sardica 
Letter of Pope Julius to the Eusebian Bishops 
Most adverse to the present Papal claim 
Constitution of the Church in 362 as instanced in St. Athanasius 
How witnessed by "the History of the Arians" 
Pope Damasus calls the Eastern Bishops sons 
As Athanasius does the Bishop Rufinianus 
Supreme power in Provincial Synods 
Passage in the life of Pope Liberius . 
His interview with the Emperor Constantius 
Inference from this nalTative 
Summary of St. Athanasius . 


. HiO 
. 161 
. 162 


. 176 

4. St. Chrysostome ib. 
Primacy of St. Peter: election of l\Iatthias . 181 
Bossuet's interpretation of this 182 
The Rock, Peter's confession . 183 
The Bishop of Antioch, being out of Communion with Rome, called 
Peter, as inheriting his seat ib. 
The R{)ck, Peter's confession 1
Interpretation of Matt. xvi. 16. 185 
Stress laid on the comession of the Sonship . 186 
Interpretation of Luke xxii. 32. ib. 
Contrast between St. Chrysostome's interpretation and the late Roman 
one . 187 
Interpretation of John xxi. 15. . 188 
Agreement of St. Cyril ib. 
General view of these passages ib. 



John xx. 21, a grant to the whole Priesthood 189 
The Real Presence as stated by St. Chrysostome 190 
The Christian Priesthood ib. 
Superiority of spiritual to temporal power 191 
Superiority of Christian to Jewish Priesthood ib. 
Authority of the Priesthood above that of natural parents 192 
Inference from these passages 193 
Contrast with the modem Roman claim of exclusive jurisdiction ib. 
St. Chrysostome ordained Reader, Deacon, and Priest by Bishops out 
of Communion with R{)me . ib. 
John xxi. 15. said to Priests . 194 
Matt. xvi. 16. applied to all the Apostles ib. 
Agreement of St. Chrysostome and St. Augustine: silence as to the 
See of Rome ib. 
Letter to Pope St. Innocent . 195 
He appeals to a Council and the Canon of the Church 196 
Duplicates of his letter sent to the Bishops of :\IiIan and Aquileia. ib. 
Bellarmine's quotation of this letter . ib. 
Another letter to Pope St. Innocent, and the Pope's replies . . 197 
Letter of the Pope to the Church of Constantinople . ib. 
He uses the same language as to a Council . ib. 
Pope Innocent's letter to the Patriarch Theophilus . 198 
Conclusion from this history . ib. 
Passage of St. Chrysostome about Rome . 199 
Eminence of Rome as the burial place of the Apostles Paul and 
Peter ib. 
St. Chrysostome's tone about Rome, and that of late Roman writers 200 


5. Witness of St. Cyril of Alexandria 201 
Matt. xvi. 16. The Rock, the Faith of Peter ib. 
The Apostles foundations of the earth 2U2 
Christ the Rock ib. 
John xxi. a great mystery. The renewal of Peter's Apostolate 203 
The commission of the Apostles to be Ecumenical Doctors given in 
John xx. 21. . 205 
Parallel descent of the Roman and other Sees . 206 
Bishops stand in the place of the Apostles ih. 
And are their full successors 207 
Proved from Is. xxxii. 1. ib. 
And on John x. 1. 208 
And on Is. xxxiii. 21. ib. 
And on Is. xxx. 25. . . 2U9 
Inference from St. Cyril's teaching on these passages ib. 
His view of the Apostolic College, on Is. live 11. 210 

Summary of the testimonies of the Fathers. Scriptures claimed for 
the Roman See 
What the prerogatives of Rome are which the fourth and fifth cen- 
turies allow . 226 
1. 'Vitness as to these passages of Scripture. ib. 
They intimate great gifts to the Church's rulers; silence as to the 
See of Rome 
Contrast of St. Bernard's language. He says just what is wanted 
for the Papal claim, and what the Fathers do not say 
Had this claim existed, it must have been set forth in the docu- 
ments of the first six centuries 
2. Witness as to the writings and actions of the Fathers 
Difference between Vicarius Petri and Vicarius Christi: the former 
the symbol of the early, the latter of medieval times 
Primacy and monarchy opposed Ideas 
General view of the Fathers 



The Apostles in their Priesthood take the place of the Levitical 
hierarchy . 
Aaron the type of Christ: Priests of the Apostles 
Aaron the type of the Bishop: Priests of Presbyters 
St. Cyril's actions cOIToborate his teaching . 
His letter to Attieus of Constantinople 
His language herein, when out of Communion with the West 
Inference from St. Cyril's conduct 
Contrast with Bellarmine's language, approved by .Mr. Newman 
Conduct of St. Cyril in the case of N estorius 
His letter to Pope Celestine . 
Pope Celestine's answer to St. Cyril 
Condemnation of N estorius, and suspension of the sentence 
Letter to Monks of Constantinople 
Letter to John of Antioch 
Value of the Pope's Communion 
Letter to Juvenal of Jerusalem 
Terms of St. Cyril's sentence of N estorius 
John of Antioch's letter to the other Patriarchs 
Interference of St. Cyril in the Patriarchate of Antioch 
Establishment of a fifth Patriarchate by St. Cyril and St. Proclus 
Interference of St. Cyril with the Patriarchate of Constantinople 
St. Proclus and St. Cyril act as supreme authorities 
Another instance of general superintendence in the Patriarchs 



. 215 
. 222 




. 229 







Roman Primacy at the Third Council 
Bossuet's account of it 
Judgments of Roman Pontiffs di fide reconsidered . 
Pope Celestine consulted by St. Cyril 
His proceedings in consequence 
Ecumenical Council called by the Emperor 
Sentence of St. Celestine and St. Cyril suspended 
Course of proceeding as to the Faith 
Nestorius summoned as a Bishop 
Cyril's letter, approved by the Pope, examined 
Letter of N estorius, disapproved by the Pope, examined 
Course of proceeding as to the person of N estorius 
N estorius deposed by a fresh judgment of the Council 
Arrival of the Papal Legates 
Proceedings reviewed and found Canonical 
Judgment of the Roman See reconsidered 
'Vhat Confinnation means 
Not St. Cyril, but Arcadius, Projectus, and Philip, Legates from Rome 
to the Council 
They represented the whole West 
Bossuet's conclusion from this Council 
Pope Celestine's letter to the Council 
Bossuet's inferences from this letter . 
Contrast of De :\Iaistre and his school 
Eighth Canon of the Council 
Application of this Canon by De Marca 
And by Theodoret 

. 2:32 



Important Pontificate of St. Leo 
The Roman Pontiff represents St. Peter 
Peculiar privileges of Peter in the Apostolic College 
All the Church's rulers invested with the figure of Peter 
Present government of the Church ascribed to him . 
St. Leo's teaching to be compared with St. Augustine's 
The position of St. Leo in the Church 


System of appointing other Bishops Vicars of the Roman Bishop 
History of St. Hilary of ArIes 
Case of Celidonius, according to Tillemont. St. Hilary goes to Rome: 
maintains that the Church of Gau1 had the same rights as that of 
Africa: is overborne by the Pope: and leaves Rome secretly. 
Celidonius acquitted by St. Leo . 25-1 
St. Leo obtains an imperial edict . 258 
St. Hilary maintains his right in silence 2.39 
Tendency of Patriarchal power to increase ih. 
Election and consecration of Bishops still free 260 
Primacy of Rome stated by the Church of ArIes ib. 
St. Leo's view of his own power as stated to the Bishops of his own 
St. Leo's words the germ of the present Roman system, but not sup- 
ported by other parts of the Church 262 
This government new 263 
And not submitted to in Africa ib. 
Imposed by aid of the civil power 264 
'V ords of St. Jerome opposed to it i b. 
And of St. Augustine, on Psalm xlv. 2ü5 
This government not allowed, nor even attempted in the East . 266 
Obedience of Synesius to his Patriarch, when out of Communion 
with Rome 
Appeals from one Patriarch to another 
Theodoret appeals to St. Leo 
Athanasius of PeITha from Antioch to St. Proclus and St. Cyril 
Peter from Antioch to St. Cyril 
Eutyches appeals to Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Thessalonica 
The Patriarchs the mghest tribunal of appeal 
Eastern Independence, and the Supremacy of the Canon 
The Bishop of Rome's office in respect of the Canon 
Canon alluded to by Socrates and Sozomen . 
Grounded on the letter of Pope Ju1ius 
This Canon not kept in two notable instances 
IITegularities leading to the Council of Chalcedon . 
St. Leo's reference to the Canon 




Bossuet's argument, and its bearing on the question in hand 
The real question at issue 
His account of the Council . 
The relative position of St. Flavian and St. Leo 
The Emperor Theodosius calls a Council 
'Yhich Leo does not decline . 
lIe requests of the Emperor a fresh Council. 



. 268 
. 273 

. 27.3 
. 277 




St. Leo grounds his right to hear an appeal on the Sardican Canons 
quoted as the Nicene 278 
Theodosius refuses a new Council ib. 
But ::\Iarcian grants it ib. 
1. Deposition of Dioscorus . 279 
The Bishops severally pronounce judgment . . 280 
Bishops of Rome and Constantinople mentioned in parallel terms ib. 
Bossuet's remarks on the mode of this judgment . 281 
This the first time the Bishop of Rome had presided at an Ecume- 
nical Council . 282 
2. Examination of Pope Leo's letter ib. 
Judgments of the several Bishops 284 
Gallic and Italian Bishops speak of this letter . 285 
Bossuet's deduction from this judgment 286 
Discrepancy of Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius ib. 
St. Leo allows his letter to have been examined 287 
Supreme authority of a Council over the Pope ib. 
3. Theodoret restored by the Council, after Pope Leo's judgment . 289 
Inference from this history . ib. 
4. The passing of the 28th Canon . 290 
Passed a second time in spite of the Legates . 292 
Parallel privileges of Rome and Constantinople . 293 
Significant remarks of Tillemont on the mode in which the Canon 
was opposed at Rome ib. 
St. Leo's own language quite opposed to the present Roman claims. 294 
What the injury was, and to whom done . 296 
Reason assigned to the Empress for rejecting the 28th Canon ib. 
The 'Vest rejects: the East maintains it . 297 
Greater power of hearing appeals granted to Constantinople, than at 
Sardica to Rome . 
Code of the ancient Church received and confirmed in the first 
Canon of Chalcedon ib. 
The Ecc1esiastical constitution which it sets forth . . 298 
Relation of the Council to St. Leo ib. 
The Pope successor of St. Peter, and head over the members 299 
The Pope entrusted with the vine 300 
Present power of the Saints attested by the Church Catholic ib. 
See of Constantinople second to Rome . 301 
Statement of the Pope's Primacy . 302 
Distinction between Primacy and Supremacy in the Council's lan- 
Conclusion from the whole history . 


. 303 





SECT. 1. 

Period succeeding the Council of Chalcedon . 304 
State of the Church in the East after the beginning of the l\Iono- 
physite contentions ib. 
Advance of the Papal claims in the West . 305 
Affair of Timothy the Ca,t settled by the general consent of the 1\'le- 
tropolitans and their Councils 306 
Great authority of the Bishop of Constantinople 307 


Schism between the East and West in the time of Acacius . 
Pope Felix condemns Acacius 
\Vho resists, and the East and West are severed 
Pope Gelasius declares that he is carrying out the provisions of the 
Council of Chalcedon 
Eastern view of the Church's government from the beginning 
Pope Gelasius states his Primacy 
Remarks on this statement . 
Distinction of ancient from medieval claims 
Pope Gelasius attributes his power of hearing appeals to the Canons 
His claim goes beyond that of Pope St. Innocent; rejected by the 
African Bishops 
Restoration of unity on the terms of Rome . 


. 313 



Pope Symmachus ordered by Theodorick to be tried by an Italian 
The Council acquits him without entering into the case 
Remarkable letter of St. A vitus 
Testimony to the Primacy 
The Episcopate itself injured in the person of the Pope 
Idea indicated in these words 
Statement of Ennodius in favour of the Council 
His defence ratified by the Pope in Council 
His opinion that" the First See is judged by no man" passes into a 
dogma . 321 

. 317 
. 319 




Yet is contradicted by a Roman Council in the year 378, and by the 
practice of Pope Sylvester . 321 
Remarks on this incident ib. 


Pope Agapetus deposes Anthimus Patriarch of Constantinople, for 
heresy and inegularity 322 
The Patriarch of Jerusalem confinns the deposition . 323 
Laws of Justinian give the force of law to the code of Canons rati- 
fied at Chalcedon, and establish, L the Primacy of Rome: 2. the 
supreme and final judgment of the several Patriarchs within their 
own limits .323-6 


Pope Vigilius and the Fifth Council 
The Council states that the letter of Pope Leo was approved after 
examination: which is admitted by Pope Vigilius 
Importance of this point 
State of thÌ at the Fifth Council. 
J'udicatum and Constitutum of the Pope 
The Council issues a decree contradicting that of the Pope. 
Censure of the Pope by the Council 
The Church's authority resides not in the Pope, but in the consent 
of the Episcopal College . 
The Pope acknowledges his error 


. 330 
. 331 

. 333 


Popes excommunicated in early times 
Suspensions of Communion with Rome 
Pope Pelagius 1. and St. Augustine on Apostolical Sees 
Testimony of the ancient Oriental Liturgies, L for the Real Pre- 
sence: 2. against the Papal Supremacy . 
Prayer for the Pope of Alexandria . 
The Pope of Rome mentioned on those occasions only on which other 
Patriarchs were mentioned . 337 
The Patriarch in the Eastern Liturgies occupies the same place as the 
Pope in the Roman . 338 
The Pope of Rome not mentioned because the Patriarchs were su- 
preme in their sphere 
Cumulative argument of the preceding facts 
Testimony of De l\Iaistre to the Patriarchal government of the 
Eastern Church from the beginning 
Mode of arguing used by Roman writers 



. 340 

. 341 




Möhler's admission respecting the Primacy . 
Gradual evolution of the Primacy according to l\IÖhler 
Result from his ad.llission 



St. Gregory the Great: his statement of his own authority . . 3-15 
His ordinary jurisdiction 346 
The See of Peter in Alexandria and Antioch one with that of Rome. ib. 
This view incompatible with a monarchy in Rome . . 347 
Main privilege of the Primacy is to maintain the Canon 348 
His interpretation of the two chief passages of Scripture ib. 
Peter represents the Church 349 
The whole Church received the promise of the keys. ib. 
Peter in John xxi. the type of the Apostolic ministry 350 
Jurisdiction of the Church vested in the Apostles and their successors 351 
St. Gregory's ordinary teaching in accordance with the following par- 
ticular testimonies. . 352 
Contest about the title Ecumenical . . 3.33 
The term Universal an injury to all the Patriarchs 354 
An injury and disruption of the whole Church; destroys the position 
of other Bishops, and the Faith 355 
An anticipation of Antichrist . 356 
Peter received the charge of the whole Church, but not the name 
Universal . ib. 
If such an one falls, the whole Church falls with him . 357 
Argument of Bellarmine compared with that of St. Gregory. ib. 
Term Universal a profane appellation invented by the first Apostate. 358 
Pope Gregory desires not to be caned Universal Pope 359 
'Vhether this title was given by the Council of Chalcedon . 360 
Christ the Head of the Church: the term Universal an invasion of 
His rights, and an imitation of the Devil . . 361 
Peter, Paul, Andrew, John, equally members of the Church under 
the One !lead . 362 
Condemnation of the title Common Father . 363 
Inference from these expressions il1. 
1\1r. Newman's assertion about the Pope's being universal Bishop, 
and retractation . 36-1 
'What Councils and Fathers say of it ib. 
The bearing of St. Gregory's words on this . 365 
Summary of the above letters ib. 
Defence of the Church of England hence arising . 366 
Ancient and modern signature of the Popes . 367 
The present division ruinous to all . ;368 

TABU': 01<' CO


cn A PTE R Yl. 


SECT. 1. 


The Sixth Ecumenical Council. Balance of power in the Church 
altered, but the same constitution as at the Council of Nicea . 369 
Bossuet's account of this Council. Its importance to our cause . 370 
Insidious attempts of the l\Ionothelite heresy leading to it 371 
The Pope approves the doctrine of Sergius . 372 
Gives a wrong answer to all the three Patriarchs 373 
His answer a proper decret..1.lletter . ib. 
And is so considered by the Sixth Council 374 
Vain defence of the conduct of Honorius by Bellarmine and Baronius 375 
The Lateran Council under Pope :Martin condemns Pope Honorius 
tacitly ib. 
Two main points: 1. The Sixth Council held after a most express 
definition of the matter which it discussed by Pope Martin . 376 
Letters of Pope Agatho examined, as those of St. Leo . 377 
2. Condemnation of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Council . 379 
Pope St. Leo receives this condemnation 381 
And repeats it to the Spanish Bishops, and the King of Spain ib. 
It is renewed by the Seventh Council: and sworn to by the Roman 
Pontiffs in the Liber Diurnus . 382 
Bossuet's summing up ib. 
The act of the Coun
il in condemning Pope Honorius correbponds 
with the language of St. Augustine ib. 
Result of the condemnation of a Pope's decretal letter by an Ecu- 
menical Council 383 
Acts of the Council sent to the Five Patriarchal Sees ib. 


The Council in Trullo: its purpose . 
Four heads in which it limits the pretensions of the Roman See 
1. The code of Canons, and decretal letters, which are to be 
recei ved 
Decretal letters of Eastern Primates inserted; those of Popes ex- 
cluded . 386 
2. Oriental view of clerical marriage 387 
Second marriage subjects to deposition. Marriage after ordination, 
or with a widow, censured 
None of the order of Sub-deacons, and upwards, allowed to marry 
after ordination 

. 384 




XX:\. Vlll 


'I.'he passages of Scripture do not favour the Papal plenitude of powcr 4;34 
Statement of the true doctrine 435 
The Ultra-montane Papal Idea that which was rejected by St. Gre- 
gory 436 
This the real Papal Idea: its merit and defect ib. 
It destroys the equality of the Episcopate 437 
Two senses of the word Universal Bishop ib. 
Proof that the Papal Idea requires the reprehensible sense to be 
taken 438 
1. Vicars are instituted by their Principal i b. 
2. Depend on their Principal's disposal ib. 
3. Receive a derived Jurisdiction ib. 
4. Are liable to be deposed by their Principal 43U 
5. Must give way to their Principal . i6. 
6. And to those whom he delegates . 440 
7. Act in a diocese not properly their own ib. 



SECT. 1. 

Bellarmine's doctrine the true logical development of the Papal 
Theory. Inconsistency of Bossuet's school . -lH 
Bellarmine's doctrine contrary to the practice of the Church in the 
times of the Seven Ecumenical Councils 442 
The Ultra-montane Theory formally condemned by the Council of 
Constance . 443 
If we accept it, we reject the whole history of the Church during 
eight hundred years 444 
The Church of England appeals to that constitution of the Church 
Catholic, which St. Leo declared to be perpetual . 446 


Circumstances which led to the rise of the proper Papal power 447 
Vast and permanent effect of the false Decretals 448 
Introduction of a new Canonical Jurisprudence by means of them, 
according to De Marca '. 4<W 
l'roofs of their forgery ib. 
Capitules of Pope Adrian ih. 


XXXI \. 

Account of the forgery and its proofs by Fleury 
Held to be authentic for eight hundred years 
De Marca's summary of their contents 
1. No Bishop to be judged but in a Council convoked by the su- 
preme Pontiff ib. 
2. Innovation as to deposed Bishops . 452 
3. Appeal of Bishops to Rome in case the :Metropolitan is suspected 453 
Gradual introduction of this new jurisprudence from the year 836. ib. 
Efforts of Pope Nicholas 1. to that effect 454 
Two chief points of this new jurisprudence . ib. 
The Gallican Bishops at last yield submission to the false Decretals, 
supposing them to be genuine . 455 
Burchard makes use of them ib. 
And Ivo of Chartres in 1100 ib. 
Gratian's Decretum follows about 1150 ib. 
Decretals of other Popes and of Gregory IX. 456 
Power taken from Provincial Councils and bestowed on the supreme 
Effects of the false Decretals according to Pereira 
Dictates of Gregory VII. as well as Burchard's and Ivo's collection 
and Gratian's Decretum taken from them ib. 
The latter the sole authority of the Canonists for five hundred year
Growth of Papal principles . ib. 
Dictum of St. Leo given to Pope Vigilius, and wrought into a Papal 
axiom by the Decretum 
Father Coustant's account of the false Decretals, and theIr effects on 
discipline . 
Fleury's testimony to the same 
And Van Espen's 
Ancient discipline how affected by the false Decretals 
New principles introduced by them . 
Their gradual est:1blishment by the Roman Pontiff.
, and admission 
hy Councils and collectors of Canons 
Gieseler's statement of the motives which led to the forgery. 

. 450 





. 4Gü 



Antiquity believed to be followed in the Decretals, while it was de- 
parted from -lfi3 
Principles of the Decretals carried out by St. Leo IX. and his suc- 
cessors 4fi-! 
Opposition of these principles to those of genuine antiquity on the 
following points ib. 
1. No Council to be held without the Pope's pennission ib. 
2. Bishops not to he judged definitively hut by him 4G5 
This contrary. to all antitluity :nul inùeed illlpus
i"lc lUG 




3. Power to translate Bishops ascribed to the Pope 467 
4. And the erection of new Bishoprics . 468 
5. The union and extinction of Bishoprics . ib. 
6. The founding of Metropolitical Sees 469 
7. Vast extension of appeals to the Pope . 470 
Ivo of Chartres and St. Bernard deplore this ib. 
Description by the latter of the Papal Curia . 471 
The Primacy of St. Leo and St. Gregory a very different thing from 
this 472 
Riches brought to Rome by this abuse of appeals not to be con- 
sidered . 473 
The authority of the false Decretals established by Gratian's Decre- 
tum, which even went beyond them ib. 
Immunity of clerks . ib. 
Pope Innocent's answer on this to the Emperor Constantine. 474 
These principles quite unknown to the Greeks 475 
At the time of their greatest union with Rome they knew nothing of 
this discipline ib. 
System of Legations, arising from the increase of the Pope's power 
drawn from the false Decretals 476 
Pride, luxury, .and avarice of the Legates 477 
Legatine Councils held instead of Provincial ib. 
Diminution of the authority of :Metropolitans . 478 
Desire of Bishops and Metropolitans to obtain Legatine powers ib. 
:Fatal and continued effects of the aforesaid abuses . 479 
Rigour exercised against heretics contrary to ancient practice ib. 
Abuse of Indulgences . 480 
This alteration of the Church's discipline introduced hy negligence 
and ignorance i b. 
Power attributed to the Pope by the Ultra-montanes grounded on 
the maxims of the Decretals and of Gratian ib. 
Necessity of distinguishing the Primacy from this power 481 
Bishops, according to De .Marca, may resume the power which they 
have so ceded ib. 


Conclusion from these statements of De )Iarca, Coustant, Pereira, Van 
Espen, and Fleury 4H2 
Summary of the argument of this hook in Van Espen's language ib. 
The present institution, confirmation, and consecration of Bishops, 
contrary to the practice of the first eleven centuries . 483 
The system of the false Decretals accounts for the difference between 
the government of the Church in our own time, and in that of 
St. Augustine ib. 
Ninth century period of the transition from the Primacy to the 
Papal claim . 484 



Causes severally tending to this: 
]. Gradual subtraction of allegiance from the Eastern Em- 
2. Increase of temporal power leads to increase of spiritual, 
supported by the Carlovingian race for their own purposes . 485 
3. The right of the Pope to crown the Western Emperors . 486 
4. Separation of intercourse hetween East and West ib. 
Independent spirit of the East from the beginning . 487 
Uncontrolled power of the Roman Patriarch in the "est ib. 
5. Influence of the great monastic Orders 488 
6. The system of the false Decretals ib. 
How far their fraud extended 490 
1. The Primacy of Rome incontestable ib. 
2. The Scripture promises to Peter, the giving of the keys, 
and the commission to feed the flock, not interpreted by the 
Fathers of the See of Rome 
Existence of the Primacy from the beginning, but great variation 
in the amount of power attached to it. Universal Jurisdiction 
not comprehended in it. Power of reC'eiving Episcopal appeals 
granted by the Council of Sardica 
The system of the false Decretals developed in a complete overthrow 
of the ancient discipline, and in the substitution of a .:\Ionarchy for 
a Primacy. The .:\Ionarchy, therefore, in contradistinction to the 
Primacy, based upon a fraud. The Saints of the middle ages 
deceived in this point 
The power of the Roman Pontiff denied by the English Church is not 
his Primacy, nor the authority allowed him by the Seven Ecumen- 
ical Councils, but his .:\Ionarchy 
Great Saints who have maintained and illustrated the Papacy, as the 
champion of the liherties of the Church 
Yet they do not annul the testimony of the Ecumenical Council
and the undivided Church 










This testimony of antiquity corroborated by a witness existing from 
the earliest times to the pre!>
nt, the Oriental Church it,. 
Force of her unhroken descent, and unchanged dogmatic system 4UG 
She denies, and ever has denied, the monarchy as strongly as we 497 
Stands in a free and equal position towards Rome 498 
The Russian Church, born since the separation, an unimpcachahle 
note of life in her ib. 
The ChurC'h of Christ Une organized Body, with it
 Head, the God- 
man . 500 
Definition of St. Paul 501 
Belief of the Saints . ib. 




Testimony of St. Basil applicaLle to the English Church fiOl 
The state of separation provisional anù temporary ,")02 
Internal state of the Church's three great divisions answers to what 
migh t be expected 503 
State of France i b. 
State of Spain, Portugal, and Italy .30-1 
Safety of the English Church lies in maintaining the whole deposit 
of the ancient Church .30.3 
Her claim only that of self-government ib. 
An alliance with P
otestantism will destroy her ib. 
Extreme danger of allowing heresy . 507 

f E N T. 

THE writer of the following pages is more and more con- 
vinced 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 wc 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 prac- 
tical abuses in her, who will venture to say they are so great 
as in the Roman Church of the tenth century, when the 
First Sce was fillcd successively by the lovers of abandoned 
women, who made and dcposed Popcs at their will? Our 
cause bcing good, all that we have to deplore of actual evil 
sllOuld lead to more earnest intercession, more continued 
striving after that love which breathes itself forth in unity, 
but should not shake the confidcnce of any obcdicnt heart 
in our mother's title. \Vhcn thc Donatists made thc crimcs 



of individuals an excuse for brcaking unity, St. Augustinc 
reminded tllem, that the crimes of the chaff do not prejudicc 
the whcat, but that both must grow together till the Lord 
of the harvest send forth His angels to make thc separation. 
The writer will not conceal that he took up this inquiry 
for the purpose of satisfying his own mind. Had hc found 
the Councils and Fathers of the Church before the division 
of the East and \Vest bearing witness to the Roman supre- 
macy, as at present claimcd) instead of against it, he should 
lmve felt bound to obey them. As a Priest of the Church 
Catholic in England, hc desircs to hold) and to the best of 
his abilit
r will teach, all doctrine which the undivided 
Church always held. He finds by rcfcrence to those au- 
thorities which could not bc deceiyed, and cannot be adul- 
terated, that while thcy unanimously held the Roman l)l'i- 
macy, 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 willllow accept as the price of her com- 
munion. They not only do not recognise it) but thcir words 
and their actions most manifestly contradict it. rrhis is, in 
one word, his justification of his mother from the sin of 
Schism. If true, it is sufficient: if untrue, lie knows of 
no othcr. 
But should any opponcnt think thesc pages worthy of a 
reply, the writer warns him, at the out
et, that he must in 
fairness discard that old disingenuous trick of using testi. 
monies of the Fathers to the primacy of the Roman Scc in 
the episcopal and patriarchal system, in order to prove the 
full palmI supremacy) as now claimed, in a s)'stem wllich is 
nearly come to pure monarchy. By this method) bccause 
the Fathers l'ecognise the Bishop of Rome as successor of 



St. Peter) they are countcd 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 episco- 
pate. 'Vhat 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 BellRl'mine) which is really the key-stone of the whole 
system, that" Bishops succeed not properly to the Apostles," Bellal'min. 
de Rom. 
" for they have no part of the true apostolic authority)' but Pont., Jib. 
, 4.25; 4. 24 ; 
that "all ordinary jurisdiction of Bishops descends imme- 1. 9. 
diatHy 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." Let this be proved on the testimony of the 
Eastern and 'Vestern Chul'ch, 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 con- 
troversy will be at an end. 'Ye claim that it should be 
proved, for even De 
iaistre, who has put forward this theory 
with the least compromise) declares) "There is nothing new Dc l\laistre, 
du Pape, 
in the Church) and never will she believe save what she 
has always believed." 





THE course of events, for some time past, has been such C HAP. 
as to force upon the most faithful SOIlS of the Church of I I. 
. . ntroduc- 
England the consIderatIon of questions which they would tion: Ne- 
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 Schism. 
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 anyone, who desires to be obe- 
dient and dutiful, and therefore to be at peace. I-Iow 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 thc hard necessity which is come upon 
us. Lct no one imagine that it is our choice to speak 011 
such subjects. 'Ve are in the case of a beleagu'ered 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 aU 
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 (1845) which we may boldly 
pronounce to be without a parallel in the history of the 
Church in England since she became divided from the Latin 
communion. Those who have followed with anxious sym- 
pathy that great rcstorative 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 latitudinarian- 
ism of the day; against the unnumbered and even unsus- 
pected heresies which have infected the whole atmosphere 
that we breathe; against, ill fine, the individual will of falJen 
man, under cover of which the coming Antichrist is mar- 
shalling interests the most opposite, and passions the most 
contradictory j and further, those not few nor inconsider- 
able, I 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 I can express 
the urgency of the occasion to which I allude. For how, 
indeed, could the question, whether the Church of England 
be fallen into Schism) or continue to bc, as from the laver 
of their regeneration they have been taught to believe, a 
member of that one sacred Body in which Christ incarnatc 



d wells,-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 defel1sa fuissent, 
that he, who, fighting her battles, never met with his equal, 
ullsubdued 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 omcn of her Catholicity. They felt that $he 
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 hcr 
communion. l\ien 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 
tllCir salvation must quit her likewise. 
These are some of the special circumstances which force A state or 
h I h . f S I . I tl Schism il1- 
upon t e most re uctant t e questwn 0 c llsm. twas lC volves the 
P rivile g e of other da y s to feed in the q uiet P astures of truth. C lo l ss.O t f. aU 
Ins lall 
\Ve have to seek the path to IIeaven through the wilderness privileges. 
of controversy, where too often" the highways are unoc- 
cUl)ied, and the travellers walk through byways." But it 
is a question which cannot be put off or thrust aside. No 
iustructed Christian, who has any true faith or love, can 
bear the thought that he is out of the one fold of Christ. 
Thc question cannot be put off, for it will brood upon him 

SEe T. 


s. Cyprian 
de Unit. 
Ecc. 12. 



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 ]1Ïs blood for tIle testi- 
mony of Jesus, "if such men were even killed for confes- 
sion of the Christian name, not even by their blood is this 
stain washed out. Inexpiable and heavy is the sin of dis- 
cord, and is purged by no suffering. He cannot be a martyr 
who is not in the Church; he can never attain to the king- 
dom, 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. \Vhen men leave 
us on the ground that we are in schism, surely all censurc of 
them, and all defence of ourselves, is bcside the mark, which 
does not meet and rebut this particular accusation. Undcr 
this no man can rest: it is uselcss) it is sinful, to ask him to 
rest, unless you can remove the imputation. To talk of 
"disappointment, or a morbid dcsire of distinction, or im- 
patience under deficiencies, want of discipline, or sympatllY 
in spiritual superiors," and such-like causes, as being those 
which have impelled a man to the most painful sacrifices, 



and" in thc middle of his days to begin life again," is surely SEe T. 
both untrue as regards the i
dividual, and futile as to prc- I. 
venting 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. 
J\iorcover, I must confess that this is a point on which Subject not 
 . . h .. f . I . t to be treat- 
, lor one, cannot Write In t e SpIrIt 0 a controverSla IS . ed contro- 
l must state, to the best of my poor ability, and to the versially. 
utmost reach of my limited discernment, not only the trutl1, 
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 like- 
wise. I have found Bishop Beveridge, in his defence of 
the 37th Article, quote, in several instances, part of a para- 
graph from ancient FatheI.s, 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 manied; w hilc they kecp 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 
itsclf, has never allowed a pcrson who married twice, or 
who married a widow, to be in holy orders at all. I JlRve 
observed Bingham) when he treats of celibacy, alluding Bk. 4. c. 5. 
triumphantly to the biography of St. Cyprian, by Pontius, 
to prove that an ancient saint, martyr, and bishop, of thc 




CHAP. third century, was a married man; but taking care to leare 
1. 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 ]lOSt 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 addresscd 
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 ill 
which perfect cal1dour 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 01. 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. lIe 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 
Formula- And this leads to another consideration. The charge of 
ries of the S I . . ] I h f I d . 1 b . . 
English c l1sm agamst t 1e C lurc 0 Eng an IS) t mt y reJectmg 
Chul' th P I I . . h . J h I I 
not be ap- e apa aut lOrlty In t e slxteent 1 century, 8 e 08t t JC 
;o as blessing of Catholic communion, and ceased to belong to 
in this mat- that One Body to which salvation is promised. Now, in 
tel', but thc . 
decision such a matter, the Church of England must be Judged by 

ided principles which have been, from the first, and are still, 
Church. recognised by all Christendom. 'Vhatever 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. \Vhat I mean will 
be best shewn by an example. Suppose a person were to 
take the 6th Article, and set upon it a meaning, not at all 
uncommonly attributed to it in these days, viz., that the 
Church of England therein declares, that Holy Scriptnre 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 woulù 
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 vcry 
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 cen- 
tury cannot be quoted to prove that that decision is right, 
for it is the very thing called in question. It is the Refor- 
mation itself which is put on trial; it cannot appeal to it:)elf 
as a witness; it must be content to bring its cause before a 
Law, whose authority all will admit,-and that Law, need 
I say, must be antiquity, aud thc 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 ancicnt 
Bishops, have collected out of that very doctrine.') Thus she 
spoke in the year 1571, and even if all that she has said and 
done be not in harmony with this Canon, it proves at least 
that she made, at the vcry commencement of her separate 
course, a most confident appeal to Traùition; an appeaJ, 


SEe T. 





which is itself a most positive enunciation of the Tradi- 
tionary Principle. It states this with little less plainness 
than the contemporary Canon of the Council of Trent. " I 
also admit Holy Scripture in that sense which holy Mother 
Church has held and holùs, whose office it is to judge of the 
true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, nor will 
I ever interpret it, save according to the unanimous agree- 
ment of the Fathers." It is obvious, that the very existence 
of the Church of God depends on the faithful fulfilment of 
this rule. She had then passed through fifteen centuries of 
a chequered, but superhuman, and most marvellous exist- 
ence. 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) as regards her isolation, may be merely a pro- 
visional one, I firmly believe that such is the fact; but if 
shc is to claim the allcgiance 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 to meet honestly this impu- 
tation of schism by an appeal to the authority of the Eastern 
and 'Vestern Church: an authority, which no Roman Catho- 
lic can slight or refuse. 


State oftbe LET us go back to the first period at which the universal 

c Church, emerging from thc fires of persecution, is found act- 

i1 of ing as one body. United) indeed) it had ever been from the 
Nicea. day of Pcntecost, in charity, in doctrine) in sacraments) iu 
communion. The Christian people, scattered throughout the 
wide precincts of the Roman empire, and speaking its various 
tongucs, 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 cmpire, she SECT. 
could hardly exhibit to the world her complete outward II. 
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 lllalignant as to threaten her existence, 
and which could be repressed by no less cnergetic means. 
That is a strongly marked and important point in her exist- 
ence, throwing light upon the centuries preceding, and esta- 
blishing irremovable landmarks for thosc ensuing, at which 
we have full means for judging what her constitution and 
government were. As the decrees of the three hundred and 
eighteen Fathers established for ever the true doctrine COIl- 
cerning the Eternal Son, so do they offer an imperishable 
and unambiguous witness concerning the discipline and 
hicrarchy of the Church. 'Vhat was schism then, is schism 
now; what was lawful and compatiblc with Christian Son- 
ship and privileges then, is so now. 
l\t:ost solemnly, as a Priest of the Church in England, and S.Leo's 
. respect for 
In the name of that Church, do I quote the words of one of the Nicene 
the greatest of St. Peter's successors, words the like of which Discipline. 
are again and again to be found in his writings, and in those 
of the Popes his predecessors and successors from St. Syl- 
vester to St. Gregory the Great. "Nor let any number of S. Leon. 
P . t h d . h fi Ep. 106. 
rles S, owever greater, are mt er to compare or to pre er edit. Balle- 
themselves to those three hundred and eighteen Bishops, in- rini. 
asmuch as God has consecrated the Nicene Council with so 
great a privilege that, whether by fewer or by more ecclesi- 
astical judgments be passed, whatever differ from tlteir ap- 
pointment he utterly devoid of all authority." And again, 
"Those holy and venerablc Fathers who, after condemning 
together with his impiety the sacrilegious Arius, passed in 
the city of Nicea laws of Ecclesiastical Canons which are 
to last even to the end of the wo7'ld, live in their appointments 
hoth with us and through the whole world: and, if any en- · 
croachment be any where made contrary to thcir detel'mina- 
tion, it is immediately annulled: in order that the general 



C HAP. arrangements made for perpetual use be varied by no change: 
nor things fixed for thc common advantage be drawn to private 
interest: and that, by the maintenance of those limits which 
the Fathers have appointed, 110 one may intrude 011 another's 
right: but each according to his ability spread himsclf forth 
in charity within his proper and legitimate boundarics." I 
call that holy Father and Pope, who lives with God, to wit- 
ness, knowing that he would apply this first of all to the 
First See, as indeed he has expressly done, writing to the 
Ep.114. most numerous Ecumenical Council itself: " As to thc mainte- 
c.2. nance of the statutes of the holy Fathers, which were fixed 
at the Synod of Nicea by inviolable decrees, I remind your 
holiness to take care, that the 'rig/ds of CltuTches as they were 
m'dered hy those three hundred and eighteen Fathers througlt 
Divine inspiTation may continue. Let not shameless ambi- 
tion lust after any thing which is not its own: nor anyone 
seek increase to himself by diminution of another. For how- 
ever haughty vanity may lift itself up upon assents whic/t have 
heen extorted, and imagine that its own longings arc to be 
cstablished under thc name of Councils, w/tatever diffe7'etlt 
from the Canons of the afoTesaid Fathers will he null and void. 
And your'holiness, by reading the writings in which I havc 
repclled the attempts of the Prelate of Constantinople, will 
be ablc to learn, how reverently the Apostolic See follows theil' 
rules, and that by the Lord's help I am the guardian of the 
Catholic Faith and the Constitutions of the Fathcrs." And 
Ep.119. in anothcr place, "Whatever differs from thcir (the Nicene 

mum, c. 5. Fathers) rules and appointment, will never be able to 0 tain 
the consent of the Apostolic See." 
Supremacy What then is the view they present us with? \Ve find thc 


opate Bishops throughout the whole world rccognised, without so 

lly much as a doubt, to be the successors of the Apostles, ill- 
ledged. vested 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 tra- 
dition, 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 SEC1. 
this. One of the most lcarned of those who are opposed to II. 
us on the charge of Schism, thus sums up the decisions C( of 
all the Fathers and all the Councils of the first ages." C( The Thomac;f'in, 
B . h Cl . d d . II . I h Discipline 
IS Op repreSell ts lrISt, an stan s In IS p ace on cart . de l'Eglise, 
As therefore the Priesthood of Christ embraces all sacerdotal r.t


authority and complete power to feed the flock, so that ",bile 
we may indeed distinguish and define the various powers ill- 
cludcd in that fulness and pcrfection, yet it is a great crime 
to dissevcr and rend them in any way from each other, just 

lS we distinguish without dividing the attributes and per- 
fcctions of the Godhead itself; so the Episcopate in its own 
nature contains the fulness of the Priesthood, and tbe pcr- 
fcction of the Pastoral office. For Christ rcceivcd the pcr- 
fcctioll of the Priesthood from His Father, when He was 
scnt by Him. J\forcover the perfection of the Priesthood, or 
both the Episcopal powcrs, (i. e. the Sacerdotal and the Pas- 
toral,) lIe gave at once to His Apostles" hen He sent them, 
as He Himself was sent by the Father. Lastly, that same 
pcrfcction they transmittcd to Bishops, scnding them as thcy 
thcmselvcs were sent by Christ." C( "Thcnce Bishops arc 
:Fathcrs by thc most noble participation of divine Fathership 
which is on earth; so that here that exprcssion of St. Paul 
is truc-' From whom every Fathership in lleavcn and earth 
is named.' For no greatcr Fathership is thcrc on thc earth 
than the Apostolical and the Episcopal." He procecùs: 
"The Episcopatc alone is a divine l'oyalty and a spiritual 
sovcreignty: which appcars evidently in this, that a Bishop 
has nc\'cr bcen, and will never bc, consccratcd, without at 
the same time gi\'ing to him a dioccsc, likc a littlc kingdom, 
to govcrn or to conqucr. Pricsts and Dcacons are, and al.. 
ways havc been, made, to whom neither subjects nor juris- 
diction have at first been givcn. But the Bishop, cmbracing 
all the fulncss of thc Royal Pricsthood of J csus Christ, being 
His vice-gcrent on earth, being even clothcd "ith thc authu- 
rity and the person of Him "Tho is the first Principlc in the 
Godhead, cannot reccive the consccration which makes him 
Bishop without rccciving at thc same time the jurisdiction 
and the sovercignty which is inseparahlc from his character. 
, Aud this is thc cmincncc of the J.:piscopal dignity over thc 


tical Sys- 



Sacerdotal, that the Sacerdotal neither includes nor demands 
any jurisdiction in itself, as being imperfect, and subject to 
the Bishop, at whose bidding it should be ruled, and move 
in accordance with his movements, not start forwaI'd out of 
its place; as the Canons have long ordered. But the Epis- 
copal dignity, as supreme, and in its own nature perfect, 
necessarily embraces jurisdiction, nor exists without it, any 
more than the royal dignity, to which the holy :Fathers every- 
where compare the Episcopal dignity, can be conceived with- 
out sovereignty.'" And here, as before, he has been quoting 
that book of Petrus Aurelius, which was stamped, if I mis- 
take not, with the approval of the whole Gallican clergy in 
the seventeenth century. 
And this power of the royal priesthood was complete in 
every individual Bishop, who was within his Diocese the 
spouse of the Church, the successor of the Apostles and of 
Peter, the centre of unity; able, moreover, to communicatc 
this authority to others, and to become the source of a long 
line of spiritual descendants. But hitherto we have con- 
sidered the Bishop only in relation to that of which he is 
the centre and ruler, his Diocese: the Diocese itself is but 
a part of onc vast organized body; the Bishop only a mem- 
ber of one undivided Episcopate. Accordingly we find, to- 
gether with the apostolical authority admitted to be lodged 
in the person of each Bishop, a necessity inherent in the 
unity of Christ's body, that this authority should only be 
exercised according to a general law. Thus it was in the 
apostolic college, the type of the Episcopate: the power of 
each several Apostle was derived immediately from Christ 
his Head, but was to be exercised in communion with his 
brethren. As, then, there is the relation of the Bishop to 
his Diocese on the one hand, so there is on the other his 
relation to his l\ietropolitan and the fellow-Bishops of his 
province: the one corrects and counterbalances the other. 
Nor does the system of connection and subordination stop 
here: but in a higher sphere the l\ietropolitans have a Pri- 
mate: so that while the unity and government of the Church 
lie in its whole Episcopate, )'et a preponderating influence is 
exercised by certain Sees, viz. by Rome in the \Vest, and by 
Alexandria and Antioch in the East. Under these leading 



Bishops are a great number of Metropolitans; and others, SECT. 
again, like the Bishops of Cyprus, or of Africa, and, pro- II. 
b bl f B . . h I . M I " b Ordcr of 
a y, 0 ntam, ave t lelr own etropo ltan, ut are not the Catho- 
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 calJed 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 provinccs, and naturally exercised a parental 
authority over their children. The thrce 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 pcrson, 
or by deputy, or their subsequent ratification. 
among these, the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, 
has a decided pre-eminence. What the extent of that pre- 
eminence 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 bre- 
thren, especially those of Alexandria and Antioch. The 
Apostolical Canons, more ancient than the Council of Nicea, Canons of 
and representing the whole East, say :-" 'fhe Bishops of 


every nation must acknowledge him who is first among 
them, and account him as thcir head, and do nothing of 
consequence without his consent; but cach 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 con- 
sent of all, for so there will be unanimity, and God will 
be glorified through the Lord Jesus Christ." Canon 3-1. 
The 33th Canon says, "Let 110t a Bishop dare to ordain 
beyond his own limits in cities and places not subject to 
him. But if he be convicted of doing so without the con- 
scnt of those persons who have authority over such citics 
and places, let him be deposed, and those also, whom he 
has ordained." The 37th, "Let there be a meeting of the 
Bishops twice a year, and lct them cxaminc amollg:st tl1Cm- 



C HAP. selves the decrees concerning religion, and settle the ecc1e- 
1. siastical controversies which have occurred." If we add that 
Of Antioch. there is not in all these Canons, nor in those of Antioc1l, 
which re-enacted, and enlarged upon, the above regulations, 
a word respecting any authority of the See of Rome as an 
exception to this system, we have a sufficiently definite view, 
on this main point, of the early constitution of the Eastern 
OfXicea. Church. So likewise the Council of Nicea mentions the Sces 
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 privi- 
leges are to be preserved to the Churches. And as a 
general rule this is manifest, that if anyone be made a 
Bishop without the consent of the J\letropolitan, the Great 
Council declares tlmt he should not be a Bishop. If, how- 
ever, two or three out of private contention, resist the general 
vote of all, being reasonable, and according to the Ecclcsi- 
astical Canon, let the vote of the greater number prevail." 
In this Canon, (the 6th,) as in a mirror, the whole system of 
the ancient Church may be discerned. Not only the rights 
of the three great l\Ietropolitans, but those of all others are 
therein recognised and confirmed. 'Vhile a particular point 
in the administration of the great Egyptian Patriarchate, 
which might have seemed an infi'ingement of the general 
rights of 
letropolitans, is allowed by a reference to the 
similar practice in the proper Roman Patriarchate: viz. that 
the Bishop of Alexandria, and not the J\letropolitans under 
him, should 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 su burbican a provinces, or 

.. 'Vhat the suburbican provinces 
were we learn almost \\ith certainty 
from a passa
e of history. The Em- 
peror Valentinian. in 371, allowed the 
antipope Ursinus to go where he would 
save to Rome or the suburbican pro- 
vinces. "Baronius gives the rescripts 
which were addressecl as well to the 
Prefect Ampelius, as to Maximin, Yica- 
rius of Rome: amI it appears de3rly 
enough from what Valcntinian \\ rites to 

the latter, tllat the suburbiean provinces 
are the same w hieh were under the j uris- 
diction of the Viearius of Rome. At 
least it is plain that Olle cannot under- 
stand all the West by this term without 
a strange absurdity, for the favour 
which Valentinian granted to U rsinus 
would have been to banish him from 
all his empire."-Tillemont, Hist. Ecc. 



in Italy, south of the province of Milan, in Sicily, and the SEe T. 
Islands. There is then a Primacy involved in the way in II. 
o '. Roman 
whICh Rome IS here mentIOned, but assuredly no more than Primacy. 
a Primacy: and the privileges (7rpEaßEÎa) of all the Churches 
are put on the same foundation as those of the First: "Let 
the ancient customs prevail." This precedence or preroga- 
tive of Rome, to whatever extent it reached, was certainly, 
notwithstanding the famous 28th Canon of Chalcedon, not 
either claimed or granted, more especially in the West, merely 
because Rome was the imperial city. It was explicitly claimed 
by the Bishop of Rome himsclf, 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 pre-eminence is 
observable. From the very first, the Roman Pontiff seems 
possessed himself, as from a living tradition which had tho- 
roughly penetrated the local Roman Church, with a con- 
sciousness of some peculiar influence he was to exercise on 
the whole Church. This consciousness does not shew 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, t 
and St. Gregory, are quite of one mind here. That they 
were thc successors of St. Peter, who himself sat and ruled 
and spoke in their person, was as strongly felt, and as con- 
sistently declared, by those Pontiffs who preceded the time 
of Constantine, and who had continually to pay with their 
blood the price of that high pre-eminence, as by those who 
followed the conversion of the empire, when the honour of 
their post was not accompanied by so much danger. I am 
speaking now, be it remembered, of the feeling which pos- 
sessed them. The feeling of their brother Bishops concern- 
ing them may have been less definite, as was natural: but, 
at least, even those who most opposed any al'bitrary 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 recorùs of antiquity, that I am persuaded anyone, 
,\110 is even VCI'Y slightly acquainted with them, cannot ,\ith 
c 2 

nies to it 
quoted by 
:Mr. New- 



sincerity dispute it. I cannot think J\lr. Newman has the 
least m'erstated the fact, but I do not accept his conclusion, 
when he says, "}'aint tlley (the ante-Kicene Testimonies to 
the authority of the Holy See) may be one by one, hut at 
least they are various, and are dra" n from many times and 
countries, and thereby serve to illustrate each other, and 
form a body of proof. Thus, St. Clement, in tlle name of 
the Church of Rome, writes a letter to the Corinthians, when 
they were without a Bishop. St. Ignatius, of Antioch, ad- 
dresses 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 ques- 
tion of Easter ;" (he went, it appears, to Rome, and 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, J\Iarcion, excommunicated in Pont us, betakes 
himself to Rome. Soter, Bishop of Rome, sends alms, ac- 
cording 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 J\Iontanists, from Phrygia, come 
to Rome to gain the countenance of its Bishop. Pl'axeas, 
frOln 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' ill this Church 
cvcry Church-that is, the faithful from every side, must 
meet,' or (agree together, propter poti01'em principalitatern.' 
'0 Church, happy in its position,' says Tertullian, 'into 
which the Apostles poured out, together with their blood, 
their whole doctrine,' The Prcsbyters of St. Dionysius, 
Bishop of Alexandria, complain of 11Ïs doctrine to St. Dio- 
nysius, of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he 
'-l)lains. Thc :Eml'crur AUl'eliall kayes' to the llishops uf 



Italy and of Rome' the decision, whether 01. not Paul, of SE C T. 
Samosata, shall be dispossessed of the sec-house at Antiocl]. H. 
St. Cyprian spcaks 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. For- 
tunatus and Felix, deposeu by St. Cyprian, have recourse 
to Rome. Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes himself to "Deve1op- 
R d . I f S S h " Inent," &c. 
orne, an gams t le ear 0 t. tep en. p. 22. 
Of somc of thcse instances I shall have more to say, but Danger of 
I t h t h f: t h h t . tl one-sidetl 
may say a once, tat e ac t at ere lCS, or 0 ler Ull- quotation. 
quict pcrsons, wllCn found out and condemned in their own 
country, flcd where they were not known, and strove to in- 
terest the power of the First Bishop in thcir behalf, by 
offcring him a field for the exercise of his authority, is one 
which I think may be pressed too far, and is not at all 
strong enough to support the gigantic fabric of the Supre- 
macy. Their doing so, and his permitting it, were con- 
stantly objected to the Bishop of Rome as abuses, as in 
the time of St. Augustine, and long before, by the African 
Church, and by St. IIilm'y of Arlcs to Pope Leo, and, 
even in the ninth century, by Hincmar of Rheims, to Pope 
Nicholas. But, though I said these facts were not over- 
statcd as far as the mcre letter, yet are they stated very un- 
fairly, unless it is said that the like reference was continually 
made not only to the great Sees of the East, of which Con- 
stantinople could probably shew as many, but to Primates 
of the 'Vest also, as to the Archbishop of Carthage, whose 
illtcrference, as we1l as that of Pope Stephcn, was sought 
both by the I3ishops of Gaul in the case of l\iarcian of Arlcs, 
and by the I3ishops of Spain in the case of llasilides. 
And further, it must be observed that the extent of this Essential 
authority, in the Chief See, had not been dcfined; but, what- 

ever it was, it did not interfere with the divine right of thc the Episco- 
Bishops to govern each in his own Diocese. They dcrived pate. 
thcir authority by transmission from the Apostlcs, as the 
Bishop of Rome from St. Peter; thc one was as much rc- 
cogllised as the other. They 
erc not his delegates, but his 



C HAP. hrethren. Frater and Co-episcopus they style him, as he 
styles them, for hundreds of years after the Council of Nicea j 
owing him, indeed, and willingly rendering him the greatest 
deference, but never so much as imagining that their au- 
thority 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 after- 
wards, and in their mode of election and their jurisdiction. 
Thomassin, For their names: "It must first be confessed," says a very 
pt.!. lio. 1. I d R C h I . I . I . h . 1 . h I f! 
ch.4. De earne oman at 0 lC, W 10, In lIS umi Ity, s run (, lrOIll 
llle the Cardinalate offered to him for his services to the P a p al 
t.hSClphne ( 
ùe l'E
lise. See, "that the name of Pope, of Apostle, of Al)Ostolic Pre- 
late, 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 pre- 
sently: "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/' Indeed, the view 
which every where prevailed was that so admirably expressed 
St. Cypr. by St. Cyprian: "Episcopatus unus est) cujus a singulis in 

: 4. solidum pars tenetur." "The Episcopate is one; it is a 
Oxf.Fleury, whole in which each enjoys full possession." Or, "Each 
tom. 3. p. . ..r . d I B . h h I h .. . . " 
93. n. 1. InulVI ua IS op as an equa s are In It as Jomt-tenant. 
l\Ioehler on "The meaning of this," says Dean J\loehler "in legal lan- 
 G3. . h b "'. h ' d I 
guage IS, w en many ecome bml for suc an suc 1 a mat- 
ter, so that each individual answers for the whole, and not 
merely for the portion coming to him according to the num- 
ber of the sureties; so that in case one or other of the SUl'e- 
ties become even insolvent, his obligation likewise falls to the 
.l!e Concor., remainder." Or, as De J\farca says, " As the body of the 
}IO. 6. c. 1. Ch h . d . . d d . b tl b tl 
urc IS one, IVI e Into very many mem ers ll'oug Ie 
whole world, so is there in it a single Episcopate, which is 
diffused every where by the concord of many Bishops: if 
these be considered as a Body, they hold the entire Epi- 
scopate as joint-tenants. Yet a certain portion of the flock 
\ is assigned to every Bishop, to guide and govern it indivi- 
' dually, according however to that charity and communion 
which is due to the whole Body, lest, if unity be deserted, 



that Bishop who departs from the Body should dry up like S E C T. 
a stream which turns aside from its fountain, and wither 
like a branch cut off from the trunk and root." St. Isidore, 
of Seville, says: "Since also the other Apostles received a Quoted by 
l ' k fi 11 h : f h d . th P t h 1 Thomassm. 
lee ows IP 0 onour an power WI e er, w 0 a so ut sup. 
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." St. Basil, congratulating St. Ambrose on 
his succession to the Episcopate, says: "Come then, 0 man S. Basil. 
f G d . f d . d . 1 Ep. 197. 
o 0, SInce not rom men I you receive or were taug It 
the Gospel of Christ, but the Lord Himself hath transferred 
you from among the judges of the earth to the seat of the Apo- 
stles, fight the good fight, heal the sicknesses of the people," 
&c. But Pope Symmachus, says Thomassin, (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 quoted hX 
. d . d . . . bl I . h 1 . . I 1homassIIl, 
power IS one an In !VISI e, t Ie priest ooe IS one In t Ie l\Iansi viii. 
hands of various prelates, how suits it that the statutes of the 208, B. 
more ancient be broken by their successors?" lIe is speak- 
ing of his own predecessors, but his words cannot be limited 
to them. We are told by the same author: "Pope IIor- 
misdas (A.D. 514-523) prescribed, and all the Bishops of the 
East subscribed, after the Patriarch J ohll of Constantinople, a 
formulary of faith and of Catholic Communion, where, among 
other remarkable points, this is worthy of particular atten- 
tion :-that as all Churches make but one Church, so all the 
thrones of the Apostolate, and all the Sces of the Episcopate, 
spread through all the earth, are but OI1e Apostolic See, in- 
separable from the See of Peter." This is the view of St. Witnesse(\ 
A t . d . d .. l . . . by St. Au- 
ugus ll1e, expresse again an agmn In lIS WrItlllgS, es- gustillc, 
pecially when he is eXplaining those remarkable words of 

our Lord to St. Peter, on which Roman Catholics ground Ht.CIIJ"Ysus- 
h . . .. . tome, and 
t e scrzptural proof of hIs Supremacy. "For It IS eVIdent St. Jerume. 
that Peter, in many places of the Scriptures, represents the 
Church, (personam gestet Ecclesiæ,) chiefly in that place tOG,13. 
where it is said, 'I give untù thee the keys of the kingdom 
of Heaven. '\Vhatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be 




CHAP. bound in Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 
I. 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 iu meaning hinted, but not 
expressed, (in si!Jnificatione,) 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 
Origen in Church is the body of Christ." So Origen: "But if you 
l\Iatt., tom. I . k h h C . . P 
12._ vol. 3. t lln t at t e whole hurch IS bUIlt by God upon eter 
p.024. alone, what would you say about John the Son of Thunder, 
or each of the Apostles? Or shall we venture to say that the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter specially, but 
shall prevail against the rest of the Apostles, and the perfect? 
Does not what is said take place in the case of all and each 
of them, 'The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,' and 
, upon this Rock I will build l\Iy Church?' Are then the keys 
of the kingdom of Heaven given by the Lord to Peter alone, 
and shall nOlle other of the blessed receive them? But if the 
expression, , I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of 
Heaven' is shared also by others, why not both all which goes 
before, and all which follows after, said as if to Peter? For 
in this place indeed it seems to be said to Peter, "Vhat 
thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven,' and the 
rest: but, in the place in J olm, the Saviour giving the Holy 
Spirit to the disciples by breathing on them, says, 'Receive 
the Holy Ghost,' alid the rest." 
So again, " The spiritual ruler," says St. Basil, " is nothing 
else but he who represents the person of the Saviour, being 
made both a mediator of God and men, and making all obla- 
tion to God of the salvation of those who obey him. And 
this we are taught by Christ Himself, who appoints Peter 
after Himself shepherd of His Church. For, saith He, 
'Peter, lovest thou l\ie more than these? feed }iy sheep.' 
'Vhile lIe grants the same power to all pastors and teachers 
ili succession. Aud the proof of this is, that all bind and 
s. Chrys., loose equally as he does." So St. Chrysostome: "But when 

: I speak of Paul, I mean not only him, but also Peter, and 
J ames, and J ohll, and all thcir choir. For as in a lyre there 

s. Basil. 2. 
573, A. 



are different strings, but one harmony, so, too, in tIle choir SEe T. 
of the Apostles, there were different persons, but one teach- II. 
ing; since one, too, was the :ßlusician, even the Holy Spirit, 
who moved their souls. And Paul signifying this, said: 
, Whether, therefore, it were they or I, so we preach.'" 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. J erorne: "But, you say, the s. Jerome. 
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 strengt", 
of the CltUrc!" 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." 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 }\!Ietropolitan. St. Epi- 
phanius 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 Electio
fi h h . I . J . I 1 . d and JUfli!- 
ourt century, W lC 1 recogmses tIe essentm equa Ity au diction of 
unity of their office. The laws in force respecting their Bishops. 
consecration and jurisdiction are as decisive. Every Bishop, 
after being elected by the Clergy and people, and the assem- 
bled provinciaillishops, was consecrated by the 1\Ietropolitall 
of his province, except, indeed, in the Patriarchate of Alex- 
andria, and of Rome, where the Primate, as we have scen, 
and not tIle l\Ietropolitans under him, consecrated all Bishops. 
"\Vhere a l\ietropolitan had no immediate superior, in casc of 
a vacancy, the Bishops of his own province consecrated him, 
as in the case of Carthage. "\Vhatever might bc the par- 
ticular privileges of Patriarchs and l\Ietropolitans, as a gencral 
rule, no one Bishop had direct jurisdiction in the Diocese 
of another. The Bishops of the great Sees, specially Home, 
Alexandria, and Antioch, announccd their accession. to each 
other, together with a profession of the orthodox faith. But 



C HAP. as for any jurisdiction emanating from Rome to the great 
I. Bishops of the East, such a thing was never even imagined. 
Witness Take a proof of this from the mouth of a Pope in the fourth 

us. century, on whose mind it is plain that the theory of Bel- 
larmine, and the later Roman Church, had never dawned. 
s. Athanas. St. Julius, writing to the Eusebian Bishops, says, "Even 
Apot . h A I . . h . . f .. I 
against SUpposIng t at t lanaSlUS was In t e posItIon 0 a crImIna 

30. after the Council" (of Tyre, which deposed him), "this ap- 
pointment" (of Gregory the Arian, intruded on Alexandria), 
" ought not to have been made thus illegally and contrary to 
the Canon of the Church: but the Bishops of the province 
ought to have ordained one in that very Church, of that very 
priesthood, that very clergy, and the Canons received from 
the Apostles ought not thus to be set aside. Had this 
offence been committed against anyone of you, would you 
not have exclaimed against it, and demanded justice as for 
the transgression of the Canons? Dearly beloved, we speak 
honestly, as in the presence of God, and declare that this 
proceeding was nei tller pious, nor lawful, nor ecclesiastical." 
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 eight centuries. At least, let it be shewn; for, to assert 
it in the face of Canons which imply, nay, set forth pal- 
pably a system the very reverse of it, is merely begging the 
Influence of whole question. That in cases of difficulty, or disputed suc- 


fa cession, or heresy, or schism, the voice of the Bishop of 
case d ofdis- Rome would have great weight, is, indeed, indisputable. 
pute suc- . . . 
cession. 'Vhell the slup of the Church was III dIstress, whom should 
we expect to see at the rudder but St. Peter? Thus St. 
Jerome, himself baptized at Rome, naturally looks to Rome 
Develop- in this difficulty. l\Ir. Newman says: "The divisions at 
ment, p. Antioch had thrown the Catholic Church into a remarkablc 
}Josition; there wcre two Bishops in the See, one ill COll- 
nexion with the East, and the other with Egypt and the 
"\Vest,-with which, then, was Catholic Communion? St. 
Jerome has no doubt upon the subject. "Triting to St. 
Damasus, he says: 'Since the East tears into pieces the 
Lord's coat, and foxes lay 7.vaste the vineyard of Ckrist, so 
tltat among broken cisterns, which /wld '110 water, it is difficult 



to understand where the sealed fountain and the garden inclosed SEe T. 
is, therefore by me is the chair of St. Peter to be consulted, II. 
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 tlte bad children have 'wasted 
their goods, the inheritance of tlte Fathers is preserved unco'ì'- 
rupt 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 darnel! and tw'es. 
At present the Sun of Righteousness rises in the llTest; but in 
Ute East that fallen Lucifer hath placed ltis throne above the 
stars. You w.e tile light of the UJorld: you the salt of the 
earth: you the vessels of gold and silver: but here the vessels 
of earth or wood await tlte iron rod and the eternal flame.' The worùs 
'PI ,I';. h I . fi k . d in italics 
.L ilereJOre, t oug 1 your greatness terrl es me, yet your 'm - are left out 
ness invites me. From the Priest the sacrifice claims salva- by Mr. N. 
tion; 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 Apòllillarian); 
leletius I re- 
ject; I am ignorant of Paulinus. 'Vhoso gathereth not 
with thee, scattereth; that is, he who is not of Christ is of 
Considering all the circumstances of the case, no one can Points 
d S J ' 1 .. 'VI .. b d whieh 1110- 
won er at t. erome s app lcatlOn. . 1en 1t 1S remem ere ùity 
that the Roman See, U p to that time, save for the fall of J t erome's 
s atement. 
Liberius, had been free from all suspicion of heresy, and 
that the Arian controversy was the one ill question, and that 
lie himself, of full manhood, had been baptized, and had Jived 
at Rome, the force of his language is hardly surprising. In- 
deed he calls himself in this letter" a man of Rome;" and in 
this aud the following he appeals to Damasus, as if he were 
his own Bishop, as well as Bishop of Rome. Undoubtedly 
this modifies the force of his words: that is, as soon as you 
look at the particular circumstances under which they were 
written, the very expressions which seemeù most effective 



C HAP. lose their edge. No studcnt of antiquity can doubt that all 
I. the 'Vest-and St. Jerome was a 'Vestern colonised as it 
were in an unknown land-looked to the See of Peter as 
t1w main pillar of the Church's faith and discipline. This 
is the feeling his words express: but could there be a greater 
unfairness than to apply t1leir bare letter to a state of things 
totally changed? or to consider expressions proving the pri- 
macy 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 
 But further, how much St. Jerome's western eùucation 
of St. ßa<;ll d .. fl d h . . d b I 
on the other an conncctIons In uence IS mln , may e seen a so 
side. from this. St. Basil the Great at this very time supportcd 
St. :Meletius in the See of Antioch with the whole weight of 
his authority. If St. Jerome had no doubt that Catholic 
Communion was on the side of that claimant of the See of 
Antioch who was recognised by the Pope, St. Basil was not 
at all of the same mind. Writing to Peter of Alexandria in 
s. Basi1. the year 377, he says, "Dorotheus on his l'cturn related to 
Ep.2GG. me thc conversation which he had had with your Excellency 
in presence of the most reverend Bishop Damasus (of Rome) ; 
and he grieved me by saying that our most religious bre- 
thren and fellow-ministers l\'leletius and Eusebius (of Samo- 
sata) were reckoned amongst the Arians, whose orthodoxy 
if nothing else recommendcd) the war at least waged against 
them by the Arians gives 110 slight proof of their uprightness 
to those who form a right judgment of things." But to 
this very Eusebius he had written the year before, in refcr- 
ence it would seem to this rejection of J\ieletius and Euse- 
ùius at Rome, and the same year as St. Jerome's application 
Ep.239. to Damasus, " You have already yourself fallen ill with the 
news of the West, as the brother Dorotheus related all to 
you. And, as he is setting out again, what sort of letters 
ought to be givcn to him? For perhaps he win accompany 
tbc good Sanctissimus, who is very zealous, and going about 
the whole East, getting subscriptions and letters from all the 
more distinguished. For myself, then, I do not see what 
one should send by him, or how agree with those who send: 
but if you should find shortly any coming to me, have the 



goodness to instruct me as to this. It occurs to me to use SE CT. 
Diomed's language, II. 
Why should we gifts to proud Achilles seud 1 
Or strive with prayers his haughty soul to bend? 
For indeed baughty tempers, treated with attention, are 
wont to shew more than their usual arrogance. And if the 
Lord should be gracious unto us, what other support do we 
need? But if the wrath of God remain upon us, wltat help 
can we find in TYestern pride? They who ncither know, nor 
endure to learn, the truth: but, pre-occupied with false sus- 
picions, are doing now just what they did before in the case 
of l\Iarccllus, quarrelling with thosc who give them report of 
the truth, and giving their own support to heresy. For I 
myself, without concert with any, was minded to write to alJTwII T
their leader: nothing indeed about ecclesiastical matters, Iwpvcþaír,J. 
except so much as to hint, that they neither know the 
truth of what is going on among us, nor accept the way 
by which they migllt lcarn it; but generally, about the 
duty of not attacking those who are humbled by tempta- 
tions, and of not taking pride for dignity, a sin which of 
itself is sufficient to make enmity with God." A great 
advocate of Papal authority says of St. Basil here: "He is 
altogether to be censured as accusing for this reason the 
Pontiff Damasus, and all the \Vestern Church, as likewisc 
the Pontiff Julius on account of 
larcellus, as if they were 
guilty of committing a crime, establishing heresy, and being 
ignorant of the truth." For which he assigns this reason, 
that" Basil's vision \Vas distorted by anger/' and that" Basil, 
being prone to angcr through frcqucnt fasting, as students 
are, thus crimI out." On which passage of Christian \V olf, llossuett, 
quoted by Bossuet, he exclaims: "'V e easily despise "r olf 


passing his decree on such a man: but we cannot think it 65. 
of slight importance what, by the admission of ,V o If, Basil 
thought. Nor does it here matter whether Basil blamed them 
with reason or not. But at least it was clear that the con- 
firming of heresy was roundly and flatly, without any excuse, 
without any attempt to modify, imputed by Basil to two 
decrees of Roman Pontiffs De Fide." 
A year earlicr writing to Dorothcus about a projected visit 
of his brother, St. Gl'cgOl'Y of Nyssa} to Romc, he had said, 



CHAP. "For my part I do not see who are to accompany him, and 
I know that he is entirely without experience in ecc1esiasti- 
Ep. 215. 
cal matters: and, while he would be sure to meet with re- 
spect and to be valued by a considerate person, I know not 
what advantage could arise to the whole Church from the 
intercourse of such a person, who has no mean adulation in 
bis nature, with one Mgh and lifted up, sitting on I know not 
how lofty a seat, and so nót able to catch the voice of those 'ldw 
tell him the truth on the ground." 
Inference Surely these words give us in the most unsuspicious form 
from this 
language. St. Basil's tone of mind about the Roman See. It is quite 
impossible that a saint, for instance, of the medieval or later 
Roman Church, a St. Bernard, or St. Francis de Sales, could 
have written thus. It is plain that he did not so much as 
conceive the present doctrine of the Roman Supremacy. It 
was not an idea presented to his mind and rejected, but one 
which literally had never crossed it. What J\:1:r. Newman 
says of writers of St. Basil's age respecting the theology of 
Luther and Calvin is true of Basil himself respccting the 
Church of Roman Supremacy. lIe is "as unconscious of its existence 
the Fathcri', . 
p. ì85. as of modern chemIstry or astronomy." There could be only 
one reason for this, as for the other, that it had not yet ap- 
pcared in the Church. His words, and all his tone of think- 
ing, are a complete but indirect denial of the notion, that lw 
was bound to accept the decision of the Bishop of Rome in 
doctrine, or in a case of disputed succession, as conclusive. 
Instances Compare) then, further, the words of St. Jerome to Pope 


n Damasus with those of St. Basil to St. Athanasius on the 

ed same subject of this distracted Church of Antioch: on the 
Èishops of one hand a 'Vestern monk, sojourning in the East, but bap- 
the greater . R ' } d fi . d .. 
Sees. tIzed at Rome, a oman In wart an eelIng, an IntImate 
with its Bishop: on the other hand the Exarch of Cesarea, 
only inferior in rank to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and 
Antioch. 'Vhieh uses the stronger and more deferential 
language? St. Jerome to the Bishop of Rome, or St. Basil 
Witness of to the Bishop of Alexandria? "For the rest of the .East 
H. Basil. d f 1 . f 
Ep. 66. perhaps you have nee 0 t le co-operatIOn 0 a greater num- 
ber, and must wait for the 'Vesterns. But that the Church 
of Antioch be well ordered manifestly depends on your 
lÚcty: to manage some) to quict other
, and to restore 



strength to the Church by agreement. For you yourself S EC T. 
know better than anyone can tell 
TOU, that, like the most II. 
skilful physicians, you must begin the cure with the most 
vital parts. And what can be more vital than Antioch to 
the Churches of the whole world? If this could be restored 
by concord, nothing prevents but that as a strong and healthy 
!lead it s!wuld procure soundness to the 'Whole body. For in 
truth the weaknesses of that city need your wisdom and 
evangelical sympathy. For it is not only cut in twain by 
heretics, but distracted too by those who pretend that they 
are of one mind with each other. To make these parties 
one, and bring them into the harmony of one body, belongs 
to Him alone who by His unspeakable power invests the dry 
bones with nerves and flesh again. Yet the Lord e\Ter works 
great things by instruments worthy of Him. Here, too, then 
again I trust that there is a fitting sphere for the services of 
one so high-minded, in allaying popular disturbances, putting 
a stop to parties having their several Bishops, bringing all to 
mutual subjection in love, and restoring its ancient strength 
to the Church." Had a 'Vestern Bishop applied the above 
cxpressions about Antioch to Rome, or those concerning 
Athanasius to a Roman Bishop, he could not have escaped 
being quoted in proof of the Roman Supremacy. " The :Mr. Kew
b f S n . . B . h f Al d . 1 . man on De- 
pres yters 0 t. IOnyslUs, IS op 0 e
an rm, comp mn velopment. 
of his doctrine to St. Dionysius of Rome, the latter expos- 
tulates with him, and hc explains." "'Vhv," says Pope Of Pope 
J 1 . . h . I } E b . 0' d Ii . b St. Julius. 
U lUS, In IS etter to t Ie use mns preserve or us y 
St. Athanasius, "was nothing said to us concerning the 
Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you igno- 
rant that J the custom has becn for word to be written first 
to us, and then for a just sentence to be passed from this 
p]ace." The note under l\Ir. Newman's editorship says, "in Lib. ofFa- 
I . . f 1 R S . thers, vol. 
t Ie passage In the text the prerogatIve 0 t Ie oman ee IS 13. p. 56. 
limited, as Coustant observes, to the instance of Alexandria j 
and we actually find in the third century a complaint lodged 
against its Bishop Dionysius with the Pope." If this be 
the case, the fact_will hardly go to prove the present Papal 
Supremacy. But, surely, its proper interpretation is, that 
 mcrely ...the.... Patriarchs, but l
ishops generally, were wont 
to inspcct each other's conduct, appeal to the Canons, 



CHAP. specially those of Nicea, as a rule above tlIem an, which I 
I. find St. Leo and other Popes perpetually doing, intercede in 
cases of allparent injustice to persons, and assume even a 
severer tone of censure, if the matter related to errors of 
doctrine. Thus this same Dionysius of Alexandria, when 
appealed to in the case of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of 
t. Dio
 Antioch, "wrote to Antioch, esteeming the leader of error 
nyslUs of I f b . . h dd I . 
Alexandria. not wort lY even 0 elng named: nor dId e a ress urn at 

.IIist. all) but the whole Diocese:" a course of proceeding which in 
ordinary circumstances would have been a violation of aU 
Ecclesiastical rule. But here the faith was in danger. Only 
just before St. Julius had said in the letter above quoted, 
"Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon 
those persons," (St. Athanasius and Bishops from other parts 
of the Church,) "the case ought to have been conductcd 
against them not after this manner, but, according to tlte 
Canon of the Cllurch, word slwuld llave been written of it to 
118 all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the 
sufferers were Bishops and Churches of no ordinary note, 
but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in 
thell' own persons." Just so, as in the case above, the 
Exarch of Cesarea entreats the Patriarch of Alexandria, 
himself holding the second See, to interfere and terminate 
the distractions of the third See. Just so St. Athanasi us 
himself, hearing that certain monks of Cappadocia were 
angry with St. Basil for refraining, through consideration of 
circumstances, from calling the Holy Spirit God, writes to 
t.Atha- the Priest Palladius, thus. "As you have told me about 
naslUS. the monks at Cesarea , which I also leanlt from our beloved 
s. Athana- 
sii, Ep. ad Dianius, that they were grieving and resisting our beloved 
Basil the Bishop, I thank you for the information: but I 
have pointed out the fitting course to them, to be obedient, 
as children to their fathcr, and not to resist what he ap- 
proves. For, if he were suspected of not holding the truth, 
they would do well to resist him: but if they feel confident, 
as we all feel, that he is the pride of the Church, fighting for 
the truth, and instructing those who have need, they should 
not resist such an one, but rather accept his good conscience. 
For, from what the beloved Dianius told me, they seem 
grieved without reaSOll. For he himself, as I am SUl'e, be- 




comes weak to the weak that he may gain the weak; but SEe T. 
let our friends, looking at the end his truth has in view, and II. 
the discretion he uses, glorify the Lord, who has given to 
Cappadocia such a Bishop as every country wishes to have." 
Just so Basil, writing to congratulate Peter of Alexandria 
on his succeeding St. Athanasius, begs him, "to inform me S. Basil. 
.æ . d À k 1 ,j! th Ep. 133. 
constantly of your aU airs, an to unuerta e t,le care oJ e 
universal brotherhood with the same tenderness and the same 
zeal, which that most blessed man shewed to all that love 
God in truth." 
"Soter Bisho p of Rome" sa y s 
Ir. Newman a g ain "sends Euseb.Hist. 
" , 4. 23. 
alms, according to the custom of his Church, to the Churches 
throughout the empire, and in the words of Eusebius 'affec- 
tionately exhorted those who came to Rome, as a father his 
children.'" As Basil says, "This dignity, in which I now S; Basi!. 
am, makes all my adopted children." And St. Gregory of 


N azianzum says of St. Athanasius, " Having gone through gory:r\azi- 
., anzene. 
the whole suite of sacred offices, to pass over intervening 
. Greg. 
events, he is entrusted with the presidency over tlle people, 

which is the same as saying with the rule of the whole world. t. 1. 38V, D. 
And I cannot :say whether he received the priesthood as the 
reward of his virtue, or be the source and life of the 
Church. }'or She, fainting through thirst of the truth, was 
like Ishmael to be refreshed, or like Elijah to be revived, 
when the earth in the drought was cooled by the stream, 
and from her exhaustion to be brought back to life/' And 
St. Basil says to the same great saint, "Send to me the S. Basil. 
letters of the Bishops-which I will not give them before Ep.B2. 
I receive their answers: otherwise' let me bear the blame Gen. 43.9. 
for ever.' Surely this was subject for no greater fear to 
him who originally said it to his father, than now to me 
who say it to you my Spiritual Father." I allege these 
passages, which might be multiplied without end, only to 
shew how very weak a foundation such things are whereon to 
build the Supremacy. "St. Basil's actions," says Tillemont, Of Tille- 
" shew him to us I say not as a particular Bishop, or a mere 1 1
.o ll l1t. 
. . . 1 emont, 
l\Ictropohtan, or as Exarch or PatrJarch of several ProvInces, 9. 170. 
but as a saint who enjoyed the Episcopate in full posscssion 
"ithout wrollging the authority of his brethren: who ilid not 
limit his charity to his jurisdiction) but regarding himself as 
successor of the Apostles, as Bilthop of all the Churches" ex- 




C II A P. tended his cares everywhere where the name of Jesus Christ 
extended, and considered all Christians as his own people, 
since he carried them all in his heart." This is just what 
may be said of St. Cyprian, St. Athanasius, St. Chrysostome, 
and other great Bishops, and of course of the Bishops of 
OfSt.Basj]. Rome. So St. Basil says to Peter of Alexandria: "It was 


: with reason, and like a spiritual brother taught true love by 
the Lord, that you censured me for not informing you of all 
things both small and great which take place here. For it 
is your duty to take care of w!tat goes on !tere, as it is mine to 
refer our affairs to YOU1. love." So St. Chrysostome makes 
it part of the praise of St. Eustathius of Antioch that not 
OfSt.Chry- only in his own Diocese " did he use this foresight, but sent 
B s os c to h me. abroad in all directions men to instruct, exhort, converse, 
. rys, . . 
tom. 2.60ì, defend the approach agaInst the enemy." (the ArIans.) "For 
B. well had he been instructed by the grace of the Spirit, that 
it is the duty of one set over a Church not only to provide 
for that which has been entrusted to him by the Spirit, but 
for the whole Church throughout the world. And this he 
learnt from the sacred prayers. For if, said he, we should 
offer prayers for the Catholic Church from one end of the 
earth to the other, much more must we shew our vigilance 
for the whole of it, and care alike for all Churches, and be 
Of St. Gre- solicitous for all." And of St. Cyprian St. Gregory of Na- 
gory Nazi- . , h b P d h b d 
anzene. ZIanzum says:' e ecomes a astor, an t e est an most 
S.; Greg. approved of Pastors: for he presides not only over the 

 ?:: Church of Carthage, nor over that Africa which from him 
tom. 1.445. d h h h .. d . 11 b al II th 
an t roug 1m IS renowne tI now, ut so over a e 
V{ est, I may almost say, the Eastern and Southern and 
Northern coast." N ow is it fair to apply instances thus 
arising and expressions thus occurring of a general super- 
vision b
T the Roman Pontiff to prove his Supremacy, while 
parallel instances in the case of other Bishops are put out 
of sight? If a writer, with all the stores of antiquity, and 
all the labours of modern Roman controversialists, open 
before him, and having to render an account of a great 
change in his own opinions, can produce no stronger indi- 
cations of the Papal Supremacy from the ante-Nicene period 
than these, what is the conclusion to which every man must 
come who goes by the facts of history? 
But to recur to the point of jurisdiction at the time of the 



Nicene Council. It is beyond question, both from the acts SECT. 
of that Council, and from the Apostolic Canons, which repre- 
h E Ch h . h d d h . d . Episcopal 
sent t eastern urc In t e secon an t II' centurIes, Jurisdic- 
h 1 h . f R . ht .. tion 
tat, w mtever t e pre-emInence 0 orne mIg consIst In, . 
there was no claim whatever to ratify the election of 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 necessarJ' Thomassin, 
to know, that, up to the Council of Nicea, all ecclesiastical gt k liv.1. 
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 Pl'ovincial Coun- 
cils, and orders that all things should be settled thm'ein." 
"The better to understand," saJs De 1\iarca, Archbishop of De l\farca. 
P . h d f E . I .. d .. .. de Concord 
arIS, "t e or cr 0 pIscopa JUrIS Ichon, It IS necessary lib. 7. cb.l: 
before-hand to lay down that the Church in the beginning
suited herself to the civil arrangement of the Roman Empire, 
and therefore appointed Bishops in the chief cities of each 
country, but assigned the first place and the confirmation of 
ever)' thing to the Bishop of the Metropolis of the Pl'ovince, 
with the Council of his colleagues. Thus Episcopal ordina- 
tions and Ecclesiastical judgments took place by the Council 
of each province with the authority of the Metropolitan, so 
that it was not allowed to appeal from the judgment passed 
in a Provincial Council. . . . . 
"That supreme authority of Provincial Councils in passing 
judgment did not prevent the communication of Bishops of 
different provinces, who gave each other mutual assistance 
against the enemies of the Church. But in those ancient 
times was especially conspicuous the remarkable and pre- 
eminent care of the Roman Church in decreeing remedies 
against schisms and heresies in conjunction with other Pro- 
vincial Synods. . . . 
"That custom, which assigned to the Councils of each 
several Province the supreme power of ordaining or deposing 
Bishops, was committed to writing and confirmed by the Fifth 
Canon of the Nicene Council to this effect: 'Respecting 
those who have been depri,'ed of Communion, whether of the 
clergy, or of the laity, by the Bishops of each Province, let 


C HAP judgment prevail according to the Canon which declares that 
I. those who have been rejected by some be not received by 
others. . . . It was agreed that Councils should be held 
twice every year in each Province, that such questions might 
be examined in a general assembly of all the BisllOps of the 
Province.' This Canon confirms the authority of each Pro- 
vince in judging by definitive decree Ecclesiastical causes 
which regard the clergy or laity. and by consequence the 
same right is established as to the correction and deposition 
of Bishops, though that case is not stated in the Canon ill 
express words. Certainly there can be no doubt that this 
is the meaning of the Canon, that in this general law should 
be comprehended judgments against Bishops, inasmuch as 
the Nicene Council 110 where else mentions them. Besides 
this argument there is the plain and express authority of 
the second Ecumenical Council, and also of the Council of 
Africa, and of Pope Innocent the First, who declare that 
they consider Episcopal judgments to be embraced in that 
Nicene Canon. In fact the second Canon of the Ecumenical 
Council of Constantinople bears plain witness that the ad- 
ministration and government of the Churches was committed 
to every Province respectively by this Nicene Canon. Now 
under the word administration the Fathers of Constantinople 
comprehend judgments against Bishops as much as other 
points of Ecclesiastical policy and government." 
"The sentence of the Council of Africa is most plain in 
approval of what I have written: it is easy to collect from 
the wOl'ds of the Fathers of that Council, that they were of 
the same mind with Cyprian, since they use almost the same 
words in a similar cause. For they say in their letter to 
Pope Cælestine: 'The Nicene decrees have most plainly 
committed both the clergy of inferior I'ank and the Bishops 
themseh-es to their own l\ietropolitans. FOl' they have or- 
dained with great wisdom and justice that all matters should 
he terminated in the places where they arise, and that the 
grace of the Holy Spirit would not be wanting to each 
several Province.' " 
See Cou- "Innocent the First in his letter to Yictricius Bishop of 
stant Epist R h . t t t . h ..., B t . f 
.: ouen supports t e same In erpre a IOn . . . C . HI. U I 
p.749. any causes or contentions arise among the clergy, either of 


superior or inferior rank, my sentence is, that according to 
the Nicene Council the judgment be terminated by the 
assembling of all the Bishops of that Province. Nor let any 
one be allowed, (without prejuùice, however, to the Roman 
Church, reverence to which in all causes should be ob- 
served,) to leave those Priests who in that Province by ùivine 
permission govern the Church of God, and to fly to other 
"The same truth may be collected from the Canons of the 
Council of Antioch, which was held in the year 341, and 
whose authority was received in the Council of Chalcedon, 
and then in the whole Church. For that Council, being 
desirous entirely to remove the difficulties which very often 
occurred in the carrying out of the Nicene Council as to the 
deposition of Bishops, uses words which plainly shew that 
the definitive judgment belongs to the Council of each several 
Province. On this supreme authority rests the fifteenth 
Canon, which declares that a sentence passed by the voices 
of all the Bishops of a Province cannot be rescinded by other 
Bishops. 'If any Bishop accused of certain crimes be con- 
demned by all the Bishops of the same Province, and all 
with one accord pass the same decree against him, let him 
not be judged again by others, but let the accordant sentcnce 
of the Bishops of the Province stand good.'" . . . lIe then 
quotes the Canon, adding, "These Antiochene Canons 
prove abundantly that the trials of Bishops were 'Wont of old 
to take place by the supreme authority of the Bishops of the 
Province, even though on account of a diversity of judgment 
it were necessary to call in several Bishops of a neighbouring 
Province. This was not done in order that any appeal or 
revision might be entertained against the first judgment, in- 
asmuch as that was not yet passed, but rather was allowed 
to stand over after each several person had given his sen- 
tence. So that the extraordinary assembly took place in order 
that the first decree might be passed, for the revision of 
which there was no place." 
The following are instances which bear out the vel'y Im- 
pOltant assertions of Thomassin, and De J\Iarca. 







Witness of AND first, the testimony and conduct of St. Cyprian will 



 exhibit the self-government of the Church's several pro- 
government vinces, as well as illustrate the Roman Primacy, to which 
of the se- . . . 
veral pro- l\ir. Newman claIms him as a wItness. And such he is be- 

e: and yond doubt." In his fifty-fifth letter, which begins, "Cyprian 
Rom y an Pri- to his brother Cornelius, greeting;" he complains bitterly to 
1. Appeal that Pope that Felicissimus and his party "dare to set sail, 
of Felicis- d I r. h . . I d "- 
simns. an to carry a etter .1rom sc IsmatIca an profane persons 
 Ï1<.i ,/ 
h to the See of Peter, and to the principal Church, whence the 
c 1
)'i/:- unity of the priesthood took its rise; nor consider that they 

;-H. are the Romans whose faith had been praised by the preach- 
ing of the Apostle, to whom faithlessness can have no access." 
This l\ir. 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 Corne- 
lius, 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 concern- 
ing them, and hm'e lately condemned, hy t.he weight of their 



sentence, their conscience, bound by many snares of crimes. SEe T. 
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 conversa- 
tion 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 b." 
Another letter of St. Cyprian to another Pope, St. Stephen, 2. Depo- 
. 11 l' h b h h .. f h P . d f h E . sition of 
WI set lort ot IS VIew 0 t e rlmacy, an 0 t e 
 pIS- l\Iarcian. 
copal relation to it. He wishes St. Stephen to write a letter 
to the people of Arles, by which their actual Bishop 
cian, who had joined himself to the schismatic N ovatian, 
might be excommunicated, and another substituted for him. 
This alone shews 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 controver- 
sialists in late times to justify the full extent of Papal power 
now claimed. "Cyprian to his Brother Stephen, greeting. Epist. 67. 
F t . II t L d t B tl h h De 
aus Inus, our co eague a yons, eares ro ler, at ano Arcla- 
more than once written to me, signifying what I know has tensi. 
certainly been reported to you also, both by him and by the 
rest of our Brother-Bishops in that Province, that Marcian 

b Of a passage in this letter, De 
Maistre says (Du Pape, liv. i. ch. 6) : 
Ie Resuming the order of the most 
marked testimonies which present 
themselves to me on the general ques- 
tion, 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, to- 
wards 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 w}lere setting up in a See a schis- 
matical Bishop against the true one. 
Af[er 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 Vi hom 
it was applied. It suited tile 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. 



C II A P. of ArIes, has joined himself to N ovatian, and has departed 
I. from the unity of the Catholic Church, and from the agree- 
ment 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. 'Vherefore 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 J\!I:arcian, 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 anyone 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 
Anteces- preserve the glorious honour of our predecessors, the blessed 
sorum n08- 1\1art y rs Cornelius and Lucius" ( the last Po p es ) "whose 
trorum.' , , 
memory we indeed honour, but which you much more, most 
Vicarius et dear Brother, who are become their successor, ought to dis- 
successor. tinguish and preserve by your weight and authority. For 
they being full of the spirit of God, and made glorious 
]\lartyrs, 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 pcace was 
not to be refused them. Which thing we all have every- 
where 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 l\!I:arcian, Bishop of ArIes? 
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 interfcrence at 



R dangerous juncture. It bears witness, not to the present S E C T. 
Papal, but to the Patriarchal, system. It tallies exactly III. 
with the spirit of him who wrote elsewhere, to the lapsed, 
"Our Lord, whose precepts and warnings we are bound to St.Cyp. Ep. 
observe, regulating the honour of the Bishop, and the con- 29. 
stitution 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 ordi- 
nation of Bishops and the constitution of the Church has 
descended, so ilwt the Church is established upon the Bishops, 
and every act of the Church is directed by the same, its govern- 
ors. This being established by divine law," &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 8. Contro- 
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 heretics. 
of course, the controversy whether heretics should be ad- 
mitted into the Church by rebaptization or by the impo- 
sition of hands. I most fully believe, be it observed, that 
Cyprian acknowledged the Roman Primacy, that he ad- 
mitted 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 controver
y 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 

Ep. 73. 




saying that they had found it necessary to hold a Council, 
he proceeds-" But I thought I ought to write to you and 
confer with your gravity and wisdom concerning that espe- 
cially 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 know- 
ledge 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 un- 
willing 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 hav{' 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 tile 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, "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 an- 
swer 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 incon- 
sistent remarks, which he has written rashly and improvi- 
dently, &c. . . . . . But what blindness of mind is it, what 
perverseness to refuse to recognise the unity of the faith 
coming from God tlle Fathel. and the tradition of Jesus 



Christ our Lord and God. . . . . But since no heresy at all, SEe T. 
nor indeed any schism, can possess outside (the Body) the III. 
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. . . . . H 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 ratller 
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 I copy this lan- 
guage used concerning a Pope by a great Bishop and 1\Iartyr 
of the third century, who elsewhere writes, "That our Lord De Unit. 
built His Church upon Peter being one, 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 ;" I 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 rcceiving thc Pope's rescript, and his cxcommuui- 



C HAP. cation, St. Cyprian convoked another Council of the three 
I. 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. 
op.St.Cypr. St. Cyprian opened it, observing: "It remains for us each 
p. 329. ed. t d I . t . t th e tt . d . 
Baluz. 0 elver our sen Imen s on IS ma er, JU gmg no one, 
nor removing anyone, 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 ltis tyranny compels his 
colleagues to the necessity of obedience, since every Bishop ac- 
cording 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 tlle 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." 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 sen- 
tence of excommunication until they altered their practice. 
Comment But these last words of St. Cyprian are so remarkable in 
of St Au- 
gustine. 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. Au- 
gustine, writing 140 years after, and fully agreeing with the 
judgment of Pope Stephen, as had the whole Church finally, 
Tom. 9. p. quotes the whole passage. '" It remains for us each to de- 
110. liver our sentiments on this matter, judging no one, nor re- 
moving anyone, if he be of a different opinion, from the 
right of Communion.' There he not only permits me with- 
out loss of Communion further to seek the truth, but even to 
be of a different judgment. 4' 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 obedi- SECT. 
ehce.' 1Vhat can be more gentle? What more humble? III. 
Certainly no authority deters us from seeking what is the 
truth: (since,' he says, (every Bishop according to his re- 
cognised 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 
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." 
vVho can conclude otherwise than that St. Augustine 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. Augus- 
tine, contain the most explicit denial of that power lodged 
in the See of Rome as distinct from an Ecumenical Council, 
by which alone, if at all, the Church of England has been 
dcclared schi:smatical and excommunicate. 
These are Bishops of the 1Vest speaking, but the East 
also must give its voice. St. Dionysius of Alexandria, aud 
many other Eastern Prelates, among the I.est :Firmilian, St. Firmi- 

Ietropolitan of Cesare a, in Cappadocia, supported St. Cyprian liau. 



CHAP. on the question of rebaptization. The latter had been in- 
I. formed of St. Stephen's strong judgment and decided pro- 
ceedings 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, 
s. cJP. Ep. and to that of Stephen as descending from him. "But what 
75. is the error, and how great the blindness of him (i. e. the 
Pope) who says, remission of sins can be given in the meet- 
ings 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, 
\tYhatsoever 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 tbe 
Apostles alone Christ breathed and said, Receive the Holy 
Ghost: whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose 
ye retain, they are retained. Tlterefore tile 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 llave suc- 
ceeded 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 pcrccive that 
the truth of the Christian rock is clouded over by him, and 
in a manner abolished, who thus betrays and deserts unity. 
. . . . Yon Africans can say against Stephen, that, when 
the truth became known to you, you relinquished an erro- 
neous 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." lIe 
had said before, "One may know that those who are at 
Rome do not in all things observe what has been delivcl'ed 
down from the beginning, and yainly allege the authority 01 


the Apostles, even by this, that in celebrating Easter, and in 
many other sacred rites, one may see there are among them 
certain variations; nor are all things there kept as they are 
kept at Jerusalem; just as in very many other prO\-inces 
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. 

?hich now Stephen has dared to do, breaking peace to- 
wards you, which his predecessors alwars 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 me 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 themseh-es in all their sins. . . 
But thou art worse than all heretics; for whilst many, ac- 
knowledging their error, come to thee thence to receive the 
true light of tbe Church, thou assistest the errors of those 
so coming. . . Nor understand est 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 
bast 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; be who supports the enemies of God, or he who 
argues for the truth of the Church against him who supports 
God's enemics? except that it is evident that the ignorant 
are also passionate and wrathful, wbilst, 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 dis- 
sensions hast thou caused through the Churches of the 
whole world! But how great a sin hast thou heaped upon 
thyself, wIlen thou didst cut tllystlf off from so many flocks; 
for thou hast destroyed tltyself. Do not be deceived. Since he 
is tlte true scltismatic who has made himself an apostate from 



SEe T. 



St. Dio- 

C HAP. the communion of the Church's oneness; for whilst thou dost 
fancy that all can be excO'lnmunicated by thee, thou hast excom- 
municated thyself alone from all. . . . . This salutary advice of 
the A postle 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 t.hroughout 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 depu- 
ties from whom he received with such patience and rnild- - 
ness, 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 7" &c. 
In another place we have preserved to us the opinion of 
St. Dionysius of Alexandria on St. Stephen's mode of acting 
with the Eastern Churches. And this opinion is the more 
important because this same eminent Bishop is quoted by 
:Mr. Newman as a witness to the Papal Supremacy, in that 
he explained to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, certain points on 
which he was accused. 'Vriting, then, to Philemoll, a PI.iest 
of the Roman Church, he says, as Eusebius has preserved 
Eu!eb. 1: 7. for us his words: "This too I have learnt, that not the Bishops 
c ,. reter-. Af . 1 I . d d I . b I 
d to by III rIca a one lave now mtro uce t lIS custom, ut ong 
Launoy. ago also in the times of the Bishops our predecessors, in the 
most populous Churches, and in Councils of the Brethren at 
Iconium, and Synada, and in many places, this was deter- 
mined 011: to o'"erturn whose resolutions, and so to throw 
them into strife and contention, I do not venture. :For thou 
shalt not remove, saith He, thy neighbour's landmark, which 
thy fathers have set." 
Here I think it is pretty plain, 1st, that St. Dionysius dis- 
approvec) of St. Stephen's conduct: 2ndly, that he acknow- 
ledged no power in his See different in kind from that of 
other Sees: 3rdly, that he scts forth indirectly the original 
Episcopal constitution of the Church. 
The words of St. Basil the Great convey the same impres- 
sion. In his Canonical letter to St. Amphilochius, which 
has ever been of authority in the Eastern Church, he says, 

 1'HE QUE:3TlOX 01/ R\.I:'TIS:\l. 49 

"It seemed good to the ancients, Cyprian, I mean, and our S E CT. 
F " . 1 . b . 11 h I :) .. h IlI. 
IfmI Ian, to su Ject a t ese to t Ie same oecHHon, t e 
C .. S. Basil, 
atharI, and Encratltæ, and IIydroparastatæ; because the tom. 3. p. 
beginning of the separation took place through a schism, and 2G9. E. 
they who revolted from the Church had no longer the grace 
of the Holy Spirit upon them. For His communication 
failed them by the succession being cut off. For the first 
seceders indeed had ordination from the Fathers, and by the 
imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift: but 
those who broke away, becoming laymen, had authority nei- 
ther to baptize, nor to ordain, being no longer able to convey 
the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, from which they had 
fallen themselves. 'Vherefore they (the Fathers) bade those 
who came from them to the Church, as being baptized by 
laymen, to be purified by the free Baptism of the Church. 
But since some in Asia have altogether decided, as a matter 
of dispensation to a great number, that their Baptism be re- 
ceived, let it be received. But we must know the drift of 
that bad act of the Encratitæ: for, in order to bar their way 
back to the Church, they attempted, later, to occupy the 
ground with their own Baptism; by which they hm"e also 
broken their own custom. I judge therefore, since there is 
nothing distinctly decided about them, that we ought to 
reject their Baptism, and if anyone has received it from 
them, baptize him at his reception into the Church. If 
however this should stand in the way of the general dis- 
pensation, we should again comply with the custom, and oilCoJlo}.da. 
follow the Fathers who have admitted this mode of dealing 
by dispensation in our matters. For I fear, lest, while we 
desire to make thcm shrink from baptizing, we may hinder 
those who are in the way to salvation through the severity of 
our rulc. But if they keep our Baptism, lct us not regard 
that. For we are bound not to acknowledge this in them, 
but to be scrupulous in our servitude to the canons." 
It is clear, I suppose, first, that St. Basil did not censurc 
St. Cyprian or St. }'irmilian for their conduct in this mattcr : 
sccondly, that he never so much as imagined that the decree 
of Pope St. Stephen could settle the question by authority: 
thirdly, that he held it to be a subject matter in which the 
proper authority, i.e. Bishops ill Council, might dispell


IlE)URKS OF 1'ILU:m..1

CHAP. fourthly, that he held the Canon, i. e. the regulation of 
I. Bishops in Councils, to be a supreme authority to which all 
Christian men owe not merely observance, but, it is his own 
word, scrupulous servitude. 
Concerning this remarkable history TiUemont says thr,t 
Pope St. Sixtus, therefore called by Pontius that" good and 
peace-loving Priest," probably restored communion between 
Tillemont his own See and that of Carthage. "As for the terms on 
His. Ecc. 4. h . h th O d h . I h . 
160. W IC IS peace was ma e, t ere IS muc I appearance t at It 
was as St. Dionysius and St. Cyprian demanded, that is, that 
each Bishop was left to act according to his discretion and 
light, until God should discover the truth in a more clear 
and authentic manner." 'Vhich is as much as to say that 
the Bishop of Rome's decision, in opposition to that of other 
great Prelates, was not a clear and authentic manner. Fleury 
Liv. 7. sec. observes: "It is not known what was then the issue of this 
32. dispute. It is certain that it still continued under Pope 
St. 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. Still St. Cyprian is counted among the most illus- 
trious martyrs, even in the Roman Church, which names him 
in the Canon of the 
lass, in preference to Pope St. Stephen; 
and the Greeks, in their :!\Ienologium, honour the memory 
of Firmilian. 'Vith 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. 'Vhy 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 ill good faith a bad cause, which they be- 
lieved good, and upon which there ltad not yet been a decision 
received by unanimous consent of the whole Chul'c/t. Thus 
St. Augustine 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 tltese Italy 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 conse- SEe T. 
quently the best. . . . At length this question was entirely III. 
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 constitu- 
tion of that Church of which they were Primates, Saints, 
and one a 1Iartyr? 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 de- 
puties, 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 Arch- 
bishop of Cambrai, and yielded at once to the chair of St. 
Peter, w]latever 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; and St. Dionysius 
of Alexandria at the time, as well as St. Basil of Cesarea 
one hundred and twenty years later, knew it as little. 
Nay, and St. Augustine knew it not either. It was no Judgment 
more the belief in his day, than in St. Cyprian's. The Do- 


llatists alle g ed a!!ainst him in the q uestion of Baptism the t!1Ïs ques- 
L' tlOn. 
authority of Cyprian in this great Council of Carthage. This 
leads him to make a very important statement-" You are Tom. 9. 97. 
wont to object against us Cyprian's letters, Cyprian's judg- G. 
ment, 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 prefcrred 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 ha\Te been or are 
written after the confirmation of the Canon, may be repre- 





hended both by the reasoning, pcradventure 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 subse- 
quent ones, when by some practical experience what has 
been hidden is laid open, and what lay concealed is recog- 
nised, without any puffing up of sacrilegious pride, without 
any haughty exhibition of arrogance, without any strife oflivid 
envy, with holy humility, with Catholic peace, with Christian 
charity." Here, where, in a dignvs 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 Bellarllline, 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,-' Shewing, 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 shews that he would most readily have corrected 
his judgment, had anyone 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 aud extols Peter for 



having with patience and Imrmony suffered correction from ,S E C T. 
a single younger colleague, how much more readily would III. 
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 tIle 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, invoh'ed in so many clouds of 
altercations, be brought to the clear consideration and ratifi- 
cation of a plenary Council, unless first for a long time 
throughout all the regions of the world it bad been thoroughly 
tried, and made manifest by many discussions and con- 
ferences 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 dis- 
cussion, 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. In fact his contro- 
versy with the Donatists has led him in a great number of 
passages to speak of this dispute between St. Stephen and 
St. Cyprian. Now it is remarkable, 1st. that in not one of 
these does he censure St. Cyprian for not haviug obeyed the 
judgment of St. Stephen: 2nd. in not one does he intimate 
that a letter from the Bishop of Rome ought to be obeyed: 
3rd. he does continually excuse St. Cyprian for having been 
wrong in a point which was afterwards settled against him 
by a plenary Council: this, and not his resistance to the 
Pope, as has been most falsely stated, being " that spot of 
his most pure breast which he covered with the fen'our of 
his charity:" this that which" if there was any thing in him s. Aug., 
to be amended, the Father purged with the pruning-hook of t
m. 2. 247 
his passion." 4th. He as continually attributes to a plenary , 
Council the power of settling such disputed points, asserting 
that St. C
'p)'ian would havc yielded to it the oùedieuce 



C HAP. which he refused to St. Stephen. I select two passagcs out 
of manJ7 quoted by Launoy. To the Donatist Bishop Gau- 
dentius he writes, "Answer me if you can this short ques- 
tion. \Yhile Cyprian was rebaptizing those who came from 
the heretics, being Bishop of the Church of Carthage" Stephen 
being Bishop of the Church of Rome received heretics in the 
same baptism which they had had given them out of the 
Church, and both, pursuing this different practice, remained 
in Catholic unity." lIe here plainly assigns no more autho- 
rity to Stcphen than to Cyprian. In another he sums up his 
Tom. 9.670, opinion thus. "\Vherefore rendering due reverence, and 
G; 9. 162.. h f: . I . I I . 
E. paying meet onour, so ar as In me IeS, to t 1e peace- ovmg 
Bishop and glorious 
Iartyr Cyprian, I yet venture to say, 
not on the strength of my own judgment, but on that of the 
universal Church, strengthened and confirmed by the autho- 
rity of a plenary Council, that he formed an opinion con- 
cerning the rebaptizing of schismatics and heretics contrary 
to that which truth afterwards brought to light." I do not 
think that stronger and clearer evidence respecting St. A u- 
gustine's view as to tIle power of the Roman See" both de 
jure and de facto, can be desired than this matter prcsents. 
And how can the Church government under which St. Au- 
gustine lived and died render schismatical and exclude from 
the pale of salvation those who now maintain it? 
So, ill another place, arguing with these same Donatists, 
he distinctly considers the case of the judgment of the 
Tom. 2.96. Roman Pontiff being erroneous. " The Donatists," says he, 
"chose with a double purpose, to plead their cause with 
Cæcilian before the Churches across the sea; being doubly 
prepared, that if they could by any skilfulness of false accu- 
sation have overcome him) thcy might to the full satiate thcir 
desire: but if they failed in this, might continue in the same 
perversity, but still as if they would have to allege, that they 
llad suffered in hm"ing bad judges: this is what all cvil 
suitors cry, though they have been overcome by the plainest 
truths: as if it might not be answcred them and most justly 
Judgment retorted,-Let us suppose that these Bishops who judged at 
O C f a g
n l eral Rome , " ( Po p e l\Ielchiades and a Council of Gallic and Italian 
after ,the Bishops,)" were not fair judges; there still remained a ple- 
Pope s . I . I CI h . 1 
judgment. nary Council of t Ie umversa mrc J w hCl'C the cause mlg It 



have been tried even with those very judges, so that had they S E C T. 
b ilL 
een convicted of false judgment their decision might be re- 
Nay, it appears, the cause of the Donatists, after being 
decided by Pope 
Ielchiades, was reheard, and that, not 
by a plenary Council, but by other Bishops of the West, 
deputed by Constantine. "Know," says St. Augustine, Tom. 2. 229. 
"that your first ancestors carried the cause of Cæcilianus c. 
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 ter- 
minating of it to Bishops. This took place in the city of 
Rome under the presidency of 
Ielchiades, Bishop of that 
Church, with many of his colleagues. They having pro- 
nounced Cæcilianus 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 ArIes, in Gaul, and 
from them your party appealed to the Emperor himself, 
until he too heard the cause, and pronounced Cæcilianus 
innocent, and them false accusers." Did he who wrote these 
words mean to censure Constantine for gl'anting a second 
hearing after the judgment of Pope 
"Basilides," says 1vlr. Newman, "deposed in Spain, be- 4. Case of 
1 h . If R d . h f S S I " Basilides. 
ta ws Imse to orne, an gaIlls t e ear 0 t. tep len. 
This, however, is only half the case. It comes to the know. 
ledge of St. Cyprian that he has done so. Let us take 
Fleury's account. "As Basilides and 
1'artial still endea- Fleury,liv. 
voured to force themselves back upon their Sees, Felix and 7. 23. 
Sabinus, their legitimate successors, went to Carthage with 
letters from the Churches of Leon, Asturia, and 
Ierida, and 
from another Felix, Bishop of Sarragossa, known in Africa 
as attached to the faith, and a defender of the truth. rrhese 
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 hy a letter addrcssed to the !">l'icst Felix, and to the 



C HAP. faithful people of Leon and Asturia, and to the Deacon 
- -
 Lælius, with the people of :I\ferida." In this letter he says, 
E C po 
. "'VherefOl'e, according to Divine tradition, and Apostolic oh- 
ser\Tance, that is to be kept and observed, which is observed 
by us also, and generally throughout all the Provinces, tlmt in 
order rightly to celehrate 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 everyone, 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 Sabin us, 
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 con- 
ferred 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 realJy done, tbat he 
might make interest for an unjust restoration to that Epi- 
scopate from which be 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 circumvcntion has been added. Nor should he 
be so muclt blamed, tv/tO tllrough negligence 'Was over-reached, 
as the other execrated) who fraudulently decei\'ed. But if 
Basilides could over-reach men, God he cannot/' &c. If the 
appeal of Basilides to Stephen prm"es the Roman Primacy, 
what does the subsequent appeal of the people of Leon, 
Asturia, and l\fcrida, to Carthage, prove? And if the re- 
storation of Basilides by Stephen, prO\"es that he possessed 
that power, what does the subsequent pronouncing of that 
restoration void by Cyprian and his Brother Bishops, without 
e\Teu first acquainting Stephen, prove? 
Sl1mmary In truth, all the acts of St. Cyprian's Episcopate, of which 
t Cy- . I . . 11 0 . d . bl 
's rela- I have gIven severa In 1 ustratIon, are an In Isputa e as- 
t R ion to the surance to the candid mind that he treated the Roman 
 l">ontiff simply as his brother,-his elder brother, indced,- 

SmnIARY 01" ST. (,Yl'RL\.
'::; REL_\'l'lO:X TO ROME. 57 

holding the first See in Christendom, but, individually, as 
liable to err as himself. And it is equally clear that St. 
Augustine, a hundred and forty years later, did not censure 
him for this. '\That 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 
of ArIes, having, as well as Pope Stephen, been appealed to 
by Faustinus Bishop of Lyons, and his colleagues, 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. 1!-'irmilian'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 l'estoreù. 



"St. Victor, Bishop of Rome," says Mr. Newman, "threatens P?pe St. 
. h . Ch I " TI f: . VIctor and 
to excommumcate t e ASIan urc les. le act IS unques- the A
tionable, as J\ir. Newman states it. But the bearing of this Churches. 
fact it is impossible to see, 'without going into the circum- 
stances, and taking note how the Asian Churches them- 
selves, and how other Bishops, received St. Victor's act. 
Let us take then the original account in Eusebius. "About Eusebius, 
this time (A.D. 193) no small controversy arose, because the 5.23-5. 
Dioceses of all Asia," (i. e. the Province of Ephesus,) "as from 
a more ancient tradition, thonght they were bound to keep 
the fourteenth day after the full moon for the festival of the 
Passover which brought salvation, on which the J cws were 
ordered to sacrifice the lamb. As if it were necessary abso- 
lutely on this day, whichever day of the week it might fan 
upon, to terminate the fast. Whereas it was not the custom 
()f the Churches throughout all the rest of the world to keep 
it in this manner, thcy following a custom which has pre- 
vailed e'-en to this time from Apostolical tradition, that the 
fast should not terminate on any other day but that of the 
resurrcction of our 8m-ionr. 80 thCll SYllod
 alld meetings 




of Bishops took place. And all with one accord by their 
letters set forth the Ecclesiastical rule to all countries, that 
the mystery of the Lord's resurrection from the dead should 
be celebrated on none other but the Lord's day, and that on 
this alone we should observe the termination of the Paschal 
fast. There is extant still a writing of the Bishops then as- 
sembled in Palestine, over whom presided Theophilus) Bishop 
of the Diocese of Cæsarea, and Narcissus of that of Jerusalem. 
And of the Synod at Rome in like manner another, about the 
same question, bearing the name of the Bishop Yictor. And 
of the Bishops in Pontus, over whom Palmas as the most 
ancient was set. And of the Dioceses of Gaul, whereof Ire- 
næus had the care. And further of those in Osrhoene and 
the cities there. And, separately, one of Bacchyllus, Bishop 
of the Church of the Corinthians, and of a great many others, 
who, giving the same opinion and judgment, put forth one 
sentence. And these came to one decision, that which we 
have mentioned." 
IIere then is a most unsuspicious description of the 
Church's Constitution in action, from a writer of the fourth 
century. And, independent of his own authority, St. Victor 
had on his side a very strong case, in the unanimity of so 
many parts of the world. 'Vhat follows? "But the Bishops 
of Asia, who persisted that they ought to maintain the 
ancient custom delivered down to them, were presided over 
by Polycrates: who himself in the letter which he wrote to 
Victor and the Church of the Romans, thus sets forth the 
tradition which had come to him. " '''" e then celebrate the 
genuine day, neither aùding thereto, Ilor taking away there- 
from. For in Asia two great luminaries (o-TOlXE'ta) have gone 
to their rest, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's 
advent, when He cometh with glory from heaven, and shall 
raise up all the saints: namely, Philip, one of the twelve 
Apostles, who rests in Hierapolis; and two of his daughters, 
virgins, who attained old age: and another daughter of his, 
who was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and rests in Ephesus: 
moreover, John who reclined on the Lord's bosom, who be- 
came a Pricst wearing the circlet, and a martyr, and doctor. 
He rests in Ephesus. 
r oreover Polycarp, both Bishop and 
1\fartp' in Sm
'rna; and Tltrascus, Bishop and J\lartyr of 


Eumenia, who rests in Smyrna. Why should I mention 
Sagaris, Bishop and l\fartyr, who rests in Laodicea; and the 
blessed Papirius, and :Melito the Eunuch, who did all things 
by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who lies in Sardis, waiting 
for the visitation from heaven, when he shall rise from tIle 
dead. All these kept the fourteenth day for the Passover" 
according to the Gospel, varying nothing, but following ac- 
cording to the rule of faith. And I, Polycrates, that am the 
least of you all, according to the tradition of my kinsmen, 
sundry of whom I follow. Seven of my kinsmen were 
Bishops, and I the eighth, and my kinsmen always kept 
for the day that on which the people avoidcd leaven. I 
then, brethren, having been the Lord's disciple sixty-five 
years, and having conferred with my brethren throughout 
the world, and having studied all holy Scripture, am not 
alarmed at what I am threatened with. For those greater 
than I have said, we must obey God rather than men." He 
proceeds to speak respecting all the Bishops present with 
him and concurring in opinion, thus: "I might have spoken 
of the Bishops present with me, whom you called upon me 
to convoke, and whom I convoked accordingly: whose names 
were I to write they would be a grcat number. And they, 
having seen me, humble as I am, agreed with my letter, 
knowing that I do not disgrace my gray hairs, but have 
always lived uuder the law of the Lord Jesus Christ." 
Thus the answer of the Archbishop of Ephesus to St. Vic- 
tor in the second century is precisely similar in tone to that 
of the Archbishop of Carthage in the third to St. Stephcn. 
Could Poly crates have acknowledged in the Roman See any 
authority different in kind from that of other Bishops, such 
as the Supremacy? Could he have said distinctly to the 
power which could cut him off from the Church of God 
and the covenant of salvation, "having conferred with my 
brethrcn throughout the world, and having studicd all holy 
Scripture, I am not alarmed at what I am threatcllcd 
with:" i. e. excommunication from Rome. Eusebius pro- 
ceeds, "Thereupon Victor, Bishop of the Roman city, en- 
deavours to cut off from the common unity the Dioceses of 
all Asia in a body, together with the ncighbouring Churches, 
as hcterodox, aud pro
crihcs thcm l,y lctt<,r, proclaiming aU 




 :5'1'. YlCTOR 

C HAP. the brethren In those parts to be utterly separated from 
). commUnIon. However these measures did not please all 
the Bishops. They exhort him therefore on the other side 
to pursue peace and unitý and love towards his neighbours. 
Their writings too are extant, vcry severely censuring Victor. 
Among whom also Irenæus, writing in the person of the 
brethren over whom he presided in Gaul, maintains indeed 
that the mystery of the Lord's resurrcction should be cele- 
brated only on the Lord's day, but he chargcs Victor in be- 
coming terms, at great length, not to cut off whole Churches 
of God, which keep the tradition of ancient custom, and 
he sums up thus: 'For not only concerning the day is 
there a dispute) but also respecting the sort of fast. For 
some consider they ought to fast one day, some two, some 
more; some measure out forty continuous hours for thcir 
day. And there is this variation in the obser\rance not 
merely in our time, but long before in the time of our pre- 
decessors, who, as it seems, not always governing with strict 
accuracy, handed down to those after them the custom which 
bad grown up naturally, or from the peculiar habit of the 
place. But none the less all these kept at peace, as we do 
now, with each other. And the diversity of the fast sets off 
the harmony of t.he faith.' lIe then adds a narration which 
I will insert as belonging to the subject, to this effect. 'Like- 
wise the elders before Soter, who presided over the Church 
which you now direct, Anicetus, I mean, and Pius, Hyginus 
and Telesphorus and Xystus, neither kept it thus themselves, 
nor permitted those with them to keep it: but, not the less, 
though they kept it not themselves thus, they preserved peace 
with those who came to them from the dioceses where it was 
thus kept. Yet to maintain the observancc among those who 
observed it differently, shcwed the greater opposition. Y ct 
never were any cast out on account of this matter. But the 
elders before you, who kept it not themselves, sent the Eu- 
dIarist to those from the Dioceses who lwpt it. And when 
the blessed Poly carp sojourned in Rome in the time of Ani- 
cetus, they had some slight points of controversy with each 
other which were soon settled, but about this main point they 
would not persist in strifc: for neither could Anicetus per- 
suack Polycarp Hot to kcep it, as having always kept it so 



with John the disci pIe of our Lord, and the other Apostles SEe T. 
with whom he had lived, nor could Polycarp persuade Ani- IV. 
cetus to keep it after his way, alleging that he was bound 
to maintain the custom of the elders before him. Such being 
the state of matters they communicated with each other: 
and in the church Anicetus yielded the celebration of the 
Eucharist to Polycarp out of respect, and they departed from 
each other ill peace, enjoying the peace of the whole Church, 
both of those who kept it one way, and of those who kept it 
the other.' This is what Irenæus says, bearing out his name, 
and a peace-maker ill temper, exhorting and mediating for 
the peace of the Church. He also wrote not to Victor alone, 
hut to very many other rulers of Churches to the like effect 
respecting the question moved. 
"But the Bishops in Palestine whom we have just men- 
tioned, Narcissus, and Theophilus, and with tllem Cassius, 
Bishop of the Church in Tyre, and Clarus of that in Ptole- 
mais, and those assembled with them, have spoken at great 
length concerning the tradition which had come down to 
them by succcssion from the Apostles concerning Easter, and 
they sum up thus at the end of their letter. (Endeavour to 
send copies of our letter to every Church, that we may not 
he charged with those who easily lead astray their own souls. 
But we declare to you that they in Alexandria celebrate the 
same day as we do: for lettcrs go from us to them, and 
from them to us, so that we keep the holy day with one 
accord at the same time.'" 
I suppose that the actions of St. Irenæus towards the Apo- Acts of St. 
I . S f I ' ":T t h . d Icenæus in- 
sto IC ee 0 t Ie 't' es are a comment upon IS wor s rc- terpret his 
specting it: and that when he calls Rome, as Mr. Newman worùs. 
quotes, "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 
prefcrence 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 prin- 
cipalitatem," he really means wbat he says, and what his 
actions indicate, that the Bishop of Rome was first among 
his brethren: and hc does not mcan a totally different 
thing, which his words are quoted to prove, namely, that the 



C II A P. Bishop of Rome stood in the same relation to him and to all 
I. the other Bishops of the world as he himself stood in to his 
own presbyters at Lyons. If he did mean this latter thing, 
he selected the strangest words to express it, and he exem. 
plified it by the strangest actions which I can well conceive. 
But what excuse to allege for Polycrates, who absolutely re. 
fused to listen to the Bishop of Rome's decision, or for the 
other Bishops throughout the world who met and discussed 
the matter in virtue of their own authority, and gave their 
judgment, as binding upon their people, by the same autho. 
rity, and requested, as the Bishops of Palestine, that copies of 
their letters might be sent everywhere, instead of looking to 
a sentence from Rome, I cannot imagine: unless it be what 
lVlr. Newman suggests that" all authority necessarily leads 
to resistance." P.24. In that point of view, certainly, the 
first four centuries supply the strongest sort of "cumulative 
argument" to the Roman Supremacy, for they are nothing 
else but a perpetual denial of it: only that the idea does not 
seem to have presented itself to the great Councils and 
writers of that time. 
Testimony But the truth of the matter is that Irenæus, in the very 
of St. Iren- . 
reus. passage quoted by J\1r. Newman to prove the authority of 
Rome, is a most unambiguous witness on our side, viz., that 
Rome was indeed a great and Apostolical Church, but not pos. 
sessed of any authority different in kind from other Churches, 
especially Apostolical Sees. To mauifest this, it needs but 
S.lrenæi to quote the passage in full. "All who wish to 
ee the truth 
cont. Hær. 
lib. 3. cap. may look back in every Church on the tradition of the Apo. 
8. stles made manifest through the whole world: and we can 
give the catalogue of those who were set up by the Apostles 
as Bishops in the Churches, and of tll{
ir successors to our 
times, who neither taught nor knew any such thing as these 
in their madness imagine. For had the Apostles known 
secret mysteries, which they taught to the perfect separately 
and unknown to the rest, they would have communicated 
them especially to those, to whom they committed even the 
Churches themselves. For they desired that those whom 
they left for their successors, committing to them their very 
own place of rule, should be exceedingly perfect and blame. 
less in all things: on whose upright conduct great advantage 

AXD OF 'fEltTlJ LLU."X. 


would follow, while the most grievous calamity would attend SEe T. 
their fall. But, since it would be very long in such a IV. 
volume as my present to enumerate the successions of all 
the Churches, by pointing out the tradition received from 
the Apostles, and the faith declared to men, which through 
the succession of its Bishops reaches even to our times in 
the Church, the greatest, most ancient, and known to all, 
founded and set up at Rome, by the two most glorious Apo- 
stles Peter and Paul, we confound all such as in any manner, 
either through their self will, or vain glory, or through 
blindness and bad intention, make private conventicles. For 
to this Church on account of its superior rank, (or origin,) àpx:lw. 
it is necessary that every Church should assemble, that is, 
the faithful on every side, in which the tradition from the 
Apostles has been ever preserved by those who are on every 
side. So then the blessed Apostles" (not Peter alone) 
"having founded and built the Church, put into the hands 
of Linus the office of Bishop." 
This whole passage is elucidated by the contemporary Testimony 
passage of Tertullian to which 
Ir. Newman has referred, ffaJ.ertul- 
and which, quoted in full, bears witness for the Episcopal, 
and against the Papal system. "Come now, thou that wilt TertuIlian 
exercise thy curiosity to better purpose in the business of 


thy salvation, go through the Apostolic Churches, in which 

: Oxt: 
the very Sees of the Apostles, at this very day, preside over 
their own places; in which their own authentic writings are 
read, speaking with the voice of each, and making the face 
of each present to the eye. Is Achaia near to thee? Thou 
hast Corinth. If thou art not far from l\Iacedonia, thou 
hast Philippi, thou hast the Thessalonians. If thou canst 
travel into Asia, thou hast Ephesus. But if thou art near to 
Italy, thou hast Rome, where we also have an authority close at 
hand. 'Vhat a happy Church is that, on which the Apostles 
poured out all their doctrine with their blood; wher
had a like passion with the Lord, where Paul hath for his 
crown the same death with John; where the Apostle John 
was plunged into boiling oil, and suffered nothing, and was 
afterwards banished to an island." _" If these things be so, 
so that the truth be adjudged to belong to us, as many as 
walk according to this rule, which the Churches have handed 

6-1- 'l'ESTDIO

C II A P. down from the Apostles, the Apostles from Christ, Christ 
I. from God, the reasonableness of our proposition is manifest, 
which determineth that heretics are not to be allowed to 
enter upon an appeal to the Scriptures, whom we prove, with- 
out the Scriptures, to have no concern with the Scriptures." 
As to what he says of Rome being an authority close at 
hand, he means that Africa had no Apostolic Church, but 
had received the Gospel from Italy: so in another place he 
Tertullian says, "What the Romans, close at hand, trumpct forth, to 
<Id \" l\Iarc 
4. 5; quot
d whom both Peter and Paul left the Gospel, sealcd moreover 
in Oxf. . h h . bl d " 
Tert, p. WIt t elr own 00. 
4íO. Here we may state that the Paschal controversy was only 
Testimony settled at the Nicene Council. The Emperor Constantine, in 
of the Em- 
peror Con- one of his circular letters to the Churches on that occasion, 
stantine. preserved for us by Eusebius, says, "Since by the general 
de vita prosperity I have experienced how grcat is the goodness of 


, ;.9. Almighty God towards me, I have made this before all other 
things the scope of my actions, that the most blessed nations 
of the Catholic Church may preserve one faith, and sincere 
love, and concordant worship of Almighty God. But since 
this matter could not otherwise take firm and sledfast order, 
without discussion being had of all tltat belonged to our most 
holy worship in an assembly of all or at least tlte greater 
number of Bishops, therefore having collected together the 
greater number I also was present as one of you, for I will 
not deny that in which I most rejoice, that I am your fellow- 
servant: all points therefore met with the fitting inquiry 
until that the decision which was agreeable to the Judge of 
all was brought forth into light ill the harmony of unity, so 
that no ground for diversity of opinion or doubtfulness of 
faith was any more left. 'Vhere, too, after inquiry conceru- 
ing the most holy day of the Passover, it seemed good by 
common consent that all men everywhere should observe it 
on the same day.-And since it is a fitting order which all 
the Churchcs of the \V cst and of the South and of the 
Northern parts of the world observe, and some of the East- 
ern; for which reason all were then of opinion that this was 
right: I too engaged that it would be agreeable to your 
prudence, that what is kept with one concordant judgment 
in the city of the Romans, and Italy, and Africa, in all 

JUDmlENT OF PALL 01'- SAl\lOS.\T.A. 


Eg yp t, the Spaills, the Gauls, the Britains, Libya, all Greece, SEe T. 
the dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Cilicia, may be willingly 
accepted by your prudence also, when you consider tltat not 
only the number of the C1LUrcltes in the above.mentioned 
countries is the greater, but that this it is most pious for all 
in common to agree upon, which likewise strict reason seems 
to demand:" &c. 
I presume that the actions and the words of Constantine 
agree together in making the supreme power of the Church 
to reside in the concordant voice of her Bishops. He who 
convoked the Nicene Council thus bears witness to the prin- 
ciples which governed it, and the whole Church) at the period 
of its assembling. 
The same Constantine writes to the Proconsul Anulinus 
to grant immunity from public offices to all clel'ks within 
the province intrusted to him "who give their ministry to EuseL., lib. 
this holy religion in the Catholic Church, over which Cæci- 

lianus" (Bishop of Carthage) "presides." Just as the Council Launo}. 
of Nicea in its Synodal Epistle to the Church of Alexandria 
writes that certain persons should do nothing" without the 
conscnt of the Bishops of the Catholic and Apostolic Church 
who are under Alexander," (Bishop of Alexandria.) Expres- 
sions which, taken as l\1r. Newman chooses to take certain 
words of Am brosiaster speaking of the" Church being God's On De- 
I h I h ... D " . b I velopment, 
lOUSe, W ose ru er at t IS tIme IS amasus, In an a. so ute p. 174. 
instead of a relative sense, would prove the supremacy of the 
Bishops of Carthage and Alexandria. 
"The Emperor Aurelian leaves 'to the Bishops of Italy Case of 
d f R ' I d .. I I P I f S Paul of Sa- 
an 0 orne t Ie eClslOn W let ler or not au 0 amosata mosata. 
shall be dispossessed of the See-house at Antioch." I twas 
very natural that he should do so, as from their very distance 
they were more likely to be impartial judges than any in the 
East. But let us see what testimony to the Papal authority 
the course of the proceedings themselves taken against Paul 
of Samosata renders, for what the CJJlIl'ch did is more im- 
portant than the decision of a heathen Emperor. Eusebius Euseùiui<, 
writes, "Xystus, having presided over the Church of the 

Romans eleven years, is succeeded by Dionysius, of the same 
name with him of Alexandria. And at the same time, Deme
táanus of Antioch being dead, Paul of Samosata succeeds to 



p.\rL 0]<' S -\. UOS.\TA 

tlle Episcopate. But as he held low and grovelling doctrines 
respecting Christ contrary to the teaching of the Church) as 
if He were in nature a mere man, Dionysius of Alexandria 
being invited as to a Council, alleging at once his old age 
and weak health, delayed coming, but gave by letter his judg- 
ment on the question. But the other Pastors of the Churches 
hastened all to Antioch from different quarters, as against 
one who laid waste the flock of Christ. The most cminent 
of these were, Firmilian Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia; 
Gregory and Athenodorus, brothers, Bishops of the Churches 
in Pontus: also Helenus of the Diocese of Tarsus, and Nico- 
mas of Iconium. J\1:oreover Hymenæus of the Church in 
Jerusalem, and Theotecnus of the adjoining Cesarea, and 

{aximus the eminent Bishop of the brethren at Bostra. 
Numberless others also, together with presbyters and deacons, 
might bc mentioned as then assembled for the same cause 
in the afore-mentioned city, but of these the above were the 
most conspicuous. All, then, assembling many various times, 
discussions and questionings were mooted at each Council, 
wherein the party of the Samosatene endeavoured still to 
conceal and veil the points on which he was wrong, while 
the others were zealous to lay bare and drag forth to the 
light his heresy and blasphemy against Christ. Meantime 
Dionysius dies in the twelfth year of the reign of Gallienus, 
having held the bishopric of Alexandria seventeen years, and 
is succeeded by J\iaximus. But Gallienus, after a reign of 
fifteen whole years, is succeeded by Claudius, who after two 
years is followed by Aurelian. In whose time a Council of 
the greatest number of Bishops was assembled, and the 
leader of the heresy at Antioch was convicted and distinctly 
condemned by all of error, and driven out from the whole 
Catholic Church. The person who chiefly convicted and re- 
futed his evasions was Malchion, an able man, who was also 
head of the Hellenic Sophistical school at Antioch, and for 
llis pre-eminent orthodoxy in the faith of Christ was honoured 
with the presbyterate in the Church there; this man held a 
disputation with him in the presence of short-hand writers, 
which is still extant, and was alone able to convict that dis- 
ingenuous and deceitful one. So then the assembled Pastors, 
writing a letter in their joint names to Dionysius Bishop of 



the Romans, and to Maximus Bishop of Alexandria, send it SEe T. 
abroad to all the Provinces: thus they make their zeal known IV. 
to all, as well as Paul's perverse heresy, and the way in which 
they had convicted and questioned him. J\!I:oreover they re- 
lated the whole life and conversation of the man. For which 
reason it will be well to give here at large their expressions 
in order to record them. The letter:- 
'To Dionysius, and 
!I:aximus, and all our fellow-ministers 
throughout the world, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and 
to the whole Catholic Church beneath the heavens, Helenus, 
and Hymenæus, and Theophilus, and Theotecnus, and 
mus, Proclus, Nicomas, and CElian, and Paul, and llolanus, 
and Protogenes, and Hierax, and Eutychius, and Theodorus, 
and 1\Ialchion, and Lucius, and all the rest that with us in- 
habit the neighbouring cities and nations, Bishops, and l)l'es- 
byters, and Deacons, and the Churches of God, send greeting 
in the Lord to the beloved brethren.' They then insert a full 
account concerning Paul of Samosata, concluding, "V e have 
therefore been compelled to cut off this man that set himself 
against God and would not yield, and to appoint in his place 
another Bishop for the Catholic Church, by the providence of 
God, as we are persuaded, namely Domnus, son of the blessed 
Demctrian, who formerly with distinction presided before this 
man over the same Diocese, and is adorned with all the quali- 
ties that befit a Bishop, and we have made this known to you, 
in order that you may write to him, and receive letters of 
Communion from him. But let this man write to Artemas, 
and those who are of the mind of Artemas communicate 
with him.' And so much for this account. So then upon 
Paul falling at once from the right faith and his bishopric, 
Domnus, as I have said, succeeded to the ministry of the 
Church of Antioch. But il1mnnuch as Paul would by no 
means give up the See-house, the Emperor Aurelian being 
appealed to gave a most just decision, ordering the house to 
be given to those to whom the Bishops in Italy and the city oTs 
JI oi 
of the Romans should appoint it," i. e. the Bishops of the ;
Provinces of 1\!I:ilan and of Rome, assembled in Council, not Kal-r
. . p.a[WJl7TóÀIJI 
the Pope as dIstmct from them. '7T[CTK07TOI 
Thus the Bishop of the third See is deposed bv a Council TOÎÌ 
. . TOS E7TI- 
of his own and the neighbouring Provlllces, and though the CTTfMOIEJI. 




Bishop of the second See was invited to attend, the Bishop 
of the first, doubtless on account of his distance, is not ap- 
plied to. No more complete case of Eastern self-government 
can be found than this, of which J\lr. Newman has quoted 
one isolated and comparatively immaterial point in behalf of 
the present Papal Supremacy. It took place about fifty years 
before the Council of Nicea, and thus we see that the rule 
which in the fifth century the Popes wished to have recog- 
nised, that a Patriarch should not be deposed without the 
co-operation of the first See, was not originally observed. 
But, further, in the middle of the fourth century this rule 
was not known. " We must remark," says De J\larca, 
"that the Orientals considered it thoroughly illegal that 
Western Bishops, even in a plenary Council, should attempt 
to reconsider judgments passed in Oriental Synods, because 
it was plain that by such proceeding the authority of these 
Synods would be infringed. And thus it is scarcely credi- 
ble that they were minded to admit the authority of the 
single Roman Pontiff to be greater than their own, espe- 
cially as they had lately made a schism against him, and 
excommunicated him, as being the head of those who had 
ruined the laws of the Church, 'as the head and chief of 
the bad, inasmuch as he first opened the door of commu- 
nion to crimiual and condemned persons, and made a way 
for others to break the divine laws.' 
"For the Orientals in those times (A.D. 341) contended 
for this as a certain and undoubted rule of Ecclesiastical dis- 
cipline, that matters judged in the East could not be recon- 
sidered in the West, nor vice versa. For thus the Council 
of Antioch affirmed in its letter to Pope Julius, in which the 
Bishops quote the case of the condemnation of Paul of Sa- 
mosata decreed by the Oriental Bishops, which the West 
received, and confirmed by its assent, without fresh exami- 
nation: as likewise the East received and confirmed by its 
approbation the condemnation of N ovatus passed by a \Vest- 
ern Synod. But Pope Julius, in his answer to this letter of 
the Council of Antioch, does not absolutely deny that the 
authority of Eastern Councils is supreme, but merely dwells 
on tIle case of Athanasius, and exposes the judgment passed 
against him in the Council of Tyre. He asserts the nullitr 

De l\'Iarca, 
de Concor., 
lib. í. c. 4. 



of this, because charges against Athanasius and his Presby.. S E C T. 
ter J\Iacarius were received in their absence by delegated IV. 
judges, the acknowledged enemies of Athanasius, and chal- 
lenged by him: it followed that this judgment was not im- 
partial, but of one side, and consequently ought not to be 
executed, so that in receiving Athanasius to his Communion 
he had done nothing contrary to the Canon, inasmuch as 
the sentence of excommunication was null. He further 
pressed on points belonging to the case, namely, that the 
falsehood of the accusation was proved on the authority 
of the acts; that a great many Eastel'n Bishops had not 
withheld Athanasius from their Communion, though sen- 
tence of condemnation had been passed against him: that 
moreover the Eastern Bishops were unwilling to meet, 
though they had by their legates consented that Pope 
Julius should summon all Bishops to Rome to consider the 
case of Athanasius. In fine, he says that no attempt was 
made against the statutes of the Nicene Council by a sub- 
sequent Synod reconsidering \V hat another had determined. 
Herein he alludes to the Synod of Alexandria, at which a 
hundred Bishops were present, and Arius was condemned, 
w hose cause was considered entirely anew at the Nicene 
"But we must observe that Julius does not assert that 
he had restored Athanasius and the other Bishops to their 
Churches, for this was the main point, reserved to the cog- 
nisance of the Synod which Julius had convokcd at the in- 
stance of the Eastel'n Legates, though the Orientals after- 
wards denied that they had thus empowered the J.Jegates." 
Thus it would appear that the Eastern Bishops in the 
middle of the fourth century relied on the case of Paul of 
Samosata to prove not that the Pope alone, but that the 
Pope with the whole 'Yest, had no right to revise a sentence 
of an Eastern Council. J\fr. Newman on the other hand 
sces a proof of thc Papal Supremacy in the Emperor of the 
day ordering it to be left to tbe arbitration of "the }3ishops 
of Italy and of Rome" who should possess the See-house. 
"rflle heretic J\Iarcion, excommunicated in Pontus, ue- Cn!':e?f 
I I . If }3 11 . I .. ;\larclOn. 
ta {es Jlmsc to Rome." e arnuue quotes t liS lIlstance 
to prove the Supremacy'of the Roman Pontiff hy the right 




C HAP. of appeal exerciscd to him, much in the same way as :Mr. New- 
--- I
 man. "In the year of Christ 142, under the Pontificate of 
De Rom. P . h F . J\ 1f . . b h . 
Pont"lib. 2. IUS t e Irst, ..larClOn, excommunIcated y IS own Bishop 
c. 21. in Pontus, came to Rome, that he might be absolved by the 
Roman Church, as Epiphanius relates, Hæres. t2." Now 
that they both quote this instance is not a little remarkable, 
considering what St. Epiphanius does say. "l\Iarcion was of 
Pontus, born of a father a Bishop of the Catholic Communion. 
Afterwards falling in love with a certain virgin, and inducing 
her by his deceits to consent, he cast down her as well as 
himself from the hope of the heavenly life. On account of 
this deed of shame he was expelled from the Church by his 
own father, a particularly religious man, burning with the 
love of truth, and excellent in the administration of the Epi- 
scopal office. l\:Iuch and long as l\Iarcion had entreated 
him, and requested to be put on penance, he could not pre- 
vail on his father by any supplications. In truth that excel- 
lent aged Bishop had suffercd the greatest pain through this 

atter, because his son had not only fallen, but inflicted 
ignominy and shame on himself. So then when l\Iarcion 
saw that he could not by any arts gain what he wanted, not 
enduring the reproaches and derision of his own country- 
men, he withdrew from the town, and betook himself to 
Rome after the death of Pope IIyginus, who was the ninth 
presiding over the Church from the Apostles Peter and Paul. 
As soon as J.larcion arri,'ed there, he went to the Elders, who 
had been taught by the disciples of the Apostles, and were 
yct living, and besought them without effect that he might 
be received into Communion. "Therefore stung with envy, 
because he had not obtained the chief place there, nor even 
entrance into thc Church, he was induced to fly for refuge to 
the heresy of the impostor Cerdon." Then, after describing 
some conversation of' J\Iarcion with the chief Roman Clergy, 
piphallius adds: ,,"Therefore addressing them openly he 
said, 'Vhy have you rcfused to reccive me? They replied, 
We cannot do tltis witltO'ld tlte permission of YOllr excellent 
father: since one is our faith, and one the agreement of our 
minds; we cannot oppose our excellent fellow-ministel., YOW' 
fatlte'ì". But the other bursting out in grcatcr wrath, and 
stung with pride and envy, contrivcd a schism, and set up a 



heresy of his own, and, said he, I will rend asunder your SEe T. 
Church, and introduce into it a lasting schism." IV. 
The point of discipline to which the Roman Clergy in the 
middle of the second century thus expressly avowed that 
their own See, like every other, was subject, is contained in 
the 5th Nicene Canon, quoted above. Also in the 53rd 
Canon of the Council of Eliberis, A.D. 305: and in the 16th 
Canon of the Council of Arles, A.D. 3 ILl., and in the 16th 
Canon of Sardica. It was acted upon universally through- 
out the Church, from the Bishop of highest rank to the low- 
est: it sets forth in a striking manner, as the Roman Clergy 
observed, the unity of Christ's body. When the Roman 
Bishop in the case of Apiarius attempted to infringe it, he 
met with the most decided resistance from St. Aurelius, 
St. Augustine, and the Council of Africa. It is a Canon 
evidently necessary for the peace of the whole Church, and 
bearing witness to the essential unity and equality of the 
Episcopate: I am sorry to add, what truth compels, that its 
violation by the Roman See in after times, and specially 
during the middle ages, bitterly though fruitlessly com- 
plaincd of by contemporary Bishops, as Hincmar of Rheims 
and I vo of Chartres, has been a great instrument of tyranny 
and corruption, but a great means at the same time of erect- 
ing a spiritual monarchy. 
Here it is sufficient to ask, which is the stronger proof, 
the flight of the profligate Marcion to Rome in behalf of the 
Supremacy, or the answer of the Roman clergy in denial 
of it ? 
Such are the illustrations afforded by the preceding Summary 
. h I I d h . d of the 
centUrIeS to w at lave state was t e unquestlOne con- Nieene Pe- 
stitution of the Catholic Church at the time of the Council riod. 
of Nicea; viz. that \V hile 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 Coun- 
cils nor merely from the rank of the imperial city, but from 
immemorial tradition as the See of St. Peter; yet, at the 
same time, the fulness of the priesthood, and with it all 
powcr to govern the Church, were acknowledged to reside in Liv. i. eh. 
the wllOlc Episcopalllotly. "'rhe Bishop," says rrhomassÍu, t. ::;
ct. 5. 


Sl:':\l1\B.RY OJ!' THE CIL\.PTER.. . 

C II A P. 

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 hears 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 there- 
fore called Father." And as the Bishop was supreme in his 
own Diocese, so, in what concerneù the Province, was the 
Metropolitan with his Council of Suffragans. The same 6th 
Canon of Nicea which ratifies the rights, deri'Ted from im- 
memorial custom, of thc three chief Bishops or J\Ietropolitans, 
the Roman, the Alexandrine, the Antiochene, proceeds in 
general words to confirm the privileges of all the rest. " In 
like manner, with regard to Antioch, and in tlte otlte'/" Pro- 
vinces" (i. e. not comprehended uuder the three great Sees 
above mentioned) "let the privileges be preserved to the 
Churches. And as a general rule this is manifest, that if 
anyone be made a Bishop without the consent of the 
JVletropolitan, the great Council declares that he should not 
be a Bishop." The Apostolic Canons, which at least ex- 
press the character of the Eastern Church up to the Nicene 
Council, fully exhibit this order of things. The Nicene 
Council, whose provisions of discipline in St. Leo's words are 
to last till the cnd of the world makes it the law of the 
Church for ever. rrhe great Council of Antioch in 3Jl 
further elucidates and defines it: the Provincial Councils of 
Allcyra, N eocæsarea, Gangra, and Laodicea, whose Canons, 
with those of Antioch, were taken into the Code of the 
Church Catholic at the Council of Chalcedon, are so many 
illustrations of it. The conduct and words of St. Poly carp, St. 
t. Irellæus, Tertullian, the Emperor Constantine, 
St. Cyprian, St. Firmiliall, Eusebius, the :Eastern Bishops in 
the case of Paul of Samosata, Origen, St. Basil, St. Athana- 
sius, St. Augustine, St. Gregory of N azianzum, Pope St. 
Julius, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Chrysostome, which 
I have instanced, and an innumerable multitude of other 
cases, exhibit it in full life and vigour; ,\hile, on the other 
siùe, there is absolutely nothing to allege. 

See De 
Marca, De 
lib. 1. c. 3. 





SECT. 1. 

THE history of the Church during the thrce hundred SECT. 
years following the Nicene Council is but a devclopment of I. 
e- . .. .. Completion 
tins constItutIon. The problem was, how to combme In the of the Pa- 
l . . f 0 . d B d h A I . I triarchal 
larmonIOUs actIOn 0 ne orgamze 0 y t ose posto Ica System. 
powers which belonged to every Bishop as joint-tenant of 
the one Episcopate. 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 
especially of the Bishop of Rome, grew. It is impossiblc, 
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 con- 
tinually arise; and in so profound a subject-matter as the 
Christian rcvelation, 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 calliug 
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. "The Council Liv. 
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 samc 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;" (Archbishop De ßIarca explains 
this somewhat differently;) "but that if they carried their 
complaints before the Emperor they could never be re-estah- 
lished ill their dignity." "One must in good faith admit, 
that this regulation had much conformity with what had 



CHAP. been practised in the first ages of obscurity and persecution, 
JI. 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 J\tletropo- 
litans 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 intro- 
ducing itself, of having recourse to the Emperor for judg- 
ment 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 suc- 
cessors 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, 
Fleury,liv. Hosius proposed," If two Bishops of the same Province have 
12.2fJ. d . . h f h I II k fì b " t 
Cone. Sardo a lsagreement, neIt er 0 t e two s la ta e or ar Itra or a 
Can. 3.4.7. Bishop of another Province: if a Bishop, having been con- 
demned, feels so assurcd of his right, that he is willing to be 
judged anew in a Council, let us honour, if you tltink it good, 
the memm'y 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 onlers 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 

of the 
Power of 
bearin rr 
(,auses on 

D S \RDIC' t. 


who had bcen deposed, until the Bishop of Rome had judged SECT. 
his cause." I. 
"To make the preceding Canon clearer, Hosius said, 
"Vhen 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 senn 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. Atha- 
nasius without writing to him about it." 
"To this Council," says Archbishop de l\Iarca, "is owing De Marc:!, 
I fi .. f h . ht f h P . ff. I rle Concor., 
t le rst orIgm 0 t e rIg 0 t e supreme onb, as to t le lib. 7. c. 2. 
canonical judgments of Bishops. Although, if we look closer 
into the matter, and do not go beyond the words of the 
Canons, it will be plain that nothing is there laid down 
against the supreme authority of Provincial Councils con- 
firmed by the Nicene Canon." He then draws a distinction 
between appeal and revision. "The former transfers the 
entire cognisance of the cause to the superior judge, who 
discusses and decides the question in his own tribunal. But 
a revision leaves the definitive judgment to the former juris- 
diction, on the condition that new judges be added to the 
former." "But the right sought in that Council for the 
Uomall Bishop is utterly different from the right of appeal, 
much as nothing more is granted to him than the power 
to decree the revision of a cause. That is, the Council ap- 
points that if a condemned Bishop appeals to the Roman 
 it should be in his powcr to reject the appeal, by 
which the sentence of the Provincial Bishops will be con- 
firmeù, or to admit it. In which case the Roman Bishop is 
bouud to send back the entire case to the 13ishops of the . 
Province, and their neighbours, for them to take cognisance 




of the cause in the presence of the delegate of the supreme 
Pontiff, if he think good to send one. :\ioreover, the force 
of an appeal is, to suspend in the interim the previous sen- 
tence. 'Vhich is otherwise in a revision. For that retreat 
to the Apostolical See did not prevent the sentence of depo- 
sition being in the meanwhile committed to execution. 
" But the words of the Canon prove that the institution of 
this right was new. If it please you, says IIosius Bishop of 
Corduba, who presided over the Council, let us honour the 
memory of the Apostle St. Peter. He says not, that the 
ancient tradition was to be confirmed, as was wont to be 
done in matters which only require the renewal or expla- 
nation of an ancient right." 
This last observation is of great importance. 
"But as to excommunicated priests and laJTmen," says De 
J\iarca elsewhere, "no altcration was made, because their 
causes were not of such weight as that the Roman Pontiff 
could be appealed to, as neither in the East were they 
allowed appeal to the Patriarchs, as is plain from the Canons 
of Nicea, the sixth of Antioch, and the ninth of Chalcedon." 
Such is the modest commencement of that power of 
hearing Episcopal causes on appeal, which has been the in- 
strument of obtaining the wonderful authority concentrated 
for a long series of ages in the See of Rome. However con- 
formable to the practice of preceùing centuries, as Thomassin 
says, this may have been, this power is here certainly [J'ranted 
by the Council, not considered as inherent in the See of Rome. 
And this one fact is fatal to the present claim of the Su- 
premacy. To use De Maistre's favourite analogy, it is as 
though the States General or Parliament conferred his royal 
powers on the Sovcreign 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 thc Pope being the 
monarch in the Church. 'Ve may safcly say, history offers 
not a more wonderful contrast in a power bearing the same 
name, than that here conferred on Pope J ulins in 347, and 
that exercised by Pope Pius the Sm.enth in 1
02. On the 
bursting out of the French revolution, out of a hundred and 
thirty-six Bishops more than a hundred and thirty remained 

De Concor., 
lib. 6. c. 

IACY 1'\ 1 


faithful to God and the Church: some offered the testimony SEe T. 
of their blood; the rest became Confessors in all lands for I. 
Christ's sake, in poverty, contempt, and banishment. After 
ten years, the civil governor, who had lately professed him- 
self a l\Iahometan, 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 au- 
thority he abolishes the ancient Sees of the eldest daughter 
of the 'Vestcrn 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 excl'cised by Pope 
Julius, are not necessarily schismatics bccause they refuse 
to admit a power not merely greater in degree, but diffcrent 
in kind, and to set the High Priesthood of the Church be- 
ncath 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. l\1uch largcr !)ower is assigned in the fourth Gene- 
ral Council, that of Chalcedon, to the See of Constantinople, 
in the ninth Canon, which says, "If any Bishop or Clergy- 
man has a controversy against the Bishop of the I)rovince 
himself (i. e. the l\Ietropolitan), let him have recourse to the 
Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throllc of thc Imperial city 
of Constantinoplc, and plcad his cause bcfore him." 
But, bctwecn thesc two Councils of Nicea, A.D. 32.5, and T
Chalcedon, 431, the whole Patriarchal svstcm of the Church of the Pa- 
h d 1 d I : f I R triarchal 
a sprung up, anl coverc t Ie prOVlllces 0 t Ie oman S,}'::.t
Empire with as it were a finely reticulated net. The system 
may be said to be built on two principles, rccognised and 
enforced in thc Apostolic Canons, and consistently carricd 
out, from the Bishop of the poorest country town up to thc 
primatial Scc of Rome. These principles arc, "the authority 



C II A P. of-the 1\Ietropolitan oyer his Bishops in important and extra- 
Th II.. ordinarv affairs, and the supreme authority of Bishops in the 
omassm w 
part 1. liv: ordinary government of their particular bishoprics. 'Vith 
1. ch. 40. I . d .. . I I 1\ 1 I . 

 2. t lIS IstlnctlOn, t!at t Ie .1.' etropo !tan 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 J\Ietropolitan." 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 
aU his government: while the former, leaving this quite in- 
violate, builds together the whole Church in one vast living 
structure. For as the Bishops of the Province have their 
l\ietropolitan, and their spring and autumn Councils under 
him, so. the l\Ietropolitall stands' in a like relation to his 
Exarch or Patriarch j and of the five great Patriarchs of 
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, 
who are found at the Council of Chalcedon to preside oyer 
the Church Catholic, that of Rome has the unquestioned 
Primacy, and is seen at the centre, sustaining and animat- 
Idem, ut ing the whole. "The most important of aU the powers, of 
supra. l\fetropolitans, Exarchs, and Patriarchs, was the election of 
Bishops, the confirmation and consecration of Bishops elected. 
For all the other degree
 of authority were founded on this 
one, which renùered the :Metropolitan the Father, l\Iaster, 
and Judge of all his suffragans." "And so that famous 
Canon of the Council of Nicea, (the üth,) which seems in 
appearance only to confirm the ancient right of the first 
three l\Ietropolitans 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 1\Ietropolitans, because 
it establishes the foundation on which they all rest. 'If any 
one be made a Bishop contrary to the sentence of his l\fetro- 
politan, 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 ordina- 
tion 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 the great division. tt 
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 o\'ershadowed 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 our- 
selves, is a part of this system. And by reference to, anù 
under cover of this, which if not strictly of divine right, as 
is the High Priesthood of 13ishops, 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 oursehTcs from the damning blot of schism. 'Ve can- 
not, dare not, do this upon principles such as "the right of 
private judgment"-" The Bible alone is the religion of Pro- 
testants,"-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, urgcd by any unhappiness of their 
provisional and strange position, take up Satanic and Allti- 
christian arms. K o! if we may not hope for that system 
under which Augustine and Chrysostome laboured and wit- 
nessed, we will have nothing to do with those who destroy 
dogmatic faith altogether, and hreak up the visible unity of 
thc Church of Christ into a multitude of atoms. Quot 
ltomines, tot vo/untates. "'
 e cannot so relapse into worse 
than a second heathenism, and with the unity of Pentecost 
ofi'cred us, deliberately choose the confusion of Babel. 

SECT. n. 

BUT over and above his natural eminence in the Church, 
which I have attemptcd to dcscribe, a concurrcnce of events 
ill the fourth ccntury tended to give a still grcater moral 





C HAP. weight to the voice of the Bishop of Rome. 'Vhile the 

 other great Sees of the Church were vexed with heresy or 
Great m- h . h . . h . d f I . 
crease of sc ISm, IS, save In one sort perlO 0 s lame, was proVl- 


 dentially exempted from both. The same century witnessed 
Seefounded Cæcilianus of Carthage, judged and supported by Po p e 
on Its or- 
thodoxy. chiades, while the Donatist schism all that century long rent 
Africa in twain; and St. Athanasius, of Alexandria, when 
driven from his See, and persecuted by the whole East, re- 
ceived and justified by Pope Julius; and St.John Chrysostome, 
too good by far for a corrupt capital and a degenerate court, 
in life protected, and in death restored, by Pope Innocent. 
'Ve 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 de- 
scribe the confusion and violence which the Arian heresy, 
and the cognate heresies concerning the Person of our Lord, 
wrought throughout the Church and Empire. It may be said 
that the whole period of fifty-six years between the First and 
Second Ecumenical Councils was one long struggle, amid 
the throes of which the Catholic faith and the constitution 
of the Catholic Church alike took form and consistence. 
That detestable heresy, which seemed at one time by the 
aid of the civil power to have pushed the Church to the very 
verge of destruction, which banished her first and her second 
Bishop, and possessed the See of her third, in the end only 
served to bring out and develop the unity of her faith and 
of her Communion. Through this whole struggle, save at 
one un1Ja.PPY moment when Liberius fell, the Roman Pontiff 
was beheld immovable, supporting with his whole authority 
the true faith, and moulding the whole 'Vest together, in his 
defence of Athanasius, to resist that fatal influence which 
tyraullised over the East. The natural and deserved result 
was a great extension of his power and influence. Still it 
cannot be doubted in whose hands the real government of 
the Church at this time lay. The dcfence, and the oppres- 
sion, of AthauCtsius and the Catholic faith, were alike at- 
tempted by the assembling of great Councils of Bishops, 
The growing distinction between the two great divisions of 
the Church, the East and the 'Vest, likewise becomes at this 
time more apparent. "\Vhile the 'Vest willingly ranges itself 

C'IL 01<' S\RDIC'_\. 


under St. Peter's See
 and even acknowledges in it a Primacy SEe T. 
over the whole Church, the East is much more concerned to 
maintain its own independence and self-government. Thus 
on the one hand the Council of Sardica, intended to be Ecu- 
menical, but reduced by the departure of the Easterns to the 
rank of a 'Vest ern Council, addresses Pope Julius in the 
most magnificent terms of honour. "Thou, therefore, most :Mansi, 3. 
beloved Brother, though separated in body hast been present 40. B. 
in the union of mind and will, and honourable and necessary 
was the excuse assigned for thy absence, lest schismatic 
wolves should steal or treacherously plunder, or heretical 
dogs yell with rabid fury in their madness, or at least that 
serpent the devil spread the poison of his blasphemies. Fo/' 
this will appear best and most Itighly fitting, if the Priests (i. e. 
Bishops) of the Lord out of every Province make reference to 
d caput, 
Tl . Itl est, ad 
the head, that is, tlte See of Peter tlle Apostle." nrty years Petri Apo- 
later, in 378, a Council of all the Bishops of Italy, assembled stcli sedem. 
at Rome, besought the Emperors Gratian and Valentinian 
to issue a general edict, of which they suggested the terms, 
in order that Bishops might not for the future be compelled 
to approach the Emperor on every occasion. And at this 
Synod's entreaty a decree was passed by the Emperors, that 
Pope Damasus, with a Council of five or seven Bishops, 
should judge accusations at Rome, and that the accused 
should be compelled by the Præfecti Prætorio, the Procoll- 
suls, or Yicarii, to quit those Churches, from which they 
were deposed, or to present themselves to the judgment of 
the Roman Pontiff. If the accused were in distant pro- 
ces, the whole cognisance of the cause should belong to 
the 1tietropolitan. But if the accused be a l\Ietropolitan, he 
must of necessity go to Rome to be judged, or take those 
Bishops for judges whom the Pope assigns. If the l\Ietropo- 
litans should happen to be suspected by the accused, they 
may at their option appeal to the Roman Pontiff, or to a 
Council of fifteen neighbouring Bishops. 'fhe Emperors 
likewise decree that whatever has been decided by the Ro- See the 
man Pontift
 or by the judges nominated by him, or by the petiti?n, 
1\1 t I . l . k . b h C . 1 f fif . n . h MallSI,3. 
1: e ropo ltan, or 1 eWlse y t e ouncl 0 tccn 18 ops, (j24-7, ami 
is to be final , and not to be on an y P retext reconsidcred. Grat
m t Ù) 
rcscrl iJ , 
On the other hand the Eastern mind is discerned in the 627-9. 





C HAP. letter of the Emperor Constantius to the Council of Rimilli, 
II. called by St. Athanasius universal, comprising four hundrcd 
Eishops from Illyria, Italy, Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Great 
Eritain, and attended by the Legates of Pope Liberius: 
Mansi, 3. "Reason," says he, "does not allow any decree to he passed 
297. c. in your Council concerning Eastern Bishops. You will be 
therefore bound to consider those points only which your 
gravity l
nows to pertain to you. . . It behoves you to decree 
nothing against the Easterns, or if you will pass any decree 
against them in their absence, your usurpation will be null 
and void. For that decree cannot be valid, to which force 
and effect are refused at present by our commands." 
Jndepen- But to set the real and original independence and self- 

n- government of the East in the clearest ligl1t we need not 

 of the appeal to the words of an Emperor under the influcnce of 
heretics, however truly those words convey the Eastern 
mind: wc have but to relate the conduct, decrees, and let- 
ters of the Second Ecumenical Council. The two great 
defendcrs of the faith in the East had been taken to their 
rest, St. Athanasius in 373, St. Basil in 379. From the 
beginning to the end of their Episcopate they had laboured, 
prayed, and suffered for the recovery of the Eastern Church 
out of the confusion and violence wrought by the Ariaus. 
But they were not allowed to see on earth the fruit of their 
toils and sorrows. Yet it may be that what was denied to 
their labours in the body, was granted to their intercessions 
before God. lIe who had permitted the family of the great 
Constantine to be infected with the taint of Arianism, who 
suffered the apostate Julian and the heretic Valens to exert 
all their force and fraud against the true faith, raised up in 
due time the Catholic Emperors Gratian and Theodosius, 
finally to overt.hrow that fearful heresy, which had only 
flourished through support of the civil power. One of the 
first results of the death of Valens in 378 was the restora- 
tion of the banished Bishops by Gratian. Among these 
St. Meletius returned to Antioch, and was received with 
universal joy. But Paulinus, the Bishop supported by 
Rome and Egypt, continued his division. He had re- 
mained unmolested at Antioch during the banishmcnt of 
}'Ieletius, on account, it would seem, of the small numbcr 


of his adherents. The vast majority, who recognised 
tius as Bishop, and enjoyed the Communion of the East, 
save Egypt, wished that he and Paulinus, in order to ter- 
minate the schism, should govern conjointly, and the sur- 
vivor be sole Bishop. St. 1\1 eletius, with the utmost clm- 
rity, made the offer, but Paulinus would not accede to it. 
In the meantime Meletius acted as Bishop of Antioch, and 
consecrated Diodorus to be Bishop of Tarsus, John of Apa- 
mea, and Stephen of Germanicia, and others. These pro- 
motions would have given unmixed satisfaction save that the 
schism of Antioch, spreading itself through the rest of the 
East, caused new Bishops to be appointed in many cities 
where there were already Bishops who chose to communi- 
cate with Paulinus rather than J\leletius. 
In the autumn of 379 St. J\leletius presided at a great 
Council of the East held at Antioch, which received a letter 
of Pope Damasus, and confirmed it with their signatures. 
Of course St. J\leletius was most desirous to be in Commu- 
nion with the West; he who was ready to forego his own 
right in order to have peace with his rival Paulinus, was not 
likely to disregard the intercommunion of the different mem- 
bers of Christ's Body. But there is not the slightest appear- 
ance of subjection to a superior power in his conduct. 
The Emperor Theodosius, on the Q8th Feb., 380, pub- 
lished a law recognising for Catholics those only who held 
the faith of Pope Damasus and of Peter of Alexandria. On 
the 10th Jan., 381, he ordered that all the Churches held by 
the heretics should be taken from them and given to the 
Catholics. But who was the Catholic Bishop of Antioch? 
1\ieletius and Paulinus were both orthodox: the former had 
most of the people, and the East, in his Communion; the 
latter Rome and Alexandria. The former with extreme 
moderation renewed the offer to Paulinus of governing the 
Church conjointly with him on the condition that the sur- 
vivor should be sole Bishop. But Paulinus would not ac- 
cept the offer; so the general Sapor, who was entrusted with 
the execution of the imperial decree, gave the Churches to 
St. 1\Ieletius, and left Paulinus to govern those which had 
been separated since the banishment of St. Eustathius in 

G 2 




ì OFAXT[of'J(. 

At last, however, Paulinus consented that the survi,"or 
of himself and 
Ieletius should govern the whole body of the 
faithful at Antioch. But it does not appear that the Bishops 
of the East generally consented to this arrangement. 
TilIemont, (( After this agreement St. :&feletius wrote to the "T esterns 


m. to ask afresh for their Communion: doubtless they did not 


m refuse it him, though 'We have not positive proofs of this. But 
the preced- we find that thev wrote to Theodosius beO'ging him to con- 
ing account . o. 
is mainly firm the agreement made between l\feletius and Paulmus, 
(lrawn. and to employ his authority for causing that, when one of the 
two died, the Churches should be put into the hands of the 
survivor, without anyone attempting to make a successor." 
'Vhatever agreement was made between Paulinus and 
1i1lavian "it seems that minds still continued estranged, as 
well between the Christians of Antioch, as even between 
those of the East and West." 
In the mean time the Emperor Theodosius was earnestly 
desirous to deliver the Eastern Church throughout its whole 
extent from heresy. What course then did he pursue? Did 
he use his influence with Gratian, and his own imperial 
power, to call an Ecumenical Council of the East and West? 
Or did he appeal to the Bishop of Rome to declare by Apo- 
stolical authority the true faith, and to arrange the schism 
which had so long divided Antioch between J\leletius and 
Paulinus, and to appoint a new Bishop to the vacant See of 
Constantinople. J\Iuch as the \Vest desired to have an 
Ecumenical Council sit at Alexandria, or at Rome, as the 
wish is expressed by St. Ambrose, the Emperor pursued 
neither of these two courses. He called a full Council of 
the East, and of the East alone, to sit at Constantinople, 
in the summer of 381. N either the Pope nor the 'Vest in 
general, had any participation in this Council. Cardinal 
Orsi,lst. Orsi, the Roman historian, says: "Besides St. Gregory of 
Ecc. 18. 63. Nyssa, and St. Peter of Sebaste, there were also at Constan- 
tinople on account of the Synod many other Bishops re- 
markable, either for the holiness of their life, or for their 
zeal for the faith, or for their learning, or for the eminence 
of their Sees, as St. Amphilochius of Iconium, l-Ielladius of 
Cesarea in Cappadocia, Optimus of Antioch in Pisidia, Dio- 
dorus of rrarsus, St. Pelagius of Laodicea, St. Eulogius of 



Edessa, Acacius of Berea, Isidorus of Cyrus, St. Cyril of Jeru- 
salem, Gelasius of Cesarea in Palestine, Yitus of Canes, 
Dionysius of Diospolis, Abram of Batnes, and Antiochus of 
Samosata, all three Confessors, Bosphorus of Colonia, and 
Otreius of l\Ielitina, and various others whose names appear 
with honour in history. So that perhaps there has not been 
a Council, in which has been found a greater number 
of Confessors and of Saints. But above an St. J\Ieletius was 
pre-eminent, both for the dignity of his See, and for the 
excellency of his virtue. There was among them, says Gre- 
gory of N azianzum, speaking of the Bishops who were pre- 
sent at this Synod, a man of great piety, of simple frank 
manners, fun of God, of quiet bearing, firm at once and 
prudent. And who knows not the Bishop of Antioch: of 
whom I speak? In whom the name well agreed with the 
person, and the person with the name, both his name and 
manners being equally flavoured with honey. And having 
exposed himself to many violent tempests, and being exer- 
cised in many noble combats for the Holy Spirit, he had 
clcansed the stain contracted by him in permitting himself 
to be promoted by strangers. . . . 
"Theodosius had found it more easy to repress in the 
East the fury of the heretics, than the rivalry of the Catho- 
lics, and to put down external wars against the Church, than 
intestine discord. The three principal Churches of the 
Eastern cmpire, that of Antioch, that of Constantinople, and 
that of Alexandria, were in confusion and disorder. The 
first through the two parties of Paulinus and )Ieletius; the 
sccond through the illegitimate ordination of :ßiaximus; the 
third through the opposition made by some to that of Timo- 
thcus, who had succeeded his brother Pcter, just before dead, 
with thc common conscnt of all the Bishops of Egypt. And 
yet such was the power and authority of his opponents, that, 
as the flame could not be extinguished by the authority of 
thc Council thcn sitting, the Fathers of the Synod of Aqui- 
leia, suggcstcd to the Emperor to grant, that for this and 
other matters another, and that Ecumcllical, might be held 
at Alexandria. So the Emperor Theodosius, anxious to 
remcdy such disordcrs, and to givc a Bishop to the city of 
Constantinople, and to confirm the NicCllC faith, and to 






bring back the heretics to the profession of the said faith, 
and to the unity of the Church, called the Bishops of the 
East and of Egypt to Constantinople for the celebration of 
the Synod to the number of 150. And as the good prince 
did not despair of the conversion of the J\lacedonians, he 
invited them too to the Council, and they came to the 
number of 36, chiefly from the Hellespont, among whom 
Eleusius of Cyzieum, and 1Iarcianus of Lampsacus, held the 
first place." 
Now it is obvious that if ever the Pope and the 'Yestern 
Bishops had a right to interfere in the internal regulation of 
the Eastern Churches, it was on an occasion like this. For 
they had throughout taken the side of Paulinus, at Antiocl], 
and besides it hardly seemed compatible with the unity and 
coherence of the parts of Christ's Body that difficulties re- 
spccting the three great Sees of the East should be settled 
without their concurrence. "\Vhat they said about it we will 
see hereafter. At present to proceed. 
"The head, the director, and the guide of this sacred 
assembly so long as he lived, was St. J\leletius, and after his 
death St. Gregory, and lastly, after his resignation, N ectarius. 
The matter, with which the Fathers judged they ought to 
begin their sessions, was that of providing the said city of 
Constantinople with a legitimate Bishop. The inquiry into 
the ordination of J\laximus could not cost them much diffi- 
culty. They easily perceived and set forth the indignity of 
it, and stamped it as an insolent and impertinent attempt, 
and declared that he neither was nor had ever been Bishop, 
nor could those promoted by him be received as being in any 
order of the clergy, and they nullified all the acts of his pre- 
tended Episcopate. The usurper driven out, it was further 
not difficult to make up their minds as to the person who 
was to fill this See, and the pastor suitable to be given to 
this flock. All was the work of the industry, labour, suffer- 
ings, unwearied diligence, and excellence, of Gregory of 
Nazianzum. He had as it were raised up from the dust and 
from its ashes that Church, had re-established that throne 
on the ruins of Arianism, and with danger of his own life 
called back from their dispersion, and rescued from the jaws 
of wolves the wandering sheep, and drawn together ancw 

Orsi, J st. 
Ecc. 18. 
64, 65. 



and enlarged the fold. Who could dispute his claims, or SEC T. 
equal him either in holiness of life, or in fervour for the 11. 
faith, or in eminence of doctrine, or in power of eloquence? 
But if the Fathers found no difficulty in the choice of the 
person, they experienced a very great one in overcoming his 
repugnance, and prevailing on his modesty. And they deter- 
mined not to let themselves be moved by his cries, nor 
softened by his tears and groans, in order not to fail in their 
duty, to crown his merits, and to provide in the best way for 
the good of the Church. St. J\;leletius, being come to Con- 
stantinople principally for this purpose, availed himself of 
the authority, which the profound veneration and old friend- 
ship that St. Gregory entertained for him, gave him over 
his spirit, to subdue his resistance. And it was he who 
tied the knot of this spiritual marriage, blessed it, and 
crowned it: while the other Fathers and specially St. Gre- 
gory of Nyssa, applauded this great solemnity with their 
eloquent discourses. 
"But the exultation of such a festival was too soon inter- 
rupted, and t
rned into sorrow, by the death of St. :àfeletius, 
whom God appeared to have brought to Constantinople to 
present him here a spectacle to the world, and that all 
nations might admire in his person a perfect model of Epis- 
copal dignity, and be witnesses of his piety, his zeal, his 
candour, his wisdom and modesty, his love of peace, and of 
the Church's unity. Of which specially Gregory of Nazian- 
zum gives most ample testimony, saying that he died full of 
years and merit, and was carried away by troops of angels, 
after having given many charges to his friends, which had 
only peace for their object." The whole East mourned over 
his death: his body was carried in triumphal procession with 
torches lighted and psalms sung from Constantinople to 
Antioch, being borne within the walls of cities, by special 
law of the Emperor, contrary to the custom of the Romans. 
Such in his life and in his death was St. 
leletius, whose 
intercession before God St. Chrysostome, his disciple and s. Chrys. 
. . t 1 bl . I . k d . h . b . d h . tom. 2.523. 
SpIn ua son, pu IC Y In vo e In IS sermon CSI e IS A. 
tomb five years after his death: whom a triple banishment 
suffered in the cause of the Holy Trinity could not induce 
St. Jerome to speak of with respect: whom Pope Damasus 





and the Roman Church almost to the last slighted and 
avowed, refusing him their Communion and accepting 
his ri'Tal. 
Rejected, however, as he had been at Rome, reluctantly, 
if it all, received by her, and that not singly, but in con- 
junction with Pauliuus, he was uudisputed presidcnt at 
Constantinople of that great Council which arranged the 
affairs of the Eastern Church without Rome's participation. 
His death was the beginning of trouble. In vain St. Gre- 
gory, now become president, exhorted the younger Bishops 
not to elect a successor to him, but to recognise Paulinus to 
be Bishop of both parties. In vain Gregory offered to re- 
sign his own See, if they would not listen to him; they 
chose rather that he should l'esign it, than themselves 
l'eccive Paulinus, as it were from the hands of Rome and the 
'Vest, as Bishop of Antioch. lIe has left us, in his poems, 
a long address which he made to them, beseeching them for 
the sake of peace, and the reunion of the 'Vest, which wa::, 
now, as it were, strange to them, to suffer Paulinus for his 
few remaining years to be sole Bishop. "This," he says, 
" can be the only deliverance from evils. For either, which is 
most to be wished, we shall gain that which is foreign, (for 
the "rest, as I see, is now foreign to us,) or, at least, har- 
mony for the city," (i. e. Antioch,) "so great a peol)le and 
so long worn down." He ridicules their argument against 
him. " Consider what fine reasoning this was. Our affairs 
must correspond with the course of the sun, talâng their 
heginning frO'lìl tltat quarter, where God shone f01'th to us in 
a covcriug of flesh. "
hat then? Let us lcarn not to look 
at the skJ"s rcvolutions: but consider that the flesh of Christ 
is the fir
t-fruits of all our race. But if He rose in the 
quarter, one may say, where there was the greate:st audacity, 
as there likely easily to be put to death, whence His resurrec- 
tion, and then our sahration, ought not those who think thus, 
to yield to such, as I said, who had formed a wise judgment '(" 
Here thc poiut was, not whether the Pope was supreme b , but 

Poems on 
his Life, 
1. 1 G35. 

\I Yet we }lave been told lately, " The 
party of Meletius never for a moment 
denied tlte fJ'upr/'macy of tlte Pope, but 
on the ('ontrary moved heaven and 
earth to acquaiht him with the real 

facts of the case, and to obtain a deci- 
sion in their favour ..... The dislmte 
between Paulinus and l\Icletius \\ as at 
length amicably terminated; and it 
was not tm (ifter this that St. 1\Ielctius 

 1'111<.: I<'EELING 0.... THE EA::5T TO 'I'll}; WEST. Sü 

whether the East, by allowing Paulillus, after the death of SEe T. 

:feletius, to be Bishop of Antioch, might not seem to con- II. 
cede some precedence in the 'Vest which it seems they were 
very unwilling to allow. St. Gregory says in express words 
that it was the jealousy between the East and 'Vest which 
made the schism at Antioch so dangerous. "It is, he says, On his Lifc, 
h d .. . f d . h f . d I . 1. 1560. 
rat er a IVlSIon 0 octrine t an 0 countrIes an c Imates 
which makes East and \Vest. For these are united, if not 
at their extreme, yet at least at their intermediate parts, but 
there is nothing by which their inhabitants once severed are 
bound; nor is piety the cause, (anger, a ready liar, invents 
this,) but contention for the Bishops' seats." This jealousy 
proved too strong for all the efforts of the "peace-loving 
man." The Eastern Bishops, either at this Council, or when 
they returned home, elected Flavian to succeed lVleletius at 
Antioch. Prcsently the Egyptian Bishops, with their Patri- 
arch Timotheus, arrived: and they began to express their 
disapproval of Gregory's own appointment. This afforded 
him the opportunity he desired for insisting on resigning 
his own See. He was at length allowed to do so. For his 
successor the Bishops and the Emperor made a remarkable 
choice of an old man, unbaptized, of decent and gentle 
clmracter indeed, but who did not redeem the strangeness 
of his election, like St. Ambrose, by the apostolic vigour and 
divine purity of his subsequent life. Such as he was, how- 
ever, the Council elected N ectarius, and he became their 
president. Ccrtainly, whatever spirit animated the Eastern 
Bishops, they shewed that they were determined to manage 
their own affairs, and elect their own Patriarchs, without 
illtcrference from the West. 
But they did far more than this. They executed, of them- 

was called to the Council of Constanti- 
nople, at which time lIe was in full 
Communion with Rome."-DulJ1in Re- 
view, Dec. 1844, p. 611. As if l\Icle- 
tiu:> was received at Constantinoplc as 
Bishop of Antioch, becausc sOllie agree- 
ment had been m<:de between him and 
Paulinus, which ROllle had recog:nised. 
He sat as President of the grpat Coun- 
cil of the East in Antioch in 3ï9, when 
tlle l
ope did not acknowledg-e him,and 
the Commuuion and recognition of thp 
CatllOlics in the three Exarchatcs of 
Thraee, Asia, amI l'ontn:>, he had eu- 

joyed throughout. But there is a way 
of stating the facts of hi:>tory, which, 
without asserting a literal untruth, con- 
veys a most untruthful impression. A 
candid person would be greatly em- 
barrassed to discover anythiug but dis- 
proof of the Papal Supremacy in the 
whole aftàir of the schi,m of Antioch: 
but when we come to consider the elec- 
tion and maintenance of Flavian in spite 
of Rome, it is really too audaciously 
counting upon our iguor. nee to me 
such language. 





selves, the highest function of the Church Catholic: they 
added important articles, not indeed to the meaning, but to 
the elucidation, of the Nicene Creed. "In relation to the In- 
carnation of our Saviour Christ the Nicene Creed only said: 
lIe came down from heaven, was incarnate and made man, 
suffered, and rose again the third day, aud ascended into 
heaven, and shall come to judge the quick and the dead." 
But the Creed of Constantinople said thus: "Who came 
down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost 
of the Virgin J\Iary, and was made man. He was crucified 
also for us under Pontius Pilate: lIe suffered and was 
buried; and He rose again the third day according to 
the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven: He sitteth on 
the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again with 
glory to judge both the quick and dead; \Vhose kingdom 
shall have no end." The Nicene Creed only said, " We 
believe also in the Holy Ghost," without mentioning the 
Church. But the Creed of Constantinople was to this effect, 
" \Ve believe likewise in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver 
of life, 'Vho proceedeth from the Father, '\Vho with the 
Fatller and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; 
Who spake by the Prophets: we believe one Catholic and 
Apostolic Church: we acknowledge one Baptism for the re- 
mission of sins: we look for the resurrection of the dead, 
and the life of the world to come. Amen." Although the 
truths contained in the articles added to the Nicene Creed 
by the Council of Constantinople were held implicitly before, 
yet the fact of their expression and insertion into the Creed 
is of the highest importance, as it betokens the highest au- 
thority in the Church. It is the Creed of the Council of 
Constantinople which has since been recited, under the name 
of the Nicene Creed, at the celebration of the holy 
by the Greek, the Roman, and the English Churches, with 
the addition, after many centuries, in the \Vest, of the words 
, and from the Son:' which addition by the Pope's authority, 
without the consent of the East, has ever since been alleged 
as a ground of the great division. 
The Canons of discipline which the Council past are these: 
"Canon I. The Bishops who, by the grace of God, as- 
semblccl in Constantinople, from different Provinces, in pur- 
suance of the summUllS of the most religious Emllf'rOl' 'fheo- 

}<'Ieury, 18. 


Canons of 



dosius, have decreed as follows. That the faith of the 318 SEe T. 
Fathers who assembled at Nicea in Bithynia, is not to be II. 
made void, but shall continue established:" they proceed to 
anathematise certain heresies. 
Canon 2. The Bishops must not go beyond their Dioceses, 
and enter upon Churches without their borders, nor bring 
confusion into the Churches; but, according to the Canons, 
the Bishop of Alexandria must have the sole administration 
of the affairs of Eg
7pt, and the Bishops of the East" (i. e. An- 
tioch) "must administer the East only, the privileges, which 
were assigned to the Church of Antioch by the Canons made 
at Nicea, being preserved; and the Bishops of the Asian 
Diocese must administer the affairs of the Asian only, and 
those of the Pontic Diocese the affairs of the Pontic only; 
and those of Thrace, the affairs of Thrace only. 1\ioreover 
Bishops may not without being called go beyond the bounds 
of their Diocese for the purpose of ordaining, or any other 
Ecclesiastical function. The above-written Canon respect- 
ing the Dioceses being obseryed, it is plain that the Synod 
of each Province must administer the affairs of the Province, 
according to what was decreed at Nicea. But the Churches of 
God which are among the Barbarians must be administered 
according to the customs of the Fathers which have prevailed. 
Canon 3. The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the 
Primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because that 
Constantinople is new Rome. 
Canon 4. \Yith respect to l\iaximus the Cynic and the 
disorder which took place in Constantinople on his account, 
it is decreed that J\Iaximus neither was nor is a Bishop, and 
that those who have been ordained by him are not in any 
rank whatever of the Clergy; and all things which have been 
done either about him or by him are made void." 
Here Fleury observes, tc In this (the second Canon) we Fleury,IK 
find the whole plan of the Eastern Church: first of all 
7. Oxf. 'Ir. 
the two Patriarchs, as they have since been called, viz., of 
Alexandria and Antioch, whose privileges were very different: 
the Bi
hop of Alexandria had the government of all the 
Churches of Egypt, including Libya and Pentapolis; the 
Bishop of Antioch only enjoyed certain privileges; but the 
Ecclesiastical government of the Diocesc of the East, of which 


 r, DE 3lAltCA, Xl\D .I:'LEl'RY 

C HAP. Antioch was the capital, is attributed in general to all the 
II. Bishops of the East, amongst whom there were several :1\Ie- 
tropolitans. The chief Bishops of the three other great 
Dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, afterwards assumed the 
name of Exarchs; the Bishop of Ephesus was Exarch of 
Asia; the Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, of Pont us; and 
the Bishop of Heraclea had had the E"{archy of Thrace, but 
at that time it was swallowed up by Constantinople. How- 
ever in all this the Council of Constantinople, in the same 
spirit as that of Nicea, professed to establish no new thing, 
but only to confirm ancient customs. All the order of the 
Ecclesiastical hierarchy was regulated and confirmed by 
ancient tradition. This Canon, which gives to the Councils 
of particular places full authority in Ecclesiastical matters, 
seems to take away the power of appealing to the Pope 
granted by the Council of Sardica, and to restore the ancient 
J\iay we not rather say that it could hardly take awa.y 
w hat had never existed, for the Council of Sardica resulted 
in being only a \Yestern Council, whose Canons were not 
then recei,'ed in the East, nor even, as we shall see presently, 
by the African Bishops in St. Augustine's time. 
Tillemont is more guarded than Fleury here: hc says, 
"The Council seems likewise to reject, whether design- 
edly or inadvertently, what had been ordained by the 
Council of Sardica in favour of Rome. But as assuredly 
it did not affect to prevent either Ecumenical Councils, or 
even general Councils of the East, from judging of matters 
brought before them, so I do not know if one may conclude 
absolutely that they intended to forbid appeals to Rome. 
It regulates proceedings between Dioccse and Diocese, but 
not what might concern superior tribunals." 
ith the light, however, that we have besides as to the 
views and principles professe-d by the Eastern Bishops at 
this Council, there can be little doubt that thcir ycry objcct 
was to forbid appcal to Rome. Accordingly De l\Iarca says, 
De COl1cor., "This Canon assigns to the complete Synod of each Diocese 
lit>. 6. c. IG. ( . P t . b t ) th } . t t ] d I 
3. 1. e. a narc a e e supreme aut 101'1 y 0 ru e an m - 
minister all Ecclesiastical mattcrs of the Provinces contained 
ill that Diocese, under the direclion, howcver, of thc l"}rimatc 

9. 489. 



or Ex.arch of the Diocese." Elsewhere he says that the three SEe T. 
latter Dioceses, "the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian, which II. 
Lib. G. 20. 1. 
obeyed their own Exarchs, were assigned to the jurisdiction 
of the Bishop of Constantinople, to constitute the Council of 
the Patriarchate of Constantinople, according to the 28th 
Canon of the Council of Chalcedon. And so as those Synods 
of Dioceses were subject each to their own Pab.iarch, tlteir 
authm.ity must have been entirely supreme, nor could it be tltat 
they depended on any other jurisdiction w/wtsoever." 
And again, H this Canon decrees how Canonical j udgmellts, Lib. 7. c. 5. 
either in the deposition of Bishops, or in other causes inci- 
dentally arising, are to be settled among the Easterns" But 
the order which it prescribes in these matters is full of pru- 
dence, and tempered with wonderful consideration. For first 
the rights of the Pl'ovinces, and the privileges of the most 
illustrious Churches, are preserved by that Canon accord- 
ing to the Nicene Canons. Next, new remedies are provided 
for condemned Bishops, far more convenient and easy than 
those which the Council of Antioch had devised, on the 
suffrages of the judges being divided, or than approaching 
the Emperor to obtain a new Council. For in that Council 
the limits of jurisdictions are appointed according to the 
division of the Dioceses of the Empire: and the authority of 
each several Diocese in all jud!Jments passed on discipline is de- 
c1"eed to he supreme." . . . " I find all these regulations greatly 
in behalf of the Church's dignity, who was delivered by the 
authority of this Canon from asking of the Emperor Councils 
for the purpose of judging the complaints of deposed Bishops, 
so that Diocesan Synods were turned into ordinary Synods, 
having been before extraordinary, and not to be convoked 
without the Emperor's letters. Indeed as these Canons 
established a new form of exterior polity in the Church, 
though the change was for the better, the Council asked 
a confirmation of such an innovation from the Emperor 
Theodosius, as appears from its Synodical letter, but not from, 
the Roman Couflcil, tlwZl!Jlt it sent likewise to it another Sy- 
nodical letter." 
"The third Canon," says Fleury, H is the most remarkable Liv. 18. 
Canon of the whole Council, and whether this was a new · 
honour granted to the Bishop of Constantinople, or whether 


T. LlW lH
S THE:-;E (, \XO

C II A P. he was already in possession of it, the conscquences wel'e of 
11. great importance; and instead of a mere dignity it soon 
became a very extensive jurisdiction." 
Strong Remarkable enough it is that when, in the Council of 
prvof of 
F stern Chalcedon, appeal was made to this third Canon, the Pope 

f.ovem. St. Leo declared that it had never been notified to Rome. 
As in tIle mean time it had taken effect throughout the 
whole East, as in this very Council Nectarius, as soon as 
he is elected, presides instead of Timothy of Alexandria, it 
puts in a strong point of view the real self-government of 
the Eastern Church at this time: for the giving the Bishop 
of Constantinople precedence over Alexandria and Antioch 
was a proceeding which affected the whole Church, and so 
far altered its original order; one in which certainly the 
'Vest might claim to have a voice. 
Tillemont goes on: "It would be very difficult to justify 
St. Leo, if he meant that the Roman Church had never 
known that the Bishop of Constantinople took the second 
place in the Church, and the first in the East, since his 
legates, whose conduct he entirely approves, had just them- 
selves authorised it as a thing beyond dispute, and Eusebius 
of Dorylæum maintained that St. Leo himself had approved 
it." The simple fact is, that, exceedingly unwilling as the 
Bishops of Rome were to sanction it, from this time, 381, 
to say the least, the Bishop of Constantinople appears uni- 
formly as first Bishop of the East. The Popes for a long 
time evidently feared that he would not stop there, but at- 
tempt to take from them the Primacy of the whole Church. 
Now before summing up the striking points of this Council 
let us see how it was received by the "r est. 
Council of Two months after it a Council was held at Aquileia, prc- 
Aquileia. sided over by St. Valerian, and St. Ambrose. The latter, 
refuting in it two Arianising Bishops, says incidentally: 
s. Ambros. "Because in former times a Council was held in this manner, 
2. .88. that the Orientals should hold a Council for the parts of the 
East, and the Occidentals in the West; we, being in the 
\Vest, have assembled at the city of Aquileia, according to 
the Emperor's injunction. l\Ioreover, the Prefect of Italy 
has also written, that, if the Orientals chose to meet us, they 
might do so: but because they are acquainted with this 

COC"xCIL:S OF AQUILEIA _\xn or 1'1'
\ L\. 


custom, that for the Easterns a Council -should be held in SEe T. 
the East, for the 'Vesterns, in the "Vest, they determined II. 
not to come." This Council expresses a desire that an 
Ecumenical Council should be held in Alexandria. The 
'Vest afterwards wished this Council to be held at Rome. 
In this same year 381, there was another Council in Italy, at Council in 
which St. Ambrose presided, and we have an important letter Italy. 
written by him in its name to the Emperor Theodosius. News 
had been brought of what had been done at Constantinople. 
He complains that a successor to 1\Ieletius had been ap- 
pointed, contrary to right and Ecclesiastical order: that 
this was done by the consent and advice of Nectarius, whose 
own appointment lay open to heavy objections, on account of 
the prior consecration of J\faximus. l\Ioreover that Gregory 
likewise claimed the priesthood of the Church of Constan- 
tinople contrary to the tradition of the Fathers. He pro- 
ceeds, "It was our judgment therefore that nothing should s. Ambl"OS. 
be ordered without due consideration in that Council which Ep. 13. 
it seemed that the Bishops of the whole world were required 
to attend. Eut at this very time what are they, who avoided 
a general Council, said to have done at Constantinople? For 
knowing that J\iaximus had come into these parts to plead 
his cause in a Council: (which, even if a Council had not 
been proclaimed, would lmve been according to the law and 
custom of our ancestors: as both Athanasius of holy memory 
and but lately Peter, Bishops of the Church of Alexandria, 
and most of the Orientals, did, who seem to have had recourse 
to the judgment of the Roman Church, of Italy, and of the 
whole 'Vest:) knowing, as I said, that he was willing to try 
his cause against those who denied his being a Bishop, 
certainly they ought to have awaited our sentence also upon 
him. We do not assume to ourselves the prerogative of ex- 
amining sllch things, but we ought to have a sltare in their 
examination." 'rhen complaining that J\Iaximus had been 
rejected, he proceeds: "Inasmuch as we learn that Ncctarius 
has just been ordained at Constantinople, we see not that our 
Communion with the Eastern countries remains firm. Nor 
do we see how this can be maintained, unless either he who 
was first ordained, (l\faximus) be restored to Constantinople, 
or at least a Council of ourselves and the Orientals be held in 


E. . 

C ß A P. the city of Rome respecting the ordination of the two. For, 
II. may it please your J\iajesty, it does not seem too much to 
ask that they should undergo the consideration of the Prelate 
of the Roman Church, and of the neighbouring and Italian 
:Bishops, when they so far waited for the judgment of As- 
cholius alone as to invite him to Constantinople from the 

i quid ulli Western parts, (i. e. Thessalonica.) If there was considera- 
huicreser- t . fi t ,. . l ' h d b fi 
vatum est, 'tOn or IlZS szng e one, flOW muc more slwul there e or so 
to 1 . many. As for ourselves, having received instructions from 
magIs pun- 
Lus reser- the most blessed Prince, the brother of your Piety, to write 
Y3mlul11 . 1\tr. . h h . d 
est? to your gracIOus .lu.aJesty, we requIre t at t e JU gment may 
be common, and the consent unanimous, where the Com- 
munion is one." 
IIere St. Ambrose, complaining of a violation of the 
Canons, demands that, in a case of so much moment to 
the welfare of the whole Body of Christ, as the appointment 
of the Bishops of Constantinople and Antioch, when the 
succession was disputed, the Easterns should not decide by 
themselves, but sit in common Council with the 'Vest. St. 
:Basil the Great, we shall find hereafter, says just the same, 
as to the holding of a joint Council, but that was on a matter 
of faith. Does he so much as hint that there was a sovereign 
authority at Rome whom they were bound to obey? Does he 
not expressly exclude such a notion, in terms indeed which 
shew that he never so much as imagined it, where he says, 
" 'Ve (i. e. the 'Vesterns) do not assume to ourselves the pre- 
rogative of examining such things, but we ought to have a 
share in their determination." And perhaps still more in that 
reference to Ascholius, "If there was consideration for this 
single one, how much more should there be for so many," 
the " so many" being the Bishop of Rome and the "r estern 
Bishops. How much easier had it been to say, "Your 
l\Iajesty knows that in such cases the voice of the Bishop of 
Rome must be heard: that the decision of the Apostolic See 
is decisive and final." On the contrary he lays the decision 
upon the consent of numbers, and the harmony of the East 
and "rest. It would be impossible to state more e.xactly that 
very constitution of the Church Catholic which we claim at 
present. He tells us, too, quite incidentally, why St. Atha- 
uasius resorted to the "Test, a fact so much relied 011 by 

\NSWER OF '1'lIEOD()SIF:-,. 


Roman Cont.roversialists, i. e. as l'ecognising that a final SEe T. 
decision, in disputed matters, lay in general agrcement. II. 
But what was the reply to the request of St. Ambrose 
and the Italian Bishops, moderate as it was? "Theodosius Fleury. 1ft 
answered this letter, and undeceived the Bishops of Italy, 17. Oxt: 'fr. 
by informing them what J\Iaximus was, and how different his 
ordination was from that of Nectarius. He represented to 
them, that these affairs, and that of Flavian's, ought to be 
judged in the East, where all the parties were present, and 
that there was no reason to oblige those of the East to come 
into the 'Vest. This appears by the second letter of St. 

\.mbrose, (14th,) and of the BisllOps of Italy, in which they 
return thanks to the Emperor for having reconcilcd the 
Churches of the East and 'Yest, and remO\'ed the misunder- 
standing which had divided them. They excuse themsehes 
for their writing to him, by pleading the desire which they 
had for a reunion, and of putting an end to the complaints 
of the Eastern Bishops, who thought themselves neglected," 
(i. e. by the 'Vest ern Church.) " For, said they, we did not 
require a Council for our own interest, since all the 'Yest 
is at peace." They say, likewise, "".,. e put together our s. Amùros. 
1 . . t b . J! I 2. 818. 
o )JectIons, not to pass sen ence, ut. to 1ll10l'm you: as t lOse 
who sought for a judgment, not who sent you one of their 
OW!!." Tillemont says likewise, "As the Bishops of the Ti1le
Vicariate of Italy in particular had written several times to lV. }aU. 
Theodosius, this prince wrote back to them that the l'easons 
they had alleged were not sufficient to assemble au Ecumc- 
llical Council, that the affairs of Nectarius and Flavian were 
in the East, and all the parties there present, and so ought 
to be judged there without carrying the matter to the 'Vest, 
and changing by innovations the bounds which their fathers 
IJad placed: that this was not a reasonable request: that as- 
suredly the Prelates of the East had some cause to bc offended 
at it, and cven that whatever judgmeut was }>assed in the 
absence of the parties would always lcave place for fresh 
difficulties. That for the affair of Maximus they had shewn 
a little too much warmth against the Easterns, or too much 
readiness in believing the falsehoods palmed upon them." 
But the letter of the Italian Bishops had further results, .. 
I . h . 1 . OrSl, IIL. HI. 
W nc the Cardmal Or8i shall set forth to us. " Them. OSlUS, 


lJ l'OP'\{ïL OF :3....:!. 

C HAP. having received the letter of the Synod of Aquileia, and heard 
II. the complaints of the \Vestern Bishops against the resolu- 
tion taken at Constantinople to give l\ieletius a successor 
contrary to the right of Paulinus to succeed him alone in the 
government of the whole flock, and contrary to the opinion 
of Timothy and the other Bishops of Egypt, and having re- 
ceived the request made to him for permission to hold, for 
the re-establishment of concord, an Ecumenical Council at 
Alexandria; did not delay to call together the Bishops of his 
empire at Constantinople in order to hear their opinion re- 
specting these matters. But, while they were assembled 
there, the letters of the 'Vestern Bishops reache(l them, in
viting them to remove to Rome, to attend a great Council 
which was preparing there. And Gratian too must have 
written to them, or to Theodosius himself, since we find that 
the Orientals were invited at one time by the letters of the 
Occidentals, at another time by the letters of Gratiall. But 
the Bishops assembled at Constantinople refused, says the 
historian (i. e. Theodoret) too partial to their side, and biassed 
strongly in favour of Flavian, to undertake such a journey, 
whence they did not expect to draw any advantage. How- 
ever they wrote a letter to inform them fully of the storm 
that had been some time ago raised against the Churches, 
pretty plainly marking their past neglect: and moreqvel' 
they introduced a short exposition of Apostolical doctrine 
both against the errors which attacked the Trinity, and 
against those which had arisen respecting the Incarnation 
lb., 18. 83. of the \V ord." A little further he says: H It is plain from 
this letter that the present Synod was for the greater part 
composed of those same Bishops who had held the pre- 
ceding Council the year before in the same city of Con
stantinople." They write thus: 
Letter to "rro our most honoured lords and pious brethren and 
eWestern fellow-ministers Dam'lsus ( of Rome ) Ambrose ( of l\libn ) 
HIShop:3. , (, , 
Britton (of Treves,) Valerianus (of Aquileia,) Ascholius (of 
Thessalonica,) Allemius (of Sirmium,) 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. It is surely superflu- 
ous to inform your Piety, as if it were in ignorance, and to 


relate the multitude of sufferings brought upon us by the BE CT. 
tyranny of the Arian faction. For on the one hand we do II. 
not think that your Piety considers our affairs as so trifling a 
matter, as to need information about what demanded sym- 
pathy. Nor on the other hand were the storms that raged 
around us so slight as to be unnoticed. Add to which, so 
recent is the time of persecution, that its remembrance is 
still fresh not only to the sufferers, but to those who through 
love make the situation of those sufferers their own." . . . 
" We have need of long quiet, and much time and toil for the 
restoration of the Churches, just as after a long sickness, 
that by gradual treatment we may thoroughly cure the body 
of the Church, and bring it back to its ancient soundness of 
piety." . . . . . " Since however it is a pl'oof of your brotherly 
love that, assembling a Synod by God's will at Rome, JOu 
have invited us too as your own members through the letters 
of the most religious Emperor, so that, though we were con- 
ùemned to bear tribulation alone, yet, in the present agree
ment of the Emperors in the cause of piety, you may not 
reign without us, but we also, according to the Apostle's ex- 
pression, may reign together with you, we could indeed have 
wished, if possible, that, all together leaving our Churches, 
we might yield eithel' to our desire or to the necessity of the 
case. For who will give us the wings of a dove, that we may 
flee away and be at rest beside you? But since this course 
would entirely strip the Churches just at the beginning of 
their recovery, and the thing altogether was impossible to the 
greater number; for we had assembled at Constantinople in 
consequence of your letters of last year after the Synod 
at Aquileia sent to the most religious Emperor Thcodosius, 
being only prepared for going as far as Constantinople, and 
having the consent of the Bishops remaining in the Pro- 
vinces only to this Synod, but not suspecting the necessity 
of a morc distant journey, nor indeed ha,.ing heard anything 
about it before we were come to Constantinople. Besiùes 
this, the time appointed was very short, not allowing of 
preparation for a longer journey, nor of communicating 
with the Bishops of our Communion who remaiu in the Pro- 
vinces, and of receiving their conscnt. Since these and 
many othcr reasons prevented the going of the gJ'catcr 





number, as the ncx.t best thing we have done this, for the 
settling of affairs and the shewing of our 100'e to you, we have 
besought the most reverend and excellent brethren, our 
fellow-ministers, the Bishops Cyriacus, Eusebius, and Prisci- 
anus, cheerfully to go to you, through whom we shew to you 
our desire of peace and unity, and declare our zeal for the 
sound faith." Then follows a statement of their faith as to 
the Trinity and the Incarnation. They proceed. "Tl}is 
then is a summary of the faith which we have set fOl,th 
without shrinking. About which you will be still more gra- 
tified, if you have the goodness to read the volume drawn up 
at Antioch by the Synod there assembled, and that last year 
put forth in Constantinople by the Ecumenical Synod: in 
which we have at greater length confessed our faith, and have 
subscribed an anathema of the newly-invented heresies. But 
as to the managemcnt of particular matters in the Churches, 
both an ancient fundamental principle, as ye know, hath pre- 
vailed, and the rule of the holy Fathers at Nicea, that in 
cach Province thosc of the Province," i. e. the Bishops, 
"and if they be willing, tlIeir neighbours also, should make 
thc elections according as they judge meet. In accordance 
with which ye know both that the rest of the Churches are 
administered by us, and that Priests of the most distin- 
guished 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 herctics, 
we hm"e elected Bishop the most reverend and pious N ec- 
tarius, in an Ecumenical d Council, with common agreement, 
in the sight both of thc most religious Emperor Theodosius, 

md with the conscnt of all the Clergy and the whole city. 
And those," the Bishops, "both of the Province and of the 
Diocese e of the East, bcing canonically assembled, the whole 
accordant Church as with one voice honouring the man, ba'"e 
elected the most reverend and religious Bishop Flayian to 
the most ancient and truly Apostolical Church of Antioch ill 
Syria, wherc first the vcnerable name of Christian bccame 

d Observe, this Council so called by 
the Greeks before it was received by 
the West. 
e it must be remembered that Dio- 

cese, in the language of this time, 
means the several Provinces compre- 
hended in a Patriarchate. I t was the 
ci viI term. 



known: which legitimate election the whole Synod hath SEe T. 
received." (And this notwithstanding the Bishop Paulinus, II. 
who was received by Rome and the 'Vest, had survived St. 
1\Ieletius, 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. J crome on the 
other, " I know not Yitalis; .Meletius I reject; I am igno- 
rant of Paulin us." It seems that though the test of Commu- 
nion with Rome satisfied St. Jerome, it did not satisfy an 
Ecumenical CounciL) "But of the Church in Jerusalem, tlte 
mother of all Churches, we declare that the most reverend and 
l'eligious Cyril is Bishop, both as long since canonically 
elected by those of his Province, and as having strugglcd 
much against the Arians in different places. TV/lOrn, as 
heing lawfully and canonically establis/led by us, we invite 
your Piety also to cOllg'I"atulate, 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 8haH cease to say what the Apostle 
has condemned-I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of 
Cephas. li'or all being shewn to be Christ's, who in us is not 
divided, b
T the help of God we shall keep the body of the 
Church unrent, and shall stand with confidence before the 
tribunal of the Lord." 
Assuredly Gieseler is fully borne out by original documcnts 
in saying that the Council of 381, whereof here the Council 
of 382 is the spokesman, " arranged without any reference to Gieseler, 
the 'Vest the affairs of the Oriental Church, and was even 

;. 20.:i. 
quite openly on the side of the party of 1\ieletius, rejected by 
the '\Vesterns; just so the interference attempted by the 
Italian Bishops in the matter of l\Iaximus, the counter- 
Bishop of Constantinople, remained quite disregarded." 
But we have yet to hear the Roman account of the great 
Synod held at Rome to which the Bishops above were in- 
vited and refused to go. Cardinal Orsi says: "In this in- 
rsi, 1st. 
t I . . f I . I Eee. 18. 83. 
el'va of tIme was held the great CouncIl 0 Rome, to W llC 1, 
as has hcen stated abovc, the Bishops uf thc East too hml 



s. Ambros. 
p. 14. 


CIL AT Hü:\lE l

been invited: of whom, however, a great part, assembled at 
Constalltinorle, had excused themselves from undertaking 
that jOUl'ney by the letter which they sent by three of their 
colleagues with the character of Legates. Other Bishops, 
]lOWe\rer, of the Eastern empire did not fail to attend, as St. 
Epiphanius, from the island of Cyprus, and Paulinus from 
the Diocese of the East, recognised in the 'Vest for the 
Bishop of Antioch: and St. Jerome joined them in their 
passage through Constantinople, probably called to Rome by 
St. Damasus, for the purpose of consulting him, as one well 
informed, through the long sojourn he had made in those 
regions, of the state of affairs, and of the dissensions and 
disputes of the East. It is believed that there also came 
Timothy of Alexandria with the other Bishops both of Egypt 
and Arabia. Aud on the side of the 'Vest we know there 
were present the Bishops of the two chief cities of Illyria, 
Anemius of Sirmium in the 'Vestern diyision, and Ascholius 
of Thessalonica in the Eastern: St. Ambrose of J\1:ilau, me- 
tropolis of Italy, and Britton of 'l'rcyes in the Gauls. So 
that this Council might perhaps have passed for Ecumenical, 
had the deputies of that of Constantinople been charged to 
give their consent, and not rather to oppose whatever might 
be determined in it unfavourable to the Easterns, which was 
perhaps the principal object of this great assembly. How 
little the Bishops of the East were disposed to see the ordi- 
nations of K ectarius and Flavian carried before the judgment 
of another Synod, however numerous or authoritative, the 
Fathers might well understand not only from the synodical 
letter of those of Constantinople, but besides from a letter of 
the Emperor Theodosius. As this has been lost we may UIl- 
derstand it by that which St. Ambrose had written back to 
him in his own name and that of the other Bishops of Italy. 
The letter of the Empcror contained tIle answer to that 
written to him by the Synod of Italy, to complain of the 
ordination of Flavian, as Bishop of Antioch, against the right 
of Paulinus singly to succeed St. 
feletius; and of Nectarius 
as Bishop of Constantinople in place of 
Iaximus believed by 
thcm to have been unjustly expelled from that See; and to 
demand of him permission to assemble in an Ecumcllical 
Council, to restore concord between the Bishops of the two 

COUNCIL AT lt01IE IN 382. 


empires. Theodosius seems to have taken the side of the SEe T. 
Orientals, both in not approving that matters of such a nature 
should be judged of contrary to the injunction of the Canons 
out of Provincial Synods, or of the great Dioceses of the 
East, and respecting the ordinat.ion of N ectarius in place of 
l\iaximus, unworthy usurper of the Episcopal dignity. With 
respect to this second point the Bishops of Italy had with- 
drawn their opposition, confessing that they had been taken 
in by the falsehoods of the Cynic, as they might besides have 
heard from St. Damasus or St. Ascholius the circumstances 
of his sacrilegious ordination. But, so far as the demand 
made by the Synod to examine therein the causes of the Ori- 
entals, they had claimed in that not to have oVeI'passed the 
limits set by the holy Fathers, and to have followed the ex- 
ample of St. Athanasius, who was, they say, a pillar of the 
Catholic faith. \Ve may infer that the sentiments of the 
other Fathers in the Roman Council were not different from 
theirs; for though we have not its acts, nevertheless it is 
believed that it was there resolved to continue to communi- 
cate with Paulin us as the only Bishop of Antioch, and to 
II aye no intercourse with Flavian, nor with Diodorus of 
'rarsus, nor with Acacius of Beræa, as chief authvrs of his 
election; that the ordination of N ectarius was allowed there, 
as they were induced to pass oyer its defects by the urgency 
of not putting fresh obstacles in the way of the concord 
so much desired, at a time in which the Bishop of Con- 
stantinople had reached such a degree of power, that on 
him depcnded in great part the regulation of great affairs 
belonging to the Church through the whole extent of the 
Eastern Empire." 
Here then is the whole East, in the year 381, long before Resultfrom 
h I . . h B . h f R M O l the abo,'e 
t e sc l1sm, announcmg to t e IS opS 0 orne, I an, f:1.cts. 
Treves, Aquileia, Thessalonica, Sirmium, and the '\Vest, the 
election of its Patriarchs, and exercising as an ancient incon- 
testable 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. And this right of self- government 
is admitted hy the Synod of Rome itself in the case of N ec- 
tarins freely, the objection to him bcing not that he was 

C H .A P. 


ltESUI,T ntO

elected without the Pope's authority, but that l\Iaximus had 
a previous claim on his See. 'rhe 'Vesterns were indeed so 
far committed to support Paulinus, that they could not givc 
him up; and undoubtedly the election of Flavian by the 
Eastcrns could only be excused by their determination not 
to seem to admit that thc West had any superior authority 
to their own. St. Gregory of N azianzum plainly says that 
such was their motive, while he disapprovcs of the course 
pursued for other reasons. St. Ambrose, on the other side, 
as distinctly says, that the Westerns assurç.ed no prerogative 
of examining these great causes, but ought to have a share 
in their examination, where thCl'e had been somc great in- 
formality. Now granting that thc Eastern Chu;ch, as its 
own rituals to this day declare, always acknowlcdged St. 
Peter's Primacy, and that his Primacy was inherited by the 
Bishop of Rome, it is apparent at once that it never received, 
nay, most strongly abhorred the slightest appearance of, that 
systcm of centralization of aU power in Rome, which St. Leo 
seems to have had bcfore his eyes. Its most holy and illus- 
trious Fathers never submitted to this domination. That is 
saying litt1e. So far as I can see of their mind, I believe 
they ignored it. I know not how else St. Basil could have 
spoken of the Pope, and of 'V cstern pride, in such terms. 
I know not how St. Gregory of Nazianzum could have re- 
ceived the See of Constantinople from the hands of St. J\fe- 
letius and the Eastcrn Bishops. I know not how after his 
\'Olulltary cession he could have presently acknowledged 
Nectarius. I know not how Gregory of Nyssa, and Peter of 
Sebaste, the great Basil's brothers after the flesh, and iu- 
heritors of his spirit, and St. Amphilochius of Iconium, his 
much loved friend, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, could have 
sat in t11is Council of 381. I confess that I cannot under- 
stand the drift of plain words, if the Synodical letter of thc 
Council of 382, happily preserved to us by Theodoret, be not 
written as from equals to equals: and then the fact that this 
letter was admitted by the Roman Council is conclusive. 
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 
T faUs to t hc ground. 

IC.\.L COUXCIL. 105 

But now I must very briefly sum up the remarkable events S E CT. 
which I have been lately reviewing. II. 
1st. A Council is held by the Emperor Theodosius at Con- Summary 
. I . h II I d d b h P . of Second 
stalltmop e, neIt er ca e( nor acce e to y t e ope, nel- Ecumenical 
ther attended by him nor any 'Vestern Bishop, except St. COlmcil. 
Ascholius, whom they summoned as an Eastern. 
2nd. This Council is presidcd over, first by "'\Ieletius, as 
Bishop of Antioch, whom Rome aftcr a long rejection 
scarcely, if at all, endured, preferring his competitor Pau- 
Ii nus ; secondly, after his death by Gregory, a Bishop or 
Constantinople, whom the authority of J\Ieletius chiefly had 
placed in that See; thirdly, after the voluntary ces:sion of 
this Bi
hop, by his successor N ectarius, likewise elected by 
the Bishops there present, and the Emperor, under very 
unusual circumstances, inasmuch as he was actually un- 
3rdly. This Council chooses rather to perpetuatc a schism 
in the great Church of Antioch, than to accept Paulinus, an 
aged man, for Bishop of the whole flock, lest it should seem 
thercin to defer to t he authority of the 'Vest. 

1thly. This Council, of its own authority, adds most im- 
portant articles to elucidate the Nicenc Creed, and its Creed 
becomes henceforth the heirloom of the Church Catholic, 
and the symbol of the unity of East anù 'Vest. 
5thly. It not only passes Canons of discipline expressiug 
the whole plan of the Eastern Church, and setting forth its 
govcrllment by its own Provincial and Patriarchal Synod:s, 
but it alters in an important point \V hat had been thc un- 
questioned hierarchical order of the Church Catholic up to 
that time, and gives to the Bishop of Constantinople, thc 
See most jealous of the power of Rome, the second place in 
the ecclesiastical rank, which haq hitherto been enjoyed by 
the Bishop of Alexandria, the most attached of all thc East 
to the Bishop of Rome. 
6thly. This Council is received as Ecumenical by the 
Popes, and thc whole Church of East and 'Vest. That grcat 
Council of Rome, hcld the next ycar, in a sort of opposition 
to it, has so passed away that its acts can only be infelTed ; 
thc Council of Constantinoplc, complained of by the Synml 
of Aquilcia, and the ßishops of Italy, and a(lmittcd for thc 


history of 

C HAP. salw of peace by the Synod of Rome, is the second great 
11. Council of the universal Church, though it was composed of 
Eastern Bishops alone. I am aware that Pope Leo said the 
Roman Church had never received its Canons of discipline. 
De Marcil, "It is not to be concealed," says Archbishop de l\Iarca, 
l>e. Con c., 
&c. lib. 3. "that the Canons of the Second Council were never carricd 
c. 3. 
 5. to the Roman Church, nor received by it, as Leo in his letter 
to Anatolius bears \vitness." Therefore Canons, l'egulating 
the government of the whole East, were in force witllOut the 
Pope's authority. Now put side by side with these facts 
that other fact, that for many hundred years the conduct of 
the Roman Church rests upon the Idea that the Pope is the 
source of jurisdiction to all Bishops, their common Father, 
and the root of their authority, the sole vice-gerent of our 
Lord and Saviour, and the Roman Church the mother and 
mistress of all Churches. 
Proof of I know not what facts could prove the Eastern self-govern- 
Ea,.,tern t h t f: t Id d . h t R S 
self-govern- men , or w a ac s con IS prove t e presen oman u- 
ment. premacy, so far as regards the authority of the fourth cen- 
tury, if these do not. The resistance offered by the African 
Church to the progress of Papal power in the time of St. Au- 
gustine is slight com pared to the positive assertion of equality, 
so vigorously carried out into action, by the Ecumenical 
Council of 381. 
Respecting Flavian, made Patriarch of Antioch by the 
above Council, I shall add the following chapter of 'fheo- 
doret. " In Antioch the great J\/[eletius was succeeded in 
the Episcopate by Flavian, who with Diodorus had under- 
gone there many conflicts for the salvation of the flock. 
Paulin us indeed wished to take the headship of the Church. 
But the assembly of Priests" (i. e. the Council of Constantin- 
ople) "refused, saying that it fitted not that one, who had not 
accepted the offer of. J\ieletius, should after his death take 
his seat: that, on the other hand, he who had been dis- 
tinguished by so many labours, and exposed himself most of 
all to danger for the flock, ougbt to become their pastor. 
This set the Romans and Egyptians for a very long time in 
enmity with the East. For neither was the enmity termi- 
nated with the death of Paulinus (A.D. 388). For when 
after him Evagrius took his Scat, they continued hostile to 


the great Flavian, and this though Evagrius had been or- 
dained contrary to Ecclesiastical rule. For Paulinus alone 
ordained him, transgressing many Canons at once. Thesc 
do not permit a dying Bishop to ordain his successor, and 
they require all the Bishops of the Province to be caned to- 
gether. And again they forbid that a Bishop should be con- 
secrated without three Bishops. But nevertheless choosing 
to consider none of thesc things, they" (i. c. Rome and Egypt) 
" accepted tbe Communion of Evagrius, and attempted to gain 
the hearing of the Emperor against Flavian, who, being often 
troubled by them, called him to Constantinople, and bade 
him go to Rome. But Flavian, alleging the winter, and pro- 
mising at the beginning of spring to fulfil his command, re- 
turned to his country. But when the Bishops of Rome, not 
only the admirable Damasus, but his successor Siricius, and his 
again, Anastasius,earnestly pressed the pious Emperor, saying 
that he overthrew the tyrants who rose against himself, while 
he left alone in their tyranny those who made bold against the 
laws of Christ, he again sent after Flavian, and urged him to 
go to Rome. Then the most judicious Flavian, with com- 
mendable freedom, said 
 If, 0 Empcror, any accuse my faith 
as not being orthodox, or assert that my life is unworthy of 
thc priesthood, I will take my accusers themselves for judges, 
and accept the judgment which thcy give. But if it he this 
Scat and Primacy for which they are contending, I will nei- 
ther plead nor resist those who wish to take it, but I will 
yield of myself, and give up my office. Tberefore, 0 Em- 
}Jcror, give the throne of Antioch to whomsoevcr thou wilt. 
The Emperor, in admiration of this courage and wisdom, 
bade him rcturn to his country, and fecd the Church com- 
mitted to him. After a long time thc Emperor, having 
again gonc to Rome, had to suffer again the same accusations 
from thc Bishops for not putting down the tyranny of 
Flavian. In answer he bade them dcclare what sort of 
tyranny it was, saying, I am Flavian, amI stand to plead his 
causc. Upon their replying that thcy coulù not plead with 
an emperor, he exhorted them for thc future to join the 
Churches together in harmony, to give up their enmity, and 
qucnch thcir senselcss rivalry. That Paulinns had been long 
dcad, anù .Evagl'ius not lawfully ordaincd, aud the Churchcs 


SEe T. 


lOö THE Ll

C HAP. of the East maintained Flavian in his Episcopate: but besides 
II. the East, the whole Diocese of Asia, and of Pontus, and of 
Thrace also, were in Communion and connection with him: 
nay, all Illyria recognised him to be first of the Bishops of 
the East. The Bishops of the 'Vest, yielding to these repre- 
sentations, engaged to give up their enmity, and to receive 
the deputies who should be sent to them. The divine Flavian, 
learning this, sent to Rome certain distinguished Bishops, as 
well as Presb
7ters and Deacons of Antioch; at the head of 
all was Acacins, Bishop of Beræa in Syria, renowned every- 
w here over sea and land. He with thc rest came to Rome, 
A.D. 398. and terminated the long enmity of seventeen years, and ob- 
tained peace for the Churches. The Egyptians, learning 
this, gave up their enmity, and accepted union. At this time 
Innocent presided over the Church of the Romans, being 
successor to Anastasius: he was a man of sagacity and pru- 
dence: and over the Church of Alexandria, Theophilus, 
whom I have mentioned before." 
81. Chry- This happy peace is said to have been the first fruits of 


)(' or- St. Chrysostome's Episcopate, who was himself the spiritual 
RC:ldeI' nnd child of these two great Bisho p s ßieletius and Flavian, hav- 
Pnest out 
o ing been ordained Reader by the one, and Priest by the othm', 
nlOH with . 
Rome. when neIther of them was acknowledged at Rome. 
Thus the line of Paulinus and Evagrius, exclusively recog- 
nised at Rome, did not hand on the succession, and Atticus, 
Patriarch of Constantinople, writing to St. Cyril to persuade 
him to replace in the Diptychs the name of St. Chrysostomc, 

. ('nil, observes that no injury had Rrisen from" Paztlinus and Eva- 

'P. gJ"ius, the ringleaders of the schism in the Church of Antiocll, 
203. D. being after their death for the peace and harmony of nations 
inscribed in the Diptychs." 
So the unjust condemnation of St. Chrysostome by Theo- 
philus leads to the suspension of Communion between the 
Church of Rome on the one side, and the Churchcs of An- 
tioch, Constantinople, and Alexandria, on the other. At 
length Atticu
 at Constantinople, and Alexander at Antioch, 
restore the name of St. Chrysostome to its due honour, and 
re-establish Communion with the 'Vest. But the Bishops of 
Alex.andria and thcir Patriarchate do not 
7iehl so soon. Not 
only does Thcophilus die out of Communion with Rome, on 


account of his unjust persecution of that Saint, out St. Cyril SEe T. 
succeeds not merely to his office but to his principles like- II. 
wise. For at least five years after his accession to the Patri- 
archal rank he prefers being out of Communion with Rome 
before seeming to cast any reflection upon the conduct of 
his uncle Theophilus. 
N ow the conduct of all the three great Eastern Bishops IS Inference 
1 .. I } . } . . 1 f from the 
( eClSlve at east as to t leu laVIng no notion w mtever 0 an conduct of 
Ecclesiastical monarchv fixed at Rome. Yet this is in the A Al ttiClls ù ' 

 eXHIl el', 
fifth century, of which, and of the fourth, l\fr. Newman tells a,nd.St. 
1 h . I .. h I . I . Cynl. 
us t mt "t e SImp e questIon IS, w et lCr theIr c ear hght Develop- 
may be fairly taken to illuminate tile dim notices of the pre- 

t, p. 
ceding." If the illustrious president of the third Ecumeni- 
cal Council, "the Doctor of the world," as he is still termed 
in thc East, chosc rather to be out of Communion with Rome 
fur five years, than to give up a certaiu view respecting the 
conduct of St. John Chrysostome, would he have e"er pur- 
chased her Communion at the price of admitting that his 
own jurisdiction ovcr the Patriarchate of Alexandria was 
derived from her? Yet St. Cyril is a Doctor of the Church 
Catholic in the éyes of Rome, and those who now defend the 
Ecclesiastical Constitution under which St. Cyril lived, are 
termed hy her schismatic Greeks, or English l'ebels. 
Concerning the Patriarch Theophilus Tillcmont in his life Tillcmont, 
Ims the following passage: "'Vhat is certain is that he died 11. 4
separated from the Communion of the Romau Church, hav- 
ing dcscrved this just excommunication by what he had done 
against St. John Chrysostome. Charged with this fearful 
weight he went to render account of his actions to the jus- 
tice of God, which perhaps was in his case the more rigour- 
ous, because, if he did any good, he seems to have been 
recompensed in this world, both by the credit he enjoyed 
during his lifc, and by the esteem which men shew cd for 
him aftcr his death. I do not speak of Atticus," (Patriarch of 
Constantinople,) " who, writing to St. Cyril, calls Theophilus 
his holy father and a man equal to the Apostles. IIc was 
cited in the Council of Ephesus with the title of most holy 
nishop. The Eastern Bishops of the same Council declare 
that they desire to tread in the steps, and ever to follow the 
doctrine, of Athanasius, of John} of Theophilus, and of the 

110 '1'HEOPHILP:S, l'.-\.TltL\H.('U OF _\LJo:'C\
DHI \. 

C HAP. other illustrious masters of the Church: and, writing to 
II. St. Cyril, they cite the blessed Theophilus as our common 
father. Alypius, a priest of Constantinople, praises St. Cyril 
for having imitated and equalled his uncle, the blessed Theo- 
philus. Paul, Bishop of Emesæ, having set forth before the 
ople of Alexandria tþ.e faith of the Incarnation, 'llerc, 
says he, is what the blessed Athanasius, and the great Theo- 
phil us, the pillars of the Church, have taught us.' The peo- 
ple in answer called him son of Theophilus and of Athana- 
sius. Theodoret, though very zealous for the memory of 
St. Chrysostome, does not fail to write to Dioscorus, to em- 
ploy for defence of the faith against heretics the writings of 
the blessed Theophilus and Cyril: and in fact he cites Theo- 
philus in his third dialogue, thuugh he does not call him 
saint, or blessed, as he does the rest. St. Proterius of Alexan- 
dria calls him his most happy father and bishop, and cannot 
endure that it should be said of a man so watchful, so beloved 
of God, so full of the know ledge of the Scriptures, that he 
failed through want of care and diligencc to mark Easter on 
its true day. He is quoted also in the fifth Council with 
the title of saint and of blessed memory. The Council of 
l\lyra in Lycia in t58 extols the labours of Theophilus and 
of St. Cyril of holy memory, and calls them princes of the 
orthodox and genuine faith. Yincent of Lerins among tIle 
Latins calls him St. rrheophilus, a prelatc illustrious by his 
faith, his life, and his knowledge. St. Leo himself, bound 
as he was to support the conduct of the Roman Church in 
respect to him, fails not to put him with St. Athanasius and 
St. Cyril among the most excellent pastors that the Church 
of Alexandria had had, and to call him a Bi:shop of holy 
memory. He also quotes his writings among thosc of the 
saints, without giving him, however, the titlc of saint, as 
others. - I>ope Gelasius also approves the writings of the 
blessed Theophilus." St. Lco's worùs respecting him are, 
F T.('on.Ep. "that Church which at the very commencement of the Gos- 
102. pel had for its foundcr the blessed Mark, disciple of the mo:st 
blesscd Apostle Peter, in all things agreeing with the teach- 
ing of his master, and which aftcrwards, in times nearer to 
our own age, had for most excellcnt IJrelates Athallasius, 
Theophilu:s, and last of all Cyril." 



I give these two narratives for the purpose of asking two SEe T. 
] st. Did Theodoret, that same Bishop who appealed to Rcsult from 
L . I . I f D " these his- 
Pope St. eo agaInst t Ie outrageous VIO ence 0 IOscorus, tories. 
and in his letter to the Papal Legate Renatus stated that his 
Ie most holy throne has the first place over the Churches ñ-YEp.ovlav" 
h 1 I . d " d . d I E Thf'orlorpt. 
t roug lOut t Ie UnIverse on many groun s, or 1 t Ie m- tom. 4. Ep: 
peror Theodosius, or }I
lavian Patriarch of ..\ntioch, or Atti- 1l(j' t P ù .l.l
quo e III 
cus Patriarch of Constantinople, or Theophilus Patriarch of' the faith 
Al d " h . } d 
 C . 1 d " d II ofCatho- 
exan ria, or IS nep IeW an successor 
t. yn , 1 a lies.' 
these hold either the Roman Supremacy, or that Communion 
with Rome under all circumstances, that is, if she broke the 
Canon, was necessary to salvation? 
2nd. Did the many authorities, who, after his death men- 
tion with such high praise, or l'ank among the saints, Theo- 
l)hilus, who died excommunicated by the Roman Church, 
hold the consequences of that excommunication in itself to 
be so severe as they are now represented to us? In other 
words, did they holù that excommunication by the Roman 
Church differed in the natu;l.e of its autltority from that by 
the Alexandrine, or the Alltiochenc, or the COllstalltillopO- 
litan ? 


"TIlE writers of the fourth aud fifth centurics," says Testimony 
1\. 1 N " fi I I f kl II I I 
 ufSt" Au- 
J\' 1.. ewman, ear ess y asscrt, or ran y a ow, t mt t Ie 
l )rCro g ativcs of !tome were dcrivcd from A P ostolic times, 'fl.le pl'U- Ù 
nllses Ill::! e 
and that becausc it was the See of St. Peter." I confess to Pete," 
not as a 
that these words set me upon the search, and that I ha,'e particular 
fì d I . . . b Apustle but 
oun SUC 1 testImomes In abundance; ut then they are to the ' 
invariabl y to the Bisho p of Rome as lwldin g tlte j irst. See, not Cl } l
r l ch l of. 
\\ lIC 1 Ie IS 
as Episcopus 
piscoporum: they heal' witness to tlte Patri- therein the 
arc/tal system, '/lot to the Papal. For instance, aU lovers of 
truth would be obligcd to Mr. Newman to point out, in all the 
works of St. Augustine, a single passage which is sufficiently 
distinct and spccifie to justify thc 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 


s. Aug., 
tom. 5. 
IUU7. ll. 

Tom. iv. 
1:!15. E. 

Tom. 3. 2. 
633. D. 
quoteù in 
Oxf. 'fer- 
V. 4


TEs'(nIOSY 01.' ST. .\ "

'Vestern 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 im- 
possible but that such a testimony should be found, if a 
thing so wondrous as is the Papal power then existed. Ou 
the contrary, St. Augustine, 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 J\ly shecp, &c., says specifically, 
that Peter represents the Church. One of these passages 
I have already quoted. Takc another. "And I say unto 
thee, bccause thou hast said to J\Ie; 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 Rocl\" thou art Petcr; 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 l\Iy Church; not vpon Peter, 
which t/tou art, but upon the Rock which tltou hast confessed. 
But I will build J\Iy Church, I will build t/tee, wlw in t/tis 
answer 'repl'esentest the Clturclt." 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 whcn they are 
referred to the Church, which he is admitted, in figure, to 
have represented, on account of the Primacy" hich he hcld 
among the disciples,-as is,-I will give to thce the keys of 
the kingdom of Heaven i-and if there be any such like." 
Again, "One bad man represents the body of the bad: as 
Peter represents the body of the good, nay, the body of the 
Church, but in the person of the good. 1Vere not Peter a 
type of tlte Clturclt tlte Lord would not say unto Itim, I will 
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: what- 
soever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, 
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in 
heaven. If tit is be said only to Peter, t/te Church does not 
do this. But if it is wrought in the Church also, that what 



are bound on earth are bound in heaven, what loosed on SEe T. 
earth, loosed in heaven, because, when the Church ex com- Ill. 
municates, the excommunicate is bound in heaven, where 
he is reconciled by the Church, the reconciled is loosed in 
heaven, if this is wrought in the Church, Peter, when he 
received the keys, signified the holy Church." 
Again: "The Gospel just read is of the Lord Christ who Tom. 5. 
walked upon the waters of the sea, and of the Apostle Peter, t


who, walking there, through fear lost his footing, and sinking 

from want of faith rose again by his confession. It teaches Christ the 
us to consider the sea the present world, but the Apostle 
Peter the type of the one only Church. For this Peter, first in 
the order of the Apostles, most ready in the love of Christ, 
often answers singly for all. He it \Vas, at the question of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, whom men said He was, when the 
disciples gave in answer the various opinions of men, and the 
Lord again inquired amI said, But whom say ye that I am, 
Peter it was who answered, Thou art Christ, the Son of the 
living God. One for many he gave the answer, being the 
oneness in the_ many. Then the Lord said unto him, Blessed 
art thou, Simon Bar-J ona, because flesh and blood hath not 
re,"ealeù it unto thee, but 
Iy li'ather which is in hem"en. 
Then He added, And I say unto thee. As if He would say, 
because thou hast said unto 
Ie, Thou art Christ the Son of 
the living God, I also say unto thee, thou art Peter. Simon 
he was called before: but this name of Peter was given him 
by the Lord, and that iu figure, to signify the Church. For 
e Christ is the Rock, Peter is the Christian people. 
For the Rock (Petra) is the chief name. Therefore Peter 
is from Petra, not Petra from Peter: as Christ is not called 
from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. 'rhou aJ.'t 
therefore, saith He, Peter, and upon this Rock which thou 
hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast recognised, 
saying, Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, I will 
build l\Iy Church: that is, upon .Myself the Son of the living 
God, I will build 1\Iy Church. Upon 1\Ie I will build thee, 
not 1\Ie upon thcc." 
Is it for nothing, I would ask here, that God directed 
Augustine, so largely endowed by His grace allloug the 
Saints and Fathers of llis Church, thus pointedly to exclude 

C II A P. 

J>eter a 
type of 
classes of 

Tom. 4. 
1310. D. 


Y (H' ST. _'\I:'GUSTIXE 

that Yel'y interpretation on which late Roman writer51 build? 
Is it not a great witness and beacon-light of the truth that 
he speaks so often so uniformly and so decisivcJy on tIllS 
passage, seeing in it the deepest spiritual meaning, and tltat 
a mraning oproscd to the one set on it by modern Rome? 
lIe proceeds, "For men, wishing to be built on men, said, 
I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, that is, 
Peter. Aud others, who would not be built upon Peter, but 
upon the Rock, said, I am of Christ. But when the Apostle 
Paul found that he was selectcd and Christ despised, Is 
Christ, saith he, divided? 'Vas Paul crucified for you? Or 
were ye baptized in the name of Paul? As not in the name 
of Paul, so neither in that of Peter, but in That of Christ, 
that Peter might be built npon the Rock, not the Rock upon 
Peter." . . . . "Let us, contemplating this member of the 
Church, distinguish what is of God, what of oursehes. For 
then shall we not be shaken, then shall we be founded OIl 
the Rock, be firm and stable against winds, rains, and 
streams, that is, the temptations of the present world. But 
look on that Peter, 'lvltO was ihen our i!/pe. One moment lIe 
has faith; an Otllel' momcnt he is shaken: one moment he 
confesses the Immortal; at another fcars His death. "There. 
fore, as the Church of Christ hath strong ones, so too hath 
she weak: she can neither be without the strong, nor with- 
out the weak. \Vhence the Apostle Paul saith, we that are 
strong ought to bear tbe burdens of the weak. In that Peter 
said, 'Thou art Christ the Son of the living God,' he is n 
type of the strong: in that he trembles and tottcrs, and will 
not ha,'e Christ suffcr, fearing death, not recognising the 
IJife, he is a type of the Church's weak ones. So that in 
that one Apostle, that is, Peter, first and chief in the order 
of the Apostles, in whom the Church was figured, there was 
to be a type of both kinds, the strong and the weak: because 
without both the Church cxists not." 
Again, commenting on the 13rd ,"erse of the 1 I 9th Psalm, 
"Take not the word of Thy truth utterly out of my moutll. 
lIe says, out of his mouth, bccause the unity of the Body 
speaketh, among whose members they aJso are reckoned, 
who for a moment through deuial have failed, but repenting 
have afterwards recovcred their life, or even, rcne" illg thcir 


] 15 

confcssion , carried off the l )alm of martvrdom which thev S E (" T. 
. . III 
had lost. Not thereforc uttcrly . . . . was the word of truth ---" - 
taken out of the mouth of Peter, in whom was the type of 
the Church, because though for a moment he denied through 
the confusion of fear, yet by weeping he was restored, and 
by confessing afterwards crowned. So then the whole Body 
of Christ speaketh, that is, the universality of the holy 
Church, in which whole Body, whethcr, though very many 
dcnicd, yet stedfast ones remained, who contcnded cvell to 
death for the truth, or because, even out of thosc who had 
denied, many were restored, the word of truth was not tal
utterly out of his mouth. But for what he says, Take not 
away, we must understand, Suffer not to be taken away, as we 
say in praying, Lead us not into temptation. And the Lord 
Himself said to Peter, I haye prayed for thee that thy faith 
fail not, that is, that the word of truth be not tal\:en utterly 
out of thy mouth." 
And elsewhere on the words, 'Yhen thou art cOllverted, Tom. 5. 930. 
strengthen thy brethren, " Clearly hath he strengthened us A. 
by his A postolate, hy his martyrdom, by his letters." 
Again, "No where should the bowels of mercy so prevail Tom.G.2GO. 
as in the Catholic Church, so that, like a tl'ue mothcr, she 13. E. 
neither proudly insult her children when in sin, nor be hard 
to parùon thém when corrected. For not without reason out 
of all the Apostles cloth Peter represent this Catholic Church: 
for to this Church were the 
eys of the kingdom of heaycn The keys 
. I h . P A d I .. . I gi\'en to tIll) 
gl\Tcn, W lcn t ey were gIven to eter. 11 W len It IS sau Churdl. 
to him, it is said to all, Lovest thou J\Ie? Feed 1\f)T sheep. 
Therefore the Catholic Church ought willingly to pardon 
her childrcn when corrccted and confirmed in piety, inas- 
much as we see that pardon was granted to Peter himself 
representing hcr, both when he lost courage upon the sea, 
and when with carnal feeling he drcw back the Lord from 
]Jis Passion, and when he Cll1t off the servant's ear with the 
sword, and when he thrice dcnied the. Lord Himse1f, and 
whcn he afterwards fell into a superstitious dissimulation; 
and so he was corrccted, and strengthcned, and carried on 
C\Ten to the glory of the Lord's Passion." And thus, he 
proceeds, "The Catholic Church received into her maternal Peter the 
1 " I B . I I 1 1 A . . I . P t\'pe of re- 
J080111 t Ie IS lOpS W 10 la( rIa11IZC(, U aii' It were eter tì:mling 
I 2 penitents. 


C II A P. after the tears of his denial admonished by the crowing 
II. of the cock, or as it were the same after his evil dissimulation 
corrected by Paul's voice." 
Tom. 5. 240. Again:" For Peter himself, to whom He entrusted His 
}'. sheep as to another self, He willed to make one with Him- 
self, 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; find that, as man and wife, they might 
be two in one flesh." Again: "The Lord Jesus chosc 
out His disciples before His Passion, as ye know, whom 
lIe named Apostles. Amongst these, Peter alone almost 
everywhere was thought worthy to represent the wholc 
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 hut 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 saJ's to all His Apostles: 
Receive the Holy Ghost. And presently: \Yhosesoever sins 
ye remit, they are remitted to him; whosesoever ye retain, 
they are retained. This belongs to the keys concerning 
which it was said, 'Vhat 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 wholc Church, hear what is 
TOlU.5. said to him/' &c. "For deservedly, after His resurrection, 
1195. E. 
And the the Lord delivered lIis sheep to Peter himself to feed; for he 
com fi nU I "ss f ion was not the onl y one among the disciples 'lVltO 'Was thounllt 
to ec( t Ie ., 
sheep. -worthy to feed the Lord's sheep. But when Christ speaks to 
one, unity is commended; and to Peter aboye all, becausc 
Peter is the first among the Apostles." Again," Therefore 
to Peter, whom He wished to make a good shepherd, He 
saith, not in the person of that individual Peter but as ill 
His own Body, Peter, lovest thou l\Ie? Feed 
fy sheep. 'fhis 
He saith once, this twice, this a third time so as even to 
cause him sorrow:" and further on, "Understand then how 

Tom. 5. 
I1\H. E. 


The keys 
not given 
to Peter 
alone but 
to the 

Tom. 8. 
pars 2. G07. 
E. 608. D. 
quoted by 





the Lord Jesus Christ is both Door and Shepherd: Door by SEe T. 
opening Himself, Shepherd by entering through Himself. III. 
And indeed, Brethren, in that He is a Shepherd He hath 
bestowed this on His members: for both Peter is a shepherd, 
and Paul a shepherd, and the other Apostles are shepherds, 
and good Bishops are shepherds." Again:" As in the Apo- TOlll. 3- 
stIes, the number itself beiug tweh'e, that is, four divisions 

into three,"-(he seems to mean, that there was a mystical 
universality betokened in the number four, as a mJ'stical 
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 pOlcer 
of binding and loosing; the case really being, that he singly 
said that in the name of all, and receired this together with all, 
as representing unity itself; therefore one in the name of all, 
because unity is in all." Lastly, commenting on the follow- 
ing words of the last chapter of St. John's Gospel, "If I will 
that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou 
l\Ie:" he is led to explain the two states of life which the 
Apostles Peter and John represent. It is a view so deep 
and spiritual, so beautiful and striking, that, besides its bear- 
ing on the subject we have in hand, it well deserves con- 
templation for its own sake. 
"This doth the Church that is blessed by hope in this S. Aug. 
calamitous life: which Church the Apostle Peter in virtue 

of the Primacy of his Apostolate represented, being the tJ'pe Peter the 
of its uni,'ersality. For, as to his own proper person, by 


nature he was a single man, by grace a single Christian, by J fì o

l"IlltlOn to 
more abundant grace a single, but at the same time the come. 
first, Apostle. But when it was said to him, I will give to 
thee, &c., he represented the whole Church, which in this 
world is shaken by divers temptations, as it were storms, 
streams, tempests, and faUeth not because it is founded upon 
the Rock, whence Peter received his name. For the Rock 
(Petra) is not called from Peter, but Peter from tbe Rock, 
as Christ is not called from the Christian, but the Christian 
from Christ. For therefore saith the Lord, upon this Rock 
I will build J\Iy Church, because Peter had :said, Thou art 
Christ, the Son of the living God. Therefore saith He, 


Y 0.1" ST. _\.UaeSTINE 

CH AP. upon this Rock which thou hast confessed I will build l\Iy 
II. Church. For the Rock was Christ, upon which foundation 
Peter too himself is built. For other foundation can no 
man lay beside that which is laid, which is t
hri:5t Jesus. 
The Church therefore which is founded on Christ, received 
fi'Olll Him ill Peter's person .the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven, that is, the power of binding and loosing sins. For 
what the Church is properly in Christ, that is Peter typically 
in the Rock: by which type Christ is understood to be the 
Rock, Peter the Church. This Church therefore, which 
Peter typificd, so long as She dwells among evib, by loving 
and following Christ is delivered from those evils. But She 
follows Him the more in those who contend for the truth 
C\Ten unto death. Yet it is said to her as a whole, Follow 
l\'Ic, for which wholc Christ suffered: concerning whom the 
same Peter saith, Christ suffered for us leaving to us an 
exam pIc that \Ve may follow His footsteps. Sce wherefore 
it was said to him, Follow thou l\:Ie. But there is another 
deathless life, which dwelleth not in C\Tils: there shall we see 
face to face what here is seen as in a glass darkly when great 
advance is made in the vision of the truth. Two lives are 
there thm'efore which the Church knoweth to be from God 
declared and recommended to bel', of which the one con- 
:sisteth in faith, the other in sight; one is in the time of our 
pilgrimage, the other in the eternity of our dwelling place; 
one in labour, the other ill rest; one in journey, the other in 
home; one in the work of a@tion, the other in the reward 
of contemplation; one escheweth evil, and doeth good, the 
other hath no evil which to eschew, but a grcat good to enjoy; 
one fighteth with the enemy, the other reigneth without an 
enemy; one is brave in adversity, the other fceleth no ad- 
versity; one settcth a rein on carnal lusts, the other is en- 
wrapt in spiritual dcligllts; one is anxious through solicitude 
to conquer, the other secure in the tranquillity of victory; 
one rcceiveth help in temptations, the other without any 
temptation hath its joy in the helper Himself; one suc- 
cOUl'eth the indigent, the other is there where it findeth no 
indigence; one pardoneth another's sins in ordcr to have its 
own pardoned, the other ncither sufl'ereth what has need of 
lmrùoll, nor doeth what it asks to be parùollcd; one is 



scourged by evils that it may not be puffed up in blessings, 
the other in so great a sea of grace is free from all evil, 
so that without any temptation of pride it adheres to its 
supreme good; one discerneth good and evil, the other secth 
only good: one thereforc is good, hut as yet wretched, the 
other better, and blessed. The former is typified by the 
.Apostle Peter, the other by J olm. Here the former con- 
tinueth unto the end of this world, and there findeth its 
own end: the lattcr is put off for its completion till after the 
end of this world, but in the world to come hath no end. 
Therefore is it said to one, Follow J\Ie: but to the other, If 
I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow 
thou 1\Ie. I!"or what means this? as far as I feel, as far as 
I understand, it meaneth, Follow thou )Ie by bearing like 
1\le temporal evils, let him tarry until I come to bestow 
eternal goods. 'Vhich may bc said more plainly thus, Let 
perfect action follow 
le moulded by the example of 1\Iy 
passion: let contemplation that is begun tarry till I come, 
to be perfected when I have come. But let no one separate 
those distinguished Apostles: for in that whereof Peter was 
a type, both were, and in that whereof John was a type, both 
were to be. 'rypically, the one followed, the other tarried: 
but by faith both endured the present evils of this our 
misery, both waited for the future goods of that blessedness. 
Nor they alone, but the universal holy Church, the Bride of 
Christ, doeth this, She that is to be deliverëd out of those 
temptations, She that is to be prcserved in that happiness. 
"'hich two lives Peter and John typified respectively: but 
in this life both temporally walked through faith, as both 
through sight shall eternally enjoy the other. Tlwrefore fm. 
all saints inseparably belonging to tile Body of Cltrist Pete'/" 
lite first of tlte Apostles received the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven for binding and loosing sins, in order to guidance 
tlt1.ough tltis most stormy life; and for the same all saints 
in order to thc unbroken repose of that most secrct lifc did 
John the Evangelist recline on the bosom of Christ. Since 
it is neil/tel. the former alone but the whole Church whicl, 
bindetlt alld looseth sins: nor did the latter for himself alone 
imbibe from thc fountain head of the Lord's bosom those 
sublimc truths which by his prcaching he was to give forth 


] iO 

T.ESTUlOXY 01<' ST. Al'GU::iTl!\.E 

CHAP. again, concerning God the Word in the beginning with 
II. God, and the rest concerning the Godhead of Christ, and 
the Trinity and Unity of the whole Godhead, truths which 
in that kingdom shall be contemplated face to face, but 
now, until the Lord's coming, are to be seen in a glass 
darkly: but rather the Lord Himself diffused through the 
whole world that very Gospel to be imbibed by all His own, 
each according to their sevcral capacitJ." 
In after times reviewing his earlier works he observes, 
TulU 1. 32. that in a book written in his pre:sbyterate "I said in a cer- 
tain place concerniug the A postle Peter that the Church is 
founded on him as on a rock: which meaning is also sung 
by the mouth of many in the verses of the blessed Ambrose, 
where he says of the cock, 'At his song the rock of the 
Church himself wipes away his crime.' But I know that I 
]UlVC afterwards in very many places so expounded the Lord's 
saying, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build J\Iy 
Church,' as to be understood of Him whom Peter confessed, 
saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And so 
l)eter, named from this Rock, would tJ'pify the person of the 
Church, which is built npon this Rock, and hath received 
the kcys of the kingdom of heaven. }'or it was not said to 
him, Thou art the Rock (Petra), but, Thou art Peter (a stone). 
But Christ was the Rock, whom Simon confessing, as the 
whole Church confesses Him, was called Petcr. But of these 
two meanings let the rcader choose the more probable." 
'Vhich is the view this great Father preferred is evidcnt 
from his frequent exposition of it. But he is throughout 
one and consistent in interpreting the Rock, the giving of 
the Keys, the words, I have prayed for thee that thy faith 
fail not, and the commission to feed thc sheep and the 
lambs. Throughout them all he considers Peter the type 
of the whole Church, never taking him as distinct from his 
brother Apostles, but expressly rejecting that notion, when 
it occurs. So entirely is this the case that he takes the 
special promise in :ì\1att. xvi. 16, made to Peter, as made to 
Tom. 3. 2. the Church herself. Thus," "
here rcmission of :sins is, 

Ì:;;i by there is the Church. How the Church? For to hcr was 
Launoy. said, I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
hcayen," &c. 



"It is asked," says Bossuet, "in what sense was Peter the SEe T. 
k d . . III. 
figure of the Church? As a na e sIgn? or as a certam Def., lib. 8. 
part of the Church? or as her superior? \Ve answer with c.19. 
readiness that Christ was pleased that the Church should be See :Mr. 
figured in Peter as in the Chief. But that he represented 


the Church in such a sense as to include her whole power t t he con- 48 
rary, p. , 
and authority as inherent in, and present to, 11Ímself, which 49. 
is peculiar to an Universal Council, no Saint whatever, not 
Augustine, not any other of the holy Fathers, imagined." 
It may likewise be observed, that while on the one hand Sum of St. 
. d h .. I . d d . d d . Augustine's 
amI t e spuItua meanIngs so eep an WI e-sprea mg testimony 
given to these most remarkable passages of Scripture there s

is a total silence as to the office and function of the Bisho p alleged h to 
prove t e 
of Rome in the whole Church being shadowed out by these Supremacy. 
expressions to Peter, on the other hand there runs through 
this oft-repeated exposition an indirect but specific denial of 
the present Roman doctrine, that all spiritual jurisdiction 
throughout the whole Church is derived from the See of 
Rome. Thus the negative and affirmative argument from 
St. Augustine is equally strong. It is indeed the doctrine 
of all antiquity that the power of the keys, which involves 
jurisdiction, is inherent in the Episcopal character, as well 
as the sacerdotal power, and is part of the inheritance re- 
ceived by all BiRhops from Christ through the Apostles. 
I may remark hcre, that St. Leo the Great does apply the 
passages concerning the Rock and feeding the sheep 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. Augustine's different application is the 
more remarkablc. 


TH E strongest expressions respecting the power of the Reference 
R S I . I b bl . h I f maùe to the 
oman ee, w l1ch have een a e to find In t e wor is 0 Roman See 
St. Auo'ustille are contained not in his P rO ! Jer works but in throughout 
b , , 
two letters of Pope St. Inllocent, written in answer to the 
synodical letters of thc Council of 1\:Iilc\'i,-" who thought fit 


T 1., A
D Till!: 

ClI A P. likewise to communicate their judgment to the Pope St. IIl- 
__II._ _ nocent in order to joiu the Apostolicul authority to their 
Fleury 23,. 
30. Oxf. 'fr. own." Their own words are,-"" hat we have done, Su' 
s. Au 2 go 6 ' 18 and Brother, we have thought good to intimate to your holy 
tom.. . 
B. 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 per- 
versity of some.'"' They were writing concerning a point 
nearly touching the common faith, i. e., in condemnation of 
s. Au
., _ Pelagius. The Pope, in his answer, praises them, that" in 
tom. 2. 63..,. . .. . h h . J . b h 
.F. mqmrmg concernmg t ese matters, W IC 1 It e oves to be 
treated with all care by Priests, amI especially by a true, 
just, and Catholic Council, observing the precedents of an- 
cient tradition, and mindful of .Ecclesiastical discipline, you 
have confirmed the strength of our religion not less now ill 
consulting us, than by sound reason bcfore you pronounced 
sentence, inasmuch as you approved of reference being made to 
our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since 
all we who are placed in this position desire to follow the 
Apostle himself, from whom the very Episcopate, and all the 
authority of this title sprung. Following whom we know as 
well how to condemn the evil as to approve the good: as, for 
instance, that guarding, according to the duty of Pricsts, 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 wlwteve'!. 'Was being carried 
on, although ill the most distant and remote Provinces, should 
'not be terminated before it lVas brought to tile kllowledge of 
this See: by the full a'lltlwrity of wltielt the jlu;t sentence 
should be confirmed, and that thence all other Clmrcltes 
might derive w/tat they should order; wh01n tlley s/lOuld 
absolve,. w/LOm, as being bemired with inefJ'aceaúle pollutiun, 
the stream, that is worthy unly of pure bodies, should avoid; 
so that as from tlleir parent source all waters should flow, 
and through the different regions of the whole world the 
pure streams of the fountain well forth uncorrupted.'"' And 
in like manner to the Bishops of Numidia, at the same Coun- 
Tom. 2.639. cil. "Y e do, therefore, diligently and becomingly consult 
D. 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 SECT. 
on doubtful matters, following in sooth the direction of the IV. 
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 
Tour prudence is aware of it: for how could you by 
your actions have confirmeù 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 Petet', 
that is, the source of their own name and honour, just as 
)Tour 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 scvered from Ecclesiastical communion by our 
There is certainly an indefiniteness about these expres- 
sions, which may be made to embrace any thing; 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. Augustine's mouth) 
they would have much more force. They shew 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 )Ietropolitans. Nay, at this 
very time, within less than a celltur
T, a rival power had 
grown up in the East, in the See of Constantinople, which, 
from a simple bishopric, under the Exarch of Heraclea, 
had bcgun to push asiùe the Patriarchs of Alexandria and 
.Antioch; and, by virtue of the Imperial residence at or 
Ileal' Constantinople, to exercise as great an influence 
through the whole East, as Rome did in the "\Vest. If this 
happencd 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 'Vest the 
single object of common reverence j for, " who knows not," 
says this same Pope Innocent, "or observes not, that what Innocent 1. 
has been dclivcred by Peter, the chicf of the Apostles, to the :;J

Roman Church, and is kept uutil 110W, ought to be retained timn. Cou- 



C HA P. by all; nor ought any thing to be brought in or superinduced 
II.. thereon, wl1Ïch hath no authority, or seemeth to derive its 
stant. Eplst. . 
: I'ont. precedents elsewlwre? Especially since it is manifest, that 

ted over all Italy, the Gauls) Spain, Africa, and Sicily, and the 


 Tcr- inteljacent islands, no one formed Churcl}es except those 
p.470: whom the venerable Apostle Peter or his successors made 
Priests. ,Or let tllem find documents that any otller Apostle 
be found to have been, or have taught, in these Provinces. If 
not, they ought to follow that which the Roman Church 
keeps, from whom they undoubtedly had their origin; lest, 
while they eagerly follow foreign statements, they seem to 
neglect the fountain-head of tlwir institution." The admis- 
sion that another Apostle's teaching, had it existed, might 
have been legitimately appealed to in favour of varying cus- 
toms, is remarkable. 'Ye see, likewise, that the Pope, on 
the Patriarchal theory, ,-ras the common father of the whole 
West, in which however the British Isles are not men- 
Iarca, eXplaining the above three passages of St. In- 
r3rca, Docent, says, "The right which he claims for his See, he 
de Cnncor. d . . I f h C f I 1\T" C . 1 " 
lib. ï. c. 12. en ves entIre y rom t e anons 0 t Ie l.' lcene ouncl, not 
those of Sardica. "The sixth Nicene Canon preserved to 
the Roman Church the privileges of which it was then in 
possession, in like manner as to the Churches of Alexandria 
and Antioch, and the others of high dignity. But it does 
not explain in what those privileges consisted, nor to what 
Provinces they extended. :Moreover it ascribes all to custom, 
which at such a distance of time can with difficulty be 
traced, because new Canons have entirely changed the an- 
cicnt form. Thence it is that we have much labour at pre- 
sent to discover those rights. However, we may affirm that 
the two Italian Dioceses" (i. e. that of Rome ill ten Provinces, 
and that of J\Iilan in seven), "entirely obeyed during those 
times the ordinances of the Apostolic See, inasmuch as tl1CY 
constituted its Patriarchal Synod, as I have elsewhere shewn. 
But the other Provinces of the "
cst were bound to send re- 
ports to it, as to the See in which dwelt the chiefship of the 
Apostolic See, and whence the faith had been disseminated 
into the Provinces. The faith then had, as it were, been 
formed in the womb of Home. But thc Churches of the 

S!,;D llY TIlE HO:\L\.N SEI<


other Provinces of the 'Vest were like colonies depending on SEe T. 
that city. In which they resembled the Italian Churches." IV. 
"That subjection of '\Vestern P.I'ovinces not belongiug to 
the Patriarchal Synod of Rome, consisted not merely in a 
certain re'"erence and obedience to the Apostolic See, but 
chiefly in that they were bound to report to the Roman 
Pontiffs on the more difficult and doubtful questions which 
arose. In this the supreme Pontiff exercised a certaiu im- 
perial right, which proves his supreme authority; for they 
are mistaken who look for it in the appeals of Bishops, which 
were not 'received in the ancient Clturch. 
"But the better to understand the particularity of that 
right of report, we must remark that the term was derived 
from the civil law ; where we read that the chief magistrates 
of Provinces made reports to the sovereign, when the arising 
of a doubtful point required it. . . But in the Church there 
were two kinds of causes in which the use of reports was ne- 
cessary: that is, so often as there was question of points of 
controverted faith, or of any point of doubtful discipline not 
yet defined with sufficient clcarness in the Canons. . . . That 
right of the Apostolic See to receive reports from Councils, 
Innocent ascribes to the Canons, and to ancient custom," to 
the Canons in the second of the above extracts, and to an- 
cient tradition and the Canons in the first. 
The Bishops of Rome from the earliest times, by a right T!lis ri
b d b C " I . 1 . h . S of rel'CIYlIlg' 
not estowe y any ounCI, but In lerent In t ell' ee, as rl'l'ùrts llot 
that of the A p ostle Pete.l', exercised a su p ervision of faith and L Le

uwe(I. I 
VvOlIllCI s. 
discipline over the w hole West. This was the special func- . 
tiOll of thcir Primacy: by this they were the centre of unity 
to all the 'Vest. Thus they were connected with the Bishops 
of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Illyricum, who did not 
form part of their original Patriarchal Synod, but who were 
accustomed to make reports to them, and receive decisions 
from them, on the majores causæ, defined above by De J\Iarca 
to comprise points of controverted faith, or points of doubt- 
ful discipline. 
From the time of Pope Siricius (A.D. 385) downwards we 
!>os:sess a regular se.l.ies of letters addrcsscd by the Popcs to 
the most distant Bishops of the \V cst: and in thc first of 
these lettcrs they refer to thc practice of consulting them, 



CHAP. and receiving decisions from them, as very ancient. Thus 
II. St. Innocent says to Victricius, Bishop of Roucn: "If any

"m. causes or contentions arise between Clergy, as wcll ill the 
Pont. 749. greater as in the minor orders, let the strife be arranged, 
according to the Niceue Council, by assembling the Bishops 
of that Province: (5th Canon:) nor let anyone be allowed, 
without prcjudice howevcr to the Roman Church, reverence 
to which in all causes ought to be maintained, to leavc those 
Priests (Bishops) who in that Province hy divinc will gm"crn 
the Church of God, and to betake himself to other Prm"inces. 
\Yhich if perchance anyone should presume to do, lct him 
be removcd from his rank ill the Clergy, and judged hy all 
guilty of the wrongs done. If tlte greater causes inten.eue, 
let reference, after the judgment of tlte Bishops, úe made to tlte 
Apostolic See, as the Council orde1's, and as blessed custum, 
'file sixth Canon of the Nicene Council orders tllis, be- 
cause it requires the privilege3 of the Churches to bc main- 
tained, and this had bcen from the carliest timcs thc special 
privilege of the Roman Church in the 'Vest, like to that C"X- 
ercised by the See of St. J\Iark in Egypt, and by the See of 
the A postle Pctcr in the East. 
The power of judging Episcopal causes on appeal was, as 
we have seen, bestowed upon the Roman Bishop by Councils, 
or decrecs of the imperial power: not so this power of issn- 
ing decisions on doubtful points of faith and discipline. 
This was the proper power of his Apostolate and Pl'imacy: 
in virtue of this he reccived the decrees of 1>.l'ovincial or 
General Councils, and transmitted them to the IJishops of 
the \Vest, or even, if they wcre contrary to the Canons or the 
Faith, rcfused his consent to them, as St. Leo did to the 
second Council of Ephesus. A very great and important 
powcr, the germ no doubt of much that the Papacy became 
after the time of Popc Nicholas 1., a power, likewise, whicl., 
duly exercised, was of great moment to the well-being of tlw 
Church, e\'en an instrument in God's hands for keeping hcr 
one kingdom of faith and love, for preventing hcr dissolution 
into as many Satrapies as shc has Bishops, for prcscnillg in 
the several nations, hcr component parts, a lively sensc of her 
being one organized and proportioncd boùy, nceding unity 

!'03SES5EU BY THE ItO:\TA1\ slm. 


of will , due g rowth , and cohesion of members: but at the S E C T. 
same time a limited and exceptional power, not without its- 
parallel in the East, not overriding custom and tradition, its 
own basis, and by no means involving the authority of a 
monarch: in fine, the exhortation or correction of an elder 
Brother, not the command of a Father. 
From the above letter, says De J\Iarca, "a very remark- De Marea. 
bl I . d d 1 I . tl . t . f ] de COllcor., 
a c ru e IS e ucel, t mt It was not . 1e III enbon 0 t Ie ilL. í. c.13. 
Roman. Bishops in giving answers after consultation to pre- 
scribe new laws by these answers, or introduce new statutes, 
but only to recall the minds of Christians to the observance 
of the Canons and of ancient tradition. 'Not,' says Inno- Constant. 
cent, 'that new precepts be enjoined, but that we de
ire what p. í47. 
has been neglected through the negligence of certain persons 
be ohserved by all, bcing, howeve.l', things of Apostolic usage, 
anù ruled by the appointment of the Fathers.' II ence it is 
that Leo 1. somewhcre writes that his decrees and those of 
his predccessors, were drawn from the discipline of the 
Canons: 'promulgcd,' he says, 'from the rules of the 
" Those answers, however, are not to be so taken, as if they 
were in the I)lace merely of simple advice, but as decisions 
drawn from the Canon or traùition, to the observance of 
which the Bishops were bound. I,lor this reason Siricius 
charges Uimcrius to takc care that his answers be carried 
to the Bishops of the Province of Tarragona, and also to those 
living in the other four Prov1nce
 of Spain, namely in that 
of Carthagclla, now of Toledo, that of Andalusia, Lusitania, 
and Gallicia. '''Te now,' says Siricius, 'more and more in- Comtant. 
cite the mind of your brothcrhood to preserve the Canons, p. G
and to hold the decrctal Constitutions, that yon cause to be 
hl'Ought to the kllowlcdge of aU our Bishops our answers to 

'our consultations.' " 
Thc two .African Synods, thereforc, of Carthage and of 
Milevi, A.D. 416, at which latter St. Augustine was present, 
ha\'ing passed a dccree censuring the Pelagian heresy, made 
a report of it to the Bishop of !tome, as being one of thc 
'1llujures cuusæ, concerning, that is, a point of faith. .And 
St. Innocent rcturued the auswcr above quoted, in terms, 
says St. Augustinc, becoming the Apostolic Sec: and two 



C II AP. great Provincial Councils having thus spoken, and their 
II. judgment having being confirmed by the Apo
tolic See, all 
the authority that was needed for crushing an incipient 
heresy had been exercised. Accordingly St. Augustine ob- 

om. 5.645. serves in a sermon, H Refute gainsayers and bring opponents 
c. to us; for already two Councils on this matter have been 
sent to the Apostolical See; replies from whence have also 
been received. The cause is terminated: would that the 
error may presently terminate likewise." 
One other greater authority there was in the Church, that 
Tom. 10. of a General Council, but elsewhere he had said, H 'Vas there 
2. F. 
need of a Council being called together that an error plainly 
destructive might be condemned? As if no heresy were ever 
condemñed without the calling together of a Council; the 
fact being that very few are found which entailed such a 
necessity in order to condemn them, and that there are 
many, nay, incomparably more, ,,,,hich deserved to be cen- 
slued and condemned in the place where they sprung up, 
and might thence be made known through the rest of the 
world for avoidance. But their pride, which exalts itself so 
much against God, that it would glory not in Him, but in its 
free-will, is seeu to catch at this glory likewise, that a COUIl- 
cil of the East and "rest be assembled on their account. JJ 
St. Augustine, then, speaks of such a Council as having a 
superior authority to the Pope. Now it so happens thJ1t 
though no such Council was called on account of the Pelagian 
heresy, yet that the Third Ecumenical Council, fifteen years 
after this, did ratify the Papal judgment. III their relation 
l\Iansi 4. to Po p e Celestine the y sa y, H The account of what was done 
133"1. B. 
at the deposition of the impious Pelagians, and Celestians, 
Celestine, Pelagius, Julian, Persidius, Florus, 
Orentius, and those of the same mind with them, having 
been read in the Holy Council, we likewise judged that the 
decree passed against them by your Piety should be ratified 
and confirmed. .And we all are of one mind with you, hold- 
ing them for deposed." 
In another place St. Augustine contemplates the po
of Pope Zosimus, the successor of St. Innocent, having 
supported the heretic Pelagius, instead of condcmuing him. 
In fact the Pelagians falsely asserted that Zosirn us had 


supported lJÏm. "But if, which God forbid, such a jlulf;- SIif. T . 
mcnt had then been pronounced in the Roman Church COT1- ' 1 '- II 
om. 1. 
cerning Cclestius or Pelagius, tlmt those their opinions, which 434, E. re- 
. . ferred to by 
Pope Innocent had condemned In them and wIth them, Launoy. 
should have been declared to be sound tenets, it would ha\"e 
followed from this rather that the brand of surrendering the 
truth was to be impressed on the Roman Clergy." Again, 
speaking of the virulent calumnies of a Donatist : 
" ''''hat need, then, is there, that I should answer the accusa- Tom. 9. 541, 
tions he has brought against Bishops of the Roman Church, 

j tÿ 
whom he has pursued with incredible calumnies? ßIarcelli- Launoy. 
nus, and his Presbyters, 
Iarcellus,anù Silvester," Hypothet- 
( II P ) 1 b I . f d . I d .. kal Heresy 
a opes," are accusec y lun 0 surren ermg tIe Ivme of Popes ". 
writinO's anù of offerinO' incense."-Then further 011 "Trulv fatal to 
b , b , 
it is no slight consolation nor one little glorious to anyone not to the 
of us, if we are accused by the Church's foes together with Church. 
tIle Church herself. Her defence, however, does not consist 
in the defence of those individuals whom they by name 
assault with their false accusations. Assuredly of whatever 
character were :Marcellinus, J\Iarcellus, Silvester, J\Ielchi- 
ades," (Bishops of Rome,) "
Iensurius, Cæcilianus," (Bi- 
shops of Carthage,) "and others against whom they object 
what they please in behalf of their dissension, no hurt arises 
to the Catholic Church spread throughout the whole world. 
If they be innocent, we in no degree share their crown: if 
they be guilty, we in no degree share t11eir guilt. If they 
were good, in the threshing of the Catholic floor as grain 
they have been winnowed: if they were bad, in the thresh- 
ing of the Catholic floor as straw they have been crushed." 
Here, as Launoy observes, there is no division of Roman Force of 
Pontiffs into private Doctors who maverr, and P ublic who this lan- 

may not, or into those who teach the whole Church, and 
those who do not, or into those who pronounce ex cathedra, 
and those who do not, but it is said absolutely, the Church's 
defence does not consist in the defence of 
Iarceninus, J\lar- 
cellus, Silvester, and 
Ielchiades, Bishop& of Rome, any more 
than in that of :\Iensurius and Cæcilianus, Bishops of Car- 
thage. Had Augustine considered the decision of the Roman 
Pontiff to be the voice of the Church Catholic, and that 
Pontiff the Vicar of Christ In a sense in which no other 



CHAP. Bishop was, would it have been respectful, would it have 
been compatible with common sense, to speak thus? But 
if he looked upon that Bishop as the occupant indeed of the 
single Apostolical See of the 'Vest, and the first of all his 
brethren and colleagues both in the East and \Vest, but 
still only an individual Bishop, he might blamelessly, he 
woulù naturally, so speak. 'Vhat Roman Catholic would so 
speak now of the Pope? This is the difference between 
Primacy and Supremacy; bet\veen being guardian and dc- 
fender of the Church's Canons, and her Head; between Peter 
and Christ. 
But if an erroneous decision of a Roman Pontiff in a 
matter of Faith would only result in his personal condemna- 
tion, as St. Augustine declared in the case of Zosimus, did 
he use similar language in respect to a plenary Council? 
On the cOlltrary, to this he attributes the supreme and final 
authority which he never supposes to reside in the See of 
Rome. I have pointed out this above in the case of reba}J- 
tizing heretics. In another place after setting forth certain 
Tom. 9.202, difficult questions respecting Baptism he continues, "But 
B. quoted fi . t t I . I h . I 
by Launoy. our sa e course IS, no 0 touc 1 WIt 1 any ras JLU gment on 
points the consideration of which has been entered upon by 
no Catholic Provincial Council, and terminated by no Plenary 
Council: but with the confidence of security to assert that 
which has been confirmed by the consent of the universal 
Church under the government of our Lord God and Saviour 
Jesus Christ." 
We cannot better arrive at St. Augustine's opinion than 
by contrasting his language respecting the occupants of the 
See of Rome with that concerning an Ecumenical Council. 
But the words of the Church's greatest Doctor are more than 
borne out by the legislative acts of that vast Communion, con- 
taining six Provinces, and four hundred and sixty Bishops, 
which his spirit directed and animated. 

Contrast of 
his lan- 
guage re- 
specting a 

SECT. v. 

IN the latter years of St. Augustine's life, bctween 418 
and 126, the important question, as to whether appeal:s from 



the African Clergy and Bishops to the Roman See should be SEe T. 
allowed, was settled. I t will be necessary to state the case A _V I . 
ppea s 
fully on account of the strong light it throws on the then from Mrica 
. . f I Ch h . t t . t h to the 
eXIstmg government 0 tie urc, Its es Imony 0 t e Roman 
N . C I d I . . h d d Pontiff. 
ICene anons as a rea an Ivmg system a un re years . 
after they were passed, and the maxims and principles which 
the African Church, of which St. Augustine was then the 
soul, avowed in its relations with the Apostolical See of the 
West, which latter indeed are such as of themselves almost 
to decide the question of Schism between the Eastern and 
English Church on the one side, and the Roman on the 
"It was," says T ille mont, "in this year (418) that the Tillemont, 
ff: . f A .. P . f S . . I P I P T. 13. art. 
a mr 0 planus, nest 0 Icca III t Ie roconsu ar ro- 292. 
vince, began: whose ordination, deposition, and appeal, 
caused great troubles, not only to Sicca, but even to all 
Africa. Nothing is known of his ordination: but it is 
plain, that, having committed diverse faults, he was deposcd 
and excommunicated by U rballus, Bishop of Sicca, a pupil 
of St. Augustine. So far as one can judge, U rbanus 
himself committed some informality in this excommuni- 
"Apiarius appealed from him to the Pope, although that 
was forbidden by several Councils of Africa, and by that 
even of this year; although no Ecclesiastical constitution au- 
thorized these sorts of appeals; and although the Council of 
Nicea had ordered, that the affairs of Ecclesiastics should be 
terminated in their own Province, not granting them any 
other appeal. Nevertheless Baronius with much probability 
belim"es.that Zosimus not only received the appeal, but even 
restored Apiarius to Communion and the Priesthood: and 
that it was partly for this that he sent Faustinus into Africa, 
to justify himself there, says an author of this day, because 
the Africans complained that in receiving Apiarius he vio- 
lated the rules of Ecclesiastical discipline, which do not allow See above 
B . h d . C . I h h b the case of 
a IS Op to a mlt to ommulllon t lOse W 0 ave een sepa- ]\,[arcion. 
rated from it by their own Bishop. There are some who 
believe that he claimed the right to take cognisance of the 
affair of Apiarius, as a neighbouring Bishop, according to a 
Canon of the Council of Sardica, though assuredly there is 

C II A P. 



110 colour for maintaining that this Canon gave him that 
right. It is certain that he sent into Africa this Faustinus;, 
Bishop of Potenza in the J\Im'ch of Ancona." . . . H Philip and 
Asellius, Roman Priests, were also sent into Africa by 
Zosimus with Faustinus: they also had the rank of this 
Pope's Legates. 
"These three Legates were sent to carry to the BisllOps 
of Africa the letters of Zosimus, and to treat with them of 
divers matters according to the orders that the Pope had 
given them, partly in wl'itiug, partly by word of mouth. 
They had -instructions addressed to them, of which we have 
only a part, by which Zosimus charged them with four 
matters, of which they had to treat with the Bishops of 
Africa, viz., that Bishops might appeal to the Bishop of 
Rome: that they should not go so often to the Court: that 
Priests and Deacons inconsiderately excommunicated by thcir 
Bishops should he tried afresh by the neighbouring Bishops: 
and tlmt the Bishop Urbanus should be separated from Com- 
 or even summoned to Rome, if he did not amend 
what he Imd done amiss; a demand which Zosimus made on 
the strength of the accusations brought by Apiarius against 
this Prelate. The first and the third articles he grounded on 
the Canons of the Council of Sardica, which he quoted under 
the name of the Council of Nicea. 
H These Legates having arrived in Africa, as it seems, about 
the end of the year, a Council was doubtless assembled, of 
which nevertheless there is no record extant: but it is suf- 
ficiently marked in that of the 25th J\Iay, 419. St. Alypius 
speaks of it, and witnesses clearly enough that he was present 
himself. Novatus of Stefa was doubtless there also. The 
same must be said of Aurelius of Carthage, and what passed 
there is evidence enough of it. 'Yhat we know of it is, that 
there were great contentions which lasted long, and filled 
very long notes, without however inflicting a wound on 
charity. These, pcrhaps, are the preceding Acts, and facts 
shortly previous, of which the Council in the following year 
speaks. The Bishops judicially demanded of the Legates, 
according to usual rule, what they were charged to treat of 
with them. These set forth their commission at first by 
word of mouth, and when they were pressed to shew it 



written, they produced the instructions of whic}l we have SECT. 
spoken, which were read and inserted in the journals of the 
Council. The Bishops were doubtless surprised to see as- 
cribed to the Council of Nicea Canons which they did not 
find in any Greek copy, any more than in the Latin, though 
many were consulted, and of \V hich it seems they had no 
knowledge: for we have already remarked that the Council 
of Sardica was not known at this time in Africa. It cannot 
be doubted that this was one subject of the contentions 
which arose. At length, however, the Bishops of Africa 
notified this year to Pope Zosimus by the letter of their 
Council that they consented to observe the Canons in ques- 
tion, supposing them to be of the Council of Nicea: and 
that, until a more exact search into the genuine Canons of 
this Council should have been made: that is to say, that 
they consented that Bishops might appeal to the Pope, and 
Ecclesiastics to the neighbouring Bishops of their Province. 
For the Canon of Sardica does not mean that they might 
appeal out of their Proyince." 
In the mean time Pope Zosim us dies, and is succeeded by 
Boniface. Tillemont continues: "As to the affair of Apia- 
rius and the rest, 011 account of which Zosimus had sent 
Faustinus, Aurelius perhaps would not terminate them in 
418, in order to be able to assemble the whole Council of 
Africa. This Council was in fact held on the 25th ::\Iay, 
419, at Carthage in the sacristy of the Basilica of :Faustus. 
Aurelius attended it with Valentinus of Baia, Primate of 
Numidia, Faustinus the Pope's Legate, the deputies of the 
diflerent Provinces of Africa, that is to say, the two :K umi- 
dias, BJ'zacena, )Iauritania of Stefa, Cesariensis, Tripolitana, 
and further the Bishops of the Proconsularis, which made in 
all 217 Bishops." 
" Aurelius then caused to be read by the notary the in- 
structions of Pope Zosimus to his Legates: and after the first 
Canon had been read, which he produced to shew that all J[ansi, 
B . h 1 R . Cone. 4. 
IS ops can appea to ome,"" Alypms, Bishop of Tagaste, 404. 
Legate of the Province of Numidia, said, .About this we have 
already written back in the former letter also of our Council, 
and we declare that \\ e will maintain what has bccH ordered 
in the Nicene Council. As yet however 1 am struck by 



C HAP. this, that 
hen we inspect the Greek copies of this Nicene 
II. Council, we by no means find, I know not 11OW, tllCse eÅ- 
pressions there. "Therefore we beseech your Reverence, holy 
Pope Aurelius, that as an authentic copy of this Nicene 
Council is said to be in the city of Constantinople, you would 
have the goodness to send some persons with the writings of 
his Holiness: and not only to our holy Bro
her the Bishop of 
Constantinople, but also to the venerable Priests of Alex- 
andria and Antioch, that they may send us this Council with 
the subscription of their letter, for all doubt for the future 
to be remoyed: because we by no means find it as our 
Brother Faustinus quotes. "r e declare, however, that we 
will keep these regulations for a short time, as I said before, 
until the complete copies come. 'Ve must also write and re- 
quest Boniface, the venerable Bishop of the Roman Church, 
that he also would be good enough to send persons to the 
above-mentioned Churches, that they may produce the same 
copies of the aforesaid Nicene Council according as he has 
quoted. But for the present let us insert in our Acts such 
copies of the above Nicene Council as we possess." 
TiIlernont, Tillemont continues, abstracting the Council: "Faustinus 
13. art. 293. d h } k } . I .. d h 
expresse t at le too t llS proposa as an lIlJury one to t e 
Roman Church, to doubt of the Canons she quoted: and 
that they should content themselves at most with writing 
about it to the Pope, to pray him to examine himself the 
genuineness of these Canons, and to observe what he 
judge proper: that to act otherwise, was to wound charity, 
and put division between the Churches. As the Africans 
were very sincerely desirous of union and peace, Aurelius, 
not to embitter matters, would make no answer to this pro- 
position, and contented himself with replying, that they 
would write about the whole to the Pope," whom he calls, 
"our holy Brother and fellow-Priest Boniface." 
Considering what St. Alypius had said, and the doubts of 
the whole African Council as to the Canons quoted being 
those of Nicea, and that Faustinus was perfectly well aware 
all the time that the Canons rcaHy were those of Sardica, 
and could with a word have put an end to all discussion on 
the matter, it is no wonder he did not particularly desire to 
have reference made to the Eastern Patriarchs. As the 



African Bishops afterwards express a vigorous opinion about SEe T. 
his conduct, One is happily not called upon here to charac- v. 
terize it; yet I cannot forbear saying, that he seems like a 
shadow projected forwards of a Legate a latere in the 14th 
" Next was read the second Canon produced by Zosi- Tillernont. 
lUUS, touching the appeals of Ecclesiastics to neighbouring 
" "
hen it was read, Augustine of the Church of Hippo l\1
nsi, 4. 
Regiensis, Legate of the Province of Numidia, said, 'This 400. 
too we declare that we will keep, resening to ourselves a 
more diligent inquiry into the Nicene Council.' The Bishop 
Aurelius said, , If this also is agreed upon generally by your 
charity, confirm it hy an answer.' The whole Council said, 
, All is ordered in the Nicene Council: we all agree.' J 0- 
cundus, Bishop of the Church of Suffetula, Legate of the 
Byzacene Province, said, '\Yhat is ordered in the Nicene 
Council can in no respect be broken by any body.'" 
"Faustinus shewed less approval of this remark of J 0- Tillernont, 
. as before 
cundus, and of that of St. Alypius, who had at first used the . 
same expression, than of that of St. Augu8tine, and again 
demanded that the matter should be rcferred to the Pope. 
The whole Council, without stopping for that, ordered the 
Creed and Canons of Nicea to be read and inscrted in the 
Acts, as Cæcilianus had brought them, and the other regu- 
lations which had been made since: that Aurelius should 
write to the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constanti- 
nople, for the genuine Canons of Nicea: that if those whieh 
Faustinus alleged were found there, they should be kept 
absolutely, and that if they should not be found there, a 
Council should be assembled to deliberate what was to be 
After this the affair of Apiarius "was terminated by Ti1Iemont, 
t H . n . I U b tl fi t 13. art. 2
common agreemen . IS IS lOp, r anns, was Ie 1's 
to correct, without opposition, what tllere might have been 
defective in his procedure against this Priest. And presently 
Apiarius, having asked pardon for aU his faults, was restored 
to Communion, and to tIle Priesthood, at the request of 
}'austinus. However, as it wa
 necessary to provide for the 
peace aud security of the Church for t1le future, as "ell ac;, 



CIL\P. for the present, and as it was to be feared that disorders 
II. _ might still be seen equal to or even greatcr than those which 
had been seen, it was thought proper to remove Apiarius 
from thc Church of Sicca, which be had scandalised by his 
irregularities, by giving him a letter of Communion to ex- 
ercise the Priesthood where he would alld could be received, 
and Apiarius having requested that letter, it was gi\rcn him 
immediately. Such was the mean which it was thought 
might be observed between the scntellce which condemned 
Apiarius, and that of Zosimus "ho had receivcd him to 
I;etter to" "J\iatters then being so terminated, the Council in a body, 
lope ßum- I . A I . V l . d 1 I 
face. t lat IS to say, ure IUS, a entInus, an tile ot lCr 217 
Bishops Wl'ote to Boniface to give him an account of the 
whole." 1 think any thing short of an exact translation of 
parts of this lctter would be doing injustice to thc importance 
of the case, for the very fairest summary fails to render the 
precise tone of the original. It runs thus:- 
:Mansi,4. "'ro the most blessed Lord and honourable Brother Boni- 


- face, Aurelius, Yalentillus, Primat.c of the Province of 
siæ Afi"ica- Numidia and the rest who were present to the numbcr of 
llæ, 134. ' 
217 from the wholc Council of Africa." 
After a summary of the e\ ents alrcady melltioned they 
proceed to say, that in the Pope's instructions to his Legates 
four things were contained: "'fhe first concerning the 
appcals of Bishops to the Priest of the Homan Church: 
the second, that Bishops should not be too rcady to attend 
thc Court: the third, of the trying the causes of Prcsbytcrs 
and Deacons before the neighbouring Bishops, if they hm'c 
been wrongly excommunicated by their own: the fourth, 
about the excommunication of the Bishop U rball, or evell 
the summoning him to Rome, if be did not correct what 
seemed to require it. Of all which things about the first 
and third, viz. that Bishops be allowed to appeal to Home, 
and that the causes of Clergy be terminated Ly the Bishops 
of their OWll 1>l'O\"inces, we took care to intimate last year 
by our letter al:so to the same Zosimus, Bishop of \-enerablc 
luemory, that we would fcn. a s/wrl time permit these 'rules to 
be observed without any injury to /âTll} until we had searched 
the statutes oj the ...,\Ticene Council. And lWiD we reque:il of 

or .U'RIC.\. 'fO POPE BO


your Holiness to cause these rules to be kept by us, a.fJ they S E 9 T. 
we1'e passed or appointed at Nicea by tlte Fat/tas: and 
 . - -- 
to cause tlte rules which they brought in their instructions to 
be caJTied out in your own Provinces, to 'leit :" here follow the Ibi apud 
7th anù 17th Sardican Canons. They proceed: "These we VOl;. 
have at all events inserttd in the Acts until the arrival of tlte 
most authentic copies of tlte .Z\ticene Council: and sltould they 
be there contained, (as the brethren sent to us from the 
Apostolical See have alleged in their instructions,) and be 
even kept accordi'l!J to tltat 1.ule by you in Italy, we could by 
no means be compelled eithe1' to endure such treatment as we 
are unwilling to mention, or could suffe1. what is unbearable. 
But we trust, by the mercy of our Lord God, while your 
Holiness pre
ides myel' the Roman Church, that we shall not 
have to suffer that pride: and that a course of proceeding 
will be maintained towards us, which, eveÍl without our 
speaking, ought to be kept with fraternal charity: a 
course of proceeding which, according to the wisdom and 
justice which the )lost High has given you, you yourself 
see ought to be maintained, if perchance the Canons of the 
Nicene Council run otherwise. }"1or though we bave read 
very many copies, yet we never find in the Latin copies of 
the Nicene Council the quotations made in the above-men- 
tioned instructions: nevertheless as we could not find them 
here in any Greek copy, wc the more desire they should he 
brought us from the Oriental Churches, where it is said 
authentic copies of the same decrees lllay be found. 
"Therefore we also beseech your Reverence to be good 
enough yourself to write to the Priests of those parts, that 
is, of the Church of Antioch, L\lexandria, and Constantinople, 
and to others also, if your Holiness please: that these sallie 
Canons appointcd by our Fathers in the city of Kicea may 
reach us, you specially by the help of the Lord conferring 
this benefit on all the "r estern Churches, 11'or who can 
doubt that the copies, brought from so many ditfereut 
places and noble Churches of Greece, which are compared, 
anù agree, are the most authentic copies of the Kicene 
Council which met in Greece. Until this be done, the 
quotations maùe to us in the above-mentioned instructioH, 
cOllccrning thc appeals of ]3ishops to the Priest of thc 



cn A P. Roman Church, and concerning the terminating the causcs 
II. C b 
of lergy y the Bishops of their own Provinces, we declare 
that we will maintain, till the copies are tested: and we 
trust your Blessedness will by the will of God help us in 
this. The rest which was done or confirmed in our Council, 
as our above-mentioned Brethren, our fellow-Bishop Fausti- 
nus, and fellow-Priests Philip and Asellius carry with them, 
they will, if you please, noti(v to your Holiness:" and by 
another hand: rr may our Lord pl'eserve thee to us many 
years, most blessed Brother. Subscribed also by Alypius, 
Augustine, Possidius, l\Iarinus, and the other 217 Bishops." 
The Roman Church has often had reason to thank the 
diplomatic skill of its Legates: on this occasion Faustinus, 
by maintaining that the Sardican Canons were those of 
Nicea, caused the important innovations in question to be 
admitted during an interim which lasted seven )'ears. But, 
be it observed, no sort of right inherent in the See of Rome 
to hear Episcopal appeals is alleged by its Legate: and the 
express and l'epeated l'eference made by the African Bishops 
to the Nicene decrees, as the sole authority on which such a 
privilege was even asserted, specially excludes such a notion. 
On the return of their messenger from Constantinople and 
Alexandria, it is discovered that the Canons to which the 
Pope appealed in favour of his claim were not to be found 
among those of Nicea, but were in fact those of Sardica. 
The affair was a long time pending. Pope Boniface died, 

. and Celestine succeeded him. "It was apparently in 426 
13. art. 3:...3. that the Council of Africa wrote to Pope Celestine on the 
question of appeals." . . rr Apiarius, who had been the occasion 
of the commencemcnt of this celebrated dispute, was so like- 
wise of its termination. lIe had been restored to the Priest- 
hood in 419 by the instrumentality of Faustinns Bishop of Po- 
tenza, Legate of Pope Zosimus, on condition of quitting the 
Church of Sicca, and retiring to another. It secms that he 
went to Tahraca, a celebrated city of the Proconsularis, where 
he conducted himself in such a way that the inhabitants 
were obliged to accuse him of enormous crimes, and he was 
deprived of Communion. Instead of acquitting himself he 
went off to Rome pretending to have appcaled to the Pope, 
which he could not prove when he '"ished it. N everthelcss 



Celestine believed it, and thereupon restor
d him to Com- S E C T. 
munion. This Pope writing presently to Africa by the v. 
Priest Leo stated that he had been rejoiced at the arrival 
of Apiarius, whom, it seems, he had not yet examined. But 
not content with that, after having heard him, without 
hearing his accusers, and after having restored him, he 
wrote afresh to express the joy which he had in finding him 
innocent, and sent him back to Africa with the same Faus- 
tinus, to have him admitted there to Communion. At the 
arrival of Faustinus the Bishops assembled from all Africa 
to Carthage, and there held an universal Council." 'Yhat 
they did their own language will best state. 
The Bishops wrote a synodical letter to Pope Celestine, of Letter to 
. Pope Celes- 
whIch not merely the substance, but the exact words and tine. 
tone, are so important, that I think it necessary to render it 
literally, as exhibiting the very attitude and demeanour of 
the great African Church, with its 460 Bishops, towards the 
Roman Pon tiff. 
" To the beloved Lord and honourable Brother Celestine, Codex Ec- 
A I " P I . A . T S D . T . clesiæ Afri- 
ure IUS, a atInus, ntonlus, otus, ervus- eI, erentIus, canæ, No. 
Fortunatus, 1\Iartinus, J anuarius, Optatus, Celtitius, Donatus, 1:3 8 4 - 5 l\ l Ia 5 n- 
SI,. . 
rrheasius, Vincentius, Fortunatianus, and the rest, who were 
present at the universal African Council of Carthage. 
"'Ye could wish that, like as your Holiness intimated to 
us, in your letter sent by our fellow-Priest Leo, your pleasure 
at the arrival of Apiarius, so we also could send to you these 
writings with pleasure respecting his clearing of himself. 
Then in truth both our own satisfaction, and yours of late 
would be more reasonable; nor would that lately expressed 
by you concerning the hearing of him then to come, as 
well as that already past, seem hasty and inconsiderate. 
Upon the arrival, then, of our holy Brother and fellow- 
Bishop Faustinus, we assembled a Council, and believed that 
he was sent with that man, in ordèr that, a
 he (Apiarius) 
had before been restored to the Presbyterate by his assist- 
ance, so now he might with his exertions be cleared of the 
very great crimes charged against him by the inhabitants 
of Tabraca. But the due course of e
amination in our 
Council discovered in him such great and monstrous crimes 
as to overbear even Faustinns, who acted rather as an a(ho- 



C H.A P. 

cate than as a judge, and to prcvail against what was more 
the zeal of a defender, than the justice of an inquirer. For 
first he vchemently opposed the \\ hole assembly, i
flicting on 
us many injuries, under IJreteuce of asserting the privi- 
leges of the Roman Church, and demanding that Apiarius 
should be received into Communion by us, on the ground 
that your Holiness, believing him to have appealed, though 
unable to prove it, had restorcd him to Communion. But 
this we by no means allowed, as JTou will also better see by 
reading the Acts. Aftcr however a most laborious inquiry 
carried on for three days, during which in the greatest 
affliction we took cognizance of various charges against him, 
God the just Judge, strong and long-suffering, cut short 
by a sudden stroke both the 
hutliing of our fellow- 
Bishop Faustinus, and the evasions of Apiarius himself, by 
which he was endeavouring to veil his foul enormities. }1'or 
his strong and shameless obstinacy was O\'CrCOlllC, by which 
he endeavoured to cover, through all impudent denial, the 
mire of his lusts, and God so wrought upon his conscience, 
and published, even to the eyes of men, the sccret crimes 
which He was already condemning' in that man's heart, a 
very sty of wickedness, that, after his false denial, he sUù- 
denly burst forth into a confession of all the crimes hc was 
charged with, and at length convicted himself of hilS own 
accord of all infamies beJ'ond belicf, and changed to groans 
even the hope we had entertaincd, believing anù dc:siring 
that he might be cleared from such shamcful blots, except 
indeed that it was so far a relicf to our sorrow, that 
he had delivered us from thc labour of a longer inquiry, 
and by confession had applied somc sort of remedy to hilS 
own wounds, though, Sir and Brother, it was ull\ViHing, 
aud ùonc with a struggling conscience. Pl'emi:sing, therelorc, 
our due regards to you, \\-e -earnestly conjure you, that for 
the future you do not readily admit to a hearing persons 
coming hence, nor choose to receive to your Communion 
those who have bcen excommunicated by us, because your 
Reverence will rcadily perceive that this has been prescribcd 
even by the N'icene decree. For t!tough this seems to he there 
forbidden in respect of tlte inferior Cluyy, m. tlte Laity, flOW 
'f/1,uch 1Il0re did it will this to be obselTed ill tlte case o}' BishojJs, 


Q}' \FltIC.\ '1'0 POPE CELESTIXF.. 


lest those who had heen suspended from Communion in SE CT. 
their own Province might seem to be restored to Communion ---.!'-- 
hastily or u
lfitly by your Holiness. Let your Holiness re- 
ject, as is worthy of you, that unprincipled taking shelter 
with you of Presbyters likewise, and "the inferior Clergy, Improba rc- 
both because by no ordinance of the Fathers hath the Chw'ch fugia. 
of Af1'ica been deprived of this authority, and the ]t{icene 
decrees lla
'e most plainly committed not only the Clergy 
of inferior rank, but the Bishops themselves, to their own 
Met'ì'opolituns. For they have O1'dained with great wisdom 
and justice, that all matters should be terminated in the 
places wltere they arise; ænd did not think t/wt the ,qrace of 
the Holy Spirit would be wanting to any P1'ovince, for the 
Priests of Christ (i. e. Bishops) wisely to discern, and .firmly 
to maintain, the 1'ight: especially since wlwsoe'l,.e1' thinks him- 
self wronged by any judgment may appeal to the Council 
of his Province, or even to a gene1'al Council" (of Africa) : .. 
" unless it be imagined tlwt God can inspire a single individual 
with justice, and refuse it to an inllume'ì'able multitude of 
Priests (Bishops) assembled in Council. And how shall we 
be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the 
ea, since it 
will not be possible to send tllÍther tlte necessU1'y witnesses, 
whether from tlte weakness of sex, or ad'l,'anced age, or any 
other impediment? For that your Holiness should send any 
on your part we can find ordained by no Council of Fathers. 
B . h b tItatIs la- 
ecause WIt regard to what you have sent us y the same tere. 
our brother- Bishop Faustinus, as being contained in the 
Nicene Council, we can find nothing of the kind in the 
more autheI1tic copies of that Council, which we have 
received from the holy Cyril our brother, Bishop of the 
Alexandrine Church, and from the venerable Atticus the 
Prelate of Constantinople, and which we formerly sent by 
Innocent the Presbyter, and 
larcellus the Sub-deacon, 
through whom we received them, to Boniface the Bishop 
your predecessor of venerablc memory. MOre01)e1' whoeve1. 
desÏ1'es you to delegate any of your Clergy to execute yow. 
orders, (
O not comply, lest it seem that we are int'ì'odul'- 
ing the pl'ide of secular dO'lninion into the Churc1t of Cltl'ist, 
which exhibiteth to all that desire to see God the light 
of simplicity and thc splelldour of humility. For, now that 



C HAP. the miserable Apiarius has been removed out of the Church 
II. of Christ for his horrible crimes, we feel confident respecting 
our brother Faustinus, that, through the uprightness and 
moderation of your Holiness, Africa, without violating bro- 
therly charity, will by no means have to en,iure him any 
longer. Sir and Brother, may our Lord long preserve Jour 
Holiness to pray for us." 
Inference Here some most important points are at once apparent, 
from the 
above his- viz., that the Pope grounded the right of hearing appeals 
torr.. whether from Presbyters or Bishops, not on the iuhcrent 
privilege of his See, but on the Sardican Canons, which he 
quoted as if they were the Nicene. Roman writers justify 
this by asserting that the Nicene and Sardican Canons were 
bound up together: but Archbishop de l\Iarca says that the 
Nicene Canons were always numbered in the heading as 20, 
which alone would prevent the 21 Sardican Canons being 
De (!oncor., counted with them. "Perhaps then we shall be nearer the 
lib. 7. c.16. h . f th t Z .. II d 

 I. trut I we say a OSImus \\ as In some measure compe e 
to praise the Sardican Canons under the name of the Nicene 
Council, because Innocent the }-'irst had plainly said that the 
Church used no other Canons exccpt the Nicene, in judg- 
ments of Ecclesiastical causes, as also because the Africans 
knew of no Sardican Council save that held by the Arians, 
as Augustine in his 163rd (44th) letter testifies. Therefore 
it was necessary for Zosimus to ascribe these Canons to the 
Nicene Council, to meet the opposition of the Africans." 
'Vhether this trenches upon the veracity of Zosimus, I lea,-e 
for others to say, but at all events he grounds the innovation 
he was introducing on the gift of a Council: now what 
Councils give they may take away. Secondly, that the Afri- 
can Bishops, while they would have yielded obedience to the 
Nicene Canons, absolutely refuse it to the Pope's demand, 
unsupported by them, nay, whatevcr colour of right it might 
gather from the Sardican Canons. Thirdly, the .African 
Bishops here positively assert that the Nicene Canons, which 
Pope Leo tells us are to last till the end of the world, sub- 
ject the Bishops themselves to their respective l\Ietropoli- 
De l\farca, tans. "From this account, which is drawn from the Acts, 

. f

'[.' we collect that the Canons of Sardica were unknown to 

 4. Africa and the other Provinces, except Italy, up to the time 



of Pope Zosimus: besides, that appeals of Bishops to the SECT. 
Apostolic See had not been practised, and that they were v. 
contrary to the Canons of the Nicene Council." And 
fourthly, the African Bishops, so far from imagining a pri- 
vilege to be lodged in the Roman See of directing Legates 
a latere to different Churches, distinctly state that they can 
find no Council in which that has been ordered, (the only 
authority, therefore, which could order it,) and that they 
will not permit it. 
These four points amount to nothing less than cutting 
away the whole ground of antiquity, and, much more, of 
divine right, from under those distinctive Papal claims which 
followed the reception of the false Decretals, and the time of 
Pope Nicholas the First (A.D. 858-867.) 
Compare for instance with the foregoing history, with the Con
rast of 
d . . f P I f S . h h h I . f medieval 
eposItlOn 0 au 0 amosata, or WIt t e woe practIce 0 claims. 
the Church for many centuries, the dictum of St. Innocent 
the Third. "For not by human but rather by divine power Quoted by 
. h .. I . d . I d h b h h . f De l\Iarca, 
IS t e splrItua marrmge ISSO ve , w en y t e aut OrIty 0 de Concor., 
the Roman Pontiff, who is admitted to be the Vicar of Jesus 

. 7. c. 26. 
Christ, a Bishop is removed from his Church by translation, 
deposition, or cession. And therefore these three things 
afore- stated are reserved to the Roman Pontiff alone not so 
much by appointment of the Canons, as by divine institu- 
tion." An assertion which, De J\Iarca states, has caused DeConcor., 
Roman Canonists to consider the deposition of Bishops a 

. 7. c. 1. 
closed subject, on which they could not enter. 
Bossuet's judgment on this passage of history is well worth 
transcribing. "\Vhy did holy and consummately learned Bossuet, 
men esteem even the claims of the holy Pontiffs Zosimus ß
. PN

and Celestine to be novelties? 'Vhy did they appeal to the 81. 
Nicene Canons? 'Vhy did 'some sooner, some later, some 
in one, some in another point, as occasion offered,' " (he is here 
censuring an Ultramontane opponent's imprudent admis- 
sion,) "recognise the Pope's authority? Had it ever been a 
principle in their minds that his will, by Christ's institution, 
was to be their law, without exception, why then did they 
think it necessary for Roman Pontiffs to allege the Cänolls, 
which at their pleasure might be annulled? Tile truth is, 
they knew not/ling of these divine commands and rules." 

I-J.-1< ITS UK\HIXG ox Ont 0",'; [,OXTROYER

CH.\ P. Rut as to the whole cßse of Apiarius I confess it was 
11. t . } . h I I . 
_ 1 - no WIt lOut astOllls ment t tat first read t1ns passag-e 
mportance . . . 
of this ca
e of hIstory; so exactly had the AfrIcan BIshops, in i2G, 
to the cause h 
of the Eng- W en the greatest Father of the Church was one of 
lishChurch. them, anticipated and pleaded the cause of the English 
Church, in 153-1<. It is precisely the same claim made in 
both instances, yiz. 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; 

econdly, that the action of the J\Ietropolihm with his Suf- 
fragans in matters belonging to his Province should be left 
equally free. 'Yho ever accused the African Bishops, and 
St. Augustine, 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 enactcd at the 
greatest Ecumenical Council, and recognised in every Pro- 
vincial Council held up to that time? This was all that the 
Church of England claimed; she based her cJaim on tIle 
unvarying practice of the whole Church during, at least, 
the first six centuries. I 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 con- 
sent of Fathers of one age against a consent of Fathers of 
another age, the Church of one age against the Church of 
another age." It is the Church of the J\iartYl's, the Church 
of the Fathers, of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, and Chrysos- 
tome, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, 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 Bi:shop, though the 
greatest, most venerable, and most illustrious in his own 
See, to interfere, dispense with, suspend, or abrogate, the 
authority of the Bi:shop in his Diocese, and of the 
}JOlitan in his Council; to exercise singly, by himself, powers 
which belong only to an Ecumenical Council, and to annul 
the enactmcnts of at lcast the first four Ecumenical Councils. 
Had an advocate been instructed to '"draw out the abstract 

Wl'rt h, 
quoted by 
Mr. :Kew- 
man, De- 
ment, p. 4. 



case of the English Church, he could not have described it SEe T. 
more exactly than the African Bishops in stating their own. 
. - 
True, indeed, it is, that the African Bishops were maintain- 
ing 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 vVest of Europe, for many hundred years. Accordingly, 
the African Bishops did not suffer even a temporary sus- 
pension of Communion with Rome, for haying both con- 
demned afresh Apiarius, whom the Pope had restored, and 
explicitly l'efused 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. I do not think it makes at an 
in favour of the Papal Supremacy that the liberties which 
the African Church under St. Aurelius and St. Augustine so 
nobly maintained, grounding them at once 011 the inherent 
rights of Bishops, and on the authority of the Nicene decrees, 
were in process of time wrested from them by the Popes, pro- 
bably when they were enfeebled by the irruption of the Van- 
daIs, and were in greater need of transmarine assistance. I 
cannot imagine how a divine right can be constructed out of 
a series of successful encroachments. 


IN the year 402, St. Augustine wrote a letter to the Catho- St. Augus- 
1 . I 11 d h . . h U . f tine' on the 
leS, common y ca e IS treatIse "on t e mty 0 the Unityofthe 
Church." The bearing of this book on the controversy re- Church.' 
spectillg 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 "Ecclcsia toto 
tcrrarum orbe diffusa." lIe 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 restorcd out 
of Africa. His test seems decisive against the Donatists, 



'fom. 3. 
pars 1. 23. 
C. pointed 
out in Oxf. 

CHAP. and against all those who in after times have restricted the 
IL 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, 
inasmuch as, the Eastern Church being liable, in the minds 
of such persons, to the same charges of corruption as the 
Latin, it would follow that there is actually no Catholic 
Church upon earth. 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. Augustine 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 sal- 
vation, and this upon the testimony of the IIoly Scriptures 
Tom. 9. 372. only. " To salvation itself, and eternal life, no one arrives, 
}' save he who has Christ for his head. But no one can hß.\"e 
Christ for his head, except he be in His Body, which is the 
Church, which like the Head itself we ought to recogllise in 
the Holy Canonical Scriptures, nor to seek after it in the 
,'arious reports, opinions, doings, sayings, and sights of men." 
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. Anyone 
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, like De 
J\Iaistre, "'Vithout the sovereign Pontiff there is no true 
Christianity." The contrast in St. Augustine is the more 
remarkable. Compare with this the authority, which, in 
another book, he gives for receiyiug the holy Scriptures. 
" In the Canonical Scriptures let him follow the authority of 
the majority of Catholic Churches, amongst which are certainly 
those which were thought worthy to receive Apostolical Sees 
and letters. He will therefore pursue this method in the 
Canonical Scriptures; he will prefer those which are received 
by all Catholic Churches to those which some do not rcceive. 
In the case of those which are not received by an, he will 



P refer those which the more numerous and more impor- SEe T. 
taut recei\'e to those which the fewer and less authoritative 
Churches hold. But should he find some held by the greater 
number, others by the more important, although this will 
scarcely happeu, still I consider that such are to be held of 
equal authority." And elsewhere he speaks of "the Chris- Tom. 2. 843. 
tian Society, which through the Sees of the Apostles and the 
y ifï

successions of Bishops is diffused through the world with a ham. 
certaiu propagation." And the test to which he would bring 
his Donatist opponent is, that "letters should be sent to Tom. 2. 
those Churches, which we equally admitted had been already 102. B. 
at that time founded on the authority of Apostles," not to 
the See of Rome only . Now the Creed of the Council of 
'.rrent 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." rrhis is distinct and unambiguous: 
just as much so is St. Augustine's" orbis telTarum." " For TOIll. !:I. 
this the whole world says to them (the Donatists,) an argu. 340. A. 
ment 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," &c. 
No doubt the Bishop of Rome was one, and the most 
eminent, of these Bishops beyond the sea; but St. Augus- 
tine 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 con- 
tended against the Church of Rome. I kuow not whether 
what St. Augustine says or what he does not say is strongest 
against the present Roman claim; but I think his silenre in 
his book "De U nitate Ecclesiæ" absolutely convincing to 

 u, THE DAY OF :,

C HAP_ any candid mind. Let us hold for an infallible truth his 
II. 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 \Vest, 
where the Pope's was the only Apostolical See, unanimously 
held with him; the East, with its four Patriarchs, as unani- 
mously refused his claim, as a new thing which they had 
Du Pape, never received. Even De J\faistre observes, "It is very 
liv. 4. ch. . I b h t } . 1- 
4. essentIa to 0 serve t a, never was t lere a questIon auout 
dogmas between us at the beginning of the great and fatal 
Sermons on Again, St. Augustine has five sermons on the day of the 
the day of 
SS. Peter Apostles Peter and Paul; he enlarges, as we might expect, 
and Paul. on their labours and mart
Trdom; on the wonderful change 
of life which grace produced in them, the one thrice denying, 
and then thrice loving; the other, a blasphemer and perse- 
cutor, 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 

'irst 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, 
Tom. 5. he does say, ""That was commended to Peter,-what was 
1199. D. 
1202. F. enjoined to Peter, not Peter alone, but also the other Apo- 
stles 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 com- 
mended His sheep to us, because IIe commended them to 
Peter." 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 communi- 
cated to all Bishops their power to feed the Lord's flock; 
and that such a wonderful power and commission is passed 
suh silentio by the Fathers. 
Witness of The very same principles which the Great Voice of the 
St. Vincent . . . . . 
of Lerins. 'Vestern Church proclaIms In Afl'lca, St. VIncent of Lerms 

TEST 0"1<' ST. Yl


repeats from Gaul. Take the summary of his famous Com- 
monitorium 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, Cælestius, and Nestorius ex- 
pound the divine oracles different ways, to avoid the per- 
plexity 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 Apo- 
stles, manifesteth the true meaning of the Holy Scripture, 
and all novelty in faith is a certain mark of heresy; and ill 
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 7' He elegantly expatiates on 
the di\'ine charge given to the Church, to maintain in- 
violable the sacred depositum of faith. He takes notice 
that heretics quote the Sacred 'Vritings at every word, and 
that in the works of Paulus Samosatenus, Priscillian, Euno- 
mius, J ovinian, and other like pests of Christendom, almost 
every page is painted and laid on thick with Scripture texts, 
which TertuUian also remarks. But in this, saith St. Vin- 
cent, 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. ]?or that only must we look upon as 
indubitably certain and unalterablf', which all, 01' the major 

SEe 1'. 



CHAP. part of these Fathers han
 delivererl, like the harmonious 
II. consent of a General Council. But if anyone among them, 
be he ever so holy, eyer so learned, holds any thing besidcs, 
or in opposition to the rest, that is to be placed in the rank 
of singular and pri\Tate opinions, and never to be looked 
upon as the public, general, authoritati\Te doctrine of the 
Church. After a point has been decided in a General 
Council, the definition is irrcfragable. These general prin- 
ciples, by which all heresies are easily confounded, St. Yin- 
Lives ofthe cent explains with equal elegance aud perspicuitv." "Thc 
Saints,1\Iay I I . d d b T II . . h . b "' I f P 
24. same ru es are mown y ertll Ian In IS 00 {, 0 re- 
scriptions, by St. Irenæus, and other Fathers." 
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 touchstonc of what is, 
and what is not, the Catholic Church. These are necessary 
parts of the Papal Supremacy; instead of which St. Yincent 
holds universal consent. 
From the East St. Basil re-echoes the same test. To the 
Pontic Bishops, who had been set against him, he says: 
Agreement "The fair thing would be to judge of me not from one or 
of S Basil d II . I I . I I b f I 
Ep. .204
 . two who 0 not wa {, uprlg It Y In t Ie trut 1, ut rom t 1e 
1\Ir. ,"X t ew - multitude of Bishops throughout the world, connected witl. 
man s rans- 
lation save me through the grace of the Lord. l\iake inquiry of Pisi- 
one sen- . L . I . PI . f b h P . 
tence. dIans, ycaOlnans, saUrIans, 1rygIanS 0 ot rOVlnces, 
Armenians your neighbours, l\Iacedonians, Acheans, Illy- 
rians, Gauls, Spaniards, the whole of Italy, Sicilians, Afri- 
cans, the healthy part of Egypt, whatever is left of Syria; 
all of whom send letters to me, and in turn receive them 
from me. From the letters they send hither, and from thosc 
sent back to them, you may learn that we are of one spirit, 
of one mind. 'YllOSO, then; shuns Communion" ith me, it 
cannot escape your accuracy, cuts himself off from the whole 
Church." . 
ßossuet on N ow let us hear Bossuet speaking of St. Vincent's rule. 


le. "These thiugs then are understood not by this or by that 
Def. C
eri Doctor, but by all Catholics with one voice, that the au- 
Gall., hb. 7. . . 
c. 5. thority of the Church Cathohc agreeing is most certam, 
irrefragable, and perspicuous. Christians must rest on that 
ngreement, as a most firm and divine foundation; from 



whom nothing else is required but that in the Apostles' SECT. 
Creed, that believing in the Holy Spirit they also believe VI. 
the holy Catho1ic Church; and claim for her the most 
certain authority and judgment of the Holy Spirit, by which 
they are led captive to obedience. 'Vhich entirely proves 
that this indefectible power both lies and is believed to lie 
in consent itself; and this clear and manifest voice dwells 
aJtogether in the agreement of the Churches; in which we 
see clearly, on the testimony of the same Yincent 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, 
'\Vhat doth the Catholic Christian, if any part hath cut 
itself off from the Communion of the universal faith? 'Vhat 
surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to that 
pestilent and corrupted member?' 
"'rhence 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 repre- 
sents the whole Church; nor is the Church assembled in 
m.der that Unity and Consent may have force, but it is 
therefore assembled, that the Unity which in itself has force 
in the Church, every where 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 recog- 
nising Catholic truth; the first, from the consent of the 
Church every where 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 
shew more clearly that this infallible and irresistible autho- 
J'ity resides in the wholc body of the Church." 
He then proceeds to shew that the type or form of all Iù.,1ib. 7. 
Ecumenical Councils was taken from the first Council held c. 6. 
at J crusalem by the 
\. postles. He notes these particulars: 


THE COl:XCIL 01<' JERt:'S.\LEl\I 

C HAP. First, there was a great dissension, the cause of it: then, 
B t that the chief Church, in which Peter sat , was then at Jeru- 
ossue on 
the Council salem; whence it became a ma
im, that Councils should not 
of J erusa- . - 
lem. 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, aU were assembled together. Fifthly, 
the question "as 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, whcnce it became a custom 
that the President of the Council should first give sentence. 
Eighthly, Paul and Barnabas gave their testimony, in con- 
firmation of Peter's sentence; and James expressly hegins 
"ith Peter's words-" Simon hath declared," whence the 
custom that the J'est gaye their voice at the instance of the 
President. Ninthly," They do not, however, so proceed as if 
they were altogether bound by the authority of the first sen- 
tence, but themselves give judgment; and James says, '1 give 
sentence.' Then he proposes what additions seemed good 
to the principal question, and giyes sentence also concerning 
them." Tenthlr," 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:' nót, 
what seemed good to Peter pl'eciscly, but, to us; and led by 
the Spirit, not Peter alone, but the unity itself of the holy 
Council. "Thence, too, Christ said that concerning the 
Spirit whom He was about to send: 'But whcn II e, the 
Spirit of truth, is come, He shall teach rou all truth:' JOu, 
saith He, the Pastors of the Churches, and the :l\Iasters of 
the rest. IIence the Spirit is always added to the Church 
and the holy congregation. 'I belie,'e in the Holy Ghost, 
the holy 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.' 
" Ele\ enthly: when the matter had been judged by com- 



mon sentence, nothing was afterwards reconsidered, nor any SEe T. 
new dissension left to anyone; but the decree was carried VI. 
to the Churches, and the people are taught to keep the 
decrees which were decreed, in the Greek C judged,' by the 
Apostles and Elders which were at Jerusalem. 
cc This we Catholics urge with common consent against 
heretics who decline the commands and authority of Coun- 
cils: which would indeed 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." 
I need only observe on this passage of Bossuet, that the 
leadership, which in this Council he assigns to St. Peter, is 
certainly not discernible in the original, where the authority 
of St. James is at least as conspicuous as that of St. Peter. 
In another place he says, "In Ecclesiastical Acts we do lb., lib. 8. 
indeed find that the Catholic Church is affirmed by Chief c. 19. 
Pontiffs and Councils to be represented by Ecumenical Sy- 
nods, which contain all its virtue and power, which we are 
wont to mean by the word C represent.' But this we do 
not read of the Roman Pontiff, as either affirmed by the 
Pontiffs themselves, or by Ecumenical Councils, or any 
where in Ecclesiastical Acts." 



BUT it will certainly be doing injustice to the case, if we Thewitn('
d I k . II h . f h G 1 ofth
o not 00 more specIa y at t e sentIments 0 t e ree {, Fathers. 
Fathers, as to the light in which they l'egarded the Roman 
See. In taking the testimony of the vVest, I have selected 
that most favourable to Roman authority. But it must not 
be forgotten, that if the 'Vest spoke much more strongly in 
favour of Rome than it does spcak, this would be of no force 
to prove a divine tradition, and so to bind the conscience, 



CH AP. unless the East assented. Now I know not how we can 
III. enter into the inner mind of the East in the fourtll century, 
1. Witn
s; with more certainty of not being deceived, than by taking 
of St. Basil. th I f h S . h I h h 
e etters 0 t at great aint w 0 seems to lave caug t t e 
mantle of Athanasius as he left the earth, and to have com- 
pleted in his short Episcopate 'of eight years that defence of 
the Eastern Church from Arianism, which her former cham- 
pion had conducted for nearly half a century. From his de- 
parture to the present day the name of St. Basil, respected 
through the whole world, has been embalmed in the love and 
veneration of the East. He, with one or two others, is their 
especial Doctor, their living Guide. Now his correspondence 
represents his principles and convictions in the most unsus- 
picious form. And the circumstances in which he lived lead 
him to expressions bearing very strongly, thougll quite casu- 
ally, on the question of the Roman Supremacy. Had he 
lived in times of peace and quiet, there would probably have 
been merely complete silence on such a subject, leaving just 
l'oom for that adventurous theory of later Roman writers, 
that thé whole East, though governed by its own Bishops, 
Primates, and Patriarchs, yct having its first two Patriarchal 
Sees instituted by St. Peter, acknowledged sub silentio thc 
grant of its jurisdiction from Rome: and that this most im- 
portant fact lies underneath, and unnoticed by, all the 
Canons of Councils, and the acts of Bishops and Fathers, 
which are quite opposed to it. Now there is something that 
110 mere quotations, which must at the utmost be very short, 
can convey, viz., the tone, feeling, or atmosphere in which a 
writer lives. He who reads St. Basil's letters for himself will 
l'ise from their pcrusal quite satisfied, that the bold theory 
just mentioned is a pure imagination, invented to turn aside 
the inexorable records of antiquity. I will proceed to point 
out some grounds for this assertion, besides those quotations 
already made from St. Basil. The Arian heresy was, in his 
Episcopate, making its last desperate effort, by the imperial 
favour, to subjugate the Church. A most profligate political 
party were everywhere using the strong arm of power to cast 
out the orthodox Bishops, and intrude Arianizers in their 
stead. 'l\vice did llasil brave martyrdom, and through his 
dauntless bearing alone failed to recei,-e its crown. He met 

:0;'1'. BA:-;IL THE GREAT. 


and foiled the miserable Valens with, if possible, yet greater 8 EC T. 
energy than Ambrose overcame the great Theodosius. For I. 
)rears of his life, as Bishop, he was in continual expectation 
of being hurried into exile, at any hour, and with the most 
unseemly violence. Such was the treatment which he saw 
his most illustrious friends and fellow-Bishops reccive. This 
was the state of things in the East. But a tone of mind 
less tempted to subtle disquisition, and a more favourable 
disposition of the imperial power, suffered the \Vest to en- 
joy a state of comparative calm. To the 'Vest, accordingly, 
and the authority of its Bishops, St. Basil looked, humanly 
speaking, for an alleviation of that frightful state of things 
which he saw around him. Thus to the great Athanasius he 
writes in the year 371. "For myself, I have been long of Letter to 
. . 1 . . r d d . f I . 8t. Athana- 
oplDlOn, accor< mg to my lmperlect un erstan Ing 0 ecc eSI- sius. 
astical matters, that there was but one way of succouring 

our Churches, viz., the co-operation of the Bishops of the M
"... est. If they would but shew, as regards our lmrt of Chris- 
tendom, the zeal which they manifested in the case of one or g

ch of 
two heretics amon g themselves, there would be some chance t t h h e 
of benefit to our common interests; tlte civil power would he 
persuaded hy the m.gument derived from tlteir numher) and the 
laity in each place would follow their lead without hesitation." 
'ro the same Athanasius he writes a little afterwards. "Time, Ep. 69. 
. t d . t 1 . h .. I - I I To the 
as I a vances, IS ever s rengt lCl1lng t at OpInIOn W llC 1 same. 
have long Imd about your Excellency. Individual events 
only tend to increase it. :For most other men have enough 
to do to look after what is under their own charge: whereas 
this is not sufficient for you: who have as g' solicitude for 
all tlle Churches, as for that, the burden of which in parti- 
cular has been laid upon you by our common Lord. This 
may he said, since you are incessant in conversing, admo- 
nishing, writing letters, sending persons in all directions with 
the best suggestions.-And wishing to contribute something 
to this matter myself, I thought it would be a most suitable 
beginning to recur to your perfection, as to the supreme 
Head, and to take you for counsellor and leader.-And to me 
it seemed fitting to write to the Bishop of Rome, requesting 
him to visit by letter these parts, and give his opinion. For 
inasmuch as it is d
fficult fm' any tfpjJllties to come tlience with 


Letter to 
Pope Da- 




tlle joint authority of a Synod, he might act of his own aut/w- 
rity in the matter, and choose out men able to bear the 
fatigues of the journey, and likewise by gentleness and firm- 
ness to admonish the perverted among us. But for this end 
they must Bpeak to the point, and with discretion, bringing, 
moreover, with them all that has been done after the Synod 
of Ariminum, to annul the violent acts which then took 
place. And this must be done secretly, so that they should 
come quietly by sea, and take by surprise the enemies of 
Another letter, though without inscription, bears inter- 
nal evidence of being written to Damasus, Bishop of Rome. 
It runs thus: "To renew the laws of ancient love, and 
restore again to yigour the peace enjoyed by our fathers, 
the heavenly and saving gift of Christ, which through lapse 
of time has withered away, for us is necessary and service- 
able, as I am sure it will be deliglltful to your Christ- 
loving disposition. For what could be more pleasing than 
to see those who are dissevered by so great a space of 
country joined by the union of love into tllC harmony of 
members in the Body of Christ ( Almost the whole East, 
most excellent Father, (I mean by East the region from 
Illyria to Egypt,) is shaken by a violent storm and surge, 
from that heresy, the seeds of which were long ago sown by 
Arius the enemy of the truth, but which has now burst forth 
into full luxuriance of growth, and like a bitter root gives 
forth the fruit of death. But it has been long prevailing, 
because the Ol,thodox Bishops in the several Dioceses have 
been expelled by false accusations and violence, whilst power 
is put into the hands of those who lead captive the souls 
of the simpler sort. The only deliverance I expect from 
this is a visitation by letter from your tender compassion. 
Your exceeding affection in past time has soothed us with 
hope, and our spirits revived for a short time at a more 
cheerful report, that we should be in some way visited by 
you. But deceived in this hope, and enduring no longer, I 
betake myself to solicit you by letter to rise up to our de- 
fence, and to send persons like-minded, who shall reunite 
the disagreed, or bring the Churches of God to friendship 
with each other, or at least point out to you mOl'e evidently 



the authors of the confusion. And thus you too may see for SECT. 
the future with whom you ought to have Communion. AS4 I. 
suredly I ask nothing new, but what has been customary both to 
otller hlessed men of old, beloved of God, and especially to you" 
(i. e. the Bishops of Rome.) "For I knolV from traditional 
records, as I learn from questioning our Fathers from tile letters 
still preserved by us, that the most blessed Bishop Dionysius, 
conspicuous among you for his orthodoxy, and other virtues, 
visited by letter our Church of Cesarea, and by letter encouraged 
our fathers, and sent persons who ransomed brethren from 
captivity. But things now are in a more difficult and cheer- 
less state, and 80 require greater attention. For it is not the 
destruction of earthly buildings, but the ruin of Churches, 
that we lament. Nor is it bodily slavery, but the capti\'ity 
of souls, which we behold in daily opCl'ation by the cham- 
pions of heresy. So that if ye rise not up presently to our 
help, in a short time ye will find none to whom to hold out 
the hand, for all will be reduced under the pO\fer of the 
heresy.') Here St. Basil, using the strongest arguments 
which come to his mind to induce the Pope of the day to 
assist him with his authority and that of th'e 'Vestern 
Bishops, reminds him that the friendly visitation he was 
urging was an usual thing with holy men, specially those 
who occupied the See of Rome, and that about a hundred 
and ten years before one of his predecessors had visited 
St. Basil's own Church by letter. This, of course, was the 
latest instance he could find. But, according to the Papal 
theory, St. Basil was all the while del'iving from that 
very Pope Damasus the whole right of jurisdiction which he 
possessed oyer the Diocese of Cesarea. Yet he says not a 
word of the Pope's duty as the common Father of Christen- 
dom: not a word about his personal decision, as distinct 
from the Bishops whom he headed) being of the utmost 
importance, and claiming obedience as a right in the name 
of St. Peter. Nay, in another letter, he says to his friend 
Eusebius of Samosata, " the Presbyter Evagrius, who went to Ep. 188. 
the \Vest with the blessed Eusebius, has now returned from 

Rome, asking of me a letter conceived in the exact terms mosata. 
which they have written, (for he brought back my writing 
which had not satisfied the more particular persons there,) 


To the Bi- 

hops of 
Italy find 



and for us to seud at once a deputation, of men of rredit, 
that they may have a fair prete;;t't for 1'isiting us." ",-hat! 
the Pope require a fair pretext for visiting the Church of 
Cesaren, or the East, a prey to the most frightful heresy: 
a fair pretext for visiting Bishops who were his own deputies, 
as we are now told, and answerable to him for the exercise 
of their powers! rrhe sovereign, as De l\Iaistre so oftcn 
puts it, himself requests that a Bpecious opportunity may 
be afforded him of inquiring how his own viceroys conduct 
themselves. On the contrary, the visitation which St. Basil 
asks for was a token of Christian love and solicitude which 
ßish ops were wont to shew to each other, and the Bishop 
of Rome, as the most distinguished, more than all. And if 
there be any difference in the tone in which he addresses his 
brethren of Rome and Alexandria, it is that he addresses the 
latter with the greater respect. Let those, who wish to feel 
in its full force the difference between the Patriarchal and 
the Papal systems, compare the tone of St. Basil to Pope 
Damasus with that of St. Bernard to Pope Eugenius. In 
the next year, 372, we find a letter composed in the name 
of the chief Bishops of the East. It is addressed thus: "To 
our most religious and holy Brethren and Fellow-ministers 
the concordant Bishops of Italy and Gaul, J\feletius, Euse- 
bius, Basil, Bassus," &c. After giving a deplorable picture 
of the Church's condition in the East it goes on, " Permit not 
half of the world to be swallowed up by error. Allow not 
the Faith to be quenched among those where it first shone 
forth. Assuredly you have no nLGd to learn from us, hut 
the Holy Spirit will Himself suggest to you, how you may 
assist us, and shew your sympathy with the afflicted. But 
all speed must be used to save the remnant: and many 
hretkren 'must come, so that the comers may make up with liS 
a numerous Council, that tlley 'l7ta!/ llave sufficient credit tu 
wurk a refo'rmation, not vllly from tlte di,fJ'/l.ity of tlwse w/to 
. depute them, but f'rmJt tlwir own numbe-r. N ow these must set 
forth again the faith written by our Fathers at Nicea/' &c. 
Had the Bishop of Rome's authority by itself tended to settle 
the question, this observation had been quite unnecessary: 
but in truth among "the concordant Bishops of Italy and 
Gaul, our Fellow-ministers," the Pope is in no respect dis- 



tinguished. It is plain that the government of the Church, 
when this letter was written, was really episcopal, not monar- I. 
chical. Another letter of four years later date gives just 
the same impression, and points out exactly what sort of help 
the East asked from the 'Vest. It was not the decision of a 
superior authority, which was never so much as imagined. 
The letter is addressed simply "to the 'Vesterns." It says, Ep. 242. 
B h h . f . . d t . To the 
" roug t to t e extremIty 0 mIsery we 0 no gIve up Westerns. 
hope in God: but ca,t about us on every side for help. 
'Vhence, too, we now look to you, most excellent Brethren, 
whom in the time of afflictions we have often expected to 
appeal' to our succour, but deceived in our hope, said to our- 
selves, 'I looked for some to have pity on me, but there was 
no man, neither found I any to comfort me.' How then is 
it that no consolatory letter, no visitation of brethren, nothing 
else of what is due to us by the law of charity, has taken 
place? 'Ve beseech you, now at length, to stretch forth 
your hand to the Churches through the East which are 
already stricken to the earth, and to send those who shall 
remind us of the rewards that are laid up for the endurance 
of sufferings for Christ's sake. For it is natural tltat tlte 
word of tlwse to whmlt men are accustomed ltas not so muclt 
effect as a strange voice to console, especially when it comes 
from men, who, through the grace of God, are every where 
most honourably known, such as report deelares you to all 
men to be, with whom the Faith has continued unwounded, 
inasmuch as you have preserved the Apostolical deposit in- 
violable. It is not so with us," &c. In another letter, 
likewise "to the \Vesterns," in the year 377, St. Basil says 
much the same thing. Those who openly profess the Ariall 
heresy do not so much hurt us, he observes, as concealed 
enemies: "whom we call upon your diligence to publish to Ep. 26:
all the Churches of the East, in order that, either, walk- iÿe

ing uprightly they may be with us sincerely, or, remaining 
in their perversity, keep the hurt among themselves, and so 
not be able, through freedom of communication, to spread 
their own disease among their neighbours. N ow these per- 
sons must be mentioncd by name, that you, too, may know 
thosc who work confusion among us, and makc them known 
to our Churches." Here was exactly a point for the Apo- 


Ep. 243. 
To the Bi- 
shops of 
Gaul and 



stolical power of St. Peter's snccessors to intervene, but 
besides that he is not mentioned in the whole letter, any 
more than in the one last quoted, St. Basil goes on: "For 
our language is suspected by the many, as if we acted to 
them in a mean and narrow spirit through certain private 
grudges. But you, inasmuch as you are far removed from 
them in space, have so much the more credit with the people, 
besides that the grace of God co-operates with you, to succour 
those who are quite overborne. But if,furtlter, a great number 
of you with one voice pass tlte same decrees, it is plain that the 
number of those who Join in the decree will cause its reception 
to be undisputed hy all." He ends thus: "These are the 
things we wish you to attend to. This might be done, if 
you would write to all the Churches throughout the East, 
that such as thus pervert sound doctrine may be received 
to Communion if they correct themselves. But if they choose 
contentiously to persist in their innovations, they must be 
cut off from the Church. And we know very well that we 
ougld to sit together in Synod with your prudence, and to take 
common counsel ill, these points,. but since the time does not 
allow this, and delay is hurtful, inasmuch as their mischief 
has taken root, we could not do otherwise than send these 
brethren, to inform you of any points passed over in the 
letter, and to move your Piety to provide the wished-for 
assistance to the Churches of God." 
Was not St. Basil in his day a witness, whose testimony 
coming to us indirectly cannot be turned aside, to the 
episcopal constitution of the Church, and against the mo- 
narchical? And are those who contend for that constitution 
now, as one which cannot be infringed because it is of divine 
appointment, impugners of visible unity? If there is one 
thing more than another which St. Basil inculcates, it is 
visible unity; which he recognises as existing in the system 
under which he lived. Thus in another long letter wherein 
he appeals to the 'Vest to succour the East, and in which 
there is not one word of the Bishop of Rome individually, 
he writes, "to the truly-religious and most dear Brethren 
and }'ellow-ministers of one mind, the Bishops throughout 
Gaul and Italy, Basil, Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia. 
Our Lord Jesus CIJrist having deigned to name the whole 

LET'fEUS O}' ST. B -\SIL. 


Church of God His own Body, and made us severally mem- S E C T. 
bers of each other, hath granted us all likewise tQ be nearly 
connected with all, accorùing to the harmony of the mem- 
bers. '\Vherefore, however far apart we are in our dwellings, 
yet, as conjoined in the Body, we are near each other. But 
since the head cannot
ay to the feet, I have no need of you, 
surely neither will you have the heart to put us away, but 
will sympathize as warmly with the afflictions, to which we 
have been given up for our sins, as we rejoice with you in 
the glory of that peace, which the Lord has granted you. 
Now on other occasions we have called upon your love to 
assist and sympathize with us: but assuredly, because our 
punishment was not filled up, you were not allowed to rise 
up to our help. ,\Yhat we most desire is, that the Emperor 
himself of your world should be informed, through your 
Piety, of our confusion. If this be difficult, at least send 
some to visit and console the afflicted) that they may put 
before your eyes the sufferings of the East, which it is im- 
possible for your ears to receive, because no words can be 
found vividly expressing to you our state." 
"'rhe disorders of Christendom," says J\Ir. Newman, "and Church of 
. II f th E t d . 11 f A . 1\ ff. the Fathers, 
eSpeCla y 0 e i as , an stl more 0 sm .1.lnor, were so p. 90. 
great in Basil's day, that a spectator might have foretold 
the total overthrow of the Church. So violent a convulsion 
never has been experienced in Christendom since; it would 
almost seem as if the powers of evil, foreseeing what the 
kingdom of the Saints would be, when once heathen per- 
secutions ceased, were making a final effort to destroy it. 
In Asia J\finor the Church was almost 'without form and 
void:' religious interests were reduced, as it were, to a state 
of chaos, and Basil seems to have been the principle of truth 
and order, divinely formed, divinely raised up, for harmo- 
nizing the discordant elements, and bringing them to unity 
of faith and love." Such bcing the case, it is remarkable 
that Basil did not apply to the Bishop of Rome, as able 
personally by a doctrinal decision to declare what the truth 
was, and to abate this disorder, as being one whose voice all 
were bound to hear. '\Ve have a great authority for declaring 
that Christendom has never since experienced such a convul- 
sion, aud yet the Exarch of Pontus, who was dashed to and fro 

CII.\ l'. 

a/;o\"f', p. 


Tu the 



by its surge, ancllooked every where for help, saw not in the 
See of Rome the" ultimate form of unity," nor in its occu- 
pant the singlc Vicegerent of Christ: but he addressed him 
simply as a great Bishop; the highest title he ever gives 
him is "leader of the 'V csterns" in a passage where he tall<s 
of writing to him privately not to take" pride for dignity." 
In truth he addressed him with just the same deference, aud 
no more, as he addressed the Bishops of Alexandria and 
Antioch: and when Rome decided that Paulinus was the 
true Bishop of Antioch, he ],ept firm to }\[eletius. Tlms in 
a letter to the Count Terentius, whom the party of Paulinus 
were endeavouring to gain, he says: "Again, anothei' report 
reached us that you were staJTing at Antioch, and joining ill 
the administration of government with the supreme powers. 
Beside this we also heard, that the brethren of the party of 
Paulinus are setting on foot negotiations with you respecting 
union with us: by us I mean the party of the man of God, 
:\Ieletius the Bishop. I hf'ar, moreover, that they are now 
carrying about lettcrs from the W ('stern Bishops committing 
the Bishopric of .Antioch to them, and passing by l\Ieletins, that 
most admirable IJishop of the true Church of God. And 
I do not wonder at this. For they (the 'Vesterns) are 
entirely ignorant of matters here: and those who seem to 
know about thcm," (the friends of Paulinus,) " give them an 
account more in the spirit of party than with strict regard to 
truth. Not but \V hat they may reasonably either not know 
the truth, or conceal from themselves the cause why the 
most blessed Bishop Athanasius came to write to Paulillus. 
Hut as your Excellency has there those who can narrate to 
you accurately what passed between the two Bishops, in the 
reign of Jovianus, we beg you to be fully instructed by them. 
But as we accuse no one J but desire to have love towards all, 
and especially to them who are of the housel101d of faith, we 
congratulate those "ho have received the letters from Rome. 
And if they contain any honourable and weighty testimony 
to them, we pray this may be true, and confirmed by the 
facts themselves. I cannot, however, on this account ever 
persuade myself either not to know 1\leletius, or to forget 
the Church "\fhich is under him, or to think the questions of 
small importance, about which the division originally tool\. 

LE1'Tlms 010' ST. IHsI!.. 

Iii :3 

place, aud of little weight in their bearing upon sound faith. 
 E CT. 
For' my pa'rt I shall never submit to withdraw my opinioN" I. 
óecause some one has 'received a letter from men, and makes 
much of himself upon it: no, not even though it came from 
heaven itself, if the person did not ag1'ee with the sound 'Word 
of faith, can I receive him to the Communion of holy things." 
lIe concludes thus: "I wish that )Tour Excellency should bp 
persuaded of this, that both you, and everyone, who, like 
you, has a regard for the truth, and does not slight those 
who are fighting for the holy cause, ought to wait for those 
who are set over the Churches, whom I call the pillars awl 
snppOl't of the truth and of the Church, to take the first 
steps in this reunion and peace. And I reverence them the 
more, tIle farther they are banished, since their exile is put 
upon them for a punishment." Presently he gives an account 
of this same matter to J\tleletius himself. "After I returned, Ep.216. 
 contracted g reat weakness from the violent rains and T p o t t
e h 
..... a narc 
my dispirits, I received immediately letters from the East, Melctius. 
stating that Paulin us' friends had had certain letters from 
the \Vest, conceived as if they were tlte credentials of a {f)(J"7f'f:p Tt/lbs 
sovereign powe'r, and that his partisans were very proud of it, ;

and exulted in the letters, moreover, were putting forth their 
faith, and on these terms were ready to join with the Church 
that stands by us, Besides this I was told, that they had 
seduced to their side that most- excellent man Terentius, to 
whom I wrote at once, repressing that his inclination, as far 
as was in my power, and informing him of their deceit." 
Such is the way in which St. Basil receives what seems 
something like an attempt 011 the part of Pope Damasus 
to decide by authority the question between Meletius and 
Paulil1us. And the Eastern Bishops were generally of 
St. Basil's mind, for Meletius having died while President of 
the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, they, as we have 
seen, would not take Paulinus in his place, but elected Fla- 
viano I have not fallen upon passages more favourable to 
Rome in St, Basil's writings: otherwise I should consider it 
a matter of good faith to insert thclU. But indeed, when a 
particular view is so clearly developed in a considerable 
number of letters, it is very unlikely that a contradictory one 
is to be found in other writings of his. 

I 2 




From these it is clear I think that St. Basil regarded the 
Bishop of Rome as a great and influential Bishop, "the 
leader of the ,V esterns," -that he paid him such deference 
as he shewed to t.he Bishop of Alexandria or Antioch: but 
there is not any reason to conclude from his writings or his 
actions, rather there is great reason to disbelieve, that he 
thought the Roman Bishop possessed of any peculiar control 
whether over the Church generally, or the East specially, 
either in matters of faith or of discipline. He looked to the 
'Yest for aid because the 'Yest had been comparatively free 
from the violence of Arian misrule: but that aid he con- 
sidered would come from the number of its Bisltops a.'
in Council, and he says expressly that the East and 'Vest 
ought to sit together for this purpose. In the matter of 

Ieletius and Paulinus he is not the least swayed by the 
whole authority of Rome and the 'Vest, as well as Alexan- 
dria, being against 
Ieletius. The strong expressions about 
" 'Vest ern pride" shew how little St. Basil imagineù a 
monarch in St. Peter's chair. But the notion of any 
jurisdiction from Rome emanating to himself or his brother 
Prelates of the East is so very foreig,n to St. Basil's mind, 
that it seems, when one has been somewhat embued with his 
spirit, almost absurd. 
From St. Basil let us turn to his best-loved friend. 

of St. Ba- 
ail's con- 
duct to- 


2. St. Gre- IN St. Gregory of Naziallzum I do not think any thiug 
N go
 of can be found which in an y wa y im p lies that he thou2'ht an 
aZUUlzum. ..... 
authority was lodged in the Bishop of Rome at all distinct 
in kind from that of other Bishops. Certainly his own con- 
duct in accepting the See of Constantinople from the haud 
of St. .l\Ieletius, and his other actions at that period, do not 
intimate such a belief. Almost the only passage I can find 
sufficiently bearing on the subject to quote is that in his poem 
on his life. He is comparing Rome and Constantinople. 



" Nature which has not given two Suns, has given two Romes, SEe T. 
to be luminaries of the whole world, the old and the new II. 
l' l .æ. f I h . h h S. Greg. 
power, so lar (Iuermg rom eac I ot er Ulasmuc as t e one Nazianz. 2. 
shines over the East, the other over the ",.. est, but they 

nel be- 
present a beauty equally matched. But as to the faith of tween 
these, thc one for a long time and still at present runs to the 


mark, binding together all the "rest in the word of salvation, nople. 
worshipping the whole harmony of God," (i. e. the Trinity,) 
"as becomcs her who presides over the wholeg. But the other 
formerly stood upright, but now no longer, her I mean who 
was mine, and then not mine, but she lay in the depths of 
perdition." No Roman writer would compare the metro- 
polis of Christendom, as :such, with any other city. His 
words in fact represcnt exactly the :same sense as that third 
Canon of the Council over which he presided, giving the 
Bishop of Constantinople the second rank after the Bishop 
of Rome. Of course it would be ridiculous to compare the 
Pope with any Bishop of his Communion at present. The 
difference bctween them is immeasurable. In another place 
he says to the Novatians, "Receive you not (to penitence) s. Greg. 
} P b I . f t} S . Kaz.,l.689. 
even t Ie great eter, ecause at t Ie passIOn 0 Ie aVlOur quoted by 
he expericnced a weakness to which man is liable? But ]\fouravieff. 
Jesus received him, and by the triple question and confession 
hcalcd the triple denia1." It would have bcen much to the 
point to have added, that they excluded by their heresy from 
repcntance him to whom Christ gave the sole commission to 
feed His sheep. 
But St. Gregory docs not seem to have attributed to St. His view of 
P } . If . h A I . h . h . l . k I the Aposto- 
cter llmse m t e posto IC C Olr any t mg I -e t tat lie College. 
superiority which is now claimcd for his successor over 
Bishops. In one of his orations, after many praises of hu- 
mility and unity, he says, "'V ould you have me offer you lb., I. 591. 
another example of good order, worthy of prais'e, and of ? 32. 
present mClltioll, as well as convcying admonition? See 
you, out of Christ's disciples, though all were exalted, and 

II This passage is thus quoted by 
Bellarmine in proof that the Roman 
Church cannot err: "S. Greg. N a- 
zial1zen says, · Old Romp from ancient 
times holdeth the right faith, and al- 
ways keeps it, as it hecomes the city, 

which presides over the whole world, 
always to maintain incorrupt faith in 
God.''' De Rom. Pont., lib. 4-. cap. 4. 
That parallel between Rome amI Con- 
stantinople, which affects the whole ar- 
gument at issue, is studiously left out. 


3. S. .\tha- 



worthy of especial choice, yet one is called the l'ock, and is 
entrusted -with the foundation of the Church, while another 
is the most Im'ed, and reclines on the bosom of Jesus, and 
the rest bear this preference. And when He was to ascend 
into the mountain, to assume His shining Body, and exhibit 
His Godhead, and lay open Him that was concealed in thc 
flesh, who ascend with Him? for not all are witnesses of the 
marvel. Peter and James, and John, who both are beforc 
the rest, and are so accounted. And who were present with' 
Him in His agony, when He retired for a while before Hi:s 
passion and prayed? The same again. This prefcrence was 
shewn by Christ. Yet how great was otherwise their good 
order and arrangement! Peter asks one question, :md Philip 
another, Jude a third, Thomas a fourth, some one else a 
fifth, and neithcr all the same, nor each one all, but. cvery 
man by turn, and one by one. 'Vhat each necded, you may 
say. But how think you of this r Philip wishcs to ask somc- 
thing, and is not bold enough alone, but takes with him 
Andrew also. Peter desires to ask something, and beckons 
to John to asl\: for him. 'Yhere here is ill-temper, or lon
of rule? How could they better shew themselves disciples of 
Christ, the meek and lowly of heart, the servant for the sal"e 
of us His own sen'ants i 'VllO ascribed all the glory to His 

'Rther in all things, that He might give us an example of 
good order and moderation." Now Petcr could only tran::-- 
mit what he inherited: if the first among brcthrell was to 
found a line of monarchs, St. Gregory's c
ample was not 
only thrown away, but quite mis-placed. In truth, how- 
ever, such an idea was unknown in his day. 


I the great AthanRsius, who, if any othcr nmu, was 
under obligations to the See of Romc, I gather t.hat while hc 
did indeed consider the Bishop of Romc as possessor of an 
Apostolic See, he did not attribute to him any power dif- 
ferent in kind from that of ot11('r Bishops. Thus in his 
letter to the Bishops of Africa he obserycs, " It suffices what 

WiTNESS 01<' ST. \.T1L\:\'ASH T S. 


has been written by our beloved fellow-minister Damasus S:E C T. 
Bishop of Great Rome, and so many other Bishops w5semblcd Ill. 
" . S. Athanas. 
with him, and not the less what has bccll WrItten by the tom. J. 821. 
other Councils holden in Gaul and in Italy concerning the t 

sound faith, which Christ gave to us, and the Apostles pro- vjeff. 
claimed, and the "Fathers, who assembled in Nicea from all 
our world, handed down." Here we may note the title given 
to Damasus, "our helm"eel ftÆow-minister," and the equal 
authority gi,.cll to other Synods, with that of Rome, and the 
appeal, so constant in the fourth and fifth centuries, to the 
Nicene Council as the supreme rule of faith and discipline. 
Elsewhere, giving a catalogue of orthodux Bishops whose 
subscriptions might be a test against heresy, he names them 
thus, "Such as the great Confessor Hosius, and JVlax.iminus 'J', m. 1. 
f . G I r r ) h . Ph . l . 1 E 27K c. 
o au ( reves, or IS successor, or I ogonlus ant us- l\IollraYÍelf. 
tathius from the East (Antioch), or Julius and Liberius, 
Bishops of Rome, or Cyriacus of 
'Iysia, or Pistus and Aris- 
heus, Bishops from Greece, or Silvester and Protogenes from 
Dacia, or Leontius and Eupsychius, Bishops of Cappadocia, 
or Cæcilianus of Africa, or Eustorgius of Italy, or Capito of 
Sicily, or l\:facarius of J el'usalem, or Alexander of Constanti- 
nople, or Pædcros of Hel'aclca, or the great J\:feletius, and 
Basil and Longianus," &c. I presume that had Athanasius 
considered the Bishop of Rome to bc what we are now told 
he is, he would not have merely namcd him thus. Again, 
describing the commencement of that attack on Liberius, 
Bishop of Romc, which ended in his lapse after two years' 
hanishment, he says, "Neither did they from the beginning Tom. 1. 
L - b . B . I f R b d d I . d 8tH. E. 
spare I erms, IS lOp 0 orne, ut extcn e t lelr ma ness 
e'"en to his people, nor reverenced it because it is an Aposto- 
lical throne, nor regarded Rome because it is the metropolis 
of Romania, nor remembered t.hat in their letters before 
they had named them (the Bishops of Rome) Apostolical 
mcn." Presently he says that the eunuch, the Emperor's 
instrument in this, "forgot that he was befOl'e a Bishop, and Tom. 1. 
. tl I . h I . " 1 Id 865. It'. 
WI 1 great t lreats went away wit lIS presents. t wou 
have had tenfold force to say, 'nor reverenced him as head of 
the universal Church, as common Father of Christendom.' 
But any such pretension was quite unknown to Athanasius. 
On the contrary in anothcr placc hc savs "'rhe Fathers of TOIll. 1. 
" . , :n8. E. 



CHAP. the people, and the teachers of the faith, are taken away, and 
the impious are intruded into the Churches. "Tho, when 
he saw that Liberius, Bishop of Rome, was banished, and 
the great Rosius, the Father of Bishops, was so suffering, 
or so many Bishops from Spain and other Imrts banished," 
&c. Thus he names the Bishop of Cordllba, even in con- 
nection with Liberius, Father of Bishops. So again he calls 
Hosius Father of the 'Vestern Bishops who came to the 
Council of Sardica; elsewhere he introduces the Arians 
Tom. 1. saving to the Emperor Constantius, ""r e have done e,rery 
369. A. Oxt: : . . 
Tr., quoted thIng, we have bamshed the BIshop of the Romans, and 

:.[oura- before him a very great number of other Bishops, and have 
filled every place with alarm. But these strong measures 
of yours are as nothing to us, nor is our success at all morc 
secure, so long as Rosius remains. While he is in his own 
place, the rest also continue in their Churches, tor he is able 
by his arguments and his faith to persuade all men again:st 
us. He is the president of Councils, and his letters are 
every where attended to. Re it was who put forth the 
Nicene Confession, and procJaimed every where that the 
Arians were heretics." In accordance with this we find the 
signatures of the Bishops at the Council of Sardica, in the 
Tom. 1. wOl'ks of St. Athanasius, headed by IIosius thus: '"' Hosins 
168. A. from Spain, Julius of Rome by the Presbyters Archidamus 
and Philoxenus, Protogenes of Sarùica," and the rest: hc, 
and not the Pope's Legates, presiding there. Again, he speaks 
Tom. 1. of him thus: "Of the great Hosius, who answers to his name, 

r., that Confessor of an happy old age, it is superfluous for me 

oted ? Y tr. to S p eak, for I su pp ose it is known unto all mcn that thev 
JuouraVle . 
caused him also to be banished; for he is not an obscure 
person, but of all men the most illustrious, and more than 
this, 'Yhen was thcre a Council held, in which he did not 
take the lead, and convince everyone by his orthodoxy? 
Where is there a Church that does not possess some glorious 
monuments of his patronage 7" It need not surprise us then 
that he presided not only at the great Council of Sardica, 
but at the Nicene Council itself, as St. Atlmnasius states 
above: and that his name is put there bcfore those of the 
Legates of St. Silvester, Bishop of Rome. Nor is there any 
authority for saying that he acted as Legate of St. Sih-ester 

Tom. 1. 
352. C. 

T \.1' XICEA .\.
D SAIWIC.\.. 169 

himself, save that of an author of small repute who lived one S E CT. 
hundred and seventy years later, while the mode in which _
St. Athanasius mentions him seems to e}.clude this notion: 
for if it was merely as Legate of the Pope tlmt he presided at 
Nicea or Sardica, he could hardly be said 'c to put forth the 
Nicel1e Confession," and the words ,,"Then was there a 
Council held in which he did not take the lead,n would 
convey a false impression, for a Legate is only of importance 
as representing the person for whom he sits. The truth, I 
suppose, is, that according to the Roman theory the Pope 
must preside at every Ecumenical Council, and as it is 
beyond question that the Emperor Constantine convoked 
the Council of Nicea, and that the name of Rosius of Cor- 
duba, who sent the Emperor's lettcrs of convocation to the Vid" Euseb. 
B . I " h h d f II 1 1."" h Hist. 10. 6. 
IS lOpS, IS at t e ea 0 a t Ie suuscnptlOns, t ere was 
no help for it but maintaining that Rosius presided as the 
Roman Bishop's Legate. 
But, supposing that Rosius presided at the Council of pilem
S d "" I " f fi P 1 L I I If HOSlUS 
ar lCa III the qua Ity 0 rst apa egate, anf not as t Ie was Papal 
most distinguished Bishop in the Church, the personal friend 

of Constantine, and his family, we have a result more than 
ever disproving the present doctrine of the Papal Supremacy. 
It is that Hosius proposed to the Fathers there assembled in 
respect to causes of Bishops: "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 ordcr a frf'sh h'ial, let him name 
judges; if he does not think there is reason to renew the 
matter, let what he orders be kept to." Now I think it has 
been fairly said, "If our Saviour had made the See of Rome Collier,Ecc_ 
th t f th .. I I h f Rist., bk. 1. 
e sea 0 e spIrItua monarc IY, put t e government 0 p.73. 
the universal Church into the hands of that Bishop, and 
made him the supreme judge of all controversy, it had been 
a weak, not to say a disrespectful, motion in Hosius, to 
desire the Council, that out of regard to St. Pcter's memory, 
they would allow an appeal to the Pope in the case of 
a single Bishop. Such a request as this destroys the sup- 
position of a divine right, and is utterly inconsistent with 
the pretences of the universal pastorship. And if Hosius 
should have overshot himself to this degree, which is most 


T. .1l"LIC::- 

C HAP. unlikcly, we may imagine thc Council would hm'c ùecn morc 
III. modest, and more just too, than to havc pretended an autho- 
rity of granting the Pope any part of that right which wa
so incontestably his own bcFore; as being a branch of that 
sovcl'eignty which was handed down to him from St. Peter. 
13ut this right of rcceiving appeals, ill some cascs, as slender 
a privilege as it is in comparison of a divine Supremacy, yet 
the Popcs were wcll satisficd with the favour, as appears by 
the sixth Council of Carthagc, whcre Zosimus, to justify his 
recciving appeals from transmarÌne Churches, insists upon 
this concession in t.he casc of Apiarius, and endeavours to 
Imss it upon the African Fathers for a Canon of the Council 
of Nice." 
He adds that Pope Julius, instead of disowning what 
Hosius had done, valued himself, as did his succcssors, upon 
the concession above mentioned. 
Letter of Thc letter of the saIne Pope Julius to the Euscbian Bishops, 

eJuliu8 in the works of St. .L\thanasius, supplies us with a Papal 
lS<' 1 bian testimony to the belief in the Patriarchate of Antioch at the 
IS lOpS. 
middlc of the fourth century conccrning the rights of Bishops. 
H. Athall. " Now if you really believe," says he, "that all Bishops have 
logy I d I h . d d 
agamst t Ie same an equa aut onty, an you 0 not, as you assert, 
!'- I ,rialls,0 4 
f. account of them according to the magnitude of their cities, 
r., p. u. 
he that is entrusted with a small city ought to abide in the 
place committed to him." 
N ow these Bishops of the East had writtcn to Pope Julius, 
according to Sozomcll, that" the Church of the Romans is 
indeed honourable among all, as having been thc school of 
the Apostlcs, and the mctropolis of piety from the ùeginning: 
110t but that thc original tcachers of the Faith camc to it 
from the East. J.\Tot however for tltis were they content to take 
the second place, being as they were eminent for virtue and 
firmness of mind, inasmuch as they did not grasp at rJW'l"e titan 
thei'r due by means of the greatness and populousness of thei'r 
Church. And thcy bring accusations against Julius for 
having communicated "ith Athanasius and the rest, and 
complained that their Synod (of Tyre) was insulted, and 
its decision annulled: and censurcd "hat had ùeen done 
as unjwst and contrary to Ecclesiastical rule. Having made 
these eensurcs, and declared that they had been gl'catJy 



wronged, they ojfered peace and Commuuion to Julius, if he 
 E C T. 
would receive the deposition of those whom they had ex- III. 
pelled, and the estahlishment of those whom they had elected 
in their stead: but if he resisted thcir decree, they threat- 
ened a contrary course. For they maintained that the Priests 
throughout the East, their predecessors, had made no resist- 
ance, when N ovatian was expelled from the Roman Church." 
('fhis was a mistake: for great resistance had been made: 
"his condemnation bv a celebrated Couucil of Rome had Tillemont, 
. . w . . . 7. '277 aml 
only been receIVed In the East with much difficulty, and 3.462-4. 
after several Councils hcld in each Province:" but it only 
strengthens the argument for Eastern independence.) "But 
h . d . fì h d f h C . 1 Ecc. lh-t. 
as to t elr con uct 111 re erence to t e ecrees 0 t. e ounCI 3. 8. 
of Nicea, they did not even make him any answer, stating 
that they had many necessary reasons wherewith to dcfend 
what had been done, but that it was superfluous at that time 
to clear themselves on these points, as they were suspectcd 
of general injustice throughout." 
Doubtless these Bishops were part of that cruel Ariall The letter 
faction which was tyrannising throughout the East, but I 

do not see that this lessens the force of their testimony to a h rlverse to 
t e present 
the existing constitution of the Church. But let such as Papal 
.I f . dh hI f} claim. 
WlSLl urther to see what tlllS was, rea t e woe 0 t lat 
must moderate and dignified letter of l)ope Julius, from 
which I have above quoted. In it he justifics to these 
Bishops his conduct towards the eminent Saint, Athanasius, 
whom they pcrsecuted. They were indignant because, after 
thcy had most illegally deposed him, ill a Synod of their own 
at '},lyre, Julius had heard his causc, and given him his 
Communion. It was obvious for Julius to reply that he 
had done so as Head of the Church, in virtue of his Su- 
prcmacy: that the Bishop of Alexandria \Vas responsible to 
him for the due conduct of his See, as were all other Bishops: 
that, if wrong, by him he was to be punishcd; if right, 
by him to be upheld. Their strenuous declaration of inde- 
pcndcnce, their refusal even to takc the second place, would 
surely provoke him to this, had such a power been acknow- 
ledged to reside iu his Sec, or been cxerciscd by his predc- 
ccssors. On the contrary, throughout a long letter thcre IS 
no assumption of thc kind. The CWWlt of the ClwJ"ch i.


Sect. 22. 

See above, 

tIOn of the 
Church in 
BG2 as in- 
stance(1 in 
St. Atha- 


again and again appealed to as tile supreme authority. To 
meet the charge of reversing a decree of the Council of Tyre 
not any peculiar authority of the Bishop of Rome is alleged, 
but the agreement" of the Bishops of the great Council of 
Nicea, not without the will of God, that the decisions of 
one Council should be examined in another." This was 
just before the Council of Sardica, which allowed to Julius 
a certain limited right of hearing appeals: and it is the 
more remarlmhlc, tbat being the case, that he claims no 
such right in virtue of his Primacy. The utmost privilege he 
does claim is ill respect" to the Church of the Alexandrians 
in particular," and has been already eXplained by me above: 
aud that, after he had said that Bishops should be proceeded 
against according to the Canon of the Church, word being 
written to all their brethren, and a just sentence pro- 
ceeding from all. Thus, in the middle of the fourth cen- 
tury, Julius of Rome, and Athanasius of Alexandria, and 
the Bishops of the Antiochene Patriarchate, are really 
agreed in the main about the constitution of the Church. 
The conduct of Athanasius, at a particular juncture, ill 
the year 362, exhibits the then constitution of the Church 
in full action. "The accession of Julian was followed by a 
genera] restoration of the banished Bishops; and all eyes 
throughout Christendom were at once turned towards Alex- 
andria, as the Church, which, by its sufferings and its indo- 
mitable spirit, had claim to be the arbiter of doctrine, and 
the guarantee of peace to the Catholic world. Athanasius, 
as the story goes, was, on the death of his persecutor, sud- 
denly found on his Episcopal throne in one of the Churches 
of Alexandria; a legend happily expressive of the unwearied 
activity and almost ubiquity of that extraordinary man, who, 
while a price was sct on his head, mingled unpcrceived in 
the proceedings at Seleucia and Ariminum, and directed the 
movements of his fellow-labourers by his writings, "hen he 
was debarred the exercise of his dextcrity in debatc and his 
persuasive encrgy in private conversation. He was soon 
joined by his fellow-exile, Ellscbius of Vercellæ; Lucifer, who 
had journeyed with the latter from the upper Thebaid, on 
his return for the "r cst, having Icft him for Antioch on busi- 
ness, which will prcsclltlJ? be e"-plained. l\Ieanwhilc, no time 


was lost in holding a Council at Alexandria (A.D. 362), on SEe T. 
the general state of the Church." The question how to treat III. 
the Arianising Bishops, was one "of great difficulty:" it is 
almost needless to observe that it could only be settled by 
the supreme authority in the Church. And it was settled, as 
l\Ir. Newman informs us, at this Council of Alexandria. By Newman's 
this influence of Athanasius) "a decree was passed, that such 


Bishops, as had communicated with the Arians through weak- 
8:.7G, 382, 
ness or surprise, should be recognised in their respective 
Sees, on their signing the Nicelle formularies; but that those) 
who had publicly defended the heresy, should only be ad- 
mitted to lay Communion." And" their magnanimous de- 
cision was forthwith adopted by Councils held at Rome, in 
Spain, Gaul, and Achaia." Now the whole volume, from 
which I quote this, is an indirect indeed, but therefore un- 
suspicious, testimony against the present Roman Supremacy, 
inasmuch as it exhibits the Church Catholic, not in one in- 
stance, but during a struggle of fifty years, the most terrible 
she has ever undergone, acting throughout according to her 
Episcopal and Patriarchal constitution; in which the Bishop 
of Rome has indeed great influence, but neither that extent 
nor that kind of influence which he now claims, while the 
other Prelates of great Sees are seen also in the possession 
of a precisely similar influence to his, and) more especially, 
acting as co-ordinate, and assessors with him. The decree 
of the Alexandrine Council, then, is only one instance of this 
among a multitude. But I have a letter of Athauasius con- 
cerning it to quote for this reason. ßlr. Newman alleges in 
behalf of the Supremacy, that St. Damasus writes to the 
Eastern Bishops, calling them (C most honoured Sons." The On Deve- 
I . d h b . . 3 - 3 d I t lopmellt 
etter IS suppose to ave een WrItten III , , an canno p. 173. ' 
but observe that the Bishops composing the second Ecume- 
nical Council in 381 seem by their synodical letter, which 
I have quoted already in full, to have a very small sense of 
the parental authority lodged in Pope Damasus, telling him 
plainly that the government of the Eastern Churches from 
Apostolic tradition belongs to them, and not to him: and, 
moreover, acting very decidedly upon their words. But how 
little this appellation of Sons, addressed by a Patriarchal 
throne to Bishops, proves what 
ir. Newman wants it for, 

174.- ::>1'. .\TJT\NA
ll':-- ('ALL:::ì.\ LHSIIOP I11

C HAP. may be :seen bv the following Icttcr of A thanasins to thp 
 Bishop Rufillim;us. "To the Lord, my Sou, aud most dear 
Athan. fi 11 .. fi . h . d I .. 
tom. 1. 963. e ow-munster, Ru manus, At anaslUS sen et 1 greetmg III 

; his the Lord. You indeed write what is becoming a well-beloved 
Son. Son to his Father. At least as you drew near me by your 
letter, I grasped you in my arms, 0 Rufinianus, most dear 
to me of all. And I, though I could write to JOu at the 
beginning and midclle and end of my letter as a Son, yet 
checked myself, that it might not seem a public commenda- 
tion aud testimony. For )'OU are my letter, as it is written, 
known and read in my heart.-Thus therefore believe, allù 
be thus affected, )'es, believe: I beg and entreat you to write: 
for thus you give me not a little but a great delight. But 
since excellently, ancl accorùing to Ecclesiastical orcler,-for 
this again is as becomes Jour piety,-you have consultccl 
me concerning the case of those who have been drawn away 
by violence, yet not corrupted by heretical belief, and wish 
me to write to you what was decreed concerlling them iu tllC 
Councils, and every where: know, my most clear Lord, that 
immediately, on the cessation of violence, there was a Coun- 
cil held of the Bishops present from foreign parts: there was 
also one held by our fellow-ministers in Greece: and no le
by those in Spaiu and Gaul: and that was agreed upon 
which was agreed upon here ancl every where, that those who 
had fallen and Leen leaders in the impiety, shoulù be re- 
ceived to repentance, but not allowed their place in the 
Clergy: while those who did not encourage the impiety, 
but were drawn aside by constraint anù violence, should ue 
treated compassionately, aud even retain their rank in the 
Clergy: especially because they have givcn a reasollabJe 
excuse, and it seemed good that a dispensation should be 

Iansi,tom. cxercisecl in their case." "This," says the Seventh Ecume- 
. 1030. D . I C . 1 I . I J . I d ". J . 
and 1034. ' nIca OUllCI , at W lIC 1 t lIS etter was rea, IS not t Ie VOIce 
A. of the holy Athanasius alone, but also of Councils, bccause 
the same li'ather says, that both the Romans, and the Bishops 
of Greece, received it." And presently, "the most holy 
Pah'iarch Tarasius said, the decision of our Father Athallasius 
instructs us, that the most reverend Bishops are to be rc- 
ceived, if there be no othcr cause against them." 
Thus, in this difficult case, how the Arianising Bishops 

"l.PHE:m.; POWER I
YXOD:-:. 1 Î;) 

wcre-to be treated, was settled by the Synods of the several g E CT. 
Provinces to which thcy belonged. Pope Liherius in his III. 
13 h I k f I Al d . d G 1 d .. Consrant, 
tetter spea sot Ie exan rme an ree \: eCISlOn Epist. Pon- 
. fl . I . } I . h II . tiff Rom 
as In uencmg urn, "w 10 la,Te to welg a cIrcumstances p.448. ' 
with moderation." The decision of Athanasius is quoted 
four hundred years later at an Ecumenical Council as autho- 
l'itative. Thus the supreme power of dispensing in the case 
of Bishops is exercised by Athanasius, as afterwards by 
St. Cyril, in virtue of his See, and without any reference 
to Rome. And St. Basil tclls the Neocæsareans, if he ever 
received any that were secretly Arians upon their profession 
of orthodoxy, he did it, "not suffering myself to form a So Basil. 
judgment entirely on my own responsibility conccrning :
them, but following the decrees passed concerning them 1>. 
by our Fathers. For I received a letter from the blessed 
Father Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, which I have in 
my hands, and shew to those who ask it, in which he plainly 
declared, that if anyone were minded to come over from the 
Ariall heresy, and confess the faith of Nicea, such an one 
should be received without hesitation: and he cited to me 
as joining in this all the Bishops both of nIacedonia 
and Achaia: and I conceived it necessary to follow so great 
a man, on:account of the authority of those who passed the 
law," &c. "This Council" (of Alexanùria) "may pass," TillenlOnt. 
T O ll f . f I . t 1 . h h tom. x. 2t1lÎ. 
says 1 emont, " or one 0 t Ie most Importan W 1!C as 
ever heen held." 
TIut there is a very striking passage in the history of Pope Pas8ag
L . b . I . I t b I I t tl t t . the lile of 
1 erms, W llC 1 seems 0 e ong pI'Oper y 0 Ie es Imouy Pope LilJe- 
of Athanasius, I mean his interrogatory before the Em- rins. 
peror Constantius, when he refused to betray the cause of 
that persecuted Saint. If Pope Liberius afterwards sullied, 
at least for a time, the glory of his confession, yet is it diffi- 
cult to finù a nobler passage of Ecclesiastical history than his 
contempt of the Emperor's threats and seductions. I shall 
give lUuch of it, in the words of Theodoret, because it so 
happens that the defender of the Church's Catholic cousti- 
tution iu the nineteenth century can hardly desire a morc 
favourable statement of his cause than that supplied by Pope 
Liberius in the fourth. If ever the light of that century 
shine's clearly, it is here. "I desire," says the Bishop of 


C HAP. Cyrus, rr to insert in my history the bold couduct of the 
 illustrious Liberius in behalf of the truth, and the admirablc 
Theodoret, 1 h . l } } II " I C " F " } b 
Eccl. Hist. anguage W IC I Ie Ie ( Wit I onstantms. j or It las eell 
2 15-17 " tt d .. 1 " f I d b . fit 
ferred t
 comml e to wrItUlg JY pIOUS men 0 t lat ay, as emg 
by Launoy. to encourage and inspire with zeal the lovers of divine things. 
It was he who directed the Church of the Romans after 
_ Julius, the successor of Silvester. 
"The Emperor Constantius said, \Ye have thought yon 
fitting, as being a. Christian, and Bishop of our city, to bc 
sent for, and we charge you to reject Communion with the 
flagitious folly of the impious Athanasius. For the whole 
world hath approved of this course, and hath judged him to 
be sevcred from Ecclesiastical Communion by the decrees of 
a. Council. The Bishop Liberius answered, Ecclesiastical 
judgments, 0 Emperor, ought to be conducted with great 
equity. If therefore it seems good to your piety, ordcr a 
court of judgment to be assembled. And if Athallasius be 
found worthy of condemnation, then, according to the course 
marked où.t by Ecclesiastical practice, sentence will be passed 
against him. For we cannot condemn a mall whom we have 
not judged. Constantius the Emperor said, The whole world 
has given sentence concerning his impiety, and how from the 
beginning he lays hold of any circumstanccs to clude dctec- 
tion. The Bishop Liberius answered, Those who subscribed 
were not eye-witnesses of the facts, but did it through desire 
of distinction, or through fear of being dishonourcd by yon. 
The Emperor, ".hat mean you by this desire of distinction, 
or fear of dishonour? Libel'ius, Those who 100-e not the 
glory of God, having more regard to your presents, COll- 
demned, without judging him, a person whom they had not 
seen, which is foreign to the practice of Christians. The 
Emperor, Rut he was in person judged in the Synod held 
at Tyre, and in this Synod all the Bishops of the world con- 
demned him. Liberius, lIe has never been judged in 
person, &c. The Bishop Epictetus said, 0 Emperor, it is 
not in behalf of the faith, nor of Ecclesiastical judgmcnts, 
that Liberius is now speaking, but that he may make his 
boast to the Senators of Rome that he has out argued the 
Emperor. The Empcror said to Liherius, 1I7wt portion of 
the world are you, that you alone makc cau
e with an impious 


'L\)íTILS. 177 

man, and break up the peace of the and the wholp 
world? Liberius, The cause of the faith is not diminished 
because I am alone, for in old times three alone were found 
to resist the command. The Eunuch Eusebius replied ; You 
make our Emperor a N ebuchadnezzar. Liberius said, No: 
but you condemn without reason a man whom we have not 
judged. But for my pa]'t Il.equest t!tat an universal subscrip- 
tion first take place, to cotlfirm tlte faith set forth at Nicea: in 
order that, when our brethren have been called back from 
their banishment, and restored to their own places, should 
those who now create disturbances in the Churches be seen 
agreeing with the Apostolic faith, we may then all meet at 
.Alexandria, where are both the accused alid the accusers, 
and their supporter, and having taken inquiry about these 
matters may pass a concordant sentence on them. The Bi- 
shop Epictetus observed: The public posts would not be suffi- 
cient for the passage of the Bishops. Liberius, Ecclesiasti- 
cal affairs do not need the public posts. The Churches can 
afford to convey their own Bishops as far as the sea. rrhe 
Emperor, 'Vhat has already takcn form cannot be undone. 
For the sentence of the greater number of Bishops ought to 
prevail. You are the only one who claims the friendship of 
that impious man. Liberius said, 0 Emperor, we have 
never heard of a judge alleging impiety against an accused 
person in his absence, as if he were carrying on a pri,Tate 
quarrel with a man. The Emperor, lIe has injured all 
togcther: hut no one like me: &c.-Liberius, 0 Emperor, 
make not Bishops instruments to avenge JTour wrath. For 
the hands of Ecclesiastics ought to have leisure from all but 
blcssiug. \Yhercfore, if you think good, ordcr the Bishops 
to be recallcd to their several posts. And if they be seen to 
accord with him who now defeuds the orthodox faith set forth 
at Nicea, thcn let thcm assemble together, and consider for 
the pcace of the world, that it may not be proved that one 
who has committed no fault has bcen censured. 'rhe Em- 
peror, One thing is wantcd. l\Iy plemml'e is to send you 
back to Rome whcn you have cmbraced Communion with the 
Churches. COllscnt therefore to peace, and subscribe and 
return to Romc. Liberius, I hm"e alrcady biddcn farcwell 
to my Brethren at Rome. For the laws of thc Church arc of 





more importance than dwelling in Rome. The I
Yon hm e then a delay of three days for consideration, 
whether you win subscribe and return to Rome, or make np 
YOlU mind where you wish to be transported. Liberius, 
The space of three days or months does llOt change one's 
mind. Send me therefore where you will. And the :Em- 
peror, having two days after called Liberius, when he would 
not change his mind, sentenced him to be banished to Beræa. 
in Thrace. 'Vhen Liberius was gone out, the Emperor sent 
him 500 pieces of money for his expenses. Liberius :said to 
the bearer, Return, giye them to the Emperor. For he 
wants them to give to his soldiers. So too the l
mpress sent 
him the same. Liberius said, Take them back to the Em- 
peror, for he needs them for the pay of his armies. But if 
the Emperor does not want them, let him give them to 
Auxentius and Epictetus: for this is what they want. AmI 
when he would not take it from them, the Eunuch Eusebius 
offers him others. But Liberius said to him, You have deso- 
lated the Churches of the world, and then ofrer me an 
alms as a condemneù criminal. Go, and first become a 
Christian. Anù after three days he was' banished refusing 
to take anything. 
"So the glorious champion of the truth went to Thrace 
as he was enjoined. But after two years COllstantius came 
to Rome. N ow the wi\"es of persons in office and high rank 
besought their husbands to supplicate Constantius to restore 
the shepherd to his flock, declaring that otherwise they 
would leave their husbands, and fly to that great pastor. 
These answered, that they feared tile Emperor's wrath. For 
to us that are men be will not perhaps make any allowance; 
but if you request him, he will surely hm-e consideration, 
and eithcr yield your request, or, if not, send you away with- 
out hurt. Those admirable women, accepting this advicc, 
approached the Emperor in their accustomed magnificence, 
in ordcr that, sceing them by thcir dress to be of great dis- 
tinction, he might recei,"e them with respect and lcnity. 
And so approaching him they besought him to pity so great 
a city deprived of its shepherd, and e
posed to the inroads 
of wolves. 'rbe Emperor replied that the city did not need 
any other shepherd, but had one that was able to take care 

ü"1:<'ERF.W'E }'RO:\I THIS X -tRR \'rIVE. 


of it. For after the great Liberius one of his deacons had S E CT. 
been elected, nameù Felix, ,'rho kept indeed himself the 
whole faith set fortb at Nicea, but freely communicated with 
those who were corrupting it. But no Roman would go into 
the house of prayer when he was in it. And these ladies told 
the Emperor this. Inùuced by which he ordered, that that 
most excellent man should return, and that both in common 
should direct tbe Church. "
hen this letter was read in 
the Circus, the people shouted out, that the Emperor's 
sentence was just, for that the spectators were di,'ided into 
two parties, taking their names from their colours, and one 
might govern the one, and the other the other. Thus they 
turned to ridicule the Emperor's letter, and uttered with one 
voice, one God, one Christ, one Bishop. For I have thought 
it fitting to set down their vel'y words. After these cries, 
replete "ith piety and justice, of that Christ-lm-ing people, 
the admirable Liberius returned, but Felix retired and dwelt 
in anothel' city." 
Now to the distinct and decisive testimony of this nar- Inference 
. I I ";'I from this 
rahve {llOW not what can be added. 'fhe Emperor, Hot narrative. 
wishing to offend Liberius, but to bend him to his purpose, 
treats him as a single Bishop, though that of the chief city. 
Liberius does 110t demur to this. 'Yhen the Emperor says, 
/tow large a portion of tIle u'orld are you, that you alone take 
up the cause of this impious man, Liberius does not l'eply, 
as it would have been natural for him to reply, had he known 
it, I am the Head of the universal Church, the one Yicar of 
Christ, without whom other Bishops can do nothing. On 
the contrary he accepts the Emperor's word, and answers, 
The cause of the faith is not diminished by my loneliness, 
for of old time three alone were found to resist the king's 
command. Again, the ladies of Rome request the Emperor 
to take pity on so great a city deprivcd of its shepherd, not 
to take pity on the whole Church depl'ived of the superin- 
tendence of its Head. Both the l'Cply of Liherius, and the 
request of the ladies, would have l)ad tcnfold force, had it 
been such as I have supposed. But in truth the Emperor's 
taunt would have been absurd, "How large a portion of the 
world are you," &c. l\Iorem'er, all that Pope Liberius req uests 
is, that a Council of Bishops shouJù asscmble and settl(' the 



C HAP. whole matter of Athanasius, and that, not at Rome but at 
Alexandria. It would be hard to state in more decisive 
terms than this Pope does, that the supreme power in the 
Church resides in her assembled Bishops: and besides, the 
way in which he defends Athanasius proves, in accordance, . 
as I have noted, with the letter of St. Julius, that the Bishop 
of Rome, not however alone, but at the head of the 'Vestern 
Bishops, received the appeal of Athanasius because all Eccle- 
siastical rule had in his case been grossly violated, not be- 
cause the See of Rome at that time claimed a power of rc- 
hearing causcs once validly settled by all Episcopal judg- 
ment in Council. 
Summary 'fhus the writings and conduct of that great Saint, who 
of St. Atha- . 
nasÍus. was persecuted III the East, but supported by the courage of 
successive Bishops of Rome, and righted first by their Pro- 
vincial Council, and then by the great 'Vestcrn Council of 
Sardica, are no more in favour of the present Roman Supre- 
macy, or what 
Ir. Newman calls the monarchical principlc 
in. the Church, than those of St. Basil, the Saint whom 
Rome slighted and discouragcd. St. Athallasius, occupying 
that Eastern throne which was closest connected with Itome, 
himself beholden to her in no ordinary degree, calls her the 
metropolis of Romania, esteems her Bishop, like himself, 
possessor of an .Apostolical throne, numbers him among other 
orthodox Bishops, placing some before and some after him, 
a small thing in itself, but utterly irreconcilable with such a 
position as Roman Catholics now assign to him, and, finally, 
acts himself on the most important occasions as a co-ordinate 
and independcnt authOl'ity. 


4. St. Chry- Now as I mentioned at length St. Augustine's interprcta- 
lIostome. tiOll of those passages in Holy 'V rit, which are now put for- 
ward as warranting the special claims of the Roman See, I 
think it desirable to compare with his the interprctatioll 
given by the great Fathers St. Chrysostome and St. Cyril of 
these same passages. Not only is this highly valuable in 
itself, but it will throw collaterally grcat light on the consti- 



tution of the Church, and enahle us the better to estimate SEe T. 
their actions, inasmuch as they were not only Doctors but IV. 
possessors of Patriarchal thrones. Their doctrinal and di- 
dactic teaching and their official acts corroborate each other. 
A single phrase may be perverted, or estimated at too much 
or too little; but a connected and consistent view of doc- 
trine, amI a series of acts, form a whole of which it is difficult 
to resist tIle weight, or colour the testimony. 
St. Chrysostome in a great many places refers to St. Peter's 
personal Primacy. 'rIms in the election of 
Iatthias, "c And Tom. 9.23. 
. 1 d P . h . d f h d . . I d B. E. 24. E. 
III t lOSe ays eter rose up m t e ml st 0 t e ISClp es an 25. B. 26. 
said.' _\8 one eager, and as entrusted by Christ with the B p . _c. D. f 
. . nmacy 0 
flock, and as the first of the chOIr, he ever first begms to St. Peter. 
, Election of 
speak. C And the number of names together was, he says, Matthias. 
C about a hundred and twcnty. 1\J en and brethren, this Scrip- 
ture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost 
spake before.' 'Vhy then did he not singJy ask of Christ to 
gi \Te him some one in the place of .J udas? And why do they 
not make the election of themseh-es? Peter had now im- 
proved. We may thus answer this. 'Yhy they did not 
simply but by revelation ask for one to fill up their band, 
for this we will assign two reasons: the first, that they" ere 
engaged about othcr things: the second, that this was the 
greatest pI'oof of Christ's presence with them. For bcing 
absent lIe made the election as He "",ouM have done if 
present. And this was no small matter of consolation. 
But observe Peter doing this with common consent: no- 
thing of authority; nothing with dominion. Aud he did 
not say simply thus: Instead of Judas we elect this man: 
but, consoling them about what had past, see how he 
manages his discourse. For what had happened, had caused 
no small distress. And do not wonder at this. F or if 
many at present twist about this fact, what may we expect 
that they said? 
Ien and brethren, he says: if the Lord 
called them brethren, how much more he. Tl
is is why he 
declares this in the presence of all. Behold a Church's 
dignity and angelical order. Noone was there torn frolu 
the Body: there was neither male nor female. Such would 
I have the Churches be now. . . . C 'Yherefore,' saith he, 'of 
these men that have companied with us all the time.' . . . 



C HAP. 'Yhy does he communicate this to them? That the matter 
may not be contested, nor they fall into strife. For if this 
had happened to them, (the Apostles contcnùing who should 
be first,) much more would it to the others. And this he 
ahvays avoids. Therefore he said at the beginning, ÀIen 
and brethren, we must choose one of us. He commits the 
judgment to the multitude, both to invest with respect those 
who were chosen, and to escape himself odium from the 
rest. . . . ' To be a witness with us of His resu1'l'ection.' "Thy? 
that the choir might not be lopped of its number. ""hat 
then. l\Iight not Peter himself have elected? Certainly. 
But he does not so, that he might not seem partial. l\Iore- 
over he had not as yet received the Spirit. 'And they ap- 
pointed,' he saith, 'two, Joseph that is called Barsabas, and 
l\iatthias.' lIe did not appoint them, but all. But he intro- 
duced the matter, shewing that it was not even his own, but 
from above according to prophecy. So that he was an inter- 
preter, not a master." On which words Bossuet says of 

ossuet's an opponent: "He drcams that it was Chrysostome's mean- 
mterpreta-. I P II I ,1 I I I f I . 
tiol1 of this. mg t lat eter cou ( lave uone t le w 10 e matter 0 lIS own 
 lib. 8. right., eyen without consulting his bl'ethren, which is far from 
c. 11. 
the mind of Chrysostome, and from those times. Chrysos- 
tome's meaning was, that Peter, the chief of the sacred band, 
might, as he had first spoken about the election, at the same 
time hm"e sclectcd and markcd out some one, in whom the 
rest would then hm"e readily agreed, wJlich is indeed to be 
the first, not tlle only one, selecting. Eut Peter did not do 
this. He said indcfillitely, one of them must be ordained to 
be a witness with us of Christ's resurrection. Chrysostome 
therefore marks the moderation of Peter in being unwilling 
to pre-occupy the judgments of others. But if they mean 
what ne,"er cntcl'ed iuto Chrysostoll1e's thoughts, that Peter 
even singly might have a1'l'anged the whole matter authori- 
tatively, what then will follow? Surely that Peter's suc- 
ccssor, separately from the Church e'"en when asscmhled, 
may do something, designate for instance a certain Bishop, 
but not therefore be able to dccree these points of supreme 
importance, which concern the faith, and schism, and uni- 
versal rcformation, on which the question turns." 
}'urther on the Saint proceeds. "Ob
erve the modcra- 



tion of James. He received the Bishopric of J eru5\alem, and SEe T. 
yet he says nothing then. Observe too the great humility 
of the other disciples, how they 
Tield him place, and no 
longer dispute with each other." -" He (Peter) first acted 
the teacher. He said not, 'Ye are sufficient: so frce was 
lIe from aU vain-glory. And he looked to one thing only: 
although indeed he had not an authority equal to that of Ka{TOL oM
II n I I . d I . I lUÓTV1I'01l 
a. ut t lese t lIngs passe t IUS WIt I reason on account éÍ7rauUl 
of the virtue of the man: and because the task of govern- e1XE,'T-1)11 
f b f .. KaTaUTa- 
ment was then not a matter 0 honour ut 0 sohcItude for Util. 
tlle governed. . . . They were a hundred and twenty, and he 
asks one out of the whole number. Justly. lIe first acts 
with authority in the matter, as being himself put in charge 
of all. For to him Christ said, And thou, 'when thou art 
cOllyerted, strengthcn thy brethren." 
Elsewhere he says," After so great an evil (of denying Tom. 2. 809. 
Christ) He restored him to his former honour, and put into D. 
his hands the presidency of the uni,"ersal Church." Preach- 
ing before his Bishop Flavian at Antioch he says, "lIe too Tom. 3. iO. 
received this name Peter not from wonders and signs, but B. 
from zeal and earnest affection. For it was not because he 
raised the dead, nor because he made the lame man upright, 
that he was so called; but, because he shewed forth a true 
faith together with his confession, he inherited this name, 
Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build ßly Church. TJ.e Rock 
 I ? b I d ' d . I b b I . d Peter's con- 
H IY. not ecause Ie I nurac es, ut ecause le SRI , fession. 
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Thou seest T f h A e B!"h h OP 
o ntlOc, 
that his yery being called Peter took its beginniug not from being out 
. . . of Commu- 
workmg miracles, but from ardent zeal. But, Slllce I haye !lion with 
mentioned Peter, another Peter occurs to me, our common 
Father and Teacher who beiuO' his succes
or in virtue has il
, ð hIS seat. 
also inherited his seat." (Singular enough it is that, at the 
moment the Saint said this, Flavian was not the Bishop of 
Antioch who enjoyed the Communion of Rome, hut was sup- 
ported by the East against Paulinus.) "For this, too, is one 
of the privileges of onr city, that it rccei,"ed at the hegin- 
ning for its teacher the first of the Apostles. FOl' fittiug it 
was that the city, "hich, before the wholc world, encircled her 
brows with the namc of Christian, should l'ecei,-e as Pastor 
the first of thc .A postles. nut, though we receiyed him fur 



C II A P. our teacher, we did not keep him to the end, but Jielded 
III. I . . . 
-- nm to ImperIal Rome: or rather we kept him to the end. 
:For we haxe not indeed the body of Peter, but we keep the 
faith of Pcter as himself: and having the faith of Peter, we 
have Peter himself." 
If the Saint at this time knew and belim.ed the doctrine 
t hat the first of the Apostles had not only left his body to 
Rome, but the ::\Ionarchy of the universal Church, this is at 
least a remarkable mode of speaking. 
Furtl1Cr, I cannot find that he considered the person of 
De nom. Peter to be the Rocl,;:, (which Bellarmine says is the opinion 
Pont., lib. f C 1 ] . 1 f 
1. c. 10. 0 at 10 ICS genera ly, 0 the whole Church and of the Grcek 
and Latin Fathers,) hut his confes!iion of the Godhead and 
ock J\Ianhood. Thus," Haying said to Peter, Blessed art thou, 
Peter s con- C1. J d I . . 
Imon Bar- onas, an lavmg promIsed to lay the founda- 
T 6 .?
. C l0. tions of the Church upon his confession, not long after lIe 
;y{. . 
says, Get thee behind :\Ie, Satan." 
Again, in a passage to be noted for another rcason, 
Tom. i. "Christ, wishing to repress this, (Peter's confidence,) per- 
.85. C. 
mitted his denial. For when he would not listen either to 
Him or to the Prophet,-for for this very purpose He had 
cited the Prophet, that he might not contradict-but when 
he would not bear the treatment of words, lIe teaches him 
by deeds. For to shew that He therefore permitted it, that 
He might correct this in him, hcar what He says, 'But I 
Imve prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.' For this he 
spake sevcrely touching him, and shewing that his fall was 
worse than that of the rest, and necding more help. For 
there were two charges, that he contradicted, and that he 
put himself before the rest, or rathcr a third, tlJat he ascribed 
all to himself. To CUl'e this, then} He permitted the fall, 
and therefore, lem-ing the rest, He turns to him. For He 
saith, 'Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to sift you 
as wheat,' that is, to confound, to disturb, to tempt: 'but I 
lun-e prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.' And" hercforc, 
if he desired all, said lIe not for all, I prayed? Is it not plain 
that it is for the reason I mcntioned above? To touch him, 
and shew him that his fall was worse than that of the rest, 
lIe addresses him. And whcrcfore said lIe not, I have not 
permitted, but, I prayed? Bcing about to suffcr, lIe speal\.s 



humbly, to shew the humanity. For He wllo built the Clw'ì"cll SECT. 
upon his confession, and so fortified it that unnumbered IV. 
dangers and deaths should not gain the victory over it: lIe, 
who gave to him the li.:eys of the heavens, and made him 
Lord of such powEr, and needcd not prayer for this,-for He 
did not then say, I prayed, but, with authority, I will build 
J\Iy Church, and I will give to thee the keys of heaven-how 
needed He prayer to fix the agitated mind of one man? 
'Vherefore, then, spake lIe thus? for the cause that I have 
mentioned, and on account of their weakness, for they had 
not yet the fitting opinion about Him. How then denied 
he? lIe said not, that thou mayest not deny, but that tllY 
faith fail not, that it perish not utterly." 
Again, when, iu one of his most elaborate works, the com- Interp1"cta- 
. tionofAIatt. 
mentary on St. )fatthew, he comes to the passage Itself, and 16. 16. 
speaks of it in detail, not only does he make the Rock to be 
St. Peter's conFession, but his argument leads him to dwell 
in an especial manner on the fact that it was St. Peter's ex- 
pressed faith in the Godhead and l\lanhood, our Lord's true 
and incommunicable Sonship and Consubstantiality with the 
Father, which drew down so peculiar a blessing. "'Vhat 
then saith Peter, the mouth-piece of the Apostles? He that Tom. 7. 
is ever ardent, the leader of the haud of the Apo
tles, when 
\Æ: ir. 
a11 are asked, answers himself." . . . "If he had not COIl- 
fessed Him genuine Son and born of the Father Himself, 
this had not been matter of revelation: since before him 
they who were in the vessel aftër the storm which they saw 
had said, 'Truly He is Son of God,' and were not blessed, 
although they had spoken the truth. For they did not COIl- 
fess sueh a Sonship a3 Peter, but thought Him to he reany 
a Son, one out of many, distinguished inùeed beyond the 
many, but not of His Very Substance. And Nathanael too 
said, 'Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King 
of Israel,' yet not only is he not blessed, but, as having 
spoken something much beneath the truth, is censured by 
Him. At least .lIe added, 'Because I said unto thee, I saw 
thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater 
things than these.' 'Vhy then is Peter blessed? Because he 
confessed Him to be genuine Son." . . . " \Vhat then saith 
Christ? 'Thou art Simon, SOil of Jonas; thou 
halt he called 


CHAP. Cephas.' For since thou hast proclaimed 
fy Father, saith 
Ie, too name him that begat thee: all but saying, that as 
thou art SOB of Jonas, so am I of l\fy Father: since it was 
superfluous to say, thou art Son of Jonas. But since he 
had called Him Son of God, to shew that lIe is Son of God 
in the sense in which the othcr is son of Jonas, of the same 
substance with his father, therefore lIe added this, 'And 
say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
build i\Iy Church,' that is, upon tILe faith of his confession. 
Hence He shews that many were about to believe, and raises 
his spirit, and makes him a shepher<l." . . . "For what 
belongs to God alone, to loose sins, and to render the 
Church immoveable in such an assault of waves, and to 
make a fisherman more solid than any rock, when the whole 
world was at war with him, thcse are what He promises to 
gi\'e him: as the Father addrcssing Jeremiah said, 'I have 
made thee-an iron l)illar and hrasen walls,' hut him to one 
nation, whereas the other to the whole world. \Villillgly 
would I ask those who wish to diminish the dignity of the 
Son, which are the greatest gifts, those which the Father 
gave to Pctcr, or those which the Son? For He bestowed 
on Pcter the revelation of the Son, but thc Son disseminated 
that of the Father and of Himself through the whole world, 
and put iuto the hands of a mortal man power over all tl1ings 
in heaven, when lIe gave him the keys: 'Yho eÀtended the 
Church through the whole world, and shewed it to be firmer 
than the hem-cll." 
Again, assigning as above a rcason wIlY the Lord said to 
Tom_ 8. Pctcr, I have praved for thee, "I, He says, restraincd him, 
} 85 t . D. t knowin g that YC 
annot bear the tem p t;tion. For the ex- 
n (".pre a- 
tion of Luke P ression, 'that thv faith fail not,' shcws that had He pcr- 
2:L 32. 
mitt cd it, his faith would have failed. TIut if Pctcr, the 
fen-cOnt 100'er of Christ, who exposcd his lifc for Him times 
numberless, m-en starting forth before the company of Apo- 
stles, and blcsscd hy his 
Iaster, and thercfore called Peter, 
because he had a firm unchangeaLle faith, if he would }J:l\-e 
been carricd away, and given up his confcssion, had CJlI,ist 
permittcd the de\-il to tcmpt him as much as lie wished, 
what other shall be able to stand without Uis assistance?" 
It i:5 certainly time to quote these interpretations of the 


great Fathers, when we are told that the words "I have S E C T. 
prayed for thee that thy faith fail not," mean an express IV. 
. Contrast 
covenant from our Lord to the Bishop of Home, as occupant between 
I I I II f h CI St. Chn"sos- 
of the See of Peter, t lat, t lOug 1 a the rest 0 t e -/ lUrch tome'" .in- 
should fail , his faith should vet stand. And in like manner ter d Pr t e h tat \ iO t n 
. an e a e 
that the passage in )Iatthew is the charter by which supreme Roman one. 
power to rule the Church is put into the Roman Pontiff's 
hands, and that in John, Feed J\Iy sheep, is in such sense 
a commission to feed the "hole Church that all other shep- 
herds recei,"e their commission through him: so that, even 
their orders being valid, they cannot hm.e legitimate juris- 
diction, save from that one Pontiff's hands. Since the time 
of Bellarmine this interpretation has been more and more 
received in the Roman Communion, though opposed from 
time to time by men of great learning and ability, who could 
not but feel that the golden Canon of St. Vincent, Anti- 
quity, Universality and Consent, was directly against it. 
Assuredly had such been the anciently and universally re- 
ceived meaning, I could have accepted it, just as I would 
most readily accept the doctrine it is meant to assert, were 
it not that antiquity kno\\ s nothing of that doctrine. Those 
who feel that St. Vincent's Canon tells with an almost an- 
nihilating force against certain doctrines which they wish to 
hold, may give it up: I, for one, where it can be applied} 
think it convincing: and this matter of the Roman Supre- 
macy is just one to which that inùuction can be applied to 
an unusual extent. 
N ow let the language of St. Chrysostome on these various 
passages be fairly weighed. No thought, assuredly, had he, 
continually alluding, as he does, to St. Peter's Primacy, 
dwelling upon it, and speaking of it largely and generously, 
that, while this was to last for ever, and be wondrously 
developed into a great centralising power in the heart of 
the Church, on the other hand the Apostolic powers of his 
brethren were not to continue, (as llellarmiue asserts, and 
as the Roman theory and practice exhibit,) but be absorbed 
in the authority of their chief. Does he say, for instance, 
that Peter has the whole" orId committed to him? This is 
truc, but then it is not exclusivcly of his brcthrcn, but in 
conjunction with them. Bellarrnine" ill quote him for the 



C HAP. first point, but omit the second. For instance, the following 
is the comment of St. Chrysostome on the third of the pas- 
Tom. 8. sages in question. "J esus saith unto Simon Pcter, Simon, 
525. D. 
52ï. B. son of Jonas, 1m-est tlwu 
Ie more than thcse? He saith 
1 528. A. unto Him, Yea, Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee. He 

fJohn saith unto him, Feed J\Iy sl1Cep. And why then, passing by 
21. 10. the rest, does lIe converse with him on these things? He was 
the chosen of the Al)ostles, and the mouth-piece of the dis- 
ciples, and the head of the band. Thereforc also Paul once 
went up to see him rather than the rest. It was besidcs to 
shew him that for the future he must be bold, as the denial 
was done away with, that lIe puts into his hands the pre- 
sidency over the brethren. And He does not mention the 
denial, nor rcproach him with what had past: but lIe says, 
if thou lmrest l\fe, rule the brethren, and shew now that 
warm affection which on all occasions thou hast shewn, and 
in which thou didst exult, and that life which thou didst 
offer to lay down for J\ie, now spend for J\Iy sheep." And 
a little further on. "But if an)r one asks, how then did 
James receive tIle throne of Jerusalem, I would reply that 
He elected Peter not to be teacher of this throne, but of the 
whole world." But presently the same is said of John, with 
Peter: "but since they were about to 'receive the charge of 
tile whole 'world, they were not for the future to be joincd 
together: for this would havc been a great loss to the 
world." 'rhus then St. Peter's being the chosen Apostle, 
tlte nwutlt-piece and head of the band, having tlte presidency 
over the brethren put into !tis hands, and being made teacher 
of the whole world, does not exclude the other .\postles like- 
wise from recei\ing the charge of the whole world. In exact 
accordance with this St. Cyril of Alexandria calls all thc 
Apostles docto'rs of the 'whole 'lvorld. For speaking of the 
confession madc by St. Thomas, l\Iy Lord and my God, he 
Ag-reernent says, "To him who so believed and was thus disposed at the 

.rril, enù of the Gospel lIe says, go and make disciples all nations. 
11u9. D. But if He bids one who thought thus to make disciples all 
nations, and appoints him Ecumenical Docto'r, He willeth that 
we should have no other faith." 
Surely Holy Scripture impresses on us the same view: for 
whilc in l\Iatt. x\.i. 10 the power to hind and to loose is 



P romised to St. Peter: I ll'ill g i,'e: "hatscever thou shalt S E C T. 
bind, whatsoever thou shalt loose &c., in )Iatt. xviii. 18 this 
promise is repeated to all the _\..postles. Still both these are 
promises. But in John xx. 21 and 23, this l)ower is actually 
conveyed not to Peter by himself, but to all together. "As 

ly Father sent l\Ie, m-en so send I you." "'Vhose sins ye 
remit they are remitted: whose ye retail!' they are retained." 
And this after He had said, breathing on them, " Receive ye 
the Holy Ghost." As it was in conjunction with his brethren 
that St. Peter was made a Priest to offer the pure and un. 
bloody sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, when the 
Lord said, "This do in remembrance of l\Ie:" so in con- 
junction with his brethren did he receive the power of 
binding and loosing sins, which belongs to that most awful 
Priesthood. Thus St. Chrysostome commenting on the 
passage of John xx. 21 and 23, takes it as a grant to the 
whole Priesthood of the Church. 
"For great is the dignity of Priests: '''Those sins,' saith He, Tom. 8. 
, - h . .,1' " T I f ' 1 P I . d C Ob 517.C.518. 
ye remit, t ey are remItteu. lere ore a so au sm , ey E. 
them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, J
 h1l2(f' 21: 
a grant to 
and hold them yery highly in honour.' FOl' thou carest for the whole 
tl . d . f " h ,I. I II . 1 h Priesthood. 
nne own matters, an 1 t OU Ulsposest t lese we ,WI t ave 
no account to give of the rest. But the Priest, though he 
order well his own life, yet, if he take not careful charge of 
thine, or of all about him, will depart into hell with the 
wicked. And oftentimes, not ha\'Ïng been betrayed by his 
own actions, he is ruined by yours, if he has not well per- 
formed all which belongs to himself. Knowing therefore 
the greatness of the danger shew for them great good-will. 
'Vhich Paul intimated in his words, 'for they watch over 
your souls,' and that not simply, but as 'those that must 
give an accouut.' ... Think what Christ says concerning 
the Jews: 'the Scribes and the Pharisees sit in 1\Ioses' 
seat: all therefore that they say unto you to do, do ye.' 
But now we may not say' The Pricsts sit in l\Ioses' seat, 
but in that of Christ.' For His office of teaching have they 
inherited. 'Vherefore also Paul saith, '\Y e are ambassadors 
for Christ, as if God besought you through us.' . . . But why 
say I Priests? N either Angel nor Archangel can do any- 
thing in what)s given of God: but the Father and the SOIl 


CHAP. and the Holy Spirit dispenseth all: the Priest lendeth his 
III. 1 
tongue aue stretcheth forth his hand." 
In another passage he says to the same effect, 
Tom. 1. " For the Priesthood is performed indeed upon the em'tII, 
2. B. 383. but holdeth the rank of things done in heaven. And with 
great reason. For ncither man, nor Angel, nor Archangel, 
nor any other created powcr, but the Paraclete Himself, hath 
arranged tl1Ïs service: and taught those who are yet in the 
The Real flesh to represent the ministry of Angels. . . For when thou 
Presence as I L d . fi I d I . 1 I P . d 
stated by seest t le or sac)'} cee, an Ylllg, a:1< t le l'lcst stan - 

rë\:- ing over the sacrifice and praying, anrl all men empnr- 
pled with that precious Blood, dost thou think thJ 1 self 
to be still among men, and to stand upon the earth? . . . 
For if anyone would consider, how great a thing it is 
for one being a man, still encompassed with flesh and blood, 
to be able to draw nigh rrhat Blessed and Pure Nature, 
then would he plainly see how great an honour the grace 
of the Spirit hath conferred upon Priests. For hy their 
instrumentality both these things are done, and other things 
not at all inferior to these, both in respect of their dignity 
The Chris- and our salvation. For those who dwell on the earth and 
tian Priest-. I h b 1 . I h d .. . f 
hood. sOjourn t lere aye een entrm;tee WIt 1 tea ffinnstratlOll 0 
things in heaven, and have recei,-ed a power which neither 
to Angels nor Archangels hath God gi,.en. For not unto them 
is said: "Vhatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound 
in heaven, and whatsoe\'er ye shall loose on earth shaH be 
loosed in heaven.' For they who rule on earth have indeed 
the power of binding, but the body alone. 'Yhile this chain 
reacheth to the soul itself, and eAtendeth through the hea- 
vens. And \Vlmt acts Priests do below, these God ratifies 
above: and the Lord confirmeth the sentence of His Sf'r- 
vants. For what else hath Ile gi,'en them, but all power in 
heaven. For, saith lIe, 'whose sins ye remit, they are re- 
mitted, and whose ye retain, they are retained.' For what 
po" er can there be greater than this? The :Father hath 
gÏ\-en all jndgment unto the SOIl: but I behold them invested 
with all this by the Son. For unto this government they 
have been ad,'anced, as if they were already translated iuto 
the heavens, and had surpassed the nature of man, and had 
been set free from our affcctions. Again, were a king to 



commuuicate to any of his officers this honour, that he might S E cT. 
imprison whom he would and release them, such an one 
would be admired and looked up to by all. "\Vhile he that Superiority 
o of sniritual 
hath received from God an autllorlty so much greater than to tl'mporal 
this, as heaven is more precious than earth, and souls than power. 
bodies, seems to some men to have received so small an 
honour, that it can be imagined that one so entrusted should 
even despise the gift. A way ,vith 
uch madness. For it is 
manifest madness to despise so great a power, without 
wh-ich we can obtain neither sahTation nor the promised 
blessings. For if 110 one can enter into the kingdom of 
heaven except he be born again of water and of the Spirit, 
and he that eateth not the Flesh of the Lord and drinketh 
His Blood is cast out of eternal life, and if all these are 
done by nothing else but only by those holy hands-those 
of the Pricst I mean-how can allY one without these be 
ahle either to escape hell-fire, or gain the rewards which are 
laid up? }'or it is these, I say, these, who are entrusted 
with spiritual travails, and have committed to them the 
birth through Baptism. rrhrough these we put on Christ, 
and are buried together with the Son of God, become mem- 
bers of that blessed Head. So that with justice may they be 
to us not only more terrible than gO\"ernol's or kings, but also 
more honourable than fathers. For these begat us from blood 
aud the will of the flesh, but the others are causes to us of the 
birth from God, of that blessed regeneration, of the true 
liberty, and of the adoption by grace. The priest of the Jews Superiority 
I I h . d 1 0 f b 0 ofChrHiall 
la( aut Ol'lty to elver rom mhly leprosy, or rather, by no to Jewish 
means to deliver, but to approve those who had been delivered, I'riesthoO{l 
and you know how the office of Priest was then sought after; 
but these have received authority concerning, not the leprosy 
of the body, but the unclcanness of the soul, and not to ap- 
prove it when removed, but utterly to remO\Te it. So that 
such as dcspise them, are invohoed in greater crime, and 
worthy of greater punishment, than Dathall anù his company. 
:For if these claimed a powcr which did not belong to them, 
yet at least they had a wonderful conception of it; and 
shewcd this by seeking it earnestly. 'Vhereas the others, 
when this office hath been more highly honoureJ, aud hath 
l'eccivccl so great an increase, have dared to do contrarywise 


C II A P. indeed to them, but much worse than them. For it IS not 
Ill. so great an act of contempt to desire au honour which does 
not belong to one, as to despise blessings so great: but this 
latter is as much greater than the other, as the difference 
between contempt and admiration. 'Vhat soul then can be 
so miserable as to despise blessings so great I cannot say, 
unless it be one smitten with a goad from the demon. But 
to return whence I had digl'essed. Not in punishing only, 
but also in doing good, God hath given a greater power to 
Priests than to natural parents; and the diffcrence hetween the 
two is so great, as is that of the present and the future life: 
Authority for these beget us unto this, but those unto that. Aud these 
ofthePriest- . . . 
hood above cannot keep off even bodIly death from then' clnldren, nor 


 repel the assault of disease: but those have often saved the 
parents. soul, both in sickness, and at the point to perish, procuring 
to some a milder punishment, and not permitting others to 
fall into it at all: not only by teaching and warning, but 
also by the help of their prayers. For they have power to 
pardon sins not only when they regenerate us, but such also 
as are committed after this: for, saith he, 'is anyone sick 
among you, let him call the elders of the Church, and let 
them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of 
the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the :sicl\:, and the 
Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they 
shall be remitted to him.' J\Ioreover, natural parents, if 
their children IHlve offcnded persons great and powerful in 
the world, can give thcm no help: wl1ercas Priests have re- 
conciled not governors or kings, but God Himself, who had 
been often enraged against them. 'Yill anyone then btiU 
after this venture to condemn us of folly? l
'or I conceive 
that the minds of hearers should be affected hy so much 
reverence through what has been said, that thcy would im- 
pute folly and audacity no longcr to those who shrink from, 
but to those who of themselves approach and endcavour to 
gain, this honour. For if men who are entrusted with thc 
command of cities, should they be not vcry prudent and 
watchful, have ruined those cities, and moreover destroyed 
themselves; how much power, both of his own and of that from 
ahove, seemeth it to you that he needeth, who hath receivcd 
the bride of Christ to adorn, in order that he may not sin?" 



Here it is certainl y hard not to observe what merc y St. SECT. 
Chrysostome would ha,-e shcwn to those miserable bercsics, 
denying the Christian Priesthood, and regeneration in Bap- 
tism, and the Lord's sacrifice in the Eucharist, and the fur- 
giveness of sins after Baptism laid up ill the Church, which 
Luthcr, Calvin, and the rest of their fellows have bequeathcd 
to the distractcd sect-ridden "rest. It is plain what opinion 
all those who accept the tcaching of the Fathers must have 
concerning the teaching of those just mentioned. Something 
more, however, is tolerably plain. Hcre is the whole Church C<.mtrast 
d . b d .. h f 1 . wIth the 
CSCl'l e as exerclsmg er most aw u powcrs, regeneratmg modern 
souls by Baptism, feeding them with the Body and Blood of 

Christ rccullcilir}O' them to God b y P ra y er and rcmittinO' exc
, b , b J urlSlhc- 
their sins; things which require not only Orders, but J uris- tioll. 
diction. And the "hole of this great authority is 
to bc vestcd in the Priesthood of the Church by virtue of the 
promisc in 
ratt. xviii. 18, and the fulfilment of the promise 
in Julin xx. 21-23. \Vhatever power was then commit- 
tcd to thc Apostles, is viewed as transmitted from them to 
their successurs. 'Yhat would have been St. Chrysostome's 
rcply supposing one had said to him, Yes, it is true indeed 
that these powers are gi,'cn to Priests through the sacramcnt 
of Orders, and are so givcn by Bishops; Jet can neither 
J3ishops Lcstow them, nor Pricsts receive them, so as to con- 
vcy the blcssings attached to thcm, unless thcy receive thcir 
:l\Iission and Jurisdiction from the llishop of Rome? 'l11w 
Bishop l\fclctius who ordaincd you Readcr, and Dcacon, the Reader in 
13 . I . Fl . I d - 1 1 ) . Ù . d b I I 3GH.I>t'l1con 
IS lOp 'anan W 10 or amcl you nest, 1 ot 1 t lOse acts in 3ï8, 
in virtue of their l\Iission frum the Homan Pontifi'. Pcrhaps r


St.Chrysostome would ha\e becn satisficd with the mere ques- 
tion of fact, and statcd, that both 
Icletius alLl11 1 'lm"ian, \\ hen 
thcy ordaincd him, "crc out of Communion with Hume, and 
instcad of deriving J urisdietion from Romc, actually excr- 
cised their cpiscopal powers in spite of all the opposition 
which !tome could givc, and finalJy handcd dO\\ 1L thcir suc- 
cessiun to thc Church aftcl' them. Ccrtain, howcrcr, it is, 
that 110 vcstigc call ùe found in St. Chrysostomc's writings 
of the notion that the Bishop who inhcritcd St. Pcter's 
\\ as thc solc fountain of that gl'ace \\ hich St. Pctcr himself 
jU::it receiced ill conjunction with the other Apostlc
. And 


Tom. 7. 
'i 49. B. 
John 21. 
15. said to 

C HAP. this being the case, such passages as the above turn the 
whole authority of this great Saint against this modcrn 
notion about Jurisdiction. 
In another place he makes the following application of 
John xxi. 15. '" Peter, if thou 10vest 1\Ie,' saith He, 'feed 
1\1 y sheep;' and by asking him thrice, lIe asserts that this 
is the proof of love. But tit is is said not only to Priests, but 
also to each of us, who are entrusted with even a little flock. 
Do not despise it because it is little, for :My Father, saith 
He, is well-pleased in them. Each one of us hath a sheep,') 
(i. e. hiS: own soul,) "this let him lead to the fil ting pastures." 
l\latt. 16. In another passage of great power and eloquence, which 
16. applied 
to all the but for its length I shculd quote in full, he illustrates the 
Apostles. words" Upon this Rock I will build l\Iy Church, and the 
gates of hell shall not prevail against it," by a vivid detail of 
the superhuman triumphs which the Church up to his time 
had wrought: that is, he views the promise specially made to 
Peter as made to him in the person of the Church, not as dis- 
tinct from his brethren. This idea is so spread ovcr the 
whole passage, that it is difficult to convey it adequately sm.e 
Tom. 1. by the whole. How did Christ effect His promise? "13 Y 
5ì5. E. h f I . tl I . d . 
578. It The t e means 0 e even men, WI lout etters, umnstructe , lll- 


- eloquent, of no note, poor, without a country, without store 

: to 5.9. of wealth, without bodily strength, or brilliant reputation, or 
ancestral splendour, or power of words, or skill in persuasion, 
or pre-eminence in knowledge, but fishermen, tent-makers, 
foreigners. For they did not even speak the language of 
those whom they convinced, but a strange tongue diffcrent 
from all others, the Hebrew: and by means of them lIe built 
this Church which extcnds from one end of the earth to the 
other." "This they were able to do, naked and un:shod, and 
with a single coat making the circuit of the whole world, for 
they llad, to fight with and succour them, the invincible power 
of Him who said, 'Upon this Rock I will build l\Iy Church, 
and the gates of hell shall not l)revail against it.' " 
eement The comment, then, of St. ChrY80stome on these three 
t. Chry- f S . . h . . h h f S \ 
80stomeand passages 0 cnpture agrees III t e maIn WIt t at 0 t..L u- 
t.AUþU l s- g ustine , the East with the \Yest. The former makes the 
me: 81 ence 
as to the Rock to be the confession of Christ's Godhead and manhood, 

d . 
Rome. as the latter says that Peter receIves the keys as reprcsent- 

.-\.GUEE1I1<..\T 01<' SS. CHRYSOSTOl\lE A
D ArGLSTlXE. H);j 

ing the Church. But the remarkable thing is that both are SEe T. 
entirely silent as to any reference to the See of Home in IV. 
particular. Deep meanings indeed they see in these texts, 
but not the Roman Supremacy. They speak with the clear 
unhesitating voice of antiquity that the keys, the power to 
binù and to loose, and the commission to feed the sheep, 
were all lodged in the Church's Episcopate, not ill one of her 
rulers, but in her whole Apostolic hierarchy. 
But indeed, having most carefully sought, I have been un- 
able to find any testimony of St. Chrysostome to the trans- 
mission of St. Peter's Primacy over the wholc Church to the 
Bishop of Rome; unless the passage above respecting Antioch 
and Rome may be considered such. Yet there is a conjunc- 
ture in that great Saint's life, in which, had he acknowledged 
any powers to be lodged in the Bishop of Home beyond 
those of a Patriarch, the first Bishop of the '\Vest, he would 
surely have expressed it. I mean his letter to Pope St. In- His letter 
d . 1 . I . . I . h h 1 d f to Pope St. 
nocent, eta! mg t le unJ ust persecutIOn w l1C e 1a su - Innocent. 
fered. In this, which was written just after his first and 
before his second expulsion, he complains of violated Canons, 
describing how Theophilus of Alexandria, being summoned 
by the Emperor to Constantinople, llad come not alone but 
with a band of partizans ready to commit all sorts of vio- 
lence. The Saint, when requested by the Emperor to come 
to him, and hear the accusations made against'rheophilus, 
says, " 'Ve, both knowing the laws of our fathers, and out of See 5th antI 
. 6th Canon 
l'cspect and honour to the man, haYIng moreovcr letters from of I\icea, 
him, which pointed out that causes should not he drawn beyond 


the countries to w/liclt they belonged, but that the affairs of no pIe. 
each Province should be transacted therein, would not accept 
the office of judge, but with much earnestness begged to be 
excused." Here we have the Patriarchs of Constantinople 
and Alexandria, in the "clear light of the fifth century," 
exactly agreeing with St. Aurelius, St. .Augustine, and the 
whole Council of Africa, in their statement of the Church's 
constitution. Again," It is not fitting that one in Egypt 
should judge those in Thrace, and he, a person under accu- 
sation, an enemy and foe. Rut nevertheless, without any 
respect to this, and eager to accomplish what was on his 
mind, though we decla'red that we were ready to answer ltiß 

1 \}tj ST. CIlItYSOSTO\m .\PPEAI.:::i TO _\ COl:

C H.A P. charges before a hundred or a thousand Bislwps, and to shew 
III. h . 
_ A - 1 - t at we were mnocent, as we are, he would not a
ree: but 
ppea s to '-' 
a Coullcil while we were absent, and appealed to a Council, and sought 
and the J.' . d d d I . d h 
Canon of lor JU gment, an ec me not a earing but open enmity, 
the Church. I b h . d d b d h h I h 1 
Ie ot reCeive accusers, an a solve t ose w om ac 
deprived of Communion, and received complaints from those 
very persons who were not yet cleared themselves, and caused 
depositions to be made, all which things were contrary to 
law, and tile order of lite Canons... Dragged through the 
middle of the city by the officer, and hurried away by vio- 
lence, I was taken and cast into a ship, and sailed by night, 
Tom. 3. having appealed to a Synod for a just hearing." Again," For 
516,517. . f I . . . 
520. I t lIS custom IS to grow IutO use, and those, who will, be 
allowed to burst into the Dioceses of others at such distances, 
and to cast mcn out at their pleasure, to take upon their 
own authority what measures they choose, be assured that 
all will be ruined, and implacable war overrun the whole 
world, all men being engaged in hostilities. That then so 
great a confusion may not seize on the whole world, be so 
good as to write that proceedings so lawless, in our absence, 
one side only heard, though we did not decline pleading, 
have no force, as they have none by their own nature. And 
that they who have thus transgressed, when convicted, be 
subjected to the punishment of the Ecclesiastical laws. And 
let us, who have neither been condemned nor proved guilty, 
nor set on our trial, enjoy continually the advantage of your 
letters and your affection, and that of all the rest," (i. e. other 
Duplicates 'Vestern Bishops,) "which we useù to enjoy." lIe sends 
of his letter 1 1 . f h . I ""{T. n . I f 1\1 . 1 d 
:;eut to the (UP Icates 0 t IS etter to venenus, IS lOp 0 1 an, an 
:u l\l i
 l hops
! Chromatius of Aquilcia. The Bisho p of Rome, then, is 
1 an anu 
A1luileia. begged to disapprove of these proceedings, but so likewise, 
and in the same words, are the other two great Primates of 
Italy: and reference is made throughout to a supreme Eccle- 
siastical authority, which is, the Canon of the Church: and 
the second Bishop of the world, thus treatcd, appeals not to 
the See of Rome simply as a superior tribunal, but to a 
Rellar- Now what is Bcllarmine's account of the document I Lm-e 
le's q f uG- J . ust q uoted? It a pp ears as his seventh P roof out of the 
tat lOll 0 
thi:! letter. Greek Fathers that the Roman Pontiff succeeds Peter ill 



the monarchy of the Church. "St. J olm Chrysostome in S E (; T. 
his first lett
r to Pope Innocent says, 'I beseech you to _ I
. h d . I I " h .e b De Rom. 
WrIte t at procee mgs so aw ess may not ave lorce: ut Pont, lib. 
that they who have acted lawlessly may be subject to the 

punishment of the Church's laws,' &c. Theophilus, Bishop Launoy. 
of Alexandria, in a Council of many Bishops, had deposed 
Chrysostome from the Bishopric of Constantinople. Chry- 
sostome writes to tlle Roman Pontiff that he by his own 
authority should decree that the sentence of Theophilus was 
null, and should punish Theophilus himself. Therefore Chry- 
sostome recognises Pope Innocent as supreme judge even 
of the Greeks." That is, he proves the Roman Pontiff's 
monarchy by the expressions of a letter, duplicates of which 
he omits to say were sent to the Bishops of ß-Iilan and 
Another letter written by the Saint in the third year of Tom. 3. 
his exile is just of the same tone as the former. He thanks 521. 
St. Innocent for having done aU that he could, though it had 
not availed to check outrage. Nor does Pope Innocent's 
own language to the Saint suggest any relation but that 
of one Bishop to another. The greeting runs, "To his Tom. 3. 
beloved brother J ohn- Innocent." " You," says he, "the St. inno- 
teacher and P astor of so man y nations , need not to be reminded cc l _nt's re- 
r les. 
that the most excellent are ever tried in many ways as to 
whether they will continue firm and patient, and yield to no 
labour or trouble." 
But in a letter "to the Presbyters and Deacons and all Tom. 3. 
the Clergy of the Church of Con;tantillople, who are under 524. 
the Bishop John," I.nnocent says, after reviewing the un- 
lawful proceedings against him, " As to the observance of 
Canons we declare that those should be followed, which were 
set forth at lVicea, which alone the Catholic Church ought to 
execute and acknowled!Je." "For it were better even that 
right proceedings shoulù be condemned, than that tl1Ïngs 
done against thc Canons, most honoured brethren, should 
have force. But what Can we do against such things at the 
present time? The revision of a Council is necessary, which 
we said long ago ought to be assembled. For tMs alone can 
lay tlte commotions of such hurricanes: which that we may 
obtain it is well in the mean time to remit the cure to the 


CHAP. win of tlIe great God, and of His Christ our Lord. . . . 'Yc 
too have much in our thoughts hoW" an Ecumenical Council 
may be assembled: that by the will of God these tumultuary 
movements may be arrested." 
Palladius the Bishop, disciple of St. Chrysostome, in his 
s. Chrys., life of him, tells us that "the blessed Pope Innocent sent 


- in answer lctters of Communion to both (Chrysostome and 
L fcrred to by Theo p hilus, ) annullin2' the J .ud g ment which secmed to have 

Y b8en passed by Theophilus, and declaring that another uu- 
o. PaIla'IIUs. . bl C . 1 \ "1:T d E 1 b 
exceptIOn a e ounCI of ,f esterns an · asterns Ollg 11 to e 
assembled, from which first the friends and then tllC enemies 
of the parties should retire." And to Theophilus himsclf 
Pope Inno- the Pope writes, "Brother Theophilus, we ackno"\Y'lcdge both 
cent's letter 1 d b h J h b . C . . 
tothcPatri- t lee an rot er 0 n to e In our ommUllIon, as In our 

:I;.heo- first letters we made known our mind: and now, not altering 
our first purpose, we write to thee again the samc, and so 
often as thou sendest. For exccpt a fitting judgment follow 
upon such acts of mockery, it is impossible that we should 
without reason decline John's Communion. So that if thou 
art confident in the judgment, meet the Council assembling 
according to Christ, and there set forth thy accusations 
according to the Canons of Nicea, for oUier Canon the Church 
of the Romans receireth not: and so thou wilt have unde- 
llÏable security." Here we may observe that the Pope 
appeals to the Canons of Nicea, declaring them to "be of 
universal and permanent authority, on the very same point 
on which we appeal to them, i. e. the rights of l\Ietropolitalls 
and Bishops. The holy Pope, it appears, took all possible 
means to obtain this Council from tlie Emperors Arcadius 
and Honorius: but" bcfore he could succced, St. Chrysostome 
died; and so the Council intended to have been held at 
Thessalonica never took place. 
Concln<;io!1 I n this whole affair what is done and saiù on both sides 
from this illustrates both the P reviousl y q uoted writiu!!s of St. (,111' . "- 
hijtory. LJ 
sostome, and the existing constitution of the Church, and 
prm-es that it was Episcopal, and that it was not Papal. The 
TIishop of the sccond See is intruded on and outraged by the 
TIishop of the third, in violation of the Canons: he appeals 
to a Council: at the same time he requests the three Pri- 
mate8 of Italy, in the !'aml' word
, to she,\ their disappl'Onll 



of proceedings intrinsicall y null. The Bisho p s of Rome, S RCT. 

Iilan, and Aquileia, do disapprove of the act of Theophilus : 
ne\-ertheless the former writes to the Clergy of Constanti- 
nople that a Council is necessary: he exprcssly disowns the 
power of being able to settle such disorders. To Theophilus 
he writes in the same terms, and he sets himself to obtain 
this Council. Can a more complcte picture of that Church 
gO\-ernment, which we demand, be set forth? The Popes 
of the fourth and fifth centuries, it seems, never imagined 
that the Canons of the Nicene Council were to be changed 
into a totally different discipline. 
St. Chr
Tsostome has further a passage about Rome Passage of 
h . I . I . b . L'. h St Chry- 
W lC 1 IS ,,-ort 1 transCrl mg; lOr sometImes, as we ave sostome 
iust seen, as much is prO\-ed 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 s. Chrys., 
} . I . f d . } . h II tom. 9.757. 
11m t lere; I not stan mg near urn, yet we s a see A. 
him surely shining near to the King's throne, where the 
Cherubim ascribe glory, where the Seraphim spread their 
wings. Thcre 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. }'or if, being here, he so loved men, 
that having the choice 'to depart and be with Christ,' he 
chose to be hC're, much more there will he shew 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 ali\"e, he (Paul) wrote to them, and loved them 
so much, and went and conversed with them, and there 
finished his life. "Therefore the city is on that account Eminence 
fi . h d J . k of Rome as 
more remarkable than ur all other lhzngs loget er, an 1 -e the burial- 
a great and strong body, it has two shining eyes, the bodies 
of these saints. Kot so bright is the heaven when the sun Paul and 
d . Peter. 
sends forth 11Ïs beams, as is the city of the Romans sen mg 
forth e\"erywhere over the world these two lights. Thence 
shall Paul, thence shall Peter, be caught up. Think, and 
tremhlc, what a sight shall Rome behold, when Paul sud- 
' riseth from that resting place with Peter, and is 

200 ST. CHltYSOSTmm'S TOXE ABOl:''f RO:\IE, 

CHAP. carried up to meet the Lord. 'Yhat a rose doth Rome offcr 
III. to Christ! with what two garlands is that city crowned! 
with what golden fetters is she girdled; wlmt fountains does 
sIte 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." Had 
St. Chrysostome felt like a Roman Catholic could he ]laye 
stopped there? IJoving 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? 
,y ould it not have seemed to him hy far the greatest marvel 
at Rome, as it has to a late c10qucnt partisan, that Provi- 
J.Rcordaire, dence has placed" in the middle of the world, to be thcre 
Sur Ie h l . f f 1 .. . 1 . 1 " 1 d f . 1 
Saint Siège. t e c ne 0 a re IglOn WIt lOut Its I {,e, an 0 a SOCIety sprem 
everywhere, a man without dcfence, an old man who win he 
the more threatened, the more the increase of the Church 
in the world shall augment the jealousy of princes, and tIle 
11atred of his enemies." " This vicar of God, this supreme 
Pontiff of the Catholic Church, this Father of kings and of 
nations, this successor of the fisherman Petcr, he lives, he 
raiscs among men his brow, charged with a triple crown, 
and the sacred weight of eighteen centuries: tIle ambassa- 
dors of nations are at his court: he sends forth his ministers 
to every creature, and even to placcs which have not yet a 
name. When from the windows of his palace he gazcs 
abroad, his sigllt discovers the most illustrious }lOrizol1 in 
the world, the earth trodden by the Romans, the city thcy 
had built with the spoils of the universe, the centre of things 
under thcir two principal forms, matter and spirit: whcre 
all nations ]Jaye passed: all glories have come: alJ culth"ated 
imaginations have at least made a pilgrimage from far: 
Rome, the tomb of )Iartyrs and Apostles, the home of aU 
recollections. And when the Pontiff' stretches forth his 
arms to Llcss it, togcthcr with the world which is inseparaùle 
from it, he can bcar a witness to himself which no sovcI"eign 
shall ever bear, that he has neithcr built, nor conquered, nor 
recei,"ed his city, but that he is its inmost and enduring life, 
that he is in it like the blood in the heart of man, aud tllat 
rifrht can go no further than this, a continuous gcucratioll 



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 goyerning 
power and the life of the Church. Could, then, St. Chrysos- 
tome 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? 'Yhat Homan 
Catholic would so speak now? The power of the Roman 
Pontiff in the Latin Communion is actually such, that La- 
cordaire's words respecting the city of Rome apply to that 
whole Church; to destroy that power would be to destroy 
the Church herself; the parricide would be a suicide. But 
how can thi8 dogma be imposed upon us as necessary to sal- 
vation, if St. Augustine, St.Chrysostome, and the Church of 
their day knew it not? or let it. be shewn us, how any men 
who did know it, could either have written as they write, or 
have been silent as they are silent. 



LET us now take the commentary of another great lumi- 5. Witncs!'l 
nary of the Easte"rn Church in the fifth century on the pas- of ::\t. Cyril. 
sages of Scripture which are made to support the peculiar 
privileges of the Bishop of Home. St. Cyril, Bishop of Alex- 
andria from 412 to iit, says, "For this reason the divine s. Cyril. 
d II I P I 1 I 1 I A de Trin. 4. 
wor te s us t mt cter, t Ie c lOscn among t le 10 Y po- tom. 5.507. 
stles, was blessed. For when the Saviour, being in the 


parts of Cesarea Philippi, inquircd, whom do men say that ravièff. 
the Son of man is, and what report concerning Him hath l\
att. }G. 
I I I I 1 f tl J h .. b d . 16, the rock 
gone t lroug 1 t le aue 0 Ie ews, or t e clÌ.les or ermg the faith of 
on J mIea, discarding the puerile and unscemly opinions of Peter. 
the vulgar, with great wisdom and understanding he cricd 
out, saying, r.rllOU art the Christ, the Son of the living God, 
and speedily received the recompcnse of his true conception 
concerning Him, Christ :sayiug, JHcsscd art thou, Simon 
Bar-jonas, hecausc ftcsh IUlll hlood hath not rcyealcd it unto 



C II A P. thee, but 
ly Father which is in heaven. And I say unto 
thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will bui)d 
J\Iy Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it. Calling, I imagine, nothing else the 'rock, ill allusion to ltis 
name, but the immoveable and most stahle faith of the disciple, 
on which the Church of Christ is founded and fixed without 
danger of falling, and remains for ever inexpugnable to thc 
very gates of hell." 

'ri.l, in Again, "But why say we that they are namcd foundations 
:Esm., lib. 4. f I I ? F h I! d . d . I 
Orat. 2. 0 t le eart 1 . i or t e loun abon an Immoveab e support 


i3. of all is Christ, who upholds aU, and binds together all that 
ù.f ff. l\Ioura- is built on Him solidly. For on Him are we all built, a 
vie . 
The Apo- spiritual house, jointed together through the Spirit unto a 



 holy temple, His dwelling-place. For He dwel1cth in our 
the earth. hearts through faith. But Apostles and Evangelists, wIlD 
were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, and Imve 
become a confirmation of faith, may be considered the llcxt 
adjoining foundations and ncarcr to Him than we. For, 
w hen we have resolved that it is our duty to follow their 
traditions, we shall maintain our faith ill Christ straight and 
unpen'erted. Jilor, in a certain place, when the divine Pcter 
wisely and unblamably confessing his faith in Him said, 
Thou art Christ the Son of the living God, it ,,-as said by 
Him, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build l\fy 
Church, calling, I imagine, the unshaken faith of the dis- 
ciple the rock. And it is said too in a certain place by the 
voice of the Psalmist, Her foundations are upon the holy 
hills. 'V ell may we liken to the holy hills the holy Apostles 
and Evangelists, whose knowledge is firmly fixed like a foun- 
dation to those coming after them, Dot I)ermitting those who 
have been inclosed in their net to fall away to a reprobate 
fai t h." 
Christ the Again on the words of Isaiah, 'His place of defence shall 
S. CHi\. in be the munitions of rocks,' xx
iii. 16. lIe says, " It is surely 
aL' 3 Iib. 3. probahle that in these words our Lord Jesus Christ is like- 
tom. ; 
tom. 2 4GO. wise named to us as the Rock. In whom the Church, as it 
A. quoted I! lù f l. d d . 
in Oxf. were a cave or 10 0 sneep, IS un erstoo as possessmg a 
Tertullian. firm and immoveable mansion in well-being. For thou art 
Peter, saith the Saviour, and upon this rock I will build 

1 ChurcIl, aua thc gatcs of hcll shaH llot prcvail against 



it. To him then, saith he, that dwelleth in this rock, bread 
E CT. 
shall be gi,'en, and the water of faith supplied; for to them 
that dwell in the Church Christ the Bread of life is given, 
from God the Father, and the faithful water of holy Baptism,, that is, faithful and stable those that are thought 
worthy of it. }<'or the grace of holy Baptism is gi,"en to 
those that arc cleansed through holy Baptism." 
Yet more remarkable is the comment of the grcat Doctor John 21. 
of the Incarnation on the twenty-first chapter of St. J ohn, 

that rich treasure-house of di,'ine mysteries. On the words 

" Feed J\fy sheep," &c., he says, H Peter came to Him before 
th . t . l' h . h 1 t s. CHIl., 
e rest, as It seems, no carmg lor t e passage In t e ooa , tom

through his incomparably fervent and admirable lm"e tOWal'ds 1118-20. 
Christ. So he is the first to start forth and draw the net. 
For he was one e,Ter ready, stimulated by an ardent zeal both 
in acting and speaking. Thus he was th
 first to confess the 
faith, when the Saviour in the parts of Cesarea Philippi in- 
quired of them, 'Vhom do men say that I, the Son of man, 
am? For when the rest said, Some say Elias, some Jeremias, 
or one of thc Prophets: as Christ asked them again, and 
saiù, But whom say yc that I am? He, that is the leader 
and set before the rest, again stands forward in achance of 
the others, and says, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God. Likewise when the band of soldiers came to- 
gether with the servants of the Jews to carry Jesus to the 
rulers, all the rest left Him and fled, as it is wl'Ïtten, but 
Peter with his sword struck off the ear of 
Ialchus. For he 
thought it his duty in C\'ery manner to defend his own 
J\Iaster, even though he made the attempt in a manner alto- 
gether displeasing to Him. ",Yhen he comes, thcrcfore, Christ 
asks him more sevcrely than the l'Cst, if he loves more than 
them, and this three times. l>etcr assents, and confesses 
that he loves Him, calling Himself to witness of his inward 
disposition. At cach of his confessions separately he is told 
to take care of the rational sheep. Now, inasmuch as I affirm 
that we ought to search out the secret meaning of thcse 
things, I conceive that they were not written without pur- 
pose, but the word is again in the throes of child-birth, anù 
there is surely somc secrct mystery in the sense of \\ hat is 
hcforc us. For ma
T not somc> onc say" ith rcaS011, "h
' a:sl..ed 

2Uj. THE REXEW.\.L Ol" PEn.:U'S .\.PO

C HAP. lIe the question of Simon alone, though the other disciples 
wcre standing by? And what is the meaning of 'feed l\fy 
sheep,' and the like? 'Ve say then that St. Peter had been 
already elected to the divine Apostolate together with the 
other disciples: for our Lord Jesus Christ Himself named 
them Apostles, as it is written. But the plot of the Jews 
having taken place, and he in the mean time committed a 
ccrtain fault, for St. Peter overwhelmed with terror thrice 
denied the Lord, Christ. makes good what had happened, 
and demands in various terms the triple confession) setting 
this as it were against that, and providing a correction equi- 
valent to the faults. For one may grant that the sinning in 
word, and the force of a crime lying in the tongue alone, 
might in the same mode be wiped away. But He bids him 
say if he 100'es Him even more than the rest. For in truth, 
as one who had met with greater forbearance, and received 
the remission of his offence from a more bountiful hand, 
might he not with reason gather up in himself a greater love 
than that of the rest, and answer his benefactor with a 
supreme affection? For all the holy disciples shared in the 
crime of being put to flight, when the cruelty of the Jews 
inspired them with intolerable fear, and the savagc soldicrs, 
who came to seize J csus, threatened them with a horrible 
death: but the offence of Peter in the triple denial was over 
and above this peculiarly his own. Therefore, as having 
received a fuller remission than the rest, he is requircd to 
say if he lovcs Him more. It is according to the Saviour's 
word, to whom much is forgiven, he loveth much. Again, 
the Churches are hence instructed thrice to demand confcs- 
sion in Christ from those who, approaching holy Baptism, 
make tlleir choice to love Him. 'Vhilst the study of this pas- 
sage would instruct teachers, tImt by no othcr means can 
they plcase the Chicf Shepherd of all, that is, Christ, save by 
making the health of the rcasonable sheep, and their contin- 
uance in well being, the subject of their cal'c. Such an one 
was divine Paul, being weak with the weak, and naming as 
the boast of his Apostolate, his joy and crown, those who 
through him had belie\'ed, and had made their choice to be 
of good report by the splendour of their deeds. l.'or well he 
knew that this was the plain fruit of perfcct love in Christ. 

 GIVEN IN JOHN }.X. Zl. 205 

This may be seen by plain and clear reasoning. For if He SE,
died for us, how should He but esteem the safety and life of 
us all worthy of the utmost care? And if they, who sin 
against the brethren, and hurt their weak conscience) really 
sin against Christ, how is it not true to say, tllat such as 
train the minds of those alrea(ly believing, and of those who 
expect to be called, unto this, and who by all manner of 
assistance are zealous to preserve their firmness in the faith, 
shew piety to the person of the Lord Himself? Therefore by 
the triple confession of blessed Peter, tbe offence of triple 
denial was done away. But hy tlte Lord's saying, Feed 
sheep, a 'renewal, as it were, of the Apostolate already con- 
ferred upon hiul is unde1'stood to take place, wiping away the 
intervening reproach of his falls, and effacing the littleness of 
lmman infirmity." 
Add to this his account of the giving of the Apostolic 
Commission in these words, "As J\Iy Father sent J\Ie, even S. Cyril., 
so send I you." "In these words our Lord Jesus Christ 1

elected the guides and teachers of the world, and the stew- T
e .com- 
d f II . d .. . } H b . l .L' h . h mISSIOn to 
ar SOlS lvme mysterIes, w 10m e l( s J.ort WIt to theAposties 
h . l . k I . h d . 11 . I h I 1 f h to be ECll- 
S me 1 e 19 ts, an to I umme not mere y t e an( 0 t e menical 
Jews according to the measure of the legal command stretch- Doctors. 
ing from Dan to Beersheba, as it is written, but rather all that 
is beneath the sun, and those that are in all countries 
scattered, and there dwelling. Truly therefore doth Paul 
say, that no one taketh this honour to himself, but he that 
is called of God. For our Lord Jesus Christ called unto 
the most glorious Apostolate before all others His own disci- 
ples, and fixed the earth that was all but shaken and en- 
tirely falling, revealing, as God, her foundations, and those 
that were able to bear her up. \Yherefore He said by the 
voice of the Psalmist concerning the earth and the Apo- 
stles, 'I bear up the pillars of it.' For the blessed disciples 
became as it were the pinal's and foundation of the truth: 
whom indeed He also says that He sends, as His Father sent 
Him, at once shewing the dignity of the Apostolate, and the 
incomparable glory of the power given to them: and at the 
same time, as it seems, pointing out to them the pl'illciple of 
the Apostolic institute. For if He thought that lIe should 
so send His own disciples, as the :Father sent Him, how must 


H_ Chrn., 
tom. 9: 3û. 
1':. quoted 
Ly Moura- 

C II A P. not those, who were to be thcir imitators , see for what P ur- 
pose the Father sent the Son ?" i. e. he proceeds) to call sin- 
ners everywhere to }'epentance. 
Now it follows from this that, as truly as the Bishops of 
Rome descended from St. Peter, so truly the other Bishops de- 
scended from the other Apostles: and that, as, notwithstand- 
ing St. Peter's. personal Primacy, they were all constituted 
Doctors and Teachcrs of the whole world, and the fulness of 
Christ's power deposited in them all together, so, notwith- 
standing St. Peter's Primacy inherited by his own See, the 
fulness of Christ's power continued still in the bosom of the 
whole Episcopate: as St. Chrysostomc says, " 'Yhat meaneth, 
, r eter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and 
said unto them?' They uttered one voice and he was the 
moutlt-piece of all." Such is the one view found in the whole 
ancient Church concerning her constitution find government. 
Her Doctors as little imagined the absorption of all power 
in one See, as tbe Apostolate confined to the single per- 
son of St. Peter. 'Vhat claims the Roman Church now? 
simply this, that those most awful words, "As J\Iy Father 
sent l\Ie, even so send I you," were said to St. Peter anù to 
his heirs alone. I make bold to say that the glorious A postle 
would as little have accepted such an isolation) as the eleven 
have allowed it. 
Risho,?s Now St. Cyril ill a great many places sets forth the Apo- 
stand 111 the 
place of tile stles as Doctors of thc whole world, and the Rulers of the 
Apo!>tIe!'. Church Catholic: and no lcss does he consider thcse func- 
tions as continued in the Bishops their successors generally, 
and not restrictcd to one Bishop the successor of one the 
chief Apostle. The Patriarch Dan, he says, signifying a 
S. Cyril, Judge, H may set forth in his own person the glorious and 
Glaph) l"Qr. . 
ill Gcn., lib. renowned chOIr of the holy Apostlcs, who are set for the 
7. tom. 1. f b I . Ù h b b CJ . t H . If 
pars 2. goycrnruent 0 e lCvers, an aye een y IrIs Hllse 
p. 2:.
. appointed to judge. For divine Paul saith, 'Know ye not 
that we shall judge Angels, how much more things that per- 
tain to this life.' Now according to the Scriptures there is 
one Judge and Legislator Christ. But if thc Apostles arc 
ambassadors for Christ, and the word of rcconciliation is 
placed in them, it is nothing strange, if they be considered 
Judges according to their likeness unto Christ. In a certain 


place the great Isaias hath cried out to us, setting forth SEe T. 
clearly both the godlike kingdom of Christ Himself, and this v. 
same preaching of the holy Apostles: 'Behold a King shall Isa. 32.1. 
reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.' 
}'or in old time they that came out of the tribe of Judah 
reigned at Jerusalem, but they that attended on the holy 
tabernacle, and were appointed to the priesthood, were set to 
judge. 'For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and Ju
they should seek the law at his mouth.' But when the LLX. 
shadow of the law was as it were contracted, and the spiritual 
and true worship introduced by Christ, the wOl'ld needed 
more illustrious judgcs, and the diyine disciples were called 
in to this, and took the place of the teachers according to 
the law. 'fherefore unto the mother of the Jews, Jerusalem 
I mean, was it said of God by the mouth of the Psalmist, 
'Instead of thy fathers thou shalt have chilùren:' that is, 
thy children exercising judgment ha,-e taken the place of 
the fathers: but unto our Lord Jesus Christ, 'Thou shalt 
make them rulers over all the earth.' \Vhich anyone may 
see accomplished. :For we have had for governors, and rc- 
ecived for Ecumenical Judges, the holy disciples, by whose 
tcaching the very mystery of Christ is spoken, since these 
are both dispensers of the saving word, and directors of 
practice." Again, 
H'l'he divine disciples have become dispensers of our Savi- GIaph.rr. 
, . d I I 1 h . h fi in Lev. lib, 
our s mysteries, an too \: not to t lCmse yes t IS onour : or 1. tom.' 1. 
they came not to this of their OW11 vocation, but were rather K:

 2. p. 
appointed to the Apostolate) and were set to offer as priests 'lfpovPï'fÎJI, 
the message of salvation, that is, the Gospel of Christ, to 
those that are in all the world. :For He distinguishes those 
who should initiate into His mysteries in thcse words, Go 
and malw disciples all nations. So then yielding with great 
willingness to the orders of their Lord, they illuminate 
the world, having thcmseh'es for instructor their God and 
Father in heaven, and making others partakers of the 
grace." Again, 
H He appointed the holy Apostlcs as it were builders and Tom. 1. 
.. I . f I Cl h G . 1 . G 330 C De 
slnrltua artIzans 0 t le lUrc of the entI es, saymg, 0 Aù
and make disciples," &c. This indeed is beyond all doubt, &c. 
but then he does not rcstrict this office to the twelve Apo- 

 OJ.' \PO::iTU;

C HAP. stIes, viewing it as continued only in the single successor of 
III. St. Peter, but considers aU Bishops as invested with the 
Tom. 1. like charge. Thus, "In Christ they (the Apostles) have 
141. become 11'athers of many nations, and of a countless seed, 
as Abraham in Isaac. But we shall make this application 
not merely to the holy Apostlcs of old, but also to those who 
have succeeded them in the office of the Priesthood, and in 
the government of Churches, or indeed to every holy and 
In Joan., good man." Again, on St. John, x. 1, " He teachcs that the 
lib. 6. tom. . f th . d . . I II b . I I I 
4.637. D. preservation 0 eIr Igmty s la e gwen to t lOse on y w 10 
643. A. are called by Him to the ruling of the people. Therefore 
He calls Himself the door, as introducing of His own proper 
will the man of understanding and picty to the leading of 
the reasonable flocks. But thief and robber He calls him 
that gets up by some other way, that by force and tyranny 
thinks that he can take the honour not given unto him, such 
as were some concerning whom He spcal\:s by one of the 
Prophets, 'They have set up kings, but not by J\Ie; they 
have governed, but not by 
Iy Spirit.' By these words He 
signifies, that if they hm-e a pleasure in ruling the people, 
they must, believing and recciving the divine message, rUIl 
to this through Him, that they may have an untroubled and 
firmly fixed gO\'ernmellt, as was thc case both with the holy 
Apostles, and with the teachers of the holy Churches aftcr 
them, by whom the door-kecper opens, that is, either the 
Angel that is appointed to preside over the Churches, and 
to co-operate with them that exercise the Priest's office unto 
the good of the people, or, again, the Saviour Himself who 
is at once the door, and the Lord of the door." And fur- 
ther on he says, 
"They who receive the government by the gift of God, 
and through Christ comc unto this, with grcat authority and 
grace shaH rule m'er the most sacrcd fold." 
Again, commenting on Is. xxxiii. 21, "Look upon Sion, 
the city of our solcmnities," he says, "For '" e have the 
Church of Christ as it were a city the type of that abO\c, 
and there shall be in it rivers and broad and spacious 
streams. By thesc he signifies the holy Evangclists, the 
Apostles, those who from age to age govern the Churches, 
who like the stream of a river water the minds of belie,'ers, 

Tom. 2. 
463. B. 


bedewing them with HIe words of God, and infusing into SEe T. 
them abundant consolation, that is, by the Holy Spirit. But v. 
all these rivers and streams receive one that is abO\'e all, 
that is, Christ, of whom it is written, The rivers of the 
flood t.hereof make glad the city of God." 
Again, on the words, "There shall be upon every high Tom. 2. 
. d I . h h . ll . 1 t f 431. A. 
mountmn an upon every ng I rIvers anc s reams 0 
waters in the day of the great slaughter, when the towers 
fall," Is. xxx. 25, he says, H This, too, you must understand 
spiritually, for hills and mountains he calls the holy Evan- 
gelists and Apostles, and all the rest who after them have 
been put in charge of the holy Churches, and have been 
priestJy ministers of the divine mysteries, who mind no 
earthly thing, but are as it were lifted up on high. For it 
is written that 'the lllightv ones of God have been raised Ps. 46. 9. 
greatly above the earth:' . and they pour forth the divine LXX. 
and heavenly word out of their mind as from a fountain, 
being first enriched themselves with grace from above. And 
this water is abundant, for many are the mountains, and as 
many the hills, and the stream from them is sweet, and on 
all sides exuberant." 
Now St. Bernard said expressly to a Pope, concerning 
St. Peter, H He could not give to thee that which he had S. Bernard. 
. de Con., 
not. 'Vhat he had, that he gave, the care, as I have smd, lib. 2. c.6. 
over the Churches." And Pope St. Sixtus, A.D. 433, H The 

r;:: k. p. 
blessed Apostle Peter handed down to his successors that 
. s. 
. XJ"stl ad 
which he received." The same, but no more. 
Iost Important) Joannem 
h h S C . 1 . d Antioche- 
therefore, are these passages to s ew ow t. yri conceIve num. COll- 
the holy Apostles as put in common charge of the whole stant, 1260. 
world: St. Peter is not their head, but Christ: and St. 
Peter's successor cannot be more, of divine right, in the Epi- 
scopal college, than the author and origin of his Primacy in 
the Apostolic. N ow St. Cyril, writing, at the head of his 
patriarchal Council, a letter of excommunication to N es- 
tori us, says, H Equality of honour maketh not unity of Tom. 6. 
P . pars 2. 71. 
natures. eter, at least, and John, were of equal rank wIth A. 
each other in that they were Apostles and holy disciples: 
but the two are not one person." And it is remarkable 
that, in his mention of the college of Apostles, their essen- 
tial parity is much more insisted on tban Peter's Primacy: 


C II A P. but that this latter made him anything more than a brotllCr 
111. I I d 
to them, or gave him a jurisdiction and power which t ICY m 
not, is nowhere imagined. In truth that honour and power, 
which are now claimed for the Bishop of Rome, are every- 
where gi,"en to Christ, and to Him alone, in accordance with 
the doctrine of the Greek Church to this present hour. 
Thus on Isaiah live II, Behold I prepare unto thee a car- 
Tom. 2. bunclc for a stone, (LXX,) he savs, "He speaks concerning 

: ï

. a city which is all but seen, the m
lgnificent and most beauti- 
ful Church of the Gentiles: and this, he says, shall appear 
adorned with the most precious stones. I will make, He 
saith, thy stone a carbuncle. By these words he seemeth 
to wish to signify Jesus, whom the holy Scripture declareth 
to be placed for the foundations of Sion, on whom if any 
man believe he shall not he ashamed. Here he namcs Him 
a carbuncle." . . . " So then the carbuncle is set for a stolle, 
and for an immoveable foundation of the holy city. But on 
it the stones of sapphire, denoting perhaps the troop of the 
holy Apostles. For these are nearer unto Christ, and are 
become as it were foundations after Him of the universal 
Church. Thus saith David in the seventcenth Psalm, , The 
springs of waters were seen, and the foundations of the round 
world were discovered at Thy chiding, 0 Lord, at the blast- 
ing of the breath of Thy displeasure.' For when those of 
Israel were rebuked, and overhorne by the breath of the 
divine wratb, because they had been mad against Christ, the 
springs of the waters were seen, that is, purification by holy 
Baptism, and the foundations of the round world were dis- 
covered, this is again, the divine disciples, the Apostles and 
Evangelists." . . . "And so much concerning the com- 
, mandel's of the city, which the discourse portrays to us: 
but about the inhahitants of it what does he say? 'alid all 
thy children shall be taught of God.'" 
po- Again, St. Cyril agrees with the .Fathers gcuerally in con- 
stIes In . . h A I . h . P . h I I . h I 
theirPriest- sulermg t e post es as In t elf nest 00( ta ung t e pace 
hood take f h L .. I h . h " ' J 1 . h t O t f 
the place of 0 t e evItlCa IerarC y. 10 t len IS t e an I ype 0 
the J.
\"iti- Aaron? Here what he says and what he docs not say is 
cal Hler- .. .. . 
archy. equally remarkable. On a passage of Numbers in wInch 
Aaron and his sons were set O\er the sanctuary, he says, 
Tom" 1. " Yon sce the mystery of Christ as yet in shadows, and shin- 
452. C. 



ing beforehand in types. . . . Now at that time the type was SECT. 
ohserved in 
Ielchisedec, but in the times of J\Ioses it is v. 
obsened again in Aaron, who signifies by his own person 
Christ, the Priest of Priests, who directeth and is set over 
the holy tabernacle, that is, the Church, the holy of holies, 
and the God of gods, to "
hom every oblation is due from 
us: for it is written, 'All that are round about Him shall Ps. 76. 11. 
bring presents.' " 
Anù, further on upon the passage, "Bring the tribe of Xumb. 3. 6. . 
Levi near, and present them before Aaron the Priest, that r
they may minister unto him. And they shall keep his 
charge, and the charge of the whole congregation, before 
the tabernacle of the congregation, to do the service of the 
tabernacle. ...\nd they shall keep all the instruments of the 
tabernacle of the congregation, and the charge of the chil- 
dren of Israel to do the service of the tabernacle. And 
thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: 
they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. 
And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall 
wait on their priests' office; and the stranger that cometh 
nigh shall be put to death." St. Cyril says, "So then the 
Levites are assigned as in a certain way fellow-workers aud 
assistants to the priests. For they shall keep his charge, 
that is, Aaron's, and all the vessels of the tabernacle of wit. 
ness, and the charges of the sons of Israel. And this is 
the limit of their co-opcration. But oyer the tabernacle lIe 
setteth Aaron and his sons with him. For they shall wait, 
he saith, 011 their priests' office, and on all the things of the 
altar, and those within the veil, that is, the mOl'e secret and ßwpJw. 
mystical, and all which they are wont to do who attend upon 
the divine altar. Now the type points manifestly to Christ, 6VUlaU'T1]- 
"Vhom the Father hath set over His own house, whose house pc",. 
Aaron the 
are we. And they who are joined in the priesthood with typ
A . . f . th . h 1 d 1 . bl C1mst: 
aron may sigm y WI proprIety t e sacrcc an ac mIra e Priests of 
choir of the holy Apostles, fellow-workers as it were, and 

fellow-ministers with Christ. ]?or they became fellow-workers 
with God, dispensers and stewards of the mysteries of God, 
and also mini
ters, through "horn we have believed. But 
if anyone chooses to look closely into the order of the 
Church, he would justly aùmire its fore-shadowing in the 
l' 2 



CHAP. law. For unto the Bishops, as those whose office it is to 
Ill. d 
govern, an indeed to those who hold the lesser rank, that 
Aaron the 
t:v:pe of the is, Presbyters, the altar is entrusted, and the things within 


f the veil, to whom it might well be said, they shall wait on 
Presbyters. their priesthood: but to the Deacons this, they shall keep 
the charges of the tabernacle, and all its vessels, and the 
Tom. 1. charges of the people." III another place he says, "Eleazar 
128. B. 
prefigures to us the one and only true High-Priest, that is, 
Christ." Again, what is further rema1'lmble, he says, "'rhe 
God of all appointed a long robe to be made for Aaron) 
wrought out in divers colours: a dress this befitting the 
High Priesthood alone, and assigned to it. Now on the 
breast of the lIigh-Priest were hanging certain stones in 
number twelve, in the midst of which were placed again 
two other stones, l\Iallifestation and Tl'uth. Now by these 
the choir of the holy Apostles was darkly shewn, which 
girdles around Emmanuel, who is :Manifestation and Truth: 
for He hath manifested to us the truth, removing the worship 
which was in shado" s and types." According to St. Cyril, 
therefore, Aaron and his sons are a type of Christ and the 
Apostles, and again, of the Bishop and his Presbyters: but 
of that analogy so often drawn out in later times by the 
defenders of Ecclesiastical monarchy between the Jewish 
lIigh-Priest, and the Pope, St. Cyril is profoundly silent, 
as are all the Fathers of his age. That the Christian Church 
is a continuation of the Jewish, carrying on the old forms, 
but turning them into substance, "not after the law of a 
carnal commandment, but aftcr the power of an endless 
life," which from the High-Priest streams over to all His 
member::;, this we firmly belie\'e: this St. CYl'il has carried 
out in detail in one of his works, but this leads not to the 
Papal, but to the Episcopal, constitution of the Church. 
St. Cyril's Further, the actions of St. Cyril come in fully to corrobo- 
ac b tions t ' cO h 
- rate his doctrine. 'Yhen in the year 412 he succeeded his 
ro ora e IS "' 
teaching. uncle Theophilus as Patriarch of A.lcxandria, that whole 
Patriarchate, as well as those of Antioch and Constantinople, 
had been for nearly eight years out of Communion with Rome, 
in consequence of the persecution of St. John Chrysostome. 
Pope St. Innocent had nobly defended his cause, but he was 
unable to prevent the whole East taking a contrary course, 

Cyril, Let- 
ter to the 
tom. 6. 
pars 2 p. 
183_ D. 


and he accordingly removed them from his Communion. But S E CT. 
did they in consequence yield? Did they acknowledge such 
an authority in the Bishop of Rome, even at the head of his 
Council, or of the whole "Test, that what he l'uled to be right 
was right: and that, if they disobeyed him, and in conse- 
quence were excluded from his Communion, they endangered 
their salvation? If we may judge from their actions no such 
notion ever occurred to their minds. Rather than replace 
the name of St. John Chrysostome in the Diptychs they suf- 
fered the East and \Vest to be divi(led for years. Alexander 
of Antioch was the first who in the year 414 placed St. Chry- 
smstome's name in the roll of Bishops, and restored Commu- 
nion with Rome. After some little time Atticus of Constan- 
tinople did the same, and we have a letter of his to St. Cyril, S. Cyril., 
excusing himself for this course, as done unwillingly, and to 

gain many persons at Constantinople, as well as to restore 
IJeace throughout the world. It is plain from the writer's 
tone that he had no notion of any superior authority in 
Rome: he speaks of the Canon, as what both he and St. Cyril 
alike respected. Still more remarkable is St. Cyril's answer His letter 
f . b ld . . B 1 f A . to Atticus. 
rom Its 0 uncompromlsmg tone. y t Ie act 0 ttICUS 
he was left alone with his Patriarchate in opposition to Rome. 
Yet he speaks éven contemptuously of the little gain Atticus 
w:mld derive from his conduct. "CarefuHy viewing and con- s. Cyril., 
. d . . th If . f tl } h d tl ." ( . I d tom. 6. 204. 
Sl enng WI myse 1 ley W 10 ave one lIS, 1. e. rep ace A. 205. C. 
St. Chrysostome's name in the Diptychs,) "are following the 206. B. D. 
decisions of the Fathers of Nicea, and directing the mind's 
eye a little towards that great Council, I behold the whole 
assembly of those holy li'athers as if by their looks refusing, 
and with all their power preventing me from agreeing with 
this." Here was the Canon of the Church, and the Council 
of Nicea, as St. Cyril thought, on one side, and the autho- 
rity of Rome and the ,rest on the other. 'Ve see to which 
he considered himself bound. li'urther on he says, " Whom 
then to save, or to bring back to your a:ssemblies, do you 
place out of the Church's boundaries all Egypt, Augustalis, 
Thcbais, Libya, and Pentapolis, and grieve so many Churches? 
To gain nobody: for the grace of the Saviour hath already 
gained all. And I ascribe the labour in this to the instruc- 
tions of your Piety. Do not then im pute to yourself those 


C HAP. who are divided out of a contentious disposition, and who do 
not receive the just judgment passed on him. For does your 
Piety think that we are so remiss as not zealously to en- 
deavour to make ourselves acquainted both with your good 
reputation, and how the flocks of the Saviour are directed? 
For one is the solicitude of Priests, though we be divided in 
position." (These remarkable words may be considered an 
expression of St. Cyprian's famous sentence, "The Episco- 
pate is one, of which each enjoys fuU possession.") " But 
not to seem tedious on this matter, or opposed to the wishes 
of your Piety, grant that there are some very few seditious, 
who still hold out in behalf of his wickedness. As many 
Churches are there on my side, WllO maintain that the dcci- 
sion in his case should hold good." Thus trying to persuade 
Atticus to continue his resistance to Rome he says, " Grant 
that a few are displeased at this: permit me to say openly, 
we desire indeed the salvation of all, but if anyone out of 
llis own ignorance separates, and resists the laws of the 
Church, what is that man's loss?" "vVe may say with 
Paul to those that resist, ,,- e beseech you in Christ's behalf, 
be ye reconciled with God. But the disobedient let us leave 
to the power of God, saying, "r e have healed Babylon, and 
she was not cured. "r e left her because hèr judgment has 
drawn nigh to heaven. It is not seemly, then, that because 
of the contradiction of some men, if some there be, the laws 
of the Church should be as it were shaken from their foun- 
dations, when a layman is ranked with those who have had 
the priestly dignity, and put in equal honour. :For let not 
some men call this an ecumenical peace, but rather a con- 
cision." Unwillingly, and when his two other colleagues had 
for some time given way, did St. Cyril replace St. Chrysos- 
tome's name in the Diptychs, and so re-enter into Com- 
munion with the 'Vest. This is helieved to lu\Ye been in the 
year 418, six years after his acces8ion. In the mean time, 
according to modcrn Roman maxims, he put his own salva- 
tion, and that of all those committed to his charge, into 
Inference peril. Now that St. Cyril may have been wrong on a 

on_ question of fact, as St. John Chrysostome's condemnation, I 
duct. can well imagine, as St. Cyprian was wrong on the question 
of Baptism. But that a Patriarch of Alexandria, Saint and 



Doctor, was ignorant of the Church's constitution, or acted SEe T. 
in defiance of it for years, and expressed no contrition when v. 
he retraced his course, this 1 cannot believe. The simple 
truth is, which is as plain as the day in the whole matter, that 
St. Cyril felt himself as completely and independently the 
head of the Alexandrine Patriarchate, as St. Innocent was of 
the Roman; and that he had no superior but the Canon of 
the Church, and an Ecumenical Council. And the conduct 
of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch, and of the 
Emperors who supported all three, proves the same. 
It is curious to put beside this narrative J\Ir. Newman's 
approving quotation from Bellarmine. "All Catholics agree "Mr. New- 
tl I P I d . . I . . d b f I man on De- 
.. !at t Ie ope, W 1en etermmmg anyt nng In a ou t u yelop- 
matter, whether by himself, or with his own particular r2

t, p. 
Council, wltetlter it is possible for lli'iìZ to err or not, is to he 
obeyed by all the faithful." 
If anyone chooses to take the final yielding of Alexander 
of Antioch, Atticus of Constantinople, and St. Cyril of Alex- 
andria, in a question of fact, for an "actual exemplification On Deve- 
of the monarchical principle in the fourth" (here the fifth) 


" century," of which 1\Ir. Newman speaks, I think he must 
be very hard driven by a theory, besides having the most 
unlimited confidence in his power of arranging the facts of 
TwehTe years later St. C
Til shewed by his conduct towards COl1du
I . I f A . th h . t St. CYrIl In 
an leretIca successor 0 tbcus, at IS care was no con- the cåse of 
fined to the limits of his own Patriarchate, ample as was its Nestorius. 
extent, or almost sovereign his authority therein: but that 
in truth "the solicitude of Priests is one, though they be 
divided in space." After in vain endeavoUl'ing by private 
remonstrances to check the heresy of N estorius, Bishop of 
Constantinople, he wrote to St. Celestine of Rome, informing 
him hoth of what he had done) and of the sayings and pro- 
ceedings of N estorius. In this lettpr he observes: "I con- S. Cyril., 
fess 1 was minded to shew him, by a letter from my Council, 
that, if he says such things, and is so minded, we cannot p. 37. B. 
. . 1 } . } .. d d I I d b Letter 
COmmU1l1Catc WIt 1 lUll: t lIS III ee laVe not one, ut to Pope 
considering that it is our duty to lend a hand to those that Celestine. 
slip, and to I'aise them up as brothers that have fallen, I ex- 
horted him by letters to abstain from such evil words: but I 



CHAP. did no good." Thus St. Cyril says it was open for him to 
Ill. have cut off N es"orius from his Communion, though a Patri- 
arch like himself, without first writing to Rome: howe\rer, 
considering the extreme danger of the crisis, from the position 
of Nestorius, and the great importance of united action when 
the criminal was so powerful, he thought it best to inform 
P.36 C. D. Celestine of everything. lIe had already said, "But since 
God demands from us watchfulness in these matters, and tlte 
ancient cust01ns of the Churches persuade us to communicate 
them to your Holiness, I cannot but write, signifying this, that 
Satan is throwing all into confusion," &c. "And I have 
written nothing concerning him that is now at Constanti- 
nople, ruling the Church there, eitlter to your Holiness, or to 
any other of our fellow-ministers, believing that rashness in 
Ib_,p.S9.A. such things is not without censure." He concludes: "'V e 
therefore that are entrusted with the dispensation of the 
word, and the security of the faith, what shall we answer in 
the day of judgment if we keep silence in such a case ? Yet 
we do not confidently shut ourselves out from his Communion 
before making known these matters to your Picty. 'Yhere- 
fore have the goodness to set forth your sentence, whether 
we should communicate with him, or boldly reject him on 
the ground that with one so minded and so teaching no one 
communicates. But the view of your Piety in this case 
should be made known by letter to the most pious and re- 
ligious Bishops of J\lacedonia, and to all those in the East. 
For we shall give them an opportuuity which they desire, 
that we may all stand with one soul and one mind, and con- 
tend for the right Faith which is assaulted." 
St. Cyril's letter indicates that he was writing to a person 
of the like rank with himself, but who from his position at 
the head of the whole 'Vest was of eyen greater influence, 
and whose consent in such a proceeding was proportionably 
necessary; i. e. the idea of his letter is the Patriarchal, and 
is not the Papal. 
On receiving St. Cyril's account, bcsides the homilies of 
N estorius himself, Pope Celestine held a Council, the result 
of which he writes to St. Cyril, warmly approving the course 
he had taken, and he concludes his lettcr thus: 
,,"Therefore joining the authority of our See to your on.n, 

Pope Ce- 
letter to 
S. Cyril, 
tom. 6. 
1). 42. J. 



and using with authority our stead and place, execute this SEe T. 
sentence with strict severity: namely, that unless within ten v. 
days, to be numbered from the receipt of this our admo- 
nition, he anathematises in express words his wicked doc- 
trine, and promises that he will hold for the future that 
faith concerning the generation of Christ our God, which 
both the Roman Church, and that of your Holiness, and the 
uni\'ersal Christian religion preaches, your Holiness shall 
immediately provide for that Church: and he shall understand 
that he is entirely severed from our body, as one who has 
rejected all treatment of his physicians, and madly spreading 
like a pestilent disease through the whole body of the Church, 
has endeavoured to overwhelm in utter destruction as well 
himself as all that are intrusted to him. \Ve have written in 
the same terms likewise to our holy brethren and fellow- 
Bishops, John" (of Antioch), "Rufus" (of Thessalonica), 
"J U\'enal " (of Jerusalem), "and Flavian" (of Philippi): "in 
order that our sentence, or rather the divine sentence of Christ 
our Lord, concerning him, may be made known to more." 
The sentence thus solemnly promulgated by the Pope, the Suspension 
First Patriarch, at the head of his Council, accepted by the 

third Patriarch, at the head of his Council, committed to bim 
for execution, and duly delivered to the criminal, became after- 
wards a dead letter, simply through the convocation of the 
third Ecumenical Council, by the Emperor Theodosius the 
younger. The cause of Nestorius, as I shall afterwards shew, 
was heard there de novo, as if no papal sentence had been is- 
sued against him: St. Cyril in person, and St. Celestine by his 
legates, Arcadius and Projectus, Bishops, and Philip, Presby- 
tel', taking a main part in the whole proceeding. No man can 
doubt where the sO\'ereign power of the Church lay in 43l. 
How little St. Cyril imagined that Pope Celestine's autho- 
rity absorbed or originated his own, we may see by a Jetter 
in which he notifies the above sentence to the monks at 
Constantinople. It is addressed thus: "To the most pious S. Cyril., 
d 1 .. L': 1 f .. C . I C . 1 tom 6 
an re IglOus lat leI'S 0 monasterIes l1l onstantmop e, yri Epi
and the holy Synod assembled at Alexandria send greeting p. 80. D. 
. tl L d " Th f . . h b ,.. T . Letter to 
ll1 Ie or. en a tcr expressmg aWls t at .1.... estorms l\1onks of 
"had chosen the faith handed down of old to the Churches 

from the holy Apostles and Evangelists, who became the 


Letter to 
John of 

s. CHil., 
tom: G. 
1'. 42-4. 



lawful stewards of the mysteries of Christ
 and were ap- 
pointed to minister as Priests His Gospel to those that are 
in the whole earth," he proceeds, "Since he has continued 
in the same sentiments, or even worse, adding even blas- 
phcmy to blasphemy, and introducing altogethcr strange 
and foreign dogmas, which the holy Catholic Church hath 
not at all known, we have thought fit to admonish him with 
a third letter, namely this, which is sent forth from us, and 
from our 'lìwst holy and religious brot/tel" and fellow-minister 
Celestine, Bishop of Great Rome h ," &c. 
His letter to John, Patriarch of Antioch, sets forth the 
reason he had for applying to ltome, and exhibits incidcnt- 
ally the relation of the Patriarchs to each other, for which 
reason I give it entire. 
" Your Piety has surely learnt from many sources the pre- 
sent state of the holy Church of Constantinople, in what con- 
fusion it has been thrown, and how many even of the verý 
good and upright have been debarred from Communion, en- 
during no slight disturbance in the matter of the Faith itself, 
in consequence of words spoken in the very Church by the 
most re\Tcrend Bishop Nestorius, whom I have by letter ad- 
vised to abstain from such unhappy and perverted inquiries, 
and to follow the }
aith of our fathers. But he took me for an 
enemy in writing this, and was so far from listening to one 
who wrote thus to him in affection, as to think that with 
such a mind and such words he could pre-occupy even the ears 
of the Romans. For ccrtain strange things has he written, 
arrangcd in a long letter, to my Lord the most reverend the 
Bishop of the Ch urch of the Romans, Celestine. J\Ioreovcr 
he has inserted in his own writings against those who are 

h An expression is quoted by Ro- 
man Catholics in favour of the Papal 
Supremacy which occurs in a homily 
ascribed to St. Cyril. The homily is 
found in one manuscript only, and 
bears a remarkablf' similitude to an- 
other which is contained in the acts of 
the Council of Ephesus, and was uu- 
doubtedly delivered by the Saint. The 
sentence as it stands is strikingly un- 
grammatical, and runs thus: "Ill 
proof that these things are really 80, 
let us produce a "itlless \\ orthy of 
credit, the most holy, a1ld Archbishop 
of the whole "orId, the both Father 

and Patriarch Cdestinus, ld11l of the 
great city of Home."-Tom. 6.384_ E. 
It is evident from the ungrammatical 
state of the sentence that no reliance 
can be placed on the exact co11oeatioll 
of the words. In the lJOmily of which 
I suspect this to be another copy, at 
the IJara11el place, the appeal rUIlS, 
"Recci\'e as witne
s the honourable 
and holy Archhishop of Great Rome, 
Celestille."-Tom. ü. 3.j
.13. Whether 
St. Cyril con!'oidered the Pope' Arch- 
hishop of the whole world' may be 
judged by his lcttcr to Atticus above 

 01<' A!\TlOCH. 


opposed in belief to himself, that they do not shudder to SE CT. 
call the holy Virgin l\Iother of God. He lIas besides sent v. 
quaternions of his own commentaries, which the most reve- 
rend Bishops who were then in the great city of Rome read, 
and after holding many Councils, cried out against him, 
plainly declaring that he had in'
ented a most dangerous 
heresy, which had been invented by none in former times. 
"Since then I was constrained upon his writing these 
things thither, to set forth all that had happened, and also 
to send copies of the letters I had written to him, the be- 
loved deacon Poseidonius, a clerk of the Alexandrine Church, 
was obliged to travel thither. ,\Yhereupon, after his com- 
mentaries had been read in the Council, especially his lettcrs, 
in which there is no opportunity of misrepresentation, inas- 
much as they bear his own subscription, the holy Council of 
the Romans has given a plain decision, and has also written 
to your Piety in terms wldch all 'must comply w/tlt wlto hold to Value of 
Communion "'with all tlte TVest. 1 41 0r they ha'"e also written 

copies to Rufus, the most reverend Bishop of Thessalonica, niOll. 
and to some others of the re'"erend Bishops of J\Iacedonia, 
who always agree witlt their decisions. They hare no less 
written to J U\'enal, most reverend Bishop of the Church of 
Æliæ, (Je..usalem.) It is the duty therefore of your Piety to 
consider what is expedient. For we shall follow the judg- 
ment given by it (the Council), fearing to lose the Communion 
of so many, and they not indignant at any light matter, nor 
thus moved or passing judgment on small things, but in 
behalf of the Faith itself, and the Churches that are every- 
where in disturbance, and for the edification of the people. 
Salute the brotherhood with you: that with me salutes ;you 
in the Lord." 
To J uvenal of Jerusalem St. Cyril writes in like terms, 
adding: "Since then the ahove-mentioned most pious and s. Cyril., 
reverend Bi
hop of the Church of the Romans, Celestine, has 

written openly concerning him, and has sent to me the letters) p- G6. E. 
Letter to 
I thought that I should forward these, and invite by letter Juvenal of 
t 1 I I P . h t . f . If I . d . Jerusalem. 
o a no y zea your Iety t a IS 0 Itse a I'Te an vIgorous: 
in order that with one spirit and accordant earnestness we 
may gird ourselves for the defence of the love of Christ, and 
save the flocks that are in danger, and raise up so illustrious 


S. Cyril., 

Sentence of 



a Church: being, that is, all of one mind with each other, 
and writing both to him and to the flocks according to the 
form set forth." 
Lastly, in his celebrated letter of excommunication to 
Nestorius, St. Cyril thus delivers his sentence. It is ad- 
"To the most pious and reverend our fellow-minister N es- 
torius, Cyril and the Council assembled at Alexandria out of 
the Egyptian Diocese (Patriarchate), greeting in the Lord." 
"Therefore, together with the holy Council assembled in 
great Rome under the presidency of our most holy and 
reverend brother and fellow-minister the Bishop Celestine, 
we notify to you by this third letter, charging you to abstain 
from such stupid and perverted dogmas as you hold and 
teach, and to choose the right Faith which has been delivered 
down to the Churches from the beginning, through the holy 
Apostles and Evangelists, who have been eye-witnesses and 
ministers of the word. And if your Piety does not so, ac- 
cording to the time set forth in the letter of the abm'e-men- 
tioned our most holy and reverend brother and fellow- 
minister, Celestine, Bishop of the Church of the Romans, 
know that you will have no portion or place with us, or rank 
among God's Priests aud Bishops. For we may not over- 
look Churches thrown into such confusion, and populations 
scandalized, and the right Faith set aside, and flocks scattered 
by you who were bound to save them, had you been with us 
a lover of the right doctrine, following on the steps of the 
llOly Fathers' piety. But with all, both laymen and clerks, 
who have been separated by your Reverence on account of the 
Faith, or deposed, we all are in Communion. For it is not 
just that those who are of a right mind should be injured by 
your decision, in that, doing well, they have contradicted 
you. For this very thing you mentioned in your letter 
written to the most holy Celestine of great Rome, our fellow- 
Bishop. But it will not be sufficient for your Reverence 
merely to agree to the symbol of the Faith which was once sct 
forth through the Holy Spirit, by the great and holy Council 
which formerly asscm bled at Nicea. "For though professing 
to agree with the words, you have put not a correct but a 
distorted meaning and interpretation upon them. But you 



must in express words solemnly declare that you anathema- SEe T 
tise thcse your foul and profane opillions, and will hold and v. 
teach as we all ùo, tlte Bis/LOps and Doctors, and Heads of tlte 
people in the TVest and the East. And both the holy Council 
at Rome hath agreed, and we all, with the letters written 
to your Reycrence by the Church of the Alexandrians, as 
 correct and blameless. And we have subjoined to 
these our letters what you must hold and teach, anù from 
what abstain. For this is the Faith of the Catholic and Apo- 
stolic Church, with which all orthodox Bishops both of the 
". est and East agree." &c. 
This sentence, however, was, as I have said, entirely sus- 
pended by the com'ocation of an Ecumenical Council. That 
Council was held, and 1\ cstorius therein legitimately con- 
demncd. Yet John of Antioch, with his Bishops, through 
jealousy as it would seem of St. Cyril, though present at 
Ephesus part of the time, separated himself from the Council, 
and held in fact another Council against it. In consequence 
be and his Patriarchate became separated from Rome, Alex- 
andria, aud Constantinople for about two years. The fol- 
lowing letter expresses their reconciliation. 
"To our most holy and reverend brethren and fellow- S. Cyril., 
ministers Sixtus" (of itome), "Cyril" (of Alexandria), .e and 
l'laximianns" ( of Constantinople), "John and all the rest A Joht; O l f. 
IltlOC 1 S 
who are with me, greeting in the Lord. letter to the 
"To excel in the right l.'aith, and so to teach the people 


placed undcr their hand, should bc the study and aim of all 
who haye received the Pricsthood, and been entrusted with 
thc di,-ine ministry of the Episcopate by Christ the Saviour 
of us all. 'rhis being so, in the past year by a dccree of the 
most pious and Christian Empcrors a holy Council of most 
rcligiou:) Bishops "as COllycned to thc metropolis of the 
Ephesians, on thc mattcr of N cstorius. 'fhey having sat 
togcther with the Lcgates sent by Cclcstillc of blessed 
meruory, who was Bishop of thc holy Church of the Roman
deposcd thc above-mcntiollcd Ke:storius, as tcaching a pro- 
fane doctrinc, and haying gi,.cn ofl'cnce to many, and not 
walking straight in the Faith. \Ve also, who attcnded 
thither, anù then found this done, wcrc gricycd at it. }<'or 
this causc a ditfcrcnce having ariscn bctwccn us aud the 



C HAP. holy Council, and much having been done and said in the 
meantime, we returned to our myn Churches and citics, 
not then agreeing with the holy Synod in subscription to 
the vote of deposition passed against N estorius, but the 
Churches being set at variance. Since, then, all should 
have most care for their being united, by the removal of all 
variance between them, and as the most pious and Christian 
Emperors have decreed that this shoulù be, and hm"e there- 
fore sent the most excellent tribune and notary .Aristolaus, 
it has been agreed for the removal of aU contention, and 
that peace may be given to the Churches of God, that we 
too should agree to this sentence of the holy Conncll, passed 
against Nestorius, and should hold him for deposed, and 
should anathematise his blasphemous doctrines, inasmuch 
as the Churches with us have eyer held the right and pure 
faith, as hath your Holines:s, and ever guard this and hand 
it down to the people. 'Ye also agree to the ordination of 
the most holy and reverend Bishop of the holy Church of 
Constantinople, l\Iaximianws, and we are in Communion 
with all the most rcverend Bishops throughout the world, 
as many as hold and keep the orthodox and blameless Faith." 
Thus jealously did John of .\.ntioch, at the head of the 
Bishops of his Patriarchate, maintain his independence, even 
in the face of the other three great divisions of the Church. 
Interference I must now give two instances in which St. Cyril inter- 
?f :-:it. Cyril fered in the ordinar y g overnment of his brothel' Patriarchs 
III the Pa- ' 
triarchl1te inasmuch as it is upon certain cases prccisely similar of the 
of Antioch.. ' , 
Roman PontIff's interference with the East, that the proof 
of his universal Supremacy is built. Thus a complaint against 
St. Dionysius of Alexandria, made to St. Dionysius of Rome, 
is mentioncd by l\Ir. Newman. The importance of the fact 
will depend entirc]y on whether the Roman Poutiff claimed 
and exercised such an interference as his single privilege. 
The truth is that all the Patriarchs did as much. 
It seems this same John of Antioch, whose reconciliation 
to the great body of the Church we have just seen, gave 
offence to 
Iaximus, a Deacon of Antioch, because he con- 
tinued his Communion to certain favourers of N estorius, 
without requiring of them an express abjuration of his 
heresy. This was done by John out of rcgard to the peace 



of the Churcll, and he informed St. Cyril of his motive by BE CT. 
his Deacons Cassius and Ammonius. Thereupon ßfaximus
conceived that he ought to withdraw from Communion with 
his Patriarch. St. Cyril writes to him thus: "I learnt from B. Cyril., 
the beloved monk Paul, that your Piety shuns up to this 

present time Communion with the most rcverend John, 
because certain persons in the Church of Antioch either 
still hold the vicws of N estorius, or have held them, but 
have now perhaps given them up. Consider, thcn, in your 
equity whether they, who are said to assemble, hold Nes- 
turius's sentiments openly and shamelessly, and communicate 
them to others, or, though they had once a hardened con- 
science, now meet to repent of the errors by which they 
wcre carried away, yet are perhaps ashamed to confess their 
fault. Such is often the case with those who have been 
dcceived. But if you know that they now agree with the 
right :Faith, forget the past. :For we would rather see tIIem 
dcnying, than with shameless mind defending, the wicked- 
 of Nestorius. But that we may not scem to love strife, 
lct us embrace the most reverend John's Communion, making 
allowanec for him, and as a matter of indulgence not press- 
ing matters to the utmost against those who repent. For 
the mattcr requires, as I said, great indulgence." 
'rhis illdulgcncc is no other than the supreme power of dis- oì 
pensation exerciscd by St. Cyril. 
The other case is more important, involving as it did the Establi:,;h- 
establishment of a fifth Patriarchatc. Archbishop de J\farca 

tells it thus: "The Bishop of .lEliæ, that is, Jerusalem, had archate. 
b . d h J' I b I . De Con- 
o talllc t e 10urt 1 rank y t Ie scventh Canon of the NlCene cord., &c., 
Council: but the mctropulitical rights ovcr Palestine had 

. 3. c. 13. 
bccn prcserved to thc Bishop of Cæsarea. J uvcnal Bishop 
of J crusalcm endeavoured to gain for his See by a decision 
of the Council of Ephesus Patriarchal authority over the 
three Palcstines, which hc would hm'e severed fl'om the 
Church of Antioch: but he was dcfcatcd. However by a 
rcscript of 'fhcodosius the administration of the Palcstincs, 
Phællicia, and Arahia, was entrllstcd to him, as is clear from 
the Council of Chalccdon, by whose dccree concord was 
establishcd hctwecn thc Patriarchs of Antioch and Jeru- 
salem. Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople, and Cyril of 


C HAP. Alexandria, had gi,"en their consent to the rescript of Theo- 
dosius, and receiyed the Bishop of Jerusalem into their Com- 
munion under the title of Archbishop, and administrator of 
the Palcstines. Gennadius a Pricst and Archimandrite 
was deeply offended at this, for the violation of the seventh 
Nicene Canon, and so abstained from the Communion of 
ProcIus." On this occasion St. Cyril wrote to him as follows: 
So Cyril., "I do not now learn, but have long known, the earnest piety 
tom. 60191. f R h .. d d t 1 0 O th h I 
Interference 0 your everence, w 0 IS mln e 0 Ive WI suc c ose 
with. the observance, and greatly do I praise it. But an indulgent 
Patnarch- II . i!- 1 0 I . 
ate of a owance sometImes lorces men a Itt e out of the strIct 
Constant i- th f . I ./! . J d 
nople. pa 0 rIg It, lor a greater game ust as a crew, un er 
pressure of a storm, when the ship is in danger, in their dis- 
tress throw part of the freight overboard to save the rest. 
So we, in practical matters, when it is not in our power to 
preserve the abstract right, pass over some things, not to 
suffer the loss of all. This I write upon learning that your 
Piety has taken offence against our most holy and reverend 
brother and fellow-minister the Bishop Procllls, for having 
received iuto his Communion the Bishop of ..LEliæ; whom the 
laws of the Church do not recognise as set over Palestine: 
but his own empty vain-glory, which will haye a sad result, 
spurs on to the un bounded desire of this matter. Let not 
then your Piety avoid Communion with the most holy and 
reverend Bishop Proclus: for I have acted jointly with his 
Holiness in t1:e matter, and it is a point of dispensation, which 
no wise man has ever rejected." 
St. P
oclus St. Proclus and St. Cyril act completely as supreme au- 
to Cy- h .. . I . I . h b I I d N o C 
ril act ad t orltles In t lIS matter, W lIC ot 1 a tere a lcene anon, 

ies. and established a fifth Patriarchal Chair. They do not 
first ask the consent of the Roman Patriarch. It is the 
more remarkable because St. Cyril had formerly "rittell 
to St. Leo, when Archdeacon of Rome, reprehending the 
ambition of J uvenal in this yery matter. And, two years 
after the Council of Chalcedon had finally ratificd the new 
So Leo, Epo Patriarchate, St. Leo wrote to ]\Iaximus of Antioch: " Let it 
119. cap. 4. b ffi 0 al 1 I O f I . 
e su Clent to pronounce as a gener ru e, t tat 1 any t Hng 
has either been attempted, or seems for a time to be extorted, 
by anyone, in any Council, against the statutes of the Ni- 
cene Canons, it can inflict no prejudice on those inviolable 


decrees: and it will be easier that the compacts made by any SEe T. 
agreements be annulled, than that the rules of the afore- v. 
mentioned Canons be in any respect corrupted." In this 
case, however, as in the case of the second rank of the Patri- 
arch of Constantinople, his resistance was vain: the Bishop 
of Jerusalem exercised the power of a Patriarch, from that 
time forward. 
Again, when some persons were trying to force John of Another in- 
. . stance of 
AntIoch publIcly to censure the name of Theodore of l\Iop- general 
suestia, St. Cyril writes to St. Proclus on the subject, and 

recommends that b y a common letter they should state, as , p oD t
e h 
atnarc s. 
a matter of dispensation, and for the peace of the Church, 
that the name itself of Theodore should not be mentioned. 
Instances, therefore, of this kind, which prove the general 
superintendence over the Church exercised by the Patriarchs, 
do not, when brought forward in the case of tbe Bishop of 
Rome, in the least prove his Supremacy as now claimed. 
On the whole I may ask. whether it is possible to set forth 
more distinctly than do these several documents that very 
constitution of the Church Catholic, for which the Church of 
England, amid all her isolation, is a witness. 


To resume, then, both the testimony of St. Cyril, and of 
the other great Fathers of the East and 'Yest. 
The Papal claim has in late ages bcen grounded on certain Scriptures 
I f H I " , .. . ' 1 . 15 19 claimed for 
pa mary passagcs 0 0 y tnt, VIZ., J.\ att. XVI. - ; the Roman 
Luke xxii. 31-2; and John xxi. 15-17. "'Ye are met," See. 
says 1\Ir. N ewrnRll, " by certain announcements in Scripture, On Dcve- 
. d I . d lopmcllt, 
more or less obscure, and needmg a comment, an c almc p.lÎI-2. 
by the Papal See a:s having thcir fulfilment in ib
elf." These 
are" not precepts merely, but prophecics and promises, pro- 
mises to be accomplished by Him who made them, prophecies 
to bc interpreted bJr the event,-hy tlte history that is of the 
fourtll, and fifth centuries, though thcy had a lmrtial fulfilment 
even in the preceding pCl'iod, and a still more noble deve- 
lopment in the middle ages." ,\Yith regard to the devclop- 



C HAP. ment in the middle ages of this doctrine there can be no 
111. doubt, that is, as to tlte 1Vest, thou g h never in the East, 
What the 
preroga- which alone vitiates J\lr. Newman's inference: but as to the 
tives of 
nome are fourth and fifth centuries, having through fourteen pages 


 collected instances of the high esteem which was felt for the 

fth centu- Apostolical See of Rome, from the Council of Nicea down- 
nes allow. . 
wards, which instances, being chiefly the words of Popes In 
support of their own See, yet exactly fit into and agree with 
the Patriarchal and Episcopal system, and do not at all óear 
out or exemplify tlte Papal, J\Ir. Newman is bold enough to 
On Deve- say at the end, "JYIore ample testimony for tlte Papal Su- 
10P"2 ent , P rernac y is scarcely necessar y than what is contained in these 
p. 1/8. - 
passages: the simple question is, whether the clear light of 
the fourth anù fifth centuries may be fairly taken to illumi- 
nate the dim notices of the preceding." He had already 
lù., p. 23. said," The writers of the fourth and fifth centuries fearlessly 
assert, or frankly allow, that tlte prerogatives of Rome were 
derived from Apostolic times, and that because it was the See 
of St. Peter." The prerogatives of Rome which his argument 
requires are the pure Ecclesiastical monarchy of the present 
day: those which the writers of the fourth and fifth centuries 
fearlessly assert or frankly allow, differ not merely in degree 
but in kind. For my part " the clear light of the fourth and 
fifth centuries" is that which I wish to follow. I am ready 
to take St. Augustine and St. Chrysostome, and the Church 
of their day, as my rule not in one thing but in all things, 
not with an easy volatile eclecticism, which chooses what 
flatters the taste of the individual, and discards the rest, but 
with loyal affection and implicit confidence) as the undoubted 
manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Aud so I intel'l'ogate the 
1. As to fourth and fifth centuries, and first as to the meaning of the 
these pa f s- aforesaid remarkable P assa(!es of Scri p ture. The y do not 
sages 0 <.J 
Scripture. give a doubtful sound. I find the chief Doctors of the East 
and "\tV est seeing in them mysteries, and enlarging on those 
mysteries: speaking as men who knew that there were in 
Scripture unfathomable depths. No affinity have those 
Doctors of the world with the shallowness of modern schools, 
crying, with a profane application, 'he that runneth may 
read :' their lives no less than their words, their stern self- 
discipline) their watchings and fastings, shewed, how they 


felt thev had to deal with a length and depth and breadth SEe T. 
and hei
ht, which transcended their intelligence, and stretched v
. T
into eternity. I ask St. Augustllle, St. Chrysostome, and matè great 
St. Cyril, that is, I ask the East and the "rest, Antioch and 


Constantinople, Egypt and Africa, what these passages mean. r:


They reply with one voice, that they see in them great gifts the See of 
d . I b h . 1 Rome. 
bestowed on the Church an Its ru ers, ut t eyare SI ent as 
to the See of Rome. It never comes into their tllOughts to 
observe that they do, or do not, relate to the Roman Bishop 
in particular, except, indeed, that they give incidentally such 
an interpretation of them as pointedly excludes that notion. 
Let us see what the Fathers ought to say, what the Councils 
ought to prove, what the whole Church of the East and West 
ought to allow, in order to establish lVIr. Newman's thesis. 
St. Bernard has said it in unmistakeable language: it was Contrast of 
I d . f I . . . I -HT t H P St. I
tIe octrme 0 lIS tJme In tIe n es . e says to ope nard's lan- 
Eugenius, who had been his own monk, "Come let us in- 


quire yet more diligently who you are, that is, what person c. 8.. He 
. . . T says Just 
you for a tIme sustaIn m the Church of God. "ho are you? what is 
A P . h P . ff v I . f f I wanted for 
great nest, t e supreme on tI. 
 ou are c ne 0 t ie the Papal 
Bishops, heir of the Apostles, in primacy Abel, in govern- 


ment Noah, in patriarchate Abraham, in order l\Ielchisedec, Fathers do 
. d . . A . I . J\1 .. d S } not say. 
In Igmty aron, in aut lOnty oses, In JU gment amue, 
in power Peter, in unction You are he to whom the. 
keys are delivered, to whom the sheep are entrusted. Others 
indeed there are who keep the door of heaven, and are shep- 
herds of flocks, but you have inhcrited both names above the 
rest, as in a more glorious, so in a different way. They have 
each their several flocks assigned to them, while to you 
singly all are entrusted as one flock. And not only of the 
sheep, but of all the shepherds, you are the only shepherd. 
Ask you whence I prove this? By the word of the Lord. 
For to whom I say, not of Bishops but even of Apostles, 
were all the sheep entrusted so absolutely and without dis- 
tinction? Peter, if thou lovest J\Ie, feed l\Iy sheep. Which 
sheep? The people of this or that city, or region, or specified 
empire? J\ly sheep, He saith. To whom is it not plain 
that He did not designate some, but assign all? Nothing is 
excepted where nothing is distinguished. And perhaps the 
rest of his fellow-disciples were present, when, by committing 


C II A P. them to one, He commended unity to all in one flock and 
III. I f I 
one S lCpherd, according to that, J\fy dove, my beauti u , my 
Cant. 6. 9. 
perfcct, is but one. "-here is unity there is perfection. The 
other numbers have not perfection but division, in receding 
from unity. Hence it is that others received each their own 
people, knowing the sacrament. Finally James, who seemed 
to be a pillar of the Church, was contented with Jerusalem 
alone, yielding to Peter the whole. But well waS he there 
placed to raise up seed to his dead Brother, where that 
Brother was slain. For he was called the brother of the 
Lord. J\Ioreover, when the brother of the LOl'(l gives way, 
what other would intrude himself on the Pl'erogative of 
"Therefore, according to your Canons, others have been 
called to a part of your solicitude, but you to the fulness of 
power. 'rhe power of others is confined within certain limits; 
yours is extended even over those who have received power 
m"er others. Can you not, if fitting cause exist, shut hcaven 
to a Bishop, depose him from the Episcopate, even deliver 
him to Satan? Therefore does your privilege stand to you 
unshaken as well in the keys which are given you, as in the 
sheep whicll are entrusted to you. Hear another thing which 
no less confirms to you your prerogative. The disciples were 
in the ship, and the Lord appeared on the shore, and, what 
was cause of greater delight, in His risen Body. Peter, 
knowing that it is the Lord, casts himself into the sea, and 
thus came to Him, whilst the rest arrived in the ship. 'Vhat 
meaneth that? It is a sign of the one only Priesthood of 
Peter, by which he received not one ship only, as the rest 
each their own, but the world itself for his government. 
For the sea is the world, the ships Churches. Thence it 
is, that, on another occasion, walking, like the Lord, on "'the 
waters, he marked himself out as the single Vicar of Christ, 
who should rule over not one people, but all. Since the 
Rev. 17. 15. ' many waters' are' many peoples.' Thus while everyone of 
the rest has his own ship, to thee the one most great ship is 
entrusted, the Universal Church herself, made out of all 
Churches, diffused through the whole world." 
I ha'"e given this passage entire on account of the admir. 
able manner in which it condenses and sets forth the genuine 

T FATHERS. :!:29 

Papal Idea: and, because it does so, it stands in the most 8 E C:T" 
marked contrast with the testimony of the centuries I hm"e 

" . 1 Had this 
been consiùering. Had such been the divmely constItutec claim ex- 
f h Cl h tl fi . t " 11 h isted, it 
government 0 t e lurc, Ie rst SIX cen urles wou c aye must have 
borne witness to it. I assert that they have borne the most 


complete, manifold, and clearly expressed witness against it. documents 
. " of the first 
\Ve haye seen it In the case of the passages of ScrIpture six centu- 
under discussion. But when I turn, besides, to other writ- ries. 
ings and the lives amI actions both of these saints and 
others, such as St. Basil, St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and, more- 
over, that "keen visioned seer" tossed to and fro through 
the earth from Alexandria to Treves in his fifty years' con- 
fessOl'ship for Christ, but whose glory now it is that the 
Athanasian faith is the faith of all Christians, I find them 2. As to the 
. " . 1 B . 1 f R d th writing,; 
usmg eXpreSSIOnS concermng t Ie IS lOp 0 orne an e and actions 
See of Rome, such as neither good reasoners, nor holy men, O F f tl h le 
at ers. 
nor mere observers and narrators of events, could possibly 
have useù, had the Bishop of Rome been in their eyes pos- 
sessed of a power different in kind from that of all other 
Bishops, much less, if he had committed to him the fulness 
of power wherewith to rule the universal Church of Christ. 
And this oùservation is no less true of St. Athanasius, who 
was most deeply beholden to the See of Rome, than of St. 
Basil, who, during his conflict with Arianism "met from Church of 
R " h h . b d .. h I " h d the Fathers 
orne WIt not mg ut IsappOlntment, or rat er s Ig t an p. 91-2. ' 
want of sympathy:" no less true of St. Augustine in Africa, 
whose doctrine the Church of Rome especially claims to 
follow, than of St. Chrysostome, who was ordained by a 
Bishop not in Communion with Rome, and brought up in a 
school most opposed to her, and possessed of a See, which 
was, as his predecessor St. Gregory observed, the light of the 
East, as Rome was that of the \Vest. 
N or can it be said that the same power was then visible Difference 
. 1 " h f between 
III germ, w lIC a terward.s so splendidly and man"ellously Vicarius 
developed into an august and consistent whole. The power r
tri ?-ud 
of the Roman Pontiff in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries 
hri>!ti; " 
t d d " ß' b " f h " . I . ldl furmer tbe . 
S 00 on a Iuerent aSIs rom IS power In t Ie mu e ages. symLol uf 
Tl d "t!' h b d b " t 1. t . earl.} latter 
Ie Iucrence per aps may e summe up y saymg ua In ofm
the former he was Vicari us Petri, in the latter Vicarius times. 
Christi: in the former he had a more or less defined 


C HAP. Primacy; he was the first among brethren: in the latter he 
111. laid claim to a complete Supremacy; he was exalted as a 
J\fonarch above his Councillors. A Primate is one Idea: a 
J\lonarch is another. It seems to be the great tour de force 
of Roman writers to prove the second by the first. Now 
granting that J\ir. Newman's examples set forth the Primacy, 
which I admit, do not the counter examples annihilate the 
Supremacy which he vaunts? Is not the light of the fourth 
and fifth' centuries, aye, and of the sixth, very clear indeed? 
et his proofs of the Sllprenlacy antecedent to the times of 
Pope St. Gregory be produced. I repeat, let a single sen- 
tence, not however torn from its context, but candidly and 
fairly considered by the light of that context, by other 
writings and actions of the time, be produced from the 
writings of St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory of N azian- 
zum or of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostome, St. Augus- 
tine, St. Cyril of Alexandria, res, or even from the' homine 
Romano' St. Jerome himself, which acknowledges the pre- 
sent Papal Idea: that is, that the Bishop of Rome is the 
common Father of Christendom: that, in virtue of his suc- 
cession from St. Peter, he has a power distinct and different in 
kind from that of his" brother-bishops and fellow-ministers," 
specially the great Bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and the 
See of Jerusalem: that his decisions in doctrine or discipline 
are final, and bind the whole Church; that the government 
of the Church lies in him, and not in the whole Episcopate, 
or, as Bellarmine expresses it, that "the Pope has, full and 
entire, that power which Christ left on earth for the good of 
the Church." I do not believe that one such sentence can 
he produced: while on the other side all the actions and 
the writings of these great Fathers bear witness to their 
belief that the Bishops throughout the Church have in- 
herited, equally with the Roman .Bishop, the power of the 
G:eneraI "T e may, therefore, sum up the view entertained by the 
.the great Doctors of the fourth and fifth centuries as to the 
S A relation of the Roman Pontiff to his brother Bishops in St. 
. ug.. 
tom. 10.412. AuO'ustine's beautiful words to Pope Boniface :-" To sit on 
n. quoted b . 
in J:.'leury, our watch-towcrs and guard the flock belongs In common to 

f. Tr. 3. all of us who have Episcopal functions, although the hill 011 

CIL. 231 

which you stand is more conspicuous than the rest." J\Iy 
object in these remarks throughout has bcen to shew, 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 
themseh-es 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 Roman 
" .. f I Ch h I . 11 d Primacy at 
most Important CrISIS 0 tIe urc, WI now en eavour to the Third 
shew. Five years, A.D. 431, after the decision of the African Council. 
Bishops about appeals, the third Ecumenical Council as- 
sembled at Ephesus, in the church of great St. l\Iary, " the l\Iansi 4. 
holy Gospel being placed on the throne in the middle, and 1237. C. 
l.epresenting to us Christ Himself ,"Vho was present." This 
was the rule observed in other Ecumenical Councils, and they 
,,-ho with the eyes of faith discerned their risen Lord in the 
midst of them, were little tempted to assign His place to one 
of their own number. As to the bearing of this Council's 
Acts upon the present question, I prefer that here as in 
other cases another should speak, and he the most illustrious 
Prelate of France in modern times. " In the third general Bossuet's 
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 -13. 
Pontiffs on matters of faith, set forth with the whole authority Judgments 
f tl . S h " 1 f " d d . 1 of Roman 
o leu ee, W IC 1 were a terwards re-conSI ere In genera Pontiffs 
C . 1 d I d f ". I I . h de Fide re- 
ounCI s,::In on y approve a ter exammatIOn, t Ian w llC considered. 
nothing can be more opposed to the opinion of infallibility. 
And as to the Council of Ephesus, the thing is clear. The 
inum ation of N estorius, Bishop of Constantinople, is known; 



how he divided into two the person of Christ. Pope St. 
Celestine, watchful, according to his office, over the affairs 
of the Church, had charged the blessed Cyril, Bishop of 
Alexandria, to 3end him a certain report of the doctrine of 
N estorius, already in bad repute. Cyril declares this in his 
letter to N estorius; and so he writes to Celestine a complete 
account, and sets forth the doctrines of N estorius and his 
own: he sends him two letters from himself to N estorius, 
who llikewise, by his own letters and explanations, endea- 
voured to draw Celestine to his side. Thus the holy Pontiff, 
having been most fully informed by letters from both sides, 
is thus inquired of by Cyril. ' "r e have not confidently 
abstained from Communion with him (Nestorius) before in- 
forming 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 doc- 
trine.' 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 mani- 
festly consulted by so great a man, presiding over the 
second, or at least the third, Patriarchal See, and its judg- 
ment awaited; and nothing remained but that Celestine, 
being duly consulted, should perform his Apostolic office. 
But how he did this, the Acts elsewhere adduced have 
"In those Acts he not only approves the letters and 
doctrine of Cyril, but disapproves too the perverse dogma 
of N estorius, and that distinctly, because he was unwill- 
ing to call the blessed Yirgin J\Iother 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 tbe sentence, he openly rejects this faith- 
less innovation, which endeavours to separate what Scrip- 
ture joineth togcther, that is, the Person of Christ. lIere 
is the doctrine of Nestorius expressly disapproved, and a 
sentence of the Roman Pontiff on a matter of Faith most 
clearly pronounced undcr threat of deposition and excom- 
munication: 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, and place, with power.' So 
to Cyril; so to N estorius himself; so to the Clergy of Con- 
stantinople; 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 Kice 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 per- 
forms all that he had been commanded. He promulgates 
and executes the decrees of Celestine; declares to N es- 
tori us, that after the ten days prescribed and set forth by 
Celestine, he would have no portion, intercourse, or place 
with the Priesthood. K othing 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 Ecu- 
menical Council, was held to be final, the succeeding Acts 
will demonstrate. 
" 'Ve 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, aI'e tcrmillated by the consent 
of the Church being added to the decree of the Homan 
rontiff. This i:s clearly manifest from the cause of :K es- 
torius. 'Ve confess plainly that the sentence of Celestine 
would have been sufficicnt, as Cyril hoped, to rcpress the 
new heresy, had not great commotions ariscn, and thc matter 
seemcd of such a nature as to be referred to an Ecumenical 
Council. But K estorius, Bishop of the royal city, possessed 
such influcllce, had dcceived men's minds with such an ap- 
pearance of piety, had gained so many Bishops, and cnjoyed 
such favour with the younger Thcodosius and the great men, 
that hc could casily throw cverything into commotion; and 
thus thcre was necd of an ]
cumenical Council, the qucstion 
being most important, and the I)crson of the highest dig- 
nity; because many Bishops, amongst these almost all of the 
l<:ast, that is, of thc Patriarchatc of Antioch, and the Pa- 
triarch John himself, were ill disposcd to Cyril, and sccmed 
to favour Nestorius; because men':s feelings were divided, 


SEe T. 


CHAP. and the wbole empire of the East seemed to fluctuate be- 
IV. tween 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 N estorius for the orthodox faith, and the expres- 
sion, 'J\Iother of God,' supplicating the Emperor 'for a 
sacred and Ecumenical Council to assemble, by the prescnce 
of which Christ 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, "Ye have askcd 
you to call together an Ecumenical Council, which can most 
fully consolidate and restore what is tottering or even over- 
thrown.' 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 discusse(l 
and examined in a sacred Synod, and that be ratified which 
appeareth agreeahle 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. Celestine, 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 judg- 
ment of the Council would be decisive and final. 
" He adds, 'those who everywhere preside over the Priest- 
hood, and through whom we ourseh"es are and shall be pro- 
fessing the truth, must be judges of this matter.' See on 
whose faith we rest. See in whose judgment is the final and 
irreversible authority. 
Sentence of "Both the Emperor affirmcd, and the Bishops confcssed, 
t" Cele l s::' t that this was done accordin!! to the Ecclesiastical Canons. 
Ine all( " . '-' 
Cyril sus- And so all, and Celestine himself, preparcd themselves for 
pended. " I C . 1 d I 
the Councl . yn oes no more, t lOugh named by Celes- 
tine to execute the pontifical decree. K estorius remained 
in his original rank; the sentence of the universal Council 
is awaited; and the Empcror had e
pressly decreed, 'that 
before the assembling and common scntence of the mo

ESTOltlt:S SU1\fMO


holy Council, no change should be made in any matter at S E C T. 
all, on any private authority.' Rightly, and in order; for I. 
this was demanded by the majesty of an uni\Tersal Council. 
\Yherefore, 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 viola- 
tion of the Faith, had been passed and promulged, all was 
suspended, while the authority of the universal Council was 
awaited. This we ha\'e 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 precede(l the Council, we re- Course 
. h f I C . 1 . If d b " . h h fi proceedJllO' 
VIew t e acts 0 t Ie ounci Itse , an egln WIt t erst as to the '" 
course of proceeding. After, therefore, the Bisbops and Faith. 
N estorius himself were come to Ephesus, the universal 
Council began, Cyril being president, and representing 
Celestine, as being appointed by the Pontiff himself to exe- 
cute his sentence. In the first course of proceeding this 
was done. First, the above-mentioned Iptter of the Em- 
peror 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 Celestine 
in the matter of N estorius 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 dis- 
cipline of those times, was left to the Emperor,) the Coun- 
cil itself understood that all proceedings were of course 
suspended, and depended on the sentence of the Council. 
\Vherefore, though the decree of the Pontiff had been pro- Kestorius 
I 1 d " fi d d d I b summoned 
mu gee an not! e , an the ten days ha ong een past, as a llishup" 
N estorius 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 otnpr Bishops in the holy Couucil; for this expression, 


C HAP. 'to take his seat,' is distinctly written; and it is added, 'in 
IV. 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, 
Letters and then the letters of Cyril and N estorius were examined 
C l
 l of d in order. The letter of Cyril was first brought before the 
YrI an 
torius judgment of the Council. 'rhat letter, I mean, concerning 
examllled. h F . h "T. 1 d b P C I 
t e mt, to 1'0 estorms, so express y approve y ope e es- 
tine, of which he had declared to Cyril, "V e see that you 
hold and maintain all that we hold and maintain;' which, 
by the decree against N estorius, published to all Churches, 
he had approved, and wished to be considered as a canonical 
monition against N estorius: that letter, I repeat, was ex- 
amined, 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 
" And are there those who say that questions concerning 
the Faith, once judged by the Roman Pontiff on his Aposto- 
lical authority, are examined in general Councils, in order to 
understand their contpnts, but not to decide on their sub- 
stance, as being still a matter of question? Lct 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 himsclf, yet, not to trust him- 
self, he asked for the sentence of the Council in these words: 
, whether I have written correctly and blamelessly, or not.' 
This Cyril, the chief of the Couucil, proposes for tIleir con- 
sideration. 'Vho ever evcn lleard 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 
ue\ el' so done, for that would be to doubt about the }<'aith 

ED. 231 

itself, when declared and discussed. But this was done SECT. 
after the judgment of Pope Celestine: neither Cyril, nor I 
anyone else, thought of any other course: that, therefore, 
was not a final and irre\"ersible judgment. 
"In answer to this question, the Fathers in order give 
their judgment,-' that the Xicene 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. 
"Xext that letter of Nestorius was produced, which 
Celestine had pronounced blasphemous and impious. It is 
read: then at the instance of C
'ril it is examined, , whether 
this, too, be agreeable to the Faith set forth õy 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 judgmcnt that it disagreed from 
the Xicene Creed, and was, therefore, censurable. The 
letter of N estorius is disapprO\'ed 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. \Vhat he 
had approved, and what he had disapproved, is equally ex- 
amined, and, only after examination, confirmed. 
" K ow these were the proceedings on Faith in the first Course of 
sitting of the Council of Ephesus. \Ve proceed to review 


what concerns the P erson of Nestorius, in the same sittin g . 

First, the letter of Celestine to Cyril is read and placed on 
the Acts; that, I mean, in which he gave sentence con- 
cerning 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 Celestine there was no special doctrine: it 
only contained an approval of Cyril's doctrine and letter, 
and a disapproval of those of N estorius; concerning which 
letters of CJ'ril and N estorius the judgment of the holy 
Council was already past, so that it would be superfluous 
to add anything to them. 
" But for the samc reason, the other letter of Cyril being 
rcad,-that, I mean, which executed the sentence of Celes- 


C HAP. tine,-nothing special was done concerning that letter, but 
t was only ordered to be placed on the Acts. 
"After these preliminaries judgmcnt was to be pro- 
nounced on the person of N estorius. Inquiry was made, 
whether what Celestine had written to N estorius, 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. Celestine, and afterwards 
by the Emperor, convoking the Council. Next, for accu- 
mulation of proof, testimonies of the Fathers are compared 
with the explanations of Nestorius: the huge discrepancy 
shews N estorius to be an innovator, and therefore a heretic. 
A decree is maùe in these words. The holy Council de- 
l\1ansi 4. clares,-' Since the most im p ious K estorius has neither been 
1212. C, a 
few words willing to obey our citation, nor to admit the Bishops deputed 
omitted. b 
,..T t - y US, we have necessaril y proceeded to the examination of 
.nes orlUS 
deposed by what he has impiously taught: finding, therefore, partly 

:ent from his own letters, partly from his discourses, that he holds 

il. and preaches impiety,-compelled by the holy Canons, and 
by the letters of our most holy Father, and fellow-minister, 
Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church,-we have come to 
this sentence: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, by this most holy 
Council, declareth N estorius to be deprived of his dignity of 
Bishop.'" You see the Canons joined with the letters of 
Ce]estine. Terms, indeed, of high honour, which tend to 
set forth the majesty of the Apostolic See. You see the 
Council carry out what Celestine decreed, and thus com- 
pelled 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 N estorius, 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: and the sentence is promulged. 



"Thus a most weighty matter is completed by the most SEe T. 
weighty agreement; that same which we have asserted gives I. 
validity to everything in the Church: and the order of the 
judgment is plain in itself. That is, sentence is put forth by 
Celestine: 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: ,,,r e ha\Te removed Nestorius from his See, l\Iansi 4. 
d . II d . d h . h . II II . C I . 1240. C. 
an canollIca y eprIve 1m: Ig1 Y exto mg e estme, 
Bishop of Great Rome, who before our sentence had con- 
demned the heretical doctrines of N estorius, and had antici- 
pated us in giving judgment against him.' This is that unity, 
this that agreement, which gives invincible and irresistible 
force to Ecclesiastical judgments. 
"So everything is in harmony, and our judgment is sup- 
ported. 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. 'Vhich was to be 
"In the mean time, the Bishops Arcadius and Projectus, Arrival of 
and the Presbyter Philip, had been chosen by Celestine to i

be present at the Council of Ephesus, with a special com- 
mission from the Apostolic See, and the whole Council of 
the 'Vest. So they come from Rome to Ephesus, and 
appear at the holy Council, and here the second procedure 
" 'Y olf, of Louvain, amongst other records of antiquity, 
has put forth the charge of Celestine to his Legates, and 
his instructions, as Celestine 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.' 'Ve shall now review what they did, in compliance 


Mansi 4. 
1288. D. 

ìs '1rlpas 
1f'?I. 'fJPÉuTa- 
TOV &'}'EU- 

 10 :PltOCEEDl
D C\

with these orders: and by this we shall easily shew that our 
cause is confirmed. 
"First they bring forward the letter of St. Celestine to 
the Council, ill which the charge committed to his Legates is 
thus expressed :-' 'Ve have dil'ected our holy brethren and 
fellow-priests to be present at the proceedings, and to exe- 
cute what we have ordained.' Hence it is evident that 
the Council of Ephesus was employed in executing the Apo- 
stolical judgment. But of what sort this execution is, 
whether it be, as they will ha,.e it, mere obedience, or by a 
legitimate hearing of the Council itself, and then by a 
certain and infallible judgment, the ensuing proceedings 
will shew. 
"After reading the letter of Celestine, the Legates, in 
pursuance, say to the Bishops ;-' Let your Holiness con- 
sider the form of the letters of the holy and venerable Pope 
Celestine the Bishop, who hath exhorted your Holiness, not 
as instructing those who are ignorant, but as reminding 
those who are aware: in order that you may command to be 
completely and finally settled according to the Canon of our 
common Faith, and the utility of the Catholic Church, what 
he has before determined, and has now the goodness to re- 
mind you of.' 'fhis is the advantage of a Council; aftcr 
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. 
"Firm us, Bishop of Cæsarea, in Cappadocia, answers for 
the Council ;-' The Apostolical and holy See of the Bishop 
Celestine hath prcscribecl 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 after- 
wards rendered, 'form.' 'Ye will not quarrel about words; 
let us hear the same Firmus accurately explaining what 
the thing is :-' 'Ve,' says he, 'have charged to be executed 
this form respecting 1\ estorius, passing against him a Cano- 
nical and Apostolic judgment;' that is, in the first pro- 
cedure, in which, after examination and deliberation, we 
have seen the decree of Cclestille confirmed. Thus a 
Gcneral Council executes the sentence of the First See, by 


legitimate hearing and inquiry, and not as a simple func- 
tionary, but after giving a canonical and apostolical judg- 
ment. 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 pro- 
ceedings against N estorius had been pursued according to 
the requisition of the Canons, and due respect to the Apo- 
stolic See. This we have already often said. 'Yherefore, 
with reason, they require the Acts to be communicated, 
, that we too,' say they, 'may confirm them.' The pro- 
ceedings themselves will declare what that confirmation 
" After that, at the request of the Legates, the Acts against 
Nestorius were given them, they thus report about them 
at the third procedure :-' 'Ye have found all things judged 
canonically, and according to the Church's discipline.' There- 
fore 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 N es- 'What con- 
t . . d I h } II I . I firmatioll 
onus commumcate to t lem, t ey requcst t !at a W lIC 1 means. 
had been read and done at Ephesus from thc beginning, 
should be read afresh ill public Session, 'in order,' they 
say, 'that obeying the form of the most holy Pope Celes- 
tine, who hath committed this care to us, we may be cnabled 
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, "rhat the Lcgates, by 
their signature, as was customary, should make plain and 
manifcst their canonical agrecmcllt with the Council.' To 
this question of Cyril the Council thus answcrs, and dpcrees 
that the Legates, by their subscription, confirm the Acts; 
by which place" this. confirmation, spokcn of by the Council, 
is clcarly nothing else but to make thcir assent plain and 
manifcst, as Cyril proposed. This true and gcnuine scnsc 
of confirmation we ha,"e often brought forward, and shall 





CHAP. often again; and now congratulate ourselves that it is so 
clearly set before us by the holy Council of Ephesus. 
1\ot St. "But of what importance it was that the decrees of 
Cyril, but 
Arcadius, Ephesus should be confirmed by the authority of the Legates 
Projectu", f I A l . S P . f h L 
and Philip, 0 t Ie posto IC ee, as says rOJectns, one 0 t e egates, 
fj Legat R es is seen from hence; because, althou
h Cvril, havin g been 
rom orne '-' of 
to the named the executor of the Pope's sentence, had executed it 
Council. in the Council, yet he had not been expressly delegated to 
the Council, of which Celestine had yet DO thought, when 
he entrusted Cyril to represent him. But Arcadius, Pro- 
jectus, and Philip, being expressly sent by Celestine 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. 
They repre- "Add to this, that the Legates, sent by special com- 
sented the .. h C . 1 f E I b 1 
wholeWest. mISSIOn to t e ounCI 0 i P lesus, ore t Ie sentence, not 
only of the Apostolic See, but also of the whole 'Vest, whence 
the Presbyter Philip, one of the Legates, after all had been 
read afresh, and approved by common consent, thus sums 
Mansi 4. up;' Therefore tlle sentence against K estorius is established 
1296. E. 
according to the decree of all Churches: for the Pricsts 
of the Eastern and 'Vestern Church are present in this 
sacerdotal assembly either in person or by their Legates.' 
"IIence 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 Eccle- 
siastical decrees itself consists in unity and mutual agree- 
ment. So that, in putting forth an exposition of the Faith, 
the East and the \Vest, and the Apostolic See and Synodi- 
cal assemblies, mutually confirm each other; whence, too, 
we read that acclamation to Celestine, in the Council of 
Mansi 4. Ephesus :-' This is a just judgment. To Celestine another 

. c. Paul, to Cyril another Paul, to Celestine guardian of the 
Faith, to Celestine of one mind with the Council, to Celestine 
all the Council renders thanks. One Celestine, 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 answcrs :-' \Ve return thanks to 

CIL. 2 c .t3 

your holy and venerable Council, because, by your holy SEe T. 
voices, as holy members, you have joined yourselves to a 
holy head; for your Blessedncss 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, Celestine 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 Mansi 5. 
conclusion of evils.' The learned reader understands where 266. 
he recognises the conclusion; that is, after the condemnation 
of N estorius by the infallible authority of an Ecumenical 
Council, viz., of the whole Catholic Church. He proceeds: 
"Ve sce, that you, with us, have executed this matter so 
faithfully transacted.' All decree, and all execute, that is, 
by giving a common judgment. 'Vhence Celestine adds, 
, We have becn informed of a just deposition, and a still 
juster exaltation:' the deposition of N estorius, begun, in- 
deed, 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 J\Iaximianus, who 
was substituted in place of Nestorius immediately after 
the Ephesinc decrees: this is the conclusion of the question. 
Even Celestine 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 w}1Ïch it is ad- 
mitted that the authority of the Apostolic See was most 
clcarly set forth, not only by words, but by deeds, of any 
since the birth of Christ. At lcast the Holy Council gives 
credence to Philip uttering these true and magnificent enco- 
miums, 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 vcry time lives cver, and exercises 
judgment, in his succcssors.' This he says, after having scen 
all the Acts of the Council itsclf, which we have mentioned, 

2-t-t POPE CET,E!':TI

C HAP. so that we may indeed understand, that all these privileges 
of Peter and the Apostolic See entirely agree with the de- 
crees of the Council, and the judgment entered into afresh, 
and deliberation upon matter of Faith held after the Apo- 
stolic See." 
Pope Celes- The letter of Pope Celestine, recei,"ed with all honour as 
tine's letter .. . 
to the that of the first BIshop In the world, recognises likewIse the 


.25, authority of his brethren. It began thus: "The assembly 
4 T ï. OXf S . of Priests is the visible dis p la y of the P resence of the Holy 
rans. ee 
Mansi 4. Ghost. He who cannot lie has said, "Vhere two or three 
1283. are gathered together in J\Iy name, there am I in the midst 
of them:' much more will lIe 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 
:àlaster, whom they were commanded to preach, never for- 
sakes them. It was He who taught them, it was lIe 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. 'Ye are all engaged in it by an 
hereditary right; all we, who, having come in their stead, 
IJreach 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 lIe 
intended that we should all execute it, when lIe charged 
them with it as a duty devolving equally upon all. 'Ve 
ought all to enter into the labours of those whom we have 
all succeeded in dignity." 
"Thus Pope Celestine acknowledged that it was Christ 
Himself who established Bishops in the persons of the Apo- 
stles, as the teachers of His Church: he places himself ill 
their rank, and declares that they ought all to concur for the 
preservation of the sacred deposit of Apostolical doctrine." 
The importance of this testimony will be felt by those who 
remember that Bellarmille specifically denies that the govern- 
ment of the Church resides in the whole body of the Episco- 
pate; and that in this he is at least borne out by the last 
three centuries of Roman practice. 

I 'l'HIS LETI'ER. 213 

Bossuet proceeds to remark as follows :-" "From this doc- SEe T. 
trine of St. Celestine we draw many conclusions: first, this, I. 
th t .E . h . h A I . 1 h b Ut sup. ch. 
- a IS ops In t e post es were 3ppomte( teac ers y 14. 
Christ Himself, not at all by Peter, or Peter's successors. 
Nor does a Pontiff, seated in so eminent a place, think it 
umvorthy to mix himself with the rest of the Bishops. ' \Ve 
all;' he says, 'in the stead of the Apostles preach tbe 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 Celestine himself, as to 
the rest of the Bishops. IIence that thc deposit of sacred 
doctrine is committed to all, the defence of which lies with 
all; and so thc Faith is to be settled by common care and 
consent; nor will the protection of Christ, the true J\Iastcr, 
be wanting to the masters of Churches. This Celestine 
lays down equally respecting himself and all Bishops, suc- 
cessors of the Apostles. 'rhen what agrees with it: that as 
the Apostles, assembled on the question concerning legal 
rites, put forth their sentence as bei
g 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 a
ain in the Councils of Bishops. 'Vhich indeed 
shews us, that authority and the scttlemcnt of the qucstion 
lic not ill the sentence of Petcr alone, or of Peter's succes- 
sors, but in the agreement of all. 
"Nor, therefore, does Celestine infringc on his own 
P1"Ímacy in reckoning himself with the other successors of 
the Apostlcs; for as the other Bishops were made succes- 
sors to the other Apostles, so he, being made by Christ suc- 
cessor to Peter their chicf, everyw hcre takes preccdence of 
all by authority of Peter, as wc rcad sct forth and actcd on 
in the same Council. 
" 'rhus in the third holy Gcncral Council, and in those 
first agcs, we both prove against heretics, that the power of 
thc Apostolical See everywherc takcs prccedence and leads 
all, and, what is of the most importance, in the namc of 
Pctcr, and so as institutcd by Christ. Not lcss do we shew 
to Catholics, that thc final and infalliblc force of an Ecclc- 
siastical judgmcnt is seated thcre, whcre to the authority of 
Petcr, that is) of the Pope, is addcd thc authority and Rgl'CC- 


C HAP. ment of Bishops also, who are throughout the whole world 
IV. in the stead of Apostles; which alone the Church of France 
demands,"-and, we may add, the Church of England. 
Again; compare the spirit of St. Celestine's words with 
the spirit that dictated the following to De J\iaistre, whom 
we might leave alone, if he were not the exponent of a 
theory now in the greatest vogue in the Roman Church;- 
a thcory, 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 
Du Pape, and taught now. "I do not affect to cast the least doubt 
liv. 1. ch. 2. I . f: ll . b . l . f G I C . 1 I I 
upon t Ie III a I I lty 0 a enera ouncl . mere y say, 
that it only holds this high privilege from its head, to whom 
the promises have been made. \Ve l{now well that the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against the Church. But why? OIl 
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." 
Again: "'V e see that for two centuries and a half reli- 
gion has done very well without them (General Councils), 
and I do not think that anyone 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." 
Eighth It must not be forgotten that this same Council of Ephesus, 
Canon of 
the Coun- which allows none but heretics to refuse to the blessed Virgin 
cil. the title and the honour of ' l\Iother of God,' confirms by its 
eighth Canon, or at least, its decision, the Episcopal and Patri- 
archal sJ'stem, and bears the strongest testimony against the 
lIam- Roman. It runs thus: "The most beloved of God and our 

_ fellow-Bishop Rheginus, and Zeno and Evagrius, the most 
tion. l\Iansi reliD'ious Bisho p s of the Province of Cv p rus have declared 
4. 14tj9. 0 . .J , 
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. 'Vherefore since evils 
which affect the community require more attention, inas- 
much as they cause grcatcr hurt; and especiaUy since the 
Bishop of Antioch has llot so much as followed an ancient 
custom in performing ordinations in Cyprus, as those most 

Id_, liv. 1. 



religious persons who have come to the holy Synod have SEe T. 
informed us, by writing and by word of mouth; we declare I. 
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 1 so that none of the most religious Bishops shall 
invade any other Province, which has not heretofore from 
the bcginning been under the hands of himself or his pre- 
decessors. But if anyone 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 ,ve lose by little the free- 
dom 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, tha( the rights which have 
heretofore, and from the beginning, belonged to each Pro- 
vince, shall be preserved to it pure and without restraint, 
according to the custom which has prevailed of old, each 
J\ietropolitan having permission to take a copy of the things 
now transacted for his own security. But if anyone shall 
introduce any regulation contrary to what has been now 
defined, the whole Holy and Ecumenical Synod has. decreed 
that it shall be of 110 effect." 
It must be allowed that De J\Iaistre has very good reasons 
for disliking General Councils. 
As to the application of this Canon Archbishop De 1\Iarca Appl!cation 
" I . I h I I . d I of tIllS 
says: t IS C car t at t Ie regu at IOn was ma e not on y Canon by 
against the Patriarch of Antioch, but also against the other ß: f:

Patriarchs, that they should not presume to take more power Sacer_ 
in their Dioceses, than is allowed them by the Canon and by i l
b\ c1 
ancient custom. The word Diocese signifies, as I have said, 
the Countries and Provinces put under Patriarchs. In which 
sense it is plainly to be received here, because the Canon 
puts Provinces under Dioceses. 'But let this,' it says, 'be 
observed in the other Dioceses, and in all the Provinces.' 
For which l'eason Thcodoret in his collection of Canons, 


Tn'lC_\.TE Ol<' ::iT. LEO. 


under the first head, has marked that Canon of the Council 
of Ephesus to prove that Patriarchs are not allowed to invade 
the Provinces." De J\iarca elsewhere quotes Theodoret's 
words. Ie Concerning the rank assigned to 
he Patriarchs by 
the Canons. And that no one of them is allowed to steal 
away a PrO\'ince belonging to another as to ordination and 
administration. But that also those already stolen away 
should be restored to the parties wronged. See the 6th and 
7th Canons of the Council of Kicea. rfhe 3rd and 4th of 
the Council of Constantinople. 'fhe 7th of the Council 
of Ephesus." 
Thus a great Father of the fifth century makes the very 
same application of these Canons of Ecumenical Councils 
which 1 have made, and quotes them without hesitation as 
the supreme law of the Church, which the Roman Patriarch 
had no more licence to transgress than his Eastern Cul- 

And by 


Important NINE years after this Council St. Leo the Great became 
ofSt. Leo. 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 li,-ed at an important crisis, when 
the barbarous tribes of the North were about to burst oyer 
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 shew, by a fcw quotations, that St. Leo had no 
slight sense of his own duty and dignity among his brother 
Bishops. 'Ye will then see how his actions, amI the "ay in 
which they wcrc recei,'ed by others, supportcd his words. 
In a sermon on the anniversary of his consccration, after 
noticing with pleasure the number of Bishops prescnt, he 
s. T.eo,tom. continues, "Nor, as I trust, is the most ble
scd Apostle 
al- Pcter, in his kind condescendence and faithful love, absent 
from this asscmbly, nor does hc disrcgard 
'our dcyotion, 

Tn'I<' ltEFltESE
TS ST. PETElt. 249 

reverence for whom has drawn you together. And so he SECT. 
at once rejoices at your affection, and welcomes the observ- 11. 
ance 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 hcir." On a like occasion,-" Although, then, beloved, Tam. i. p. 
1 . . h . fi b b . 
our parta \:lng In t at gI tea great su 
ect lor common 
joy, yet it were a better and more excellent course of re- 
joicing, 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 'Vora made flesh 
already dwelt in us, and Christ had given up Himself whole 
to restore the race of man. 'Yisdom had left nothing un- 
ordered; power left nothing difficult. Elements were obey- 
ing, spirits ministering, angels scrving; it was impossible 
that J\iJ'stery could fail of its effect, in which thc 1] nity and 
the Trinity of the Godhcad itself was at once working. And P
. . prl\"ll{'rr{'s 
yet out of the tclwle U'odd Peter alone zs chosen to presule over of Pet;" in 
the calling of all tlte Gentiles, and ove'l' all the Apostles, and r

t".e collected Fathers of tlte CllllJ"cll: so that though there he 
among lhe people of God many priests and many shepherds, yet 
Peter rules all by personal commission, 'll,"lwm Ckrist also rules Proprie. 
h!/ sovereig/l power. Beloved, it is a great and u'onde'lful par- 
ticipatio'/1 of /1I."s own p071'er 7clticlt tlte dirine condescendpnce 
gave to tltis man: and if lIe tâl/ed that ollier rulers should 
enjoy ought togetlter with !tim, yet did lIe git.e, sat'e 
thro1J[jll him, w/wt lIe denied '/lot to others. In fine, the Lord 
asks all the Apostles what men think of Him; and thcy 
answer in common so long as they sct forth the doubtfulncss 
of human ignorance. But w hcn "hat the disciplcs think is 
requircd, hc who is first in Apostolic dignity is first also ill 
sion of the Lord. And whcn he had said, 'Thou art 
Christ, the Son of the liying God,' Jesus an
wcrcd him, 
'.131csscd art .thop., Simon Bar-J ona, bccausc flcsh and. blood 



C HAP. hath not revealed it to thee, but 
Iy Father, wllÏch is in 
IV. heaven:' that is, Thou art blessed, because J\Iy Father hath 
taught thee; nor opinion which is of the earth deceived thee, 
but heavenly inspiration instructed thee; and not flesh anå 
blood hath shewn l\le to thee, but He, whose only-begotten 
Son I am. And I, saith lIe, say unto thee, that is, as 
Father hath manifested to thee J\Iy 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 corner-stone, 
who make both one, I, the foundation beside which no one 
can lay another; yet thou also art a 'rock, hecause hy l.fy vir- 
tue thou art established, so that whatever is Mine by sove- 
reign power is to thee hy pa'rticipation common with l1Ie. And 
upon this rock T will build ]\fy Church, and the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it: on this strength, saith He, 
I will build an eternal temple, and J\iy Church, which in 
its height shall reach the heaven, shall rise upon thc 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. 
'Vherefore 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 
All the intended for all is put into the hands of one. For there- 



s_ fore is this entrustcd to Peter singly, because all the rulers 
vested with of the Church are invested with the figure of Peter. The 
the figure 
of Peter. privilege, therefore, of Peter remaincth, whercsoever judg- 
ment is passed according to his equity. l\or can severity 
or indulgence be excessive, where nothing is bound, nothing 
loosed, sa\'e what blesscd Peter either bindeth or loo
But at the approach of IIis passion, which would disturb 
the firmness of His disciples, the Lord saith, 'Simon, Simon, 
behold Satan hath dcsired to have you, that he may sift you 
as wheat; but I hm,e prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, 
and when thou art converted, strengthcn thy brcthren, that 



ye enter not into temptation.' The danger from the tempta- SEe T. 
tion of fear was common to all the Apostles, and they equally II. 
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 tlte strength of all is protected, and the help of di. 
vine g'ì.ace is so ordered, that the stability, wltich through 
Ckl'ist is given to Peter, through Peter is conveyed to tlte 
"Since, therefore, beloved, we see such a protection Present go- 
d .. I d bl d . I d .. vemment 
Ivme y grante to us, reasona y an Just y 0 we rejOICe of the 
in the merits and dignity of our Chief, rendering thanks to 

the Eternal King, our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, for him. 
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 bre- 
thren:' and to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, in 
answer to the triple profession of eternal love, thrice said 
with mystical intent, 'Feed l\ly sheep.' And this, beyond a 
doubt, the pious shepherd does 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 annivcrsary day of us 
his servant, and this fcstival, 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, "rho li,'eth and 
reigneth witI] God the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever 
and ever." I have before me similar passagcs in abundance; 
but these are enough to shew how far the teaching of St. Leo, St_ Leo's 
t } . . d h teachinO' to 
as 0 lIS own office, agreed wIth, how far went beyon , t at be com
 St. Augustine. The combination of the Patriarch's, and 


still more of the universal Primate's, powcr with that of the tine"s. 


The po
tion of St. 
Leo in the 

2 _.) 

 O}<' ST. LEO I

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 lJand 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, 
coordinate in authority, but the delegates, of St. Peter's 
successor: but the one-sided development of St. Cyprian's 
teaching would rend 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 eight centuries of her 
existence are not a dream; and that beautiful image of 
St. Augustine 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 
IJrerogatives of St. Peter's successor was likely to be ener- 
getic 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 \Vest more especially, but O\Ter the 
East too, if need be. He can judge Ale
andria, Antioch, 
aud Const.antinople, as well as Eugubium, and is as ready 
too. 'Yherever . Canons are broken, ancient custom disre- 
garded, encroachments attempted, where Bishops are neg- 
lectful, or J\Ietropolitans 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 l'estore, to warn, to protect., or to 
punish. But still thcy 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 glori- 
ous Apostles laboured, witnessed, fought together, and to- 
gether rest in Roman ,earth, then may the successors of the 
Twelve remonstrate with, nay, reprove and resist the suc- 
cessor of the Chief of the Twelve. If he is Vicar of Christ, 
so are they. 'Ve have already seen examples of this, "e 
shall find others, without schism. 



It had become the custom of the Roman Pontiffs, at least SECT. 
as earlv as St. Damasus, (366-88-t,) and St. Siricius, (384- II. 

 P I . 1 P . I System of 
398,) to charge some one re ate, In eac 1 rovmce w lere appointing 
their influence extended, to represent the Roman Church j 

to report anv infractions of discipline, or innovations on the ' h Ïca R rs of 
"' t e oman 
Faith; to announce the election and consecration of Bishops. Bishop. 
Thus Anastasius of Thessalonica presided over the ten J\1e- 
tropolitans of Illyricum in Pope Leo's name. The Primate 
of ArIes represented him in southern Gau]; and others in 
Spain; and so on. It is even said, though, I believe, with- 
out grounds, 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 bimself 
back on tbe unhiassed and impartial authority of the Bishop 
of Rome. An authority, howmrer, which in its commence- 
ment professed to be the especial guardian of the Canons, 
and to protect and maintain all in their proper place, was 
ycry liable to ahuse, and had an inherent tendency to in- 
crease, and to absorb the power of the local Bishops and 
:l\Ietropolitans in thc indefinite pretensions of the Patriarch. 
'Ve Imve 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 defcnc1er of the rights of 
J\fctropolitans against Pope Leo in one of the holiest and 
most A postolical of its ancient Bishops. 
St. Hilary of Arles, of noble birth, of splendid ability, History of 
] . . tJ Id h h . J 1 St Hilary 
laVmg m Ie wor t e Ig lest prospccts, was convcrte( to ofArlt's. 
God by the prayers of St. Honoratus. Thereupon he sold 
his large possessions, and betowed thcm on the poor, and 
retired to the dc
crt of Lcrills. His fricnd, St. Honoratus, 
wa:s shortly aftcr made Bishop of Arlcs, but he could not 
persuade St. Hilary to remain thcre with him. \Yithill 
three ycars he dicd, and St. Hilary, who was attcnding him 
in his sickncss, hastcned, as soon as all was over, to rcturll 
to his monastery. But it was in vain: he was pursucd, 


C HAP. brought back by force, and ordained, in spite of himself, 

ietropolitan 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 J\Ietropolitan. 
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 ArIes then presided. He is con- 
nected 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 
Eritain 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. 
Case of Ce- "Celidonius, finding himself deposed, had recourse to 
lidonius ac- R h h I . d th t h h d b . tl 
cording to ome, were e comp aIne a e a een unJus y con- 
Tillern 5 ont, demned. It seems that St. Leo, without further examina- 
tom. 1 . 
p.72. tion, at once admitted him to his Communion, in which he 

ary may have follow cd what Zosimus and Celestinus did ill 
e:. respect of the miserable Apiarius, Priest of Africa. But 
that the I know not what Canon or what rule of the Church justifies 

f such a proceeding. St. Hilary learnt this at the severest 
e h s ts arne time of winter. Nevertheless, all the discomforts and dan- 
ng as 
 of. g el'S of this season gave way to the ardour of his zeal and 
AfrIca: IS 
overborne faith. He undertook to pass the Alps, and to go on foot 

 and to Rome; and this he accomplished, without having even a 
l R eaves horse either to ride or to carr y ba!!!!a!!e. Being come to 
orne se- <.J<.J <.J 
cretly. Rome, he first visited the relics of the Apostles and 



Next he waited on St. Leo; and having paid him the great- SECT. 
est respect he besought him very humbly to please to order _ n.. 
d . . CehdoDlUS 
what respected the state of the Churches accor mg to Iffi- acquitted 
memorial practice. Persons were seen attending at Rome by 
t. Leo. 
on the holy altar who had been juridically and justly deposed 
in Gaul: he was obliged to address to him his compla.ints 
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 accu- 
sations, but to pay to him his respects, to declare to him the 
state of things, and to beseech him to maintain the rules of 
ùiscipline. There is reason to believe that St. Hilary main- 
tained 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 diù 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 appcaled 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 J\Iarseilles, Proculus 
llways maintained himself, in spite of all the efforts of this 
Pope. J\Icallwhile, as St. Leo, sufficiently jealous of the 

reatness of his See, found himself opposed by St. Hilary 
11 a point of this importance, it is not surprising that he 




was susceptible of the bad impression given him of the con- 
duct of this great Saint, as we shall see hereafter. ' I dare 
not examine,' says the historian of St. Hilary, 'the judg- 
ment 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 ruuning 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, agreeable 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 judgmeut 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 ill any dispute, nevertheless 
he did not refuse to take part in a conference, in which St. 
Leo heard him, together with Celidonius. Sm'era} 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 haye. dared to utter, and that the Bishops could not 
listen to. lIe 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 sonl 
of him who held it: that moreo\'er, having receivcd him at 
first as his brother, he only thought of soothing rather than 
",exing and paining him; and that indced he did this to 

T. HILARY }o'LH.:-, f'RO\' nmIE. 


himself sufficiently by tbe confusion into which the weak. SECT. 
ness of his answers thrcw him. It is clear that St. Hi]ary II. 
would not answcr on the main point of Celidonius's affair, 
because he ruaintaincd that St. Leo could not be judge of 
it. And we must not be surprised that the Roman
much insolence in the inflexible firmness with )\ hich he 
maintained it. Doubtless it was this pretended insolcnce 
"hich caused him even to be put under guard, "\\ hich may 

urprise us in the ease of a Bishop, aud ill an affair purely 
ccclesiastical. Among the insolent and rash expressions of 
which St. Leo in general complains, he remarks, in parti. 
cular, that St. Hilary had oftcn demauded to be condemned, 
if he had condcmncd Cclidonius coutrary to the rules of the 
Canons. lIe wisbed, then, tbat we should judge others by 
the rule which fully justifies St. Hilary. The Saint, seeing 
that his reasons were not listened to, would uot wait St. 
Leo's sentcnce. He preferrcd withdrawing secretly, while 
 affair was still being examined. So he escaped from his 
guards, and, though it was still winter, left Romc, and re- 
turned to ArIes, perhaps in Feùruary (443): so that" hen thf'Y 
sought for him to speak further on this matter, it was found 
that he was gone. St. Leo failed not to proceed, reyerscd 
the judgmcnt delivered against Cclidonius, declared him ab. 

olved and acquitted of the accusation of ha,.ing manied a 
"idow, aud rcstored him to his rank of Bishop, "hich hc had 
already donc at first, "ithout having c:x.amillcd the affair." 
There ,\ ere other accusations made agai nst St. II ilary, 
into which wc nced not entcr. St. IJeo urotc a vcry sevcre 
lctter about him to thc Bi
hops of Gaul: hc accuscd him 
H of raising himself again
t. Peter, and being unwilling Tillem
. J . P . . f )1 I I 1. I . I tom. I:>. 
to rccogmse lIS rnnner, as 1 a t JOse W 10 ue lc,.e t!at p. t!1. 
a successor of 
t. Peter pa

es the bounds of the Canons 
were cncmies of the Primacy of the lIolJ' Scc. That" ould 
ùc to arm against the Popcs in favour of hcrctics a great 
Humber of Fathcrs, of Saints, and of Councils." The result 
"as, that he took away from St. Hilary hi
 rights of )lctro. 
politan, and conferred them on the Bishop of Yielllle, \\ ho 
had elaims upon thClll. But this m('asure wa
 so dislikcd 
hy the sutrragall
, that he restorcd the See of 
Arlcs to most of its pl'i, ile
('s uuder Ha' cuuius, th(' sU('- 





cessor of St. Hilary. Howe,.cr, this matter had evcn 11101'0 
important consequences. "
e will let the Roman Catholic 
historian, as bcfore, describe them. "St. Lco apparently 
feare(l tbat the Bishops of the Gauls would not be 
ently submissive to what he had ordered. And though he 
had made it a charge against St. Hilary that he had em- 
ployed 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 Romp, a celebrated rescript, addre
sed to the 
Patrician _\etius,general of the armie" of the Empire, by which, 
under pretext of maintaining the pt':lce of tht \.
hnrch, he for- 
bids undertaking anything whatever without the authority of 
the Apostolic See', or resisting its orùers, which, says he, haù 
always been observed inviolably up to Hilariu-J. lIe orders 
aU Bishops to hold a
 law all th:lt the authorJty of the Pope 
establishes, and all magistrates to compcl by force to appear 
before the tribunal of the Bishop of Rome all pprsons citell 
thither, if they refused to go. It may be sccn by what 
happened .about this time to AtticllS, 
[etropolitan of Nico- 
polis, in Epirus, llOW scandalous this employment of foree 
was, and how opposed, according to St. Leo himself, to the 
gentleness of the Chul'Ch. Valentinian adds, that the sentellcc 
given by St. Leo against St. Hilary had no need of anyone 
to be executed in the Gauls, since the authority of so great a 
Pontiff has a right to give any order to the Churchcs. He 
goes :50 far as to make it a charge against St. Hilary, to 
have deposed and ordained Bishops without consulting thc 
Pope. He even names him a criminal of State on the score 
of his being charged with having employed the force of moms 
to establish Bishops, and to place them on a throne wherc 
they had only to preach peace. This law is dated the ()th 
of June, 113, and it is this which fixes the time of all this 
history. It is undoubtedly very proper, as says Bal'onius, 
to shew that the Emperors ha,'e greatly contributed to 
establish the greatness and authority of the Popes. This is 
not the place to make othcr reflections upon it; but we can- 
not forhpar snyiuJi!.' that, in the. miTHI of those "']10 haye any 

tom. 15. 

ST. TTIT..-\RY :\I.-\IXT.\IXS HIS RIGHT IX SILF.);[,E. 2:;0 

love for tile liberty of the Church, and any knowledge of its 
discipline, this law will always as little honour him whom it II. 
praises as it will injure him whom it condemns. Pope Hilary 
quotes this law, and 1wails himself of the authority it attri- 
butes to the decisions of Rome." 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 ArIes, 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 Tillcmont, "that he 
çontinned resolved to do nothing in prcjndice 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 ill 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, TilJemont, 
I I . 11 1 I tl t I t . . t tom.!.). 
t IOUg 1 sb perSmH el la le was a presnmp uons spIn, p_ 89. 
calls him 'of holy memory.' Yet we have neither proof 
nor probability that he had restored him to his Communion, 
fl'OB1 which he had cut him. off." His name occnrs in the 
'fhus an encrollchmcnt, which had failed ill .Africa, suc- Tenllen<,y 
1 d I I . f . . II of Patri- 
ceec c t lrong 1 a cOllJuncturc 0 cIrcumstances, especIa Yarehal 
the intervclltion of the ci,'il L )ower, in Gaul. Of course it power to 
"as made thc stepping-stonc to further advances. This one 
spccimcn may give us a notion how the lawful power of the 
Patriarch and the rccognisec1 prc-emillcIH'C of thc one 

\.postolic Sce of the 'Y cst had a continual tcndency to 
dcvelop, and won, by dcgrees, unlimited control o,.cr the 
original and acknowlcùged rights of the Bishops and )Je- 
tropoIitaus. StiH, cvcn in the hands of St. Leo, this was 
mCl'ely an extraordinary interference. 1'\ or must it be COIl- 
sidcl'cd without rcmem hcrillg thc original lihcrty of elcc- 
tioll still enjoycd in GallI as elsewherc. Ravclluins, thc suc- 
sor of this very St. I1ilalT, "as elected and consccrated S. Leo. Ep. 
by thc Bishops of his I)rovil
ce, who thcll announccd it to 411 
}J ope Lco, and rcccircd a congratulatory answer. IIc says 
himsclf to the Bishops of the Prorincc of \-Ïennc, "It is Ep. 10. 
not for otm,e'ln's that \\ e de'fellcl the' ol'clinations of yonr 
s :! 


C HAP. Provinces, which perhaps IIilarills may, according to his 
IV. wont, falsely state to you, to render disaffected the mind of 
JTour IIoliness; but it is for 
10U we claim them through 
our solicitude." And again: "Decreeing this, that if any 
one of our brethren iu any Province die, he who is known 
to be the J\fetropolitan of that Province, should claim to 
himself the ordination of the Priest." 
So long as the election and consecration of Bishops and 
J\letropolitans 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 remembereJi 
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. I suppose it is impossible to 
define a power which was to correct and restore in emer- 
gencies. The Bishops of the Province of ArIes afterwards 
besought Pope Leo to restore the Primacy to ArIes, and 
Primacy of render, A.D. 450, this undoubted testimony to the Primacy 
Rome . 
stated bv of the Roman Church, and to the conneXlOn between the 

h òf rights of the J\letropolitan and the Patriarch :- 
lb., Ep. 65. "By the Priest of this Church (ArIes) it is certain that 
our predecessors, as well as oursehTes, have been consecrated 
to the High Priesthood by the gift of the Lord; in which, 
following antiquity, the predecessors of your Holiness con- 
firmed by their published letters this which old custom had 
lmnded down concerning the privileges of the Church of 
ArIes, (as the records of the Apostolic 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 ArIes, 
which had been thought worthy to receive for its Priest St. 
'rrophimus, sent by the Apostles, should claim the right of 
úrdaining to the High Priesthood." 
The ,iew on which St. Leo acted in these proceedings 
against St. Hilary is vcry plainly sct forth in certain of his 



letters. Thus," To our most beloved Brethren, all the SEe T. 
Bishops throughout the Province of Yienne, Lco Bishop of Ep. :
Rome. . . . The Lord hath willed that the mystery of this s
. Leo's _ 
gift (of announcing the Gospel) should belong to the office 

: ;

of all the A p ostles , on the condition of its bein!! chiefl y a n . 
 S l tated f to 
'-' IS lOpS 0 
seated in the most blessed Peter, first of all the Apostles: his own 
... Patriarch- 
and from him, as it were from the head, It IS llls pleasure ate. 
that His gifts should flow into the whole body, that whoever 
dares to recede from the rock of Peter may l,now that he 
has no part in the divine mystery. For him hath He 
assumed into tIle 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 J\Iy 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 gatcs of hell 
prevail against it." So to his vicar the Bishop of Thessa- 
lonica, whom he was erecting into an Exarch over the ten 
:!\Ietropolitans of Eastern Illyricum: "As my predecessors S. Leo, Ep. 
t d h I 
 II . h I f 14. cap. 1. 
o your pre ecessors, so ave , 10 owmg t e examp e 0 11. 
those gone before, committed to your affection my charge of 
government; that you imitating our gentleness might re- 
lieve the care which we in virtue of our headship, by divine Principali- 
institution, owe to all Churches, and might, in some degree, ter. 
chargc our personal visitation to Provinces far distant 
from us; since you can readily ascertain, by near and con- 
venient inspection, what in every mattcr you might either 
by your own zeal arrange, or reserve to our judgment." 
" For we have entrusted your affection to l'cpresent us on 
this condition, that you are called to a part of our soli- 
citudc) but not to the fulness of our power. . . . . . But if 
in a matter which you believe fit to be considered and de- 
cided on with your brethren," (the Bishops of the Province,) 
" their sentence differs from yours, let everything be rcferred 
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 solicitudc anù care, that the unity 
of mutual agreement and the maintenance of discipline he 
broken by no disscnsion, nor neglected by any slothfulness. 

2GZ HOW t'
\.lt R:ECEInm BY 'rILE RE::,T m' TIlE CIJlltCII. 

C H Á P. .... For the com p actness of our unity cannot remain firm, 
IV. - 
unless thc bond of charity bind us iuto an inscparable whole; 
because, 'as we 11él\ c many members in one hody, and all 
members hayc not the same office, so we, bcing many, are 
one body in Christ, and everyone members one of another.' 
Ii'or it is the joining together which makes onc soundness, 
and one beauty in the wholc body: and this joining to- 
gether, as it requires unanimity in thc whole body, so espe- 
cially dcmullds concord among Priests. }'or though these 
uscum have a like dignity, yet thcy have not an equal jurisdiction; 



lU- since even among the most blessed Apostles, as there was a 
nis, non eoSt likcness of honour so was there a certain distinction of 
tamen ordo ' 
generalid. pO\\ er; and the election of all being equal, pre-eminencc 
:Forma. O\"er the rcst \\ as gi\-en to one. From which type the dis- 
tinction betwecn Bishops also has arisen, and it was providcd 
by an important arrangement that all should not claim to 
themselves power over all, but that in c\ ery Provincc there 
should he one, whose scntence should bc considered the first 
among 11Ïs brethren; and others again seated in the grcater 
cities should undertake a larger cal'C, through whom thc direc- 
tion of the U lliversal Church should conyerge to the one See 
of Pcter, and notl1Ïng anywhcre disagree from its head." 
St. Leo's 1 tl1Ìnk it fair to aùmit that tIle germ of something very 
words the . . 
rlll of the hIm the present Papal 
ystem, wIthout, howeycr, such a 


 wonderful concentration and absorption of all power, is dis- 
5,}"!;tem, bu.t cernible in these words. I shall gi, e furthcr ou Bossuet's 
J10t sup- 
pOlted by intcrpretation of their most remarkable e
pressioll. But it is 
other parts . I I . I . f } Ch } , 
of the also certmn t !at suc I IS not t Ie new 0 t Ie ure 1 s gOYCl'U- 
Church. mellt sct before us by St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, St. Vinccnt 
of Lerins, and the l"athcrs generally, especially those of thc 
Greek Clmrch, nor the one supportcd by the acts of tbe 
ancient Church. There is a ycry distinct toue in tbe teaching 
and acts of St. Leo, and the other Popes generally, from that 
of the contcmporary Bishops aud Fathcrs who had not suc- 
cce,lcd to St. Peter's m\ll See. It consists in dwelling on 
the Primacy so strongly, as quitc to throw out of view thc 
apostolic powcrs of othcr Bishops; whercas these latter dwell 
upon the apostolic powers of the Episcopatc gencrally; and, 
while thcy admit St. Pctcr's l}rimacy aud that of the Roman 
Sce, placc thc go\'crnlllcnt of thc Church in thc harmoniolls 

THIS GO\"ERX11.E"X'l' X.E", _\.
OT L"Xln:RSAL. 263 

agreement of all. St. Leo's view, rigorously carried out, as SEe T. 
it has been by the later Roman Church, substitutes St. Peter II. 
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 This go- 
. d ] 1 fi l . I fi k tl - II ycrnment 
1 ea Je ore 11m, must 1'st remar' mt It was new. e new. 
says himself to the Bishop of Thessalonica: "The govern- Ep.6.cap.2. 
ment 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 t!ten first committed with a certain charge the sup- 
porting of the Churches of that Province, which he .desired 
to be maintained - in discipline." That is, it was scarcely 
sixty years since Pope Siricius had selected the Bishop of 
fetropolis to keep a watch oyer the maintenance of the 
Canons. And now Pope Leo was already requiring the J\Ie- 
tropolitans to COllsecrate no Bishop without first consulting 
the Bishop of Thessalonica as his vicar. 
Secondly, this proceeding on the part of the Po.pes "as And I!ot 
. T submItted 
no.t submItted to generalJy, even throughout the" est. The toin Africa. 
"Codex Ecclesiæ Africanæ" is full of prohibitions against 
e\Ten appealing to "Bishops beyond the sea," i. e. the Pope. 
In St. Augustine's time, as we h
lVe seen, they positively 
forbad the Pope's interference with their internal govern- 
ment, and only submitted to it after they had been enfcebled 
ùy the irruption of the Vandals. 
rrhus the 28th Canon of the Codex (under the date of 
St. Aurelius, the friend of St. Augustine) nms, 
" It was also determined that if Presbyters, Deacons, or 
the other inferior Clerks, complain in their causes of the 
judgments of their own Bishops, let the neighbouring 
Bishops, with the consent of their own Bishops, hear them, 
and the Bishops thus called in settle between them. But if 
they think proper to appeal from these also, let them not ap- 
peal to tribunals beyond the sea," (i. e. the Pope,) "but to the 
Primates of their own Provinces, or to an universal Coullcil," 
(i. e. of Africa,) " as also in the case of Bi
hops has often becn 
o.rdcrcd. But let him who thinks proper to appcal to tri. 
hunals beyonù the 
ea be recei\"cù by no. OllC within Africa 


by aid of 
the civil 

Words of 
St. Jerome 
to it. 

s. .J erome, 
Ep. 146. 


DIl'O::;.ED BY .AID 01<' THE en IL POWElL 

to Communion." I cannot refrain from saying that this is 
the Anglican oath in the words of St. Augustine. 
Thirdly, this power was set up very much indeed by help 
of the imperial authority. The process, in fact, of central- 
izing in the Church, ran completely parallel with that in the 
State. The law of Gratian and that of Valentinian, above 
mentioned, are 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 Statc with spiritual 
matters, (a protest for which she is worthy of an respect and 
admiration,) should owe to the support of the State, in dif- 
ferent 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. 
N ow as we have had St. Jerome in a noted place appeal- 
ing to Rome, and acknowledging hcr 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 ill higher estimation than e,Ten the Priesthood, 
,,'hich was numerous, he observes, "Nor is the Churc11 of 
the Roman city to he considcred one, and that of the whole 
world another. Both the Gauls, anù the Britains, and 
Africa, and Persia, and the East, and India, and all bar- 
barous nations, adore one Christ, ohsen"e one rule of truth. 
If you require authority, the world is greater than tlte city. 
"Tbere,-cr a Bishop is, be it at Rome, or Euguhium, or COll- 
stantinople, or Rhcgium, or Alexandria, or Tanæ, he is of 
the same rank, the same Pricsthood. The power of richcs, 
and the humility of poverty, make a Bishop neither 11igher 
nor lower. J3ut all are successors of the Apostles. But 
JOU say, how is it that at nome a Priest is ordained upou 
the testimony of a Deacon 7 "Thy allege to me tlte custom oJ 
a single city? "Thy dcfcnd against the laws of the Church a 
fcwncss of nnmbcr, which is the source of their pride 7" The 
\"ery force of St. I
eo's yicw lies ill the exact contradictory of 
St. Jerome's words: yiz. the city is greate'l" than tlie world, 

AXGUAGE 01<' SSe J.Eno.\IE _-\.:KD Al;Gn,TlXE. 265 

and this alone justifies and bears out the present claim of SEe T. 
. d II. 
the Roman See, and its attitude both to those "ithm, an to 
those without, its pale. 
St. Augustine, commenting on the 45th Psalm, uses lan- And of.St. 
I . I J bl . h h f S J Augustme. 
gnage W llC 1 rem aI' m y agrees WIt t at 0 t. erome. 
It is the more valuable, because he is not arguing contro- 
yersially, but expounding. He speaks decisively, but uncon- 
sciouslv. He says on the words, " All Thv garments smell of S. Aug. in 
 I I . f . 
 I h . h Psalm 44. 
myrr 1, a oes, ane caSSia, out 0 the Ivory pa aces w erein t e tom. 4. p_ 
daughters of kings have made Thee glad in doing Thee 
honour," (Vulgate,) "The Churches are the daughters of 3fJ8. A. 
Apostles, the daughters of ki.ngs: for he is the King of 
kings, they the kings of "W hom it is written, ç Ye shall sit upon 
twelve thrones, judging the tweh'e tribes of Israel.' They 
preached the word of truth, and begat Churches, not for 
themselves, but for Him." . . . " The daughters of kings are 
the daughters of Thy Apostles, but' in doing Thee honour,' 
because they raised up seed unto their Brother." . . "Shew 
me at Rome the temple of Romulus so greatly honoured as 
I can shew you there the shrine of Peter. But who in 
Peter is honoured, save He who died for us? For we are 
Christians, not Petrians. And if we be children by the 
brother of the Dead, yet are we named by the name of the 
Dead. Children tlri"oug!t the one, but unto the otlJer. 
Be!told Rome, behold Cartilage, behold other and yet other 
citie,fI are dauglzters of kings, and they have made their ]iin.q 
glad unto !tis honour, and Ollt of them all one particular Queen 
is made." . . "On thy right hand did stand the Queen in a 
vesture of gold, wrought about with divers colours. \Yhat 
is the \'esture of this Queen? Both precious it is, and 
wrought with divers colours: these are the mysteries of 
doctrine in all the difI'crent languages. One the African, 
another the Syrian, a third the Greek, a fourth the Hebrew, 
and again others and others: those languages make the 
divers colours of this Queen's vesture. But as all the divers 
colours of the vesture agree in unity, so all tongues in one 
Faith: in the vesture there may be divers colours, but not 
a rent." . . . ""
hat means, 'Instead of thy fathers thou 
shalt have children 7' For fathers were sent the Apostles, for 
A postle", child fen are born to th
c, Rishops are appointed. 

;WG ST. L.EO'S VI!::" :!\OT _\.LLOW!::1J IX THE E.\ST. 

C HAP. For in this day whence are the Bishops throughout the whole 
IV. world born? 'fhe Church hcrself entitles them l?athcrs: 
herself hath borne them, and herself hath fixed them ill 
the seats of the fathers. 'rherefore think not thyself (the 
Church) deserted, because thou seest not Peter, because 
thou seest 110t Paul, because thou seest not those through 
whom thou art born: out of thine offspring hath thy father- 
hood grown. 'Instead of thy fathers thou hast children, 
whom thou shalt make princes oyer all the earth.' Behold 
how wide spread is the temple of the King! in order that 
the virgins, who are not brought into the King's temple, 
lllay know that they have no portion in that bridal. 'Instead 
of thy fathers thou hast clIildren, whom thou shalt ma1..c 
princcs over all the earth?' '}lhis is the Catholic Church: her 
sons are made princcs o\'er all the earth: her sons are ap. 
poin ted for fathers. Let those who are cut off recognisc 
her, come to unity, be brought into the King's temple. His 
temple God hath placed evcrywhcrc: the foundations of 
Prophets and Apostles hath Hc evcrywhcre establishcd. 
The Church hath borne sons, hath set them for hcr fathers 
as princes over all the earth." 
J\Iost truly did St. Augustinc, to whom it was given to 
smite down the grcat Donatist schislU, bchold in the Church 
of God an indivisible kingdom, an inscparablc unity-all 
unity, 110t Roman, but Catholic; a kingdom not rulcd by one 
Bishop in the placc of Christ, but by Christ in pcrson, with 
the Bishops llis asscssors, 011 the throncs of His Apostlcs, 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 
This go- But fourthly, had this government, as imaged out by 
\"erllment S L b b . d I . G I Q . Af . . 
not allowed, t. eo, een su nntte to not Oil y In - au , 
paIn, rIca, 
nor even d aud Illvricum, but throughout the "Test generalh', all this 
attelllpte , 
in the East. would still be nothing for its catholicity, and therefore its 
binding effect, unlcss it had bCCH allowed by th
 East. Now 
wc have the strongest proof that it ne\'cr was so allowed. 
'rlIis interfcl'cnce, and much more the ccntralization pointcd 
at, as it never would ha,'e been toleratcd, so ncithcr was it 
attempted, in the Patriarchates of thc :East. There was far 
less danger of the patriarchal IJower bccoming excessive, 
whcn it was posscssed by five, who wcrc a check to cach 
othcr. St. Lco's influencc and authority in thc 'V cst wcre 

OßEDll':XCE TO THE l'ATltL\.UCH eo. EUYPT. ;W7 

balanced by the exercise of like influence anù authority in SEe T. 
the :East, originally by the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch, 
and at this aud later times still more by that of Coustan- 
tinople. And though throughout the East the Bishop of 
I Rome was reckoned the first of these in rank, yet the 
Eastcrns were governed entirely by their own Patriarchs. 
I do not know that a stronger, though quite incidental, 
proof of this can be shewn, than occurs in the lif
 of Syne- O
. J\ . f P I .. I P I . 1 3". 1 .> of 
SlUS, letropohtan 0 to emalS m tIe entapo IS. .J.l8 a- to h"is Pa- 
. I r l ' h I _ I f Al d . d d I . t d . . d triarch 
trmrc 1, eop 11 us 0 exan na, or ere Inn 0 IVI e a when ûut of 
certain Bisho p ric, which had before been united by his own C!>nun
I- I 
mon Wit 1 
authority. Syncsius went to the spot, and e
crted an his Rome. 
influence to carry out the wishes of Theophilus, but in yain, 
on account of the attachment of the people to their actual 
Bishop. They therefore prevail on him to put off the affair 
till they had sent a deputy to Theophilus. Synesius in de- 
scribing all this to 'fheophilus, says, " Nevertheless that which 1:illell1f!lIt. 
. d . I d " ffi I . 1 F . f . Ecc.IhsL, 
you JU ge proper must wit lOut 1 cu ty preVaI . i or 1 It 12. õ43. 
was your OW11 judgment which made them think a certain 
course right, in changing that judgment you must make 
justice change also; and thus all your pleasure must be for 
thc people the rule of justice and of right. Obediencc is 
life, and disobedience causes death." I suppose that words 
of such entire deference can hardly be found in the first 
eight centuries applied to the Bi
hop of Home even by any 
hop of his proper Patriarchatc i : and, assuredly, if such 
can be fouud, they ,,"ould be alleged as proofs of his uni- 
versal Supremacy. The ,'ery way in which this has been 
done has becn to quote e
prcssions of this nature when 
addressed to him, and to omit all mention of the like ex- 
pressions addressed to the other Patriarchs. 'l'his instancc 
is the morc remar]\.aùle, 'fheophilus bcing at this timc, and 
for many ycars before, as indeed he died, out of Communion 
with Rome. .. 
So far from there being any authority delcgated by nome 

i However in the Decretals of Gre. 
gory IX., A. IJ. 12lO, we find it written 
of the Pope: "In anything that he 
wishes his will is instead of reason, 
Hor is there any who can say to him, 
why elDest thuu thus? For hc is 
able to dispen
e' heyond law, to ma1.c 

injustice Justice. by correcting" and :11- 
tering laws."-De(;ret. Greg. IX. bk. i. 
tit. 7. cap. 3_ p_ 203, qUQted by l)ereíra, 
Tent. Theol. In the concordat with 
Napoleon, Pope Pius VII. ccrtainly eÀ- 
cn:ised a power as great as this. 


C HAP. to the Eastern Patriarchs, there was no appeal from them 
to Rome, that is to say, in a matter belonging to their par- 
ticular government; for as to the general Faith of the Church, 
in any peculiar emergency or violation of the usual order of 
procedure, or of her supreme Law, tile Canon, there" as an 
appeal, if not lawful, at least exercised, to any of the Pa- 
triarchs. 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 yon should have the Primacy. For your 
throne is adorned with many advantages. It has the sepul- 
clues of our common Fathers and Teachers of the truth, Peter 
and Paul. These have made your thronc exceedingly illus- 
trious. This is the height of your blessings." 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. On the other 
Tillelront. hand, about the year 443, Athanasius, Bishop of Perrha, in 
tolU. 14-. . . 
647-9. the PatrIarchate of AntIoch, haying been judged by his 
hanasius J\Ietropolitan, at the reference of his Patriarch, Domnus, 
ot Perrha . . . 
appeals to resIgns Ins DIOcese: he l'eturns however, and attempts to 
I:;t. l'roclus h . f . b . . d . d f I . 
and St. execute IS unctIOns: emg reslste , Instea 0 app ymg 
C.rril. to his own Patriarch Domnus, he goes to Constantinople, 
and by false reports interests in his favour St. Proclus, 
Patriarch of that See, and St. Cyril of .Alexandria. They 
write in his favour to Domnus, who in consequence has his 
cause heard again. Proclus makes a sort of e:x.cuse to Dom- 
nus for meddling with an affair of the East. lIe observes 
that neither he nor St. Cyril act save as mediators, and that 
they pray him to consider their letters only out of regard to 
the charity which unites them all together. 
Another Bishop of the Patriarchate of Antioch named 
Peter, considering himself unjustly deprived of his Church, 
applies to St. Cyril, who writes a lettcr in his behalf to 
Domnus, which sets forth in a tone of reprehension the su- 
Tom. 6. premac
' of the Canon. He says, "Let therefore your Piety, 


t.. p. considering that which is approved by the divine Canons, 
and that which is seemly for the Church and for those that 
are appointed to the sacred service, and moreover besides tltis 

appeals to 
Pope Leo. 
In Epist. 
s. Leonis, 

Petl'T ap- 
peals from 
Domnu,; of 
Antioch to 
St. C.rril. 


lwvin,fJ regard for my letter, stop the tears of the old man," SEe T. 
&c. ,V ords which, had they been spoken by a Roman Bishop, n. 
would have been quoted as proving his Supremacy. In like 
manner the heretic Eutyches, before the Council of his own 
Patriarch, ""
hen his deposition was read, appealed to the )[::,nsi 6. 
holy Synod of the most holy Bishop of Rome, and Alex- 

andria, and Jerusalem, and Thessalonica." Now with what 
ppeals to 
equity, I ask, is the appeal of Eutyches to the Roman Alexandria, 
C . 1 } R S d Jerusalem, 
ounCI taken to prove t Ie present oman upremacy, an and Thessa- 
his appeal to the Council of Alexandria, Jerusalem, aud lonica. 
'fhessalonica, allowed to prove nothing? Or the appeal of 
Theodorct, in spite of his own language, alleged for the same 
pnrpose, and such f{wts as those of these Bishops, Athana- 

ius and Peter, on the other side not considered? If these 
ishops, whose cause was suspicious, could appeal to other 
Patriarchs, not the Roman, against their own, why could not 
St. Chrysostome and St. Flavian, both of Constantinople, 
when ovcrborne by the most outrageous violcnce, appeal to 
the "rest, of w])ich Rome stood at the head, especially as 
their cause in the Ea
t stood no chance of being judged ac- 
cording to the Canows? Is not the proving the Papal Supre- 
macy upon a class of facts which exist equally with regard 
to the other l)atriarchs, a most gross application of the 
" leaùen rule" of which 
lr. Newman complains? 
Again, St. Isidore of Spain, in the sixth century, says: 
"'filC order of Bishops is fourfold: that is, l}atriarchs, Arch- Is
1 . I ' I I . d B . 1 I G 1 P . I HlSp., Et,.- 
ns lOpS, l.\ ctropo !tans, an IS lOpS. n l'ec 
 a atnarc I mol. 7, 12, 
is called the first of the Fathers, Lccause he holds the first, 


this is, the Apostolic place, and thcrefore, bccause he holds sup. p. 406. 
thc highcst rank, he has such an appellation, as the Roman, 
the Alltiochenc, and the Alexandrine." Accordingly Gieseler 
says, "At the cud of this period," (A.D. 4j1,) the four Patri- Gieseler, 
1 f 1 } ' I 11 . I . P . 1 
 I tom. 1. pt. 
arc )S 0 t IC 
ast" were IC ( 1ll t JeU' atrmrc mtes lor ccc e- 2. pp. un, 
siastical centres, to which the other Bishops had to attach 19
thcmschcs fOl' maiutcllancc of ccclcsiastical unity; and in The Patri- 
. . . . 11 1 arcilS the 
COllJ unctIOn with thcIr patriarchal Syuod they furmcu t Ie hi
1 . I t " b I f I . II I . . I f tl tribunal of 
llg les tn uua 0 appca III a ecc eSIastlca matters 0 Ie uppeal. 
l}atriarchate: whilst, 011 the other hanù, they \\ ere trcatcd 
as thc highcst rcprescntati,'cs of the Church, who, through 
mutual communication with each other, were to maintain thc 



C II A P. unity of thc uni,'crsal Church, and without who"e COl1cur- 
rcnce no decrees concerning the whole Church could be 
Tom. 1. "
hen Gieseler speaks of "the principlc of the mutual 

 2. p. independence of the "r estern and Eastern Church being 
Eastern In- firmlv held in thc East gencralh'," of course it must be 
 w .. 
and the unùerstood that there can be no independence, strictly so 

ih':macy called, in the Church and Body of Christ. Independence 
Canon. annihilates membership and coherence. That which bound 
the East and the 'Yest, the least Bishop and the greatest, 
into one harmonious whole, was tlte Canon of tlie Church. 
TIÛ.9, and no other supreme authority, I find universally 
appealed to by Bishops and Patriarchs, and most of all 
by the Popes, from the Council of Nicea to St. Grcgory 
the Great. I say no other supreme authority, because 
General Councils were held for the very purpose of maintain- 
ing the Canon of the Church when in peril, or declaring her 
11'aith, besides that they were an extraordinary, not an or- 
dinary, authority. They passed legislative acts, dcfining, or 
expressing afresh, the Canon or the Faith of the Church, 
which theu every Bishop was bound to maintain, the gl'eatest 
not only as much as the least, but more so, in proportion 
to the eminence of his See. 'Vhen this Canon, or this 
Faith, seemed to be violated, the Patriarchs remonstrated 
with each other, and proceeded ill case of necessity to dis- 
soh'e Communion with the offending party. Not ouly the 
Bishop of Rome did this, but the Eastern Patriarchs also, 
with quite as much energy and independence. :\Iorcoycr, 
I am fully prepared to admit that the Primacy of the Roman 
Sec, even among the Patriarchs, was a rcal thing; not a 
mere title of honour: but then his very pre-eminence lay 
'The Bishop iu his being called, as First Bishop of the world, to the 
of Rome's . I . f C d I F . I F 
office in espCCla mmntenance 0 the ,anon, an t Ie 1 mt 1. 'or 



l. them he could do everything, against them nothing. To 
this yery end he had the privilege of receiving refcrenccs as 
to doubtful points of faith and discipline: a privilege which 
the great Eastern Sees e
ercised as well as his, aud that of 
Constantinople over all the East, as, in ccrtaiu vcry !'pecial 
circumstances, the Sce of !tome received references from 
the East as well a
 the "TpSt. And so the power of tllC 

 .\J.fXm:n TO BY 
OCR \TF.S .\
OZm[EN. 271 

First See was real1y exertecl ill difficnlt conjunctures to S EO T. 
I II. 
kecp the wholc body together. In that he was first, an( 
not second, or third,- I am quite aware that the l3ishop 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 \Vest he counter- 
balanced aU the fonr. And certainly it is in this view, 
reprcsenting the \V cst, that the Greek Fathers most speak of 
him. :Not as if authority lay in him singly, but in him and 
his Coullcil conjointly: as when St. Cyril speaks to John of 
.Antioch of his losing the Communion of so man!! Bishops, if 
he did not agree to Popc Celcstine's sentence on Nestorins: 
an exprcssion "hich is most thoroughly opposed to the Papal 
Idea. St. Basil's tone throughout is just the same. So- 
crfltes, indeed, amI Sozomen, tell us something more. Now 
I certainly believe they had bcfore them neithcr the Papal 
Empire of St. Gregory the Seventh, nor the maxims of the 
Reformation, and so far they arc unbiassed witnesses. Sozo- 
men thcn tells us, that when St. Athanasius, unjustly de- 
posed, fled to Rome for jllsticc, together with Paul of Con- 
Iarcel1ns of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza, 
"thc Bishop of thc Romans, having inquired into the accu- Soz., IIist. 
sations against eaeh, when he fonnel them all agreeing with 3. c K 
the doctrine of the :Kicene Synod, admittcù them to Commu- 
nion, as agrecillg with him. And inasmuch as tile care of all 
belonged to him on account of the rank of Ilis See, lie re.<;tored 
to each his Clt1Irc!t. And he wrotc to thc Bishops throughout 
the .Bast, (i.e. of Antiuch,) censuring tltem fm. not having de- 
cided 'rigidly about these per.r;on.<;, and for t!trowing tlie Churches 
illto conJilsion by not abiding hy the decrees of J..Yicea. And 
hc hade somc fcw of thcm appear on a certain day to de- 
fend the jllsticc of thcir dccision; or else he threatened that 
hc would not for the futurc hear it, if they did not :,top 
innovating." Thus it is as dcfclldcr of the Canous that St. 
 appears: for thcy, being Bishops in the dcpendcnce of 
thc third Scc, had excommunicated and dcposed the Bishop 
of the second, nnder most unjust circumstances. Ncvcrthe- 
less thcy took vcry ill \, hat St. Julius said aull did, for thcy 
afterwards pronounccd a scntcnec of dcpositioll against him: 
so little did tIH'Y ackllowkclge ltis right to illtC'l'ferp. .c\

272 UROU
Dlm 0, 'fIlE LETTER 01<' POPl

C HAP. Pope Julius"" rote to them, accusing tllCm of secretly un- 

 ùermining the doctrine of the Nicene Synod, and that, con- 
oz. 1St. .,. 
c.lO. trary to the laws of the Church, they had not called him to 
their Council. For that it was an ltic'ì"arc1tical law to declare 
null what was done against the sentence of the Bishop of the 
Romans." So Socrates says, in reference to the same matter, 
that Pope Julius asserted to the Bishops of the East that 
f:ocrate8, "they were breaking the Canons in not hm'illg called him 
I Î. to their Council, the ecclesiastical Calton o1"llering that the 
Clmrc1tes should not make CWlOJiS contrm.y to the sentence of 
tlte Bishop of Rome." Now this seems all ,.ery plain, but 
then it is grounded on the letter of Pope Julius, which still 
exists, one of the most admirable monuments of antiquity; 
and referring to that letter I find Pope Julius says no such 
thing: what he does say I have already in its place sct forth 
above, and it is not at all in favour of the present Papal 
elaim. Nor is this all, for the Canon supposed by SOCl'ates 
and Sozomen, and which is nowhere to be found in antiquity, 
This Can
n was not kept in a notable instance sixty-five years before 
not kept In . . 
two notable tIns matter, and In an equally notable one forty-four years 
instances. after it. In the year 272 the Bishops of the East deposed 
Paul of Samosata, and then notified his deposition in like 
terms to the Bishops of Rome and Alexandria: and in the 
year 381 the second Ecumenical Council was held at Constan- 
tinople, the whole proceedings of ,\ hich, as I have aboye 
described them, may be said to have ignored this Canon. 
"Yhile neither Pope Dion
'sius in 27
, nor Pope Damasus in 
381, complained of this, or allcged any such Canon. At 
the same time it may certainly be said that in matters con- 
cerning the state of thc whole Church no law could be passed 
without the consent of the Bishop of Rome at the head of the 
'Yest. But even this fact is much more marked from the 
time of the Council of Chalcedon downwards, than before it. 
Rut beyond all doubt the Eastern Patriarehntes exercised 
a complete self-government, in conformity with the Canon of 
the Church: and as the deposition of St. Chrysostome by 
Theophilus diù not prove that Constantinople was subordi- 
nate to Alexandria, nor the condemnation of St. Athanasius 
at Tyre that Antioch was superior to Alexanùria, so neither 
did St.Athallasins taking refuge in Italy, and justified first 

G '1'0 THE COL':'\CII. OF CH.\L(,EDO
. 273 

by the Council of the Roman Bishop, and then by the great, SEe T. 
though not Ecumenical, Council of Sardica, prove that the 
East was governed by the West. 'rhe Canon in all these 
cases had been attacked: the Canon was appealed to: 
and the Canon finally prevailed. It was the stedfastness 
of the Roman Bishops in maintaining the Canon that so 
greatly increased their influence between the Councils of 
Nicea and Chalcedon. And so, no doubt, when the Patri- 
arclls 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 w hole 'Vest to back him. 
And t.hus again ill St. Leo's time a very extraordinary 
emcrgency arose, which still further raised the credit of the 
Roman Patriarch. Dioscorus of Alexandria, supporting the 
heretic Eutyches, had, by help of the Empcror, deposed 
and murdered St. Flavian of Constantinople: J uvenal of 
Jerusalem was greatly involved in this transaction. Dios- 
conIS had then consecrated Anatolius to be the successor 
of St. Flavian, and Allatolius had consecrated 
faximus to 
Antioch, instead of Domnus, who, too, had been irregularly 
deposed after St. Flavian. Now, had Dioscorus been other- 
wise blameless, his consecrating Anatolius, of his own au- 
thority, to Constantinople, and Anatolius then consecrating 
l\Iaxilllus to Antioch, was, as St. Leo observes, an infringe- Ep. lOG. 
f I C f h CI I I 1 . I _\d .\nat. 
ment 0 t Ie anon 0 t e lUre 1, am so a proeecc mg t !at c. 2. 
imperilled the unity of the Body: for, though the self-govern- 
ment of the East had bcen so jealously maintained in 38] 
both by its own ni
hops and by the Emperor Theodosius, yet 
the Patriarch of .Alcxandria had no right to eject the Patriarch 
of Constantinople, and then consecrate a successor, nor that 
sucecssor to consecrate a Patriarch of Antioch. That tltis 
was the particular violation of the Canons of which St. Leo 
complained, we havc his own testimony. \Vriting to Anato- 
lius he says, "For when your predecessor of blessed memory, II,)., c. 1. 
Fla\'ian, had becn ejected on account of his dcfence of the 
Catholic truth, not witlJOut reason was it believcd that your 
ordaincrs seemed to have consecrated one like themselves, 
contrary to tlte constitutions of tlte Itoly Canons." In which 
worùs hc intimates that had Flavian bccn ejcctcd for hcresy, 
as was Paul of Samosata, the presumption would have been 


ST. LEo'S REI"EREW'E '1'0 TIlE C.\.XOX. 

C II A P. the reverse , and then had the successor been ordained ac- 
cording to the Canons, and not by an intruding Patriarch, 
his own interference would have been unnecessary. Thus writ- 
F.p. 104.. ing to the Emperor he further says, "Let the aforesaid Bishop 
Iartla- . . 
num, c. 5. obey tlle Fatllers, consult the Interests of peace, and llOt tlunk 
his act of presumption in ordaining a Bishop for the Church 
of Antioch, wit/tOut any precedent, against the precepts of tile 
Canons, to have been lawful:" and his own particular office 
of especial guardian of the Canons, as First Bishop, is then 
alluded to: "which proceeding we, through desire for the 
rcstoration of the Faith, and zeal for peace, have forborne 
to call in question. Let him therefore abstain from doing 
wrong to the rules of the Church, and myoid unlawful ex- 
cesses, Jest, while venturing on courses opposed to peace, he 
cast himself off from the universal Church." So then the 
Bishop of Rome might interfere with affairs of the East: 
but on what occasion? When the supreme law of the 
universal Church, the Canon, to which he himself owed 
obedience, was violated. N å Pope, perhaps, is so express 
in setting forth the Canon as St. Leo: it is not his own 
authority in itself, but his authority in defcnce of the Canon, 
which he uniformly exhibits. As it was, the whole East 
had been throwll into confusion. A heretic had been ab- 
solved; one Patriarch murdered, another deposed; and of 
the other two, one was chief agent, and the other not clcar, 
in these transactions. No wonder that, at the Council of 
Chalcedon, the Bishop of Rome appeared at the head of the 
'Vest, both to vindicate the Canon and his own violated 
rights, for Dioscorus had even deposed him, and as the 
restorer of true doctrine, and the deliverer of the Church. 


llossuet 'g 
and its 
Learing on 
the ques- 
tion in 

llUl' I must now quote, at considerablc length, thc argu- 
mcnt of Bossuet, and his statemcllt as to where the sovcrcign 
power in the Church rcsides. 'Ve have already secn what 
he has said respecting the Council of Ephcsus; and his 
observations on that of Chalcedoll and thc four succeeding 

T 0}1' rHl!: COU
CrL 010' CIL\.LCßlJO
. 27:1 

Councils are equally important. His argument, which was SEe 1'. 
intendcd for, the justification of the Gallican Church, realIy Ill. 
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 pro- 
ceedings 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 grcat assembly of his brethren, 
cried out, "If I forget thee, Church of Rome, may I forget Dossllet, 
If d d . . I . Sermon 
myse ; may my tongue ry, an rcmaIn motIon ess m my sur l' Unité 
mouth, if thou art not always the first in my remembrance, de l'Eglise. 
if I place thee not at the beginning of all my songs of joy." 
The question then at issue is, whether the Bishop of The real 
Rome be the first of the Patriarchs, and first Bishop of the 

ion at 
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 whethcr 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, how- 
ever 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 us now review the Acts of the General Council of nORsllet, 
. Det: Cieri 
Chalcedon. The preVIOUS facts were these. The two natures Gall., lib. 7. 
of Christ were confounded by Eutyches, an Archimandrite Ed


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 appealeù 
to all the Patriarchs, but chiefly to the Roman Pontiff. 
Leo writes to Flavian, and 'orùers everything to be laid 
before him.' Flavian answers and requests of Leo' that, S.I.eo, Ep. 
1 . h . h Ù d f h 26. tom. 1. 
ma \.lng IS own t e common cause an the or er 0 t e p. 787. 
holy Churches, he should by his own letters agree witlt the uvp.lþ7}cþl- 
d . t . h - I I d b . h Ua.UOa.I. 
eposl Ion W IC 1 la een canolllcally passed, and s ould 
strengthen the faith of the Emperor. For the matter only 



 P. needs an impulse and assistance from you, which b
T your 
agreement will restore all things to peace and quiet.' 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 j and the Council, of 
which there are rumours, be gi,-eu up, tlmt the holy Churches 
be not disturbed.' This, too, is in accordance with disci- 
pline, for heresies to be immediately suppressed, first by the 
Bishop's care, then by that of the Apostolic 'Sce: nor is it 
forthwith necessary that an universal Council be assembled, 
and the peace of all Churches troubled." 

le rel
: Bossuet's words seem to suggest that St. Flavian :uhnittecl 
hveposlÌ1on . I . C'i L h I f E I I .. 
of St. Fla- a rIg It HI .:'It. eo to re ear t Ie cause 0 · utyc leS : t lIS IS 

l by no means the case. In the letter above quoted, announc- 
ing to the Pope the judgment passed on Eutyches, and ad- 
dressecl "to the most holy and religious Father and fcllow- 
Tom. 1. minister, Leo," he say
, "I have sent to your Holiuess the 
Acts in his casc, in which we have deprived him, as one con- 
victed of such things, both of the Priesthood, and of the 
presidency over his monastery, and of our Communion: 
tliat your Holiuess likewise bein!J acquainted with his case may 
make manifest his impiety to all the most religious Bishops who 
w.e under your Piety, (i. e. those of the 'Vest,) lest through 
ignorance of his opinions, of which he has been convicted, 
they should be found holding intercourse with him, as with 
one of the same views, either by lctter or otherwise." Thc 
demeallour of St. :FIavian towards St. Leo is that of one 
Patriarch, independent in his own sphere, towards anothcr, 
not that of a Bishop amenable to a superior. 
" After thc proceedings had been sent to Leo, hc writes 
to Flavian, most fully and clearly sptting forth the mystery 
of thc IJord's Incarnation, as he 
ays himself, and as all 
Churches bear witness; at the same time hc praiscs the 
acts and the faith of Flavian, and condcmns Eu tyches, 

-et with the grant of indnlgcnce, should he make amends. 
This is that noble and divine lettcr which was afterw
so warmly celebrated through the whole Church, and which 
J wish to be understood so often as I name simpJy Leo's 

 \ rot"'TIL. 


HAnd hcre the qucstion might bave been termin:lted, but S E CT. 
for those illcidcnts which induccd the Emperor Thcodosius liT. 
The Em- 
thp younger to caU the' Synod of Epliesus. II e was the peror call!! 
samc who had appointed the first Council of Ephcsus, undcr a Council, 
Celestinc and Cyril. 
"Of this Synod St. Leo \uitcs to Theodosius, at first, 
( that thc mattcr was so evident, that for rcasonable causes 
the calling of a Synod should be abstained from.' And 
Flavian likcwisc sccmcd to have been against this. Hut 
aftcr thc Emperor, with good intcntions, had convoked the> 
Synod, Leo givcs his consent, and sends the letter to the which Leo 

 1 . } . } } . 1 E f ' b . . 11 " 1101'S not 
üyno(, In " lIC I lC prm
es t lC i mperor or emg WI mg üecline. 
to hold an asscmbly of Bishops, 'that by a fullcr judgment 
all crror may be done away with.' lIe mentions that he 
had scut Lcgatcs, who, saJ-"s he, (in my stead shall he 
prcscllt at the sacrcd assemhly of your Brotherhood, and 
determine, hy a joint sentcnce with you, what shall please 
thc Lord.' 
"Hcre arc thrcc points: first, that in questions of l
it is not always nccessary for an Ecumenical Council to be 
asscmblcd. Secondly, that JJeo, grcat .Pontiff as hc was, 
did not dceline a judgmcnt, if the causc rC<}l1ircd it, after 
thc mattcr had_bccn judgcd by himsclf. Thirdly, that, if a 
Synod werc held, it bchoved that all crror should bc donc 
away with by a fullcr juclgment, and the question be tcrmi- 
nated by thc Apostolic Sce, by a joint se'ntence with the 
Bishops, ill \\ hich he acknowledgcs that full force of conscnt, 
so oftcn Ulclltioned hy mc. 
" But aftcr Dioscorus, Bishop of Alcxandria, thc prot<'ctor 
of Eutychcs, had.. done c,.crything with viokncc and crimc, 
and not a COHncil, but an asscmhly of robbe'rs downright, 
had bCCll hclù at Ephcsus, then, whcn the Episcopal order 
had bccn dividcd, and thc wholc Church thrown into confu- 
sion, undcr thc namc of the Second Ecumcnical Council of 
phcslls, Lco himsclf admits, that a ncw General Councill:e(}I1('"ts of 
b } 11 I . I I 11 . } . . 11 the 1-:m- 
mu:st c IC l, 'w HC 1 S 10U ( cIt ICr rCffiovc or mItIgatc a pf'rorafrt.'"h 
Ofl'CIlCCS, so that therc should no longcr hc cithcr any doubt Cuullcil. 
as to faith, or division ill clmrity.' 'rhcrcforc hc pcrcC'i\"cd 
that scl11s111s, and such a fluctuation of minds rcspccting the 
Faith itself, could not he sufllciclltly rClUm cd h
' his 0\\ 11 

! 7 b A 

C II A P. judgment. And the Pontiff, no lcss wisc and good t1Jan 
resolute, dcmanded a fuller, firmer, greater judgment, by 
the authority of a General Council, by which, that is, all 
doubt miglIt be remO\"ed." 
It is remarkable likewise that be grounds this demand on 
thc appeal made by St. Flavian in the Latrocinium: saying 
J.ette}. to "that the decrees of the Nicene Canons, ordercd by the 
the bllpe-. f } } I Id 1 I . .J 1 . 
1"01", Ep. 44. PrIests 0 t Ie W 10 e wor , aUf w nch are anncxell, ma \:e It 

i.eo necessary." rhe Canon annexed is the fourth of the Council 
A:1"olmds his of Sardica: so that Zosimus was not the only Pope ,,-110 
TIght to d I C . 1 
T. b I .. f 
hear an ap- quote t!at ounCI lor t e .J..'lCene: ut t Ie ascnptIOu 0 


he such a right to the gift of a Council, and not to the iuherent 
Canon d s privilege of his See, is in the mouth of St. Leo full of signi- 
quote as. .". 
the :Kiccne. ficancy. It IS true the words of IIoslUs, m cansmg the per- 
mission of appeal to be granted, speak plainly enough to all 
but the wilfully blind. But it is felt that the grant by a 
Council in 347 of the very limited right of re\'ision accorded 
to the Roman See at Sardica strikes at thc- vcry heart of the 
J\Ionarchic or Papal Theory, though Pope Zosimus in 419 
and Pope Leo in 449 alleged no other ground for it. 
Theodo::,Íus ßossuet goes on, "But the Empcror Theodosius would not 
refuses a 
IIl'W Coun- hear of a new Council, so long as he thought that due order 
cíl, .. had been preserved at Ephesus. 'For the matter was settled 
at Ephesus by the deposition of those who descrved it; and 
a decision having been once passed, nothing clse can be 
determincd aftcr it.' IIere the difference betwcen the judg- 
ments of Roman Pontiffs and of General Councils is vcry evi- , 
dent; the judgment of the Roman Pont!ff being reconsidered 
in a Council, w}Jereas aftcr a Council, so long as it is held a 
lawful one, nothing can be rcconsidered, nothing heard. 
but l\Tar- cc But as Theodosius shortly afterwards dicd, the Emperor 

n grants J\Iarcian, upon undcrstanding that the Ephesinc assembly 
had used violence, and acted otherwise against the Canons, 
and was therefore rcfused the name and authority of an 
Ecumenical Council by most Bishops, but chiefly by the 
Roman Pontifi
 could not deny the calling of a new Council 
to Leo's request. So the Council of Chalccdon took place, 
and all admitted that there "ere certain dissensions on 
matter of Faith so gra\"e, that they can only be settled by the 
authority of an Ecumcnical Council. 


"All know that more than six hundred Bishops asscm- SEe T. 
bled at Chalcedon. The Bishops Paschasinus and Lucentins 
presided over the holy Council in Leo's stead. )\lagistrates 
were assigned by the Emperor to direct thc proceedings, 
and restrain disorder; but to leave the question of Faith 
and all ecclcsiastical matters to the power and judgment of 
thc 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. 
"'\Vith Dioscorus they thus proceeded, when, upon being 1: pepo- 
. d h f 1 h . If . 1 d h . SItton of 
cIte, e re usee to present Imse to Jue gmellt, an IS ViO:5COfliS. 
crimes were notorious to all. Paschasinus, Legatc of the Apo- 
stolic Sce, asks the Fathers,-' 'Ve desire to l{now what your 
Holiness determines:' t.he holy Synod replied, "Vhat the 
Canons order.' The Bishop Lucentius said, 'Certain proceed. 
ings 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, , 'Ye all consent.' 
. . . . Julian, Bishop of IIypæpa J said, ' Holy Fathers, listen. Mansi
Then, in the city of Ephesus, Dioscorus had power to judge, 1044. c. 
and by an unjust sentence he deposed the most holy Flavial1, 
and the most revercnd Bishop Eusebius: and he was the 
first to give an unjust judgment, and all follm";cd him through 

 constraint. N ow your Holincss has the authority of the 
most holy Archbishop Lco, and all the holy Council, which 
is asscmblcd by thc' grace of God and the command of our 
most pious Emperors, (has thc authority). And you }Hlve 
taken cognisance of all the unjust acts at Ephesus; all the 
details have been made apparent to your IIolincss. And you 
have cited Dioscorus a first, a sccond, and a third time, and 
he has not been willing to ohcy. \Ve therefore beg your 
1I0lincss, him who holds, or rather you who hold, the place 
of the most holy Archbishop Leo, to give sentcncc against 
him: and to pronounce the canonical punishment. 1"01' we 
aU, and the wholc Ecumenical Council, give our votc in 
accordance with your Holincss.' 'fhe Bishop Paschasinus 
said, 'Again I ask, "hat is the l)lcasurc of ) our Blcsscd- 


C HAP. ness?' J\Iaximus, Bishop of the great city of Antioc11, 
IV. said,' "Teare conformablc to whatever seems good to 
your Holillcss.' 
"Thus the initiative, and form, as it was called, was to bc 
given by the Apostolic See. And so the Legates, aftcr rc- 
l\Tan:<16. counting the crimes of Dioscoru8, thus pronounced: '\Vhcre- 
104,. lOW. 
 L I I d bl d A hb . I f t 1 
1061. JO(j5. lore eo, most 10 y an esse rc IS lOp 0 grea am 
Elder Rome, by us and the present most holy Council, toge- 
thcr with the thrice blessed and sacred Apostle Peter, who 
is the rock and ground of the Catholic Church, and the 
foundation of the orthodox Faith, hath stripped him of the 
dignity of Bishop, and severed him from all sacerdotal 
rank. Therefore this most holy and great Council voteth 
what is ill accordance with thc Canons upon the aforesaid 
"Anatulius, Bishop of the royal Constantinople, New Romc, 
said: 'Being in all things of the same mind with the Apo- 
stolic See, I too give my Yote for the deposition of Diosco- 
rus, who was Bishop of the great city of Alexandria, who 
has shewn himsclf unworthy of all sacerdotal ministration, 
because he has in all things disobeyed the Canons of the 
holy }"athers, and, being thrice canonically summoncd, rc- 
fused to obey. 
Bishops of " J\Iaximus, Bishop of the great cit
T of Antioch, said: .. . 
I:umc and 
Constant i- 'I subject him to ecclesiastical scntence, as our most holy 
ople l
lcn- and blessed Archbisho l ) and :Fathcr Leo of thc royal citv 
tlOlled 111 
rallel of Elder Rome, by his represelltati\Tes . . . and the most holy , 
tCrIll". and blcssed Archbishop of royal New Rome, Allatolius, ha\'c 
spoken. I also agree with thcse.' 
So, through a space of more than thirty pagcs, the sc'"e- 
raI Bishops give their sentence judicially, saying, , I agrec,' 
'I am of the same minù,' 'I declare,' 'I dccree,' and 
the like: sometimes stating that they foUow tLc two great 
Archbishops. Thus 'rheodorus, J\Ietropolitan of Tarsus, 
"Vhence he has becn justly condemncd by the greatcst 
Sccs, as weU of grcat Rome, as of K ew Uome, by Leo and 
Anatolius, Archbisholls of the most holy Churches: with 
whom I also agree.' 
So Eutropius, Bishop of Aradus, says, 'I agrce to the 
condemnation passed by Leo and 
\natolius, most holy and 


blcssed Archbishops of Old Rome and New, and by this holy SEe T. 
and universal Counci1.' 

So John of Alindus says, 'I too agree with the holy 
li'athers of Old and New Rome, and the other holy Fathcrs.' 
ßossuet continues, "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 V alen- 
tillian to the Emperor Theodosius: "Y e ought to defeud 
with all de,.otion, and preserve in our times uninjured, the 
dignity of the veneration due to the blessed Apostle Peter: 
so that thc most blessed Bishop of the Roman city, to 
whom antiquity hath assigned the first place of the Priest- 
hood before all, may have power to judge concerning the 
Faith and Bishops.' Not, however, alone, but with the con- 
dition addcd by the Emperor, ,rfhat the aforesaid Bishop,' 
at least in those causes which touch the Faith and the 
tate of the Church, 'may give scntence after 
assembling thc Priests from the whole world.' That is, by 
a common decree, as both I.Jeo himself had demanded, and 
as we have seen done in the Council itself. 
"'Vith the same view, the Empress Pulcheria writes to 
Leo concerning assembling the Bishops, 'who,' she says, 
, a Council being called, shall decree, at 
'our instance, con- 
ccrning the Catholic coufession, and concerning ßishops.' 
"'fhe Em pcrOl'S Valentinian and }'Iarcian write the same 
· to Lco: that, 'by the Council to be held,' everythillg should 
be done at his instancc: first laying this down, that hc 
'possessed the first rank in the Episcopate.' 
" Hence it is ,ery plainly cvident, that, in the usual order, n t ' 
. o

ùoth thc Pope should have the initiative, and the Bishops rcmarhs 011 
.. . I I . 1 II 1 . 1 I 1 fi the mode of 
sIttmg wIt I 11m S lOU ( )C JU( gcs; and t mt t Ie orce of this judg- 
an irrcversible dccrec lies in agreement: the very thing to mcnt. 
which thc Emprcss Pulcheria bears witncss, in hcr letter to 
Stratcgus the Consular, who was ordercd to protect the 
Council from all violcnce: 'that the holy Council, holding 
its sittings with all disciplinc, without any disturbaucc and 
contention, what has ùeen revealed hy the Lord Christ should 
he COnfil'fficd in common by all.' 

Z }'lH.ST l'ltESIDE:\Cì QI!' THE RmUS 13ISHOP. 

".l\leanwhile, it is evident that proceedings are at the 
instance of the Pontiff, yet so that the force of the dccree 
lies, not in the sole authority of the Pontiff, which no one 
then imagined, but in the consent itself and approval of tIle 
 and that the Fathers and the Council decree to- 
gether, judge together, and the sentence of the Council is 
the sentence of the Pope; which, when the conscnt of thc 
Churches is added, is then held to be irreversible and final, 
which is all I demand." 
This the It must not be denied, however, that Bossuet goes beyond 
iirst time 
the Biòhop the spirit as well as letter of the very documents be is quot- 


ee_ ing. For in stating so strongly that the Roman Bishop had 
s!dcd at .an i the initiative, he does not remark that the Council of Chal- 
Coullcil. cedon, being the fourth Ecumenical, was the first at which 
the Pope, either in person, or by his Legates, had presided. 
For Hosius had presided at Nicea, St. .l\feletius, St. Gregory, 
and N ectarius at Constantinople, St. Cyril at Ephesus, in 
his own right, though he also held the proxy of St. Celcstine, 
Rnd Dioscorus again at the Latrocinium, which was intended 
to have bcen, and would have been, an Ecumenical Council, 
but for its uncanonical proceedings. Indeed the extent to 
which the present Roman theory contradicts antiquity can 
only be felt by those who read the ancient Acts themselves. 
But further, " Among all the decrees of Roman Pontiffs 
on a matter of Faith," say the brothers Ballerini, "the letter 
of St. Leo to Flavian is most celebrated, in which the whole 
controversy of the Incarnation is exactly discussed anù dc- 
fined." Bossuet, then, proves from the Acts of thc Council 
itself that this vcry letter was submitted to the judgment of 
the several Bishops there assembled: that is, that the most 
elaborate doctrinal decision of perhaps the most renowncd 
Pope was received not as a writing beyond discussion on 
account of the authority of the composer, but because it was 
examined and found to agree with the decisions of the three 
preceding Ecumenical Councils. Providentially the Acts are 
so explicit that it is impossible to deny tlJis. 
2. Exami- Bossuet continues: "Another important point treated in 
natioll of 
rope Leo's the Council of Chalcedoll, that is, the establishing of the 
letter. Faith, and thc approval of Leo's letter, is as follows. Already 
almost the" holc "rest, and most of the Eastel'ns, "ith Ana- 

In loco. 


O'S LhTTlm. 


tolius llimsclf, Bishop of Constantinople, had gone so far as SEe T. 
to confirm by subscription that letter, before the Council 
took place; and in the Council itself the Fathers had often 
cried out, "Y e bclieve, as Leo: Peter hath spoken by Lco : 
we have all subscribed the letter: what has been sct forth is 
sufficient for the Faith: no other exposition may be made.' 
Things went so far, that they would hardly permit a defini- 
tion to be made by the Council. But neither subscriptions 
privately made before the Council, nor these vehement crics 
of the Fathers in the Council, wcre thought sufficient to tran- 
quillize minds in so unsettled a state of the Church, fur fear 
tJlat a matter so important might sccm dctermined rather by 
outcries than by fair and legitimate discussion. And the 
Clergy of Constantinople exclaimed, , It is a fcw who cry out, 
not the whole Council which speaks.' So it was determined, 
that the lettcr of Lco should be lawfully examincd by thc 
Council, an
 a definition of faith be written by the Synod 
itself. So the acts of forcgoing Councils bcing previously 
read, the magistrates proposed concerning Leo's letter, , As l\Iansi 7. 9. 
we sce the divine Gospels laid before yonI' Piety, let each one B. 
of the assemblcd Bi8hops declarc, whcthcr the exposition of 
thc 318 Fathers at Nicea, and of the 150 who afterwards 
asscmbled in the imperial city, agrees with the lettcr of the 
most rcyerend Archbishop Leo.' 
" Aftcr the qu
tíon as to examining the lcttcr of Leo was 
put in this form, it will' he.. worth while to weigh the sen- 
tenccs, and, as ther arc callcd, the votes of the Fathcrs, in 
order to understand from the beginning why they approvcd 
of thc lcttcr; why thcy aftcrwards defelldcd it with so much 
zcal; why, finally, it was ratificd aftcr so exact an examina- 
tion of the Council. Anatolil1s first givcs his sentcncc. 
"fhc lettcr of the most holy and religious Archbishop Leo l\[an",i 7.9, 
agrecs with the creed of our 318 Fathers at Nicca, and of 
thc 150 who aftcrwards assemùled at Constantinople, and 
confirmed thc same Faith, and with the procf'C'r1ings at 
Ephcsus undcr the most blcsscd C)'ril, who is aUlong the 
saints, by the Ecumenical and hol)T Council, whcn it con- 
demncd N estorius. I thercforc agree to it, and willingl)' 
suhscribc to it.'" 
"r cllmay lJossuct say, " Thes(' are thc words of on(' plainly 



TS 01<' Tl1.E SI,;n;IUL BISHOPS. 

ileliberatillg, not blinilly subscribing out of mere obedience." 
Out of many pages of subscriptions of the like character I 
select one or two. "John, most reverend Bishop of Se- 
bastia in the first Armenia, said, , According to my conception 
the meaning of the letter of the most holy Bishop of the 
Church of the Romans agrees with the faith of the 318, and 
of the 150 afterwards assembled at Constantinople) and with 
the exposition of Ephesus at the deposition of the impious 
N estorius, at which the most blessed Cyril presided. And 
I subscribe this same letter.' 
"Seleucus, most reverend Bishop of Amasea, said: "Ye 
have found the synodical letter of our mo
t holy Father 
Cyril agreeing with the Faith set forth by the 318 holy 
:E'athers. And in like manner we have found the letter of 
our most holy Archbishop Leo agreeing both with the 318) 

\l1d with those who were with the most holy Cyril.' 
" John, most reverend Bishop of Germanicia Augusta on 
the Euphrates, said, 'In the Faith of the 318 who formerly 
assembled at Kicea, and of the 150 at Constantinople, we 
have both been baptized and baptize: and having found 
what was set forth and confirmed by the most blessed CJril 
in the former Council of Ephesus, as likewise the letter of 
the most holy Archbishop Leo, to accord with this, we have 
subscribed it.' 
"The rest," saJ's Bossuet, "say to the same effect: 'It 
agrees, and I subscribe.' 1\Iany plainly and expressly, , It 
agrees, and I therefore subscribe.' Some add, 'It agrecs, 
and I subscribe, as it is correct/ Others,' I am sure that it 
agrees.' Others,' As it is concordant, and has tl)e same 
aim, we embrace it, and subscribe.' Others,' This is the 
}'aith 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 agrces) 
I subscribe/ Others,' As I am pcrsuaded, instructed, in- 
formed, that all agrees, I subscribe.' 1\fany set forth their 
difficulties, mostly arising from a foreign language; others 
from the subject matter, saying, that they had heard the 
letter, , and ill very many points were assured it was right: 
some few \VOl'ds stood in their way, "hich seemed to point at 
a certain dirision in thc person of Christ.' They arId, that 


they had been informed by Paschasinus and the Legates SECT. 
, that there is no division, but one Christ; therefore,' they 111. 
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 sub- 
scribe.' 'Vhere the Illyrian Bishovs, and others who before 
that examination had expressed their acclamations to the 
letter, again cry out, "V e all say the same thing, and agree 
"ith 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, tIt ey considered, they judged, 
they were persuaded, that all agreed with the Fathers, and 
verceived that the common Faith of all and each had been set 
forth by Leo. 
"This was done at Chalcedon: but likewise before that Gallic awl 
Council our Gallic Bishops, at a Synod held in Gaul, wrote 

thus to Leo himself, concerning receiving his letter: 'J\Iany 

in that (the letter of Leo to Flavian) with joy and exultation s. Leo.,Ei-'. 
have recognised what their faith was assured of, and are with 99. 
reason delighted that, by tradition from their fathers, they 
hmTe always held just what your Apostlèship has set forth. 
Some, rendered more careful by receiving the admonition of 
your Blessedness, congratulate themselves every way on being 
instructed, 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 Apcstolic See.' 
"The Italian (Bishops) agree, at the instance of Euse
bins, Bishop of :1\Iilan, 'for it was evident that that (letter of lb., 91;. 
L t Fl . ) I . I 1 f 11 . I ., f h . I somc wonlg 
eo 0 avmn s lOne WIt 1 tIe u simp IClty 0 t e FaIt I; omitted. 
was illuminated likewise by statements from the Prophets, 
by authorities from the Gospels, and by testimonies of Apo- 
stolic teaching, and in every point agreed with what the 
holy Ambrose, mm-ed by the Huly 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 mystcry 
of the Lord's Incarnation, are to be visited with fitting COIl- 

ü UI
(,ltL:P \;.iCY OF BET.T..\lL\II
E \SD B.\IWXflTS. 

C HAP. dcmuation, as they themsclves agree, according to thc sen- 
IV. tence of your authority.' 
Bossuet's " See here an authoritative sentence in the Roman Pontiff; 
from this and also the agreement of the Bishops to the instance of thc 
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 thc Apostolic See. 'Yhich 
wonderfully accords with what we have just read in the 
sentences of the Fathers of Chalcedon. 
Bmlsuet, "This is that examination of Leo's letter, S y nodicall y 
Gallia Or- 
thodoxa. made at Chalcedon, and placed among the Acts;" "nor did 
No. CO, 61. Anatolius and the other Bishops receive it, until they had 
dcliberated, and found that Leo's letter agreed with the pre- 
ceding Councils. 
Discre- " But here a singular discussion arises between the emi- 
pancy of 
Cardinals nent Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius. The latter, and 
Hellarmine . h h o I b f I I 0 . I 
and ßa- WIt 1m a arge num er 0 our t!Co ogmns) recoglllse t 1e 
rouius. letter of Leo as tl}e Type and Rule of Faith, by which all 
Churches were hound: but Bellarmine, alarmed at the 
examination which he could not deny, answers thus: 'Leo 
had sent his letter to the Council, not as containing his 
final and definitive sentence, but as an instruction, assistcd 
by which the Bishops might form a better judgment.' But, 
most eminent man, allow me to say that Leo, upon the 
appeal of Eutyches, and at the demand of Flavian, com- 
posed this letter for a summary of the Faith, and sent it 
to every Church ill all parts, when as yet no one thought 
about a Council. Therefore it was not an instruction to the 
Council which he provided, but an Apostolic sentence which 
he put forth. The fact is that out of this strait there was 
no other cscape: Baronius will not allow that a letter, con- 
firmed by so great an authority of the Apostolic See, should 
be attributed to any other power but that which is supreme 
and indefectible: Bellarmine will not take that to emanate 
from the supreme and indefectible authority, which was sub- 
jected to synodical inquiry, and deliberation. 'Yhat, then, 
is the issue of this conflict, unless that it is equally evident 

sT. LEO .\.LL(l\rS illS LETrER TO H \VE IH;I':
lm. 2"i7 

that the letter was written with the wholc authority of the SEe T. 
Apostolic See, and yet subjected, as usual) to the examination III. 
of an U ni versal Council. 
" And in this we follow no other authority than Leo him- 
self, who speaks in his letter to Theodoret: '''That God 
had before dccreed by our ministry, He confirmed by the 
irreversible assent of the whole brotherhood, to shew that 
what was first put forth in form by the First See of all, and 
thcn receiyed by the judgment of the whole Christian world, 
really proceeded from Himself.' Here is a decree, as Baro- 
nius says, but not as Bellarmine says, an instruction: here 
is a judgment of the whole world upon a decree of the Apo- 
stolic Sec. lIe procecds. 'For in orùer that the consent 
of other Sees to that which the Lord of all appointed to pre- 
side ovcr the rcst might not appear flattery, nor any other 
ad verse suspicion creep in, persons were at first found who 
doubted concerning our judgments.' And not only heretics, 
but even the Fathers of the Council themselves, as the Acts 
bear witness. Here the First See shews a fcar of flattery, if 
doubt about its judgments were forbidden. 
10reover. 'The
. Leo., 
truth itself likewise is both more clcarly conspicuous, aud l
l'. ItO. 
more strongly maintained, when after examination confirms 
what previous faith had taught.' Here in plain words he 
spcaks of an examination by the Council, De Fide, not by 
himself, a
 thcy wretchedly object, but of that Faith which 
the decretal lctter set forth. And at length that same letter 
is issued as the Rule, but conj;"med by the assent of tlte Wtl- 
1..('I"sal holy Council, or as he had bcfore said, after that it is 
confirmed by tlte!Jle assent of tlte whole Bl"otlwritOod. 
Out of this cxprcssion of that grcat Pontiff the Gallicall 
Clergy drew thcirs, that in questions of Faith the judgment 
is, what 'fertullian calls, /tvt to he altered, what Leo calls, 
not to be reeonsidered, only w/ten tlte assent of the Church is 
added." 13oss11et goes on above, 
"This certainly no one can be blamed for holding with him Suprcl
le . 
d . h h } ' f . authontv ot 
an \\'1t t e athers 0 Chalcedon. rfhe forma IS set furth ß Cuuncll 
L tl \ t 1 . S .. b . J . I . Ù o\.cr tho 
y 1e .a.pos 0 IC ee, yet It IS to e rccelve WIt 1 a JU g- POliO. 
lUent, and that free, and each Uishop inùÌvÌ(lually is infcriOl' 
to the }tlir:st, yct so that all togetl1cl' pass jUdglllCllt c'"cn 011 
his decree. 


S. Leo., 
Ep. lOi. 

 SlTPRE,m _\UTIIORTTY Q}' \ ljF.XEU U. rorXCTT.. 

"They concei,-ecl no other way of removing all doubt; 
for, after the conclusion of the Synod, the Emperor thus 
proclaims: 'Let thcn al] profane contentiou cease, for he 
is indeed impious and sacrilegious, who, after the sentence 
of so many Priests, leaves anything for his own opinion to 
consider.' lIe then prohibits all discussion concerning 
}'eligion; for, says he, 'he does an injury to thc judgment 
of the most religious Council, who endeavours to open 
afresh, an(l publicly discuss, what has been once judged, and 
rightly ordered.' 
" Here in the condemnation of Eutyches is the order of 
Ecclesiasticaljudgments in questions of Faith. He is judged 
by his proper Bishop Flavian: the cause is reheared, recon- 

idered by the Pope St. Leo;" (let it he remembered that 
Eutyches likewise appealed to Alexandria, Jerusalem, and 
Thessalonica; and that his appeal 'Was taken up by Diosco- 
rus of Alexandria, whose violent support of him against St. 
Flavian in the second Ephesine Council had nearly rent the 
Church in pieces ;) " it is decided by a declaration of the A po- 
stolic Sec: after that declaration follows the examination, 
inquiry, judgmcnt 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 01' 
cxcuse allowable to any, on pIca of ignorancc, or difficulty 
of understanding, inasmuch as for this very purpose the 
Council of about six hundred of our brethren and fcllow- 
Bishops met together hath permitted no skill in rcasoning, 
no flow of eloquence, to brcathe against the Faith built 011 
a divine foundation. Since, through the endeavours of our 
brcthren and represcntatives, by the help of God's grace, 
(their devotion iu evcry procedure bcing most entire,) it hath 
bccn 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 as we have received we prcach, 
and now with the agrecment of the whole world defcnd Imre 
and clcan from all pollution of error.' 


"Thus at length supreme and infallible force is giyen to 
 E CT. 
h 11 III. 
an Apostolic decree, after that it is strengt ene( >y universal 
inquiry, examination, discussion, anù thereupon consent anel 
"'Ve add a third point, important to our cause, respect- Ch.IS, ibid. 
. h .. f Th d h . S Af 1 b Theoctoret 
mg t e restItutIOU 0 eo oret to IS ee. tel', t len, y restored bv 
order of the Bisho p s, he had O l >enl y anathematized Nes- th ft eco p undl, 
aet" ope 
torius, the most illustrious magistrates said, 'All douht re- Leo'sjudg- 
specting Theodoret is now removed: for he hath both an- 
athematized Nestorius before you, anel 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 remains, therefore, that sentence 
be pronounced by your Reverence, that he may recoyer his 
Church, as the most holy Archbishop Leo has judged.' All 
the most reverend Bishops cried out, ,r.rheodoret is worthJ' of Mansi 7. 
his See. Leo llath judged after God.' So then the judg- 190. B. 
ment 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 after- 
wards pronounced that sentence on confirming Leo's judg
rnent, which the whole Synod approved." 
An additional proof that St. Leo's previous judgment 
would have profited Theodoret nothing bad it not been con- 
firmea by the Council, is to be found in the fact that, 
when Theodoret seemed to hesitate expressly to anathematize 
N estorius, the Bishops cried out, " He is a lleretic, he is a 
N estorial1, cast out the heretic." 
Let anyone of candour consider these Acts of the Council Inference 
of Chalcedon, and then say, which of these two views agrees f;

with them, viz., that St. Leo was first Bishop of the Church, 
looked up to with great re"erence as the special succcssor 
of St. Peter, and rcpresputatÌye of tbe wholc 'Vest; or that 
he was beside this the only Vicar of Christ, the source and 
origin of the Episcopate, from whom his brethren l'ccei,.ed 
their jurisdiction, which is the Papal Idea of the midòle 



A fourth 
point, the 
passlTIg- of 
the 28th 

C II A P. ages. For on the truth of this latter view depends the 
IV. charge, that the Church of England is in schism. 
'Yhat follows may perhaps assist our solution of the ques- 
tion. 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 pre- 
vent its being enacted, but that only lcd to its being con- 
firmed the next day, in spite of their opposition. The circum- 
stances" ere as follows, and they seem to deserve our most 
steadfast consideration, from their bearing upon the grcat 
subject we are considering, the Papal Supremacy. 
Fleury,liv. "On the same dav, being the last of October, the fifteenth 

8, 2
 Oxf.. h Id ., I . h . 1 I . L 
Tr. See seSSIOn was e , at W llC neIt Ier t IC magIstrates nor egates 

:li:. 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 concel'ning their 
Church. This they refused, saying, that they had receivecl 
no instructions about it. They made the same .proposal to 
the magistrates, and these referred the matter to the CounciL 
'Yhen the magistrates and Legates thercfore had retired, the 
rest of the Council made a Canon respccting the prerogatives 
of the Church of Constantinople." To make the scope of 
this clear we must observe, that the See of Constantinople 
had bcen now for at least seventy years the chief See of thc 
East: at the secoml Ecumenical Council, held in 381, at 
Constantinople, it is declared in thc third Canon, that "the 
Bishop of Constantinople shall have the Primacy of honour 
after thc Bishop of Rome, because that Constantinople is 
New Rome." It scems that in thc 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 Ea
Theod., lib. Theodorct says, that St. Chrysostom governed twcnty-eight 
5. ch. 28. P . . I f . . I P . I I E } 
quoted by rOVlnCeS, 1. e. e even Ol'IDIng t Ie ontlC, e even t Ie i P IC- 
Tillemont. sine, and six the Thracian, Dioceses. Accordingly, in its 
famous 28th Canon, the Council of Chalcedon only con- 
firmed an authori

 to the Bishop of Constantinople, which 

 ur ('U U,('E00 \' . 


he had long cnjoycd and often exceeded. It ran thus: (C "r e, 
 E C T. 
following in aU things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and III. 
acknowledging the Canon of the 130 most religious Bi
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 
have allowed the privileges to the throne of tlte Elder Rorne, à7l"oðEð
because that was the imperial city. And the 150 most re- KC.(]'t ß Tà
7Tpf(]' Eta. 
li!Jious Bislwp,fJ, being moved witlt the same intention, gave 
equal privileges to the 'Inost holy throne of New Rome, judg- 
ing witlt reason, that the city which 'leas honoured 'ldilt tlw 
sovereignty and senate, and 'which enjoyed er}lwl prit"ilc!Je.'t 
'tOitll the Elde1" royal Rome, should also be 71lagn
fled like 
her in Ecclesiastical matters, being the second ofter ha. 
.And (we also decree) that the l\Ietropolitans only of the 
Pontic, and A:sian, and Thracian Dioceses, and, moreo\'er, 
the Bishops of the aforesaid Dioceses \V ho are amongst the 
Barbarians, shall be ordained by the aùove-mentioned most 
holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; 
each l\letropolitan of the aforesaid Dioceses ordaining the 
Bishops of the Province, as has been declarcd by the divine 
Canons; but the l\Ietropolitalls themselvcs of the said Dio- 
ceses shall, as has heen said, be ordained by the Archbishop 
of Constantinople, concordant elections being made accord- 
ing to custom, amI rcported to him." 
"The Legates, being informcd of what had passcd, de- TiIlcmont, 
mandcd that the Council should assemble again, and the 

magistratcs be prescnt. On the morrow, thel.efore, bcing 
Thursday, the 1st No\'embcr, the twelfth sitting was held. Thesitting
TI . - 1 . h I L d I are various. 
IC magistrates were t !ere WIt t Ie egatcs) an t IC Iy counteù. 
Bishops of Illyria, and all the rcst. After thcy had takcn 
thcir scats, Paschasinus spoke, haying asked pcrmission of 
the magistrates, and said that hc was astonish cd that so 
many things had been done the day beforc in thcir abscnce, 
which were contrary to the Canons and the peace of the 
Church, for which thc Emperor was labouring with so much 
application and zeal. lIe dcmandcd tlle reading of what had 
passed the day ùeforc. And Actius, (.Archdcacon of Con- 
stantinoplc,) having said that it \Vas the Legates themschcs 
who ha(l rcfused to be prcscnt at the delibcration, prcscntctl 

iH:! P.\SSED .\. 

C HAP. the Canon which had been drawn U P with the si
natllres of 
IY. '-' 
the Bishops . . . . After the signatures had been read, Lucen- 
tius said the Bi:shops had been surprised, and compelled to 
sign. This is what St. Leo repeated often in the letter 
which he "rote concerning this twenty-eighth Canon, ac- 
cusing Anatolius of having extorted the signatures of the 
Bishops, or of having surprised them by his artifices. N ever- 
s, upon the repl'Oach of Lucent ius, all the Bi:shops cried 
out that no one had been forced. They protested again after- 
wards, both all in common, and the principal by themsehes, 
that they had :signed it of their full consent. Anatolius also 
maintains to St. IJeo, that the Bishops took this resolution 
of their own accord. 
C( The Legates continued to oppose the Canon, and shewed 
Mansi ï. that they had an express order of the Pope to do so." "The 
.14;,,451. magistrates said, 'Let each side produce the Canons.' Pas- 
chasinus thereupon read the sixth Nicene Canon, with the 
celebrated heading, 'The Roman Church always held the 
Primacy,' as being opposed to the claim of the See of Con- 
stantinople. On the other side Aetius read this same Canon 
as it is in the original Greek, and then the three Canons of 
the second Ecumenical Council. The magistrates then called 
on the Bishops of the Pontic and Asian Dioceses who had 
subscriberl the new Canon, to declare whether their sub- 
scription was voluntary. They severally declare that it was. 
The Bishops who had not subscribed are then asked the 
same question." 
Fleury,liv. Thereupon" the magistrates sairl,-' It appears from the 


Xf. depositions, first of all that the Primacy and precedency of 
?t 4 !ansi 7. honour should be presenTed according to the Canons for the 
'rà. 7I'pW- Archbishop of Old Rome, but that the Archbishop of Con- 
'rfîa, Ka1 stantinople ought to enjoy the same privileges, and that he 

'rOP T&p:fw. has a right to ordain the l\Ietropolitans of the Dioce
es of 
'rWJI a.VTWJI Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, in the manner following. In 
'rijs T&P.ijS. each metropolis, the clergy, the proprietors of lands, and 
the gentrJr, 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 

TIXOPLE. 20;3 

either to enjoin the Bishop elect to come thither for ordina- SEe T. 
tion, or to allow him to be ordained in the Province. As to Ill. 
the Bishops of particular cities, they shall be ordained by 
all, or the greater part, of the com-provincial Bishops, under 
the authority of the J\fetropolitan, according to the Canons, 
the Archbishop of Constantinople taking no part in such 
ordination. rrhese are our views, let the Council state theirs.' 
rrhe BisllOps shouted, ,rrhis 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,-' rrhe 
Apostolic See ought not to be degraded in our presence; 
we, therefore, desire that yesterday's proceedings, which 
violate the Canons, may he rescinded; otherwise let our op- 
position be inscrted in the Acts, that we may know what 
we are to report to the Pope, (the Apostolic and chief Bishop Mansi. 
of the whole Church,) and that he may declare his opinion of 
this contempt of his See, and subversion of the Canons.' 
The magistrates said,-' rrhe whole Council approves of what 
we said.' Such was the last Session of the Council of 
rrhe remarks of 'fillemont on this Canon are significant, Significant 
1 th t . 1 . " It " I " remarks of 
alU wor ranSCrI Jmg. seems, lC sa)'s, to rccog- Tillemont, 
Hise no particular authorit y in the Church of Rome, save t01
 O . 25. 
p., '. 
what the Fathers had granted it, as the scat of the empire. 
m th
111 \\ I1Jl
And it attributes in plain words as much to Constantinople the Canon 
t R . h h . f 1 fi I '7 wasol'po!-etl 
as 0 orne, wit t e exceptIOn 0 t le rst p acc. .1\ ever- at HOllie. 
theless I do not ohserve tILat the Popes tvolt up a t/dug so 
injurious to tlteir dignity, and of so dangerous a consequence 
to the whole Church. For wbat Lupus quotcs of St. Leo's 
78th (104th) lctter, refers rather to Alc
andria and to Antiocll, 
than to Rome. St. I.Jeo is contentccl to dcstroy the founda- 
tion on which thcy built the elcvation of Constantinople, 
maintaining tl1Ut a thing so entirely eccJesiastical as the 
Episcopatc ought not to he regulatcd by tIle temporal dig- 
nity of citics, which, ncvcrthelcs
, has been almost always 
followed ill thc establishment of the metropolis, according 
to thc Council of Nicca. 
" S1. Lco also complaim; that the Council of Chalcedon 
brokc tIle dccrces of the Council of Nicca, thc practicc of 
antiquity, and the rights of ::\lctropolita1ls. Certainly it was 


lWr:'D5 0:1<' ST. LEo'S OPl'USITlOX 

C HAP. 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 "hich the Popes took ovcr 
Illyricum, where, however, they did not claim the power to 
ordain any Bishop." 
St. Le(\'s Now I suppose any Roman Catholic would observe that 
o\\n lan- I . C . . 
ge quite t lIS anon IS entirely opposed to the present Papal Theory: 
opposed to h Id I S L d I Ttr ./." I 
the present e wou say t lat t. eo an t le \ \ est lor t tat yery reason 
R l o
nan refused to receive it. The O Pp osition, berond all q uestion, 
C alms. oJ 
is such, that it is quite impossible to reconcile them. Let 
anyone, thcn, read through the l04th letter of St. Leo 
to the Emperor ::\Iaul'icius, the l05th to thc Empress Pul- 
cheria, and the l06th 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 yiolation of the rights of 
St. Peter. J\Iay we not quote, alas! St. Leo's words, in 
K Leo.. these letters, to St. Leo's succcssor. " lIe loses his own, who 
Ep. ] 04-. 
cap. 3. lusts after what is 110t his due. . . . .For the privileges of the 
Churches, instituted by the Canons of thc holy li'athers, and 
fixed by the decrees of the venerable "Nicene S)"llOd, cannot 
be plucked up by any wickedness, or changed br aUJT innova- 
tion. In the faithful execution of which work, by the help 
of Christ, I am bound to shew persevering service; since 
the dispensation has been entru
ted to me, and it tends 
to my guilt, if thc rules of the Fathers' sanctions, which 
were made in the Xicene Council for the governmcnt of the 
"hole Church, by the teaching of God's Spirit, be. violated, 
"hich God forbid, by my conni,.ance; and if the desire of 
one brother he of more weight with me than the common 
good of the whole house of the Lord." This to the Ern- 
Ep.105. pel"or. To the Empress thus :-" Since no one is allo"ed to 
attempt anything against the statutes of the Fathers' Canons, 
which many years ago were based on :spiritual decrces in 
the city of Kicea; so that if anyone 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 
thrúugh all tlle Churches. There will be no dissensions con- 
cernin!! tILe degree of lWllOZlJ"S; no contests about ordinations; 

T lW
L\.J:It CLAIl\lS. 2U3 

no doubts about privileges; no conflicts about the usurpation of SEe T. 
another's rigid; but under tlte equal law of charity both men's III. 
minds and dutif:s will be kept in the due order; and he will 
be truly great, who shall be alien from all ambition, accord- 
ing to the Lord's words, "Vhosoever will be great among 
you, let him be your minister,'" &c. But to Anatolius, 
thus :_" Those holy and venerable Fathers, who in the Ep.l06. 
Nicene city established laws of ecclesiastical Canons, which cap. 4.. 
are to last till the end of the world, when the sacrilegious 
Arius with his impiety was comlemned, live both with us 
and ill the whole world by their constitutions; and if any- 
thing anywhere is presumed upon contrary to what they ap- 
pointed, 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 
mpress: "But what doth the Prelate of the Church of Ep. 105. 
Constantinople desire more than he hath obtained? Or cap. 2. 
what win satisfy him, if the magnificence and glory of so 
great a city satisfy him not? It is too proud and immode- 
rate to go beyond one's own limits, and, trampling on anti- 
quity, to wish to seize on another's right. And, in order 
to increase the dignity of one, to impugn the Primacy of so 
many J\letropolitans; and to carry a new war of disturbance 
into quiet Provinces, settled long ago by tllC moderation of 
the holy Nicene Council," &c. 
To Anatolius himself he says: "I grieve-that you Ep. lOG. 
attempt to infringe the most sacred com
titutions of the cap. 2-5. 
Nicene Canons: as if this were a favourable opportunity 
presented to you, when the See of Alexaluhia r

ay lose the 
privilcge of the second rank, and the Church of Antioch its 
lJOssession of the third dignity: so that when these places 
have been brought under your jurisdiction, all IVletropolítan 
Bishops may be deprived of their proper honour." "I op- 
pose you, that with wiser purpose you may refrain from 
throwing iuto confusion the whole Church. Let not the 
rights of provincial Primacies be torn away, nor 
ni:shops be deprived of their privileges in force from old 
time. Let no part of that dignity perish to the See of 
Alcxandria, which it was thought worthy to obtain through 
the holr E,-augclist :l\Iarl\:, the disciple of blc
':: ed Peter i 

:!!J() WIL\.'f THE lXJ ua 'U_
, _\:\'.0 TO \\ 11ml .oO

TIeason a,,- 
the Em- 
press filr 
the 28th 
Ep. 105. 

 P. nor, though Dioscorus fall$ through the obstinacy of his own 
impiety, let the splendour of 80 great a Chm'ch be obscurcd 
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 here- 
ditary degree, and being placed in the third rank never sink 
below itself." 

':hat the So then it was not St. Peter's Primacy, nor his own 
11I1 ur y was, I . . I CI h h . h S L . d 
mi.d to proper aut lOrIty III t Ie lUrc, w IC t. eo conceIVe to 
whom done. be attacked by this Canon; but he refused to be a party to 
Ep.l07. "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." So 
the Emperor 
Iarcian, 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 pos
to avoid the conclusion, that the power of the 
"'irst See, even 
alS its most zealous occupant viewed it, was quite different 
from that power which was set up in the middle ages. 
This ilS only one of a vast number of proofs which distinguish 
the Primacy from the Pl.esent Supremacy. And it is the 
more valuable, because St. Leo certainly carries his notion of 
llis 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 ill the 
most llumCl'OUS Ecumenical Synod, in spite of the opposition 
of the Pupe'lS Legates, speaks for itself. I am well aware 
that St. Leo refused to receive it, but then the reason which 
he assigned for this refusal must be carcfully weighed. His 
words to the Empress Pulcheria are: "That consent of the 
Bishops which is opposed to the l'ules of the sacred Canons 
established at Nicea, joining with ourselves your Piety's 
faith, we declare void, and by the authority of the blessed 
Apostle Petcr annul it by a declaration which is absolutely 
general, viz., that in all Ecclesiastical causes WE OBEY those 
laws whiclt the IIuly Spirit, by means of the three hundred and 
eigldeen Prelates, appointed for tile peaceable observance of all 
Priests, so that even should a far greater '/lumber decree allY 
thin!! different to 'ie/wt tlley appointed, u.hatn'er is in opposi- 

'IlIE \\'1::51' ItEJECTS: THE EA:5T MAl
S TUB C.o\
O.s. 2Ð1 

tion to the appointment of the afo'tesaid is to be treated with SEe T 
no sort of regard." 'rhus St. Leo not only maintains every- HI. 
where the supreme authority of the Nicene Canons, to which 
the English Church appeals, and by which she claims to be 
governed, but hc absolutely denies to the Church after him 
the power of altering these Canons. A more pointed exclu- 
sion, however unconscious, of the doctrine of development, 
at least as to the Church's constitution, is not to be found. 
According to his decision the 28th Canon was not received T
e West 
in the West; but it nevertheless always prevailed in the 

East, and the Popes ultimately conceded the point it en- 

acted. And from the hour it was enacted to this it has Ti1lemont, 
remained the law of the Eastern Church; and the Patri- 

archal power, which in the 'Yestern Church has developed 
into the Papal, has remained attached to the throne of Con- 
stantinople ill the other great division of Christ's kingdom. 
The ninth Canon of Chalcedon also says :-" If a Clergy- Greater 
h . h " B . I I I Ilower of 
man as any matter agamst IS own IS lOp or anot lCr, et hearing 
him plead his cause before the Council of the Province. But 


if either a Bishop or Clergyman have a controversy aO'ainst COllstanti- 
b llople, than 
the 1\Ietropolitan of the same Province, let him have recourse at :-\ardlCê\ 
" I 1 E I f } D " I I f I to Rome. 
eIt ler to t Ie j xarc 1 0 t. 10 lOcese, or to t Ie t lrone 0 tIe 
imperial city of Constantilloplc, and plead his cause before 
it." I remark this, because it is a far greater powcr of hcar- 
ing appcals granted to the Bishop of Constantinople, thau 
was granted to the Bishop of Rome a hundred years before 
at thc Council of Sardica. 
1311t thcrc is another Canon of the Council of Chalcedon ('ode of the 
} . I . f I . " I 1 ) 1 ancient 
W llC lIS 0 t t.C grcatcst Importance III t Ie apa controversy. Church rc- 
"After Chrysostome" !:lays Archbishop de )Iarca "before ceiv
d and 
, , confIrmcd 
the time of the Council of Chalcedoll, the Canons of Nicpa, in the til""t 
A N ( 
 \ " 1 L d . d C Canon of 
ncyra, eocæsarca, 
 ntlOc 1, ao lcea, an on- Chnlcedon. 
stalltillople, to thc numbcr of a and sixty-fivc, \\cre f:


collected into one body by the iudustry of SOfile Bi
hop." . . 9 4. 
. . . . . "But bccause thc Canons comprehendcd in that col- 
lection, although sufficiclltly recommcndcd by thcir own 
utility, had Hot yet hCCll approvcd by all Churches, and 
espceially by thc 'Y cstcrn and tllC Egyptian, it was ordercd 
by the t"Ìl'st Canon of thc Council of Chalcedon, that thC'y 
!ShoulJ. ha\'c fOl'CC cYer
'whcrc. Thcsc arc thc word:s of thc 

:);) COUPLETE CODE 01<' THE _\NCll


The Ecc'le- 
tion which 
it sets 

C HAP. Canon according to the version of Dionysius ]higuus. "V e 
decree that the Canons of the holy Fathers which have been 
enacted in the several Councils to the present day should 
hold good.' 'rhe Canons of the Council of Chalcedon were 
added to this collection, which, increased by these enact- 
ments, was in force with full authority not only through all 
the Churches of the East, but also in the \Vest. To this col- 
lection of Canons Justinian referred, when in his novell 
(131) he assigns the force of law to those Canons, which had 
been issued, or likewise confirmed, -by the four Ecumenical 
Councils, that is, which had been passed by particular Coun- 
cils, but were confirmed by the first Canon of the Council of 
These 165 Canons may be read over in a very short time: 
they elucidate and corroborate each other, and they contain 
a complete system of Chureh government. Anyone theu 
may satisfy himself of the truth of the asscrtion I make: 
that they not only do not recognise the Papal monarchy, not 
only are silent about it, but that they set forth in the elear- 
eiSt manner a system of government, the Episcopal and Pat1"Ï- 
arch aI, which IS essentially opposed to it, which by 110 inge- 
nuity however' great, no novel theory however specious, can 
possibly be reconciled with it. They are espccially valuable 
as proving that no power of heariug Episcopal causes by 
appeal belonged, inherently at all, or by practice for three 
centuries, to the Roman Sec. 
Relation of Finallv the Council of Chalcedon all dresses the following 
the Council ... - d 8 
tu St.Leo. relatIOn of what It had onc to t. Leo: 
Mansi 6, "'fhe holy, great, and Ecumenical Council, assembled a1 
148-156. Chalcedon, metropolis of the Province of Bithynia, by tlu 
grace of God, and the command of our most pious an 
Christ-loving Emperors, to Leo, most holy and blessed Arch 
bishop of the Church of the Romans. 
"Our mouth was filled with laughter and our tongue witI 
joy: grace has fitted this prophecy to us, by whom the resto 
l'ation of piety has been accomplished. For what can be highe 
matter of concern for joy than the Ji--'aith? or motive for brighte 
pleasure than the knowledge of the Lord, which the 8m-ion 
Himself dclivered unto us from above for our salvation, whel 
He said, Go J'c and makc rlisciplcs all nations, baptiziu; 

 sUCCI<..::;:,OR OF ST. PETER. 


them ill the name of the Father, 
md of the Son, and of the SEe T. 
Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoeyer 
I have commanded you. This knowledge, descending to us 
like a golden chain from the command of Him who esta- 
blished it, thou hast kept throughout, being set forth to all The Pope 
. . successor of 
'/lien as the 'l1lte1.prete1. of tlle votce of the blessed Peter, and St. Peter, 
drawing 'Upon all the blessing of !tis faitlt. 1Vhence we also, 
ènjoying the advantage of thee as our leader unto good, have 
exhibited the inheritance of the truth to the children of the 
Church, not teaching each by himself in a corner, but mak- 
ing known the confession of the }<'aith with one Spirit, with 
one accord and agreement. And we were in delight toge- 
ther, feasting as at a royal banquet, on the spritual dainties 
which Christ bestowed on us His guests by thy letter, and 
we seemed to bchold the heavenly bridegroom going in and 
out among us. }'or if, where two or three are gathered to- 
gether in His name, there He said He would be in the midst 
of them, how intimately shewed He Himself to five hundred 
and twenty Priests, who preferred the declaration of their 
confession in Him before both their country and their toil? 
Amongst whom thou as a head over the members dids! preside, and head 
in the persons of those who held thy place, shewing thy 


good-will. And our faitllful Emperors, for the maintenance 
of order, as Zorobabel did to Joshua, governed the Church 
being as it were Jerusalem, and shewed their zeal for the 
rc-cdification of the Faith. , 
"Now the adversary would have been like a wild beast out 
of the fold roaring by himself, not able to catch any, had 
not he who of late presided ovcr the Alexandrian Church 
thrown himself as a prey unto him. For, shocking as were 
his former misdeeds, he has cast them into the shadc by his 
latel:. For, contrary to all the order of the Canons, he 
dcposed that ùlessed and HOW saintcd .FJavian, chief shepherd 
of Constantinople, who maintaincd the Apostolic Faith, and 
the most religions Bishop EUiScbius: while Eutyches, that 
was cOlldcmncd for impicty, he absolved by his tyrannical 
dccrccs. Aud the ranI,. which had bccn takcn away by thy 
IIoliuess, as from OIlC uJlworthy of that grace, he gave back: 
and, faUing like a rallgill
 wild bcast OIl the vinc, tore up 
the plant which hc fouud the best, and hronght in what was 

300 THE P01'E E

C II A P. cast forth as fruitless: and those who were for the sl1e p herd 
he cut off, but set oyer the sbeep such as had been proyed 
to be wolyes: and beside all this, turned his madness even 
against the very one entrw
ted hy tlie Saviour with the gum'- 
dianship of the vine, tllY Holiness we mean, and meditated ex- 
communication against him who was zealous to unite the 
body of the Church. And when he should have repented 
for t11is, when he should with tears have besought mercy, 
he exulted in them as fine deeds, and, while he rejected the 
letter of thy Holiness, resisted all affirmation of the truth. 
Now needful it was to ha\Te left him in the portion which 
he had chosen for himself, but since we profess to be dis- 
ciples of the Saviour, who willeth all men to be saved and 
to come to the knowledge of the truth, we hastened to shew 
this kindness to him in deed: and we called him fraternally 
to trial, not as endeavouring to cut him off, but affording 
him opportunity of defence for his recovery. And we prayed 
that he might appear better than the varied charges of those 
who accused him, that we might dissolve our assembly with 
joy, and in nothing have an advantage gained against us by 
Satan. But this man, having the conviction of hi
written in himself, b)1 declining judgment assented to the ac- 
cusations. And he refused the three legal citations made to 
him. 'Vherefore that sentence," hich by his misdeeds he 
gave against himself, we with àll possible moderation rati- 
fied, stripping the wolf of the shephcrd's coat: to which he 
was long ago conyicted of only pretending. Hitherto our 
task has been painful: but here the pleasure of good dawned 
upon us. 'Ye have been delighted to fill the" hole world 
with good seed at the cost of rooting up one tare. And 
as tbose who have received authority to pluck up and to 
plant, we sighed over a single e
cisioIl, while we carefulJy 
Present strengthened a harvest of blessings. For it was God that 

;t8 worked in us, and Euphemia trillmplJant in victory, who 
attested by offered our assembly as a chaplet to her Bridegroom: and 
the Church .. I 1 fi . . f } F . h f . . 
Catholic, receIvmg t le (e mtlOn 0 t Ie mt rom us as If It wcre 
her own confession, presented it to hcr TIridegroom through 
HIe most pious Emperor, and the Christ-loving Empres
stilling all the tumult of opponent
, giving strength to tile 
confession of the truth, as dear to her, and with hand and 

SEF. Of' ('OX
T.-\5TlXOI'U: SF.CO), U TO nmfE. :3u1 

tongue adding her sentence unto demonstration to the sen- 
tences of all. This is what we have done together with thee, 
who wast present in spirit, and resolved to agree with us as 
brethren, and wast all but seen in the wisdom of thy Legates. 
" 'Ve make known to you also that we haye decreed 
certain other points with a view to good order aud the sta- 
bility of the Ecclesiastical laws, being persuaded that your 
Holiness likewise, when instructed, will receive and confirm 
them. For that long prevailing custom which the holy 
Church of God at Constantinople had of ordaining 
politans for the Asian, Pontic, and Thracian Dioceses, we 
have now ratified by synodical decree, not so much granting 
any favour to the See of Constantinople, as providing for 
the good order of the l\fetropolitan cities, because tumults 
often spring up iu them upon the death of their Bishops, 
the clergy and laity being without a head, and throwing into 
confusion the ecclesiastical order. And this 
rour Holiness is 
aware of, especially in the case of the Ephesians, for which 
you have been often tmubled. We have likewise confirmed 
the Canon of the 150 holy Fathers who assembled at Con- 
stantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of pious 
memory, which declares that, after YOW' 'Jnost holy Apostolic 
See, that of Constantinûple should be p'J'ivileged, holding the 
second rank: being persuaded that, as you shine yourself in 
the full light of Apostolic radiance, you have, with habitual 
regard, often extended tJâs likewise to tlte Cllllrcll of Constan- 
tinople, inasmuch as you can afford without grudging to im- 
part YOW' own blessings to YO'llr kindred. What therefore we 
have decreed for the removal of all confusion, and the con- 
firmation of ecclesiastical order, have the goodness, most holy 
and blessed l<'ather, to embrace, as bcing yom' own, pleasing 
to you, and conducing to harmony. .For the most holy 
Bishops Paschasinus aud Lucentius, and the most religious 
Presbyter Boniface, who is with them, the Legates of yonr 
Holincss, have attempted vehemently to resist what has been 
so decreed, doubtless with the wish that you should have the 
initiati, e, and with this good forethought, that the successful 
issue not only of the Faith, but of gooù ordcr, should be set 
to your account. For we, out of rcgard to the most pious 
find Christ-loving Emperors, who arc gratified with tllis, and 

SEe T. 


 POPE':-; PIlDL\CY. 

cn AP. to the illustrious Senate, and in a word to the whole imperial 
IV, city, have judged well-timed the confirmation of this honour 
to it by the Ecumenical Council, and have ratified it with 
confidence, as if it had been begun by thy Holiness, who 
art eyer ready to cherish them: being aware that every , 
success of the children is reckoned to tlte parents who own 
them,. 'Ve therefore entreat that you would honour our 
decision witll your suffrage likewise: as we have introduced 
agreement with the lu:ad in good things, so let YOllr Higlmess 
fulfil to YOU'ì' children what is fitting. For thus both the 
pleasure of the pious Emperors will be cared for, who have 
confirmed the decision of thy Holiness as law, and the See 
of Constantinople will be requited, which has ever shewn all 
eagerness to you in the cause of piety, and zealously joined 
itself in harmony with you. But that you may know that 
we have done nothing out of favour or enmity, but as guided 
by the Divine will, we have left tlte wltole force of the Acts to 
you that you may approve of us, confirming, and assenting to, 
what we have done." 
Distinction The strength of the terms in which the Council here 
Primacy bonours the Pope seems to correspond to the strength of 
and S?,pr t e 1 - the O Pp osition which it had offered to his wishes in the 
m'lCV III le 
Council's matter of the See of Constantinople. Certain at least it is 
lallguage. h . . 
t at, In spIte of the deference shewn at the conclusion, St. 
Leo and his successors strained every nerve to annul the 
predominance thus given to Constantinople in the East, but 
without effect. However, the acts and the words of the 
Council, put together, seem to combine what some think 
only an inconsistence, the recognition of a true and real 
Primacy in the Church, with a true and real self-govern- 
ment of its several provinces. Both at this time existed. 
On the one hand, he who rejects the Primacy of the Pope, 
with this letter of the Council of Chalcedon before him, 
must be prepared to give up the witness of antiquity, and to 
reject the authority of the Catholic Church. On the othcr 
hand, it is much to be observed that the acts and the words 
of the Council give no countenance to the present Papal 
Theory, for they declare that in whatever sense Rome is first, 
in that smne sense Constantinople is second. If the Primus 
inteï" pares becomes a monarch, it is not a de,'elopment, 


but an usurpation. To deny Peter his own place is schism: S E CT. 
to refuse him that of Christ, is duty. Ill. 
Now let us be fair and even-handed. If the great in- Conclusion 
fluence and authority exercised at the Council of Chalcedon 


by St. Leo is to be acknowledged as witnessing the Roman tory. 
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, Constanti- 
nople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon) offer an insurmountable 
barrier to the present claims of Rome. But concerning the 
Canons of Nicea, St. Lco, at least, says :-" I hold all ec- s. Lpo, Ep. 
clesiastical rules to be dissolved, if any part of that sacro- 101. 
sanct constitution of the Fathcrs be violated." St. Gregory 
repeats :-" I rccei\Te the four Councils of the llOlv universal s. Greg. 
Church as the four books of the Holy Gospel." W J\Ir. New- 
æ.' lib. 3. 
man says, "that the definition passed at Chalcedon is the On Deve- 
Apostolic Truth once delivered to the Saints, is most firmly 

lent, p. 
to be received from faith in that overruling Providence, 
which is by special promise extended over the acts of the 
Church." Does it not equally follow that the Church go- 
vernment recognised as immemorial, and enforced at Nicea, 
Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalceùon, 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 

:30-1 Pt:RIOD S\ (,(,EEDJ
(; '1'111: cor:-.nT. OF en -\.1.('1::1>OX. 


SECT. 1. 

Period TilE hundred and thirty years between the death of St. 
succeeding d I . f S G f bl 
the Council Leo an t Ie acceSSIOn 0 t. regory were years 0 trou e, 
O d f Chalce- confusion, and disaster: "the stars fell from heayen, and the 
powers of the heavens were shaken." The 'Vestern empire 
was overthrown; barbarians and heretics obtained the mas- 
tery in Italy, and generaHy in the 'Vest; there was but one 
fixed and central authority to which the eyes of Churchmen 
could turn with hope ana confidence in the whole 'Vest, that 
of the Roman Pontiff. 
Gieseler. "In the East from the beginning of the J\fonophysite con- 

lii: tentions the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch had become so 
State of the powerless, that only the Patriarchs of Constantinople, sup- 

euíf:.;:n ported by the privileges received from the Council of Chal- 
.a b fte.r tl!e cedon, could still match themseh.cs with the Roman Hier- 
of the 
Io- archs. But whilst the former were continually dependent on 
nophnJte h . . I h d . I d b I G 
conten- t e Impe)'la umour, an Ullceasmg y presse y t Ie reek 
tiuns. controversial spirit, the latter enjoyed the fullest freedom in 
Ecclesiastical matters, and the advantage of standing at the 
head of the "Test, less suspectiblc of contentions on points 
of bclief, and therefore united. After the extinction of the 
"r estern Roman Empire, (476,) which had never been bur- 
densome, often advantageous, to them, the Roman Bishops - 
became subjects of German princes, who permitted the 
hierarchy to act with perfect freedom in the internal affairs 
of the Church. So especiaHy acted Theodorick, king of the 
AI'ian Ostrogoths, (493-526,) to whom the schism continu- 
ing between Rome and Constantinople gaye sufficient secu- 
", that no connections dangerous to the state were to he 
feared from the Catholic hierarchy. When, after the death 
of the Bishop Anastasius, the new choice was divided be- 
tween Symmachus 
nfl Lanrentins, (498,) he can sed himself 



first to be invited b
' both parties to decide, and then quietly 
permitted that a Roman Council under Symmachus (502) 
should reject all interference of laymen in the affairs of the 
Roman Church. 
"Thus were the Roman Bishops hindered in nothing, 
rather would it be only advantageous to them with their new 
masters, that they firmly resisted the innovations in belief at 
Constantinople, until they won a new victory over them upon 
Grecian wavering, under the Emperor Justin. The natural 
consequence of this was, that while the Patriarchs of Con- 
stantinople sunk in Ecclesiastical esteem through their inde- 
cision ill these contentions, the Bishops of Rome only con- 
firmed their old renown, of being protectors of oppressed 
"Under these favourable circumstances the Ecclesiastical 
pretensions of the Roman Bishops, who now formed the only 
centre of Catholic Christendom in the \Vest over against the 
Arian conquerors, could without hindrance increase. They 
maintained that not only the right of the highest Ecclesiastical 
tribunal in the West, but the superintendence of orthodoxy 
and the maintenance of the Church's laws in the whole 
Church, belonged to them: and they based these pretensions 
still, it is true, at times on imperial edicts, and decrees of 
Councils, but oftener upon the privileges granted to Peter by 
the Lord. After the Synod us Palmaris, convoked by rrheo- 
dorick to inquire into the accusations raised anew against 
Symmachus by the party of Laurentius, had, influenced by 
the circumstances, acquitted him without inquiry, Ennodius, 
defender of this Council, Bishop of Ticinum in 511, first 
gave utterance to the assertion that the Roman Bishop 
can be judged by no one. Soon afterwards it was endea- 
voured to give also au historical basis to this principle by 
forging acts of older Popes: as likewise other falsifications 
of older documents ill favour of the Roman Chair even now 
come before us. Still the Roman Bishops, to whom already 
in Italy the name of Pope was given in distinction, chal- 
lenged as yet no other sort of respect than the rest of the 
Apostolic Sees: they still confessed that they were subordi- 
nate to General Councils, and that Bishops were bound to 
hear them only ill case of a fault incurred, but otherwise 
were their equals in ranlc" 

S E CT. 




An' \lR OF TDroTHY THE ('AT, 

'Vhat I have selected, as bearing on our subject, will illus
trate this summary of Gieseler. 
Affair of In the year 457 sad excesses took place at Alexandria. 
Timothy . 1 f h I 1 . d 
the Cat The authority of the CounCl 0 C a ce( on was reslste ill 


1 Egypt, especially after the death of the Emperor 1\1 arcian, 

:_ its supporter. The Pab'iarch Proterius, who had succeedcd 
politans. on the deposition of Dioscorus, was martyred in the bap- 
and theIr. d T . I I C b L'. . h . 
Councils. tlstery, an Imot lY t Ie at set up y a .1LU'lOUS party In IS 
stead. He was the instigator of this murder, aud the de- 
clared enemy of the Council of Chalcedon: but he had got 
possession of the Church of Alexandria. The case therefore 
respected what Rome still considered to be the second See of 
the Church, as well as concerned the preservation of the true 
Faith. In this emergence the Catholic Bishops of Egypt 
applied to the Emperor Leo, and to Anatolius, Archbishop 
of Constantinople. They beseech the Emperor that he 
1\Iansi 7. would" condescend to \Vl'ite to the most holy Archbishop of 
flt8. D. 
the Roman city, in order that these events might be made 
known to him; likewise to the Bishop of Antioch, and Jeru- 
salem, and of the city of Thessalonica, and of Ephesus, and 
to such others as he should think good: for that they had 
already set their cause by petition before Anatolius, Arch
bishop of the royal city: in order that their Holiness, taking 
certain cognizance of the evils which have been caused to the 
Churches and Bishops of the orthodox through Timothy, 
may report to your Piety what, in such misdeeds, is decreed 
by the rules of the holy Fathers." Of Timothy they say 
Mansi 7. that he "anathematizes the supreme Archbishops, that is, 

1. c. 
Leo of Rome, Anatolius of Constantinople, and Basil of 
Antioch." The same Bishops request Anatolius, whom they 
1\Iansi 7. entitle" most religious Father," to "make known their sor- 
532. B. 
534. D. rows by synodical letters to Leo, most holy Pontiff of the 
Roman Church, also to the Bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, 
Thessalonica, and Ephesus, and such others as shall seem 
good, since this crime is a common injury, that all the 
Bishops of the whole world taking cognizance of the pre- 
sumptuous acts of Timothy, and of his innovations against 
the holy rules and orthodox religion, may \\-rite bacl<: by 
synodical letters to the Emperor and to your Holiness, ac- 
cording to the yenerable rules of the Fathers, and give 
without delay the proper order to be followed." The E:n- 



perol' directs Anatolius to hold a Council OIl the matter, "in SECT. 
order that gaining from all their letters a complete know- I. 
ledge on these things," he might restore tranquillity to the lb., 522. c. 
Egyptian Diocese. Anatolius informs the Emperor that he 
had made the matter known to the Pope and the several 
J\fetropolitans, and gives his sentence, "I determine that lb., 538. A. 
Timothy is not worthy of the Episcopate." The Emperor 
wrote besides to the :Metropolitans throughout the world, 
beginning with the Pope, directing them to hold Provincial 
Councils on the matter. Thirty-six of their answers are 
extant, including that of St. Leo, who spoke for the whole 
'Vest, and of Anatolius; the rest belong to the chief l\Ietro- 
politans of the East, speaking in the name of their several 
Bishops, as well as in their own. All approved the Council 
of Chalcedon: all rejected the ordination of Timothy. Thus 
the matter was settled -by common consent. 
Bossuet, after referring to this, says: "Let them now call Def.,lib. 9. 
Bishops Counsellors of the Roman Pontiff. But the Em- c. 13. 
peror did not ask for Councils from the Bishops, to send to 
Pope Leo, but decrees and judgments, to be immediately 
executed. . . . Thus in the most important dissensions and 
dangers the authority of the Catholic Church, diffused 
throughout the world, but actuated ever by one spirit, exer- 
cises itself even without a General Council." 
It may be added that a dispute concerning the succession Great au- 
h h d b f h I . . I S d S t.hority of 
to w at a een rom t e ear lest bmes tIe econ ee, the Bishop 
was not referred simply to the judgment of the First: nay, 

the oppressed Catholic Bishops of Egypt apply to the Pa- 
triarch of Constantinople immediately, but to the Pope only 
mediately, and through him. And Anatolius occupies that 
place, which his predecessors since 381 had held de facto, and 
which had been assigned to him de jure by the Council of 
Chalcedon in its 28th Canon. His Deacon, Asclepiades, it 
appears, carried his letters to the Pope and all the Bishops 
who had met at Chalcedon, asking their decision, as did the 
Emperor, both respecting Timothy, and the maintenance of 
the Council of Chalcedon. 


3 U ð 
:X THE E.-\ST AN 0 ,\ EST. 




Schism be- IN the year 482 incidents arose which led to a most 
tween the I . h . I . r h . fi b 
East and ca amitous sc ISm, astmg lor t Irty- ve years, etween 
'yest in the the whole East and the "
est. John Talaia was dul y 
tIme of 
Acacius. elected Patriarch of Alexandria, but in notifying his elec- 
tion to his brother Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, 
Antioch, aud Jerusalem, it so happened that his letter to 
Acacius of Constantinople was not duly delivered, and that 
Patriarch, hearing of his election first from other sources, 
imagined that a deliberate slight was intended to his own 
person, or to his See. It would appear that the Patriarchs 
of Constantinople even at this time aspired to the exercise 
of very nearly, if not quite, as great. power in the East, as 
the Patriarch of Rome possessed in the \Vest. Thus Acacius 
in his anger set himself against John Talaia, and caused the 
heretical Peter J\Iongus to be recognised by the Emperor 
and the East as Patriarch of Alexandria. Through the 
same influence Calendion, the legitimate Patriarch of An- 
tioch, was expelled, and the heretical Peter the Fuller 
substituted. John Talaia fled to Rome for succour. In 
vain Pope Felix the Third remonstrated with Acacius, 
who, supported by the Emperor Zeno, persisted in the 
course he had begun. Thereupon, after repeated admo- 
Pope Felix nitions, Pope Felix, at the head of his Council of 77 Italian 
condemns . . 
Acacius, BIshops, pronounced sentence of absolute degradatIOn and 
excommunication against Acacius in the following terms: 
Mansi 7. "Have therefore thy portion with those whom thou willingly 
1137 -8. 
embracest, according to the present sentence, which we 
direct to thee through the defender of thy Church, being 
severed from sacerdotal rank, and Catholic Communion, 
and likewise from the number of the faithful. Learn that 
thou art deprived of the name and office of the sacerdotal 
ministry, being condemned by the judgment of the Holy 
Spirit, aud the Apostolical authority, and never to be re- 
leased from the bond of Anathema." At the same time 
longus of Alexandria, and Peter the Fuller of An- 
tioch, were condemned. So that we have the First See at 

\.C.\.CIlJ8. :3()Ü 

the head of its Provincial Council deposing the legitimate SECT. 
occupant of the de facto Second See, and disallowing the 11. 
occupants of the Third and Fourth See, whom the Second 
had established. rrhe decree was carried secretly to Con- 
stantinople, for no one dared to deliver it publicl
T through 
fear of the Emperor, and attached by some bold monl\:s to 
the robe of Acacius as he was entering Church to celebrate 
mass. This action cost the monks their lives. But Acacius who resists, 
treated the Pope's decree with summary contempt, in which he 


was borne out both by the Emperor and the whole East. The 
most lamentable consequence was, that Communion between 
the East and 'Vest was broken off from A.D. 484 to 519: 
that Acacius induced the Emperor Zeno to impose his 
Helloticon on all the Bishops of his Empire, by which the. 
authority of the Council of Chalcedon was set at nought: 
and that heresy and disturbances everywhere preyailcd. 
N ow, inexcusable as the conduct of Acacius was, the whole 
East seems to have agreed that the act of Pope Felix was a 
stretch of authority to which they could not submit. Their 
defence was, that nothing but an Ecumenical Council could 
depose the Bishop of Constantinople, against w horn not 
heresy ill his own person, but communicating with heretics, 
was alleged. On the other hand Pope Gelasius, the successor 
of -Felix, high as he pushes his Primacy ill the documents 
which are: extant of his writing on this point, does not ab- 
solutely say that he could depose of his own authority the 
Bishop of Constantinople without a Council, although, cer- 
tainly, his language is much bolder than that of Pope St. 
Innocent)n the case of St.Chrysostome ninety years before, 
but maintains rather that Acacius was already condemned 1\fansi, 
b h C . 1 f Ch I d l! ... h E 8. 17. 
Y t e ounCl 0 a ce on .Lor commulllcatmg wIt uty- B. 50. B. 
chean heretics; and that he was simply carrying out the 
provisions of that Council, which not only the Apostolic 
See might do, but any Pontiff; "wcighing' which things," Mansi 8. 
he observes, "according to the tradition of the }'athers, we 

pe Gela- 
are confident that no true Chri
tian is Ï!morant, that no S l ins de. 
'-' c ares that 
other See is more bound beyond the rest to e"ecutc tIle 
e is carry- 
. . C . I . h I t f ' mg ont. the 
appomtment of every smgle ouncll, w HC t lC assen Ú provisiolil:! 
the universal Church has approved, than the First See, 

ecil of 
which both confirms every Council by its own authority, ChaIcedou. . 



C II A P. and maintains it by its continued goyernment, that IS, In 
V. right of its first rank, which the blessed Apostle Peter 
received from the voice of the Lord, and with the no less 
agreement of the Church hath ever held and holds." On 
De Conc., which passage De J\Iarca says, "IIe claims for the First 
lib. 3. c. ï. S . f I C b f I 

 2. ee the especial executIon 0 t Ie anons, ut 0 t lOse 
Canons which have been already received, and which the 
consent of the universal Church hath approved." On the 
one hand, therefore, we have the Eastern Church, with a 
cause otherwise bad, (for I suppose nothing can be alleged 
in favour of Peter 
Iongus, or Peter the Fuller, or the 
Henoticon of Zeno, or the conduct of Acacius as concerns 
these,) yet jealously maintaining its own self-government, 
in which it seems quite borne out by the deposition of Paul 
of Samosata by the Bishops of the East alone in 272, by 
the Acts of the Second Ecumenical Council in 381, and by 
the 28th Canon of Chalcedon in 451. I find these historical 
facts, not to mention the whole undeniable early government 
of the Church, not, to say the least, quite falling in with 
that view of the Primacy which I am about to quote from 
Pope Gclasins, although that view itself differs toto cælo 
from the claim set up in the middle ages, which is now 

astem sought to be imposed on all Churches. The Emperor 
'VIew ofthe . . 
Church's TheodoslUs had declared absolutely to St. Ambrose In the 


;om matter of 
Iaximus, who claimed the See of Constantinople, 
e begin- that the 'Yest had nothing to do with the government of the 
mng. East: i. e. that its Patriarchs were in their several spheres 
supreme, subject of course to the common laws and Canons 
of the Church Catholic: and, so far as I can judge, this 
seems to have been the Eastern view from the very beginning 
to the present day: but the "Test not only gradually sub- 
mitted to the Patriarchal authority of the Roman Bishop, 
(for at first Africa undouhtedly, and probably Britain, not 
to mention :France, and other countries, were exempt from 
this,) but likewise recognised in St. Peter's See a certain 
control over thc whole Church, as defender and conservator 
of its Canons. It was aBeged in behalf of Acacius, that he 
had not recognised Peter l\Iongus as Patriarch of Alexandria 
J\ransi, without first absolving him. Pope Gelasius replies: "Since 
tOIl1. 8. 80. . i ' t I t t1 . ht . h f b I . 
/l. H. Wl IWU 'me 
'ou lavc no lC rIg eIt er 0 a so nng or 



receiving properly a person iu such a position, it is plain SEe T. 
that he was not acquitted lawfully or regularly." . .." For, so II. 
long as my sentence against him remains, you having no 
right without :me to uudo my sentence, by what power is 
be either asserted to have been judged, or by what authority 
received?" Although St. Chrysostome near a huudred years 
before had governed eight and tweuty Provinces as Bishop 
of Constantinople, although the Second Ecumenical Coun- 
cil had given that Bishop the rank of Second Bishop in 
the Church, and tIle Fourth Ecumenical Council ratified it 
afrcsh, and although Anatolius, at the Council of Chalcedon, 
had acted unquestionably as Second Bishop, in the presence 
of the Papal Legates, nay, been acknowledged by them as 
such, yet Pope Gelasius insists upon calling the Bishop of 
Alexandria the Second "Bishop, and even insults Acacius by 
terming him a suffragan of Heraclea. He thus states his Mansi, 
own Primacy: and surely the official statement of a Pope 

at the" end of the fifth century about his own rights ought 
ope GeJa- 

 SIllS states 
to be considered as setting them high enough. It is there- his Pri- 
fore an additional confirmation, that those who reject a macy. 
totally different claim are not guilty of schism. Pope 
Gelasius says, 
" No one either could, or ought to expel, or restore, the 
Prelate of the Second See, without the consent of the First 
See. Unlcss indeed the whole order of things is to be 
thrown into disturbance and confusion, and neither the First, 
nor the Second, nor the Third See, is to claim observance or 
reception according to the ancient statutes of our ancestors; 
and by the removal of the head, all the members, as we see, 
are to struggle in wild contest against each other, and that 
which was written concerning the people of Israel is to 
happen: 'In those days there was no king in Israel; every 
man did that which was right in his own eyes.' For with 
w hat reason or consistence are other Sees to meet with de- 
ference, if the ancient and time-honoured reve'rence is not 
paid to the First See of the most blessed Peter, by 'W/liclt the 
dignity of all Priests has ever been strengthened and con- 
firmed, and for 'Which, by the all-prevailing and peculiar 
judgment of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, its most 
ancient honour was maintained." 


rrrnLU'\ OF THE Bl:SllOP OF RmIE 

Doubtless Pope Gelasius read the decrees of the Nicene 
Council according to the copy followed by Dionysius Exi- 
S. Leo., Op. guus, wherein the 6th Canon begins. "The Roman Church 
Ed. Ball, d . . 
tom. 3. 52. always ha the PrImacy." But then It must not be for- 
gotten, that the Council speaks of the three great Sees in 
precisely similar language, so that to make a J\Ionarchy out 
of the Primacy is utterly to contradict and destroy the 
meaning of that Council. Pope Gelasius proceeds, "Inas- 
much as they remembered the sentence of the Lord, 'Thou 
art Peter, &c.' And again to the same, 'Lo, I hm'e prayed 
for thee, that thy faith fail not, &c.;' and again, 'If thou 
lovest l\Ie, feed 
Iy sheep.' 'Yhy then is the Lord's dis- 
course so often directed to Peter? "r ere not, then, the other 
holy and blessed Apostles endued with similar virtue? 'Vho 
fi. Jerome would venture to assert this? But' that by the appointment 
Jo,"inian, of a head the occasion of schism might be removed,' and that 
lib. 1. c.14. the body of Christ might be shewn to be of one compactness, 
meeting in one head by the most glorious bond of affection, 
and that the Church, which should be faithfully believed, 
might be one, and one the hOllse of the One Lord and One 
Redeemer, in which we :should be nourished of One Bread 
and of One Cup. 'Yherefore, as I have said, our ancestors, 
those re"erend masters of the Churches, and illustrious lumi- 
naries of the Christian people, whom the worth of their virtues 
raised even to the most glorious victories of confession, and 
to the bright crown
 of martyrdom, being full of the charity 
of Christ, sent to that See, in which Peter the chief of the 
Apostles had sat, the commencements of their Priesthood, 
looking thence for the greatest confirmation of their own 
strength. In order that by this sight it may be evident to 
all, that the Church of Chri
t is realIy in all respects one and 
indissoluble, which, wrought together by the bond of con- 
cord, and the wondrous contexture of charity, is shewn to be 
that robe of Christ single and undivided throughout, which 
not e,-en the very soldiers who crucified the Lord dared to 
If the Pope means by the above expressions the notifi- 
cation of their accession which the Patriarchs and Primates 
made to Rome, it must be added, that he too made the like 
to them, and that they as little waited for his authority, 


AT THE E:>'D 01; THE 10'11-'1'11 CEyn'CtY. 


when duly elected, to be consecrated, or to commence their SEe T. 
functions, as he for theirs. A little further on he says, II. 
" Assuredly there were twelve Apostles of equal merits and 
equal dignity. And though all shone equally with spiritual 
light, yet Christ willeù that one out of them should be the 
chief, and directed him by a marvellous dispensation unto 
Rome the mistress of the nations, that ill the chief or first 
city He might place Peter the first and chief." 
But as the identity of language used by the Nicene Council Remarks 
b h h S . I . I f h . on this 
a out t e tree great ees Imp les t Ie sameness 0 t elr 8tatemen
authority, so here the words first and chief imply second and 
like. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first Peer of 
England, but the last created Baroll is just as much a Peer 
as he. Or again, he is the Primate of England. and mat- 
ters beyond the sphere of his suffragans need his ratification, 
but the inferior Bishops do not derive their authority from 
11Ìm: and they have a deliberative voice as well as he. So 
in the Apostolic College Peter was "first member of the 
universal Church/' as Pope St. Gregory observes, but the 
Head of aU was Christ. That which we resist is not the Pope 
being Petri Vicarius, but his being, singly and solely, Ch1.isti D!still
TT.. . . f } . ] I . ( .I' ]1 of anCient 
y zcarzus. The 1.estrictzon 0 t lIS atter term to 11m, lor a from medi- 
B . I 0 d . h } B . h d eval claims. 
IS lOpS are so as to 1" er 111 t at t ley are IS ops, an 
as to Jurisdiction within their own Diocese,) after the first 
thousand )'ears of the Christian era, gave an entirely new 
meaning to it: anù on this Idea the Ecclesiastical legislation 
of Gratian's decretals, and the succeeding ones, is built. 
But the phraseology of the First, Second, Third, &c. Sees, 
here used by Pope Gelasius, and univel'sal in the time of the 
seven Ecumenical Councils, is quite opposed to this Idea. 
Certainly the Papal authority, as stated by Pope Gelasius in 
493, is much greater than that claimed by Pope Julius in his 
letter to the Eusebian Bishops in 3
10,-and this was the 
reward of that unshaken orthodoxy which the :First See had 
maintained in those hundred and fifty years, save the tem- 
porary fall of Liberius,-but it is the same in ]{ind. The 
Primacy, being itself of divine institution, might yct have 
greater or smaller pri,'ileges attached to it by the Canons of 
Councils, or tacit consent of Bishops, but Primacy and :àlo- 
narchy are radically different Ideas: so are the Patriarchal 
and tht:' Papal System!!. 


That in fact Popes Felix and Gelasius were asserting and 
exerci!:'ing privileges which had not been originally admitted 
as belonging to their See is plain, not only from the resistance 
of the East, but from the extant words of Pope Gelasius. lIe 
says in his instructions to Faustus, the Legate of King Theo- 
l\Iansi, tom. H They S3t against us the Canons, not knowing what they 

 Ii D . I . I I 1 h . .. b h . 
pe .Geia- say: agamst W llC 1 t ley Jetray t ell' opposItIon y t IS very 
sius att!i- thing, that they shrink from obeying the First See, when it 
butes Ins . h }l 1 . h I T. h C h 
power of ad VIses t em soun( y all( rIg t y. .1 t 1,S t e anons t em,- 


 to selves which have ordered that appeals from the whole Church 
the Canons. should he deferred to tlte examination of this See. But they 
have decreed that no appeal any whcre should in any case 
be made from it, and by this that it should judge of the wholc 
Church, while it should come itself before no one's judg- 
ments, nor ha\Te they ordered that judgment should ever 
be passed upon its judgment, but appointed that its sen- 
tence should not be annulled, but rather its decrees ob- 
Here it is most careful1y to be remarked that Pope Ge- 
lasius, like Pope Leo I. and Pope Zosimus, attributes the 
power of hearing appeals, belonging to his See, to the Canons, 
those doubtless of Sardica, in other words, to the regulations 
His claim "Yllade by his brother-BisllOps in Councils. As to the claim 

rond itself we have already seen that St. Innocent said something 
I I Jope St. much less than this about eighty years before to St. Aure- 
 by lius, St. Augustine, and the Universal Council of Africa: 
the Afncan I h 1 d I . .I' I . I . I . 
Bishops. w lereUpOn t ey as \.:C nm lor us aut 10rIty: aut lenhc 
copies of the Nicene Canons were brought from Alexandria 
and Constantinople, and no such thing was found in them: 
and when it appeared that the Pope referred to the very 
limited privilege of hearing appeals first given to his See by 
the Council of Sardica, St. Aurelius, St. Augustine, and the 
Universal Council of Africa, positiyely refused to admit his 
right: and what they refused may, I suppose, be refused 
with impunity to the end of the world. Further, no such 
Canons, as the Pope refers to, can be produced, though the 
ancient Canons of the Church, either in the East or 1Yest, 
have not perished: . but the Canons of the great Council of 
Chalcedon can be shewn, which declare that the See of Con- 
stantinople is the ultimate tribunal of appeal at least in the' 




East. l\Ioreover, as I have quoted above, St. Augustine SECT. 
expressly mentions the power of appealing from the judg- _ 1
ment of Pope l\lelchiades to an Universal Council: in fact, 
appeal was made from him to a provincial Council at ArIes, 
without protest on his part. In truth it by no means follows 
that, because the Primacy is of divine institution, therefore 
all the privileges which are claimed under cm'er of the 
Primacy are likewise of divine institution. It was not schism 
to make the distinction in St. Augustine's or St. C)Tril's 
time, lleithel. is it schism now. 
Peace and union were only restored to the Church at the Re
. f I C h 1 " E J .. I of unity on 
acceSSIOn 0 t Ie at 0 IC mperor ustm, In t Ie year 519, the terms 
when the terms of the Pope were complied with, and the of Rome. 
name of Acacius, as well as of the Patriarchs who had suc- 
d to him since the schism, expunged from the diptychs. 


Ix the year 499 Pope Symmachus was accused by certain Pope Sym- 
of his Clergy and Laity to the King Theodorick, who sent a 


Bisho I ) as visitor to take char g e of the Roman Church till Theodo
, to be tried 
the matter should be examined bv a Council. This Council by an 
. .. Italian' 
the kmg caused to assemble out of the Provlllces of Rome, Council. 
l\1ilan, and Aquileia. On their passage to the Council many 
of these Bishops saw the king at Ravenna, and asked him 
the cause of the Council. "The most pious king replied, 
that many horrible stories had been brought to him con- 
cerning the conduct of Pope Symmachus, and that it ought 
to appear, by judgment in a Council, whether the accusation 
of his enemies was true." The above-mentioned Pontiffs 
replied, "that the person who was attacked ought himself 
to have called the Council, knowing that to his See in the 
first place the 'rank or chiefship of the Apostle Peter, and 
then the authority of venerable Councils follou:ing out the 
Lord's command, had committed a peculiar power in the SingtIla- 
Churches, nor would a precedent be easily found to shew, that rem. 
in a similar mattel. the Prelate of the afore-mentioned See lwd 
been subJect to the judgment of his inferiors. But the most 
mi g " htv kinO' declared, that the Pope himself had signified by 
. b 




C HAP. letter his consent to the convoking of the Council." So at 
v. length the Council was held, and Pope Symmachu8 attendeò, 
and expressed his thanks to the king for the calling of the 
Council. Thus all scruple as to the Council's authority 
being removed, the Pope thcn desired that "the visitor, 
who had been demanded by a part of the Clergy, or certain 
of the Laity, contrary to ]'eligion, the statutes of the ancients, 
or the rules of our ancestors, should at once giye way at the 
order of the Bishops," that all his power should be returned 
to him, " and the Prelate of so high a rank be first regularly 
restored to his previous condition, and then, not before, 
would plead his cause, and, if it so seemed good, answer the 
propositions of his accusers." This the Council thought 
should be done, but ventured not to decree anything with- 
out tIle knowledge of the king. The king, when applies:l to, 
"ordered that Pope SJmmachus before the recovery of his 
patrimony, or the Churches which he had lost, should meet 
l1Ïs opponents: and the Pope even then was un'lcillin.fJ to 
resume the prit'ileges of llis authority, and the concessions 
which, as we ,justly consider, he had made for the purpose of 
clearing his conscience." But the Pope on his way to the 
Council was attacked by his opponents, and ran the risk .of 
his life: whereupon he declined attending any more, and 
replied that "he had not insisted on tlte above-mentioned 
Canons, humiliating his dignity through tlte desire of clearing 
himself, nearl
r at the cost of his life through such perils: 
that the king his lord had the right to do what he chose, 
but that in the mean time, if he refused to plead, he could 
not be compelled by the Canons." The king's reply was, 
"That he left it to the Council to prescribe the course of 
proceeding in so important a matter: nor had he any con- 
cern with Ecclesiastical affairs, save to reverence them, and 
that he committed it to the power of the Pontiffs to take 
the course they thought most advantageous, whether they 
chose to hear the matter before them, or not, provided only 
that by thc care of the venerable Council peace might be 
l restored to all Christians in the city of Rome." 'Vhere- 
acqUIts hun . . . 
without upon the CouncIl says, "Followmg the commands of God 


: 'we have given her ruler to Italy." Then, alleging the dif- 
case. ficult circumstances which had Rttended their convocation, 



the dignity of the Apostle Peter's See, the impropriety of SEe T. 
the sheep taking on them to provide against the snares of III. 
the wolf, rather than the shepherd, and the consent of almost 
all the people to Symmachus, they determine "that Pope Synodus 
. Romana 
Symmachus, Prelate of the Apostohc See, attacked by the tertia sub 
abo\Te charges, be, so far as regards men, discharged and 

free, because the whole matter has been left to the divine 

judgment on account of the hindrances opposed by the A. 250. 
above-mentioned causes; and that, without any crime being 
objected to him, he deliver the divine mysteries to the Chris- 
tian people in all tlte Chll1.cltes which helong to the rigid of 
!tis See: because we declare that he cannot be bound by the 
accusation of his enemies on account of the above-mentioned 
It is clear, I think, that the Bishops of Italy declined to 
judge their head in a private matter, (he is said to have been 
accused of adultery,) whatever they might have done in a 
case of heresy. But this matter further drew forth the fol- Remark- 
I . "' k bl I f A . B . h f ' T' able letter 
owmg remar a e etter rom vitus, IS op 0 Ienne. of St. 
It is addressed to the Roman Senators Faustus and Sym- AvitU9. 
machus. After premising that he could have wished the 
calamities of the times had permitted them to come to Rome, 
or, at least, that reasons of state did not hinder them from 
holding a national Council, but that, as neither of these 
courses was possible, all his GaUican brothers had charged Testimony 
h . k . . h . I d to the 
1m to ma e a representatIOn In t elf name, Ie procee s: Primacy. 
"""'hile we were in a state of anxiety and alarm about the Aviti ElJi:st. 
cause of the Roman Church, inasmuch as we felt that our 

order was endangered hy art attack upon its head, as a single 

accusation would have smitten us all even without any ill si 8. 293. 
feeling of the multitude (in each Church), had it struck down 

th k f h . f . I I turn in Ia- 
e ran 
 0 our c Ie; anxIOus, say, as we t lUS were, cessito ver- 
copies of the form of the sacerdotal decree were brought us tice senti- 
from Italy, which the Prelates of Italy, convened at the 
city, had issued concerning Pope Symmachus. And though 
the consent of a numerous and venerable Council gives 
importance to this decree, yet our judgment is, that, if holy 
Pope Symmachus were accused to the secular powers, he 
should rather have gathered about him the support of his 
fell ow- Priests, than have undergone their judgment. Be- 

;J l

u:rrER OF :3'1'. .A. Y1'lTS. 

C HAP. cause, as the ruler of heaven orders us to be subject to 
v. earthly powers, foretelling us that we shall stand before 
kings and princes uncleI' whatever accusation it may be, so 
Emillen- we cannot easily conceive by what reason or law the superior 
is to be judged by his inferiors. For since the Apostle in a 
well-known precept exclaims, that an accusation ought not 
to be received even against an Elder, what licence JOl' accusa- 
Principa- lions against the chiefship of the universal Church ought to 
tUIll. he allowed? And the venerable Council, providing against 
this itself by a laudable decree, chose to reserve to the 
judgment of God a cause wlJich, with reverence to it be it 
said, it had almost inconsiderately undertaken to examine: 
observing however as briefly as it could, that none of the 
crimes objected to the Pope had been proved either to itself, 
or to the most illustrious King Theodorick. 'Vhercfore, as 
a Roman senator, and as a Christian Bishop, (so may the 
prosperity you desire be granted to your times by the gift 
of the God of heaven, 80 may the dignity, by which you are 
conspicuous, maintain to the whole world the honour of the- 
Roman name amid the shaking of earthly things,) I conjure 
you that the state of the Church be not less precious to you 
than that of the commonwealth, and that the power which 
God has put in your hands be for our advantage too, and 
that you bear not less affection in your Church to the See 
of Peter, than in your state to the capital of the world. If 
you judge the matter with your profound consideration, not 
merely is that cause which was examined at Rome to be 
The Epi.- contemplated: but as, if in the case of other Priests (i. e. 
6Copate It- B . h ) d b . 1 . b . d if 
selfilljured IS ops any anger e lllCUrre(, It can e repmrc ; so, z 

f B

- the Pope of the City he put in question, not a single Bishop, 
Pope. but tlte Episcopate itself, will appear to be in danger. Yon 
are well aware among what storms of heresies, while thcir 
winds sweep around us, we guide the ship of Faith: if, with 
us, you dread such dangers, it were well to defend your 
pilot by sharing his toil. Otherwise w hat means of safety 
is there, if the crew rage against the master, and way be 
given to them at thcir own hazard in such a crisis? lIe who 
I'ules the Lord's fold will render an account how he admi- 
nisters the care of the lambs entrusted to him: hut it 
belongs not to the flock to alarm thcir own shepherd, but 

HiS S'f\TE:\IEYf OF TilE PUBJ \('Y. 

:3] H 

to the J ndge. "Therefore restore to us, if it be not yet B E CT. 
restored, concord in our chief." - _ 
Doubtless in weighing the expressions of the letter the Iem con cor- 
occasion of it must be borne in mind, viz., the first J\letro- diam. 
politan of the world, and the occnpant of St. Peter's See, 
had been accused by some of his own Clergy and Laity to 
the civil power, who had directed his own suffragan Bishops 
to sit in judgment on him. 'Yhat therefore would ha\'e 
been a great violation of the Canon in the case of any l\Ie- 
tropolitan, was attempted on the person of the first Bishop 
of the Church. This may account for the words of St. 
Avitus, " inasmuch as we feel that our order was endangered 
by an attack upon its head, as a single accusation would have 
smitten us all even without any il1 feeling of the multitude 
(in each Church), had it struck down the rank of our chief." 
Granting this, I confess I have not found any testimony so 
plain and so unimpeachable as this, of the same date, A.D. 
501, to the great eminence of the Bishop of Rome, and to 
his position in the Church; at least according to the view 
held of him in the 'Vest. I question whether an Eastern 
would have said near so much. Receiving therefore the 
words of St. Avitus in their ftùl and natural sense, and as 
the voice of all the Bishops of Gaul in his day, nothing can 
be more satisfactory than to feel, that they bear witness to 
the Patriarchal, and not to the Papal, Idea of the Church's 
constitution. The Bishop of Rome is "eminentior" among Idea im1i- 
his" Consacerdotes:" the First of the Bishops, so that what- 


ever touches his person, concerns the whole Episcopate: if words. 
the Bishop of Rome had never demanded more, the unity of 
Christendom had not, on his account, been broken. 
The Council, which in language so cautious acquitted Pope Statement 
Symmachus, found both impugners and defenders. Among f

the latter Ennodius, then a Deacon of high repute, after- theCoWlcÏl. 
wards Bishop of Ticinum, maintained that though the Bishop 
of Rome could send Bishops, as visitors, into the Sees of 
accused persons, yet that no power on earth could do the 
like to him: "God perchance has willed to tel'minate the Enllodius, 
b I P I f Apologeti- 
causes of other men by means of men: ut t Ie re ate 0 cum pro 
that See He hath reserved without question to His own 

judgment. It is His will that the successors of the blessed 2ð4. A. 

rE OJ.' THE (,Ol


C HAP. Apostle Peter should owe their innocence to Heaven alone, 
v. and should manifest a pure conscience to the inquisition of 
Card. Orsi. the most severe Judge." He maintained likewise that" St. 
Hist. Ecc. P - h - f d I 
37.IR. See eter has transmItted to IS successors as a sort 0 OWI'y t Ie 
l\Iansi 8 f I f h . . d I h . f . . 
275. A. . u ness 0 IS own merits, an t Ie erItage 0 mnocence. 
\Vhat was granted him in reward for his glorious deeds 
belongs likewise to those whose conversation and life are not 
less brilliant. 'Yho can doubt that he is holy, who finds 
himself exalted to so high a degree of dignity? If he wants 
the advantages acquired by virtue of his own merit, those of 
his predecessor are sufficient for him. Jesus Christ either 
raiseth thither illustrious persons, or makes illustrious those 
who are so raised. And He, who invisibly sustains this 
spiritual building, well knows who is fit to serve for visible 
foundation to the great fabric of His Church. In fine, 
Ennodius has maintained, that the dignity of the Holy See 
renders impeccable those who mount it, or rather that God 
does not permit to approach there save those whom He has 
predestined to be saints. The continued holiness of so many 
supreme Pontiffs, predecessors of Symmachus, had inspired 
him with such an idea of the supreme Pontificate." 
I can well understand this language in the mouth of an 
earnest Italian Churchman at the beginning of the sixth 
century: and the necessity which was felt amid the continual 
flux and reflux of worldly powers to have a sacrosanct and 
immoveable authority in the centre of the Church. I can- 
not, indeed, say whether Ennodius would have spoken so 
confidently of the holiness of St. Peter being an heirloom of 
his See, had he lived at the beginning of the eleventh, or of 
the sixteenth century, instead of the sixth. The remem- 
brance of John XII. or of Alexander VI. might have sullied 
 defence that glorious dream of sanctity. However that may be, this 
ratlfied by d fì 
the Pope in e ence of the Synod was read before Pope Svmmachus and 
Council 1 . C . 1 d ., 
- lIS ounCI, an so warmly approved by them as to be in- 
serted in the Acts, and ratified with all the authority they 
Fleury, 30. could give to it. "The Pope ordered that it should be put 
õ5. into the number of the A postolical decrees. The Bishops 
next demanded the condemnation of those, who had accused 
the Pope, and attacked the Council. But the Pope begged 
that his persecutors might be treated more gently, declaring 



that he pardoned them. N eyertheless, to provide against SEe T. 
such evils, he demanded that the ancient Canons should be HI. 
ohserved, according to which the sheep ollght not to accuse their 
pastor, if he does not err against the Faith, or if he has not 
done them any private wrong. The first of these exceptions 
is remarkable, because the Pope there admits that evel'Y 
Bishop, and himself, can be accused of error against the 
Faith." But the seed thus cast into the fertile ground of His opinion 
I I . d d . d . that" the 
t 1e Aposto lCal ecrees was estme to germmate strongly. first See is 
Graduallv the O p inion of Ennodius "that the First See is judgcd?,J" 

 no luan 
judged by no man," grew into a dogma, which became an passes into 
. . d " I " H h I f I a dogma. 
aXIOm III me leva tImes. ow l11UC t Ie power 0 t Ie 
Roman Pontiff had grown in the 120 years which had elapsed 
from the time of Pope Damasus, we may judge from the fact 
that a letter exists from a Roman Council in his day, A.D. 378, 
to the Emperors Gratian and Yalentinian, which stands in 
direct and formal contradiction to the dogma of Ennodius. 
"Hear also," it says, "another thing which that holy man M3n;
, tom. 
(Pope Damasus) wishes rather to attribute to your piety than 
to claim for himself, and not to take from anyone, but Yet is 
assign to the Emperors. Since he does not ask any new privi- dieted by 
lege, hut follows the precedents of his ancestors, that the Roman 


Bis/LOp, if his cause is not entrusted to a Council, defend him- 
self hefore the Impe'J"Ïal Council. For likewise Pope Sylvester, .And b.v the 
1 d - 1 . I d d I . practiee of 
w!en accuse by saCrI egIOus men, p ea e lIS own cause Pop(Syl- 
before )Tour ancestor Constantine. And similar examples ycster. 
are at hand out of Scripture: for wben the holy Apostle 
suffered violence from the prefect, unto Cæsar he appealed, 
and unto Cæsar he was sent." A little bcfore the writer, 
supposed to be St. Ambrose, had begged for Pope Damasus, 
"that he should not be treated as inferior to those, whom, 
though equal in office, he excels in the prerogative of the 
Apostolical See:" he means the Bishops, who were exempt 
from being tried by civil tribunals. 
Now, doubtless, in all this, in thc additional power, which Remarks 
h " bl d t". I " f ] F . ] . I 011 this 
t eir own no e an J.ear ess maIntenance 0 t Ie j mt 1 III t Ie incident. 
fourth and fifth centuries causcd to be attached to tIle Roman 
Pontiffs, and in the very necessity for this which arises out · 
of the hostile bearing of the powers of the world towm'ds the 
Rride of Christ, the continual attempt to 
make hcr a slave 




CH A P. whom they should honour as a queen, "we see before our 

. eyes the centralizing process by which the See of St. Peter 
Mr.1\ew- Ch " d " b I I d . 
man on De- became the head of rlsten om: ut w lat 0 not see IS, 
veJopment . " I f h b . . . h . tl t S 
p. 171. ' how pl'lVI eges, not rom t e egmmng 111 erent In la ee, 
but added to it in the long course of ages, here one, and 
there another, by the conCUlTence or tacit allowance of 
Eishops in the \" est, can come forth as a divine right,:to 
which all men, upon pain of their salvation, must yield. 
'Vhat, not being an original divine gift, was, in process of 
time, merely allowed by Bishops, may be resumed by the 
same power which conceded it. l\iost assuredly that privi- 
lege, which was conferred by our Lord on St. Peter and his 
successors, differs toto cælo from that infinite and irrespon- 
sible power, which .we, as things at present stand, have only 
the alternative to accept or reject en masse. In otherllwords, 
the Church is not governed according to the Nicene decrees, 
and the effects which Popes SSe Leo and Gregory foretold 
have followed. 


Pope Aga- IN the year 536 we have one of those rare instances in 
petus de- 
poses An- which the Primacy of Rome is seen acting on the Eastern 

:i':;ch Church, but in perfect accordance with the Canons aud the 
o.f Constan- Patriarchal S y stem. The Po p e A g a p etus had been com- 
tmopJe, for 

eresy and pelled by Theodatus, king of the Goths, to proceed to Con- 
lrregu- ". .." - " 
larity. stanbnople, 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 
bad been translated from the See of Trebisond. Anthimus 
refused to appear in the Council that the Pope held at Con- 
stantinople to judge him; so he was deposed, and returned 
his pallium to the Emperor. J\lennas was elected in his 


stead by the Emperor, with tlle approbation of all the Clergy SEe T. 
and the people, and the Pope consecrated him in the church IV. 
of St. 
lary. "Pope Agapetus wrote a synodal letter to Fleury,liv. 
Peter, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to acquaint him with what he 32.54. 
had done in this Council. "Yhen we arrived,' said he, 'at 
the court of the Emperor, we found the See of Constanti- 
nople usurped, contrary to the Canons, by Allthimus Bishop 
of Trebisond. He even refused to quit the error of Euty- 
ches. 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. Yon 
ought likewise to reject the rest whom the Holy See has 
condemned. 'Ve are astonished that you approved this in- 
jury done to the See of Constantinople, instead of inform- 
ing us of it; and we have repaired it by the ordination of 
J\lennas, who is the first of the Eastern Church ordained by 
the hands of our See.' " I find this Pope presently caned 
by the Easterns, 'Father of Fathers,' , Archbishop of ancient 
Rome,' 'Ecumenical Patriarch.' This latter title is also 
given to J\Ienllas. I shan have more to say about it here- 
after; but it is remarkable tbat it was first given, so far 
as we have any record, to Dioscorus, by a Bishop in some Gieseler, 
I . d t I . t th L .. f E I vul. 1. part 
comp mnt ma e 0 urn a e atrOC1l1mm 0 p lesus; 2, p. lY2. 
Justinian gives it contiuually to the Patriarch of Constan- 
The Pope shortly after dies at Constantinople, and a 
Council is held, at which tbe Patriarch 
Iennas presides, 
the Bishops who had accompanied the defunct Pope taking 
l'ank after him. lIe writes to the Patriarch Peter of J eru- 
salem, and iuforms him of the acts of this Council. Peter The Patri- 
assembles his Council at Jerusalcm: the procedure which 

took place at Constantinople was there found canonical, and 


the deposition of Anthimus was confirmed. Here the same sition. 
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 Lnw.s?f 
. . Justinian 
same tIme, lookmg at tllCm merelv as facts, a full confirma- g"Íve the 
t ' d . . f I E ... I d P t . I I force of law 
1011 an recogmtlOn 0 t Ie plscopa an a narc lR COll- to the code 
stitntion of the Church. "'Y e decree," sars he, "that the of Canons 
1 2 




CHAP. holy Canons of the Church, which haye been issued or con- 
---: fi V d '- t firmed by the four holy Councils. . . . should lmye the force 
rah e a 
Chalcedon, of law. For we receive the decrees of the aforesaid four 
and esta- C . 1 I I I S . I b h . C 
blish, 1. the OUnCI s as t Ie 10 y cnptures, anf 0 serve t en anons 

. of as laws. And we therefore decree that, according to their 
the sn- d regulations, the most holy Pope of Elder Rome is the first of 
preme an . . 
final judg- all Pl'lests: but that the most blessed ArchbIshop of Con- 
ment of the . 
several stantmople, New Rome, has the second place after the holy 


rchs Apostolic See of Elder Rome: but let it rank before all otIler 
t.he!r own Sees." In the 123rd N oyell forbidding Simony he says" we 
111111t8. " 
Koyelll31. only allow the payments mentioned in the present law to be 
c. 1,2. made according to custom by the Bishops at their consccra- 
tiOIl. 'Ye therefore charge the most blessed Archbishops 
and Patriarchs, that is, of elder Rome, and Constantinople, 
and Alexandria, and Theopolis, and Jerusalem, since such is 
the custom, to gÏye to the Bishops and Clergy at their con- 
secration twenty pounds of gold . . . . but the J\Ietropolitans, 
who are consecrated by their own Synod, or by the most 
blessed Patriarchs, and all other Bishops, who are conse- 
crated either by the Patriarchs, or J\Ietropolitans, to giye a 
hundred solidi for their enthronement," &c. If any Bishop 
has a matter of dispute with one of thc same Proyillce, the 
l\Ietropolitan with other Bishops of his Council shall in the 
first instance judge the cause. If both parties consent not 
to his judgment, the Patriarch of the Diocese shall hear 
them, and determine according to the Canons aud Laws of 
Novel! 123. the Church, and neither party shall oppose his sentence. . . . 
c. 3. 22. If a Bishop has a cause against a :\Ietropolitan, let the Patri- 
arch of the Diocese in like manner decide it. In like manner 
elsewhere he decrees that no Clerk accused by another Clerk 
or Layman be judged in the first instance by the Patriarch, 
but before the Bishop of the city where the Clerk dwells. 
Then, if he is suspected, before the 3letropolitan: and if the 
l\letropolitan rejects the case, before the Council of the Pro- 
vince, in which the J\Ictropolitan with three of the eldest 
Bishops shall judge the case before the whole Council: but 
if this judgment be not acquiesced in, an appeal lies to the 
Patriarch, whose decision is final: "for our ancestors ap- 
pointed that there should be no appeal against the sentence 
of these Prc1ates." The same is to be done in the case of a 

rXDElt TlLE E\Il'EJWlt Jl::iTL\I \X. 


Bishop accused: for we altogether prohibit that the accu- SEe T. 
sation be taken before the Patriarch in the first instance, IV. 
or that accused persons be sent to another Province. In Co
ex, li
N II 6 h d h t . I . f B . h I. tIt. 4. :.9. 
oye , at teen, e men IOns t Ie same series 0 IS ops, 
J\Ietropolitans, Patrim'chs of each Diocese. And again: 
"Therefore let the most holy Patriarchs of each Diocese NonIl6. 
. Epilogus. 
propose these tIuugs to the most holy Churches under them, 
and make known to the J\Ietropolitans, beloved of God, what 
we have ratified. Let these again set it forth in the most 
holy j\Ietropolitan 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." 
Addressed to Epiphallins, Archbishop of Constantinople, and 
copies sent to the Archbishops of Alexandria, Theopolis, and 
Jeru:salem, and to John and Dominicus, Prætorian Prefects. 
In the long edict respecting the luitings of Origen addressed 
to the Patriarch 
Iennas he savs H 'Ye have written the l\TalI!'<i 9. 
'. oJ' 523. D. 
same not only to your IIolmess, but also to the most holy 
and blessed Pope and Patriarch of Elder Rome, Yigilius, and 
to all the rest most holy Bishops and Patriarchs, that is, of 
Alexandria) Theopolis, and Jerusalem, that they may gi,-e 
attention to this matter, and commit these things to execu- 
tion." The Roman Primacy is distinctly marked in the 
following: "J ustinian to John, most holy Archbishop of Corl
x, lib. 
1. tIt. 1. b. 
the good city of Rome, and Patriarch. Rendering honour 
to the Apostolic See and your Holiness, and esteeming your 
Blessedness as a Father, we hasten to bring before the know- 
ledge of your Holiness all things which pertain to the state 
of the Churches: since it was always our great desire to 
maintain the unity of your Apostolic See, and that state of 
the holy Churches of God which hitherto prevails, and con- 
tinues unshaken without opposition. .And therefore we have 
hastened both to subject and to unite to the See of your 
IIoliness all the Priests of the whole region of the East. 
At present therefore we have thought it necessary to bring to 
tlw knowledge of your Holiness the points mooted, although 
they are clear and undoubted, and according to the doctrine 
of your Apostolic See have eyer been firmly maintained and 
preached by all Priests. For we do not endure that any 
thing which is mooted, pertaining to the state of the 

32ß lW:\JI'; \.
D cu.\'sr_\
Ol'LE U:\VBlt JU::Hl:\L\.

C HAP. Churches, however dear and indubitable it may be, should 
not also be made known to your Holiness, 1f'hich is the head 
of all the holy Clmrclws. For we hasten in all things to 
increase the houour and authority of your See." But it 
would be giving a wrong impression of this language to 
Codex, lib. conceal that he addressed the like" to Epiphauius most holy 
1. tit.!. 7. and blessed Archbishop of this royal cit
T, and Ecumenical 
Patriarch. 'Yishing that your Holiness should be acquainted 
with all those thiugs which respect the Ecclesiastical state 
&c., that in no manner whatever have we changed, do we 
change, or transgress, that state of the Church Vi hich by the 
help of God has been maintained hitherto, but in all things 
preserving the unity of the holy Churches with the most 
holy Pope of Old Rome, to whom we have written in similar 
terms. For we do not endure that anything which concerns 
the Ecclesiastical state be not also referred to his Blessed- 
ness, since he is the head of all the most holy Priests of 
God: or especially for this, because, so often as heretics 
have sprouted up in those regions, they have been repressed 
by the sentence and right judgment of that venerable See." 
Codex, lib. "The Church of COIlstantinople is the head of all tlte 
1. tit. 2.25. others." 
N ow as to the motive of J n:stinian, I fear there is too 
Gieseler, much truth in what Gieseler says, that he H honoured, it 


rt is true, the Roman See, but distinguished that of Constan- 

 117. tinople not less, and sought in the end to make both mere 
tools, in order through them to rule in the Church as he did 
in the State." But at any rate his words are a testimony 
to the law of the Church in his ùay: and as he is to be 
believed when he acknowledges the Roman Primacy, and 
the continued orthodoxy of that See, so likewise is he not 
to be distrusted when he declares, that each of the five 
Patriarchal 'Thrones enjoyed the right of deciding without 
appeal within their own limits, and when he gives the force 
of law to the \\ hole code of the ancient Church, which is 
so utterly irreconcileable with the medieval theory of the 
Papacy. No argument can be drawn from his use of the 
word Head, as he gives it both to Rome, and to Constan- 





,V E now come to the dark and sad history of Pope Vigi- 
lius. And here I am glad that another can speak for me. 
Bossuet says: "The Acts of the Second Council of Con- Bossuet, 
t . I h fi 
 I I d P V . " I . d h Def Cieri 
S antmop e, t e it 1 genera, un er ope IgI IUS an t e GatÏ., lib. 7. 
Emperor Justinian, will prove that the decrees of the third cap. 19" 
and fourth Councils were understood in the same sense by 
the fifth as we haye understood them. And this Council 
received the account of them near at hand, and transmitted 
it to us." 
"The three chapters were the point in question i that is, 
}'especting Theodore of ßlopsuestia, Theodoret's writings 
against Cyril, anù the letter of Ibas of Edessa to 
the Persian. They examined whether that letter had been 
approved in the Council of Chalcedon. So much was ad- 
mitted that it had been read there, and that Ibas, after 
anathematizing N estorins, had been received by the holy 
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, fl'Om l\Tansi 9. 
what has been recited, in what manner the hol y Councils are 1 3? h 7 " C E . 
e OUD. 
wont to approve what is brought before them. For great cil states 
" that the 
as was the dIgnity of those holy men who wrote the letters letter of 
" d h cl " d h . 1 . I . h Pope Leo 
recIte , yet t ey I not approve tell' etters sImp 
r or WIt - was DP- 
out in q uirv , nor without takin g cO!rnizance that the y were P f r t oved 
in all things au-reeable to the exposition and doctrine of aminatioD: 
b which is 
the holy Fathers, with which they were compared.' But the admitted 
Acts proved that this course was not pursued in the case of 


the letter of Ibas i they inferred, therefore, most justly, that 
that letter had not been approved. So, then, it is cel.tain 
from the third and fourth Councils, the fifth so declm'ing 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." 



POl)1': L

C HAP. Pope Vigilius afterwards, ,,-hen consenting to this Council, 
v. "acknowledges that the letter of St. Leo was not approved 
Fleurv, liv. C . 1 f Cl 1 d " I . t h d b . d d 
33.52. at the ounCl 0 la ce on unh 1 a een examme an 
found conformable to the Faith of the three preceding COUll- 
cils; and this avowal is the more important in the mouth of 
a Pope." 
The words of Pope Yigilius are: "no one can doubt that 
our fathers believed, that they should receive with veneration 
the letter of blessed Leo, if they declared it to agree with 
the doctrines of the Kiccne and Constantinopolitan Councils, 
as also with those of blessed Cyril set forth in tbe first of 
Epbesus. And if that letter of so great a Pontiff, shining 
with so bt>ight a light of the orthodox Faith, requires to be 
approved by these comparisons, how can that letter to J\Iaris 
the Persian, which specially rejects the First Council of Ephe- 
sus, and declares to be heretical the expressed doctrines of the 
blessed Cyril, be believed to be called ort1lOdox by the same 
Fathers, condemning as it does those writings, by comparison 
with which, as "e have said, the doctrine of so great a Pon- 
tiff deserved to be commended." 
Bussuet, ut " Again, in the same fifth Council the Acts against the 
sup. letter of Nestorius are read, in which the }'athers of Ephe- 
sus plainly pronounce, 'that the letter of N estorius 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 equit- 
able, after examination; alid Ibas condemned, who stated 
that N estorius 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 exa- 
mination of Ibas' letter. rrhey compare the letter with the 
Acts of Ephesus and Chalcedon. \Yhich done, the holy 
l\Iansi 9. Council declared-' The comparison made proves, beJ"ond a 
345. B. 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, ,,,r e 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 Pontifl':s, 
and that on matter of Faith, to be =orthodox or heretical, ac- 

l\Iam.; 9. 
4ï3. C. 



cording to the same procedure, after legitimate cognizance, S J<: CT. 
the truth being inquired into, and then cleared up: and upon 
these premises judgment given. 
" 'Vhat! you will say, with no distinction, and with minds 
equally incliÙed 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 ill Ecumenical Coun- 
cils, 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 opi- 
nion the decrees of three Ecumenical Councils, of Ephesus, 
of Chalcedon, and the second Constantinopolitan." 
The point here taken up by Bossuet, and proved upon Impo.rtance 
. d . bl I . . f h . . of tillS 
m lsputa e aut 101'lty, IS 0 t e greatest Importance, VIZ. point. 
that the decree of a Roman Pontiff, de fide, and he, perhaps, 
the greatest of the ,,-hole number, nas judged by a General 
Council, and only admitted" hen it was found conformable 
to antiquity. It settles, in fact, the whole question, that 
the Bishop of Rome is indeed posscssed of the First See, and 
Primate of all Christendom; but that he is not thc sole 
depository of Christ's po\\er in the Church, which is, ill 
truth, the Papal Idea, laid down by St. Gregory the Se, entb, 
and acted upon since. The difference between these two 
Ideas is the difference between the Church of the Fa- 
thers and the present Latin Communion ill the matter of 
Church government, in which they are "ide as the poles 
'file history of Pope Yigilius further confirms the truth of 
te of 
s .It 
what we have said. Uossuet procecds: "In the same fifth tbe Fifth 
C . l } r . Genernl 
ounCI t le lollowmg Acts support our cause. Council. 
"The Emperor Justinian desired, that the question con- 
cerning the above-mentioned three Cbaptcrs should be con- 
sidcred in the Church. He thel'cfore sent for Pope Vigilius 
to Constalltinop!e. There he not long after asscmbled 
a Council. lIe and the Orientals thought it of great 
moment that these Chaptcrs should be condcmncd, against 
the N cstorians, who were raising their heads to defcnd them j 



Mansi 9. 
H!J. A. 


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 
ILas had been received in that Council, whilst Theodore, 
though named, was let go witllOut any mark of censure. 
rrhough then both parties easily agreed as to the substance 
of the Faith, yet the question had entirely l'Cspeet to the 
Faith, it being feared by the one party lest the N estorian, by 
the other lest the Eutychean, enemies of the Council of 
Chalcedon should prevail. 
" From this sb'uggle many accusations have been brought 
against Yigilius, which have nothing to do with us. I am 
persuaded that every thing was done by Vigilius with the 
best intent, the 'Yesterns not enduring the condemnation 
of the Chapters, and things tending to a schism." 'rhe 
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. 
'llhereupon the Bishops of Africa, Illyria, and Dalmatia, 
with two of his own confidential Deacons, withdraw from 
his Communion. In the year 550 the African Bishops, under 
Reparatus of Carthage, not only reject the J l1dicatum, but 
anathematize Vigilius himself, and sever him from Catholic 
Communion, reserving to him a place for repentance. At 
length the Pope publicly withdraws his' J udicatum.' \Vhile 
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 that his 
letter was pronounced othodox 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 dis- 
approved 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 
llave 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 pub- SECT" 
lishcd the following, that, , understood in the best and most v. 
l>ious sense,' it was blameless; and concerning the three 
Chapters generally, he ordered that after his present decla- 
ration Ecclesiastics should move no further question. 
" Such was the decree of Vigilius, issued upon the autho- The Coun- 
. . h h . h h . I B 1 C " I f I . cil issues a 
rIty wIt w IC e was lnvestel. ut t lC ouncl, a ter lIS decree con- 
constitution, both raised a question about the three Chapters, 


aud decided that question was properly raised concerning Pope. 
the dead, and that the lctter of Ibas was manifestly heretical 
and N estorian, and contrary in all things to the Faith of 
Chalcedon, and that they were altogether accursed, who de- 
feuded the impious 'rheodore of l\lopsuestia, or the writings 
of Theodoret against Cyril, or the iml>ious lctter of Ibas 
defending the tenets of N estorius: and who did not anathe- 
matize it, but said it was correct. 
"In these latter words they seemed not even to spare 
Yigilius, 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 prm"e, that in a matter of the utmost importance, 
disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the 
lì1 a ith, the decrees of sacred Councils prevail over the decrees 
of Pontiffs, and that the letter of Ibas, though defended by 
a judgment of the Roman Pontiff, could nevertheless be pro- 
scribed as heretical." 
Finally the fifth Ecumenical Council, sitting ill spite of Censure of 
I d I " .. d h " 1 1 P the Pope 
t le Pope, elvers ItS JU gment on matters W IC 1 t le ope bv the 
during its sitting had forbidden to be discussed any further, 

and ,vhich judgment is contrary to his. It commences by 368- 1 70. 
part y ab- 
yery strongly censuring the Pope for not joining them in stracted õ 
their work of condemning heresy. If our Lord set forth for 

condemnation the man who hid one talent, and kept it un- 
diminished, to how much sorer punishment shan he be ex- 
l>osed, who not only neglects himself, but causes scandal and 
disturbance to others? "'Y e therefore, to whom is committed 
the clta'lYJe of , ruling the Church of the Lord, fearing the male- 
diction which hangs oycr those who do the work of the Lord 
negligently, hasten to preserve the good seed of faith pure 
from the tares of impiety." 



"The most pious Vigilius, being in this city, has taken 
part in all which has been agitated about the three Chapters, 
and has several times condemned them by word of mouth 
and writing. Afterwards he agreed in writing to come to 
the Council, and to ex.amine them there with us, that a 
definition might be made by us all agreeable to the right 
Faith. The Emperor, according to our agreement, begged 
him as well as us to meet, because Priests ought to settle 
in common questions of common concern. So that we have 
The been obliged to beseech him to fulfil his promise. To 
authority this end we reminded him of those great ex.amples of the 


, Apostles, and of the traditions of our Fathers. For although 
but in t the f the g race of the Hol y Spirit was abundant to each one of 
consen 0 
the Epi- the Apostles, so that they needed not the advice of others 
scopal Col- 
lege. to determine their course of action, yet would they not 
declare any thing about the point in question, whether the 
Gentiles should be circumcised, before tbat they should 
assemble together, and each severally by the testimony of 
Holy 'Y rit confirm their own words. "Therefore they issued 
a sentence in common about it, writing to the Gentiles, 'It 
hath seemed gooù to the Holy Ghost, and to us,' &c. 
"But likewise the holy Fathers, who from time to time 
have assembled in the four holy Councils, following ancient 
examples, have decided in common about heresies and ques- 
tions that arose, it being a settled principle, that, in discus- 
sions of common interest, the arguments of both sides being 
set forth, the light of truth puts to flight the shades of false- 
hood. N or in general discussions about the Faith can the 
truth otherwise be manifested, when every man needs the 
help of his neighbour, as Solomon says in the Proverbs,- 
and again in Ecclesiastes, 'Two are better than one, because 
they have a reward for their labour,' (iv.9.) But the I.Jord 
Himself says, 'If two of you agree,' &c. After then our 
having often invited him, and after the Emperor had sent 
to him the magistrates, he promised to give by himself his 
judgment on the three Chapters. Having heard this answer 
we considered what the Apostle said, that each man shall 
render account to God for himself: moreover we fear the 
judgment, with which those are threatened who scandalize 
one of the least, how much more so Christian an Em!Jeror 

C II A P. 



and whole nations and Churches. They proceed to declare S EC T. 
their belief in the Faith which 'the Lord Jesus Christ, the v. 
true God, handed down to his Holy Apostles, and through 
them to the holy Churches, and which the holy Fathers and 
Doctors of the Church after them delivered to the nations 
entrusted to thpm.'" 
Let both the tone and the precise expressions here be 
considered, and they will be found in strong opposition to 
those exaggerated statements about the Primacy, which are 
to be found in the writings of the Popes from St. Leo down- 
wards. But it is as impossible to reconcile the words of the 
fifth Council with the theory of an Ecclesiastical monarchy, 
as their conduct towards Vigilius with the practice of it. 
The Canons following, which anathematize by implica- 
tion the Pope, for declaring blameless a letter which they 
pronounce accursed, are signed by the Patriarchs of Con- 
stantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch in person, by the 
three Bishops representing the Patriarch of J erusa]ern, 
by the Archbishops of Thessalonica, Cesarea, Ephesus, Car- 
thage, &c. 
Compare with this history the following remark of Dc 
J\Iaistre, "that Bishops separated from the Pope, and in Du Pape, 
contradiction with him, are superior to him, is a proposition Iiv. 1. ch. 3. 
to which one does all the honour possible in calling it only 
After all this .Fleury says: "At last the Pope Vigilius Fleury, liv. 
resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months 

afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, where- 413-8. 
. } fi I } I b t .. h . . d . The Pope 
III le con esses t lat le laS een wan mg III canty In 1- acknow- 
yiding from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to 

:.s his 
be ashamed to retract, when one recogllises the truth, and 
brings forward the example of St. Augustine. He says, that, 
after having better examined the matter of the three Chap- 
ters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. ' \Ye recog- 
nise for our brethren and colleagues all those who have con- 
demned them, and annul by this writing all that has been . 
done by us or by others for the defeuce of the three 

:1:3-1, POPES F.XCmnlrXICATF.D 1



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 thil'd St. Firmilian in Asia, and St. Cy- 
prian in Africa, disregard St. Stephen's excommunication 
in the matter of rebaptizing heretics; so when thc 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 Ho- 
Sozomen, sins and the rest. This was in the fourth century. In the 

r: 3. ch. fifth, Dioscorus, at the Latrocillium 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 
\Vest, 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 thc 
Canons like themselves, and only of equal rank. For on 
the present Papal theory, such an act, as we have seen Ie 
Père Lacordaire affirm, would be merely suicidal,-pure in- 
sanity. It is in utter contradiction to the notion of an 
Ecclesiastical monarchy. 
SU!lpensions In like manner we find portions of the Church, as that of 
of Com- C 
munion onstantinople, again and again out of Communion with the 
with Rome. 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 Chaptcrs, the 
Archbishops of Aquileia, with their Bishops, were out of Com- 
Tom. 1. munion with Rome from .A.D. 568 to 698. A reconcilia- 
part 2. 410. t . t k I . . h 
IOn a pes p ace, and Commumon IS renewed. lVluc more 
important and dangerous was that division, by which the 
whole East was, as we have seen, separated from the V{ est, 
on account of St. Chrysostome's condemnation. Pope Pe]a- 
gius himself, when on his defence either to King Childe- 
bert, or to the Bishops of Etruria, who had separated from 



his Communion through suspicion arising out of the three SEe T. 
Chapters, does not venture to maintain "that he and the _VI._ 
. Bossuet, 
Roman PontIffs cannot err, and that such as suspect error Def.,lib. 9. 
in their decrees are schismatics, but modestly clears him- 24. 
self by issuing a clear profession of his Faith." He quotes to 
these Bishops the authority of St. Augustine, who tt mindful1\fansi 9. 
of the Lord's judgment by which He set the foundation of 

the Church on the Apostolic Sees, declares that whosoever lagius 1. 
. . C . f I and St. Au- 
detaches hImself from the authorIty or ommunlOn 0 t Ie gustine on 
P I f 1 S .. I . d tl t h . Apostolical 
re ate 0 t lOse ees IS III Sc llsm: an proves la t ere IS Sees. 
no other Church save that which is solidly rooted on the 
Pontiffs of Apostolic Sees." To Yalerian he says himself, 
tt As often as any doubt ariseth to any concerning an U ni- lb. 732,3. 
versal Council, in orùer to receive account of what they do 
not understand-let them recur to the Apostolical Sees.- 
'Yhosoever then is divided from the Apostolical Sees, there 
is no doubt that he is in schism." St. Augustine, arguing 
against his Donatist opponent, alleged the authority of the 
See of Rome, yet not differently from that of other Aposto- 
lical Sees. tt'Vhat hath the See of the Roman Church done Tom fl. 
to thee, in which Peter sat, in which Anastasius sitteth now? 254. G. 
or of the Church of Jerusalem, in which James sat, and 
where now John sitteth: with which we are joined in Ca- 
tholic unity, and from which ye in impious fury have sepa- 
rated." In the great division of the East and \Yest, Rome 
was the single Apostolic See on one side: on the other were 
Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Thessalonica, Cor- 
inth, Ancyra, Philippi. 
It is well known what an unanswerable proof the ancient Testimony 
Oriental Liturgies afford of the true Catholic doctrine of 

the Holy Eucharist, viz., that the Eucharistic elements become 

upon consecration the True, Real, and Proper Eody and 


Elood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Their unanimous consent senl'e, 2. 
h . b . d . h h f: h I N . ngainst the 
on suc a pomt, com Ine WIt t e act t at t Ie estonan Papal 
an(l :Monophysite heretics carried this doctrine with them 


out of the Church in the fifth century, and, existing ever 3G8-ïO. 
since in direct antagonism to the Church, have preserved it 
to this day, is a proof of the truth of the doctrine little, it 
at all, less strong than our Saviour's own words of institu- 
tion recorded in the Gospels and hy St. Paul. Now re- 

33G TEsTnro

C HAP. markable enough it is in favour of the preceding argument 
v. of this book, that these ancient Liturgies of St. l\Inrk, St. 
J ames, St. Basil, and St. Chrysostome, used, that is, from 
time immemorial in the Churches of the Patriarchates of 
Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, contain 
prayers for the Patriarch and the Bishop of the Diocese, and 
sometimes for the other l\:Ietropolitans, but never for the 
Bishop of Rome. The Roman Liturgy alone contains prayers 
for the Bishop of Rome, as well as for the Bishop of the 
diocese. Had the Pope of Rome been according to the 
Eastern mind the One Chief Ruler of the Church of God, 
whose jurisdiction ex.tended over the whole, his name must 
have been mentioned first, and that of the Patriarch as sub- 
ordinate to him, second, and then that of the Bishop of the 
diocese. This will be better seen by observing the order 
of the persons prayed for. Thus in the Alexandrine Liturgy 
Rcnaudot, of St. Basil, after a prayer for the "one holy Catholic and 


: Apostolic Church which is from one end of the earth to the 
other/' for the sovereign, army, and different classes of men, 
Prayer for the Liturgy proceeds, under the heading, Prayer for the 
the .Pope 
of Alex- Pope:" And again let us call upon the Almighty and mer- 
andria. ciful God, the Father of our Lord and God and Saviour 
Jesus Christ, through whom we beseech and supplicate Thee, 
o Loyer of man, good Lord. Remember, 0 Lord, our most 
holy and blessed High-Priest, Abba N. Preserve, preserve 
him to us for many years, and peaceful times, discharging 
the holy High-Priesthood entrusted by Thee to him, accord- 
ing to Thy holy and blessed will; rightly dividing the word 
of truth, and feeding Thy people in holiness and justice: 
together with all orthodox Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, 
with all the fulness of Thy holy, only, Catholic and Apo- 
Tom. I. stolic Church." On which words Renaudot says: "the 
315. prayer is plainly for the Patriarch of Alexandria: as like- 
wise in the Greek manuscript of the Liturgy of St. l\fark : 
it would be futile for anyone to conjecture that this prayer 
belonged to the Roman Pontiff. It was according to ancient 
discipline that commemoration of him should be made in 
the diptychs of the living, but not that his name should 
be recited in the daily masses; as that was only observed 
towards the Patriarchs in whu8e Diocescs the Churches werc. 


\Vhile the Churches were in union, and a new Roman Pontiff SEe T. 
wrote publiclv letters concerning his ordination, his name --y
. . ... . . The Pope 
was recited III the dlptychs of the hVlllg, as that of his prc- of Home 
d . I . f mentioned 
ecessor In t Ie commemoratIOns 0 the departed; but as on those 
this did not take I )lace constantlv , that mention was not occ ) 3sions 

inscribed in the manuscripts of the Liturgies. That such which 
other Patri- 
was the rulc we conjecture from what afterwards was in arells were 
fì I . . mentioned. 
orce among t Ie Copts, and of whICh we have mamfold 
proofs. in the Patriarchal history, respccting the commemo- 
ration of the name of the .Antiochene Patriarchs of that 
same Jacobite sect, with ,,,hich the Alexandrines had the 
closest Communion. On a vacation of the See of ....\ntioch 
the person elected to it immediately sent Synoùical letters 
to the Patriarch of Alexandria by two Bishops. These 
having been read in the assembly of Egyptian Bishops, 
the name of the new Patriarch was inscribed in the dip- 
tychs of the living, and recited in the Liturgy: nor was 
this done before these letters arrived. Until then the name 
of the departed was recited at the altar as of one living. 
Certain moreover as this custom is, and established by 
various instances, yet 110 manuscript, so far as I know, 
has been seen, which contains a constant mention of the 
Patriarch of Antioch in the diptychs, although I hm'c secn 
many. And so, even had the Grcek manuscript helonged 
to the orthodox Church, which cannot be said of this one, 
but which appears certain of that which contains the Liturgy 
of l\Iark, the name of the Roman Pontiff woulJ not be extant 
in the diptych." That is, Rcnaudot argues that the Roman 
PontifI' woulù be namcd in the Liturgy e
actly on the oc- 
casions on which othcr Patriarchs were namcd, anù none 
In what Renaudot declarcs to be the ancicnt orthoc1oJ... 
Liturgy of St. 
rark, a composition of wOlldcl{ul grandeur 
and heauty, which was first published in the ,rest in the 
ycar 1583, from a Calabrian Grcek 
Ionastcry, inasmuch 
as the Liturgy of Constantinople had for cellturics cxpcllcd 
it from the :East, thc following l'rayers occur. First, ill the 
Ante-Communion oflic(', aftcr a praycr fur the Church 
Catholic, and anothcr for thc Sovcreign, follo\\ s the hid- 
diuO' of the Deacon "Prav ve for the Po p e and Bishop J: Renaudot, 
b '. . , tom. 1. l:?t. 




C HAP. The Priest says, "0 Sovereign Lord God Almighty, Father 
of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, we bescech 
and supplicate Thee, 0 Lover of man, 0 Good, for our most 
holy and blessed High-Priest Pope N. and the most reye- 
Tend Bishop N. Preserve, yea, preserve them to us for many 
years in peace, fulfilling the holy High-Priesthood cntrusted 
to them by Thee, according to Thy holy and blessed will, 
rightly dividing the word of truth, with all orthoùox Bishops, 
Presbyters, Deacons, Sub-deacons, Rcaders, Singers, and 
IÆity, with all the fulness of the holy and only Catholic 
Church, granting them peace, and health, and sahation." 
In the Anaphora, or Canon itself, after the prayers for 
Tom.!. the departed, the Priest says, "The most holy and blessed 

6; Patri- Pope N., whom Thou hast foreknown to govern Thy holy Ca- 
arch in the tholic and A I Jostolic Church and our most reverend Bisho p 
Eastern ' 
Liturf;{ies N., preserve, yea, preserve them for many years, for peaceful 


e times, fulfilling 'rhy holy High-Priesthood entrusted to them 

: by Thee, according tû TllY holy and blessed will, rightly 
Roman. dividing the word of truth. Remember likewise, whereso- 
ever they be, orthodox. Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, Sub- 
deacons, Readers, Singers, l\lonks, those ,'owed to be Vir- 
gins, 'Yidows, Laity." Thus the Patl'iat'ch occupies in tbe 
Eastern Liturgies that yery place of the fulness of honour 
which the Pope now holds in the Roman Canon. "Thee 
therefore, most merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, Thy 
Son, our Lord, we suppliantly bcg and beseech, that 'llhou 
wouldst accept and bless these gifts, these offerings, these 
]lOly spotless sacrifices: first of aU which we offer Thee for 
Thy holy Catholic Church, which be pleased to preserve in 
peace, to guard, to unite, and to rule throughout the whole 
world, together with rfhy servant our Pope N., and our 
Prelate N., and all who are orthodox, and worshippers of 
the Catholic and Apostolic faith." 
So in the Liturgy of St. James, so called, we read, "The 
Priest howing says, '\Vherefore we offer unto Thee, 0 Lord, 
this tremcndous and unbloody Sacrifice, for Thy holy places 
"hich Thou hast glorified by the manifestation of Christ 
Thy Son; but especially for holy Sion, tbe mother of all 
Churches, and for rfhy holy Church diffused through the 
whole world.' 



. i13. 



"The Deacon. 'Bless, Sir. Let us pray and beseech our SEe T. 
Lord God at this moment of time great, fearful, and holy, 
for our fathers and rulers who are now set m"er us, and in 
the present life feed and rule the holy Churches of God, the 
venerable and blessed, the Lord N. our Patriarch, and the 
Lord N. 
Ietropolitan, and the rest of the l\Ietropolitans, and 
venerable Bishops.' 
"The Priest. 'Grant them, 0 Lord, the richest gifts of 
Thy Holy Spirit. Remember, 0 Lord, 0\\1' holy Bishops 
wbo rightly dispense to us the word of truth, but especially 
the }-'ather of Fathers, our Patriarch, the Lord N., and the 
Lord N. our Bishop, with all other orthodox: Bishops,' " &c. 
Now as these Liturgies are throughout penetratcd with TI:e Pope 
th . . . Ù 1 k 11 ... f of Home 
e InstInctIVe reverence, an l eep unspea a) e reJOIcmg 0 not mcn- 
those who felt that thc y were in the awful and tremendous tioncd t l , lc- 
cau::-:c Ie 
Presence of our Lord by the descent of the Holy G host on Patrian:hs 
Wl'I"e !':u- 
the Eucharistic elements, so do they set forth the Patriarch prcm
as within his Patriarchate the Hcad and Itepresentative of 

the Catholic Church. They make no mention at all of him, 
who, we are now told, is the monarch of the Church: in 
praying for the Catholic Church thcy most unaccountahly 
do not pray for him" who is set over the whole Chris- 13c1!arllliuc. 
tian world, and possesses in its completeness aHd plenitude 
that power which Christ left on earth for the good of the 
Church:" but they pray instead for their own Pope, or 
Patriarch, the Bishop, aud all the orders of the Church 
under them. "Thy is this? lkcause thcy lool\.ed lIpOI1 thc 
government of the Church Catholic as Ye
ted first in the 
ordinate Apostolic, and then in the cqually co-ordinate 
Episcopal College, and not ill one Apostle, or his sncecssor, 
according to that beautiful praJ"cr of St. l\Ial'k's Litnrgy, 
immediately succceding thc prayer fur the Pope of Alex- 
andria. "0 SovcrC'ign Lord our God, who did
t choo:-.c I{(,1I3mlot, 
1 1.'3 
out the tweln'-hranched light of the twelve Apostles, and . -. 
ùidst :scuù them forth to preach through the whole world, 
and to teach the Gospel of 'rhy kingdom, and to heal all 
disease and infirmity ill the peoplc, auù who ùidst breathe 
upon thcir faces, and 
midst to them, Heccivc thc Holy 
Ghost, the Comforter: whose sins ye rcmit, thcy arc re- 
mitted to them: whosc ye retain, tlH'Y are retained: so too 



C HAP. breathe on us Thy servants who stand round, at the begill- 
v. ning of our priestly service, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, 
Readers, Singers and Laymen, with all the fulness of the 
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." 
Cumulative N ow all these various facts, from the first Nicene Council, 
ofthe pre. converge towards one view, for which, I think, there is as 


g full evidence as for most facts of history,-that the Pope, to 
the time of St. Gregory the Great, and indeed long after- 
wards, was but the first of the Patriarchs, who, in their own 
Patriarchates, enjoyed a co-ordinate and equal authority 
with his in the '\Yest. I suppose De l\Iaistre acknowledges 
Du Pape, as much in his own way, when he says, "The Pope is in- 
Iiv_ 7. d . h fi d .. 1 '" L' I . B - 1 
veste wIt ve very lstmct c laracters; lor le IS IS lOp 
of Rome, l\letropolitan of the Suburbicall Churches, Primate 
of Italy, Patrim'ch of the 'Vest, and, lastly, Sovereign Pon- 
tiff. The Pope has never exercised ovcr the other Patriarch- 
ates 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 esta- 
blished. 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." The confession of one who 
travesties antiquity so outrageously as De blaistre is curious 
at lcast :-but the truth is that not a single act of authority 
done by any Pope up to the time of St. Gregory is found in 
history, which is not fully accounted for by his position ill 
the Patriarchal 
ystem, and by his being First Bishop of the 
Church, and a
 such especially charged with the mainten- 
ance of her Canons. N one of them reach the Papal claim, 
as it .was set forth by St. Gregory VII. Yet surely, if that 
full claim be divine, and if those who )'eject it do so at the 
peril of their salvation, it is not too much to claim that such 
an authority should run through, anù he distinctly visiLle, ill 
the times when the East and '\Vest were joined in one Com. 
munion, as it has run through and completely penetrated 

of De 
l\r aist re to 
the patri- 
archal go- 
of the 
from the 

 WRITERS. 341 

with itself, the middle ages, at least in the 'Yest. Assuredly SE CT. 
had the Papal 1\lonarchy existed in the times of the Ecu- VI. 
menical Councils it could not haye lain hid. It has not 
lain hidden in the centuries since it was put forth: the sun 
is not hidden in the solar system: nor are the historians of 
a state unable to discern where lies its sovereign power. 
And documents there were, such as the decretal letters of 
the early Popes, which did speak decisively, and imposed 
upon the middle ages: but then these are now admitted 
to be supposititious; passages, too, thel'e were from sundry 
Fathers, but these too have turned out to be unauthentic. 
Had the keen mind of the Angelic Doctor been possessed of 
the documents which were not then to be had, but are now 
open to inspection, the authentic proceedings of Ecumenical 
Councils, the genuine letters of the early Pontiffs, and the 
treasures stored up in the Greek Fathers, ".ould he not have 
spolæn otherwise than he has done concerning the Papal 
power? But Roman Catholic writers, in defcnding tbe Pa- 
Ionarchy from the remains of antiquity now allowed to 
be genuine, instead of being able, clearly and historically, 
without subterfuge anù ingenious expedients, to prove their 
doctrine, are reduced to the predicament which one of their 
own Communion thus expresses. " If the question be COll- Præf.inDef. 
cerllillg the Pope's Supremacy, he diligently collects from ;.I

. Gall., 
Councils and the holy Fathers the strongest proofs for the 
Pope's Primacy, which Primacy was not in discussion. If 
the Papal iufallibility be controverted, he writes out those 
passages in which the Councils and holy :Fathers have e:x- 
pressed high and reverential feelings about the First See, 
though they were not acquainted with its infallibility. Those 
who use such a mode of arguing do not find it difficult to 
get the patronage of the holy Fathers for their errors. Yet 
how easy it is to see that they nefariously abuse their abili- 
ties, and violate faith with the public, and religion itself. 
Yet thus diJ Bellarmine, and whatever other adversaries the 
Gallicall doctrine found." 
Others, again, remind one, I am constrained to say, of 
that celebrated feat in which a single rider yaults alter- 
Ilately from one horse to another at full speed. He rides 
hoth, but keeps fast to neither, shewing his skill by the 


CHAP. dexterity with which he changes his position. Just so they 
v. manage the Papal and the Patriarchal power of the Roman 
Bishop. 'Vhen that Bishop is seen in early times to exer- 
cise great authority, not standing alone, but at the head of 
his Council, or representing all the Bishops of the '\tV est, as 
in the case of the appeal of St. Athanasius, or of Eutyches) 
or of St. Flavian, or at thc Council of Chalcedon .itself, this 
is put to his' credit simply as Head of the Church. And a 
similar authority exercised by other Bishops, especially that 
Canons of of Constantinople, nay, solemnly committed to him at the 
Chalcedon, I E . I C . 1 . f II f . 
!). and 17. argest cumemca OUnCI, IS care u y put out 0 VIeW. 
Here the disputant stands on the Papal claim. But when 
on the other hand the ancient Canons, as those called of the 
Apostles, those of Kicea, Sardica, Constantinople, Carthage, 
Ephesus, Chalcedon, and the five Provincial Councils taken 
into the code of the universal Church by this last, exhibit 
the several PrO\-inces, or Patriarchatcs of the Church, form- 
ing indeed one body, but self-governed in their several parts, 
and haying no centralizing power in the whole body; or when 
the language of great Doctors and Saints, such as S1. Cyprian, 
St. Basil, St. Augustine, St. Chrysostome, St. Cyril, Pope 
St. Gregory himself, is alleged, as generally ignoring such 
a power, or, it may be, resisting what seems anything like 
its control, or, as in the last case, expressly d.isclaiming it, 
the reply is, III this view the Pope is regarded as Bishop 
or as Patriarch: it leaves untouched the question of his 
supreme power. As Patriarch he had nothing to do with 
the Eastern 'mpire: but as Pope all the Eastern Patriarchs 
yielded him obedience. 
It is hard, certainly, to be convinced by those who take 
up such a line as this. Fully aware as I am t.hat it is a 
question of sah-ation, I am 110t at all persuaded by their 
mode of proceeding: nay, I haye to struggle against a con- 
tinual feeling of bad faith ill those who pursue it, "hich I 
am most loath to impute to any. But, if inexorable history 
would allow them to be honest, surely they injure their own 
CRuse: as ours has been injured by concealing the original 
and legitimate power of the Roman Bisbop as occupant of 
the first, and that St. Peter's See. 
A grcat exception to thc aboyc-uwntioned unfair mode 


of dealing is found in 
föhler's profound and admirable SEe T. 
treatise on unity. But then his admissions are in favour of VI. 
the argument of this book. Thus while Ultra-montane 
writers distort all the facts of history to get the Supremacy 
out of the first three centuries, lIe in his summing up, ob- 
serves: "From the whole previous discussion it is apparent 1t'löhler, 
} t I P . . h fi h . . I Die Einheit 
tm t Ie rlmacy In t erst tree centurIes, even In t Ie in der 
last times of them, does not begin to raise its head above its 

first dcposits, that it still broods without shape, that 'when 
'we come to definite proofs whe're and how it has shewn itself 
{tS such, in facts, it 'must be confessed that it never appears 
alone, b1.1t is alu;ays only actire in conjunction with other 
Bishops and Churches, but that it yet begins to take a 
peculiar stamp, and as it were only waits for a call to 
But he would meet the demand I have made above, tlms : 
"'Vhilst the Apostles wel'e scattered abroad, Peter could Ihid. 
neither exercise acts of Primacy, nor will anyone believe p. 239. 
that it would have been necessary, had he been authorized Gradual 
d . B ] . 1 . I Cl .. . d evolution of 
to 0 It. ut ( urmg t Ie tIme t lat lrIsbamty was groun - the Pri- 
ing itself in its several communities, and in which the unity ma d c:r ac- 
. . . . . cor mg to 
of all smgle Churches was occupIed In Its first formatIOn, the 1tlöhler. 
Primacy of one CIHlrch and its Bishop could by no means 
shew itself. For if we would grasp the Idea of the Primacy, 
we must, as said before, represent it as the personified reflex 
of the unity of the whole Church: but it was not possible 
that the unity of the collective Church should make itself 
an object of reflection, and present a personal image as its 
offspring, before unity itself had interpeneb'ated all. Those 
therefore who require unanswel'able historical proofs for a 
Primacy before that period which we have earlier pointed 
out as that in which the unity of the Church came forth 
with thc fullest consciousness, (the time of Cyprian,) must 
be refused, as demanding something unreasonable, inas- 
much as according to the law of a true development it is 
not possible. As again on the other hand the attempts of 
those who would fiud it so entirely formed before that time, 
or the opinion that they have found it, must appea'J' fruitless 
aud untenable. The Primacy, like every property of Christi- 
T, is to he h'cated not as a dead notion, hut as life, and 


RE:sULT FRO}! HI::; AD:Ml::;SlO

C HAP. as going forth from life.-It was requisite for needs to form 
themselves: but these express themselves in history as facts, 
and out of these is the notion first drawn: or, Church 
history is, what I have already repeatedly remarked, nothing 
else but a Christian development of life. 'Vhat would the 
dead proposition, , You must have a centre of unity,' even if 
spoken by Christ, have done, if no needs, lying in the very 
inmost heart of the faithful, had corresponded thereunto? 
N e,'cr .would it, without that, have forced itself into life. 
"r e have all in favour of this assertion. Christ came not 
forth in J udea proclaiming, ' I am the Son of the living God,' 
which proclamation would certainly not have had the least 
effect. He waited until, through living with Him, and the 
reception of His life into that of His disciples, h
gher views 
had been quickened in them, whose natural expression of 
itself then was on the first occasion, 'Thou art the Son of 
the li\'Ïn g God.'" 
Result from K ow this is a very ingenious and beautiful view, not 
his admis- d . . I f: f I . d I . b . . I 
sion lstortmg t le acts 0 llstory, an ex 11 Itmg t Ie true con- 
ception of the Church, but then it only holds good against 
those who deny the Primacy. And it cuts away the Ultra- 
montane ground altogether, that is, those principles upon 
which the Oriental and the English Church are found 
guilty summarily of Schism. For the precise reason of the 
separation of the East and "rest was the attem pt to change 
the Primacy into a J\Ionarchy: and the exel'cise of the un- 
limited J\Ional'chy, the interfering in every possible way 
"ith the rights of the Crown, the Bishop, and the J\Ietro- 
politan, was a main cause of the convulsion of the six- 
teenth century. 
But this is an anticipation. I return to the testimony ot 
St. Gregory the Great. 


St. Gregory AI\D, assuredly, if there was any Pontiff who, like St. Leo, 
the Great. 
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 S"E C T. 
as guarding and superintending the affairs of the whole _VlI._ 
Church from the watch-tower of St. Peter, the loftiest of 
all. Let one assertion of his prm-e this. ,V ritillg to Natalis, 
Bishop of Salona in Dalmatia, he &ays, H After the letters of s. Gr
my predecessor and my own, in the matter of Honoratus the 
f" lIb. 2. 
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 J"our 
Brotherhood has since returned to your duty, I take notice 
neither of the injury done to me, nor of that to my pre- 
decessor." The following words in another letter will eluci- 
date his meaning here. "As to what he says, that he (a Lib. 9. 59, 
B . h ) . b . I A 1 . I S I k . h Gieseler. 
ect to t Ie posto lCa ee, now not w at 
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." 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 Lib. 11. Si, 
I k I I . h . I . n . h d Gieseler. 
any c er s, you t ll'OW a s Ig t upon t lClr IS ops, an 
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 jurisdic- 
tion 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." Gieseler says, as we have seen 
above: "They (the Roman Bishops) maintained, that not Gieseler, 
only the right of the highest Ecclesiastical trihunal in the 

'Yest 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 pri, ileges granted to Peter by the Lord." And I 
43uppose if the Primacy of Chri::;tendom lIaS any real mean- 
ing, it must mean this, that in case of nccessity, :such as 
infraction of the Canons, an appeal may be made tu it. So 
undoubtedly St. Gregory under:stood his own }'ights. "That 
his ordinary jurisdiction was, Fleury thus tells us :-" The Liv.34. 60. 

31,(i ST. <JREGORY'S OlWl

C II A P. Popes ordained Clel'gy only for the Roman (local) Churcll, 
y . 
 but they gave BIshops to the greater part of the Churche.s of 
Liv. 85. 19. Italy." "St. Gre6'ory entered into this detail only for the 
Ch urches which specially depended on the Holy See, and for 
that reason were named suburbican: that is, dIOse of the 
southern part of Italy, where he was sole ArchhisllOp, those 
of Sicily, and the other islands, though they had J\Ictropo- 
litans. But it will not be found that he exercised the same 
immediate power in the Provinces de;)ending on :M:ilan and 
Aquileia, nor in Spain and the Gauls. It is true that in 
the Gauls he had his vicar, who was the Bishop of ArIes, as 
was likewise the Bishop of Thessalonica for '\Vestern Illy- 
ricum. 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 Com- 
munion 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 extra- 
ordinary 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." 
The See of A letter which I shall first quote win throw light on the 
ria observation both of Gieseler and Fleurv above cited. It 
and Anti- . . b I R S .. h . h . . 
och one coutams a VIew a out t Ie ,oman ee W IC assIgns to It 
W!t l 
 that indeed a very high authority, but is quite incompatible with 

that tlleory upon which the Popes sought to govern the 
Church in the middle ages. It is addressed to Eulogius 
s. Greg. Bishop of Alexandria, and runs thus: " Your Holiness, 
E11., lib. 7. I . t bl t I . d I . 
W 10 IS mos agree a e 0 me, las 8al muc 1 to me In your 
letters concerning the Chair of St. Peter chief of the Apo- 
stles, declaring that he continues to sit in it himself in the 
person of his successors. Indeed I confess myself for my 
own part to be un worthy, not merely in the rank of those 
who rule, but in the number of those who stand. But I 
have willingly recei,'ed all that was said, bccause }te wllo 
spoke to rile cfJllcrrniJ.'.'I Peter's Chair was the person 'wllo 

HIS n E\\' AG.A.l
4, 7 

occupied it. And though I no way take pleasure in honour SEe T. 
peculiar to myself, yet I am greatly delighted t!tat your Holi- VII. 
nesses give to yourselves, what you bestow on me. For who 
is ignorant that the holy Church is established on the firm- 
ness of the Chief of the Apostles, who in his name expressed 
the firmness of his mind, being called Peter from the Rock. 
,\Yho was told by the voice of the Truth, , To thee wil) I give 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' To whom again was 
said, 'And thou, when thou art con,'erted strengthen thy 
Brethren.' A nd again, ' Simon, Son of Jonas, lovest thou 
J\fe? feed l\Iy sheep.' And thus, though the Apostles be 
many, yet the See of the Chief of tlte Apostles, wllÏch belongs 
to one, though it is in three places, alone prevailed in au- 
tlwrity, by vi'riue of his elliefship. For it is he who exalted 
the See in which he also condescended to take his rest, anll 
finish the present life. It is he who adorned the See, to 
which he sent the Evangelist, his disciplc. It is he who 
established the See in which he sat for seven years, though 
he was to leave it. Inasmuch then as the See, over which 
by di,'ine authority three Bishops now p're.
ide, is one man's, 
and one; whatever good I hear of you, I lay to my own 
account. If you believe any good of me, lay this to the 
account of your own desert, because we are one in Him who 
saith, , That tlley all may he one, as rrhou, I
ather, art in J\Ie, 
and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us.'" 
N ow certainly it is much to be remarked that at the This \Tie", 
.' I S I . I d f: JIlcompat- 
CouncIl of NICea these t lree ees, w llC 1 stoo out rom ible with a 
the I'est and plainl
T held all together, one in the '\Vest, and 


two in the East, were all the Sees of Peter, all alleged Peter's 
authority as their proudest inheritance. But then the same 
system which set Itome fi'rst, also set in the same sense 
Alexandria second, and Antioch third. K 0 words can do 
so more plainly than those St. Gregory hcre uses, and in so 
doing he cxcludcs beforehand a system which did not shew 
itself till two hundred years after his departure, which, like 
his own, did indeed set Rome first, but on an emiucnce ap- 
proached by none. Taking his words, I find it impossible 
honestly to rcconcile thcm with such a sJstcm: looking at 
the mattcr historically, I find that in fact this system had .. 
not yet appearcd. 'rhe power which he himself claimed o\"cr 


C HAP. t lie four Patriarchs, as well as over every Bishop of the 
. v. . . Church was that of vindicating the Canons of the Church 
1\13111 pnn- , .. 
lege of the when thev were broken. To these Indeed every BIshop, of 
Primac\" is ., I S . I I I . fl . I 
to maiñtain however humb e a ee, nng It appea, lOwever III uenba 
the Canon. the aggressor might be: to these the highest Bishops did 
appeal, as St.. Athanasius, and St. ChrJ'sostome: but then 
it was the special privilege of the Bishop of Rome, in virtue 
of his Primacy, to insist on their fulfilment. In prosecution 
of this duty he could, it is true, require explanation from the 
Eastern Patriarchs, and in disputed questions his voice would 
rightly be most potential: but thus, and thus only, could he 
control the East: and this is simply to admit that he was 
the First Bishop, and not the S.econd or the Third. It was 
as defenders of the supreme law of the Church, the Canon, 
that the Bishops of Rome up to the time of St. Gregory 
won themsehes the respect and admiration of Christendom. 
'Yhile tl1C East was torn to IJieces, and the South over- 
"helmed, and those who sat at Constantinople and Antioch 
too often dishonoured their h
gh dignity by their unsound 
Faith, the Bishops of Rome ßhewed all unrivalled line of 
:Martyrs, Confessors, and Doctors, the Champions of the 
Church's Faith, the Guardians of her laws. 
But to admit and maintain this, (for, whatever othcrs may 
do, I can nevcr conceal from nJ
Tself the importance of the 
Primacy,) is not enough, unhappily, to obtain the Com- 
munion of Rome now. Let us then go on to see more of 
St. Gregory's teaching, and observe how he interprets those 
three passages of Scripture, on which the peculiar and ex- 
clusive Papal claim is now based. 
Commenting on the passage of Job xxxix. 28, 'Slle dwell- 
Tom. 1. eth in the rocks,' he says, "In the sacred writings when 
IU40. v. 
His inter- the word Rock occurs in the singular number, who else 
P tJ r<>ta t " tion of but Christ is understood? as Paul bears witness who 
Ie \\'0 
chief pas- saith,' But the Rock was Christ.'" Accordingly he npplics 
sages of.. . 01 
f'cripture. tIns to )Iatt. XYl. IG. H Hence the 
ledIator of God and 

.l: men Himself says to the Chicf of the Apostles, 'Thou art 
Peter, aud upon this Rock I will build l\Iy Church.' Him- 
self is the Rock, from which Peter received his name, and 
upon which lle said that lle would build His Church." 
Then, according to that old view of Chrysostome and Au- 



gustine and the ancient Church generallv, it is the Church S E C T. 
"hich in Peter received the keys. Thus: ((, 'Vhom say ye 
I I ? ' T I . d " I 10m, 1. 
t lat am . 0 w 10m 1m me mte y Pl:teJ" answeorin!J with iH).j" TI, D. 
the voice of tlte whole Church saith, 'Thou art Christ, the Son 
of the living God.'" And further on, " 'fhc Church seeking 
her Redeemer would not let her hope rest on the ancient 
preachers by themsehes, for she says, 'It was but a little 
that I passed from them, but I found Him whom my soul 
loveth.' That is, Him She could not have found, had She 
refused to pass by them. \Vith those watchmen the unbe- 
lieving stopped, who believed that Christ the Son of God 
was some one of them. Therefore tlte Holy Church by the 
voice and faith of Peter passed by the ,vatchmen \V hom She 
found, for She despised taking the Lord of the prophets for 
one of the Prophets." This he expresses in another place, 
H 'He hath raised up a horn of salvation for us in the Tom. B. 
house of His seryant David.' 'Vhat is the horn of sahation 38ï. E. 
but the height of Ecclesiastical power? For what is nowhere The whole 
" d I f Id " " 1 I . I CI I Churcll re- 
Sal to t lOse 0 0 IS now smr to tIe ull1versa Iurc I, ceived the 
'\Vhatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bouud in i


heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be . 
loosed in hem-en.'" The same occurs again in a passage 
where he introduces the Rock with a remarkable applica- 
H For it is She alone, (the Church,)' through whom the Tom. 1. 
Lord willingly accepts sacrifice; She alone, who intercedeth 1148. E. 
with confidcnce for the erring. "Thence too it was that 
the Lord commanded concerning the sacrifice of the lamb, 
, In one house shall it be eaten: thou shalt not carry forth 
ought of the flesh abroad out of the house.' For in one 
house the Lamb is eaten, because in one Catholic Church 
the true Host of the Redeemer is immolated. Concerning 
whose flesh the divine law forbids that it be carried out, 
because it forbids the holy thing being given to dogs. For 
it is She alone in whom the good work is done to good 
effect, whence too they only who had laboured within the 
vineyard received the reward of a penny. It is She alone 
who guards those within her bosom by the strong embrace 
of charity. "
hence also the water of the deluge raised the 
ark aloft, but destroyed all whom it found without the ark. 



C HAP. It is She alone in whom we contemplate heavenly mysteries 
v under a true aspect. 'Yherefore also the Lord saith to 
l\Ioses, 'There is a place by :àle, and thou shalt stand upon 
a rock.' And presently, 'I will take away J\Ty hand and 
thou shalt see l\Iy back parts. ' For because truth is beheld 
out of the Catholic Church alone, the Lord saith, 'There is 
a place by 
Ie' from which He may be seen. .l\loses is put 
in the rock to contemplate the beauty of God: because if 
a man hold not the firmness of faith he doth not recognise 
the divine presence. Concerning which firmness the Lord 
saith, 'Upon this Rock I will build 
iy Church.'" 
Again, in the passage John xxi. St. Peter is viewed as re- 
Tom. 1. presenting the Church. "'\Vhen fish so great had been 
;:;::; i
. taken,' Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land.' I 
John xxi.. believe that your Charitv already perceives what it means 
the type of '" 
the .åpn-. that Peter draws the net to land. It is that the holy Church 
8toilC 1I1111- . . d h . I . . II . . 1 S . 
istry. IS commItte to un; to urn especIa y IS saH,' ullon, son 
of Jonas, ]ovest thou l\Ie? feed l\ly sheep.' "-hat therefore 
is afterwards disclosed in words, is now set forth in deed. 
Therefore because the Pl'eachcr of the Church separates 
us from the wa\'es of this world, it is necessary that Peter 
should draw to land the net full of fi:shes. For it is he who 
draws the fishes to the security of the shore, because by the 
voice of holy preaching he shews to the faithful the stabil- 
ity of their eternal country. This he did by words, this by 
letters, this Ite dotlt daily by the signs of miracles. So often 
as through him we are converted to the love of the eternal 
rest, so often as we are separated from the tumult of earthly 
things, what else is it but that, being put a::-. fish within the 
net of faith, we are drawn to the shore." That he meant to 
take Peter here as the great typP of the Apostolic ministry 
is shewn I think by another place: 
"It is because the Teacher of the holy Church' ought to have 
these three ornaments of distinguished beauty, tltat Peter is 
takenfor all, and is askcd a third time whether he loves the 
Tom. 1. Redeemer." Again, on the words, 'They l'an both together, 
Iã3ù. D. and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to 
the sepulchre, but ventured not to enter in. But Peter 
came afterwards and entered in.' "Brethren, what does this 
running' signify? Is so minute a description of the E,.an- 

Tom 3. 
38:3. D. 

Jl UISnr("rrO


gelist to be believed to be without hidden meanings? Cer- SEe T. 
tainly not. For John would not say that he had gone first, 
d h d d . f h I d b ] . d I I :M)"sterus. 
an a not entere ,Ie la e lCve t lat t lCre was no 
hidden mcaning ill that trepidation of his. 'Yhat then is 
signified by Jolin but the Synagogue? 'Yhat by Peter but 
the Church." 
Other passages mark that Ecclesiastical power and jurisdic- 
. I I d . I I II . I d } I' bon of the 
bon are 0( ge In tIe twe ve co ectIve y, an t lerelOre, un- Church ill 
less the contrary be said, in the successors of the twelve col- 

lecti vel y . On Job xxxviii. 10 11, 
 I brake U P for it m y de- their suc. 
, cessors. 
creed place, and set a bar (Yulg.) and doors, and said, 
Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further, and here shall thy 
proud waves be stayed,' he observes, 
" 'Vhat is signified by doors, but holy preachers: what b,T Tom. 1. 
the bar, but the incar;mte Lord? . . . :For because thos.e 911. D. 
doors of the holy Church were strengthened by this bar set 
behind them, they might indeed be beaten by the waves, 
but could not be broken through. . . X ot without reason are 
they called doors, because they both give way to the faithful, 
and again bar the passage to the faithless. Consider what 
a door of the Church was Peter, who recei,.ed Cornelius 
searching after the Faith, who repelled Simon offering a price 
for miracles. Saying to the former, 
 Of a truth I perceive 
that God is no respecter of persons,' he graciously opened the 
secrets of the kingdom: saying to the latter, 
 T]lY money 
perish with thee,' he bars the passage of the heavenly court 
by a sentence of scvere condemnation. "
hat are all the 
Apostles, but doors of the holy Church, when they liear by 
the voice of their Redeemer, 
 Recei,.e the Holy Ghost: whose 
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose ye 
retain, they are retained.' As if they were told openly, 
rrhrough you they shall enter in to :ßle, to whom you open 
yourselves; and they be repelled, to whom you bar the way." 
Again, on the words, 
The heavens are the works of His hands.' 
" For the Doctors of the Church are called heavens, because ,!o.m. 
the Lord presides in their persons, while through them He ,,32. 1:.. 
pronounces His judgments. For to whom lIe gave the l\..eys 
of the kingdom of heaven, to them He gave the power of 
binding and loosing. Through them therefore He j uùges, 
because He binds whatever has been boulHl by thpm. Now 

3::>2 :St JD.1ARY 0.'" ST. UREGORY':-; 'l'EACllIXG. 

C HAP. we know that sitting marks the judge: and the Lord I-Iim- 
_ v._ self says by the Prophet, 'Hea'"en is J\Iy seat.' If there- 
Isaiah 66. fore hem'en is the seat of God, and the Lord judges in the 
persons of the Rulers of the Church, as sitting is the mark 
of a judge, it necessarily follows that the Rulers of the 
Church are called heavens." 
St. Gr e -. Assuredly in these two passages St. Gregory views all 

:jurisdiction and power in the Church as vested in the Apo- 
ing d "in ac- stIes and their successors, not in the successors of the chief 
cor ance 
witll t
e of the Apostles exclusi,'ely. In other words, his teaching is 
followmg I A . d S CI S B . 1 .1 
I>&rticu]ar t lat of St. ugustme an t. uysostome, t. aSI, anu 
te:;timonies. St. Cyril, of the whole six centuries which he closes, and 
not that of the later Roman Church. vYith him, moreover, 
Christ is the Rock, and the promises made to Peter, are 
made to the Church in his person. He does not venture to 
restrict these passages to the Roman Pontiffs: it ne,'er 
comes into his mind to build an Ecclesiastical :ì\1onarchy 
upon them. He makes no attempt to push the power of 
St. Peter himself beyond the text of Scripture: with him 
St. Peter is indeed the chief of the Apostles, the elder Bro- 
ther, the mouth-piece of the band, the type of unity, and of 
the Church, but they too are his hretlll.en, they derive no 
authority from him, they are Ecumenical Doctors, in the 
words of St. Cyril, as weB as he. He is not in the place of 
Christ to them, but Christ is in the midst of the tweh'e, 
ibly reigning through them, as lIe is in the Bishops of the 
Church universal. St. Gregory does not blink the reproof 
Tom. 1. of St. Peter by St. Paul. "IIe yielded himself to consent to 
1368. B. I . 
lIS younger Brothel", and in that same matter became the 
follower of his junior, that in this too he might have the 
pre-eminence: that he who was first in the rank of the Apo- 
stolate might be first also in humility." . . " 'Vhich of us, I 
pray you, had he done e,.en the least miracle, were he cen- 
sured by his youngt:r Brother, 'would listen with patience to 
the wOl'ds of censure." 
In fine, St. Gregory, like those who went before him, con- 
sidered the promises made in J\Iatt. x,'i. 16, and xviii. 18, 
and in John xx. 21-3, as made to the "hole Church in the 
person of her rulers. And I suppose that if the Canon of 
St. Yincent as to the testimony of the Church of the first six 



centuries may be rigorously carried out in anyone point, it SECT. 
is in this, that the supreme power of the Church, which 
includes Jurisdiction and l\:Iission as well as Orders, was held 
to be vested in the Apostles, and the Bishops their succes- 
sors. As the Council of Trent has at least set forth exactly 
the same rule for the interpretation of Scripture as St. 
Yincent, I can only account for the late attacl{ upon 
his Canon by the strong consciousness which is felt, that 
it tells with overwhelming power against an Ecclesiastical 
I have thought it important to shew that the general 
teaching of St. Gregory on the points in discussion was in 
harmony with certain more special testimonies to which a 
particular incident gave rise. It might be argued, though 
I think unfairly, that, whatever the p'rirnafacie appearance of 
these testimonies might be, St. Gregory could not have held 
such principles as they seem to convey, because those prin- 
ciples would be in opposition to his own general conduct 
and teaching. But this discrepancy between his general 
conduct and teaching and the following particular testimo- 
nies does not really exist. He neither acted as, nor claimed 
to be, in quality of St. Peter's successor, Supreme Ruler of 
the Church, but only her first Bishop. Anel now for this Contest 
d " " . If 1 . h . h ". Ù d about the 
ISCUSSlOn Itse , w llC arose III IS tune, an serve to title Ecu- 
draw forth statements on his part most remarkably bearing menical. 
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 ac- 
cordingly 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 l\:Ietro- 
politans; 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 U ni- 
versal Bishop, as his predecessors are repeatedly styled Ecu- 
menical in the laws of Justinian. 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, 

;3 jet 


C HAP. the Nuncio, not to attend the mass with John. But he left 
v. the contest about the name Ecumenical, or Universal, Bishop 
or Patriarch, to his successor Gregory. V\r e have many 
letters of Gregory on the subject, of which I will give ex- 
tracts. 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 suc- 
cessors, had ever allowed in the \Vest 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 an(l the imperial power, 
seemed to point directly to such a consummation. He was 
the natural president of a Council continually sitting at Con- 
stantinople, which might be said to lead an(l give the ini- 
tiative to the whole East. Accordingly St. Gregory appears 
in this matter the great defen(ler of the Patriarchal equili- 
Ep. s. brium." Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, al1(l 

t lib. Anastasius, Bishop of Antioch." . . . "As your venerable 
Per. Holiness is aware, this name U nivel'sal was offere(l during 
the holy Synod of Chalcedon to the Pontiff of the Apo- 
The term stolic See, a post which by Gocl's providence I fill. But 
an mJury no one of my predecessors ever consented to use so profane 


s. a term, because plainly, if a single Patriarch is called Uni- 
versal, tlte name of Patriarch is taken from the rest. But far, 
far be this from the mind of a Christian, that anyone should 
wish to claim to himself that by which the honour of his 
brethren may seem to be in any (legree diminished. Since, 
therefore, we are unwilling to receive this honour when 
offered to us, consider how shameful it is that anyone has 
wishe(l violently to usurp it to himself. 'Vherefore let your 
Holiness in your letters never call anyone Universal, lest in 
offering undue honuur 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 J 'He is king over 




all the children of pride,' what I cannot utter without great SEe T. 
grief, OUI' Brother and fellow-Bishop John, despising the 
Apostolic precepts, the rules of the Fathers, endeavoUl's 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 
menzbers 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. }
or if this is allowed to be said freely, 
the honour of all the Patriarchs is denied. And when, per- 
chance, he who is termed Universal perishes in error, pre- 
sently no Bishop is found to have remained in the state of 
truth. "Therefore it is your duty firmly, and without pre- 
judice, 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 wit/l 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 shew, 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 Lib. 9. 68. 
the end of this world is approaching, the enemy of the human T U h
 term l 
race hath appeared in anticipation, to have for his precursors, an inj
. . . h I and dlsrllp- 
through thIs name of prIde, those very PrIests w 0 oug It by tion of the 
a g ood and humble life to resist him; I therefore exhort and C W h hoJe h 
lIrc ; 
advise that no one of you ever give countenance to this name, destroy
the position 
ever agree to it, ever write it, ever receive a writing wherein o
.. . d dd h . b .. 1 . t b I Bishops, 
It IS con tame , or a IS su SCrIptIOll; )ut, as 1 e loves and the 
ministers of Almighty God, keep himself clean from such- Faith. 
like poisonous infection, and give no place within him to the 
crafty lier-in-wait; since this is done to the injury and dis- 
ruption of the whole Cltu'ì'ch, and, as we have said, in contempt 
of all of you. For if, as lle thinks, one is universal, it remains 
that you are not Bishops." To Sabillianus, then his Deacon, 



..\X X

C HAP. afterwards his successor-" For to consent to this nefarious 
 name, is nothing else but to lose our faith." "Gregorv to 
Lib. 5. HJ. . 0 " C . h . I 
Lib. 7.33. the Emperor J\faurlclus ....." .I011cermng w IC 1 matter, 
Term Uni- my Lord's affection has enjoined me in his commands, saying 
versal an 
anticipa- that scandal ought not to grow between us, for the term of 

- a frivolous name. But I beg your Imperial Piety to con- 
sider, that some frivolities are very harmless, some highly 
injurious. "Then Antichrist at his coming calls himself 
God, will it not be very frivolous, but yet cause great de- 
struction? If we look at the amount of what is said, it 
Denm. is but two syllables, if at the weight of iniquity, it is 
universal destruction. But I confidently affirm, tltat whoever 
calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, in his 
pl'ide goes befm'e 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 desi1'es to be called 
sole Priest, he lifts up lIimself above all other Priests. But 
since the Truth says, 'everyone who exalteth himself shall 
be ahased,' I know that the more any pride inflates itself, 
the sooner it bursts." 
!,ib. 5. Ep. "Gregory to the Emperor J\fauricius." . . . . "But since 

ter re- it is not my cause, but God's, an(l since not I only, but the 
ce 1 ind th f e whole Church, is thrown into confusion, since sacred laws, 
(' large 0 
the" hole since venerable Synods, since the very commands even of our 
Church but L . . f h . 
not the ord Jesus Christ are disturbed by the InyentIOn 0 t IS 
name "Cui- I I d I I I . E 
versal. Iaug Ity an pompous anguage, et t Ie most P10US mperor 
lance the wound, &c. . . . . For to all who know the Gospel 
it is manifest, that the charge of the whole Chw'ch was ent1 0 usted 
by tile voice of the Lord to tlte holy Apostle Peter, chief of all 
the Apostles. For to him is said, 'Peter, Im.est thou J\Ie? 
Iy sheep.' To him is said, , Behold, Satan hath desired 
to sift you,' &c. To him is said, 'Thou ad Peter,' &c. Lo, 
he !wtlt received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power 
of binding and loosing is given to ltim:J the care of the whole 
Church is committed to him, and the P1'imacy, and yet he is 
not called Universal Apostle. And that holy man, my fellow- 
Priest, JolIn, endeavours to be called Universal Bishop. . . . . 
Do I, in this matter, most pious Lord, defend my own cause? 
is it a pri\"ate injury that I pursue? the cause of Almighty 



God, the cause of the Universal Church. 'Vho is he, who, SEe T. 
in violation of the statutes of the Gospel, in violation of VII" 
the decrees of Canons, presumes to usurp a new name to 
himself? TFoutd that lie who desires to he called Ullivel.sal 
may exist himself Wit/lOut diminution to ot/ters! . . . . If, If such an 
th I . h . If h " I CI l one falls, 
en, anyone c mms to Imse t at name In t mt mrc 1, the whole 
as in tIle judgment of all good men he has done, tlJe whole 

Church (which God forbid!) falls from its place, when he him. 
who is called Universal fans. But far from Christian hearts 
be that blasphemous name, in lV/licit the honour of all Priests 
is taken away, while it is madly arrogated hy one to himse(f! 
Certainly, to do honour to the hlessed Peter, chief of the 
Apostles, this was offered to the Roman Pontiff during the Per. 
venerable Synod of Chalcedon. But no one of them ever 
consented to use this singular appellation, that all PrieSts 
'lnight not he deprived of their due honour hy something 
peculiar heinlJ 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 ?" 
Bellarmine, as Launoy has observed, striving to prove the 
inerrancy of the Pope, says, "Thirdly it is proved from that De Ron
passage in the last of John, 'Feed l\Iy sheep.' For I have iO


shewn above lib. i. ch. 1<j. 15 16 that in these word:s the Arg-mnent 
, , , , of l3ellar- 
Pontiff is appointed Pastor and Doctor of the whole Chur
h. mine COr.'-l- 
I-I h h J' 11 . . d " 1 Th P O ff pared wIth 
ence t en t e 10 owmg argument IS enve( . e out! that of St. 
is the Doctor and Pastor of the whole Church: therefore Gregory. 
the whole Church is bound to hear and follow him: the'ì'e- 
fore if he erl'S, the whole Church will err." So that Bellar- 
mine uses in favour of the Pope's inerrancy the self-same 
argument, which appeared to Pope St. Gregory so inex- 

" bl 1 1 . J h h . I . h " . I " d "lme 8, and 
presSl Y s lOC i:1ng, t mt t e t mg w llC It Imp Ie was lll- p. 3:)8. 
r 16 
vented by the first apostate. l\ioreover this tends powerfully me . 
to shew, that the system which St. Gregory so strenuously 
repudiated, and Bellarmille so strenuously upholds, are one 
and the same. Another proof I find in the fact that Du- 
randus, Bishop of :Mende, in the treatise, which by order 
of Clement the Fifth he composed at t.he Council of Yiellne, Quotell by 
A.D. 1307, lays down, that "the Lord Pope should Hot be Tent. 1!he- 
called Univel':ml Pontiff of the Churc1\, since GregOl'Y forbids 


." p. G3. 



John bad been succeeded by Cyriacus at Constantinople: 
and he writes further, "Gregory to Anastasius, Bishop of 


 Antioch. . . . . I thought it not worth while on account of 
versal a a profane appellation to delay receiving the synodical letter 
profane ... 
!lPpellation of our Brother and fellow-Pnest Cynacus, that I mIght not 
Ill\Tented bv d . b . f h h h I I h 
the first W lstur the umty 0 t e holy C urch: nevert e ess, ave 
Apostate. made a point of admonishing him respecting that same su- 
perstitious and haughty appeUation, 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 110 importance; because, if 
we bear this patiently, we corrupt the Faith of the whole 
Church. For you know how many, not only heretics, but 
eyen heresiarchs, have come forth from the Church of Con- 
ståntinople. And, not to speak of the injury done to your 
honour, if one Bishop be called Universal, the whole Chur
tumbles to pieces, if that one, being universal, falls k. But far 
be such folly, far be such trifling, from my ears. But I trust 
in the Almighty Lord, that what lIe h
th promised, He will 
quickly perform: everyone that exalteth himself shall be 
abased." In another most interesting letter he commu- 
Ub. 8. 30. nicates to the Bishop of Alexandria, that" while the nation 
of the English, placed in a corner of the world, was remain- 


k. I cannot but consider St. Gre- 
gory'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 execu- 
tive 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 
M aistre: "Christianity rests entirely 
upon tIlt' Sovereign Pontif["-" 'Yith. 
ont the Sovereign Pontiff the whole 
edifice of Christianity is undermined, 
and only waits, for a complete falling 
in, the development of certain circum- 
stances which shall be put in their full 
light."-" 'Vhat remains incontestable 
is, that ifthe Bishops, ass{.mbled with- 
out the Pope, may 
aII them
ehes the 
Church, and clalln any other power but 
!hat of certifJ'ing the person of the Pope 
III those infinitely rare moments when 
it might be doubtful, unity exists no 

longer, and the visible Church dis- 
appears."-" The Sovereign Poutiff is 
the necessary, only, and exclusive 
foundation of Christianity. To him 
belong the promises, with him disap- 
pears unity, that is, the Church."-- 
"The supremacy of the Pope bemg 
the capital dogma withoutwhich Chris- 
tianity cannot subsist, all the Churches, 
which reject this dogma, the import- 
ance of which they conceal from them- 
selves, are agreed even without know- 
ing it: an the rest is but accessory, 
and ttlf::nce comes their affinity, of 
which they know not the can
e. "-Du 
Pape, Discours }}réliminaire; Liv. i. 
ch. 13; Liv. 4. ch. 5. Could we IUlve 
any strong
r ",itness to the antagonism 
between the Papal and the Patriarchal or 
Episl'opal Sy!>teIll? Or can any words 
be spokEn more opposed in tone than 
the:-e to the writings of Fathers and de- 
crees of allcÏent Councils? Or are they 
who say 8uch t})iJlgs wise defenders of 
the Church or promoters of unity? 


ing up to this time in unbelief, worshipping stocks and SEe T. 
stones, by the help of your prayers I determined, that I VII. 
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 Ger- 
many, 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 shew forth. On this last feast of the Lord's 
Nativity mOl'e 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 Alexandl'Ía by your voice, and in the 
ends of the world by your prayers."-" Your Blessedness Pope Gr
h I k . }l I . I . gorvdeslres 
as a so ta "en pams to te me, t mt you no onger wnte to noÙo be 
certain persons those proud names, which have sprung from called 1p Uni- 
versa Opl'. 
the root of vanity, and you address me, saying, as you CO'ln- 
manded, 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, hut 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 eitlter to me or to anyone 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 Uni- 
versal Pope. "
hich I beg your Holiness, who are most 
agreeable to me, to do no more, ùecause whatever is given to 
anotlte'ì' nwre titan 'ì.eason requires is so much taken away from 
yourself. It is not in appellations, but in chal'acter, that I 
wish to advance. Nor do I consider that an honour by 
'wltich I acknowledge tltat my bretltren lose their own. For 
my honour is the honour of the Universal Church. l\Iy 
honour is the unimpaired vigour of my brethren. 'rhell am 
I truly honoured, when the due honour is not denied to 
each one in his degree. F01' if yow' Holiness calls me Uni- 


C HAP. versal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you admit 
me to he, Universal. But this God forbid. A way with words 
which inflate vanity, and wound charity. Indeed, during the 
holy Synod of Chalcedon, and by the Fathers subsequently, 
your Holiness knows this was offered to my predecessors. 
Yet none of them chose e,-er 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." 
nether As to what Gregory says about this title being offered at 
ciJ the Council of Chalcedon, for it is remarkable that he does 

halce- not say by it, but durin!} or in it, using per, and in, but not, 
Part 1. liv. a, Thomassin says, "It authorized at least by its silence the 
1. ch. 11. title of Ecumenical (Patriarch), which was giyen to Pope 
Leo in several requests there read." It appears these re- 
quests really were the complaints of two Alexandrian Deacons 
l\Iansi 6. against Dioscorus. How very different it was to pass over 
1006' d 10 b 12 . without rC I Jrobatill g a title bestowed in documents which 
quote y 
Gieseler. came before it, from itself conferring that title, is plain at 
once. In just the same way it had been given at the Latro- 
cinium to Dioscorus, which Thomassin will have to go for 
Tom.5.477. nothing, but Van Espen says, "It is probable that these 
accusers of Dioscorus wished to oppose the fore-namcd title 
to a similar title which had been giyen to Dioscorus in the 
pseudo-Council of Ephesus, tlw Acts of which had been 
already recited at Chalcedon in the first session, where 
Olympius Bishop of Evadum in his note for Eutyches had 
said, 'Our most holy Father and universal Archbishop Dios- 
corns of the great city of Alexandria.'" 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 unmista1..eable lan- 
guage 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 consti- 
tution of the Church. 
Perhaps, however, the most remarkable passage remains 
yet to be quoted. It is in a letter to the Patriarch JolIn 
Lib. 5. 18. himself. "Consider, I pra
T you, that by this rash presump- 


tion the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and the SEe T. 
grace, poured out upon all in common, contradicted. And in 
I . . d d If . 11 b bl ' . ChrIst the 
t 118, m ee , you yourse WI e a e to lllcrease Just so Head of the 
h . . d d b Church: 
m uc as you purpose 111 your own mm ; an ecome so the term 
much the greater, as you restrain yourself from usurping Un
an 111 v aSlOn 
a proud and foolish name. And you profit in the degree of His 
. rIghts and 
that )TOU do not study to arrogate to yourself by derogatmg a.n imita- 
from your brethl'en. Therefore, most dear Brother, with all t

il: the 
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 ex- 
ceeding horror at this rending of the Lord's Body, by which 
His members attached themselves, as it were, to other heads, 
saying, "Vas Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in 
the name of Paul?' If he then rejected the members of the 
Lord's Body bei
g subjected to certain heads, as it were, 
besides Christ, and that even to A postles themselves, as 
leaders of parts, what will you say to Christ, who is, as you 
knuw, the Head of tlte Unit'ersal Church, in the examination 
of tlte last judgment,-you, who endeavour to subject to yourself, 
under the name of Universal, all His members? 'Yho, I say, 
in this perverse name, is set forth for imitation but he, who 
despised the legions of angels joined as companions to him- 
self, 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. 'Vho 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 J\Iost High.' 
"For what are all your brcthren, the Bishops of the Uni- 
versal Church, but the stars of heaven? 'Vhose life and 
language together shine amid the sins and errors of men, 
as among the shades of night. And while you seek to set 
)'ourself over these by a proud term, and to tread under foot 
their name, in comparison with your own, what else do )10U 
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 }'ain down the words of their preaching, and 


C HAP. shine with the light of good works? And while your 
v. 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, seduce(l 
by the persuasion of those about him, hath proceeded to 
such pride,. that in longing after a perverse name, he en- 
deavours 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 giyen him j and so forfeited true blessedness, 
Peter. Paul, because he sought false glory. Surely Peter, tlte first of 


w, the Apostles, is a member of tlte holy Universal Church; Paul, 

rs Andrew, Joltn, what else are they but tlte heads of particular 
of h the h communities? and Y et all are members under one Head. And 
Cure un- 
der the One to comprehend all in one brief expression, the saints before 
Head. 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. 
Per. H Had not, as your Brotherhood knows, during the vener- 
able Council of Chalcedon, the Prelates of this Apostolical 
See, whose servant by God's disposition I am, the honour 
offered them of being called Universal? But yet no one 
eyer chose to be called by such a name j no one claimed to 
}1Ïmself this rash appcllation; lest, should he claim to 11Ïm- 
self the glory of singularity in tlte rank of the Higlt-P'riest- 
hood, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren." 
Is not the claim of giving jurisdiction to the whole Church 
precisely that glory of singularity here by anticipation con- 
demned ? . . . ""r e know that our Creator desccnded from 
the height of His exaltation, to bestow glory on the human 
race; and we, that are creatc(l out of the lowest things, 
glm'y in the lessening of our brcthren." . . . "'Yhat therefore, 
dearest Brothpr, will you say ill that terrible examination of 
the Judgment to come, 
TOU who coyet to be called in the 

 FATHER.' 363 

world not merely Father hut common Father? Beware then of SEe T. 
h b d . f h . 1 d . d ... VII. 
tea suggestIOn 0 t e WIe ie : avOl every InstIgatIOn 
. Condemna. 
to offence. t Offences Indeed must come, but woe to that tion of the 
man by whom the offence cometh.' Lo, by this abominable 


ion of pride the Church is cut in two: the hearts of there 
all the brethren are provoked to offence." . . . "Again it is 
written, , Giving honour one to another j' and you endeavour 
to take that honour from all, which you iHicitly desire to 
usurp for yourself singly." In these stril\.Ïng words one 
seems to have that fatal division of the East and 'Vest, the 
cause of all subsequent calamities, brought before the mind. 
St. Leo IX., writing to :Michael Cerularius four hundred 
and fifty years after the date of this letter, repeats the obser- 
vation that this name Universal was offered to St. Leo at 
the Council of Chalcedon, adding, tt And to whom after :Mansi 19. 
Jesus Christ could this name be more fitting than to the 640. C. 
successor of Peter? But the humility of those venerable 
Pontiff:s, worthy of imitation, considering that the Chief of 
the Apostles himself is not found called Universal Apostle, 
utterly rejected that proud name, hy which their equality of 
rank seemed to he taken away from all Prelates throughout the 
world, in t!tat a claim was made for one upon the whole." 
N ow had these passages occurred in the writings of some Inference 
. S . I }l d } b . from these 
anCIent amt, w 10 was genera y oppose to t Ie aut orItYexpres. 
of the Roman See, had they belonged to a Patriarch ofsions. 
Antioch, or Constantinople, jealous of his own rights, tlley 
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, tIlen, 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 
yigorous 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, tbe decrees of Councils, 
the innumerable testimonies of all parts of the world, tIle 


3ß-i THE WIT

C HAP. every-day life of tbe living, breathing Church for six hundrc(l 
v. _ years? In an early work, J\lr. Newman had said, tt vVhat 
},h. K ew- . h } d f .L" h I 
's there IS not t e s la ow 0 a reason lor saYIng t at t IC 
8 , ,,sertio h n Fathers held, what has not the faintest pretensions of being 
a )out t e 
l'ope being a Catholic truth, is this, that St. Peter, and his successors, 
ulllversal d . I B . h I I h h h I 
Bishop. and were an are unlVersa IS ops; t mt t ley ave t e woe 
Tetracta- f Ch . d .L' I . d . . . h . h 
tion. 0 rIsten om lor t leIr own lOcese, In a way In w IC 
other Apostles and Bishops had and have not." 
In his last work he has retracted, saying, "
lost true, if, 
in order that a doctrine be considered Catholic, it mnst be 
formally statert 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." 
Now these words of ]\11'. 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 have been all along implicitly 
holding, or unconsciously living upon, and at last recog- 
What nised and expressed. On the contrary, to my apprehension, 



er8 Uw)' hold another view about the See of Rome, and express 
say of it. it again and again. It is not a point on which there is 
variation or inconsistency among them. I have as clPar a 
conviction as one can well ha\Te that St. Augustine did not 
hold tIle Papal theory. I think the words that I have 
quoted from him prove this. l\ioreover, the Fathers gene- 
rally 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 considcred in these 
passages of St. Gregory, formally repudiated for himself as 
well as for others, and the very notion declarcd 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 suc- 
cession, out of the first six centuries, they would have an 
advantage against the Church, which, thank God, they are 
far from possessing. 

Office, p. 
221. De- 

G 01<' ST. GLa:nORY'S WORDS. 

And it is of no small importance, that we have here S E C T 
1 . P h I . h . VII. 
speaKIng a ope, one to w om twe ve centUrIes ave gIven , 
the name of Great, one who, with St. Leo, stands forth out 
of the ancient line of St. Peter's heirs as an es p eciall y le
is- Grc/.!: ds orY '8 
<..J WOl" on 
lative mind. Every Catholic is bound to take his words thi
without suspicion. Now St. Gregory asserts, as we have 
seen, the right of his See to call any Bishop to account, 
even the foul' Patriarchs, in case of a violation of the 
Canons j 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 be is not called 
Universal Apostle j" but this title, he asserts, and the theory 
implied in it, is devilish, an imitation of Satan, an antici- 
pation of Antichrist. \Vbat 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, anyone 
reading these words of his, and not knowing whence they 
came, would suppose they were 'written by a professed op- 
ponent of the present Papal claims. For in these letters Summary 
St. Gregory acknowledges all the Patriarchs as co-ordinate 

: let- 
with himself, acknowledges our Lord to be sole Head of the ters. 
Church, declares the title of Uuiversal Bishop blasphemous 
aud Antichristian, expressly on the ground that it is a wrong 
done to the Universal Churcll, to every Bishop and Priest: 
" If one is universal, it remains that you are not Bishops j" 
declares, moreover, that St. Peter himself is only a mcmber 
of the Universal Church, as St. Paul, St. John, St. Andrew, 
were other members, the heads of differcnt communities, 
and alleges the wish to be called common Fathcr as a crime. 
This may be said to be the precise logical contradictory of See al
D M .' . I h P ". cc h Ch I ". 1\1r. '1'holl11>- 
e 1 alstre s assertlon, t !at "t e ope IS t e urc 1, 111 son, as 
which he assuredly only expresses the Papal Idea. !tarely ibl



CHAP. indeed, is it that any controversy, appealing to ancient times, 
v. can have a testimony on all its details so distinct, and speci- 
fic, 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 per- 
son, 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. 
Defence of 'Vhat then is our defence on her part against the charge 
the Church f h . ? I . . I h . Th b . 
of England 0 sc Ism. t IS sImp y t IS. at no one c
m now e)]1 
hence th C . f R . I d .. I . h . 
arising. e ommUDlon 0 ome WIt lOUt a mIttmg t ns very t mg 
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. Augustine 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 go- 
vernment of their Church, and were no longer merely 1\lis- 
sionaries but Primates, regarded the occupant of St. Peter's 
See, I think both the separation three hundred J'ears ago, 
and the present continuance of it on our part, would, so 
far as this question of schism is concerned, be utterly in- 
defensible. 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 essentiaHy 

TRASTED. :307 

altered: had been, in fact, placed U p on another basis. That SEe T. 
from being first Bishop of the Church, and Patriarch, ori- 
ginally of the ten Provinces under the Yicar of the Præfec- 
tus Prætorio of Italy, then of France, Spain, Africa, and 
the 'Yest generaHy, he had claimed to be the source and 
channel of grace to all Bishops, the fountain-head of juris. 
diction to the whole world, East as well as 'Yest; in fact, 
the 'Solus Sacerdos,' the 'Universus Episcopus,' contem- 
plated by St. Gregory. There is a world-wide difference Ancient 
b t th . t . f h P ' E . and modern 
e ween e anCIen sIgnature 0 t e opes, plSCOpUS signature of 
Catholicæ Ecclesiæ Urbis Romæ,' and that of Pope Pius at the Popes. 
the Council of Trent, 'Ego Pius Catholicæ Ecclesiæ Epi- 
scopus.' It has been no longer left in the choice of any 
to accept his P'l"imacy, without accepting his .i.1Io'ìlm.clty, 
which those who profess to follow antiquity must believe 
that the Bishops of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and 
Chalcedon, Augustine and Chrysostome,; the 'Vest and the 
East, would have rejected with the horror shewn by St. 
Gregory at the first dawning of such an idea. And, whereas 
holy Scripture and antiquity present us with one accord- 
ant view of the Uniyersal Church governed by St. Peter 
and the 
\postolic College, and, during the times of the seven 
Ecumenical Councils 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 hier- 
archy, instituted by Christ Himself, the actual Roman 
Church is governed by one Bishop who has an Apostolical 
independent power, "hilst all the rest, who should be his 
brethren, are merely his delegates, receiving from his hand 
the investiture of such l)rivileges as they still retain. If St. 
Gregory did not mean this by tIle 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-ordi- 
nate Patriarchs of the East, as the Popes have since done 
over the Bishops of the whole wodd. 'Ye have no need to 


ors 1'0 ALL 

consider what is the amount of this difficulty to Roman 
Catholics themselves: the same Providence, w11Ïch 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 inde- 
fensible then, it is so now. But if then' severe but just,' 
the lapse of three centuries in our separate state may mate- 
rially affect our relative duties. I affirm my conviction, that 
it is better to endure almost any degree of usurpation, pro- 
vided only it be not Antichristian, 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 brok