BISHOP GORE
AND THE
CATHOLIC CLAIMS
BY
DOM JOHN CHAPMAN, o.s.b.
!
i
i I
BRARYST.MARi^cOLLfGE
"TT^^VKAft 7V(vcKAi.\ jat,wvxx^
f
■^M>
BISHOP GORE
AND THE
CATHOLIC CLAIMS
Nihil obstat.
Lambertus Nolle, O.S.B.
Censor Deputalus.
Imprimatur.
GuLiELMUs Praepositus Johnson,
Vicarius Generalis.
Westmonasterii,
die 22 Aprilis, Jgoj.
^^"^ BISHOP GORE
AND THE
CATHOLIC CLAIMS
112034
BY
DOM JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B.
^"^^^
LIBRARY ST. MARY'S COLLEGE
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO,
^^ ~39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY
1905
A /I rz'^/iis reserved
PREFACE
SOME seventy years ago certain minds in the Established
Church were earnestly intent on searching out a via media
in religion, i.e. a middle ground between what was known as
"Roman" doctrine and mere Protestantism. In this voyage of
discovery the pioneer was the illustrious Newman. To this he
for some years devoted his talents, his learning, and his best
energies in the hope of finding security for himself and others
in the bosom of the Church in which he had been brought up,
and which he still cherished as a mother. The result of it all
was that he found he had to give up the task as hopeless, and
he sought safety for his own soul by submitting to the Holy,
Roman, and Catholic Church. His secession might well have
proved the death-blow to all via media enterprise ; yet since
that day others have ventured upon it with hope that they might
succeed where he failed. Of these not the least distinguished
by his ability, learning, and religious earnestness is Dr. Gore,
who has recently been enthroned as bishop of the newly-founded
Anglican See of Birmingham. His book on Roman Catholic
Claims appears to be in great demand. It is mainly an attack
on the positions we hold. And there can be little doubt that
many of the unwary who read it will regard it as conclusive
against our claims, and not a few are being held back who would
otherwise feel disposed to follow Newman into the Catholic
Church. For the sake of these, and for the benefit of those
who come to us in an inquiring frame of mind, the "Reply"
of Dom Chapman, O.S.B., to the " Roman Catholic Claims " will be
found most useful. Within the space of 124 pages it supplies
6 PREFACE
an answer to the leading questions which are raised in that book.
I commend it, therefore, to the clergy and laity of my diocese as
a sufficient statement and vindication of Catholic doctrine on the
points it deals with. And I can assure the gifted and learned
author that we shall all appreciate the scholarly way in which
he has accomplished his task, and the kindly, courteous, and
temperate tone he has maintained throughout.
►P EDWARD,
Bishop of Birmingham.
OscoTT College,
May %th^ 1905.
TO THE RIGHT RE V, C. GORE, D.D.
My dear Lord Bishop,
Your appointment to the new Anglican see of Birmifigham has beefi
contemporaneous with the publication of a sixpenny edition of your book on
" the Rofnan Catholic Claims.^^ To many this popularisiftg of an attack
upon Catholicism at the moment of your assumption of a title which has
been borne for half a century by a Catholic Bishop must necessarily appear
to be a challenge} I am quite sure that you had no such intention, and
the tone of your sermon and speech on March 2nd, on the occasion of your
enthronement, would alone suffice to show that you have not entered upon
your new duties in a spirit of hostility to Catholics, or to anyone else, but
just in that spirit of friendlifiess to all, which those who know you would
have expected you to show.
^ Nevertheless your sixpe?iny book is a challenge, and it is unavoidable that
someone on the Catholic side should pick up the glove which you have throw fi
down, I am glad to be the one to do so, although I dislike controversy,
although I have fnuch work in hand that I do not enjoy thrusting aside,
although I have no confidence in my own competence for the work, because I
know I call approach the task as one who has both affection and respect for
yourself personally. I, at least, shall not assume that you have opened your
mouth for the first time among us at Birmingham with an offensive pro-
clamation of enmity, and others might reasonably have taken a different vieiv.
I am sorry if it should seem that I am welcoming you to Birmingham with
disagreeable remarks ; but I am writing a reply, not an attack. I am glad
to have the opportu7iity of saying how much good I know you zvill wish to
do, and hoiv much of it will fiecessarily have the sympathy of Catholics.
Because I fiecessarily complain of the ?iegative views expressed in your attack
on our religion, it is not to be supposed that I forget how much of the
' // is described 071 the cover as the work of the ^^ Bishop- Designate of Birmingham,^'
and ^^ ninth editioti''^ is not found otitside. The above was written before your letter,
denying that you had challenged anyone, appeared in the Birmingham papers of
March 20th.
8 TO THE RIGHT REV. C. GORE, D.D.
Christian Truth you hold, and how much you labour hi the Christia?i cause
against the conunon enemies — ignorance, indifference, unbelief, and sin. You
defend a great part of our position with weapons borrowed from, our armoury.
You have access to many whofn we cafinot reach. Our message is delivered
but to the few in this country, for we are few, and feiv 7vill listen to what
we say. It is well for our coufitry that so much of the truth is proclaimed
outside the Church. I am more inclined to rejoice iv here you happen to accept
a truth, than to be annoyed where you happen to deny one. I have avoided
with care the impulse to snatch here or there a controversial victory on some
minor point, and I have resisted the temptation to make my pamphlet lively
or amusing at the expense of politeness. * / have tried to imitate the tone
of moderation which you have employed everywhere but in your eleventh
chapter. I have tried to treat you, not as being a mere controversialist, but as
a seeker after truth. That you must be merely a seeker, and not an authori-
tative teacher, is obvious. Your own Church claims no infallibility, indeed
slie has (it is said) no definite views. You have not her authority for what
you say. What you think to be " Catholic Doctrine " is so in your opinion,
and in that of sometifnes but few others. I take it therefore that your
views are adva?iced without any absolute certainty on your oivn part, and
that they demand, at most, a respectful attention on the part of others. For
this reason you cannot refuse to consider the other side. You have not yet
considered it enough. I ca?t say this without impertinence or conceit. You
know one side of the question. I also knoiv it well. If I ivas young when
I left your commuftion, I had heard its ecclesiastical politics discussed around
?ne from my cradle. Most of my best friends have been, or are, clergymen of
your Church.
But there is another side, a?id you seem to know it very little. You show
constantly that you do not understand how Catholics comprehend their oivn
dogmas, and you naturally do not anticipate Catholic tendencies and feelings.
A little more knowledge would, I know, have removed a good deal of
prejudice. I do not reply to you as an authorised teacher, or as an official
champion, nor is the Catholic Church answerable for the way in which I
present her teachi?tg. I write rather as a frietid answering — unsolicited —
the difficulties which you have encountered— I am afraid I must say, the
difficulties you have sought out. If 7ny answers are unsatisfactory, there
are, in most cases, plenty of other answers to be given : I have given those
ivhich seemed to me the most satisfactory or the most obvious.
I must further add that I have necessarily been obliged to write in haste,
for it would not do to postpone the publication of this reply. Consequently I
rO THE RIGHT REV. C. GORE, D.D. 9
have written currente calamo, using notes of my own, old publications of
my own, ivith scarcely any reference to books beyond those needed for the
verification of (j notations. I am conscious that the result 7c>ould have been
different had I had time for special study and for slow composition. But
such as the work is, I think it will be a sufficient answer, in spite of any
inaccuracies I may have been unable under the circumstances to avoid. My
reason for so much confidence is that I am not only on the side of the
Catholic Church, but of the vast majority of theologians afid scholars. Of
dogmatic theology, in fact, there is extremely little outside the Catholic
Church. On the patristic questions with ivhich I have dealt, I have
nothing to fear, for patristic study has always been maitily in the hands of
Catholic scholars.
I wish to apologise beforehand for any misrepresentations of your vieivs
which I may have set doivn without malice. I have tried to interpret you in
the most Catholic sense your words seemed capable of beari?ig. I wish to
emphasize agreement, ?iot difference. JVe serve one Master. You serve Him
in your way, we serve Him in His way.
I am a 1 7(1 ays yours sincerely,
fr. John Chapman, O.S.B.
Erdington Abbey, Birmingham,
Lent, igo^.
-^\ V- Tv"^ re)
l-i
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
PAGE
THE VIA MEDIA AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS . . 13
CHAPTER II
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH . . . . . . 20
CHAPTER III
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH . . . . . 25
CHAPTER IV
THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH .....
CHAPTER V
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
CHAPTER VIII
THE NATURE OF SCHISM
40
45
CHAPTER VI
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH . . . . 60
CHAPTER VII
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY . 82
97
CHAPTER IX
ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS . . . . . . 102
CHAPTER X
ANGLICAN ORTHODOXY . . . . . . 106
CHAPTER XI
THREE RECENT PAPAL UTTERANCES . . . . .HO
CHAPTER XII
EPILOGUE . . . . . . . . 118
BISHOP GORE AND THE
CATHOLIC CLAIMS
CHAPTER I
THE VIA MEDIA AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS
(/ reply to Dr. Gore chapter by chapter)
OTHERS often see us more
clearly than we see ourselves.
Bishop Gore begins his book with
the complaint that the English
Churchman " is constantly liable to
be told — and to be told from very
opposite quarters — that if he were
only 'logical' he would join the
Roman Church." A warning that
comes from opposite quarters is
likely to be of importance. If it
were urged by Catholics alone —
that is to say by half the Christians
in the world — it is clear that the
members of the comparatively small
Anglican communion would be
bound to give it some attention.
But it is well known that the same
note is sounded by others. The
more Protestant sects assure the
English Churchman that he is on
the way to Rome. Less fiercely,
yet even more securely, the agnostic
declares that there is no logical
resting-place in Christianity short
of that bourne to which all roads
proverbially lead, and from which
admittedly few travellers return. It
is, indeed, a commonplace with all
those who are outside the Anglican
communion to condemn her posi-
tion as illogical.
It is certainly well-advised of
Bishop Gore to place in the fore-
front this remarkable objection, if
he feels himself able to prove it
mistaken. In this first chapter he
meets it indirectly, by denying that
the " Roman " position is logical,
for it is too logical. He quotes a
striking and well-known passage
from J. Mozley's reply to Newman
on Development, in which that
eloquent writer points out that the
early heretics were logical in their
own way : " The Arian, the Nes-
torian, the ApoUinarian, the Euty-
chian, the Monothelite develop-
ments, each began with a great
truth, and each professed to demand
one, and only one, treatment for it.
All successively had one watchword,
and that was ' Be logical.' " Now
their fault was obviously not in
their desire to be logical, but in the
incompleteness of their premisses.
They started with only half of the
truth, and they concluded to a
falsehood. Bishop Gore thinks he
can trace three instances of this
"one-sidedness" in the Roman
Church, not in questions of doctrine,
but beyond the sphere of theology
proper.
THE ''VIA MEDIA'' AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS
1. Protestantism is individualistic,
Romanism absolutist. The Angli-
can Church attempts to preserve
the balance between these two ex-
tremes, so Dr. Gore thinks. It
seems to me that the type of
''absolutism" should rather be Cal-
vinism ; for individualism we may
takeWesleyanism or Evangelicalism.
Does the High Church system com-
bine the two? It appears to fall
short of both. System and govern-
ment exist in theory, but in practice
vanish into thin air. This naturally
leaves the individual free to develop
fads, which, however, scarcely re-
present the individualism contem-
plated by Dr. Gore. In the Catholic
Church "absolutism," in the sense
of organised government, is as per-
fectly developed as anything can
well be in this imperfect world, and
far more perfectly, it seems, than
can be accounted for by natural
means. But what of individualism ?
The answer is ready. The Catholic
Church has a way of growing Saints
which is shared by no other com-
munion. They are not turned out
all alike as by a machine, but have
the most startling individualities,
so that the world has constantly
counted them as mad. In a well-
managed garden flowers are health-
ier, larger, brighter, than in the
fields, precisely because their idio-
syncrasies are protected, encouraged,
assisted to develop. And for this
reason "individualism" in the truest
sense flourishes far more luxuriantly
in the enclosed garden of the Catho-
lic Church than in the uncultivated
meadows and woods without. Per-
haps, if Dr. Gore thinks otherwise,
it is because he has not had a good
opportunity for judging.
2. " The case is just the same
with authority and private judg-
ment."
"The extremes are represented by
a do""matism which crushes instead of
quickening the reason of the indi-
vidual, making it purely passive and
acquiescent, and on the other hand by
an unrestrained development of the
individual judgment which becomes
eccentric and lawless just because it is
unrestrained. If there is much of this
latter extreme in modern life, there is
also in the Roman Church a great
deal of the former" (p. 5),
This is all very odd. The matter
with which " dogmatism " professes
to deal is nothing else than revealed
truth. The whole question with
regard to " dogmatism " is whether
the dogmas propounded are true or
not. If they are true, if they are
revealed by God, the more of them
the better, — they are no matter for
the individual judgment. If they
are morely human arguments, prob-
abilities, guesses, then their imposi-
tion by human authority would evi-
dently be an appalling evil. Now
the CathoHc Church professes to de-
fine the point at which certainty
with regard to revealed truth has
arrived, and to decide controversies
when the discussion is complete,
and the case is properly presented.
So far under anathema. Beyond
this there may be points closely
connected with defined dogma ; here
the theologian must tread with cau-
tion. Sometimes a critic who is not
a theologian shows himself rather
too free, and is pulled up by
authority. At once the whole anti-
Catholic world shrieks, "Tyranny!"
Such warnings are not delivered
with an infallible voice — let us grant
that it may be that in a few cases
a condemnation has been ill-judged,
and has tended to " crush " reason ;
such over-caution on the part of
ecclesiastical authority is invariably
a protection of the common opinion
of the community against the daring
of the individual. If it is unfortunate,
it is anyhow exceedingly rare. In
fact, any condemnation at all is
uncommon, precisely because the
THE ''VIA MEDIA'' AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS 15
territory is so completely mapped
out and the dangerous ground is
so narrow. Beyond this the theo-
logian is free.
The "via media" of Anglicanism
seems to be rather to obliterate
definitions, all but a few, and to
leave even these somewhat uncer-
tain. Shall she accept three creeds
or only two? four councils or six?
the Bible only, or also the authority
of the Church ? the teaching of the
first three centuries, or of the first
six or sixteen? In other words,
the rule of faith itself is left doubt-
ful, and the Church of England
does not claim the right to define
it. Consequently she assigns a
sphere to dogmatism in fundamen-
tals, without being able to set a
limit to that sphere, leaving to
private judgmenta large field wherein
it can neither speculate with free-
dom nor submit with reason to the
recognised voice of God. Hence
the contrast between Anglican and
Catholic theological writers. So
long as the decisions of the Church
are safe the Catholic is free to argue
as he will, provided he gives good
reasons for his views. Consequently
he writes boldly and with no anxiety.
The Anglican, on the other hand,
scarcely ventures to deduce or to
infer. He cannot submit where he
has no certainty, yet when he rebels
it is without confidence. He has
developed for his own use a charac-
teristic formula : " May it not be
that . . . ? " It is a formula which,
in the matter of the relation of my
soul with God, would, I confess,
afford me no consolation whatever.
3. "The doctrine of the sacra-
ments has without a doubt been
preached and accepted in such a
way as to lead to their being treated
as charms or substitutes for personal
spiritual effort ; and on the other
side the sufficiency of faith has been
proclaimed in a way that made men
ignore the necessity of the sacra-
ments." I do not profess to know
where, when, and by whom the
sacraments have been Jreated as
charms. In the Catholic Church
the greatest of the sacraments is
protected from becoming a "charm"
by the universal custom of prefa-
cing it by sacramental confession.
The latter, as Dr. Gore is well
aware, implies sorrow for sin and
the determination to do better.
The system of habitual confession
has arrived by degrees at its present
perfection, and forms the most won-
derful system for making men good,
— for inducing "personal spiritual
effort," — that the world has ever
known. Dr. Gore has, unfortu-
nately for him, not had the oppor-
tunity of experiencing how the
sagramental teaching of the Catholic
Church works in practice. But I
am glad to recognise that he brings
no accusation against the Church
in general, and I do not think he
means to find fault here. He
does not even venture, for obvious
reasons, to prefer the actual prac-
tice of the English Church. He
only claims that she has an ideal
synthesis of "the belief in the
validity of sacramental grace and
the necessity for the responsive
action of faith, which the provi-
dence of God has made it our
special responsibility to maintain."
Now this means nothing else than
that the bishop has a theory of his
own on this subject. It is well
known that he holds that confession
of mortal sins is not obligatory,
though highly beneficial. Some
mortal sins may be confessed and
others held back, and the penitent
is not bound to answer the ques-
tions of the confessor. This original
and, I suppose, unique system (in
which the confessor ceases to be a
judge of the dispositions of the
penitent, and will obviously be
i6
THE ''VIA MEDIA'' AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS
liable to give absolution for sins
confessed and apparently repented,
while the penitent has other unre-
pented sins which he does not
choose to mention) was fully de-
scribed by Dr. Gore in the Guardian
some years ago, but has certainly not
met with much acceptance m the
Anglican Church. It is consequently
not necessary to discuss it. But I can-
not help saying that an ex hypothesi
unnecessary absolution, demanded
from a confessor who has not the
whole case before him, might seem
to be really regarded somewhat as
a " charm " ; for the confessor can
never be sure of the suitability of
the advice he gives, nor can the
penitent have assurance of the
validity of the absolution he re-
ceives beyond his own conviction
of the sufficiency of his contrition.
However this may be, at all events it
is not the official or obligatory system
of the Bishop's own communion.
The three points with which we
have been dealing are excellent in-
stances of the vague statements in
which Dr. Gore is in the habit of
indulging. No proof is forthcoming,
and they are naturally refuted by
mere contradiction — quod gratis
affirmatur, gratis negatur. From
these three points he infers that,
"speaking broadly," the Roman
Church is not heretical, but a one-
sided development. Bishop Gore is
studiously moderate, but he has
been unable to make good even this
moderate complaint, by speaking
ever so broadly. He continues his
" broad " generalities on p. 7 :
" Broadly it is very easy to justify
this view of the Roman Church."
So it seems. Would it be equally
easy to justify it by a narrow inspec-
tion ? The question is not answered,
for we find next some very wide
statements, which are worth examin-
ing, for the very reason that they
have no dogmatic bearing.
{a) " Each race has had in the
Catholic Church its own particular
function. It was the function, for in-
stance, of the Greek race with its
peculiar intellectual subtlety and phil-
osophical power to bring out into
clear light the 'treasures of wisdom'
which lay hid in Christ, to grasp and
enunciate the principles of the Incar-
nation and the Trinity — in a word, to
be the theologians of the Church."
Of "the Greek race," strictly
speaking, this is wholly untrue.
Probably Dr. Gore means "the
Greek-speaking races," thus lumping
together the whole complexus of
diverse nationalities, whose polite
language was Greek. Yet even so,
of all the Fathers, none is so much
the type of intellectual subtlety as
the African Augustine ; none is
more severely practical and anti-
philosophical than Chrysostom, the
characteristic product of Antioch,
the capital of the East.
(/') " In theology proper the
Roman Church has been by com-
parison weak, but her strength lay
in the gift of government." If the
Church of the city of Rome is
alone meant, no individual town
except Alexandria can be preferred
to Rome in theology. If, however,
the whole West is meant, the state-
ment is still quite untrue. The
Greek-speaking Christians in the
early centuries were far the more
numerous, and yet the body of
Latin I athers are at least the equals
of the Greek Fathers in " theology
proper." '^The faculty of empire
passed from Pagan to Christian
Rome transformed in purpose and
motive, but fundamentally the
same." It is, on the contrary,
curious to notice that ecclesiastical
organisation was not only much
earher developed in the East than
in the West, but that it was more
complete, and more powerful. Of
the great bishops, it was not the
ItaHan, but the Egyptian Patriarch
THE ''VIA MEDIA'' AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS 17
who exercised the most effective
tyranny over his subordinates.
ic) "The primary conception of
her (Rome's) unity becomes that of
unity of government." This is un-
doubtedly a Hbel. History plainly
shows that her primary conception
of unity has always been unity of
faith, of which, however, unity of
government is a necessary condition
in practice.
(d) The Church's dogma is " to
the Easterns the guide in the know-
ledge of God, to the Westerns it is
the instrument to subdue and dis-
cipline the souls of men." Surely
it is impossible to rise to the know-
ledge of God, except by the sub-
duing and disciplining of the soul.
(e) " It is no longer enough to
conceive of the Church as the
Catholic witness to a faith once for
all delivered. She must be the
living voice of God, the oracle of
the Divine Will." Excepting the
expression " Divine Will," where
"Intellect" seems rather to be
intended, I can accept this as a
statement of Catholic doctrine.
But to what can Dr. Gore possibly
take exception in this view? He
admits that the Church is the
Catholic witness to a faith once
for all delivered, but he appears to
deny that she is the living voice of
God. A witness implies a voice ; so
it remains that he objects to the
word "living," or to the words "of
God." Does he mean that the
Church is the living voice of man,
and nothing more? Surely not.
Then he must mean that she is the
dead voice of God. In this case
she is a dead witness. Dr. Gore
explains : "Just as the strength and
security of witness lies in the com-
parison and consent of indepen-
dent testimonies . . . ." (thus,
according to Dr. Gore, the indivi-
dual has to compare a multitude
of testimonies of the dead witness,
and has no other guide,) " so the
strength of authoritative oracular
utterance lies in unimpeded, un-
qualified centrality, and Christen-
dom needs a central chair of truth,
where Divine authority speaks and
rules." But this is not the Catholic
theory. The Pope is not an in-
spired oracle. He simply gives
voice to the belief of the Church.
We believe that the Church is a
living witness. Dr. Gore thinks she
is an inanimate witness, w^hose tes-
timony needs to be collected by
historians. How this theory works
in practice, we shall see later.
On pp. 16 and 17 Dr. Gore formu-
lates his case on behalf of Angli-
canism. "We do not find on
examination that we fail to comply
with any of the conditions of Catho-
lic communion which the ancient
and undivided Church recognised."
So they find, but most other Chris-
tians think them mistaken in this
supposed discovery. Are they sure
that they are right ? And how very
hard to be thus driven to study
ancient history in order to deter-
mine whether one is within the
Church or not !
" We cannot in the face of history
treat the claims of the Papal See
as tenable or just." The reasons
for this will be considered in chap-
ters vi. and vii. "History forces us to
recognise in the Roman claims the
main cause of the schism of East
and West." History, that is, as
read through Anglican spectacles.
Historians usually recognise the
Eastern Emperors, and not the
Popes, to have been answerable for
the schism.
" On the other hand, we see in the
ancient and undivided Church a co-
herent system of beliefs and institu-
tions and practices, which has been
continuous under the development
of Rome and in the traditions of the
East, and which is richer and fuller in
i8 THE ''VIA MEDIA'' AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS
possibilities of life than either the one
or the other taken apart. To this
richer and completer life of the undi-
vided Church we make our appeal.
From it we would start afresh."
This modest proposal to make
a fresh start is hardly very compli-
mentary to the Anglican Church.
The "richer and fuller Hfe" re-
ferred to is somewhat vague; but
the Anglican can choose what cen-
turies he pleases in which to dig
for antiquities, and he will have a
large assortment of traditions at
hand for the new commencement.
Whether any unanimity in the final
result can be expected is another
matter. But for myself, I must beg
to disagree with the Bishop on the
fundamental question. I am not
prepared to grant that the ancient
Church was on the whole preferable
to the modern. There were giants
in those days : yet there is a fulness
and richness in the Church of the
twentieth century which was lacking
in the fourth or fifth. I do not
believe that the Church of God has
been continually deteriorating ever
since her foundation, but I believe
that she has a divine life which in-
creases in her without end. Take
only one point : the sanctification
of the individual Christian. How
moral and ascetical theology have
been perfected ! We possess a
science of direction, a wealth of
spiritual literature, a pliant but syste-
matic method, which are our inheri-
tance from a long, coherent, and
venerable past. The Catholic tra-
dition does not grow faint and pale
with the lapse of years, but as age
succeeds age, the tradition is but
clearer and fuller, richer and more
fruitful. But I cannot wonder that
Dr. Gore, from the standpoint of
Anglicanism, should cast a regretful
glance at those ancient days to
which he appeals. He has not
experienced the blessing of belong-
ing to the Church of to-day, else
he would read the past with different
eyes. He would love the ancient
Church life better than he does
now, because he would understand
it better : but he would also, I
think, perceive that the later we
live, the richer is our inheritance
from the past, and the more perfect
the development of the present.
But Bishop Gore finds consola-
tion in the progress which his
Church has made already. It is
tfue, and I also am most thankful
for it. Only I greatly fear that the
Broad-Church movement has made
at least as much progress, and in
an opposite sense. But I venture
to think that his note on p. i8 is
altogether mistaken. If in the
early years of the tractarian move-
ment the eyes of the party were
much turned towards Rome, Dr.
Gore thinks that this has long since
ceased to be the case. Of course the
first rush of converts after the con-
version of Newman was but a pass-
ing phenomenon, followed by a
thin, though ever-flowing stream.
But the truth is, that the general
movement of the whole English
Church has been unceasingly Rome-
wards, The Evangelical party is
no longer of any importance, while,
such as it still is, it has moved so
far with the times that the material
aspect of its churches and its
services is far more ' ritualistic '
than was that of the 'advanced'
churches as late as 1845. Mean-
while the leaders of the vanguard
and the skirmishers have gone for-
ward apace. When I became a
Catholic in 1890, reservation of the
sacrament was unheard of, except
in a few convent chapels. Incense
was uncommon. I remember being
quite startled to hear that these two
points had in five or six years come
to be regarded as necessary to the
fulness of Church life. Every year
THE ''VIA MEDIA'' AND THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS
19
the habits borrowed from Rome
or from the Catholic Middle Ages
become more ingrained. What
were once watchwords of the ad-
vanced line are ever becoming part
and parcel of the ordinary High
Church claims. The old High
Church positions are now held by
the moderates. It seemed a few
years ago that the high-water mark
had been reached, and that no fur-
ther forward movement was possible.
It had become common to hear of
black Masses, rosaries, devotions
to St. Joseph and to the Sacred
Heart, but one venture had still
been felt too bold. At length
Canon Everest wrote a book, The
Power of the Keys, to defend the
Primacy of St. Peter, and Mr.
Spencer Jones followed it up with
a defence of the Papal claims. It
is as yet but a number of extremists
who have fully accepted this new-
point. But it was in accordance
with the analogy of the past that
some should dare to push ahead,
and grasp this truth also; and it
is similarly in accordance with
analogy that, where a few have led
the forlorn hope, many should
follow through the breach. The
countenance given by Lord Halifax
to Mr. Spencer Jones, and the
energetic propaganda in the United
States carried on by the Lamp,
are gradually producing their effect.
Already the 'geographical' theory
is disappearing, according to which
Anglican chaplains on the Conti-
nent are schismatics, while the
Catholics in England are regarded
in the same light, though their
state of schism ceases if they
should cross the Channel. The
* Branch ' theory has become old-
fashioned, and an elaborate and
elusive, but in some ways far more
tenable, theory has taken its place.
According to this view the Church
of England is a province (or rather,
two or more provinces) of the
Catholic Church, which has no
doubt exceeded its powers in self-
government, and has become en-
slaved to the State. But it has
never become actually committed
to heresy, in spite of the heresies
which have been, and are, permitted
to its children, through the loss of
discipline. It is natural that these
provinces should have been excom-
municated by the rest of the Church.
Some regard this separation as a
misunderstanding, which will be
removed when the Church of Eng-
land can show herself in her true
light, after a thorough reformation.
Others add that, since the separation
took place, the rest of the Church
has exaggerated certain doctrines,
notably that of Papal infallibility.
Others more reasonably are prepared
to accept all that the Church teaches.
Others again, more reasonably still,
admit that the Church of England
deserved to be cut off, and that she
is therefore in formal schism. They
hold, however, that it would be
wrong for themselves to leave her,
(though they forbear to judge those
whose consciences bid them do so),
because they hope for a day of
reconciliation and of corporate re-
union. The old unreasoning horror
of Rome has to an extraordinary
extent passed away. In 1867 it
was quite natural for a distinguished
writer like Charles Kingsley to use
language about the Church, which
would now hardly be tolerated in
the Jiock or the English Church-
mtui. In 1888, when Dr. Gore's
book first came out, its chief claim
to attention was its great moderation
of attitude, for that date. Since
then the trend of things has been
ever Romewards, and Dr. Gore's
ninth edition is likely to be regarded
by many of his friends as quite a
savage attack !
T think, then, that the Church of
20
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
England as a whole, (apart from the
Broad party), is moving steadily and
corporately Romewards. The very
fewness, comparatively speaking, of
conversions has tended to ensure
this result, though, of course, I hold
that no one could have the right to
remain outside the true Church for
this reason. Some day, perhaps,
there will come a greater exodus,
and I suppose that the exodus will
be likely to be so much the larger
as it is further off. Of corporate
reunion there do not seem to be any
hopeful signs, for the mass of the
nation, while it grows less hostile
to Catholic ideas, at the same time
grows more indifferent with regard
to them and to religion in general.
These remarks on Dr. Gore's first
chapter must suffice. He has not
by his broad generalities succeeded
in showing the Catholic Church to
be a one-sided developement. We
have now to see whether he is able
to present an AngHcan theory which
can be regarded as logical.
CHAPTER II
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
'^T^HE divisibility of the Church
^ is the cardinal doctrine of
Anglicanism, and its most funda-
mental heresy. There are signs, as
I have just been saying, that it is
being relinquished by the most
advanced school, but then this
school professes to hold " Angli-
canism " in holy horror. Dr. Gore,
on the contrary, is the apologist of
what was, when he wrote, very high,
but now is moderate, Anglicanism ;
and he naturally puts forward this
essentially modern doctrine in the
place of honour in his work, im-
mediately after the programme
which occupies his first chapter.
He poses the objection to be
answered with admirable conscien-
tiousness : —
"It is a question often asked of
English Churchmen, 'In what sense
do you believe in one Holy Catholic
Church ? You do not claim that the
English Church is of itself and alone
the whole Church ; you admit the
Roman and Eastern branches to be
equally with your own parts of the
Church ; that is to say, you admit
permanent and apparently radical
divisions in the Church in matters of
doctrine no less than of government,
and yet you say the Church is one.
Surely you are here giving words an
unreal meaning. Surely the Roman-
ists can call the Church 'one' in a
much more intelligible sense. What
they mean by Church unity is plain
and tangible. Their Church is one.' "
The answer given by Bishop Gore
to this serious difficulty is neither
plain nor tangible, but in the highest
degree involved and elusive. He
seems determined at all events to
avoid the reproach of being too
logical.
" Primarily," he says, " the Church
is the Spirit-bearing body, and what
makes her one in heaven and paradise"
[note this curious High Church distinc-
tion] " and earth is not an outward but
an inward fact — the indwelling of the
Spirit — which brings with it the in-
dwelling of Christ, and makes the
Church the great ' Christ-bearer,' the
body of Christ."
So far, I suppose, all Christians
agree. It is not to be denied that
the union of each Christian soul
with Christ, through the operation
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
21
of the Holy Ghost, causes a mystical
and invisible union between them
all. But this cannot be the unity
of which we are in search, for it
evidently can only include those
who are in a state of grace, since
those who are divided from Christ
by mortal sin have forfeited the
gift of His indwelling. There are
indeed ultra-Protestant sects who do
not blink at this result, and who
include in the Church only the
good, or, with Calvin, only the
elect. But of course I do not
suspect Dr. Gore of meaning this,
and yet I confess that I fail to
extract any other meaning from his
words. He seems, indeed, further
on to be referring to some indwell-
ing of the Spirit in the Church in
her corporate capacity : " She is one
because she alone of all societies of
men possesses a supernatural in-
dwelling presence and relation to
God in Christ." But it would be
unkind to credit him with the
natural meaning of these words.
The indwelling of Christ in the
Church as a society implies that she
is already a society. It cannot,
therefore, be the cause of her unity,
but only a sequence of it. So that
here also Dr. Gore must be speaking
of the sanctification of each in-
dividual.
On page 30 a clue to his meaning
seems to appear. He anticipates an
objection : —
" ' But then,' it will be said, ' you are
saying that Church unity is primarily
invisible.' We reply that even at this
primary stage the unity is external
as well as internal. . . . This inward
life depends on outward means. With-
out baptism, without the ' laying on of
hands,' which gives the gift of the
Holy Ghost in His personal indwell-
ing, without the Eucharist, without
absolution, we cannot have or retain
the inward gift ; and those external
channels depending, as we all acknow-
ledge they do, on the apostolic minis-
try, connect the inward life of the
Church at once with her outward
organisation. ... It is only through
this visible organisation that God has
covenanted to give us this invisible
life."
We were led to expect something
about visible unity, but not a word
is forthcoming. We are told, in-
deed, that the invisible unity depends
on an outward organisation, but it
does not appear that this outward
organisation need have any unity of
its own besides the transcendental
unity which invisibly binds its indi-
vidual members to Christ. And in
fact we know that Dr. Gore does
not believe that unity in the external
organisation is necessary. He has
consequently given no reply to the
objection which he himself pro-
posed. In other words, he con-
fesses that the Church has, in his
view, a spiritual and invisible unity
only. He differs from the extreme
Protestants in that he teaches, even
to exaggeration, the necessity of an
outward organisation, that is to say,
of a visible Church, but a visible
Church which need have no visible
unity. Surely he is here, indeed,
giving words an unreal meaning. A
visible Church which is visibly
divided is rather to be spoken of as
several visible Churches. It will be
perfectly logical for him to speak of
one invisible Church, and this all
Christians agree in admitting; but
he cannot logically use the singular
number when speaking of the
Church on earth, which he main-
tains to be visible and to have a
necessary organisation. He is the
more bound to be logical on this
point because he refuses to "treat
the Church on earth as a separate
unity." Nothing, therefore, can be
clearer than that Dr. Gore dog-
matically denies all visible unity to
the Church on earth. How could
he avoid this when he holds that
22
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
the Anglican, the Eastern, and the
Roman 'branches,' though mutu-
ally excommunicating one another,
yet are all parts of the visible
Church ?
I do not propose to refute this
Dogma of the Divisibility of the
Church out of Holy Scripture. It
is obvious that nothing can be
quoted in favour of divisibility. On
the other hand, every text which
can be cited for the visibility of the
Church assumes its visible unity.
The Fathers are fond of proving
the necessity of unity in the Church
on earth by its foundation on Peter.
But I leave the Bible alone, be-
cause, as Dr. Gore will fully admit,
the Bible, apart from the Church's
interpretation, is liable to very
various uses, and is claimed as the
support of every heresy. But the
ancient Church speaks on this ques-
tion with no uncertain voice. I
challenge Dr. Gore to find any of
the Fathers admitting the possi-
bility of a divided Church. There
is no doctrine on which they are
more insistent or more full than the
question of visible unity. It is
hardly necessary, I hope, to remark
that the Fathers do not follow Dr.
Gore in refusing to treat the Church
on earth as a separate entity.
Sometimes they may speak of the
Church sensu adcequato, as embrac-
ing all who ever have belonged to
it or ever will, as in the passage
quoted by Dr. Gore from St. Augus-
tine on page 34 of his book. Modern
Catholics sometimes speak in the
same way. But this is somewhat
uncommon. It is usual, with the
Fathers as with us, to mean by the
Church the visible Church on earth ;
and it is certain that Dr. Gore himself
almost always uses the word in this
sense.
Theologians demand for the
Church a threefold visible unity.
I. The primary unity is Unity
OF Faith, for the Church is the
living witness throughout all ages
to the faith once deHvered. On
this point the Fathers are unanimous
and clear. Perhaps the most ob-
vious to refer to is St. Irena^us,
who in the second century appealed
to the consentient witness of a con-
tinuous and universal Church against
the heretics of the time. To refer
to other Fathers is supererogatory,
as I suppose their doctrine on this
subject is not denied. This is the
'' symbolical bond." To break it is
the sin of heresy.
2. This unity of faith is guarded
and demonstrated by Unity of
Intercommunion, which is called
the liturgical bond. To break it is
the sin of schism. Against heretics
this unity is pointed out to be a fact,
as a means of demonstrating that
unity of faith which heresy dares to
break. But against schismatics,
such as the Novatians and Dona-
tists, the necessity of communion
with the Church was the point to
be proved. It is therefore in the
writings of St. Cyprian, St. Pacian,
St. Optatus, and St. Augustine
against these schismatics that we
find this doctrine most fully argued
and illustrated, though it is indeed
taught by all the ancients with one
voice. Before passing on, let us
hear a few words from St. Cyprian
in the third century, from whom the
rest were so fond of borrowing : —
"The Church which is one and
Catholic is not severed or divided,
but is indeed joined together and con-
nected by the glue of bishops adhering
to one another " {Ep. 66, 8).
" There is one body of Christ and
one Church of His, and one faith and
one people joined together into a solid
unity of body by the glue of concord.
The unity cannot be severed, nor can
the one body be divided by a separation
of its component parts^ nor by the
laceration of its vitals be torn to frag-
ments. Whatever departs from the
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
23
womlD will not be able to live and
breathe apart, and loses the substance
of salvation " (^De Unit. EccL, 23).
" And does anyone believe that this
unity which comes down from the
Divine unchangeableness, and which
coheres in heavenly sacraments, can
be severed in the Church ? . . . Whoso
holds not this unity, holds not life and
salvation " {De Unit. EccL, 6).
If I were Dr. Gore, I should not
like to be thus addressed by this
illustrious Saint and Martyr.
St. Cyprian, in these passages, is
meeting a schism in his own Church
of Carthage. He employed the
same writings over again, and the
same arguments, against the Nova-
tians, who seemed for a moment to
be about to split the Catholic Church
into halves. The later argument
against the Donatists is similar.
Optatus and Augustine point to the
one Church throughout the world,
from which the Donatists in Africa
have divided themselves. Let Dr.
Gore think a little what arguments he
could possibly bring against the Do-
natists from his own position. So far
as I can see, he would have nothing
with which to reproach them. As far
as faith was concerned they were
not heretical, though they were in-
clined to some mistaken opinions,
which were afterwards condemned.
They held the old sees of Africa,
in most cases with an unbroken
succession from the former Catholic
bishops, and in almost every city
they had a direct continuity with
the anterior Catholic life. They
were so large a majority in Africa,
that they could reasonably claim to
be a national Church. They de-
clared that it was not they who had
fallen away, but that the rest of the
Church had cut itself off from unity
by sin. Two principal arguments
were brought against them by the
Catholic writers, and neither of them
is accepted by Dr. Gore. The first
I have already stated : the Donatists
were in Africa only — the universal
Church was their judge, and they
were outside it. They had no right
to claim the name of CathoHc, and
they were separated from unity.
The second argument was their
separation from Rome, the centre
of unity, and from all the ancient
Apostolic foundations.^
3. The third kind of unity is
Unity of Government — the sub-
jection of the faithful to the same
pastors. This is called the " hierar-
chical bond." We have seen it de-
scribed by St. Cyprian as the sub-
jection to bishops who are connected
together by the glue of concord.
The complete and fully developed
hierarchy of the Church has the
^ Bishop Gore speaks of the Donatists
on p. 129 : " Be it remembered that the
Donatist body in Africa was not constituted
by a reform of a national Church, but was
as distinct a schism from the Church as
ever took place." In other words, the
Donatists retained the Catholic rule of
faith, and the whole Catholic system of
faith and pracdce. They did not "re-
form." The Anglicans, as an actual fact,
fell into varied and incoherent heresies,
and gave up most of the habits as well as
teachings of Catholic life. (I am not
saying that they committed themselves
irrevocably to their new ways and views. )
The contrast is unfortunately not in favour
of the moderns. Dr. Gore continues :
" and that the Donatist body held itself
the only true Church of the world." In
other words, the Donatists held to the
cardinal doctrine of the unity of the
Church, in spite of the absurdity of sup-
posing it to exist only in Africa and in the
little community of Montenses who sur-
rounded the Donatist Pope at Rome. It
never struck them to suppose that two
rival communions could possibly be part of
one visible Church ! Tichonius, the one
Donatist scholar, seems indeed to have
taken a view somewhat similar, but he
was singular in his opinion, and was at-
tacked most violently by the protagonist
of his sect, Parmenianus. St. Augustine
could not understand why Tichonius did
not become a Catholic, for he did not see
how Tichonius could admit that the Church
throughout the world had not fallen away,
and yet could think he had a right to
remain a Donatist.
24
THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH
successor of St. Peter at its head,
and consequently this third form of
unity centres in the Pope. The
historical development of the hier-
archy will be spoken of in chapter
vii. ; at present it is sufficient to
point out that in the second century
we find Rome quite clearly the cen-
tre of unity. I will not dwell upon
this, as I do not think Dr. Gore
would deny it. It is, however, im-
possible to pass over the point
urged repeatedly against the Nova-
tians by St. Cyprian, that in com-
municating with an Anti-pope they
separated themselves from the
Church. He could not have said
this with regard to communion
through error with the wrong one
of two rival claimants of any other
see. Against the Donatists it was
repeatedly urged that they could
not be the whole Church, for they
had not the chair of Peter. They
were so conscious themselves of
this fatal weakness in their position
that they actually set up a private
Anti-pope in Rome itself. But
there at least they had no con-
tinuity with the past \ and their
claim only brought ridicule upon
them. St. Optatus opposes to
them the real succession of bishops
in the chair of Peter, and St.
Augustine is never tired of plying
them with this same argument.
These three bonds of unity, then,
the symbolical, the liturgical, and
the hierarchical, are all, according to
the Fathers, indispensable to the
visible Church on earth. One
faith, one communion, one spiritual
government. The unity of faith is
primary and fundamental. It should
naturally issue in the union of all
believers in one fellowship, without
which the unity of faith cannot sur-
vive. To guard in its turn the unity
of fellowship and communion, the
hierarchical bond is needed, on
account of the tendency to quarrel
which we have derived from original
sin. This is a logical theory, and it
answers to the facts of history.
Let us now contrast with it
Bishop Gore's conclusion: —
"Enough has been said to show
that the true idea of Church unity
makes it to consist primarily in the
derivation of the life of the Spirit
from Christ, down the channels of his
organised society ; not in subjection
to an external hierarchy centering in
the Pope."
*\Ve have seen that Catholic theo-
logians do not make hierarchical
unity the primary unity, so here Dr.
Gore is tilting against a windmill.
He himself makes invisible unity
the only unity, so far as he has ex-
plained his views in this chapter;
and I must remind the reader that
it is a unity which includes no
sinners, while it surely embraces
all Christians outside the visible
Church, who are in good faith
because they know no better, and
are doing their best to follow the
law of Christ. Nay, I do not think
Dr. Gore will be so harsh as to deny
that even heathens may have that in-
dwelling of the Holy Ghost without
which no man can be saved, and
that they may so be unconsciously
united to Christ. Unless this be
granted, it is hard to see how it
can be maintained that God truly
desires all men to be saved, and
that He places the means of salva-
tion within the reach of all. The
result of Dr. Gore's chapter is this :
We come to him to hear in what
sense the Church on earth is one,
and he tells us : " Oh, I cannot con-
sent to treat the Church on earth as
a separate entity ! " And then he
describes for us a unity which,
though a true one, yet is anyhow
wholly outside the sphere of our
present discussion, and which is not
only wholly invisible, embracing
both the saints in heaven and the
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
25
saints not yet born, but which even
must be allowed to include many
heathens within its field. This unity
is not a peculiarly Anglican tenet,
but is the common belief of all
Christians. There was no reason
why it should enter into the dis-
cussion at all. But at least we have
reached the knowledge that Dr.
Gore has nothing to tell us about
the unity of the Church on earth,
that he is at open war with the
Fathers, and that they condemn
him in no measured language.
CHAPTER III
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
THERE is a great deal in this
chapter which expresses the
truth remarkably well, and compara-
tively little with which a Catholic will
disagree. Unfortunately, Dr. Gore
has not understood the Catholic
position, and, as usual, tilts against
a good many windmills. It will
be best to begin with a few short
extracts, which contain doctrine
which I cordially accept : —
" The Church is not only, through
her sacraments, the household of
grace : she is also the ' pillar and
ground of the truth ' : she has the
authority of a divinely authorised
teacher, and her legislative enact-
ments in the sphere of truth, no less
than of discipline, have a divine sanc-
tion " (p. 37). "Whatever is new to
Christian theology in substance, is
by that very fact proved not to be of
the faith. This is a commonplace of
patristic theology, and it is admitted
by the modern Roman Church " (p.
38). The Church " is not a perpetual
oracle of divine truth, an open organ
of continuous revelation : she is not
so much a 'living voice' as a living
witness to a once spoken voice " (p. 40).
It would be simpler to say for
" She is a voice," " She has a voice,"
the voice of a witness, not of a
revealer, of truth. All this is Cath-
oHc doctrine, correctly expressed.
Unfortunately, Dr. Gore does not
continue with the same clearness
of statement. He knows that all
this is held by the Catholic Church
of to-day, yet he is under the im-
pression that she has other teaching
which is inconsistent with it. Now
Catholic theology is enshrined in
scholastically argued tomes and in
orderly text-books, composed by
highly trained professional theolo-
gians. If Dr. Gore was more fami-
liar with this voluminous literature,
he would recognise the rashness
of supposing that any obvious
inconsistency could remain un-
noticed and undiscussed by acute
logicians, who are only too ready
to find each other in the wrong.
I fear that Dr. Gore has not even
taken the obvious precaution of
reading carefully at least one of the
many standard treatises De Ecclesia.
Yet some knowledge of the ordinary
teaching of the Church, such as he
would have gained by this study,
would have helped him very much
towards the composition of a refu-
tation of that teaching. We will
examine his indictment.
I. We are agreed that the Church
is a living witness to a revelation
which is final, from which nothing
can be taken away, and to which
nothing can be added. This is the
fundamental principle, which is to
be the touchstone of all that follows.
LIBRARY ST. MARY S COLLEGE
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
2. But Dr. Gore thinks that we
actually hold many new doctrines
which were unknown to antiquity ;
and that to support them we are
obliged to look upon the Church as
an oracle, having an inspired oracu-
lar voice at Rome. This evidently
flatly contradicts our fundamental
principle, and every Catholic theolo-
gian would deny and denounce such
a doctrine. If any careless Catholic
writers, in the heat of controversy
perhaps, have ever used words
which might be twisted to yield
such a sense, such authors must be
interpreted according to the certain
teaching of the Church to which
they belong— or, if not, they must
be treated as dangerous, and ap-
proaching near to heresy. That
any respectable Catholic writer has
ever actually stated the theory of
an inspired Church or Pope in the
way Dr. Gore puts the theory, I do
not believe. But at least this
much is certain : nothing whatever
of the sort will be found in any
approved theological treatise, for in
these accurate wording is a necessity.
3. But we do hold that doctrine
develops. The development of
dogma is not a weapon of contro-
versy invented by the genius of
Cardinal Newman, as many of our
-Anglican brethren seem to think.
It is a portion of the teaching of
the Church, and is found in every
treatise De Ecdesia^ in that part
which is entitled Tractatus De
Traditio7ie. I will not, however,
describe the doctrine in the words
of modern theologians, for Dr.
Gore wishes for earlier evidence.
He has himself appealed to St.
Vincent of Lerins, and to St. Vin-
cent of Lerins he shall go.^
^ By a strange coincidence, Fr. Rickaby
has used this same formula in his excel-
lent Dcvelop7}ient, thoughts on Bp. Gore's
* R. C. Claims^' pp. 12, 13. Dr. Gore
says, p. 56, note 2 :
"The whole chapter should be read.
Comtnonitorium, xxiii. (55.) "But
perhaps someone will say, ' Will there
then be no progress of religion in the
Church of Christ ? ' There will, indeed,
the greatest progress. For who is so
full of hate to men, so hated by God,
as to attempt to deny this? {Nam
guts ille est tain invidus hominibus^
tain exosus Deo, gut istud prohibere
co7ieturf) But in such wise, however,
that it should be a true progress of
faith, and not a change. Now it be-
longs to progress {profectus, growth)
that each thing should be increased
into its own self; it belongs, on the con-
trary, to change, that one thing should
be turned into another. Therefore
the intelligence, knowledge, wisdom,
both of a single man and of the whole
Church, must grow, and make great and
enormous progress by the advance of
ages and centuries, but only within
their own nature, that is to say, in the
same teaching, the same sense, and
the same meaning,"
Nothing could be clearer than
this exposition by an ancient Father
of the doctrine of development.
Let us at once take an example.
The tradition of the Church from
the beginning held that the Father
The earlier part speaks of the growth of
* rehgion ' as a whole. It grows as a child
to manhood. Each limb increases in size,
but no new limb is added, or old one
removed. Then it passes to the develop-
ment of the doctrine of the Church."
What Dr. Gore means by "progress of
religion" I do not know. What St.
Vincent meant was precisely the same
as progress of dogma. There is no change
of subject in the chapter. The very first
words of it announce the theorem : '* But
perhaps someone will say, " etc. This objec-
tion is brought against the exposition in
the previous chapter of the words : " De-
positum custodi," *' Keep that which is
committed to thee," and the chapter on
development is in reality an explanation
of the last words of that exposition :
" Let that be more clearly understood
by thy instruction which before was more
obscurely beheved. By thee let posterity
rejoice in comprehending what antiquity
without comprehension venerated. Yet
teach the same that thou hast learned, so
that thou say not new things while saying
newly [ut cum dicas nove, non dicas nova)."
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
27
is God, the Son is God, and the
Holy Ghost is God, and that there
is (as reason also assures us) only
one God. Unaided reason, how-
ever, would not succeed in har-
monising these two dogmas of Three
who are one God. It was not suffi-
cient that the Church should faith-
fully and ceaselessly bear witness to
the original deposit of truth in the
same words, but it was imperative
that she should be able to judge of
the various heresies which distorted
the truth in one way or another, and
answer the questions that emerged
from time to time. As we find the
dogma exposed in St. Augustine's
De Trinitate^ it is the result of three
centuries of discussion and pro-
found thought. In the Middle Ages
the philosophical elaboration of
the mystery, as we have it in St.
Thomas Aquinas, is again the con-
clusion of laborious contests of
scholastic disputants, and the out-
come of the application of Aris-
totelianism to philosophy. But
without the guidance of the Holy
Spirit in the Church there is no
knowing what the resultant dogma
might' have turned out, if, indeed,
there had resulted a dogma at all ;
for it is, perhaps, more likely that
the disputes would not have issued
in any common agreement. Thus
the persistent witness of the Church
to what she received from the Lord
has ensured the identity of the
teaching throughout, under the
varying form of its expression, while
her authority has been divinely
assisted to decide what was in har-
mony with the original deposit and
what was not. Yet it is probable
that a Christian of the year 100
would have been puzzled by the
Athanasian Creed ; he would have
held implicitly all that it enunciates,
but the fierce antitheses might well
have surprised and shocked him.
Judged by the standard of the first
four CEcumenical Councils, scarcely
a single ecclesiastical writer of the
first three centuries is orthodox in
expression.
Let us continue the quotation
from St. Vincent : —
" The religion of souls should follow
the nature of bodies, which, though
they unfold and develop their years in
the process of time, yet remain the
same that they were. There is a
great difference between the flower of
boyhood and the maturity of old age ;
but those who become old men are
the same who once were youths ; so
that although the condition and cir-
cumstances of one and the same man
are altered, yet he is one and the same
nature, one and the same person.
The limbs of babies are small, those
of youths are big, but they are iden-
tical. Children have the same number
of members as men ; and if there be
any which are produced by maturer
age, they are already there after the
manner of seed {iam in seminis
ratione proserta sunt), so that nothing
new is brought forth in the old which
was not already latent in the child.
Wherefore without doubt this is the
legitimate and right rule of progress,
this the proper and perfect order of
growth, that the tale of years should
ever unfold in the more advanced
those parts and forms which the
wisdom of the Creator had previously
formed in the young. But if the human
species should be changed into some
likeness other than its own nature, or
if something should either be added
or subtracted from the number of
members, the whole body must perish,
or become a monster, or at least be
weakened. So also the teaching of
the Christian religion ought to follow
these laws of progress ; that is to say,
that it should be consolidated by
years, enlarged by time, uplifted by
age {annis scilicet consolidetur, dila-
tetur tempore, sublimetur cetate), but
yet remain incorrupt and undefiled,
and be full and perfect in all the pro-
portions of its parts and in all its
members (so to speak) and senses,
admitting further no permutation, no
loss of its own character, no variation
in its outline."
28
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
This passage is extremely remark-
able in its anticipation of the
modern theory of evolution. It has
been inevitable that this universal
category should be applied to-day to
religion as to all other subjects.
Dr. Gore is naturally not uncon-
scious of this, and he has added as
an appendix a paper on Evolution,
which he read at a Church Con-
gress, pp. 203-11. Evolution was
in the air before Darwin ; and Hegel
first, and then Newman, were in the
field long before Herbert Spencer.
But we have been hearing a writer
of the year 434 comparing dogma
to an organism, and working out
the likeness with success. The
growth of which this ancient Father
speaks takes place, like that of an
organism, by nutrition, with assimi-
lation of what is suitable, and re-
jection of what is harmful : the
Church feeds upon the current ideas
of the time ; she digests them by
the disputes of her theologians ;
part is assimilated, part is cast out.
For instance, at the beginning of
the third century, a whole gang of
heresiarchs invaded the Church of
Rome, Theodotus, the leather-
worker, and his crew of " adoption-
ists " on the one hand, and on the
other, Sabellius, and other Mon-
archians, who in various ways ob-
scured the distinction of persons in
the Holy Trinity. In the fourth
century the Arians attacked the root
of the doctrine, while some forms
of semi-Arianism seemed to make
three or two gods. In the course
of the conflict the Church learned
to understand her own mind far
more clearly, and to be able to reply
to questions which had not been
asked in earlier times. She had
assimilated the terminology of the
philosophers. She had begun to pos-
sess a philosophy of her own. She
had learned to speak the language
of her time, and to think with its
most cultured thought. This train-
ing was needed for the position she
was to hold in the world after the
Emperor's conversion. And ever
since, the same process of growth by
assimilation and rejection has con-
tinued. It is the divine assistance
(not inspiration) which enables the
Church to choose rightly, to obtain
growth without change. An organ-
ism has this power of assimilation
and rejection because it is living.
The Catholic Church, by possess-
ing it, shows that she lives. The
Greek schism has lost the function
of nutrition. She rejects error,
indeed, for she rejects even food,
and is incapable of receiving any-
thing. She has life no longer, but
is as if a mummy. The Anglican
Church, on the other hand, has the
greatest facility for accepting new
doctrine of any kind, but she lacks
that faculty of discrimination which
is the mark of life. She has no
power of rejecting. She receives
like a pail ; she does not feed and
digest like an organism.
We have heard the Catholic
view ; now we must hear Dr. Gore.
"According then to the older and
really Catholic view, the later Church
can never know what the early Church
did not. She can never have sub-
stantially clearer light about the inter-
mediate state, for example, or the
relation of the departed to the living,
or the ' treasury of merits,' or the posi-
tion of Mary, than the Church of the
second century had. The revelation
receives no augmentation, and what
for our discipline was left obscure at
first must remain obscure, according
to God's providence, till our frag-
mentary knowledge becomes complete
in the Day of Light."
This is only a half-truth. It is
right to say that "revelation receives
no augmentation," if addition is
meant, just as an organism cannot
receive addition. But we have seen
that St. Vincent would deny, and
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
29
vehemently deny, that it cannot
grow. Similarly, it is certain that
" the later Church cannot know
what the early Church did not," if
by this statement new facts are ex-
cluded. But the later Church ought
to comprehend the meaning of her
own dogmas, their application, their
richness and fulness after centuries
of meditation, with a perfection
which was as little needed as it was
impossible to the early periods.
Again, it is true that she " can never
have substantially clearer light "
about any doctrine; for "sub-
stantially" seems to imply a change
of substance. But she can have,
we will say, a " very much " clearer
light on all that has been revealed.
Now I imagine that Dr. Gore will
not really quarrel with this corrected
version of his words. I suppose he
will rather shift his ground, and
admit the teaching of St. Vincent,
and perhaps even my exposition of
it. Only then he will have another
position to fall back upon, namely,
that the modern Church has added
to dogma and not merely understood
it better. This is a far more con-
sistent and intelligible ground to
take up, and, of course, it cannot
be completely answered except by
defending the entire theological
system of the Catholic Church, and
by tracing the historical develop-
ment of every separate dogma.
Yet it is possible to meet the ob-
jection on two moregeneral grounds :
first, then, it is unhistorical ; second-
ly, it is impious.
I. It is unhistorical. In the first
four centuries dogmas seem to have
developed much more quickly than
afterwards, but the evidence is too
obscure for us to be able to follow
the course of their growth with
any ease. Fortunately the later
evolutions, which are precisely
those to which Dr. Gore objects,
can be traced with comparative
certainty. It can be shown that
they have not grown by borrowing
from without, from heathen ideas,
from philosophical speculations —
that popular devotions have not
been allowed to influence dogma,
but that every least growth has
been subjected to the most painful
scrutiny, to prolonged discussion,
and has only passed muster when
proved beyond all doubt to be a
necessary sequence of what was
already of faith. Scholastic theolo-
gians are distinguished by their rigid
conservatism. Dr. Gore does not
realise this simply because he has
not had leisure to study Catholic
theology and its history.
2. The objection is impious. If
Dr. Gore is right, the Church has
gone wrong. If the developments
of dogma up to the sixteenth cen-
tury were to a large extent mistaken,
then the Church has fallen from
truth ; the infallible Guardian of the
faith has failed in her trust. She
has not kept the deposit, as St.
Vincent said and believed she must
and would. Nearly all that Dr. Gore
rejects as unwarranted addition was
common to East and West before
the consummation of the schism.
It must be allowed, then, that the
whole Church fell away simultane-
ously. Even where it may be that
the Western Church now stands
alone (as with regard to the Papacy),
it is bad enough if Dr. Gore has to
own that a great part of what he
admits to be the Church is in
grievous error. He will perhaps
say that he does not consider these
novelties to amount to heresy, they
have not been formally condemned
by a council of the whole Church.
It is, no doubt, condescending of
Dr. Gore to allow this much, but it
will not avoid the difficulty. For
the question is not what Dr. Gore
thinks heresy, but what the Eastern
and Western Church has formally
30
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
defined to be heresy. They de-
clare heretical the denial of many
of those points which he regards as
novelties. If these points are addi-
tions to the faith, the fact that they
are imposed as conditions of com-
munion is all important. Additions
have then been made by the Church
which are insisted upon by her as
being of the first consequence. The
Church has consequently been found
wanting in her chief office, and can
clearly make no claim to divine
guidance. The assistance which
was promised to her has not been
forthcoming. We gather that He
who promised w^as wanting either in
good faith or in power.
This is the painful result of such
a rejection of the claims of the
Church. But Dr. Gore will ask
how we are to escape from this un-
pleasant conclusion, for he is sure
that the teaching of the modern
Church is full of additions to the
original deposit of faith. It is of
no use for me to refer him, as I
have already done, to the endless
volumes which have been written
upon the subject. If he has not
yet studied them, but has contented
himself (as I suppose he has, per-
haps from want of time) with the
perusal of a few books of contro-
versy, I cannot well expect him
now to begin, still less can every
reader of his book be expected to
verify his broad statements. For
this reason I am afraid it is un-
avoidable that we should consider
a few important instances of de-
velopment.
To begin with. Dr. Gore himself
has chosen some examples, as we
saw : the intermediate state, the
relation of the departed to the
living, the "treasury of merits," the
position of Mary. We will take them
in order :
I. The "intermediate state" is
a euphemism for what Catholics
call Purgatory. How does Dr.
Gore know that there is an inter-
mediate state? Protestants hold
that there is no such thing, but that
all who are not damned go at once
to heaven when they die. Dr. Gore
makes on page 26 a curious distinc-
tion between heaven and Paradise,
but he has not explained what he
means by Paradise. I cannot criti-
cise his views on the intermediate
state, for I do not know what they
are. As for those of the early
Church, the primary fact is that
they are exceedingly hard to trace.
It appears that Holy Scripture was
not found to be very distinct on the
question, and consequently we find
the most puzzling diversity of view
and the most disconcerting con-
jectures where the Fathers deal
with eschatology. We may find an
otherwise severely orthodox Father
holding with Origen that the devil
will be saved. It is easier to under-
stand why many bishops were harsh
enough to refuse absolution and
communion, even in the hour of
death, to those who had committed
certain heinous crimes, when we
remember that it was a widely
spread opinion among Catholics,
that, while all heathen and heretics
must necessarily go to hell for ever,
yet all the orthodox, however crimi-
nal and unrepentant, must neces-
sarily be saved, " yet so as by fire."
In other words, all bad Christians
were to go to temporal punishment,
not to eternal — to purgatory, not
to hell ! Dr. Gore is of course
aware that the custom of praying
for the dead has been constant from
the earliest ages of the Church. It
was certainly not thought that they
were still in a state of probation;
it remains that they w^ere believed
to be in a state of purification.^
^ Bishop Gore quotes Dr. Salmon to
the effect that "Purgatory had not got
beyond a 'perhaps' in St. Augrstine's
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
31
Now I quite agree with Dr. Gore
that on this panicular point there
has been no development, for the
Church has not had occasion to
define anything beyond what was
the universal belief in the very
earliest times, viz. that "there is
a Purgatory, and that the souls
which are detained there are helped
by the prayers of the faithful, and
especially by the acceptable sacri-
fice of the altar." 1 I suppose Dr.
Gore believes this much. On the
other hand it is not to be doubted
but that the writings of theologians
have thrown some little light on this
mysterious subject. At least the
beautiful treatise of St. Catharine
of Genoa is most suggestive, though
of course she does not speak with
authority.
2. "The relation of the departed
to the living " is again a question
where it would appear that no pro-
gress has been made, so far as
official definitions are concerned,
since (say) the fifth century.- Then
day." This is an error: St. Augustine
did not doubt the existence of a Purgatory,
but he was uncertain whether the text of
St. Paul about trial by fire (i Cor. iii. 13)
should be understood of Purgatory or not.
^ The Council of Trent uses these words
in the Decretum de Purgatorio, Sess. xxv.
The only important definition on the sub-
ject is in Sess. vi., Can. xxx : "Si quis
post acceptam justificationisgratiam cuilibet
peccatori pcenitenti ita culpam remitti, et
reatum seternse poente ita deleri dixerit. ut
nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis
exsolvendas vel in hoc sseculo, vel in future
in purgatorio, antequam ad regna caslorum
adi^tus patere possit : anathema sit."
- I have said the fifth century, because
it would seem that there was a considerable
development before this time. In the New
Testament we do not expect to find prayers
to the martyrs who had not yet suffered,
but as saints multiplied the devotion to
them grew up. It was certainly universal
and very prominent throughout the fourth
century, but material is lacking for any
systematic'account of its growth up to this
stage. Develop, however, it must have
done, for it is inconceivable that when
samts were few the devotion should have
as now, and as much as now — I am
inclined to think more than now —
the faithful were in the habit of
yet reached the height which we find in the
fourth and fifth centuries.
But Dr. Gore has chosen the cultus of
the saints as a crucial instance of a
false development, a deterioration, in
the "medioeval and modern" Church,
giving his reasons for this view in the
Appendix, pp. 207, 208. He there says :
" It (the Roman development) is the result
of an over-reckless self-accommodation to
the unregenerate natural instincts in re-
ligion. I confine myself to one significant
illustration of the latter proposition. I
mean the development of the cultus of the
saints in its mediaeval and modern form.
It is written on the face of Church history
that this has resulted from Christianity
accepting, not without preliminary protest,
but finally even with enthusiasm, what is
simply an almost universal phenomenon of
untaught natural religion all over the
world. If you travel in many a Buddhist,
or Mohammedan, or Christian country,
you see the same facts ; the same devotion
gathering round the tomb of departed
saints, who are regarded as intercessors or
mediators, and as patrons of particular
places, or trades, or classes, and are ap-
proached with divine, or semi-divine, hom-
age," and so on. Of the last words I say
nothing, for I do not wish to suppose that
Dr. Gore really accuses Catholics of paying
divine honours to the saints. I assume
that this expression is meant for the other
religions of which he speaks. But the rest
of the sentence is a good instance of his
utter recklessness of statement. To say
that saint- worship is an "almost universal
phenomenon of untaught natural religion "
is indeed an astonishing assertion ! No
instances are given but two. Of Moham-
medanism it is certain that it borrowed the
idea of a cultus of saints from Christianity.
As to Buddhism, I do not know whether it
has or has not been influenced by Chris-
tianity in this point. I understand that
such an influence in general is to some
extent a matter of uncertainty. However
this may be, it is anyhow unimportant in
view of the influence of Confucianism, the
religious part of this system being ancestor
worship. But what other religions have
shown a tendency to saint-worship? It is
not found, so far as I know, in the degraded
religions of Oceania, nor in the antique
superstitions of the American continent,
nor in Africa, nor in Brahmanism, nor in
the ancient religions of Persia, Egypt,
Babylonia, Assyria. I speak generally:
32
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
asking the Saints to pray for them,
in full confidence that God would
see to it that their words should not
be unheard. The only advance
that I can think of is that the
doctrine of the beatific vision has
since then been more philosophic-
ally treated, and that it is therefore
now more clearly taught that it is
in God that the Saints see the
there may be traces, but there is no marked
prevalence. The demi-gods of the ancient
Greeks are not instances, for they were not^
revered as holy persons nor as benefactors*
of the human race, nor as intercessors.
There was no cultus of Harmodius and
Aristogiton, nor of Lycurgus or Solon, of
Socrates or Tericles. Nor in the remains
of the old Roman religion was there any
tendency of this kind, unless Romulus is an
instance. Yet Dr. Gore says, "The half-
converted masses passed into the Church
with this dominant instinct of hero-worship
still in them— with the dominant demand
for mediators and objects of worship less
high and holy than God." What the first
part of this sentence may mean, I have
really no idea. The official worship of
tjhe emperors, and the provincial assemblies
in connection with the cultus of Augustus
and Rome, these are surely not manifesta-
tions of "hero-worship"! Yet I do not
see what else can be referred to. The
latter part of the sentence is the well-known
Protestant jest, that the saints of the
Catholic Church are nothing but the old
false gods with new names. This has a
grain of truth in it. No doubt the cultus
of some saints may have been even en-
couraged for the purpose of supplanting
some deep-rooted superstition. But the
notion that " saint- worship" is a corrup-
tion due to the old idol-worship is a libel
which St. Augustine long ago suggested as
an objection, and refuted. I will conclude
by quoting a short passage of his : " But
our martyrs are not our gods, for we know
that the martyrs and we have both but one
God, and that the same. Nor yet are the
miracles which they maintain to have been
done by means of their temples at all com-
parable to those which are done by the
tombs of our martyrs. If they seem similar,
their Gods have been defeated by our
martyrs as Pharaoh's magi were by Moses "
{De Civ. Dei, xxii. lo). St. Augustme
goes on to explain that the martyrs are not
worshipped as gods, for "they are not
invoked by the sacrificing priest. It is to
God, not to them, that he sacrifices."
desires of those who call upon
them.
3. The "treasury of merits" is
not, so far as I know, a doctrine
which has developed. Merit, in
this expression, stands not for merit
in the strict sense, but for satisfac-
tion. That in the time of St.
Cyprian the martyrs were con-
sidered to make a greater satisfaction
for their sins than was needed by
themselves, is certain ; and it was
believed that these satisfactions
could be transferred to others,
on account of the communion of
saints, not indeed by the martyrs
themselves, but by the ecclesiastical
authority. The custom of shorten-
ing the time of canonical penance
(commonly called indulgence) was
at an early period based on the use
of these satisfactions of the Saints.
It does not appear that any evolu-
tion of the doctrine has taken place,
only in practice the penance has
fallen into desuetude, while the in-
dulgences have been given more
and more freely.^
4. The position of Mary as Theo-
tokos, or Mother of God, is the
highest that the Church ascribes to
her, and the highest which can be
ascribed to any mere creature. It
is given to her in the Gospels, and
the approval of the name in the
Council of Ephesus hardly amounts
to a development. But devotion in
1 That is to say, nominally much larger
indulgences are granted. But then, the
signification of the measures (40 days,
3 years, "plenary," etc.) has changed.
These no longer mean a definite relaxation
on earth, but simply denote the relative
values of the various indulgences in the in-
tention of the Church. It is obvious that
we have no means of knowing what degree
of "loosing in heaven" corresponds to
each degree of " loosing on earth. iNor
can we tell how far an indulgence is
actually gained. But we are certain that
the Church has the power of loosing,
though we cannot see its effects with our
bodily eyes or feel them.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
33
the course of ages has certainly
understood the place of Mary better
and better in her relation to us. If
we become the children of God by
incorporation into the body of her
Son, we necessarily become her
children at the same time ; and the
love of Mary, so highly developed
already in some of the Fathers in
the fourth century, has certainly
become more filial, more tender, as
well as more diffused. In earlier
times the martyrs, then recent, were
greater objects of devotion. As
the Church realised that Mary is
queen of the martyrs and of all the
Saints, and far closer to Christ, and
at the same time far more bound to
us, than any of them can be, devo-
tion to Mary grew and widened.^
The Church cannot insist too much
on the true position of Mary, for it
is a strong hedge round the doctrine
of the Incarnation. Every grace of
Mary's, every prerogative, every dig-
nity she has, is hers simply because
she is the Mother of Christ ; and it
is wholly for His sake that we honour
her, nor do we give her any honour
which does not in consequence re-
dound to Him of necessity.2
To these examples of develop-
ments, chosen by Dr. Gore himself,
^ Probably Dr. Gore thinks it has gone
too far, and no doubt this may be true in
this or that case ; I do not know ; at all
events, no one is bound to copy or to admire
Neapolitan flowers of piety, such as were
necessary to the excitable people for whom
St. Alphonsus wrote ; nor is anyone forced
to believe that Saint's well-known teach-
ing that all graces are distributed by God
through the hands of Mary. It is a harm-
less doctrine, but it is one not easy to
prove theologically.
^ Protestants have often said (I am not
thinking of Dr. Gore) that we Catholics
put our Lady in the place of Christ. I fear
it is true that the place in which many
Protestants put Christ is much the same as
that in which we rightly put His Mother,
that is to say, the highest place among
creatures, but yet at an infinite distance
from her Son and Creator.
we may add two more of greater
importance, for they are the two
which commonly cause the greatest
difficulty to non-Catholics. I mean,
of course, the infallibility of the
Pope and the Immaculate Concep-
tion of Mary.
1. As to Papal Infallibility, see
chapters vi. and vii.
2. The Immaculate Conception
is a particularly interesting instance
of development. Three Fathers of
the second century — St. Justin
Martyr, St. Iren?eus, and TertuUian
— call Mary the second Eve, as
Christ was the second Adam.^ They
emphasise her co-operation (of
course, in a wholly subordinate
sense) in the work of the redemp-
tion of man as parallel to the part
played by Eve in the fall. The
obedience of the second Eve re-
versed the curse which had fallen
on the first Eve by her disobedience.
The same views are repeated in suc-
ceeding centuries. In the fourth
century the absolute and perfect
purity of Mary from all sin is
constantly preached.^ Epiphanius,
2 St. Justin, Dial. loo, p. 327 C. ; St.
Irenoeus, Hcer.^ III. 22 and V. 19; Ter-
tuUian, Dc Came Christie 17.
■* Dr. Gore's view is given on page 70 :
"Where an opinion has been, commonly
held by Churchmen, like the actual sin-
lessness of the blessed Virgin, but cannot
plead quite universal consent nor the
authority of Holy Scripture, it will rank
rather as a pious opinion than as an article
of faith." ' Quite universal ' is a strong ex-
pression. Such a test would be too severe
for most of the cardinal doctrines of the
faith. But the difficulties in this case are
almost nil. If St. Chrysostom seems to
imply some weakness and ignorance in our
Lady, it should not be forgotten, when he
thus contradicts the general opinion, that
he belongs to that literal school of exegesis
which brought forth the impugners of the
divine maternity of Mary, Theodore of
Mopsuestia and Nestorius. It is greatly
to St. Chrysostom's honour that the trace
of contagion is so exceedingly slight. As
for Scripture, the Fathers would not have
admitted that its authority is lacking.
34
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
Ambrose, Ephrem may be cited as
witnesses from the Greek, the Latin,
and the Syrian Churches. St.
Augustine has even been thought to
say in two famous passages that she
was free from original sin. How-
ever this may be, it was evidently
impossible that this question should
be asked when as yet the doctrine
of original sin itself had not been
fully elucidated. After St. Augus-
tine's works against the Pelagians,
this latter doctrine was much in
view, and consequently the question
whether our Blessed Lady con-
tracted the sin of Adam or not was
discussed. There was no difficulty
about one point. It was soon every-
where taught that Mary was born in
a state of grace. St. John Baptist
was filled with the Holy Ghost in
his mother's womb, and the Fathers
taught that he was consequently
born in grace, like a child who is
baptised before its birth. The privi-
lege for our Blessed Lady would
therefore not be unique, and less
than this could certainly not satisfy
the sayings of the Fathers as to her
freedom from all sin. But was even
this sufficient ? The affirmative reply
was confined to a few theologians.
Only its patronage by St. Bernard
gave it prominence. At what precise
point of time after her conception
and before her birth must the
cleansing from sin have taken place?
No answer was forthcoming. The
more obvious and natural view was
expressed in the popularity of the
Feast of the Conception. It was not
hard to see that the only moment
which could be imagined as suitable
for the first influx of the Holy Spirit
into Mary was the first moment of
her existence in her mother's womb;
for any subsequent moment there
was nothing to be urged. Further,
this explanation abundantly satisfied
the belief of the Church in the
exemption of the Mother of God
from all sin. But though the pious
opinion spread among the people,
it met with opposition from a few
theologians, including St. Thomas
Aquinas. In the first place, there
was the authority of St. Bernard
against it. Then it seemed a
novelty; it was easy to reply that
St. Bernard had not understood the
doctrine, and that there was no
novelty, but only the limitation of
an old truth by a more precise defi-
jiition of its import. An, at first
sight, more serious objection was
found : it was asked how it could
be said that Mary was redeemed
from sin, if sin never touched her at
all ? It was the glory of the Doctor
subtilis^ Duns Scotus (an Irishman,
it is now said), to have given a
reply which was found satisfactory
to all ; the most perfect form of re-
demption is to be delivered from
the devil in such a way that he has
no opportunity at all of exercising
his power. The precious Blood
of Jesus Christ would have been
foiled of an effect whiich it was
capable of producing if none of the
progeny of Adam had been saved
from all effects of his sin. When
this was seen to be reasonable,
there was no longer any possibility
of doubting the answer to the ques-
tion originally proposed. At the
same time the scriptural evidence
became clearer. The woman who
makes war against the dragon in the
Apocalypse is mystically the Church,
but literally she is the Mother of a
Divine Child, so that she is Mary
taken as a type of the Church.
Thus the prophecy in Genesis is
fulfilled, and the words of the early
Fathers about the second Eve are
justified.
This is a very bare outline of the
development of the dogma. Dr.
Gore will presumably say that he
thinks it, after all, a novelty. He
thereby places himself in the posi-
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
35
tion of those mediaeval doctors who
eventually got the worst of the
argument. It is not an absurd
position, for great men were found
in it. But it has been considered
for hundreds of years to have been
disposed of and refuted. And
further, if Dr. Gore rejects the
doctrine, this is just as much a
development or an innovation as if
he accepted it. He can certainly
find no anticipation of such a denial
in antiquity. Suppose he should
reply : " I do not deny the doctrine,
neither do I accept it ; the question
was left a mystery in early times,
and it was intended by God to
remain a mystery." I do not know
that he would say this, but if he
should do so, it would show that
he had not comprehended the cause
which necessitated the development.
Two principles were in collision,
both of them received by the Church
from the Apostles. The one asserted
that Mary was the second Eve, and
in a sense co-redemptress of the
human race, and wholly pure from
all touch of sin, the vanquisher of
the devil, and not his slave. The
other asserted, though later, that
St. Paul taught that all men had
fallen under the curse of Adam.
It was utterly impossible to leave
the two dogmas in their apparent
contradiction without attempting an
explanation. It was just a case in
which the Church would show that
she was a mere human organisation
if she could not interpret and har-
monise her own teaching. She
could not claim to be the "pillar
and ground of the truth " if she
could propose contradictory views
for the faithful to believe. But she
is not inspired; and though the
promised assistance of the Holy
Spirit makes her infallible when at
length she holds a truth unanim-
ously, or defines it with authority,
yet the preparation is ages long.
The opposition of the two doctrines
has been done away with by Protest-
ants by the simple expedient of
dropping one of the two doctrines,
and that the older of the two in
patristic attestation. The Church
of God cannot act thus ; she cannot
omit or alter what she has received.
And lo, when in the fifteenth cen-
tury, or a little earlier, a unanimous
result is reached, it is seen that
both the seemifigly opposite doctrines
have been co?ifirmed and elucidated.
Original sin, indeed, claimed Mary
as its subject, but she was preserved
from it and from the power of the
devil in such a unique way that she
owes more to the merits of her Son
than does the greatest of sinners
and than any other creature what-
ever ; yet this verj^ redemption
consisted in her total exemption
from that from which she was re-
deemed, and in the first instant of
her conception she was utterly im-
maculate.
This example has been drawn
out at some length because if it
is well understood there is no need
of other instances. We see how
perfectly the demands of St. Vin-
cent have been carried into effect.
The two great doctrines involved
have been explained; a particular
instance has been drawn forth from
a general principle. Yet nothing
whatever has been added, only the
fulness of the meaning and applica-
tion has been brought out, and the
result is more plainly scriptural than
were either of the premises. The
Immaculate Conception has thus
alivays been held, and everywhere^
and by all — semper et ubique et ab
omnibus — with the exception of
those few professed theologians
whose office under Providence it
was to elucidate it while they op-
posed it. The present settlement
of the question has been arrived at
by consulting and harmonising the
36
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
past. The Protestant world has, as
usual, decided it by ignoring the
Bible and the Fathers, and by in-
venting a new dogma of a sin-
enslaved Mary, of which antiquity
never heard.
B.
Dr. Gore imagines an Anglican
to put forward the difficulty : How
are we — not professed theologians
or even students — to find out the
"rule of faith " ? " The Roman idea
of Church authority gives a simpler
remedy for our difficulties. Theirs
is a rule of faith of easy access"
(pp. 48, 49).
In reply, he distinguishes between
a proximate and an ultimate rule of
faith. The former " consists of the
personal teachers to whom by God's
providence we are subject," together
with " the written formulas of the
Church, . . . the creed and cate-
chism, the offices and ceremonies."
No doubt, as Dr. Gore says, this
" proximate rule of faith is of easy
access." But is it a *' rule" at all?
The catechism, offices, and cere-
monies of the Church of England
have not the approbation of what
Dr. Gore holds to be the rest of
the true Church on earth. As for
the personal teachers, as there is no
general agreement in the Anglican
communion, what they may happen
to teach must depend principally
upon chance. This easily acces-
sible " rule " does not inspire one
with much confidence in its guid-
ance.
The "ultimate rule of authority
or remoter rule of faith" involves
" a comparison of records, a search-
ing into the past traditions of the
Church. Such research is only pos-
sible, comparatively, for a few, and
only a few are capable of under-
taking it." This is exceedingly
distressing. Are these few com-
petent persons the only ones who
know the truth ? "The few act for
the many." Where do they publish
their results ? I know of many
students of patristic literature and
of the history of dogma in the
present, and still more in the
past ; undoubtedly the majority are
Catholics, but I should not have
ventured to call any of them fully
" competent " on so momentous a
matter as the determination of the
true faith. The most prominent of
tjjem all at the present day is Dr.
Harnack, whose views on the earlier
period of Church history Dr. Gore
would reject even more entirely
than I should. There is no con-
sent to be found, if we are simply
referred to scholars in general ; and
instead of obtaining guidance, we
shall be more puzzled than ever.
St. Vincent of Lerins would cer-
tainly not have sent us to the
scholars, but to the Church.^
^ In a long note (pp. 50, 51) Dr. Gore
gives from Mahan's Exercise of Faith an
abstract of advice given by St. Chrysostom
to a heathen seeking the truth. I will not
criticise it in detail, but will quote the
conclusion : —
"In this particular instance, St. Chry-
sostom, after asking the man whether he
had not a mind and a judgment of his own,
proceeds to give him such marks of the
true Church as he could, and leaves him
to make his way clear through the mazes
of this complex guidance." This is just
what any Catholic instructor would do.
Those uho are outside must use their own
private judgment to find the truth. The
way we show them (if they ask for guid-
ance, and are already inclined to become
Christians) is the way to the Catholic
Church, and we explain to them her
credentials. If once they submit to her
claims, by the use of their reason and
the gift of faith, they cannot exercise
their private judgment any further with
regard to those truths which she pro-
poses for their acceptance. For evidently
if they reject her authority on a single
point they show their want of faith in
her infallibility as a teacher as much as
if they rejected all. The question before us
in dealing with the authority of the Church
is not with regard to unbelievers, but to
those who are Christians already. We are
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
37
But again he urges : " The
Fathers do not seem to shrink from
recommending, even to ordinary
inquirers, a difficult way of arriving
at the truth" (p. 50). No one, I
think, who knows anything of the
Fathers will accept such a statement
without limitation. The usual teach-
ing of the Pathers is that we must
simply accept the teaching of the
Church throughout the world.
There is no variety in their teaching
on this point.
They are ready to "dry up all
the rivulets of heretical propositions
with nothing beyond the Sun of the
Church," as St. Jerome's fine phrase
has it.i But there are occasions
when it is hard to discover what the
Church does teach. These more
easily occurred in early times than
now — to mention one cause only,
the means of communication were
not what they are now — and in such
exceptional cases it was occasionally
necessary to supply some additional
directions suited to the circum-
stances. Dr. Gore's first instance
is unfortunate. "Tertullian wit-
nessed in his day the spectacle of
'one and another — the most faith-
ful, the wisest, the most experienced
in the Church, going over to the
wrong side'" (p. 51). Yes, and
what is the remedy that he proposes
(would that he had taken it himself)
to counteract this evil? The ap-
not inquiring how the great Mogul or the
Empress of China should be converted,
but how Dr. Gore comes to know the true
form of the Christian religion so securely
that he is able to publish a book in which,
with some confidence (if not with un-
shaken certainty), he ventures to disagree
with nearly all Christians. For I must
never cease to harp upon this cardinal
point, that I have with me (or rather I am
on the side of) half the Christians of the
world, while Dr. Gore has only a few {i.e.
moderate High-Churchmen) who agree
with him. Is he one of the "few," one
of the " competent persons," who are able
to tell us what the ancients really held ?
^ Adv. Lucif., 28.
peal, not to scripture, not to the
wisdom of the teacher, but to "pre-
scriptive right."
" Which was first in the field, the
Gnostic, or the Church throughout
the world ? " The test was perfectly
simple as well as perfectly con-
clusive. It may be applied just as
well to-day as in the year 200 —
there is now, as then, but one historic
Church to claim our allegiance.
"If ever," says Dr. Gore, "a clear
rule of faith, a papal voice, a centre
to Christendom was needed, it was
then." But the clear rule of faith
was there. As for a centre of
Christendom, Rome was even then
the centre of communion, by the
admission of all scholars; and to
Rome, where the Apostles poured
forth their faith together with their
blood, Tertullian refers his readers,
as to the nearest Church of Apostolic
foundation ; though all the Churches
held the same faith and would give
the same witness. But why "a
papal voice " was wanted I cannot
conceive.2 The voice of the Church
collective was perfectly certain and
well known, and the heretics de-
spised it. They would not have
attended any better to the voice of
the Church's head, speaking in her
name. Besides, the heretical lead-
ers had actually all gone to Rome
in succession, in the hopes of
gaining her to their side — Valen-
tinus, Cerdo and Marcion, Apelles,
Potitus, Basiliscus and Syneros, and
the female foundress of the Carpo-
cratians, Marcellina. All had come,
and had been cast out, just as the
Montanists and the Monarchians,
within the next twenty years after
Tertullian was writing, were to come
thither and to be likewise cast out.
^ A "papal voice" did address Tertul-
lian, with a " peremptory edict" as if (he
says ironically) from a bishop of bishops,
a Pontifex Maximus. But he was then a
heretic, and would not listen.
38
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
But a papal pronouncement ex
cathedra is for the assurance of
Catholics, rather than for the con-
version of heretics; and I do not see
why Dr. Gore thinks it would have
been effective against the Gnostics !
" Once more, the years of the Arian
controversy were years of deepest dis-
tress. Again a papal voice of authority
was sorely needed, if ever. But in the
moment of uttermost strain and pro-
foundest peril the Pope did something
very different from giving a clear voice
for the guidance of Christians. He
repudiated Athanasius, the great up-
holder of the truth, and left him 'alone
against the world'" (pp. 51, 52).
If Liberius momentarily fell, he
was firm both before and after. The
weakness of Hosius and Liberius
availed the Court party less than
their persecution disgraced it. Dr.
Gore is hard to please. When
Athanasius found himself deprived
of his see in 339 or 340, he him-
self appealed to the Pope. The
Pope summoned him to Rome, and
he obeyed.^ The Eusebian party
were also summoned, but they did
not obey. Eventually the Pope, after
awaiting them in vain, assembled
a synod at Rome and acquitted
Athanasius. If this was not a papal
"voice of authority," I do not
know what is. This decision was
•^ St. Julius says, quoted by Athanasius,
ApoL, 29 : *' For he did not come of him-
self, but was summoned by letters from us,
as we wrote to you." So Theodoret,
Hist. Red. ,11.3: " Athanasius, knowing
their plot, retired and betook himself to
the West. For to the bishop of Rome
(Julius was then Shepherd of that Church)
the Eusebians had sent the false accusa-
tions which they had put together against
Athanasius. And he (Julius), folloxving
the law of the Churchy l30th ordered them
to repair to Rome, and also summoned
the divine Athanasius to judgment. And
he, for his part, started at once on receiv-
ing the call : but they who had made up
the story did not go to Rome, knowing
that it would be easy to see through their
falsehood." Cp. Sozom., iii. 10; Athan.,
ApoL y 20', Hist. Arian., 11.
always upheld by Julius, and by his
successor Liberius, except apparently
on one unfortunate occasion, after
an exile borne on this account for
two years, apart from all friends
and advisers. Pope JuHus restored
Eastern bishops to their sees on
his own authority. 2 Pope Liberius
quashed the unorthodox decree
into which the Council of Ariminum
had been betrayed. The position
of Rome during this period is best
summed up in the words which
St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote in his
retirement later on, when the East
was still unsettled after its long
^ Socrates, ii. 15, says he did so on the
ground that the Roman Church had pri-
matial rights. Sozomen, iii. 8, "alleging
that the guardianship of all belonged to
him on account of the dignity of his see."
Dr. Gore quotes the latter passage (p. 10 r,
note), and actually thinks worth while to
point out that it does not follow from the
words of Sozomen that he admitted the
plea of Pope Julius. True, but his general
account of the deeds of Julius and Liberius
proves sufficiently his opinion of their
position. St. Athanasius, at all events,
admitted the plea ! But Dr. Gore is
really astonishing when he goes on : *' Mr.
Rivington curiously enough has not gone
on to quote Sozomen's account of how the
Orientals dealt with his claim to authority. "
These Orientals are Eusebius of Nico-
media, the leader of the heretical Court
party, and his Arianising friends ! Really
the late Dr. Rivington could hardly be
expected to be so unfriendly to Dr. Gore
as to anticipate that he would identify
himself with such a crew ! It was ne'^es-
sary for them to evade the papal authority,
under which Athanasius and orthodoxy
had a safe refuge. This is why they wrote
a letter "full of insincerity " [elpioveias),
says Sozomen, who hates them with all his
heart. Truly Dr. Gore strays into strange
company. He adds, " Nor did Dr.
Rivington mention that Sozomen's account
of Julius's claim, as tested by his own
letters, is exaggerated." True, once more ;
and there are other cases where we find
both Socrates and Sozomen, fifth-century
Greek historians, making more of the papal
prerogative than the actual circumstances
or words on which they comment need
imply (see also ch. vi. ). It was natural for
them to see it where a modern will hesitate
to make the inference.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
39
troubles : " The faith of the one
(Rome) was right long since and is
so yet, binding the whole West with
her saving word."^ In the East,
during the Arian troubles, it is true
that there was great difficulty in
finding out the truth. Heretics had
got the power by intrigue, and kept
it by lying. All claimed to have
the old faith and to be in com-
munion with Rome. But such
times of stress and storm are excep-
tional. Dr. Gore seems inclined to
regard them as normal and even
desirable. "And indeed is not
this difficulty, this requirement of
patience in finding out the truth,
part of the probation of faith ? It
is just what is suited to our time of
discipline" (p. 52). But according
to Dr. Gore, when we think we
have found it (by digging in the
early centuries), there is no living
voice to tell us whether we are
right or wrong.^ It is well to seek,
if we expect to find ; but Dr. Gore's
idea of seeking what we shall have
^ Carmen de Vita Sua, i. 562.
' But Dr. Gore says, "I must protest
that the authority of the Church is, as
we Anglicans understand it, a most real
guidance of our spirit and intellect to
which, by God's mercy, we love to sub-
mit ourselves." Is he sure that these
words, which he evidently means so
solemnly, are in correspondence with
facts ? Is it not possible that he is de-
ceiving himself and others ? For to an
outsider it is so apparently obvious that
Dr. Gore has not accepted a rule of faith
from his own Church, nor from any other
authority than himself. I do not for an
instant doubt that Dr. Gore loves to sub-
mit, believes that he is submitting, and
has the merit of submitting, but for none
of his doctrines has he, in the last analysis,
any other ground than his own opinion
that they express the doctrine of the
Church. He believes seriously that he is
submitting to the Church, while he is after
all submitting to himself.
With regard to a general council, Dr.
Gore says, " With what infinite joy would
we hail its possibility ! " But this is some-
what discounted by the explanation on
p. 42 that the '* authority of general councils
no means of recognising when we
come across it, is simply a proposal
to spend our life in puzzling over a
riddle which has no answer.
Let us put the rival rules of
Faith side by side. Dr. Gore says :
Go and find out what the early
Church believed. We say : Come
and accept what the living Church
teaches.
I. Dr. Gore's rule is illogical, for
it begs the question : ' What reason
have we for trusting to the first three
centuries, or the first five?' The
Church of those centuries does not
tell us that the subsequent ages
would go astray. This rule does not
fulfil the Vincentian rule, "always,
everywhere, and by all."^
only became decisive after their verdict
had been accepted in the Church at large."
This seems to mean that the Church of
England would not be bound to accept
the decision of a general council unless she
dt'd accept it. As a historical fact it may
be well to remark in passing that Dr. Gore
is mistaken. Except in the case of the
first general council (as to which the evi-
dence is defective) there is no doubt that
it was the confirmation by the Pope which
gave them binding force.
"* With regard to this Vincentian canon
itself a word is necessary. The test ^uod
semper^ quod ubique, quod ab omnibus is
proposed by St. Vincent in cases where the
present teaching of the Church has been
impugned or seems to be doubtful. He
does not put it forward as the ordinary rule
of faith, but as a test for emergencies.
Dr. Gore quotes Cardinal Manning as say-
ing : "The appeal to antiquity {i.e. the
appeal behind the present teaching of the
Church) is both a treason and a heresy."
The Cardinal is speaking of an appeal
a^'ainst the present teaching of the Church.
There can be no doubt that St. Vincent of
Lerins would have agreed.
One other point must also be mentioned,
because Dr. Gore has failed to bring it
out. St. Vincent does not think it neces-
sary to understand by antiquity the very
earliest times, but is content with the
witness of the age preceding the raising of
a new question ; for consent in any one
period is sufficient. This is because he
held the Church to be infallible, so that
consent at any one moment implied con-
sent always.
40
THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
For in the first place it frequently,
in Dr. Gore's hands, gives results
which are better described by
"recently, in England, and by a
few."
In the second place, Dr. Gore's
rule itself has absolutely no claim
to antiquity, universality, or consent.
Finally, it is impossible, for by its
use no two persons will arrive at the
same result.^
2. The Catholic principle is logi-
cal, for it carries out the idea (which
Dr. Gore also holds) of a divinely
founded and assisted Church to its
legitimate result. It fulfils the Vin-
centian rule, for the whole Church
has always taught everywhere the
same doctrine. Instead of impos-
sible, it is easy of access and plain
— not a puzzle for the learned, but
a help for the simple.
Dr. Gore holds a principle which
must lead him right if he follows it
out. For him. Church authority is
not a present fact, but the historical
witness of a dead Church of ages
ago. But a careful scrutiny of those
primitive ages, though it may leave
many important doctrines uncertain,
yet must necessarily throw into
brilliant light the claim of the
Church in those early days not
merely to be then living, vocal,
authoritative, infallible, but to pos-
sess these qualities as an unfailing
endowment until the end of the
world. If to St. Ireneeus, to St.
Athanasius, to St. Augustine (for
instance) the voice of the Church of
their day was without appeal, this
was because the same unbroken
unity, the same universality, with
the same compelling voice, were to
endure until Christ should come
CHAPTER IV
THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
T N this chapter I cannot see that
-*- there is much to quarrel about.
Dr. Gore summarily rejects " the
Bible and the Bible only" as the
rule of faith. He tries indeed to
make an antithesis between his
position and the Catholic teaching.
His rule of faith is "the Bible
interpreted by the Church." The
Council of Trent has declared that
the Church " receives and venerates
^ It is true that he says on p. 53 : "And
practically a prayerful and patient Christian
can find out the truth with quite sufficient
security." In view of the present state of
Anglican beliefs, is this ironical ? Is it so
obvious that Dr. Gore is more right than
Prebendary Webb-Peploe, or Mr. Spencer
Tones, or Mr. Beeby, or Canon Hensley
Henson ? or than Harnack or Duchesne ?
with an equal feeling of piety and
reverence all the books of the Old
and New Testament . . . and also
the traditions relating to faith and
morals," etc. There is no obvious
contradiction between these two
rules. Dr. Gore accepts tradition
as well as Scripture as his rule of
faith. So does the Council of Trent.
Modern theologians make a con-
venient division of traditions into
three species : according as they
(i) merely interpret plain words of
Scripture, or (2) deduce from princi-
ples laid down in Scripture, or (3)
add something which is not con-
tained in Scripture. Of these three
classes the first two are incom-
parably the most numerous and
THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
41
important.^ Dr. Gore holds to
their necessity and importance, and
we therefore agree in the main
point. The question is solely
about the third kind.
1. In the first place Dr. Gore
believes fully in the chief point
which has to be proved by tradition
alone. I refer of course to the in-
spired canon of Holy Scripture
itself. The canon may indeed be
partially defended by criticism, as
Dr. Gore points out (p. 60), and the
inspiration of the Old Testament
(though not its canon) is witnessed
to by the New. Yet Dr. Gore will
not deny that it is from the Church
that he gets his Bible, nay he
asserts it.
2. But Dr. Gore actually holds,
on the authority of tradition alone,
a doctrine which the Catholic
Church does not ! The Bible cer-
tainly does not anywhere say that
it contains the whole of Christian
doctrine, and that nothing can be
of faith which cannot be proved by
its witness. Dr. Gore has naturally
not attempted any proof of this
dogma from Scripture, still less
from reason. The only proof he
vouchsafes is a patristic one. I
cannot help thinking it somewhat
illogical to prove by tradition alone
that tradition alone is an insufficient
proof in such matters.
3. What, on the other hand, do
Catholic theologians teach ? While
they declare that there exist un-
written traditions in the Church
which are not in the Bible, they
simultaneously give from the Bible
the proofs of every doctrine they
discuss. If we ask for an example
^ It is not easy to put doctrines in one
category or the other. I should myself put
the Primacy of St. Peter and transubstan-
tiation in the first class, as ' ' declaratory "
traditions. The full doctrine of the Holy
Trinity seems to go into the second class,
together with much of the doctrine of the
sacraments.
of an unwritten tradition, they
suggest the observance of Sunday
and of Lent, or the baptism of
infants. There is at all events not
a single controverted doctrine (ex-
cept that of the inspiration and the
canon of Holy Scripture) for which
they do not offer scriptural proof.
Surely Dr. Gore's fear of unwritten
traditions is a very bugbear. The
few doctrines which Catholic theo-
logians profess to have from tradi-
tion alone are practices (involving
doctrine) to which Dr. Gore has no
objection whatever.^
4. But he claims that the Fathers
taught this sufficiency of Scripture.
The three passages he has quoted,
however, do not prove quite so
much as he thinks. Origen, in the
first place, is the prince of allegor-
ists, and was capable of making
Scripture mean absolutely anything.
The passage from St. Vincent is
incorrectly translated.^ St. Athan-
asius speaks quite generally of the
principal doctrines of Christianity.
Many of the Fathers speak like this,
- Perhaps the perpetual virginity of
Mary is a doctrine which really rests upon
tradition alone. The invocation of Saints
is usually grounded on Scripture by theo-
logians. Such practices as Dr. Gore
might dislike are regarded as develop-
ments, not as traditions.
^ On p. 65 Dr. Gore has rendered :
"Here, perhaps, someone will ask, What
need is there — seeing that the canon of the
Scriptures is perfect, and in itself suffices
to the full for all demands — that the author-
ity of the ecclesiastical interpretation
should be joined to it ? " But St. Vincent
really says, "and suffices to itself to the
full for all its purposes " {.sibiijue ad omnia
salts superqne sujfficiat)^ i.e. in itself
Scripture is not ambiguous, and needs no
interpreter. Dr. Gore may press ad omnia
if he wishes, but it is at best vague, and
does not amount to an assertion that
Scripture "suffices of itself to all de-
mands." Again, on p. 66, there is the
same mistranslation of " 71071 quia ca7t07i
solus 7ion sibi ad universa sufficiat" which
appears as : " Not because the canonical
Scripture is not 0/ itself {\) sufficient for
all things."
42
THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
and we are all agreed that in fact
all the main truths of our religion
are to be found in the Bible.
5, There are conversely very
numerous places in which the
Fathers defend as Apostolic tradi-
tion what they cannot find in Holy
Scripture.^ Dr. Gore is evidently
not unaware of this. "The Fathers,"
he says, " in general draw a distinc-
tion between the authority of Scrip-
ture for doctrine and the authority
of unwritten tradition for practice.
Cf. Tertul., De corona^ 3, 4. St.
Chrysostom on 2 Thess. ii. 15, and
Epiphanius, Hcer.^ Ixi. 6, should
be interpreted in accordance with
this principle." But the Fathers
draw no such distinction. ^ It is
^ Of the authors quoted by Dr. Gore,
Origen more than once appeals to tradi-
tion for the practice of infant Baptism as
proof sufficient without Scripture. St.
Vincent of Lerins praises Pope Stephen
for his appeal to tradition in fav'our of the
validity of Baptism by heretics, against
St. Cyprian's scriptural arguments. Both
these practices involved doctrine, and St.
Vincent regards the rebaptism of heretics
as, in his day, heresy. Both examples are
frequently referred to by St. Augustine.
With regard to the former he says : " That
which the universal Church holds, and
which has not been instituted by councils,
but always retained, is rightly believed to
be of Apostolic tradition." So De Genesi
tt't litt., X. 23 (39) ; cp. Serin. 294, 13 (14),
17 (17), De pecc. mer. eirem.,\. 20(28),
iii. 2 (2). Speaking of heretical Baptism,
he says : ** Even as many things which
are not found in the letters of the Apostles,
nor in the councils of their successors, are
believed to have been handed down and
approved by them." {De Bapt. c. Don.,
ii. 7 (12), and the same again, ibid., v.
23 (31)). He argues the point De Unit.
EccL, 22 (63), and c. Cresc, i. 33 (39). St.
Augustine nowhere limits such traditions
to practices, excluding doctrine. Nay, he
infers doctrine from Apostolic customs.
^ The famous passage of Tertullian, De
cor. mil., 2, 4, gives a list of Apostolic
traditions not grounded on Scripture. Of
these, two involve doctrine — oblations for
the dead and in honour of the martyrs.
The words of St. Epiphanius are quite
general {Hcrr.y Ixi. 6): "Traditions must
also be used, for all things cannot be taken
true that, as is shown in the foot-
note, the traditions which they give
as instances are mainly practices
from the divine Scripture. Wherefore the
holy Apostles handed down some things
in writings, some things in tradition."
This cannot be interpreted in accordance
with Dr. Gore's proposed principle, for
St. Epiphanius's instance is not a custom,
but a doctrine: "The holy Apostles of
God have handed down to the holy Church
of God that it is a sin to turn to mar-
riage, after having decided upon vir-
ginity." Whether we believe the state-
ment or not, at least it is clear that St.
Epiphanius is thinking of doctrines. Again,
the same Father thus defends prayer for
the dead {Har., Ixxv. 9): "The Church
does this of necessity, having received the
tradition from the Fathers," etc. St.
Epiphanius was unacquainted with Macca-
bees. If that book had been in his Bible,
he would have placed this doctrine in the
first class, among declarative traditions, as
is done by modern theologians. I suppose
Dr. Gore does not receive the book. Does
he then find means to defend prayers for
the dead out of the Protestant Bible ? He
certainly believes in their being an Apos-
tolic tradition, but how about the proof
from Scripture?
We next come to the passage of St.
Chrysostom : " Hence it is plain that they
(the Apostles) did not hand down all
things by letter, but many things without
writing. But both the latter and the
former are equally to be believed. So that
we hold the tradition of the Church to be
believed. It is a tradition : ask no more."
But Dr. Gore does ask more : he wants to
know whether the tradition is a practice
or a doctrine before he will consent to
accept it !
Now it is St. Basil's turn. Dr. Gore
quotes : '* It is a manifest falling from the
faith and an argument of arrogancy,
either to reject any point of these things
that are written, or to bring in any of
these things that are not written." Here
"bring in " means " insert." The addition
of anything which limits or contradicts
seems to be intended. As for the passage
De Spir. S. xxvii. 66, St. Basil speaks in
the most general terms of doctrines, but
his instances are of practices. To one of
these especially I would call attention :
the blessing of oil for confirmation and its
use, " the unction itself." We may prefer
to find references to this in Scripture,
{e.g. 2 Cor. i. 21, Eph. i. 13, i John ii.
20, 27), but St. Basil is content simply
with the authority of Apostolic tradition.
THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
43
and not doctrines, but this is not
quite always the case, and (what is
most important) these practices are
but doctrines in act, in many of the
examples. The evident conclusion
is that the Fathers appealed to
Holy Scripture for all the principal
doctrines, but that there were
minor points, chiefly embodied in
customs, which they defended by
tradition alone. This is exactly the
practice of modern theologians.
Thus I think Dr. Gore has been
too positive in rejecting doctrinal
non-scriptural traditions on patristic
authority.
6. But we must go further. I
do not think that I differ seriously
from Dr. Gore's meaning, but his
way of expressing it is by no means
correct. "The patristic conception
of the rule of faith finds it, as we
have seen, {a) in the Bible, {b) in
the witness of the general Church
interpreting the Bible." This is
putting a simple matter backwards,
and it becomes an arbitrary and
unreasonable statement instead of
a piece of the plainest common
sense. One does not see ^ priori
why all Christian truth should be
exclusively contained in the Bible.
It is a collection of writings which
from a rationalist point of view is
a scratch collection. We find three
forms of an early gospel, a later
gospel, a short piece of history,
a number of letters, and a vision,
the whole prefaced by the sacred
books of the Jews. "Bible" is
a misnomer, for Biblia in Greek and
in Latin is a plural word. Catholic
writers more frequently therefore
use the equivalent but clearer ex-
pression, "holy Scripture." It is
not a book by a single writer, like
the Koran, and it looks pri?na facie
so unlikely to be intended as a
corpus of Christian doctrine that
I cannot conceive how one could
approach the modern student with
such a startling dogma in any hopes
of its finding acceptance. Again,
it would be indeed strange if Christ
had founded a Church for the pur-
pose of interpreting the Bible. One
would have anticipated for the
Church some more independent
office. Yet when writing a chapter
on the subject of the authority of
the Church, this is the only office
which Dr. Gore assigns to that
authority.
Now the Fathers agree with
modern Catholic theologians (that
is to say, the latter agree with the
former) in putting tradition first
and the Bible second. Dr. Gore
will of course remember the com-
mencement of St. Irenaeus's third
book against heresies, in which that
Father tells how the Apostles went
throughout the world teaching what
they had heard from Christ, and
how we have still in writing what
some of them preached : Matthew,
Peter, Paul, and John. He goes
on in the third chapter to point out
that the Churches throughout the
world bear consentient testimony
to the Apostles' teaching, which
they had received from the Apostles
themselves or from their disciples.
This is the idea of tradition in the
earliest Fathers — the truths handed
down from generation to generation,
and attested by the Apostolical
succession, which does not mean
(as people seem to think) the suc-
cession of bishops frpm their con-
secrators, but that of bishops in
the same see without a break. The
Bible contains these same truths
written down by Apostles or Apos-
tolic men, but it is not their primary
legacy to the Churches which they
founded. It is secondary, though
of higher dignity than the tradition
of individual Churches, and equal
in dignity to that of the whole
Church. It becomes a test for tra-
dition, and a divinely ordained
44
THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH
means by which the Church's tra-
ditional teaching can possess that
infallibiHty which was promised by
her Fomider.
It is evident, therefore, that the
primary office of the Church is not
to interpret the Bible, but to teach.
What she teaches is what she has
always taught, what the Apostles
first taught her. She proves her
teaching and illustrates it from the
Bible. She shows that its teaching
is in harmony with her own; and
this harmony witnesses to the reality
of her infallibility, and at the same
time to the reality of the Bible's
inspiration. It is now evident why
she alone is its interpreter : it is
because she knew^ its doctrines
before they were committed to
WTiting : the Gospels were wTitten
for her, the Epistles were addressed
to her. She interprets them by
her tradition, not by some special
gift of inspiration, as some might
understand Dr. Gore's theory to
suppose.
When we have thus reversed the
order of that theory, we understand
at once the relation of the contents
of the Bible to the contents of tra-
dition. The Bible is a comprehen-
sive collection. It is a priori
unlikely that there should be any
important doctrine which is not
taught or mentioned or presupposed
or referred to in it. On the other
hand, it is to be expected that some
minor points^ may by chance have
met with no mention. Doctrines
of less moment are usually to be
deduced from or developed out of
larger principles ; consequently very
few doctrines are found to be devoid
of all support from Holy Scripture.
Practices and customs, however,
are less to be expected in such
documents. This is what the
Fathers have found, and modern
theologians have followed suit.
But the most important point of
all is this : The proofs of traditional
doctrines given by the Fathers
are sometimes inconclusive to the
modern mind. The same is also
true of the proofs offered by
theologians, ancient, mediaeval, and
modern, from Holy Writ. The critic
of to-day is not satisfied wath a
" text," but asks for the context, the
intention of the writer, his habits
and his period. Many old-fashioned
proofs from the Old Testatment,
wtien thus handled, tend to disap-
pear. And in the New Testament
it is also true that such rigorous
methods, even where there is per-
fect fairness, make many points but
vague and uncertain, if we have
Holy Scripture alone to go upon.
Dr. Gore will say that we have the
Church to interpret for us. Yes ;
but that is only possible when she
has a plain statement before her.
The modern mind will no longer
consider arguments from allusions
to be interpretations. If we start
with tradition, the slightest allusion
or hint in favour of tradition is of
immense value and has a real im-
pressiveness ; but if we start with
the Bible as the "ultimate record
of the faith " of which " the Church
is the interpreter " (p. 62), though
this may not look a totally different
method, yet it lands us in the dilemma
of either offering ill-grounded inter-
pretations to a critical world, or of
reducing our dogmas to a far smaller
and vaguer set of propositions than
Dr. Gore would desire.
I deny, therefore, that the Fathers
considered "that Scripture is the
sole source of revealed truth" (p. 69).
It is the secondary source, and the
Catholic Church has equal rever-
ence for both sources.
But, in conclusion, I wish to
repeat that I believe Dr. Gore is
not very far from this view, and
if once we agreed in believing
in a visible Church, on this point
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
45
the difference would be seen to lie
more in words that Dr. Gore does
not really mean, or which express
his meaning imperfectly, than in the
meaning itself. ^
CHAPTER V
THE PROMISE TO ST, PETER
DR. GORE'S appeal is to Holy
Scripture and the early Church.
How he has been able to pen, and
again and again to republish, the
statements he makes in this chapter
on St. Peter, I am at a loss to
understand. The Bible and the
Fathers teach quite plainly the
primacy of St. Peter.
The most casual reader of Scrip-
ture must notice how incomparably
more often St. Peter is mentioned
in the Gospels than is any other of
the disciples. Everyone must re-
mark his eager and impulsive
character. He seems to be always
putting himself forward. It is Peter
who asks leave to walk on the
water.2 It is Peter who takes our
Lord and rebukes Him, when he
hears the prophecy of the Passion.-^
It is Peter who cries out at a miracle,
" Depart from me, for I am a sinful
man, O Lord." ^ It is Peter who
exclaims, "Thou shalt never wash
my feet," and then, changed in an
instant, urges a contrary prayer.^
It is Peter who vehemently pro-
claims, "Though all should be
offended, yet will not I," ^ and who
^ The first paragraph of this fourth
chapter of Dr. Gore's is excellent, and
contains in embryo what I have just been
urging. It is a pity he spoilt it by the
topsy-turvy doctrine which follows.
2 Mt. xiv. 28.
^ Mt. xvi. 22 ; Mc. viii. 32.
* Lc v. 8. 5 Jo. xiii. 9.
^ Mt. xxvi. 33, 35 ; Mc. xiv. 29 ; Lc.
xxii. 34.
asks, " Why cannot I follow Thee
now ? " " and it is Peter who takes
one of the two swords, and makes
a clumsy dash at the high priest's
servant, ^ and who, in spite of the
danger, follows His Master " afar
off" to the palace of the high
priest. ^ It is Peter who in his ex-
citement thrice denies his Master
with cursing and swearing.
The same eagerness makes him
the spokesman of the Apostles.
Peter asks our Lord to explain a
parable.^^ Peter asks how often one
must forgive a brother.^^ Peter calls
attention to the dead fig tree.^^ Peter
says, "Lord, sayest Thou this to us,
or also to all % " ^^ Peter says, " Be-
hold, we have left all and have fol-
lowed Thee. What shall we have
for this ? " !•* Peter says, " Lord, to
whom shall we go ? Thou hast the
words of eternal life." ^^ Peter,
answering a question addressed to
all, cries, "Thou art the Christ, the
Son of the living God ! " ^^
But is it only his natural vivacity
which makes him the spokesman of
the Apostles? Is it not also his
position among the Apostles? To
begin with, he is one of the three
who are chosen above the twelve,
who are mentioned first in the lists
"^ Jo. xiii. 37. ^ Jo. xviii. 10.
" Mt. xxvi. 58 ; Mc. xiv. 54 ; Lc. xxii.
54 ; Jo. xviii. 15.
1° Mt. XV. 15. 11 Mt. xviii. 21.
12 Mc. xi. 21. ^'^ Lc. xii. 41.
^^ Mt. xix. 27 ; Mc. x. 28 ; Lc. xviii. 28.
^5 Jo. vi. 69. ^« Mt. xvi. 16.
46
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
of the Apostles.^ These three speak
to our Lord apart, that He may tell
them what He might have left tin-
said in the presence of the rest.^
He chooses them to be the wit-
nesses of the raising of the dead,^
of His Transfiguration,^ and of His
Agony. ^ But even among these
three it is Peter who is the spokes-
man. He proposes to remain on
Tabor : ** It is good for us to be
here." And our Lord Himself re-
cognises this leadership. " He saith
to Peter : Could ye not watch ? "
He speaks as to the leader of the
three. " He saith to Simon, Sleep-
est thou ? Watch ye and pray."
In the same vein the evangelist
speaks of the three as " Peter and
they that were with him," ^ and the
same expression stands for the
disciples in Luke viii. 45. After
the Resurrection, the Angel bids
the women, " Go tell His disciples
and Peter " '' ; and we find the same
distinction of Peter from the rest in
the Acts : " Peter with the eleven";
"Peter and the Apostles."^ So also
in St. Paul's account of the witnesses
of the resurrection : " He was seen
by Cephas, then by the twelve."^
Even in the incident of the
tribute money the Fathers find an
instance of Peter's headship. The
collectors came to Peter for informa-
tion, says St. Chrysostom, "because
he seemed to be the first of the
disciples " ; and he follows Origen
in tracing the question which arose
among the disciples " at that hour,"
who was greatest in the kingdom, to
their jealousy of the honour done
^ Mc. iii. 16; Lc. vi. 14; Acts i. 13;
Andrew, however, is put next to Peter by
Mt. X. 2, as his brother.
"^ Mc. xiii. 3.
^ Mc. V. 37; Lc. viii. 51.
* Mt. xvii. I ; Mc. ix. 2 ; Lc. ix. 28.
^ Mt. xxvi. 37 ; Mc. xiv. 33.
^ Lc. ix. 32. "^ Mc. xvi. 7.
* Acts ii. 14 and v. 29. Cp. Ignat.
^ifnyru. Ill, 2.
I Cor. XV. 5.
to Peter by our Lord in paying the
tribute for him by a miracle. ^^
As Peter is thus recognised as
the spokesman of the disciples, so
he is invariably mentioned first
when joined with others. There
are about five-and-twenty places in
the Gospels and the Acts^^ where
the name of Peter occurs with other
names, and in every single case the
name of Peter stands first.
St. Paul gives the order : " Paul,
Apollos, Cephas, Christ." He in-
tends it, St. Chrysostom tells us,
for an order of ascending dignity.
The same occurs once more :
" Whether Paul, or Apollos, or
Cephas " ; but further on we find
a climax yet more remarkable: "The
other Apostles, and the brethren of
the Lord, and Cephas." " He puts
the Coryphaeus last," again observes
St. Chrysostom ; and even Father
Puller allows that "it is fair to quote
this passage in favour of St. Peter's
primacy of order." ^^
There is only one place in Holy
Scripture where St. Peter is not
named first in rank: "James and
Cephas and John, who are accounted
pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas
the right hand of fellowship" (Gal. ii.
9). Against the cardinal doctrines of
Christianity objections may be
made from isolated passages, in
spite of other conclusive proofs.
But the few passages have to be
interpreted in accordance with the
many. Here we have a single
instance against more than two
dozen which are clear : thus the
'" Matt. xvii. 23 ; Origen in Mail. xiii.
14 ; Chrys. in Matt. hoin. 58 (59), 2.
^^ Dr. Gore (p. 83) points to Acts viii. 14
as a proof that St. Peter was not Primate ;
"The Apostles sent Peter and John."
That is, Peter and his colleagues sent Peter
and John. How on earth is this to be
made to contradict St. Peter's supremacy ?
'^'^ I Cor. i. 12; iii. 22; ix. 5. Chrys.
in I Cor. horn. 3 and horn. 21 (vol. x. p.
2^, 172). Puller, Pri til itive Saints, 3rd ed.
p. III.
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
47
Protestant argument from this pas-
sage that St. Paul did not admit
any primacy in St. Peter falls to the
ground.^
But St. Peter is not only men-
tioned first, he is actually called
''the first," 6 tt/jwtos, in St. Matthew's
list of Apostles (x. 2).
In consequence he is often called
"first" by the Fathers, and they
constantly mention his firstness or
" primacy." Continually they re-
peat that he is ''the first of the
disciples," " the first in the Church,"
"the first of the Apostles,""^ "the
powerful and great one of the
Apostles, on account of his virtue,
their leader,"^ "the most hon-
oured,"'* "the chosen, the elect,
the first."^ "Who should be unaware
that St. Peter is the first of the
Apostles?" asks St. Augustine,*^ as
if addressing modern Protestants.
Peter is "the tongue of the dis-
ciples, the voice of the heralds, the
eye of the Apostles, the Keeper of
heaven, the firstborn of those who
bear the keys."''' He is the leader
or "coryph?eus,"S an expression
^ There was some reason for this order.
Probably James was the first of the three
seen by St. Paul, and John the last. What
is most noticeable is "that to the Fathers
this order of names was so unnatural that
Irenoeus, Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa,
Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, are found to
quote St. Paul as saying "Peter and
James and John " ! This reading is also
found in the uncial MSS. D, E, F, G.
"^ For "first" no references need be
given, as the expression is so universally
applied to St. Peter. '* First in the
Church" (Chrys., De Eleem., iii. 4.)
2 Euseb., Hist. EccL, ii. 14. So Asterius,
Horn, in App. P. et P. -. " First Disciple,
and greater among the brethren."
■* Ti/xiurrepos (Origen) TifxiibraTos (Chrys.)
■irpoTi/xu}T€pos (Asterius).
' Clem. Al, Quis dives, 21.
^ Trad 56 in Joann.
' Ephrem Syrus, Gr. in SS. App.
^ So, e.g., Peter Alex., Athanasius,
Cyril liier., Macarius /Egyp., Eusebius,
Epiphanius, Basil Seleuc, Isidore Pelus.,
Cyril Alex., Chrysostom, Proclus, Nilus,
Theodoret, John Damasc., etc.
which is also appHed to Peter,
James, and John in the plural, or to
Peter and Paul; but Peter is the
KopT^^atoTaTo?.^ Similarly the Latins
call him the Prince of the Apostles,^^
which 'in the singular only means
St. Peter, though "the Princes of
the Apostles" means Peter and
Paul. The Fathers continually
mention his primacy, pri?natus,
principatus^ and these expressions
lead us on to the stronger titles.
For princeps^ from the time of
Augustus onwards, had come to
mean a ruler, a sovereign, though
still capable of bearing its original
meaning of simple firstness. There
can be no doubt that St. Leo meant
" ruler of the whole Church " when
he said of Peter, "totius ecclesiae
princeps " ; and his contemporary,
St. Peter Chrysologus, the great
bishop of Ravenna and Doctor of the
Church, meant no less by the words,
" Let Peter hold his ancient princi-
pality of the apostolic choir." Can
we help similarly understanding St.
Optatus's " Peter, that is, our prince " ?
or the " prince of the episcopal circle "
of the Emperor Valentinian IIL" ?^^
In St. Augustine's writings the word
princeps frequently means ruler or
emperor ; are we to understand it in
a milder sense whenever he applies
it to St. Peter ?i2
But other titles have a clearer
signification. The head of the
Apostles ^^ (a very common expres-
' Cyril Jerus. Cat.^ ii. 15. Epiph.,
Har., 59.
^^ So, e.g., Hilary, Optatus, Pacian,
Jerome, Salvian, Sedulius, Augustine,
Cassian, Leo, etc.
^^ Leo, Serm.y iv. 4. Peter Chrysol.,
Serm. 154. Optatus,ii.4. Valentinian IIL,
aptid Leon. Ep. xi.
^"^ St. Augustine often uses princeps of
the Emperors, as other writers do, both
secular and ecclesiastical. He found it in
his Latin Bible in the sense of sovereign,
e.g. " princeps huius mundi " (John xiv. 30),
"principes huius sceculi " (i Cor. ii. 6).
^' e.g. Optatus, Jerome, Maximus Taur.,
Ephrem, Aphraates, Chrysostom, etc., etc.
48
THE PROMISE TO ST PETER
sion) has surely more than a primacy
of honour over the members. The
Greek P'athersusethe names "leader"
(7r/)oo-raTr^s, Trpwroarar^^?, /^yov/xevo?),
"ruler" {p.pyo%^ ^PXV'Y^'^i ^^PX^'^)y
" the prominent one " (Tr/aoexwi/,
Trpo€KKeLfx€vo^). Most of these words
postulate something more than rank.
Father Puller has said that St. Peter
had among the Apostles only the
rank which the Duke of Norfolk
enjoys among English peers. Is
the Duke their Trpwroo-Tar);? ? Per-
haps. But can he be considered
their Tr/Doo-Tarrys, 7}yov/xcvo?, or is
not this the Lord Chancellor or the
leader of the House ? or is he their
apxos, €^apxo^,^ or is not this the
King ? Suppose that any individual
one of these expressions can be
explained away, there yet remains
their number, their frequency, their
variety. It is not conceivable that
the Fathers should have harped so
consistently, persistently, insistently,
on a supremacy which, in Dr. Gore's
phrase, does not " carry with it any
prerogative of primary importance."
It is not necessary to dwell on
this. The inference is sufficiently
obvious.-
^ Upoardrris (Basil Seleuc, Chrys. ),
irpoarao-ia (Chrys.), irpuToaTdTrji (Proclus,
Cyril Hier.), -lyyoufxepoi (Cyril Alex.),
ixlyiaros (Asterius), praecipuus (Maximus
Taur. ),dtpxos (Greg. Naz.), <i/3X'?7os(Epiph-
anius), ^^apxos (Acts of Council of Chal-
cedon, in speech of Philip, papal legate),
irpoex^v (Cyril Alex.), irpoeKKeifievos (Cyril
Alex.), TrpoKpLTOi (Peter Alex., Cyril Alex.),
TTpoKpidei^ (Creg. Naz. , Basil), TrpoKCKpi/xevos
(Eusebius), irpo-qyopos (Eusebius).
- Chrysostom, for instance, is fond of
passages like these : " Peter, that head of
the Apostles, the first in the Church, the
friend of Christ, who received the revelation
not from man but from the Father . . .
this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean
the unbroken Rock, the unshaken founda-
tion, the great Apostle, the first of the
disciples, the first called, the first to
obey"; "Peter, the coryphaeus of the
choir of the Apostles, the mouth of the
disciples, the foundation of the Faith, the
base of the confession, the fisherman of
But it is a light thing that Feter
should appear in the Bible as the
mouthpiece of the Apostles and
the first among them, and chat he
should invariably be mentioned in
the place of honour. It is actually
related there how our Lord promised
him the primacy over the Church
and how he invested him with it.
I. THE PRIMACY PROMISED
(Matt. xvi. 18-19)
^^Thou art Peter ; and upoiithis rock
I will build My Churchy and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against
it. And I will give to thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven. And what-
soever thou shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven^ and whatsoever
thou shall loose on earth, it shall be
loosed also in heaven.^^
Dr. Gore's explanation of this
famous promise is as follows : —
"It is difficult, I think, to feel any
doubt that our Lord is pronouncing
the person of Peter to be the Rock.
The Church as a human society is to
be built on human characters, and in
virtue of St. Peter's courageous act of
faith in Himself, his deliberate accept-
ance of His Divine claim, our Lord
sees in him, what He had hitherto
failed to find among men, a solid basis
on which His spiritual fabric may be
reared, or at least a basis capable of
the world " ; " the first of the Apostles,
the foundation of the Church, the cory-
phaeus of the choir of the Apostles " ;
"the foundation of the Church, the ve-
hement lover of Christ ... he who ran
throughout the world, who fished the whole
world"; "this holy coryphceus of the
blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the
ardent disciple, who was entrusted with
the keys of heaven, who received the
spiritual revelation"; "Peter, the cory-
phffius of the choir, the moutli of all the
Apostles, the head of that company, the
ruler of the whole world, the foundation of
the Church, the fervent lover of Christ. "
These passages are from De Eleemos, iii, 4 ;
Horn, de decern tnille tal. 3 ; ad cos qui
scandal, sunt 17 ; in illud. Vidi Dmn. iv. 3 ;
In Act. App. vi. I ; in illud. Scitote quod
in noviss. dieb. 4.
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
49
being solidified by discipline and ex-
perience, till it become a foundation
of rock on which the Church can
rest" (p. 76).
The ancients would have said
simply that the Church is built on
men rather than have dragged in
the abstraction "human characters."
The rest of the sentence is good,
though somewhat obvious.
Of the second part of the promise
Dr. Gore says, "He goes on beyond
all question to promise to invest
him with an office, the office of
steward in the Divine kingdom, with
a supernatural legislative authority."
• So far, so good.
But Dr. Gore holds that St. Peter
was not alone in his stewardship, or
even as foundation, but that he
merely shared these prerogatives,
share and share alike, with the other
Apostles. The solemn promise,
with its impressive introduction —
" Blessed art thou, Simon, son of
Jona " — and with all the startling
emphasis of its wording, though
pronounced as the reward of Peter's
bold confession, was not really a
promise, was not really a reward to
Peter in particular. It was a mere
pretence of special favour, a decep-
tion, for the twelve were long since
chosen, and they were all to receive
exactly the same position which is
here promised, as if it were a
unique privilege, to one only. This
is the plain meaning of Dr. Gore's
interpretation, baldly put. I do
not wish to characterise it, nor
need I.
Over against this Dr. Gore puts
forward as the " Roman " view
what he calls the " mediatorial "
position of St. Peter. He finds it
in St. Leo the Great (surely one of
the most eminent of primitive
saints) and in St. Francis de Sales.
He notes that Father Richardson
repudiated the doctrine, while the
late Dr. Rivington accepted it : —
" He is to be the Vicar of Christ
upon earth. To him alone is primarily
given the pastorate of souls and the
authority of the keys. To the other
Apostles these are only given medi-
ately through him. Whatever they
have, they have not directly from
Christ, but indirectly from Christ
through Peter."
It is quite easy for Dr. Gore to
refute this dogma by merely point-
ing to the fact that in reality our
Lord actually gave the power to
forgive sins and the mandate to
preach and to baptise to all the
Apostles directly, and not through
Peter. What stupid people these
Romanists must be — Leo, Francis
of Sales, Rivington — never to have
noticed this plain fact ; but then, of
course, Romanists do not read their
Bible ! Only I remember that a
few pages back Dr. Gore was citing
St. Leo as a witness to the neces-
sity of Bible - reading, and Dr.
Rivington was so long a Protestant
that he can hardly have been for-
getful of such important passages
of Holy Scripture. Does not this,
perhaps, suggest to Dr. Gore that
there is a hitch somewhere ? Why
not recognise that St. Leo means,
and that St. Francis says, that our
Lord Himself directly gave to His
Apostles powers which were to be
used in subordination to one among
them, whom He constituted their
head. This is all that is really
meant by the imaginary " media-
torial position of St. Peter." The
"gifts" which St. Leo says flow
down to the whole body from Peter
are the gifts which can only be given
in subordination to his jurisdiction.
The metaphor is not to be pressed
until it becomes ridiculous, but as
it is intended it is perfectly true, for
less than this would not give any
headship to St. Peter at all. For
instance, in the diocese in which I
live the jurisdiction all flows from
50
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
the bishop, and since all the teach-
ing, all the sacrifices, all the sacra-
ments are administered by his direc-
tion, and cannot licitly be adminis-
tered without it, it may rightly be
said that the gifts of God flow to
his flock only through him. But
this does not imply that he must
himself have ordained all the clergy
of his diocese ! The " mediatorial
position of St. Peter " is not an ex-
pression familiar to Catholic theo-
logy, but if it is to be used, it must
mean neither more nor less than I
have said.
Dr. Gore admits that St. Peter
had a kind of primacy, " which had
to do with the opening of Church
history" (p. 83). ^ In a note he
adds, " This is TertuUian's view {de
Fudicitia, c. xxi.), but his very
powerful exposition is reduced in
authority by the Montanist anwiiis
of the passage, which is aimed
against the perpetuity of the power
of * loosing ' in the Church." Ter-
tullian is trying to show that the
whole promise to St. Peter was per-
sonal to himself, and could not be
used by the Church as deriving it
from him. This treatise is about
his latest and most spiteful, written
when he had been some twenty
years outside the Church. In this
"powerful exposition" he is refuting
the view taught by the Church he
had deserted. This fact may well
be said to " reduce " his authority !
I am sincerely glad that, as a fact,
the passage does not support Dr.
Gore, whose view is diametrically
^ This primacy of action, held also by
Lightfoot, is right as far as it goes. I am
very glad Dr. Gore does not support the
blasphemous idea preconised by Father
Puller, that St. Peter had a primacy of
honour only. Our Lord frequently told
His Apostles that the first place among
them was to be one of service to the rest;
and can we dare to say that He Him-
self conferred upon St. Peter an empty
honour ?
the opposite of TertuUian's (and far
less objectionable), for he holds
that the promises to St. Peter were
meant for all the Apostles.-
Tertullian is apparently replying
in the passage to a decree of Pope
Callistus (c. 218-23), in which the
" mediatorial " view (to use Dr.
Gore's expression) was upheld.
About 208, when only some eight
years a heretic, Tertullian had
taught that very doctrine, writing
not against the Church, but against
the Gnostics. "The Lord left the
keys of the Church to Peter, and
through hhn to the Church " {Scorp.
10). We can trace the same doc-
trine onwards in Africa. We shall
presently see St. Cyprian deriving
the authority of the bishop from
St. Peter. St. Optatus in the fourth
century is most explicit : " For the
good of unity Blessed Peter de-
served to be preferred before the
rest, and alone received the keys of
the Kingdom of Heaven, that he
might commu?iicate them to the 7'est "
(i. 10). In St. Augustine the same
idea occurs frequently ; the keys,
he says, were given to Peter as
bearing the figure of the Church,
and more than once he explains
that it is because of his primacy
that he thus represented the
Church.^
- If it is astonishing that Dr. Gore
should not have seen that Tertullian is
directly opposed to him, it is not less so
that this " powerful exposition " finds St.
Peter's power of binding and loosing to
have been principally exercised at the
Council of Jerusalem, whereas Dr. Gore
says, " He occupies no governing position
in the Council of Jerusalem . . . the
formal authority, the formal ' I decide,'
comes from St. James." Tertullian has,
of course, seen that Peter speaks last, after
the discussion is over (Acts xv. 7), as St.
Chrysostom points out : ** He first permits
the question to be moved in the Church,
and then speaks " (on Acts in loco. ; Oxf.
trans, pp. 446, 447).
^ I repeat the following references from
an elaborate footnote on the subject in the
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
We must now turn to the text of
St. Matthew itself. There are four
different interpretations in the
fathers of the "rock."
(a) The ante-Nicene Fathers and
the mass of later writers make
St. Peter himself the rock. This
Dr. Gore holds to be right, and
so do I.
(d) After the rise of Arianism,
the Fathers wished to emphasise
St. Peter's declaration, "Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living
God." Therefore they say some-
times that the Church is built on
Peter's act of faith, his assertion ;
(c) Or they go further, and say
it is built on the doctrine which he
confessed.
(d) St. Augustine invented a new
exegesis — that the rock is Christ.
The last opinion may be at once
pronounced impossible. It rests
on a distinction between Fefra and
Petrus which could not have been
made in the language which our
Lord was using ; ^ it would be
hardly comprehensible unless our
Lord said, ^^ but upon this rock,"
instead of " a7id upon this rock " ;
and if St. Matthew had meant us to
understand him thus, he would
have told us that Christ pointed to
Revue BenJd,]^r\., 1903, pp. 37, 38, directed
against the misunderstandings of P'ather
Puller: "To Peter bearing the figure of
the Church" {de agone 30; Serm. 149 6 ;
4 18 ; Retract, i. 21 ; Tract 118 in Joann.).
"Almost everywhere Peter merited to
bear the person of the whole Church"
{Serm. 295 2; 75 9) etc., "on account
of the primacy which he had among the
disciples" [Etiarr. in Ps. 108 i), "the
first and chief in the order of the Apostles,
in whom the Church was figured " {Serm.
76 3). "To Peter first, because among
the Apostles Peter is first " {Serm. 295 4),
etc.
^ St. Augustine invented this interpre-
tation as a part of his argument against
the Donatists that the validity of the sac-
raments does not depend on the sanctity
of the minister, because Christ acts in the
minister. Peter has his name from Christ,
Petrus a Petra.
himself as He spoke. St. Augus-
tine himself does not venture to
reject the usual interpretation, in
favour of which he quotes a hymn
of St. Ambrose, but he says the
reader may choose. But now
comes the important point. St.
Augustine treats of the matter in
his Retractations^ a book in which
he makes the most minute correc-
tions in his former writings, all
of which he passes under review.
He tells us here that he has several
times himself spoken of St. Peter
as the Rock. He has done so in
the following well-known passage
of his acrostic hymn against the
Donatists, which is a sort of popular
ditty meant to be learnt by heart
and sung by the people as an anti-
dote to the Donatist claims : —
" Number the bishops from the see
of Peter itself.
And in that order of Fathers see
who succeeded whom,
That is the rock against which the
gates of hell do not prevail."
{Ps. c. partes Don. str. 18).
We cannot doubt that St. Augus-
tine would have been at great pains
to remedy in such a composition
the slightest point of doctrine
which seemed to him to be ill-
founded or ever so little misleading.
He says in the Retractations that
he is now inclined to think another
explanation of the text more correct;
but the doctrine founded on it
(which is of course an infinitely
more important matter) he leaves
untouched. He had not ceased to
believe that the Roman See, to the
enumeration of whose bishops he
so frequently appeals, was truly the
rock upon which the Church is
founded, and against which the
gates of hell do not prevail. He
had originally meant to emphasise
in a telling way the position of that
Church with which the Donatists
52
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
were not in communion ; and the
remembrance of St. Peter the rock
naturally suggested a transference
(occasionally but rarely met with
elsewhere among ancients and
moderns) of the metaphor to
Peter's see. Never does he suggest
that though the metaphor might be
mistaken, the fact expressed by it
was doubtful. It is thus clear that
the unusual interpretation of the
rock by so thoroughgoing a Papalist
as St. Augustine has no doctrinal
significance whatever. Among the
few writers who have followed St.
Augustine the venerable Bede is
chief. No one, I suppose, will
suggest that St. Bede did not at-
tribute a primacy of jurisdiction to
St. Peter and his successors.
The third view, that the rock is
the doctrine enunciated by Peter,
is not a literal interpretation of our
Lord's words. He cannot have
meant : " Thou art Peter, and upon
this fact that I am the Christ I will
build My Church " ; nor can it be
shown that any ancient writer
seriously proposed so unnatural
an exegesis. Statements that the
Church is built on the belief in our
Lord's Divinity are extensions of the
interpretation, just as St. Augustine
mystically extended to Rome what
was said of St. Peter.
The second interpretation may
be thus expressed : " Thou art
Peter, and upon thy firm faith in
My Divinity I will build My
Church." But in such a case there
is no distinction between a man
and his act. " Upon thy firm faith "
is the same as "upon thee, for the
firmness of thy faith." Thus the
first and second views are practically
identical, and the third is only an
extension of the second. The three
may be paraphrased thus :
I. Thou art Peter, a rock in con-
fessing My Divinity, and upon thee
I will build My Church.
2. Thou art Peter, and upon the
rock of thy faith shown in confess^
ing My Divinity I will build My
Church.
3. Thou art Peter, and upon faith
in My Divinity I will build my
Church, in that I shall build it on
thee.
The Fathers who give the second
sense give it as an extension of the
first; they do not mean it as the
only possible one : hence we are not
surprised to find both used by one
and the same Father according to
his needs. Similarly, the third is
an extension of the second, and
whoever uses it means to pre-
suppose the second and the first
also. Again we find these also used
indifferently by the same writers, for
instance, by Chrysostom and Epi-
phanius in the East, or by Hilary
and Ambrose in the West.
We conclude of necessity, there-
fore, that the divergences of the
Fathers in using this text are " sig-
nificant," not of their carelessness
about it, as Bishop Gore supposes,
but of their sense of its importance.
If we put aside St. Augustine's in-
genious invention, it may fairly be
said that the Fathers are unanimous
in agreeing with Dr. Gore that St.
Peter is the rock.^ The confession
which drew from our Lord such
praise and such a dignity is set up,
in consequence, by the Fathers as
a sure antidote to heresy. It is
because they recognise that for his
confession St. Peter was made the
rock-foundation of the Church that
^Ante-Nicene Fathers: Tertullian (thrice),
Cyprian (often), Origen (often), Firmilian
and Pope Stephen Tin the letter of the
former), Ps. Clementines, Treatise de Alea-
ioribiis (this may be post-Nicene). Of post-
Nicene Fathers I mention a few of the most
eminent only: Eusel)ius, Hilary, Gregory
Nyssen, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Pacian,
Epiphanius, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysos-
tom, Cyril of Alexandria, and so on. In
Syriac, Aphraates, Ephrem.
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
53
they infer the doctrine he confessed
to be the foundation of Christian
doctrine.
The second part of the promise
needs little comment. Dr. Gore
admits that Peter is made a steward
of the kingdom, like Eliacim, the
son of Helcias, in Isaias xxii. 22.
But the essence of the office of
steward is that it should be held by
one man. I do not think the
Fathers always realised that the
possession of the keys meant this
office of steward. But they often
advert to the fact that only Peter
receives the keys.^
One of the oldest commentators
on this passage, and perhaps the
most complete (I do not forget St.
Leo), is St. Cyprian. Dr. Gore has
quoted him (p. 89), but has not
understood him.
St. Cyprian refers to the pas-
sage with great frequency, because
it affords him proof for so many
doctrines. I take first the most
famous place in which he uses it,
the central paragraph of his treatise
on the unity of the Church. Its
celebrity arises from the well-known
" interpolations " which appear in
many editions. I give a translation
of the original form from Hartel's
edition :
" All this occurs, beloved brethren,
because men return not to the origin
of the truth, nor seek the fountain-
head, nor preserve the doctrine of the
heavenly teaching. If this be con-
sidered and examined, a long treatise
and arguments are not required ; the
proof is easy to faith by a summary of
the truth. The Lord says to Peter :
" / say unto thee., that thou art Peter ^
and upon this rock I will build My
Church., and the gates of hell shall not
^ St. Optatus has been quoted. Notice
St. Cyprian also : " The Church, which is
one, and was founded upon one, who also
received the keys of it, by the voice of the
Lord." Ep. 73, II. The passage to be
cited from St. Jerome, Adii. /ov. i. 26, is
an exception.
overcofne it. To thee will I give the
keys of the Ki?igdom of heaven., and
what thou shall bind on earth shall be
boujid in heaveft^ and what thou shall
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Upon one He builds His Church."
De Eccl. Cath. Unitaie, 4.
So far is clear. St. Cyprian next
suggests a possible objection, and
replies to it :
"And though to all the Apostles
after His resurrection He gives a like
power, and says •.''As My F'ather hath
sent Me, even so send I you : Receive
ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins
ye shall have remitted., they shall be
remitted ujito them, a?id whosesoever
sijts ye retai?i, they shall be retained;
yet, that He might make unity plain.
He disposed the origin of that same
unity beginning from one. The other
Apostles were indeed also what Peter
was, endued with a like fellowship
both of office and of power : but the
beginning is made from unity, that the
Church of Christ may be shown to be
one." Ibid,
The meaning is clear. St. Cyprian
admits that the Apostolic office and
the power of binding and loosing
were given alike to all, but Peter
is the foundation on whom the other
Apostles are built, and in whom,
therefore, they have their unity.
According to Dr. Gore: "This insti-
tution of the Church in the person
of one man first, was a symbolic
act to emphasise Christ's intention
of unity. Peter, when Christ speaks
to him after his great confession, is
addressed as the ' representative of
the Church.' " This is a mistake.
St. Augustine does, indeed, fre-
quently say that it was as the repre-
sentative of the Church and as
Primate of the Apostles that St.
Peter received the keys and the
power of binding and loosing ; it is
one of his favourite phrases, for
the Donatists, against whom he
wrote so much, denied that the
Church had this power in the full
54
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
sense. But he never thought of
saying anything so absurd as that
Peter was the representative of the
Church when he ivas called the rock
up07i which the Church is built —
as though the Church could be
founded on itself! St. Augustine
applied the metaphor of the rock
to our Lord Himself. The powers
explicitly given to St. Peter he re-
ceived as the representative of the
Church, because (as St. Augustine
held) he was its head, nor can any
other cause be imagined by which
he could become its representative.
To return to St. Cyprian, " a sym-
bolic act" suggests, I am afraid,
the unfortunate explanation of St.
Cyprian given by Father Puller and
by the late Archbishop Benson,
that : " The Apostles are all made
equal in honour and power by our
Lord's commission. Simply to de-
clare the unity of His Church,
He, the first time that He gives
that commission, gives it to one."
That is to say, the great proof,
according to St. Cyprian, of the
unity of the Church and of mon-
episcopacy, is the promise made to
St. Peter alone that he should re-
ceive what, in fact, all the Apostles
were to receive ! Archbishop Ben-
son naturally thought the argument
a poor one.^
Now it is evident that St. Cyprian
does not say anything of that
authority which St. Peter theoreti-
cally received over the other
Apostles (theoretically, I say, for
no one supposes that he ordered
them about). But the mention of
this superiority was not to the point.
What St. Cyprian wishes to em-
phasise is the unity which must
characterise a structure which arises
on a single rock. It is just this
which makes in his eyes the im-
^ Benson, Cyprian, ch. iv. i, p. i8i ;
Puller, Prim. SS. 3d. ed., ch. ii. app. B.,
p. 88.
portance of the text, and it is just
this which Anglican eyes have failed
to see.
In consequence, we find St.
Cyprian, almost each time he men-
tions St. Peter, calling him " Peter
upon whom the Church is built." ^
The same text is to the same
Saint the great proof of the author-
ity of the bishop. Obviously the
government of the Church by mon-
archical bishops cannot be directly
proved from Holy Scripture; it rests
upon tradition. To St. Cyprian, as
to the Fathers generally, bishops
are successors of the Apostles.
The powers of binding and loosing
given to all the Apostles have come
down to bishops. But the bishop
is not thereby shown to be the one
ruler of his diocese. On the con-
trary, one might rather infer that, as
the Apostles certainly all received
jurisdiction over the whole Church,
so each diocese after this analogy
should be governed by a college of
bishops, and some scholars think
this was actually the earliest system.
St. Cyprian is most anxious to prove
the divine origin of monepiscopacy,
and he boldly bases it on our Lord's
words to St. Peter : —
" Our Lord, whose precepts we
ought to fear and observe, in establish-
ing the office of a bishop and the
constitution of His Church in the
Gospel, speaks and says to Peter: '/
say unto thee that thou art Peter . . .
be loosed iti heaven.^ Hence, through
the changes and successions of time,
the establishment of bishops and the
constitution of the Church are handed
down, so that the Church is con-
2 Ep. 71, p. 773; Ep. 43, P- 594;
Ep. 70, p. 769; Ep. 59, 7, P- 674;
Ep. 66, 8, p. 732 ; Ep. 73, 7, P- 783 ;
Ibid. II, p. 786; De hab. vtrg. 10,
p. 194; Ad Fort. II, p. 338. I have
quoted all these passages in Revue Rented.
Oct. 1902, p. 370. I have used above
much that I had already inserted in my
three articles on St. Cyprian, Revue Bened,
July, 1902, Oct., 1902. and Jan., 1903.
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
55
stituted upon bishops, and every act
of the Church is directed by these
same prelates." Ep. 33, i.
But if the paramount and singular
authority of the bishop is derived
from St. Peter, it seems hard not to
conclude that St. Peter himself had
an autliority which was singular and
paramount. Let us hear another
passage on episcopal authority: —
" There is one God and one Christ
and one Church founded upon Peter
by the voice of the Lord. Another
altar cannot be established, nor a new
Priesthood set up, besides the one
altar and the one Priesthood. Whoso
gathers elsewhere, scatters abroad."
Ep. 43, 5-
The Chair is the episcopal office,
as often in St. Cyprian. The Priest-
hood {sacerdotiiim) is the Episcopate.
There can be but one bishop in a
diocese, we are told, because our
Lord set up but one Chair when
He made His promise to St. Peter.
Let an African bishop of the next
century comment for us on this
point. St. Optatus writes : —
" You cannot deny that you know-
that in the city of Rome the Chair was
first conferred on Peter, in which the
prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat
... in which Chair unity should be
preserved by all, so that he should
now be a schismatic and a sinner who
should set up another Chair against
that unique one." c. Parmen. ii. 2.
The meaning of St. Optatus is
not doubtful. Peter localised his
Chair in Rome, and made that the
centre of unity : —
"Therefore in the Single Chair,
which is the first of the endowments
[enumerated by Parmenian,the writer's
Donatist adversary] sat first Peter, to
whom succeeded Linus ... [a list of
the Popes follows] ... to Damasus
succeeded Siricius, who is our col-
league, with whom the whole world
together with us is united in one fellow-
ship of communion by the interchange
of letters. . . ." c. Parm. ibid}
St. Optatus seems to have written
at first in the reign of Damasus,
and to have added the name of
Siricius later. (Had he lived long
enough, he would have added, " and
to Siricius Anastasius, and to An-
astasius. . . . Pius, and to Pius
Leo, and to Leo Pius X., with
whom the whole world together
with us is united in one fellowship
of communion.") St. Cyprian has
the same doctrine : he calls the see
of Rome "the place of Peter" ;2
St. Peter, as the first of the Apostles,
possessed a primacy,^ and this
primacy remained in his see ; for
when Novatian made himself anti-
pope, St. Cyprian says, " He as-
sumed the primacy."'* The See
of Rome is "the Chair of Peter,
the primatial Church, whence unity
had its origin."^
We learn from these two primi-
^ Dr. Gore is apologetic about St.
Optatus: "If Optatus, who was earlier
than Augustine, seems to attribute to the
see of Peter at Rome more actual authority
as the centre of unity, it must be remem-
bered .that he too uses * the see of Peter '
in an ideal sense as identical with the
episcopate " (he certainly does not do so
in the passage before us, where he actually
gives a list of the Popes !) ; " and if he is
emphatic on the necessity of union with
the see of Peter, he is as emphatic on
the necessity of union with the Asiatic
Churches, to whom St. John wrote."
Emphatic, yes — but not "as emphatic,"
for he does not represent them as the
cenfre of communion. St. Augustine also
sometimes makes the same appeal to the
Donatists' separation from all the Apos-
tolic Churches. The argument was a
forcible one, to bring them to a sense of
their isolation. Does not Dr. Gore see
that it appHes with equal force to the
Anglicans? One Apostolic Church re-
mains untainted by heresy, and with an
admittedly unrivalled history and an un-
broken tradition — Dr. Gore is not in
communion with it, or with any Apostolic
Church.
2 Ep. 55, 8. a Ep. 71, 3.
•* Ep. 69, 8. 5 Ep. 59, 14.
56
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
tive African bishops, therefore, that
St. Peter was by no means a mere
symbol of unity, but that he received
from Christ a monarchical power
which is the origin of the mon-
archical power of bishops. This
episcopal sway he himself, before
any other, exercised in a particular
see, and in consequence unity may
be said to have taken its rise from
thence. To that see he has be-
queathed his primacy, and St.
Optatus has told us that it remained
ever the centre of the Church's unity.
But St. Cyprian, beyond all doubt,
held the same doctrine. When
Novatian became the rival of the
lawful bishop of Rome, and seemed
for a moment to be about to rend
the world into two factions, as was
the case during the great schism of
the fifteenth century, we cannot
understand the history of those
months, unless we realise that
Rome was then universally looked
upon as the centre of the Catholic
Church. If this had not been so,
it would have been possible and
natural for bishops in different
parts of the world to take opposite
views as to the legitimacy of the
rival bishops of Rome, without
breaking off relations with one
another. When Pope Stephen
decided in favour of certain claim-
ants to the sees of Leon and
Asturias in Spain, while St. Cyprian
thought the Pope had been de-
ceived, and declared for their rivals,
there was no reason in this for any
suspension of communion between
Rome and Carthage. But in the
case of two claimants to the " prima-
tial Church, the see of Peter," those
who attached themselves to the
wrong Pope were outside the
Church of God. This is repeatedly
assumed by St. Cyprian. He writes
to a bishop, who had inclined to
the party of Novatian, and had just
told the Saint to inform Pope
CorneHus that he had changed his
mind :
" You also wrote that I should send
a copy of the same letter to our
colleague Cornelius, that he might
know that you now communicate
with him — that is, with the Catholic
Church." Ep. 55, i.
And to Cornelius himself he
writes :
" We are conscious of having ex-
horted everyone who set sail (for
%Rome) ... to recognise and hold fast
the womb and root of the Catholic
Church." Ep. 48, 3.
It is evidently assumed that not
to communicate with Cornelius was
to be divided from the Church.
Similarly he writes to Cornelius that
a common letter was sent from
assembled bishops to every bishop
in Africa, exhorting them "to ap-
prove firmly and hold fast thee and
thy communion — that is, the unity
and the charity alike of the Catholic
Church".^ This means nothing
less than that the whole of Africa,
with Numidia and Mauritania, con-
taining all but a hundred dioceses
— instead of condescendingly re-
ceiving Cornelius to their com-
munion — have to congratulate
themselves that they are in his
communion — that is, the commu-
nion of the CathoHc Church.
But what of the authority of St.
Peter ? I have already pointed out
that he would not lord it over his
brethren, but he would strive to
seem their servant. But St. Cyprian
makes it plain that the primacy in
his time involved real powers. He
tells us that when Novatian "as-
sumed the primacy," he " sent out
his new Apostles into many cities,
and though in all provinces and
cities there were already established
bishops," he dared to create other
false bishops over their heads. ^ We
1 Ep. 48. 3.
2 £/>. 55, 24.
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
57
learn from St. Dionysius of Alexan-
dria soon after, that the Churches
which had regained peace after the
disturbances caused by Novatian,
included Antioch, Ci^sarea of Pales-
tine, Jerusalem, Tyre, Laodicea,
Tarsus, all Cilicia and Cappadocia,
Syria and Arabia (where the
Churches were largely assisted with
contributions from Rome), Meso-
potamia, Pontus and Bithynia.^ So
far did the pretensions of the Anti-
Pope extend.
A few years later, the famous
decree of Stephen, against which
Cyprian rebelled, was a rule pro-
posed, as by a supreme authority,
to the whole Church, to be obeyed
under pain of excommunication. ^
St. Cyprian did not think it a ques-
tion of faith, but of discipline only,
and a point on which each bishop
should be free — an unpractical view
— and he would not obey an order
which he thought mistaken. Yet
he actually said nothing against the
prerogatives of the Pope in all the
strong language which he " poured
out against Stephen in his irrita-
tion."^ He complained of the
^ Euseb. Hist. Reel. vii. 5.
"^ According to Bishop Gore, Pope
Stephen endeavoured to " impose con-
ditions of communion which interfered with
the Catholic liberty of other Churches"
(p. 118). So St. Cyprian thought, for he
held that Stephen was wrong. But in
agreeing in this case with St. Cyprian, Dr.
Gore is obliged to disagree with the Fathers
who followed. It is clear from all St.
Augustine's long discussions that he thought
St. Stephen's decree perfectly natural. St.
Jerome looked upon it as a final decision
\c. Lucif. 23 and 27). St. Vincent of
Lerins extols St. Stephen's action as just
what was suitable to the lofty position
which he held {Comntonit. 6, see ch. vi.
further on). Why does Dr. Gore choose
to follow Cyprian where these great
doctors desert him, and why does he
desert him where they uphold him — where
he teaches the unity of the Church ?
•* This is St. Augustine's expression,
De Baptisnio v. 25 (36) : " I am unwilling
to discuss what he poured forth against
Pope's pride ; but if he had found
the decree to his taste, he would
without doubt have spoken words
extolling the Chair of Peter.
The length of this discussion of
St. Cyprian's interpretation of the
text of St. Matthew makes it neces-
sary to pass over the other Fathers,
and come at once to the next point. ■*
Stephen in irritation." It is instructive to
notice Puller's expression for the same
letters of St. Cyprian : " They are the
fervent utterings of a Saint"! {Prim.
Saints^ 3d. ed., p. 69). Dr. Gore's comi
ment is indeed marvellous : " Nor did St.
Augustine in later days see in Cyprian's
conduct in this matter anything but what
deserved the highest commendation" (p.
119). To make this statement true, we
must substitute *' The Donatists" for " St.
Augustine," or else ** Stephen's conduct"
for "Cyprian's conduct." It was the
Donatists who appealed to St. Cyprian,
and St. Augustine can only urge against
them that St. Cyprian taught unity in the
strongest form — why not follow him in his
love of unity, and not in his error? — a
question which he might well have put to
Dr. Gore. For the rest he is careful to
say nothing disrespectful to the great
African martyr — he declares that he " will
not discuss" what he wrote against
Stephen, and suggests that " Cyprian
arrived at the palm of martyrdom, so that
if any cloud had arisen in his lucid mind
through human frailty, it should be dis-
persed by the brilliant sunshine of his
glorious blood." De Bapi. i. 18 (28).
■* I cannot pass over Dr. Gore's in-
defensible treatment of a passage of
Origen {in Malt. torn. xii. ii). Full
though he is of ingenuity and mysticism,
Origen never doubted, or thought his
readers would doubt, the pre-eminent
position of Peter. But he brings some
difficulties against the view that Peter
alone is the rock against which hell is
powerless, or alone receives the keys, and
concludes that hell will prevail against
none of the Apostles or of the perfect,
and that all Christians in a sense receive
the keys. If Dr. Gore infers from this
that Peter is not above the other Apostles,
he must also infer that Peter is not above
any of the perfect ! But Dr. Gore in a
note reproaches the late Mr. Allies with
having quoted Origen as pointing out
"how highly St. Peter transcends the
others in power," saying that by "others"
the Apostles are not meant. But they
58
THE PROMISE TO ST PETER
2. THE PRIMACY CONFERRED
(John xxi. 15-7).
According to Dr. Gore, the inter-
pretation of the Fathers is " that
St. Peter is here reinstated in the
Apostolic commission that his
threefold denial might be supposed
to have lost him ; it is no peculiar
dignity which is being committed to
him." The first of these two
propositions is perfectly correct ;
the second is entirely false. The
Fathers look upon this threefold
charge to St. Peter as reinstating
him in the place he might feel he
had lost — not merely in the Apostle-
ship, therefore, but m the primacy.
It so happens that St. Cyril of
Alexandria, in the passage quoted
by Dr. Gore, does not expressly
mention the primacy as being
restored to Peter, but only the
Apostleship. But what does that
prove ? I have already quoted the
variety of titles which this Saint
gives elsewhere to St. Peter. Dr.
Gore ventures to refer also to St.
Augustine and St. Chrysostom.
" He commends the sheep to Peter
as the figure of the unity of the
Church," says St. Augustine, and he
bears that figure "on account of his
primacy." It was only to Peter that
this charge could be given, except
collectively, in the plural, to all ; for
when given to one, the other
Apostles themselves are clearly not
excluded from among the sheep.
Dr. Gore quotes from St. Chry-
sostom : " He entrusts to him the
are included, as in the former passage.
Origen points out that while to Peter
is promised the power of binding and
loosing in " the heavens," to the other
Apostles and disciples this is promised
only in "heaven" in the singular (Matt.
xviii. 18). This he considers a great pre-
eminence for Peter — most characteristic-
ally — showing all the more forcibly his
determination to answer the objection,
by the very absurdity (to our notions)
of his solution ! {Ibid. tom. xiii. 31.)
presidency of the brethren . . •
and says, * If thou love Me, preside
over the brethren.' " There cannot
be any question that " the brethren "
here are either the Apostles, or all
the faithful including the Apostles,
for the preceding words were : —
" He saith to him : Feed My sheep.
Why does He pass over the others
and speak of the sheep to Peter ? He
was the chosen one of the Apostles,
the mouth of the disciples, the head
of the choir ; ^ for this reason Paul
^vent up to see him rather than the
others ; and also to show him that his
sin had been done away. ..." "If
anyone should say, ' Why, then, was it
James who received the see of Jeru-
salem?' I should reply that He made
Peter the teacher, not of that see, but of
the world" {Horn. 88 in Joan. vol. viii.
pp. 477-9, (525, 6)).
Let it be remembered that St.
Chrysostom considered James to be
an Apostle. That the rule over the
brethren means over the Apostles
as well is made certain by the words,
" He so wiped away the denial that
he even became the first of the
Apostles, and was entrusted with
the whole world." And even before
the day of Pentecost he acts on the
commission : " ' In those days Peter
stood up in the midst of the disciples
and said' — as being fervent, and as
having the flock entrusted to his
care, and as the first of the choir
(or as preferred in honour) he is
always the first to begin to speak." ^
^ Dr. Gore actually finds a distinction
here between Apostles and disciples ! Does
he not know that in the Gospel of St. John,
on which this Father is commenting, the
word * Apostle ' never occurs (it is only
found once in Mt. and once in Mc), but
disciple is used instead? St. Chrysostom,
like St. Luke, uses disciple and Apostle
interchangeably.
^ Adv. JudcEOS 8, 3, and Horn. 3 in
Acta (i. 15). In the Dublin Review^
January, 1903, I have collected all the
evidence in St. Chrysostom's writings with
regard to St. Peter. The quantity is
enormous, and the result of the examina-
tion is not ambiguous.
THE PROMISE TO ST. PETER
59
For the Western Church let us
consult St. Ambrose. He tells us
that here our Lord is leaving Peter
to us, " as it were, the vicar of His
love," and that " because he alone
makes this profession, he is pre-
ferred before all" (/>/ Luc. x. 175).
I cannot spare space to quote others.
It is well known how the Fathers
regularly call Peter "the Shepherd
of the flock," "he who was en-
trusted with the flock."
Light is thrown on this incident
related by St. John from the passage
in St. Luke, where St. Peter's fall
and restoration are not related, but
prophesied : " Simon, Simon, Satan
hath desired to have you, that he
might sift you as wheat : but I have
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail
not : and when thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren" (Lc. xxii.
31). If St. Cyril is not explicit in
the former passage about the re-
storation of the primacy, here at
least there is no ambiguity : " He
passes by the other disciples, and
comes to the Coryphceus hi7nself . . .
'and thou being converted, strength-
en thy brethren,' that is to say, be-
come a support and a teacher of
those who come to Me by faith"
(m Luc. xxii. 31). Next St. Chrysos-
tom : —
" He passed over his fall, and ap-
pointed him first of the Apostles ;
wherefore He said : ' Simon, Simon,'
etc." {in Ps. cxxix. 2).
" God allowed him to fall, because
He meant to make him ruler over the
whole world, that, remembering his
own fall, he might forgive those who
should slip in the future. And that
what I have said is no guess, listen
to Christ Himself saying : ' Simon,
Simon,' etc." {Horn, quodfreq. convert,
sit. 5, cf. Horn. 73 in Joan. 5).
So St. Ambrose : " Peter, after being
tempted by the devil, is set over the
Church. The Lord therefore signified
beforehand what that is, that He after-
wards chose him to be the pastor of
the Lord's flock. For to him he said :
' But thou, when thou art converted,
strengthen thy brethren " {in Ps. xliii.
4o).i
It does not seem necessary to
discuss the position of St. Peter in
the Acts. His exercise of his pri-
macy there is very clear, though he
does not behave as a tyrant among
slaves, but as a leader among
brethren.2 But as Dr. Gore has
^ The comment of St. Ambrose's Roman
contemporary Ambrosiaster (probably a dis-
tinguished senator named Hilarius) is par-
ticularly explicit : " He constituted him to
be their head, as the shepherd of the Lord's
flock. For amongst other things He says to
His disciples : ' Watch ye and pray, lest ye
enter into temptation ' ; and to Peter He
says : ' Behold Satan hath demanded you,
that he may sift you as wheat. But I have
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and
•thou later being converted, strengthen thy
brethren.' What is in doubt ? He prayed
for Peter, and did He not pray for James
and John, not to speak of the rest ? It is
manifest that they are all contained in
Peter ; for in praying for Peter He is seen
to have prayed for all. For always in the
ruler the people is reproved or praised"
{Quaes t. ex novo Test. 75, inter 0pp.
S. Aug. vol. iii. ). The learned Theodoret
is always an important witness. He has :
" *For as I,' says He, 'did not despise thee
when tossed, so be thou a support to thy
brethren in trouble.' ... So this great
pillar supported the tossing world, and
permitted it not to fall altogether, and made
it firm, and having been ordered to feed the
sheep of God, etc." {Or. de Carit. vol. iv.
p. 689, Paris ed., 1642).
- Dr. Gore urges that St. Paul was
absolutely equal to St. Peter in all respects
(p. 84, note). St. Chrysostom, who places
St. Peter so high above the other Apostles,
puts St. Paul alone by his side {in Gal.
ii. 3). He does not think, of course, that
St. Paul had jurisdiction over the other
AfKDstles, but he certainly implies that he,
and he alone, was the equal of St. Peter.
He is fond, at the same time, of show-
ing the great deference of St. Paul to
the elder Apostle. Like other Fathers
{e.g. Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Theodoret) he
makes much of St. Paul's humility and
respect in going up to Jerusalem to visit
Peter, and brings out St. Paul's witness
to St. Peter's primacy. This same doctrine
of the equality of Peter and Paul is also
found in the very " papal " writer, Am-
brosiaster. In both authors the common
\ Ift^APY <T MARY'S COLLEGE
6o
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
spoken of the Council of Jerusalem
(Acts XV.), I will notice that Peter
speaks last, after the discussion, de-
claring the true doctrine and the
will of God. James arises later to
propose a practical compromise,
which admits the principle laid
down by Peter, while it restrains
the liberty of the Gentile converts
for the avoidance of scandal. The
Fathers regard the speeches of both
Apostles as inspired, but if they
attribute the decision to one, it is
to Peter. I have above cited Ter-
tullian and Chrysostom ; St. Jerome
says that without doubt Peter was
the originator of the decree {Ep.
112). Theodoret says, in his letter
to St. Leo, that Paul betook himself
to Peter that he might carry back
from him an explanation to those who
were raising questions at Antioch.
Bishop Gore remarks : " His lan-
guage must have had a ring of irony
to one as versed in Scripture as
St. Leo" (p. 84, note). But surely
Theodoret's words describe the situ-
ation fairly well ; and he was not
likely to indulge in irony when he
was appealing to the Pope in order
to get restored to his see, after
twenty years of deprivation.
One more point. Dr. Gore ac-
knowledges that St. Chrysostom
mentions that St. Peter might have
appointed a new Apostle in place of
Judas by his own authority. It does
not seem to strike him that this
is the very most extreme case of
authority that can be conceived. If
St. Peter could make an Apostle,
what limits can be set to his power
in the Church ? Personally, I am in-
clined to think that St. Chrysostom is
exaggerating. {Horn. 2^i?iActa,\o\. ix.,
PP- 33-6 {23-6), Oxf. tr., pp. 37-42.)
CHAPTER VI
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
DR. GORE was quite right in com-
bining St. Peter's own primacy
with that of his successors in a single
chapter, for the argument from the
one to the other is a fortiori. If
the Fathers are right in attributing
to St. Peter a real primacy, it was
not without reason that Christ gave
the position. If in the time of the
Apostles a centre, a leader, a head
was needed, how much more must
expression "princes," or "Coryphsei of the
Apostles," for Peter and Paul, may have
suggested the idea of some kind of equality,
and this again is derived from or propa-
gated by the connection of both Apostles
with Rome. Though theoretically the pri-
macy of the Roman bishop comes from
St. Peter, yet up to the present day, in all
the Papal formulce of authority, the ex-
pression used is "by the authority of the
blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."
such an office be a sifte qua nan
in later days?^
Protestants have always felt this.
They would never have thought of
denying the plain witness of Holy
Scripture to the primacy of Peter,
they would never have dared to
throw doubt upon the unanimity
of the Fathers had it not been a
matter of life and death to refuse to
the Apostle what they could not
concede to the Pope !
^ As the Vatican Council expresses it :
"Quod autem in beato Apostolo Petro
Princeps Pastorum et Pastor magnus ovium
Dominus Christus Jesus in perpetuam
salutem ac perenne bonum Ecclesioe in-
stituit, id eodem auctore in ecclesia, quae
fundata super petram ad finem s?eculorum
usque firma stabit, jugiter durare necesse
est" {Const, defide, cap. ii.).
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
6i
It is unnecessary to insist upon a
point which is so self-evident. Our
Lord founded a Church, not a
school of thought— a kingdom, not
a republic. He began it by the
choice of one man, whom he sur-
named the Rock, and upon him He
built the rest. Dr. Gore's concep-
tion of the primacy of St. Peter
seems to be that of the scaffolding,
which is necessary for a time, but
undesirable as a permanency. This
was not our Lord's metaphor. A
rock foundation cannot be removed
when the building is complete. In
what way was this rock to remain ?
We could not have guessed a priori ;
but if we believe in the Divine
government of the Church, we
can learn our Lord's intention a
posteriori by examining history to
see how He carried it into effect.
In the first days the Apostles
governed the Church. But one of
them, an Apostle like the rest, was
leader and head.
Soon after Apostolic times we
find the Church governed by bishops,
who claimed to be successors of the
Apostles.^ One of them, a bishop
like the rest, has an exceptional
dignity, and is also regarded as the
successor of Peter.
The parallel is exact. Is it a
coincidence? At least the bishop
of Rome, since the second century
— this is allowed on all hands — has
never ceased to claim that he is the
successor of Peter, and that he
holds a primacy over the whole
Church. No other bishop has ever
made such a claim. We find in-
stances in history of this authority
being resisted, but none within the
Church of its being denied. The
claim is true, or it is antichristian.
That St. Peter and St. Paul died
at Rome is not seriously doubted.^
^ So first Hegesippus ; then Irenaeus,
Tertullian, Cyprian, and all later Fathers.
2 Dr. Gore remarks: "The earliest
For our present purpose it is quite
unimportant when St. Peter first
went thither.^ In what sense he
could be called " bishop " of Rome
need not trouble us either. It is
obvious that in his day the local
episcopate was at the very most a
new conception, scarcely anywhere
carried out. The simple question
is this : Did St. Peter deposit the
primacy in the see of Rome t
If we put aside for the moment
the question what precise powers
are implied in this primacy, it will
be admitted that the Fathers of the
fourth and fifth centuries give the
Father who mentions the subject, St.
Irenceus, regards the Roman Church as
having been founded concurrently and
equally by St. Peter and St. Paul." The
words "concurrently and equally" are a
pure invention of Dr. Gore's ; but let this
pass. Why does St. Irenoeus mention
both Apostles, though he is giving a list
of Roman bishops ? Because he is speaking
of the witness of the Churches to the doc-
trine the Apostles had deposited in them ;
it was naturally important to point out
that Rome bore witness to the doctrine of
two Apostles, and those the most glorious.
^ Dr. Gore says : "In fact (as we find
from St. Paul's epistle to the Romans)
there was a considerable body of Christians
at the capital before any Apostle had been
among them " ; and in a note : " Rom. i.
II, 12. St. Paul had not seen them, and
he would not go where any other Apostle
had been before him (xv. 20, 21)." This
passage is of no importance controversially,
but I cannot let the statement pass without
contradiction. St. Paul elaborately ex-
plains his reason for not yet having fulfilled
his desire of visiting the Romans. This
reason is, that he could not build upon
another man's foundation — that he could
not preach where an Apostle had already
been. But now, as he is going to Spain, he
will of necessity have the pleasure of seeing
them in passing, but he will not stay.
He hopes that he maybe able to impart to
them sovie spiritual gift; that is, he modestly
says, we shall have mutual consolation.
His words imply of necessity that some
Apostle (in the large sense) had been
at Rome. Tradition suggests no other
name than that of Peter. I believe the
tradition that this Apostle went to Rome
at the beginning of the reign of Claudius
can be traced to the second century.
62
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
answer with one voice : St. Peter
settled the primacy at Rome, and
the bishop of Rome has the first
place among bishops, as St. Peter
had among the Apostles.
We will not, however, pass over
the fragmentary evidence which is
supplied by the precious remains of
earlier writers. But I must premise
that it would not in the least preju-
dice my case were there extremely
little evidence to be found in the
first three centuries, and this for two
reasons. In the first place; because
we know so little about those times.
In the second place, it is not a priori
to be expected that the Roman
primacy should appear at once on
the face of history developed in its
modern form, or even to its full
extent. St, Peter was certainly not
accustomed to order the Apostles
about. We should not suppose that
his immediate successors would at
once exhibit the full consciousness
of their relation to the Church.
They would be aware that Rome
was the first See, and consequently
the centre, and that it must share
in some degree the infallibility with
which Christ willed his Church to
be endowed. But the precise way
in which this primacy was to be
brought into play, the manner and
method of the exercise of Roman
authority in faith and government,
would need time for their unfolding.
One would imagine that a whole
system of canon law would be
needed before it could be seen
when and where the Pope ought to
step in, and where the rights of the
episcopate should be upheld.^
^ It is to be observed that the words
which introduce the Vatican definition,
"secundum antiquam atque constantem
universalis Ecclesire fidem " are to be
understood in the sense in which they are
true of every dogma of the faith. It is
not meant that the belief in every part of
Now, as a fact, there has been a
continual evolution of canon law
with respect to these difficult ques-
tions. Different customs have ob-
tained in different centuries. But
what seems to me exceedingly strik-
ing is the fact that the whole theory
which underlies all the later varieties
of practice can be traced as soon
as we have any evidence at all.
Instead of being distressed at the
small amount of evidence for the
J*apal claims in the earliest times,
I stand amazed at the extraordinary
celerity with which the Papal idea
came to maturity. I have only
gradually arrived at this feeling, as
the result of prolonged study, and
in spite of deeply rooted anticipa-
tions of the contrary. The most
eminent Protestant scholars in Ger-
many take a view of the develop-
ment of the Roman Church which
in some cases, I think, exaggerates
its rapidity and its import. But
when all allowances are made, the
facts, few as they are, present us
with a surprising development in
an age when the relation of the
Son of God to the Father, and the
Divinity of the Holy Ghost (to take
instances from cardinal doctrines),
were ill understood, or misunder-
stood, or incorrectly stated, by
Catholic writers. A swift sketch
will illustrate my meaning.
In the first place, we have the
authoritative letter of the Church
of Rome to the Church of Corinth,
the authorship of which is given
by early and repeated testimony to
the Church in every century as to every
detail of the Vatican definition can be de-
monstrated by historical proof. This could
scarcely be done with regard to the unity
of God or the Catholicity of the Church.
It is sufficient for the proof of the anti-
quity of a dogma if we can trace its germ
in early ages, and follow its necessary
logical development, even in spite of many
inconsistencies of teaching — as, for in-
stance, in the case of the doctrine of the
Incarnation.
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
63
St. Clement {c. 96). It is truly ex-
traordinary to find a bishop of Rome
in the lifetime of the Apostle St.
John writing as a superior to a Greek
Church of Apostolic foundation.^
A few years later St. Ignatius
writes to the Church of Rome with
extraordinary veneration.- About
half a century later Dionysius, bishop
of Corinth, sent a letter to the
Romans,^ in which he says that the
^ Dr. Gore says that St. Clement ' ' writes
with a tone of considerable authority"
(p. 94), but suggests that he "speaks with
authority as one of the chief order — the
apostolic order of bishops — writing to a
Church in which as yet there were no
officers higher than presbyters." But surely
St. Clement was not the nearest bishop.
It is curious that Dr. Gore has not further
seen that this suggestion is in flat contra-
diction with his thesis (see his note on the
following page, 95), that for two centuries
"the importance of the bishop of Rome
is merged in the importance of his Church."
In this one really crucial instance of this
"merging" Dr. Gore is afraid to accept
the view, because of the vast authority it
already implies in that Church ! It is
surely somewhat wild to attempt to separate
this remarkable letter from the long series
of "papal aggressions," of which it is,
according to Bishop Lightfoot, the first
instance {Clement of Rome, vol. i. p. 70).
Dr. Gore would have done well to follow
such good Protestants as Lightfoot, Har-
nack, Sohm, etc.
"^ St. Ignatius begins his letter to the
great Church of Ephesus with a longer
address than in the case of the other Asian
Churches ; but when he addresses Rome
his magniloquence finds the Greek language
insufficient, and he coins a series of long
words to express his love and admiration.
Also for the simple "to the Church which
is in Tralles," " to the Church which is in
Ephesus," etc., of the other letters he sub-
stitutes •• to the Church which presides in
the place of the region of the Romans "
(the pleonasm being merely for grandeur),
and adds, "who presides over the love."
The explanation of this last expression by
Lightfoot (so Dr. Gore, p. 94, note) "pre-
siding in love" is improbable. I follow
that of Funk. Harnack's view is impossible
(see^my article, Kevue Bt!n<fd., 1896, and
F. X. von Funk, Kirchengesch. Abhand.,
vol. 1. 1897). The meaning seems to be
presiding over the union of Christians."
Ap. Euseb. H.E, iv. 23.
letter sent by them will be read
publicly from time to time like
the former one written "through
Clement " ; but he also speaks of
the new letter as "the blessed words
of Soter, your bishop," "as those of
a loving father to his children." He
tells us of the generous almsgiving
of the Roman Church as even then
{c. 1 70) a custom handed down from
their fathers; so that the Roman
Church is represented as having been
very rich by the end of the first
century. The same almsgiving is
noted by St. Dionysius of Alex-
andria * in the middle of the third
century ; and Eusebius tells us that
it remained a custom of the Roman
Church up to the persecution in his
own day.^ This generosity must
have assisted to increase and estab-
lish the importance of the Church
of the capital.
But there is no reason to doubt
that when St. Clement appealed to
the martyrdom of Peter and Paul
as an example of virtue '^ he was
recalling a glory which, to the Chris-
tians of the second century, out-
shone the greatness of the Roman
city and the riches of the Roman
Church. St. Ignatius could not but
mention the two Apostles when
begging the Romans not to use the
influence which some Christians
seemed to have possessed in high
quarters to procure the mitigation
of his sentence. He says: "Not
as Peter and Paul do I command
vou," implying that these were the
former rulers of the Roman Church.'''
About the year 180 the true glory
of the Roman Church is described
by St. Irenaeus in a celebrated
passage, and there is no possible
doubt but that he echoes the feeling
of those idealist days. The early
Church did not bow down before
■* Ep. 5, Ap. Euseb. H.E. vii. 5.
IV. 23.
7 Ad Rom.
Ad. Cor. 5.
64
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
power and wealth alone, as Pro-
testants imply. The greatness of
the capital was one element in the
development of the Papal power,
but the connection with Peter and
Paul was both the germ and the
most potent influence (iii. 3).
" But since it would be very long in
a volume of this sort to give the
successions of all the Churches, we
will point to that of the exceedingly
great and ancient Church which was
founded and established at Rome by
the most glorious Apostles Peter and
Paul. By its tradition and by its 'faith
announced to men' {Rom. i. 8), which
has been transmitted to us by the
successions of bishops, we confound
all those who in any way, by caprice
or vain glory, or by blindness and per-
versity of will, gather where they ought
not."
Here the greatness of the Church
is its antiquity, its foundation by
the princes of the Apostles, and its
praise by St. Paul. The passage
which follows is difficult, but it is
at least certain that it has no refer-
ence to the secular greatness of the
city.
" For to this Church, on account of
its more powerful principality {prop-
ter potenfiorem principalitatem)^ it is
necessary that every Church, that is,
the faithful from all sides, should come
together (agree), in which the tradition
from the Apostles has always been
preserved by those that are from all
parts."
" In which " may refer either to
the Church of Rome or to " every
Church." It is just possible to make
principalitas = o.pxaioT^]% {^PXV =
prill cipiuni^ 6.pyaXo<i = principalis ;
hence o.pya.[.orr\<i = principalitas).
Convenire may mean "agree" or
"resort." In any case the com-
parative potentior seems to compare
the headship (or antiquity, origin)
with that of other leading Churches ;
and the cause of this superiority
is clearly the foundation by "the
most glorious Apostles," which had
been mentioned in the first place of
all.i The result of this superiority
is that other Churches must agree
with its tradition, or nmst resort to
it. This has always seemed to me
to be a very tremendous testimony
to the position of the Roman Church
in St. Iren^eus's day. He goes
on : —
"The Blessed Apostles therefore
having founded and built the Church,
entrusted to Linus the office of bishop
. . . and Anencletus succeeds him . . .
{a list follows) . . . and Soter having
^ Dr. Gore's exposition of this passage
is one which is followed by many Catholics
and Protestants. The Church of Rome
has a " microcosmic " character, because
all the faithful necessarily resort thither.
This is quite inconsistent with the context,
in which it is the unbroken tradition from
Peter and Paul, proved by the enumera-
tion of iMshops, which is an unanswerable
proof against the heretics. I do not think
it would suffice to urge that this latter
argument is borrowed from Hegesippus
(as it is), and that St. Irenaeus has strength-
ened it by an incongruous addition, for
the whole preceding paragraph, and the
whole argument, from the beginning of
the book, implies the argument from the
succession. For this reason I prefer to
take convenire = " agree." But on page 95
Dr. Gore has a note in which he says of
the passage : " I believe that Dr. Langen,
following Grabe and Neander, has finally
fixed its meaning." Now Dr. Langen's
view is that poteniioi- principalitas refers
to the city, not to the Church ; it is not
from the greatness of its Church, but be-
cause it is the capital, that Rome is
"resorted to " by Christians. I hope Dr.
Gore does not accept this impossible view,
which has been abandoned by Father
Puller in the third edition of his Primitive
Saints, and which is unsupported by any
critics. It is violent to translate "to this
Church on account of the powerful head-
ship of its city," and it is also violent to
distinguish the "headship" from the praise
which has gone before— antiquity, faith,
Apostolic foundation. The late Dr. Bright,
in spite of his prejudice against anything
"Roman," rejected this view, and I am
glad that it is not clear that Dr. Gore
accepts it. Dr. Langen always writes with
the bitterness of a partisan against the
Church.
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
succeeded Anicetus, now in the twelfth
place from the apostles Eleutherus
holds the lot of the Episcopate. In
the same order and in the same teach-
ing {or succession) the tradition of the
Church from the Apostles and the
preaching of the truth has come down
to us. And this is a most complete
proof that it is one and the same life-
giving faith which has been preserved
in the Church from the Apostles until
now, and handed down in truth."
Similarly in Tertullian we find
not a trace of the greatness of the
Roman city, but he exclaims : "How
happy that Church into which the
Apostles poured forth all their faith
with their blood ! " ^ It is the Apos-
tolic origin, and that consequent
gift of faith to which St. Ignatius
also refers, which is the glory of
Rome in his eyes.
Our knowledge of the second
century is unfortunately but a suc-
cession of small scraps. We know
various out-of-the-way details, but of
the everyday life of Christians and
of the constitution of the Church
we hear little or nothing. Yet we
find that Rome was throughout
that century, so far as we can tell,
the centre of Church life; in fact,
we do not learn much of any other
Church, except for glimpses of those
of Asia Minor. The second century
is chiefly remarkable for the broods
of heretics it brought forth, and of
these we often know more than we
do of the Catholics whom they
opposed. Most of these teachers
and their disciples came to Rome to
make proselytes, "but," says Caspari,
"they desired besides to gain im-
portance in the great, highly thought
of, and very influential Church com-
munity of the capital of the world,
and, indeed, partly to obtain recog-
nition from her, in order thereby to
get easier access elsewhere, and to
be enabled to spread with more
^ De Ptascr.y xxxvi. (quoted by Dr.
Gore, p. 95).
force. The dignity of the Church
of Rome was to cover them in their
efforts; she was, so to speak, to
stamp them with the hall-mark of
Christianity and Catholicity, _ or
orthodoxy." So far this illustrious
Protestant scholar. ^ Valentinus
came to Rome under Pope Hyginus
{c. 140), and Cerdo came about the
same time, and after him Marcion.
Thus the first two heresies of any im-
portance, Valentinianism and Mar-
cionism, tried to make the Church
of Rome their headquarters. Under
Anicetus came Marcellina, foun-
dress of the Carpocratians {c. 160).
Two priests of Rome, Florinus and
Blastus, were deposed by Pope Eleu-
therius for their heretical teaching.
Before and after the year 200 came
Apelles anS Potitus, Basiliscus and
Syneros, and a crowd of " Adoptian-
ists" and Monarchians. Under Eleu-
therius, Theodotus, the leather-seller
of Byzantium, was in Rome with
his disciples Asclepiodotus, Her-
mophilus, and Theodotus the banker,
who was excommunicated by the
next Pope, Victor. This sect made
the first anti-Pope. They got hold
of a confessor called Natalius, and
bribed him to be their bishop, at
a salary of 150 denarii a month.
He was warned by visions not to
consent, but not having hearkened
to them, "he was beaten all night
by the holy angels" (so we are in-
formed by a contemporary writer),
so that in the morning he was fain
to put on sackcloth and ashes, and
cast himself weeping at the feet of
Pope Zephyrinus, and " with many
prayers and showing the marks of
the stripes, he was with difticulty
restored to communion."^
Another follower of Theodotus,
Artemon, was probably in Rome,
- Quellen zur Geschichte des Tatif-Sym-
bols, vol. iii. pp. 309-48. In the following
pages I have drawn upon Caspari's account.
^ Ap. Euseb., //. E., v. 28.
66
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
and to Rome about i8o came the
leader of the Monarchians, Praxeas,
and after him came Epigonus, Cleo-
menes, and the more famous Sabel-
lius, with whom we dip some twenty
years into the next century. About
the same time took place at Rome
a famous discussion between a cer-
tain Caius and Proclus the Montan-
ist. Long before this, Pope Soter
is said to have issued a writing
against Montanism, and Eleutherius
or Victor, after seeming to favour
the Montanists (so says TertulHan),
condemned them.^
If we turn to the first quarter
of the third century we find the
rigorist doctrines of Montanists and
others condemned by Zephyrinus
and Callistus. From Syria to Rome
come the Elkesaites, Alcibiades of
Apamea arriving after the martyr-
dom of Pope Callistus.
In the second century orthodox
teachers also came to Rome. Besides
St. Ignatius, who came in bonds, we
have St. Justin Martyr, his disciple
Tatian, afterwards a heresiarch, and
Tatian's disciple Rhodon. St. Poly-
carp came to Rome under Pope
Anicetus when more than eighty
years of age. St. Irenasus came
thither as envoy of the Church of
^ TertulHan, when a Montanist, writes
as follows: — "For when the Bishop of
Rome (Victor ?) was just acknowledging
the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and
Maximilla, and by that very recognition
was bringing peace to the Churches of
Asia, Praxeas, by telling falsehoods about
the prophets and their Churches, and de-
fending the precedents set by the bishop's
predecessors, induced him to revoke the
letters of peace which he had already sent
and to recede from his intention of accept-
ing the truth of the gifts" (c Prax. i).
The Montanists, it appears, tried to get
their "gifts" approved at Rome. Asia
was disturbed and divided. The news that
the Pope was sending letters of peace to
the Montanist prophets and their Churches
was sufficient to unite the orthodox with
them and to bring peace to the Churches
of Asia. This is an illuminating episode.
Lyons. TertulHan naturally visited
Rome. Thus the ecclesiastical
writers of the day came to the city
or were natives of it (Victor,
Hippolytus, Gains).
These details which we can glean
from the few sparse notices of the
period which remain to us are an
interesting commentary on the words
of St. Irenaeus as to the potetitior
pri?icipalitas of Rome. We know
that Rome was the capital. We
know also that it was the see of
Peter in the opinion of the Christian
world. It is open to Dr. Gore to
put down all the influence of the
Roman Church to the former of
these two facts and to brand the
Christians as men of worldly views
who thought much of the Imperial
Court and nothing of the prince of
the Apostles. I myself prefer to see
in the position accorded to Rome
the reverence for Peter and Paul, as,
indeed, Dionysius of Corinth and
Irenaeus have assured us, though I
see in the facility of communication
with Rome the divinely intended
means of developing her primacy
in fact.
So far, we have seen Rome simply
as a great centre of Church life, and
positive action of the Popes has only
appeared in the letter of Clement
and in the condemnation of heretics.
About 196-7 a phase of the Paschal
question affords us a brilliant flash
of light upon the relations of Rome
with foreign Churches, a subject on
which it must be remembered that
our information is otherwise practi-
cally nil for this period.
Pope Victor initiates a movement
in favour of unity of observance.
Councils are simultaneously held at
his request'^ throughout Christen-
dom, and all publish decisions that
Easter must be celebrated only on
Sunday. The Asiatic Churches
■^ Or "order," cp. " oOs u/xers -q^iibaaTe
IxeraKK-qdrjaL vir'' ifiov,'' E\iseh.,H. E.^v. 24.
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
67
alone resist this decision. St. Victor
" tries to cut them off from the com-
mon unity." Some other bishops
think this too harsh, for the Bishop
of Ephesus had pleaded a tradition
received from the Apostle St. John,
and they " took Victor to task some-
what sharply." Amongst these St.
Iren^us " becomingly " ^ urged
Victor to consider that the difference
in the custom of the fast only
brought the unity of faith more
clearly into relief. Especially he
dwelt upon the precedent set by
the former Popes in permitting the
divergence.- Eusebius, who is our
sole informant (ZT. E.^ v. 24), can-
not relate the sequel. It is pretty
certain that, not only in the time of
TertuUian's Montanist writings, but
some three years after these events,
when he wrote his De Prcescj-ip-
tionibus^ there was no division be-
tween Rome and Asia. Did Victor
give way, as we should expect, when
he found that his action was not
popular nor effective ? Or is it
possible that Asia relinquished her
peculiarity then and there at the
sight of the consensus against her ?
She altered her custom at some
time, and it may well have been
now, as we hear of no further
troubles.
However this may be, we find in
this incomplete story a Pope con-
scious that it is he who is to see to
uniformity in the Christian Churches.
We see councils assembled every-
where at his demand. We see
him claim to have the right to ex-
communicate not, as before, merely
individual heresiarchs, but numer-
ous and populous Churches of Apos-
^ Eusebius, who had no manner of sym-
pathy with the Asiatics, apparently con-
trasts this with the "somewhat sharply"
or "too sharply," irXrjKTiKuiTepop, of the
rest.
^ Compare the action of Praxeas in
appealing to papal precedents (p. 66 above,
note).
tolic foundation. His action "did
not please all the bishops," so we
see that many were, in fact, satisfied.
But he was precipitate, and natur-
ally drew down remonstrances upon
his head, and was unable to carry
out his intention. Dr. Gore seems
to think this implies that his right
was not recognised. There is no
trace of any denial of the right,
but only of the justice of its exercise.
It is particularly to be noticed that
St. Irenaeus's argument is based on
the practice of Victor's predecessors.
I must admit that a priori I should
not have expected the papal author-
ity to have reached so high a point
of evolution at so early a date, but
our information, though meagre, is
precise. Taken together with the
rest of the few contemporary facts
which bear upon the subject, the
Papacy appears as a practical factor
of the first importance in Church
life, and not as a mere theoretical
primacy, as we might well have
anticipated.
We need not dwell long upon the
third century. We learn from Ter-
tuUian that Pope Callistus issued a
decree on the subject of penance to
the whole Church, " this bishop of
bishops and Pontifex Maximus," as
the heretic derisively entitles him.
The author of the Philosophumena
makes this Pope answerable for the
appointment of persons who had
married twice to the Episcopate.^
Under Zephyrinus Origen went to
Rome, "desiring to see the most
ancient Church of the Romans."
^ Phil. ix. 12. Dr. Gore thinks it a
luminous fact that the author of this
treatise accuses his contemporary, Pope
Callistus, with teaching of heresy. But
the writer clearly shows that whether he is
Hippolytus or not, he is an anti-Pope.
Surely it is neither remarkable nor illu-
minating to find a pretender accusing the
true Pope of being a heresiarch ex cathedra.
It seems to me that a little consideration
would have enabled Dr. Gore to shorten
his book to an appreciable extent.
68
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
We have already heard enough of
St. Cyprian's views/ but it is now
apparent how they fall into line
with the rest of the evidence. The
peremptory decree of Stephen was
similar in character to those of
Victor and of Callistus. How many
more there must have been of which
we have no record, and how familiar
such Papal action must have been in
St. Cyprian's day !
The great St. Dionysius of Alex-
andria was accused of heretical •
teaching. It was to his only superior
in the Church, his namesake, Diony-
sius of Rome, that he appealed.
Our informant is his successor,
Athanasius,^ who himself made a
like appeal. When Paul of Samo-
sata, bishop of Antioch, was deposed
by an Eastern council, he kept pos-
session of the episcopal residence,
relying on the protection of Queen
Zenobia. The matter was brought
before the civil courts, and the
heathen emperor, Aurelian, decided
that the house should be made over
to whichsoever party was recog-
nised by the bishops of Italy and
Rome, that is, the Pope and his
Council.^ It had clearly been
pleaded that the test of orthodox
communion lay in union with the
centre.
B.
We have now before us a slight
sketch of the anti-Nicene evidence
on our subject. Many less import-
ant points might of course be added,
but we have heard enough for the
purpose in hand.
We saw in chapter ii. that the
Church was founded upon Peter for
the sake of unity of government,
and that this unity is threefold — of
faith, of communion, of government.
We have found Rome to be very
^ Above, ch. v.
^ De deer et in NidencE Synodic 25, De
Senieiitia Dionysii^ 13.
^ Euseb. ^ H. E.y vii. 30.
clearly the centre of unity in these
precise points. St. Irenaeus ex-
plicitly declares her to be the centre
of faith and communion. St. Cyprian
is equally distinct. As guardian of
the faith she is attacked by all the
heresies, and condemns them all in
turn. She is appealed to as judge
of faith by St. Dionysius, bishop of
the second see of Christendom.
Her government we see in action
in the masterful words of Clement,
of Victor, of Callistus, of Stephen.
We have not a finished picture, we
cannot fill in all the details, but the
general effect is vivid enough. The
least we can conclude, I think, is
that the Church already universally
recognised in the Roman Church a
leadership, an authority, the exercise
of which might be annoying, or to
be resisted in some cases, but which
was nevertheless lawful and neces-
sary, and derived from no worldly
rank or wealth, but from the succes-
sion to Peter and Paul.
In Germany Protestant scholars
have been greatly struck by the de-
velopment of the Church of Rome
in the second century. The well-
known excursus, "Catholic and
Roman," in the second volume of
Harnack's History of Dogma, is
typical and easy of access. He is
prejudiced against "Catholicism,"
which is, in his view, a mere super-
stition, a travesty of the rationalist
Christianity without a Christ which
he professes. He tries to minimise
some of the witnesses to the great-
ness of the Roman Church (for in-
stance, those afforded by Ignatius
and Irenaeus), but he holds that
these two disagreeable elements,
"Roman" and "Catholic," were
identical from the beginning. I do
not agree with every one of the
proofs which he gives, e.g. I do not
believe that Rome had imich to do
with the earliest collections of New
Testament books or originated the
THE
GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
69
idea of a " canon," but in general it
must be admitted that his results
are to be accepted, as, in fact, in
Germany they are accepted.
" Now it is an a priori probability
that this transformation of Christianity
[into an organised Catholic Church],
which was simply the adaptation of
the gospel to the then existing empire,
came about under the guidance of
the metropolitan Church, the Church
of Rome ; and that ' Roman ' and
'Catholic' had therefore a special rela-
tion from the beginning" (p. 150). "It
can, however, be proved that it was in
the Roman Church, which, up to about
the year 190, was closely connected
with that of Asia Minor, that all the
elements on which Catholicism is
based first assumed a definite form"
(p. 151). " From these considerations
we can scarcely doubt that the funda-
mental Apostolic institutions and laws
of Catholicism were framed in the
same city that in other respects im-
posed its authority on the whole earth,
and that it was the centre from which
they spread, because the world had
become accustomed to receive law and
justice from Rome" (p. 155). Again,
after an exposition of the arguments :
"All these causes combined to convert
the Christian communities into a real
confederation under the primacy of
the Roman Church (and subsequently
under the leadership of her bishops) "
(p. 160).
Now Dr. Harnack is clearly under
the impression that he has estab-
lished an anti-Catholic thesis. He
emphasises the influence of the
capital, and represents the reference
to Peter as a later notion. Still
more he holds, like Dr. Gore (p. 95,
note), that the greatness of the
Roman bishop is a subsequent idea.
In fact, he (quite unreasonably and
absurdly) holds that at Rome alone,
of all important Churches, there was
actually no bishop at all until after
the middle of the second century ! ^
^ Harnack, Chronologic, i. pp. 172 foil.
I have replied in Revue Bened,, Avril,
1902, pp. 149 foil.
Few people are likely to follow him
in this wild theory. But apart from
this his view is entirely acceptable
to Catholics, and has much in its
favour.
Let us consider for a few moments.
God being almighty, it would have
been easy for Him to establish an
efficient headship of His Church at
Timbuctoo or anywhere else had He
so willed. But He does not habitu-
ally employ extraordinary means
where ordinary ones are at hand for
the accomplishment of His pur-
poses. It was therefore natural that
He should fix the centre of the new
world-wide faith at Rome. Every
road in those days led to Rome.
The communications of the Empire
ramified from thence like nerves
from the brain and arteries from
the heart. The Fathers tell us that
Peter fixed his seat in Rome. This
was a masterly stroke of divine
strategy, by which the Church in its
infancy was enabled to reap the full
benefit of the fulness of times which
God had preordained for her birth
and growth. Jerusalem was to
perish. The headquarters of the
Christian army are shifted from
Jerusalem to Rome, and in one
move it is proclaimed that the new
religion is not for one race, but for
the world. The last and greatest of
the world empires of prophecy, the
power 'Which was to crush Israel
with the final blow, was to be be-
sieged by Christianity in its own
citadel. To preach a world-wide
religion in the capital of the world
— we see how this idea caught
the imagination of St. Paul, and
only the knowledge that an Apostle
had preceded him could keep him
back. But God's plans were not
as his, and in spite of himself the
Apostle of the Gentiles preached
Christ in Rome, but in bonds,
and suffered there Nvith his senior
Apostle.
70
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
The Catholic theory is therefore
this—
(i) Rome being the capital of the
empire,
(2) St. Peter, Prince of the Apos-
tles,
(3) Founded a Church there,
(4) The bishop of which should
succeed to his primacy.
Divine providence also willed
that St. Paul should join St. Peter
at Rome, and that both should,
with their blood, consecrate Rome
to be the focus of the faith they
preached.
Notice the logical order. The
primary fact is the secular rank
of the city, as the Eastern Fathers
saw, for this was the determining ^
cause of Peter's choice. But the
principal fact is the consequent
placing of the primacy in Rome by
Peter. It is therefore true that
Rome has the primacy, because it
was the imperial city, but it is
obvious that this fact could not
directly give it ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion, but that its legitimate authority
is from Peter, and from Christ
through him.
Notice once more that the Pope
is successor of Peter because he is
Bishop of Rome ; he is not Bishop
of Rome because he is Pope. His
position comes to him from his
Church. We call the Chufch of
Rome the mother and mistress
of all Churches, and we habitually
speak of " Rome " when we mean
papal authority.
From all this we see how the
centrality and the imposing prestige
of the capital was intended to be
a means for the easy develop-
ment of the primacy and an a'ssist-
ance to the propagation of the faith.
Nothing can be more obvious, there-
fore, than that Harnack's view is in
itself reasonable if it is well founded
— and in some respects I think it
is — that "the fundamental Apostolic
institutions and laws of Catholicism
were framed in the same city that in
other respects imposed its authority
on the whole earth." But let us
remember that in this the great
rationalist critic is going beyond
what Catholics ordinarily hold with
regard to the early influence of
Rome. At any rate. Dr. Harnack's
conclusion is not to be passed over :
" The proposition " (" the Roman
Church always had the primacy")
" and the statement that ' Catholic '
virtually means ' Roman Catholic '
are gross fictions, when devised in
honour of the temporary occupant
of the Roman see" [This is meaning-
less. Of course, every bishop is the
representative of his Church and
the depository of its prerogatives]
" and detached from the significance
of the Eternal City in profane his-
tory [no reasonable person would
think of doing such a thing] ; but
applied to the Church of the Im-
perial capital, they contain a truth,
the denial of which is equivalent to
renouncing the attempt to explain
the process by which the Church
was unified and catholicised" (p.
i68).i
^ Dr. Gore quotes from the late Dr.
Salmon, " How all through the first two
centuries the importance of the Bishop
of Rome is merged in the importance of his
Churjh" (p. 95, note). It would not be
surprising if this were to some extent
true. We might expect the primacy of
the bishop to appear as a blossom after
the leaves, and that the greatness of the
city would be the chief factor at first in
the development. As a fact, however,
there are only two instances of this sup-
posed "merging": (i) That St. Clement
writes in the name of his Church, and
does not name himself; (2) that St.
Ignatius does not mention the bishop
when he writes to Rome. Now there
is strong reason for thinking that this
omission of the name was a prudential
measure, necessary in a time of persecu-
tion (see Journal of Theol. Studies, July,
1904, p. 530), but in any case we must
remember that St. Ignatius was the last
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
It is interesting to find that a
special gift of faith was attributed by
the Fathers to the Roman Church.
The bishop of that Church was
early recognised to have, as one of
his principal prerogatives, the special
duty of upholding the faith and of
condemning heresy. The Church
of Rome, being his Church, is repre-
sented as sharing in the charisma of
being a touchstone for heresy. As
the necessary centre of Christen-
dom, its own faith was held to be
infallible. The text of St. Paul to the
Romans, " Your faith is proclaimed
throughout the whole world " (i. 8),
was commonly quoted in this con-
nexion. We have seen it in St.
Irenaeus : " The Church of Rome
. . . and its faith announced to men."
Long before this, St. Ignatius had
spoken of the faith of the Romans
as " filtered clear from every foreign
stain" {^Ad Rom. i). At Rome,
says Tertullian, the Apostles poured
forth all their faith with their blood
{Prcescr. 36). The Roman clergy
person to "merge" the authority of a
bishop in that of his Church, so that we
have only one case left as even a possible
instance, and I confess I should be afraid
to build upon it. Dr. Gore does not build
upon it (as we have seen), but takes the
letter to be precisely the authoritative
action of a bishop towards a community
governed by presbyters ! The grounds for
Dr. Salmon's view are therefore very
shadowy, even in the first century. For
the middle and end of the second century
his statement is absurd. The arrivals of
the Gnostic heretics were dated, before
St. Irengeus, by the Popes under whom
they arrived at Rome or flourished. St.
Iremneus himself only mentions the Church
of Rome for the sake of giving a list of
its bishops. Of the Popes of the early
part of the century all record but date
has perished ; but' Anicetus, Soter, Eleu-
therus, Victor, in the second half, are
more than names, and their importance is
certainly not " merged in the importance
of their Church," as Harnack himself
testifies. It is a pity that Dr. Gore should
quote such careless and incorrect state-
ments, even though emanating from a
really eminent scholar.
write to St. Cyprian in 250, "For
the Apostle had not proclaimed
such high praise of us, saying,
' Your faith is declared throughout
the whole world,' were it not that
our vigour of to-day has its roots in
those days " (Ap. Cypr,, Ep. 30).
St. Cyprian writes to Pope Cornelius
in the same year of the Decian
persecution : " With one spirit and
one voice the whole Roman Church
made confession. Gloriously, be-
loved Brother, did that faith then
appear, which the Apostle praised
concerning you " {Ep. 60, 2) ; and
again, "They dare to set sail and
carry letters from schismatics and
profane persons to the Chair of
Peter, the primatial Church, whence
the Unity of the Church had its
rise ; and they do not consider that
those are the Romans whose faith
was lauded by the praise of the
Apostle, and to who7n imfaith ca?i
have no access " {Ep. 59, 14).
This has been already quoted;
and so have the words of St.
Gregory Nazianzen (p. 33). St.
Jerome is fond of this point, for he
was baptised at Rome. Here are a
few quotations :
" It is the faith of the Romans
which the Apostle praises. Where
else do men run with the same love
and the same crowds to the churches
and the tombs of the Martyrs ? Where
does the Amen so resound like the
thunder of heaven, and the temples of
the idols are shaken? Not that the
Romans have another faith than that
of all the Churches of Christ, but that
they have more devotion, and more
simplicity in believing" (C^;;^;;/.//? Gal.,
In trod.)
" Know that Roman faith, which
was praised by the voice of the Apostle
receives not these jugglings " (c. Ruf.
iii. 12).
" What does he call his faith ? That
which the Roman Church possesses ?
Or that which is contained in the
volumes of Origen ? If he answers
'the Roman,' then we are Catholics,
72
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
who have not been infected with the
errors of Origen I " {Idid.^ i. 4).
"The Roman Faith, in which the
Church of Alexandria glories in par-
ticipating " {Ep. 63, to Theophilus,
patriarch of Alex.).
" Whosoever thou art who teachest
new doctrines, I beg thee, spare Roman
ears, spare that faith which was praised
by the Apostle's voice. Why after
four hundred years dost thou try to
teach us what we knew not before?
Why dost thou publish what Peter and
Paul would not proclaim ? Until this
day the world has been Christian *
without this doctrine. In my old age
I will hold the faith in which I was
regenerated when a boy " {Ep. 84).
Many other instances might be
given from this one Father. The
Roman form of the Apostles' Creed
attained a special rank on account
of " Roman F'aith." The Council
of Milan in 390 says, "Let the
symbol of the Apostles be believed,
which the Roman Church ever
guards and preserves without altera-
tion." 1 St. Ambrose says, " It is
the symbol which the Roman
Church holds, where the first of the
Apostles had his seat, and brought
thither the common decision of the
Apostles." 2 Rufinus also assures
us that the Church of Rome alone
kept the creed without addition.^
It is unnecessary to trace this view
any further {e.g. in St. Augustine,
or the fifth century in St. Leo and
Theodoret)^ for it becomes too
closely connected with the faith of
the Papacy itself, and also we have
been dealing till now with the first
three centuries only.
C.
The fourth century affords us a
great deal more evidence, though
^ Ap Ambros. , Ep. 42.
'^ Expositio symboli ad initiandos, no
doubt a genuine piece. I use the text given
by Caspari, Alte und Neue Queilen, p. 220.
3 In Symb. Ap. 3.
^ See an article of mine, ** Fides Ro-
mana," in Revue B'enM, 1895, pp. 546 foil.
Still imperfect, scattered, and un-
equal. We must be content with a
few points only, as this chapter has
already reached an excessive length.
Of St. Athanasius and the Arian
struggles something was said in
chapter iii.^ But we cannot pass
^ When Pope Liberius "abandoned
Athanasius and notified that he had
separated him from his communion, St.
Athanasius betrays no other feeling than
that of sorrow at the fall of a good man
and anxiety to palliate his weakness." So
Dr. Gore has been led by Protestant
historians to believe (pp. 99, 100), and he
naturally concludes: "Now we contend
that if anything in the world can be
certain, it is certain that St. Athanasius,
had he had any idea of the Bishop of Rome
being in a unique sense the guardian of
the faith, much more any notion of his
infallibility, must have adopted another
tone in regard to his fall. He must have
quivered at the awful shock of finding
himself deserted by the * Holy Father ' on
the central dogma of the faith. It must
have been much more to him than his de-
sertion by Hosius. There is no avoiding or
palliating this conclusion." Dr. Gore gives
no sign of having read the additional chap-
ters (89, 90) to St. Athanasius's Apology, in
which that saint relates what he knew
of the fall of the Pope and of Hosius. He
is there replying to the triumphant boasts
of his enemies that his two influential
supporters had now disowned him.
Athanasius was well aware that he would
be indeed helpless if this were true. He
argues that the approval and protection
they had always given him was empha-
sised and not weakened by their having
endured exile and punishment rather than
betray his cause and that of the Nicene
faith. Only great sufferings had at last
broken their resolution, and their fall is a
disgrace to their Arian persecutors, and
not a condemnation to Athanasius. This
is the cause of St. Athanasius's "anxiety
to palliate" both Liberius and Hosius.
Though Hosius was personally of extra-
ordinary influence and fame, yet it will be
found that St. Athanasius always treats
Liberius as the more important, whenever
the two are mentioned. It was no doubt
"a shock" to find that they had fallen;
but it would have been disastrous to St.
Athanasius to admit, in the only place where
he mentions their fall, that it made him
"quiver." It is certain, "if anything in
the world can be certain," that he regarded
the Pope as "being in a unique sense the
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
73
over the Council of Sardica, as
Bishop Gore has referred to it.
This council met apparently in
the summer of 343/ by the agree-
ment of the Emperors of East and
West. The place chosen was on
the borders between the two parts
of the Empire, and was just with-
in the dominions of the Catholic
Emperor of the West, Constans,
though only some fifty miles from
Constantinople, the capital of the
Arianising Constantius. This was
disastrous for the Eusebians, the
enemies of Athanasius, who could
do nothing without a "Count" (as
St. Athanasius tells us) to control
the proceedings in their favour.
To the number of seventy-six they
shut themselves up in a palace, and
demanded that the deposition of
Athanasius and Marcellus of Ancyra
should be accepted without discus-
sion, repeating their old refrain that
one council had no right to revise
the acts of another. This amounted
to a denial of the right of the Pope
and his Roman council to try the
case once decided at Tyre, and
practically refused all opportunity
of redress to St. Athanasius. The
rest of the bishops, probably about
ninety-four or ninety-six, refused to
agree to this demand, and the
Easterns retired in a body, on
the plea that the development of
the Persian war of Constantius
rendered it impossible for them to
be away from their flocks. But in
fact they stopped just within the
border of the Eastern Empire at
Philippopolis. The orthodox bishops
acquitted Athanasius and Marcellus.
guardian of the faith," and I cannot see
that there is any room for controversy on
this point. What conception he may have
had of ' ' papal infallibility " is quite another
matter, for the dogma was obviously not
wholly developed in the fourth century.
But the fall of Liberius under persecution
has nothing to do with infalUbility.
^ So Gwatkin, Studies, p. 124.
They wrote to the whole Church,
to the Church of Alexandria, to the
bishops of Egypt,*-^ and to the Pope,^
t6 announce their decisions. The
heretical assembly, on the other
hand, excommunicated the Pope,
as princeps et dux malorum^ and ad-
dressed their synodical letter to the
intruded bishop of Alexandria and
to the Donatist bishop of Carthage,
among others, so far from all
decency had they receded.
The orthodox wrote to Pope
Julius that they had felt his presence
among them, in spite of his un-
avoidable absence from the council.
They say that it will be "most
proper and fitting if the bishops
from all provinces shall refer to the
head, that is to the see of Peter."
In each of their letters the refusal
of the Eusebians to obey the Pope's
former summons to Rome is sig-
nalised among their errors. But it
is the canons with which we have
chiefly to do.
The hope of orthodoxy was in
the West, for the Eastern Emperor
Constantius was the support of the
Arianising party, while Constans in
the West was orthodox, and so were
the Western bishops, almost without
exception. The Bishop of Rome had
exercised his prerogative in annul-
ling the Council of Tyre, which had
condemned Athanasius,^ in sum-
- These letters are preserved by Athan-
asius in his Apology.
^ In St, Hilary's fragments.
■* It is important to rememVier that the
very "papal" letter of Pope Julius to the
Eusebian party has l^een preserved for us
by St. Athanasius as the most important
document of his Apology. It would be
simply an absurdity to suppose that he
thought any of the Pope's claims to be ex-
cessive, and in fact his case rested upon
their validity. I will quote one sentence
from the letter : "For if really, as you say,
they [Athanasius and Marcellus] did some
wrong, the judgement ought to have been
given according to the ecclesiastical canon,
cud not th us. You should have written to all
of us, that ioju:,tice mi^hi have been decreed
74
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
moiling the patriarch of iVlexandria
and his accusers alike to Rome, and
in restoring the ejected bishops to
their sees. The question before
the Fathers of Sardica was how to
avoid such evils for the future. The
leading bishops of the East were of
the Court party, or mere creatures
of the Emperor. The patriarchal
sees of Alexandria and Antioch
were in the hands of Arians of the
worst reputation. In ordinary cases
a bishop would be judged by his
metropolitan and comprovincials.
In the East an orthodox bishop
would evidently have little chance
of a hearing. An appeal to a pat-
riarch would be yet more surely
by all. For it was bishops who were the
sufferers, and it was not obscure Churches
which suffered, but Churches which were
ruled by Apostles in person. With regard
to the Church of Alexandria in particular,
why did you not consult us ? Do you
not know that this has been the custom,
first to write to us, and so for that which is
just to be defined from hence"? (Athan.
Apol. 35). Here Julius assumes that the
patriarchal sees have no superior but the
Pope, and that the synod of Tyre had no
power to condemn bishops without appeal.
The words in italics do not simply mean
that West must combine with East in so
important a matter, but principally that
the Pope must not be left out. This is
seen in the Pope's actions and claims, and
to the Greek historians of the fifth century
it was so natural a conclusion that they thus
paraphrase his words: "Since the eccle-
siastical canon orders that the Churches
shall not make canons against the opinion
of the bishop of Rome" (Socrates, ii. 17),
'• saying that it was a sacerdotal law, that
what was done against the will of the
Roman bishop was null and void" (Sozo-
men, iii. 10, probably copying Socrates).
Here they are quoting the letter of Julius,
but their own view was the same ; and
Socrates says in his own person (ii. 8),
' ■ Nor was Julius present (at the Council
of Antioch), the bishop of great Rome, al-
though the ecclesiastical canon orders that
the Churches may make no decisions with-
out the approval of the bishop of Rome."
This is a perfectly clear statement of the
Church's law as understood at Constanti-
nople in the middle of the fifth century by
learned writers.
disastrous, and the appeal to Rome
in person would be a flight and a
self-inflicted exile. There was cer-
tainly no doubt in the minds of the
orthodox party at Sardica that the
Pope could summon a patriarch to
Rome, could order a council to be
held, and could restore bishops to
their sees by the prerogative of his
see, and could quash the proceed-
ings of any council, however large,
if he had sufficient reason. All
these things had lately been seen in
act. But the canons agreed to at
Sardica go much further than this.
They initiate a new system of canon
law. It was not difficult for the
Easterns to avoid coming to Rome
when summoned ; it was a long
journey, and communication was
slow, and delays and excuses were
easily made. This new and extra-
ordinary system provided that if a
bishop had been condemned, and
had complained of injustice, it
should be open to his judges, or to
the bishops of the neighbouring
province, or to himself, to appeal to
the bishop of Rome to order a fresh
trial by neighdoiiri?ig bishops^ with or
without the assistance of a papal
envoy or plenipotentiary. The in-
quiry would thus be held on the
spot, or close by, and there would
be no opportunity of evasion.^
^ These canons have given rise to inter-
minable discussions, but the following
seems to be certainly their meaning (I
follow the text given by C. H. Turner,
Journal of Theol. Studies, April, 1902): i.
If a bishop has been condemned, and he
thinks he has a good case, let his judges
or (if they will not) the bishops of the
neighbouring provinces write to the Roman
bishop, who will either confirm the first
decision, or order a new trial, appointing
the judges himself. On the motion of St.
Gaudentius, bishop of Brescia, it was
added that when any bishop had appealed
to Rome, no successor should be appointed
until the matter had been settled by the
bishop of Rome. This somewhat obvious
rider was directed against the deeds of the
Eusebians. 2. Further, if a bishop should,
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
75
Let us notice that nothing is said
about the power of the Pope to try
at Rome a bishop who appealed
to him ; this was an undoubted
right which had recently been ex-
ercised. Let us also remark that
the Pope's action is left as free as
possible, *' as his wisdom shall think
fit." Again we have to notice that,
if the Pope should send a legate or
judges, he may delegate to them
his own authority — this assumes
that the Pope has superior authority
in every province. Lastly we find
that all this new legislation, founded
on the admitted prerogatives of the
Pope, is spoken of as an honour to
St. Peter the Apostle. ^ It was not,
then, the capital that these defenders
of orthodoxy were honouring, but
the see of the Prince of the Apostles.
The system was too extraordinary
and too contrary to old custom and
to the established rights of the
Eastern (and even of the Western)
Churches to be of any practical
use. These famous canons defined
a novel exercise of papal jurisdic-
tion which never seems to have been
employed. So long as the Emperor
after condemnation by the bishops of the
region, himself appeal and take refuge
with the bishop of Rome, let the latter
write to the bishops of the neighbouring
province to examine and decide the matter.
And if the condemned bishop desires the
Po})e to send a priest a latere, this may be
done. And if the Pope shall decide to
send judges to sit with the bishops, having
authority from him who sent them, it shall
be as he wills. But if he thinks that the
bishops alone suffice, it shall be as his
wisdom shall think fit.
^ Dr. Gore thinks the canons do not
recognise an existing or essential right, but
confer a privilege, and I admit that there
is some truth in this— they give a new
extension to an acknowledged right. But
Dr. Gore's reason is a bad one. He builds,
not on an examination of what was the
practice and theory up to that time, but
simply on the words of the third canon :
"If it please you, let us honour the
memory of B. Peter the Apostle." "If it
please you " is a regular formula ; obviously
Constantius ruled there was no
chance, and under a Catholic Em-
peror things righted themselves
without the' very violent methods
proposed by the Sardican Fathers.
Who were these men who attributed
such arbitrary and unprecedented
powers to the Papacy ? The presi-
dent of the council was the most
revered bishop of Christendom, the
venerable Hosius, who had played
a leading part (probably as presi-
dent) at the Council of Nicaea.
The chief personage in rank, as well
as in fame, was Athanasius himself.
The bishops were from West and
East, from Italy, Gaul, Africa, Sar-
dinia, and Spain ; from Dacia,
Thrace, Macedonia, and Greece ;
from Asia Minor, Crete, Egypt,
Palestine, and Arabia.- The or-
thodox of every part of the Roman
world were represented, and it is for
this reason that I have dwelt upon
the subject.
Next we have to defend St. Jerome
from the accusation brought against
him by Bishop Gore, that "what he
recognised in Rome is recognised
rather in the way of personal predi-
lection than of ecclesiastical doc-
trine." Dr. Gore admits that the
language of his letters to Pope
Damasus " seems clear enough."
" But apparently later in life, after
he had abandoned Rome in disgust,
he can adopt exactly the opposite
it implies that the canon need not be
passed, and that its form may be altered,
but not necessarily that it contains a
novelty, for the same formula may be
used to introduce a definition of faith.
The reference to St. Peter is simply an
honorific mention of the ground of that
primacy of the Pope which is being so
remarkably utilised against the Arians.
No doubt a new honour would have been
paid to St. Peter even by a canon which
merely sanctioned the existing custom of
appeals to Rome, which the Eusebians
had evaded, and (as far as they dared)
even denied.
- See full list of countries in Athr.n.
Afol, 36.
76
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
tone. ' The custom of the Roman
Church,' he says in effect, ' has no
more authority than the custom of
any other Church. The episcopate at
Rome has no more authority than any
other episcopate.' ' If it is a question
of authority, the world is greater than
the city. Wherever there is a bishop,
at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Con-
stantinople, or at Rhegium, or at Alex-
andria, or at Tanis, he has the same
worth [meritufn), the same priesthood
{sacerdotiuin). The power of wealth
or the humility of poverty do not
make a bishop higher or lower. They
are all successors of the Apostles.'
This passage is not quoted by Roman
controversialists, for a veiy plain
reason, because it indicates that the
authority of the Roman see rested for
Jerome on what is variable in a theo-
logian — on sentiment, on expedience,
on feeling— not on what is invariable,
the basis of doctrinal authority."
It is really painful to meet this
passage once more in the ninth
edition of Dr. Gore's work. Ap-
parently he does not live and learn.
This same silly argument (I am
sorry to use such an adjective, but
one must sometimes say what one
thinks) was elaborated also in Dr.
Gore's The Chitrch and the Ministry^
but he did not invent it, and it has
been over and over again exposed,
though Dr. Gore chose and chooses
to ignore the remarks of '* Roman
controversialists," and to declare ///
7iine editions that they still refuse to
deal with the subject. I pointed
out in the Dublin Revieiv for
January, 1898, that a reply to this
same objection was to be found in
so old a book as Archbishop
Kenrick's Vi?idication of the Catholic
Church (Baltimore, 1855), ""^ Stone,
The Invitation Heeded (1870), and
in Dr. Ryder's admirable Catholic
Controversy (1886), a book which
Dr. Gore had no right to overlook,
if he was venturing on the same
ground. All these works are prior
to Dr. Gore's first edition of Roman
Catholic Claims. But this particular
point was answered both by Dr.
Rivington and by Father Richard-
son. I dealt with it at length in the
article I have just referred to, and
I have no doubt at all that Dr.
Gore would be unable to reply to
the exposition there given. I will
hastily summarise it here.
St. Jerome objects to the Roman
custom which gave a place of
honour, even sometimes above
priests, to the regionary deacons,
who were functionaries of great
secular importance. Much as he
loved Rome, he had no idea that
every Roman custom was neces-
sarily right, nor does any Catholic
to-day think so. He appeals to
the world from the city. A priest,
according to St. Jerome's well-
known theory, was in Apostolic
times the same as a bishop, and
a bishop has the same sacerdotium
" bishopship," whether he is pope,
patriarch, or what not. Hence
(the argument is rather strained)
one might as well put a deacon
above a bishop, a patriarch, or a
pope at once, as above a simple
priest, for all share in the same
order of priesthood. Who doubts
that St. Jerome is right in saying
that the bishop of Gubbio is as
much a bishop as his metropolitan,
the bishop of Rome, and that the
bishop of Tanis is as much a bishop
as his patriarch, the bishop of Alex-
andria? And who does not see
that this very argument implies that
they differ in jurisdiction, while they
are equal in bishopship? It is
inconceivable to me how Dr. Gore
(and many other Protestant contro-
versialists) can dare to attribute
to a father of the fourth century
the doctrine that all bishops have
equal jurisdiction, and that metro-
politans and patriarchs have no
more authority than their suffragans.
If St. Jerome had really argued that
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
77
the bishop of Tanis was not subject
to the bishop of Alexandria, he
would have been contradicting the
Council of Nicrea, which confirmed
the patriarchal rights of Alexandria
and Antioch ! But enough of this
singularly ill-judged attack on St.
Jerome's consistency. I will only
add that it seems to me that the
letter in question does not belong
to his later life, but that it is a very
early one.^
We can now hear St. Jerome's
P famous words in his letters to Pope
Damasus, without imagining that
they express mere "personal predi-
lection," or that he afterwards
changed his mind : —
" I ought to consult the chair of
Peter and the faith praised by the
mouth of the Apostle, asking now the
food of my soul, where of old I
received the garment of Christ in
baptism. Away with envy, away with
all canvassing of the Roman power :
it is but with the successor of the
fisherman and the disciple of the
cross that I speak. Following no
one as chief but Christ, I am in
communion with your blessedness,
that is, with the chair of Peter. On
that rock I know the Church was
built. Whosoever shall eat the lamb
outside that house is profane. If any
be not with Noe in the ark, he shall
perish beneath the sway of the deluge.
. . . Vitalis I know not, Meletius I
reject. I know not Paulinus. Whoso
gathereth not with thee, scattereth.
. . . Define, I beseech you, if it
pleases you, and I will not fear to
speak of three hypostases. If you
bid, let a new creed be established
after the Nicene, and let us who are
^ My reason is this. The same doctrine,
that deacons at Rome are above priests, is
attributed to a certain Falcidius by Ambro-
siaster {guccstioties extitroijue ffiixtim, loi,
among St. Angustine's works, vol. iii.,
Appendix). This was probalily under
Damasus, or not much later. The book
of Falcidius seems to have been new when
Jerome wrote his letter on the subject.
Consequently I attribute the letter to the
time of Damasus (366-384) or not long
after. St. Jerome died i« 420.
orthodox confess our faith side by side
with the Arians in similar words. But
the whole literary faculty uses hypos-
tasis in the sense of ousia. . . . Are
we to be separated from Arius by
walls, but united in heresy? . . . Far
hQ this from the faith of Rome ; may
the religious hearts of the people
drink no such impiety ! Let three
hypostases be no more mentioned, if
you please, and let one be held, . . .
Or if you think fit that we should say
three hypostases, we do not refuse.
But believe me, there is a poison
beneath the honey " {Ep. xv.). " On the
one side storm the raging Arians,
supported by the powers of the world.
On the other a Church torn in three
parts (Antioch) tries to seize me.
Meantime I cry aloud : If any is
joined to the chair of Peter, he is
mine ! Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus
all say that they adhere to you. If
one of them asserted it, I could
believe him ; but now either two of
them or all three are lying," etc.
{Ep. xvi.).
Dr. Gore has a last refuge. St.
Jerome cannot have meant what he
said ! " One cannot fail to catch
the tone of exaggeration, almost of
irony, in the second of these pas-
sages." Is it conceivable that the
irony was directed against St.
Damasus, by a recluse who was
really in a grave difficulty between
the contending parties, who all de-
clared that they were on the .side of
the Pope? Was Jerome Hkely to
write with elaborate rudeness to his
own bishop ?
Nearly forty years later, St. Jerome
wrote to the greatest heiress in the
world who was entering upon re-
ligious life : —
" I had nearly left out what is
most important. When you were a
child, and Bishop Anastasius, of holy
memory, ruled the Roman Church, a
fierce storm of (Origenist) heretics
from the East tried to sully and de-
stroy the simplicity of fiiith which was
praised by the mouth of the Apostle.
But that man of richest poverty
and Apostolic solicitude straightway
78
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
smote the noxious head and stopped
the mouth of the hissing hydra. And
because I am afraid, nay, I have heard
the rumour, that these poisonous
shoots are still alive and vigorous in
some, I feel that I ought, with the
deepest affection, to give you this ad-
vice, to hold the faith of holy Innocent,
who is the successor and son of that
man, and of the Apostolic see, and
not to receive any foreign doctrine,
however prudent and clever you may
think yourself to be" {Ep. 130, A.D.
414)-
Here there is no irony, and St.,
Jerome is aged, and close to his
end ; yet he speaks of Anastasius
and of Innocent in their relation
to the faith just as he spoke to
Damasus.
Let us turn to Augustine, for we
cannot pass over the greatest of the
theologians of the West, and that
African Church to which Protestants
have been so strangely fond of
appealing.
We have heard this Doctor call
the Roman see the rock against
which the gates of hell do not pre-
vail. Like Optatus before him, he
uses a h'st of the Roman bishops
as a witness against the Donatists.^
He uses the same argument against
the Manichceans.2 He not only asks
" Who is unaware that most blessed
Peter is the first of the Apostles ? " ^
but he tells us that this Primacy
remained in the Roman Church.^
But his witness is yet more re-
markable to the position of the
\ ^P- 53-
- " I am held in the communion of the
Catholic Church by . . . and by the
succession of bishops from the very chair
of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His
resurrection, commended His sheep to be
fed, up to the present episcopate." Contra
Ep. Manich. Ftindam, 5. Compare: "the
chair of the Roman Church, in which
Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits to-
day " (C. Litt. Pelil, ii. 51).
^ Injoann. 56.
^ The Roman Church in qua semper
ApostoliccB Cathednv vigiiit principalis "
(Ep. 43)-
Pope as ultimate judge on matters
of faith. The history of the con-
demnation of the Pelagian heresy
throws a flood of light upon this
question. I have not space even
to summarise it here. But I will
notice a few points.^
On hearing that Pelagius had
been absolved by the Council of
Diospolis in Palestine, the African
Church met in two simultaneous
councils at Carthage and at Milevis.
Each of these councils thought it
necessary to wTite to the Pope a
letter asking him to approve their
condemnation of the heresy.^'
" This act, lord brother, we thought
right to intimate to your holy charity
that /o the statutes of our littleness
might be added the authority of the
Apostolic see for the preservation of
many and the correction of the perver-
sity of some. We doubt not that
your reverence . . . will make such a
judgement that we shall all rejoice in
the mercy of God,'" and so on.
A separate letter was sent by five
bishops, St. Augustine, the friend of
his conversion, St. Alypius, his dis-
ciple Evodius, his biographer St.
Possidius, and the Primate, Aure-
lius : —
" We wish it to be approved by you
whether our stream, though small,
flows from the same head of water as
your abundant river." ''
Pope St. Innocent replied in the
most " papal " style ^ that the coun-
cils had done well in preserving the
customs of the Fathers, so as to
refer to the Apostolic see, and he
confirms their decisions. It is in-
teresting to know what contempo-
raries thought of the tremendous
claims made in these letters. St.
Augustine says : —
^ I have dealt with the history in detail
in two articles in the Dublin Review^ Jan.
and July, 1897.
6 Aug., Epp. 175, 176.
"' Ep. 177.
^ Aug., Epp. 1 8 1-2.
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
79
" To all of these letters he answered
in the manner which was the right and
the duty of the bishop of the Apostolic
see." "The letters of Pope Innocent
by which all doubt about this matter
was removed." " Let blessed Innocent
also reply. . . . Uo you see what the
catholic faith holds by her minister ? "'^
St. Prosper : "The rising pesti-
lence was first cut short by Rome, the
see of Peter, which, having become
the head to the world of the pastoral
office, holds by religion whatever it
holds not by arms." " They fell, when
Innocent of blessed memory struck
the heads of the deadly error with the
Apostolic sword," etc. -
Marius Mercator, disciple of Augus-
tine : " Three councils were assembled.
From thence relations were sent to
Rome, together with the books. The
Apostolic sentence in reply to the
councils followed." ^
Fradestitiatiis^ a contemporary
work : " Pope Innocent, when the
matter was referred to him by nearly
all the African bishops, wrote the con-
demnation of both Pelagius and
Celestius. These latter, however,
whether before they were condemned
by the universal Church or after they
were condemned, did not cease to
write," etc.^
With these words of the ancients
before us we are not at liberty to
doubt the agreement of the Western
Church as a whole with the claims
of Innocent. Let St. Augustine
speak once more : —
" Do you think these Fathers are to
be despised (viz. Iren^eus, Cyprian,
Reticius, Hilar)', Ambrose, whom he
had been quoting) because they all
belong to the Western Church, and I
have mentioned no Eastern bishop
among them? What are we to do,
since they are Greeks and we are
Latins ? / think that you ought to be
satisfied with that part of the world in
which our Lord willed to craivn the
first of His Apostles with a glorious
^ Ep. 1 86; c. 2 Epp. Pet. ii. 3 (5^;
Op. tmper/., vi. II.
- De Ingratis^ i. 39 ; c. CoUat., xxi.
' Commonit. c. Pel., II.
* Uar., 88.
martyrdom. If you had been willing
to hear Blessed Innocent, the presi-
dent of that Church, you would have
long ago disengaged your perilous
youth from the snares of the Pelagians.
P'or what could that holy man answer
to the African councils except what
from of old the Apostolic see and the
Roman Church with all others perse-
veringly holds ? " ^
On Sunday, September 23rd, 417,
St. Augustine preached at Carthage
against Pelagianism a famous ser-
mon, which concludes with the most
celebrated words to be found in his
writings : —
" My brethren, be of one mind with
me. Wheresoever you find such men
do not hide them, have no perverse
pity. Refute those w ho contradict and
bring to us those who resist. For
already two councils have been sent
to the Apostolic see concerning this
matter, and reset ipts have come from
thence. The case is concluded: would
that the error would soon cease also.
Causa finita est, utinam aliquando
finiatur error"' ^
The question of dogma was in-
deed decided, but the case was not
concluded. While Augustine spoke,
letters were on their way from a new-
Pope — for Innocent had lately died
— declaring that Celestius and Pela-
gius were the victims of malicious
calumny and had never taught the
errors attributed to them.
Rome is rarely in a hurry, and
the Eternal City has won many
victories by delay. But, for an ex-
ception, there was now an impulsive,
arbitral^-, and hasty Pope, who com-
mitted a series of mistakes during
the year and a half that he occupied
the chair of Peter. We have men-
tioned the most serious of these.
Celestius had handed in a profession
of faith which ended thus : —
"What I have received from the
fountain of the Prophets and Apostles
5. -.>/.,!. 13.
*» Serm. 131, 10.
8o
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
we offer to be approved l3y the judge-
ment of your Apostleship, in order
that, if by chance any error of ignor-
ance has crept in upon us, being but
men, it may be corrected by your
decision." ^
Pelagius similarly sent a profes-
sion, with a still stronger declaration
of submission to the Pope : —
"This is the faith, most blessed
Pope, which we have learned in the
Catholic Church, which we have ever
held and hold. If we have by chance
set down aught in it unskilfully or
without due caution, we desire to be
corrected by you, who hold both the
faith and the see of Peter. If, how-
ever, this confession of ours is approved
by the judgement of your apostleship.
then whosoever desires to blacken me,
will prove, not that I am a heretic, but
that he himself is unskilful, or not a
Catholic." 2
It was not unnatural that Pope
Zosimus should be deceived by
such humility. His letters to Africa,
full of ''papal claims," are at first
gushing with the hope of absolving
these repentant or calumniated sons,
and then with anger at the incredu-
lity of the Africans.^ But he was
^ Ap. Aiig. de Pecc. Orig.^ xxiii. 26.
- In Appendix to vol. x. of St. Augus-
tine. That saint makes a similar profession
in the dedication of his work, Contra duas
Epistolas Pelagianoru?n, to Pope St. Boni-
face. After speaking of the Pope's "higher
seat," "loftier pinnacle," etc., he says:
" This reply, then, I have decided to send
to your holiness, not that you may learn
from it, but that you may examine it, and
wheresoever anything may chance to dis-
please you, correct it."
^ A memorial against the Pelagjians was
addressed to Pope Zosimus by Paulinus, a
deacon of Milan, a disciple of St. Ambrose,
and his biographer. Its testimony to the
supremacy of Rome in matters of faith is
most remarkable. I will quote but the
commencement: "I beseech justice of
your blessedness, Lord Zosimus, venerable
Pope. The true faith is never disturbed,
a)id above all in the Apostolic Church, in
which teachers of false faith are as truly
punished as they are easily discovered, that
they may die in the evils they have com-
mitted, unless they correct them, so that in
soon undeceived, and with startling
suddenness published the final con-
demnation of the heretics whom he
had been on the point of acquitting.
St. Augustine had to write treatise
after treatise to defend the Pope
from the charge of contradicting
himself. He shows that Zosimus
always upheld the same doctrine,
but that he was tricked by the two
heretics into believing in their ortho-
doxy.
" Pelagius for a time seemed to say
what was in accord with the Catholic
faith, iDut he was unable to deceive that
see to the endP ^
The Pope's decree was sent " to
be carried throughout the Catholic
world," ^ and appended to it were
the original resolutions of the
African councils.^ It is always
spoken of by St. Augustine as a
final and irreformable judgement.
The summary by St. Possidius in
his life of St. Augustine gives in a
succinct form the African view of
the whole business : —
"And since these heretics were
trying to bring the Apostolic see round
to their view, African councils of holy
bishops also did their best to persuade
the holy Pope of the city (first the
venerable Innocent, and afterwards
his successor Zosimus) that this heresy
was to be abhorred and condemned by
Catholic faith. And these bishops of
them may be that true faith which the
Apostles taught, and which the Roman
Church holds together with all the doctors
of the Catholic faith. And if, like the
other heresiarchs (who, long since judged
by the Apostolic see, or by the Fathers, and
expelled from the bosom of the Catholic
Church, are given over to eternal death),
these also, who are or shall be discovered,
remain in their perfidy, let them be delivered
to the spiritual sword to be destroyed,^' etc.
^ De Pecc. Orig., xxi. 24.
5 Ibid.
^ This was generous of Zosimus, since
relations between Africa and Rome were
strained also by the affair of Apiarius about
this lime ; on this point, see my article,
" Apiarius," in Dublin Review, July. 1901.
THE GROWTH OF THE ROMAN CHURCH
so great a see successively branded
t/iem, ajid cut them off from the mem-
bers of the Churchy S^''-'^^^S letters to
the African Churches in the IVest^ and
to the Churches of the East^ and de-
clared that they were to be anathema-
tised and avoided by all Catholics.
The judgement pronounced upon them
by the Catholic Church of God was
heard and followed also by the most
pious Emperor Honorius, who con-
demned them by his laws, and ordered
them to be treated as heretics. Where-
fore many of them have returned to
the bosom of holy Mother Church,
whence they had wandered, and are
yet returning, as the truth of the right
faith becomes known against this de-
testable error." ^
Nothing could be clearer here
than the inferiority of the 120
bishops of the African councils to
the decisions of the Popes. Nor
does St. Possidius doubt that it was
right (such was the view of those
days) to punish by civil laws those
who would not obey the see of
Rome. No less than nineteen
bishops were deposed by the Pope
and banished by the Emperor for
refusing to sign the papal decree.
Against the chief of these, Julian,
St. Augustine wrote a work in six
books, and he was engaged on the
sixth book of a second reply when
he died, twelve years after the
decree.^
^ Vita ^iig.^ xviii.
- It is very noticeable that this heretic
himself did not dare openly to refuse the
authority of the Pope. He, like Pelagius
and Celestius, sent a profession of fi\ith to
Rome, in which he said : —
" We have written and sent this to your
holiness, as it appears to us according to
the Catholic rule. If you think we ought
to hold otherwise, write us a reply. But
if it is impossible to contradict us, and yet
some wish to stir up scandal against us,
we declare to your holiness that we appeal
to a plenary council" (in Appendix to vol.
X. of St. Augustine). Thus he does not
venture to appeal from ihe Pope to a
plenary council, but only to enforce the
Pope's hypothetical approval of his doc-
trine ! St. Augustine puts down the
These notes on the condemnation
of the Pelagians may be supple-
mented with a quotation from the
celebrated appendix to the letter
of St. Celestine to the bishops
of Gaul, sent a few years after St.
Augustine's death by the hands
of St. Prosper : —
"Since many who boast the Catholic
name remain in the condemned opin-
ions of heretics, whether by wickedness
or by want of wisdom, and presume to
dispute with pious champions of the
faith, and since, while they do not
hesitate to anathematise Pelagius and
Celestius, yet they reproach our
doctors with exceeding the right
measure, and because they profess to
follow and approve only what the
most sacred see of the most blessed
Apostle Peter has sanctioned and
taught against the enemies of the grace
of God by the ministry of its prelates^
it has become needful to inquire dili-
gently what the rulers of the Roman
Church have judged concerning the
heresy which arose in their time, and
what they decided to be held against
the dangerous defenders of free will.
At the same time we shall add some
decisions of African councils^ luhich
the Apostolic prelates^ in fact^ made
their own when they approved them.
Therefore, in order that they who
doubt as to any point may be in-
structed, we make the institutions
of the holy Fathers plain in a com-
pendious table, so that any who is not
over-contentious may recognise that
the whole dispute is summed up in the
short cjuotations subjoined, and that
no reason for contradiction remains for
him, if he believes and confesses with
Catholics:' ^
The words are probably St. Pros-
per's. It would be difficult to ex-
press more clearly the final and
demand to a desire of notoriety (C duas
Epp. Pel., iv. 12 (34) ). Julian goes on to
explain that his reason for not signing the
Pope's letter is his unwillingness to con-
demn the innocent unheard, as though he
accepted the doctrine, which of course he
did not.
^ Celestine, Ep. xxi., and in Appendix
to St. Aug., vol. X.
82
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
binding nature of what the writer
lower down calls "The inviolable
sanctions of the most blessed
Apostolic see."^
Note. — On p. 1 18 Bishop Gore refers in
a note to the treatise de Aleatoribiis, com-
monly printed with St. Cyprian's work.
The literature on this subject within recent
years has reached an enormous amount.
(It will be found chronicled in Ehrhard,
Bardenhewer, or Ilarnack. ) The net result
is that it is practically certain that the
author is either a Novatian or a Donatist,
consequently the witness is of less interest.
It appears that he was an anti-pope be-
longing to one of these two sects (see
Harnack, ChronoL, ii. p. 379), so that
Dr. Gore's remarks lose all their point.
CHAPTER VII
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY
AT the outset of this chapter Dr.
' Gore poses the difference be-
tween his view of history and the
Catholic view in the clearest manner.
The Papacy is "a natural develop-
ment of circumstances, and it is in
the fashioning of circumstances that
we look for the hand of Provi-
dence." The Catholic historian de-
clares that it is a supernahiral
^ It is sometimes thought that the so-
called semi-Pelagians of Southern Gaul, to
whom this appeal is addressed, included no
less a person than St. Vincent of Lerins,
and that he was one of those who found
difficulty (and no wonder) in some of the
harsher expressions in St. Augustine's
writings, while professing "to follow only
what the most sacred see of the most
blessed Apostle Peter has taught." It is
interesting to find the same "ultramon-
tane" doctrine openly professed in St.
Vincent's Coninionitoriiun. His words
about Pope Stephen already referred to
are exceeded by the conclusion of his
whole work. As a crucial instance of his
doctrine, he takes the recent Council of
Ephesus, and shows how in it writings
earlier than Nestorius were examined for
the proof of the faith. But he has yet
another and, it is implied, a still higher
authority to cite in his last chapter of all :
"Though all this would suffice and
more than suffice for the destruction and
extinction of every profane novelty, yet
that nothing may be wanting to such a
fulness, in the last place we add two
authorities of the Apostolic see, one of
development of circumstances. Dr.
Gore's preceding phrase is not am-
biguous : " It is one of those his-
toric growths which indicate a divine
purpose latent in the tendencies of
things and the circumstances of the
world." To a Catholic, on the other
hand, the Papacy seems a "great
historic growth " which cries aloud
to the world of the direct and mira-
holy Pope Sixtus, who now venerably
illustrates the Roman Church ; the other
of his predecessor, Pope Celestine of
blessed memory, which we have also
thought necessary to add here" (c. 32).
He then quotes some words of Sixtus
against novelty, and comments ^^ofnnino
apostolice" and then cites the very letter
of Pope Celestine, from the appendix to
which I have been quoting aliove. He
adds that if anyone denies his doctrine
"he must iirst insult the memory of Saint
Celestine . . . then deride the definitions
of holy Sixtus . . . and also the statutes
of blessed Cyril . . . and the synod of
Ephesus besides, that is to say, he must
trample on the judgements of the holy
bishops of nearly the whole East. . . .
Lastly, the whole universal Church of
Christ, with its teachers the Apostles and
prophets . . . unless he is willing to
violate the Apostolic definitions and ecclesi-
astical decrees by which ... all heretics
. . . have been condemned."
St. Vincent of Lerins, the great sup-
porter of "antiquity," evidently holds that
obedience to the definitions of the holy
see is a tradition from anticjuity !
IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY
83
culous action of God. Its growth,
its vigour, its influence, are a part,
and an essential part, of that visible
unity of the Body of Christ which
He has set in the world as the great
witness to Himself.
It is a poor fisherman put to
death, an ignominious death, in the
circus of Nero, while a companion
of his, as a Roman citizen, is be-
headed on the Ostian Way. Less
than three hundred years pass, and
the successor of the fisherman is at
the head of a religion which stretches
beyond the limits of the Roman
world. " It is they," cries St. Leo
in one of his sermons on St. Peter
and St. Paul, "who have promoted
thee, Rome, to this glory, that, a
holy nation, an elect people, a city
of priests and kings, made the head
of the world by the sacred see of
blessed Peter, thou mightest have a
wider rule by divine religion than by
earthly domination. For although,
increased by many victories, thou
hast carried the rights of thy empire
over sea and land, yet less is what
the labour of war has won thee than
what has been subdued beneath thy
sway by Christian peace" {Senn.
72).
No sooner has the master of the
world become Christian than he
moves, in obedience to the divine
plan, yet all in ignorance, the secu-
lar capital away from the see of
Peter to the banks of the Bos-
phorus, and never again is Rome
the permanent residence of the
Court. Thus the independence of
the head of the Church from im-
perial influence is secured. If we
wish to know how necessary to
Christendom this was, we have but
to glance at the line of the bishops
of Constantinople — orthodox when
an orthodox emperor had made
them, heretics when the emperor
was a heretic ; and in almost all
cases, from Eusebius of Nicomedia
till Photius and beyond, time-servers
and slaves to the civil power.
When the Eastern Emperor can
no longer control the destinies of
Europe, and the young nations of
the West are strong in their new
Christianity, another system is de-
vised by Him who rules men to His
own ends. The Pope becomes in-
dependent of the Emperor, and a
sovereign among the kings of the
West. Rome is the nursing mother
of the Western nations, and to her
they owe much of their law as well
as all their faith. The mediaeval
world has passed away now, and the
Pope's little kingdom has passed
with it, and we yet await the means
w^hich God will take to ensure the
independence of His Vicar in the
coming ages. The wonderful les-
sons of the past tell us that we can
trust in the future for a succession
of those victories and sufferings,
losses and triumphs, which have
made the history of the Papacy of
such varied and absorbing interest.
Now, Bishop Gore has well sum-
marised on pages 107-108 a part of
the circumstances of the develop-
ment of the papal influence and its
beneficial effects. He has pointed
out how in early times " Rome in
her dignified repose was the recipi-
ent of appeal after appeal from the
East," how "the orthodoxy of Rome
was conspicuous throughout all the
controversies on the Trinity and the
Incarnation," how " the tendency of
events in the secular world was run-
ning steadily in the direction of her
exaltation." The question remains
whether all this is " natural develop-
ment" or whether it is not a
marvellous manifestation of divine
power. I cannot sketch the history
here ; I can only remind the reader
that some of the greatest of Protest-
ant writers and thinkers have been
unable to speak of the course of the
story of Rome without a kind of
84
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
awe and wonder at something be-
yond what they meet in other fields
of historical research. ^
But one point at least I can and
will establish against Dr. Gore. I
will show that the recourse of the
Easterns to the Papacy was not
simply " because it was undisturbed
by the Oriental heresies," but be-
cause its peace was looked upon by
the Easterns themselves as the re-
sult of the promise of Christ to St.
Peter. In the last chapter the evi-
dence of the Western Church as to
the Roman Catholic claims was car-
ried as far as the early part of the
fourth century, but the last Eastern
evidence mentioned was from the
Council of Sardica in 343, though
incidentally the witness of the his-
torians Socrates and Sozomen was
referred to. It will be in place here
to deal with some samples of the
Eastern witness on the same sub-
ject.
But in the first place it is neces-
sary to point out a slight divergence
^ Bishop Gore admits, "There is, then,
in the deepest sense of the words, a pro-
vidential purpose in the Papacy ; and it is
impossible to estimate all that the Church
as a whole owes to Rome." But he does
not really mean "in the deepest possible
sense." He puts on the same level "a
divine vocation given to the Eastern
Church as the great mother of theology,
at least as conspicuous as that which was
entrusted to the West in the sphere of dis-
cipline and government." Perhaps ; but
at least very far less conspicuous than the
divine vocation given to the West, and
Rome in particular, of picking up the
East repeatedly out of the mire of heresy !
Still less conspicuous than the divine voca-
tion given to Rome of being an inerrant
and permanent centre of unity ! "It does
not follow because governmental authority
or centralisation was the one thing needed
in the seventh century that it is the one
thing needed now." I should not for an
instant admit that these were the only
things needed in the seventh century. But
I can hardly believe that Dr. Gore does
not admit their necessity in the Church of
England as a prelude to any other pos-
sible reforms.
between the ways in which East and
West looked at the see of Peter.
In the East it became the rule
that ecclesiastical divisions should
coincide with the civil divisions of
the Empire. In the West the claim
of a city to metropolitan rank rested
usually on the claim that it had
been the first in the region to receive
Christianity.
(a) Consequently the Eastern
Fathers would say, " Rome was the
imperial city, so that St. Peter natur-
ally made it the capital of the new
world-wide Faith. He also gave a
second and a third place in the
Church to Alexandria and Antioch,
as being the second and third cities
of the empire." This view is perfectly
correct, but it allows of being stated
in the form, "Rome has the first place
as being the capital," and this form
admits of a wrong meaning, for St.
Peter's action in the matter is not
expressed.
ifi) The Western Fathers see
three Petrine sees, of which one has
inherited all St. Peter's primacy,
while the other two have a reflec-
tion of it. The Westerns are willing
to go on to moralise on the suit-
ability of the great capital, the
modern Babylon, to be the Jerusa-
lem of the second covenant, but
this is a secondary consideration.
In themselves the two doctrines
ave one ; but the points of view are
different, and their divergence be-
came apparent when Constantine
moved the capital to Byzantium. It
did not strike the Easterns as possi-
ble to move to Constantinople the
primacy left by Peter to Rome ; but
to a large number of them it seemed
obvious that the new metropolis
of the world must have a patriarch-
ate, and must rank above Alexandria
and Antioch. By the time that the
Arian troubles were clearing up, the
bishop of Constantinople had already
arrived at a position of great power.
m LATIN CHRISTIANITY
85
The first attempt to get this existing
authority regularised was made in
the Council of Constantinople in
381, which for its creed was later
counted as oecumerycal. The third
canon runs thus : * The bishop of
Constantinople shall hold the first
rank after the bishop of Rome, be-
cause Constantinople is new Rome."
There is no mention of patriarchal
jurisdiction over Thrace and the
ancient autonomous exarchates of
Ephesus and Ccesarea. The consent
of Alexandria could hardly be ex-
pected ; that of the distracted
Antioch was unimportant. It was
probably expected that Rome would
have no objection.
But the Pope had no care to
please the Emperor or the Court
bishop. In the following year St.
Damasus held a great council at
Rome, in which it seems that the
creed of Constantinople was ac-
cepted. But the canons were not
confirmed, and against the third
canon in particular an imposing
protest was made. It runs thus : —
"Although the Catholic Churches
diffused throughout the world are one
bridal chamber of Christ, yet the holy
Roman Church has been preferred
to all other Churches, not by any
synodical decrees, but has obtained
the primacy by the voice of our
Lord and Saviour in the Gospel, say-
ing: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build My Church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against
it ; and I will give to thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and whatso-
ever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven . . .' There was also
added the fellowship of the blessed
AposUc Paul, who not at another time
(as the heretics do vainly babble) but
striving under Nero Caesar, on the
selfsame day was crowned together
with Peter with a glorious death in the
city of Rome ; and together {pafi/er)
they consecrated the above-said holy
Roman Church to Christ the Lord,
and set it above all cities of the world
by their glorious presence and vener-
able triumph.
"Therefore the first see of Peter
the Apostle is that of the Roman
Church, not having spot or wrinkle
or any such thing.
"And the second see was conse-
crated at Alexandria in the name of
blessed Peter, by >Lark, his disciple
and evangelist. And he himself being
sent by Peter the Apostle into Egypt,
preached the word of truth, and con-
summated a glorious martyrdom,
" The third see of the most blessed
Apostle Peter is had in honour in
Antioch, because he dwelt there before
he came to Rome, and there first
arose the name of Christians foi the
new people. 1
There is nothing here with which
the Easterns would have disagreed.
But they would have urged with
some reason, that the disposition
with regard to Alexandria and
Antioch, which w^as universally at-
tributed to St. Peter, would have
been altered by the Apostle had he
hved in the fourth century!
A new attempt to get recognition
for the Court see was made seventy
years later. The circumstances were
extraordinarily favourable. The
patriarch of Alexandria had just
been convicted of heresy and vio-
lence, and had been ignominiously
deposed. The patriarch of Antioch,
Domnus, had been deposed the year
before by the Robber-Council, and
was now allowed only lay com-
munion. His successor was in a
doubtful position, and was not
strong enough to refuse the cession
of the three provinces cf Palestine
to make a patriarchate for Jeru-
salem. He was glad to retain the
favour of Constantinople at the
price of losing one place in rank.
^ This will be found in the collections of
Councils under Gelasius, but it is restored
to Damasus by C. H. Turner [Journal of
Theol, Studies, i., July, p. 560), following
Thiel, Friedrich, Hefele {Councils, vol. 4,
pp. 43-5, Eng tr.), Maassen, Zahn, etc.
86
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
Many must have desired the humili-
ation of Alexandria.^ The new
bishop of the imperial city, Anato-
lius, was a courtier, who meant to
retain the good will of both Em-
peror and Pope.
Consequently, in the fifteenth
session of the great council of
Chalcedon, after the retirement for
the day of the papal legates and
imperial commissioners, under the
presidency of Anatolius, the famous
28th Canon was passed by a large
number of the bishops, the rest*
having departed. It confirms the
Canon of 381, and adds : —
" For to the see of elder Rome, be-
cause that was the seat of empire, the
Fathers have very properly rendered
the first honours (ot Trarepes eiVjrws
dTToSeSw/fatri to. irpecr^eia), and moved
by die same consideration, the most
venerable 150 bishops accorded equal
honours to the most holy see of new
Rome, reasonably judging that the
city which is the seat of the Empire
and of the Senate, and which enjoys
the same honour as the old queen,
Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters
be magnified like her, being second
after her."
The canon goes on to regularise
the already existing patriarchate of
Constantinople. The opening re-
mark was evidently intended as a
compliment to Rome, with the in-
tention of pleasing St. Leo.^ There
^ The excesses of Dioscorus were before
the eyes of all. The teaching of St.
Cyril was under a cloud. The persecu-
tion of St. Chrysostom by Theophilus was
not forgotten, and had redounded as much
to the glory of Constantinople as to the
discredit of Alexandria. And Constanti-
nople had a new glory in the orthodoxy
and martyrdom of Flavian the year before.
^ Dr. Gore says, on the contrary :
"Nothing can be more certain than that
the bishops that enacted this canon did not
regard the privileges of Rome as a part of
the divine and essential constitution of the
Church or they could not have used the
expression * the Fathers gave ' : nothing
can be more plain than that the primacy
of Rome is in their eyes a ' primacy of
was every reason to expect the
Pope's approval, for in the first
session of the council, Paschasinus,
the papal legate and president of
the council, hacj actually granted to
Anatolius the first place after the
papal legates.
But the day after the passing of
the canon the legates made their
protest against the informality of
proceedings in which they had re-
fused to join. As Paschasinus had
clearly put his foot in it before (for
the Pope's instructions were clear
that the Nicene arrangement was to
be respected), his colleague Lucen-
tius assumed the office of reserving
the matter to the Pope, though the
Imperial Commissioners had given
their assent to the decision of so
large a body.
The synod could not but respect
this protest. The council was now
over, and they had only to conclude
by sending to the Pope the Acts
and an enclosing letter. In this
letter the Fathers of the council tell
St. Leo that it is he who has saved
the Faith, " being constituted to all
honour.'" But they did fio^ use the ex-
pression "the Fathers gave" ! I suppose
that Dr. Gore has been misled by Hefele
{NisL of Councils^ iii. p 412, Eng. trans.).
The Greek cannot possibly mean this.
'ATToStow^t does not mean "I give a
present," but "I return a loan," or "I
render a due." St. Leo found no fault
with the expression, nor did he ever
suggest that anything had been implied
which was derogatory to the dignity of the
Roman Church. That the Fathers of
Chalcedon did not regard the Roman
primacy as a mere primacy of honour will
be seen later (pp. 91-2). That they re-
garded it as founded by St. Peter appears
repeatedly from their own words. There
is nothing to object to in the words, "To
the see of elder Rome, because that was
the seat of empire, the fathers have very
properly rendered the first honours." The
first place was not "given" by "the
Fathers," but by St. Peter, and "the
Fathers" continued to "render" the same
honour which Peter had "given" to the
capital.
IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY
87
the interpreter of Blessed Peter."
All had been in concord, and Christ
had been with them, and Leo by his
legates had presided as a head over
the members. Dioscorus had tram-
pled down the Vine of the Lord like
a wild beast (Ps. Ixxix. 14), and "in
addition to all his other crimes had
extended his madness against him
who had been entrusted with the
guardianship of the Vine by the
Saviour, that is, against your holi-
ness." Notice here that (i) St. Leo
is the official interpreter of the con-
fession of Peter (according to his
own assertion, and the repeated
acclamations of the council), and
(2) that the reference to the " guard-
ianship of the Vine " given to him
" by the Saviour " is a still more
distinct statement that the Pope's
power is derived from the original
grant to Peter. There is no doubt
that the Fathers of Chalcedon would
have allowed all that ^t. Damasus
had claimed. They had no idea
that their doctrine of the coinci-
dence of ecclesiastical with secular
jurisdiction could be in any way
contrary to the prerogatives of Rome
as " the Apostolic see," and they
thought that St. Peter himself, in
fixing his primacy in the capital, had
given the precedent for their view-
that Constantinople ought now to
rank in the second place. ^
Further on in the letter the canon
Mt is true that the legate Lucentius
had complained of an insult to the Apos-
tolic see, but he did not mean by this any-
thing in the wording of the canon, but that
it had been passed after the retirement of
the legates from the session of the council,
and in spite of their refusal to countenance
the discussion of the proposal. It is cer-
tain that St. Leo saw in the canon nothing
in any way reflecting upon the unique dig-
nity that he himself claimed with so much
assurance. This point was noticed by a
writer in the Dublin Review, January,
1903. But the reason he suggests for St.
Leo's view is founded on the mistransla-
tion of a.irobihij)KO.(ji. l)y "gave."
itself comes in for consideration.
The Fathers point out that, in con-
ceding a patriarchate, it is merely
approving what has long been cus-
tomary. As for the question of
rank, the " Apostolic ray " has often
beamed as far as Constantinople, so
that they hope Leo will confirm it.
If the legates had resisted it, and
had reserved it to the Pope, that
was no doubt because they wished
the benefit of this disciplinary enact-
ment as w^ell as that of the faith to
be attributed to Leo himself! As
his sons have joined themselves
to their head, so he will confirm
their decisions and give pleasure
to the Emperor. Soon afterwards
the Emperor and Anatolius both
WTOte to ask the Pope to accept the
canon, the confirmation of which
had been expressly reserved to
him. 2
The replies of St. Leo are in his
gravest and most fatherly style. ^ He
speaks of the dangers of ambition,
and points out that Anatolius should
have been satisfied with the gene-
rosity shown by the Apostolic see in
passing over the irregularity of his
election. He does not see anything
in the canon inconsistent with the
respect due to Rome, but he insists
upon the principle that the rank of
the great sees is from Peter, and
not from their secular importance,
and that he has no right to alter
the arrangements confirmed at
Nicffia.
The answer of Anatolius is abject."*
He had instantly obeyed, he says,
all the Pope's injunctions ; the canon
was not his work — the blame is to
be laid on the clergy of Constanti-
nople ! " But even so the whole
force and confirmation of the acts
- Ep. Leon. 100, 10 1.
^ To the Emperor Marcian {Ep. 103),
to the Empress Pulcheria {Ep. 105), and
to Anatolius himself {Ep, 106).
^ Ep. Leon. 132.
88
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
was reserved to your holiness." The
result of this was that the canon was
not copied into the Western collec-
tions, nor is it in the Arabic version.
But naturally the course of things at
Constantinople went on as before,
for the system had been long in
exercise.
We have now seen the divergence
between East and AV^est in regard to
the point of view from which they
regarded the privileges of the see of
Rome. I wish now to give only
two crucial instances to show both
in theory and practice how the
Easterns treated the Popes. These
shall be the condemnation of Nes-
torius by the Council of Ephesus,
and the deposition of Uioscorus by
the Council of Chalcedon. I choose
these instances, first, because these
councils represented the whole East,
and give a far more general view
than can be afforded by a few
patristic quotations, and secondly,
because Bishop Gore regards these
councils as oecumenical, and will
have, in consequence, the more re-
regard for the means by which they
arrived at their decisions, and for
the opinions of the bishops who
composed them.
Nestorius became bishop of Con-
stantinople in the winter of 427-8.
In 429 his heretical teaching was
sufficiently spread to induce St.
Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, to
preach against him. Nestorius tried
to gain the Pope to his side in two
letters, but received no reply, for
the Pope had been asking informa-
tion from St. Cyril. The latter wrote
to Pope Celestine, that the evil had
reached a climax, and he now felt
bound to denounce it, since ancient
customs of the Churches recom-
mended him to communicate the
matter to the Pope, who must now
signify his view to the bishops of
Macedonia and to all the bishops of
the East. Celestine at once held a
council at Rome.^ He then writes
to Cyril, August nth, 430 : —
"Joining to yourself, therefore, the
sovereignty of our see, and assuming
our place with authority, you will
execute this sentence with accurate
rigour: that within ten days, counted
from the day of your notice, he shall
condemn his false teachings in a
written confession," etc., (otherwise he
is cut off from our body) (Mansi, iv.
1020).
John, patriarch of Antioch, urged
Nestorius to yield, although the ten
days was a somewhat brief delay.
Cyril held a synod in order to draw
up a suitable formula of the faith,
and then sent the papal notification
to Nestorius in a letter calculated
to wound and exasperate rather
than conciliate.- Nestorius refused
to submit, and appealed to the
council which both he and the
orthodox Easterns desired to see
assembled; f&r the whole Antiochian
school of theologians, though not
heretical, was dissatisfied with the
definitions of the Alexandrian
patriarch. Theodosius 11. issued
a letter convening a synod at
Ephesus for Pentecost, and wrote
also a bitter letter to Cyril, insisting
that he above all must be present.
St. Cyril now wrote to the Pope
to ask an important question; the
letter is lost, but the Pope's answer
has preserved the inquiry : —
" You ask whether the holy synod
ought to receive a man who condemns
what it preaches, or because the iiine
of delay has elapsed^ whether the
sentence already delivered is in force "
(Mansi, iv. 1292).
The question was whether the
synod might judge once more one
^ Councils hastily formed, or meeting at
regular intervals, were the Pope's advisers,
like the " congregations " of to-day. The
other great sees held similar councils from
time to time.
- Mansi, iv. 1069: "Your uncouth
and distorted teachings," St. Cyril says.
IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY
89
who had been already condemned
by the Pope. St. Cyril was, of
course, anxious that the question
should not any longer be con-
sidered open, but that Nestorius
should be treated as a condemned
criminal. One would have thought
he might have anticipated that if
the Pope approved of the meeting
of a council, and sent legates to be
present at it, it was a matter of
course that he intended Nestorius
to be granted a fresh trial, and a
full examination to be made. But
this did not suit St. Cyril at all.
He took up the ground that what
the Pope had settled could not be
revised except by special permission
from the Pope himself.
St. Cyril, as the first bishop of
the world after the bishop of Rome,
assumed the presidency of the
council, and insisted upon opening
it on June 22nd, 431, in spite of
the demand of sixty-eight bishops,
and of the imperial count, that
the arrival of John of Antioch
should be awaited. Cyril believed
that the delay of that patriarch was
intentional ; it was inexplicable that
the papal legates had not come;
and with 160 bishops he decided
(with good reason, even though
some may think it would have been
yet better to delay) that proceedings
must commence.
It does not appear that Celestine
had commissioned Cyril to be his
representative at Ephesus. But in
the absence of any letter from the
Pope, the Alexandrian bishop con-
sidered that the excommunication
he had published as papal delegate
against Is^estorius was still in force,
and that he appeared as its author
at the council, to see it approved
and rectified, but not reconsidered.
This is evidently the reason why he
has regularly designated himself at
the beginning of the acts of each
session of the council as "Cyril of
Alexandria, who also held the place
of the most sacred and holy arch-
bishop of the Roman Church,
Celestine."
Nestorius refused to appear.
The definitions submitted to him
by St. Cyril were approved, and
the correspondence between Rome,
Alexandria, and Constantinople was
read, and many testimonies of
earlier writers were cited against
the doctrine of Nestorius. Thus
the doctrine both of Cyril and of
Nestorius was freely examined.
But before evening the synod pro-
ceeded to the signature of the
sentence of deposition. Hefele
oddly remarks : " The intermediate
speeches are not known to us."
But it is evident that there were no
intermediate speeches, for the acts
up till this point are very full, and
sufficient to occupy a sitting of
enormous length. It is clear that
Cyril did not propose any discus-
sion of the sentence of deposi-
tion. In his view it was not to be
revised by the Council, which had
completed its duty when it had
examined the theological question.
He allowed his own writings to be
examined, but the papal sentence
was simply to be accepted. The
following is the form proposed. It
was signed by all the bishops, who
by evening numbered 198, without
any remarks being added by any of
them.
"The Holy Synod said : 'Since tlie
most impious Nestorius will not obey
our citation,^ and has not received the
most holy and God-fearing bishops
whom we sent to him, we have neces-
sarily betaken ourselves to the ex-
amination of his impieties ; and having
apprehended from his letters, and from
his writings, and from his recent say-
ings in this metropolis, which have
been reported, that his opinions and
^ If Nestorius had consented to appear,
he would of course have been allowed to
defend himself.
LIBRARY ST. MARY'S COLLEGE
90
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
teachings are impious, we being neces-
sarily compelled thefeto by the canons
and by the letter of our most holy
father and colleague, C destine, bishop
of the Roman Church, with many
tears, have arrived at the following
sentence against him : —
" ' Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has
been blasphemed by him, defines by
this present most holy synod that the
same Nestorius is deprived of epis-
copal dignity and of all sacerdotal
intercourse.'" (Mansi, iv. 1212.)
They were compelled by the
canons — for they had cited Nes-
torius three times, and judgement
went against him by default. They
were compelled by the letter of
Pope Celestine — that is, by his
former letter to St. Cyril, for no
other had yet come — since no per-
mission had been sent for revision
of the sentence which St. Cyril had
issued.
The legates of the Pope, who
had suffered from storms at sea, at
last arrived, and the second session
of the council was held on July loth.
The bishops Arcadius and Projec-
tus were representatives of the
Roman council of the Pope, and the
priest Philip was his personal repre-
sentative. The latter announced
that Celestine had long since de-
cided the matter by his letter to
Cyril, and had now sent a new letter.
This was read in Latin and Greek. ^
It contained an exhortation to the
synod, and the names of the legates
who were to carry into effect what
Celestine had before decided. The
Pope doubts not that the synod
will assent. This letter was received
with acclamation. Projectus calls
attention to the mandate given to
the legates. Firmus, bishop of
Caesarea, explains that the synod
had in fact already executed the
sentence according to the rule laid
down by the former letters of the
Apostolic and Holy See. Arcadius
^ Mansi, iv. 1284.
apologised for the late arrival of the
legates on account of bad weather.
PhiHp then thanked the council for
the applause by which the bishops
had joined themselves as holy mem-
bers to their holy head, for they
were not ignorant that Peter is the
head of the faith and even of all
the Apostles. He asks for informa-
tion as to the acts of the first
day, that the legates might confirm
them. (Mansi, iv. 1289.)
To these acts of the second ses-
sion is appended the letter of Celes-
tine to Cyril, containing the answer
to his question. The Pope replies
that God does not desire the death
of a sinner, but that He desires all
men to be saved; so that Nestor-
ius is, as we should have expected,
to have a fresh chance. But the
letter had arrived too late, and the
permission was anyhow made use-
less by the refusal of Nestorius to
appear.
In the third session, on the follow-
ing day, the legates said they had
read the acts, and approved them.
But in order that they might give a
confirmation, the formula of depo-
sition must be read again. This
was done on the motion of Memnon,
bishop of Ephesus, (it seems that
Cyril had not yet arrived in the
hall). Then each of the three
legates pronounced a solemn confir-
mation in the name of the Pope.
The introduction of the speech of
PhiHp is famous {Ibid , 1296) : —
" It is doubtful to no one, nay — it is
known to all ages, that holy and blessed
Peter, the prince and head of the Apos •
ties, the pillar of the faith, and the
foundation of the Catholic Church, re-
ceived from our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Saviour of the human race, the Keys of
the Kingdom, and that to him was given
the power of loosing and binding sins,
who up to this time and always lives
in his successors and gives judgement.
His successor, therefore, and repre-
sentative, our holy and most blessed
IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY
91
Pope, bishop Celestine, has sent us
to this synod to supply his place," etc.
At the request of Cyril, who was
now present, the legates added their
signatures to those of the bishops
who had signed the deposition.
It is not necessary to comment
either upon the claims made by
Philip or upon the statement made
by the council that they were " ob-
liged " by the letters of St. Celestine,
or upon St. Cyril's original execution
of the Pope's orders. In all these
points we see that the Pope is in-
deed the head; he deposes the
-bishop of Constantinople, he is of
greater authority than the council.
Of the Council of Chalcedon
something has already been said,
and I have now^ to deal with a
single point only, the deposition of
Dioscorus. In this case he had not
been previously condemned by the
Pope, but his sentence was expressly
left to the council. He was sum-
moned three times by the council,
as Nestorius had been. After his
third refusal to appear, the papal
legate Paschasinus, president of the
council, repeatedly asked the opin-
ion of the Fathers, and all agreed
that he was to be condemned. Then
Julian, bishop of Hypaepa, moved
that, since Dioscorus as president
of the Robber-Synod of the preced-
ing year had given an unjust judge-
ment, so now he should be judged by
Paschasinus, who held the authority
of Blessed Leo, and by the holy
council. " We therefore urge your
sanctity^ who hold — or rather you (in
plural) who hold the place of the
most holy Archbishop Leo^ to pro-
nounce sentence against Dioscorus,
and to define concerning him what
is in the canons. For we all, and
the whole oecumenical council, are
of one mind with your sanctity."
Paschasinus said once more : "Again
I say, what is the pleasure of your
blessedness?" Maximus, Bishop of
great Antioch, said : " With what your
sanctity thinks, we agree."
Then Paschasinus, with his fellow-
legates, Lucentius and Boniface,
" holding the place of the most holy
and blessed Patriarch of Great
Rome and Archbishop, Leo," so-
lemnly recited a summary of the
crimes of the bishop of Alexandria,
and concluded : —
" Wherefore the most holy and most
blessed archbishop of great and elder
Rome, by us and the present most holy
synod, together with the thrice-blessed
and praiseworthy Peter the Apostle,
who is the rock and base of the Catholic
Church, and the foundation of the
orthodox faith, has stripped him of the
episcopal and of all sacerdotal dignity ;
wherefore this most holy and great
synod will vote what is in accordance
with the canons against the aforesaid
Dioscorus" (Mansi, vi. 1048).
After this each bishop gives his
adhesion to the sentence in a few
words. I give the first of these
little speeches— that of Anatolius of
Constantinople— as an example : —
"Anatolius, bishop of royal Con-
stantinople, new Rome, said : ' Agree-
ing in all things with the Apostolic
see, I vote with it as to the condemna-
tion of Dioscorus, who was bishop
of the great city of Alexandria, who
had proved himself unworthy of all
sacerdotal office, by disobeying in all
things the canons of the Fathers, and
by not choosing to obey, when thrice
canonically summoned."
At the end of these speeches we
find the words, " And when all the
holy bishops had spoken, they
signed as follows." The signatures
were 294 in number. To what
were they appended? Without
doubt to the condemnation pronounced
in the name of the synod^ and at its
request by Paschasinus, and possibly
also to the reports of the Httle
speeches of confirmation just de-
livered. It cannot be denied that
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
the Chalcedonian Fathers, like those
of Ephesus, amply recognise the
right of the Pope to condemn one
of the great patriarchs.
We may now take up a challenge
of Dr. Gore's : " I believe indeed
that no?ie of the Greek Fathers of the
first six centuries connects the positio?i
of the bishop of Rome with the
promise to St. Feter" (p. 91). In a
note he admits that a universal
statement is somewhat hazardous.
Now it is true that the great
Greek commentators (and the early
Latin commentators too), in anno-
tating Matthew xvi. and John xxi.,
do not make any reference to the
successors of St. Peter; ^ they simply
speak of his own primacy. Why
on earth should they do more ? As
a rule, it is only the popes them-
selves who directly cite these pas-
sages as the grounds of their own
jurisdiction. It was right for them
to show that it was on spiritual
authority, and not on the influence
of wealth or prestige, or on the
support of the Emperor that they
leaned. But even in the East, where
a more worldly view was taken, as
we have seen, Rome is regularly
spoken of as " the Apostolic see,"
although there were plenty of
Churches in the East which had an
Apostolic origin, and the bishops
of Antioch and Alexandria con-
sidered themselves in a sense suc-
cessors of Peter. But when St.
Chrysostom at Antioch calls his
bishop " another Peter," he explains
that Antioch had to give up the
Apostle to Rome.- The expression
'• the Apostolic see " is especially
significant in the mouth of an
Athanasius and a Cyril, for they
were bishops of the second Petrine
^ I suppose that mediaeval and even
modern commentators do not always speak
of this extension of the text, or rather
deduction from it.
- Horn, in /user. AcL ii. 6.
see. If this is not a connexion
" of the position of Rome with the
promise to Peter," I do not know
what is ; for we have seen how
much authority these two saints
attributed to the Pope.
We have heard the connexion
openly expressed at the Council of
Sardica : " The head, that is to say,
the see of Peter." " Let us honour
the memory of Blessed Peter the
Apostle" (above, p. 75). This
is before the middle of the fourth
century. In 431 we have the con-
stant use of "the Apostolic see" by
the Fathers at Ephesus, their accla-
mations of the letters of Celestine,
and their acceptance of the claims
of Philip. In 451 we have the
letter of the Council of Chalcedon to
St. Leo (p. 87 above) with its definite
reference to Leo being the interpre-
ter of Peter, its statement that he
was entrusted with the guardianship
of the Vine " by the Saviour." We
have also the famous acclamations
of the Fathers : " It was Peter who
spoke thus through Leo ! " ^ In the
same year we have the letter of
Theodoret (p. 60).
Later on the evidence is more
abundant. I will instance the
bishops of Dardania in 494 : " We
who desire to serve the Apostolic
see without blame, according to the
div i fie precepts djwdi the statutes of the
Fathers."^ This is clear enough.
A certain bishop Flavian (?) of Rho-
dope wrote to the heretical Peter
Fullo, bishop of Antioch, about
479: "But you have been canoni-
cally sifted by our prelates, that is,
by the prince of the Apostles, Peter,
to whom the Lord said : " Whatso-
^ Mansi, vi. 972. Compare the cries
of greeting of the Oriental bishops to
Peter, bishop of Corinth, when he went
over to the other side of the council and
sat with them, thus taking the orthodox
side: "Peter agrees with Peter ! Welcome,
orthodox bishop " (Mansi, vi. 681).
^ Mansi, viii. 13.
IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY
93
ever thou shalt bind," etc., with
reference to a Roman synod, ap-
parently one held by Pope Simpli-
cius.^ In 5 1 2 many Eastern bishops
wrote to Pope Symmachus : " Even
as the blessed Prince of the glorious
Apostles taught, whose chair Christ,
the best of Shepherds, has entrusted
to your beatitude." " Hasten to
help the East from which the
Saviour sent the two great hghts of
day, Peter and Paul, to you to illu-
mine the whole world. . . ."'^ A few
years later the Archimandrites and
monks of Syria secunda write to
Pope Hormisdas : " To the most
holy and blessed patriarch of the
whole world, Hormisdas. . . . Since
Christ our God has made you the
chief of shepherds and teacher and
physician of souls, it is proper for
us to unfold the sufferings which
have come upon us, and to point
out the merciless wolves who are
scattering the sheep of Christ. . . .
To you is given the power of bind-
ing and loosing. . . . Look upon
Peter, that prince of the Apostles,
whose see you adorn, and Paul who
is the vessel of election, who have
illuminated the world. . . ."^ 1^515
the Emperor Anastasius writes to
the Pope to ask him to compose
a trouble in Scythia : " We are in-
quiring what our God and Saviour
taught the holy Apostles in His divine
words, and especially blessed Peter,
in whom He constituted the firm-
ness of His Church." ^ To the same
Pope, Dorotheus, bishop of Thessa-
lonica writes : "I write to the blessed
head of your holiness, signifying that
we rejoice together with the blessed
see of most holy Pe4:er, that it is
governed by such a hand," etc.^
John, bishop of Constantinople, is
induced to sign the famous "formula
of Hormisdas" in 516,^ which was
^ Mansi, vii. 11 19. '^ Ibid., viii. 221.
•^ Ibid., viii. 425. •* Ibid., viii. 384.
5 Ibid., 386.
« Ibid., 4S^.
required by this Pope of a great
many bishops, and again frequently
by later Popes. It was eventually,
in an enlarged form, approved by
the eighth cecumenical council.
The patriarch declares in his letter
to Pope Hormisdas that he rejects
all the heretics whom the Pope
rejects, and that the see of Peter
and the see of the imperial city are
one and the same, by which he
means to say that their union is
complete. The formula prefixes to
the anathematizations of heretics
the following introduction : —
"It is the first condition of salvation
to keep the rule of right faith and in
no degree to deviate from the tradition
of the Fathers, for the sentence of our
Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed
over, which says : ' Thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build My church.'
These spoken words are proved by their
effects., because in the Apostolic see
religion is always kept undefiled.
Therefore, desiring not to fall from
this faith, and following what has been
constituted by the Fathers in all things,
we anathematise," etc. Later on :
" Wherefore, in all things following the
Apostolic see, as we have said, we
also preach all that has been decreed
by it, and therefore hope to be in one
communion with you, which the Apos-
tolic see enjoins, in which is the true
and perfect solidity of the Christian
religion, promising that in future those
w^ho are separated from the com-
munion of the Catholic Church— that
is to say, those who do not consent to
the Apostolic see — shall not have their
names recited in the holy diptychs."
The difficulty in getting such a
formula signed was not in the least
due to its extolling the ApostoHc
see, as some Anglican controver-
sialists seem to think (for no objec-
tions were ever raised on this score),
but to the explicit way in which the
promise was exacted that not only
should all the heretics be con-
demned, and the teaching of Rome
followed, but that none of the dead
94
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
who had been cut off from com-
munion by Rome should be men-
tioned in the liturgy. The wording
of the formula was not intended to
exalt Rome, but to exclude all the
evasions of the half-orthodox, who
had been so long in schism through
the arbitrary acts of the Emperors
Zeno and lately, Anastasius.
It seems hardly necessary to con-
tinue the list. From the earHest
times appeals from the East to
Rome had been common, but the
letters sent are mostly lost, and it
was not necessary that every one
should contain a reference to St.
Peter. In the sixth century more
are preserved, and within only a few
years many more could be quoted ;
e.g. the Emperor Justinian : '* The
primacy of the Apostolic see"; "Let
your Apostleship show that you are
indeed the successor of Peter the
i\postle."^ His statements (con-
tained in his code) that the Pope is
the "head of all the holy Churches,"
" the head of all the holy bishops of
God,"-^ and how he saw this carried
out in practice, are well known. I
will not, however, add more, except
to refer to another patriarch of Con-
stantinople, Epiphanius, in 520 : —
"It is my custom (or prayer?)
greatly to unite myself with you, and
to embrace the divine dogmas which
have been handed down to your holy
see by the blessed and holy disciples
and Aposdes of God, especially of the
chief of the Aposdes, Peter, and to
think nothing more precious.'' ^
The reader can, if he thinks fit,
refer also to the explicit application
to the Pope by Stephen, bishop of
Larissa, of John xxi. 17, in 521,'*
to the multiple evidence in the long
Acts of the Council of Constanti-
nople under Mennas in 536,^ but
^ Mansi, viii. 515, 516. These letters
are before he was emperor.
2 Ibid.^ viii. 795. ^ Ibid.^ viii. 502.
^ Ibid., viii. 741 foil. ; cp. 748.
5 Ibid., 874 foil.
the witness becomes too frequent to
be pursued further. I have only
referred to it because of Bishop
Gore's challenge; it would have
been more effective as controversy
to have followed out the actual exer-
cise of the papal prerogatives, or
even the statement of them in words,
rather than the mere reference to St.
Peter.
But as I have been dealing with a
challenge, I will not omit one other
point. Dr. Gore has written : —
" Allnatt, in his Cathedra Petri., can
at least be trusted to accumulate all
the legitimate references to the P^athers
in support of a papal view — indeed, he
does not often stop here — but under
the heading ' St. Peter lives and
teaches in his successors ' and ' rules
in his own see' he cannot quote a
single Father of the first four centuries,
except one Pope, Siricius (a.d. 386)."
The remains of Fathers of the
first four centuries are rather limited
in extent, and the mystical idea of
Peter in his successors is not at all a
natural way of expressing the au-
thority of the Apostolic see. In the
third edition of Mr. Allnatt's careful
work (1882) I cannot find this head-
ing, so I suppose it was inserted in a
later edition. But I will give what
I have myself observed. Besides
Siricius I find: —
2. The Council of Aries, 314, to St.
Sylvester : "(Rome) where the Aposdes
daily sit (as judges)." This is a re-
markable saying of this great and early
council of the whole West.
3. The letter of Pope Julius to the
Eusebians (342) quoted by St. Atha-
nasius : " What we have received from
the blessed Apostle Peter, that I make
known to you."
But the fifth century is not to be
despised. Dr. Gore is aware that
the series of genuine decretal letters
of the popes begins only with Siri-
cius, at the end of the fourth century,
and before that we have little but
IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY
95
fragments of their writings. Some
Protestant controversialists object to
evidence drawn from the writings of
popes, as if all of them, saints or
not, were unscrupulous boasters,
and as if (which is ridiculous) they
habitually asserted what nobody
received. But, on the contrary, to
a Catholic, and therefore to one
seeking to find the truth, the evi-
dence of the claims made by the
popes themselves has obviously a
very special value. Now, I find
this reference to the voice or assist-
ance of Peter particularly common
in the letters of the popes, for it is
a modest way of asserting their
authority without attributing any-
thing to their own person.
4. St. Innocent, 417 : "I think that,
as often as a question of faith is dis-
cussed, all our brothers and fellow-
bishops should refer to none other than
to Peter, the author of their name and
office" (In St. Aug., Ep. 182).
5. St. Zosimus,' 418: "For (Peter)
himself has care over all the Churches,
and above all of that in which he sat,
nor does he suffer any of its privileges
or decisions to be shaken," etc. {Ep. 12).
6. St. Boniface, c. 420, to his legate
Rufus : " B. Peter looks upon thee
with his eyes " {Ep. 5).
7. Philip, legate of Celestine at
Ephesus, 431 : "Who even until now
and always lives and judges in his suc-
cessors " (above, p. 90).
6. St. Sixtus III., c. 435 : "B. Peter
in his successors has delivered what
he received " {Ep. 6).
7. St. Leo, frequently : " Who does
not cease to preside in his see, who
will doubt that he rules in every part
of the world?" {Serm. 5, etc.).
I have added half a century to
Dr. Gore's four. Let us hear the
Westerns echo the Popes : —
8. Pelagius the heretic, 418 : "You
who hold both faith and the seat of
Peter ^' (above, p. 80).
9. St. Peter Chrysologus, Doctor of
the Church, bishop of Ravenna, 450 :
" Blessed Peter, who lives and presides
in his own see, gives the truth of the
faith to those who seek" (Letter to
Eutyches, Ep. 25, ifiter Leo7i.).
And the Eastern Church : —
10. Theodoret, 451, to Pope Leo:
"This thrice blessed pair (Peter and
Paul) rose in the East, and sent forth
their rays everywhere, but it is in the
West that they have had their glorious
setting, and fro7n thence they illumi-
nate all the world'' {Ep. 113 and Leo,
Ep. 52).
11. St. Pulcheria, Empress, 451, to
St. Leo {Ep. 77) : " The Apostolic
confession of your letter."
12. Councilof Chalcedon, 451 : "It
is Peter who has spoken this by Leo"
(above, p. 92).
I daresay these might easily be
added to; I subjoin two as ex-
amples of the sixth century, both
from the East : —
13. Eastern bishops to Pope Sym-
machus, 512: "You who are daily
taught by your sacred teacher Peter
to feed the sheep of Christ entrusted
to you throughout the whole habitable
world" (Mansi, viii. 221).^
14. Two bishops of Thessaly to Pope
Boniface II. in 521 : " For these things
we appeal to your Blessedness and the
Apostolic see, and through it we be-
lieve we hear and adore thrice blessed
Peter, and the chief Shepherd of the
Church, Christ our Lord" (Mansi, viii.
748).
I have only given these quota-
tions to show how misleading are
Bishop Gore's general statements.
The idea that Peter speaks and
rules in his successors is, of course,
not to be taken literally. It means
that his authority endures in them,
and also that his prayers give them
especial assistance.
We must now turn to an un-
pleasant subject — forgeries and
frauds. Dr. Gore begins by saying
^ See letter of Juliana Anicia, daughter
of the Emperor of the West, Flavins
Anicius Olybrius : " The vicars of glorious
Peter the Apostle." This is the lady for
whom the Vienna MS. of Dioscorides was
written (Mansi, viii. 496).
96
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY
that Saint Leo was a real saint,
but that he was "unscrupulous,"
"strangely blinded in conscience,"
because "he quoted as a canon of
Nic?ea what had been shown to
demonstration to be a canon of
Sardica and not of Nicaea" (pp. i lo,
III). Who had shown it to be a
canon of Sardica, and when ? Dr.
Gore is a little out in his facts,
as well as quite unique in his
theory of what a " real saint " is ! ^
Then there are the famous Forged
Decretals, which Dr. Gore — in con-*
tradiction to all the best Protest-
ant historians — declares "represent
a step of immense importance in the
aggrandisement of the papal claim." ^
If I were to treat Dr. Gore as he
treats St. Leo, I should assume that
he knows better, but is " strangely
blinded in conscience " and " un-
scrupulous," when papal claims are
in question. But of course I am
perfectly sure that Dr. Gore is in
" invincible ignorance," and I can-
not but find his contention amusing.
Will he kindly ask himself: If it
had 710 1 already been fi7-7nly estab-
lished that a papal decretal was ati
absolute law for the Churchy zvhat
ivould have been the use of for gi fig
any at all? and what could any
forgeries add to this absolute sway 1 ^
^ Mr. C. H. Turner {fournal of Theol.
Studies, April, 1902, p. 390) does not think
St. Leo was a liar. See esp. pp. 393-5.
"^ Supposing it certain (which it is not)
that St. Leo and his advisers knew or
remembered the letter of an African council
twenty years earlier, which showed that the
canon in question was not in the Eastern
collections of Nicene canons, it is not un-
natural that the Pope should suppose the
manuscript in his archives was more com-
plete. If the Africans had known the canon
was Sardican, they would have accepted it,
but they knew nothing of that synod.
•^ The Isidorian decretals were not made
in Rome, but in Germany ; not in favour
of the popes but in favour of bishops, that
the latter might be free to appeal to Rome,
and not be subject to secular tyranny. The
later papal laws on the subject were at-
" Nay, even conscious fraud is a
familiar element in official acts of
the Roman see" (p. in). Only
one example of this " familiar " phe-
nomenon is given ! It is the omis-
sion in the sixteenth century in the
breviary lessons for June 28th of
the name of Pope Honorius from the
list of heretics condemned by the
sixth oecumenical council. But
the removal of what might easily
be misunderstood and what was cer-
tainly disedifying in a prayer-book,
was hardly a " fraud " ! " The love
of interpolations and falsifications
is alive still among Roman con-
troversialists. The interpolations in
St. Cyprian are still printed as an
integral part of the text by Father
Hurter and quoted by AUnatt."
Both of these ivr iters give elaborate
notes 071 the words^ explaining the
evidence for their antiquity, which
they rather undervalue."* They
leave their authenticity doubtful.
Is this fraud? I should accuse
Dr. Gore himself of want of charity
tributed by the forger to the first three
centuries, in order to ensure that new
popes would respect these ancient customs
and enforce them, and that they would be
obeyed. There was no idea of enlarging
the papal power, nor was it enlarged,
though centralisation was increased.
^ The famous interpolated passage in
St. Cyprian, De Ecclesia: CathoHav tiniiate,
4, consists (as found in printed editions) of
a conflation of the original text with an
alternative form which had been sub-
stituted for it not later than al)Out 350.
The alternative form was not intended in
favour of Rome, but embodies the usual
argument against the Novatians or the
Donatists. The reasons I gave two years
ago for attributing it to St. Cyprian him-
self have appeared conclusive to Harnack,
Hans von Soden, and many other scholars.
The most remarkable part of the "inter-
polation" lies in the words: '■^ He who
deserts the Chair of Peter upon whoin the
Church was founded, is he conjident that
he is in the Church .?" This is the recog-
nised teaching of Optatus and Augustine,
but it is equally clearly the view of Cyprian
(above, ch. v.). My articles appeared in
Revue B^nMictine, July and October,
IN LATIN CHRISTIANITY
97
in his accusation, did I not know
that it is not incompatible with the
recognition of both writers as even
" real saints " !
"The certainty that Ultramontane
writers will always be found mani-
pulating facts and making out a
case," p. 113. Nothing would be
easier than for me to bring the
same accusation against Dr. Gore,
were it not that I know his
personal character. Does he know
of any " Ultramontane writer " so
unscrupulous, unfair, untruthful,
as " Janus " ? Has he met with
any " Roman controversialist " as
disreputable as Dr. Littledale? I
often disagree with arguments put
forward on the Catholic side, nay,
they often annoy me greatly. There
is no subject on which argument
does not lead people to exaggerate.
But Protestant history from the
Magdeburg centuriators and Foxe
to Froude, has been a series of lies,
whether intentional, careless, or pre-
judiced. There is nothing like this
on the Catholic side, since the
Middle Ages. I do not make Dr.
Gore answerable for Protestant his-
torians, nor will I myself be answer-
able for mediaeval forgers, who,
however, seldom worked in favour
of the Papacy.
CHAPTER VIII
THE NATURE OF SCHISM
T F we believe in the unity of the
-*- Church Militant, there is no
necessity for a chapter devoted to
the elucidation of a mysterious ques-
tion : "What is schism? " Evidently
schism is a cutting off from the
unity of the Church. The Church
is as it were an organism. Cut off
a branch from the tree, the branch
withers ; amputate a member from
1902, and January, 1903. Another article
(journal of Theol. Studies , Oct., 1902) is
necessary to the argument, which depends
largely on the history of the MSS.
With regard to Pope Honorius, I think
personally that he was quite rightly con-
demned by three general councils and a
whole succession of popes. But I cannot
agree with Bishop Gore that the Sixth
General Council in condemning him shows
that it had "no, even rudimentary, idea of
the papal infallibility" (p. 104). On the
contrary, I am sure that the acts of the
council prove it to have held strongly
the inerrancy of the Apostolic see, in spite
of the (apparently well-meant) mistake of
Honorius. But I am treating of this
matter elsewhere.
the body, that member dies. These
are the metaphors used by the
Fathers ; they found them suggested
by the New Testament, and they
applied them unanimously and con-
sistently.
But Bishop Gore does not believe
that the Church is one. These plain
expressions are of no use to him.
He cannot refer to the Fathers
for a definition. He is in great
difficulties to find one for himself.
"If (Txt(T{j.a does not mean a cutting
off from unity, what ca?t it mean ? "
This is the question he has been
obliged to pose to himself, and no
wonder it takes him a whole chapter
to answer it, no wonder that when
one has read the chapter, one is un-
certain whether Vie has given an
answer or not.
"Schism does not merely mean
breaking away from the episcopal
form of government" (p. 125).
Why should it? (And on what
98
THE NATURE OF SCHISM
ground does Bishop Gore think it
necessary to adhere to an episcopal
form of government? It is not
stated in the Bible to be necessary.
An order of i-icTKoiroL is mentioned,
but so are deaconesses and widows.)
On page 126 two definitions are
attempted : " Schism, considered
apart from heresy, as a sin excluding
from the benefits of Church life,
means ivilful self-withdrawal from
the legitimate succession of the Catho-
lic Church on the part of an indi-
vidual or party, or, in a secondary
sense, the ivilful causifig of a breach
inside the Church^ The italics are
Bishop Gore's.
Here we have two kinds of schism.
The former of the two definitions
is useless, for it begs the question.
How am I to know what is " the
legitimate succession " ? I cannot
find that Dr. Gore ever gives a plain
reply. On pages 126, 127 Dr. Gore
discusses the kinds of "temper"
which lead to schism. On page 128
he quotes five great saints of the
early Church to the effect that there
is no graver sin than schism. We
know what they meant by schism
— the cutting off from unity. But
what Dr. Gore means he has not
yet explained. Then we have a com-
parison on pages 128, 129 between
Donatism and Anglicanism. I ad-
mit that the resemblance is not
great (in fact I have pointed this
out above, ch. iii.), except in the fact
of both being cut off from unity —
separated from the Catholic Church
throughout the world. Next we
come to an example of the second
(improper) kind of schism, " the wil-
ful causing of a breach inside the
Church." The instance given is the
ordination of Paulinus as patriarch
of Antioch by Lucifer of Cagliari, a
subject on which Father Puller has
written voluminously and paradoxi-
cally. So far as I can see, Dr. Gore
is perfectly right in thinking that
the zeal of Lucifer outran his dis-
cretion in this case, for he had no
canonical justification. But the or-
thodox party had long been without
a bishop. Meletius had been made
bishop of Antioch under Arian
auspices, and his declarations of
his orthodoxy did not set right the
original vice of his appointment.
The orthodox party neither recog-
nised his right nor trusted his pro-
fessions, but it was in a minority.
The two holy bishops, Paulinus and
Meletius, ruled side by side in the
same city over a divided flock. Each
looked upon the other as an in-
truder. Rome and Alexandria, that
is, the whole of the West, and the
hundred sees of Egypt, — or to put
it otherwise, St. Athanasius, the pro-
tagonist of the Catholics, and the or-
thodox West — held to Paulinus, but
without ever declaring St. Meletius
and his people to be cut off from the
Church, for they were orthodox, and
were supported roughly by the
whole East, that is by the patriarch-
ate of Antioch and Asia Minor,
and championed by St. Basil. An
arrangement was proposed that on
the death of either of the rivals the
survivor should remain sole bishop.
But party spirit in Antioch ran too
high, and when St. Meletius died
he was succeeded by the Flavian
whom Chrysostom has made so
famous. The disappointment was
enough to make St. Gregory Naz-
ianzen resign the see of Constanti-
nople. Yet even now neither the
West nor Egypt excommunicated
Flavian, who appeared to have put
himself in the wrong, and after the
death of Paulinus's successor Evag-
rius, the actual communion of Rome
w^as no longer denied to Flavian.
The interest of the position is
this ; the rival bishops excommuni-
cated one another, yet the one was
believed by the East to be in the
right (or rather, to be less in the
THE NA TURE OF SCHISM
99
wrong), and the other by the West
and Egypt, while East and West
and Egypt were in full communion
with one another.^
Contrast this with a similarly
divided Church at Rome. Nova-
tian was consecrated bishop in 251
in opposition to the legitimate Pope
Cornelius. In the city he is sup-
ported by the confessors in prison,
and in the first few months the
whole world is divided on account
of the schism at Rome. If anyone
held with the wrong bishop of Rome,
it was recognised that he was out-
side the Church. To hold with the
wrong bishop of Antioch was a
comparatively unimportant matter.
St. Basil was not out of communion
with Rome, because he thought
St. Damasus had been misled in
determining to give his preference
to Paulinus.
Two Spanish bishops, who had
been deposed or had resigned, in-
duced Pope Stephen to decide that
they should be restored to their
sees. Their successors sought
sympathy and assistance from St.
Cyprian, who, with a council, ex-
amined the matter, and concluded
(rightly or wrongly) that Stephen
^ Dr. Gore quotes Tillemont to the
effect that, as two saints of the end of
the fifth century, Elias and Flavian, had
always remained in communion with
Acacius by continuing in communion with
Constantinople, Pope Hormisdas did his
best to procure their exclusion from the
diptychs, but that the Roman Church had
to give way, and "do violence to her
maxims" (pp. 130, 131). Rather "and un-
derstand the case better." If Elias and
Flavian had not actually communicated
directly with Acacius in wilful disobedience
to the Holy See, the principles of the very
strict Hormisdas would not demand their
exclusion. The great Gallican writer,
while a most sure guide in most matters,
is fond of little hits at Rome which are
often unjustifiable. I wish Dr. Gore
would follow him in his general prin-
ciples, and not in his occasional eccen-
tricities, for Tillemont is a real and
edifying Catholic in his history.
had been deceived, and that on
this ground his decision need not
be obeyed. Suppose the rival
bishops in the Spanish town were
each recognised by a different set
of Catholic bishops, it might happen
that this " schism in the Church "
might endure without either fac-
tion being cut off from unity.
Strictly speaking, it would not be a
schism.
The great schism of the West
exhibits a more curious state of
things. We find rival popes, fol-
lowed by different kingdoms, and
the uncertainty is so great that
even now it has not been defined
as a matter of faith which suc-
cession was the true one, though of
course the Italian one is almost
unanimously accepted. But there
were saints on both sides. It was
not a clear case, as that of Cornelius
was against Novatian, and those
who in good faith supported the
wrong Pope could not be considered
to be in schism, and the faithful of
different countries, though on differ-
ent sides, were not out of com-
munion with one another.
But these are extraordinary and
most unusual exceptions. The
schism at Antioch is not used by
Bishop Gore, as it is by Father
Puller, as a parallel to the Church
of England, and rightly, for there
is no parallel at all. Both bishops
were in communion with Catholics,
and thus in communion with the
whole world, and even, one may
say, "mediately" with one another.
Neither was excommunicated by
Rome. But England, alas 1 cut her-
self off, and was cut off, from the
whole world.
But Dr. Gore actually tries to
show that the separation of England
and Rome is only a "secondary"
schism of the same character,
though not altogether parallel, with
that between the two bishops of
lOO
THE NATURE OF SCHISM
Antioch. He thinks the temper of
schism worked on both sides, but
on neither side was there that
"withdrawal from the Church
Catholic" which constitutes schism
in the primary sense (p. 132),
Now "secondary schism" in Dr.
Gore's sense is like a cut in a piece
of cloth — the cut edges have been
separated, but they remain joined
to the rest of the piece of cloth. A
" primary " schism — a schism in the
ordinary sense, the full sense of the
word — is like a cut right through
the piece, so that there are two
pieces.
In the case of the division be-
tween Rome and England there is
a cut right through. If this is not
a real, a complete cut, o-xtV/xa, I
ask what is. How is it possible to
cut more completely than to cut
right through, and leave not a
thread of connexion?^
Next the schism of East and
West is alleged. "We make a
grievous mistake if we suppose
that it was the result of any single
fact — like the claim of Rome or the
FiUoque clause." No indeed, for
every schism is sure to invent a
heresy to justify its existence, as
St. Augustine tells us, and the
denial of the claims of Rome and
the refusal to accept the FiUoque
were mere excuses made by the
Greeks to justify what was already
in progress. The real cause of the
schism is obvious. So long as the
Pope was even nominally a subject
of the empire, the emperors recog-
nised him in theory (and whenever
they were orthodox, in practice
also) to be the ruler of the Church.
But when he became independent,
his influence with the emperors
waned, and division gradually
began. One can hardly tell when
^ On pp. 133-4 Bp. Gore again refers
to Victor and to Stephen, on whom see
ch. V. and vi.
it became complete and final ; per-
haps we may say not till the fall of
Constantinople in 1453.
"There is no Catholic principle
which can justify us in supposing
that either the Roman, the Eastern,
or the Anglican Church has been
guilty of the sin of schism, in that
sense in which schism is the act of
self-withdrawal from the Church
Catholic" (p. 137).
I can only understand this to
mean that Dr. Gore will not admit
^ny principle to be Catholic which
can justify us in supposing these
things, for the ancient principle
that schism is a breach of unity is
as certainly Catholic as it is self-
evident from the primary meaning
of the word.
Lastly Dr. Gore lays down three
propositions : —
I. "There is no such thing as an
absolute authority in the Church."
I do not know what this means,
unless it means that there is no
authority from which we cannot
appeal to another, existent or
imaginary (such, I mean, as an
actually impossible council, or a
consent of divided bodies). This
will mean that nobody need obey any-
body, unless he happens to agree.
Dr. Gore thinks even the apostles
were not infallible or absolutely
to be obeyed, and that in matters
of faith. He proves this by quoting
a passage where St. Paul declares
that fro7n his teaching there is no
appeal f It is almost incredible, so
I give Dr. Gore's words : —
"The authority of a pope is not
even on his own showing greater than
that of an apostle, yet at the last
resort St. Paul conceives of an appeal
behind even his own apostolic author-
ity. ' Though we, or an angel from
heaven preach unto you any other
gospel than that which we preached
unto you^ let him be anathema.' "
The italics are mine. There is
no appeal from Paul to an angel
THE NATURE OF SCHISM
lOI
from heaven, or to Paul himself
*' better instructed " — from Philip
drunk to Philip sober.
We saw on Dr. Gore's first page
that he was distrustful of logic. I
have not thought it necessary to
point out how consistent he has
been in this throughout his work.
But this paragraph seems to me the
culminating point. If even an
apostle is not infallible, are we to
believe the New Testament ? If no
authority is absolute, is any to be
obeyed }
"The papal authority," he con-
tinues, "could never be absolute,
without appeal beyond it, unless it
was indeed strictly infallible"
(p. 138). True, so far as faith and
morals are concerned; with regard
to these the Pope's authority is
absolute, and he is infallible. But
his authority in government is
absolute, yet he is not infallible ;
he may make mistakes in politics,
in justice, in judgement, but he is
to be obeyed. The same is the
case in all human laws. There is
no appeal from a British jury in
criminal matters, yet a jury is not
infallible, neither is the House of
Lords so in civil cases, neither is
the King, if his prerogative is
brought in. But "absolute au-
thority" there must be in human
matters, even if mistakes are made,
even if the innocent have to suffer,
or else we have anarchy.
2. "There is no evidence of any
divinely appointed order among
bishops." I have given plenty of
evidence to show that the primacy
of the bishop of Rome was always
looked upon by the ancient Fathers
as of divine right, being that which
was conferred on St. Peter by Christ
Himself. " Of course, further than
this, whatever claim Rome might
have made as the Head of a
united Christendom, is enormously
weakened in force by the existence
of millions of the Oriental Church
separated from her communion,
largely, perhaps we should say mainly,
on account of the exaggeration of
her claim to empire over other
churches" (pp. 138, 139). So is the
claim of Christianity enormously
weakened by the millions of Chinese
who do not accept it. So is the
boast by the EngHsh Church of
"comprehensiveness" weakened by
the millions of East and West who
regard her with horror largely,
perhaps we should say mainly, on
account of this boast. No doubt,
if the Roman Church gave up her
claims, there is no reason why she
should differ from the Easterns, why
she should not be as comprehensive
as the Anglicans. Nor would there
be any reason left, so far as I can
see, why anyone should wish to
belong to her or to join her.
3. Dr. Gore finally " recognises
the force of the objection" that at
least " the ancient Church knew
no permafioii breaches of com-
munion within her body, and did
not contemplate such as possible."
The objection has very little force
for Dr. Gore to acknowledge. No
Catholic would formulate such a
plea, nor would anyone who has
any knowledge of the patristic
period. The real objection has
been stated above in chapter ii.
The ancient Church denied that
any breach of unity was justifiable,
and declared that all who, in any
way, for any reason, were wilfully
cut off from unity, were outside the
way of salvation. The ancient
Church not only did not contem-
plate breaches "within" her body
as possible, but regarded visible
unity as the first and paramount
necessity of the Church, the neces-
sary condition of true faith, and of
the participation of the graces of
Christian fellowship.
I02
ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
CHAPTER IX
ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
DR. GORE wrote his chapter
on Anglican ordinations before
the Bull of Leo XIII. had con-
demned them as invalid. He has
not rewritten it since, and much of
it calls for no reply. To the Bull
itself he has devoted three pages
in a supplementary chapter (pp.
200-2), and I am obliged to say a
few words on this point, though I
should have preferred to leave it
alone. One feels as if one were
committing a piece of personal
rudeness, when one is obliged to
tell one who beHeves himself to be
a priest that from the standpoint
of Catholic theology his claim must
be denied. And pain is certainly
caused without much good being
done.^
Against Leo XHL Dr. Gore's
first point is this : —
"Anglican Orders are repudiated,
because there was not in the Edward-
ine service for ordaining priests ex-
plicit mention, in the words of ordina-
tion, of the office of priesthood to
which ordination was being conferred,
and more precisely of 'the power of
consecrating and offering the true
^ Even Dr. Gore shows signs of almost
irritation when he deals with this question.
Newman's preface to Hutton's book is
said to be "surely very unworthy of its
great author." " Canon Estcourt argues
in a manner unworthy of him in his
miserable chapter vi." "It is, indeed, a
matter more for profound regret than for
surprise that Mr. Hutton, of the Oratory,
who objected some years ago to the evi-
dence for Anglican Orders, found himself
shortly afterwards unable to accept the
evidence for the Christian Religion." If
this means anything it means that the
evidence for the validity of Anglican
Orders is as strong as that for the truth of
Christianity (p. 148 note, p. 15 1 note, and
p. 146).
body and blood of the Lord,' i.e. in
the Eucharistic sacrifice" (p. 200).
I have italicised the word and —
it should be or. The name of the
priesthood or the mention of its
grace would either of them be
sufficient. Consequently Dr. Gore's
next statement is mistaken.
" But it is manifest, from the exist-
ing services of ordination, that the
specification of this function of the
priesthood is equally absent, not only
from the Coptic rite, but also from the
ancient Roman rite for ordination to
the priesthood in the third century,
and later down to the ninth century."
But the ancient Roman form
makes special mention of the Dig-
nitas Presbyterii and of the secunda
Dignitas^ which has the same mean-
ing. So does the Coptic office
mention the priesthood.^
- The Abyssinian form, and also the
newly discovered form attributed to
Sarapion of Thmuis, are the only ancient
forms which can be said to lack definite-
ness. In neither case is it certain that
our information is complete, and the date
of both is doubtful. They contain no
mention of sacrifice, and the name of
priest is unaccountably omitted. I say
" unaccountably," because in the forms
for the diaconate and episcopate the name
of the office is expressed. In the form for
the presbyterate there is only the mention
of the elders appointed to assist Moses.
These were as regularly compared with
priests as the Levites were with the
deacons, and the reference is retained in
the Anglican ordinal. Perhaps this mys-
tical comparison may be sufficiently definite
to make the forms valid as they stand. A
comparison of the Coptic form suggests
that part of the commencement of the
prayer, where the word priesthood oc-
curred, has been accidentally omitted in
the two doubtful forms. The parallel
forms for the episcopate and diaconate add
probability to this conjecture.
ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
103
"Confessedly the English Church
desired to return to the richer and
fuller conception of the function of
the priest which had prevailed in
primitive times, before the function of
offering sacrifice had assumed the un-
due prominence given to it in the
Middle Ages."
It is hardly possible not to think
that again Dr. Gore is writing
hastily. We know that the re-
formers, whether English or German
or Swiss, had the habit of appealing
to earlier times in favour of their
novel views. Of course they de-
clared (absurdly, as Dr. Gore will
agree) that the Eucharistic sacrifice
was not a part of the teaching of
the primitive Church. But the
alterations in the ordinal and in
the " communion service " were
obviously not directly motived by
the desire to return to more primi-
tive conceptions, but by the deter-
mination to eliminate all trace of
sacrifice in the new Book of
Common Prayer. A comparison
of the " Mass " in the first Prayer
Book of Edward VI. with the
Sarum Missal will show that every
single reference to sacrifice has
been omitted. The Anglican or-
dinal exhibits the same phenomenon.
In neither case is there the smallest
indication of any attempt to con-
form to what might have been, even
in those days, supposed to be
primitive. These are plain facts,
which do not brook denial. It is
well to look them in the face, how-
ever unpleasant they may be.
" ' Be thou a faithful dispenser of
the word of God and of His holy
Sacraments' includes, no doubt, the
commission to celebrate the Euchar-
istic sacrifice, but puts it in context
with the whole work of the ministry,
according to primitive models and
scriptural ideas."
How the commission to dispense
the Sacraments " no doubt " in-
cludes sacrifice (which is something
totally different) I fail to see, and
Dr. Gore does not explain. We
know the Sacraments of the Prayer
Book, and the commission so far is
clear. But to sacrifice there is
absolutely no reference in the
Prayer Book, except when it is
rejected in vigorous terms. Dr.
Gore needs not to be reminded that
the reformers, whether Lutheran,
Calvinist, or Zwinglian, denied the
Eucharistic sacrifice, while they
accepted some Sacraments. The
Prayer Book is composed on this
principle. Nothing could be more
ruthlessly thorough than the ex-
cision of the sacrificial expressions
which were so numerous in the
Catholic books out of which it was
to a great extent framed. I am not
arguing that the Eucharistic sacrifice
cannot now be taught in the Church
of England. That is not my affair.
I am only too delighted that it
should be taught. I do not think
that the original sense of the Articles
is binding on Bishop Gore, and
apart from the Articles there is no
positive prohibition of the doctrine.
But the wilful and complete omis-
sion of it has a very serious effect
upon the Anglican ordinal.
" Of such a return to antiquity we
have no reason to be ashamed, and
the Edwardine ordinal makes it
abundantly manifest that the office
which is being conferred is nothing-
else than the office of the priesthood.
The Pope must, indeed, have been
dreaming when he said that ' in the
whole ordinal there is no clear mention
of . . . the priesthood.'"
The word " priesthood " is here
ambiguous. The Pope did not use
the word presbyferatus, but sacer-
dottiim, meaning sacrificial priest-
hood. He said : " Quamobrem
toto ordinali non modo nulla est
aperta mentio sacrificii, consecra-
tionis, sacerdotii, potestatisque con-
I04
ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
secrandi et sacrificii offerendi ; sed
immo omnia hujusmodi rerum vest-
igia, quae superessent in precation-
ibus ritus catholici non plane re-
jectis, sublata et deleta sunt de
industria, quod paulo supra atti-
gimus." The words need no com-
ment, and they are undeniably
accurate. Dr. Gore must have
been dreaming.
Of the rest of Dr. Gore's remarks
I need say nothing. I will go on,
however, to some more general
considerations which seem to me to
be of primary importance.
I. The Catholic Church does
not deny the validity of Anglican
orders formaliter et reduplicative^ as
the schoolmen have it, in other
words, as Anglican orders. But
she denies that they are Catholic
orders. The two Archbishops who
replied to Leo XIII. merely claimed
to have Anglican orders. They
put forward a doctrine of the
Eucharistic sacrifice which Catholics
hold to be heretical. For this
sacrifice they declare their orders
to be amply sufficient, nor is any-
one able to contradict them. But
as they did not believe in the
Catholic doctrine of sacrifice, they
could not assert that their orders
enabled them to offer what the
Catholic Church means by the word
Mass.
The advanced section of the
English Church, on the other hand,
holds the Catholic view of sacrifice,
and claims to have a Catholic
priesthood. These persons have,
therefore, to reply to the Pope's
arguments, which is not strictly
necessary for those who take the
view of the two Archbishops. To
any reader who may have difficulties
with regard to any of those argu-
ments, I recommend the Vindica-
tion of the Bullj published by the
Cardinal Archbishop and bishops
of the province of Westminster, in
which the whole subject is made so
clear that it is quite unnecessary for
me to touch it.
Dr. Gore seems to hold an inter-
mediate position. He claims that
the English Church has true
Catholic orders, and he does not
reject the Catholic doctrine of the
Eucharistic sacrifice. Yet, on the
other hand, he is difficult to argue
with, because he does not seem
wholly to admit Catholic principles.
Jt is not clear that he agrees abso-
lutely even on the subject of sacri-
fice ; he is rather confused about
intention, and looks upon the
" primitive " view of the priesthood
as being "richer and fuller" than
what he understands to be the
modern Catholic view. This is all
so vague that I cannot tell whether
the priesthood which he claims, and
the principles on which he judges
of its validity, are sufficiently near
to those which we hold to provide
a common ground of argument or
not. If his chapter on the subject
had been based on the Bull "Apos-
tolicae curae " and on the " Vindica-
tion" of the Bull, he would no
doubt have made his position
clearer.
2. There is, however, a general
argument against Anglican orders
which must not be passed over.
The arguments in their favour are
satisfactory to those who are deeply
interested in their defence^ and to 7io
one else. The Low Church party
to a great extent side with Catholics
on the question. The Pope has
had the matter carefully considered
and all the Anglican pleas fairly
weighed, and has been unable to
accept them. Provost Maltzew, of
Berlin, one of the few Russian
theologians whose works are read
and appreciated by Western scholars,
says that the Orthodox Oriental
Church cannot possibly accept
Anglican orders as valid. The
ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS
105
Jansenists, of Holland, decided
against their validity before the
Pope took up the examination of
the (question.
Thus the Anglican High Church
party are left alone in vindicating
to themselves powers which they
feel to be vital to the position they
have taken up. No one is an im-
partial judge in his own cause, so
runs the cynical proverb. There is
enough truth in it to make me
appeal to Anglican readers to con-
sider whether, after all, their case is
as safe as they are in the habit of
declaring it to be.
3. It is a principle among Catholic
theologians that a probable opinion
cannot be followed against the safer
view, in those cases where a result
has to be certainly attained. In
the case of orders which have only
probable arguments in favour of
their validity they cannot be ex-
ercised licitly, because uncertain
sacrifices and sacraments are not
permissible. Moral certainty, or
that certainty which we consider
sufficient in grave matters of ordi-
nary life, is needed for the validity
of orders if they are to be exercised
without sin. Now, however much
I may be personally convinced by
some theological argument, I cannot
call it objectively " morally certain,"
so long as good authorities hold
another view. My own opinion
may be morally certain to me, but
not necessarily to others. In a
question which concerned myself
alone I might legitimately act upon
it. But where others are concerned,
and especially in public actions, I
must clearly take the safer course,
and put aside my private opinion.
Now, in the case of advanced
Anglicans, those above all who deny
that the Church of England is more
than a somewhat disordered and
possibly schismatic province of the
Church universal, the validity of
their orders is only a private opinion,
however firmly established they may
personally think it. There is, how-
ever, a considerable body of expert
opinion on the other side. Con-
demnations have been repeated
many times, and from various
quarters. There has apparently
been fair inquiry, and there was at
least no reason for prejudice. So
long as the case stands thus, it does
not seem that they ought to exercise
their orders.
The case is otherwise with those
who, hke Bishop Gore, believe more
fully in the place and the mission
of the Church of England. For
.them the validity of her orders can
be deduced from the fact of her
certain position as a national Church.
If a Church is clearly neither hereti-
cal nor schismatical, there is prima
fade ground for expecting, on
general grounds of God's good
providence, that her orders will be
valid. Again, for those who do not
accept the Catholic doctrine of
sacrifice and of priesthood, there is
no cause to submit to judgements
delivered on these presuppositions.
But for those advanced Anglicans
who call themselves the Catholic
party, and with whom I have neces-
sarily much sympathy, the case is a
grave one whether they ought to
exercise their orders in the teeth of
so many warnings.
io6
ANGLICAN ORTHODOXY
CHAPTER X
ANGLICAN ORTHODOXY
T HAVE very little indeed to say
^ about this chapter. The saying
is attributed to Bishop Samuel Wil-
berforce that orthodoxy is your own
doxy, and heterodoxy is the other
man's doxy. Dr. Gore's doxy is
not mine, and whether he does or
does not approve of the teaching of
the Anglican Church is of no particu-
lar importance except, of course, to
himself.
As to giving any opinion myself
about Anglican orthodoxy, I should
not think of doing such a thing, as
I have no idea what doctrines the
Church of England officially teaches
or denies. The Articles are said not
to be definitions. The Prayer Book,
if sometimes heretical, is not always
consistent. These formularies are
interpreted in various ways. One
finds Anglicans who maintain that
they are allowed to deny Baptismal
regeneration, or who complain that
they ought not to be forced to
accept the Apostles' Creed, or who
say the Rosary and have Benedic-
tion, and declare that the Vatican
Council has oecumenical force.
Some are proud of their Church's
comprehensiveness, others put it
down to an unfortunate relaxation
of discipline. It is not for me to say
that any of these is wrong, nor is
there any tribunal — Convocation,
Parliament, the Lambeth Confer-
ence — to which I can refer the
difficulty.
I am afraid even to say that the
Divisibility of the Church is a doc-
trine of Anglicanism. It is the
most fundamental heresy that can
well be conceived, for it does away
with the Church and the Rule of
Faith. But it has not been defined
by any authoritative voice of Angli-
canism, nor is it impossible to find
Anglicans who admit that they are
in schism, though they do not feel
themselves bound to emerge from
it, so long as they have the hope
of delivering their Church as a
corporate body from her sinful
position.
Dr. Gore has, of course, no mis-
sion to speak for the Church of
England as a whole. He speaks
for a party, or for a part of a party.
He has frequently, too frequently,
been denounced by High and Low
alike, either as a sacerdotalist and a
Jesuit in disguise, or as a Nestorian,
or as a rationalist. In replying to
his book I have avoided any attack
upon Anglicanism as a system,
because I do not regard it as a
system, or upon Anglican doctrine,
for it does not appear to have very
much compulsory doctrine, or at
least I cannot assume that it has,
without being at once contradicted
on many sides. I have therefore
simply replied to Dr. Gore's views,
and have defended the Catholic
Church, ancient and modern, from
his attacks, as best I have been
able.
In this chapter he says very little
to which I need reply. He thinks
that the Church of England teaches
a doctrine of the sacraments which
he describes on pages 174, 175.
Whether he is right or not in attribut-
ing just this much to the Church of
ANGLICAN ORTHODOXY
107
England, I do not inquire.^ From
the point of view of Catholic defini-
tions, I must, as he knows, declare, in
the first place, his view of the Holy
Eucharist to be insufficient, for he
says not a word about the sub-
stantial change of the bread and
wine into the Body and Blood of
Christ, although the Fathers so often
insist upon this point. He has
spoken of the same subject on page
2 1, where he has quoted, with appro-
val, a beautiful passage from Cardinal
Newman on the supra-local nature
of our Lord's Presence in the
Blessed Sacrament. The doctrine
is not the Cardinal's, but St. Thomas
of Aquin's.^ Dr. Gore remarks
that "it agrees very ill with some
modern practices, attractive as they
are, connected with the Tabernacle
and the Monstrance." It must
be allowed to be prima facie un-
likely that the official doctrine of
the Church, always so systematic
and "logical," should disagree with
her practice. I should be glad to
supply an explanation of Dr. Gore's
difficulty, if he were less vague in
his manner of stating it.
As to the correctness of the An-
glican doctrine of the sacraments,
supposing that he is right in his con-
^ I must point out that on page 173
Bishop Gore says: "We can accept the
statement of our case from Cardinal New-
man," and proceeds to quote a passage in
which the Cardinal is stating the case of the
Anglicans before proceeding to refute it.
This might escape the notice of the unwary,
for Bishop Gore has so phrased his intro-
duction of Newman's words that it might
well be supposed that they stated the
Cardinal's own opinion. The reference is
to the Preface contributed by him to
Hutton's Anglican Ministry^ page 8, a Pre-
face which Dr. Gore has on page 148, note,
called "surely very unworthy of its great
author "—apparently because it contains
some very unpleasant home truths.
2 Summa Th., iii., qu. 76, art. 5, 6.
The most elaborate explanation of it that
I know of is in Suarez, Disp. 53 in 3 Part.
S. Thomcr.
tention that the acceptance of " two
only" is a matter of name (p. 179,
note), at least the Church of Eng-
land has disused two. I will not
claim that she brands them as "a
corrupt following of the Apostles,"
but at least she ignores them. She
has no Unction of the Sick — which
Dr. Gore regrets — even in name ;
and she has Confirmation only in
name, since she has disused both
the matter and the form of the
sacrament as they have always been
employed in East and West. I do
not say this is heresy, for I cannot
show that the Church of England
rejects these rites — though merely
to omit them is bad enough. " These
are grave defects — who shall deny
it?" (p. 179).
On page 176 he speaks of the
Eucharistic sacrifice. He declares
that a doctrine prevailed in the
Middle Ages that while the Sacrifice
of the Cross was the satisfaction
for original sin, the Sacrifice of
the Mass is the satisfaction for
actual sin. But this is perfectly
true doctrine, if properly understood.
It assumes what no Catholic writer
could ever have denied, without
being denounced as a heretic, viz.
thai all the efficacy of the Sacrifice of
the Mass is derived from the Sacrifice
of the Cross. Consequently it asserts
that the Sacrifice of the Cross
directly and immediately made satis-
faction for original sin, while for
actual sin satisfaction is made by
the daily sacrifice, whose efficacy is
from the one absolute Sacrifice.
The doctrine does not say that the
Sacrifice of the Cross made satis-
faction only for original sin; it si7?iply
means to exclude original sin from
the satisfaction made by the Sacrifice
of the Mass. The passage quoted
by Dr. Gore from Pseudo-x'\lbert the
Great is therefore perfectly correct,
and so is that from the Confession
of Augsburg. Dr. Gore is aware
io8
ANGLICAN ORTHODOXY
that the Lutherans who drew up
that Confession rejected the Sacrifice
of the Altar altogether, and this
passage is denying the Catholic
doctrine of the time. But it is
misleading in expression, for there
are other ways of applying the satis-
faction made once by Christ — pen-
ance, internal and external — good
works — indulgences. The quota-
tion from Latimer is just the coarse
caricature of Catholic doctrine that
we expect from such a man. Never-
theless this mediaeval way of expres-
sing the truth was incautious, and
liable to misrepresentation. I do
not know that it has been employed
since the Council of Trent. ^
^ On the other hand, Dr. Gore's own
doctrine of Sacrifice is imperfectly ex-
pressed. Hesays(p. 177): *' The Eucharist
is not even mystically a renewal oi Oaxvi'd's,
passion, but an act of co-operation with
Christ's heavenly intercession. Christ
upon the Eucharistic altar is only ' offered '
in the sense that His once made sacri-
fice is there perpetually presented and
pleaded before the Father, as in heaven,
so on earth. The altar is, so to speak, on
a line not with Calvary, but with the
heavenly Intercession." The second of
these three sentences may pass. The first
and third are false. As in heaven it is the
Body once slain, marked with its wounds,
which is ever presented, so upon earth the
two-fold consecration is the ' ' representa-
tion " as well as the ** re-presentation"
of the Sacrifice of Calvary. It is there-
fore not really, but " mystically," a re-
newal of the one all-sufficient Sacrifice.
But I have never liked Franzelin's doctrine
of the Eucharistic sacrifice, because I have
always thought that it necessarily makes
each Mass add something to the Sacrifice
of the Cross, which would be heresy. Of
course, Franzelin would vehemently deny
this, but I am not surprised to find Dr.
Gore somewhat shocked at the apparent
consequences of the doctrine, in his note
on page 177. The passage which he adds
from a devotional book is not intended to
be taken seriously or it would be blasphem-
ous. What is the good of high-flown
exaggerations of this sort, which cannot
be understood literally, I am unable to
imagine. But the pious author no doubt
meant extremely little by what he con-
sidered to be eloquence.
On page 79 begins a long para-
graph in which Bishop Gore declares
that the Church of England has
indeed lost much, but desires the
restoration of all she has lost. I am
afraid Bishop Gore is too sanguine
— I wish to God he may be right.
But on page 181 Dr. Gore turns
round upon the " Church of Rome,"
and there is nothing in the Church
of England more regrettable to him
than certain things he finds in it :
• I. The withdrawal of the chalice
from all but the officiating priest.
If this were really a ground of com-
plaint, surely some Catholic theolo-
gians would be found inclined to
urge a change of the long-established
Catholic usage of communion in
one kind, surely some of the laity
would beg for a restoration of the
supposed privilege. But nothing
of the sort, ^^'e are all agreed
within the Catholic Church that
doctrinally the practice is correct,
that the communicant suffers no
loss, and that as a matter both of
reverence and of convenience the
practice is supremely proper and
almost inevitable. If communion
in both kinds was a Divine com-
mand, or if communion in one kind
was a lesser grace, then of course
the question of reverence would be
irrelevant. But as it is, I am glad
not to witness now the unavoidable
spilling of the sacred element down
the sides of the chalice and over
the fingers of the officiant, which is
unavoidable in the Anglican system.
I confess that before I became a
Catholic I longed for the introduc-
tion of communion in one kind into
the Anglican Church. The Eastern
method would partly avoid this diffi-
culty, but it would remain almost
impossible in practice to communi-
cate the multitudes of the Catholic
Church in this manner. When a
priest cannot calculate within a
hundred or so (this is very common,
ANGLICAN ORTHODOXY
109
even in England) how many com-
municants there will be, how can
he tell how much wine to consecrate?
He cannot reserve what remains
unconsumed, though he could add
wine if the quantity was insuffi-
cient.^
Communion out of Mass would
be impossible in both kinds, and
yet in many cases there is no other
way of giving the Sacrament to a
large number of the people. These
difficulties do not arise among
Anglicans, because communions are
so rare. The Year Book of the
Church 0/ £ng/a?id estimates all the
communicants in England at less
than two millions. Of a Catholic
town in Germany, in which the
number of people of an age to go
to Holy Communion is about 30,000,
I am told on good authority that
(excluding religious communities,
since their communions are frequent
in the week) the number of com-
munions in the year is 250,000.
The number at the one church of
Einsiedeln is 170,000 in the year.
These are the only statistics I
happen to know ; I give them merely
to show how practically impossible
it would be to combine the modem
practice of frequent communion
with communion in both kinds.
2. "I have never heard a sermon
in an English church more to be
regretted than one it was once my
lot to hear in Strasburg Cathedral,
in which Christ was preached as the
revelation of Divine Justice and
Mary as the revelation of Divine
Love." I confess I am a little in-
credulous about this. I suspect
some exaggeration and misunder-
standing, though of course preachers
ifo say stupid things. But Dr. Gore
misunderstands or interprets in a
^ I need hardly say that we regard the
Anglican method of repeating one of the
consecrations without the other as a grave
sacrilege.
bad sense even what he finds in
print. It is easier to put a harsh
construction on what one hears in a
foreign language.
3. "I have not read in Anglican
biography anything which I should
more desire to disown than Mother
Margaret Mary Hallahan's descrip-
tion of the Pope singing Mass.
'When I heard him sing Mass I
cannot express what I felt; it was
the God of earth prostrate in adora-
tion before the God of heaven.'"
The book referred to is a very
beautiful book indeed. It is not
the life of a canonised saint, but I
should indeed be glad if such a life
could be matched among Anglican
biographies ! Mother Margaret's
motto was " God alone," and she
seems to have been full of the
thought of Him at all moments.
Even on this great occasion in St.
Peter's it was not the ceremonies,
the pomp, the music, the enthusi-
astic multitudes which touched her
most, but the thought of the im-
mense honour done to God by the
most solemn offering of Mass pos-
sible on earth by the highest dignity
on earth. Her expression is ener-
getic. I cannot see that it is ob-
jectionable from any point of view.
I cannot imagine that Bishop Gore
can think she meant "the God of
earth " as a definition of the Pope's
status in the world !
4. Next Dr. Gore quotes an ex-
tremely silly parody of the Antma
Chris fi, applied to our Blessed Lady.
I should not wish to employ it.
But I have no wish to disown it, as
it contains no false doctrine. The
invocations are simply poetical
licences (in both senses of the
word). In the original Anivia
Christi we do not invoke, though
we adore, the Soul, Body, and
Passion of Christ. Similarly "Soul
of the Virgin, save me ; Body of
the Virgin, guard me; Milk of the
lO
THREE RECENT PAPAL UTTERANCES
Virgin, feed me," either means noth-
ing at all, or it means, "Thy Soul
is immaculate and full of grace, thy
Body was preserved from corrup-
tion, thy Milk fed the Son of God
— pray for me, who recall these
privileges." There is no harm in
this ; but Dr. Gore should have
quoted it in Latin, for the English
version he has made is indecent.
CHAPTER XI
THREE RECENT PA^AL UTTERANCES
I. n^HE Encyclical {of 1893) ^^^
-^ " The Study of Sacred Scrip-
ture."
Bishop Gore thinks that the late
Pope in this Encyclical of twelve
years ago took too narrow a view of
Inspiration, Catholic theologians
will not agree with the implication
(p. 188) that Leo XIII. has denied
the word auctor in the decrees of
the Vatican, of Trent, and of a
whole series of previous councils
to mean " primary cause " (of course
not "primary cause" in the sense
that God is the primary cause of
everything, but in a special sense).
In the Vatican decree the meaning
" literary author " might conceivably
be understood, were it not that this
meaning is impossible in the earlier
decrees which this decree repeats.
Again, Bishop Gore finds in the
Encyclical an assertion of "verbal
inspiration." There are a few
Catholic theologians who take this
view, but the greater number would
certainly not think that this was
the Pope's intention. For myself,
though I am inclined to agree
with the Abbot of Downside^ that
"verbal inspiration" is not merely
the oldest view, but the view which
leaves the theologian most free to
deal with difficulties, yet I feel
unable to agree with the Abbot that
Leo XIII. can possibly have in-
tended to condemn other opinions
commonly taught by Catholic theo-
logians of to-day. I cannot see that
the Pope's words imply verbal in-
spiration : "By supernatural power,
He so moved and impelled them to
write — He was so present to them
— that the things which He ordered,
and those only, they first rightly
understood, then willed faithfully to
write down, and finally expressed in
apt words and with infallible truth."
It is difficult to see how any theory
of inspiration could say less than this.
On the other hand, Dr. Gore is
right in pointing out that the Ency-
clical excludes all possibility of error
of every kind in inspired writings.
But he must remember that sub-
statitial error is intended. Nobody
supposes that the Evangelists give
the discourses of our Lord word
for word ! There are many more
important discrepancies. I will not
go into this matter, as I do not
wish to air my own theories. I will
simply instance St. Augustine's ex-
planation that the Centurion's com-
ing to our Lord (in St. Matthew)
is the same thing as the coming
of a messenger from the Centurion
(in St. Luke), for what a man does
by means of another he may be
said to do himself.- How far can
^ In the Tablet. January 14th to Feb-
ruary 4th, 1905.
2 De Consensu E7mng., 20, read in the
Breviary the day after Ash Wednesday.
THREE RECENT PAPAL UTTERANCES
this principle be extended ? How far
again, can the principle be extended
that the historian in Genesis (for
example) does not vouch for the
history he relates ? How much can
we infer from the inconsistency of
I Maccabees with 2 Maccabees ?
Many of the early genealogies in
Genesis are genealogies of tribes,
not of nations. Nobody supposes
the chronology to be historical.
How far is this to carry us ? It is
at least clear that substantial error
is not to be found in inspired writers
in cases where they, in their own
person, relate facts of which they
vouch for the truth. It is good
that the Pope should have reminded
us of this. If it were not so, we
should be reduced to mere human
authority for the facts of our Lord's
life, and our belief in them would
be limited by our ability to prove
the accuracy of the evangelists. We
may make their accuracy highly prob-
able by human investigations, but
we cannot make it certain in any
particular case. Yet many of the
actions and events in the Gospels
are as important as the direct teach-
ings, while we do not wish to re-
nounce our faith in any of them.
It is unimportant for us to know
whether our Lord was going into
Jericho or coming out of it when
He healed two blind men. It does
not matter whether a voice from
Heaven said to our Lord : " Thou
art My beloved Son," or to St.
John Baptist : " This is My beloved
Son."^ But we should not like to
be obliged to doubt many beautiful
details, where there is no divergence
in the accounts. Dr. Gore's idea
that the Pope attributes the whole
^ The Western reading in St. Matthew,
"This day have I begotten Thee," I have
reasons for regarding as a correction to suit
Psalm ii., for there are parallels for such
an act. The date of the correction is very
early indeed.
Pentateuch to Moses (p. 194) is an
imagination of his own.
Dr. Gore also refers to the sup-
pression of the periodical Venseigne-
ment biblique. It was judged by
Rome that the periodical was doing
harm. It appears that Rome was
more right than Dr. Gore, for M.
Loisy, whose articles were the cause
of the suppression, has since shown
himself in a reply to Dr. Harnack's
What is Christianity 1 to be more
radical in his views than the
rationalist writer whom he is attack-
ing. It is well known that the best
Anglican critics have little admira-
tion for M. Loisy's imprudences,
and are not surprised at the con-
demnation of L Evafigile et V Eglise.
But let us remember that the con-
demnation of some books of Loisy's
only so far amounts to a statement
that they are dangerous, or dis-
edifying, or liable to be misunder-
stood. What precisely is censured,
and in what degree, has not been
expressed.
It is true that a few bad Catho-
lics, anonymously or under their
own name, have been complaining
in Protestant periodicals that Rome
is trying to suppress all intellectual
freedom in the Church. What I
have to complain of in these writers
is the extreme ignorance they invari-
ably show (in the cases which have
come under my notice) of the sub-
jects on which they write so glibly.^
Now I turn to Dr. Gore's ex-
pectation expressed in his first
chapter, page 22 : —
" God has, we must believe, special
tasks in store for the Anglican Church,
" It should be recollected that any Ro-
man decisions must necessarily be on the
conservative side, for they simply guard
the definitions of the Church. But this
does not mean that only conservative views
are encouraged by Rome ! Reactionaries
are often more dangerous than liberals,
but they seldom give a handle to enable
authority to condemn them.
THREE RECENT PAPAL UTTERANCES
tasks for which the Roman temper
and the Roman theology are by their
very character and tone disquahfied.
To some of these we have alluded.
It seems likely that it will belong to
us, rather than to Rome, to work out
the relations of religion to critical
knowledge, and to vindicate the true
character of inspiration in its relation
to historical research."
I cannot imagine an expectation
more impossible of realisation. In
the Anglican communion there are
all sorts of views as to inspiration,
and there is absolutely no authority
to direct, assist, approve them. The
divergences may possibly increase;
it is quite improbable that they
will tend to lessen. More and more
individuals will propose solutions.
They may form into schools, but
there is no reasonable expectation
of their arriving at any one agree-
ment.
On the other hand, the Catholic
Church gives a certain amount of
direction and assistance to her
children — not very much, it is true,
but at least when it is most needed.
The stores of the past are being
examined and debated by theolo-
gians, while the critics are using
their scalpels. All work in common^
all are contributing to a common
result^ and the materials supplied
by those w^ithout are all utiUsed.
Gradually the question will grow
clearer. Some day, perhaps, if neces-
sity arises, even new^ definitions may
be given. But, in any case, dis-
cussion and examination are con-
verging to a result, and not (as
amongst Anglicans) resulting in
divergence. Dr. Gore considers
that a document more out of date,
more crude, more unsympathetic,
more unpastoral than the EncycHcal
on Holy Scripture could not have
been issued. It needs a special
training to understand the bearing
of Roman documents and decrees.
Dr. Gore has certainly not under-
stood the Encyclical. I will merely
remark upon two important facts : —
(i.) Catholic theologians have be-
come more free in their treatment
of Holy Scripture since the decree
was issued twelve years ago, although
they have habitually started from
its teaching.
(ii.) Instead of suppressing the
free study of Scripture, the Ency-
clical appears to have been the
•cause of the remarkable efflores-
cence of biblical study in recent
years among Catholics, especially
within the last two or three years.
I daresay this has hardly yet been
noticed much in England. In a
few years I think it will be patent
to the world at large that the Catho-
lic Church is ceasing to take the
secondary place in critical study of
the Old and New Testaments, w^hich
she certainly occupied before the
appearance of the Encyclical.
There were many reasons for this
undoubted abstention of Catholics
from such critical problems. I
will mention one. The Tubingen
School, and similar manifestations
of German ingenuity in the middle
of the nineteenth century, were
too extreme and too fanciful to
be a pressing danger to Catholics.
The peril was first brought home
to the Continental Catholics by
Renan's Life of Christy as it was
to the English world by Super-
natural Religion. There was at
the moment no protagonist capable
of taking the field with Renan on
equal terms, and a generation was
needed to bring the question into
prominence. Now that German
view^s are more moderate, it is
possible (as Dr. Gore pointed out
on the day of his enthronisation as
bishop of Birmingham) for Catho-
lics to work together with scholars
of all schools for the elucidation
THREE RECENT PAPAL UTTERANCES
113
of critical problems. The need for
warding off more insidious dangers
is now more urgent, while the new
generation is more ready for the
work ; and at the same time it is
possible to avoid controversy and
help in a sort of co-operative society
towards the attainment of more
certain materials for the solution
of the difficulties which lie before
us. But the Catholic has three
immense advantages. He has tradi-
tion behind him; he has the Church
to warn him off from dangerous
paths, and he has the fellowship of
those who are working with the
same aims and the same principles
towards a common agreement.
2. The Encyclical OTi Unity ^ ^^ Satis
Cognitiim'' (1896). I have already
said enough about the unity of the
Church. I need only deal here with
Dr. Gore's accusation of " wholly
unhistorical assertions."
The Pope said : " The consent
of antiquity ever acknowledged with-
out the slightest doubt or hesitation
the bishops of Rome, and revered
them as the legitimate successors of
St. Peter." Dr. Gore hereupon re-
iterates his assertion that " the papal
claim of the succession to Petrine
privileges isa purely Westerngrowth,"
and this time he is more confident
than he was on page 91. I have
already replied to this : the assertion
is utterly groundless. Dr. Gore then
quotes from Janus (!) : " In the
writings of the Greek doctors, Euse-
bius, St. Athanasius, St. Basil the
Great, the two Gregories, and St.
Epiphanius, there is not one word
of any [unique] prerogative of the
Roman bishop." Dr. Gore has done
his best to correct the characteristic-
ally impudent statement of Janus
into something more tolerable by
the insertion of a word, but he has
not succeeded in making it true.
Even the references given above,
here and there, to Eusebius will
show that he is full of references
to the unique position of the Roman
bishop. I have shown above that
St. Athanasius was a sort of " Ultra-
montane " of his day. In St. Basil
there is certainly not much to quote
on the subject ; in St. Gregory
Nazianzen there is less. The state-
ment is absolutely true only with
regard to St. Gregory of Nyssa and
St. Epiphanius. What does this
prove? That they disagreed with
St. Athanasius ? There is absolutely
no reason why they should have
said a word upon the subject. There
are plenty of modern Catholic
writers since the Vatican Council
in whose theological writings not
a single word on the subject can
be found. If Dr. Gore wanted to
prove anything, he ought to have
been able to say : " Eusebius, St.
Athanasius, St. Basil, the two
Gregories, all denied that the
bishop of Rome possessed any
unique prerogative, although the
claims made by the popes of the
fourth century are well known."
But Dr. Gore knows that he cannot
say this. But unless he says this
or something similar, he cannot re-
fute the assertion of Pope Leo XIII.
But though Dr. Gore does not
claim to be logical, it is well for us
to notice that the sentence quoted
from the Encyclical says not a word
about any unique prerogative of the
popes ; it merely says they were
acknowledged as the '* legitimate
successors of St. Peter." He did
not choose a good quotation on
which to hang his remarks.
"What, again, is the meaning of
saying that ' it has ever been un-
questionably the office of the Roman
pontiffs to ratify or to reject the
decrees of councils,' when as late as
the fifteenth-century Council of Con-
stance the subordination of popes to
councils was unmistakably asserted
as the doctrine of the Church.?"
LfSffilPV CT Iil4nw..
14
THREE RECENT PAPAL UTTERANCES
What an ignorant man Pope Leo
must have been, not to know that
the Councils of Basle and Constance
asserted that the councils were
above the Pope !
Really, this is rather amusing.
Does not Bishop Gore know that
in the thirteenth century this view
would have been called heresy ? Is
he really unaware that it arose
during the troubles of the Great
Schism of the West ? It was in-
evitable, when a council was the
only means of deciding who was
Pope, that the papal prerogatives
should suffer, and that the council
should exalt itself above the popes
whom it seemed to judge. The
councils of the fifteenth century
have only been confirmed by papal
authority in part. Part of their
decisions, including this particular
point, were undoubtedly heretical.
A moderate form of the same view
was taken up by the Gallicans, but
was never tolerated at Rome. So
much for Dr. Gore's proof from
the supposed survival up to the
sixteenth century of a doctrine of the
superiority of a council to the Pope.
But what of antiquity?
To begin with, the Council of
Constantinople, in 381, is oecu-
menical, because it was approved
by the Pope ; it was originally
only a council of the East. On
the other hand, in 359, an oecu-
menical council was assembled for
convenience as two councils, the one
at Seleucia, the other at Ariminum.
The decrees published were hereti-
cal. Both were condemned by Pope
Liberius,^ and Catholicity was saved.
In 450, an oecumenical council
was held at Ephesus. It decreed
Monophysitism. Pope Leo con-
demned it, and again the truth
was saved. I have shown in
chapter vii. that the supremacy of
^ So St. Siricius, P. L. , xiii. p. 1133.
the Pope was admitted both at the
oecumenical council of Ephesus, in
431, and that of Chalcedon, in
451.'^ I have also shown (ch. iii.)
that the Greek historians of the
fifth century declare it to have
been an ecclesiastical rule in the
fourth century that the Churches
could not make canons without the
consent of the bishop of Rome
(I need hardly say that this does
not refer to local decisions). We
have seen that the bishops of Africa,
in 41 7, regarded the Pope's decisions
in a matter of faith as more binding
and more likely to be obeyed than
those of two African councils of
more than 120 bishops, and St.
Augustine declares the Pope's reply
to the councils to be final, and
St. Prosper (or a contemporary)
allows binding force to the decrees
of the councils, because the popes
had " made them their own by
approving them."
Flavian, bishop of Constantinople,
when condemned by the Robber-
Council of Ephesus (which was in-
tended to be oecumenical), in 450,
appealed from the decision, and the
legate Hilarus (afterward Pope) rose
and uttered the word : " Kovr/aa-
SiKLTovp" (Mansi, vi. 507). When
this was read at Chalcedon, the
Fathers cried : "Anathema to Dios-
corus ! Long live Leo ! " In the
next year Theodoret appealed to
St. Leo for the removal of the
^ St. Cyril says in his letter to Acacius
of Melitene (Mansi, v. 326) of Sixtus III.,
the successor of Celestine : If Acacius is
told that a letter was brought from Sixtus
disapproving of the deposition of Nestorius,
he must not believe it. "For he wrote
what was in accord with the holy synod,
and conJirf7ied all Us acts^ and is in agree-
ment with us." Celestine had died in
July, 432. The testimony of the sixth and
seventh general councils is still more
decisive for the papal authority. Each
simply accepted the letter of a Pope as a
final decision.
THREE RECENT PAPAL UTTERANCES
115
suspension under which he had
been for twenty years ; it had been
inflicted by no less an authority
than the Council of Ephesus. The
Pope absolved him. At Chalcedon
the sincerity of the bishop was
tested by insisting on his anathema-
tising Nestorius. When he con-
sented, his restoration was agreed
to with acclamations and cries of
" Long live Leo ! Leo has judged
with God" (Mansi, vii. 189).
Nothing is so important in this
question to a Catholic as the assur-
ance that the popes themselves have
always taught that they are above
councils. I will quote four : —
St. Damasus, to the bishops of
Illyricum and the East : " No preju-
dice can arise on account of the
number of those who assembled at
Ariminum, since it is known that
neither the Roman bishops whose
opinion was to be inquired before
all, nor Vincentius, nor others of the
same merit, gave any assent to the
decisions."
St. Zosimus, 417 : "Although the
tradition of the P^athers has attributed
to the Apostolic see so great authority
that none would dare to contest its
judgements," etc. {Ep. 12).
St. Boniface I., in 422 : " For it has
never been allowed to discuss again
what has once been decided by the
Apostolic see" {Ep. 13).
St. Leo, of the 28th Council of
Chalcedon : " We make it void, and
by the authority of St. Peter the
Apostle, by a wholly general defini-
tion we annul it" {Ep. 105).
I do not think it necessary to
quote later popes, as I imagine that
nobody doubts their opinion.
But as Dr. Gore thinks the
Western Church held an opposite
view until the fifteenth century, I
will quote two later writers : —
Ferrandus of Carthage, c. 530 :
" The Apostolic see, by the consent of
which, whatever that synod (Chalce-
don) defined, has received invincible
strength ^^ {P. L., 67, 9^-:,).
St. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, to two
Roman Senators, when Pope Sym-
machus was accused before a Roman
council : " It is not easy to understand
on what ground or by what law a
superior is judged by his inferiors. . .
Love not less in your Church the Chair
of Peter, than in your city the metro-
polis of the world" {Ep. 31).
I do not know that there is any
room for hesitation as to the truth
of Pope Leo's words.
Now I come to Leo XIIL's " un-
justifiable quotations."
" The Pope quotes St. Pacian as
saying, ' To Peter the Lord spake ; to
one therefore, that he might establish
unity upon one.' But he omits to
mention that he continues, 'and soon
he was to give the same injunction to
the general body'" (p. 199).
In fact the Pope omits all the rest
of St. Pacian's writings ! Why
should he not? St. Pacian is here
using the celebrated passage of St.
Cyprian on which I have commented
above (ch. v.). The words added by
Dr. Goje are the anticipation of a
possible objection, as are in St.
Cyprian the similar expressions, and
they were wholly irrelevant to the
Pope's purpose. Does Dr. Gore
really think St. Pacian meant us to
supply mentally "in order that he
might establish multiplicity upon
many ? "
" He cites, in confirmation of the
papal view of Peter as the rock, some
quite ambiguous words of Origen,
althuugh the passage cited above (p.
86) immediately precedes."
I have shown above (p. 57) that
it is Dr. Gore who has unaccount-
ably (or through prejudice) misrep-
resented Origen's meaning.
"He cites Cyprian as saying, 'of
the Roman Church that it is the root
and mother of the Catholic Church,
the Chair of Peter, and the principal
Church, whence sacerdotal unity had
its origin.' This is a combination of
ii6
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
two different passages, of which the
first, 'the root and mother of the
CathoHc Church,' has no reference to
the Roman Church, and the second,
from a letter strongly rebuking the
Pope, refers to Rome as the source of
the Apostolical Succession in Africa"
(p. 199).
I am inclined to agree with
Dr. Gore that "the root and
mother" in Ep. 48, 3, does not
mean the Roman Church. But
the Pope was surely justified in
taking it in this sense, as many of
the best Protestant critics have
done, for instance, Neander, Sohm,
Harnack ! The second quotation
is not " from a letter rebuking the
Pope," it is from a letter to Pope
Cornelius {^Ep. 59, 4) to thank him
for having excommunicated Felicis-
simus, to encourage him not to be
terrified by the threats of his
(Cyprian's) adversaries, for he
thought Cornelius had shown signs
of weakness. He goes on to defend
his own right to the episcopate in
an eloquent passage, and the rest of
the letter is chiefly concerned with
a refutation of the claims of the rival
bishop of Carthage, Fortunatus.
The idea that U7ide tinitas sacerdo-
talis exorta est can mean that Rome
is the source of the " Apostofical
Succession " in Africa shows that
Dr. Gore has not studied St. Cyp-
rian's doctrine of the origin of the
episcopate from St Peter.
" Now I may fairly ask whether the
accusations of inveracity and disin-
genuousness which have been made in
the course of this book against the
Roman method of argument are not
again justified."
If Dr. Gore had proved that the
Pope was wrong, he might have
concluded that he was ignorant, but
not that he \vas disingenuous — that
would be a quite uncertain inference.
I do not make it in Dr. Gore's case.
I am sorry the former inference is
not always to be avoided.
3. The Bull " ApostoliccB direct
I have sufficiently dealt with this,
under the head of " Anglican Ordi-
nations," in chapter ix.
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
I add here some explanations
which Dr. Gore needs. On pages
192, 193 he is uncertain whether
papal infallibility extends to Ency-
clicals or not. The answer is of
course in the negative, as a general
rule. It is not supposed that a
Pope speaks ex cathedra except in
a solemn definition, usually under
anathema. For instance, the Bull
in which Pope Pius IX. defined the
Immaculate Conception, Lieffabilis
Deus^ is infallible, not throughout,
but only in the formal conclusion
at which it arrives : " Auctoritate
Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, beat-
orum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac
Nostra declara?fiHS, pronuncia^nus et
definitnusy The same view is ap-
plied to councils as well as popes.
The Capitula of the Council of
Trent are to be regarded as com-
mentaries of the highest authority
on the canons, but they are not
strictly exercises of the Church's
infallibility, for they are not defini-
tions. The canons are infallible, for
they are imposed under anathema.
Similarly an Encyclical is a kind of
sermon, not a definition.
I have said above that I do not
wdsh to interpret the strong expres-
sions found in the fourth and fifth
centuries as equivalent to the dogma
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
117
of Papal Infallibility as at present
understood. They cover it indeed,
but they are too wide. The Tracta-
toria of Pope Zosimus was a very
lengthy document, and was regarded
as a final decision on the Pelagian
question. To-day such a document
would have its pith summed up in
a few carefully worded phrases.
The " tome " of St. Leo is another
instance of the diffuseness with
which ancient Popes defined the
faith. The infallibility of Rome,
the infallibility of papal censures
on matters of faith, receive very
early testimony, but only gradually
were papal " definitions " involved.
St. Leo apparently meant his
" tome " to Flavian as an infallible
utterance, but in the case of a docu-
ment of that length I do not see
that he could have complained if
the Fathers of Chalcedon had ob-
jected to the wording here and there
as ambiguous or misleading. As a
fact, St. Leo thought it was the
devil who made some bishops ask
for explanations ! ^
^ * ' Our help is in the name of the Lord,
who made heaven and earth, who has not
permitted us to suffer any loss in our
brethren, but what He had first defined by
our ministry^ He has confirmed by the
irretractable assent of the whole of our
brotherhood, so as to show that what was
first formulated by the first of all sees, and
was then accepted by the judgement of the
whole Christian world, truly proceeded
from Him ; that in this also the members
might concord with the head. And in
this we have the greater matter for rejoic-
ing, since the enemy has wounded himself
the more, in that he the more savagely
arose against the Ministers of Christ. For
lest the agreement of the other sees with
that one which the Lord of all appointed
to preside over the rest might seem mere
acquiescence, or lest any other adverse
suspicion should arise, there were first
found some to doubt about our judgements.
And when some were incited by the author
of dissensions to commence a war of con-
tradiction, by the dispensation of the
author of all good we arrived at a greater
good" (St. Leo, Ep. 120, to Theodoret).
On page 124 Dr. Gore finds some
" ' difficulties ' in the way of believ-
ing in the infallibiHty of the bishop
of Rome," besides the cases of
Liberius and Honorius already men-
tioned. He gives three which he
considers to be "of overwhelming
magnitude."
" Nicholas L assured the Bul-
garians that Baptism in the name
of Christ only was valid." But this
is not a definition of Faith.^
" Eugenius IV., in his instruction
to the Armenians, makes the ' por-
rection of the instruments ' the
essential matter of order." Again
this is not a definition of Faith.
"Nicholas II. compelled Beren-
garius to acknowledge the Caper-
naite heresy that Christ's body is
sensibly (sensualiter) touched by the
hands and broken by the teeth in
the Eucharist." He did nothing
of the kind, nor is this imaginary
" Capernaite heresy " known to his-
tory — no one has ever actually held
that our Lord's Body is present in
the Blessed Sacrament in a nahiral
manlier. The words submitted to
Berengarius are "panem et vinum
post consecrationem non solum sac-
ramentum, sed etiam verum corpus
et verum sanguinem Domini nostri
Jesu Christi esse, et sensualiter non
solum i?i Sacramento sed et in veritate
inanibus sacerdotiwi tractari^ fr^^igi
et fideliiwi dentibus atteri.^'- Ob-
viously this is naturally patient of
an absurd interpretation. But the
real translation of the last words is
as follows : " The true Body and
Blood . . . are not in a figure only,
but in truth that which is sensibly
touched by the hands of the priests,
broken and crushed by the teeth of
- Nicholas is quoting St. Ambrose.
Both writers probably mean that baptism
"in the name of Christ," as mentioned in
Acts, is the same as baptism in the name
of the Holy Trinity, i.e. that it implies
the use of the Trinitarian formula. But
this is not quite certain.
I li
EPILOGUE
the faithful." The true meaning is
amply proved by the controversies
of the time to be that there is no
other snbstafice which is the subject
of these actions ; but it was not
supposed that anyone could import
the idea that the Body of Christ is
naturally broken in two in heaven
when the accidents of bread are
broken, or that the whole Body
is not present in each part after
fraction. Hence the carelessness of
the wording. It was important to ,
avoid the subterfuges by which
Berengarius tried to escape con-
demnation without admitting the
doctrine of the Church. The Body
of Christ is touched when the acci-
dents of bread are touched, but
per accidenSy not directly. It was
not anticipated that anyone would
be so perverse as to suppose that it
could be thought that the Body of
Christ is immediately touched any
more than it is immediately seen !
If it was immediately touched, its
texture would be felt by the hand
that touched it, just as its appear-
ance would be perceived, if it was
immediately seen. Yet it is both
common and correct to speak of
touching, tasting, breaking the Body
of Christ. So speaks, for example,
the great doctor of the Holy Euchar-
ist, St. John Chrysostom : " For
Christ has given to us nothing sensi-
ble, but in sensible things what is
spiritually discerned," and then al-
most immediately : " How many
now say — Would that I could see
His form, His likeness. His garments,
His shoes ! Behold, thou seest Him,
thou touchest Him^ thou eatest Him "
{Hom. 82, 4, in Matt.). Or again :
"Why did he add, 'Which we
break ? ' For this we can see happen
at the Eucharist ; but not upon the
cross, but rather the contrary; for
' a bone of Him,' it was said, ' shall
not be broken.' But what He did
not suffer upon the cross, this He
suffers in the Oblation for thy sake,
and bears to be broken in half {avkyjir 0.1
8taK-Aw/xev'05) that He may fill all"
{Horn. 24, 2, in i Cor^. I do not
think these passages need apology
or explanation.
"These difficulties," Dr. Gore
concludes, " are only examples." It
follows, then, that the rest are not
very serious, and he did well not to
bring them forward.
CHAPTER XII
EPILOGUE
I.
WE have hitherto followed Dr.
Gore chapter by chapter. Let
us look at the antitheses at which
we have arrived.
I. I am a Catholic because I
belong to the Catholic Church — the
Church diftused throughout the
world. Bishop Gore refuses to be-
lieve that there exists a Church
throughout the world. The Church
in which he believes is a Church of
the future, an ideal i7i fieri, for it
consists of the departed in " Para-
dise," of those who are not yet
born, as well as of a great many
people still alive — but this latter
class does not constitute "a separate
unity," ^ i.e. a Church throughout the
world.
On the other hand, he does be-
^ See his note, p. 33.
EPILOGUE
119
lieve in " Churches " throughout the
world, though he apparently does
not include among these the Protes-
tant communities of Scandinavia,
Germany, Switzerland, America, etc.,
nor the English and Welsh Noncon-
formists.
2. The Catholic Church teaches
that she must be and always is one —
and " visibly " one in the same sense
in which she is a "visible" body.
This is practically the same as the
first point — there is a body through-
out the world which is, and has
always been, the one Catholic
Church. Bishop Gore thinks it has
spUt into fragments.
3. The Church is not only Catho-
lic and one, she is Apostolic — she
retains the right to teach which was
given to the Apostles, and she re-
tains their authority — she is infal-
lible in teaching, and absolute in
authority. According to Dr. Gore,
these attributes ceased after a few
centuries, and the Church has no
longer a voice which can compel
assent or obedience.
4. It is very wonderful to see in
history this One Catholic and
Apostolic Church majestically pro-
ceeding through the centuries. It
is more w^onderful to contemplate
her sanctity — that of her teaching,
and that of her children. Of this,
Ur. Gore prudently says nothing.
I do not wish to deny or to mini-
mise the claims of the Russian
Church to have produced saints in
her schism. A schism caused by
political motives, and involving
practically no heresy, may well be
expected to bear much good fruit.
Let us make the most of the many
estimable men whom Anglicanism,
and Lutheranism, and Wesleyanism,
etc., have produced — it would be,
indeed, shocking if such were not
found wherever the doctrines of the
New Testament are studied with
reverence.
But the multitude of the saints —
the miraculous saints, the heroes of
penance and charity, of missionary
enterprise and cloistered meditation,
bishops and laymen, martyrs and
confessors, monks and virgins —
these belong to the one Catholic
and Apostolic Church. To her
God gives His choicest gifts ; on
her alone He lavishes the marvels
of grace which He deals out more
sparingly to others.
But I go further. The ordinary
means of attaining holiness are in-
finitely greater in her than in any
other body. It is not only that her
sacraments are surely valid. She
has the tradition, the methods, the
true doctrine. The tradition and
the methods, — for she is full of the
institutions of the saints — her laws,
her customs, her monasteries and
houses of charity, her ways, her
peculiarities, her systems, are theirs.
In her alone are the innumerable
daily Masses, the frequent Com-
munions, the multipHed and various
forms of holy devotions for all classes
and all characters. If Dr. Gore
wants spiritual reading for himself
or others, he will take in hand some
manual "adapted" from a Catholic
source. If he wishes to learn
methods of direction of souls, to
know the experience of ages, he
will betake himself to a Catholic
ascetical writer, and so forth.
But also the true doctrine. Dr.
Gore has made the interesting asser-
tion (p. 11): "A man cannot be
at home in the current Roman
doctrine of 'good works' and in
St. Paul's Epistles." I have not the
least idea — I say it truthfully — what
Dr. Gore supposes "the current
Roman doctrine of good works " to
be. I do know that the immoral
antinomianism of Luther has left
its spell over every part of Protes-
tantism. Thank God, there are
revivalists and Salvationists who
I20
EPILOGUE
teach men to repent and begin new
lives. Would that they could do
more for their perseverance. Thank
God, there are many clergymen of
the Anglican body who urge men to
confession, contrition, and amend-
ment. But alas that "church going "
and " thoughtful sermons " on sub-
jects of the day should be the main
part of the spiritual food offered to
our countrymen ! What does the
average Englishman know of sin, of
sorrow, of amendment, of falls, of
resolutions, of perseverance? He
does not know his need, he does not
heed his destitution of help, and he
is, therefore, fortunately less account-
able than a bad Catholic would be.
But if Dr. Gore were inside the
Catholic communion, he would find
there a practical "doctrine of good
works " well known to all the faith-
ful. They believe that they will be
judged at the last day by their
works, and that they must anticipate
the judgement here, if they are to
escape in that day. If a man wishes
to be a practising Catholic, he knows
that he must give up sin. If he does
not wish to give up sin, he does not
go to confession. Who does not
know the root of much of the
supposed rationalism in Catholic
countries? When a man who has
persecuted the Church by his vote
and his influence, on his death-bed
sends for the priest — as so often
happens, thank God — he acknow-
ledges thereby that it has not been
a rooted conviction, but some worldly
motive, that has kept him from the
practice of his religious duties ; and
in how many cases the simple ex-
planation is that he has not had the
courage to change his life ?
The Catholic Church teaches that
God intends us to be like Himself,
and she tries to make us like Him,
and nobody can be a practising
Catholic without in some measure
trying to be like Him,
If there were nothing else known
to me of the Catholic Church but
her system of confession, as I know
it by experience, it would be enough
alone to prove to me her divine
origin.
But words are of little use. I can-
not make others see what I see.
Those outside do not see the Church ;
they see men, they see doctrines,
they see facts of history — but they
cannot see the wood for the trees.
.Yet the Church is God's witness that
He it is who sent Jesus Christ : "that
the world may believe that Thou
hast sent Me." This witness is
not revealed to* all. In Catholic
countries it is clear enough, and
everyone is either a Catholic or an
opponent of Christianity. But in
a land like England it is hard for
those who have been born and
reared and educated in heresy and
in prejudice to get to the vision of
the one Catholic Church. Tichonius,
the Donatist, says St. Augustine,
"aroused by all the voices of the
holy pages, awoke and beheld the
Church of God diffused throughout
the whole world, even as it had
been foreseen and foretold of her
so long before by the hearts and the
mouths of the saints." ^ That is
the point : Evigilavit et vidit, " He
awoke and beheld." As with the
ancient African scholar, so with a
modern student of the Fathers, to
whom Robert Wilberforce pointed
out a short sentence from the very
treatise of St. Augustine which
I have quoted : " He repeated the
words again and again, and when he
was gone they kept ringing in my
ear. ' Securiis judicat orbis terra-
rtcm.^ . . ." "The entire world
judges 7viy/i security that they are
not good who separate themselves
from the entire world, in whatever
part of the entire world." ^ The
1 C. Htt Farm. i. I.
- C. Htt. Farm. iii. 3.
EPILOGUE
[21
words are simple enough, though
I do not think Dr. Gore has seen
what they mean. But their mean-
ing came as a flash upon Newman
after his long studies and anxieties.
" They were words which went be-
yond the occasion of the Donatists :
they applied to that of the Mono-
physites. They decided ecclesiastical
questions on a simpler rule than that of
antiquity ; nay, St. Aug-ustinc was one
of the prime oracles of antiquity; here
then antiquity was deciding against
itself.
"Who can account for the impres-
sions which are made on him? For
a mere sentence, the words of St.
Augustine struck me with a power
which I had never felt from any words
before. To take a familiar instance,
they were like the ' Turn again, Whit-
tington ' of the chime ; or, to take a
more serious one, they were like the
' Tolle, lege— Tolle, lege,' of the child,
which converted St. Augustine him-
self. ' Seairus judical orbis terrarum^
By those great words of the ancient
P^ather, interpreting and summing up
the long and varied course of eccle-
siastical history, the theory of the Via
Media was absolutely pulverized." ^
Why this extraordinary state of
mind? "Dismay and disgust" —
"dreadful misgivings" — "It has
given me a stomach-ache ! " ^ "I
had seen the shadow of a hand upon
the wall." " He who has seen a
ghost cannot be as if he had never
seen it. The heavens had opened
and closed again."
Evigilavit et vidit. He had awak-
ened and had beheld that Church
for which the Son of God had
prayed : " That they may be one,
that the world may know that Thou
hast sent Me." ^
^ Newman, Apologia^ ch. 3.
^ Newman, Letters and Correspondence^
vol. ii. p. 286.
^ John xvii. 21. Cp. John xi. 42:
"And I know that Thou hearest Me
always."
n.
Thus we differ about the Church.
So again Dr. Gore takes a view of
the history of Christianity which
differs by the whole of heaven from
the Catholic view.
He sees a providence in that
history, but all is natural. God set
a truth in the world, and left it
liable to the ordinary process of
corruption. He asks : —
" Is what an idea historically be-
comes necessarily the true interpreta-
tion of it? The answer to this question,
which may be derived from the history
of religions, is a most emphatic No.
Nothing is more conspicuous there
than the tendency to deterioration, or
the tendency on the part of a religion
to change character by gradual self-
accommodation to circumstances in-
stead of moulding circumstances in
accordance with its original idea"
(pp. 205, 206).
He gives two instances : the one
is Buddhism, the other is the re-
jection of Christ by the Jews.
" I draw from this a certain con-
clusion, namely, that a religion, be-
cause divinely inspired, is not therefore
preserv^ed from widespread deteriora-
tion ; is not therefore prevented from
receiving a development which, while
it must appear as the chief historical
development of the original, is in fact
its parody."
He argues from Buddhism and
Judaism to Christianity. I do not
believe Buddhism to be divinely
inspired, nor does Bishop Gore.
I do not know that the Jews were
promised the presence of the Holy
Spirit until the end of the world, to
lead them into all truth. I do not
admit any strict parallel between the
religion of the Old Testament and
that of the New, for I do not admit
their equality. Dr. Gore admits —
every Christian must admit this
much — that "the truth essential to
make Christian saints has always
122
EPILOGUE
been shining in the world through
the witness of the Christian Church."
He could not say less ! But he also
admits "a possibility that the Church,
short of substantial failure, may go
far astray." (It appears from Dr.
Gore's account that not much less
than this has happened.) I do not
wish to refute such remarks. I
merely put two views side by side.
Let the reader choose :
" There is no
guarantee that the
Church may not,
if she neglects the
means provided to
keep her right, get
upon a false line
of development,
and that almost
universally" (p. 207).
"I say unto thee,
that thou art Peter,
and upon this rock
I will build My
Church, and the
gates of hell shall
not prevail against
it."
But I will point out that
1. The second of these views,
which is the Catholic view, and
which I have given in the words of
the Founder of the Catholic Church,
does more honour to God. It
represents Him as overruling the
natural corruptions which overtake
all natural religion, by a special
grace and assistance, in order that
the light may not fail by which
men have to walk. According to
Dr. Gore, those who follow Christ
have often, nay, usually, to walk in
the dimness of opinion, not in the
light of faith.
2. This view makes us free with
regard to history. We see the ship
of the Church to-day sailing merrily
over very rough water. How often
has she seemed to suffer shipwreck !
Yet there she is, safe and sound.
To investigate her past history is
a most interesting, a most edifying
study. The worse the scandals in
the past, the greater the wonder of
God's help that has made the
Church survive. The Catholic his-
torian can look difficulties in the
face. He is not bound to any
theory of the past. He has the
New Testament at the one end of
the history and the Church of to-
day at the other, both manifestly
divine, and with an admittedly un-
broken sequence binding the one
to the other. How the development
has taken place is a matter for
critical examination, not for theo-
rising.
Bishop Gore, on the contrary, is
in a sad position. He appeals to
history, and yet is bound hand and
foot in discussing it. He is forced
to admit that the development of
the Papacy was practically neces-
sary, was beneficial, was a part of
a Divine plan; but he is bound to
find something "Satanic" in it to
counteract these dangerous admis-
sions. He is bound to find his
favourite dogmas clearly expressed
in early centuries, for he admits no
real development. He is bound
to find (somehow or other) anti-
papal difficulties and Roman cor-
ruptions. He goes to history with
a theory, and he is lost if the facts
cannot be strained to fit it. The
majority of scholars do not think
they can.
3. Our view makes the whole
evolution which we trace in his-
tory an intelligible development.
Bishop Gore makes it unintelligible.
On his view the story of Chris-
tianity is a tangled web, a chaos
of the inconsistent, the unexpected,
the irrational. Take the evolution
of Roman unity. To him this is
the result of the Roman civil pres-
tige, and of the Roman temper. It
is a chance coincidence that Peter
and Paul suffered in Rome. It is
a chance that Rome alone of all
the great Apostolic Churches has
retained the faith unsullied through
nineteen centuries. It is a chance
that those who have been in com-
munion with the Roman see have
always immensely outnumbered any
EPILOGUE
123
other body of Christians. It is a
chance that to-day Rome has half
the Christian world united with
one heart and one soul, and in one
faith, in her obedience, over against
the mutual discords and strifes
which make Babel of the other
half.
Is it, again, chance that Pro-
testantism always ends in division
and subdivision, because it has re-
jected unity ? Was it a chance
that those who fought against the
Church in the sixteenth century
were the immoral Luther, the cruel
Calvin, the blasphemous Zwingli,
the adulterous. Beza, the lying and
cowardly Cranmer, Henry, model
of husbands, the virgin Elizabeth,
and such like ? Was it chance that
those who defended unity were men
like More and Fisher and Pole and
Campion and Allen, or Ignatius
and Charles Borromeo and Philip
and Canisius ? The lies of three
hundred years are melting away like
smoke before modern criticism, and
we are beginning to know some-
thing of the men who robbed
Englishmen of their faith by the
use of rack and gibbet and cauldron.
We know something of Foxe's
martyrs now. We wish they had
been kept from the stake, but we
are forced to admit that most of
them deserved the prison. But the
white-robed army of martyrs tortured
and slain by Henry and Elizabeth
and the two Charleses is beginning
to be known and respected by Pro-
testant historians. We are learning
how much we lost by the " Refor-
mation." The crushing blow dealt
to the universities, the loss of
popular education throughout the
country, scarcely at all made good
by the scanty endowments of
Edward VL, the wholesale destruc-
tion of libraries, the confiscation of
the patrimony of the poor, the
degradation of the clergy, the cessa-
tion of religious instruction, the
beginning of vagrancy, the increase
of immorality. If it had not been
for the Puritans and John Wesley,
there would have been little religion
left in the country. Is all this
chance ?
Meanwhile, during three cen-
turies, the great nations which
remained Catholic — learned and
civilised Italy, Spain and France
only second to her — have had their
day, as it seems. The younger half-
barbarous peoples which fell a prey
to the Protestant wolves are taking
the first place in the world, and as
each comes to the front it shakes
off the slough of Protestantism.
And rightly. No civilised people can
be Protestant in the twentieth cen-
tury, and Protestantism is doomed.
But Christianity is not dead. If
there is any vigorous life outside
the ever-young Catholic Church, it
is in the movements which have
borrowed from her their spirit, it is
in the men who have formed their
lives on the models she offers them.
Bishop Gore is of these. He has
assimilated much. Will he not
accept the whole P^
4. Our view gives us the spirit-
ual help we need. The Church
of England is a stepmother who
neither teaches her children nor
keeps them in order. We have a
true Mother, " of her we are born,
with her milk we are fed, with her
^ Writing at Birmingham, I cannot
avoid remarking that there are two rival
bishops of Birmingham. A see was estab-
lished here in 1850 by Pius IX. by his
authority as the successor of St. Peter.
In 1904 a rival see was set up by
Edward VII. by his authority as suc-
cessor of Queen Elizabeth. "Does any-
one think," says St. Cyprian, "that in
one place there can be either many flocks
or many pastors?" {De Unit.^ 8.) Which
is to be preferred? Which is in com-
munion with the whole world ?
124
EPILOGUE
spirit we are animated";^ she teaches
us, she governs us. We hear her
voice as the voice of God, and we
have Faith. We receive her Sacra-
ments from birth to death, and we
1 Cypr., De Unit., 5.
have hope, confidence, perseverance.
We enjoy through the Communion
of Saints in her that union of charity
of which it was said : "By this
shall all men know that you are
My disciples."
PLYMOUTH
WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LLMITED
PRINTERS
t
^
LIBRARY ST. WARY'S COLLEGE
259
G660C
112034
Chapman, John
^1203*
239
6660C jo»»w cp^-rHOV.
»c
CUk
\HS
. ''' '"..,»'■■'
."'^ '■'
' / x <
f > It. .J
f->Oa^^Klf:;/r;Mefl^]i5^^M§.^^.
K V . . ■.
'/ < '. l'
,1. f- ...
i..
