Skip to main content

Full text of "The early church and the Roman Claim : lectures"

See other formats 


>  3.  11.  (4.  . 


BR  160  .R45  1896 
Rentoul,  J«  Lawrence. 
The  early  church  and  the 
Roman  Claim;  lectures,  in 


The  Early  Church 


AND 


THE  ROMAN  CLAIM 


LECTURES    BY 


J.  LAURENCE  RENTOUL,  M.A.,  D.D.. 

Professor    of    N.T.    Greek    and    Exegesis  :    and    of    Christian     Philosophv. 

(FoRMEi'.LY  Professor  of  Hebreu'  and  O.T.  Exegesis) 

Orjiond  College,  Melbourne  University. 


IN   REPLY   TO   ARCHBISHOP   CARR 
ON    "THE    PRIMACY    OF   THE    ROMAN    PONTIFF.'^ 


THIRD   EDITION. 

WITH 

COlV= 

dttclbourne: 

MELVILLE,    MULLEN    AND    SLADE, 

1896. 


MELBOURNE: 

m'CARRON,   bird   and    CO.,   PRINTERS, 

479   COLLINS    STREET. 


TO 

AND     TO 

The  Elders,  Managers,  and  People 

or 

ST.    KILDA  PRESBYTERIAN    CHURCH, 

(in  which  they  were  first  spoken), 

these  lectures  are  inscribed 

in  token  of 

old    friendship   and   sincere   regard. 

J.  L.  R. 


PREFACE 


In  these  Lectures  our  conflict  is  not  with  men,  but 
with  opinions.  Frankness  of  speech  in  vindication 
of  historic  facts  does  not  in  any  way  alter  the  kindly 
personal  feeling  I  entertain  for  those  from  whom  I 
differ. 

The  Eoman  Claim  would  ban  out  of  God's  fold, 
and  exclude  from  the  brotherhood  of  the  hope  in 
Christ,  myself,  and  half  of  Christendom.  It  becomes 
a  Duty  not  to  be  shirked,  in  loyalty  to  Truth,  and 
to  the  Common  Faith,  to  test  the  basis  on  which 
such  a  claim  affects  to  rest.  This  duty  I  trust  I 
have  performed  with  candour. 

The  following  pages  are  intended  at  once  for  the 
ordinary  reader,  and  also  (by  Notes  and  Appendix) 
to  aid  those  who  wish  to  make  a  further  study  of 
the  subject. 

J.  LAUEENCE  EENTOUL. 

Ormond   College, 

The   University,  1st  July,  1896. 


FORE-WORD. 


FOUR     LECTURES. 


H»»«   < 


PAGE 

I. — The   Roman   Claim,    an]>   Method  :   Peter  and   the 

Rock -      16 

II. — The  Ro3Ian  Legend  of  Petek— The  Question  and 
Modern  Scholarship. — Was  Peter  "Bishop 
OF  Rome?" 72 

III. — Rise    of    a    Sacerdotal    Order    in    the    Christian 

Ministry  .......     103 

IV. — Evolution  of  the  Papacy:  Its  Early  Stages    -         -     132 
Appendix         _.-_.---.-     183 


Delivered  on  Sunday  Evenings  in  the  St.  Kilda  Ghurch,  and  Redelivered 
in  the  Scots'  Church,  Melbourne. 


FORE-WORD. 


TO  CHURCHMEN:  ANGLICAN  AND  NON- 
ANGLICAN. 


It  was  with  much  rehictance  that  I  consented  to 
prepare  these  lectures,  and  to  enter,  for  the  first 
time  in  my  Hfe,  into  controversy  with  Eoman  Cathohc 
advocates. 

The  very  large  and  representative  audiences  that 
followed  the  lectures,  and  the  many  kindly  communi- 
cations received  by  me  from  all  parts  of  Victoria  since 
their  delivery,  have  touched  and  encouraged  me.  It 
seems  evident  that  the  public  sense  has  been  revolted 
by  the  sweeping  claims  and  the  assertions  as  to 
history  made  during  the  last  few  years  by  Eoman 
Catholic  ecclesiastics,  and  emphasised  in  Archbishop 
Carr's  annual  series  of  lectures,  culminating  in  his 
attack,  last  year,  upon  the  English  Bible  and  the 
Keformers,  and  in  his  recent  utterance  on  the 
Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff.  Not  the  least  cordial 
and  generous  of  the  letters  I  have  received  have  come 
from  clergymen  and  laymen  of  other  Churches  than 
my  own.  The  writers  have  been  good  enough  to  say 
that  I  have  not  spoken  as  an  advocate  for  my  own 
Church  (however  much  I  am  personally  loyal  to  her), 
but  in  vindication  of  the  basis  of  Scriptural  and 
historic  truth  on  w^hich  the  early  Christian  Church 


6  FORE -WORD. 

rested,  and  on  which  all  the  Churches  of  the  Eefor- 
mation  rest  still. 

These  lectures  will,  I  hope,  he  found  (especially 
from  Part  II.  of  Lecture  I.  onward)  a  treatment  possess- 
ing interest  quite  apart  from  the  temporary  causes 
which  called  them  forth.  The  questions  raised  have 
perennial  claim  upon  all  Christian  men.  Their  im- 
mediate occasion,  however,  was  the  course  of  six 
lectures  delivered  by  Archbishop  Carr,  of  Melbourne, 
on  The  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff — oddly  enough 
during  the  penitential  season  of  Lent.  An  examina- 
tion of  the  character  of  Archbishop  Carr's  dealing 
with  "the  Testimony  of  the  Fathers,"  and  with 
"Protestant  testimony,"  and  of  his  "quotations" 
and  representation  of  historical  facts  generally,  in  the 
effort  to  present  a  plausible  case  for  Papalism,  will  pro- 
bably strike  the  intelligent  reader  with  the  impression 
that  the  six  lectures  might  fitly  have  been  followed 
by  another  and  more  adequate  "penitential  season." 

The  publication  of  large  abstracts  of  my  lectures  in 
the  Argils  and  the  Age  led  to  a  correspondence  between 
Archbishop  Carr  and  myself.  The  one  and  only 
statement  of  mine  which  Archbishop  Carr  attempted 
to  controvert  was  a  mere  side  issue,  viz.,  my  criticism 
of  one  characteristic  illustration  of  his  "  quotations," 
and  what  he  termed  "  exclusively  Protestant  testi- 
mony." In  my  first  lecture  I  protested  both  against 
his  inclusion  of  Kenan  in  that  category,  and  (still 
more)  against  his  drastic  mutilations  of  the  passage 
he  quoted  from  Eenan,  so  as  to  shape  it  into  a 
testimony  for  "the  Koman  Primacy."  That  brief 
correspondence  made,  I  have  reason  to  know,  a  pro- 
found impression  all  over  Victoria  with  regard  to 
Komanist  methods  of  controversy.  (The  full  corres- 
pondence will  be  found  in  the  Appendix.) 

I  refuse  to  be  diverted  from  the  central  and  all- 
important  question  by  this  side  consideration.     For, 


FORE -WORD.  7 

I  suppose,  the  public  will  agree  with  me  that — even  if 
all  Archbishop  Carr's  "testimonies"  had  been  solid, 
instead  of  mainly  worthless  or  irrelevant  or  misleading, 
owing  to  the  use  of  ambiguous  terms  like  ''  Primacy," 
or  thrown  out  of  line  with  their  original  context — a 
mere  array  of  names  and  opinions  is  a  very  secondary 
and  unimportant  element  in  an  investigation  like 
this.  The  facts  of  the  New  Testament,  and  of  the 
Apostolic  time,  the  facts  of  chronology,  the  real  facts 
of  history — these  are  the  things  which  should  be  faced. 
In  the  first  letter  of  the  above-mentioned  corres- 
pondence, Archbishop  Carr  promised,  however,  that  in 
"  the  book  form  "  of  his  lectures  he  would  "avail  him- 
self of  the  opportunity  of  developing  (his)  answers  to 
meet  the  special  phases  of  the  difficulties  which  have 
been  most  recently  presented."     I  replied  : 

"I  shall  be  happy  to  examine  the  developed  answers  of  the 
Archbishop.  I  venture  to  suppose  that  they  will  require 
development.  For  the  difficulties  which  front  the  Archbishop 
and  his  Roman  claim  are  solid  and  unanswerable  historic  facts." 
{Argus  and  A<je,  20th  May.) 

In  "  the  book  form  "  of  Dr.  Carr's  lectures  nothing  is 
more  significant  than  the  fact  that  the  "  developed" 
answers  have  not  arrived.  He  does  not  in  the  least 
attempt  to  deal  with  the  chronological  facts  I  have 
adduced,  proving  the  "  Koman  claim"  to  be  an  historic 
impossibility,  and  to  rest  on  what  is  undeniably  legend. 
Hoiv  Peter  could  he  in  two  i^laces  at  the  same  time  (which 
supposition  is  necessary  to  the  "Eoman  bishopric  of 
Peter"),  Archbishop  Carr  has  not  attempted  to  show. 
How  the  Eomanist  advocate  can  harmonize  the  facts 
that  Tertullian,  in  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
declares  that  Clement  was  first  bishop  of  Kome,*  and 
that   Irenaeus    (Tertullian' s    contemporary)    declares 

*  Tert.  Be  Prcescr.  Haer.  32.  "The  context  shows  that  he  did  not 
regard  Peter  as  first  bishop." — Prof.  Bright,  Roman  See  (1896),  p.  11. 


8  FORE -WORD. 

that  Linns  was  first  bishop  of  Kome ;  this,  or  any 
other  of  the  many  huge  difficulties  that  beset  even  the 
first  steps  of  the  self-contradictory  Eoman  tradition 
(necessary  to  Papalism),  Dr.  Carr  does  not  venture  to 
look  in  the  face.  His  role  is  that  of  all  Eoman 
Catholic  advocates — to  shun  actual  facts  of  history,  and 
to  pile  together  (under  the  Eomanist  notion  of  the  im- 
pressiveness  of  "  mitJioritij"  and  names)  a  mass  of  odd 
*'quota.tions"  from  "fathers,"  and  from  "Protestant" 
testimony.  My  readers  will  find  this  sort  of  thing 
analysed  in  the  cognate  parts  of  the  following  pages. 

Archbishop  Carr  must  have  a  limited  belief  in  the 
intelligence  of  the  public  when  he  announces  that  the 
views  of  his  "  new  adversary"  differ  radically  from  the 
views  of  "Anglicans"  on  "the  primitive  form  of 
Church  government  and  the  necessity  of  Apostolical 
succession."  This  sentence  resembles  the  rest  of 
Dr.  Carr's  controversial  utterances.  It  derives  its 
only  plausibility  from  the  use  of  "amhiguous  terms.'' 
When  I  turn  to  my  dictionary,  I  find  that  the  word 
"Anglican"  means  "English;"  or,  in  a  religious 
sense,  "a  member  of  the  Church  of  England."  But 
Archbishop  Carr  is  always  trying  to  use  it,  ivhe7i  it 
suits  him,  as  if  it  meant  what  is  known  as  "  Anglo - 
Catholic."  When  it  does  not  suit  him  in  this 
sense  then  he  uses  it  differently ;  and,  like  the 
other  "ambiguous  term,"  "Primacy/'  this  word 
"  Anglican"  plays  strange  pranks  in  the  Archbishop's 
rhetoric. 

Thus,  in  his  fifth  lecture,  Salmon  {i.e.  Professor 
Salmon  of  Dublin)  is  specially  set  amongst  "  Anglican 
controversialists,"  and  is  accused  by  Archbishop  Carr 
of  "  downright  dishonesty,"  and  worse.  Also,  Bishop 
Lightfoot  is  grouped  amongst  "Anglican  writers ;'' 
and  Archbishop  Carr  knows  very  well  that  the  views 
held  by  Lightfoot  as  to  the  primitive  form  of  Church 
government  are  substantially  identical  with  the  views 


FORE-WOIID.  y 

set  forth  in  my  lectures,  instead  of  being,  as  he  tries 
to  hint,  "  radicahy  different." 

But  that  is  not  all.  In  his  Lecture  I.,  when  it 
suits  his  purpose.  Dr.  Carr  denounces  "  the  utterly 
tin- Anglican  and  un-episcojjalian  tlieory  advocated  by 
Lightfoot."  Poor  Bishop  Lightfoot  !  Great  scholar 
as  he  was,  he  was  not  acquainted  with  the  methods  of 
Archbishop  Carr.  Hence  he  supposed  that  the  letter 
of  Clement  of  Eome  "  does  not  proceed  from  the 
Bishop,  but  from  the  Church  of  Eome."  That  is 
how  Archbishop  Carr  expresses  the  great  un- Anglican 
sin  committed  by  the  late  Bishop  Lightfoot.  And, 
unfortunately,  any  of  us,  reading  Clement's  letter 
from  "  The  Congregation  of  God  sojourning  in  Rome" 
would  fall  exactly  into  the  same  "sin"  of  interpre- 
tation into  which  poor  Lightfoot  fell. 

But,  as  a  simple  matter  of  truth,  to  talk  of  an 
"  Anglican  view  "  and  a  "  Presbyterian  view  "  of  the 
primitive  form  of  Church  government  is  to  talk 
absurdly.  There  are  two  now  dominant  "views" 
amongst  modern  scholars  as  to  "the  primitive  form 
of  Church  government."  The  one  may  be  called  the 
"  Lightfoot  view,"  held  also  substantially  by  such 
scholars  as  Sanday,  Westcott,  Alford,  Perowne, 
Ewing,  Eeichel,  Moorhouse,  &c.,  by  Stanle}^  Arnold 
of  Eugby,  Farrar,  and  a  host  of  others.  Are  not 
these  good  "Anglicans"?  The  view  (expressed  briefly) 
is  that,  originally  (as  proven  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment) "  presbj^ters"  and  "  bishops"  were  synonymous. 
They  were  the  same  in  function,  and  their  ordination 
the  same.  Then,  gradually,  one  presbyter  was 
elevated  above  the  others,  or,  as  Lightfoot  puts  it, 
"the  episcopate  was  developed  out  of  the  presbyterate." 
All  these  Anglican  scholars  have  rejected,  just  as 
utterly  as  I  reject  it,  the  figment  of  "  the  Apostolic 
Succession."  A  great  and  sensible  bishop,  like 
Lightfoot,  knows  too  well  within  himself  that,  what- 


10  FORE -WORD. 

ever  else  he  is  he  is  not  an  Afostlc.  But  if  we  hold 
the  Apostles' /a/^//,  it  is  well! 

Professor  Sanda}^  of  Oxford  ("the  later  Lightfoot," 
as  he  has  been  called)  saj-s  distinctly  that  the  early 
Church  "  passed  through  a  Presbyterian  stage,"  and 
the  acknowledgment  of  that  and  cognate  facts  ought 
to  be  "the  eirenicon  between  the  churches."  For  him- 
self he  prefers  Episcopacy,  as  in  our  days,  he  thinks, 
"  the  more  excellent  way."  He  is  quite  free  to  that 
opinion,  and  we  to  ours.  But  between  him  and  m}'- 
self  there  is  no  "  radical  difference"  of  an}^  kind  as  to 
"  the  primitive  method  of  Church  government." 
Nay,  Archbishop  Carr  knows  this  very  well.  He  has, 
in  past  courses  of  lectures,  declared  that  all  the 
Reformers  who  shaped  the  Pieformed  Church  of  Eng- 
land held  that  view. 

The  other  scholarly  view  is  called  the  Hatch-Har- 
nack  view.  It  is  still  more  destructive  of  the  earl}'- 
Episcopal  notion,  and  of  the  "Apostolic  Succession 
figment,"  than  is  the  Lightfoot  view.  The  early 
ejnscojyos  (bishop)  according  to  Dr.  Hatch's  view,  was 
the  man  who  was  functioned  to  the  oversight,  in  each 
€ongre(iatioti,  of  the  alms  and  charities  and  finance,  in 
connection  with  the  weekly  Lord's  supper  and  Agape 
(or  love-feast).  Hence  he  and  the  "deacons"  were 
associated.  Now  observe  that  this  theory  also  was 
set  forth  by  an  eminent  "  Anglican"  (Dr.  Hatch).  It 
was  adopted  b}^  the  great  Lutheran  scholar,  Harnack, 
and  elaborated  with  his  wonderful  ability  and  research. 
The  Presbyters  were  over  the  Episcopos ;  the 
Presbyters  ruled  the  Christian  communit}' ;  "they 
were  the  persons  of  authorit}" ;  they  were  honoured 
and  obeyed."  {See  Clement  of  Piome.)  Dr.  Harnack 
admits,  however,  that  practically  and  frequently  "  the 
functions  of  presbyters  and  bishops  were  not  distin- 
guished." And  the  "Lightfoot  view"  is  certainly  the 
dominant  view  at  this  moment  amongst  scholars. 


FORE -WORD.  11' 

Now  look !  Both  Lightfoot  and  Hatch  were 
"Anghcans."  Nay  more,  Jerome,  the  authoritative 
Latin  "  father,"  on  whose  labours  Eome's  Latin  Bible 
rests,  says  the  same  on  this  matter  as  Lightfoot 
does.  He  asserts,  as  Dr.  Carr  well  knows,  just  what 
I  have  asserted,  viz.,  that  the  early  Church's  govern- 
ment was  in  each  place  "  by  a  common  council  of 
presbyters."  Afterwards,  in  the  epoch  of  the  gnostic 
heresies,  one  presbyter  was  lifted  into  a  single 
episcopos  in  each  congregation  or  community.  Then 
the  thing  soon  spread  till  the  bishop  became  a  great 
fellow.  Each  bishop  was  called  ''papa"  (Pope). 
Finally,  one  bishop  in  the  biggest  city  became  the 
most  bumptious  bishop,  and  then  claimed  to  be  the 
only  "Papa"  or  Pope.  Finally,  he  took  the  title  of 
the  extinct  pagan  Koman  high-priest,  and  called 
himself  Pontifex  Maximus.  This  is  the  verdict  of 
history. 

I  notice,  and  it  shows  the  unworthiness  of  Arch- 
bishop Carr's  attempt  to  confuse  the  public  judgment 
on  this  matter,  that  one  of  the  most  scholarly 
Anglicans  in  Victoria,  Canon  Berry,  the  Bishop  of 
Melbourne's  Examining  Chaplain,  has  written  a  frank 
and  finely-toned  letter  to  the  Argus  stating  that  he 
and  all  moderate  Anglican  Churchmen  would  accept 
the  positions  affirmed  in  my  lectures ;  further,  that 
the  same  position  is  substantiall}^  taken  by  Canon 
Spence  in  his  work  on  the  recently  discovered  earh^ 
Christian  writing,  the  Didache  f  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles  J. ^ 

One  other  thing  I  wish  to  say  here.  I  call  attention 
in  my  lectures  to  the  attack  made  by  Archbishop 
Carr  on  that  noble  scholar.  Professor  Salmon,  whom 
he  accuses  of  "downright  dishonesty."  Eoman 
Catholic  advocates   are   angry  at  what  Dr.   Salmon 

*  See  Appendix. 


12  FORE -WORD. 

lias  said  about  the  early  Eoman  "lists,"  and  also 
about  the  "Clementine  Eomance,"  viz.,  that  an 
early  editor  of  it  was  the  inventor  of  the  legend  of 
Peter  s  Roman  Episcopate.  Archbishop  Carr's  attempt 
to  deal  with  this,  and  with  Canon  Potter's  state- 
ments on  the  same  subject,  are  in  my  judgment 
the  most  earnest  attempt,  to  be  met  with  in  Arch- 
bishop Carr's  lectures,  to  grapple  with  a  great  diffi- 
culty in  a  critical  and  historical  spirit.  It  is  quite 
evident  that  Dr.  Carr  could  write  with  effect  if 
he  had  facts  to  go  upon.  But  here,  again,  as  will 
be  evident  from  my  discussion  of  the  Legend  of 
Peter,  the  Archbishop  has  been  misled  by  his  very 
untrustworthy  Achates,  the  Piev.  Luke  Piivington, 
and  by  the  cross  lights  of  an  "  ambiguous  term,"  viz., 
"  the  Clementine  Piomance." 

He  quotes,  and  it  is  his  one  seemingly  strong  point, 
from  Harnack's  recent  work.  As  I  shall  show,  he 
quite  misunderstands  Harnack.  The  very  words  he 
quotes  might  have  guided  him  better.  Harnack  is 
speaking  of  the  Clementine  writings  "  in  the  form  in 
which  we  have  them.'''  Bat  Harnack,  like  Lightfoot, 
Eenan,  and  many  another  scholar,  has  shown  that  the 
Clementine  writings,  as  we  have  them,  rest  upon  much 
older  apocryphal  irritings  of  the  second  century.  And 
in  those  there  lies  at  least  one  teeming  source  of  the 
early  legends  about  Peter.  This  will  be  seen  in  its  own 
place.  In  this  matter  Archbishop  Carr  does  not  shake 
the  substance  of  Canon  Potter's  argument:  just  as,  on 
Irenaeus,  his  elaborate  discussion  and  quotations  do 
not  impair  the  statement  of  Dr.  Stacey  Chapman.* 
To  m3^self  who  used  to  sit  in  the  class-room  of  a  great 
German  University  listening  to  Harnack,  with  his 
union  of  rare  knowledge  and  genius  for  teaching, 
Dr.  Carr's  use  of  him  seems  odd. 

*  The  Alleged  Papal  Supremacy,  1895.  This  seems  to  have  induced 
Archbishop  Carr's  course  of  lectures. 


FORE -WORD.  13 

•Just  as  I  go  to  press  my  attention  is  called*  to 
Professor  Briglit's  latest  book,  The  Roman  See  in  the 
Early  Church.  It  is  startling  to  find  that  the  conflict 
we  are  compelled  to  wage  here  is  being  waged  just 
now  in  England,  and  over  just  the  same  field.  Pro- 
fessor Bright  is  an  outstanding  man  amongst  the 
*' Anglo-Catholics"'  at  home.  Archbishop  Carr,  in 
conflict  with  what  he  terms  "Anglican  controversia- 
lists," has  frequently  quoted  him  with  great  gusto — 
this  "Oxford  Eegius  Professor."  Now  this  scholar, 
Canon  Bright,  has  had  to  write  his  book  mainly  in 
criticism  of  The  Primitive  Church  and  the  See  of  St.  Peter, 
by  the  Eev.  Luke  Eivington,  a  convert  from  "Anglo- 
Catholicism"  to  Eomanism.  Mr.  Eivington' s  argu- 
ments and  "quotations,"  and  "adventurous  appeal," 
as  Dr.  Bright  calls  it,  bear  the  same  general  family 
features  as  the  modes  and  words  of  the  various  hand- 
books and  pamphlets  now  being  pushed  out  in  advo- 
cacy of  the  Cathedra  Petri,  Prof.  Bright  points  to  the 
very  grave  issues  "raised  by  a  publication  which  is 
obviously  part  of  a  new  Eoman  campaign  against  the 
English  Church  and  the  churches  in  communion  with 
her."t  Here  is  how  Bright  apostrophises  "  the  Eoman 
spirit,  when  it  absorbs  all  other  considerations  into 
the  supreme  necessity  of  making  out  a  case  for 
Eome": — 

"You  will  therefore  read  that  view  into  all  yoitr  documents. 
You  will  assume  it  as  in  possession  of  the  ground,  and  throw  on 
opponents  the  task  of  proving  its  absence.  Whatever  seems  to 
inake  for  it,  yon  will  amj)lify ;  ivhatever  seems  to  make  against  it, 
yoit  tvill  miimnise,  or  explain  away,  or  ignore."l 

On  the  next  page  he  says  : — 

''^  Loyalty  to  Roine  will  determine  how  much  of  a  passage,  or  a 
sentence,  should  he  quoted  in  the  text ;  or  how  far  the  reader  is  to 
be  enabled  by  foot-notes  to  refer  to  authorities  and  to  judge  of 


*  By  the  Rev.  Dr.  Robinson, 
t  Bright,  Roman  See,  p.  213.  t  P.  211. 


14  FOEE-WORD. 

their  accuracy  *  You  will  deal  largely  in  assertion,  and  in 
repetitif)n  and  reiteration  of  what  has  been  asserted  ;  you  will 
not  be  afraid  of  paradox,  in  maintaining  the  geimineness  of  what 
has  iisvally  been  deemed  sjyvrions,  or  the  spuriousness  of  what 
has  usually  been  deemed  genuine.  You  will  uphold  the  majesty 
of  the  Holy  See  with  an  air  of  superb  confidence  ;  you  will 
apply  to  the  defence  of  Papal  authority  the  watchword  of  a 
great  revolutionist— '79e  Vaudace,  encore  de  Vaiidace,  totijours  de 
I'aiidace.'  Such  boldness  suits  the  Roman  genius,  and  is  tradi- 
tional with  those  who  have  best  understood  Rome."t 

Now,  this  is  tolerably  strong  from  a  scholar  whom 
Archbishop  Carr  has  been  fond  hitherto  of  quoting. 
In  my  own  gentler  temperament  I  would  not  have 
ventured  upon  it,  though  it  seems  justified  by  the 
facts  Canon  Bright  brings  into  evidence. 

But  what  I  quote  it  for  is  to  emphasise  the  demand 
that  is  upon  all  of  us  to-day  if  we  but  understand  our 
time,  with  the  great  world's  need  and  sin-sickness 
weltering  round  us,  while  Christ's  living  Gospel  and 
God's  Scriptures  are  hid  away  from  the  eyes  of  men. 
Eome  dreams  of  reconquering  England — and  mainly 
through  a  sacerdotal  movement,  gradually  killing  the 
Protestant  tone  and  faith  within  the  bosom  of 
England's  national  Church.  Every  strong  blow 
struck  by  Archbishop  Carr  in  his  writings  against  the 
Church  of  England  and  against  Protestantism  has 
come  weighted  by  the  quoted  words  of  some  Laudian, 
or  non-juring,  or  "  Anglo-Catholic"  man  within  the 
Church  of  England  herself.  And,  meanwhile,  "  Anglo- 
Catholics"  are  playing  into  the  hands  of  Eome  by  a 
theory  of  mediating  priesthood,  and  a  kindred  theory 
of  the  direct  descent  and  inspiration  of  all  bishops 
equally  as  "  successors  of  the  Apostles" — a  theory  of 
which  the  father  was  Cyprian  of  priestly  North  Africa 


*  I  have  had  to  spend  days  trying  to  put  right  the  many  utterly 
erroneous  foot-references  on  Archbishop  Carr's  pages.  Many  of 
them  are  utterly  wrong  and  unmeaning. 

t  Bright,  Uoman  See,  p.  212, 


FORE -WORD.  15 

in  the  third  century.  And  whether  one  hold  that 
Cyprianite  theory  or  hold  the  Papal  theory,  of  which 
the  father  was  Leo  I.  of  Eome  in  the  fifth  century,  it 
is  essentially  the  same  pagan  theory — foreign  to,  and 
lacking  faith  in,  the  all-sufficient  high-priesthood  and 
accomplished  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  It 
is  disloyal  to  His  perpetual  spiritual  presence  in  His 
congregation,  in  the  hearts,  wills,  and  lives  of  His 
believing  people. 

That  theory  of  a  priestly  caste  in  Christ's  ministry 
divides  and  distracts  Christendom.  I  have  spoken 
these  lectures  in  the  hope  of  emphasising,  and  draw- 
ing men's  attention  to,  that  which  is  the  abiding 
centre  of  unity  for  all  the  Churches  of  God.  The 
possession  of  that  proves  that  there  is  far  less  disunion 
between  the  Protestant  Churches  than  is  seen  in 
the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  herself,  with  her  iron- 
bound  and  authoritative  external  uniformity,  and  the 
ghastly  internal  self-contradictions  and  changes  which 
have  marked  her  tragic  history. 

Whatever  may  help  to  call  us  back  direct  to  Christ 
and  His  Apostles — John,  Paul,  Peter,  and  all  the 
men  who  bore  His  Evangel  to  the  world — is  said 
well — whatever  causes  us  to  build  simply  upon  the 
one  Petra,  the  one  foundation  set  forth  equally  by 
St.  Paul,  St.  Peter,  St.  Stephen,  and  the  early  "wit- 
nesses":— Christ,  the  Atoner,  the  life  for  men  and  in 
men.  Li  this  central  substance  of  the  living  faith 
there  is  no  distinction  between  Presbyterian  Church- 
man, Anglican  Churchman,  Wesleyan  Churchman, 
and  the  Churchmen  of  God's  *'  independent"  con- 
gregations. 

(Note. — I  have  been  unable  to  use  Canon  Bright,  save  for  a  few 
foot-notes,  and  one  or  two  brief  passages  inserted  in  the  final 
revision  of  my  Lectures.  These  I  have  marked  in  square  brackets. 
His  Lecture  on  "The  Reign  of  Elizabeth"  is  marked,  unfortunately, 
by  strong  "Anglo -Catholic"  bias,  e.g.,  his  treatment  of  Grindal, 
&c.) 


16  THE   ROMAN   CLAIM    AND    METHOD: 


LECTURE   FIRST. 

THE  ROMAN  CLAIM  AND  METHOD 
PETER  AND  THE  ROCK. 


"Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesa«  Christ,  called  to  be  an  apostle, 
separated  unto  the  Gospel  of  God,  ...  to  all  that  are 
in  Rome  beloved  of  God,  called  to  be  Saints  :  grace  to 
you  and  peace  from  God  our  Father  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."— 

St.  Paul's  Letter  to  the   Christians  in  Rome.     58  a.d. 
(Rom.  I.,  1-7.) 

"  Peter,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  to  the  Elect  who  are 
Sojourners  of  the  Dispersion  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappa- 
docia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia."^ — 

St.  Peter's  Letter  to  the  Je^ visit- Christians  scattered 
through  various  Provinces  in  Asia,  where  his 
ministry  lay.  (1  Peter  I.,  1.)  [63-64:  a.d.,  ace. 
to  Lightfoot  ;  70-80  a.d.,  ace.  to  Prof.  Ramsay  ; 
45  A.D.  (!  I),  ace.  to  the  Donay  Version.'] 

Part  I. — Introductory. — Eome. 

The  city  of  Piome  was  not  the  cradle  of  civilisation  or 
of  Christianity.  But,  as  the  capital  of  the  ancient 
*'  heathen"  World-Empire,  and  long  afterwards  the 
central  city  of  Western  Christendom,  Eome  has  left 
her  impress,  for  good  and  for  evil,  upon  both  civil 
and  Christian  history.      To  all  who  have  open  heart 


PETER    AND    THE    EOCK.  17 

and  eye  for  the  tragic  story  of  the  human  race,  and  of 
the  Christian  Faith,  that  city  of  Italy  by  the  yellow 
Tiber  will  always  yield  a  vivid  interest.  Amongst  the 
many  features  of  that  old-new  city,  fitted  to  arrest  the 
gaze  and  to  set  the  mind  a-thinking,  there  are  two 
which  stand  out  now  in  startling  contrast.  They  are 
symbols  of  two  antagonistic  forces,  whose  conflict  has 
been  from  of  old.  They  rise  on  opposite  sides  of  the 
river;  and  the  stream  of  Time,  turbid  with  its  move- 
ment, flows  between.  The  one  symbol  is  the  palace 
of  the  King  of  a  free  people,  with,  not  far  away,  the 
significant  tokens  of  the  Parliamentary  Institutions 
and  popular  self-government  that  attend  upon  National 
order  and  liberties,  and  that  brook  dictation  from 
neither  priest  nor  Pope.  Near  to  it  on  one  hand  lie, 
in  the  valleys  and  on  the  heights,  the  ruins  of  ancient 
"  pagan"  Piome,  the  once  metropolis  of  the  world,  in 
their  massive  wonder  of  shattered  and  silent  strength. 
On  the  other  hand  and  in  far  circuit  spread  the  streets 
and  ways  of  the  Modern  City,  like  living  arteries 
through  which  throb  the  movement  and  energies  of  a 
nation's  life.  The  Christian  King,  Victor  Emmanuel's 
son  and  Garibaldi's  friend,  walks  in  the  garb  of  a 
simple  gentleman  along  the  Corso,  or  passes  in  his 
unpretentious  carriage,  with  no  pomp  of  attendant 
soldiery,  a  loyal  King  amid  a  loyal  and  enfranchised 
people.  Then,  away  opposite,  across  the  flow  of  the 
turbid  Tiber,  there  rises  on  the  view  the  other  Symbol 
— the  Symbol  of  the  dead  and  dying  Past.  It  is  a 
huge  dark  palace,  by  a  huge  dark  church,  reached  by 
the  slope  which  (as  a  brilliant  scholar  of  our  time 
says)  "the  bad  taste  of  the  seventeenth  century  has 
occupied  with  a  theatrical  arcade,"  known  as  the 
Piazza  of  St.  Peter.  Within  that  palace,  its  ajD^Droach 
guarded  by  rifle  and  bayonet,  the  aged  Pope  of  Piome, 
calling  himself  the  successor  of  Peter  the  fisherman 
of  Galilee,  and  infallible  Yicar  of  Christ,  frowns  from 


18  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  : 

his  sullen  seclusion  at  the  existence  of  the  Christian 
King  and  the  freedoms  of  the  new  Italy,  and  dreams 
of  a  restoration  of  the  "temporal  power  of  the  Papacy" 
over  Emperors  and  Peoples.  A  once  predecessor  of 
that  Pope  could  march  at  the  head  of  ruthless  armies 
with  sword  and  flame,  and  crush  his  adversaries,  or 
could  put  a  hostile  King  ''  under  the  ban,"  or  could 
keep  a  Kaiser  waiting  barefoot  and  in  sackcloth  in 
the  snow,  and  finally  could  plant  his  foot  on  that 
Kaiser's  prostrate  neck,  pretending  that  the  sub- 
mission was  "penitence."  In  a  later  century,  an 
Emperor  and  a  great  German  Diet  would  have  to 
denounce  "the  power  of  the  Pope  as  an  Enemy  of 
Peace,  and  his  interference  ...  as  the  act,  not 
of  a  Vicar  of  Christ,  but  of  a  cruel  and  lawless 
tyrant."*  But  now,  to-day,  a  Pope  writes  from  that 
Vatican  palace  impotent  encyclicals  to  a  Protestant 
and  amused  England,  consigning  that  sturdy  Puritan 
realm  as  "the  Dowry  of  Mary"  to  the  mercies  of 
St.  Peter  and  of  Mary  "the  Holy  Mother  of  God." 
Nor  can  "Peter's  Vicar,"  with  all  his  ban  and 
anathema,  scare  to-day  even  one  wretched  princelet 
of  Bulgaria  to  keep  himself  and  his  child  loyal  to  the 
Holy  Koman  Church,  and  to  the  "  See  of  Peter;"  not 
even  though  that  princelet' s  heir  be  descended  from 
the  blood  of  "most  Catholic  Kings."  The  day  for  a 
Pope's  banning  of  England's  Magna  Charta,  the  day 
for  Canossa,  or  for  the  threatenings  of  a  Council  of 
Trent  is  past.  To-day,  the  wholly  different  course 
needs  to  be  taken — it  is  needful  to  manipulate  dexter- 
ously the  ambiguous  term  "  primacy,"  and  to  strain 
out  of  their  natural  meaning  "  the  early  fathers,"  in 
order  to  get  plausible  apology  for  the  beginnings,  and 
rise,  and  development  of  a  Papacy  of  any  kind. 

Nevertheless,  to  that  city  of  Rome  the  perennial 
glamour  clings.     Not  for  its  Pope  and  Papacy,  but 

*  of.  Gibbon,  Meuzel,  Milmaii  Lat.  Christ.  Bk.  xii.,  &c. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  19 

for  what  is  older  and  more  abiding  than  its  Papacy, 
what  was  earher  than  its  Popes,  does  the  interest  of 
the  student  and  of  the  man  who  has  a  human  heart 
gather  round  Kome.  The  great  Pioman  PiepubHc — 
*'  The  parliament  of  Kings,  the  men  of  Rome" — whose 
genius  of  practical  state-craft  and  of  conquering  power 
culminated  in  the  Empire  of  the  Caesars,  worked  out 
into  actuality  the  splendid  dream  of  one  world-wide 
Eealm.  It  made  the  Christian  hope  of  a  brotherhood 
of  men  possible.  Though  slavery  weltered,  as  yet,  at 
that  great  pagan  Empire's  heart,  yet  the  justice  and 
civil  law  of  ancient  Kome,  abridged  and  arranged  later 
on  by  a  Christian  Emperor,  have  left  their  impress 
upon  the  jurisprudence  and  life  of  all  modern  nations.* 
But  to  the  Christian  thinker  the  city  of  Eome  has 
a  yet  deeper  interest.  It  was  by  Eome's  Procurator, 
and  by  violation  of  Eoman  law,  Christ  was  sent  to  the 
cross.  Eome  was  at  that  time  the  centre  and  capital 
of  the  civilised  world.  All  movements  of  men,  good 
and  bad,  gravitated  towards  Eome.  Early  Chris- 
tianity, which  always  sought  the  throng  of  men,  soon 
reached  to  the  Empire's  heart.  On  the  tide  of  traffic, 
which  swept  all  things  towards  the  great  Central  City 
of  the  West,  the  message  of  the  Gospel  in  Christ  w^as 
borne  to  Eome.  Wandering  Jews,  like  Aquila  and 
Priscilla,  passing  from  city  to  city  bartering  their 
wares,  carried  with  them  the  new  tidings  which  could 
give  Life  to  the  dying  world. 

Paul  in  Eome. 

The  new  faith  and  brotherhood  of  Christianity, 
beginning  at  Jerusalem,  soon  broke  beyond  the 
barriers  of  Judaea  and  of  Judaism.  It  made  itself 
felt  in  all  the  great  cities — in  Antioch  of  Syria,  in 
Thessalonica  of  Macedonia,  in  Corinth  of  Achaia,  in 
Ephesus  of  Asia,  in  Alexandria  of  Egypt,  in  Rome  of 

*  Prof.  Bryce — Art.  "Justinian,"  Encyc.  Brit. 


20  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  I 

Western  Europe.  Soon  the  great  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles.  Paul,  set  his  thought  on  Eomeas  the  world's 
centre  of  life  and  citizenship.  He  longed  to  come  to 
it,  to  carry  out  from  that  metropolis  the  evangehsa- 
tion  of  Western  Europe.  As  early  as  the  year  58  a.d. 
he  wrote  to  the  Christian  congregation  in  Eome  his 
greatest  epistle.  That  Church  was  already  in  vigorous 
existence.  No  Apostle  was  at  its  founding.  Three 
years  later  Paul  himself  reached  Eome  a  prisoner,  to 
be  tried  before  Nero,  the  Emperor.  Paul  was  the 
first  Apostle  who  set  foot  in  Eome.  There  was  no 
Peter  to  welcome  him  when  he  came.  Only  three 
years  later  the  first  terrible  persecution — the  persecu- 
tion of  the  year  64  a.d.  under  Nero — burst  out  against 
the  Christians.  It  made  Eome  to  be  "filled  with 
the  blood  of  the  Saints  and  of  the  martyrs  of 
Jesus."  To  the  early  Christian  imagination,  Eome, 
next  to  Jerusalem,  soon  came  to  have  most  tragic 
interest.  It  was  at  once  the  forceful  centre  of 
the  world's  life,  and  glorified  by  the  memories  of 
faith's  heroism  and  martyrdom.  Paul  himself,  the 
great  Apostle-prisoner — even  if  set  free  from  his  first 
imprisonment — certainly  perished  in  Eome,  under 
Nero's  axe  or  sword.  Eor  the  moment,  the  Christian 
"  congregation"  at  Eome  was  swept  away.  When  it 
again  began  to  gather  back  into  Eome,  the  memory  of 
"  the  blood  of  the  martyrs"  was  a  quickening  impulse 
to  a  swiftly-growing  Christian  community. 

The  Faith  of  the  Early  Church  at  Eome. 

But  that  was  not  the  Church  of  Popes,  or  of  priests, 
or  of  prelates,  or  of  altars,  or  of  outer  ceremonial.  It 
was  the  congregation  of  Jesus,  the  gathering  together 
of  men  and  women  in  a  living  faith,  which  found 
the  heart,  and  then  from  the  changed  heart,  in  its 
inner  trust  in  Christ,  changed  the  life — making  its 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  21 

spirit  and  conduct  Christ-like.  The  faith  and  practice 
of  the  Early  Church  of  Eome  in  the  Apostles'  day  we 
find  quite  clearly  set  out  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to 
Eome,  and  in  his  Epistles  written  to  other  churches 
from  Eome.     Here  is  that  faith  : — 

"We  are  justified  freely  by  His  (God's)  Grace,  through  the 
redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus,  whom  God  set  forth  to  be  a 
Mercy  seat  (or  Propitiation),  through  faith  by  His  blood  to  show 
His  righteousness  .  .  .  that  God  might  be  Just  and  the 
Justilier  of  him  that  hath  faith  in  Jesus."     (Rom.  iii.  24-26). 

In  that  one  sacrifice  and  righteousness  of  Christ  for 
us,  the  Apostle  says,  all  other  priestl^nnediationis  ended 
and  done  away.  Here  is  the  only  priestly  "  service  and 
practice"  which  still  continues  in  the  Church  of  God  : — 

"I  beseech  you,  therefore,  brethren,  through  the  mercies  of 
God  that  ye  present  your  bodies  a  liviufj  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable 
to  God,  which  is  your  reasonable  (rational  or  spiritual)  service 
(latreia,  ministration  of  worship),"     (Rom.  xii.*) 

And  here,  according  to  St.  Paul,  is  the  inner  motive 
and  state  of  heart  which  constitutes  men  members  of 
the  Kingdom  and  Church  of  God,  and  renders  their 
prayer  and  gratitude  and  purity  of  life  tJic  only  true 
priestly  "  service"  which  (jod  will  accept: — 

"As  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  these  are  Sons  of 
God."     (Rom.  viii.  14-15.) 

In  all  the  w^ritings  of  Paul,  to  Eome  and  from 
Eome,  there  is  not  a  trace  of  what  is  now  known  to 
the  w^orld  as  "  Eoman  Catholicism."  The  two  are  in 
direct  antagonism — Paul  and  "Eome."  There  is 
nothing  more  tragic  in  history  than  this  fact,  which  a 
study  of  the  New  Testament  makes  certain,  that  the 
thing  Eoman  Catholic  ecclesiastics  hate  with  a  fierce 
hatred,  and  which  they  condemn  as  "Protestantism," 

•  A  service  to  God  such  as  befits  the  reason,  as  contrasted  with 
dumb  and  dead  Jewish  or  heathen  sacrifices,  or  ritual  ceremonial. 
— Prof.  Sanday,  Lightfoot,  Meyer,  Thayer's  Grimm,  &c. 


2-2  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  I 

is  just  the  thing  set  forth  in  St.  Paul's  letter  to  the 
Romans  as  the  Gospel  that  saves  men.  Very  strik- 
ingly does  even  M.  Kenan,  a  brilhant  modern  scholar, 
educated  for  the  Roman  Catholic  priesthood,  but  re- 
coiling from  it  into  scepticism,  confess  that  the 
Roman  Church  afterwards  ''arrived  at  ideas  which 
iuonld  have  revolted  Paul.''  More  strikingly  still  does 
he  speak  of  that  characteristic  feature  which  has 
marked  the  history  of  the  Roman  Church,  the  "ascetic 
and  sacerdotal  character  opposed  to  tUe  Protestant 
tendency  of  Paid.'"  Penetrated  with  the  "political 
and  hierarchial  spirit  of  old  Rome,"  the  old  Rome  of 
the  Pagan  Empire,  "  the  city  of  the  pontificate,  of  a 
hieratic  and  solemn  religion,  of  material  sacraments 
alone  sufficient  for  justification'' — in  vain  Paul  speaks 
to  her! 

"In  vain  will  Paul  address  to  her  his  noble  Epistle,  expound- 
ing the  mystery  of  the  Cross  of  Christ,  and  Salvation  by  faith 
alone.  She  will  hardly  understand  it.  But  Luther,  fourteen 
centuries  and  a-half  later,  will  understand  it."* 

I  have  quoted  these  words  from  Renan,  whose 
faith  in  Christ  Rome's  training  killed,  because  Arch- 
bishop Carr  has,  as  we  shall  see,  appealed  in  singular 
fashion  to  him  as  "  testimony"  for  the  ancientness 
and  solidity  of  the  Roman  claim ;  and  because,  also, 
the  words  themselves,  in  their  truth  and  exactitude 
have,  as  coming  from  a  man  like  Renan  who  knew 
Roman  Catholicism  from  the  inside,  a  touching  and 
tragic  impressiveness. 

In  Rome,  the  material  capital  of  the  ancient  world, 
the  centre  of  forceful  authority,  the  embodiment  of 
the  fusion  of  imperial  and  priestly  rule,  the  city  where 
the  Pagan  Emperor  was  also  Pontifex  Maximus  (Chief 
Pontiff),  the  Christian  faith  and  Church  soon  became 
a  politico-religious  force,  all  unlike  in  spirit  and  aims 

*  Kenan's  Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  60.      Consult  also  pp.  59-172,  etpassim. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  28 

to  what  Christ  had  proclaimed  as  the  spirit  and 
method  of  His  Kingdom.  Not  one  of  the  martyrs, 
who  died  in  the  flames  of  Nero's  gardens  in  Kome  in 
the  year  64  a.d.  (could  they  revisit  om*  earth  to-day), 
would  be  able  to  recognise  in  the  externalism  of  this 
Roman  Catholic  liierarch}^  doctrine,  and  worship — in 
the  "  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,"  the  compulsory  confes- 
sional, the  images,  the  mariolatry,  the  indulgences, 
the  purgatory,  the  claim  made  for  a  sinful  man  of 
infallibility  as  Christ's  Vicar  on  earth — any  resem- 
blance to  the  faith  for  which  those  early  martyrs 
died,  or  to  the  simple  forms  of  worship  in  which  that 
faith  expressed  its  aspiration  and  its  "  service." 

"  Made  Void  by  Tradition." 

And  yet  here  is  a  tragic  thing !  Away  in,  under- 
neath all  that  external  growth  of  priestly  invention 
and  of  ecclesiastical  state-craft,  there  lies,  hidden  out 
of  view  of  the  people,  that  truth  of  the  Divine  love 
and  of  a  redeeming  and  living  Christ,  which  could 
save  and  regenerate  the  nations,  were  it  not  "  made 
void  by  traditions  of  men,"  and  by  unwholesome 
legends  of  "  saints."  The  noblest  hymns  of  both  the 
Greek  Catholic  and  the  Eoman  Catholic  Churches, 
those  which  express  the  Christian  heart's  devotion  at 
its  highest,  are  singularly  free  from  any  of  those 
accretions  either  of  doctrine  or  worship  which 
form  the  characteristic  substance  of  "Catholicism," 
whether  Greek  or  Roman.  Eminent  men  of  our 
time  have  pointed  out  this  great  fact.  What  the 
Reformers  brought  to  light  again,  and  vindicated 
for  God's  modern  Church,  was  what  had  lain  at 
heart  of  the  purest  and  greatest  souls  of  the  con- 
gregation of  Christ  in  all  the  ages.  This  is  the 
"unity  and  continuity  of  the  Church" — the  life  of 
Christ  in  man.     It  is  not  the  things  for  which  Arch- 

c  2 


24  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD: 

bishop  Can-  contends,  or  for  which  Anglo-Catholics 
contend,  that  the  great  illumined  souls  of  all  the 
Christian  ages  and  Churches  have  vibrated  to,  and 
liave  uttered  into  undying  beauty  of  devotional  song 
and  gratitude.  It  is  the  Evangelic,  the  Protestant 
heart  of  the  Faith,  that  speaks  in  the  greatest  hymns 
even  of  Eoman  Catholic  singers.  Not  Peter's  primacy, 
nor  any  priestly  claim,  nor  any  "  sacrifice  of  the 
Mass,"  nor  Mary's  intercession,  nor  "  saints'  merits" 
voice  themselves  there,  but  the  soul's  direct  living 
trust  in  God's  fatherly  mercy,  and  in  Christ's  re- 
deeming love  and  High  Priesthood,  and  in  the  in- 
dwelling of  His  Spirit  within  the  hearts  of  believing 
men.  The  great  Pieformers  re-discovered  this  central 
and  life-giving  truth  of  Christianity.  They  lifted  it 
up  again  before  men's  gaze,  bidding  them  come  in 
their  need  and  sin  and  penitence  direct  to  Christ  him- 
self. And  they  made  thus  the  modern  world  and  the 
people's  freedoms.  They  brought  back  into  our  life 
the  faith  and  the  Gospel  which  the  Apostles  preached, 
and  for  which  the  early  martyrs  in  Eome  died. 

The  Eeason  foe  these  Lectures. 

Eeligious  controversy  is  personally  distasteful  to 
me.  Unless  absolutely  necessary  it  should  be  avoided. 
It  frets  awa}^  time :  and  time  with  some  of  us  is  toil- 
some and  precious.  It  is  mere  folly,  however,  to  say 
that  "  controversy  is  always  injurious."  History 
gives  that  assertion  splendid  disproof.  Controversy, 
when  waged  by  true-hearted  men,  with  rightful 
weapons  of  truth  and  argument,  and  for  worthy 
causes,  has  been  fruitful  of  great  results.  Every 
great  epoch,  religious,  scientific,  or  political,  has  been 
an  epoch  of  controversy.  The  Eeformation  day,  the 
Puritan  day,  the  day  of  Wesley's  and  Whitefield's 
rousing  of  England  into  new  spiritual  life,  the  day  of 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  .25 

modern  missionary  outburst  and  self-sacrifice — all 
these  have  been  days  in  which  men  of  strong  intellect 
and  spiritual  elevation  strove  together  for  the  faith  of 
the  Gospel,  and  for  the  good  of  the  peoples.  Let  the 
heat  of  the  conflict's  temper  be  avoided;  let  the 
conflict  itself  be  waged !  For  what  is  at  stake  is 
truth.  The  indifferent  souls  will  grow  eager  and 
vehement  at  least  when  the  question  is  a  disputed 
"legacy"  or  "a  boom  in  stocks!"  They,  too,  will 
"contend"  when  the  question  is  about  the  things  of 
the  pocket  and  the  till,  "the  things  of  self."  Christ's 
own  ministry  was  often  "a  controversy,"  weary  and 
hazardous — Paul's  too,  and  even  Peter's.  He  with- 
stood the  Judaeizers  at  Jerusalem.  Paul  withstood 
Mm  at  Antioch ! 

Yet  I  dislike  controversy.  It  is,  for  the  most  part, 
the  love  and  the  life  and  the  character  of  churches 
and  of  men  that  tell  on  the  world,  rather  than 
argument.  Also,  there  are  good  and  there  are  bad 
in  the  best  and  in  the  worst  churches.  To  myself, 
especially,  argument  with  Eoman  Catholics  is  dis- 
agreeable, because  of  kindly  memories  which  lie  in 
the' [background  of  my  life.  Till  now  I  have  never 
publicly  taken  part,  in  pulpit  or  on  platform,  in  such 
controversy. 

The  New  Eomanist  Propaganda. 

Of  late,  however,  under  the  regime  of  Cardinal 
Moran  in  Sydney  and  of  Archbishop  Carr  in  Melbourne, 
the  peaceful  manner  of  the  late  Archbishop  Goold 
seems  to  have  been  deliberately  abandoned.  There 
seems  like  a  trumpet-blast  along  the  whole  Eomanist 
line.  Of  late  Archbishop  Carr  has  persistently 
launched  forth,  not  only  against  his  "Anglican" 
antagonists,  but  against  the  positions  common  to  all 
Protestant   Churches,  not  excepting  "  the  Protestant 


26  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD: 

Bible"  from  his  attacks.  He  has  also  implicitly 
assailed  myself,  though  I  had,  in  word  or  act,  given 
him  no  ground  for  reasonable  annoyance.  My  sin 
apparently  was  that  I  attended  a  "  British  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society"  meeting.*  Archbishop  Carr  has  further, 
in  recent  courses  of  lectures,  made  for  his  own  Church 
(which  is  at  best  but  a  section  of  Christendom,  and 
never  was,  even  in  its  most  potent  days,  aught  but  an 
organisation  in  Western  Europe)  such  sweeping 
claims  that  all  of  us  should  be  unchurched  and 
un-Christed  did  we  assent  to  those  truculent  demands. 
In  presence  of  such  claims,  all  who  care  for  the 
spiritual  heritage  of  Christendom  find  their  judgment 
and  common  sense  challenged.  And  all  who  prize  the 
accuracy  of  historic  facts  must  feel  revolted  by  the 
strange  assertions,  and  the  equally  strange  "quota- 
tions," by  which  Archbishop  Carr  has  sought  to 
buttress  his  positions.  When,  therefore,  I  was  urged 
from  various  quarters  to  speak  on  this  subject,  I  could 
no  longer  refuse. 

The  Eoman  Claim. 

Bellarmine,  the  authoritative  Eoman  Catholic 
theologian,  defines  the  true  Catholic  Church  as  con- 
sisting of  all  those,  and  of  those  only,  who  (1)  profess 
the  true  faith,  (2)  partake  of  the  true  sacraments,  and 
(3)  subject  themselves  to  the  rule  of  the  Pope  of  Kome 
as  head  of  the  Church  ''even  though  they  may  be 
false,  wicked,  and  impious"  {ctiamsi  rcprohl  scelesti  et 
impii  sint).  This  definition  of  the  "Holy,  Catholic, 
Apostolic,  and  Eoman  Church"  obliterates  the  divine 
distinction  between  the  Church  visible  and  the  Church 
invisible  and  spiritual,  and  makes  the  Church  and 
Kingdom  of  Christ  as  external,  "visible,  and  palpable" 
as  is  "the  Kingdom  of  France  or  the  Eepublic  [of  the 

*  See  his  lectures  on  "  The  Church  and  the  Bible." 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  27 

Venetians."*  It  excludes  out  of  God's  Church,  and 
out  of  the  pale  of  salvation,  not  only  all  the  Reformation 
Churches  and  all  Protestant  peoples,  but  also  the 
whole  Greek  or  Eastern  Catholic  Church.  For  the 
Eastern  Catholic  Church,  though  holding  substantially 
the  same  faith  as  the  Roman  communion,  and  ob- 
serving "the  seven  sacraments,"  rejects  the  supremacy 
and  authority  of  the  Pope,  and  denies  him  to  be  the 
successor  of  Peter,  declaring  that  ^^  Peter's  apostolic 
activitij  in  Rome  is  unknown  to  history."  f  The  Romish 
definition  of  the  Church  thus  seeks  to  exclude  out  of  the 
pale  of  the  Church  of  God,  roughly  speaking,  the  half 
of  Christendom,  with  the  majority  of  its  most  en- 
lightened nations.  We  shall  see,  in  our  fourth  lecture, 
that  Leo  I.,  "the  father  of  the  Papacy,"  took  the  same 
dreadful  view  in  the  fifth  century,  consigning  to  hell 
those  who  do  not  assent  to  the  primacy  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome. 

Archbishop  Carr,  in  his  recent  Lectures,  takes  the 
same  ground.     He  says  : — 

"Catholics  then  maintain  (1)  that  St.  Peter  was  invested  by 
Christ  with  supreme  authority  over  His  church  ;  (2)  that  St. 
Peter  finally  fixed  his  see  in  Rome  ;  (3)  that  the  Roman  Pontifis 
are  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  in  the  see  of  Rome." 

He  boldly  declares  that  this  "primacy"  does  not  mean 
any  mere  primacy  of  honour — "  a  first  amongst  his 
equals" — but  an  absolute  "supremacy,"  a  "supreme 
authority" — "authority  to  teach,  to  rule,  and  to 
correct."  Further,  "the  limits  of  that  authority  are 
as  wide  as  the  Church  of  Christ  upon  earth."  He 
further  quotes  and  affirms  the  words  of  the  Canon  of 
the  Vatican  Council — words  which,  in  common  with 
the  whole  dogma  of  "  infallibility,"  must,  to  the  Pro- 


*  De  Cone,  et  Ecc,  lib.  ill.,  cap.  2. 

t  See  Declaration  of  the  Greek  Catholic  (or  Orthodox)  Bishops 
in  Replj^  to  the  Pope's  Encyclical  (1895). 


28  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD: 

testant  reason  and  conscience,  in  the  light  of  the  New 
Testament  Gospel,  sound  as  a  foolish  blasphemy : — 

"If  anyone  say  .  .  .  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is  nob  the 
successor  of  Blessed  Peter  in  the  same  primacy  lei  him  be 
anathema." 

This  is  a  large  claim  !     If  it  had  power,  it  would  be 
a  ferocious  claim.     And,  as  I  and  all  of  us  utterly 
reject  it,  we  must  run  the  gauntlet  of  that  now  futile 
"anathema."     To  all  those  three  huge  propositions 
of  ArchbishoiD  Carr,  and  of  his  church,  we  answer  that 
the  facts  of  history  and  of  Scripture  comj^el  us  to 
reject  them  as  without  basis  in  truth,  and  as  essentially 
foolish  in  substance.      Christ  did  not  invest  St.  Peter 
with  any  "  supreme  authority  over  His  church."  Both 
Peter  himself  and  Paul  declare  just  the  opposite.     St. 
Peter  had  never  any  "  see"  in  Kome,  probably  never 
was  in  Eome,  or  in  Europe  anywhere.    And  the  Eoman 
Pontiffs  are  in  no  way  "  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  in 
the  see  of  Eome."     They  are,  as  a  matter  of  historic 
fact,  the  successors  of  a  long  line  of  despotic  priestly 
politicians,  many  of  whom  were  amongst  the  worst 
figures  in  human  history.* 

Archbishop  Carr's  "  Proofs"  and  "  Testimony." 

In  support  of  his  three  propositions  one  naturally 
asks  what  j^'^'oof  does  Archbishop  Carr  give?  On 
examination  of  his  Lectures,  we  find  that  the  ''quota- 
tions" he  gives  are  many,  but  the  proofs  are  sadly 
few.  The  attempts  at  "proof"  are  amusingly  irrelevant. 
Archbishop  Carr's  method  of  argument  must,  to  any 
one  accustomed  to  the  laws  of  evidence,  seem  extremely 
odd.  But  it  is  the  method  of  "Eoman  Catholic 
controversy"  to  pile  together  a  great  number  of 
names  and  of  "quotations"  from  various  "Protestant" 


*  of.  Gibbon,  Milman,  Menzel,  Hallam,  &c.;  even  frank  Roman 
Catholic  writers  abundantly  confess  to  this. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  29 

writers,  and  to  read  these  out  one  after  the  other,  torn 
from  their  context,  and  irrespective  of  age,  or  century, 
or  vakie,  as  if  this  in   some  way  strengthened   the 
Archbishop's   propositions.      Archbishop  Carr's   first 
two  lectures,  for  example  (if  we  except  their  references 
to  two  "fathers,"  Clement  and  Irenaeus),  are  taken 
up  almost  wholly  with  the  "padding"  of  fragmentary 
passages,  forming  what  he  is  pleased  to  term  "exclu- 
sively  Protestant    testimony."      When    one    asks — 
"testimony"  in  favour  of  what?  and  when  one  begins 
to  examine  the  so-called  "testimony"  itself,  the  result 
is    like   Eosalind's    chin — "indifferently   furnished." 
Most  of  the  names  quoted  are  either  (1)  so  antiquated 
that  they  have  no  weight  in  our  modern  day  of  exact 
historic  criticism;    or  (2)  the  "quotations"  attached 
to  the  names  have  no  relevance  to  the  positions  Arch- 
bishop Carr  is  trying  to  establish,  but  rather  support 
the  contrary;  or  (3)  the  professed  "quotations"  them- 
selves are  so  completely  torn  away  from  their  original 
■context,  or  are  so  mutilated  and  altered  in  their  inner 
substance  that  they  convey  to  the  general  hearer  or 
reader  almost  the  opposite  of  the  original  meaning. 
Some  of  these  instances  are  very  venturesome  and 
astonishing.      [For  Archbishop  Carr's  "  quotations" 
and   "  Protestant   testimony"   see   Appendix   I.]      If 
wit    be    "  the    juxta-position    of   the    incongruous," 
then  the  topsy-turvy  array  of  undated  and  obsolete 
names  adduced  by  Dr.  Carr's  "testimony"  is  wit  of 
a   brilliant    quality!      When   Archbishop    Carr  does 
condescend    upon    a    few    modern    names,    of    com- 
manding  importance    in    the    historic    investigation 
of  these  subjects,  such  as  Lightfoot,  or  Lipsius,  or 
Harnack,  or  Eenan,  or  when  he  appeals  to  an  influen- 
tial modern  writer  like  Farrar,  not  one  of  those  men 
<;an  be  got  to  say  any  of  the  three  things — the  three 
propositions — which  Archbishop  Carr's  lectures  took 
in    hand    to    establish.      Three    of    those    scholars, 


30  THE    ROMAN    CLAIIM    AND    METHOD  I 

viz.,  Lightfoot,  Eenan,  and  Farrar,  express  the 
opinion  that  Peter  probably  visited  Eome  for  a  few 
months  at  the  time  of  Nero's  persecution  and  died 
there.  Lipsius,  as  we  shall  see,  declares,  on  the 
strongest  ground  of  historical  fact,  that  Peter  never 
was  in  Eome  at  all.  Harnack,  as  we  shall  see, 
suspends  his  judgment.  But  all  of  them,  with  one 
voice,  reject  as  impossible  the  entire  chronological 
theory  on  which  the  "Eoman  claim"  rests.  They 
resject  utterly  what  Archbishop  Carr  asserts,  viz.,  that 
Peter  "founded  the  Church  in  that  City  of  Eome;" 
or  that  at  any  time  "  St.  Peter  was  invested  b}^  Christ 
with  supreme  authority  over  his  Church." 

Mutilation  and  Misquotation. 

During  the  perusal  of  Archbishop  Carr's  lectures  I 
have  been  persistently  forced  to  ask  myself  two  ques- 
tions— (1)  Has  he  really  read  the  books  from  which 
he  professes  to  quote,  so  as  to  know  the  context  of 
the  passages  "quoted?"  Or  (2)  is  not  the  kindlier 
explanation  the  true  one,  viz.,  that  the  Archbishop  is 
culling  from  the  various  "Hand-books"  of  "Catholic 
Controversy"  written  in  defence  of  the  Cathedra  Petri^ 
the  characteristic  "quotations"  which  form  the  sub- 
stance of  all  of  them,  without  having  the  opportunity 
to  compare  them  with  the  original?  This  latter 
explanation  has  seemed  to  me  both  the  more  gentle 
and  the  more  feasible.  [The  methods  of  "  quotation" 
adopted  in  Eoman  Catholic  Controversy  Canon  Bright, 
of  Oxford,  has  recentty  hit  off  by  the  striking  phrase 
"to  Vatkanise'  history.  "Loyalty  to  Eome,"  says 
he,  "will  determine  how  much  of  a  passage  or  a 
sentence  should  be  quoted  in  the  text."*] 

*  The  Roman  See,  p.  212.  This  has  been  read  by  me  since  the 
delivery  of  my  lectures. 


peter  and  the  rock.  31 

The  Eomanist  Method  of  Advocacy. 

I  am  exceedingly  sorry  to  have  to  refer  to  this 
peculiarity  of  Eoman  Catholic  Advocacy.  I  will  take 
at  present  only  a  few  of  the  startling  instances  in 
Archbishop  Carr's  Lectures.  I  feel  the  more  free  to 
speak  of  it  because,  in  connection  with  one  amazing 
"quotation"  purporting  to  represent  Bishop  Light- 
foot's  statement  regarding  L-enaeus  and  the  early 
"lists"  of  bishops  of  Rome,  Archbishop  Carr  does 
much  more  than  simply  make  Lightfoot  appear  as 
saying  the  opposite  of  what  he  meant  to  say.  To 
render  the  thing  more  impressive  he  eulogises  Light- 
foot  at  the  expense  of  Professor  Salmon,  of  Dublin, 
and  the  Rev.  F.  Puller  and  other  "Anglican  contro- 
versialists," and  actually  accuses  the  latter  of  "down- 
right dishonesty,"  both  a  " suggestio  falsi' '  and  a 
'^ suppressio  vert,''  and  of  a  deliberate  ignoring  of  the 
facts !  It  is  very  bad,  all  this.  And  I  can  account 
for  it  only  on  the  supposition  that  Archbishop  Carr 
had  not  Lightfoot  in  his  hands,  but  took  the  repre- 
sentation of  his  statement  on  the  authority  of  others. 

Professor  Salmon's  name,  I  need  scarcely  say,  is 
(and  will  always  be)  a  word  of  honour  and  renown  to 
Dublin's  great  University,  and  to  its  Schools  of  Clas- 
sical, of  Mathematical,  and  of  New  Testament  learning, 
with  which  its  fame  is  inseparably  associated,  and  in 
all  of  which  his  singular  ability  has  been  jDroven.  He 
is  not  only  of  world-wide  reputation  as  an  expert  in 
these  questions  which  lie  close  to  his  special  chair  of 
New  Testament  teaching,  but  he  is  trusted  for  his 
unswervingly  fair,  and  judicial  temper.  In  many 
matters  I  do  not  agree  with  Professor  Salmon.  But 
all  of  us,  in  all  Churches,  who  are  special  students  of 
Biblical  and  Early  Christian  learning,  owe  to  him  a 
debt  of  reverence.  That  Archbishop  Carr  could  per- 
mit himself  to  apply  such  epithets  to  such  a  man,  and 


32  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD: 

at  a  time  when  he  himself  is  just  about  to  misquote 
and  misrepresent  another  pre-eminent  scholar,  viz. 
Bishop  Lightfoot,  only  shows  that  the  Eoman  Catholic 
Claim,  at  these  crucial  points  of  Early  Christian  his- 
ory,  is  anything  but  strong.* 


[ 


Dr.  Carr  on  Lightfoot  and  Irenaeus. 


I  will  put  in  parallel  columns  what  Archbishop  Carr 
asserts  Lightfoot  says  about  Irenaeus'  ''list"  of  the 

early  Koman   "bishops,"  and  what    Lightfoot    says 
himself. 

A.  B. 

Carr  on  Lightfoot.  Lightfoot  Himself. 

"I  cannot  pass  from  these  "It  will  thus  be  seen  that 

lists  of  the  first  Popes  without  Irenaeus,      in      the      passage 

23rotesting   against   the    down-  quoted,  separates  the  Apostolic 

right   dishonesty  of    Anglican  fouiulers  of  the  Roman  Church 

controversialists,   such  as   Sal-  from  the  bishops,  and  begins  the 

nion  and  Puller,   who  delibe-  nnmher'DUf   of   the   latter    vrith 

rately  ignore  the  character  of  Linus.    Accordingly,  elseAvhere 

the  list  of  St.  Hegesippus  and  (iii.  4-3),  he  describes  Anicetus 

the  twofold  enumeration  of  St.  as  the  tenth  bishop  ;  but  in  two 

Irenaeus.       Such  a   suptpressio  other  places  (H(er.  i.  27  I,  iii. 

veri   is   more  than  a  stiggestio  4-3),    speaking  of   Cerdon,    he 

falsi.     Amongst  Anglican  wri-  says  that  this  heretic  appeared 

ters,  however.  Bishop  Lightfoot  in  Rome  in  the  time  of  Hyginus, 

is  a  remarkable  exception,  and  whom     he    describes    as     the 


*  The  passages  which  follow,  down  to  the  M^ords  "The  above 
instances,"  on  page  39,  and  included  in  square  brackets,  were  not 
spoken  in  full  when  this  lecture  was  delivered.  The  matters  dealt 
with  need  the  eijc  to  discern  clearly  the  details  of  the  misquotations 
here  censured.  The  general  facts  of  the  misrepresentation  regard- 
ing Lightfoot,  Irenaeus,  Ignatius,  and  Cyprian,  were  simply  stated 
rapidly.  Then  I  passed  on  to  take  in  detail  one  only  of  Dr.  Carr's 
"  quotations,"  viz.,  that  from  Renan,  "as  a  sample  of  alU'  In  view 
of  the  additional  matter  introduced  into  the  Archbishop's  published 
Lectures,  with  the  additional  amazing  "quotations  "  there,  I  deem 
it  better  to  set  these  passages  in  their  proper  place  in  the  text  of  my 
lecture.  The  "  quotations  "  have  been  compared  in  each  case  with 
the  published  form  in  Dr.  Carr's  lectures. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK. 


33 


'  ninth '  in  the  episcopal  suc- 
cession from  the  Apostles,  'the 
ninth  bishop. '  Here,  therefore, 
if  the  readinys  he  correct,  either 
the  Apostolic  founder  or  foun- 
ders must  have  been  included 
in  the  enumeration,  so  that 
Linus  would  be  the  second 
bishop,  or  tliere  tnnst  be  some 
accidental  tripimig  i)v  the  num- 
ber."—  Lightfoot,  Clement  of 
Jiome,  vol.  i.,  p.  204. 


I  gladly  acknowledge  the  fact. 
Thougli  his  conclusions  are 
sometimes  in  strange  conflict 
with  his  premises,  still  he  never 
suppresses  any  important  fact 
connected  with  his  subject. 
For  instance,  lie  admits  that 
all  author  Hies  '"''  are  agreed  as  to 
the  authetdicitij  of  St.  Irenaeus 
enumeration  of  the  Bishops  of 
Home,  which  includes  St.  Feter; 
and  he  admits,  also,  that  there 
coidd  be  no  accidental  triijpimj," 
because  St.  Irenaeus  gives  the 
enumeration  in  the  very  next 
chapter  to  that  in  which  he  had 
given  the  list  of  the  successors 
of  the  Apostles  in  the  see  of 
Rome.  But /or  qco  other  reason, 
apparently,  than  that  such  an 
enumenition  does  tiot  liarmonise 
with  his  oiun  theory,  he  (Light- 
foot)  coolly  says  that  he  believes 
St.  Irenaeus  was  mistaken." — 
(Lect.  v.,  p.  169-170). 

In  a  footnote  Lightfoot  points  out  that,  as  to  "the 
two  places"  in  which  Irenaeus  seems  to  contradict  his 
own  Hst,  beginning  as  it  does  with  Linus,  and  exclud- 
ing Peter  and  Paul,  there  is  a  confusion  of  the  text — 

"In  the  flrst  passage  (i.,  27,  I.)  the  text  of  the  old  Latin 
translation  has  nonum  (ninth),  and  this  reading  is  confirmed  by 
Cyprian  and  Eusebius,  as  well  as  by  Epiphanius.  Here,  then, 
all  the  authorities  are  agreed.  In  the  second  passage  (iii.,  4,  3) 
the  Greek  is  preserved  only  in  Eusebius,  who  has  enatos  (ninth) 
but  the  Latin  translation  of  Irenaeus  lias  octa,vus  (eighth).  I 
am,  disposed  to  think  that  in  both  passages— in  the  latter  cer- 
tainly—  the  '  nintJb'  tvas  a  later  emendation,  so  as  to  include 
the  Episcopate  of  Peter.  "'^ 

At  the  risk  of  weariness,  I  have  been  at  pains  to  set 
out   this  matter  in  full.     It  illustrates  the  value  of 


*  In  the  above  passages  I  have  put  the  emphatic  sentences  in 
italics. 


34         THE  ROMAN  CLAIM  AND  METHOD  : 

Archbishop  Carr's  charges  against  Salmon  and  other 
Protestant  scholars,  and  the  worth  to  be  attached  to 
his  "  quotations"  throughout.  Just  let  us  look  at 
this  one  instance  for  a  moment.  He  asserts  that, 
according  to  Lightfoot,  ''  all  authorities  are  agreed 
as  to  the  authenticity  of  St.  Irenaeus'  enumeration  of 
the  Bishops  of  Kome,  which  includes  St.  Peter.''  But 
what  Lightfoot  says  is  that  Irenaeus'  list  excludes 
"■  the  Apostolic  founders,'"  that  is,  both  Peter  and  Paul, 
and  "  hegins  with  Linus-,'"  and  that  in  another  passage 
of  Irenaeus  {Haer.,  i,  27,  I)  there  is  a  reading  describ- 
ing Hyginus  as  nintJt  bishop,  and  this  word  7iinth  is 
confirmed  by  the  later  ''fathers,"  Cyprian,  Eusebius, 
and  Epiphanius  ("  all"  the  authorities"  as  to  these 
singular  Irenaean  "lists"  of  early  Eoman  bishops). 
I  will  here  turn  to  Irenaeus,  and  quote  the  passage  : — 

"  Cerdon  was  one  who  took  his  system  from  the  followers 
of  Simon  (Magus),  and  came  to  live  at  Rome  in  the  time  of 
Hyginus,  who  held  the  ninth  place  in  the  Episcopal  succession 
from  the  Apostles  down." — (Iren.  Haer.  I.,  27,  i.) 

It  does  not  say  a  word  about  Peter,  or  his  inclusion  in 
the  list  of  bishops.  And  Lightfoot,  further,  points 
out  that  the  word  "  ninth''  must  be  a  mistake,  because 
in  the  other  passage  the  Latin  text  of  Irenaeus  calls 
Hyginus  the  eighth,  thus  showing  that  Peter  was 
not  counted  "  bishop"  of  Eome. 

Then,  further.  Archbishop  Carr  actually  asserts 
that  Lightfoot  "  admits  there  could  be  no  accidental 
tripping."  But  what  Lightfoot  says  is — ''  or  there 
must  he  some  accidental  tripping."  Again,  Arch- 
bishop Carr  asserts — "Lightfoot  coolly  says  that  he 
believes  St.  Irenaeus  was  mistaken,"  and  "for  no 
other  reason  than  that  such  an  enumeration  does  not 
harmonise  with  his  own  theory."  But,  as  an  actual 
fact,  Lightfoot  says — and  his  reason  is  solid  grounds  of 
textual  criticism — that  the  text  of  Irenaeus  has  been 


PETER    AND    THE    llOCK.  35 

tampered    with    or  emended   ''so   as    to  include  the 
episcopate  of  Peter." 

[Note. — In  The  Roman  See  and  The  Papacy,  by  Prof.  Bright,  of 
Oxford,  received  since  the  above  was  written,  it  is  funny  to  find 
that  in  his  conflict  with  the  Rev.  Luke  Kivington,  that  Anglo- 
Catholic  convert  to  Romanism,  and  author  of  The  Primitive  Church 
and  the  See  of  St.  Peter,  he  has  had  to  deal  with  this  same  sort  of 
"  representation"  regarding  the  "  list"  of  Irenaeus.  He  says  that 
the  language  of  Irenaeus,  who  calls  both  Paul  and  Peter  "founders," 
shows  that  neither  was  ever  counted  Bishop  of  Rome.  "  The 
phrase  '  from  the  Apostles'  excludes  either  Apostle  from  the  Epis- 
copal list.  .  .  .  The  Latin  version  of  Irenaeus  reads  '  eighth' 
in  the  second  passage  ;  and  Stieren  considers  that  it  originally  read 
'eighth'  in  the  first  passage  also"  (Bright,  pp.  10,  11.)  The  manes 
of  Prof.  Salmon  ought  to  feel  avenged.  It  is  interesting  also  to 
learn  from  Bright  that  not  only,  as  we  already  knew,  does  Salmon 
think  that  "  Peter's  Roman  Episcopate"  was  first  invented  by  "an 
editor  of  the  Clementine  Romance,"  but  our  own  Bishop  Moor- 
house,  now  of  Manchester,  has  been  in  the  fray  too,  and  thinks 
"  the  Clementine  fiction"  has  played  odd  tricks  with  the  original 
history  of  the  Roman  Church.  Of  that  fiction  I  have  spoken 
lower  down.] 

Dr.  Carr  on  Lightfoot  and  Harnack  as  to  Ignatius. 

Another  illustration  of  the  daring  method  pursued 
by  Koman  Catholic  advocates,  in  dealing  with  historic 
facts  and  Protestant  scholars  in  relation  to  those  facts, 
is  seen  in  Archbishop  Carr's  description  of  Ignatius' 
letter  to  Kome  in  the  second  century,  and  Bishop 
Lightfoot's  statement  regarding  it.  As  all  candid  and 
competent  scholars  now  agree,  the  remarkable  thing 
in  connection  with  the  letter  of  Ignatius  to  the  Eoman 
''Church,"  or  congregation,  in  the  second  century,  is 
that  he  makes  no  reference  to  its  having  any  bishop. 
He  writes  to  the  Church  or  congregation  itself: — 

' '  The  Church  which  has  obtained  niercy  .  .  .  which 
also  presides  in  the  place  of  the  region  of  the  Romans." 

The  eminent  scholar  Harnack  holds  that  at  this 
time  (130-140)  "the  Episcopate"  had  not  yet  begun 
in  the  Eoman  Church.       But  the  Church  itself,  in  its 


86 


THE  KOMAN  CLAIM  AND  METHOD  I 


vigorous  life  and  influence  as  the  Church  of  the 
Metropolis,,  had  a  pre-eminence  or  "presidency" 
"  amongst  the  sister  communities,"  and  an  energetic 
activity  in  "  supporting  and  instructing  the  other 
communities."  You  might  say  as  much  of  the 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Centre  in  Melbourne  in  relation 
to  the' outlying  Methodist  congregations.  But  Arch- 
bishop Carr  actually  twists  this  and  Lightfoot's 
similar  words  about  it  into  a  testimony  to  the  Eoman 
Papacy  and  its  Universal  Supremacy!  "  This  singular 
appellation  of  the  Eoman  Church,"  Archbishop  Carr 
tells  the  public,  is  a  proof  of  the  Papal  Supremacy  ! 
In  fact,  the  ambiguous  term  "Primacy"  is  made  to 
play  fantastic  tricks  of  varied  meaning  in  Dr.  Carr's 
lectures.     This  is  how  he  does  it : — 


Carr  (p.  141). 

"  Protestant  writers  feel  the 
importance  of  this  inscription 
to  the  'Church  of  the  Romans,' 
and  make  every  eftbrt  to  ex- 
plain it  away.  Still,  however, 
there  are  non-Catholic  authori- 
ties of  the  very  highest  emin- 
ence who  agree  with  the  CatJiolic 
interpretation.  Bishop  Light- 
foot  admits  that  it  testifies  to  a 
pre-eminence  of  rank,  '  a  Pri- 
macy,' in  fact,  in  the  Roman 
Church.     .     .     .       • 

"Harnack  is  still  stroni^er." 


LiGHTFOOT. 

"  We  might  read  the  Epistle 
from  beginning  to  end  without 
a  suspicion  that  the  Episcopal 
office  existed  in  Rome  at  this 
time,  if  we  had  no  other 
grounds  for  the  belief."  — 
{I(jnat.,  vol,  ii. ,  186). 

"In  the  letter  (of  Ignatius) 
to  the  Church  of  Rome  there 
is  not  the  faintest  allusion  to 
the  Episcopal  office  from  first 
to  last." — Lightfoot's  Clement^ 
vol.  i.,  p.  71. 

' '  Yet  at  the  same  time  he 
assigns  a  j^rimacy  to  Rome. 
The  church  is  addressed  in  the 
opening  salutation,  as  she  who 
hath  the  presidency  (prokathe- 
tai)  in  the  place  of  the  region 
of  the  Romans.'  But  imme- 
diately aftertvards  the  nature 
of  thu  supremacy  in  defined. 
The  presidency  of  this  Church  is 
declared  to  he  a  presidency  of 
love  (prokathemene  tes  agapes). 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  37 

Tills  then  was  the  original  pri- 
macy of  Rome,  a  primacy  not 
of  the  bishop,  bnt  of  the  whole 
church,  not  of  official  authority, 
but  of  practical  goodtiess,ha,cke(:\, 
however,  by  the  prestige  and 
the  advantages  which  were 
necessarily  enjoyed  by  the 
church  of  the  metropolis." — 
Lightfoot's  St.  Clement  of 
Borne,  vol.  i.,  p.  71. 

' '  The  idea  of  the  Cathedra 
Petri  (chair  of  Peter),  there- 
fore, has  no  place  here."  — 
Lightfoot's  Ignat.  ad  Bom., 
vol.  ii.,  p.  191. 

Harnack  truly  is  "still  stronger!"  But  it  is  in 
antagonism  to  all  the  propositions  and  misrepresenta- 
tions of  Archbishop  Carr.  Harnack  shows  that  not 
only  does  Ignatius,  in  the  letter  to  Eome,  not  allude 
to  any  bishop  of  Eome,  but,  further,  that  there  icas  no 
such  hishop  as  yet!  Nay,  still  later  than  Ignatius, 
Hermas  (142  or  145  a.d.)  is,  says  Harnack,  a  distinct 
witness  against  the  existence  at  that  time  of  any 
bishop  of  Eome.  That  Irenaeus'  "  list  of  bishops  of 
Eome"  is  legendary  and  "is  false  can  he  proved,'"  says 
Harnack.  And  when  Harnack  says  so,  he  has  the 
proof  in  his  hands. ^' 

Interpolations  of  Cyprian. 

Still  more  glaring,  if  possible,  is  the  fact  that 
Archbishop  Carr,  in  "quoting"  from  Cyprian,  the 
North  African  father  of  the  third  century,  publishes 
to  the  unwary  crowd  sentences  ascribed  to  Cyprian, 
but  which  critical  editors  have  long  ago  condemned 
as  manifest  interpolations.     Thus : — 

*  Harnack,  Ignatian  Epis.  Exp. ,  Ser.  iii. ,  No.  xiii. 

D 


38 


THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  : 


Carr. 

"But  St.  Cyprian  is  not 
content  with  pointing  out  the 
unity  of  the  Church ;  he  is 
very  precise  in  insisting  on 
the  source  of  this  unity: — 
The  Lord  saith  unto  Peter : 
'Thou  art  Peter,  &c.  Upon 
him,  being  one.  He  builds  His 
Church."'     (Lect.  iv.,  p.  104.) 


Critical  Editors. 

"This  passage  ('Upon  him 
being  one  He  builds  His 
Church')  is  beyond  all  question 
spurious. " 

Prof.  Roberts  ;  Dr.  Donald- 
son ;  Dr.  R.  Ernest  Wallis ; 
Ante-Nicene  Lib.  Cyp. , 
vol.  i.,  p.  381. 

"Falsifying  of  the  text  by 
Romish  editors."  "Here  is 
interpolated  '  Upon  him  being 
one  He  builds  His  Church,' 
&c." 

Dr.  Cleveland  Coxe  ;  Ante- 
Nicene  Fathers,  vol.  v., 
p.  422,  notes. 

' '  Beyond  all  question  spuri- 
ous." 

Roberts,  Donaldson,  and 
Wallis  ;  "  Writings  of 
Cyprian,^'  Ante  -  Nicene 
Chris.  Lib.  De  Unit.  Ecc, 
vol.  i.,  p.  381. 

"Here  is  interpolated: — 
'  Wlio  deserts  the  Chair  of 
Peter  upon  whom  the  Church  is 
fouiided.^  This  passage  also  is 
undoubtedly  spurious." 

Bishop  Coxe  ;  {Ante-Nicene 
Fathers,  vol.  v.,  p.  422,  n.) 

See  also  Lightf  oot — St.  Clem. , 
vol.  ii.,  pp.  484,  485  ;  [also 
Bright — JRomati  See,  pp.  42, 
43]  ;  Burgon  —  Letters  from 
Rome,  p.  417 ;  Coxe — Elucida- 
tions ii. 

It  is  to  me  sad  and  irksome  beyond  all  words  to 
have  to  follow  and  refute  thus  Archbishop  Carr 
through  all  the  pitiful  minutice  of  his  "quotations" 
and  purported  evidence.  Part  of  the  unwelcome  fate 
allotted  to  me  in  life,  as  a  teacher  of  New  Testament 


St.  Cyprian: — "He  who  op- 
poses and  resists  the  Church, 
and  tvho  deserts  the  Chair  of 
Peter,  upon  whom  the  Church 
was  founded,  does  he  trust  that 
he  is  in  the  Church?"  (Lect. 
vi.,  p.  180.) 


PETER   AND    THE    ROCK.  39 

and  Early  Christian  learning,  lias  been  the  necessity 
of  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  the  ''patristic"  writings 
of  the  first  three  or  four  centuries.  It  is  a  tragic 
study  and  story.  None  but  those  who  have  had  to 
familiarise  themselves  every  day  with  this  study  can 
understand  the  drastic  distortion  of  facts  to  which 
Koman  Catholic  advocates  have  recourse.  Surely,  at 
least.  Archbishop  Carr  ought  to  have  felt  himself 
bound  in  honour  to  indicate  that  those  passages  he 
quotes  as  authoritative  and  distorts  out  of  relation  to 
their  context,  are  deemed  spurious  by  eminent  critical 
Editors  of  the  ''Early  Fathers."  He  dogmatically 
quotes  those  passages  as  if  no  doubt  had  ever  existed 
regarding  them.] 

The  above  instances,  alas !  are  not  at  all  isolated. 
They  are  simply  specimens  of  the  method  of  Eoman 
Catholic  "quotation"  and  argument.  But  there  is 
worse  than  that.  What  impresses  me  most,  on 
examining  the  "  quotations"  and  references  in  these 
Lectures  of  Archbishop  Carr,  and  of  other  recent 
"  Catholic  Controversy,"  is  that  a  forced  meaning,  a 
quite  unnatural  interpretation,  is  stamped  frequently 
upon  the  fragmentary  passages  quoted,  an  interpreta- 
tion which  those  passages  were  originally  never 
intended  to  bear.  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  as  we  shall 
see  later,  was  the  earliest  great  spokesman  and 
inventor  of  "the  episcopate;"  "the  one  undivided 
episcopate"  resting  equally  upon  all  the  Apostles. 
This  original  Unity  of  the  Church  is  according  to  him 
"  the  root  and  matrix"  of  the  Church.*  Cyprian  is  the 
father  of  what  is  called  "  Old  Catholicism,"  the  grand- 
father of  what  is  called  "Anglo-Catholicism."  North 
Africa  fashioned  its  cradle.  Yet  Archbishop  Carr 
represents  him  as  a  champion  of  the  Koman  Papacy 
and  of  the  Roman  Pope  ! 

*  cf .  Coxe,  Cyp.  Ep.  xliv.  [Bright  p.  46] ;  Lightfoot,  Phil. 

d2 


40  the  ro^ian  claim  and  method  : 

Archbishop  Caer  and  Eenan. 

I  am  surprised  at  the  Archbishop's  boldness  in 
quoting  from  the  briUiant  critic,  Eenan,  in  support  of 
the  Roman  claim  for  the  Papacy.*  I  am  still  more 
surprised  that  the  quotation  is  so  maimed  and  muti- 
lated that  it  gives  a  sense  almost  the  opposite  of  what 
Eenan  intended  to  sa}'. 

I  protest  against  the  implication  in  Archbishop 
Carr's   lectures   that  Eenan  was  a   Protestant.     He 


*  The  controversy  in  the  Arpus  and  in  the  Ape,  to  which  this 
gave  rise  between  Archbishop  Carr  and  myself,  I  have  gone  to  the 
trouble  and  expense  of  publishing  in  the  Appendix.  In  this  way 
the  facts  will  stand  before  the  public  impartially  and  without 
possibility  of  change.  It  is  noticeable  that,  in  his  published  lectures. 
Archbishop  Carr  has  added  much  new  matter  to  his  tirst  lecture 
as  it  appeared  in  Tlie  Advocate,  and  which  lecture  he  had,  in  his 
letter  of  21st  May,  declared  was  "published  in  e.vtenso  in  the 
Advocate  of  the  14th  and  2lst  March."  More  noticeable  still,  the 
new  matter  breaks  the  original  connection  just  at  that  crucial 
stage  (forming  the  context  of  the  matter  of  our  correspondence) 
where  Dr.  Carr  had  worked  up  along  his  chain  of  "Protestant 
testimony"  towards  Kenan.  The  connective  links  were  Nevin — 
Neander — JieuiDi.  No^c,  between  Nevin  and  Neander,  is  inserted 
a  page  (pp.  21-2*2),  beginning  "A  Catholic  could  hardly,"  &c., 
thus  throwing  the  connection  out  of  gear.  The  further  new 
passage  now  concluding  Lecture  I.  extends  froni  the  words 
"Church's  Existence"  to  the  end  of  the  lecture  (pp.  41,  42).  This 
new  passage  begins  :  —  "It  will  seem  to  many  that  I  have  deliberate!}- 
2}ut  my  self  at  a  disadvantage  in  quotinii  so  e.vclusiveh/  from  Protestant 
authorities  regarding  St.  Feter^s  relations  tcitJi  Rome.''  In  the  next 
sentence  he  attempts  a  subtle  distinction  between  this  and  "the 
Roman  Primacy  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,"  aboiit  which  "there 
is  no  controversy  amongst  Catholic  writers."  (The  italics  are 
mine.)  But  the  correspondence  and  the  beginning  of  his  second 
lecture  and  the  whole  make-up  of  his  tirst  lecture  prove  that  this 
will  not  do.  (1)  "That  St.  Peter  Wcxs  in  Rome:"  (2)  That  he 
"fixed  his  See  in  Rome  ;"  (3)  That  his  Primacy  "  was  transmitted 
to  his  successors  in  the  Roman  See  ;"  all  these  were  what  he 
declared  he  had  "  quoted  exclusively  Protestant  testimony  to 
prove."  Thus  after  Nevin,  Neander  was  "quoted"  as  testifying 
"  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Papal  claims  to  a  Primacy  of  jurisdic- 
tion," and  then  came  Renan's  admissions  "7«  favour  of  the  Roman 
Primacy  as  the  irresistible  outcome  of  the  facts  of  history." 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  41 

never  was.  He  was  educated  for  the  Romish  priest- 
hood. Eecoiling  from  it,  and  from  the  incredible 
demand  which  its  absohite  authority,  and  its  ecclesi- 
astical miracles  and  legends  make  upon  the  human 
reason,  he  abandoned  belief  in  the  supra-natural  of 
Christianity  altogether,  Renan  gravitated  towards  a 
kind  of  Agnostic  Pantheism.  Probably  he  had  not 
soul  or  earnestness  enough  for  more.  Nothing  more 
sad,  with  a  mixture  of  brilliant  flippancy,  can  be  found 
in  literature  than  Renan's  description  of  his  own 
revolt  from  the  teaching  of  the  priests,  prepared  as 
he  was  for  such  disbelief  by  his  mother's  witty 
rehearsal  of  "the  grotesque  legends  of  the  Breton 
saints."  The  very  diverse  kinds  of  teachings  his 
priestly  instructors  gave  him  accelerated  the  process. 
One  of  his  clerical  teachers — M.  Gosselin,  polite, 
slim,  fastidiously  neat,  and  hating  all  enthusiasm — 
possessed,  as  almost  his  only  ardour,  an  exceeding 
dislike  of  all  the  relics  and  all  the  ancient  ecclesiastical 
saints.     His  reason  was — 

"Their  disregard,  of  personal  cleanliness,  their  deficient 
education,  and  their  striking  lack  of  common  sense."* 

Renan  says: — 

'*I  imagined  that  in  being  polite  like  M.  Gosselin,  and 
moderate  like  M.  Manier,  I  was  a  Christian." 

I  am  no  admirer  of  Renan,  save  for  his  literary 
brilliance.  I  must  again  say,  also,  he  was  not  a 
Protestant,  although  he  confessed  that  Protestantism 
was,  "in  a  sense,  a  returning  to  the  rehgion  of 
Jesus." 

Now,  if  Archbishop  Carr  had  told  from  what  work 
of  Renan  he  professed  to  quote,  and  had  given  its  full 
title,  the  public  w^ould  have  got  some  glimpse  of  its 
meaning.       I  will  tell  you  what  it  is.      It  is  the  Hib- 

*  Souvenirs^  p.  230.     Cf.  Professor  Elmslie. 


42  THE   ROMAN   CLAIM   AND    METHOD  : 

hert  Lectures  for  1S80,  on  the  Influence  of  the  Insti- 
tutions,  ThouffJity  and  Culture  of  Rome  on  Christianity ^ 
and  the  Development  of  the  Catholic  Church.  The  main 
thouglit  of  that  book  is  that  the  Papacy  has  been  a 
Eoman  development  mainly  due  to  the  peculiar  con- 
dition of  the  Cit}^  and  Empire  of  Pagan  and  Imperial 
Piome.  The  Second  Lecture  in  that  book  is  entitled 
''^The  Lec/end  of  the  Roman  Church:  Peter  and  Paul.'' 
In  that  lecture  Pienan  declares : — 

"  If  there  is  anything  in  the  world  which  Jesus  did  not  insti- 
tute, it  is  the  Papacy;  that  is  the  idea  that  the  Church  is  a 
monarchy." 

In  a  later  lecture  in  that  book  Eenan  declares  that 
what  "  set  order  above  liberty"  was  the  "Episcopate." 
Moreover,  the  chapter  just  preceding  that  from  which 
the  Archbishop  takes  his  "quotation"  is  entitled: 
*' Rome,  the  Centre  of  Growing  Ecclesiastical  Authority.'' 
In  it,  Eenan  says  he  agrees  with  Lightfoot  as  to  the 
letter  of  Clement  of  Eome.  In  Clement's  letter,  Eenan 
declares:  "IJ^efliid  no  trace  as  yet  of  a  j)?Ys/>^/f^r/^9 
superior  to  and  about  to  dethrone  the  rest."  At  the  end 
of  the  First  Century  the  highest  rulers  of  the  Christian 
Church,  he  says,  were  "the  presbyteri "  (elders), 
(p.  130).  He  then  shows,  as  Lipsius  does,  how  the 
legend  of  Peter's  "bishopric  in  Eome"  arose.  It 
sprang,  he  explains,  in  large  measure  from  the 
strange  mingling  together  of  "Ebionite,"  or  Jewish 
gnostic,  and  other  heresies,  whose  ajiocryphal 
wi-itings  form  so  curious  a  feature  of  the  second 
century.  These  "  heretic "  factions  took  for  their 
"shibboleth"  the  most  eminent  Apostles'  names, 
especially  Peter's  and  Paul's.  The  "Ebionite" 
gnostics  opposed  the  name  Paul  by  the  name  Peter. 

"J.  rnst  Ebionite  legend  arose  in  Borne,"  continues  Eenan, 
*^ a')id  ttndey  the  name  of  ''the  FreacJiing,'  or  '27(6  Jovrneijs  of 
Feter,'  took  a  fixed  sJia}^-  ahont  the  year  130  a.d."  (P.  134.) 


PETER   AND   THE    EOCK.  43 

Then  he  shows  how  this  legend,  glorifying  Peter, 
"was  insulting,  it  is  true,  to  St.  Paul"  (p.  136).  But 
Piety  took  hold  of  it ;  the  spirit  of  growing  ecclesiasti- 
cism  blended  it  with  the  facts  of  Paul's  labours  in 
Eome,  and  his  martyrdom. 

"  In  all  that  concerns  Peter  and  Paul  the  work  of  legend  was 
rich  and  rapid."  (P.  142.) 

Then,  in  the  opening  of  the  very  chapter  from  which 
Archbishop  Carr  *'  quotes,"  Eenan  points  out  the 
shrewd  advantage  which  this  legend  of  "a  Church 
founded  both  by  Peter  and  by  Paul "  gave  to  Eome, 
in  the  growingly  despotic  atmosphere  of  the  Second 
Century. 

"To  have  succeeded  in  establishing  this  belief  was  the  master- 
piece of  that  cleverness  which  characterized  the  Church  of 
Rome."    (P.  107.) 

But  even  in  Eome,  Eenan  points  out,  the  introduction 
of  one  presbyter  or  bishop  as  superior  to  the  others 
was  strenuously  opposed  even  as  late  as  145  a.d. 

' '  This  revolution,  however,  was  effected  not  without  protest ; 
the  author  of  *The  Shepherd'  (Hernias),  for  instance,  still 
attempts  to  maintain  the  primitive  equality  of  the  presbyteri 
against  the  growing  authority  of  the  bishops."     (P.  155.) 

Then,  to  illustrate  the  new  autocratic  spirit  which 
was  invading  the  Church  everywhere,  Eenan  quotes 
from  an  Asian  writing,  which  (in  common  with  many 
great  scholars)  he  deems  *' apocryphal."*  The  age  or 
time  he  is  picturing  is  the  latter  part  of  the  Second 
Century y  some  140  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus.  It 
is  the  time,  according  to  Archbishop  Carr,  the  facts 
regarding  which  make  such  impress  upon  Eational- 
istic  writers  that  we  must  "  regard  their  admissions 
in  favour  of  the  Eoman  Primacy  as  the  irresistible 

*  Ign.  ad  Eph. 


44  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  I 

outcome  of  the  facts  of  history,'^  It  is,  as  he  also 
declares,  the  time  when,  according  to  Protestant 
teaching,  "  tJie  faith  of  the  Church  was  pure,  and  the 
sanctity  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  conspicuous.''^  That 
sounds  well !  But,  as  we  know,  Lightfoot  and  others 
have  pictured  the  state  of  things  just  then  in  Eome  as 
sadly  different.i"  And  to  speak  of  '*  Eoman  Pontiffs" 
then  is  to  speak  "  at  large."  Here,  now,  is  the 
picture  of  what  Eenan  means  by  the  "  Catholicity" 
which  grew  up  at  Eome.  It  is  strangely  different 
from  the  impression  Archbishop  Carr's  hearers  would 
draw  from  this  use  of  the  word  "  Catholicity." 

Here  is  the  context  in  Eenan  (pp.  171-172) — 

*'This  was  written  about  the  year  160  or  170.  A  purely 
ecclesiastical  piety  took  the  place  of  the  ancient  ardour  which, 
for  more  than  a  hundred  years,  had  been  kindled  by  the  recol- 
lection of  Jesus.  Orthodoxy  is  now  the  chief  good  ;  docility  is 
salvation ;  the  old  man  must  bend  before  the  bishop  even  if  he 
be  young.  It  was  thus  that,  by  pushing  to  an  extreme  the 
principles  of  Paul,  men  arrived  at  ideas  which  would  have 
revolted  Paul.  Would  he,  who  was  unwilling  to  listen  for  a 
moment  to  salvation  by  works,  ever  have  admitted  that  a  man 
could  be  saved  by  simple  submission  to  his  superiors  ?"  (Renan, 
Bibh.  Led.,  pp.  171-172. 

Now,  here  is  the  passage  as  Archbishop  Carr  quotes 
it,  without  any  hint  of  its  contextual  or  central  mean- 
ing, and  with  its  damaging  sentences  dropped  out, 
and  he  prefaces  it  with  the  declaration:  "  there  is  no 
room  for  mistake  in  his  (Eenan's)  words  ": — 

Archbishop  Carr's  Quota-  Renan  Himself. 

TioN  FROM  Renan.  ,,-r,  ^i      ,       .       ,  .  , 

' '  Rome  was  the  place  ni  which 

"Rome,"    says    M.    Ernest  this   great  idea  of   Catholicity 

Renan,  "was  the  place  in  which  was   worked    out.     More   and 

the   great  idea   of   Catholicity  more  every  day  it  became  the 

was   worked   out.      More   and  capital    of    Christianity,     and 

*  The  italics  are  mine.         t  Cf.  Lect.  iv. 


PETER   AND    THE    ROCK. 


45 


more  every  day  it  became  the 
capital  of  Christianity,  and 
took  the  place  of  Jerusalem  as 
the  religious  centre  of  human- 
ity. Its  Church  claimed  a  pre- 
cedence over  all  others  which 
was  generally  recognised.  [All 
the  doubtful  questions  which 
agitated  the  Christian  con- 
science came  to  Rome  to  ask 
for  arbitration,  if  not  decision. 
Men  argued — certainly  not  in 
a  very  logical  way— that,  as 
Christ  had  made  Cephas  the 
corner-stone  of  His  Church,  the 
privilege  ought  to  be  inherited 
by  his  successors.] .  .  .  The 
Bishop  of  Rome  became  the 
Bishop  of  Bishops,  he  who 
admonished  all  others.  Rome 
proclaims  her  right — a  danger- 
ous right — of  excommunicating 
those  who  do  not  walk  step  by 
step  with  her.  ...  At  the 
end  of  the  second  century  we 
can  also  recognise,  by  signs 
which  it  is  impossilDle  to  mis- 
take, the  spirit  which,  in  1870, 
will  proclaim  the  infallibility 
of  the  Pope!" 


took  the  place  of  Jerusalem 
as  the  religious  centre  of 
humanity.  Its  Church  claimed 
a  precedence  over  others,  which 
was  generally  recognised.  All 
the  doubtful  questions  which 
agitated  the  Christian  con- 
science came  to  Rome,  to  ask 
for  arbitration  if  not  decision. 
Men  argued — certainly  not  in 
a  very  logical  way  —that  as 
Christ  had  made  Cephas  the 
corner-stone  of  His  Church, 
the  privilege  ought  to  be  in- 
herited by  his  successors.  By 
an  unequalled  tour  de  force,  the 
Church  of  Rome  had  succeeded 
in  giving  itself  the  name  of  the 
Church  of  Paid  also.  A  new 
and  ecpially  mythical  duality 
replaced  that  of  Romulus  and 
Remus,  The  Bishop  of  Rome 
became  the  Bishop  of  Bishops, 
he  who  admonished  all  others. 
Rome  proclaims  her  right — a 
dangerous  right  —  of  excom- 
municating those  who  do  not 
walk  step  by  step  with  her.  The 
poor  Artemonites  —  a  kind  of 
Arians  before  Arius,  have  great 
reason  to  complain  of  the  in- 
justice of  fate  which  has  branded 
tliem  as  heretics,  although  up  to 
the  time  of  Victor  the  whole 
Church  of  Rome  was  of  one 
mind  tvith  them.  From  that 
time  forth  the  Church  of  Rome 
put  herself  above  history.  At 
the  end  of  the  second  century 
we  can  already  recognise  by 
signs  which  it  is  impossible  to 
mistake  the  spirit  which,  in 
1870,  will  proclain  the  infalli- 
bility of  the  Pope." 


46  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  : 

Notice  Dr.  Carr's  use  of  the  word  "  the,'"  and  the 
quite  different  suggestion  it  conveys — ^Hhe  great  idea 
of  Catholicity."  Eenan  says  ^'this  great  idea  of 
Catholicit3^"  And  he  had  defined  it  just  above  as 
the  notion  that  'Ulocility  is  salvation,''  that  "a  man 
can  be  saved  b}^  simple  submission  to  his  superiors" 
— ideas  which  "would  have  revolted  Paul."  Notice, 
again,  how  Dr.  Carr  says  *' precedence  over  all 
others,"  while  Eenan  says  the  largely  different  thing 
— "precedence  ovc7'  others/' 

(I  have  italicised  the  sentences  the  Archbishop 
omitted.)  Now  I  suppose  very  few  in  Melbourne 
could  have  dreamt  there  had  been  dropped  out  of  that 
"quotation,"  at  the  little  blanks  where  the  Archbishop 
has  made  a  few  dots,  two  passages  of  tremendous 
force,*  which  destroy  the  very  basis  on  which  the 
Archbishop  seeks  to  stand.  In  the  one  passage 
Eenan  declares  that  the  Church  of  Eome  gradually 
invented  the  Apostolic  succession,  and  the  dual 
foundation  by  the  two  Apostles,  Cephas  and  Paul. 
This  duality  Eenan  declares  to  be  as  "  mythical"  a& 
the  pagan-Eoman  legend  of  "  Eomulus  and  Eemus." 
In  the  other  passage,  omitted  by  the  Archbishop, 
Eenan  declares  that  the  Church  of  Eome  was  at  that 
very  time  Avian  in  doctrine,  the  very  time  when 
the  Archbishop  is  representing  it  as  supreme  over 
Christendom  and  singularly  pure  in  faith,  and  as  the 
guardian  of  the  truth  of  Peter  and  of  Christ. 


*  In  the  above  column,  which  reproduces  Archbishop  Carr'^ 
"  quotation,"  I  have  marked  in  square  brackets  two  sentences — 
"All  the  doubtful,  &c." — wliich  did  not  appear  in  the  Argus 
abstract  of  his  Lectiire  (an  abstract  report  which  was  carefully 
made  from  his  MS.),  but  which  appeared  afterwards  in  the 
Advocate  in  extenso  report  (see  his  letters).  I  quoted  from  the 
Argus.  It  will  be  evident  that  the  two  sentences  referred  to  do- 
not  affect  in  the  slightest  my  charge.  The  passage,  as  the  Arch- 
bishop quoted  it,  was  drained  of  its  whole  meaning  by  the  excision 
of  the  sentences  to  which  I  refer,     cf.  Append. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  47 

Here  is  the  first  passage  Archbishop  Carr  drops 
from  out  that  plausible-looldng  "quotation"  : — 

"By  an  unequalled  fov/r  de  force  the  Church  of  Rome  had 
succeeded  in  giving  itself  the  name  of  the  Church  of  Paul  also. 
A  new  and  equall}^  mythical  duality  replaced  that  of  Romulus 
and  Remus." 

Here  is  the  second  passage  the  Archbishop  drops 
out : — 

"  The  poor  Artemonites — a  kind  of  Arians  iDefore  Arius — 
have  great  reason  to  complain  of  the  injustice  of  fate,  which  has 
branded  them  as  heretics,  although  up  to  the  time  of  Victor  the 
whole  Church  of  Rome  was  of  one  mind  with  them.  From  that 
time  forth  the  Church  of  Rome  put  herself  above  history." 

I  will  make  no  comment  on  these  startling  facts. 
I  simply  ask  two  questions  : — (1)  Why  did  Archbishop 
Carr  drop  those  damaging  sentences  out  of  Eenan's 
statement,  if  he  chose  to  quote  from  him  ?  (2)  What 
is  the  value  of  Archbishop  Carr's  "quotations"  in  re- 
ference to  the  matter  in  hand  ? 


Part    II. 
Simon  Peter  and  the  Eock. — Peter's  "See"  at  Eome. 

"  Other  Foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  which  is  laid, 
which  is  Jesus  Christ." — St.  Paul,  1  Cor.  iii.,  11. 

"Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  a  Chief  Corner-stone.  ...  a  Stone 
of  stumbling  and  a  Rock  (Petra)  of  offence." — St.  Peter, 
1  Pet.  ii.,  6—8;  St.  Paul,  Rom.  ix.,  33. 

"For  I  (Paul)  reckon  that  I  am  not  a  whit  behind  the  very 
chiefest  Apostles." — 2  Cor.  xi.,  5. 

*' James,  and  Cephas,  and  John,  who  are  reputed  to  be  pillars, 
&c."— Gal.  ii.,  9. 

"If  there  was  any  primacy  at  this  time  it  was  the  primacy  not 
of  Peter  but  of  Paul."— Lightfoot,  S.  Clement  of  Kome, 
vol.  ii.,  p.  490. 


48  THE    PtOMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  : 

Of  Archbishop  Carr's  three  propositions,  essential  to 
the  Papal  claim,  the  Jirst  is — 

"That   St.    Peter   was    invested    by   Christ   with    supreme 
authority  over  His  Church." 

This  huge  assertion  the  advocates  of  Papalism  seek 
to  base  upon  one  solitary  passage  of  one  Gospel,  viz., 
the  highly  figurative  words  of  our  Lord  to  Simon  when 
Simon  confessed  Him  as  Messiah:  "  Thou  art  PetroSi 
and  on  this  PetraI  will  build  my  congregation"  (Matt. 
xvi.,  18).*  Now  let  me  say,  plainly,  I  do  not  myself 
feel  in  the  least  concerned  as  to  the  question  whether 
the  word  Petra  (rock)  in  this  figurative  passage  is  to 
be  interpreted  as  having  special  reference  to  Simon 
Peter  and  as  a  play  upon  his  name,  or  as  meaning 
only  Oiw  Lord  Himself  in  His  Messiahhood,  to  which 
Simon,  had  just  then  so  strikingly  confessed.  It  does 
not  in  the  least  affect  the  truth  of  the  Protestant 
faith,  nor  does  it  alter  the  falsity  of  the  Pioman  claim 
whidi  view  we  take.  We  Protestants  (to  use  a 
colloquialism)  "  have  no  axe  to  grind"  as  regards  the 
interpretation  of  this  passage.  A  large  number  of 
eminent  Protestant  scholars  in  our  modern  day  have 
held  the  opinion  that  our  Lord,  when  speaking  of  the 
rock,  made  special  reference  to  Peter  "in  virtue  of  his 
steadfast  faith, "f  or  in  virtue  of  his  confession,  faith, 
and  courage.:!:  That  the  interpretation  which  affirms 
a>  personal  allusion  to  Simon  Peter  does  not  in  the  least 
make  for  the  Koman  claim  is  sufficiently  evident  from 
the  fact  that  such  stalwart  Protestants  in  our  day  as 
Alford  and  Lightfoot  in  England,  Fritsche,  Meyer, 

*  Compare  the  accounts  in  the  three  Synoptic  Gospels,  Mark  viii., 
27 — 3.3,  Matt,  xvi.,  13-25,  Luke  ix.,  18 — 24.  If  the  Romish  notion 
that  Peter  is  the  Rock-foundation  of  the  Chiirch  had  any  truth  in 
it,  it  woukl  be  unaccountable  that  Mark  and  Luke  have  no  reference 
even  to  the  metaphor. 

t  Meyer,  in  loco.     I  Lightfoot,  S.  Clem.,  vol.  ii.,  483—487. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  49 

and  Weiss  in  Germany,  Briggs  and  Scliaff  in  America, 
and  Dr.  David  Brown  in  Scotland  have  affirmed  that 
view.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  scholars  just  as  free 
from  hias  and  as  large  in  vision  have  taken  the  con- 
trary vieW' .  They  have  felt  bound,  by  the  whole  force 
of  the  passage  and  the  true  meaning  of  terms,  to 
conclude  that  the  word  "rock,"  with  its  Old  Testament 
prophetic  associations,  refers  to  Christ  himself^ 
just  then  so  strikingly  confessed  by  Simon,  as  the 
Messiah. 

It  is  part  of  the  unvarying  tactics  of  Eoman 
Catholic  apologists  to  ascribe  any  view  save  their  own 
to  "bias,''  or  the  "exigencies  of  controversy."  These 
allegations  provoke  a  smile.  I  will  not  now  spend 
time  upon  them.  It  is  sufficient  to  point  out  here 
that  the  huge  difficulty  of  the  modern  Komanist 
interpretation  is  that  it  has  against  it  not  only 
Protestant  scholarship,  but  the  whole  weight  of 
the  opinion  of  the  earliest  and  greatest  "fathers." 
Whether  the  word  "rock"  refers  to  Peter  personally 
or  not  is  surely  little  to  the  point,  as  regards  the 
marvellous  Koman  claim,  viz.,  that  the  bishops  in 
Kome  are  Peter's  only  successors,  and  that  Peter 
was  made  Supreme  Prince  of  all  the  Apostles  and 
head  of  God's  Universal  Church,  and  that  the 
bishops  of  a  city  in  Italy,  and  they  only,  speak  with 
Peter's  infallible  voice  and  authority.  These  state- 
ments are  so  incongruous  the  one  with  the  other  that 
the  whole  thing,  calmly  looked  at,  seems  grotesque. 


Difficulties  of  Eoman  View. 

To  begin  with,  the  Eoman  interpretation  has  in 
its  path  four  insuperable  difficulties:  —  (1)  Peter 
himself  was  quite  ignorant  of  it ;  so  was  Paul ;  so  was 
John;  so  were  all  the  New  Testament  writers;  it  is 


50  THE    R03IAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  : 

contrary  to  the  whole  spirit  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 
In  the  very  chapter  (Luke  ix.,  20,  compare  46-47)  in 
which  the  Evangelist  tells  of  Peter's  confession  of 
Christ,  it  is  also  told: — 

"  And  there  arose  a  reasoning  among  tJiem  tohlch  of  them  should 
be  greatest  (greater)." 

"And  Jesus  took  a  little  child,  and  set  him  by  His 
side,"  as  a  symbol  of  greatness  in  His  Kingdom.  (2) 
The  Koman  interpretation  did  not  come  into  existence 
till  the  Jifth  century.  We  shall  show  this  in  a  later 
lecture.  The  early  Fathers  knew  nothing  of  this 
"succession  of  Peter"  existing  only  in  the  Church  of 
Eome.  (3)  If  there  could  be  any  such  thing  as  an 
"Episcopal  Apostolic  succession"  depending  on  a 
"chair  of  Peter,"  or  "throne  of  Peter,"  or  "seat  of 
Peter,"  that  chair  would  belong  to  Antioch  and  other 
cities  of  the  East  rather  than  to  Kome.  The  same 
legends,  exactly,  on  which  Piome  depends  for  her  mar- 
vellous "Petrine  bishopric"  and  Petrine  infallibility 
assign  that  "Petrine  bishopric"  to  Antioch  earlier  and 
more  certainly  than  to  Eome.  So  the  great  "  Greek 
Fathers"  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  call  the 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  the  "  successor  of  Peter,"  and  affirm 
of  "  the  great  City  of  Antioch"  that  it  possesses  "  the 
throne  of  Peter."  Owing  to  the  wealth  and  political 
power  and  situation  of  the  City  of  Kome  in  the  AVest, 
owing  to  the  legends  it  industriously  intertwined  with 
its  political  and  priestly  arrogant  claim,  it  came  to 
assume  the  title  to  "Peter's  Chair"  and  "Peter's 
Succession."  But  the  facts  of  history  prove  that  its 
claim  to  these  is  later,  weaker,  and  even  more 
legendary  than  that  of  Antioch  and  other  Eastern 
cities.  And  (4)  that  Peter  ever  was  Bishop  of  Eome, 
or  ever  founded  the  Church  of  Eome,  is  opposed,  at 
once,  to  historical  truth,  and  to  all  that  is  even 
probable.     It  violates  every  canon  of  the  credible. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  51 

The  treatment  of  this  latter  question  will  come 
in  its  own  place.  Let  me  at  present  look  at  the  true 
and  simple  interpretation  of 

Christ's  Saying  to  Simon  Peter. 

The  language,  as  recorded  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,* 
with  its  figurative  terms — "  Petros,"  "  Petra,"  "  Con- 
gregation," ''Keys  of  the  Kingdom,"  "  Gates  of  Hades 
— can  be  understood  only  by  comparing  it  with 
kindred  language  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is 
especially  the  impassioned  and  figurative  language 
of  the  Prophet  Isaiah,  in  describing  the  kingdom 
of  the  Messiah  (language  which  was  often  on  Our 
Lord's  lips,  as  also  on  the  lips  of  his  forerunner,  John 
Baptist)  that  unlocks  for  us  here  the  simple  yet 
grand  meaning.  All  of  us  will  agree,  I  suppose,  with  the 
judgment  of  Harnack  that,  whatever  be  the  precise 
signification  of  that  passage,  it  indicates  that,  amongst 
the  twelve  earliest  Apostles,  Simon  Peter  was  the 
most  efficient  and  influential  by  force  of  will  and 
character  : — 

*'It  seems  to  be  in  harmony  with  other  passages  of  the 
synoptic  gospels  which  indicate  not  only  that  Peter  was 
foremost  among  the  Apostles  by  virtue  of  natural  force  of 
character,  but  that  he  was  also  their  ordinary  leader  and 
representative,  "t 

Until  Paul  arose,  Peter  was  foremost  in  action.  He 
is  mentioned  first  in  the  early  Apostolic  list,  though 
always  on  an  equality  with  the  other  eleven: — "Have 
not  I  chosen  you,  the  twelve^  and  one  of  you  is  a 
devil?"  Simon  also  was  always  associated  with  the  two 
or  three  who  were  the  Lord's  most  intimate  friends,  the 
two  brothers,  James  and  John  (sons  of  Zebedee), 
and  his  own  brother  Andrew.  In  the  garden,  he  and 
the  sons  of  Zebedee  were  asked  to  watch  with  Christ 

*  Cap.  xvi.  13-20.        f  Harnack,  Pet.  cf.  also  Texten  u.  Untersuch. 


52  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM   AND    METHOD  : 

one  hour,  and  failed.  In  every  society  of  men  some 
one  or  two  stand  out  prominent,  by  influence  of 
character.  But  of  any  supremacy  of  one  Apostle 
over  the  other,  there  is  never  a  hint.  On  the  contrary, 
Christ  firmly  represses  any  such  question,  on  their 
part,  as  "  Which  of  us  is  the  greater }  "  It  is  significant 
that  the  Apostles  ask  that  question  after^  those  words 
about  the  "rock"  and  "keys"  were  spoken  to  Peter, 
proving  that  they  did  not  in  the  least  understand  the 
words  as  giving  any  supremacy  to  him.  If  the 
misused  and  ambiguous  word  "  primacy"  may  be  at 
all  applied  to  Peter,  it  was,  as  Lightfoot  says,  only 
a  "primacy  of  historical  inauguration,^' 

Peter's  True  Claim. 

He  was  earliest  in  reaching  clear-sighted  faith;  he 
had  force  of  initiating  energy.  Hq  first,  in  a  moment 
when  the  great  multitudes  seemed  forsaking  Jesus, 
and  men  were  doubting  tvho  He  icas,  asserted  boldly 
He  was  God's  Messiah.  He^rs^  at  Pentecost  opened, 
as  with  a  key,  the  gate  of  the  New  Testament  Church, 
the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  to  the  multitude  of  Jewish 
believers.*!"  He  first  opened  it  also — reluctantly,  but 
none  the  less  surely — to  Cornelius  the  Latin  cen- 
turion, and  to  the  Gentiles  in  Csesarea.  In  fact  this 
seems  his  true  and  only  connection  with  Latins  or 
with  Kome.J  A  little  later  he  defended,  at  Jerusalem, 
the  reception  of  the  Gentiles  into  Christ's  Kingdom, 
apart  from  all  Jewish  ritual-restrictions,  in  presence 
of  those  who  would  keep  the  gate  still  closed.  Peter 
firmly  used  the  metaphoric  "  key,"  and  threw  that 
gate  of  entrance  open.  Then  his  initiative  was  done. 
The  forward  movement  of  the  Church's  spiritual 
progress  depended  on  another;   the  larger  "key"  of 

*  cf.  Matt,  xviii.,  1.         t  Acts  ii.,  41,  42.         I  Acts  x. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  53 

its  wider  door  passed  into  the  hands  of  a  greater  than 
Peter — namely,  Paul.  "  I  laboured  more  abundantly 
than  they  all,"  says  that  great  pioneer  and  "founder," 
who  founded — as  did  all  of  them — well,  because  he 
founded  on  Christ.  Paul  was  greatest,  not  by 
"sovereignty"  or  lordship,  which  was  a  thing  unknown 
and  forbidden  in  Christ's  society  or  kingdom,  but 
"greatest"  because  the  greatest  is  "he  that  doth 
serve." 

Peter's  Confess  on. 

Now,  in  the  light  of  these  facts,  let  us  look  at  the 
occasion  when  our  Lord  spoke  his  striking  words  to 
Simon  Peter.  The  crowd  had  deserted.  Christ  was 
not  the  King  they  had  expected.  He  was  no  Messiah 
with  David's  sword  and  power,  conqueror  of  the 
Gentiles,  bringer  of  material  good,  "restorer  of  the 
Kingdom  to  Israel."  As  Harnack  puts  it — "His 
miracles  of  healing  and  feeding  had  not  been  followed 
by  the  assumption  of  the  national  leader  ship.  Many 
of  the  disciples  had  begun  to  drift  away.  Those  who 
were  looking  for  the  (national)  Messiah  saw  in  Him 
only  one  of  the  prophets.  Those  who  remained  were 
tested  by  a  direct  question — 'Who  say  ye  that  I  am?' 
or  (as  St.  John  gives  it)  'Will  ye  also  go  away?' 
Then  it  was  Peter  who  answered,  and  at  once :  '  Thou 
art  the  Christ.'  " 

I  will  not  stop  to  discuss  whether  Dr.  Harnack  does 
Peter  less  than  justice  in  saying: — 

"Although  Peter  was  foremost  in  expressing  the  confident  belief 
of  the  disciples  that  Jesus  ivas  the  Messiah,  it  seems  clear  that,  in  Ms 
conception  of  the  Messiali,  he  did  not  rise  above  the  current  ideas  6f  his 
countrymen.'" 

The  "national  Leader,"  the  Eestorer  of  the  World- 
Kingdom  to  Israel — this  notion  was  certainly  in 
Peter's  mind,  as  in  the  minds  of  all,  materialising 


54  THE    EOMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  : 

their  vision.  Harnack  points,  as  all  of  us  have 
pointed,  to  the  startling  facts  that  for  this  quite 
material  view  Christ  had  immediately  afterwards  to 
rebuke  Simon  as  very  "Satan"  and  adversary;  and, 
later,  when  all  hope  of  the  national  Kingdom  was 
shattered  by  Christ's  capture,  "  Peter  gave  way  to  utter 
despondency,  and  denied  that  he  knew  Him!" 

Yes;  but,  along  with  that  material  aim,  there  was, 
we  think,  in  Peter's  soul,  and  in  the  others,  something 
of  a  spiritual  vision,  a  faith  (which  Peter  voiced,  and 
which  God  reveals  within)  setting  Christ  high,  as 
Lord  of  a  new  undying  Age  and  Eealm,  Maker  of  a 
deathless  Kingdom. 

Christ's  Eeply. 

This,  anyhow,  is  what  is  expressed  in  our  Lord's 
reply  to  Peter's  prompt  answer. 

As  over  against  the  "  Gates  of  Hades  "*  (viz.,  all  that 
makes  for  destruction,  and  for  the  darkness  and  doom 
awaiting  the  falsity  of  Power  and  the  glory  of  World - 
Kingdoms)  Christ  lifts  up  the  vision  of  His  Spiritual 
Kingdom,  like  a  new  kingly  spiritual  house,  founded^on 
the  Spiritual  Eock,  in  Zion.  This  "Eock,"  and  on  it 
founded  a  house  of  enduring  Messiah-Kingship  over 
the  World,  had  been  the  dream  and  word  of  hope 
spoken  by  the  greatest  prophets.  The  day  for  its 
manifestation  had  come  noiv.  Simon  Peter,  voicing 
the  faith  of  others  round  him,  saw  this  with  spiritual 
insight,  and  strongly  said  it : — "  Here  is  the  King- 

*  "Gates  of  Hades — by  a  well-known  oriental  form  of  speech — 
the  power  of  the  Kingdom  of  Death.'' ^ — Alford,  in  loco. 

Hades — Sheol — "primarily — the  inexorable  doom  which  demands 
and  swalloios  up  everything  upon  the  earth." — Delitzsch. 

"The  realm  of  the  dead,  or  the  region  of  death  and  destruction, 
is  represented  as  an  edifice  with  gates  .  .  .  rearing  itself  aloft 
as  if  in  antagonism  to  life.'^ — Dr.  James  Morison,  in  loco. 


PETER   AND    THE    ROCK.  55 

dom :  Thou  art  its  King  !  Thou  art  the  Messiah  of 
God."  In  that  hour  of  seeming  desertion  it  was  a  great 
confession.  Swift  came  the  answer  of  Christ  back : — 
''  Thou  art  Petros  {Rock'inan  or  Stone)  a7id  on  this 
Rock  (Petra)  I  will  build  my  Church^' — the  com- 
munity of  those  that  beheve  in  the  Messiah,  and 
form  the  Messiah-Kingdom;  "and  the  Gates  of  Hades 
shall  not  prevail  against  it." 

Now  that,  with  these  two  distinct  emphatic  words 
petros  and  petra,  is  the  exact  form  of  the  sentence  in 
the  Greek  of  it.  And  that  is  the  only  first-century 
form  of  it  we  have  in  the  Gospels.  Let  us  take  all 
theologic  "  goggles,"  whether  Protestant  or  Romanist, 
from  off  our  eyes,  and  look  simply  and  frankly  at  it, 
in  the  light  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and 
especially  in  the  light  of  the  figurative  language  of 
Isaiah,  in  which  Christ's  mode  of  speech  was  un- 
deniably steeped. 

Manifestly  the  metaphors  in  Christ's  saying  to 
Peter  are  a  fusion  of  three  striking  passages  in  Isaiah 
— two  of  which,  viz.,  those  about  the  Rock,  are  em- 
phasised afterwards  by  both  St.  Peter'''  and  St.  Paul.-f* 
Both  Apostles  (a  fact  very  significant)  apply  the 
word  Petra,  and  the  Stone  laid  in  Zion  (called  also  by 
Peter  '^  Chief  Corner  Stone''),  to  Christ  only,  as  the 
foundation  of  the  Messiah-Kingdom  of  God. 

The  Kingly  House  on  Its  Rock. 

The  three  striking  passages  of  Isaiah  whose  figura- 
tive language  blends  in  Our  Lord's  saying  to  Peter 
are — Isa.  xxviii.  16-22,  and  Isa.  viii.  14,  and  Isa. 
xxii.  22.  The  first  two  of  these  three  passages  give 
us  the  picture  of  the  Rock  on  which  the  abiding 
Kingdom  of  God  was  to  be  builded,  like   a  kingly 

*  I.  Pet.  ii.,  6-8.  t  Rom.  ix.,  32,  33. 

E  2 


56         THE  ROMAN  CLAIM  AND  METHOD: 

house.*  Over  against  that  Kock-founded  Kmgdom  is 
pictured  the  league  of  "  Great  Ones"  trusting  in  the 
world-forces — a  Confederacy  of  Hades,  "  a  Covenant 
with  Death,  and  with  Hades  an  Agreement."  But  it 
is  all  in  vain!  Calmly  there  rises,  over  against  it, 
what  Jehovah  "  lays  in  Zion,  the  precious  Corner 
Stone — whosoever  believes  on  it  sliall  never  he  shaken,^^'f 
Yet,  though  it  is  a  strong  Centre  of  Kefuge — so  that 
"  whatsoever  escaped  from  doom,  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, stood  upon  THIS  Stone ":|: — it  will  be  also  a 
''  Kock  of  offence, "§  on  which  "  the  proud  shall  be 
broken  to  pieces." — Mat.  xxi.  42-44. ||  It  was  Jehovah 
himself  in  the  Old  Testament  that  was  called  the 
Eock.  But  the  prophetic  eye,  and  the  later  conscious- 
ness of  the  Jews,  applied  all  these  thoughts  to  the 
expected  Messiah.  The  word  '^  Rock"  was  "«  name  for 
the  Messiah  amongst  the  Jews.' 

The  other  passage  from  Isaiah  gives  us  the  simple 
meaning  of  the  word  ''  Keys,''  in  connection  with  this 
Messiah-Kingdom,  pictured  thus  by  the  Old  Testa- 
ment figure  of  a  Koyal  House  upon  the  Eock.  In 
Isa.  xxii.  15-25,  the  proud  "House-Steward"  of  the 
House  of  David,  who  lifted  himself  up  in  arrogant 
trust  upon  the  World-Kingdoms  and  their  alliances, 
is  ^^  pulled  down  from  his  standing  jjlace."'  Another  and 
worthier  Steward  of  the  house  is  appointed  in  his 
stead.  "And  the  Key  of  the  House  of  David"  is 
hung  upon  his  shoulder  "  to  open  and  to  shut"  the 
King's  house  to  the  approach  of  those  outside. 

*  Delitzsch's  memorable  treatment  of  Isa.  xxviii. ,  and  Cheyne's. 
lucid  exposition  of  the  same  chapter  should  be  read. 

t  Isa.  xxviii.  16.      J  Delitzsch.         Isa.  viii.  14-15.      II  Delitzsch. 

IT  Sanday. — See  the  very  striking  group  of  quotations  from  Jewish 
writers  and  Justin  given  by  Sanday  and  Headlam. — Romans  (1895),. 
pp.  280,  281. 


peter  and  the  rock.  57 

"The  Ke^s." 

''A  key*'  is  just  what  opens  a  door;  any  good  and 
believing  and  winsome  man  who  loves  Christ  can 
sm-ely  open  the  door  of  the  New  Testament  Church 
{that  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven),  and  can  win  those 
who  are  outside  into  it.  And  Peter,  as  we  all  gladly 
affirm,  was  the  first  man  who,  in  an  hour  of  defection, 
proclaimed  Christ  as  Messiah,  the  foundation  on  which 
the  Church  rests.  He  was  also  the  first  man  who 
opened  wide  the  door  of  the  New  Testament  Church  to 
the  approach  of  the  multitudes  outside.*  Delitzsch 
shows  that  the  phrase  ^^  binding  and  loosi7ig''  is 
another  figure  just  "  similar  in  sense. ""f" 

When  one  sees  thus  the  simple  meaning  of  these 
Jewish  Old  Testament  metaphors,  which  were  familiar 
to  Christ's  hearers,  the  "fitness"  and  force  of  his 
words  to  Peter  are  evident.  Simon  Peter  had  just 
boldly  announced  his  belief  in  Christ  as  the  King  of 
the  Messiah-Kingdom,  its  establisher — the  Messiah 
answering  to  the  people's  hopes  of  "the  Eock,"  on 
which  the  Kingdom  should  be  made  perpetual.  Christ 
answered — "  Thou  art  true  to  thy  name :  kin  to  the 
Eock,  and  on  this  Eock  I  will  build  my  Church,  the 
gathering  of  my  faithful  ones." 

For  many  years,  I  myself  believed  that  Our  Lord 
referred  to  Peter,  personally,  in  the  words  ''this  Rock," 
thinking  of  him  as  the  earliest  "living  stone"  in 
the  building  of  His  spiritual  house.  I  have  no 
bias,  as  a  Protestant,  not  to  believe  that  still,  for 
it  in  no  way  strengthens  the  Eoman  claim.  But, 
the  more  fully  one  studies  into  Old  Testament 
language,  and  into  Christ's  habitual  modes  of  speech, 
the  more  does  one  feel  driven  to  the  conclusion  that 

*  Meyer,  Lightfoot,  Alford,  Mansel,  Morison,  &c 
t  Del.  Isa.  in  loco  ;  cf.  Meyer,  &c. 


58         THE  ROMAN  CLAIM  AND  METHOD  I 

Augustine,  in  abandoning  his  earlier  opinion  (viz., 
that  "the  Kock"  was  Peter),  and  in  finally  deciding 
that  ''the  Rock"  meant  Christ  Himself  (on  whom, 
as  Messiah,  God's  congregation  is  built),  was  deciding 
according  to  criteria  of  true  interpretation. 

Both  Peter  and  Paul  Make  Christ  the  Eock. 

It  is  to  me  an  arresting  fact  tJiat  both  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul  apply  the  word  Petra  to  Christ  only ;  they 
represent  believing  men  as  but  "living  stones,"  built 
upon  that  one  foundation-stone.  I  am  arrested,  too, 
by  the  fact  of  St.  Paul  so  boldly  declaring,  "  Other 
foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is 
Christ  Jesus."  The  whole  New  Testament  chimes 
with  that.  [When,  in  Eph.  ii.  20,  believers,  as  the 
"household  of  God,"  are  said  to  be  built  on  the 
foundation  of  Apostles,  &c.,  of  course  the  genit.  is 
subjective,  viz.,  the  foiuiclation  laid  by  Apostles  (Mey., 
Stier,  Ellic),  or  possessed  and  held  firm  by  Apostles, 
Alford,  &c.].  I  am  impressed,  further,  with  the  fact 
that  nowhere,  in  all  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the 
"  Apostolic  fathers,"  is  there  any  hint  of  Peter  being 
the  "  rock,"  or  foundation  of  the  Church.  Paul  and 
the  others  regard  Peter  as  being  a  pillar  (o-rOXos) 
resting  on  the  Piock,  and  strengthening  and  helping 
to  support  the  fabric  of  the  Church's  stability.  But 
James  and  John  are  equally  "reputed"  as  "  pillars." 
This  interpretation  also  preserves  us  from  the  startling 
mixed  metaphor  which  would  make  Peter  both  rock 
on  which  the  House  is  built,  and  also  steward  having 
"  the  key"  of  that  House. 

In  any  case,  whatever  interpretation  w^e  take  of  the 
passage,  three  facts  (as  Lightfoot  urges)  must  be  kept 
in  mind — (1)  "  In  the  Old  Testament  Jehovah  is  '  the 
Eock;'"  (2)  "In  the  New  Testament,  in  like  manner, 
Christ  is  the  solid  basis  on  which  the  Christian  Church 


PETER   AND    THE    ROCK.  69 

rests  ;"  (3)  "  Obviously,  Peter  cannot  be  the  rock  in 
any  sense  which  trenches  upon  the  prerogative  of 
Christ."  Whatever  ''primacy"  be  claimed  for  Peter, 
it  must  be  only  "  the  primacy  of  historical  inaugura- 
tion."*   Then,  "  his  primacy  was  completed." 

Petros  and  Petra. 

But,  it  is  said  by  Komanists,  and  by  some  Protestant 
scholars,  that  Petros — the  name  assigned  to  Simon 
("Peter") — is  just  the  masculine  and  personified  form 
of  Petra  (rock).  I  answer  it  is  nothing  of  the  kind. 
A  scholar  of  both  Greek  and  Hebrew  will,  at  least,  be 
slow  to  accept  that.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  words 
Petra  =|rock,  or  cliff  (fit  to  be  the  basis  of  a  fortress,  or 
house)!,  and  Petros  —  a  piece  of  rock,t  a  stone  §  (fit  to 
be  flung  or  to  be  builded  upon  the  petra,  \\  are  very  old 
Greek  words  and  always  quite  distinct.  The  dis- 
tinction between  them  is  as  old  as  Homer  and  older. 
The  distinction  is  as  clear  in  "Hellenistic,"  or  Biblical 
Greek,  as  in  Classical  Greek.H  The  attempt  to  make 
petros  equivalent  at  times  to  j^etra  is  treated  with 
scant  courtesy  by  Liddell  and  Scott  (large  edition — 
"  there  is  no  evidence,''  &c.  j 

But  we  are  told  by  Dr.  Carr  that  "  the  demon- 
strative pronoun  this  identifies  the  petra  or  rock  with 
Peter."  I  answer  that  one  should  be  careful  in 
making  such  assertions,  in  view  of  the  New  Testament 
and  of  Hebrew  modes  of  language  and  gesture.  It 
would  seem  to  me  that  the  "demonstrative"  reference 
of  the  word  "  this"  to  Christ,  the  speaker  himself, 
is  characteristic  of  His  method  throughout.  In  fact 
this  argument  about  the  "  demonstrative"  force  cuts 

*  Clem,  of  Borne,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  486-7.    f  Matt.  vii.  25.     \  Morison. 

§  Lidd.  and  Scott,  &c. ;  Thayer  on  Grimm. 

II  Schmidt  Syn.  51,  4-6.     *i\  2  Mace.  i.  16;   iv.  41. 


60  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD  : 

the  other  way.  For  there  has  never  been  any 
adequate  answer  to  the  statement  of  the  elder  Light- 
foot  : — 

"If  he  (Christ)  had  intended  that  the  Church  should  be 
built  on  Peter,  it  had  been  plainer  and  more  agreeable  to  the 
vulgar  idiom  to  have  said — ^^Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  thee  I 
u-ill  build  my  Church.''* 

Accordingly,  one  finds  that  some  of  the  most  liberal 
and  broad-minded  of  modern  British  New  Testament 
scholars,  such  as  Plumptre  and  Morison,  affirm  that 
by  "this  Eock"  is  meant  Christ  himself,  and  others, 
like  Professor  A.  B.  Bruce,  that  "  not  Peter's  person 
but  Peter's  faith  (resting  on  the  Eock-i-  of  the  Eternal 
Truth)  is  the  fundamental  matter  in  Christ's  mind. "J 

Predicament  of  the  Eomish  Interpretation. 

We  shall  see  that  modern  Eoman  Catholic  advocates 
are,  on  this  question,  at  hopeless  variance  with  the 
early  Fathers.  And  Eome  stands  in  this  most 
awkward  predicament  that  she  is  now,  in  this  matter, 
propounding  as  doctrine,  not  only  what  has  not  "  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers,"  but  what  is 
directly  opposed  to  that  "  unanimous  consent." 

Eoman  View  Late. 

The  Eomanist  interpretation  was  an  afterthought, 
so  as  to  make  Scripture  square  with  the  notion  that 
Eome  was  the  seat  of  empire  and  authority,  and  that 
Peter,  as  Bishop  of  Eome,  was,  in  his  so-called  "suc- 
cessors" (the  Eoman  prelates),  the  centre  of  unity  and 
the  source  of  jurisdiction.     It  was  a  hard  task  to  find 


*  Light.  Works,  Ed.  Pitman,  vol.  xi. ,  p.  225, 

t  On  the  argument  that  Christ  "spoke  in   Syro-Chaldaic,"  see 
Appendix. 

I  Training  of  the  Twelve,  cap.  xi.,  pp.  163-5. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  61 

any  Scripture  which  could  be  bent  to  that  shape.  But 
Eome,  which  had  done  many  astute  things,  managed 
this  also.  In  the  fifth  century,  Celestine,*  Bishop  of 
Rome,  and  his  strong-willed  genius  of  an  Archdeacon, 
Leo,  afterwards  Pope  Leo  the  Great,  for  the  first  time 
mooted  the  theory  which  Leo,  afterwards,  so  daringly 
elaborated.  For  the  first  time  there  was  invented 
that  anti-scriptural  theory  of  Matthew  xvi.  18, 
which  is  now  in  the  mouth  of  every  combative 
Eomanist,  viz.,  that  Peter,  as  Prince  of  the  Apostles, 
was  the  one  "Rock"  on  which  Christ's  Church  is 
built,  and  that  he  was  supreme  over  the  other  Apostles, 
and  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  represent  him,  and 
speak  with  his  voice  of  authoritativeness,  and  from  his 
chair.i*  ''St.  Peter,"  says  Archbishop  Carr,  "was 
invested  by  Christ  with  supreme  authority  over  His 
Church."  In  my  fourth  lecture  we  shall  find  this 
theory,  championed  by  Leo,  trying  to  fight  its  way  to 
acceptance.  But  we  shall  see  that,  from  the  first,  it 
was  determinedly  resisted  by  Christendom.  Now,  and 
here,  I  shall  show  that  the  very  basis  of  Scripture 
interpretation  on  which  it  attempted  to  structure  itself 


*"Even  the  Western  Fathers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries, 
such  as  Hilary,  Ambrose,  Jerome,  and  Augustine,  as  also  Innocent 
I.,  had  still  interpreted  the  rrerpa  {Fetra)  of  jNIattheAv  xvi.  IS, 
partly  of  the  confession  of  Peter,  partly  of  the  Person  of  Christ." — 
Macpherson's  Kurtz,  vol.  i.,  p.  269. 

t  If  any  "Father"  eai-lier  than  Celestine  and  Leo  seems  to 
approach  their  notion,  it  is  the  obscure  Optatus  of  Milevi,  in  North 
Africa,  in  the  close  of  the  fourth  century  (a.d.  384).  His  Avritings 
are  much  interpolated.  "In  their  present  shape  we  may  call 
Optatus,"  says  Harnack,  "the  father  of  that  objective  theory  of  the 
Sacrament  which  has  played  so  vast  a  part  in  Western  dogmatics." 
In  fact,  we  owe  to  the  peculiar  mood  of  North  Africa  much,  both  of 
the  despotic  and  of  the  superstitious  and  sacerdotal  spirit,  which  has 
stamped  the  Western  or  Roman  Church." 

See  also,  as  to  the  views  of  the  "Fathers,"  Schaff — Nicene  and 
Post-Nic.  Chris.,  vol.  i. ,  p.  303.  Lightfoot — St.  Clem.,  vol.  ii., 
pp.  482-485. 


62         THE  ROMAN  CLAIM  AND  METHOD: 

was  a  thing  unknown  to  "the  Fathers,"  for  at  least 
three  and  a-half  centuries  after  our  Lord's  ascension. 
Archbishop  Carr  ventures  to  say:  — 

"Indeed,  Sfc.  Augustine  is  perhaps  the  only  one  amongst  the 
Fathers  who  aj3pears  in  two  passages  to  interpret  in  a  literal 
sense  the  petr a  or  rock  of  Christ." 

This  is,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  daring.  For,  a  little 
above,  the  Archbishop  had  to  confess  that  there  are : — 

"passages  from  St.  Cyril,  St.  Augustine,  St.  Jerome,  St. 
Ambrose,  and  Origen  which  are  usually  relied  on  by  our 
adversaries  to  minimise  the  force  of  the  text  of  St.  Matthew.  * 

Archbishop  Carr,  true  to  the  Eoman  method,  is 
"equal  to  the  occasion."  He  makes  a  fine-spun 
distinction  between  "a  primary"  and  an  "accom- 
modated" or  "secondary  sense  of  the  same  text  or 
texts."  After  this  preliminary,  we  are  not  astonished  to 
find  the  Archbishop  continuing  : — "  In  this  way  we  can 
easily  reconcile  the  passages  from  St.  Cyril,  St.  Augus- 
tine, St.  Jerome,"  &c.  Oh,  certainty  !  I  do  not  doubt 
that,  "iji  this  way,'"  you  can  reconcile  the  most  glaring 
contradictions  in  any  "  passages."  By  this  Eoman 
method  of  "  reconciling  passages,"  by  putting  a 
"  primary  sense"  upon  one,  and  a  "  secondar}^  sense" 
or  "accommodated  sense"  upon  another,  you  can,  in 
the  region  ',of  interpretation,  (just  as,  by  the  Eoman 
doctrine  of  "  intention,"  you  can,  in  the  region  of 
Ethic)  get  astonishing  results.  Hence,  Archbishop 
Carr  can,  apparent^,  satisfy  himself  by  having  to 
confess : — 

"These  Fathers  in  particular  passages  interpret  the  rock  of 
Christ,  as  well  they  might,  for  Christ  is,  as  St,  Leo  says,  the 
fundamental  and  independent  rock,  while  Peter  is  the  secondary 
find  dependent  rock." 

Now  I  never  went  to  school  in  this  kind,  either  of 
architecture,  or  of  exegesis.     These  hair-splitting  dis- 

*  Carr.     Six  Lectures,  pp.  84,  85. 


PETER   AND    THE    ROCK.  63 

tinctions  between  "  primary  sense"  and  "  secondary 
sense,"  between  "  fundamental  rock"  and  "secondary 
rock,"  do  not  appeal  to  me.  The  Archbishop's  words 
seem  to  yield,  sorely  against  his  will,  the  very  thing 
Protestants  sa}',  and  against  which  he  seeks  to  con- 
tend. 

Eome's  View  not  known  to  Early  Fathers. 

What  I  want  to  get  at  is,  not  the  ingenious  "  recon- 
ciling ofpassages,"  but  actual  facts.  Now  the  actual  facts 
are  that  the  "  Early  Catholic  Fathers,''  east  and  west, 
are  as  widely  at  variance  with  one  another  regarding 
the  interpretation  of  Our  Lord's  words  to  Peter,  (in 
Matt.  xvi.  18)  with  respect  to  the  iioc/j,  as  Protestant 
scholars  are  to-day.  "Uniform"  or  "infallible" 
basis  for  an  infallible  Church,  in  the  interpretation  of 
this  passage  by  "the  Fathers,"  we  can  find  nowhere ! 
"  Unanimous  consent  of  the  Fathers"  we  can  find 
nowhere  !  Naj^  more.  Archbishop  Carr's  assertion — 
"  Indeed  St.  Augustine  is  perhaps  the  only  one 
amongst  the  Fathers"  to  "  interpret  in  a  literal  sense 
the  petra  or  rock  of  Christ" — is  quite  contrary  to  fact. 

As  a  matter  of  simple  historic  truth,  the  interpreta- 
tion which  makes  the  Petra  (Piock)  mean  Christ,  and 
the  other  non-Eomish  interpretations,  meet  us  in  the 
earliest  Fathers  who  allude  to  the  passage.  And  they 
recur  and  reappear  through  all  the  early  centuries. 
Tlie  only  interpretation  whicJi  does  not  meet  us  in  the 
early  Fathers  is  the  Romanist  interpretation. 

Four  Views  in  Fathers. 

AVe  find  in  the  "  Early  Fathers" /oitr*  distinct  in- 
terpretations given   to   Christ's  words — "  Upon   this 


*  This  analj'sis  will,  I  venture  to  think,  be  found,  by  scholarly 
readers,  more  adequate  and  exact  than  the  hvo  categories  into 
which  Lightfoot  groups  the  views. 


64  THE  ROMAN  CLAIM  AND  METHOD: 

Rock  I  will  build  my  congregation."  (1)  ''The Rock" 
is  Christ  Himself.  This  meaning  is  expressed  as  early 
as  Tertullian.*  It  recurs  afterwards,  again  and  again. 
It  is  affirmed  by  the  great  Latin  Father,  Augustine,  and 
even  by  Cyril. 

(2)  The  Rock  has  reference  to  the  faith  of  Peter,  as 
spiritualty  illumined  to  confess  Christ  "  the  spiritual 
Rock,"  and  as  representative  of  every  believing  man. 
This  is  the  view^  of  Origen,  the  great  Alexandrian 
exegete  in  the  third  century,  and  he  expressed  it 
beautifully : — 

"If  we  also,  like  Peter,  say  Thou  art  the  Christy  the  Son  of 
the  living  God  .  .  .  the  Spirit  from  heaven  having  illumined 
our  heart,  ice  become  a  Peter,  and  it  would  be  said  to  us  through 
the  Word  'Thou  art  Peter,'  and  the  rest.  For  every  disciple  of 
(Jhrist  is  a  rock" 

So,  further,  declares  Origen — every  Apostle  is  as  much  a 
foundation  for  the  Church  as  Peter,  and  has  the  keys 
of  the  Kingdom's  door  as  much  as  he  : — 

"But,  if  thou  supposest  that  the  whole  Church  is  built  by  God 
on  that  one  Peter  alone,  what  would'st  thou  say  concerning 
John  the  Son  of  Thunder,  or  any  one  of  the  Apostles  ?  Other- 
wise, shall  we  dare  to  say  that  against  Peter  the  gates  of  Hades 
shall  not  prevail,  but  that  they  shall  prevail  against  the  rest  of 
the  Apostles  ?"t 

He  goes  on  to  say  that  the  same  "promises"  spoken 
to  Peter  are  given  "to  every  one"  who  has  Jaith  like 
Peter.  "  For  all  become  namesakes  of  the  rock  who 
are  imitators  of  Christ  the  Spiritual  Rock. "J 


•  Tert.  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  13.  "Again  He  changes  the  name  of  Simon 
to  Peter.  .  .  .  But  why  Peter  ?  .  .  .  Was  it  because  Christ 
was  both  a  Bock  and  a  Stone  ?  For  we  read  of  his  being  placed  for  a 
Stone  of  Stumbling  and  for  a  Rock  of  Offence."  It  is  odd  that 
writers  on  the  subject  seem  not  to  have  noted  this  striking  passage, 
for  its  distinct  echo  is  in  Augustine's  famous  treatment. 

t  Orig.  Comm.  on  Matt.  xvi.  13-20;  c.f.  also  Lightfoot,  Clem., 
vol.  ii.,  483. 

t  Ibid. 


PETER   AND    THE    ROCK.  65 

(3)  The  "Eock,"  according  to  other  "  Fathers,"  has 
reference  to  Shnon  Peter  m  his  personal  jwsition  as 
earliest  to  confess  Christ's  Messiahhood,  and  earHest 
in  throwing  oj^en,  at  Pentecost  and  at  Caesarea,  the 
door  of  Christ's  New  Testament  Kingdom  to  beheving 
men.  In  that  sense,  Peter  was  the  Jirst  stone  in  the 
building  of  Christ's  historic  Spiritual  House,  as  no 
one  else  can  be.  This  is  the  interpretation  given  by 
Tertullian  in  two  different  works  *  of  his,  one  of  them 
written  while  he  was  still  a  foremost  spokesman  of 
"  the  Orthodox  Church,"  and  before,  as  Jerome  rue- 
fully declares,  the  jealousy  and  tyrannical  treatment 
of  the  Pioman  clergy  drove  him  into  Montanist  revolt, 
Peter,  says  Tertullian,  is  called  rock.  But  in  the  next 
sentence  John  is  put  on  perfect  equality  with  him  as 
"  the  Lord's  most  beloved  disciple,"  and  "whom  He 
commended  to  Mary  as  a  Son  in  His  own  stead." 

Tertullian  on  Paul's  Piebuke  of  Peter,  &c. 

In  the  next  chapter  (23)  Tertullian  finds  it  necessary 
to  defend  Peter's  apostleship,  and  equality,  in  view 
of  Paul's  rebuke  of  Peter.  In  the  next  chapter  (24) 
he  finds  Peter's  thus  damaged  claim,  to  equality  and 
apostleship,  vindicated  again  by  the  fact  that  he  too 
as  well  as  Paul,  had  died  a  martyr's  death. 

"  It  is  a  happy  fact  that  Peter  is  on  the  same  level  with  Paul 
in  the  very  glory  of  martyrdom." — {De  Praescr.  Haer.  24.) 

In  his  other  writing,  where  he  makes  the  word 
"  rock"  refer  specially  to  Peter,  Tertulhan  shows  that, 
by  this  was  meant  only  that  the  Church  at  Pentecost 
hegati  with  Peter,  and  with   his  throwing   open   its 

*  Dc  Praescr.  Hapr.  22  ;  De  Pudic.  21.  It  is  substantially  the 
view  of  Alford  and  Lightfoot.  It  is  finely  put  by  Briggs — Messiah 
of  the  Apostles,  p.  28,  blending  with  it  the  Origen  view. 


66         THE  ROMAN  CLAIM  AND  METHOD  I 

message  of  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  to 
believing  men. 

"  [Peter]  himself ,  therefore,"  says  Tertullian,  "was  the  first 
to  unbar,  in  Christ's  baptism,  the  entrance  to  the  Heavenly 
Kingdom." 

''This  is,"  says  Tertullian,  "the  Key."  And  the 
"  loosing,"  he  declares,  meant  the  taking  away  and 
lifting  off  the  restrictions  which,  like  a  yoke,  had  been 
imposed  by  the  legalism  of  the  Past. 

"T/i-e  power  of  loosing  and  binding,  committed  to  Peter, 
had  nothing  to  do  with  the  capital  sins  of  believers,""*^  cries 
Tertullian. 

That  is  a  noble  protest  from  this  Latin  Father  in  the 
opening  of  the  third  century,  to  which,  had  the  Church 
of  Eome  in  later  centuries  listened,  there  would  have 
been  no  need  of  a  reformation.  For  there  would 
have  been  no  Popery. 

(4)  A  fourth  interpretation  of  the  early  Fathers 
was  that  Peter,  in  his  confession,  is  spoken  of  as 
*'rock,"  as  spokesman  and  representative  of  all  the 
Apostles,  in  their  common  faith  and  equal  authority, 
"  with  a  like  partnership  hotJi  of  honour  and  poiver.'* 
This  is  the  view  advocated,  in  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  by  Cyprian,i-  the  influential  North  African 
bishop.  By  this  theory  of  the  equality  and  unity  of 
the  Episcopate,  Cyprian  is  the  true  father  of,  what 
we  may  call,  an  incipient  "Old  Catholicism;"  all 
bishops,  as  representing  the  Apostles,  equal,  and  the 
unity  of  the  faith  voiced  through  them,  just  as  all 
the  Apostles  were  equal.  Their  equality  and  unity 
is  affirmed  in  what  Christ  said  to  Peter  as  spokesman 
for  them  all.  This  is  the  passage  of  Cyprian  which 
Kome  so  strikingly  interpolated ;  I  but  its  meaning 
stands  out  clear  through  all. 

*  De  Pudic.  21.     f  Cyp.  de  Unit.  EccL,  4.     Also  Epist.  Ixxv. 
I  See  Part  I.     Also  Lightfoot,   Clement,   vol.  ii.,   484-485  [and 
Brigkt's  Roman  See,  42.  43]. 


PETER   AND    THE    ROCK.  67 

^^  And  altliougli  He  fjiues  equal  authority  to  all  the  Apostles 
after  His  resurrection." 

And  again — 

"The  rest  of  the  Apostles  verily  were,  what  Peter  was, 
endowed  with  an  equal  partnership  of  honour  and  power,  but 
the  beginning  proceeds  from  unity,"  &c. 

Kesult — KoMAN  View  Unknown. 

Now,  I  have  been  at  pains  to  set  out  all  these  actual 
facts.  Look  straight  at  them.  The  interpretations  of 
that  passage  in  Matthew's  Gospel  differed  as  widely  in 
the  close  of  the  second,  and  in  the  third  centuries,  as 
now.  But,  differ  as  they  might,  there  is  not  a  trace,  east 
or  west,  of  theEomish  notion  of  Peter's  supremacy,  or 
of  a  Eoman  bishop's  supremacy  as  successor  of  Peter. 
This  very  Cyprian,  who  for  the  first  time  spoke  this 
theory  of  an  absolute  unity  of  the  Church  as  stand- 
ing in  the  ''inspired  Episcopate,"  spoke  in  terms  of 
absolute  equality  to  the  Bishops  of  Eome,  for  no 
one  bishop  was  higher  or  lower  than  another.  As 
we  shall  sec  in  a  later  lecture,  Cyprian  was  con- 
sulted as  to  whether  Cornelius,  Bishop  of  Eome,  was 
a  proper  bishop.  And  he  resisted  Stephen,  a  forceful 
and  later  Bishop  of  Eome,  on  a  question  of  Church 
administration  and  discipline,  and  carried  the  day 
against  him.  The  Eoman  clergy,  writing  to  this 
Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  call  him  "Papa" 
(Pope),*  Ep.  XXX. 

Everywhere,  in  those  early  centuries,  we  search  in 
vain  for  the  Eomish  interpretation.  As  late  as  the 
fourth  century,  even  the  Latin  Fathers  nearest  Eome, 
such  as  Ambrose  of  Milan,  and  even  Jerome  himself 

*  In  their  letters  they  (Cyprian  and  the  Bishops  of  Rome)  wrote 
in  terms  of  perfect  equality.  "  Cyprian  to  Cornelius,  his  brother, 
greeting,"  ''Cornelius  to  Cyprian,  his  brother,  greeting,  "Cyprian 
to  Stephen,  his  brother,  greeting,"  &c.    Ep.  xl. — Ixvi. 


68  THE    KOMAN    CLAIM    AND    METHOD: 

knew  nothing  of  Peter's  supremacy.     Jerome  says: — 

"The  Rock  is  Christ,  who  bestowed  upon  His  Apostles  that 
they  also  should  be  called  'rocks.'" — Amos  vi.  12. 

Ambrose  calls  the  "prmiacy"  of  Peter  only  a  ^'primacy 
of  confession  y  not  of  honour ;  a  primacy  of  faith,  not  of 
rankJ"^ 

In  fact,  with  Ambrose  it  is  still,  what  Lightfoot 
happil}^  terms,  "a  primacy  of  historical  inaugura- 
tion." Even  Jerome,  as  Schaff  and  others  have 
shown,  "vacillates in  his  explanation  of  iYiQpetra, now, 
like  Augustine,  referring  it  to  Christ,  now  to  Peter  and 
his  confession.'^ 

Augustine. 

Then  we  are  met  by  Augustine's  judgment  in  his 
matured  years. 

"For  the  reason  why  the  Lord  says  'On  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  church'  is  that  Peter  had  said:  'Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God.'  'On  this  rock  which  thou  hast  con- 
fessed,' says  he,  'I  will  build  My  church."  Petra  euhn  erat 
Christus  (for  Christ  was  the  rock)  upon  which  also  Peter  himself 
was  built ;  ' '  for  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is 
laid  which  is  Jesus  Christ,  "f 

That  is  said  by  the  greatest  Father  of  the  Western 
Church . 

Elsewhere  Augustine  says  : — 

"For  it  was  not  said  to  him  : — '  Thou  art  a  rock  {pttra),  but 
thou  art  Petrus  (Peter)  and  the  '  Rock'  was  Christ,  through 
confession  of  whom  Simon  received  the  name  of  Peter.'  "t 

Even  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  in  the  fifth  century, 
flatterer  of  Eome  for  his  own  purposes  though  he 
was,  yet  says  in  his  Expos,  on  Isai.,  that  the  words 
"On  this  rock"  mean  "Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. "§ 

*  De  Incur.  Dom.,  cap.  iv,  f  Tract,  in  Evang.  Joannis,  124. 

+  Retract.  I.,  i.21. 

§  Schaff  points  out  that  even  Gregory  VII.  (Hildebrand),  "  the 
greatest  Pope  of  the  Middle  Ages,"  endorsed  Augustine's  interpre- 
tation. 


PETER    AND    THE    ROCK.  69 

Here  then  is  a  strange  spectacle.  I  do  not  care 
to  follo\Y  Archbishop  Carr  into  his  laboured  casuistry 
in  answer  to  the  charge  that  the  modern  Eomanist 
interpretation  violates  the  principle  of  the  Tridentine 
Confession  of  Faith,  viz.: — 

"Neither  will  I  ever  take  and  interpret  them  (the  Scrip- 
tures) otherwise  than  according  to  the  lUianimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers." 

I  will  leave  Dr.  Carr  to  his  ingenious  apologetic 
against  his  "Anglican  antagonists,"  Dr.  Littledale, 
and  the  rest,  on  this  matter. 


Rome  Against  Rome. 

What  I  want  to  emphasise  is  that  Rome's  boast 
of  uniformity  of  doctrine  and  of  interpretation  is  a 
pompous  phrase,  having  no  reality  of  fact  to  correspond 
with  it.  And  the  phrase  about  "  unanimous  consent 
of  the  Fathers"  is  equally  unmeaning  and  convenient. 
Rome,  when  it  suits  her  purposes,  as  a  great  German 
scholar  puts  it,  simply  sets  aside  Scripture  under  the 
plea  of  "  tradition ; "  and  icJio  is  to  interpret  tradition? 
— The  Pope !  So  "  the  Fathers,"  whose  interpretation 
is  awkward  for  Rome's  purposes,  are  set  aside  ;  and 
even  the  solemn  decisions  of  earlier  Popes  are  set 
aside  when  inconvenient.  One  Pope  denounced  the 
withholding  of  the  cup  from  the  laity  as  sacrilege. 
A  later  Pope  and  Council  decreed  that  "sacrilege." 
Similarly  if  there  is  one  interpretation  of  Scripture 
more  than  another  which  is  contrary  to  "  the  unani- 
mous consent  of  the  Fatliers,''  it  is  the  modern  Romanist 
interpretation  of  Peter's  sole  supremacy  and  Rome's 
supremacy  based  on  Chrisfs  saying  about  the  rock. 

No  Father  and  no  Bishop  of  Rome  knew  anything 
of  it  till  the  close  of  the  fourth  century.  The  Bishop 
of    Antioch    was    then,    amusing    to    relate,  called 


70  THE    ROMAN    CLAIM    AND    3IETH0D  I 

''  Successor  of  Peter,"  and  Antiocli  had  "  the  throne 
of  Peter"— that  is  ''his  faith."  If  by  ''the  Fathers" 
be  meant  the  faith  of  Christendom  in  the  first  four 
centuries,  then  certainly  the  modern  Eomanist  doctrine 
of  Papalism  and  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Bishop  of 
Eome  is  contrary  to  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
greatest  Fathers  east  and  west.  It  is  a  small  thing 
to  Eome  to  say  that  it  is  against  ScrijJture.  For  the 
priestly  arrogance  which  has  not  hesitated  to  force  the 
Apocrypha  into  the  canon  of  inspired  Scripture, 
though  Jerome  excluded  it,  and  to  strike  the  second 
commandment  out  of  the  Decalogue,  splitting  the 
tenth  into  two  commandments,  is  easily  equal  to  the 
task  of  resting  the  huge  fabric  of  the  modern  Papacy 
on  a  wild  theory  of  Peter's  sovereignty  over  all  other 
Apostles,  founded  on  a  forced  interpretation  of  "key," 
and  "Gates  of  Hades,"  and  "rock,"  and  "binding 
and  loosing,"  which  (were  it  true)  would  condemn 
the  greatest  of  the  Fathers  as  arch-heretics. 

"  What  a  gigantic  system  of  spiritual  despotism," 
says  Professor  A.  B.  Bruce,  "and  .  .  assumption 
has  been  built  on  these  two  sentences  concerning 
the  rock  and  the  keys !  How  nearly  by  their  aid 
has  the  Kingdom  of  God  been  turned  into  a  Kingdom 
of  Satan."*  Yes,  that  name — "  Satan" — remember, 
Simon  bore  too.  The  Eomanist  interpretation  is 
additionally  hampered  b}^  this  startling  fact  that  in 
the  same  hour  when  our  Lord  called  Simon  "  Petros" 
for  confessing  His  Messiahhood  he  also  called  him 
"  Satan,"  and  bade  him  get  behind  Him,  for  being 
blind  to  the  fact  that  His  Kingdom  was  not  one 
of  worldly  force  and  temporal  power,  but  was  to  be 
won  through  redeeming  love  and  sacrifice.  "  Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan,"  just  as  He  did  to  the 
Tempter,  in  the  wilderness,  who  offered  Him   "  the 

*  Training  of  the  Twelve,  cap.  xi.,  p.  165. 


PETER   AND    THE    ROCK.  71 

kingdoms  of  the  world"  and  their  glory.  The  attempt 
of  the  Douay  version  to  explain  those  words  away, 
and  to  get  rid  of  the  fact  that  if  the  Eoman  Chm^ch 
is  built  on  Petros  it  is  also  built  on  Satanas,  is  of  the 
sorriest  description  and  can  satisfy  no  candid  mind. 

"The  Holy  Fathers  expound  them  otherwise ;  that  is,  Come 
after  Me,  or  folloiv  Me  ;  and"     .     .     &c. 

Peace  to  the  ''Holy  Fathers! "  We  have  seen  how 
they  and  Eome  square.  But  the  worst  of  all  the  evil 
is  that,  by  building  thus  an  external  hierarchy  on  this 
external  "  rock"  at  Piome,  there  has  been  hidden  from 
the  view  of  the  peoples  that  living  Christ  who,  in  His 
Spiritual  Messiahhood,  without  any  external  power  of 
world-kingdom,  was  once  so  nobly  confessed  by  the 
Eockman,  Simon  Peter.  Once,  in  the  spiritual  sway  of 
His  gospel  over  the  souls  of  men,  He  could  come  into 
the  world's  cities — when  His  Church  had  no  altar  or 
High-Priest  except  Himself — and  could  say,  ''Come 
unto  Me."  And  all  who  did  come  repentant,  taking 
of  His  Spirit  into  will  and  heart,  He  made  "  kings 
and  priests  unto  God."  All  His  ministers  He  made 
(as  St.  Peter  himself  declares)  not  "  lords  over  God's 
heritage,"  but  simply  teachers  and  ensamples  to  His 
flock." 


72  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 


LECTURE  SECOND. 


The  Roman  Legend  of  Peter.— The  Ques- 
tion AND  Modern  Scholarship. -Was 
Peter  '' Bishop  of  Rome?" 


"  Behold  how  much  wood  is  kindled  by  how  small  a  fire." — St. 
James  iii.,  5  (Rev,  Vers.) 

The  first  proposition  of  the  Eoman  claim  was,  as  we 
saw  in  last  lecture — 

"That   St.    Peter   was   invested   by    Christ   with    Supreme 
authority  over  His  Church." 

The  second  proposition  is,  and  it  is  this  we  are  now 
to  examine — 

"  That  St.  Peter  finally  fixed  his  See  in  Rome."* 

So  the  "  rock"  has  got  transferred,  by  some  strange 
geographical  shift,  from  the  east  to  the  west,  from  the 
great  limestone  plateau  of  Zion  to  the  slope  near 
Janiculum  by  the  yellow  Tiber  at  Rome.  The  married 
fisherman  of  Galilee,  Simon  Peter,  was  destined  to  a 
strange  fate,  topographical,  sacerdotal,  political.  He 
was  to  become  the  legendary  head  of  a  vast  system 
of  celibate  monks  and  priests,  bishoi^s,  archbishops, 
and  prince-cardinals,  and  of  a  line  of  papal  monarchs 
reigning  in  a  great  palace  at  Rome  and  at  Avignon, 
and  carrying  both  "  the  keys"  that  admit  into  the 
heavenly  gates,  and  also  the  sceptre-staff  under  which 

*  Carr.     Primacy,  p.  8. 


OF    PETER.  73 

peoples,  parliaments,  kings,  and  emperors  should  be 
commanded  to  bow.  Poor  Peter,  had  he  but  known 
it !  From  the  substance  of  his  teaching  and  his 
epistle  I  judge  he  w^ould  not  have  been  gratified.  To 
Cornelius,  the  Latin  centurion,  who  bowed  down  at 
his  feet,  he  said: — "Stand  up,  I  myself  also  am  a 
man!"*  The  Elders  away  in  his  wide  field  of 
missionary  work  in  Asia  and  "  by  the  shores  of  the 
Black  Sea""!-  he,  as  their  fellow-elder,  counselled  not 
to  "lord  it  over  their  charge"  but  to  "make  them- 
selves ensamples  to  the  flock."  And  he  told  them 
there  is  only  one  "  Chief  Shepherd,"  therefore  they 
should  be  lowly,  and  "serve."  For,  adds  he,  "God 
resisteth  the  proud,  but  giveth  grace  to  the  humble."! 
Now,  I  need  not  stop  to  show  the  huge  anachronism 
involved  in  the  Eomanist  assertion  that  "St.  Peter 
fixed  his  See  in  Eome."  Here,  again,  there  is  that 
fatal  "ambiguity  of  terms."  The  word  "  see"  meant, 
originally,  simply  "seat,"  the  sedes,  or  seat,  of  a 
teacher.  How  words  alter  their  meaning;  the  simple 
gets  ghostly;  the  noble,  through  Time's  wear,  gets 
vulgar!  The  word  "silly"  once  meant  ^'hlessecV  On 
the  other  hand,  one  awesome  priestly  garment,  much 
in  vogue  at  present,  meant  originally,  as  Max  Miiller 
and  Dean  Stanley  have  shown,  a  kerchief  iov  the  nose. 
Another,  the  "  dalmatic,"  was  a  common  piece  of 
raiment  of  a  Dalmatian  peasant.  So  the  simple  word 
"see,"§  at  first  innocent  of  any  priestly  meaning,  now 
suggests  awesome  and  lordly  things  of  Diocesan 
crozier,  mitre,  and  despotic  authority.      As  Professor 

*  Acts  X.,  26.        t  "  Harnack"  on  1  Pet.  i.  +1  Pet.  v.,  1—5. 

§  Thus  Our  Lord,  in  denunciation,  says  : — "  The  Scribes  and  the 
Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat."  (Douay — Rheims  version — following 
Wycliffe,  translates  it  ^' chair.")  The  French  word  for  pulpit  is 
chaire,  which  is  shortened  for  Cadera,  Greek  Kathedra,  as  above. 
The  history  of  this  word,  till  at  last  it  became  the  pompous 
Cathedra  Petri,  is  significant.  So  "a  Professor's  chair." — Cf. 
Morison  on  Matt. 


74  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

Sanday,  treating  of  the  once  simple  word  "bishop," 
says: — ''  We  arc  slaves  ofwoi'ds."' 

But  apart  from  this,  in  Archbishop  Carr's  lectm-es, 
two  quite  different  things  are  shrewdly  mixed  to- 
gether— the  question,  viz.:  Did  Peter  ever  visit 
Rome?  and  the  quite  different  question,  which  in- 
volves a  glaring  anachronism:  Was  Peter  bishop  of 
Rome,  as  the  Roman  legend  affirms,  for  twenty-five 
years? — Did  he,  as  the  Roman  claim  affirms,  found 
the  Roman  Church,  and  institute  a  line  of  Popes  who 
have  descended  in  unbroken  succession  from  him? 

Now,  those  two  questions  we  must  keep  distinct. 
They  have  really  little  to  do  the  one  with  the  other. 
Even  if  you  could  prove  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome, 
(and  I  wish  you  could  prove  it),  this  would  not  in  the 
least  prove  that  Peter  founded  the  Church  of  Rome, 
or  ever  was  a  ''bishop"  there.  There  was  no  such 
thing  in  those  days  as  a  single  bishop  ruling  a  church 
an}^ where.  And  a  wandering  Missionary  Apostle  was 
just  as  unlike  as  could  be  to  3'Our  modern  hierar- 
chical notion  of  "  a  bishop." 

Did  Peter  Visit  Rome? 

Now,  the  Archbishop,  like  Roman  advocates  gener- 
ally, says  it  is  ''for  controversial  purposes  many  Pro- 
testant scholars  find  difficulty  in  assenting  to  the 
affirmation  that  Peter  visited  Rome."  I  answer  that 
it  is  certainly  for  nothing  of  the  kind.  A  supposed 
visit  by  Peter  to  Rome  would  not  in  the  least  give  any 
basis  for  the  Roman  claim,  or  imply  a  hisltopric  of 
Peter  at  Rome,  any  more  than  a  visit  of  Paul  or  of 
Timothy  or  of  John  to  Rome  would  imply,  that  they 
were  "  bishops  of  Rome."  As  Bishop  Lightfoot,  an 
eminent  Anglican  scholar  (who  thought  that,  for  a 
few  months,  Peter  probably  did  visit  Rome)  says,  the 
question   is  to  be  pursued   simply  "as  a  historical 


OF    PETER.  75 

study."  And,  from  the  facts  of  history,  he  not  only 
rejects  as  an  anachronism  the  notion  that  Peter 
could  be  ''  bishop  of  Rome,"  but  further  declares — 

"Now  I  cannot  find  that  any  writers  for  the  first  two 
centuries  and  more  speak  of  St.  Peter  as  bishop  of  Rome.""^ 

Sieffert  and  Schaff,  eminent  Presbyterian  scholars, 
who  also  thought  it  probable  "  that  Peter  died  in 
Rome  as  a  martyr  under  Nero,"  say  further — 

"For  the  Roman  Catholic  fiction  of  a  twenty-five  years' 
Roman  bishopric  of  Peter  there  is  no  foundation.  The  New 
Testament  is  surely  against  it."t 

So  that,  evidentl}^  Protestant  scholars,  have  no  con- 
troversial prejudice  in  dealing  with  this  question — 
''Did  Peter  visit  Rome?" 


Carr  on  Calvin. 

Even  the  Archbishop  of  an  infallible  Church  may 
err.  Even  Popes,  as  we  shall  see,  have  badly  erred. 
Here  is  what  Archbishop  Carr  said  in  1893  : — 

"That  St.  Peter  resided  in  Rome,  and  died  there,  and  that  he 
was  Bishop  of  Rome,  are  historic  facts,  which  were  never  dis- 
puted before  Calvin's  time."t. 

That  is  an  amazing  sentence !  Someone,  in  the 
meantime,  has  been  priming  the  Archbishop.  Now, 
in  his  Primacy  lectures  of  1896,  he  says — 

"  Before  the  fourteenth§  century  no  one,  however  hostile  to 
the  Holy  See,  had  ever  ventured  to  deny  the  fact  of  St.  Peter's 
sojourn  in  the  imperial  city.  It  was  reserved  for  Marsilius,  of 
Padua,  in  furtherance  of  political  purposes,  to  assert  that  St. 
Peter  had  never  been  at  Rome,  &c." 


*  S.  Clem.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  501. 
+  Professor  Sieffert  in  Schaff's  Herzog. 
X  Carr,  Origin  of  the  Church  of  England  (1893).     Append,  p.  83. 
§  In   a  footnote  Dr.   Carr  confesses  that  the  Waldenses  in  the 
thirteenth  century  denied  it.  ||  Primacy,  p.  9. 


76  THE    KOMAN    LEGEND 

And  Dr.  Can*  goes  on  to  say : — 

' '  Their  cry  was  taken  up  by  Wycliffe  and  by  Luther.  Calvin 
evidently  did  not  care  to  risk  his  reputation  for  learning  by  run- 
ning counter  to  the  universal  testimony  of  fourteen  centuries. 
'  There  is  nothing  repugnant  in  the  statement  that  Peter  died 
at  Rome"  is,  however,  the  extent  of  his  (Calvin's)  admission.'"* 

Here,  again,  Archbishop  Carr  leaves  quite  an  in- 
correct impression.  But  he  is  making  progress. 
He  has  now  learnt  that  on  this  matter  (as  on  all 
matters  of  historic  investigation  and  of  exegesis)  that 
great  Augustinian  thinker  and  scholar,  Calvin,  whom 
even  flippant  Kenan  called  the  greatest  and  "  most 
Christian  man  of  his  century,"  was  careful  always  not 
to  "risk  his  reputation  for  learning."  He  had  certainly 
a  great  reputation  for  that ;  and  kept  true  to  truth. 
He  always  looked  facts  straight  in  the  face,  and  never 
shirked  them  even  when  it  made  against  his  own 
theology.  And  nowhere  in  literature  will  you  find,  for 
calm  and  fair  historic  analysis,  and  for  quiet  yet 
brilliant  humour,  anything  finer  than  Calvin's 
criticism  of  Peter's  so-called  Eoman  Episcopate. 
After  showing  the  strange  contradictions  of  early 
writers  as  to  Peter  and  Eome,  Calvin  says : — 

I  do  not  dispute  that  he  died  there  (non  piignof  qnin  lllic 
mortnus  flier  it),  but  that  he  was  bishop,  particularly  for  a  long 
period,  I  do  not  believe.  I  do  not,  hoirever,  attach  much  impor- 
tance to  the  point,  since  Paul  testifies  that  the  Apostleship  of 
Peter  pertained  specially  to  the  Jews,  but  his  own  (Paul's) 
specially  to  us.  .  .  .  We  ought  to  pay  more  regard  to  the 
Apostleship  of  Paul  than  to  that  of  Peter,  since  the  Holy  Spirit 
destined  Peter  for  the  Jews,  and  Paul  for  us.  Let  the 
Romanists,  therefore,  seek  their  primacy  somewhere  else  than 
in  the  Word  of  God,  which  gives  not  the  least  foundation  for  it. 

[Note. — Dr.  Carr's  foot-reference  is  here — as  often  —unmeaning. 
The    following    are     some     of    Calvin's    sentences: — "By    what 

•  Id.,  p.  9-10. 
+  I  suppose  this  is  what  Dr.  Carr  funnily  translates  l)y  "  there  is 
nothing  repugnant."  +  Instit.  Bk.  iv,,  cap.  vi.,  15. 


OF    PETER.  77 

authority  do  they  annex  this  dignity  to  a  particular  place,  when  it 
was  given  without  any  mention  of  place?"  "  Let  us  see  how 
admirably  they  reason.  Peter,  they  say,  had  the  first  place  among 
the  Apostles.  .  .  .  But  where  did  he  first  sit  ^  At  Antioch, 
they  sa.y.  Therefore,  the  Church  of  Antioch  justly  claims  the 
Primacy."  "Nay,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  (written  from 
Kome)  ...  he  (Paul)  complains  that  all  seek  their  oxon.  And 
to  Timothy  he  makes  more  grievous  complaint  that  no  man  was 
present  at  his  first  defence — that  '  all  men  forsook'  him  (2  Tim.  iv., 
16).  Where,  then,  loas  Peter  /  If  they  say  that  he  was  at  Rome, 
how  disgraceful  the  charge  which  Paul  iDrings  against  him  of  being 
a  deserter  of  the  Gospel."  "  But  these  authors  are  not  agreed  as  to 
who  was  his  (Peter's)  succes.sor.  Some  say  Linus  ;  others,  Clement, 
And  they  relate  many  absurd  fables  concerning  a  discussion  between 
him  and  Simon  Magus."  (Bk.  iv.,  cap.  vi.,  11-12-15.)  Oh,  rare 
John  Calvin ! 

In  fact,  a  course  of  Augustinian  John  Calvin  and  of  that  daring 
Marsilius  of  Padua,  Rector  of  the  University  of  Paris,  who,  as  early 
as  A.D.  1323  in  Rome's  days  of  greatest  splendour,  dared  to  tell  the 
Pope  that  "  the  Priest  should  have  no  secular  power  ;"  that  "  the 
New  Testament  knows  no  difference  between  a  presbyter  and 
a  bishop,  and  no  difference  between  Peter  and  the  other  Apostles;"  - 
and  that  "  the  sole  head  of  the  Church  is  Christ,"  would  be  good 
for  Archbishop  Carr.  And  then,  if  he  comes  to  be  Pope,  as  I  hope 
he  will  (for  most  ungratefully  they  have  never  yet  elected  an  Irish- 
man as  Peter's  successor)  there  will  be  some  chance  of  the  reunion 
of  Christendom.] 

I  need  not  make  comments  on  these  wonderful  self- 
contradictory  readings  of  history  spoken  by  Arch- 
bishop Carr  on  Calvin  and  others,  nor  on  the  spirit  of 
them.  Calvin,  just  like  Harnack  and  other  scholars 
of  our  later  day,  saw  no  reliable  proof  that  Peter  ever 
visited  Eome.  He  saw  the  huge  legends  that  sur- 
round the  Eoman  assertion  regarding  it.  But  he 
personally  had  no  objection  to  the  theory  ;  and  he 
seems  to  have  been  inclined  to  accept  the  statement 
made  by  certain  "Fathers"  that  Peter  died  at  Eome. 

I  myself  would  like  to  believe  that  if  I  could  ;  and 
I  have  tried  hard  to  find  some  evidence.  I  would 
gladly  prove,  if  it  were  possible,  that  Peter  came 
to  Eome.  Unfortunately  I  am  not  able  to  do  it.  My 
reasons  for  wishing  it  are  two ;  (1)  There  are  some 
interesting  questions  about  the  New  Testament  gospels 


78  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

on  which  the  decision  of  this  question,  one  way  or  the 
other,  might  cast  some  light;  (2)  secondly,  I  should 
at  once  hecome  famous.  And  this,  for  a  hard-worked 
Australian  parson  or  professor,  W'Ould  be  a  pleasant 
thing.  Any  man  who  can  prove  that  the  Apostle 
Peter  actually  visited  Eome  will  awake  next  morning 
and  find  himself  famous,  in  the  world  of  scholars, 
writers,  and  publishers.  The  publishers  and  magazine 
editors  will  be  running  after  him  then,  as  they  now 
run  after  some  latest  discovery  of  a  "novelist,"  wdio 
will  describe  in  artistic  fashion  a  hypnotised  washer- 
woman's unclad  foot,  or  make  "  idylls"  in  which  rural 
persons  sob  and  sin  in  a  little  less  natural  way  than 
ourselves,  and  in  a  largely  unintelligible  dialect. 

Modern   Scholarship  and  Peter  in  Eome. 

The  stud}'  of  the  whole  question  has  been  revolu- 
tionised, in  our  da}^  by  the  profound  investigations 
into  the  subject  made  by  Professor  Lipsius,*  of 
Germany.  He  holds  the  very  highest  place  of  fame 
as  a  historian  and  archaeologist.  As  the  result  of  his 
investigations,  he  declares  that  the  Eomish  tradition 
of  the  twenty-five  years'  bishopric  of  Peter  at  Eome  is 
a  fable,  the  result  of  the  growth  of  legend.  He  also 
shows  how  that  legend  arose.  We  shall,  later  on, 
trace  that  legend.  Then,  as  to  the  other  and  different 
question — "  Did  Peter  ever  come  to  Eome?" — Lipsius 
decides  against  it.  The  historic  facts  and  probabilities, 
he  holds,  are  all  opposed  to  such  a  belief.  This  view 
other  modern  scholars  of  the  foremost  rank  have 
taken — such  as  De  Wette,  Winer,  Baur,  Mayerhof, 
Holtzmann,  Hausrath,  Zeller,  and   Schwegler.     The 

*  Lipsius,  Chronologie  der  romischen  Bisch'dfe,  and  various  other 
works  Hort,  Harnack,  Duchesne,  and  others  engaged  in  thfr 
disciission.  See  the  literature  given  in  Lightfoot,  S.  Clem.,  vol.  I., 
201-2.  Lightfoot  sets  the  very  highest  value  on  Lipsius  and 
Harnack. 


OF    PETER.  79 

force  of  the  facts  adduced  by  these  scholars  shook 
even  Neander,  formerl}^  an  eminent  champion  of  the 
other  view. 

On  the  other  hand,  a  number  of  eminent  modern 
scholars,  such  as  Wieseler,  Ewald,  Bleek,  Hilgenfeld, 
Sieffert,  Lightfoot,  Eenan  and  Sanday  have  inclined 
to  the  opinion  that  Peter  did  probably  come  to  Eome 
for  a  brief  time  to  encourage  the  Jewish  Christians 
there,  in  the  epoch  of  the  Neronian  persecution. 
But  they  admit  that  for  this  there  is  no  clear  and 
distinct  contemporary  proof.  And  his  stay  in  Eome 
could  have  been  at  most  only  for  a  few  months. 
Harnack,  probably  the  greatest  living  scholar  on  the 
religious  histor}^  of  the  early  centuries,  suspends  his 
judgment.  He  declares  that  *'the  probabilities  of 
the  case  are  evenly  balanced."  But  the  notion  of 
Peter  as  having  founded  the  Church  of  Eome,  or  as 
having  been  bishop  of  Eome,  is  impossible.  These 
scholars  unanimously  declare  the  Eomanist  tradition  of 
Peter  as  founder  of  the  Eoman  Christian  Church,  or  as 
claiming  "primacy,"  or  as  having  established  in  Eome 
an  "  apostolic  succession,"  or  as  having  been  bishop 
of  Eome  for  twent3'-five  3^ears,  or  "bishop  of  Eome" 
at  all,  to  be  bej^ond  belief.*  The  more  learned  and 
candid  of  even  Eoman  Catholic  theologians  have  now 
yielded  so  far,  to  the  force  of  facts,  as  to  admit  that 
Peter's  visit  to  Eome,  to  use  Farrar's  words,  "could 
only  have  been  very  briefly  before  his  martyrdom."! 
Here  arises  a  huge  difficulty  for  the  Eoman  Catholic 


*  Lightfoot  holds  that  if  Peter  came  to  Rome  at  all  it  could  only 
have  been  after  Paul  Avas  set  free  from  his  "first  imprisonment." 
"8.  Peter  would  then  arrive  in  Rome  in  the  latter  part  of  63  or  the 
beginning  of  64.  The  Neronian  persecution  broke  out  soon  after- 
wards (summer  of  64),  and  he  (Peter)  would  be  one  of  the  most 
prominent  victims."     *S'.  Clem.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  497. 

+  Farrar  gives  a  list  of  R.  C.  writers  to  the  same  effect.  Dollinger, 
one  of  that  list,  abandoned  Rome  when  the  dogma  of  infallibility  was 
carried.  Other  Roman  Catholic  theologians,  e.g.  Ellendorf,  have 
cast  doubt  on  the  whole  scheme  of  Peter's  "  bishopric "  at  Rome. 
Cf.  Bleek  and  Weiss. 


80  THE    ROMAN   LEGEND 

position.  The  twenty-five  years'  episcopate  of  Peter 
at  Eoroe  is  inwoven  with  Eoman  tradition  since 
Jerome's  clay,  and  with  the  "Pontifical  list,"  and  is 
part  of  the  warp  and  woof  of  the  authoritative 
Eheims-Douay  Komanist  Bible.  Papalism  depends 
upon  it,  yet  it  is  an  absolute  impossibility.  And 
any  visit  at  all  to  Eome  by  Peter  is  a  matter  of 
the  greatest  uncertainty.  It  is  awkward  for  an 
"  infallible"  Church  and  Pope  to  be  built  on  what,  at 
best,  is  an  utter  uncertainty.  For  "more  tlian.  a 
hundred  years''  after  the  death  of  Paul,  and  of  what 
must  have  been  in  the  ordinary  course  of  nature  the 
approximate  date  of  Peter's  owm  death,  as  Harnack 
points  out,  not  a  single  item  of  clear  contemporary 
proof  can  he  found  in  favour  of  the  notion  that  Peter  ever 
was  in  Rome.  The  earliest  writing  in  which  it  is 
stated  is  the  letter  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth  *  (cir.  170) 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century.  Apparently 
the  sacerdotal  mind  has  no  notion  of  what  the  lapse 
of  a  century  means  in  the  growth  of  legend  and  of  wild 
imaginings  of  all  kinds. 

The  "Fathers"  and  Legend. 

As  we  shall  see  later,  the  "testimony"  of  "Fathers" 
like  Dionysius,  Irenaeus,  and  Tertullian  in  the  close 
of  the  second  century,  regarding  matters  such  as 
this,  more  than  a  hundred  years  before  their  time, 
is  worse  than  worthless.  For  they  "testify"  too 
much.  They  testify  what  is  self- evidently  ridiculous. 
Meanwhile,  during  that  second  century,  both  from 
wdthin  and  from  without  the  Christian  community  at 
Eome,  there  had  taken  place  the  swift  growth  of 
what  all  scholars  admit  to  be  a  fantastic  legend,  com- 
bining and  interlacing  together  the  two  Apostles, 
the    Apostle   of  the   Jewish    Christians,    Peter,    and 

JEuseb.  H.E.,  ii.,  25. 


OF    PETER.  81 

the  Apostle  of  the  Gentile  Christians,  Paul.  When 
Clement  of  Eome,  probably  in  the  last  decade  of  the 
first  century,*  writes  his  letter  to  Corinth,  he  knows 
nothing  of  the  Paul-Peter  legend.  At  least  he  says 
nothing.  Paul  is,  with  him,  the  important  fact. 
Eighty  to  a  hundred  years  later,  when  Dionysius, 
Irenaeus,  and  Tertullian  wrote,  with  no  contem- 
porary' facts  to  check  them,  the  Peter-Paul  legend 
fills  the  whole  air  at  Piome.  In  their  Apologetic 
of  the  Christian  faith  against  hostile  and  clever 
Jew  and  Pagan  attacks, — and  especially  against 
a  swarm  of  heresiarchs,  each  one  using  some  one 
Apostle's  name  for  shihholeth, — these  Fathers  are 
busy  vindicating  the  unity  of  the  Apostles  ;  busy 
proving  that  Paul  did  not  very  strongly  conflict  with 
Peter  at  Antioch.  St.  Paul  himself,  writing  to  his 
factious  Corinthians,  had  shown  his  real  unity  with 
Cephas  and  Apollos  ;"f*  but  that  had  nothing  to  do  with 
Piome.  The  second  century  "Fathers"  had  to  justify 
that  unity  to  the  outside  icorld,  and  to  the  heresiarchs 
in  the  distant  west.  And  they  did  it  strongly.  They 
did  it  too  strongly.  That  is  their  weakness.  They  made 
use  of  a  fantastic  legend  about  Peter's  journeyings, 
which  had  caught  hold  of  the  pious  imagination, 
to  strengthen  their  argument  for  the  faith's  unity. 
When  a  modern  historical  critic,  like  Lipsius  or 
Harnack,  tests  their  statements  by  facts  (as  Calvin 
tried  to  do  long  ago)  then  the  second  century  legend 
can  be  easily  peeled  off,  and  split  away  from  the^rs^ 
century  kernel  of  Apostolic  truth. 

Hast  thou  not  read  the  French  version  of  Waterloo, 
or  the  French  story  of  their  warship  Vengem\ 
destroyed  by  the  villainous  British  ?  The  gallant 
Vengeur  will  not  strike  her   flag !    .    .    .   .     "  Ocean 

*  Lightfoot  saj's  95  or  96  a.d.,  Harnack  96. 
t  This  is  really  one  root  of  the  later  imagination  that  Peter  and 
Paul  together  founded  the  Church  both  in  Corinth  and  in  Italy. 


82  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

yawns  abysmal:  down  rushes  the  Vengeur,  carrying 
Vive  la  Repuhlique  unconquerable,  mto  eternity,"  with 
all  her  officers  and  men  refusing  to  yield.  How 
beautiful  the  story !  All  France  believed  it  soon,  and 
would  have  continued  to  believe  it,  had  not  contem- 
porary facts  existed  to  refute  it.  But  Carlyle  turns 
the  page — applies  the  historic  lancet. 

"Alas,  alas  !  the  Vengeur,  after  fighting  bravely,  did  sink 
altogether  as  other  ships  do,  her  captain  and  above  two  hundred 
of  her  crew  escaping  gladly  in  British  boats.  ""^ 

That  is  a  small  matter  compared  with  the  second 
century  Apocryphal  writings  regarding  Paul  and 
Peter,  which  had  birth  and  growth  between  the  time 
of  Clement  of  Kome  (95  a.d.)  and  the  time  of  Irenaeus 
(cir.  190). t  I  shall  look  at  those  legends  immediately. 
Just  now  let  me  put  the  result  as  to  the  "  Roman 
Visit  of  Peter  tlms  : — To  all  candid  students  of  history 
the  Peter-Paul  founding  of  the  Church  of  Eome  is  pal- 
pably and  provably  a  legend.  The  contemporary  facts 
of  Paul's,  and  Peter's,  and  Luke's,  and  the  other  New 
Testament  writings  are  all  against  it.  And  Peter's 
visit  to  Eome,  I  very  much  fear  is  a  legend  ]  also.   There 

*  French  Bevol.,  vol.  iii.,  bk.  v.,  cap.  vi. 
+  Lightfoot  date  for  Adv.  Burr. 

I  Prof.  Ramsay's  new  theory  is  the  only  one  which  Av^ould  make  it 
feasible.  He  thinks  that  Peter's  "  First  Epistle"  was  not  written 
till  "  about  A.D.  80,"  §  instead  of  in  (63  or)  64  to  which  Lightfoot, 
Harnack,  Westcott,  Farrar,  &c.,  assigned  it.  Else  he  thinks  it 
would  be  spurious.  So  Peter  might  live  in  Rome  after  PauVs 
death,  and  till  80.  Some  north-east  Scotchmen  live,  and  deserve  to 
live,  a  very  long  time,  and  have  great  faith  in  the  vitality  and 
toughness  of  the  Apostles,  mentally  and  jDhysically.  Prof.  Ramsay's 
book  was  received  with  special  honour  at  the  Vatican.  It  gives  a 
chance  to  Peter  in  Rome  !  But  the  Vatican  has  made  many 
blunders.  This  is  surely  one.  For  this  new  theory  would  obliterate 
the  whole  Roman  chronology,  Jerome,  the  "papal  lists,"  and  the 
Douay  Bible.  It  would  make  an  end  of  Linus  and  the  main  part  of 
Cletus — the  two  first  so-called  Roman  "bishops"  ;  would  vindicate  the 
historic  worth  of  Clement's  letter  to  James,  and  drive  us  back  on  the 
queer  tlieory  of  Rufinus  as  to  Linus  and  Cletus.  I  am  greatly 
indebted  to  Prof.  Ramsay  for  much ;  but  the  only  reason  for  his  new 
theory  is  to  preserve  Peter's  authorsliip  of  an  epistle. 

§  ChurcJi  in  the  Bom.  Emp.,  p.  282. 


OF    PETER.  83 

is  for  it  no  contemporan/  proof.      There  is  a  good  deal 
of  contemi^orary  disproof." 

The  Koman  Tradition  :  Early  "  Papal  Lists." 

A  *' chain"  of  "infallible"  inspired  successors  of  the 
Apostle  Peter,  Vicar  of  Christ,  ought  to  have  no  uncer- 
tainty about  its  links.  Esj^ecially  its  first  links/  If 
the  Komanist  theory  had  any  truth,  the  Church  of 
Eome  would,  from  the  beginning,  have  made  sure 
that  no  mistake,  contradiction,  or  gap  would  cause 
utter  uncertainty  and  confusion  about  tlie  earliest 
so-called  links, — the  "bishopric"  of  the  blessed  Peter, 
and  then  of  the  so-called  "bishops,"  who  (on  that 
theory)  were  to  "  succeed"  Peter.  But,  alas,  for  the 
whole  theory,  we  find  the  Koman  Church  herself,  and 
the  weightiest  early  Fathers,  and  the  early  "lists"  in 
hopeless  contradiction  on  this  subject. 

There  are  various  "  Fathers"  who  speak  about  the 
early  Pioman  "  presbyters"  and  "bishops."  And  there 
are  various  "  Catholic  lists,''  or  catalogues,  of  the  early 
"  bishops"  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Ptome.  These 
Fathers  and  these  lists  vary  badly.  TJiey  contradict 
each  other.  And,  do  what  you  will  to  "straighten 
them  out,"  they  contradict  each  other  still.  It  is 
dreary  work.  Lightfoot  himself  made  a  most  kindly, 
most  heroic  effort  to  straighten  out  these  contradictory 
statements  of  "Fathers,"  like  Tertullian,  and  Irenaeus, 
and  Hippolytus,  and  "lists"  like  the  "Irenaean,"  the 
"Eusebian,"  the  "  Jeromean,"  and  the  "Liberian;" 
and   he,    too,    has   failed.*     In   the   first   place,   the 

*  I  heartily  agree  with  Professor  Ramsay's  criticism,  Church  in 
Roman  Emp.,  p.  284  n.,  on  Lightfoot's  dealing  with  Tertullian's 
statement  regarding  Clement's  "Ordination."  Tei-tullian  knew 
Rome  far  better  than  Irenseus  did,  and  his  statement  is  a  flat 
contradiction  to  the  ' '  list"  of  presbyter-bishops  in  Irenaius.  I  am 
greatly  strnck  also  with  Professor  Bright's  conclusion  to  the  same 
effect:  Roman  See  (just  received),  pp.  11-12.  He  shows  the  two 
striking  differences  between  Tertullian  and  Irenteus. 


84  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

Snccessio)i  itself  you  cannot  straighten.  The  very  first 
names  are,  as  Professor  Sanday  calls  them,  "shadowy 
figures."  We  cannot,  as  Lightfoot  confesses,  con- 
fidently call  them  "bishops"  at  all.  Harnack  speaks 
more  strongly  still.  Then,  secondly,  the  Chronology, 
or  dates  for  these  so-called  early  "bishops"  of  Eome, 
with  the  legend  of  Peter  at  the  top,  presents  a  tangle 
more  self-contradictory.  A  politician  (in  England), 
I  am  aware,  made  out  for  himself  a  genealogical 
succession  from  Alfred  the  Great,  and  also  from  two 
famous,  female  Scottish  martyrs  who  had  no  descen- 
dants. But  that  is  as  nothing  to  the  difficulties  pre- 
sented by  the  effort  to  get  Peter  into  Eome,  as  its  first 
founder  and  "bishop,"  and  then  to  fix  dates  and 
names  for  the  successive  infallible  Peters  who  follow^ed 
him  in  the  "Popedom."  Now,  I  cannot,  in  a  popular 
lecture,  go  into  this  thing  in  detail.  I  will  sketch  the 
exact  facts  in  their  general  lines. 

The  Early  Bishops  of  Piome. 

1.  As  to  the  so-called  early  "  bishops"  themselves, 
Tertullian  of  Piome  and  Carthage,  in  the  close  of  the 
second  century,  presents  Clement  as  first  bishop  of 
Eome,  declaring  that  he  w^as  ordained  by  Peter.*  But 
Irenasus  of  Gaul,  near  to  the  same  date,  says  that 
"  Peter  and  Paul  preached  and  founded  the  Church  at 
Eome,"  and  then  those  "  blessed  Apostles  entrusted 
the  ministration  of  the  Church  to  Linus  {Haer.  iii.,  3, 
2,  3,  and  Lightfoot,  Clem.  vol.  ii.,  495;  vol.  i.,  pp.  63, 
64).  Now%  what  do  you  think  of  that  stark  Eoman 
contradiction  in  those  two  blessed  "Fathers?"  But 
that   is   onl}^   to   begin   with.     In    all   these    earlier 

*  Tert.,  De  Praescr.  32  [see  Bright,  p.  11].  In  the  later  shape 
of  "  the  Clementine  fiction"  Peter  says,  "  I  lay  hands  upon  this 
Clement,  as  your  bishop,  and  to  him  I  entrust  my  chair  of  dis- 
course."    Epis.  of  Clement  to  James. 


OF    PETER.  85 

"Fathers"  neither  Peter  nor  Paul  is  ever  spoken  of 
as  "  bishop."  They  are  "Apostles"  and  "  founders." 
Then  farther  Irenaeus  says,  both  Peter  and  Paul 
entrusted  the  episcopate  to  Linus.  Tertullian  says, 
Peter  ordained  Clement,  and  further  tliat  this  was  the 
view  of  "  the  Church  of  the  Eomans"  itself,  and  he 
makes  no  reference  to  Paul  ordaining  anyone.*  That 
only  commences  the  trouble. — We  have,  I  said,  several 
earty  "  lists"  or  "catalogues"  of  the  so-called  Roman 
bishops.  We  have  one  called  the  Liherian  catalogue 
greatly  honoured  at  Rome.  It  may  be  called  the 
truly  "papal  catalogue."  It  was  made  out  under 
Pope  Liberius  in  the  fourth  century,  and  came  into 
authoritative  painting  in  the  later  Catacombs  through 
his  successor  Damasus.  It  seems  to  rest  on  Hippolytus 
in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  Of  him  we 
shall  hear  again.  Its  order  of  so-called  Earl}^  Popes  is 
followed  in  "  the  famous  series  of  mosaics  in  the 
basilica  of  St.  Paul  at  Rome."  It  gives  the  order, 
Linus,  Clement,  Cletus,  Anacletus,  &c.,  putting 
Clement  second.  Then  there  is  the  catalogue  given  in 
the  tradition  of  Iren?eus  and  which  Eusebius  in  his 
histor}^  in  the  fourth  century  follows. 

The  succession  in  Eusebius  is  Linus,  Anencletus, 
Clement,  Sec,  thus  putting  Clement  as  tJi ir dBisho'p  of 
Rome,  and  extirpating  poor  Cletus  altogether.  This 
is  supposed  by  Lightfoot  to  be  the  "traditional"  order. 
In  the  numbering  of  the  bishops,  Eusebius  (as  Light- 
foot  and  others  point  out)  always  omits  the  names  of 
the  Apostolic  "founders,"  and  begins  with  Linus;  and 


*  Lightfoot,  though  it  makes  for  Dr.  Sahiion's  view,  confesses 
"  Even  Tertullian  speaks  of  Clement  as  the  immediate  successor"  of 
Peter  the  Apostle.  If  Ramsay's  view  ever  gets  accepted  as  to  the 
late  date  of  Peter's  death,  it  will  strangely  tit  into  this,  and  make 
Clement  first  presbyter  bishop  at  Rome.  But  then,  as  Sanday 
shows,  till  Hernias  (145)  the  jpresbyterial  government  continued  in 
Rome. 


86  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

he  always  gives  the  precedence  to  Paul  before  Peter  in 
speaking  of  the  founders.* 

Then  we  have  Jerome  presenting  a  shape  of  this 
hst,  with  Peter  alone  set  at  the  top  of  it.  But  Jerome 
has  not  forgotten  that  Tertullian  spoke  of  Clement  as 
immediate  successor  of  Peter,  f  And  although  Jerome 
gives  the  list  in  the  ''Irensean"  way,  yet  he  says  the 
other,  viz.,  with  Clement  topmost,  was  believed  by 
"  most  of  the  Latins." 

Now  what  do  you  think  of  that  contorted  and  dis- 
puted, and  (all  of  it)  hugely  questionable  succession 
for  your  Eock  of  an  infallible  Church,  and  yet  each 
of  those  lists  has  been  endorsed  by  infallible 
Popes t  or  eminent  saints.  Great  scholars — Lipsius, 
Mommsen,  Harnack,  and  Lightfoot,  have  been  in- 
vestigating, trying  to  explain  these  catalogues.  Light- 
foot,  the  most  favourable,  says  we  have  to  choose 
between  "a  tradition  (the  L'en?ean),  a  fiction  (the 
Clementine),  and  a  blunder  (the  Liberian)."  He 
thinks  we  should  choose  the  tradition.  But,  oh  ! 
remember  the  Liberian  was  fondly  endorsed  by  infall- 
ible Popes  and  "most  of  the  Latins."  And  then 
underneath  them  all  is  that  huge  legend,  unknown  to 
the  first  Fathers — Peter's  bishopric  at  Eome.  So 
I  think  we  had  better  not  choose  any  of  them,  but  say 
with  Professor  Sanday,  of  Oxford,  that  Hernias  in  the 
second  century  (cir.  145  a.d.)  ''marks  the  point  at 
which  the  Presbyterial  form  of  government  is  passing 
into  the  Episcopal."  Here  let  me  set  a  synopsis  of 
the  "lists"  in  simplest  condensed  form : — 


*  Lightfoot,  Clem.,  vol.  i.,  p.  206. 

t  De  Vir.  Illust.,  i.,  15  (c.f.  Bright,  p.  15.) 

X  Lightfoot  says  of  the  papal  Liberian  list — "Its  details  are  con- 
fused."    Its  notices  of  time  irreconcilable.     Vol.  i.,  pp.  65-6. 


OF    PETER. 


87 


H    o   "^ 


m 


a 

O 


a  ^ 


« 


ai    — 

D    t^ 

w 

'N 

. 

>5  CO 

o 

p.    . 
2  ft 

pq 

, , 

m 

LO 

o 

S 

3 

cc 

cci 

1 

o 

W 

_^ 

^ 

CO 

r— 1         ^ 

■/! 

•^ 

1— 1 

CO 

•'"I 

D 

S 

'o 

H^ 

t-l  r^ 


CI 
<1 


3 


cy 


2  -^  ^ 

-=3  3 

I— I  5h 

©       -^  ~ 

«<-(       +^  __, 

O  ^  ^ 


,a 

^ 

+3-« 

■t^ 

o 

ad 

4H 

ao 

^ 

-a 

flfl 

s 

\A 

-*-' 

-a 

-_, 

a 

a> 

crt 

-4-1 

0) 

a 

^ 

a> 

^ 

H 

■s 

a 

o 

o 

-u 
^ 

g 

t>D 

(U 

03    05      ■     02  '^ 
5j    Qj    Jg    (U    S 

o  o  >  ,e 


fl  ^ 


OJ 


l^o 


CD 


'-^    a     (M 


Pi-N 


i   S-*-"     .     •   S3   5  S   1" 


t-5cc 


^a 


V, 

cj 

M 

< 

(J 

-^ 

TjH 

Pi 

32 

^ 

Id 

CO 

y 

o 

w 

Ph 

;-i 

H  :3 


o 


V 


(M* 


-1^ 

l-H 
O 

C 
<1 


CO 


+3 

o 

s 


TJH 


^  -^  '=i    03    « 

Oi      o      2  '^ 


03       »— I 


ce 


03       03       0 

•^    — '     O) 


s  I  ^  I  §:  c^  w 


3  ^  Ph  c» 


o    o 


15 

on 

<J 

Oi 

M 

I— 1 

H-1 

1 

-1 

o 

u 

05 

H 

I— 1 

« 

(>=) 

^ 

H 

o 

^*   S    .3 


Q 


r-^ 

o 

C) 

02 

p^ 

fl 

n3 

<1 

■^3 

0) 

o 

^ 
O 

03 

s 

0) 

O 

O 

-1-3 

o 

'!:i 

G   'J 


88  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

[Note. — Archbishop  Carr  (p.  163),  under  the  guidance  again  of  the 
Rev.  Luke  Rivington,  seeks  aid  out  of  Eusebius'  Chronicle  inUts 
Armenian  Version  (5th  cent.),  where  Peter  is  called  in  the  Latin 
translation  Antistes  Ecclesiae  (pi-esident  of  the  Church).  This  had 
been  answered  by  anticipation  in  Lightfoot  (pp.  207,  215)  ]  and 
others  [also  Bright].  But  the  amusing  thing  is  Dr.  Carr's  courage 
in  venturing  on  this.  The  Armenian  Chronicle  not  only  presents 
what  Lightfoot  calls  "very  patent  errors,"  but  it  makes  Peter 
Bishop  of  Antioch  before  he  "  proceeds  to  the  city  of  the  Romans" 
(or  as  Jerome  has  it,  "  is  sent  to  Rome").  Also  his  stay  in  Rome 
it  makes  tw^enty  years,  beginning  in  the  year  39  !  Also  there  are 
two  Bishops  of  Rome  called  "  Linus,"  one  beginning  in  the  twelfth 
year  of  Nero  and  one  in  the  second  of  Titus.  Also  Bishop 
Aggripinus  (who  according  to  other  lists  was  a  Bishop  of  Alex- 
andria) here  holds  office  after  Soter  as  "Bishop  of  Rome."  No 
wonder  that  Archbishop  Carr  says  below  this  (p.  163)  : — "  The 
value  of  these  versions  of  the  Chronicle  of  Eusebius  is  independent 
of  their  chronology,  so  far  as  the  Roman  Episcopate  of  St.  Peter  is 
concerned,"  &c.  Certainly  !  tJiat  is  quite  manifest.  The  value  of 
the  whole  Roman  scheme  is  independent  of  chronology,  and  of 
Scripture  too.  And  that  is  what  Harnack — that  adept  in 
clironologj'  as  to  these  things— in  his  dealing  with  the  dressed-up 
lists  of  the  "Bishops"  of  Antioch  and  of  Rome,  says: — "A 
cautious  critic  will  be  just  as  slow  to  accept  the  chronology  of  a 
list  of  Antiochian  Bishops  first  appearing  in  the  third  century  as  to 
admit  that  Linus  was  first  Bishop  of  Rome."  {Iqnat.  Epp.  Exp., 
1886.)] 

The  above  contradictions  are  small,  however,  com- 
pared with  what  meets  you  when  you  come  to  the 
dates  connected  with  the  Komanist  "  bishopric  "  of 
Peter.  Here  the  utter  defiance  of  historic  reality,  the 
superb  contempt  for  Time's  flight  and  years,  is  of  the 
most  marvellous  description.  In  order  to  leave  any 
room  for  Peter  as  Bishop  of  Kome,  and  for  the  other 
successive  "shadowy  figures,"  whom  Catholic  tradi- 
tion has  produced  as  "Bishops"  of  Eome  in  the 
first  century,  and  in  order  to  get  Peter  martyred  at 
Eome,  the  catalogues  have  to  bring  Peter  into  Kome 
at  an  impossibly  early  period.  Thus  the  Liberian 
papal  list  brings  Peter  to  Eome  a.d.  30,  and  places 
his  death  in  a.d.  55.  Linus  succeeds  him,  a.d.  56. 
Another  list  gives  him  a  twenty  years'  bishopric  at 
Eome,  beginning  in  the  year  39  a.d.,  during  the  reign 


OF    PETER.  89 

of  the  third  Emperor,  CaHgula.  The  earlier  lists  left 
his  bishopric  out  altogether.  Another  set  of  lists  gives 
hira  a  bishopric  of  twenty-five  years,  beginning  in  the 
year  42  a.d.,  in  the  second  year  of  the  fourth  Emperor 
Claudius.  This  is  the  tradition  followed  by  Jerome — 
the  authoritative  Latin  Father — on  whose  vulgate 
translation  of  the  Bible  the  Catholic  version  of  the 
Scriptures,  including  the  Kheims-Douay  version,  is 
founded.  That  Douay  version,  with  its  marvellous 
notes,  affirms  that  Peter  wrote  his  first  epistle 

"at  Rome,  which,  figuratively,  he  calls  Babylon,  about  fifteen 
years  after  our  Lord's  ascension," 

The  Douay  version  affirms  also  that  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter 

"was  written  a  very  short  time  before  his  martyrdom,  which 
was  about  thirty-five  years  after  our  Lord's  ascension." 

Now,  the  date  of  our  Lord's  crucifixion  is  fixed  by 
the  best  of  modern  chronologists  as  the  year  30  a.d.* 
Thus  the  Douay  version,  in  a  heroic  attempt  to  square 
with  Jerome,  makes  Peter  to  have  written  his  first 
Epistle  in  Kome  about  the  year  44  or  45  A.D.i*  Yet 
we  had  supposed  that  44  a.d.  was  the  year  of  his 
imprisonment  in  Jerusalem  by  King  Herod  Agrippa. 
Peter's  martyrdom  the  Douay  version  makes  to  have 
been  at  Kome  about  the  year  65  a.d.,  during  the 
Neronian  tyranny,  two  years  before  the  date  named 
for  it  by  Jerome,  f 

The  Liberian  papal  catalogue  had  given  this  badly 
mishandled  Peter  the  qitietus  of  his  bishopric  ten 
years  before,  viz.,  in  55  a.d.  (Light.,  Clem.,  i.,  p.  253). 

*  Cf.  Wieseler,  Lightfoot,  &c. 

t  The  Douay  note-writers  probably  meant  to  follow  Eusebius, 
who  placed  Our  Lord's  ascension  in  33  a.d.,  and  Jerome,  who  gave 
it  as  32  A.D.     See  Douay  Chronology  in  Appendix. 


90  the  roman  legend 

Paul  and  Peter. 

But  that  is  only  to  begin  with.  The  Eoman  tradi- 
tion, in  its  early  shape,  joined  Paul  and  Peter  together 
in  the  founding  of  the  Pioman  Church.  They  both 
together — those  two  "blessed  Apostles" — says,  e.g., 
that  Irengeus  over  whom  Archbishop  Carr  has  spent 
so  nianj^  words — "having  founded  and  built  up  the 
Church"  "  entrusted  the  ministration  of  the  bishopric 
to  Linus."*  But  this  is  not  all — the  great  snowball 
of  legend  gathers  as  it  goes.  One  shape  of  it  made  Paul 
and  Peter  suffer  martj^dom  at  the  same  time.  One 
form  of  the  legend  represents  them  together  ;  another 
form  a^Dart.  One  shape  of  it  pictures  Peter  as  fleeing 
from  the  Gate  of  Eome  along  the  Appian  way  and 
meeting  Christ,  who,  in  answer  to  Peter's  startled 
question,  "  Domine  quo  vadisT''  ("  Lord,  whither  goest 
thou?")  made  answer,  "I  go  to  be  again  crucified." 
In  the  little  church  of  Domine  Quo  Vadis,  on  the 
Appian-road,  built  to  keep  this  legend  in  remem- 
brance, I  have  sat  and  pondered.  Along  another 
Eoman  road,  outside  the  Latin  gate,  and  nigh  to  the 
Ostian  way,  there  are  the  Trc  Fontane — three  foun- 
tains which  sprang  up  where  St.  Paul's  head,  the 
legend  saith,  fell  and  rolled  in  martyrdom.  Also,  and 
in  the  earlier  sha23e  of  the  legend,  we  meet  with 
Peter's  wife  as  having  part  in  the  suffering  and 
honour.  Peter  is  seen  encouraging  his  wife  as  she  goes 
to  martyrdom.  A  little  later  the  legend  represents 
the  Apostle  Peter  as  crucified  with  his  head  downward. 
It  only  wanted,  as  Eenan  characteristically  says,  some 
narrator  to  work  all  these  touching  items  into  some 
beautiful  narrative — "  a  man  at  once  of  genius  and  a 
simple  mind."  But  he  was  not  forthcoming.  Instead 
of  a  beautiful  narrative,  the  legend  was  made  the 

*  Haer.  iii.,  3,  3,  3. 


OF    PETER.  91 

basis  in  Rome  for  a  gigantic  system  of  priesthood, 
dominating  with  this  once  simple  name,  "  Peter,"  the 
reason  and  the  faith  of  Christendom. 


II. — Proof  for  Peter's  Roman  Bishopric. 

When  we  ask  what  proof  is  given  by  Roman  advo- 
cates that  Peter  founded  the  Chm'ch  at  Rome,  or  that 
he  was  ever  Bishop  of  Rome,  or,  again,  any  proof 
e^en  for  the  quite  different  assertion  that  Peter, 
perhaps,  visited  Rome  for  a  brief  time,  the  answer 
is  amusing  by  its  meagreness.  The  proof  consists  of 
these  three  elements  : — 

1.  In  the  close  of  John's  Gospel  it  is  indicated  that 
Simon,  who  had  betrayed  Christ,  should  suffer 
inprisonment  and  death  for  His  sake.*  Even  in  the 
drinking  of  that  "  cup"  of  suffering  Peter  had  no 
"  supremacy."  James,  the  brave  "  Son  of  Thunder," 
dnnk  it  before  him.-|*  Stephen,  a  greater  than 
eiiher — though  no  Apostle — drank  it  first. j  "  But 
of  the  time  and  place  of  that  death"  of  Peter  (as 
Hirnack  says)  "we  know  nothing  with  even  approxi- 
mite  probalDility." 

2.  In  Peter's  Epistle,  written  to  (probably  Jewish) 
Clristians,  "sojourners  of  the  Dispersion  in  Pontus, 
GJatia,  Cap]3adocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia,§  he  says  : — 
"  Che  co-elect  that  is  at  Babylon  saluteth  you,  and 
(s«  doth)  Marcus,  my  son."||  Romanists,  in  common 
wih  some  Protestant  scholars,  take  this  word 
"3abylon"1[  to  be  a  hidden  name  for  Rome.     This 


*  John  xxi.,  18,19.  f  Acts  xii.,  2.  |  Acts  vii.,  60. 

§   IPet.  i.,  1.  II  Id.y.,  13. 

[  Sandaj'  says  this  would  be  the  "most  decisive"  proof  "  if  it 

hed  good."     Yes,  it  would  be  the  only  proof,  as  Harnack  shows. 

Saiday  confesses — "  There  is  a  natural  reluctance  in  the  lay  mind 

totake  Babylon  in  any  other  sense  than  literally." 


92  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

would,  of  course,  be  likely  enough  had  Peter  been 
writing  a  symbolic  Apocalypse,  but  unlikely  in  a 
simple,  practical  prose  letter.  Besides,  w'ere  "  Babylon" 
a  symbolic  word,  it  might  just  as  readily  mean 
Jerusalem,  from  which  Christ  had  warned  His  disciples 
to  come  out  and  "  flee"  (as  from  Babylon  long  before) 
when  the  conquering  armies  drew  near,  or  it  might  mear 
''  Antioch,"  the  Eoman  headquarters  in  the  East.^ 
In  the  Apocalypse,  Jerusalem  is  called  both  "  Sodon 
and  Egypt." f  But,  in  sooth,  there  is  in  Peter's 
beautifully  direct  "  immediate"  manner  nothing  of 
the  Apocalyptic  method  or  spirit. J 


Clement  of  Piome. 

3.  The  third§  element  of  "  proof"  is  that  in  tie 
Epistle  of  Clement,  the  Presbyter  of  Eome,  sent  to  tie 
Corinthians  in  the  close  of  the  First  Century  (thi^, 
about  95  or  96  a.d.,  is  the  earliest  known  Christiai 
writing  after  the  New  Testament)  reference  is  male 
to  Peter  : —  j 

"  Who,  by  reason  of  unrighteous  jealousy,  endured,  not  oie 
nor  two,  but  many  labours  ;  and  thus,  having  borne  his  tes[i- 
mony,  went  to  his  appointed  place  of  glory."  \\ 

That  is  all.  It  does  not  say  a  word  about  the  place, 
or  the  date,  or  the  circumstances  of  Peter's  deati. 
It  never  hints,  in  any  way,  that  he  was  ever  in  Eome, 
or  ever  suffered  there.       Nay,  the  context  slion's  tint 

*  Lightfoot,  Clem,  i.,  o55.  t  Apoc.  xi.,  8.  j 

+  See  Harnack  on  this  below.  | 

§  I  will  not  spend  time  on  "the  hint"  some  think  they  see jin 
what  Papias  quotes  from  "'JUie  Presbyter"  about  Peter's  connectin 
with  Mark.  Harnack  says: — "He  says  nothing  of  the,  place  %t 
which  they  were  together."  Nor  need  we  pause  regarding  Ignatits, 
who  gives  not  the  slightest  hint  of  Peter's  connection  with  Ronfe, 
Harnack  and  Sanday  pass  both  by. 

II  Clem.,  c.  5. 


OF    PETER.  93 

such  a  thought  is  quite  foreign  to  the  mind  of  the  irriter. 
He  is  writing,  in  the  name  of  the  Christian  congrega- 
tion at  Rome,  to  the  Christian  congregation  at  Corinth 
deprecating  the  jealous}^  and  division,  and  "making 
of  parties"  which  characterized  the  Corinthian  con- 
gregation, and  which  had  led  them  to  oppose  some  of 
their  faithful  presb^^ters  (or  "  bishops"),  and  even  to 
j'emove  them  from  office.  Clement  points  out  that 
God's  best  servants  in  all  ages  have  been  opposed 
through  jealousy  "  through  which  also  death  entered 
into  the  world.''*  Abel  was  opposed  through  jealousy; 
so  was  Jacob,  so  was  Josejih,  so  w^as  Moses,  so  was 
David,  t 

"  But  to  pass  from  the  examples  of  ancient  clays,  let  us  come  to 
those  champions  who  lived  very  near  to  our  time.  Let  us  set 
before  us  the  noble  examples  which  belong  to  our  generation. 
By  reason  of  jealousy  and  envy  the  greatest  and  most  righteous 
pillarsl  of  the  church  (congregation)  were  persecuted,  and  con- 
tended even  unto  death.  Let  us  set  before  our  eyes  the  good 
Apostles — Peter,  who  by  reason  of  unrighteous  jealousy  endured, 
&c." 

Such  is  the  connection  ;  and  Clement  then  goes  on 
to  speak  of  Paul : — 


"By  reason  of  jealousy  and  strife,  Paul,  by  his  example, 
pointed  out  the  prize  of  patient  endurance." 

I  have  been  at  pains  to  set  out  the  exact  words  and 
meaning  of  this  letter  of  the  Christians  at  Piome  to 
the  Christians  at  Corinth  (written  by  Clement's  hand) 
for  two  reasons: — 1.  Archbishop  Carr  funnily  calls  it 
the  "authoritative"  letter  of  "Pope  St.  Clement"  of 
Pome,  who,  Dr.  Carr  is  good  enough  to  state,  "  was 


*  C.  3.  C.  4. 

J  Observe  that  word  ^'pillars"  used  equally  of  Peter  and  Paul, 
just  as  Paul  used  it  of  "  James,  Cephas,  and  John."  Clement  has 
no  knowledge  of  Peter's  "  primacy." 


94  THE    ROIMAN    LEGEND 

third  Pope  in  succession  from  St.  Peter."  He 
also  is  good  enough  to  inform  us  that,  in  this  letter, 
we  really  had  no  right  to  expect — 

' '  Such  clear-cut  evidence  as  it  aflords  of  the  exercise  of 
supreme  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  the  reigning  Roman  Pontiff 
in  the  affairs  of  a  distant  and  Apostolic  Cliurch," 


Dr.  Carr  on  Lightfoot's  "Discreditable"  Evasion. 

Also,  Archhishop  Carr  launches  out  fiercely  at 
Liohtfoot  for  tellino-  the  truth  about  the  contents  of 

o  o 

this  epistle  of  Clement,  and  for  his  (Lightfoot's) 
demonstration  that  the  letter  "  does  not  proceed  from 
the  bishop,  but  from  the  Church''  in  Eome.  As 
coming  from — 

"the  representative  of  a  Church  which  is  constantly  flaunt- 
ing its  claims  to  an  Apostolic  descent,  the  contention  [of 
Lightfoot]  is,"  says  the  Archbishop,  "at  once  destructive  and 
discreditable." 

Also,  Dr.  Carr  declares  that  Lightfoot's 

"transparent  object  is  to  evade  the  strong  proof  of  the  Primacy 
contained  in  the  whole  Epistle  of  St.  Clement"  !    (p.  29). 

But  Archbishop  Carr  surely  did  not  suppose  any 
educated  people  were  present  at  his  lectures  when  he 
ventured  on  the  following  : — 

"It  would  seem  that  a  few  unruly  members  [of  the  Church  in 
Corinth]  had  driven  out  probably  their  bishop  and  some  of  hi& 
priests  or  presbyters,  and  the  Church  of  Rome  cawie  to  the  rescue" 
(p.  25). 

That  is  good  !  If  that  should  ever  happen  to  get  to 
the  eye  of  Professor  Sanday,  or  Professor  Bright,  of 
Oxford,  I  can  imagine  the  Oxonian  smile. 


OF    PETER.  95 

Archbishop  Carr  further  m forms  his  auditory  that, 
in  this  epistle,  "  Pope  St.  Clement"  laj^s — 

* '  claim  to  submission  and  obedience  on  the  ground  that  his 
words  were  the  words  of  God,  and  were  dictated  by  the  Holy 
Ghost." 

Also,  he  affirms  that  in  this  letter  the  Pontiff  "  St. 
Clement"  teaches — 

' '  the  absolute  necessity  of  Apostolical  succession  for  a  legiti- 
mate ministry,  mentioning  explicitly  the  threefold  order  of 
bishops,  prriests,  and  deacons.'' 

Finally,  Dr.  Carr  surpasses  himself  by  informing  his 
audience  that  the  "  Sovereign  Pontiff,  Pope  St. 
Clement,"  sent — 

' '  his  own  legates  in  order  to  secure  the  acquiescence  of  the 
Church  of  Corinth  to  his  will  !" 

After  all  this,  it  is  rather  disappointing  to  find  that 
he  feels  it  necessary  to  explain  to  his  hearers  the  sin- 
gular fact  that  Clement  omits  all  reference  to  himself,  mid 
never  even  mentions  his  own  name !  So  wholly  unlike  a 
modern  Pope.  He  suggests  two  explanations: — 1.  "/i 
may  have  been  his  humility.''  This,  which  would  be 
quite  a  rare  quality  in  a  "  Sovereign  Pontiff's"  en- 
cyclical, sounds  an  odd  explanation,  seeing  that 
"Pope  St.  Clement,"  according  to  the  Archbishop, 
had  just  been  declaring  that  "  his  words  were  the 
words  of  God,  and  were  dictated  by  the  Holy  Ghost !" 
So  Archbishop  Carr  tries  another  explanation  : — 

"It  would  be  very  unsafe  to  give  the  name  of  the  head  of 
an  organised  Christian  community  in  Rome  1"* 

It  is  very  astonishing  this.  Here  is  "the  opening  para- 
graph" of  Clement's  letter,  and  there  is  not  a  hint  of 
any  reminder  about  "  unsafeness"  or  the  withholding 
of  an}^  name : — 

*  Carr,  p.  38. 


96  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

"The  church  (ecclesia  =  congregation)  of  God  which  sojourneth 
in  Rome  to  the  church  (ecclesia)  of  God  which  sojourneth  in 
Corinth,  to  them  who  are  called  and  sanctified  by  the  will  of  God 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Grace  to  you  and  peace  from 
Almighty  God,  through  Jesus  Christ  be  multiplied.  By  reason 
of  the  sudden  and  repeated  calamities  and  reverses  which  are 
befalling  us,  brethren,  we  consider  that  we  have  been  somewhat 
tardy  in  giving  heed  to  the  matters  of  dispute  tliat  have  arisen 
among  you,  dearly  beloved,"  &c.* 

There  is  here  smiply  a  sahitation  from  one  sister 
Church  to  another,  with  an  apology  for  not  having 
written  sooner.  Clement  never  mentions  his  own 
name,  or  speaks  with  any  authority  of  his  own,  or 
claims  any  jurisdiction  whatever.  "The  very  exist- 
ence of  a  bishop  of  Kome  itself  could  nowhere  be 
gathered  from  the  letter,"  says  Lightfoot.-t*  It  is  a 
letter  from  the  congregation  at  Kome  to  that  at 
Corinth,  with  counsel  and  advice,  and  with  no  appeal 
to  any  constraint  but  that  of  the  common  love  and 
faith  of  Christ.  Just  so,  a  congregation  in  Edinburgh 
might  write  to  one  in  Glasgow;  or,  so  a  convention,  or 
presbytery,  or  gathering  of  churchmen  in  Mel- 
bourne might  write  to  one  in  Sydney.  Twice  during 
recent  months  I  myself  have  written  to  distant 
churches  two  letters  more  authoritative,  and  more 
decisive  of  the  case,  than  this  letter  of  Clement.  One 
letter  was  to  a  church  in  another  colony;  one  was  to 
the  Christian  people  of  a  group  of  South  Sea  Islands. 
They  even  asked  me  to  nominate  their  sole  minister — 
a  far  more  "popely"  act  than  was  ever  done  by 
Clement  or  by  Clement's  Epistle.  And  yet  Arch- 
bishop Carr  has  never  thought  of  calling  me  ''His 
Holiness  the  Pope."  The  seamd  reason  for  my 
emphasis  of  this  passage  of  Clement  is  that,  as  Pro- 
fessor  Harnack,    of  Berlin,    says — This    passage    of 

*  Clem.  1.     Lightfoot's  Trans. 

t  Lightfoot,  Ctem.,  vol.  i.,  p.  852,  &c. 


OF    PETER.  '  97 

Clement  is  "  the  only  historical  mention  we  have  of 
Peter  for  more  than  a  hundred  years"  after  the  date 
of  the  death  of  Nero  and  of  Paul. 

Now,  I  ask  sane  men,  looking  at  that  passage 
quoted  by  me  from  Clement,  Avhat  has  it  to  do  with 
Peter's  presence  in  Piome?  Was  "Abel"  in  Rome? 
Was  "  Jacob  "  in  Eome?  Was  "  Moses"  in  Rome?  Was 
"  David"  in  Rome?  Was  "  Peter"  in  Rome?  All  that 
Clement  says  is  that  all  these  were  opposed  "  through 
jealousy;''  but  he  does  not  connect  any  of  them  in 
any  way  with  Rome.  He  does  not  connect  Peter  with 
Rome.  * 

Later  on  in  that  chapter  Clement  speaks  of  the 
Apostle  Paul,  but  in  what  different  terms!  Paul, 
also,  he  says,  had  to  face  jealousy  and  strife;  and 
after  he 

"  had  been  driven  into  exile,  had  been  stoned,  had  preached 
in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  he  won  the  noble  renown  which 
was  the  reward  of  his  faith,  having  taught  righteousness  unto 
the  whole  world,  and  when  he  had  come  to  the  boundary  of  the 
West  {to  Tcpfxa  TTjs  Syo-ews),  and  when  he  had  borne  his  testi- 
mony (suffered  martyrdom)  before  the  prefects  (rulers),  so  he 
departed  from  the  world,  "t 

If  that  language  indicates  that  Paul  suffered  at  Rome, 
certainly  it  gives  no  hint  that  Peter  did,  or  that  he 
was  ever  in  Rome,  or  in  the  West  at  all. 


Origin  of  the  Peter  Legend. 

But  the  fact  of  the  two  names,  Peter  and  Paul, 
having  been  mentioned  together  in  the  same  chapter 
of  this  ej)istle,  written  by  Clement,  from  the  Christians, 
at  Rome,  to  the  Christians  in  Corinth  (just  as  St.  Paul 
himself  had  mentioned  them  together  in  Ids  Epistle  to 

'  Clem.  4,  5.  f  Clem.  5.  f  Compare  Lightfoot's  &  Donaldson's 
translations. 


-98  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

the  Corinthians,  less  than  forty  years  earlier,  as  an 
evidence  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ)  was 
quite  enough  to  set  the  ball  of  patristic  imagination 
and  legend  rolling.  This  was  one  direct  source  of  the 
Peter-Paul  legend.  But  other  legendary  elements  of 
fantastic  kind,  and  drawn  from  Judaeo-gnostic  sources, 
soon  mingled  with  those  impressive  Apostolic  names, 
and  during  the  second  century  swiftly  developed.  In 
various  apocryphal  writings,  Peter's  journeys  were 
dressed  up  into  a  romance  to  rival  Paul's,  then  to 
blend  with  Paul's.  By  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  the  story  has  grown  and  consolidated  into  a 
huge  legend.*  Dionysius,  of  Corinth,-!"  in  the  close  of 
the  second  century,  is  the  first  Father  to  say  that 
Peter  visited  Kome.  But  his  words  carry  their  own 
dis^^roof.  In  large  imaginative  language  he  talks  o 
the  unity  of — 

the  trees  of  the  Romans  and  Corinthians  planted  by  Peter  and 
Paul.  For  they  both  alike  came  also  to  our  Corinth,  and 
taught  us  ;  and  both  alike  came  together  to  Italy  ;  and,  having 
taught  tliere,  suffered  martyrdom  at  the  same  time.  J 

Every  one  can  see  that  this  "planting  of  trees"  is 
just  a  legendary  echo  of  Paul's  words  to  the  Corinth- 
ians, '^  I  planted."  Somewhat  later,  Iren8eus§  of 
Gaul  surpasses  this.  He  describes  Peter  and  Paul  as 
"preaching  and  founding  the  Church  in  Kome."|| 
Tertullian  of  Carthage  makes  the  ball  larger  still. 
He  describes  Peter  as  baptising  in  the  Tiber ;  and, 
not  content  with  this,  he  adds  the  Apostle  John  also. 
Peter  and  Paul,  he  says,  suffered  martyrdom  at  Eome, 
and  the  Apostle  John,  "after  being  plunged  in  boiling 
oil  without  suffering  any  harm,  is  banished  to  an 

*  See  Appendix  for  special  note. 

t  170  A.D. ,  Lightfoot.     Harnack  places  it  later. 

X  Euseb.  H.E.  iii.,  25,  as  in  Lightfoot. 

§  190  A.D. ,  Lightfoot. 

II  Haer.  iii.,  1,1,  and  3,  2,  3.     Irenaeus  will  meet  us  later  on. 


OF    PETER.  99 

island."*  Oh,  these  Fathers!  What  an  infalhhle 
voice  of  authority  to  trust  to — ''  the  consent  of  the 
Fathers."  How  could  they  tell  the  facts  as  to  what 
happened  100  or  130  years  hefore?f  Think  of  even 
Clement  and  "the  Phoenix  !"  Stick  to  your  New  Testa- 
ments, you  laymen ;  there,  at  least,  you  will  be  sure 
you  are  not  being  befooled  by  some  gnostic  legend  that 
got  accepted  by  "the  Fathers."  There  you  will  not 
build  on  a  foundation  of  sand.  There  is  not  an  item 
in  all  this  traditional  stuff  written  by  Dionysius, 
Irengeus,  and  Tertullian,  that  is  not  provably  er- 
roneous. This  same  Irenaeus  tells  that  Christ  lived 
to  be  an  old  man,  and  that  his  public  ministry  lasted 
nearly  twenty  years.  {Haer.  Bk.  ii.,  xxii.,  5,  6).  And 
the  Eomans,  Tertullian  says,  could  not  hoil  John.  All 
the  value  that  can  be  set  on  these  statements  of 
Fathers  on  the  verge  of  the  second  and  third  centuries 
is  just  this  : — They  show  that,  at  the  end  of  the 
second  century,  there  was  a  prevalent  tradition  that 
Peter,  as  well  as  Paul,  had  been  at  Eome  in  the  first 
century,  and  had  died  there  in  martyrdom. 

Four  Recent  Scholars. 

Now,  take  the  opinions  of  perhaps  the  four 
most  eminent  of  our  recent  scholars,  who  have 
specially  studied  this  question — Was  Peter  ever  in 
Rome?  Lipsius  says  "No."  Lightfoot  and  Sanday 
think  he  probably  did  come  for  a  brief  visit,  to 
encourage  the  Jewish  Christians  in  Rome  at  the  time 
of  the  Nero  persecution.  |  Harnack  regards  the 
balance  of  j)robabilities  on  both  sides  as  equal.  But 
three  things  he  says  are  weighty  against  the  opinion 

*  De  Bap.  4.     Scorp.  15.     De  Praescr.  36. 

t  Between  the  years  58  or  61-63  and  170  there  is  quite  time  for 
legend  to  grow  up  — 8anday. 

I  In  64,  Lightfoot  S.  Clement,  vol.  ii. ,  p.  490  sq.    So  also  Sanday. 


100  THE    ROMAN    LEGEND 

that  Peter  ever  was  in  Kome — 1.  There  is  for  it  v<> 
contenipovarii  eridoice,  no  testimony  "  for  more  than 
a  hundred  years."  The  interpretation  of  "Babylon" 
as  meaning  Eome,  in  a  matter-of-fact  epistle,  he 
characterises  as  unlikely  ;  beyond  that  there  is  no 
proof  of  any  kind.  '2.  The  tradition  of  Peter's  presence 
in  Rome  was  not  umform  in  the  Early  Church.  It  is 
in  direct  conflict  with  the  other  stream  of  tradition — 

"which  represents  'Peter  as  havmg  worked  in  Antioch, 
in  Asia  Minor,  in  Babylonia,  and  in  the  country  of  the  bar- 
barians, on  the  northern  shores  of  the  Black  Sea.'" 

Peter  was  the  ''Apostle  of  the  Circumcision,"  to  the 
Jews  of  the  "  Dispersion."  His  own  epistle  is  in 
keeping  with  this,  and  so  is  the  statement  that  his 
letter  was  written  from  Babylon,  which 

"is  best  understood,  not  as  a  crytographic  expression  for 
Rome,  but,  like  the  geographical  names  of  the  epistles  of 
the  New  Testament,  in  a  literal  sense.'' 

So  says  this  great  scholar.* 

Then,  further,  the  tradition  of  Peter  in  Piome  is 
discredited  because  it  is — 

"Almost  inextricably  bound  up  with  a  story  of  Avhose 
legendary  character  there  can  be  little  doubt — that  of  the  Simon 
Magus  of  the  Clementines." 

So  Harnack,  while  on  the  one  hand  he  recognises 
that  "it  is  difficult  to  suppose  that  so  large  a  body  of 
tradition  (speaking  of  Peter  and  Rome)  has  no 
foundation  in  fact ; "  on  the  other  hand  sums  a 
weighty  array  of  facts  "  which  render  the  ordinary 
patristic  statements  doubtful" — the  want  of  all  con- 
temporary proof,  "the  complete  silence  as  to  Peter 
(and  Rome)  in  the  Pauline  Epistles,"  the  legendary 
character  of  the  "patristic"  statements,  and  the  fact 
that  the  Roman  legend  is  directly  contradicted   by 

*  Dr.  Marcus  Dods  says  so  also. 


OF    PETER.  101 

strong  tradition,  which  places  Peter's  ministry  wholly 
in  the  East. 

In  short,  the  whole  thing  is  so  legendary,  I  would 
not  stake  on  that  notion  of  Peter's  having  visited 
Eome  the  value  of  a  sparrow's  life,  never  to  speak  of 
the  value  of  men's  everlasting  souls,  and  the  undying 
destinies  of  Christendom.  But,  in  any  case,  all  these 
scholars  agree  that  Peter's  ''  bishopric"  in  Piome  is 
fabulous. 

IV. — The  New^  Testament  Disproof. 

Was  Peter  for  twenty-five  years  Bishop  of  Eome, 
as  Jerome  conjectured  and  Komanists  allege,  viz,, 
from  42  a.d.  until  67  a.d.? 

Here  the  evidence  is  no  longer  negative,  but  of  the 
most  positive  and  undeniable  kind.  It  is  history  versus 
fable.  In  the  year  42  Peter  had  not  left  Palestine. 
In  the  year  44  he  was  imprisoned  by  Herod  Agrippa  in 
Jerusalem.  About  the  year  51,  at  the  Council  in  Jeru- 
salem, Paul  and  Barnabas  met  James,  Cephas,  and 
John,  who  were  "  reputed  to  be  pillars"  of  the  Churches 
in  Judea.  They  agreed  that  Paul  should  go  as  Apostle  to 
the  Gentiles,  and  the  others  to  the  Jews.  A  short  time 
later  Paul  conflicted  with  Peter  in  Antioch,  Then 
followed  Paul's  second  and  third  great  missionary 
journeys.  Then,  in  the  spring  of  the  year  58  a.d., 
from  Corinth  Paul  wrote  his  great  Epistle  to  Eome. 
That  epistle  makes  no  reference  whatever  to  Peter 
having  ever  been  in  Eome,  or  having  founded  the 
Church  there.  That  fact  of  itself,  as  Harnack,  Light- 
foot,  and  Sanday  all  say,  proves  the  Eoman  tradition 
to  be  impossible.  Later  still,  in  61  a.d.,  Paul  himself 
arrives  in  Eome.  In  his  Philippian  and  other  letters, 
and  in  Acts,  we  know  the  history  of  that  Eoman 
Church  down  to  the  year  63,  on  the  eve  of  Paul's  trial 
and  the  outbreak  of  Nero's  persecution.     But  Peter  is 


102         THE  ROMAN  LEGEND  OF  PETER. 

never  mentioned.  Up  to  this  point  all  modern  scholars 
of  any  standing  are  in  unanimous  agreement.  Lipsius, 
Harnack,  Lightfoot,  Eenan,  all  of  all  shades  of 
opinion,  declare  that  the  tradition  of  Peter's  having 
founded  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  having  been  bishop 
of  it,  is  simply  incredible. 

If  Peter  was  in  Rome  at  all,  says  Lightfoot,  it  could 
only  have  been  for  a  few  months,  '*  in  the  latter  part 
of  63  or  the  beginning  of  64.  The  Neronian  persecu- 
tion broke  out  soon  afterwards."  In  that  persecution, 
Peter,  if  there  at  all,  must  have  fallen.  If  Paul  then 
escaped  and  wrote  his  three  Pastorals — 1  Timothy, 
Titus,  and  2  Timothy — these  bring  us  down  to  67  a.d. 
And  still  there  is  no  word  of  Peter  having  ever  come 
to  Rome. 

We  have  thus  seen  this  huge  legend,  on  which  the 
Titanic  structure  of  the  Roman  papacy  has  been 
gradually  built  up,  crumble  piece  by  piece,  under  the 
test  of  actual  historic  facts.  The  result  can  be  ex- 
pressed in  three  propositions  : — 1.  The  assertion  that 
Peter  was,  at  any  time,  in  Rome  can  find  for  itself  not 
a  shred  of  actual  proof.  He  may  have  been,  or  he 
may  not  have  been.  But  it  is  at  best  unlikely ;  and 
it  cannot  at  all  be  proved.  2.  The  assertion  that 
Peter  founded  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  was  for 
twenty-five  years  Bishop  of  Rome,  is  absolutely  im- 
possible. 3.  Of  any  "  primacy,"  of  rule  or  authority 
of  Peter  over  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  there  is  not  a 
trace  in  the  New  Testament,  or  in  the  Earliest 
Christian  literature. 

Note. — For  Peter's  Bishopric  and  Clementine  Romance 
see  Appendix,  where  Dr.  Carr's  quotations  from  Harnack  will 
be  discussed. 


RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER.  103 


LECTURE   THIRD. 


RISE  OF  A  Sacerdotal  Order  in 
THE  Christian  Ministry. 


"He  [Jesus  Christ]  is  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost  them  that 
draw  near  unto  God  through  Him,  seeing  He  ever  liveth  to 
make  intercession  for  them.  For  such  a  High-priest 
became  us — holy,  guileless,  undefiled,  separate  from  sinners, 
and  made  higher  than  the  Heavens — who  needeth  not  daily, 
like  those  high-priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifices,  first  for  His 
own  sins  and  then  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  for  this  He 
did  once  for  all  ivheii  He  offered  up  Himself. ^^ — Heb.  vii., 
25—27. 

"  Now,  therefore,  why  tempt  ye  God,  that  ye  should  put  a  yoke 
upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples  which  neither  our  fathers 
nor  we  were  able  to  bear." — Peter,  in  Acts  xv.,  10 — 11. 

The  Christian  Faith. 

The  New  Testament  Gospel  centres  round  Christ — 
the  Way,  the  Truth,  the  Life,  the  one  Merciful 
High-priest,  whose  One  sacrifice  has  for  ever  made 
an  end  of  oblation,  and  has  flung  aside  the  "  veil  of 
the  Temple"  that  hid  God's  presence  from  men.  In 
Him  all  penitent  men  may  "  draw  near"  now  to  God 
— to  offer  themselves  direct  unto  Him — reconciled, 
absolved,  transformed  by  new  forces  of  life,  their  bodies 
made  God's  living  temple,  because  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwells  within  them.      This  is  the  true  Skekinah ;  and 

H  2 


104  EISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

Christ-like  men  are  the  Temi^le  and  priesthood  of  God. 
That  is  the  Gospel.  It  has  done  away,  forever,  with 
all  sacrificing  priesthood.  It  calls  all  believers 
"  priests  unto  God,"  a  "  priesthood  and  kinghood" 
in  one,  all  of  them  "  presenting"  or  "  offering  up" 
to  God,  from  hearts  of  love,  in  Christ,  the  sacrifice 
of  thanksgiving,  and  the  service  of  a  changed, 
Christ-like  life.  Is  not  it  striking  that  Peter  him- 
self so  vividly  declares  that  all  Christ's  people  are 
God's  Spiritual  Temple,  all  of  them  God's  priests,  all 
of  them  able  to  ofter  up  "  spiritual  sacrifices  ?"* 

From  that  great  fact,  of  the  one  sufficient  Sacrifice, 
offered  by  Christ  Jesus  once  for  all,  there  follow  three 
things  which  characterize  the  Gospel,  and  the  Church 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures.  These  three  things  mark  the  unlikeness 
of  the  Gospel  to  all  that  went  before  it,  as  well  as  to 
all  pagan  and  mediaeval  Priesthood. 

No  Order  of  Priesthood. 

1.  In  the  congregation  or  church  of  Jesus  Christ, 
there  is  but  one  Atoning  Priest,  or  High  Priest,  viz., 
Christ  Himself.  In  Him  all  believing  men  are  brought 
into  direct  relation  to  God. 

2.  There  is,  therefore,  no  sj)ecial  caste  or  order  of 
priesthood  in  the  Christian  Church.  All  believing 
men  and  women,  atoned  and  set  free  from  condemna- 
tion in  Christ,  brought  near  to  God  in  Him,  and 
dwelt  in  "  by  His  Spirit,"  are,  in  the  New  Testament, 
called  "  Priests  unto  God"  and  the  Father.  All  of 
them  can  "ofter"  to  God  from  loving,  grateful  hearts 
their  only  "sacrifice"  on  which  God  sets  value — the 
living  sacrifice  and  offering  of  thankful  lips,  and  of 
loyal  trust,  and  of  unselfish  and  pure  lives,  respon- 

*  1  Pet.  ii.,  5-9;  Rom.  xii.,  1 ;  Rom.  i.,  6. 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.       ,  105 

sive  to  the  love  of  God.  There  is  no  sacerdotal  order 
in  the  Ministry  of  God's  New  Testament  Congregation 
or  Church — ^just  because  all  God's  people,  in  common 
and  equally,  are  God's  priests.*  This  fact  fronts  us 
all  througli  the  New  Testament,  f  It  stands 
out  plain  in  the  Apostle  Paul's  Epistles,  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  John's  Epistles.  It 
is  asserted  in  the  strongest  way  in  the  writings 
of  St.  Peter  himself — that  very  Apostle  whom, 
by  a  strange  perversion  of  history,  the  Church 
of  Kome  has  chosen  as  its  legendary  foundation  and 
source.  Of  all  believers  in  common  Peter  says: — 
*'  But  ye  are  an  elect  race,  a  kingly  priesthood." 
The  sacrifices  they  offer  up  are  no  material  victims, 
and  no  material  bread  and  wine  on  any  material 
altar,  but  the  "living  sacrifices"  of  the  heart's  love 
and  the  life's  pure  doing — the  deeds  not  of  darkness, 
but  of  Christ-like  light,  t  That  is  the  only  priest- 
hood, except  Christ's  High  Priesthood,  the  Apostle 
Peter  or  the  New  Testament  knows  anything  about, 
under  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ. 

3.  To  the  Christian  Ministry — the  Ministry  of  the 
New  Testament  Church — no  sacerdotal  title  is  ever 
aj^plied  in  the  New  Testament,  no  priestly  name 
is  ever  given,  no  priestly  function  is  ever  ascribed, 
except  the  titles  and  functions  ascribed  to  all  believ- 
ing men — the  whole  company  of  Christians. 

Now  this  great  fact,  as  Lightfoot  proves,  is  seen 
vividly  if  we  examine  the  description  of  the  Christian 
Ministry,  and  the  titles  bestowed  upon  it  in  the  New 
Testament,  e.g.,  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  or  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles,  or  in  St.  Peter's. 

*  Lightfoot,  Phil,  pp.  181  sq.  and  264-6. 

t  Lightfoot  truly  says  the  entire   Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  would 
be  meaningless  on  any  other  supposition. 

\  1  Pet.  ii.,  9-12;  Rom.  xii.,  1;  Heb.  xiii.,  15,  &c. 


106  RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

A  Christian  Ministry  in  the  New  Testament. 

There  is  an  order  of  Christian  Ministry  recognised 
clearly  in  the  New  Testament ;  no  organisation,  civil 
or  religious,  could  exist  without  "  order  and  govern- 
ment." But  the  "  Christian  Ministry,"  as  Lightfoot, 
himself  a  great  prelate,  frankly  said,  is  ''no  part  of 
the  essence  of  God's  message  to  man  in  the  Gospel," 
but  is  indispensable  only  for  the  Church's  efficiency ; 
for  practical  convenience  ;  for  the  requirements  of  the 
spiritual  growth  of  the  members  of  the  Christian 
Society  or  Church. 

"For  communicating  instruction  and  for  preserving  public 
order,  for  conducting  (public)  religious  worship,  and  for  dis- 
pensing social  charities,  it  became  necessary  to  appoint  special 
officers."* 

Men  of  special  training,  understanding,  and  know- 
ledge, who  can  devote  their  time  to  it,  are  necessary 
for  this  great  thing — the  proclaiming  of  the  Gospel, 
the  guiding,  "upbuilding,"  and  energising  of  the 
Church  of  God.  But,  all  through  the  New  Testament, 
the  Christian  Ministry  is  pictured  as  simply  repre- 
sentative of  all  God's  congregation ;  it  is  never 
sacerdotal.  In  the  New  Testament,  as  Lightfoot  puts 
it — "the  priestly  functions  and  privileges  of  the 
Christian  people  are  never  regarded  as  transferred  or 
even  delegated  to  these  officers.  They  are  called 
stewards  or  messengers  of  God,  servants  or  ministers 
of  the  Church  and  the  like;  but  the  sacerdotal  title  is 
never  once  conferred  upon  them."! 

You  can  prove  for  yourselves,  from  your  New  Testa- 
ment, that  this  is  so — that  no  special  sacerdotal 
function  or  title  is  given  to  the  Christian  Ministry  other 
than  those  given  to  each  and  every  Christian  believer. 

*  Chris.  3Iinis.  Phil.,  p,  184.  Lightfoot  was  Professor  at  Cam- 
bridge when  he  wrote  this,  but  up  to  the  close  of  his  life  declared  he 
had  not  altered  in  any  way  his  standpoint. 

t  Cf.  Lightfoot,  Chris.  Min.  Phil,  p.  184. 


in  the  christian  ministry.  107 

Paul's  Picture  of  the  Church. 

E.g.,  St.  Paul  pictures  the  Church — under  the  figure 
of  a  living  body  and  its  unity — Christ  the  one  and 
only  Head,*  and  all  believers  the  members  of  His 
body,  with  diversity  of  administration.  In  that  unity 
(as  Lightfoot  lucidly  proves  to  us)  Paul  sums  into 
two  great  categories  the  Christian  Ministry.  In  the 
one  category  he  places  "apostles,  prophets,  &c." — 
those  men  who,  in  the  first  age  of  Christianity's 
outburst  of  life,  had  a  non-local  ministry  of 
"founding,"  of  "witnessing"  to  the  facts  of  their 
Lord's  mission  and  resurrection ;  and  who  had  also 
supra-natural  "charismatic"  gift  for  the  initial 
guidance  of  the  entire  Church.  These  Apostles, 
prophets,  and  inspired  "teachers"  went  from  place  to 
place  planting  and  "encouraging"  the  new  Church  of 
God.  In  another  category  St.  Paul  puts  the  stated 
and  local  ministr}^;  he  gives  to  them  such  titles  as 
these — "pastors,  help,  governments."!  We  find  them 
again  called  by  St.  Paul,  St.  Peter,  and  St.  Luke, 
"presbyters"  or  "bishops,"  and  "deacons." 

Bishop  and  Presbyter  in  the  New  Testament. 

I  may  say  in  a  word,  because  the  thing  is  no  longer 
disputable,  that  by  these  stated  ministers  of  the  Early 
Church,  is  just  meant  the  "presbyters  or  bishops" 
who,  in  each  congregation,  guided  and  taught  the 
Christian  people,  and  along  with  them  the  "deacons," 
who  helped  them  in  the  administration  of  the  Church's 
charities  and  financial  requirements.  I     The  "apostles 

*  1  Cor.  xii.;  Eph.  iv.,  15,  16. 

t  Lightfoot,  Chris.  Mm.  Phil,  p.  185. 

X  This  is  very  clearly  worked  out  by  Professor  Sanday  and  other 

modern  scholars.     It  is  accepted  even  by  Canon  Gore  that  in  the 

New  Testament,  and  even  in  Clement  of  Rome,  presbyters  and 

episcopoi  are  the  same. 


108  I^ISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

and  prophets  and  inspired  teachers"  necessarily 
passed  away.  From  the  nature  of  the  case,  and  from 
St.  Paul's  description  of  what  ^vas  necessary  to 
constitute  "Apostles,"  there  could  be  no  "apostolic 
succession" — they  could  (as  Lightfoot  shows)  have 
no  successors.  But  the  stated  and  ordinary  ministry 
remained.  The  "pastors"  or  "shepherds,"  with 
the  two-fold  function  of  oversight  and  of  teach- 
ing, are  entitled  "presbyters,"  which  is  just  a 
Greek  translation  of  the  Hebrew  word  meaning 
"elders" — those  connected  with  the  rule*  of  the 
Hebrew^  synagogue,  or  congregation.  In  that  syna- 
gogue, as  distinguished  from  the  Temple,  there 
was  no  "priesthood."  St.  James,  the  spokesman 
of  the  Jewish-Christian  Church  at  Jerusalem,  calls 
the  Christian  people,  or  congregation,  the  siuiagoge\ 
(synagogue),  which  is  equivalent  to  ecclesia  con- 
gregation, ]3i'0ving  unmistakeably  how,  simply  and 
necessarily,  the  early  Christian  Church,  in  its  stated 
life,  government,  and  worship,  retained  the  shape  of 
the  Hebrew  congregation.  Amongst  Gentile  Christians 
and  Hellenistic-Hebrew  believers,  another  name  was 
employed  as  a  synonym  for  that  w^ord  "presbyter," 
or  elder;  that  name  was  "e^oiscopos,"  overseer 
or  superintendent,  or  bishop.  Now  I  need  not  stay  to 
prove  that  in  the  New  Testament  these  words  "  pres- 
byter," or  elder,  and  "episcopos,"  or  bishop,  are  quite 
identical  in  meaning.  They  are  exact  equivalents  the 
one  for  the  other,  as  equivalent,  e.g.,  as  the  words 
"Minister"  and  "Pastor"  are  in  a  Christian  Church 
to-day,   or    as    equivalent    as   the   w^ords    "Master" 


*  The  (TvvedpLov  or  Council  of  Elders,  was  attached,  even  for  civil 
jurisdiction,  to  every  synagogue.  The  ordei'  of  the  Society  was 
represented  there. 

t  Jas.  ii.,  2.  In  Heb.  x.,  25,  the  compound  of  this  word  (epi- 
sunagoge)  is  used  for  the  Christian  congregation.  St.  Paul  uses  the 
verb  for  the  same.     1  Cor.  v.,  4. 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.  109 

and  "Warden"  are  in  relation  to  Ormond  and 
Trinity  Colleges.  Two  passages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, out  of  many  (if  we  accept  the  genuineness 
of  the  New  Testament  writings),  are  enough  to 
prove  this  identity.  In  Acts  xx.,  17 — 28,  St.  Paul, 
on  his  way  to  Jerusalem,  calls  at  Miletus,  on  the 
coast,  and  there  the  "  elders"  of  the  Christian  Church 
at  Ei^hesus  meet  him,  as  time  presses  and  he  cannot 
go  to  Ephesus  to  visit  them.  Paul  calls  them  all 
"bishops"  (as  both  the  Greek  and  the  Kevised  have 
it).  "  Take  heed  to  yourselves,  and  to  all  the  flock  in 
the  which  the  Holy  Spirit  hath  made  you  bishops 
(episcopous),  to  shepherd  (or  'be  pastor  over')  the 
congregation  of  God."  Again,  in  Titus  i.,  5 — 7,  elders 
(presbyters),  in  every  "city"  or  town,  are  also  called 
"bishops" — several  of  them  in  each  Christian  con- 
gregation or  church,  and  each  of  them  a  bishop, 
needing  to  be  "  blameless  as  God's  steward,  the 
husband  of  one  wife,"  not  of  several,  like  the  heathen. 
So  evident  is  this  that  all  great  scholars  of  these 
subjects  in  our  day  admit  that,  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  two  names,  presbyter  and  bishop,  are 
identical  in  meaning.*  The  persons  to  whom  these 
titles  were  given — and  there  were  several  such  in  every 
congregation — were  just  the  same  in  function,  in  office, 
and  in  dignity. 

*  To  deny  this  (as  Haruack  confesses)  we  should  have  to  reject 
the  genuineness  of  Acts  and  St.  PauVs  Pastorals.  We  should  also 
have  to  reject  1  Peter.  Even  Gore  admits  the  identity  of  "pres- 
l)yter"  and  "  episcopos"  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  Clement,  at 
the  close  of  the  First  Century.  Even  after  the  elevation  of  one 
presbyter,  as  sole  episcopos  (bishop),  he  was  for  some  centuries  only 
pastor  of  one  congregation,  or  community,  like  our  parish  minister. 
In  the  Apostolic  Ordinances  it  is  declared  that  even  a  congregation 
with  less  than  twelve  male  members  may  have  a  bishop.  Cf. 
8anday,  &c. 


110  RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 


No  Episcopal  Ordination. 

The j^eojjle  "elected"  their  Ministry.  The  presby- 
ters ordained  them. 

Then  another  startling  fact  is  evident.  Even  an 
Apostle,  when  present  for  a  time  in  a  chm'ch,  or  dis- 
trict— so  far  as  the  ordinary  stated  government  of  the 
Chm'ch  went,  was  simply  a  presbyter  like  the  other 
presbyters.  The  act  of  "  ordination,"  for  example 
(the  appointing  of  ministers  to  office),  that  act  round 
which  such  vast  mysterious  jargon  has  gathered, 
as  if  the  whole  Apostolic  Church  of  God  depended 
on  it,  was  performed  by  the  jweshyters  in  common. 
If  an  Apostle  was  present,  he  simply  took  his 
place  as  one  amongst  the  presbyters.  Two  passages 
prove  this  indubitably — (1)  St.  Paul  says  that 
Timothy  was  ordained  by  "  laying  on  of  my  hands." 
But,  in  another  place,  he  explains  that  it  was  ''  Jnj 
the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery''^ — all 
the  presbyters  in  common — Paul  himself  taking  his 
place  amongst  them.  (2)  The  Apostle  Peter  him- 
self writes  to  all  his  churches  of  Asia  : — "  The  elders 
among  you  I  exhort,  who  am  a  fellow-elder  .  .  . 
Tend  (shepherd)  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you 
[exercising  the  oversight  (episcopate)  thereof. fj  "  This 
utterance  of  Peter  to  the  presbyters  of  all  his  churches 
is  the  more  significant  and  pathetic,  seeing  that  the 

*  1  Tim.  iv.,  14;  2  Tim.  i.,  6. 

t  The  Rheims-Douay  translates  '  taking  care  of  it."  This  word 
episcopountes  is  omitted  in  Codd.  t^B.  It  is  present  in  the  other 
oldest  MSS.  and  versions.  The  inclusion  or  omission  of  it  makes  no 
change  in  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  which  proves  incontestably 
that  tlie  government  of  the  Church  was  by  presbyters.  In  the 
Shepherd  of  Hermas  (145  a.d.  ),  says  Harnack,  the  presbyters 
exercise  control  over  the  individual  bishop.  Lightfoot  has  shown 
that  in  Alexandria,  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  the 
bishop  was  nominated  and  ordained  by  the  presbyters.  Lightfoot 
Phil,  p.  226-229.     Sanday,  Expos.,  Jan.,  1887. 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.         ,  111 

word  "tend,"  or  "shepherd,"  is  just  the  same  verb 
which  Christ  used  to  Peter  himself,  when  restoring 
him  after  his  shameful  denial  and  fall — "  Tend  (or 
shepherd)  my  sheep"  (John  xxi.,  16.) 

This  ought  to  be  sufficient.  It  is  absolutely  certain 
that,  according  to  the  New  Testament,  in  the  age 
when  the  Book  of  Acts  and  1  Peter  and  the  later 
Pauline  Letters  were  written,  the  words  "  presbyter" 
and  "bishop"  were  sj-nonymous;  and  the  stated 
ministry,  the  spiritual  government,  of  the  Church 
was,  to  use  Lightfoot's  expression,  "  that  of  the 
presbyterate ;"  or,  to  use  Jerome's  expression,  it  was 
"  by  the  Common  Council  of  Presbyters,"  or  Bishops, 
in  each  Christian  centre  or  community.  And  these 
two  words,  "presbyters"  and  "bishops,"  meant  just  the 
same  thing.  There  were  no  "  successors  of  the 
Apostles"  higher  than  these.  Nay,  even  Jerome 
himself,  the  great  Latin  Father,  on  whose  translation 
of  Scripture  the  Pioman  Catholic  Bible  rests,  declared 
that  in  Scripture  and 

*'with  the  ancients,  presbyters  were  the  same  as  bishops;  but 
gradually  all  the  responsibility  was  transferred  to  a  single 
person  that  the  thickets  of  heresies  might  be  rooted  out." 
(Jer.  m.,  i.  5). 

Such  was  the  condition  of  the  ministry  in  the  early 
Christian  Church.  I  have  been  at  pains  to  set  it  quite 
clearly  forth,  for  this  one  purpose — it  shows  that  not  a 
single  priestly,  or  sacerdotal  title  was  given  to  the 
ministers  of  that  Church  during  all  the  New  Testa- 
ment age,  and  throughout  the  whole  of  the  first 
century. 

II. — Evolution  of  a  Priesthood. 

When  one  thinks  of  the  shape  the  Church  of  Christ 
took  in  after  ages,  and  of  the  pretensions  of  its  clergy 
— great  patriarchs,  metropolitans,  archbishops,  and 
bishops,  often  making  deadly  war  upon  one  another, 


112  RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

and  under  them  a  vast  order  of  priesthood,  and 
what  not,  clamimg  to  be  a  separate  caste  from 
the  rest  of  God's  people,  and  to  have  the  power, 
by  sacrifices  of  the  mass,  to  open  the  gates  of  pm-ga- 
tory  for  souls  imprisoned  there  after  death,  or  (here 
in  this  life)  to  grant  plenary  or  other  "  indulgences" 
for  sins  done — and  then,  when  one  looks  back  at  the 
stated  ministry  of  that  early  Christian  Church  in  the 
first  and  the  early  part  of  the  second  centuries,  one 
may  well  ask  in  wonder  how  tlie  one  ever  grew  out  of 
the  other  ? 

It  is  a  long  story.  I  can  sketch  only  a  few  of  the 
chief  stages  and  factors  in  the  process.  Here,  to 
begin  with,  we  must  note  that  small  commencings, 
as  in  a  river's  flow,  may  have  vast  volume  by-and-bye. 
We  must  also  note — what  Lightfoot*  draws  attention 
to — that,  unfortunately,  "  the  word  '  priest'  in  Eng- 
lish, and  in  some  other  modern  languages,  has  two 
different  senses,"  which  are  expressed  by  two  quite 
different  words  in  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  of  the  Bible. 
Our  English  word  "'priest,"  in  its  derivation,  is  just 
the  same  as  the  word  "presbyter,"  or  elder.  "It 
meant  originally,"  says  Lightfoot,  "  the  minister  who 
presides  over  and  instructs  a  Christian  congregation." 
But,  by  lapse  of  time  and  change  of  signification,  it 
came  to  be  "  equivalent  to  the  Latin  sacerdos,  the 
Greek  'tepevs,  the  Hebrew  pD  (Kohen),  the  offerer 
of  sacrifices,  who  also  performs  other  mediatorial 
offices  between  God  and  man."  Lightfoot  laments  the 
vast  confusion,  which  has  arisen  in  Church  life,  by  the 
use  of  the  same  word  to  express  two  wholly  dift'erent 
ideas — as,  for  example,  in  the  Book  of  Common-Prayer, 
the  word  "priest"  should  only  mean  "presbyter." 
The  sacerdotal  idea  has  been  "  imported"  into  the 

*  Philip,  p.   186.      He  confesses  his  large   indebtedness  to  both 
Rothe  and  Ritschl. 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.  113 

word ;  it  is  not  original.*  That  word,  whose  wholly 
changed  meaning  now  bulks  so  large,  and  is  used  as 
equivalent  to  the  Latin  sacerdos  (a  mediator  and 
absolver  between  God  and  man),  meant  at  first  only  a 
presbyter,  or  elder,  in  Christ's  congregation,  all  the 
members  in  which  were  equally  priests  to  God.  This 
term  for  the  Christian  minister  was  at  first  wholly 
devoid  of  sacerdotal  meaning.  The  only  "  ofi:*erings" 
Christ's  ministers,  in  the  New  Testament,  ever  ''pre- 
sented" to  God  were  just  the  ofterings  presented  by  the 
whole  congregation,  viz.,  "  the  sacrifice  oi  praise  and 
prayer,  giving  thanks  to  His  name, ""I'  the  bestowing 
of  alms,  and  the  showing  of  love  to  God  by  a  changed 
and  holy  life.  In  the  case  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  it  is 
specially  significant  that  no  priestly  term  is  ever  con- 
nected with  it.  The  Lord's  Supper  is  regarded  in  the 
New  Testament  as  part  of  the  ordinary  service  of 
"  thanJcsgiving.''  The  whole  life  of  the  Christian  was 
regarded  as  equally  sacramental.f  Present,  says  St. 
Paul,  "your  bodies"  a  living  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable 
to  God.  This  is  your  "  rational  ceremonial  service." — 
(Eom.  xii.,  1.)  That  was  spoken  in  common  to  all 
God's  people.  And  of  all  God's  people,  St.  Paul 
(Phil,  iii.,  8)  beautifully  used  the  cognate  verb — "  who 
serve  God  by  the  spirit."  As  Lightfoot  puts  it — "We 
offer  the  true  latreia — the  service  not  of  external  rites, 
but  of  a  spiritual  worship." 

Early  Fathers. — No  Sacerdotalism. 

Now,  up  to  the  closing  years  of  the  first  century,  as 
we  can  prove,  two  great  facts  are  prominent — (1) 
that  no  sacerdotal  function  and  no  sacerdotal  title 
were  as  yet  given  to  the  Christian  Ministry ;  (2)  that, 
after  the  death  of  the  Apostles,  the  presbyters  were  the 

*  Lightfoot,  PML,  pp.  245  et  186.  t  Id.,  p.  265,  sq. 

t  Id.,  pp.  262-266  ;  notes. 


11-1  RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

highest  order  of  the  abiding  ministry  in  the  Christian 
Church.  No  one  presbyter  had  as  yet  (at  least  out- 
side "Asia  Minor")  Hfted  himself  up,  as  a  special  and 
single  bishop  or  presbj^ter,  above  the  others.  The 
modern  Episcopate,  as  Lightfoot  says,  has  arisen  by 
evolution  out  of  the  presbytery.  Naturally,  as  an 
Episcopalian,  he  would  like  to  find  that  evolution  as 
early  as  possible,  and  to  join  it  on  to  Apostolic  times. 
He  adopts  the  theory  of  the  eminent  German  Presby- 
terian scholar  Eothe,  viz.,  that  the  first  appearance 
of  incipient  episcopacy  was  in  John's  Churches  in 
Asia  Minor.  But  he  confesses  he  cannot  get  proof  of 
that.  At  the  close  of  the  first  century  we  can  find  no 
trace  of  a  separate  Episcopacy — no  trace  of  one  single 
"  bishop" — in  Rome,  or  in  Corinth,  or  in  Greece,  or  in 
Italy,  or  in  any  city  or  land  of  Europe. 

Clement  of  Eome. — No  Priesthood. 

Of  that  we  have  the  clearest  proof.  We  have  in  our 
hands  the  letter  of  Clement  of  Piome  at  the  close  of 
the  first  century  (96  a.d.),  after  all  the  Apostles  were 
dead.  But  that  letter  has  not  a  trace  either  of  Ejnsco- 
IKicy  or  of  a  Sacerdotal  order.  Archbishop  Carr  rashly 
(as  it  seems  to  me)  appealed  to  that  letter,  and  to  the 
later  writings  of  Ignatius  and  of  Hermas.*  Here  they 
are  in  our  hand.  In  Clement  (cap.  xlii.,  xliv.,  xlvii., 
Ivii.)  we  find  that  in  Corinth  there  were  a  good  many 
bishops  at  one  and  the  same  time  in  the  church  or 
congregation  there.  All  of  them  Clement  calls  "pres- 
byters" and  also  "  bishops."  He  knows  of  no  higher 
office  in  the  Christian  Ministry  than  that  of  "  pres- 

*  Professor  Sanday,  of  Oxford,  inclines  to  agree  with  Ritschl  that 
the  writing  of  Hermas  (145)  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
in  its  assertion  of  the  rights  of  the  presbyters,  "  marks  the  time 
Avhen  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government  was  passing  into  the 
episcopal." 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.  115 

byters*' — and  he  calls  their  office  eiTLSKoir-q  (bishopric).* 
He  knows  of  no  single  Bishop  of  Corinth,  and  no  single 
Bishop  of  Kome,  much  less  Pope  of  Piome.    He  knows 
of  no  sacerdotal  functions  belonging  to  presbyters  or 
bishops.      In    Clement,    Jesus    Christ    is    the    only 
"High-priest  of  our  souls,"  and  "High-priest  of  our 
offerings"  (C.  61,  36).      The  "  sacrifice"  is  offered  by 
all  the  people.      It  is  "  the  sacrifice  oi  praise'"  (C.  35). 
And  again,  "  sacrifice  unto  God  is  a  contrite  spirit" 
(C.   18).      The   only  orders  of   priesthood  known  to 
Clement — "  high-prist,  priest,   levite" — are   those  of 
the  Old  Testament,  done  away  in  Christ  (C.  32,  40, 
16).     (See  Lightfoot  on  cap.  40;   also  PliiL,  p.  249.) 
If    we    had    Clement    now    as     the    Creed     of    the 
Church  (barring  that  wild  story  he  tells  about  the 
Phoenix  living  500  years,  and  at  its  death  giving  origin 
to  a  new  bird  from  its  own  decayf),  w^hy,  we  might 
have    the    "  re-union"    of    Christendom   to-morrow. 
There   would  be   no   "historic  Episcopate,"  and  no 
sacerdotalism,  and  no  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  no 
prelacy,    and    no   purgatory,   and   no   invocation   of 
Saints,  and  no  Mariolatry,  and  no  monkhood,  to  bar 
the  way.     We  should  have  just  the  Eeligion  of  the 
New  Testament. 


KoMANisT  Mistranslation  of  Clement,  &c. 

Before  passing  from  the  first  century  into  the 
second,  it  is  necessary  to  glance  at  a  characteristic 
instance  of  the  maltreatment  these  "Fathers"  have 
received  in  the  interests  of  Sacerdotalism.  Thus  in 
the  57th  paragraph,  or  brief  "chapter,"  of  Clement's 


*  Lightfoot,  S.  Clem.,  vol.  ii.,  p.  127  sq. 

t  Clem. ,  cap.  xxv.  See  Lightfoot's  valuable  note.  The  most  in- 
telligent of  the  pagans  believed  this ;  also  Tertullian,  Ambrose,  &c, , 
also  the  Jewish  Rabbis. 


116  RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

letter,  the  faction-makers  in  the  Christian  community 
in  Corinth  are  urged : — 

"Ye  therefore  that  laid  the  foundation  of  the  sedition,  submit 
yourselves  to  the  ^^reshyters  (preshnterois).  .  .  .  For  it  is 
better  for  you  to  be  found  small  and  esteemed  in  the  flock  of 
Christ  than  to  be  had  in  exceeding  honour,  and  yet  be  cast  out 
from  the  ho2)e  of  Him."  (Cf.  Lightfoot's,  with  Roberts'  and 
Donaldson's  renderings.) 

But  Archbishop  Carr  rendered  it  to  the  public: — 
"  Submit  yourselves  to  your  priests  !"  And  Clement's 
word  iXiridos  {elpiclos)  hope  he  rendered  ''fold;''  and 
Clement's  beautiful  word  ''flock''  he  rendered  "sheep- 
fold!"  And  this  is  all  the  worse,  because  that  Greek 
word  iroifivLov  (flock)  is  the  direct  translation  of  Hebrew 
words  in  the  Old  Testament  which  mean  "flock."  In 
the  New  Testament  it  is  applied,  as  Thayer's  Grimm 
or  any  competent  modern  Lexicon  could  have  told  him, 
to  "bodies  of  Christians  (churches)  presided  over  by 
Elders.  Acts  xx.  28,  1  Pet.  v.  3."  How  "  Komanist" 
it  all  sounds  as  Dr.  Carr  speaks  it !  How  Christlike, 
and  universal  in  its  simple  beauty,  it  is,  as  Clement 
spoke  it: — "flock"  of  Christ,  and  "hope"  of  Christ, 
and  "presbyters"  of  Christ's  Congregatian.  Poor 
Clement,  to  have  his  beautiful  words  so  mishandled 
as  to  back  up  the  un-Christian  notion  of  a  great, 
palisaded,  uniform,  autocratic  Church,  with  priests 
and  pontiff,  whose  anathemas  cast  men  out  of 
the  "  Fold  !  "  But,  as  Dr.  Stacey  Chapman  has  dealt 
with  that  instance  lucidly,  we  need  not  dwell  on  it 
further.* 

Archbishop  Carr,  however,  answers  that  he  relied 
upon  "Allnatt's  Cathedra  Petri.''  I  am  aware  of 
that  !  That  is  the  cause  of  the  trouble — All- 
natt,  and  the  Eev.  Luke  Eivington,  and  the  Eev. 
Father  Eyder,  and  all  these  handbooks  of  "  Catholic 


Alleged  Papal  Supremacy,  pp.  15-17. 


IN    THE    CHEISTIAN    MINISTRY.  117 

Controversy,"  written  in  defence  of  the  Cathedra  Petri^ 
and  drawn  up  for  the  mihtant  forward  movement  of 
the  "  CathoHc  Campaign."  This  is  but  one  instance 
out  of  the  many.  When  we  come  to  Ignatius  and  the 
rest,  the  handbooks  are  kin  in  quahty. 

One  could  not  wish  a  better  service  done  to 
Protestantism  and  Christianity  than  to  have  Clement's 
letter  widely  printed  and  read.  In  cap.  xlvii.  he 
urges  the  Corinthians  to  read  the  Epistle  of  "  Paul 
the  Apostle" — 

"  Of  a  truth  he  (Paul)  charged  you,  in  the  Spmt,  concerning 
himself,  and  Cephas,  and  Apollos,  because  that  even  then  ye  had 
made  parties.  Yet  that  making  of  parties  brought  less  sin 
upon  you,  for  ye  were  partisans  of  Apostles  that  were  highly 
reputed,  and  of  a  man  approved  in  their  sight." 

This  alone  would  be  sufficient  proof  of  the  base- 
lessness of  the  Komanist  claim  for  a  supremacy  for 
Peter,  or  for  Eome.  Clement  puts  Paul  in  front  of 
Peter — "himself  (Paul),  Cephas,  and  Apollos."  He 
calls  the  two — "Apostles  that  were  highly  reputed." 
He  says  not  a  word  of  Kome  having  "  Apostolic" 
authority  as  descending  from  any  one  of  them.  On 
the  contrary,  he  says  those  who  made  faction  then, 
as  partisans  of  the  more  distinguished  Apostles,  were 
less  culpable  than  those  who  make  factions  now,  when 
Apostles  no  longer  exist. 

I  have  already  sufficiently  pointed  out,  that  in  cap. 
xlii.,  xliv.,  &c.,  Clement  makes  it  clear  that  ^'  i^reshy- 
ters''  and  "  bishops"  are  the  same,  and  that  in  every 
Christian  congregation  there  were  several  of  these. 
And  these  "presbyters"  were  then  the  highest  oj^der  in 
the  Christian  Ministry.  There  is  no  trace  in  Clement 
of  ANY  ONE  Bishop  in  any  Church  anywhere.  And 
there  is  no  trace  of  sacerdotalism. 


118  rise  of  a  sacerdotal  order 

Second  Century. — The  "Thickets  of  Heresies." 

The  second  century  brings  us  into  the  midst  of  an 
altered  and  tragic  spectacle.  It  is  what  Jerome,  later 
on,  called  "  the  thickets  of  heresies."  The  Christian 
faith  had  spread  widely  amongst  the  Gentile  peoples ; 
but  it  got  interwoven  thick  and  deep  with  the  peculiar 
notions  of  the  pagan  cults,  and  theosophic  specula- 
tions. It  was  the  era  known  by  the  general  term 
"gnosticism."  It  was  the  age  also  of  successive 
harassing  persecutions.  The  Church  was  torn  and 
distracted  by  endless  "heresies,"  distorting  the  faith 
into  a  hundred  diverse  shapes,  and  breaking  into 
countless  factions  the  Church's  unity.  It  was 
necessary  to  the  existence  of  the  faith,  and  of  a 
Church  of  God  at  all,  that  it  should  be  consolidated, 
centralised,  and  should  have  rapid  inter-correspon- 
dence between  its  chief  centres.  To  this  movement, 
as  all  great  modern  scholars  on  this  subject  are 
agreed,  was  due  the  first  development,  of  what  is 
called  "  monarchical  episcopacy " — the  lifting  of  one 
presbyter  or  bishop,  in  each  congregation,  or  place, 
or  Christian  community,  above  other  presbyters, 
to  voice  the  faith  and  common  fellowship  in 
Christ,  in  the  unity  of  the  Church's  hope,  as  that 
faith  had  come  down  from  the  Apostles  of  Christ. 
It  was  not  at  all  the  unity  of  shajye  they  were  con- 
cerned about,  but  the  unity  of  the  gospel.  This  fact 
is  admitted  in  the  frankest  and  clearest  way  by 
Jerome,  the  great  Latin  Father : — 

''Before  factions  were  introduced  into  religion  by  the 
promptings  of  the  devil,"  says  Jerome,  "the  Churches  were 
governed  by  a  common  council  of  presbyters"  (elders*).  When 
afterwards  one  presbyter  was  elected  that  he  might  be  placed 
over  the  rest,  this  was  done  as  a  remedy  against  schism,  that 

*  Jer.,  Tit.  i.,  5. 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.  119 

each  man  might  not  drag  to  himself,  and  thus  break  up,  the 
Church  of  Christ."* 

Or,  as  Bishop  Lightfoot  says  : — 

*'To  the  dissensions  of  Jew  and  Gentile  converts,  and  to  the 
disjDutes  of  gnostic  false  teachers,  the  development  of  episcopacy 
may  be  mainly  traced. "f 

Origin  of  Bishop. 

There  was  another  reason  for  the  lifting  of  one 
presbyter,  or  bishop,  above  the  other  presbyters. 
In  fact,  the  tendency  is  seen  in  every  committee 
or  society  when  it  needs  an  effective  "voice"  as  its 
president  or  chairman.  In  those  times  of  persecution 
and  of  varied  perplexities,  it  was  needful  that  the 
various  Christian  Churches  should  have  communication 
with  one  another.  This  could  be  done,  as  we  see 
already  in  Clement's  letter,  only  by  the  Church  in  one 
city  writing  to  the  Church  of  another  city  through  the 
hand  of  its  best-known  presbyter,  and  by  sending, 
where  possible,  delegates.  Especially  was  this  done 
when  the  Christian  community  in  a  wealthy  city,  like 
Eome  or  Alexandria,  felt  impelled  to  send  aid  to  some 
poorer  Christian  community.  The  eloquent  preaching- 
presbyter  who  was  wont  to  "  conduct  the  thanksgiving 
worship,"  which  culminated  in  the  Lord's  supper  with 
its  "Love-feast"  (Agape)  and  its  "giving  of  alms," 
became,  in  association  with  the  deacons,  specially 
identified  with  this  loving  duty,  the  correspondence 
between  the  Churches,  and  the  "communication,"  to 
beneficence .  I     This  tendency  was  further  necessitaed 

*  Epist.  cxlvi.,  ad  Evang.  See  on  this  Alford,  Acts  xx. ; 
Sanday,  Expos.,  Jan.  1887. 

t  Phil.  206-229,  sq.;  also  Creighton's  H tsi.  of  Papacy,  p.  4. 

X  This  is  the  main  element  of  truth,  it  seems  to  me,  in  the  Hatch- 
Harnack  theory,  which  traces  the  development  of  the  sole-episcopus 
to  the  congregational  ivorship  and  its  alms-giving,  which  alms  were 
distributed  by  the  "bishop"  through  the  "deacons." 

I  2 


120  RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

when  times  of  persecution  set  in.  The  civil  law 
compelled  the  Christian  society  in  each  city  to  be 
registered,  and  accountable  to  the  civil  authorities,  in 
the  name  of  some  one  presbyter  who  was  thus  known 
to  them  by  the  Gentile  name  "  episcopos,''  else  the 
Christian  society  would  have  been  deprived  even  of 
common  burial  rights.* 

The  Ignatian  Letters. 

In  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  from  such 
various  causes,  we  can  trace  this  tendency  to  let  one 
presbyter,  called  definitely  ^'  episcopos"  (bishop), 
speak  in  the  name  of  the  church,  or  congregation,  in 
each  town  or  city.  It  is  significant,  also,  that  this  is 
first  heard  of  just  in  those  districts  where  the  gnostic 
heresies  first  sprang  up  into  power,  viz.,  in  the  region 
of  Syria  and  Asia  Minor.!  It  is  first  articulately 
presented  in  the  Letters  of  Ignatius  of  Antioch  in  his 
journey  along  the  border  of  Asia  Minor— those  strange 
letters  over  whose  spuriousness  or  genuineness  the 
heavy  cloud  of  doubt  will  always  hang.  For  they  stand 
alone  in  the  first  half  of  the  second  century. 

This  "  Saint  Ignatius,"  on  his  way  to  Eome  to  be 
martyred,  shed  round  him  letters  broadcast,  to  various 
cities  as  he  passed,  urging  the  Christian  congregation 
in  each  place  to  be  united  and  steadfast  in  the  faith, 
honouring  their  "  ejnscojws  (bishop)  with  the  presby- 
tery and  deaco7is.''  He  uses  very  wild  and  whirling 
words,  and  he  is  interesting,  as  every  vivid  personality 
is,  but  chiefly  as  the  earliest  man  who  speaks  of  a  distinc- 
tion (in  the  stated  Ministry)  between  the  p>resbyters  as 

*  This  is  brought  out  vividly  by  Prof.  Kamsay. 

t  Lightfoot  points  out,  also,  that  the  spurious  Clementine  Hom- 
ilies show  us  one  of  the  earliest  assertions  of  episcopacy. 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.  121 

a  whole,  and  one  presbyter  called  '^  episcopos.'"*  These 
letters  Harnack  places  about  140  a.d.,  Lightfoot 
earlier  (and  I  think  wrongly)  about  118.  [I  fancy 
scholarly  opinion  will  swing  round  again  to  reject  all 
these  letters  as  spurious.] 

But  what  I  draw  attention  to,  in  the  whole  matter,  is 
this — the  one  letter  which  Ignatius  wrote  to  Eome — 
is  just  the  only  letter  which  he  wrote  to  a  Church 
outside  Asia  Minor.  And  it  makes  not  the  slightest 
reference  to  a  bishop  in  Eome.  It  is  addressed 
simply  to  the  church — "  which  hath  the  presidency 
in  the  place  of  the  region  of  the  Eomans."i* 

Other  Fathers  in  Second  Century. 

Later  still,  in  Hennas,  we  have  it  declared  of  the 
Christian  community  in  Eome  that  it  is  "the  presbyters 
who  preside  over  the  Church.''  In  keeping  with  this  is 
the  light  thrown  by  the  recently-discovered  Didache  (or 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles),  which  shows  us  still 
existing  in  the  second  century  tivo  (not  three)  "orders,'' 
or  "functions,"  in  the  Christian  Ministry,  viz.,  elders 
or  bishops,  and  deacons.  And  it  is  the  people  who 
elect  or  appoint  these  presbyters. 

*  These  writings  have,  as  all  confess,  been  greatly  forged  and  inter- 
polated. They  are  extant  in  three  main  forms : — (1)  the  shortest,  or 
Syriac  (three  letters) ;  (2)  the  Short  Greek,  or  Vossian  (seven  letters) ; 
(3)  the  Longer  Greek,  and  Latin  (thirteen  writings).  The  Short  Greek 
is  the  only  form  that  can  be  genuine.  Many  great  scholars  regard 
all  as  spurious.  Zahn,  the  eminent  Presbyterian  scholar,  vindi- 
cated ably  the  genuineness  of  the  short  Greek  letters.  In  this  he 
has  been  followed  by  Harnack  and  by  Lightfoot.  Harnack's  main 
reasons  for  regarding  these  letters  as  possible  in  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century  are  : — "(1)  Their  author  does  not  name  the  bishops 
as  successors  of  the  Apostles  — it  is  Irenaeus  who  first  invents 
that  ;  (2)  he  says  nothing  about  an  institution  of  bishops  by  the 
Apostles  ;  (3)  he  deems  the  bishop,  as  representative  of  the  truth 
of  God  and  the  faith  of  Christ,  to  be  the  head  of  only  one  particular 
congregation  or  community." 

t  Ign.  ad  Horn.  1. 


122  RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

"Appoint,  therefore,  for  yourselves  bishoj^s  and  deacons 
worthy  of  the  Lord  ;  men  that  are  meek  and  not  covetous,  and 
truthful,  and  approved,  for  they  also  perform  for  you  the 
service  (or  minister  tlie ministry)  of  the  Prophets  and  Teachers." 
— Did.,'*'  c.  XV. t 

Do  yoii  think,  had  there  been  any  Bishop  of  Eome, 
not  to  sa}"  Pope  of  Eome,  in  142-145,  Hernias  could 
have  written  that  way  ? 

First  Trace  or  Bishop  of  Eome. 

That  is  remarkable  !  The  process  of  change  to 
"  episcopacy"  was  slower  in  Europe  than  in  the  East. 
But,  when  it  set  in,  it  came  with  a  rush.  There  were 
sjDecial  reasons  for  the  uprising  of  a  single  bishop 
in  Eome.  RoDie  was  then  the  metropolis  of  the 
world, — centre  of  wealth  and  influence.  It  was  the 
Imperial  city — the  city  of  the  Emperor's  court  and 
palace.  Many  members  of  the  Eoman  Church  had 
relations  soon  with  the  Emperor's  household.  Before 
the  close  of  the  first  century  some  of  the  Emperor's 
near  relatives  were  Christians.  Every  Church  that 
was  impoverished  by  famine  or  persecution  sent  an 
appeal  to  the  wealthy  Church  at  Eome.  The  promi- 
nent martyrs  were  sent  to  suffer  at  Eome.  The 
Christian  traders  gravitated  towards  Eome. 

In  the  closing  years  of  the  second  century  we  find 
''  ei^iscopacy"  almost  everywhere.  But  what  was  that 
*' episcopacy  ?"  Certainly  not  anything  like  diocesan 
episcopacy.  The  "  episcopos,"  as  Sanday  shows, 
corresponded   to   a   modern   parish   minister  or   the 


*  Prof.  Sanday  says  that  the  discovery  of  the  Didache  has 
dissipated  the  doubt  expressed  by  Lightfoot  whether  the  rulers 
in  Hermas  might  not  mean  ' '  bishops' '  in  the  later  sense.  Harnack 
says  Hermas  is  proof  that  "episcopacy"  had  not  yet  arisen  in 
Rome. 

+  cf.  Sanday,  Expos.,  Jan.,  1887.  The  inexpensive  book.  Church 
of  Snb- Apostolic  Age,  by  Prof.  Heron,  of  Belfast,  deals  lucidlj-  with 
this. 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.  12S 

incumbent  of  a  town  church,  or  (shall  I  say?)  a 
Wesleyan  ch'cuit  leader,  with  his  presbyter-helpers, 
and  his  deacons  or  stew^ards  round  him.  There  was, 
as  yet,  no  sacerdotal  caste,  and  nothing  like  diocesan 
episcopacy,  or  any  separate  ordination  for  "  presbyters'* 
and  for  "bishops."* 

The  Message  of  Peace  bet^veen  the  Churches. 

We  are,  as  Sanday  says,  alas,  "  slaves  of  W'Ords." 
The  metaphorical  Old  Testament  language  about 
'•  High-priest,  Priest,  and  Levite"  has  dominated,  as 
Lightfoot  vividly  shows,  our  Christian  imagination. 
Similarly  the  w^ord  "  bishop,"  with  its  mediaeval 
pompous  sound,  has  led  our  historical  reason  captive. 
For  the  "bishop"  of  the  close  of  the  second  century 
was  a  very  limited  and  humble  personage.f  Sanday 
says  truly: — 

' '  Every  town  of  any  size  had  its  bishop  ;  the  whole  position 
of  the  bishop  was  very  similar  to  that  of  the  incumbent  of  the 
parish  church  in  one  of  our  smaller  towns." 

He  says  further,  and  beautifully : — 

*'  The  Christian  Church  consisted  of  a  number  of  scattered 
congregations  islanded,  as  it  were,  amongst  the  masses  of  an 
alien  population." 

Further  still  he  declares: — 

"In  some  respects  the  Non-conformist  communities  of  our 
own  time  furnish  a  closer  parallel  to  the  primitive  state  of 
things  than  an  Established  Church  can  possibly  do.  Christianity 
itself  was  an  instance  of  non-conformity." 

That  is  fine,  as  coming  from  a  scholar  who  himself 
prefers  the  modern  Episcopal  system,  when  reformed. 
And  I,  who  was  born  within  an  "Established  and 

•  The  distinction  is  not  clearly  drawn,  Lightfoot  shows,  till  the 
fourth  century. 

t  Expos.,  Feb.  1887.     Cf.  Lightfoot,  Phil.  231  et  Ignat.  i.  397. 


124  RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

Presbyterian  Church,"  heartily  endorse  it.  And  this 
is  still  finer : — speaking  of  the  Church's  earliest 
stages,  when  the  Christian  communities  first  got 
dotted  down,  here  and  there,  and  then  gradually  came 
to  be  cared  for  by  presbyters,  he  says : — 

*'The  Church  passed  through  a  congregational  stage,  and 
...     it  also  passed  through  a  presbyterian  stage." 

The  hearty  recognition  of  these  facts,  he  declares, 
ought  "  to  result  in  an  eirenicon  between  the 
Churches." 

Earliest  Traces  of  a  Priestly  Caste. 

Towards  the  close  of  the  second  century  we  come 
upon  three  new  features.  It  is  significant  that  they 
occur  simultaneously:  (1)  the  earliest  assertion  that 
"bishops,"  as  distinct  from  "presbyters,"  are  succes- 
sors of  the  Apostles  ;  (2)  the  earliest  distinct  assertion 
of  special  priestly  titles  as  belonging  to  the  Christian 
Ministry ;  (3)  the  first  distinct  claim  made  by  the 
Pioman  Church  to  precedence,  and  to  a  kind  of  more 
authoritative  voice  than  other  Churches.  This  meant 
the  atmosphere  and  mood  of  Eoman,  pagan  Imperial- 
ism, invading  the  Congregation  or  Church  of  Jesus. 
Irenaeus  is  the  first  to  voice  the  first  of  these  notions, 
viz.,  that  "bishops"  are  successors  of  the  Apostles. 
Ignatius,  fifty  years  earlier,  with  all  his  whirling 
rhetoric,  had  never  uttered  this.  The  original  iden- 
tity of  bishops  and  presbyters  as  presiding  over  the 
Church  is  still  visible,  even  in  him.  Thus,  in  his 
vehemence  for  the  Church's  faith  and  harmony,  he 
speaks  of  the  bishop  as — 

* '  Presiding  in  the  place  of  (or,  after  the  likeness  of)  God,  and 
your  presbyters  as  in  the  place  of  for,  after  the  likeness  of^  the 
assembly  of  the  Apostles.  "* 

*  Ign.  ad  M agues.,  cap.  vi.,  Trail.  2,  3,  Smyr.  8. 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.  125 

"But  be  ye  obedient  to  the  Presbytery  as  to  the  Apostles 
of  Jesus  Christ,  our  Hope."  And,  again,  he  urges  respect  for 
"the  presbyters  as  the  Council  of  God,  and  as  the  College  of 
Apostles." 

"The  presbyters,  not  the  bishops,"  saj^s  Lightfoot 
{Ignat.  vol.  i.,  p.  397),  "are  here  the  representatives 
of  the  Apostles." 

So  that  if  there  is  any  external  "  Apostolic  succes- 
sion" it  would  inhere  in  the  Preshytevs!  That  is 
certainly  the  one  order  of  the  stated  Ministry  which 
has  continued  all  through,  from  the  earliest  hours  of 
the  Christian  Church  and  down  till  to-day.  By 
the  law  of  "the  survival  of  the  fittest"  the  order 
of  presbyters  will,  apparently,  continue  after  bishops 
shall  have  passed  away.  For,  as  a  witty  friend  of 
mine  in  the  Old  Land  said: — "According  to  John's 
Apocalypse,  in  the  Vision  of  the  Church  perfected,  the 
presbyters  (or  elders)  have  a  large  and  honoured 
place.  But  there  is  no  mention  whatever  of  bishops  !  " 
If  any  Church  can  claim  external  "continuity,"  those 
Churches  which  have  the  Presbyterial  system  can 
surely  claim  it.  But,  let  us  all  thank  God,  "  succession" 
and  "  continuity"  depend  on  a  factor  more  certain 
than  any  externalisms  of  human  appointment,  or  of 
men's  hands  resting  on  heads,  whether  the  hands 
be  bishops'  hands  or  those  of  presbyters,  viz., 
on  the  abidingness  of  Christ's  truth  and  gospel, 
and  of  God's  redeeming  grace,  on  the  never-failing 
presence  of  Christ's  living  Spirit  in  the  hearts  of  men, 
who  make  confession  and  thanksgiving  together  before 
God,  in  the  unity  of  the  love  of  their  common  King 
and  Saviour.  This  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.  This  is 
the  Congregation,  or  Church,  of  Jesus.  Let  us  honour 
it,  and  its  ministry,  in  all  its  forms,  however  simple, 
however  stately,  if  only  it  be  true,  in  living  love  and 
in  unselfish  beauty  of  the  life,  to  the  Spirit  and  the 
presence  of  Jesus. 


126  rise  of  a  sacerdotal  order 

Priesthood  Born  in  North  Africa. 

It  is  well  that  this  has  been  shown  by  a  great  and 
learned  prelate,  viz.,  Bishop  Lightfoot,  so  there  can  be 
no  charge  of  bias.  The  first  time  we  find  the  name 
"hiereus"  (sacerdos)  "priest" applied  to  Christian  minis- 
ters is  by  a  heathen  writer.*  The  first  Christian  Father 
"  to  assert  direct  sacerdotal  claims  on  behalf  of  the 
Christian  Ministry"  isTertullian,  of  Carthage,  in  North 
Africa,  and  of  Kome.  He  calls  the  bishop  the  chief 
priest,  "  summiis  sacerdos,"  and  says  that  the 
right  of  baptism  belongs  to  him.-f  That  is  the  first 
clear  note  of  Sacerdotalism  in  Christian  history,  more 
than  160  years  after  Christ  died.  And  yet  he 
modifies  this  thought  greatly  by  saying  that  Christian 
laymen  also  are  priests,  and  where  no  clergy  are  at 
hand,  laymen  "present  the  euchaiistic  ofierings,  and 
baptize,  and  are  (their  own)  sole  priests.  For  where 
three  are,  a  Church  is,  though  they  be  laymen." 

It  is  the  same  Tertullian,  as  I  showed  in  last 
lecture,  who  said  that  Peter  was  baptising  in  the 
river  Tiber,  at  Kome,  and  that  St.  John  was  plunged 
in  a  caldron  of  oil  at  Kome,  and  yet  came  forth 
unhurt. 

At  the  same  epoch  Victor  became  Bishop  of  Kome, 
the  first  man  of  Latin  birth  who  ever  held  that 
office.  A  Koman,  accustomed  to  the  Koman  mood,  of 
dominating  all  the  rest  of  the  world,  and  having 
"  relations  with  the  Koman  Imperial  Court,"  he 
attempted  to  assert  a  specially  decisive  voice 
amongst  the  Churches,  on  a  question  of  Church 
order.  But  his  claims  were  at  once  forcibly  and 
bluntly  repudiated.  Irenaeus,  of  Gaul,  who  had 
hitherto  flattered  the  Koman  bishop,  at  once  strongly 
protested.      Tertullian,  of  Carthage,  the  very  Father 

*  Lucian,  see  Lightfoot.  f  Light.,  Phil.,  p.  255. 


IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    MINISTRY.  127 

who  had  asserted  a  sacerdotal  order  as  belonging  to 
the  Christian  Ministry,  and  who  had  enlarged  the 
story  of  Peter's  preaching  at  Kome,  stood  against  this 
growing  arrogance  of  the  Koman  bishop. 

"The  Chief  Pontiff,  forsooth,  has  issued  his  com- 
mands!"! laughs  Tertullian,  a  little  later.  Little 
dreamt  Tertullian  that  this  very  name  "  Chief  Pontiff," 
the  name  of  the  highest  pagan  priest,  would  by  and 
bye  ''be  claimed  for,  and  granted  to,  a  later  and  far 
more  ambitious  Bishop  of  Eome!" 

These  things  belong,  however,  to  our  concluding 
lecture. 

Seeing  what  Eome  was,  the  sjnrit  of  the  Papacy  was 
born  so  soon  as  the  assertion  of  a  separate  priestly 
caste,  in  the  Ministry  of  the  Church  of  God,  was  once 
accepted.  The  form  of  the  Papacy  was  not  yet  born, 
for  many  a  day. 

Spirit  of  Papacy  Born. 

Its  spirit  was  born,  at  any  rate,  from  the  third 
century,  and  onward,  from  the  time  Cyprian 
made  the  bishops  to  be  successors  of  the  Apostles, 
and  specially  inspired  of  God,  Lightfoot  proves 
that  the  priesthood  in  the  Christian  Ministry 
first  arose  from  heathen  influences.  But,  so  soon 
as  the  episcopate  and  the  presbyterate  got  looked 
upon  as  distinct  orders,  so  soon  as  men  began  to 
dream  of  a  threefold  order  of  bishops,  presbyters 
{or  priests),  and  deacons,  then  the  Old  Testament 
notion  of  high-priest,  p^riest,  and  levite  came  to  be  re- 
garded as  the  type  of  the  Christian  Ministry.  In  that 
lay  germs  of  the  hierarchy  and  the  Pioman  Papacy. | 


•  It  is  probable  that  it  was  of  the  baleful  Callistus  Tertullian 
thus  spoke.     Others  say  Victor,  or  Zephyrinus. 
t  Lightfoot,  f/«7.,  p.  262,  sq. 


128 


RISE    OF    A    SACEEDOTAL    ORDER 


In  the  beginning  of  the  third  century : — 

*'The  solitary  bishop  represented  the  solitary  high  priest; 
the  principal  acts  of  Christian  sacrifice  ^yere  performed  by 
the  presbyters  as  the  principal  acts  of  Jewish  sacrifice  by  the 
priests ;  and  the  attendant  ministrations  Avere  assigned  in  the 
one  case  to  the  deacon,  as  in  the  other  (case)  to  the  levite."* 

Thus  the  analogy  seemed  complete.  Bishop,  pres- 
byter, deacon  was  made  to  run — high  priest,  priest, 
levite. 

The  Analogy  Disloyal  to  Christ. 

"To  this  correspondence,"  however,  as  Lightfoot 
points  out — 

"There  was  one  grave  impediment.  The  only  High  Priest 
under  the  Gospel  recognised  by  the  Apostolic  writings  is  our 
Lord  Himself." 

But  the  growing  spirit  of  ecclesiasticism  soon 
pushed  that  scriptural  and  spiritual  "scruple"  aside. 
And,  with  a  growing  external  pomp  and  "  observation," 
a  hierarchy  of  priestly  rank  above  rank  rose.  It  took 
the  place  of  that  Kingdom  of  Christ  and  of  Heaven,  of 
whose  secret  and  spirit  Christ,  who  brought  it,  said — 
"The  Kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  ohservation; 
neither  shall  they  say  'lo,  here!  or,  there;'  for  lo, 
the  Kingdom  of  God  is  within  you."  Amidst  the 
din  of  Cyprian  and  Novatian-|-  contending  about  the 
validity  of  the  ordination  of  Cornelius  as  Eomari 
bishop,  and  of  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome,  contending 
with  a  greater  than  himself,  Cyprian  of  North  Africa 
(who  was  called  by  the  Eoman  Church  "Papa" — ■ 
Pope)  about  the  re-baptism  of  "the  lapsed" — amidst 
the  far  fiercer  contendings  of  the  Councils,  which 
followed,  regarding  hair-splittings  of   doctrinal  pro- 

*  Light.  Phil,  p.  263. 
t  Cf.  Harnack's  masterly  paper  in  Herzog  u.  Plitt. 


IN    THE    CHEISTIAN    MINISTRY.  12^ 

positions — there  was  lost  out  of  sight  what  the  Master 
had  said,  what  even  Tertulhan  had  reaffirmed — 
"  Where  two  or  three  are  (fathered  together  in  My  namCy 
there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them J*^ 

Dr.  Carr  on  Altar,  &c.,  in  I(4natius. 

Note. — Dr.  Carr's  attempt  to  deal  with  the  startling  fact  that,  in  the 
New  Testament,  no  special  sacerdotal  titles  or  functions  are  ascribed 
to  the  Christian  ministry,  or  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  even 
in  the  Earlier  "Fathers"  up  to  Tertullian's  day,  the  "  presbyters," 
and  stated  ministers  of  the  Church  generally,  are  not  regarded  as 
priests,  save  just  as  all  believers  are  "priests  to  God,"  is  surely 
flimsy.  He  tries  to  take  refuge  in  High-Anglican  Blunt  and  his 
suggestion  that  "  it  was  the  object  of  the  Apostles  to  wean  the 
mind  of  the  Jew  from  the  external  associations  of  his  ancient  faith. " 
Is  this  meant  as  humour  ?  The  fact  is  that  the  whole  New 
Testament  is  full  of  Apostolic  reference  to  "the  external  associa- 
tions of  the  ancient  faith,"  and  to  priesthood  too.  And  all 
Christians  are  called  "priests,"  and  Christ  is  called  High-Priest, 
and  all  this  is  contrasted  sharply  with  the  "ancient  faith."  But 
no  special  priesthood  is  ascribed  to  the  Christian  minister.  And 
there  is  no  external  "altar"  of  any  kind  in  the  Apostolic  and  sub- 
Apostolic  Church. 

Dr.  Carr  does  not,  himself,  think  much,  evidently,  of  poor  Blunt's 
desperate  exegesis.  So  he  tries  for  himself.  He  says  that  to  argue 
from 

"  the  mere  absence  of  the  word  hiei-cus  ("priest)  from  the  Apostolic  and  sub- 
Apostolic  -writers  betrays  a  manifest  unfamiliarity  with  their  teaching.  For 
instance,  in  the  works  of  St.  Ignatius,  who  was  bishop  in  the  lifetime  of  the 
Beloved  Disciple,  the  term  hiereus  does  not  occur,"  &c. 

But  Dr.  Carr  goes  on  to  argue  that 

"  Power  over  the  natural  body  of  Christ,  in  which  the  essence  of  the  Christian  priesthood 
consists" — 

is  actually  "  clearly  expressed"  by  Ignatius.  Also,  says  Dr.  Carr, 
*'  the  term  thusiasterion  or  sacrificial  altar  is  frequently  found  in 
his  works."  And  Dr.  Carr  proceeds  to  quote  a  passage  from 
Ignatius  "  To  the  Philadelphians,"  which  (with  precise  reference  and 
loyal  translation)  I  will  set  here  : — 

"If  any  man  walketh  in  strange  doctrine  he  hath  no  fellowship  with  the 
passion.*  Be  ye  careful,  therefore,  to  observe  one  eucharist  [eucharistia=thanks- 
giving]  ffor  there  is  one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  one  cup  unto  union  in 
His  blood ;  there  is  one  altar,  as  there  is  one  bishop  [episcopos]  together  with  the 
presbytery  and  deacons,  my  fellow  servants)  that,  whatsoever  ye  do,  ye  may  do 
it  after  [the  will  of]  God."  {Philad.  iii.,  iv.,  Lightfoot's  trans.  See,  also,  Roberts 
and  Donaldson). 

*  I.e.,  the  suffering  of  Christ. 


130  RISE    OF    A    SACERDOTAL    ORDER 

Dr.  Carr  translates: — ^^  One  chalice  tohich  unites  us  to  His  blood." 
And  his  foot-reference  is,  "See  Lightfoot,  Apostolic  Fathers, part  ii.^, 
p.  257-8."  (This  is  better  than  a  great  many  of  the  foot-references 
in  his  book,  but  none,  save  a  student  who  had  made  this  whole 
subject  a  special  study,  would  in  the  least  know  what  that  reference 
may  possibly  mean.  And  the  actual  passage  of  Lightfoot,  when 
looked  up,  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  Dr.  Carr's  exegesis).  Also, 
when  Dr.  Carr  goes  on  to  quote  Harnack  about  this  matter  of 
"priesthood,"  he  is  again  equally  remote  from  what  is  relevant  or 
exact. 

Now,  briefly,  let  me  answer: — (1)  The  word  hiereus  (priest)  does 
occur  in  Ignatius.  Nay,  more,  it  occurs  in  the  very  letter  from 
which  Dr.  Carr  undertook  to  quote.  Thus : — "  The  priests,  likewise, 
were  good ;  but  better  is  the  High-priest,  to  whom  is  committed  the 
holy  of  holies." — Philad.  ix. 

Lightfoot  here  explains  (what  is  surely  scarcely  necessary),  that 
"the  contrast  here  is  between  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  the 
Great  High-priest  of  the  Gospel,"  viz.,  Christ.  He  also  shows  how, 
in  a  later  century,  the  interpolator  of  Ignatius  had  altered  the  passage 
so  as  to  make  a  reference  to  the  three  orders  of  the  Christian  Ministry." 
And  this  has  misled  Roman  Catholic  writers  (Lightfoot  Apos.  Fath 
part  ii.;  S.  Ignat.  et  S.  Polyc,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  273-4). 

(2)  Wherever  thusiasterion  {OvaLacrTrjpLov)  occurs  in  Ignatius,  it 
never  refers  to  the  Lord''s  table,  or  to  any  material  altar  in  the 
Christian  Church.  No  such  ' '  altar"  existed  anywhere  in  that  age. 
Thus  Lightfoot  (on  the  very  pages  to  which  I  suppose  Dr.  Carr's 
foot  reference  points)  says  : — 

"  It  would  be  an  anackronism  to  suppose  that  Isrnatius,  by  '  the  altar,'  here 
means  'the  Lord's  table.'  Even  in  Irenaeus,  though  he  is  distinctly  speaking  of 
the  Eucharist  in  the  context,     .     .     .     yet  only  a  spiritual  altar  is  recognised." 

Lightfoot,  also  on  that  page,  says,  "The  'one  flesh'  here  is  the 
one  Eucharistic  loaf,  betokening  the  union  of  the  one  body  of 
Christ."  {ut  supra,  p.  258 1.  Lightfoot  also  proves  that  by  "altar," 
where  God's  people  are  gathered,  is  meant,  in  Ignatius,  "  the  con- 
gregation gathered  together"  in  Christ's  salvation,  corresponding  to 
the  "court  of  the  altar,"  or  "court  of  the  congregation,"  where 
God's  people  assembled  in  Old  Testament  times.  Even  the  collected 
"body  of  widows"  was  called  "  God's  altar"  (Lightfoot  id.;  Ignat. 
ad  Eph.  v.,  ad  Trail,  viii.).  Again,  very  strikingly,  in  his  letter  to 
the  Roman  Christians,  Ignatius  calls  the  amphitheatre  at  Rome, 
where  he  will  have  to  suffer  before  the  assembled  people,  "the 
altar." 

"  That  I  be  poured  out  a  libation  to  God,  while  there  is  still  an  altar  ready." 
(Ignat.  ad  Rom.  i.) 

3.  In  all  this,  as  scholars  have  shown  long  ago,  Ignatius  is  full 
of  Pauline  thoughts  and  metaphors.  Paul's  thought  of  his  own 
approaching  martyrdom  as  a  Zitafiow  "  poured  out  on  the  sacrifice 


IN    THE    CHRITTIAN    3IINILTRY.  131 

and  service"  of  the  Church's  faith  is  in  Ignatius'  mind.  The  thought 
of  Heb.  xiii. ,  10 — 13,  is  also  all  through  his  letters— the  thought  of 
Christ's  faithful  ones  "  going  forth  without  the  camp"  where  Christ 
suffered,  bearing  His  reproach  and  partaking,  in  spiritual  fellowship, 
of  the  "  altar"  of  His  cross,  where  He  suffered  and  so  gave  life  and 
strength  to  us.  Surely  Dr.  Carr  knows  that  great  Roman  Catholic 
interpreters  like  Thomas  Aquinas  and  Estius,  as  well  as  great 
Protestant  ones — Bengel,  Bleek,  de  Wette,  Delitzsch,  Lightfoot, 
Alford,  A.  B.  Davidson,  &c. — have  declared  that  thusiasterion  there 
means  not  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  the  Cross  of  Christ,  through  which 
redemption  comes  to  all  believers,  uniting  them  as  God's  people  into 
one  ;  one  in  faith,  service,  and  suffering. 

As  to  Harnack  on  Cyprian,  of  course,  "  in  the  second  half  of  the 
third  century,''^  in  North  Africa,  there  is  'priesthood  strongly 
developed.  That  is  just  what  I  say.  And  yet,  even  in  that  third 
century,  Origen  and  others  have  to  reply  to  the  pagan  taunt  that 
"  the  Christians  have  no  altar,  and  no  temple.'^  Origen's  noble 
answer  is  that  ^' every  good  man^s  spirit"  is  "an  altar  from  which 
arises  an  incense,"  spiritual  and  true,  viz.,  prayer  and  the  offering 
of  the  gifts  of  loving  character  and  of  unselfish  life.  For  Christ  is 
there.  And  all  Christians  are  'Hiving  stones"  in  a  "spiritual 
temple."  They  are  all  "a  holy  priesthood."  (Orig.  adv.  Cels. 
Bk.  viii.,  17,  18,  19.) 

But,  in  the  earlier  age,  Harnack  shows  clearly  that  the  lohole  life 
of  the  Christian  was  regarded  as  sacrificial.  "It  was  a  fixed  prin- 
ciple that  only  a  spiritual  worship  is  well  pleasing  to  God,  and  that 
all  ceremonies  are  abolished.  .  .  .  The  Christian  worship  of  God 
was  set  forth  under  the  aspect  of  the  spiritual  sacrifice."  Though  the 
language  of  Ignatius  might,  at  first  sight,  seem  "realistic,"  yet 
"many  passages  show  that  he  ivas  far  from  such  a  conception. "  Thus, 
"  in  Trail.  8,  faith  is  described  by  him  as  the  flesh,  and  love  as  the 
blood  of  Christ."  And  so  in  many  passages.  With  Ignatius,  as 
with  John,  "the  concept  'flesh  of  Christ'  is  a  spiritual  one.  (Har- 
nack :  Hist,  of  Bogm.,  Eng.  ed.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  204,  211-12.)  Of  course  I 
doubt  not  we  shall  see  tiny  fragments  of  Harnack  figuring  in  books 
of  Catholic  controversy  in  favour  of  sacerdotalism.  But  "  take, 
read!"  (May  I  explain  that  Lightfoot 's  great  work,  Apostolic 
Fathers,  Part  II. — ,S.  Ignatius,  S.  Pulycarp — is  in  three  big  volumes. 
The  pages  to  which  Dr.  Carr's  reference  should  point  are  in  vol.  ii., 
pp.  257-8.)  I  need  not  stay  to  scatter  the  legend  that  Ignatius  was 
the  disciple  of  the  "  Beloved  Disciple,"  John.  There  was  no  end  to 
the  legends  about  Ignatius  and  his  martyrdom,  or  about  Peter. 


132  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 


Lecture  fourth. 


EVOLUTION    OF   THE   PAPACY 
ITS  EARLY  STAGES. 


"  The  Kingdom  of  God  cometh  not  with  observation 

for,   lo,   the  Kingdom  of  God   is  within   you." — S.  Luke 
xvii.,  20—21. 

"  Jesus  answered — '  My  Kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  ;  if  My 
Kingdom  were  of  this  world  then  would  my  servants 
fight."— St.  John  xix.,  36. 

At  the  end  of  the  first  century,  when  Clement  of  Eome 
wrote  to  Cormth,  it  was  the  congregation,  the  church* 
that  spoke  through  its  presbyters.  There  was  no  hint 
then  of  any  "Bishop  of  Kome."  When  Hermas  wrote, 
later  than  the  year  140  a.d.,  even  then  in  Eome  it  is 
the  ijveshyters  who  preside  over  the  Church. -f 

"  The  later  Homan  theory  supposes"  (says  Lightfoot)  "that 
the  Church  of  Rome  derives  all  its  authority  from  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter.  History  inverts  this 
relation,  and  shows  that  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  power  of  the 
bishop  of  Rome  was  built  upon  the  power  of  the  church  of  Borne. 
It  was  originally  a  primacy  not  of  the  episcopate,  but  of  the 
church.  "J 

*  This  form  was  continued  for  a  good  time,  as  Lightfoot  shows, 
t  Hermas,  cap.  IV.      Harnack  Dogm.   Gesc/i.,  cap.  iii.,  §  7,  &c., 
Sanday  Expos.  Jan.  1887,  p.  3. 

I  S.  Clem.,  vol.  i.,  p.  70. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  133 

The  Christian  community  in  the  central  metropoHs 
of  the  Empire,  naturallv,  lent  special  importance  to  its 
representative  presbyter.  The  Early  Church  was,  to 
use  Professor  Sanday's  phrase,  "  essentially  urban." 
It  existed  mainly  in  cities  and  large  towns.  The 
dwellers  in  the  country  and  villages  (pagani)  were 
as  yet  untouched,  a  fact  vividly  evidenced  by  the 
word  "pagan"  (a  "villager")  which  we  still  apply 
to  non-Christian  people.  And  of  all  cities  Eome 
had  the  princiimtus — "  the  first  place  "  the  "  pre- 
eminence." It  is  in  kee]3ing  with  human  nature 
that,  first,  the  Christian  Church  in  Eome  should 
think  itself  entitled  to  the  pvincipatns ;  and,  secondly, 
that  its  "  hishop'  should  by  degrees  come  to  think 
himself  entitled  to  the  principatus  also.  Hence 
all  this  trouble  about  "  flie  Primacy  \"  Hence  the 
huge  ambition,  reached  up  to  after  the  lapse  of 
centuries,  of  clutching,  and  forcing  to  unheard  of  new 
meanings,  Christ's  figurative  words  to  Peter  about  the 
Eock  on  which  His  Church  should  rest !  It  is  earth's 
way,  and  Time's,  the  way  of  the  Kingdoms  of  the 
world,  that  "  come  with  observation,"  with  external 
show  of  power  : — 

"  For  why  ?     Because  the  good  old  rule 

Sufticeth  tJiem,  the  simple  plan 
That  they  should  take  who  have  the  power, 

And  they  should  keep  who  can." 

The  odd  thing  is — but  this  is  human  nature  too — 
that  those  who  do  "  take,"  and  keep  for  a  while,  get 
to  think  that  it  has  been  so  arranged  by  God  and  by 
the  fiat  and  inspiration  of  His  Spirit.  This  is  the 
secret  of  all  "  Toryism"  and  of  all  "Clericalism,"  in 
State  and  in  Church.  The  holders  of  "  tJie  poiver" 
come,  quite  sincerely,  to  believe  that  it  was  God  who 
made  them  a  special  "caste;"  they  conveniently  for- 
get (till  some  Luther  or  some  Puritan  age  roughly 


134  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  I 

shakes  them  mto  honest  exammation  of  facts  and  of 
God's  truth)  that  "  the  power"  was  gamed,  m  part  by 
accident  and  misconception  and  W' eight  of  circumstance, 
in  part  by  strong,  selfish  exercise  of  force.  They  forget, 
above  all,  that  Christ  said,  in  opposition  to  all  these 
(for  His  Church  at  least)  :  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of 
this  w^orld,  else  would  my  servants  use  force." 

First  Note  of  Eoman  Assumption. 

Several  things  conspired  to  the  assumption  of 
superior  influence,  on  the  part  of  the  Christian  con- 
gregation in  Eome.  The  forceful  do,  usually,  find 
things  ''  conspiring"  towards  their  purposes.  The 
need  to  centralise  and  consolidate  the  Christian  com- 
munities, during  that  second  century  as  against  "  the 
thickets  of  heresies"*  w^as  one  great  factor.  The  new 
distinction  in  the  Christian  Ministry  of  "bishop"  in 
each  congregation  or  town,  as  distinguished  from  his 
fellow-presbyters  or  bishops  (so  that  there  should  now 
be  sounded  forth  the  ear-filling  triad  of  titles — 
"bishop,  presbyter,  deacon"), — this  distinction,  first 
heard  of  in  gnostic-vexed  Asia  Minor,  invaded  \  the 
Church  everywhere.  x\nd  it  helped  towards  the 'up- 
lifting of  the  bishop  in  each  great  city,  and  of  a 
priestly  gradation  of  "orders."  These  things  sweep 
the  field  rapidly.  "Anglo-Catholicism,"  for  example, 
has,  more  swiftly  than  this,  changed,  in  two  genera- 
tions, the  face  of  the  modern  Church  of  England. 
And  the  second  century  was  an  age  of  rapid  ferment- 
ation of  all  kinds — "apocryphal  writings,"  manifold 
"martyr  legends,"  Apostolic  "journeyings,"  leaders 
of  "heretic  schools,"  countless  new  shapes  of  blended 
Christian  truth  and  non-Christian  speculation.  Words 
of  metaphor  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  in  the  Apostles' 

*  Jerome. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  135 

writings,  were  grasped  at,  and  twisted  into  a  new 
literalism  of  meaning.  Above  all,  that  new  dis- 
tinction in  the  local  Christian  Ministry  in  its 
stated  congregational  worship — "bishop,  presbyter, 
deacon" — was  made  to  chime  with  the  Old  Testament 
notions — "high-priest,  priest,  Levite."*  The  step 
from  that  was  swift  to  another  distinction,  which  arose 
not  as  (w'hat  Archbishop  Carr  mihappily  calls)  "the 
irresistible  outcome  of  the  facts  of  history,"  but  as  the 
half  unconscious  outcome  of  human  ambition  and  self- 
assertion — viz.,  the  lifting  of  the  Church  in  a  great 
cit}^  into  importance  as  above  the  Church  in  a  smaller 
city,  and,  by-and-b_y,  the  lifting  of  the  bishop  of  the 
Church  in  a  w'ealthy  and  powerful  city  above  the 
bishop  of  a  Church  in  a  city  that  was  remote  and 
unimportant.  If,  in  the  second  century,  the  distinction 
grew  in — "bishop,  presbyter,  deacon," — just  as  in- 
evitpobly  the  bigger  distinction  would  grow  in,  during 
later  centuries — "  Archbishop,  bishop,  presbyter, 
deacon."  Finally,  over  the  "Archbishop"  or  "Metro- 
politan," a  "  Patriarch""!*  would  be  lifted  up.  Finally, 
at  top  of  all,  the  bishop  of  the  greatest  City  of  the 
West  would  claim  to  be  Prince  of  all  bishops  and  of  all 
archbishops,  and  even  of  apostles.  He  could  even 
claim  to  speak  with  the  voice  of  Peter, — Simon  of 
Galilee,  transformed  into  the  Church's  foundation- 
rock,  and  vice-gerent  of  Christ  in  one  I  That  was  the 
tendency  and  method  of  it ! 

The  Crow  Turns  Eagle. 

George  Washington's  simple  "  coat  of  arms" — 
three  wooden  bars  of  a  fence,  and  one  crow  perched 
apologetically  on  the  topmost  bar — within  less  than  a 
centmT,  expanded  and  evoluted  into  a  great,  forceful, 

*  This  has  been  vividly  worked  out  by  Lightfoot,  cf.  Phil.,  pp. 
261-3.  t  Schaflf,  Nic.  and  Fo.'^t-Nic.  Chris.,  vol.  i.,  p.  271. 

J  2 


136  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  I 

screaming  eagle  on  tlie  top  of  endless  ''stripes,"  and 
surrounded  by  all  the  "stars"  of  the  universe,  claim- 
ing, under  spell  of  some  mystic  "  Monroe  doctrine," 
sole  primacy  over  a  whole  "American  Continent." 
That  is  2^olitic((I  assumption  of  power,  and  is  tolerable. 
It  yields  to  its  citizens  large  freedom  of  thought.  The 
Eoman  assumption  is  vastly  more  startling;  the 
tragedy  and  self-contradiction  of  it  are — not  only  that 
it  comes  with  anathemas — but  that  its  claim  to  rule  is 
in  the  spiritual  sphere.  It  is  in  antagonism  to  the 
very  principles  and  spirit  of  Christ,  in  constituting 
His  Kingdom. 

It  was  an  unusual  junction  of  what  appealed  to  man's 
spiritual  nature,  with  the  Externalism  of  centralised 
wealth  and  political  power  that  gave  the  special  impetus 
to  the  Eoman  Church.  In  Eome,  the  first  memorable 
martyrdom  on  a  vast  scale  had  been  endured.  That 
curious  legend,  which  arose  in  the  second  century, 
and  blended  together  Peter  and  Paul,  making  them 
found  the  Church  of  Eome  in  company  and  then  die 
as  martyrs  in  company,  appealed  to  the  pious 
imagination,  in  an  age  when  men  (as  we  see  in 
Ignatius)  forced  themselves  upon  martyrdom  as  a 
glorious  gateway  towards  Heaven.  Ignatius  himself, 
though  the  more  sober  narrative  of  his  martyrdom 
makes  him  die  at  Eome,  torn  by  the  beasts  of  the 
Amphitheatre,  as  on  a  rough  altar-cross,  is  re- 
presented as  transported  soon  to  Antioch.  The 
legend  makes  him,  finally,  get  buried  in  his  own 
Antioch,  all  the  bones  and  parts  of  him  quite  intact.* 
Such  was  the  mood  of  the  time.  John  was  plunged 
into  boiling  oil  at  Eome;  but  the  legend-weavers 
could  not  get  rid  of  the  fact  that,  in  the  Apocalypse 


*  Lightfoot,  who  has  done  his  wonderful  best  to  set  up  a  genuine 
Ignatius,  scouts  this  part  of  the  legend. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  137 

and  other  Scripture  writings,  his  main  career  was 
found  at  Ephesus  and  on  Patmos.  So  John  is  made 
to  escape  unhurt  from  that  unique  ordeal  at  Eome, 
and  "  is  relegated  to  an  island."  But  Peter  and  Paul 
lived  not  so  long.  And  no  Scripture  had  told  the 
closing  scenes  of  the  life  of  Peter.  Legend  could 
work  on  these  two  Apostles.  It  worked  this  as 
the  result.  They,  both  of  them,  founded  the  Church 
of  Eome  ;  and  they,  both  of  them,  fell  there  in  heroic 
martyrdom. 

Now,  at  the  close  of  the  second  century — when  all 
the  Apostolic  facts  and  realities  lay  far  away  in  the 
background  of  the  past — all  these  various  growths 
meet  and  intertwine  together  in  Eome.  Just  then  we 
hear,  for  the  first  time,  Irenaeus  of  Gaul  propounding 
the  theory  that  the  bishops  of  congregations  are 
*'  successors  of  the  Apostles."*  Just  then  we  hear, 
and  for  the  first  time,  the  notion,  suggested  by 
Tertullian  of  Eome  and  of  North  Africa,  that  the 
Christian  minister  (presbyter)  is  a  priest  and  the 
bishop  a  chief  priest,  "  sujumus  sacerdos.'''  Just  then 
we  hear,  for  the  first  time,  from  Dionysius  and  Ter- 
tullian and  Irenaeus  that  Peter  had  been  in  Eome, 
and  that,  with  various  modifications,  both  Peter  and 
Paul  had  joined  together  in  founding  the  Church  in 
Eome,  and  glorifying  it  by  conjoint  martyr-death. 
And,  just  then,  arose  the  first  strong  man  of  actual, 
undoubted  Eoman  birth,  and  speech,  and  predilections. 
The  Eoman  dominant  mood  is  upon  him — the  mood  of 
uniform  government,  and  of  a  certain  indifference  to 
the  feelings,  and  freedoms,  and  rights  of  other  cities, 
and  of  distant  provinces.  That  man  was  Victor,  first 
Latin  bishop  of  Eome.  We  shall  hesLV  from  him  and 
o/him. 


•  Harnack,  ut  sup. 


138  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

Till  his  clay,  the  Christian  Church  in  Eome  had 
been  Greek  in  speech,  and  in  sympathy  with  the 
East.  The  Latin  Church  had  been  centred  in 
Carthage  of  North  Africa,  in  Southern  Gaul,  and  in 
North  Italy,  and  Spain.  Now  the  Latin  regime  has 
begun  in  Eome.  Its  Greek  epoch  is  closed.  Hence- 
forth we  shall  find  it  purely  Latin  and  Koman  in  its 
temper,  its  genius,  its  sympathies.  Tertullian  soon 
finds  himself  rebuffed,  affronted  by  the  arrogant, 
dominant  waj^s  of  the  Eoman  clergy,  and  revolted  into 
Montanism  by  their  conduct ;  Tertullian,  the  forceful, 
pure-minded,  lonely-hearted  genius,  whose  mood  did 
so  much  to  mould  the  Latin  Church,  whose  words  the 
later  Cyprian  read  every  day,  and  whose  memory  the 
still  later  Jerome  loved,  so  that  he  waxed  wroth 
thinking  of  those  jealous  clerics  of  arrogant  Eome. 
What  a  story  it  is ! — men  like  Zephyrinus  and 
Callistus  to  be  the  Latin  "  successors"  of  the  strong- 
willed  but  true  Latin  bishop,  Victor.  And  what 
figures  they  all  are,  to  be  regarded  by  a  later  age, 
through  the  hallowing  mists  of  time,  as  infallible  vicars 
of  the  merciful  and  holy  Christ  on  this  vext  and 
oddly-arranged  earth  !  We  honour  Irenaeus  of  Gaul 
(despite  his  tendenc}^  to  the  fabulous)  for  resisting 
bravely  the  first  note  of  Eoman  assumption,  sounded 
by  the  first  Latin  bishop  of  Eome,  Victor, — backed 
though  Victor  was  by  the  potent  female  influence 
of  the  pagan  Imperial  palace.*  The  softening  haze 
of  distance  causes  us  to  invest  those  early  ages  of  the 
Church's  existence,  after  the  Apostles  and  the  Apos- 
tolic men  were  past,  with  a  sanctity,  both  of  faith  and 
of  conduct,  they  did  not  at  all  possess.  Our  imagina- 
tion ascribes  to  them  a  uniformity  and  amit}^  foreign 


*  .See  the  striking  details  in  Hippolytus,  Haer.  ix.,  7  ;  Lightfoot, 
Philipp.,  pp.  223-4.  It  gives  us  a  surprised  peep  into  the  then  state 
of  Roman  Christianity  and  the  Roman  Court. 


ITS    EAELY    STAGES.  139 

to  their  actual  condition.  Eome,  that  was  fed  by  all 
streams  and  influences  and  peoples,  from  west  and 
east,  received  into  her  Christian  community  all  the 
contending  and  heretic  elements  which  were  the 
wonder  and  trouble  of  that  second  century. 

Lightfoot  of  England,  and  Harnack  of  Germany* 
following  up  the  investigation  of  Eitschl  and  others, 
have,  indeed,  done  much  to  disprove  the  theory  of  the 
Tiibingen  school,  that  the  vexed  internal  history  of  the 
early  Eoman  Church  was  due  to  its  being  predomi- 
nantly "Ebionite"  or  Judaistic,  and  so  thrown  into 
antagonism  against  the  message  and  spirit  of  the 
Gospel  brought  by  the  A^postle  Paul.  It  w^as  not 
;»rr/??7;/ "  Ebionite"  heresy,  or  Jewish  heresy  of  any 
kind,  but  Gentile  heresy  and  rival  personal  influences 
which  distracted  that  Church.  "Her  early  history, 
indeed,"  says  Lightfoot,  "is  wrapt  in  obscurity." 
"Most  of  the  great  heresiarchs  .  .  .  taught  in 
Eome."     And  again  he  declares  : — 

"As  late  pagan  Rome  had  been  the  sink  of  all  pagan  super- 
stitions, so  early  Christian  Rome  was  the  meeting-point  of  all 
heretical  creeds  and  philosophies."* 

The  Church  of  Eome,  during  part  of  the  second 
and  of  the  third  centuries,  was  so  torn  by  internal 
conflict  that  many  eminent  modern  scholars  hold  that 
there  must  have  been  two  or  more  separate  Christian 
communities  in  the  early  stages  of  the  Christian 
movement  in  Eome,  "  each  with  its  own  separate 
government."  Professor  Sanday,  in  common  with 
many  distinguished  students  of  the  question,  holds 
that  this,  in  part,  explains  what  Lightfoot  calls  "the 
marvellous  discrepancies  in  the  lists  of  the  early 
bishops,  which  perhaps  point  to  a  double  succession  " 

*  Galat.,  pp.  336-7,  344-5. 


140  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

oi presbyters  or  ejnscojn.^     Akin  to  that  is  the  startling 
fact  that  the  *'hishop"  of  the  second  century,  even 
after    his    elevation    over    the    presbyters,    was  but 
the  head  of  a   Christian  congregation.      He  was   a 
presbyter   still,  as  primus  inter  pares,  first  amongst 
his    equals,    Moderator,  i*    one    says,    amongst    the 
rest.      In  keeping  with  this   is   the   other  startling 
fact,  vividly  proven  by  Hatch,    Sanday,  and  others, 
that    up   to    the    time    of    the    Council    of    Nicaea 
(325  A.D.)]:   there   might   be   two  "bishops"  in   one 
place,  and  that,  for  example  in  Africa,  Phrygia,  &c., 
there  were  apparently  as  many  "  bishops"  as  there 
were  congregations. §     In  the  earlier  half  of  the  third 
century    Hippolytus    and    Callistus    (both    of    them 
*'  saints"   now)    were   bishops    in    Eome   and   bitter 
enemies ;    the   one  was   Puritan,   the   other  lax.     A 
little  later,  in  the  middle  of  the  century,  Novatian 
and  Cornelius  (a.d.  251)  are  both  bishops,  and  rivals 
in  Eome.     Cyprian,   Bishop  in   Carthage   (the  most 
influential  Christian   leader  then  in  the  west),  was 
appealed  to  in  their  rivalry.     Apparently  for  the  first 
time,  he  (the  father  of  the  genuine  "  episcopal  succes- 
sion" theor}^  enunciated  the  doctrine  which,  though 
as  yet  in  its  incipient  stage,  was  the  basis  of  modern 
episcopacy,  viz.,  that,  "when  once  a  bishop  has  been 
appointed  and  approved  by  the  testimony  and  judg- 
ment of  his  colleagues  and  of  the  people,  another 
bishop  cannot  be  set  up."t     But  still,  there  was  as 
yet  no  such  thing  as  "  diocesan  episcopacy." 

*  Lightfoot  in  his  Galatiavs  also  held  this  view.  In  his  Clem. 
he  does  not  think  it  necessary,  but  he  has  not  convinced  the 
greatest  scholars,  even  of  his  own  school,  e.g.,  Sanday. 

t  Lightfoot  calls  Clement  this,  but  even  this  distinction  had  not 
j'^et  been  made. 

ij;  Canon  viii. 

§  Sanday,  Expos.,  Ser.  iii.,  xlvii.;  cf.  Lightfoot,  Phil.,  pp.  224-5. 

X  Ep.  44  (41)  3;  Dollinger,  Hippol.  and  Callist.  (E.T.),  pp. 
67-93  ;  Sanday,  ut  sup. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  141 

EoMAN  Chuech  :    Middle  and  End  of  Second 
Century. 

The  Eoman  Church  had  welcomed  the  Clementme 
and  other  Ebionite  legends  of  Peter  and  of  Paul,  and 
soon  j)rofited  by  them.  But  it  shook  itself  free,  as 
other  Clmrches  did,  from  the  sj^ecial  "  Ebionite" 
doctrine,  with  its  low  view  of  Christ's  Messiahhood. 
It  was  Gentile  influence  that  sw^ept  specially  upon  the 
Roman  Christian  community  rather  than  Jewish 
influence.  Lightfoot  paints  the  situation  from  the 
middle  of  that  century  onward,  with  its  wealth  of 
"romance"  about  Peter  and  other  eminent  Apostles  : — 

"The  religious  romance  seems  to  have  been  a  favourite  style 
of  composition  with  the  Essene  Ebionites,  and  in  the  lack  of 
authentic  information  relating  to  the  Apostles,  catholic* 
writers  eagerly  and  unsuspiciously  gathered  incidents  from 
^OTitings  of  Avhicli  they  repvjJiated  tJie  doctriites.f 

The  Forged  Decretals. 

A  startling  illustration  of  this,  in  a  much  later  age, 
is  the  fact  made  vivid  by  Lightfoot  that  on  the  basis 
of  this  same  (apocryphal)  Clementine  romance  re- 
garding Peter  and  his  "journeys"  was  built  up,  in  the 
ninth  century,  the  gigantic  fraud  of  the  forged 
"  decretals  of  Isidore,"  hj  which  the  papacy  got  its 
vastest  impulse  towards  power.  To  quote  Lightfoot's 
strong  words  in  his  latest  writing  : — 

"  Thus  the  Clementine  romance  of  the  second  century  was 


*  By  "catholic"  in  its  early  signification,  and  as  scholars  like 
Lightfoot  and  Harnack  use  it,  is  meant  what  pertained  to  the 
ivhole  Church  in  all  places,  as  holding  the  teaching  handed  down 
from  the  Apostles,  as  contrasted  with  a  local  Church.  This  term 
Ignatius  first  uses  : — "where  Jesus  Christ  is  there  is  the  Catholic 
Church." 

+  Cf.  Appendix, — Clementine  Romance.  Lightfoot,  Gal.,  p.  367. 
Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dogma,  Eng.  ed.,  p.  315,  &c. 


142  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

the  direct  progenitor  of  the  forged  Papal  Letters  of  the  ninth 
^a  monstrous  parent  of  a  monstrous  brood."* 

But  what  concerns  us  now  is  the  state  of  the  Church 
in  Eome  at  this  early  date,  when  the  second  century 
merges  into  the  third.  That  I  may  not  be  accused  of 
exaggerating,  let  me  put  it  again  in  Lightfoot's 
words : — 

' '  The  gleams  of  light  which  break  in  upon  the  internal  history 
of  the  Roman  Church,  at  the  close  of  the  second  and  beginning 
of  the  third  century,  exhibit  her  assailed  by  rival  heresies, 
compromised  by  the  weakness  and  worldliness  of  her  rulers, 
altogether  distracted  and  unsteady,  but  in  no  way  Ebionite. 
One  bishop,  whose  name  is  not  given,  first  dallies  with^the 
fanatical  spiritualism  of  Montanus;  then,  suddenly  turning 
round,  surrenders  himself  to  the  patripassian  speculations  of 
Praxeas.t  Later  than  this,  two  successive  bishops,  Zephyrinus 
and  Callistus  (a.d.  202-223),  are  stated  by  no  friendly  critic 
indeed,  but  yet  a  contemporary  writer,  the  one  from  stupidity 
and  avarice,  the  other  from  craft  and  ambition,  to  have  listened 
favourably  to  the  heresies  of  Noetus  and  Sabellius."^ 

Indeed,  to  all  that  age  as  to  the  age  which  preceded 
it,  with  the  strange  oppositions  and  factions  through 
which  the  Apostolic  witness  to  Christ  had  to  make  its 
way,  w^e  may  well  apply  this  great  scholar's  startling 
but  helpful  words,  reminding  us  that  the  divisions  of 
opinion  in  the  modern  Churches  are  far  less  than  those 
in  early  ages,  which  we  ignorantly  glorify.  The 
pompous  talk  of  "Apostolic  Ages"  and  "Fathers," 
and  of  their  uniformity,  is  proven  curiously  unmean- 
ing when  we  look  at  the  reality. 

"However  great  maybe  the  theological  diflferences  and  religious 
animosities  of  our  own  time,  they  are  far  surpassed  in  magni- 
tude by  the  distractions  of  an  age,  Avhich,  closing  our  eyes  to  facts, 
we  are  apt  to  invest  with  an  ideal  excellence.  In  the  Early  Church 
was  fulfilled,  in  its  inward  dissensions  no  less  than  in  its 
outward  sufi"erings,  the  Master's  sad  warning  that  He  came  not 
to  send  peace  on  earth,  but  a  sword  !" 

*  S.  Clem.,  vol.  i.,  p.  102,  et  pp.  414-415. 

t  Lightfoot  Gal.,  p.  344,  Tert.  adv.  Prax.  \. 

+  It  is  St.  Hippolytus  who  saj's  this  {Haer.  ix.,  7  seq.) 


its  early  stages.  143 

Irenaeus  Eesisting  Victor  of  Eome. 

The  earliest  distinct  step  to  an^^thing  like  a  claim  of 
special  authority  for  the  Church  in  Eome,  amongst 
the  other  churches,  was  taken  ^Yhen  Victor,  hishop 
at  Eome  in  the  close  of  the  second  century  {cir, 
190-202),  attempted  to  sever  communion  with  the 
Churches  of  Ephesus  and  Asia — the  Churches  which 
held  the  tradition  of  the  Apostle  John — as  to  the 
date  of  the  observance  of  "the  Lord's  Passover." 
John's  Churches  made  it  chime  with  the  14th  day 
of  Nisan  (whatever  day  of  the  week  it  might  be). 
Not  day,  but  date,  they  said.  Tliat  was  the  date 
of  the  Jewish  passover.  Eome,  as  the  Church  of  the 
Gentiles  (with  the  Lord's  day  as  the  centre  of  the  year), 
rejected  this.  And  Victor,  the  first  bishop  of  Eoman 
blood  and  of  Western  partialities,  finding  his  flock 
distracted  on  this  question,  attempted  to  compel 
uniformity,  and  arrogantly  to  sunder  all  Christian 
fellowship  with  the  Churches  of  Asia. 

Some  thirty  years  earlier,  when  Anicetus  was  the 
leading  presbyter  or  bishop  in  Eome,  the  aged 
Polycarp,  of  Sn^yrna — "  a  disciple  of  the  Apostle 
John" — visited  Eome.  There  was  then  the  same 
difference  on  this  matter.  Polycarp,  true  to  the 
custom  of  John's  Churches,  observed  Easter  so  as  to 
make  its  date  coincide  with  the  Jewish  passover. 
Anicetus  observed  it  differently.  And  neither  would 
yield  to  the  other.  But,  instead  of  the  thought  dawn- 
ing upon  them  that  either  of  them  could  excommuni- 
cate the  other,  they,  in  a  true  Pauline  spirit,  agreed 
to  differ  on  this  matter ;  and  Anicetus  permitted 
Polycarp  "  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist  (Lord's  Supper) 
in  his  stead."* 


•  Lightfoot,  Gal,  p.  343;  Euseb.,  H.E.,  v.  23,  24.     Schaff,  Ante 
Nic.  Chris.,  i.  210  seq. 


144  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

Victor,  in  the  close  of  that  second  century,  was  of 
another  mood.  He  was  a  Roman.  Had  he  lived  Jater, 
he  would  have  made  a  model  Laudian  or  Star  Chamber 
bishop,  in  the  ill-starred  time  of  the  Stuarts.  In 
answer  to  his  arrogant  assertion  that  there  should 
be  uniformiiy  of  practice,  Polj^crates,  "bishop"  in 
Ephesus,  at  that  time  the  most  venerable  Christian 
figure  in  the  East,  and  backed  by  all  the  "  bishops" 
of  Asia,*  protested  and  held  to  his  own  way. 
"Words  of  theirs  are  extant  sharply  rebuking  A^ictor," 
says  Eusebius-i*  That  sounds  unlike  language  used  to 
a  "Pope,"  a  lineal  descendant  of  an  infallible  Peter, 
Prince  of  all  Apostles  and  Yice-gerent  of  God ! 
Doesn't  it  ? 

The  Asian  Churches  Quote  Peter  Against 

EOME, 

The  words  of  Polycrates  sent  to  "Victor  and  the 
Church  of  Piome,"  whom  he  (Polycrates)  significantly 
addresses  as  "Brethren,"  are  noble  in  their  dignity 
and  firmness.  He  tells  Victor  that  the  Roman 
observance  was  not  the  observance  of  the  Apostles — 
not  that  of  the  Apostle  Philip ;  not  that  of  the  Apostle 
John ;  not  that  of  the  Holy  Spirit  who  guided  the 
noblest  martyrs;  not  that  of  ^^  the  rule  of  faith."  I 
Polycrates  adds  these  emphatic  words  : — 

"I,  therefore,  brethren,  who  have  lived  sixty-tive  years  m 
the  Lord,  and  have  met  with  the  brethren  throughout  the 
world,  and  have  gone  through  every  Holy  Scripture^  am  not 
affrighted  hg  terrifying  words.  For  those  greater  than  I  have 
said — '  We  ought  to  obey  God  rattier  than  man.'  "§ 

That   is   wdiat   Polycrates   wrote   to    the   Church   in 
Rome  and  its  truculent  high-tempered  bishop-presbyter 

*  Euseb.,  H  E.,  v.,  24.  f  Euseb.,  id.,  cap.  xxiv.,  10. 

J  Id.,  cap.  xxiv.,  6.  §  Acts  v.,  29. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  145 

Victor.  I  like  Poh/erates,  and  his  straightforward 
scriptural  method  of  argument.  It  was  a  hard  knock, 
but  a  true  knock  he  gave  to  Victor  !  He  flung  at  him 
not  onl}^  the  names  of  the  Apostles  Philip  and  John, 
but  especially  the  "Holy  Scripture."  And  then,  most 
cruel  of  all,  he  quoted  to  him  what  Peter  had  said  in 
presence  of  the  Jewish  Sanhedrin,  in  the  face  of  that 
authoritative  council  of  the  ancient  priestly  Church. 
It  just  means  this: — '^  You  are  only  fallible  men;  ice 
ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  men.''*  There  is  in 
those  w^ords  of  Polycratesf  a  genuine  ring  of  the 
Christian  Gospel — a  gentiiiie  Protestant  ring.  And  the 
oddest  thing  of  all  is  that  Polycrates  is  quite  ignorant 
of  any  Eomish  notion  about  Peter  being  the  head  of 
the  Apostles,  or  about  the  Bishops  of  Eome  being  his 
successors. 

Now,  when  Victor,  in  Latin  Eome,  received  and  read 
those  words  from  Greek  Ephesus,  he  was  in  a  very 
un-Christlike  temper.  And  he  flamed  out  into  a 
threat,  and  immediately  attempted,  as  Eusebius  says, 
to  cut  off  all  communion  with  the  Cliurches  of 
Asia. 

Irenaeus  Admonishes  Victor. 

Now,  just  as  the  members  of  the  Christian  Church 
in  Eome  w^ere  closely  related  to  those  in  Corinth  (for 
Corinth  was  a  Eoman  military  city,  and  this  is  the 
reason,  as  Lightfoot  shows,  why  Clement  of  Eome 
wrote  to  Corinth  a  century  earlier)  so  the  Churches  in 
the  south  of  Gaul  were  descendants  of  Asian  Greek 
emigrants.  Irenaeus,  now  their  leading  man,  was 
himself  from  "John's  Churches"  in  Asia.  Irenaeus 
now  stands  up  on  behalf  of  the  liberties  of  the  Churches, 
as  against  an  iron  uniformity,  and  a  centralized 
authorit}^     "  He  fittingly  admonishes  Victor,"  says 

*  Actsv.,  29,  also  iv.,  19.    f  Easeb.,  H.E.,  Bk.  v.,  cap.  xxiv.,  6,  7,  8. 


146  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PAPACY  : 

Eusebius.  Irenaeus  was  willing,  for  himself,  to 
observe  the  Eoman  and  Western  mode.  But  he  re- 
minds Victor  of — 

"  The  presbyters  before  Soter,  who  presided  over  the  Church 
■irhich  now  thou  rnlest.  We  mean  Anicetus,  and  Pius,  and 
Hyginus,  and  Telesphorus,  and  Xystus." 

Yes,  that  is  significant.  It  is  a  clear  reminiscence 
of  the  time  when  it  was  Presbyters  who  presided  over 
the  Church  of  Rome.  He  tells  Victor  further  that  all 
these  had  not  attempted  to  impose  their  mode  upon 
the  Christians  from  Greek  Asia,  who  came  to 
Kome  (as  great  numbers  of  them  did  on  business) 
from  their  cities  of  Asia.  "  None  of  them  were  ever 
cast  out  on  account  of  this  form" — says  Irenaeus. 
He  reminds  him,  also,  of  Polycarp  and  Anicetus. 
He  also,  in  that  "fitting  admonishment"  he  gave  to 
Victor,  tells  him  the  startling  fact  that  the  Pioman 
custom  is  different  from  that  which  Polycarp  ''had 
always  observed  tcith  John,  the  disciple  of  our  Lord,  and 
the  other  Apostles  with  ichom  he  had  associated.''*" 
Truly  that  was  a  sore  blow  to  come  from  the  most 
learned  bishop  and  Saint  of  the  West  against  the 
bishop  of  Piome,  who,  according  to  the  modern 
Piomish  creed,  is  infallible  in  pronouncing  doctrine, 
and  is  the  head  of  all  the  Apostles.  Irenaeus  tells 
him  that  his  teaching  and  pronouncement  are  wrong, 
and  contrary  to  the  Apostles ;  that  there  are  certain 
things  on  which  difference  should  be  allowed,  and  that 
the  faith  is  better  for  want  of  uniformity  in  these 
indifferent  matters. ■[*  That  is  a  dash  of  Protestantism 
from  an  unexpected  quarter,  and  Victor,  bishop  of 
Ptome,  had  to  yield. 

*  Euseb.  H.E  ,  v.,  24. 

t  The  forty  days  of  "  Lent"  were  then  unknown.  Irenaeus  says 
— "  Some  thought  they  should  fast  one  day,  others  two,  and  others 
more." 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  147 

In  fact  the  sentence  with  which  Eusebius  closes  the 
narrative  of  this  whole  matter  is,  of  itself,  enough. 
He  says  of  Irenaeus — 

"  And  he  conferred  by  letter  about  this  mooted  question,  not 
only  with  Victor,  but  also  "vvith  most  of  the  other  rulers  of  the 
Churches.''* 

Think  of  that.  Both  by  Irenaeus,  on  the  verge  of  the 
third  century,  and  by  Eusebius,  the  Emperor  Con- 
stantine's  friend,  in  the  fourth  century,  Yictor, 
bishop  in  Eome,  is  regarded  simply  as  head  of  the 
Christian  community  in  that  Italian  city,  and  on  a 
par  with  "  the  other  rulers  of  the  Churches."  All 
and  each  of  the  others  have  a  right  to  be  consulted 
just  as  much  as  Yictor. 

Mistranslation  of  Irenaeus'  Words. 

We  come  now  to  a  jDassage  of  Irenaeus,  very  simple 
in  itself,  but  which  Komanist  advocates  have  made 
famous,  or  notorious.  Archbishop  Carr's  second 
lecture  is  wdiolly  given  up  to  Irenaeus,  and  at  least 
fifteen  pages  are  taken  up  with  the  one  passage  to 
which  I  shall  now  refer.  I  will  not  spend  much  time 
upon  it,  for  to  translate  it  accurately,  and  then  look  at 
its  simple  meaning,  is  quite  enough.  Does  it  not  seem 
evident  that  if  there  were  any  truth  in  the  Komanist 
position,  if  Christ's  Church  and  man's  salvation 
depended  on  Eome  and  its  bishops,  this  would  have 
been  made  so  clear,  in  the  revelation  from  God  given  in 
Scripture,  that  Eomanists  would  not  be  under  this 
painful  necessity  of  casting  about  for  forced  and 
unnatural    renderings   of    fragmentary   passages,    in 

*  SchafF,  Wace,  and  M'Giffert's  rendering.  Euseb.,  H.E., 
Bk.  v.,  e.  xxiv.,  18,  To  Professor  Macdonald's  line  sense  for  books, 
and  to  his  recent  visit  to  the  Okl  Lands,  our  College  library, 
already  well-stocked  with  "  the  Fathers,"  owes  this  beautiful 
edition. 


148  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PAPACY  : 

"  fathers,"  here  and  there,  on  the  verge  of  the  thh'd 
and  m  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  ? 

Now  Eome,  in  Italy,  was  nigh  to  Lj^ons,  in  Southern 
Gaul ;  nigh  also  to  Carthage,  in  North  Africa,  across 
the  narrow  belt  of  the  Mediterranean.  With  the 
■wealth  of  its  members,  and  its  proximity  to  the 
Imperial  Palace,  its  Christian  Church  had  frequent 
opportunities  of  benefiting  the  less  powerful  Churches 
in  the  west.  It  was  the  Central  or  "  Mother  Church," 
from  which,  probably,  most  of  the  Churches  in  Gaul, 
North  Africa,  and  Spain  had  been  first  evangelised  and 
"  founded."* 

Had  the  Eoman  Church  been  modest,  this  influence 
would  have  been  helpful  and  beautiful.  It  would  have 
had,  as  Lightfoot  finely  puts  it,  "a  presidency  of  love." 
And  that  it  had,  dcsjntc  tlic  heretic  factions  which  vexed 
it,  retained,  in  common  with  all  the  Churches  east 
and  west,  "the  traditions"  of  the  faith  held  in  common 
by  the  Apostles,  Irenaeus  gladly  acknowledged.  To 
that  tradition  of  the  common  faith,  preserved  in  all  the 
Churches  by  the  teaching  of  the  successive  presbyters 
and  episcopi,  Irenaeus  appeals,  in  his  conflict  with  the 
chief  leaders  of  "  heresies,"  as  shown  in  his  greatest 
work.  Against  Heresies.  Irenaeus  is  the  first  "Father" 
to  ignore,  or  forget,  the  fact  that  presbyters  and 
bishops  were  in  the  New  Testament  identical,  t  Along 
wdth  this   (as  Harnack  show^s),  he  was  the  first  to 


*  The  position  of  independence  affirmed,  however,  each  for  itself, 
by  even  the  Western  and  Latin-speaking  Churches,  such  as  N.  Africa, 
Claul,  and  North  Italy,  is  very  significant.  Thus,  the  Church  of 
Milan  (cf.  8chaff)  claimed  to  have  been  founded  by  the  Apostle 
Barnabas,  and,  till  the  end  of  the  sixth  century,  had  no  contact 
with  the  Koman  Pope.     80  also  Aquileia  stood  quite  independent. 

+  Alford  thinks  he  was  "  disingenuous"  in  this.  Lightfoot  holds 
that  he  and  other  "Fathers"  were  beginning  to  forget  the  fact  (as  so 
many  "High  Anglicans"  conveniently  forget  it  now,  and  rapidly). 
When  Jerome,  in  a  later  age,  began  exact  Bible  study,  the  fact  was 
a^ain  brought  to  light. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  149 

affirm    "  the   successions''    of  these  congregational  or 
local  "  bishops" /ro/zi  tJtc  Apostles. 

In  truth  it  is  not  a  succession  of  bishops  Irenaeus  is 
caring  about,  but  the  succession  or  endurance  of  the 
faitlt,  the  faith  in  God  and  in  the  actual  Christ,  the 
faith  which  the  Apostles  proclaimed,  and  which  "  the 
heresies"  were  striving  to  alter  and  undo.  That  this 
faith  is  one  and  the  same,  says  Irenaeus,  is  proven 
by  the  fact  that  it  has  been  handed  down  and  retained 
in  all  the  Churches,  as  evidenced  in  "  the  successions 
of  all  the  Churches."* 

This  could  be  proven,  he  says,  by  ''  contemplating" 
any  and  all  of  the  Churches  in  the  teaching  of  its 
successive  bishops.  But  it  would  be  very  tedious  to 
go  over  them  all.  I  will  take  one  example,  he 
therefore  says,  one  that  is  "universally  known/''  the 
case,  viz.,  of  the  metropolitan  city,  Kome.  This  is 
the  simple  and  unforced  meaning  of  the  argument  in 
Irenaeus  from  which  "  the  famous  passage,"  •  so 
daringlj^  mishandled  by  most  Eoman  Catholic  advo- 
cates, is  taken.  I  say  "most,"  for,  to  the  honour  of 
a  few  Eoman  Catholic  scholars,  they  have  translated 
it  quite  differently. 

Archbishop  Carr  says  he  has  been  "  charged  with 
mistranslation  regarding  this  particular  passage  of 
St.  Irenaeus,"  viz.,  by  his  "Anglican"  critics. 

I  do  not  charge  him  simply  with  tliat ;  for  any 
man  may  make  occasionally  "a  mistranslation," 
innocent  of  any  thought  of  misleading.  Even  a  few 
Protestant  scholars,  ere  now,  have  blundered  over  this 
passage.  My  charge  is  that  Dr.  Carr,  if  fit  at  all  to 
speak  on  subjects  of  this  kind,  must  know  that  there 
is  a  quite  different  translation ;  and,  further,  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  the  best  and  latest  scholars  on  this 
question,    the   translation    given    by   him    is    clean 


Haer.,  Ek.  iii.,  cap.  iii.,  2. 

K 


150  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

against  the  sense.  Yet  he  gives  no  hint  of  that. 
Na.y,  further,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  he  asserts,  re- 
garding Protestant  scholars  on  this  matter,  what 
the  facts  directly  disprove. 

The  Passage  FPtOM  Irenaeus. 

Irenaeus  begins  his  statement  in  Bk.  iii.,  cap.  iii.,  1, 
thus : — 

"It  is  within  the  poAver  of  all,  therefore,  in  every  Chin-ch, 
who  may  wish  to  see  the  truth,  to  contemplate  clearly  the 
tradition  of  the  A230stles  manifested  throiujlumt  the  whole 
ivoiid,"  &c. 

In  the  next  paragraph,  or  section  2,  he  points  out 
that  this  testing  of  all  the  Churches  severally  would  be 
"very  tedious." 

"Since,  however,  it  would  be  very  tedious,  in  such  a  volume 
as  this,  to  reckon  np  the  successions  of  all  the  ChnrcJies,  Ave  do  put 
to  confusion  all  those  who,  in  Avhatever  manner,  whether  by  an 
evil  self-j)leasing,  by  vain  glory,  or  by  blindness  and  perverse 
opinion,  assemble  in  unauthorised  meetings,  by  indicating  that 
tradition,  derived  from  the  Apostles,  of  the  very  great,  the 
very  ancient  and  universally  known  Church,"^  founded  and 
organised  at  Rome  by  the  two  most  glorious  Apostles,  Peter  and 
Paul,  as  also  the  faith  preached  to.  men  which  comes  down  to 
our  time  through  the  successions  of  the  bishops."! 

*  The  original  Greek  text  of  Irenaeus  has  mainly  perished.  It  is  re- 
presented to  us  bj^  a  Latin  text,  into  which,  of  course,  very  many  cor- 
ruptions may  have  been  introduced.  Here  is  Lightfoot's  translation 
of  the  latter  part  of  the  above  (and  it  makes  a  startling  difference) : — 
"The  greatest  and  most  ancient  Churches,  well-knoAvn  to  all  men, 
the  Churches  of  Rome  founded  and  established  by  the  two  most 
glorious  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul  [hand  down]  announced  to  man- 
kind that  tradition  and  faith,  which  it  has  from  the  Apostles, 
reaching  to  our  oAvn  day  through  its  successions  of  bishops." 
(Clement  of  Rome,  vol.  ii.,  p.  495.)  Is  not  this  an  instance  of 
"Homer  nodding?" 

t  Iren.  Haer.,  cap.  iii.,  2.  Bishop  Coxe's  Revision  of  Roberts  and 
Donaldson.  I  have  taken  care  to  give  the  translation  of  another,  so 
that  no  charge  of  bias  can  be  made. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  151 

Then  follows  immediately  "the  famous  passage," 
round  which  ranges  such  war  of  words.  I  will  trans- 
late it  as  it  is  translated  by  a  candid  Eoman  Catholic 
scholar,  and  then  contrast  that  wdth  Archbishop 
Carr's  rendering — 

"  For  to  this  Cliurcli,  on  account  of  more  potent  principality, 
it  is  necessary  that  every  Church  (that  is,  those  who  are  on 
every  side  faithful)  resorb ;  in  which  Church  ever,  h]i  those  icho 
are  on  every  side,  has  been  preserved  that  tradition  which  is 
from  the  Apostles,  "t 

Now  the  meaning  of  that,  when  looked  at  frankly, 
seems  simple  enough.  The  only  drawback  to  that 
Roman  Catholic  translation  is  that  luuliqiie  does  not 
mean  '^everywhere,  or  on  every  side,"  but  ''from  all 
quarters,  from  every  side."  Irenaeus  is  arguing 
against  those  (makers  of  "heresies,")  who,  he  de- 
clares, "consent  neither  to  Scripture  nor  to  tradition."'"^ 
Not  to  be  "tedious,"  he  takes  Eome,  the  central  city 
of  the  west,  as  one  illustration  of  the  "tradition"  of 
the  faith  handed  down  from  the  Apostles,  and  ^Dre- 
served  in  all  the  Churches.  To  this  Church,  viz.,  of 
Rome,  on  account  of  the  more  important  eminence  I 
I  of  that  City;  or,  is  it,  of  that  CJiurch?]  it  is  a  matter 
of  necessity  that  Christian  believers  from  every 
Church,  far  and  near,  should  resort  {convenire  ad= 
come  together),  for  Rome  was  the  centre  of  the  world's 
traffic  and  business.  So  we  say  of  London,  that  Scots- 
men gather  tJiere  from  every  side,      iind,  I  know,  it  is 


*  Berington  and  Kirk,  vol.  i.,  p.  252.  f  Cap.  ii.,  'z. 

X  The  whole  passage  in  the  Latin  is : — Ad  hanc  enini  ecclesiam 
propter  potiorem  [or  potentiorem']  principalitateni  neeesse  est  omnem 
convenire  ecclesiam,  hoc  est  cos  qui  sunt  undique  fideles,  in  qua  semper 
ah  Ms  qui  sunt  undique,co\\%ev\Sitdi  est  ea  quae  est  ab  apostolis  traditio. 
There  are  two  readings,  potiorem  principalitatem  and  potentiorem 
principalitatem.  It  is  of  no  consequence  which  is  right.  Princi- 
palitas  is  defined  in  Lewis  and  Short's  Edit,  of  Freund's  Latin 
Dictionary  as  "the  first  place,  sn^eviovity, pre-eminence,  excellence." 

K  2 


152  EA'OLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  I 

said  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  London  that  its 
faith  and  tradition  are  preserved  by  outside  Presb}'- 
terian  people  who  come  together  to  it  from  all  quar- 
ters. So,  says  Irenaeus,  with  his  Eastern  and  Gallic 
sympathies, — ^^By  those  who  are  from  every  quarter  fah 
his  qui  S2uit  undiquej — has  been  preserved  in  Kome 
the  tradition  of  the  faith,  which  is  from  the 
Apostles."  If  the  Latin  of  this  passage  means  any- 
thing,' it  means  that,  not  chiefly  b}^  Piome  herself,  but 
by  the  many  Christian  strangers,  who  are  always 
coming  to  Eome  from  every  Christian  Church  outside, 
is  preserved  the  pure  Apostolic  faith — the  faith  which 
is  the  unity  of  the  Church,  "  the  tradition  of  the 
Apostles  manifested  throughout  the  whole  world." 
iii.,  III.,  1.      [See  note  in  Appendix.] 

Archbishop  Caer  Against  Himself. 

I  am  quite  sorry  to  spend  time  on  this,  but  the 
Archbishop  has  made  it  the  principal  thing  in  his 
Lectures.  Look  at  the  use  he  makes  of  this.  It  is, 
according  to  him,  a  "  testimony"  to  the  "  Primacy  of 
the  Koman  See."  And  that  "Primacy"  he  had 
defined  as  absolute  sovereignty^  "an  authority  to  teach, 
to  rule,  and  to  correct,"  a  "primacy  of  jurisdiction 
over  the  whole  Church,"  "  promised  immediatel}'  and 
du'ectty  to  the  blessed  Peter  the  Apostle,  and  conferred 
upon  him."* 

Here,  then,  is  how  Irenaeus  is  shaped  so  as,  if 
possible,  to  fit.  "So  saturated  is  he  (Irenaeus)  with 
Eoman  doctrine,"  according  to  Archbishop  Carr,  that 
one  wonders  he  cannot  get  some  better  passages.  He 
translates  him  thus : — 

"For  ivitU  this  Church,  on  account  of  its  superior  principate^  it 
*  Carr,  pp.  4S-49,  et  p.  8. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  153 

is  necessary  that. evern  Church  agree  ;'^  that  is,  the  faithful  every- 
where (every  Church),  in  which  by  the  (faithful)  everywhere 
the  Apostolic  tradition  is  preserved."  t 

That  does  not  seem  to  make  "  sense;"  and  it  is  certainly 
not  a  correct  translation.  But  the  wonder  increases 
when  we  tm-n  to  the  Advocate  (28th  March)  and  read 
the  "in  extenso  report"  of  Dr.  Carr's  Second  Lectm-e 
as  he  deHvered  it  to  the  mixed  audienae.  There  the 
translation  is : — 

''For  to  (or  with)  this  Chm-ch,  on  accomit  of  its 
superior  principate,  it  is  necessary  that  every  Church 
should  come  together  (or  agree),  that  is,  the  faithful 
who  are  everywhere."  That  is  at  least  more  accurate, 
and  it  gives  the  truer  translation  foremost.  Now,  in 
"  the  hook  form,"  that  truer  translation  is  cut  wholly 
out.  The  words  conveuire  ad,  which  simply  mean  "to 
come  together  to,"  are  made  to  mean  to  "agree  irith.'" 
The  word  und'uiue,  ''from  all  quarters,"  is  translated 
as  if  it  were  nhique,  "everywhere;"  and  the  words 
"  on  account  of  the  more  important  eminence"  (or,  as 
the  Eoman  Catholic  scholars  say,  "  on  account  of 
more  potent  principaHty")  are  translated  "  on  account 
of  its  superior  principate,"  making  it  refer,  not  to  the 
City  of  Kome  as  metropolis,  but  necessarily  to  the 
Church  of  Eome. 

But,  oddest  of  all,  in  his  Replies, I  published  a  year 
ago.  Archbishop  Carr  had  left  out  that  translation 
"agree  with"  altogether,  and  had  translated  thus: 


"O' 


"For  to  this  Church,  on  account  of  its  superior  principate,  it 
is  necessary  that  every  Church  should  come  together,  that  is,  the 

*  The  only  excuse  I  can  see  for  this  strange  translation,  viz.,  to 
make  conveuire  ad  mean  "agree  with,"  is  that  "the  Protestant 
translators"  in  Clark's  Series  so  render  it.  But,  then,  what  do  they 
say  below?    As  to  this  and  Bright,  &c.,  see  note  in  Appendix. 

t  Carr,  Primacy,  p.  49  ;  In  Dr.  Chapman's  Papal  Supremacy,  pp. 
23-25,  this  matter  is  lucidly  dealt  with. 

1  P.  34. 


154  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PAPACY  : 

faithful  -who  are  everywhere,  for  in  this  Church  the  tradition, 
which  is  from  the  Apostles,  has  been  preserved  by  those  who 
are  everywhere." 

This  "chopping  and  changing,"  to  use  Browning's 
phrase,  is  not  the  worst  of  it.  Archhishop  Carr  was 
bound,  I  think,  in  fairness  to  give  some  hint  that  the 
majority  of  recent  scholars  are  quite  against  his  latest 
rendering,  and  that  the  meanings  "agree  with"  and 
"everywhere,"  forced  by  him  upon  Latin  words,  are 
quite  erroneous. 

[To  make  this  matter  worse  still,  Dr.  Carr  declares : 

"Thus,  to  mention  a  few  out  of  the  many  distinguished 
names,  Canon  Bright,  Regius  Professor  of  Oxford,  and  Gieseler, 
admit  that  the  words  convenire  ml  mean  io  aaree  with.""^" 

This  strange  assertion  I  meet  simply  by  quoting 
Canon  Bright's  own  words,  which  affirm  the  exact 
opposite : 

"  For  co7irenire  ad  would  be  a  strange  Latin  equivalent  for 
'agree  Avith.'  And,  further,  the  ensuing  tcords  wovld  have  lost 
their  point  if  ^agreement  with  the  Roman  CJinrch'  had  been  the 
idea."t 

What  are  we  to  say  regarding  these  assertions  of 
Archhishop  Carr?  And  what  are  we  to  say  of  an 
"infallible  Church"  that  needs  such  unnatural  and 
constantly  shifting  translations,  from  fragments  of 
"Fathers"  in  the  end  of  the  second  and  later 
centuries  ?] 

Third  Century. 

At  the  close  of  the  second  century  we  have  seen 
L'enaeus  resisting  Victor,  bishop  of  Rome,  in  his  effort 

*  Carr,  Primacy,  p.  5(3. 

t  Bright,  Roman  See,  p.  38.  Bright  has  liad  to  "heckle"  the 
Bev.  Luke  Rivington  for  similar  assertions.  Rivington  tries  to 
make  it  '"sovereignty,"  and  to  refer  it  to  the  Roman  Church.  "Mr. 
Rivington,  who  relies  a  good  deal  on  sheer  iteration,  renders  it 
'sovereignty'  five  times  within  four  pages."     Bright :  id. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  155 

to  dictate  to  the  Asian  Christians  who  visited  Rome. 
We  have  seen,  also,  Tertulhan,  of  North  Africa, 
denouncing  the  bishop  of  Eome,  at  once,  for  arrogance 
and  laxity.*  Of  course,  it  is  answered  that  Tertullian 
had  now  been  driven  into  Montanism.  Yes,  Jerome 
says,  hy  the  arrogance  of  the  Roman  clergy;  other 
historians  say  by  their  laxity,  as  is  evident  from  his 
his  own  pages. 


St.  Hippolytus'  Picture  of  Roman  Bishops. 

St.  Hippolytus,  at  any  rate,  was  not  a  Montanist; 
but  a  great  "Father"  of  the  third  century,  and  bishop 
at  Rome.f  He  is  a  "  Saint"  besides.  Hippolytus 
was  the  most  learned  Father  of  the  west.  His 
great  writing.  The  Refutation  of  all  Heresies,  re-dis- 
covered in  1842,  and  published  in  1851,  casts  surpris- 
ing light  on  the  state  of  the  Church  in  Rome  in  the 
early  part  of  the  third  century.  Hippolytus  joined, 
says  Lightfoot,  the  learning  of  the  east  with  the 
practical  energy  of  the  west.  Hippolytus  had  been 
Victor's  friend. 

He  gives  us  a  dreadful  picture  of  the  two  successive 
bishops  in  Rome  who  followed  Victor,  viz.,  Zephyrinus 
and  CalHstus  (202-223).  Especially  is  the  latter 
startling.  He  had  been  a  slave,  a  peculator  of  widows' 
money,  had  been  on  the  tread-mill,  had  been  banished 
as  a  convict  to  the  mines  of  Sardinia,  had  by  his 


*  Tert.  de  Pudic,  1.  Lightfoot  thinks  the  bishop  denounced  Avas 
"either  Victor  or  Zephja-inus;"  others  Zephyrinus;  others  again 
Callistus. 

t  Dollinger  makes  him  anti-bishop.  Sanday  and  many  others  regard 
him,  similarly,  as  bishop  of  one  Christian  party,  the  purer  community 
then  in  Rome.  Lightfoot  thinks  he  was  bishop  to  the  Strangers  at 
the  port  of  Rome. 

Schaff 's  Herzog-Tertullian. 


156  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PAPACY  I 

iinancial  skill  got  into  the  liouseliold  of  Zepliyrinus, 
then  succeeded  him  as  bishop.*  He  leant  to  both  the 
Patripassian  and  Sabellian  heresies.  Let  iis  hope 
that  picture  is  overdrawn -i*  But  the  fact  which  stands 
out  indubitable  from  it  is — that  here  3^ou  have  at  Borne 
two  bishops  in  the  third  century.  He  wdio,  in  the 
Boman  lists,  is  called  Bishop  of  Borne,  Callistus,  is 
declared  by  a  fellow^  bishop  to  be  both  loose  in  doctrine 
and  loose  and  blackened  in  life,  and  yet  the  one 
bishop  cannot  depose  the  other.  A  curious  illus- 
tration of  "  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,"  and 
also  of  Bome's  claim  that  the  Bishop  of  Borne  is  the 
Supreme  Vicar  of  Christ  on  earth,  and  alone  carries 
"  Peter's  keys"  to  open  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven, 
and  to  declare  and  pronounce  the  Church's  doctrine 
and  practice.  Callistus,  bishop  of  Borne,  if  we  are  to 
trust  Hippolytus,  believed  and  pronounced  heresy, 
and  his  practice  was  not  even  good  Paganism. 
Hippolytus,  another  bishop  at  Bome,  at  that  same 
time,  whom  Archbishop  Carr  has  honoured  as  "  St. 
Hippolj^tus,"  who  calls  himself  also  "High-priest" 
and  successor  of  Apostles,  declares  all  this,  and 
denounces  Callistus  as  a  heresiarch.  Where  is  there 
to  be  found  in  that  third  century  the  notion  of  the 
Supremacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Bome  ? 


*  Hippol.  Haer.,  Book  ix.,  c,  vii.  The  most  impressive  fact  of 
all  is  that  when  Victor,  through  Marcia,  had  the  Christian  Martyrs 
(confessors)  in  the  mines  liberated,  he  did  not  give  the  name  of 
Callistus.  Here  is  Hippolytus's  startling  description: — "Marcia, 
a  concubine  of  Commodus  (the  pagan  emperor),  who  was  a  God- 
loving  female  and  desirous  of  performing  some  good  work,  invited 
into  her  presence  the  blessed  Victor,  who  was  at  that  time  a  bishop 
of  the.  GJiurch,  and  inquired  of  him  what  martyrs  were  in  Sardinia. 
And  he  delivered  to  her  the  names  of  all,  but  did  not  give  that  of 
Callistus,  knowing  the  acts  he  had  ventured  upon." — Hippol.  ix.,  7. 

t  Dollinger  thinks  so;  but  Hippolytus  was  one  of  the  best  of  the 
"Fathers,"'  and  not  likelv  to  lie. 


its  early  stages.  157 

"  Pope  Cyprian"  of  Carthage  :  And  the  Bishop 

OF  EOME. 

The  next  stage  is  reached,  when,  in  the  middle  of 
that  same  Century,  Cyprian,  the  energetic  and  versatile 
Bishop  in  Carthage,  of  North  Africa,  the  student  of 
Tertullian,  had  vigorous  relations  with  Cornelius 
Bishop  in  Piome  {cir.  251),  and  afterwards  with  a 
much  more  aggressive  Eoman  Bishop,  Stephen 
(253-257).  Cyprian  I  have  already  spoken  of,  and 
I  shall  rapidly  sketch  the  two  aspects  of  his  influence 
which  have  relation  to  our  question. 
•  Now  Cyprian  entertained  very  extreme  and  high 
notions  of  the  independence,  equality,  and  "unity  of  all 
bishops."  The  notion  of  the  priestly  function  and  order, 
which  we  find  first  rhetorically  imaged  in  Tertullian, 
the  notion  of  the  ejnscopi  as  successorsof  the  Apostles,* 
first  hinted  by  Irenaeus,  now  got  further  developed  by 
the  autocratic  mood  of  Carthage  and  Eome.  It  got 
blended  with  the  Montanist  notion  of  direct  inspiration. 
So,  in  Cyprian,  all  the  ''  bishops  "  then  existing,  and 
they  were  as  numerous  in  North  Africa  as  the  larger 
congregations,!  were    regarded    as   recipients  of  the 

*  The  after  thought  of  Lidclon  and  Canon  Gore,  viz.,  that,  though 
the  presbyters  and  episcopi  of  the  stated  ministry,  in  Apostolic 
times,  were  the  same,  and  though  the  Apostles  in  their  special 
ministry  had  no  successors,  yet  the  icandering  "prophets"  and 
"evangelists"  (such  as  they  imagine  Timothy  and  Titus  to  have 
been)  got  gradually  fixed  and  localised  as  the  first  "bishops,"  is 
scouted  by  both  Ijghtfoot  and  8anday,  as  well  as  by  German 
scholars.  Sanday  dismisses  it  as  "  irrelevant."  Lightfoot  shows 
that  this  fantastic  notion  was  entirely  unknown  in  the  Early  Church. 

t  In  a  council,  convoked  by  Cyprian,  there  were  87  North  African 
"bishops."  In  an  earlier  Council,  90  "bishops."  "  The  enormous 
number  of  African  'bishops'  a  few  centuries  later,"  says  Light- 
foot,  "woi;ld  seem  incredible  were  it  not  reported  on  the  best 
authority."  There  were  690  North  African  "sees,"  or  bishops' 
centres  of  teaching.  In  fact,  any  Presbyterian  clergyman,  or 
incumbent  of  a  church,  or  Congregationalist  or  Wesleyan  minister 
of  a  church,  has  a  large  "primacy"  as  contrasted  with  all  these. 
What  a  fantastic  theory  that  of  "Apostolic"  succession  in 
"  bishops  "  is  ! 


158  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  I 

Apostolic  gift,  and  of  direct  inspiration  by  God,  the 
recipients  speciall}-  of  the  Holy  Spirit.*  In  keeping 
with  this  bold  and  sweeping  notion  is  that  famous 
declaration  of  Cyprian,  to  which  I  drew  attention  in 
an  earlier  lecture,  viz.,  that  what  Christ  said  to  Peter 
He  said  to  him  for  all  the  Apostles  equally.  Thus 
there  is  both  perfect  equality  and  also  a  symbol  of 
unity. 

"  Assuredly  the  rest  of  the  Apostles  were  also  the  same  as 
was  Peter,  endowed  with  an  equal  partnership  both  of  honour 
and  power  ;  hut  the  beginning  proceeds  from  unity." 

This  statement,  as  Lightfoot  says,i*  "was  very  un- 
satisfactory to  a  later  age;"  therefore  Eome  interpolated 
such  w^ords  as — "And  the  primacy  is  given  to  Peter," 
&c.,  which  contradict  Cyprian's  whole  meaning,  and 
which  all  scholars  have  cut  away  as  spurious.  Now,  with 
this  strong  clean-cut  notion  of  the  equality  of  all  bishops 
in  the  unity  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  Cyprian 
calls  "the  root  and  matrix  of  the  catholic  church," 
he  was  ready  for  action.  So,  when  the  "Novatian 
Schism"  occurred  at  Eome,  on  the  appointment 
of  Cornelius  (251  a.d.),  Cyprian  in  Carthage, 
over  the  sea,  hesitates  about  co-operating  with 
him  in  this  equal  participation  of  the  episcopate. 
He  will  not  acknowledge  him  as  brother-bishop,  or 
"  colleague" — until  he  inquires,  t  Then,  when  he  finds 
"through  his  colleagues,"  who  were  sent  io  inquire, 
proof  that  Cornelius  has  been  legitimately  appointed, 
he  writes  him — "  Cyprian  to  Cornelius,  his  brother, 
greeting,"  telling  him — 

"Having  received  letters  lately  from  both  parties,  Ave  read 
your  letters,  and  intimated  your  ordination  to  the  episcopate  in 
the  ears  of  everyone. "§ 

*  Cyp.,  Ep.  66,  &c.     See  also  Lightfoot,  Phil,  p.  240-2. 
t  Cl'un.  of  Borne,  vol.  ii ,  p.  485.     Bright,  Horn.  See,  p.  42 
t  Cyp.  Epp.,  xl.,  xli.  §  Ep.  xli. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  151) 

A  little  later  he  writes  Cornelius,  in  similar  terms, 
that  "lest  a  schism  made  in  the  city  should  confuse 
the  minds  of  the  absent,"  he  had  decided — 

"having  got  a  greater  authority  for  the  proof  of  your  ordina- 
tion"— 

that  letters  should  be  sent  to  Cornelius  by  all  of 
Cyprian's  colleagues  in  North  Africa,  "  approving  and 
maintaining  both  you  and  your  fellowship."*  So  the 
unity  of  the  catholic  Church,  and  its  charit}^  would 
be  preserved.  That  is  odd  language  to  use  to  "  a 
PontifT."  It  is  language  which  any  senior  and 
respected  Congregational  minister  in  Melbourne,  and 
his  colleagues  in  the  ministry  of  Churches,  might 
send  to  a  newly-appointed  "brother"  minister  of 
an  important  Church  in  "pre-eminent"  Sydney  or, 
London,  "approving  and  upholding  both  him  and  his 
fellowship."  How  "we  are  slaves  of  w^ords,"  with  the 
modern  vision  of  a  Lord-Bishop  in  lawn  sleeves,  or 
a  Cardinal  with  his  hat,  haunting  and  bestriding  us, 
when  we  read  the  letters  of  these  "  urban  bishops"  of 
the  third  century!  Cyprian  speaks  of  "  our  mother, 
the  catholic  Church. "-|-  I  hope  we  will  all  speak  just 
so  of  the  one  universal  spiritual  Church  of  Jesus 
Christ — "  the  Jerusalem  which  is  from  above"  (as 
Paul  has  it)  which  is  "  the  inotlwr  of  us  all.'' 

But  never  a  word  speaks  he  of  the  Bishop  of  Piome 
as  superior  to  other  bishops  on  account  of  ai^y  special 
descent  from  Peter. 

Cyprian's  Conflict  with  Stephen  of  Eome. 

A  little  later  {cir.  253-7)  Cyprian  found  in  Stephen 
(a  new  Bishop  of  Piome)  a  man  fiercer  in  temper  and 
as  autocratic  as  himself.  It  was  the  age  of  the  terrible 
Decian  persecution,  the  first  universal  and  persistent 

*  ¥j\y.  xliv.  t  Ep.  xlii. 


160  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

attempt  to  suppress  Christianity  within  the  Eoman 
Empire.  The  edict  was  specially  against  the  bishops. 
Cyprian,  a  man  of  elegance  and  wealth,  fled,  though 
in  a  later  persecution  he  stood  firm  and  died  in 
martyrdom  at  Carthage.  It  was  in  part  from  his 
hiding-place  he  fought  his  own  deacon  and  others  who 
disputed  his  right  to  be  bishop,  and  contended  with 
them  about  the  restoration  of  the  "lapsed."  After 
his  return  to  Carthage,  when  that  particular  persecu- 
tion was  past,  the  Church  fell  into  disputation  over 
the  amazing  subject  whether  baptism  performed  by 
heretics  and  schismatics  is  valid.  Stephen  said 
*'Yes."  Cyprian,  the  older  and  more  revered  man, 
said  "No."  And  he  and  other  bishops,  east  and 
west,  such  as  Firmilian  of  Cresarea,  knew  so  little  of 
*' Peter's  supremacy,"  or  of  the  Bishop  of  Eome's 
supremacy  as  representing  Peter,  that  they  flung  at 
Stephen's  head  the  example  of  Paul  as  if  that  should 
settle  the  matter.* 

Now,  here  are  two  things  which  may  astonish 
us.  On  the  one  hand,  there  is  that  curious  contra- 
diction in  practice  which  still  prevails  in  the 
Eomanist  Church  in  an  extreme  shape,  viz.,  that 
"in  case  of  need,"  baptism  can  be  performed  by 
orthodox  or  heretic,  cleric  or  non-cleric.  Yet  it  is 
a  "  sacrament"  as  solemn  as  the  Lord's  Supper.  On 
the  other  hand,  there  is  the  odd  fact  that  these 
"  bishops"  who,  according  to  the  Cyprianite  and 
Anglo- Catholic  and  Pioman  Catholic  notions  are 
"  successors  of  the  Apostles,"  and  have  "  received  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  illumining  them  above  other  men,  yet 
took  such  opposite  cleics  of  trutli  and  practice,  and 
fought,  and  excommunicated  one  the  other."  This 
theory  of  Apostolic  succession  in  "bishops"  is  so  droll, 
so  fantastic! 

*  Kp.  74.;  Acts  xix.,  4-5. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  IGl 

Stephen,  indeed,  made  repeated  blunders,  as  arro- 
gant men  do  in  all  Churches.  Certain  Spanish 
bishops,  who  had  been  removed  from  their  "  sees"  by 
the  neighbouring  clergy  and  people  for  unworth}^ 
conduct,  induced  Stephen  to  recognise  them  as  in 
communion,  and  possessing  the  status  of  bishops. 
The  Spanish  Churches  appealed  to  Cyprian,  the  most 
trusted  bishop  of  the  west.  Cyprian*  held  a  council 
which  "  struck  strongly,  and  one  stroke."  They 
declared  that  the  unworthy  and  deposed  bishops  had 

"deceived  Stephen,  our  colleague,  placed  at  a  distance,  and 
ignorant  of  what  had  been  done,  and  of  the  truth." 

So  it  was  also  in  the  case  of  the  dispute  about  Baj)- 
tism.  Cyprian  held  successive  councils.  Asia  Minor 
and  Spain  sided  with  him.-f*  At  a  council  in  256, 
Cyprian,  in  his  address  of  welcome,  smites  thus  at  the 
new  pretensions  of  the  Bishop  of  Kome : — 

"None  of  us  sets  himself  up  as  a  bishop  of  bishops,  or  seeks 
to  constrain  his  colleagues  b}^  the  terror  Avhich  tyranny  can 
inspire.  "J 

Apparently  Stephen  sundered  all  communion  with  all 
the  Churches  which  sided  with  Cyprian,  and  treated 
them  as  heretics.  But  look  at  this  state  of  things: 
"  St.  Cyi^rian"  is  the  "greatest  Father"  of  the  Catholic 
west  in  the  third  century.  He  died,  also,  with  the 
"  stroke  of  the  sword"  in  martyrdom,  saying,  nobly 
enough,  when  sentenced  to  death, — "Deo  gratias ! "  He 
is  a  "  Saint."  Yet  he  considers  Stephen,  Bishop  of 
Eome,  onl}^  as  one  of  his  "colleagues."  He  condemns 
him  also  for  "pride,  severity,  obstinacy. "§  He  resists 
and  defeats  for  that  age  his  attempt  at  uniformity,  in 

*  Ep.,  67.  5. 

t  Lightfoot  Phil.,  p.  242  sq.     [Bright  Rom.  See,  pp.  50-51.] 

X  This  is  apparently  the  third  of  Cyprian's  Councils  on  the  Bap- 
tism question,  and  his  sixth  Council  in  all.  Hefele.  Counc,  Clark's 
Edit.,  p.  96. 

§  Cyp.  Epp.,  73,  74. 


162  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

keeping  with  the  Eoman  mode.  And  Stephen  impo- 
tently  tries  to  revenge  himself  b}^  cutting  off  all  fellow- 
ship with  most  of  the  Churches  in  the  west  and  east.* 
Truly  this  is  an  odd  kind  of  "  sovereignty  of  juris- 
diction" possessed  by  Bishops  of  Rome  in  the  third 
century!  And  is  there  anything  more  grotesquely 
unlike  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  than  these 
squabbling  bishops,  fighting  about  "  goats'  wool," 
such  as  the  question  of  ''the  rebaptism  of  the  lapsed," 
and  the  validity  of  heretic  baiDtism  ?  Truly  an  im- 
Apostolic  "team"  of  "  successors  of  the  Apostles!" 


Foura'H  Century  :  First  Christian  Emperor. 

It  w^as  the  Jaiti/,  not  the  Bishops,  that  saved 
Christendom.  Such  is  the  startling  verdict  from 
■a  quite  unexpected  quarter — John  Henry  Newman, 
writing  on  the  struggles  of  the  fourth  century !  I  will 
return  to  this  a  little  later. 

The  fourth  century  was  momentous  for  good  and 
ill.  It  saw  the  arrival  of  the  first  avowedly  Christian 
Emperor,  Constantine,  and  the  stoppage  of  persecu- 
tions, and  the  founding  of  the  New  Rome  (Constan- 
tinople) in  the  East,  and  the  removal  to  it  of  the 
principal  Imperial  Court,  and  the  practical  splitting 
of  the  empire  into  two  halves,  with  its  w^eaker 
half  in  the  west.  Thus  there  came  a  chance  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  for  stronger  action  and  larger 
influence.  For  Rome  was  the  only  great  city  in 
all  the  w^est  that  claimed  to  be  an  ''Apostolic  See," 
and  it  w'as  still  the  ancient  Imperial  City,  wdiile 
the  cities  that  claimed  to  be  "Apostolic"  Sees 
in  the  east — Antioch,  Ephesus,  Alexandria,  and  the 


*  Neudecker,  Stephen,  in Herzog  u.  Plitt,    Schaff,  Ant.  Nic.  Chris, ^ 
vol.  i...  .263-5.. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  163 

rest  were  fiercely  jealous  of  one  another  as  neigh- 
bours, and  that,  too,  Greek  neighbours  are  wont  to 
be.  None  of  these  cities  was  the  Central  or  Imperial 
cit}^  The}^  were  too  much  on  a  par,  and  so  rivals. 
Had  Constantine  fixed  his  centre  of  government  in 
Alexandria,  it  is  certain  that  Alexandria  would  have 
been  the  centre  of  Christendom,  despite  the  fact  that 
her  Church  had  onl}^  St.  Mark,  an  "Apostolical" 
man^  as  her  traditional  "Apostle  founder."  Milan, 
in  North  Italy,  had  got  hold  of  Barnabas  somehow  as 
her  traditional  founder,  and  for  centuries  stood  out 
independent  of  Eome.  But  Piome,  by  that  rare  two- 
fold legend  of  Paul  and  Peter  founding  the  Koman 
Church,  had  got  hold  of  two  actual  martyred  Apostles ; 
and  in  her  ^^ellow  Tiber — a  quite  odd  place — Peter 
had  baptised,  and  within  her  borders  John  had 
resisted  boiling,  and  had  been  relegated  to  an  island. 
And  now,  when  the  Christian  Emperor  removed  his 
curbing  presence  far  away  eastward,  the  Koman 
Bishop,  W'ith  Kome's  backing  of  wealth,  and  of 
autocratic  temper,  and  of  legendary  glamour,  got 
her  opportunity.  She  had  another  advantage.  The 
Greek  mind  was  subtle,  metaphysic,  litigious.  The 
fierce  disputes  over  fine,  theoretic,  theologic  distinc- 
tions Avere  mainly  carried  on  in  the  East.  They  kept 
the  energies  of  the  great  Greek  bishops  distracted 
and  antagonistic.  Eome  had  no  intellectual  troubles 
of  this  kind.  Her  mood  is — believe  and  obey !  She 
had  wdiat  served  better  than  intelluctual  thought  in  a 
long  struggle  for  powder.  She  had  the  Western  organ- 
ising, drilling,  practical,  administrative,  wealth- 
gathering  power.  She  seized  hold  of,  and  adapted  to 
herself  persistently,  the  theology  and  the  monastic 
system  wdiich  the  Christian  Greek  mind  thought  out 
and  fought  out.  She  clothed  them  with  more  im- 
perious sanctions;  she  gave  them  the  coherence  of 
her  own  forceful  mood — "command/  obey!" 


164  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  I 

Cardinal  Newman  truly  says : — * 

*'The  See  of  Rome  possessed  no  great  mind  in  the  whole 
period  of  persecution.  Afterwards,  for  a  long  time,  it  had  not 
a  single  'doctor'  to  show.  The  great  luminary  of  the  western 
world  is  St.  Augustin ;  he,  no  infallible  teacher,  has  formed 
the  intellect  of  Europe." 

And  Augustin  was  not  a  Eoman.  But  Eome  had 
forceful  sagacity — she  could  "divide  and  conquer." 
And  she  could  hcep. 


The  Council  of  Nice:   And  Eome. 

The  Fourth  Century  saw  the  assembling  of  the  first 
of  those  "great  Councils"  at  which  the  bishops  met, 
and  debated,  and  w^ere  violent,  and  schemed  both  for 
the  formulation  of  the  Church's  faith  and  for  their 
own  individual  supremacy. 

The  first  great  Council,*  called  by  Constantine  at 
Nicaea,  in  Bith3aiia  (325  a.b.),  for  his  new  capital 
(Constantinople)  on  the  Bosphorus  was  not  built  till 
five  years  later,  gives  no  hint  of  any  Primacy  of 
jurisdiction  belonging  to  the  Bishop  of  Eome. 

The  object  for  which  the  Emperor  summoned  this 
first  representative  Council  of  all  Christendom — east 
and  west — was  to  decide  what  is  known  as  "  the  Arian 
conflict."       The    question     involved    was    the    true 

*  I  do  not  stay  here  to  discuss  the  Western  Council  of  Aries  (in 
Gaul)  which  Constantine  previously  summoned  (314)  on  an  appeal 
by  the  Donatists  against  the  decision  of  a  small  Council  in  Rome 
under  its  bishop,  Miltiades  (Melchiades).  Romanist  advocates  try 
to  represent  this  as  somehow  supporting  the  notion  of  Papal 
Supremacy,  because  Marinus,  the  Bishop  of  Aries,  who  presided  at 
that  Council,  and  other  members  reported  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
Sylvester  (who  had  "succeeded"  that  year),  the  Council's  decisions^ 
.that  they  might  be  announced  in  the  metropolis,  as  in  other  places. 
Funny  kind  of  argument  to  make  an  appeal  from  a  decision  in 
Rome  to  a  Council  of  Bishops  in  Gaul  a  proof  of  Rome's  infallible 
Supremacy ! 


ITS    EALY    STAGES.  165 

Divinity  of  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  The  question 
vexed  Christendom  for  many  an  age.  All  the  other 
main  questions  regarding  Christ's  person,  with  which 
the  Councils  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  were 
vehemently  agitated,  are  inter-related  with  this  one. 
The  conflict  had  begun  in  Alexandria,  between  its 
bishop,  Alexander,  and  the  forceful  Arius,  who  repre- 
sented the  tendency  of  x\ntioch.  Behind  Alexander 
stood  his  gifted  deacon,  Athanasius,  afterwards  his 
successor  as  Bishop  of  Alexandria. 

It  is  no  part  of  the  purpose  of  these  lectures 
to  discuss  theology.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  the 
decision  of  that  Council  emphatically  excluded  Arian- 
ism.  Our  pyese7it  duty  is  simply  to  trace  the  successive 
early  steps  of  the  advance  of  a  claim  made  for  the 
superiority,  and  finally  the  "  supremacy,"  of  the 
bishopric  of  Kome. 

The  bishops  and  presbyters,  who  gathered  at  Nicaea, 
w^ere  of  all  sorts.  Some  had  come  from  great  distances. 
Some  bore  on  their  bodies  the  scars  of  sore  mutila- 
tions, endured  by  them  in  Pagan  persecutions.  But 
they  had  retained  not  only  life,  but  a  vast  vitality  of 
the  old  Adamite  temper.  That  is  inseparable  from 
politics  of  all  kinds,  profane  and  sacred.  The 
Bishop  of  Kome,  Sylvester,  was  not  present.  He  was 
represented  by  two  presbyters.* 

When  the  Emperor,  handsome,  tall,  slim,  splendidly 
attired,yet  with  reverent  mien,  entered  the  Council,  a 
master,  and  shrewd  judge  of  men,  he  made  a  great  im- 
pression. He  was  welcomed  in  the  name  of  the  Council, 
probably  by  Eustathius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  the  ''oldest 
Christian  see,"  the  earliest  so-called  "  See  of  Peter."f 


*  Vito^ancl  Vincentius.  Of  the  whole  *'Nicaeiio-Constantmo- 
politan  Creed,"  the  ordinary  English  reader  will  get  a  succinct 
account  (by  Harnack)  in  SchafF's  Herzog  ;  or  Schaff's  History.  [On 
the  Romanist  arguments  regarding  this  Council  see  Bright  Roman 
See,  p,  66  sq.] 

+  So  Theodoret.     Others  think  it  was  Eusebius  himself. 


166  EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PAPACY  I 

Eomanist  writers  try  to  make  out  that  the  President 
of  that  Council  \Yas  Hosius  of  Cordova,  in  Spain. 
Then  they  try  to  paint  Hosius  as  "the  Pope's  repre- 
sentative." Others,  with  much  more  reasonableness, 
hold  that  there  were  two  or  three  "Presidents,"  such 
as  Eustathius  of  Antioch,  and  Alexander  of  Alex- 
andria (who,  as  backed  by  his  brilliant  supporter, 
Athanasius,  was  a  principal  figure  in  the  Council). 
The  Emperor,  when  present,  was  President.  But  he 
was  a  shrewd  manipulator  of  men,  this  Constantine. 
He  delivered  the  assembly  over  to  the  Presidents 
(irpoedpoLs).'^  It  is,  I  think,  probable  enough  that 
the  aged  Hosius,  "the  Father  of  the  West,"  and  the 
special  friend  of  the  Emperor,  sometimes  presided, 
taking  his  place  in  turn  with  the  bishops  of  Alex- 
andria and  of  Antioch. i"  Hosius  had  already  gone,  at 
the  request  of  the  Emperor,  to  Alexandria  to  attempt 
to  heal  the  dispute.  If  he  presided  at  all,  it  was  as 
the  Emperor's  old  and  closest  personal  friend. 

*  Hefele,  the  Roman  Catholic  historian,  argues  labor ionsly  that 
Hosius  presided.  .  .  .  Then,  with  Roman  audacitj^  at  a  later  point  he 
assumes  and  asserts  that  Hosiiis  "presided  at  the  assembly  as  Papal 
legate  in  union  with  the  two  Roman  priests,  Vito  and  Vineentius." 
(Hef.  Councils.  Clark,  2nd  edit.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  37-42,  260,  281.)  This 
is  bold,  and  quite  contrary  to  the  facts.  Schroeckh.,  Ernesti, 
Hinschius,  and  other  investigators,  such  as  Tillemont,  the  eminent 
Roman  Catholic  and  Jansenist  historian,  have  shown  that  the 
attempt  to  represent  Hosius  as  the  Pope's  legate  rests  on  the 
notorious  falsifications  of  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  in  the  latter  part  ot 
the  Jiftli  century  !  On  his  falsification  of  facts,  see  Diet.  Chris. 
Biog.  ii. ,  620.  [One  could  not  have  a  better  example  of  Romanist 
advocacy  than  by  first  reading  Hefele  (one  of  the  most  moderate  of 
R.C.  advocates)  on  this  subject,  and  then  reading  the  criticism  of  it 
in  Prof.  Bright,  Roman  See,  p.  71  seq. ,  and  foot-notes.  Bright 
thinks  Hosius  presided  as  the  Emperor's  trusted  friend.  Against 
this  the  plural  "presidents,"  used  by  Eusebius,  seems  conclusive. 
It  is  not  probable,  is  it,  that  a  Council  meeting  in  the  Ijast,  com- 
posed of  Greek  bishops  and  presbyters,  with  only  eight  Westerns, 
would  be  presided  over  by  Westerns  alone  ?] 

t  8o  Schaft',  &c. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  167 

The  canons  of  that  Council  prove  the  Eomanist 
claim  to  supremacy  to  have  heen  quite  undreamt  of 
in  1  that  fourth  century.  They  assign  to  the  Bishop 
of  Kome,  as  was  natural  on  account  of  Eome's  politi- 
cal position  in  the  West,  spiritual  jurisdiction — i.e., 
the  right  to  ordain  bishops — over  Middle  and  Lower 
Italy,  with  the  Islands  of  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and 
Corsica,  on  mi  eqiialitii  witli*'  the  bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria, who  had  spiritual  jurisdiction — i.e.,  the  right  to 
ordain  all  the  bishops — over  Egypt,  Libya,  and  the 
wide  Pentapolis.  The  arrangement  was  just  according 
to  divisions  of  the  Empire  and  its  great  cities.  No 
thought  of  the  bishop  of  Eome  as  Bishop  of  Bishops, 
and  wielding  Supremacy  over  Christendom,  had  as 
yet  dawned  upon  men.-f* 

*  Even  Hefele  confesses: — "The  Council  of  Nicaea  points  out 
that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has  also  rights  analogous  to  those  which  it 
acknowledges  for  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  and  for  the  Bishop  of 
Ephesus."  On  Hefele's  amusing  effort  to  get  out  of  this  absolute 
disproof  of  the  Roman  claim  see  the  whole  passage. — Vol.  i. ,  pp. 
394 — 399.  (Bright,  Roman  See,  p.  75  seq.)  Archbishop  Carr  has 
ventured  to  accuse  me  of  "a  quibble"  regarding  Renan.  How  one 
sees  his  own  reflection !  For,  if  ever  pitiable  quibble  was  written, 
surely  it  is  Dr.  Carr's  attempt  (p.  202)  to  get  out  of  the  facts  about 
Nicaea.  He  says,  trying  to  follow  Hefele — "The  subject  of  the 
Primacy  was  not  mentioned  at  the  Council."  Quite  true  !  For  there 
was  no  such  thing  then  in  existence.  The  Roman  bishop  is  simply 
called  "the  bishop  in  Rome." 

+  For  a  luminous,  brief  statement  of  the  gradual  elevation  of  the 
city  bishop  above  the  rural  bishop,  then  the  elevation  of  the 
"  metropolitans"  above  the  ordinary  city  bishops,  then  of  "the  five 
patriarchs,"  the  "  oligarchical  summit,"  above  the  metropolitans, 
and  of  the  relation  of  this  to  the  divisions  of  tJie  Roman  Empire,  read 
Schaff,  Nicene  and  Fast  Nic.  Ghristianiti/,  vol.  i.,  pp  263 — 274. 
The  Patriarchs  were  the  bishops  of  "  the  four  great  capitals  of  the 
empire" — Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Constantinople.  To  these 
was  added,  as  honorary  patriarch,  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  This 
development  of  the  Patriarchs  was,  of  course,  later  than  Nicaea. 
Constantinople  was  founded  330  a.d.,  five  years  later  than  the 
Council  of  Nicaea,  and  then  began  a  conflict  for  precedence  between 
the  Bishops  of  Rome,  Constantinople  (the  new  imperial  capital), 
and  Alexandria. 

L  2 


168  EVOLrTION    OF    THE    PAPACY! 

Hosius  Eecants  :  The  Pope  Turns  Heretic. 

The  epoch  succeedmg  the  Council  of  Nicaea  presents 
a  smgular  spectacle.  Alexandria,  with  its  Athanasins, 
was  the  centre  of  orthodoxy.  If  a  "See"  means 
rightly  a  "chair"  of  teaching,  and  if  the  Nicene  Faith 
he  true,  then  to  Alexandria — not  Eome  at  that  time — 
belonged  "the  Apostolic  Chair"  and  the  "Primacy." 

In  Julius  I.,  who  became  Bishop  of  Eome  about  the 
time  of  Constantine's  death,  Athanasius  had  found  a 
hearty  supporter.  The  two  sons  of  Constantine  took 
different  sides.  Constans,  in  the  west,  backed  Athana- 
sius ;  Constantius,  in  the  east,  Arius.  Constantine, 
alas,  had  allowed  the  beginning  of  a  new  thing — 
persecution,  the  use  of  force  b}^  Christians  against 
those  who  did  not  conform.*  Both  Orthodox  and 
Arian  used  this  new  weapon  pitilessly. 

At  a  Council  summoned  at  Sardica  (343),  the 
Eastern  bishops  withdrew  and  held  an  opposition 
Council.  The  rest,  in  the  interests  of  Athanasius, 
who  had  been  deposed  by  Constantius,  resolved  that  a 
deposed  bishop  may  "appeal  to  the  Eoman  bishop 
Julius."  This  expedient  of  battle  against  Antioch  and 
the  East  failed.  That  "Council"  was  never  accepted 
as  oecumenical.  The  Emperor  refused  any  sanction. 
Christendom  rejected  it. 

But  the  Sardican  move  w^as  answered  in  a  rougher 
and  tragic  way.  Constantius,  now  sole  Emperor, 
and  siding  with  the  "Eusebians  and  semi-Arians," 
attempted  to  compel  uniformity.  The  aged  Hosius, 
who  had  been  severe  upon  the  Arians,  was  flung  into 
prison,  and  summoned  before  the  Synod  at  Sirmium. 
Alas,  alas ! — But,  indeed,  we  will  not  tell  it  ourselves. 


*  At  first  it  was  confined  to  scourging  and  banishment.  After 
Theodosius,  and  in  the  age  of  the  great  Councils,  the  death  penalty 
was  also  enacted. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  169 

We  will  let  John  Henry  Newman  and  others  mainly 
tell  it.  Hosins,  who  had  presided  at  Sardica,  (who, 
the  Pioman  Catholic  writers  argue,  presided  at  Nicaea), 
recanted  under  torture,  and  hy  the  Synod  of  Sirmium, 
though  he  would  not  sign  the  condemnation  of 
Athanasius,  was  induced  to  accept  and  subscribe 
a  formulary  which  forbade  the  mention  of  the 
^'homooitsion,''  and  thus  "virtually  condemned  the 
creed  of  Nicaea,*  and  countenanced  the  Arian  pro- 
ceedings." Yes ;  he  subscribed  a  creed  forbidding  it 
to  be  said  that  Christ  is  of  the  same  substance  with 
the  Father.     He  retracted  again  at  Corduba.i* 

"And  Liberius" — the  Pope! — Peter's  successor? 
He  began  as  a  vehement  opponent  of  Arianism.  But 
he  now  joined  in  condemning  Athanasius,  rejected 
the  Nicene  creed,  joined  in  church  fellowship  with  the 
Arians ;  and,  in  fact,  poor  Newman  has  to  quote 
Jerome's  striking  sentence,  in  the  Latin  of  it — 
"Liberius,  conquered  by  the  weariness  of  exile,  and 
subscribing  to  the  heretic  pravity,  had  entered  Ptome 
as  a  conqueror."!  Newman  uses  the  strong  word 
"  apostasy." 

I  do  not  want  to  dwell  on  these  sad  things  at  all. 
Only  when  Archbishop  Carr  is  so  severe  in  speech 
on  Cranmer,  might  not  he  feel  a  touch  of  ruth  in 
presence  of  these  tragic  facts  that  fill  the  foreground 
of  Eoman  Church  History  ? 

Cranmer    also    was    old.      More    than    any   other 

*  Miiller  in  Herzog  u.  PUtt.  Scliaflf,  635  f.  Newman  (425,  448) 
calls  it  Hosius'  "blasphemy"  and  "fall." 

t  Newman's  Arians  of  the  Fourth  Century,  p.  323,  et  seq.  See  also 
Note  v.,  p.  445.  Is  there  anything  in  literature  more  striking  than 
the  practical  condemnation,  shown  in  all  that  note,  of  the  theory 
that  the  Church  of  God  depends  on  Papalism,  or  on  Episcopacy,  or 
Externalism.     Yet  he  attempts  to  argue  out  of  this  position. 

I  Newman,  id.,  p.  449.  The  case  of  Felix  ii. ;  afterwards 
"sainted"  was  still  worse. 


170  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY: 

Protestant,  he  shuddered  at  the  thought  of  the  agony 
of  slow  burnmg  m  the  flame,  hke  Eidley.  Yet  at  the 
last,  as  Tennyson  pamts  hhn  : — 

* '  Then  Cranmer  lifted  his  left  hand  to  Heaven, 
And  thrust  his  right  into  the  bitter  flame ; 
And,  crying  in  his  deep  voice  more  than  once — 
'This  hath  offended— this  unworthy  hand  I' 
So  held  it  till  it  all  was  burn'd,  before 
The  flame  had  reached  his  body ;  I  stood  near — 
Marked  him — he  never  uttered  moan  of  pain ; 
He  never  stirr'd  or  writhed," 

He  never  deemed  himself  mjallihlc.  And  the  other 
Protestants  whom  no  terrors  could  make  recant,  and 
whose  names  have  sunk  undyingly  into  the  memories 
of  British  men — they  did  not  deem  themselves  and 
their  Church  infalUhle.  God  and  His  Gospel  alone 
the}^  deemed  f/? fallible.  But  not  even  Cranmer  could 
have  been  got,  for  all  Earth's  pain,  to  subscribe  denial 
of  the  Essential  Divinity  of  Our  Lord,  like  Hosius  and 
"Peter's  Successor"  Liberius.  I  do  not  want  to 
speak  any  severe  word  about  these  men  at  all.  I  tell 
these  things  with  all  reluctance,  and  with  a  shudder 
of  shame  at  all  these  councils  and  men,  because  they 
show  the  huge  unreality  of  this  whole  notion  that  the 
Church  of  the  living  God  depends  on  the  stability  of  a 
line  of  Eoman  bishops,  or  of  an}^  bishops,  as  deposi- 
tories of  infallible  truth,  and  as  Piock  of  the  faith, 
and  as  recipients  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"The  episcopate,  whose  action  was  so  prompt  and  concordant 
at  Nicaea,  on  the  rise  of  Arianism,  did  not,  as  a  class  or  order 
of  men,  play  a  good  part  in  the  troubles  consequent  upon  the 
Council,  and  the  laity  did.  The  Catholic  people  in  the  length 
and  breadth  of  Christendom  were  the  obstinate  champions  of 
Catholic  truth,  and  the  bishops  were  not." 

So  says  Newman.*  Eome  and  the  Pope  were  not 
then  a  Bock  1 

*  Arians  of  Fourth  Century,  p.  445,  also]461,  465. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  171 

EoME  AND  Leo. — Fifth  Century. 

We  reach  the  hour  when  the  Papacy  was  born. 
Leo,  deacon  of  Celestme,  Bishop  of  Eome  (422-432), 
and  hmiself  Bishop  of  Eome  (440-461),  was  the  father 
of  the  Papacy.  Amid  the  anguish  of  the  dying 
Empire  of  the  West,  intensified  by  the  agony  of  the 
Nestorian  controversy,  the  ecclesiastic  Papacy  was 
born.     Its  "temporal  power"  was  born  much  later. 

Celestine  (with  whom,  for  his  own  purposes,  Cyril, 
of  Alexandria,  inheritor  and  intensifier  of  the  orthodoxy 
of  Athanasius,  but  making  it  repellant  by  his  haughty 
sacerdotalism,  joined  hands)  was  strenuous  and  force- 
ful. Leo  was  a  greater,  more  intellectual  Celestine. 
The  diaconate  and  bishopric  of  this  energetic  ruler  of 
men  have  the  stir  and  thrill  of  a  great  romance  or 
tragedy.  Leo  was  cradled  amid  the  noises  of  battle, 
the  falling  of  World-powers.  From  the  beginning  of 
that  century  the  Goths  and  other  heathen  peoples 
of  the  north  had  been  pressing  down,  from  all 
sides,  upon  the  fated  Greek-Eoman  Empire.  Alaric, 
the  Goth,  had  in  the  beginning  of  the  century  sacked 
Eome.  The  feeble  Emperor  of  the  West  fled  and 
entrenched  himself  amidst  the  marshes  of  Eavenna.* 
The  Church  of  God  alone  stood  firm.  It  was  the 
heroic  hour  of  Eome's  Episcopate.  By  its  power,  its 
resources,  its  state-craft,  the  awe  it  inspired  in  the 
minds  of  even  heathen  leaders,  especially  by  the 
influence  it  exerted  over  them  through  intermarriage 
with  its  Christian  womanhood,  the  bishop's  seat  at 
Eome  became  the  rallying  point  of  a  new  political 
confidence.  The  Bishop  of  Eome  proved  himself 
the  most  important  secular  voice  in  the  West.  Leo, 
with  great  skill,  at  once  took  advantage  of  the  state  of 
things  to  further  his  extreme  sacerdotal  views,  and  to 

*  Hence  came  Romagna,  a  neiv  Rome. 


172  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

make  Kome  ecclesiastically  supreme.  When  the 
Bishops  of  Gaul*  resisted  his  dictation,  Leo  induced  the 
young  weakling  Emperor  in  the  West,  Valentinian  III., 
to  issue  (445)  a  rescript  declaring  that  none  henceforth 
should  venture  to  resist  the  primacy  of  the  Pope, 
which  the  Lord  himself  had  instituted  !  This  rescript 
was,  of  course,  never  acknowledged  by  the  patriarchs 
and  Churches  of  the  East.  The  Latin  Churches  of 
North  Africa,  also,  had  stubbornly  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge an3^thing  but  a  "  primacy  of  honour.''  Those 
of  North  Italy  and  Aquileia  steadily,  and  till  much 
later,  maintained  their  independence."!" 

Leo  was  the  first  to  formulate  the  Eomish  notion  of 
a  priestly  and  ecclesiastic  monarchy  I  under  the  head- 
ship of  Peter,  as  Prince  of  the  Apostles.  That  whole 
figment  rests  on  "two  propositions;" — (1)  Peter's 
primacy  of  jurisdiction  amongst  the  Apostles,  so  that 
all  pastors  of  God's  Church  are  under  Peter's 
authority  (Serm.  iv.  2).  (2)  That  Peter's  authority 
and  supremac}^  were  transferred  to  his  only  successors, 
the  bishops  of  Eome ;  so,  whenever  the  Bishop  of 
Piome  speaks,  Peter  himself  speaks  (Serm.  iii.  2).  Leo 
added  to  these  a  third  equally  startling  proposition: — 
That  to  revolt  against  this  primacy  of  the  Pioman 
Bishop  is  to  precipitate  yourself  into  hell  (Ep.  10).  § 
There  was  a  charming  directness  about  Leo.  He 
had  a  quite  swift  and  even  sulphureous  way  of  dis- 
posing of  his  antagonists  that  was  most  serviceable  to 
Eome's  advancement  in  power. 

Another  thing  that  uplifted  Leo  was  the  inroad  into 
Italy  of  Attila  the  Hun,  when,  amid  the  terror,  Leo 
had  to  manipulate  his  retirement,  and  arrange  about 
his  demand  of  a  vast  sum  of  money,  and  the  woful 

*  Hilariiis  of  Aries,  &c. 

t  Schaff,  ut  supra,  ^o.  293.  :J:  K.  Mtiller  in  Herzog  ii.  Plitt, 

§  K.  Miiller,  id. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  173 

bargain  of  giving  np  to  the  great  savage  leader 
Honoria,  the  dehcatel^'-nurtured  sister  of  Valentinian, 
the  Emperor.  But  it  was  by  the  theological  troubles 
in  that  fifth  century  that  Eome's  ecclesiastical 
influence,  as  over  against  the  divided  and  distracted 
East,  got  for  the  time  a  decided  advance.  TJiis,  too, 
stands  out  quite  clear, — ^just  in  proportion  as  the 
power  of  the  Imperial  house  is  weak,  or  disunited,  or 
the  Eastern  patriarchs  are  found  at  variance,  in  like 
proportion  does  the  solid  lloman  bulk  advance  its 
front;  just  in  proportion  as  the  East  presents  a  strong 
Emperor,  and  a  united  Church,  does  the  Roman 
bishop's  ascendancy  dwindle  and  fall  back.  For 
centuries  after  Leo,  no  Pope  presents  so  truculent  a 
front,  or  claim,  as  did  he. 

Cyril  and  His  Monks. 

The  troubles  which  now  vexed  the  Eastern  Church 
concerned  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ. 
Nestorius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  which  was 
now  rival  of  both  Eome  and  Alexandria,  emphasised 
the  tendency  of  the  Christian  school  of  Antioch,  lay- 
ing stress  upon  the  two  natures — human  and  divine 
— in  Christ.  He  especially  objected  to  the  expression, 
"  Mother  of  God,"*  given  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  and 
urged  the  name,  "  Mother  of  Christ,"  instead.  His 
forceful  adversaiy,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  emphasised 
the  Alexandrian  tendency,  and  laid  stress  on  the 
Divine  Nature.  Cyril  accused  Nestorius  of  resolving 
Christ  into  two.  Nestorius  accused  C^a'il  of  making 
the  Divine  transmuted  into  the  human,  so  blotting  out 
the  distinctions  of  nature.  And,  as  Moller  says,  each 
was  unfair  to  the  other.  Dollinger  has  emphatically 
said,  when  we  go  to  the  writings  of  Nestorius  himself 


*   Theotokos  in  Greek. 


174  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  I 

we  get  a  quite  different  view  of  him  from  what  his 
foes  at  Alexandria  and  at  Eome  ascribed  to  him. 

Had  these  men,  in  simple  loyalty  to  Christ  and  His 
New  Testament  Gospel,  been  able  to  meet  together  as 
friends,  and  to  speak  their  views  in  quiet,  with  no 
rival  pride  of  Alexandria  and  of  Eome,  and  of  the  new 
rival  Eome  (Constantinople)  and  its  ally  Antioch  to 
egg  them  on,  or  had  there  been  then  a  strong  Emperor 
and  an  undivided  Imperial  Court,  the  shame  and 
tragedy  of  those  battling  Councils  could  never  have 
been. 

The  Emperor*  at  Constantinople  was  a  weakling. 
His  wife,  the  gifted  and  beautiful  Eudocia,  had  a 
deadly  foe  in  Pulcheria,  the  Emperor's  elder  sister, 
and  erewhile  dictatress.  Cyril  had  Pulcheria  as  his 
fellow-plotter.  Celestine,  Pope  in  Eome,  and  Cyril, 
Patriarch  in  Alexandria,  clasped  hands,  and  used  the 
divided  Imperial  Court  to  effect  their  ends. 

At  the  Council,  summoned  to  Ephesus  by  the 
Emperor  (431),  C^Til  and  the  Alexandrians  arrived 
before  John  of  Antioch  and  the  Syrian  bishops  could 
get  forward.  Cyril,  who  came  with  a  powerful  body 
of  Egyptian  bishops,  slaves,  and  armed  seamen, 
opened  the  so-called  Council,  and  presided ;  Celestine's 
legates  from  Eome  being  present.  Nestorius  would 
not  attend,  the  other  bishops  not  having  arrived.  The 
proceedings  were  summary.  Despite  the  protest  of 
the  Imperial  Commissioner,  Nestorius  was  anathema- 
tized. John  of  Antioch  and  the  Syrians  arrived  to 
hold  another  Council,  which  deposed  Cyril  of  Alexan- 
dria, and  his  henchman  Memnon  of  Ephesus. f 

This  miserable  scene  was  followed  by  a  scene  more 
miserable.    Cyril,  Pulcheria,  and  Celestine  had  effected 

*  Thodosius  II. 
t  Schaff,  id.,  p.  723,  seq.     INIilman,  &c.,  pass  the  severest  jiiclg- 
ment  on  these  councils.    Gregoiy  Nazianzen  called  them  "assemblies 
of  cranes  and  seese. " 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  175 

the  destruction  of  Nestorius.  But  C^yrirs  polic}^  out- 
witted itself  and  outwitted  Eome  also.  It  was  Con- 
stantinople that  was  aggrandized. 

Cyril  is  that  relentless  and  potent  personality  whose 
features  are  limned  so  graphically  in  Kingsley's 
Hijpatia,  and  whose  monks,  "the  hounds  of  C^yril," 
tore  the  heautiful  and  gifted  Hypatia  limb  from  limb, 
with  shouts  of  "God  and  the  Mother  of  God."  His 
policy,  too,  lived  after  him,  but  with  the  unlooked 
for  result  of  elevating  the  Patriarchate  of  the  Eastern 
metropolis,  Constantinople,  rather  than  Alexandria  or 
Eome. 

The  "Eobber  Council." 

Euti/clies,  the  head  of  a  cloister  of  three  hundred 
monks  at  Constantinople,  was  kin  in  sentiment  and 
mood  to  the  monks  of  Alexandria.  He  was  incensed 
at  the  comjDromise  which  Theodoret,*  of  "the  Antioch 
school,"  had  got  arranged,  viz.,  affirming  tiro  natures 
in  our  Lord's  one  Person  after  the  incarnation.! 
Eutyches  fiercely  denounced  this.  And,  when  deposed 
by  a  local  synod  of  Constantinople  (448),  held  by 
Flavian,  its  Patriarch,  he  called  to  his  aid  Alexandria. 
Cyril  was  dead.*  His  archdeacon,  Dioscuros — a  more 
vehement,  less  intellectual  Cyril — sat  in  his  chair. 
Dioscuros  and  others  demanded  of  the  Emperor  a  new 
General  Council.    But  Leo,  now  Patriarch,  or  Pope,  in 

*  Of  Cyros.  He  was  of  the  school  of  Antioch,  pupil  of  the  famous 
Diodorus  and  Theodorus.  He  was  one  of  John  of  Antioch's  synod 
which  "deposed"  Cyril  at  Ephesus  in  431.  He  w^as  himself  deposed 
by  the  "Robber  Coitncir'  of  Ephesus,  449,  but  restored  by  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon. 

t  Schaff  holds  that  it  was  just  "moderate  Nestorianism,"  as 
drawn  by  Theodoret,  which  actually  obtained  the  victory,  by  the 
help  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  (Leo),  at  the  Council  of  Cbalcedon. 
And  when  Protestantism  rejects  the  dreadful  title  "Mother  of 
God"  from  the  Chalcedon  formulary,  you  have  that  victory  com- 
plete. +  In  444  A.D. 


176  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

Piome,  recognised  that  Flavian's  theology  in  Constan- 
tinople was  the  same  as  his  own.  Leo  was  the  first 
tlieologian  the  Eoman  Church  had  produced.  His 
masterly  letters  to  Flavian,  defining  the  Faith,  are 
but  an  exposition  of  what  had  been  thought  out 
by  successive  Greek  minds  like  Athanasius  and 
Theodoret. 

But  the  Alexandrians  did  at  Ephesus  in  the  Council 
of  449  what  C^a-il  had  done  in  431.  Alexandria  and 
Ephesus  again  coalesced.  Dioscuros  of  Alexandria 
presided.  Eutyches  was  restored ;  Theodoret,  Flavian, 
and  Leo  of  Eome  were  deposed  and  excommunicated. 
The  three  delegates  from  Leo,  Bishop  of  Eome,  did 
not  even  venture  to  read  Leo's  letter.  In  the  fierce 
melee  Flavian  was  so  sorely  wounded  by  the  monks 
that  he  died  a  few  days  later.  That  Council,  though 
denounced  by  Leo  as  "the  Council  of  Eobbers,"*  was 
as  genuine  an  Ecumenical  Council  as  that  which 
crushed  Nestorius;  and  had  much  more  claim  to  be 
so  than  the  Western  Council  of  Trent,  or  that  of  the 
Vatican  which  decreed  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope. 

From  that  "robber  Council"  the  bishops  and 
monks  sw^ayed  out  into  the  streets,  where,  in  torch- 
light processions,  the  mob  made  the  night  hideous 
with  the  battle-cry  of  the  Alexandrian  monks — "  God, 
and  the  Mother  of  God!" 


Chalcedon;  and  Leo  of  Eome. 

The  Emperor  died  in  450,  not  without  sore  suspi- 
cions as  to  the  accident  which  caused  his  death.  With 
Pulcheria,  his  strong-willed  sister,  now  on  the  throne, 
and  Eudocia  banished,  Leo's  plans  seemed  pros- 
perous.     But  Marcian,  the  Empire's  general,  whom 

*  In  a  letter  to  Pulcheria.      See  the  details  in  Schaff,  ut  sup., 
vol.  ii.,  and  in  Neander,  Hefele,  Milman,  etc. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  177 

Pulcheria  chose  for  her  husband,  had,  as  Emperor, 
a  will  of  his  own.  He  used  Rome,  and  let  it  lead 
that  he  might  lead.  At  the  new  Council,  summoned 
at  Chalcedon,  nigh  to  Constantinople  (451),  the  em- 
peror and  empress  were  present.  For  the  first  time 
the  legates  from  Eome  were  the  spiritual  presidents. 
They  sat  on  the  left  of  the  imperial  commissioners. 
This  Council  anathematised  both  "Nestorianism"  and 
Eutycheanism.  The  Epistle  of  Leo  and  the  Synodal 
letters  of  Cyril  were  laid  before  the  Council,  and 
received  with  cries  of:  "That  is  the  faith  of  the 
Fathers !  That  is  the  faith  of  the  Apostles.  Through 
Leo,  Peter  has  thus  spoken  ;  even  so  did  Cyril  teach. 
This  is  the  true  faith."  That  Council  reduced  the 
substance  of  those  letters,  and  the  substance  of  Theo- 
doret's  statement,  into  a  complete  setting  forth  of 
the  Nicene  Creed,*  with  the  awful  title  given  to 
Mary,  and  embodied  in  the  Church's  creed  for  the 
j&rst  time—''  Mother  of  God."t  The  Council,  at  "  the 
solemn  ratification  of  this  Confession,  in  the  Em- 
peror's presence,  burst  into  loud  cries  in  eulogy  of 
this  weather-wise  general : 

"Thou  art  both  Priest  and  King;  victor  in  war;  teacher  of 
the  Faith."! 

This  Council  had  been  almost  as  tumultuous  as  "  the 
Robber  Synod."  The  imperial  officers  had  to  inter- 
vene repeatedly  between  the  passionate  disputants. 

When  Leo  read  the  decisions  of  the  Council,  and 
heard  the  incidents  of  it,  and  of  its  cries  placing — 
"  Thus  Cyril  did  teach"§  on  an  equality  with  his  own 
formula,  "  Through  Leo  Peter  has  spoken,"  he  was 
enraged  well-nigh  as  much  as  by  the  previous  de- 

*  ' '  Nicaeno-Constantiuopolitan. " 

t  "  This  was  the  real  turning-point  in  the  development  of 
Mariolatry. " — Steitz, 

X  A  good  account  is  given  in  Schaff. 

§  Archbishop  Carr  drops  this  out,  p.  214. 


178  EVOLUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  : 

cision  of  "The  Robber  Synod"  of  Ephesus.  He  found 
that  he  had  been  given  only  a  primacy  of  honour,  and 
that  the  patriarch  of  Constantinoi)le,  the  Emperor's 
new  and  non-apostolic  city,  had  equal  powers  with 
the  Bishop  of  Eome,  having  jurisdiction  over  Asia, 
Pontus,  and  Thrace.*  In  all  these  arrangements  it  is 
clear  that  precedence  went  just  by  the  importance  of 
the  provinces  and  cities  of  the  Empire. 


The  Epoch  of  Shame. 

For  a  century  after  Leo  there  followed  what  has 
been  called  "the  Epoch  of  Shame."  The  Popes  of 
Rome  were  successively  the  subjects,  or  puppets,  of 
the  barbarian  kings,  or  of  the  reviving  power  of  the 
Greek-Roman  Empire  at  Constantinoj^le.  The  weak- 
ness and  the  worthlessness  of  these  Popes  chime 
together.  One  of  these  Popes,  Gelasius  I.  (492-496), 
who  struggled  hard  against  the  rival  claims  of  Con- 
stantinople, lets  a  gleam  of  light  ray  out.  He 
condemns  the  sacrilege  of  withholding  the  cup  from 
the  laity.  His  successor,  apparentl}^  one  of  the  best  of 
these  Popes,  but  who  was  more  friendly  towards  Con- 
stantinople, is  the  Pope  whom  Dante  puts  in  hell,"I"  an 
odd  place  for  an  inspired  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and 
of  that  Leo  who  consigned  to  hell  those  who  did  not 
receive  the  Pope  as  Peter's  successor.  Under  the 
mighty  sway  of  the  great  Emperor  Justinian  the 
Popedom  of  Rome  fell  lower  still,  till  his  puppet  Pope 
Vigilius  (537-555),  retracted  and  withdrew  that  very 
condemnation  of  Eutjxheanism,  formulated  so 
solemnly  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  on  the  basis 
of  the  letter  of  Leo. 

♦Schaff,  p.  279  fF. 

fAnastasiiis  II.     Even  Baronius  explains  his   sudden  death  as 
God's  manifest  judgment. 


its  early  stages.  17!) 

Gregory  the  Great. 

But  in  the  close  of  the  sixth  century  (590 — 604) 
there  arose,  in  the  person  of  Gregory  I. — named  ''the 
Great" — another  Eoman  Patriarch,  kin  in  spirit  to 
Leo.  An  eminent  historian  calls  him  "the  greatest, 
most  capahle,  noblest,  most  pious,  and  most  super- 
stitious in  the  whole  '  long  series  of  Popes.'  "*  Another 
takes  his  influence  as  marking  the  transition  from 
"  the  patriarchal  system  into  the  strict  Papacy  of  the 
Middle  Ages."t 

As  with  Leo  and  the  Goths  and  Huns,  so  with 
Gregory  and  the  ruthless  Longobards  (Lombards), 
whose  descent  upon  Italy  has  left  their  name  stamped 
still  upon  one  of  the  fairest  and  strongest  of  Italian 
provinces.  Amid  the  misery,  Gregory's  great  wealth, 
drawn  from  wide  lands  and  other  possessions — "  the 
Patrimony  of  Peter" — in  mid-Italy  and  the  islands, 
gave  him  a  sort  of  royal  power.  His  character  and 
vigour  lent  this  power  nobler  sanction.  An  ex-monk 
himself,  Gregory  reorganised  the  monkhood  ;  he  also 
imposed  upon  his  clergy  several  characteristics  of  the 
monastic  life  he  strongly  favoured,  t  His  main  in- 
terest for  us  British  people  is  his  scheme  of  pushing 
missionaries  northward  and  westward  into  the  Teuton 
lands.  Hitherto  it  had  been  the  Eastern,  and,  indeed, 
the  Arian  missions  that  had  won  the  Gothic  and 
northern  peoples.  That  "mission"  sent  out  by 
Gregory  had  been  forestalled  also  by  a  Christian 
movement  amongst  the  Celtic  peoples  of  Scotland 
and  Ireland — a  movement  which,  from  its  centre  in 
the  Scoto-Irish  Churches,  spread  into  North  England, 
and  across  as  far  as  Germany  and  Switzerland,  and 


*  Kurtz.  t  Zoepffel,  in  Herzog  u.  Plitt. 

J  ScliafF,  «&c.     Creigliton,  Hist,  of  Papacy,  vol.  i.,  p.  8. 


180  EVOIiUTION    OF    THE    PAPACY  I 

finally  came  into  determined  conflict  with  the  advanc- 
ing movement  from  Eome.* 

The  sore  thorn  in  Gregory's  side  was  the  rival 
imperial  new  Eome  in  the  (East,  the  Emperor's  city 
(Constantinople),  with  its  potent  patriarch.  To 
that  patriarch  the  Emperor  Justinian  had  already 
given  the  title  of  Universal  (Ecumenical)  Bishop. 
Now,  John  the  Faster,*!*  Patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
adopted,  with  special  emphasis,  this  title,  higher  than 
the  Eoman  Pope's  title.  Gregory,  in  vain,  endeavoured 
to  induce  the  Emperor  Mauritius  to  compel  John  to 
forego  this  title  of  "  Ecumenical  Bishop."  When  the 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  to  checkmate  Constantinople, 
addressed  Gregory  as  "  Universalis  Pwpa'  (Universal 
Pope),  Gregory,  in  his  reply,  refused  such  a  title,  and 
admitted  for  the  sees  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria  rank 
equal  with  that  of  Piome.  He  also  likened  John  of 
Constantinople  to  Lucifer,  and  branded  as  an  anti- 
Christ  every  Bishop  who  would  raise  himself  above 
his  fellow-bishops.* 

The  two  indelible  blots  which  stain  this  great 
Pope's  memory  indicate  the  means  by  which  a  special 
recognition  for  the  Pioman  Bishop  Avas  gradually 
and  persistently  furthered.  The  Prankish  Fury, 
Brunhilda,  "the  New  Jezebel"  of  the  West,  stained 
with  the  w^orst  of  crimes,  he  loaded  with  flatteries, 
receiving  gratefullj^  her  promises  to  support  the 
English  mission,  to  promote  celibacy,  and  to  foster 
monasteries  throughout  her  realm. 

In  the  same  wa}^,  when  the  brutal  rebel  Phocas 
mounted  to  the  Imperial  throne  in  Constantinople 
by   the   murder   of    the   noble    Emperor   Mauritius, 

*  See  Green's  Sliort  Hist,  of  the  Eng.  People,  pp.  17,  28,  29. 

t  John  Jejunator. 

"""  Schaff,  Kurtz,  Zoepffel,  &c.  On  the  subtle  distinction  by  which 
Bellarniine  and  other  Roman  Catholic  writers  attempt  to  meet  this, 
see  Schaff",  id.,  p.  329. 


ITS    EARLY    STAGES.  181 


his  hands  reddened  to  a  deeper  dye  by  the  rutliless 
execution  of  the  Empress  and  the  live  sons  and  three 
daughters  of  the  slaughtered  monarch,  Gregory,  with 
the  most  fulsome  laudation,  welcomed  the  despot's 
advent.  In  his  congratulation  he  "makes  all  the 
angelic  choirs  in  heaven  and  all  tongues  on  earth 
break  forth  in  jubilees."* 

These  actions  on  the  part  of  one  of  the  best 
Popes  illustrate  the  mode  in  which  the  Bishops  of 
Eome  pushed,  through  every  possible  avenue  of 
worldly  and  political  influence,  their  path  towards 
predominance.!  A  little  later,  and  the  East,  in 
its  terrible  struggle  with  Mohammedanism,  and 
in  the  splendid  effort  made  by  the  great  Emperor 
Leo  to  cast  image- worship  out  of  the  Church, 
as  giving  to  Mohammedans  their  main  argument 
against  Christianity,  was  pitilessly  deserted  and  re- 
sisted by  the  Popes  of  Piome.  This  disregard  on  the 
part  of  the  Western  Papacy  to  the  life  and  death 
struggle  of  Eastern  Christendom  is  deemed,  by  some 
great  historians,  as  one  of  the  indelible  crimes  of  the 
Soman  Popedom.  As  the  Mohammedan  advance 
weakened  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  and  Constantinople,  so 
Piome,  in  the  West,  thrust  forward  her  claim  to  solitary 
power.  Against  her  arrogance,  at  last,  the  East  rose 
up  in  disdain,  and  there  took  place  that  vast  separa- 

*  Kurtz,  id,  p.  274.  ScliafT,  Kiutz,  Zoepffel,  as  well  as  other 
historians  of  the  period,  regard  it  as  probable,  in  each  case,  that 
Gregory  did  not  know  the  facts  or  the  character  of  either  Bruneliild 
or  Phocas  Of  course,  if  so,  it  i-aises  odd  questions  as  to  the  "in- 
spiration" a  Pope  is  supposed  to  possess.  But  how  he  could  be 
ignorant  that  Phocas  could  not  have  gained  the  throne  in  any  good 
way  it  is  hard  to  see. 

t  It  was  Phocas  who,  in  gratitude,  tirst  called  "the  chair  of 
Peter"  at  Rome  caput  nmnium  ecclesiarum — "head  of  all  Churches.'' 
This  title  of  honour  was,  of  course,  not  recognised  by  his  successors, 
or  by  the  Churches. 

M 


182       EVOLUTION  OF  THE  PAPACY:    ITS  EARLY  STAGES. 

tion  which  has  cloven  the  older  Christian  East  and 
the  Latin  West,  with  its  Popedom,  for  ever  asunder.* 

From  all  this  survey  of  the  early  stages  of  the 
Eoman  claim,  two  facts  stand  out  clear. 

First,  each  step  of  the  advance  of  this  claim  to 
ecclesiastical  and  worldly  dominance  has  been  closely 
identified  with  the  weakness,  or  the  perfidy,  or  the 
power  of  some  World-kingdom,  or  ruler,  or  with  the 
political  contendings  of  rival  patriarchs  and  bishops. 

Secondly,  all  this  looks  tragically  unlike,  in  shape 
and  spirit,  to  the  mission  of  that  Paul  who  wrote  from 
Coriiith  to  Kome  : — "  I  am  ready  to  preach  the  gospel 
to  you  also  that  are  in  Kome."  It  flatly  contradicts 
Peter's  injunction : — "Be  not  lords  over  God's 
heritage."  It  seems  strangely  foreign  to  that  Christ 
who  said,  at  the  judgment-bar  of  Eome's  Magistrate, 
*'  My  Kingdom  is  not  of  this  AVorld." 


The  End. 


E.  A.  Freeman;  Creightou,  Hist,  of  Papacy,  vol.  i.,  pp.  8,  9. 


APPENDIX. 


With  regret  I  have  had  to  crush  out  of  this  Appendix  much  which 
I  had  planned  to  insert.  In  particular,  I  should  have  liked  to 
publish  (anonymously)  a  few  of  the  letters  received  by  me  from 
leading  laymen  in  Victoria.  One  of  these,  from  a  distinguished 
Medical  man,  evinces  a  surprising  grasp  of  the  whole  situation,  and 
livingness  of  interest  in  the  issues  involved  in  the  modern  asser- 
tion of  Sacerdotal  Clericalism  (as  betokened  at  once  by  the  ' '  Anglo- 
Catholic"  movement,  and  by  the  renewed  activity  of  the  "Roman 
Catholic  Campaign.")  Indications  of  this  kind  are  encouraging. 
So  long  as  the  educated  and  intellectual  laity  continues  to  take  a 
wide-awake  and  genuine  personal  interest  in  our  common  heritage 
•of  Christian  Faith  and  Freedom,  all  is  well. 

I. 
ARCHBISHOP  CARR'S  "PROTESTANT  TESTIMONY." 

Here  is  an  illustrative  specimen  of  the  Archbishop's  favourite 
method  of  "proof."  He  seeks  by  a  promiscuous  array  of  names  to 
prove  that  Peter  visited  Rome — a  proposition  we  have  no  ol)jection 
to  see  proven,  if  only  any  actual  proof  were  forthcoming.  Says 
Archbishop  Carr : — 

"Further  Protestant  testimony  in  proof  of  St.  Peter's  residence 
in  Rome  would  be  wholly  superfluous.  If  required,  it  may  be 
abundantly  found  in  the  works  of  Hammond,  Usher,  Whitby, 
Blondell,  Schaff,  Scaliger,  Le  Clerc.  We  may,  therefore,  on  exclu- 
sively Protestant  testimony,  put  aside  the  assertion  that  St.  Peter 
never  was  in  Rome."  Now,  that  is  a  comfortable  mode  of  "proving" 
theories  if  there  is  nobody  near  to  challenge  your  premises,  or  to 
ask  the  awkward  question — Is  that  what  you  call  ^^ proof']"  The 
Roman  Catliolic  mind — may  I  say  it  without  offence? — seems 
impressed  by  a  non-chronological  array  of  names,  marshalled  as 
•^*  authorities."    The  Protestant  mind  asks  iov  facts. 

M  2 


184  APPENDIX. 

Moreover,  here  be  names,  as  Shakspere  would  say,  '■  sorted  and 
consorted'"' — very  ill.  How  Schaff,  the  modern  scholar,  got  jammed 
in  amongst  that  arraj^  is  the  odd  thing.  And  these  names  are 
followed  b}'  Bramhall,  and  preceded  b}'  Neale  and  Whiston.  If  the 
Archbishop  had  but  explained  to  liis  auditory  who  these  men  were  ! 
Now,  let  me  take  these  names  seriatim — 

(1.)  "Neale"  should  really  not  he  quoted  as '' Protestant  testi- 
mony," or  as  historical  testimony  of  any  kind.  He  was  one  of  the  ex- 
tremest  advocates  of  "  High  Catholic"  views,  and  of  the  Komanizing 
tendency.  As  such  lie  was  inhibited  by  his  bishop  for  fourteen  years. 
"His  sympathies,"  says  Professor  Bird,  his  most  appreciative 
critic,  "seem  rather  Roman  than  Protestant,  and  dubious  legends 
were  accepted  by  him  with  unquestioning  belief."  It  is  his 
hymnody  alone  for  which  he  should  be  quoted. 

(2.)  "  Whiston,"  Archbishop  Carr's  next  "Protestant  testimony,' 
broadens  the  smile,  I  take  for  granted  that  the  Archbishop  has 
not  read  the  life-story  of  the  "cranks  and  freaks  of  fancy  and  of 
religious  and  chronological  vagaries,"  through  which  this  eccentric 
and  lovable  individual  passed.  Born  1667,  died  1752,  he  placed 
the  Millenium  in  1776.  Amongst  other  achievements  he  made 
out  for  himself  an  Arian  "Primitive  New  Testament."  And 
both  it  and  his  views  on  Primitive  Christian  history  would  startle 
hugely  Archbishop  Carr,  and  be  consigned  to  an  awful  "  Index 
Expurgatorius."  Why  does  Archbishop  Can  quote  from  this  ex- 
tremely "Rationalist"  and  also  antiquated  writer,  as  representative 
Protestant  "proof?"  The  value  of  Whiston's  views  on  Primitive 
Church  history  may  be  judged  from  the  facts  tliat  his  scheme  of 
Old  and  New  Testament  chronology  is  now  found  quite  erroneous, 
and  that  he  declared  that  Arianism  was  the  original  and  dominant 
faith  in  the  first  two  centuries  ii\  Rome  and  all  over  Christendom, 
and  that  the  apocryphal  book  called  "  Apostolical  Constitutions" 
was  "the  most  sacred  of  the  canonical  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment." 

(3.)  Dr.  Carr's  next  "  Protestant  testimony"  is  Hammond.  When 
I  say  that  Hammond  (born  1(305,  died  1660),  a  personally  estimable 
gentleman,  Avas  the  favourite  chaplain  of  Charles  I.,  and  that  his 
writings  were  included  by  Pusey  and  his  compeers  in  the  Library  of 
Anglo- Catholic  Theology,  Oxford,  the  public  will  estimate  the  value 
of  his  opinion  on  a  question  of  modern  historical  criticism  such  as 
"DuZ  Feter  Visit  Rome  ?" 

(4.)  Usher  (1581 — 1656)  comes  next.     Of  him  I  shall  speak  last. 

(5. )  W^hitby  comes  next.  Our  wonder  grows.  What  a  man  he 
was  to  be  quoted  as  an  exponent  of  "  Protestant  testimony"  and 
"proof"  that  Peter  visited  Rome  !  "  Dr.  Daniel  WHiitby"  (1638— 
1726),  says  Professor  Christlieb,  who  made  a  special  study  of  the 
phases  of  Doubt  in  England,  "  is  best  remembered  for  his  striking 
theological  changes" — first,  extreme  Protestant,  and  having  his  book 
publicly  burnt  in  Charles  II. 's  time  at  Oxford;  then  making  humble 


APPENDIX.  185 

confession  of  his  "heresies"  to  the  wrathful  High-Church  Bishop  of 
Salisbury ;  then  writing  a  book  in  reconcilement  of  all  differences, 
and  commanding  all  non-conformists  to  return  into  the  Stuart 
High-Anglican  fold;  then  extreme  Arminian;  then  finally  retract- 
ing all  his  former  expositions,  and  ending  as  extreme  Arian, 
declaring  the  Trinitarian  dogma  to  be  a  tissue  of  absurdities — such 
was  Dr.  Daniel  Whitby. 

And,  of  course,  it  is  quite  appropriate  that  Archbishop  Carr 
should  quote  him  as  an  important  representative  of  "  Protestant 
testimony"  in  the  same  lecture  in  which  he  similarly  quotes  Renan. 
Onl}^,  what  is  the  value  of  it  all?  And  would  not  this  array  of 
names  produce  on  Dr.  Carr's  hearers  an  impression  quite  other  than 
a  frank  examination  of  facts  warrants?  They  would  think— surely 
these  names  are  of  weighty  authority  in  modern  scholarship  when 
the  Archbishop  so  impressively  quotes  them  as  Protestant  "testi- 
mony" and  "proof." 

(6)  Blondel  (1591-1655)  is  the  next  name.  And  we  have  to  go 
back  again  to  get  at  this  fine  French  Protestant  scholar,  who,  in  his 
masterly  writings  against  Rome,  mainly  took  his  master,  Calvin's 
position  on  this  quest-ion.  Here  is  a  quite  odd  thing  : — Dr.  Carr 
names  Blondel  as  affirming  Peter's  residence  in  Rome.  Schaff 
quotes  him  as  denying  it  !  The  notion  that  Peter  was  ever  founde^r 
of  the  Roman  Church,  or  bishop  of  Rome,  or  head  of  the  Apostles, 
he  regarded  as  contrary  to  Scripture  and  history. 

(7)  Schaff,  who  conies  next,  was  a,n  eminent  historical  scholar  of 
our  day,  quite  recently  deceased.  He  held  the  opinion  that  Peter 
had  visited  Rome  for  a  brief  time,  and  also  that  "no  personage  in 
all  history  has  l)een  so  much  magnified,  misrepresented,  and  mis- 
used for  doctrinal  and  hierarchical  ends,  as  the  plain  fisherman  of 
Galilee."  The  only  other  person  who  has,  to  anything  like  the 
same  degree,  "undergone  a  similar  transformation,"  according  to 
Schaff,  is  the  Virgin  Mary.  And  both  results,  he  says,  are  due  to 
the  same  cause,  viz.:  "the  work  of  fiction,"  which  "began  among 
the  Judaizing  heretical  sects  of  the  second  and  third  centuries,  but 
was  modified  and  carried  forward  by  the  Catholic,  especially  the 
Roman  Church,  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries."  As  no  hint  of 
anything  like  this  from  Schaff  is  to  be  found  in  Dr.  Carr's  lectures, 
I  set  this  little  bit  of  it  here.  How  Schaff  came  to  be  "slumped"  in 
the  midst  of  those  Laudian  and  other  ancient  clerical  persons  of 
past  centuries,  in  defiance  of  that  historical  proportion  he  himself  so 
dearly  valued,  is  "  unexplained."  The  notion  of  Peter's  "  Primacy," 
or  bishopric  at  Rome,  Schaff,  in  common  with  modern  scholars, 
rejects.  Let  me  give  another  bit  from  Schaff: — "The  weaknesses 
even  more  than  the  virtues  of  the  natural  Peter,  his  boldness  and 
presumption,  his  love  for  secular  glory,  his  use  of  the  sword,  his 
sleepiness  in  Gethsemane,  are  faithfully  reproduced  in  the  history 
of  the  Papacy ;  while  the  addresses  and  the  epistles  of  the  converted 
and  inspired  Peter  contain  the  most  emphatic  protest  against  the 
hierarchical  pretensions  and  worldly  vices  of  the  Papacy." 


186  APPENDIX. 

(8.)  Scaliger  {1540-1609),  a  man  of  vast  learning  in  bis  clay,  made 
out  a  scheme  of  sacred  Chronology,  which,  like  the  many  similar 
schemes  of  that  day,  is  now  quite  antiquated;  it  is  proven 
by  modern  research  to  be  erroneous. 

(9.)  Le  Clerc  (Clericus)  (1657-1736),  a  Frenchman  "of  wide 
learning  and  excessive  vanity,"  as  has  been  said  bj-  the  critics, 
swung  away  from  his  Huguenot  faith,  and  went  over  to  the 
Remonstrants  of  Holland.  He  is  the  editor  of  Hammond,  Charles 
I.'s  chaplain. 

(10.)  Then  comes  "Bramhall,  Archbishop  of  Armagh,''  frequently 
referred  to  hj  Archbishop  Carr,  and  who  averred  that  "St.  Peter 
had  a  fixed  chair  at  Antioch,  and  after  that  at  Rome."'  It  is  a  verj' 
awkward  testimony'  from  a  very  awkward  man.  For  it  puts 
Antioch  before  Rome.  Bvit  the  "testimony"  is  worth  just  nothing. 
I  am  sure  the  Archbishop's  audience  did  not  know  that  Bramhall 
(1593-1663)  was  one  of  the  most  extreme  of  the  Laudian  bishops  in 
the  Stuart  epoch,  and  was  called  "the  Laud  of  Ireland."  It  was 
BramhalPs  writings  that  deeply  influenced  Pusey  and  his  compeers 
in  "  their  Romeward  movement."  Bramhall,  also,  was  one  of  those 
impeached  by  England's  Parliament,  along  with  Strafford,  for  their 
scheme  to  crush  Protestant  England  by  the  Catholic  Irish  army,  in 
support  of  Charles  I.'s  Stuart  despotism.  He  is  not  a  very  valuable 
*'  Protestant  testimonj'." 

Then,  finally,  as  to  Archbishop  Usher  (1581-1656),  we  will  all 
gladly  agree  that  he  was  one  of  the  greatest  and  saintliest  Anglo- 
Irishmen.  He  was  a  great  scholar  in  his  day,  also  ;  and,  if  his  plan 
for  a  modified  Episcopacy  and  the  recognition  of  Presbyterian  ordi- 
nation, as  the  true  scriptural  mode,  with  bishops  as  superintendents 
of  districts,  had  been  carried,  there  would  have  been  an  end  soon  of 
the  cleavage  of  the  great  Protestant  Churches. 

But,  then,  Ussher  had  his  drawbacks.  His  great  scheme  of 
chronology  is  now  seen  to  be  impossible.  Besides,  why  should 
Archbishop  Carr,  of  all  men,  quote  Ussher  as  "proof."  Has  not 
he,  in  former  lectures,  wholly  rejected  Ussher's  views  as  to  the 
coming  of  Christianity  to  Britain  ?  Why,  then,  does  he  attach 
value  to  the  same  Ussher's  views  as  to  the  coming  of  Peter  to 
Rome  ?  I  am  sure  also  that  Archbishop  Carr  does  not  accept 
Ussher's  historical  view  that  the  expiry  of  "the  thousand  years," 
during  which  Satan  was  to  be  bound,  took  place  when  Hildebrand, 
Gregory  VII.,  became  Pope,  and  then  vSatan  came  forth  in  the 
Roman  Papacy  "  to  deceive  the  nations"  (Rev.  xx.,  7,  8).  I  do  not 
agree  with  Ussher's  historical  Auew  as  to  this.  But  it  is  just 
as  valuable  as  his  historical  view  regarding  a  probable  visit  paid  by 
Peter  to  Rome.  This  illustrates  a  great  mass  of  the  names  adduced 
by  Archbishop  Carr  as  "proof"  for  historical  matters. 


APPENDIX.  187 

II. 
ARCHBISHOP  CARR  OX  LEIBNITZ. 

Equally  irrelevant  are  the  quotations  from  (irotius  and  from 
Leibnitz.  The  one  was  born  1583,  died  164o  ;  the  other  was  born 
1646,  died  1716.  Archbishop  Carr  fills  six  pages  of  his  Lecture  I. 
with  long  passages  from  these  gentlemen.  I  will  take  briefly 
Leibnitz  as  an  illustration  of  his  method  of  giving  "  Protestant 
testimony."  Leibnitz,  "  for  keenness  of  intellect  and  vast  and 
varied  learning,  has  probably  no  equal  amongst  Protestant 
writers."  So  Archbishop  Carr  assures  his  people.  Then  two  pages 
and  a-half  are  occupied  with  passages  from  Leibnitz  in  sup- 
port of  what  Archbishop  Carr  calls  "  the  Sacrament  of  Orders''  and 
the  "Sovereign  Pontiff.'"'  Xow  Leibnitz  was  in  his  day  an  eminent 
name  in  the  history  of  philosophy  and  of  mathematical  discovery, 
not  an  eminent  name  as  a  student  of  history.  He  was  the  founder 
of  a  now  discarded  school  of  pre-Kantian  philosophy.  To  anyone 
who  knows  the  story  of  Lei'onitz's  life  it  must  seem  a  brilliant  joke 
to  quote  from  his  Systema  Thcologicum,  as  Archbishop  Carr  does,  as 
a  specimen  of  "Protestant  testimony." 

A  few  facts  will  be  sufficient.  Leibnitz  had  been  the  tutor  of 
the  powerful  Baron  von  Boineburg,  a  Protestant  pervert  to 
Romanism.  The  Thirty  Years'  War,  with  its  long  horrors,  had 
closed.  It  had  made  men  tired  with  the  ghastty  tragedy  of  Rome's 
conflict  with  Protestantism.  Bossuet  and  others,  on  behalf  of 
Rome,  made  conciliatory  overtures  for  reunion.  This  had  been 
already  x)owerfully  urged  by  the  Baron  von  Boineburg,  Leibnitz's 
patron.  It  was  taken  up  eagerly  by  Leopold,  the  Romanist  Emperor 
of  Germany,  and  was  urged  by  him  upon  the  attention  of  Duke 
Ernst  August  of  Hannover,  Leiljnitz's  then  master.  Leibnitz  acted 
as  negotiator  for  Duke  Ernst,  and  the  negotiations  made  a  pro- 
longed flutter  of  expectation  and  inter-communication  between 
Vienna,  Hannover,  and  Rome.  Leibnitz,  during  this  epoch,  drew 
up  his  Systema  Theologicum  as  a  tentative  treatise  of  suggested 
agreement  between  Roman  Catholicism  and  Protestantism.  It 
"made,"  as  Professor  Encken  says,  "the  genuineness  of  his 
Protestant  faith  suspected  by  many."  That  it  does  not  express  his 
own  opinions  seems  proven  l)y  the  fact  that  when  he  found  the 
authority  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  its  claim  to  be  an  Ecumenical 
council,  insisted  upon  by  the  Romanist  negotiators,  he  at  once 
cancelled  all  schemes  for  union,  and  absolutely  rejected  the  authority 
of  the  Romish  Council.  Now,  really,  doesn't  it  seem  too  absurd  of 
Archbishop  Carr  to  quote  from  the  Systema  Theologicum,  as  if  this 
were  a  striking  example  of  Protestant  "testimony,"  and  the  result 
of  Leibnitz's  profound  investigation  ! 


188  APPENDIX. 

III. 

CANON  BERRY^S  LETTER. 

The  following  letter  from  the  Rev.  Canon  Berry,  M.A,,  examming 
Chaplain  to  the  Bishop  of  Melbourne,  appeared  in  the  Argus  of  22nd 
May.  Its  expression  of  personal  regard  I  value.  But  it  has  a 
wider  significance.  Its  standpoint  as  to  the  facts  of  the  Earl}'' 
Christian  Church  indicates  the  true  historic  attitude  of  the  Reformed 
Church  of  l<3n  gland  in  her  best  and  purest  days.  It  has  also  been 
the  standpoint  of  lier  greatest  and  most  cultured  minds.  Canon 
Berry  is  none  the  less,  but  all  the  more,  a  loyal  son  of  the  Church 
of  England,  that,  as  a  scholar,  he  recognises  the  facts  of  history, 
and  also  the  common  fellowship  of  tlie  historic  Churches  of  God  in 
Christ.  His  words  are  emphasised  by  the  impress  of  his  own  per- 
sonal character.  The  only  possible  path  towards  ultimate  reunion 
of  Reformed  Christendom — "the  Eirenicon  between  the  Churches" — 
seems  indicated  in  the  spirit  and  attitude  of  Canon  Berry's  letter. 

"The  Sacerdotal  Order. 
''To  the  Editor  of  the  Argus. 

"Sir, — Will  you  allow  me  space  to  thank  Professor  Rentoul  for  his 
three*  masterly  lectures.  I  have  not  found  in  them  one  word  to 
which  a  moderate  Episcopalian  would  object.  And  on  the  subject 
of  'presbyter'  and  'bishop,'  they  are  in  entire  agreement  with  the 
remarks  of  Canon  .Spence  on  the  same  subject  in  his  treatise  on  the 
recently  recovered  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  the  earliest  Cliristian 
manual  extant.  How  Archbishop  Carr  can  be  satisfied  with  them 
is  mysterious,  but  that  is  not  my  aflfair.     I  aui,  &c., 

"D.  M.  BERRY." 

IV. 

ST.  AUGUSTINE  ON  PETER  AND  "THE  ROCK." 

Archbishop  Carr,  like  other  R.C.  advocates,  is  very  sensitive  over 
the  fact  that  Augustine,  tlie  greatest  "Doctor"  of  the  whole  Latin 
Church,  declares,  as  his  iinal  and  mature  judgment,  that  "it  was  not 
said  to  him  (Peter)  'Thou  art  I'etra'  (the  rock),  but  'Thou  art 
Petrus  (Peter).  The  rock,  on  the  contrary,  was  Christ  {Petra  autem 
erat  CJiristus."  Dr.  Carr  ventures  the  hazardous  assertion  that 
"St.  AiTgustine's  private  opinion  on  the  literal  meaning  of  the  text 
of  St.  ]Matthew  counts  for  very  little,  as  he  was  ignorant  of  Hebrew 
or  Syro-Chaldaic."  Now,  a  Roman  Catholic  must  be  hard  driven 
when  he  says  that.     Here  are  two  odd  things — 

1.  If  Aiigustine"s  "  j^rivate  judgment,"  which  was  his  true  and 
final  judgment,  "counts  for  very  little,"  why  has  Archbishop  Carr 

*  'yiy  third  lectin  e  had  just  been  reported. 


APPENDIX.  189 

cumbered  his  lectures  by  piling  together  such  an  indiscriminate 
mass  of  "private  judgments"  and  odds  and  ends  of  "testimony"  from 
all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men,  so-called  "Protestants,"  Romanists, 
and  what  not?  It  seems  to  come  to  this,  that  any  "judgment" 
is  good  if  it  can  be  made  to  look  favourable  for  Rome  ;  but  if 
it  be  unfavourable,  then,  though  it  came  from  Augustine,  or 
even  St.  Paul,  it  "counts  for  very  little."  This  fantastic  distinc- 
tion Rome  seeks  to  draw  between  "private  judgment"  and  other 
judgment  has  an  unreal  ring.  Had  Augustine  been  Pope,  then  this 
"  private  judgment"  would  have  been  an  "infallible  judgment."  It 
is  all  so  grotesque  ! 

2.  To  state  that  Augustine  said  so  because  "he  was  ignorant  of 
Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldaic,"  puts  Dr.  Carr  on  thin  ice.  And  the 
thin  ice  quite  gives  way  under  him  when  he  adds  that  "the 
language  in  which  our  Lord  spoke  and  St.  Matthew  wrote  his 
Gospel,"  was  (as  is  implied)  "Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldaic."  For  (1) 
some  of  the  very  greatest  of  modern  Hebraists  have  endorsed  Augus- 
tine's view,  which  was,  as  I  have  shown,  held  by  other  great 
Fathers.  (2)  That  our  Gospel  of  ]\Iatthew,  in  its  present  complete 
form,  was  not  written  in  "  Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldaic,"  though  a 
certain  "  source"  of  it  may  have  been  written  in  Aramaic,  is 
affirmed  in  opposition  to  Dr.  Carr  by  the  main  weight  of 
modern  critical,  and  linguistic  scholarship.  The  Douay  Bible, 
suo  more,  asserts  what  Dr.  Carr  says,  and  also  that  it  was  written 
"about  six  years  after  our  Lord's  ascension  1 "  (3)  The  assertion  as  to 
the  language  in  which  our  Lord  spoke  at  Cwsarea  Philippi 
is  hazardous  in  the  extreme.  It  may  have  been  Aramaic 
("Syro-Chaldaic"),  as  Romanist  and  some  Protestant  scholars 
hold.  Also,  it  may  very  well  not  have  been.  The  fact  is 
now  accepted  by  modern  scholars  that  the  people  of  Palestine— 
at  least  in  Galilee— in  Our  Lord's  day  were  billmiuaJ.  "The 
evidence  that  Greek  was  spoken  commonly  in  the  towns  bordering 
on  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  and  that  St.  Peter  must,  therefore,  have  been 
well  acquainted  with  it,  is  ample."*  The  Galileans  spoke  both 
Aramaic  and  Greek,  just  as,  along  the  borderland  of  Wales  and 
parts  of  Scotland  and  Ireland,  the  people  syjeak  both  Celtic 
and  English.  That  Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  spoke  Greek, 
as  well  as  Aramaic,  is  quite  certain. 

I  am  not  concerned  to  defend  Augustine's  linguistic  scholarship, 
which,  though  scant,  was  ^-astly  greater  than  that  of  most  of  the 
Popes.  Of  the  first  "infallible"  Pope,  viz.,  the  late  Pio 
Nono,  Dollinger,  tlie  most  learned  man  the  Roman  Church  pos- 
sessed, said  he  was  a  man  "  of  astonishing  ignorance." 

I  simply  wish  to  point  to  two  facts.  Dr.  Carr's  argument  is 
this  :  Christ  spoke  in  Hebrew  or  Syro-Chaldaic.  He  would  thus 
say  to  Simon:  "Thou  art  Kcpha,  and  on  tWi^  Keplm  I  will  build 
My  Church."    And  some  Protestant  scholars  have  said  so,  too.     (It 

*  Lightfoot,  Clem.,  vol.  ii.,  494. 


190  APPENDIX. 

could  not  be  Hebrew,  of  course,  for  Hebrew  was  then  a  dead 
language.  In  Hebrew,  also,  the  form  Kepha  does  not  occur.  Keph 
would  be  the  Hebrew,  but  it  is  found  only  in  the  plural.  The  word 
for  Rock — Isa.  xxviii. — is  quite  different  in  HeV^rew. ) 

Now,  the  assertion  that  our  Lord  said  Kepha,  where  Matthew 
says  Petros,  is  perilous  at  best,  for  Matthew's  Greek  is  the  only 
shape  in  which  the  sentence  is  preserved ;  and  it  indicates  the  sense 
in  which  the  earl}"  Apostles  understood  it.  The  name,  when  applied 
to  Simon,  is  always  used  in  a  Graecised  form,  Cephas,  or  Petros  — 
man  of  stone,  or  man  of  rock  ;  or,  shall  we  call  it  by  his  own 
translation,  "living  stone?" 

Now,  when  Augustine's  ignorance  is  insisted  on,  let  us  hear  what 
one  of  the  greatest  of  all  Hel^raists  says — viz. ,  the  elder  Lightfoot : 
— "  '  Thou  art  Peter,  &c.'  There  is  nothing  either  in  the  dialect  of 
the  nation,  or,  in  reason,  forbids  us  to  think  that  our  Saviour  used 
this  very  same  (Ireek  word,  since  such  Graecisings  were  not  unusual 
in  that  nation. " 

Then  he  goes  on  to  say  that  if,  to  avoid  controversy,  it  be 
"granted  that  He  used  the  Syriac  woid,  yet  I  denj'  that  He  used 
that  ver}"  word  5^i;>^  (Kepha),  but  he  pronounced  it /v^^j/ias,  after  the 

Greek  manner  ;  or  He  spoke  it  '»i^>:''^  [Kephai)  in  the  adjective  sense, 
according  to  the  Syriac  formation."  That  is  said  by  the  great 
Cambridge  scholar,  whom  Schaff  calls  "  one  of  the  greatest  Hebrew 
scholars  in  history,"  who  "  enjoys  to-day  a  universal  fame,"  with 
learning  and  insight  such  as  "to  make  his  books  imperishable." 
Now  take  the  (probably)  greatest  Hebraist  of  our  own  day — 
Delitzsch.  It  is  significant  that  in  his  translation  of  the  New 
Testament  into  Hebrew  he  does  not  translate  "  Peter"  and  "  Rock" 
by  the  same  word  at  all,  but  "  Graecises,"  just  as  Lightfoot  had 
said  Christ  did.  He  translates  : — "  And  I  say  unto  thee  that  thou  art 
[niTiyhuT]  b))^  DIYiDQ  {Petros  we'al  has-SeZa'  hazzeh)]  Peter,  and  upon 
the  Pock,  this  (Rock)  ivill  I  build  my  Assembly.''  Seeing,  then,  that 
the  greatest  Shemitic  scholar  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  the, 
probably,  greatest  of  the  nineteenth  have  translated  as  Augustine 
and  some  of  the  greatest  Fathers  did,  it  will  scarcelj*  do  to  say  that 
the  interpretation  arises  from  ignorance  of  Hebrew, 


V. 

BINDING  AND  LOOSING. 

When  Archbishop  Carr  called  Meyer  "  probably  the  most  eminent 
New  Testament  scholar"  and  quoted  a  dislocated  fragment  of  him  in 
favour  of  the  reference  of  the  word  "  rock"  to  Peter,  might  he  not 
have  kindly  hinted  that  Mej^er  shows,  quoting  the  elder  Lightfoot, 
that  "to  bind  and  to  loose  are  to  be  traced  to  the  iise  so  current 
among  the  Jews  of  asar  and  hithir  in  the  sense  of  to  forbid  and 
to  allow."     Also,  Meyer  shows  that  the  "  idea  of  forgiving  sins  is  a 


APPENDIX.  191 

pure  importation."  I  have  shoAvn  that  Tertullian,  very  early,  says 
the  same.  Meyer  also  "  testifies''  in  the  strongest  "way  against  the 
Romish  notion  of  Peter's  primac}'.  Dr.  Carr  quotes  the  context  of 
that.  But  he  makes  no  reference  to  that.  "It  is  ever  thus!"' 
Meyer  is  good,  also,  on  "the  evasive  interpretation  of  Catholic 
expositors"  regarding  Peter  and  "  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan!'' 
The  elder  Lightfoot,  as  Morison  also  reminds  us,  had  proven 
by  very  many  examples  that  to  "  bind  and  to  loose"  -was 
simply  a  term  amongst  the  Jews  for  forhiddiny  and  permitting. 
Thus  Rabbi  Meir  "  loosed,"  i.e.,  permitted  the  mixing  of  wine 
and  water  on  the  Sabbath  to  a  sick  man.  But  he  "bound" 
it  (i.e.),  forbade  it  to  all  others.  In  the  discipline  necessary  to 
guide  Christ's  new  society,  Peter  and  the  Apostles  would,  under 
the  spiritual  leading  of  the  Father  in  Heaven,  have  wisdom  and 
courage  to  distinguish  what  should  be  forbidden  and  what  per- 
mitted. And  their  wise  guidance  and  rule  of  Christ's  congregation 
would  be  a  transcript  on  the  Earth  of  God's  gracious  and  righteous 
rule  in  the  Heaven.  This  is  the  simple  meaning.  The  history  of 
the  Early  Church  shows  that  this  was  true.  Peter,  John,  and  the 
rest,  guided  and  shepherded  the  Church  well.  If  the  Church  is  a 
societ}'  at  all,  it  must  have  the  power  of  discipline  and  self-govern- 
ment. 


VI. 
"GATES  OF  HADES." 

The  meaning  is  vividly  brought  out  in  King  Hezekiah's  Song  of 
Thanksgiving — "When  he  had  been  sick  unto  death,  and  was  re- 
covered of  his  sickness." — (Isa.,  xxxviii.,  1,  9-10.)  Looking  back  at 
the  "sickness"  out  of  which  he  had  just  arisen  into  new  hope  (the 
power  shattered,  the  strengtli  getting  spent,  as  when  a  "  house  is 
broken  up,''  or  as  when  the  threads  of  the  warp  in  the  loom  get 
shorter,  and  finallj-  they  are  broken  oft",  and  the  web  is  rolled  up 
and  put  awa}'  in  darkness),  the  King  pictures  his  own  sad 
thinkings  when  death  and  the  breaking  up  of  Earth's  Kingdom 
stared  him  in  the  face  : — "  I  said — '  In  the  noontide  of  my  days  I 
must  depart  into  the  Gates  of  Hades. ^  *' 

No  forces  of  death  or  decay  or  ruin,  Christ  means — no  "  Gates  of 
Hades"— shall  prevail  against  the  spiritual  Messiah  Kingdom 
built  upon  the  Rock. 

VII. 

"PILLAR"  AND  "LIVING  STONES." 

I  have  often  thought  that  St.  Paul,  in  calling  (not  without  a. 
slight  touch  of  himiour)  "James,  Cephas,  and  John,"  those  "who 
are  reputed  to  be  pillars"  supporting  the  edifice  of  the  Jewish 


192  APPENDIX. 

Christian  Church,  and  St.  Peter,  in  calling  all  l)elievers  "living 
stones''  built  upon  the  Rock  laid  in  Zion,  are  the  l:)est  interpreters 
of  Matthew  xvi.,  IS.  Peter  was  certainly  a  strong  buttress  and 
stay  (in  the  early  years  he  was  eminently  a  buttress)  of  the  young 
Christian  Society,  Christ's  Kingdom  in  the  world.  ]5y-and-bye,  he 
and  Paul  call  every  believer  a  "living  stone,"  forming  part  of  the 
building's  strength.  St.  Paul  calls  ciU  heUeiK'vs  in  their  unity  "  the 
pillar  and  ground  of  the  Truth."  So  freely  is  this  metaphor  of 
Rock,' and  stone,  and  pillar  used,  but  always  with  the  same  central 
thought,  viz.,  that  Christ  is  foundation  and  basis  of  all,  and  that  all 
roho  grasp  Him,  in  the  great  truth  and  faith  ivhich  Peter  so  clearly 
confessed,  become  Joined  to  Him,  and  in  Him  are  each  a  living  element 
and  supporting  "  slone^'  in  His  Kingdom's  living  structure  ! 

Alford.  Bruce  {Training  of  the  Twelve,  cap,  xi. ),  and  Briggs 
(MessiaJi  of  the  Apostles,  1895)  each  in  his  special  way  put  this 
strikingly,  Plumptre  and  Morison  put  the  argument  that  by  the 
Petl'A  is  meant  Christ  only,  ver^^  powerfully. 

Lightfoot  shows  both  the  fact  and  the  brevity  of  Peter's 
"primacy  of  historical  inauguration."  He,  as  the  most  forceful 
member  of  the  early  band,  guided,  along  with  the  other  Apostles,  the 
Church's  first  steps.  In  the  faith  of  his  confession  of  Clirist  he,  but 
never  acting  alone,  opens  the  Church's  door  to  Jew,  and  then 
partially  to  Centile.  Then  his  primacij  is  completed.  "  He  vanishes 
suddenly  out  of  sight."  Paul,  the  wise  master-builder,  takes  his 
])lace.  "Peter  retains  the  first  place  as  Missionary  Evangelist  to 
the  Hebrew  Cliristians,  but  nothing  more." — Lightfoot,  *S',  Clem., 
vol,  ii,,  487-490, 


VIII, 
CANON  POTTER'S  ERROR  AS  TO  KEPHA. 

I  have  spoken  elsewhere  of  the  ability  displayed  by  Canon  Potter 
in  a  Lecture  on  the  Roman  Primacy,  in  his  treatment  of  Our 
Lord's  Words  to  Simon  (Matt,  xvi.,  IS).  I  hinted,  hoAvever, 
that  in  some  respects  there  was  a  serious  drawback.  I  feel  it 
necessary  to  point  out  a  remaikable  eiror  into  which  Canon 
Potter  has  fallen.  In  this  respect  he  is,  oddly  enough,  quite  too 
"ultra-Protestant,"  and  I  greatly  fear  that,  in  the  next  controversial 
onset,  his  statement  will  be  taken  advantage  of,  as  if  it  were  re- 
presentative of  Protestant  scholarship  on  this  question.  He  says 
{Argus,  13th  April)  : — 

"Further,  there  was  the  authority  of  Syrian  scliolars  that  the 
words  'Peter-  and  Rock'  in  the  Syrian  language,  although  spelt 
alike,  were  not  the  same  in  gender.  One  took  the  masculine 
article  and  the  other  the  feminine ;  and  in  the  most  ancient  Syrian 
version  of  the  Greek  St,  Matthew,  this  distinction  was  actually 
made. " 


APPENDIX.  193 

This  statement  discloses  such  a  non-acquaintance  with  the  sim- 
plest rndiments  of  Shemitic  languages  and  of  the  grammar  of  Syriac 
and  Biblical  "Chaldee,"  with  its  law  of  the  " definite"  or  "emphatic 
state"  of  the  noun,  that  I  wish  to  make  no  connnents  of  my  own 
upon  it. 

It  is,  altogether,  so  astonishing  a  statement  that  I  ha\'e  asked 
Professor  Harper,  whose  words  as  a  Shemitic  scliolar  will  carry 
authoritative  weight,  and  who  lias  had  no  part  in  tliis  controversy, 
to  write  a  brief  sentence  regarding  it.     Professor  Harper  says : — 

"There  is  no  article,  strictly  speaking,  in  Syriac.  The  .status 
emphaticus  takes  its  place,  and  is  the  same  for  both  genders.  In 
Matt,  xvi.,  IS,  in  the  Syriac  Version,  the  word  in  both  chiuses  is 
i^Q''D  (Kiplio),  and  there  is  no  distinction  between  them  in  any 
respect.  In  the  second  occurrence  of  the  word  in  this  passage  [on 
this  Rock]  the  demonstrative  is  feminine,  because  that  is  the 
ordinar}'  gender  of  the  word  '  rock'  in  Syriac. " 

If  our  Lord  spoke  in  Aramaic  it  would  be  the  South-western, 
or  Syro-Chaldaic,  in  which  the  word  would  be  masculine  in 
both  clauses,  unless  He  "Graecicised,"  as  the  elder  Lightfoot  says. 
We  have  no  need  of  an}-  heroic  violence  done  to  linguistic  laws. 
Notice  with  what  strength  and  care  the  elder  Lightfoot  puts 
this  matter.  There  is  no  reason  forbidding  us  to  think  that  our 
Lord  used  this  very  same  Greek  word  Petros  ;  and  if  he  used  a 
Syriac  word,  it  would  be  not  Kepha,  but  the  adjective  form 
Kephai,  "according  to  the  Syriac  formation"— "  rock-like." 
The  Syriac  Version  is  simply  the  translation  of  a  later  century, 
and  throws  no  real  light  either  way  upon  the  subject.  The 
one  fact  that  stands  out  certain  is  that  in  Matthew's  Greek 
the  words  Petros  and  Petra  are  quite  distinct,  and  that  the  after 
language  of  the  Apostles  and  of  the  New  Testament  never  speaks 
of  Peter  as  the  Rock,  but  only  as  a  "living  stone,"  or  "a  pillar" 
in  connnon  with  man}^  other  "pillars"'  or  stones — all  Christians,  or 
all  Apostles. 

I  regret,  also,  that  Canon  Potter,  in  the  interests  this  time  of 
his  "  Anglo-Catholicism,"  should  alhrm  the  antiquated  date  107  for 
Ignatius, and  the  fantastic  tlieory  that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  "suc- 
cessors" of  the  Apostles,  and  the  "continuers"  of  a  line  of  bishops. 
Both  these  theories  are  due  to  "stress  of  weather."  They  are 
shown  to  be  impossible  by  modern  scholars  such  as  Lightfoot, 
Harnack,  and  Sanday. 

IX. 

PETER  AND  "THE  CLEMENTINE  ROMANCE." 

It  seems  to  me  an  exaggeration  on  Renan's  part  to  ascribe  the 
fiction  of  Peter's  "  episcopate"  in  Rome  ichollij  to  the  Clementine 
legend.     I  have  expressed  my  conviction  that  the  fiction  was  the 


194  APPENDIX. 

result  of  two  streams  of  growing  legend.  The  first  was  the  imagina- 
tion of  the  Early  Christian  Churches  working  upon  St.  Paul's  words 
to  the  GoriiitJnans,  about  the  unity  of  himself  with  Cephas  and 
Apollos.  Then,  later,  the  mention  by  Clement  of  Rome  (in  his 
letter  to  the  Corinthians)  of  the  two  Chief  Apostles'  names  as  united 
in  constancy  and  siiflfering  gave  further  impulse.  It  is  significant 
that  it  is  in  Corinth  and  in  Rome  that  this  notion  of  Paul  and  Peter 
as  co-founders  first  appears.  Dionj^sius  of  Corinth  first  speaks  it, 
and  he  says  Peter  and  Paul  were  co-founders  in  Corinth,  and  then 
proceeded  together  as  co-founders  into  Italy.  Here  are  all  the 
marks  of  genuine  imaginative  legend,  through  the  misconception  of 
Paul's  and  Clement's  words. 

Then,  secondly,  in  connection  with  Clement's  name  (through 
the  similar  misconception  that  he  was  Clement  the  highborn 
martyr*),  the  Judaeo-Christians  had  put  forth  their  legend  of 
"Peter's  Journeys"  and  "Preaching."  The  two  streams  blended 
together.  "The  religious  romance,"  as  Lightfoot  well  says  {St.  Paul 
and  The  Three,  (ral. ,  p.  367),  "seems  to  have  been  a  favourite  style  of 
composition  with  the  Essene  Ebionites  ;  and  in  the  lack  of  authentic 
information  relating  to  the  Apostles,  Catholic  writers  eagerly  and 
unsuspiciously  gathered  incidents  from  writings  of  which  they  re- 
pudiated the  doctrines."     (See  also  Bright,  Roman  See.) 

Now,  Dr.  Carr  is  very  angry  at  Dr.  Salmon,  of  Dublin, 
who  says  that  the  real  inventor  of  the  story  of  Peter's  Roman 
episcopate  was  an  editor  of  the  Clementine  Romance.  But  Dr. 
Salmon  is  not  the  only  "  sinner"  in  this  respect.  Our  Bishop  Moor- 
house,  of  Manchester,  has  been  saying  that  the  ' '  inclusion  of  Peter 
in  the  episcopal  list"  makes  "  such  a  divergence  from  the  older 
Roman  tradition  as  '  the  Clementine  fiction'  alone  can  account 
for."  Dr.  Carr  has  called  this  "a  modern  and  widely-accepted 
Anglican  theory."  He  spends  over  seven  pages  on  it  (pp.  152-159). 
His  only  substantial  attempt  at  answer  is  two  quotations  from 
Harnack  (Eng.  trans,  of  his  Hist,  of  Dogma,  p.  311).  One  of 
Harnack's  long  footnotes  is  transferred  bodily  into  Dr.  Carr's 
pages ;  it  looks  impressive  and  scholarly  there.  Unlike  "Bramhall," 
"Whiston,"  &c. ,  it  is  modern.  It  is  also  irrelevant.  For  what 
Harnack  is  speaking  of  is  the  ^'■Recognitions  and  Homilies  in  the 
form  in  which  loe  have  them.''^  It  is  this  latest  and  now  ^' 7-edacted" 
form  of  them  he  is  discussing  as  "  the  pseudo  Clementine 
writings. "  If  some  of  these  writings  could  be  shown  to  be,  in  their 
latest  form,  a  little  later  than  the  second  century  (as  I  think  parts 
of  them  certainly  are),  it  would  not  improve  the  case  for  Dr.  Carr, 
for  these  writings  rest  upon  earlier  and  undeniably  second  century 
apocryphal  loriting,^  ivhicli  they  quote  and  loork  up  into  new  shapes. 

It  is  not  an  Anglican  theory,  merely,  Dr.  Carr  has  to  contend 
with.  It  is  the  conviction  held  substantially,  in  one  shape  or  other, 
by  the  foremost  scholars  of  our  time.     Thus,  Lipsius  holds  that  to 

*  cf.  Lii^htfoot. 


APPENDIX.  195 

the  Peter  legend,  embedded  in  the  oldest  form  of  these  spurious 
"Clementines,"  was  due  not  only  the  fiction  of  Peter's  bishopric, 
l)ut  also  the  other  fiction  of  his  visit  to  Rome.  Hilgenfeld,  in  his 
great  work,  held  that  these  writings  rest  on  a  Jewish-Christian 
spurious  writing,  "the  Preaching  of  Peter,"  which  originated  in 
Rome.  Ulhorn,  who  has  probably  made  the  profoundest  investiga- 
tion, and  who,  like  Lightfoot,  puts  the  Homilies  as  the  earliest  of 
these  writings  now  extant,  sajs  they  all  go  ])ack  to  sonie  old  writing 
"  not  now  extant."  Renan  says — "A  vast  Ebionite  legend  arose  in 
Rome."  He  points  back  to  its  original  shape.  " Under  the  name 
of  'the  Preaching  (Kerugma)  or  the  Journeys  of  Peter,'  it  took  a 
fixed  shape  about  the  year  130  a.d."  Several  times  he  explains  this 
legend  and  its  conflict  of  Peter  against  Paul,  as  Simon  Magus,  being 
gradualh^  toned  down  into  a  fiction  of  Peter  and  Paul  together 
resisting  Simon  Magus,  and  founding  together  the  Church  in  Rome. 
In  Harnack's  note  3,  just  above  the  long  note  Dr.  Carr  quotes,  he 
distinctly  says — "The  theory  of  the  genesis,  contents,  and  aim  of  the 
pseudo-Clementine  writings,  unfolded  by  Renan,  is  essentially 
identical  with  that  of  German  scholars. "  Just  two  pages  later  he 
says — "It  cannot  be  made  out  with  certainty  liotv  far  hack  the  first 
sources  of  the  pseudo-Clementines  date,  or  what  their  original  form 
and  tendency  were.'  And  just  below  he  says — "/rfo  notmean  to  deny 
that  the  contents  of  the  Jewish-Christian  histories  of  the  Apostles 
contributed  materiaUt/  to  the  for)  nation  of  the  ecclesiastical  legends  about 
Peter.''^  (Harnack  Hist,  of  Dogma,  p.  315).  Further  back  (p.  308)  he 
had  told  us  that  the  "journeys  of  Peter,"  which  got  connected  with 
the  name  of  Clement  and  the  '^' Ascents  of  James,"  and  other  early 
apocryphal  writings  were  dear  to  the  extreme  Judieo-Christian  sects. 
In  manj'  of  his  writings  he  tells  us  that  the  Clementine  writings,  in 
their  present  form,  are  only  "redactions"  of  earlier  spurious 
writmgs.  And,  in  his  special  treatment  of  Peter,  he  distinctly  says 
of  the  early  apocryphal  writings — "The  Preaching  of  Peter,"  and 
the  "  Journej'S  of  Peter," — that  ^'Both  works  underlie  the  Clementine 
Recognitions  and  Homilies."  In  view  of  all  these  facts,  Dr.  Carr's 
assertion  that  all  this  is  an  "Anglican  theory,"  and  his  boulder  of 
a  big  footnote  from  Harnack  about  the  latest  form  of  the  pseudo- 
Clementine  writings,"  seem  to  have  lost  their  proper  bearings. 

Again  and  again  Lightfoot,  in  various  works,  has  dated  the 
romance  in  the  middle  of  the  second  century  or  soon  after.  Thus 
he  jDlaces  the  writing  "about  the  middle  of  the  second  century" 
{St.  Clem.  vol.  i.,  p.  100);  and,  again,  he  tells  us  that  the  Clemen- 
tine romance  "must  have  been  written  soon  after  the  middle  of  the 
second  century"  (p.  55).  Again,  speaking  of  what  is,  in  its  present 
form,  the  latest  portion  of  the  romance,  viz.,  the  letter  to  James  of 
Jerusalem  as  head  of  all  the  Apostles,  giving  an  account  of  Peter's 
appointing  Clement  as  Peter's  own  successor  in  Rome,  Lightfoot 
says  its  date  can  hardly  be  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  second 
century,  or  much  later  than  the  beginning  of  the  third. 

That  fragment  of  those  spurious  writings,  and  the  whole  vast 


196  APPENDIX. 

Clementine  Eomaiice,  have  pla^'ed  a  tragic  part  in  the  evolution  of 
the  Papacy.  The  early  shape  of  it  gave  impetus  to,  if  it  did  not 
wholly  create,  the  fiction  that  Peter  had  been  bishop  of  Rome.  In 
a  later  age,  the  Clementine  Epistle  to  James,  as  Lightfoot  says, 
was  "made  the  starting  point  of  the  most  momentous  and  gigantic 
of  mediaeval  forgeries,  the  Isidorian  Decretals."  See,  on  this, 
Lightfoot,  St.  Clem.,  vol.  i.,  pp.  414-419.) 

But,  says  Dr.  Carr,  following  Mr.  Rivington,  the  Clementine 
Romance  "had  an  Eastern  and  not  a  Roman  origin."  Now,  this 
is  just  one  of  the  points  on  which  great  scholars  have  not,  as  yet, 
decided.  But,  suppose  it  had  an  Eastern  origin.  Does  that 
prevent  Rome  from  having  seized  upon  it  and  adopted  it?  It  is 
an  odd  argument  for  a  Roman  Catholic.  Had  not  Christianity 
itself     ' '  an     Eastern     origin  ? "  Yet     Romanists    claim     that 

Rome  appropriated  Christianity  and  its  "rock"  and  "keys" 
and  its  supremacy  as  eai'ly  as  the  year  39  or  42.  Had  not  Peter  an 
' '  Eastern  origin  ? "  Yet  Rome  appropriated  Peter.  Is  not  it  a 
fact  that  nearly  every  special  Roman  Catholic  feature  "had  an 
Eastern  origin" — "image- worship,"  "mariolatr}',"  "purgatory," 
"dogma,"  and  all  the  rest  of  it?  Then  Rome  seized  upon  it,  shaped 
it  to  her  own  ends,  adapted  it  to  Rome,  made  it  imperious  and 
imperative. 

Take  what  Dr.  Carr  calls  the  earliest  list  of  the  ' '  bishops  of 
Rome" — the  Irenaean  list,  which  he  and  others  assert,  rests  on  an 
earlier  list  made  bj^  St.  Hegesippus  after  the  middle  of  the  second 
century.  Dr.  Carr  is  even  very  angry  at  Dr.  Salmon  for  ignoring 
"  the  list  of  St.  Hegesippus,"  though  it  is  no  longer  extant.  Now, 
2cho  teas  St.  Hegesippus  ?  Had  not  he  "an  Eastern  origin?"  Yet 
Rome  and  all  Roman  Catholicism  have  been  hanging  on  to  his 
Eastern  tails  (tales)  from  a  very  early  time.  Hegesippus,  Lightfoot 
thinks,  was  a  Jewish  Christian  ;  and  he  certainly  came  from  the 
East  to  Rome.  You  will  get  the  most  favourable  picture  of  him  in 
Lightfoot  {Gal.  and  elsewhere).  Hegesippus  tells  about  the 
multitudinous  heresies — "  the  league  of  godless  error" — which  had 
worked  underground  and  then  broke  out  at  the  close  of  the  first 
century.  Apocryphal  writings,  claiming  Apostles'  names,  abounded. 
It  is,  indeed,  putting  it  mildly  for  Lightfoot  to  say  that  Hegesippus 
' '  has  interwoven  many  fabulous  details. "  Alas  !  he  has, 
cred'aloiTsly,  swallowed  the  very  writings  which  make  part 
of  "the  Clementine  Romance,"  e.g.,  "the  Ascent  of  J  nines. ''^ 
Thus  he  tells  that  James  at  Jerusalem  ' '  never  used  the 
bath;"  also  that  he  alone  was  allowed  to  enter  into  the  hoi}'  place 
of  the  Temple  ;  also  that  his  knees,  from  constant  kneeling  in 
prayer  on  the  Temple  floor,  got  horny,  like  a  camel's  knees,  and  so 
forth,  and  so  forward  !  Truly  an  appropriate  man  to  draw  up  a 
list  of  early  bishops  of  Rome,  or  of  the  "  Anglo-Catholic"  Apostolic 
succession  !  But  does  not  Archbishop  Carr  know  that  there  is  the 
gravest  doubt  whether  St.  Hegesippus  ever  did  draw  up  any  such 
list,  and  whether  the  Greek  means  that  ?    And,  if  he  did,  I  just 


APPENDIX.  197 

want  to  say  that  a  list  of  so-called  "  l>ishops-'  drawn  up  by  a  Father 
like  St.  Hegesippus  or  .St.  Ireuaeus  is  worth  just  as  much  as  the 
accounts  St.  Hegesippus  gives  of  the  camel-like  knees  of  "James 
the  Just,"  or  the  statement  Irenaeus  gives  of  our  Lord's  ministry 
lasting  for  nearly  twenty  years,  and  of  His  living  till  He  was 
an  old  man. 

This  fact  stares  us  in  the  face.  In  the  close  of  the  second 
century  there  is  a  Pauline  tradition  in  Rome  which  says  that  Linus 
was  the  first  ^  preshyter-bishop.  There  is  *ilso  another  Pctrine 
tradition,  at  the  same  time,  which  affirms  that  Clement  was  first 
presbyter-bishop.  And  Irenaeus  joins  the  two  together,  and  says 
Linus  was  first  bishop  and  Clement  third  bishop,  with  another 
unfortunate  bishop  sandwiched  between,  who  gets  sadly  tossed 
about  in  the  after  lists,  and  finally  gets  fixed  down  as  two  bishops 
— one  called  Cletus,  and  another  Anacletus.  No  wonder  these 
things  perplexed  poor  Paifinus,  Epiphanius,  and  Augustine  in  ages 
when  they  came  to  believe  an  "  Episcopal  succession"  to  be  neces- 
sary to  the  Church. 


X. 
"THE  FAMOUS  PASSAGE  IN  IRENAEUS." 

(See  Lecture  IV. ) 

Haer.,  iii. ,  3,  2. 

There  are  only  three  questions  of  any  importance  to  be  asked 
about  this  passage — 1.  To  what  does  the  word  ^'principalitas" 
("eminence"  or  "pre-eminence")  refer?  Is  it  to  the  Citt/  of  Rome 
or  to  the  Church  in  Rome  ?  I  myself  do  not  care  to  which  it  refers. 
It  is  plain  that  the  City  of  Rome,  the  Emperor's  capital,  was  the 
wealthy  and  eminent  city.  It  is  plain  also  that  the  Christian  com- 
miuiity  in  that  city,  in  the  close  of  the  second  century,  was  the 
most  influential  and  wealtlij'  Clnistiaii  Church.  But  I  want  simply 
to  point  out  that  some  of  the  greatest  of  recent  scholars  who 
have  studied  this  matter  most  carefully  hold  that  what  is  meant 
must  be  the  City  of  Rome  itself.  So  Prof.  Salmon,  Fr.  Puller,  and 
Bishop  Coxe,  whose  special  labours  on  Irenaeus  make  his  opinion 
of  great  value.  To  the  honour  of  the  R.C.  scholars  (Berington  aiid 
Kirk),  their  translation  is  so  loyal  to  the  Latin  text — "  on  account  of 
more  potent  principalitij'' — that  it  may  mean  either  the  City  of 
Rome  or  the  Church  there.  In  Cyprian  (Ep.  48)  there  seems 
striking  corroboration  of  the  view  that  the  eminence  of  the 
City  is  referred  to.  He  writes  : — "  Since  Rome,  from  her  greatness, 
plamly  ought  to  take  precedence  of  Carthage,  he  (Novatus)  there 
committed  still  greater  and  graver  crimes. "  It  is  the  greatness  of 
the  City  that  gives  the  Roman  Church  its  importance. 


198  APPENDIX. 

Some  other  scholars,  e.g.,  Wordsworth,  take  the  term  as  referring 
to  the  Church  in  Rome.  In  either  case  it  has  not  the  slightest  re- 
ference to  Auj  "primacy"  or  control  over  other  Churches. 

(2.)  The  only  other  questions  are  : — (2)  What  is  meant  by  "  those 
who  Sive  from  every  side  ?" 

(3. )  And  what  is  meant  by  resorting  to  the  Roman  Church  ? 
These  questions  recent  scholarship  has  settled,  by  pointing  out  the 
exactly  parallel  passage  in  the  Antiochian  canons  which  are  deemed 
to  be  a  quotation  from  this  passage  of  Irenaeus  (Coxe  Elucidat. ; 
Fath.  i.,  p.  460)  |cf.  Bright,  Rom.  See,  p.  33J  : — "Because  that  in 
the  metropolis  there  resort  together  (lit.  run  together,  or  come 
together  crvuTpex^iv)  from  every  side,  all  those  having  business  to 
transact."  The  Greek  of  "  from  every  side"  is  iravraxodev  (panta- 
chothen)  =  Latin  undique,  the  very  word  used  here.  And  Liddell  and 
Scott  translate  this  Greek  word  as  follows  : — "From  all  places,  from 
all  quarters,  from  every  side,  Latin  undique.'"  Nay  more  (to  com- 
plete the  proof)  fortunately  a  fragment  of  the  Greek  of  Irenaeus  is 
extant  in  Hk.  iii. ,  11,  8,  and  there  the  word  is  this  same  word,  viz. — 
from  all  quarters.'  Cf.  Coxe,  Iren. ,  Haer.,  iii.,  3,  2.  [Bright,  in  his 
recently-published  work,  confirms  this — "  The  word  undique  must 
be  noted  ;  it  is  not  uhique,  and  iravTaxodeu  (from  all  sides)  refers  to 
the  idea  of  winds  blowing /ro»i  all  quarters.''''] 

The  meaning,  then,  of  this  passage,  so  tortured  by  Roman 
Catholic  advocates,  seems  simple.  Irenaeus,  writing  in  the  West 
in  defence  of  the  Christian  faith  against  the  leaders  of  "  heresies," 
shows  that  it  is  the  same  faith  and  the  same  Lord  Jesus  in  all  the 
Churches.  It  would  be  "  very  tedious,"  he  saj's,  to  go  over  all  the 
Churches,  so  as  to  show  that  in  each  the  same  faith  has  been 
handed  down.  So  it  is  enough  to  take  the  Church  in  Rome,  for  it 
was  known  everywhere.  For  to  it,  as  Rome  was  the  centre  of  all 
trade,  Christians  had  to  come  from  all  sides.  And,  by  these — 
"the  faithful  from  all  quarters" — the  "Apostolical  tradition" 
common  to  all  the  Churches  had  been  preserved. 

[Bright  puts  it  clearly  thus: — "It  is  inevitable,  St.  Irenaeus 
means,  that  Christians  from  all  other  parts  of  the  Empire  should, 
from  time  to  time  for  various  reasons,  visit  the  Church  in  the  great 
centre  of  the  Empire.  This  is  a  process  which  is  always  going  on — 
which  cannot  but  go  on." — Roman  See,  p.  32-3.] 

Archbishop  Carr  may  plead  that  Roberts  and  Rambaut  have 
translated  as  he  does  in  his  latest,  making  convenire  ad  mean 
^' agree  with,"  and  undique  mean  '^  every ivhere."  But,  then,  those 
translators  confess  distinctly  that  they  "  are  far  from  sure  that  the 
rendering  given  above  [by  them]  is  correct,"  and  Coxe  and  every 
other  later  editor  of  standing  have  shown  that  it  is  incorrect. 


APPENDIX.  199 

XI. 

THE  DOUAY  CHRONOLOGY  AND  PETER. 

It  is  remarkable  tliat  in  the  chronology  attached  to  the  Douay 
version  not  a  word  is  said  about  Peter  having  visited  Roine  until 
the  year  68,  after  PauVw  first  Roman  imprisonment.  The  startling 
thing  is  that  not  until  the  very  last  year  of  Peter's  life  (which  is  set 
as  68)  is  any  hint  given  of  Peter  having  gone  to  Rome.  Also,  his 
"  Second  Epistle, "'according  to  this  Chronological  Index,  is  set  down 
prior  to  the  statement  that  he  came  to  Rome.  His  First  Epistle  is 
set  down  in  the  year  48,  but  has  no  indicated  connection  with 
Rome.  All  that  is  said  of  Peter  prior  to  68  is  connected  with  the 
East,  apparently.  Then,  for  68  a.d.  it  is  said  : — "St.  Peter  about 
this  time  wrote  his  Second  Epistle.  About  this  time  St.  Peter  and 
St.  Paul  came  to  Rome.  See  Tillemont,  &c.  Not  long  after  they 
were  both  put  in  prison  and  suffered  martyrdom." 

How  all  this,  with  the  surprising  reference  to  the  Jansenist 
scholar  Tillemont,  can  be  made  to  square  with  those  marvellous  lists 
relied  on  by  Dr.  Carr— "  The  Armenian  Version"  of  Eusebius' 
Chronicle,  and  its  aifirmation  that  St.  Peter  "  stays  there  [in  Rome] 
as  prelate  of  the  Church  for  twenty  years,"  or  with  Jerome's  state- 
ment that  Peter  preached  the  Oospel  for  twenty-live  years  in 
Rome — it  is  difficult  to  see.  But  then  it  is  all  in  the  region  of 
cloudland. 


XII. 

THE  "TROPHIES"  OF  PETER  AND  PAUL. 

Gaius,  the  Roman  presbyter,  contemporary  of  Hippolytus  in  the 
early  part  of  the  third  century,  vehemently  opposes  the  jNIontanist 
assertion  that  women  might  speak  God's  message,  and  "  prophesy." 
The  Montanists  had  a  good  deal  to  say  for  themselves,  and  quoted 
the  example  of  the  daughters  of  Philip  the  Evangelist,  who  actually 
"prophesied"  (Acts  xxi.,  8,  9).  '  Such  audacious  and  independent 
young  female  persons  were  altogether  perilous  to  the  Roman  spirit 
of  repression.  So  Gaius,  round  whose  personality  much  mist  hangs, 
seeks  to  suppress  such  views  by  the  authority  of  a  Church  which 
actualh'  had  had  two  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  at  the  founding  of 
it.  "We  have  got  their  'trophies'  (as  Harnack  says,  whatever  that 
may  mean)  actually  in  Rome,"  says  Gaius.  Protestant  archajologists 
(Lipsius,  Erbes,  Von  Schultze,  &c.)  think  this  meant  two  trees. 
Roman  Catholic  advocates  make  it  mean  "tombs."  Let  us  listen 
to  Gavazzi,  himself  a  man  of  Bologna  and  Rome.  In  the  famous 
debate*  in    Rome   (1872)  between  three  Roman  Catholic   clerical 

*  Edited  by  the  late  Dr.  William  Arthur,  the  Wesleyan  divine. 

X  2 


200  APPENDIX. 

cliamj)ions  and  three  Italian  Protestants,  Gavazzi  in  his  wonderful 
address  thus  dealt  with  these  "  trophies"  and  Gaius  : — 

"  Here  it  is  said  is  his  tomb  ...  or  his  trophj-,  or  his 
martyr  memorial,  and  therefore  St.  Peter  was  martyred  in  Rome ! 
By  no  means.  .  .  .  There  was  a  mai'tyr- memorial  of  Laurence 
at  Ravenna,  and  Laurence  was  not  martyred  at  Ravenna.  There 
was  a  martjr  memorial  of  Stephen  in  Ancona,  and  Stephen  was  not 
martyred  in  Ancona.  There  were  twelve  n)artyr  memorials  in 
honour  of  the  twelve  Apostles  in  Constantinople  in  the  time  of  St. 
Sophia ;  and  the  twelve  Apostles  were  not  martyred  in  Con- 
stantinople. .  .  .  But  his  (Peter's)  relics  ?  Softly  with  those 
relics,  gentlemen  !  ...  In  Rome,  I  am  told,  there  is  the  body 
of  St.  Stephen  in  one  of  j-our  basilicas.  Remember,  I  am  told  it.  I 
do  not  guarantee  it.  But,  bec»use  the  "relics  of  St.  Stephen  are 
found  in  Rome,  perhaps  St.  Stephen  suffered  his  martyrdom  in 
Rome  !" 


XIIL 

Bishop  Moorhouse  on  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 

Just  as  the  last  proof-sheet  leaves  me,  a  copy  of  the  Bishop  of 
Manchester's  Replies  to  Bishop  Bilsborrow  and  Father  Vaughan  on 
The  Roman  Claims  has  come  into  my  hands.  I  beg  to  direct  the 
readers  of  it  to  pp.  37-42,  bearing  on  the  secret  influence  of  Cyril 
with  the  ladies  of  the  Imperial  Court  in  the  Nestorian  conflict,  and 
on  the  28th  Canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon — that  awkward 
disproof  of  the  whole  Romanist  theory. 


The  End. 


APPENDIX.  201 


XIV. 


CORRESPONDENCE    BETWEEN   ARCHBISHOP 
CARR  AND  DR.  RENTOUL. 

As  preface  to  these  letters,  I  desire  simply  to  point  out  that  in 
the  book  form  of  his  Lectures  Dr.  Carr  has  significantly  broken  the 
connection  of  his  ''quotations"  from  "Protestant  writers"  and 
from  "  exclusively  Protestant  testimony,"  as  published  in  extenso  in 
the  Advocate  of  the  14th  and  21st  March,  and  to  which  he  himself 
appealed  as  the  full  and  authoritative  shape  of  his  utterances.  The 
correspondence  is  conditioned  by  that.  In  that  Advocate  in  extenso 
transcript  of  his  Lecture  I.,  the  quotation  from  "  Nevin"  ended 
with  the  words — "beyond  which  no  memor}'^  of  man  to  the  con- 
trary then  reached."     Then  the  words  immediately  followed  : — 

"Neander  testifies  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Papal  claims  to  a 
Primacy  of  jurisdiction,"  &c.  Then  came  Renan,  ushered  in  by 
the  declaration  that  we  must  regard  such  writers'  "  admissions  iii 
favour  of  the  Roman  Primacy  as  the  irresistible  outcome  of  the 
facts  of  history." 

But,  now,  in  the  book  form  of  Dr.  Carr's  Lectures  (pp.  21,  22)  a 
new  passage  is  introduced,  adding  nothing  whatever  to  his  argument, 
but  breaking  the  original  connection  of  "Protestant  testimony." 
The  new  passage,  occupying  about  a  page,  breaks  in  after  "  Nevin' s^' 
words  ivith  a  quite  neic  connection  thus  : — 

"  A  Catholic  could  hardly  express  ivith  greater  clear>iess  the  universal 
belief  of  ages  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Supremacy  than  does  a  non- 
Catholic  tvriter  in  the  Union  Revieiv.^''  Then,  after  the  quotation 
from  the  Review,  "  Canon  Everest"  is  quoted,  and  then  our  Laudian 
acquaintance,  "Archbishop  Bramhall."  Then,  after  this  curious 
break,  Neander,  on  Dr.  Carr's  original  string  of  "  Protestant 
testimony,"  is  here  resumed  (part  of  p.  22).  And  then  follows 
Renan  I  ! 

Archbishop  Carr  says  mysteriously  : — "  Renan,  like  Presbyterian 
writers,  dates  the  radical  change  in  the  primitive  form  of  Church 
government  from  a  very  early  period.  He  is,  accordingly,  quoted  by 
Presbyterian  writers  with  much  approval"  (p.  226).  What  may  be  the 
sense  of  this  mysterious  language  I  do  not  know.  I  need  scarcely  say 
that  "  Presbyterian  writers,  '  if  they  permitted  any  bias  in  the  mat- 
ter, would  "date  the  radical  change  in  the  primitive  form  of  Church 
government"  not  "  from  a  very  early  period"  (as  the  Archbishop 
strangely  says),  but  from  as  late  a  period  as  possible.  When 
the  Archbishop  ventures  to  say  that  Renan  "is  accordingly  quoted 
by  Presbyterian  writers  with  much  approval,"  he  ought  to  reflect 
that  it  was  he  himself  who  projected  Renan  and  his  "Protestant 
testimony "  into  the  discussion  of  this  question.     Had  he  not  done 


202  APPENDIX. 

so,  and  had  he  not  miscjuoted  in  doing  so,  no  Presbyterian  and  no 
Protestant  of  any  kind  wonld  have  named  Kenan's  name.  In  his 
lectures  of  1893  Archbishop  Carr  appealed  to  Renan  as  belonging  to 
the  class  of  "unbiassed  critics."  In  his  lectures  of  1895  he  quoted 
Eenan,  and  in  the  same  mutilated  form  now  so  well  understood. 
Then,  in  1896,  he  again  quoted  Penan,  and  in  the  same  peculiar 
shape.  Now  Renan  is  not  any  longer  the  sunshiny  spot  in^  the 
Archbishop's  horizon. 

DR.  CARP'S  LETTER  I, 

GROWTH  OF  THE  8ACERD0TAL  ORDER  AND  POPEDOM. 

To  THE  Editok  (of  "Argus"  and  "Age.") 

Sir, — I  cannot  help  feeling  flattered  b}'  the  succession  of  repre- 
sentative writers  avIio  have  undertaken  in  turn  to  reply  to  my 
lectures  on  the  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  for  each  of  them 
has,  by  implication,  confessed  to  the  failure  of  his  predecessor. 
The  latest  champion  of  a  desperate  cause  must,  by  this  time,  have 
convinced  his  Anglican  friends  of  the  danger  of  relying  on  soldiers 
of  fortune,  who  dearly  love  the  din  and  smoke  of  battle,  but  who 
too  often  in  the  end  turn  their  swords  against  those  who  have 
enlisted  their  services.  If  Anglican  controversialists  are  content 
with  Dr.  Rentours  refutation  of  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Pontiff, 
and  with  his  defence  of  his  own  and  their  position,  I  assure  them 
that  I  do  not  envy  them  the  help  they  have  received  from  their 
new  ally,  and  I  can  in  all  sincerity  say  that  I  am  more  than  pleased 
with  the  character  of  that  refutation  and  defence.  The  cause  is 
desperate  indeed  that  in  the  hands  of  so  able  an  advocate  as  Dr. 
Rentoul  could  not  find  stronger  or  more  consistent  arguments  in  its 
favour.  When  a  skilful  dialectician  abandons  sober  reasoning  and 
seeks  to  obscure  the  real  issue  by  the  variety  of  his  irrelevancies 
and  the  offensiveness  of  his  epithets,  we  ma}'  be  sure  that  the 
cause  he  advocates  is  a  losing  one. 

I  do  not  think  that  there  is  one  real  difficulty  raised  by  Dr. 
Rentoul  regarding  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  which  I  have 
not  answered  by  anticipation  in  my  recent  lectures.  As,  however,  I 
hope  to  have  these  lectures  published  in  book-foim  early  next  week, 
I  will  avail  myself  of  the  opportunity  of  developing  these  answers 
to  meet  the  special  phases  of  the  difficulties  Mhich  have  been  most 
recently  presented.  But  I  have  no  intention  of  allowing  myself  to 
be  drawn  by  any  controversialist  from  the  subject  on  which  I 
have  been  engaged  until  that  subject  is  finalh'  disposed  of.  In  the 
meantime,  however,  when  I  am  accused  of  changing  "the  peaceful 
attitude"  of  former  days,  I  must  take  the  earliest  opportunity  of 
repelling  that  accusation,  and  of  reminding  my  accuser  of  the 
defiant  public  challenge,  and  the  gross  calumnies  against  the 
Catholic  Church  spoken  in  high  places,  which  provoked  the  pre- 


APPENDIX.  208 

sent  and  former  controversies.  Above  all,  lie  must  have  overlooked 
how  applicable  to  one  of  his  own  combative  disposition  are  the 
familiar  words  of  the  classic  poet — Mutato  nomine  de  te  fabula 
narratur.  I  must  also  at  once  notice  the  grave  personal  charge  of 
having  represented  Renan  as  a  Protestant,  and  of  having  sup- 
pressed a  part  of  his  testimon}'  for  the  purpose  of  making  him 
witness  to  the  Roman  claims  for  the  Papacy. 

In  reply,  I  must  express  as  strongly  as  I  can  the  deep  sense  of 
pain  and  wrong  which  such  a  deliberate  and  unfounded  accusation 
causes  me.  First,  so  far  from  representing  Renan  as  a  Protestant, 
I  explicitly  referred  to  him  as  a  typical  representative  of  the 
rationalistic  school ;  and  secondly,  I  quoted  him  not  at  all  as 
favourable  to  the  Roman  claims  for  the  Papacj',  but  as  a  hostile 
witness  who  admits  the  fact  of  its  existence  before  the  end  of  the 
second  century.  With  that  admission  alone  was  I  concerned,  and 
the  omitted  words  in  the  quotation  indicated  by  the  usual  signs, 
had  no  bearing  on  the  point  under  consideration.  Immediately 
before,  I  had  quoted  Neander  as  another  hostile  witness,  and  then 
followed  these  words — • 

"  Little  as  wp  may  admire  the  methods  of  rationalistic  writers,  we  must  at  least 
regard  their  admissions  in  favour  of  the  Roman  primacy  as  the  irresistible 
outcome  of  the  facts  of  history.  The  Catholic  Church,  and  she  alone,  has 
consistently  condemned  their  wholesale  and  destructive  criticism  of  i-evealed  truth, 
while  Protestantism  seemed  satisfied  if  Rome  suffered  equally  -vsith  revelation. 
Renan  may  surely  be  taken  as  a  typical  representative  of  this  school,  and  there  is 
no  room  for  mistake  in  these  woi-ds.  'Rome,'  says  M.  Ernest  Renan,  'was  the 
place  in  which  the  gi-eat  idea  of  Catholicity  was  worked  out.  More  and  more 
every  day  it  became  the  capital  of  Christianity,  and  it  took  the  place  of  Jerusalem 
as  the  religious  centre  of  humanity.  Its  Church  claimed  a  precedence  ovc*  all 
others,  which  was  generally  recognised.  All  the  (loubtfal  questions  which  a(/itnted 
the  Christian  conscience  came  to  Borne  to  ask  for  arbitration,  if  not  decision.  Men 
argued — certainJi/  not  in  a  very  logical  way  — that  as  Christ  had  made  Cephas  the 
cornerstone  of  His  church,  the  privilege  ought  to  hr  inhcritfd  hy  His  successors.  .  .  . 
The  Bishop  of  Rome  became  the  Bishop  of  Bishops,  he  who  admonished  all 
others.  Rome  proclaims  her  right  —a  dangerous  right— of  excommunicating  those 
who  do  not  walk  step  by  step  with  her.  ...  At  the  end  of  the  second  century 
we  can  also  recognise,  by  signs  which  it  is  impossible  to  mistake,  the  spirit  which 
in  1870  will  proclaim  the  infallibility  of  the. Pope." 

The  italics  are  mine,  and  the}'  serve  to  emphasise  the  unfairness  of 
Dr.  Rentoul  in  charging  me  with  deliberate  suppression,  whilst  he 
himself  was  in  the  very  act  of  omitting  from  my  quotation  a  sentence 
which  clearly  shows  that  Renan  was  represented  as  personally 
hostile  to  the  claims  which  he  admitted  were  advanced  before  the 
close  of  the  second  century. 

Finally,  when  Dr.  Rentoul  charges  the  Catholic  Church  as  falsify- 
ing history,  and  seeks  to  set  up  Presbyterianism  in  its  stead  as  the 
primitive  form  of  Christianity,  I  would  remind  him  of  the  words  of 
one  who,  perhaps  more  than  an}'  other  maji  of  this  centurj",  knew 
Protestantism  in  all  its  history,  phases,  and  varieties: — "So  much 
must  the  Protestant  grant,  that  if  such  a  system  of  doctrine  as  he 
would  now  introduce  ever  existed  in  early  times,  it  has  been  clean 
swept  away  as  if  by  a  deluge,  suddenly,  silently,  and  without 
memorial,  by  a  deluge  coming  in  a  night  and  utterly  soaking,  rotting. 


•204  APPENDIX. 

heaving  up,  and  hurrying  off  every  vestige  of  what  it  found  in  the 
church  before  cock-crowing,  so  that  '  when  they  rose  in  the  morning' 
her  true  seed  '  were  all  dead  corpses — nay,  dead  and  liuried ' — 
without  grave-stone.  •  The  waters  went  over  them :  there  was  not 
one  of  them  left  ;  they  sunk  in  the  mighty  waters  '  .  ,  .  He 
must  allow  that  the  alleged  deluge  has  done  its  AAork.  Yes,  and  has 
in  turn  disappeared  itself.  It  has  been  swallowed  up  by  the  earth 
mercilessly,  as  itself  was  merciless." — Newman's  Bcrelopment  of 
Christian  Doctrine. — Yours,  &c. , 


St.  Patrick's  Cathedral,  :May  IS. 


+  THOMAS  .J.  CARR. 


DR.  RENTOUL  IN  REPLY. 

To  THE  Editor  (of  "Argus"  and  "Aoe.") 

Sir, — I  Avill  discharge  at  once  the  first  portion  of  Archbishop 
Carr's  letter.  It  consists  of  rhetorical  sentences  made  up  of  phrases 
such  as  "latest  champion  of  a  desperate  cause,"  "soldiers  of  for- 
tune," "  offensiveness  of  his  epithets,"  "seeks  to  obscure  the  real 
issue,"  &c.  These  phrases  will  not  advance  the  Archbishop's  cause. 
Let  me  turn  at  once  to  the  only  substantial  matter  in  Dr.  Carr's 
letter. 

1.  He  suggests  that  the  Anglican  controversialists  have  "enlisted'' 
my  "  services,"  and  that  in  argument  the}^  have  "by  implication 
confessed  to  failure,"  in  conflict  with  the  Archbishop.  The  delicate 
modesty  of  this  assertion  is  memorable.  The  insinuation  conveyed 
in  it  is  at  once  unworthy  of  a  responsible  speaker,  and  is  absolutely 
contrary  to  fact.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  in  all  matters  connected 
with  this  controversy  I  have  not,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
received  any  communication  or  expression  of  opinion  from  any 
Church  of  England  clergyman. 

2.  Archbishop  Carr  says  he  hopes  to  have  his  "lectures  published 
in  book  form,"  and  he  will  there  develop  his  "  answers  to  meet  the 
special  phases  of  the  difficulties  which  have  been  most  recentW 
presented."  Very  good.  Right  glad  I  am  to  hear  this.  I  also 
will  publish  my  lectures  in  full  form.  And  I  shall  be  happy  to 
examine  the  "  developed  answers"  of  the  Archbishop.  I  venture  to 
suppose  that  they  will  require  "  development."  For  the  difficulties 
which  front  the  Archbishop  and  his  Roman  claim  are  solid  and 
unanswerable  historic  facts 

3.  I  come  now  to  the  one  thing  of  genuine  moment  in  the  Arch- 
bishop's letter,  viz.,  in  reference  to  his  statements  regarding  his 
"quotation"  from  Renan.  Archbishop  Carr  makes  two  strange 
complaints.  He  asserts  he  did  not  iuiph'  Renan  was  a  Pro- 
testant. Now  turn  to  his  lectures.  The  first  lecture  sums  in 
succession  a  list  of  Protestant  writers  and  lustorians,  who  are 
rbpresented  as  bearing  testimony  in  proof  of  Dr.  Carr's  positions  : 


APPENDIX.  205 

(a)  that  Peter  was  in  Rome  ;  (b)  that  he  finally  fixed  his  see  in 
Rome  ;  (c)  that  his  primacy  was  continued  to  successors.  It  closes 
with  the  historians  and  Renan,  and  then  passes  on  at  once  to  the 
"  first  uninspired  document,"  viz. ,  the  letter  of  St.  Clement  to  the 
Corinthians.  Xow  turn  to  the  beginning  of  the  Archbishop's  second 
lecture,  and  read  there  his  own  statement  and  representation  of  the 
men  he  had  quoted  from  : — "  In  my  last  lecture  I  quoted  exclusively 
Protestant  testimony  to  prove  : — 1.  That  St.  Peter  was  in  Rome ; 
"2.  That  he  finally  fixed  his  see  in  Rome  ;  and  3.  That  his  Primacy 
was  not  temporary,  but  was  continued  after  the  admission  of  the 
Gentiles  into  the  Christian  Church,  and  was  transmitted  to  his 
successors  in  the  Roman  see.  I  next  addressed  myself  to  the 
testimony  in  favour  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  which  is  contained  in  the 
first  uninspired  document  Avhich  has  come  down  to  us,  viz.,  the 
letter  of  St.  Clement  to  the  Corinthians." 

Just  think  of  that  I  The  Archbishop  himself  here  affirms  that 
the  testimony,  up  to  his  dealing  with  Clement,  was  exclusively 
Protestant  testimony  ;  and  yet  he  is  not  happy  when  I  point  out 
that  Renan  was  not  a  Protestant.  True,  the  Archbishop  says  he 
called  him  a  "  Rationalist."  Does  the  Archbishop  imply  that  to 
Call  a  man  a  "  Rationalist"  is  to  say  that  he  is  not  a  Protestant? 
Unfortunately,  the  Archbishop's  express  words  stand  there  to 
confute  him. 

■4.  I  pass  on  to  the  much  graver  aspect  of  this  matter,  viz.,  the 
Archbishop's  (quotation  from  Renan.  He  says  that  Dr.  Rentoul  had 
"  charged  him  (the  Archl)ishop)  with  deliberate  suppression,  whilst 
he  himself  (Dr.  Rentoul)  was  in  the  very  act  of  omitting  from  my 
(the  Archbishop's)  quotation  a  sentence  wdiich  clearly  shows,"  &c. 
Now  let  us  turn  to  the  facts.  I  shall  simply  quote  the  passages,  and 
ask  the  public  to  judge.  (1)  Here  is  exactly,  and  verbat.iin,  the 
passage  purporting  to  be  from  Renan  as  cpioted  in  the  Archbishop's 
lecture  published  Monday,  9th  March: — "  Rome  was  the  place  in 
which  the  great  idea  of  Catholicity  was  worked  out.  More  and 
more  every  day  it  became  the  capital  of  Christianity,  and  took  the 
place  of  Jerusalem  as  the  religious  centre  of  humanity.  Its  church 
claimed  a  precedence  over  all  others  which  was  generally  recognised. 
The  Bishop  of  Rome  became  the  Bishop  of  Bishops,  he 
who  admonished  all  others.  Rome  proclaims  her  right — a 
■dangerous  right  —  of  excommunicating  those  who  do  not  walk  step 
by  step  with  her.  .  .  .  At  the  end  of  the  second  century  we  can 
also  recognise,  by  signs  which  it  is  impossible  to  mistake,  the  spirit 
which  in  1870  will  proclaim  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope." 

(1)  Now  this  is  also  word  for  word  ,the  quotation  from  Arch- 
bishop Carr's  lecture  as  given  in  my  first  lecture  (see  Avfjus  [and 
Age],  Monday,  -Ith  May).  How  Archbishop  Carr  can  affirm  that 
I  "  was  in  the  very  act  of  omitting  from  his  quotation  a  sentence," 
•&c.,  I  cannot  in  the  least  explain.  It  is  as  amazing  to  me  as  a 
good  many  of  the  Archbishop's  other  assertions. 

(2)  Take,  now,  the  quotation  in  the  Archbishop's  letter  in  the 
Argus  [and  Age]  of  to-day  (19th  May),  in  which  it  will  be  noted  the 


206  APPENDIX. 

Archbishop  inserts  two  sentences  not  in  his  quotation  as  originally 
given,  and  yet  it  is  not  a  full  quotation  from  Renan.  I  mark  within 
square  brackets  the  new  sentences :— "  Rome,"  says  M.  Ernest  Renan, 
"  was  the  piace  in  which  the  great  idea  of  Christianity  was  worked 
out.  More  and  more  every  day  it  became  the  capital  of  Christianity, 
and  it  took  the  place  of  Jerusalem  as  the  religious  centre  of 
humanity.  Its  church  claimed  precedence  over  all  others,  which 
was  generally  recognised.  [All  the  doubtful  questions  which  agi- 
tated the  Christian  conscience  came  to  Rome  to  ask  for  arbitration, 
if  not  decision.  Men  argued,  certainly  not  in  a  verj^  logical  way, 
that  as  Christ  had  made  Cephas  the  corner-stone  of  his  Church  the 
privilege  ought  to  be  inherited  by  his  successors.]  .  .  .  The 
Bishop  of  Rome  became  the  Bishop  of  Bishops,  he  who  admonished 
all  others.  Rome  proclaims  her  right— a  dangerous  right — of 
excommunicating  those  who  do  not  walk  step  by  step  with  her. 
At  the  end  of  the  second  century  we  can  also  recognise 
by  signs,  which  it  is  impossible  to  mistake,  the  spiiit,  which  in  1870 
will  proclaim  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope." 

(3)  Then  here  is  the  true  and  actual  shape  of  Renan's  words  and 
meaning,  as  quoted  verhatim  by  me  from  Renan's  book  in  my  first 
lecture,  and  I  pointed  out  the  pages,  and  urged  the  laity  of 
Melbourne  to  read  it  for  themselves  [Hib.  Lect.,  pp.  172,  173, 
174,  in  the  [4rgus  and]  J//e,  4th  May)  : — "Rome  was  the  place 
in  which  the  great  idea  of  Catholicity  was  worked  out.  More 
and  more  every  day  it  became  the  capital  of  Christianity,  and  took 
the  place  of  Jerusalem  as  the  religious  centre  of  humanity.  Its 
church  claimed  a  precedence  over  all  others  which  was  generally 
recognised.  [All  the  doubtful  questions  which  agitated  the  Christian 
conscience  came  to  Rome  to  ask  for  arbitration,  if  not  decision. 
Men  argued,  certainly  not  in  a  very  logical  way,  that  as  Christ  had 
made  Cephas  the  corner-stone  of  His  church,  the  privilege  ought  to 
be  inherited  by  His  successors.  By  an  unequalled  tour  de  force  the 
Church  of  Rome  had  succeeded  in  giving  itself  the  name  of  the 
Church  of  Paul  also.  A  new  and  equally  mythical  duality  replaced 
that  of  Romulus  and  Remus.]  The  Bishop  of  Rome  became  the 
Bishop  of  Bishops,  he  who  admonished  all  others.  Rome  proclaims 
her  right — a  dangerous  right — of  excommunicating  those  who  do  not 
walk  step  by  step  with  her.  [The  poor  Artemonites — a  kind  of 
Arians  before  Arius — have  great  reason  to  complain  of  the  injustice 
of  fate  which  has  branded  them  as  heretics,  although,  up  to  the  time 
of  Victor,  the  whole  Church  of  Home  was  of  one  mind  with  them. 
From  that  time  forth  the  Church  of  Rome  put  herself  above  history.} 
At  the  end  of  the  second  century  we  can  easily  recognise  by  signs 
which  it  is  impossible  to  mistake  the  spirit  which  in  1870  will  pro- 
claim the  infallibility  of  the  Pope." 

The  square  brackets  mark  the  passages  omitted  by  the  Arch- 
bishop in  his  lecture.  The  above  is  the  great  and  crushing  passage 
of  Renan  in  full.  ' '  Look  on  this  picture  and  on  that  !"  Look 
at  the  shape,  garbled  from  its  connection  and  drained  of  all  its 
main  meaning,  in  which  Archbishop  Carr  gave  it  to  the  public,  as 


APPENDIX.  207 

if  Renan  were  witnessing  to  the  truth  and  strength  of  the  claim  of 
the  Roman  papacy !  Jnst  above  this  passage  Renan  has  said  in  part 
I.  of  that  lecture  that  in  Rome  "men  had  reached  ideas  which  would 
have re\olted  Paul !" 

I  will  not  make  any  comments  on  these  quotations.  It  is  enough 
to  put  the  exact  facts  before  the  public  and  let  them  honestlj' 
judge.  With  the  sad  criticisms  at  present  filling  the  London  press 
on  Romanist  modes  of  controversy,  in  view  of  Cardinal  Manning's 
autobiography,  I  do  not  Mish  to  speak  further  on  the  subject. 

Archbishop  Carr  closes  with  a  quotation  on  the  Early  Church's 
Presbj'terianism,  and  the  quotation,  amusing  to  say,  is  from  a 
Romanist  cardinal!  I  have  in  my  lectures  said  no  word  about,  or  on 
behalf  of,  ni}-  own  Church.  But  may  I  now  quote  a  sentence  from 
a  vastly  greater  man  than  the  cardinal,  viz.,  Pitt,  the  great  Earl  of 
Chatham,  the  greatest  Englisliman  of  his  age,  and  a  Church  of 
England  man  :  — "  The  ambition  of  Presbyterians  is  to  keep  more 
close  to  the  College  of  Fishermen  than  to  the  College  of  Cardinals 
— to  the  Doctrines  of  Apostles  than  to  the  Decrees  of  Bishops.  They 
contend  for  a  Scriptural  Creed  and  for  a  Spiritual  worship," — I  am, 

^^-  J.  LAURENCE  RENTOUL. 

Ormond  College,  the  University,  19th  May. 


IL 

ARCHBISHOP  CARR  S  SECOND  LETTER. 

To  THE  Editor  (of  "Argus"  and  "Age.") 

Sir, — If,  as  I  am  sure  he  meant  to  do.  Dr.  Rentoul  had  "  put  the 
exact  facts  before  the  public,  and  let  them  honestly  judge  "  for 
themselves  the  value  of  his  statements,  he  would  have  saved  me 
the  necessity  of  replying  to  his  letter  of  this  date.  But,  unfortu- 
nately, many  of  Dr.  Rentoul's  "exact  facts"  are  the  very  reverse 
of  being  exact. 

First,  referring  to  my  quotation  from  Renan,  he  sajs  : — "I  also 
quoted  the  Archbishop's  exact  words  from  beginning  to  end." 
This  is  not  an  "  exact  fact  "  It  is  not  a  fact  at  all.  As  I  pointed 
out  in  my  former  letter.  Dr.  Rentoul  omitted  from  my  quotation 
from  Renan  the  sentence  which  clearly  shows  that  Renan  was 
not  quoted  by  me  as  being  in  favour  of  the  Roman  primacy.  Such 
a  statement  or  insinuation  would  have  been  preposterous  on  the 
face  of  it.  He  says  he  cannot  in  the  least  explain  how  I  can  aflfirni 
that  he  has  omitted  this  sentence  from  my  quotation.  My  direct 
statement  ought  to  have  had  some  weight  with  him.  But  if  he  had 
taken  the  ordinary  precaution  of  making  a  little  inquiry,  as  he  was 
bound  to  do  before  making  such  a  serious  charge,  the  mystery 
would  have  been  solved.  He  would  have  found  that  The  Argus 
report  of  my  lecture  which  he  quotes  was  but  an  epitome,  in  which 


208  APPENDIX. 

the  quotations  were  necessarily  al)breviated,  and  that  the  lecture 
was  published  in  extenso  in  tlie  Advocate  of  the  14tli  and  21st  March. 
In  the  leetui-e,  as  anyone  may  see  by  looking  at  the  Advocate  (copies 
of  which  I  will  send  to  any  inquirer),  the  sentences  omitted  by  Dr. 
Rentoul  are  found. 

Before  making  a  similar  charge  against  him  I  should  certainly 
feel  myself  bound  in  both  justice  and  honour  to  inc^uire  whether  a 
full  report  of  his  lecture  could  be  procured.  Dr.  Rentoul  is  not 
more  fortunate  in  his  surmises  than  in  his  facts.  He  surmises  that 
The  Arrjns  report  of  my  lecture  was  from  my  own  "  careful 
abstract."  But  as  I  gave  no  abstract  of  the  lecture,  careful  or 
otherwise,  his  surmise  is  as  unreliable  as  his  "  exact  facts." 

Secondly,  Dr.  Rentoul  repeats  that  I  implied  that  Kenan  was  a 
Protestant,  and  by  way  of  proof  he  quotes  from  the  beginning  of 
my  second  lecture  the  following  sentences  : — 

"In  my  last  lecture  I  quoted  exclusively  Protestant  testiraony  to  pi-ove  (1)  that 
St.  Peter  was  in  Piome,  [-1)  that  he  tinally  tixed  his  see  in  Rome,  and  (3)  that  his 
primacy  was  not  temporary,  but  was  continued  after  the  admission  of  the 
Gentiles  into  the  Christian  Church,  and  was  transmitted  to  his  successors  in  the 
'Roman  see.  I  next  addressed  myself  to  the  testiraony  in  favour  of  the  Roman 
Pontitt',  which  is  contained  in  the  first  uninspired  document  which  has  come  down 
to  us,  viz.,  the  letter  of  St.  Clement  to  the  Corinthians." 

And  then  he  comments  thus  on  the  quotation  :  — 

"Just  think  of  that !  The  Ai'chbishop  himself  affirms  that  the  testimony  was 
exclusively  'Protectant  testimony,'  and  yet  he  is  not  happy  when  I  point  out  that 
Renanwas  not  a  Protestant." 

Will  Dr.  Rentoul  be  good  enougli  to  read  my  words  again,  and  he 
will  find  that  I  have  not  quoted  Renan  for  any  of  the  three  propo- 
sitions for  which  I  have  (pioted  exclusively  Protestant  testimony. 
I  quoted  him  as  I  had  (pioted  Neander  immediately  before,  as 
testifying  to  the  antiquity  of  the  claims  put  forward  by  the  Roman 
Pontiffs,  and  as  thus  admitting,  Rationalist  though  he  was,  an 
important  fact  which  tells  in  favoiir  of  the  Roman  ])rimacy.  So 
far  was  I  from  identifying  him  with  the  Protestant  authorities  1 
had  (juoted  that  I  expressly  contrasted  him  M'ith  them.  Here  are 
my  M'ords  : — 

"  Little  as  we  may  admire  the  methods  of  Rationalistic  writers,  we  must  at  least 
regard  their  admissions  in  favour  of  the  Roman  primacy  as  the  irresistible  out- 
come of  the  facts  of  history.  The  Catholic  Church,  and  she  alone,  has  consistently 
condemned  their  wholesale  and  destructive  criticism  of  revealed  truth,  whilst 
Protestaniism  seemed  satisfied  if  Rome  suffered  equally  Avith  Revelation.  Renan 
may  surely  be  taken  as  a  typical  representative  of  this  school,  and  there  is  no 
room  for  mistake  in  his  words." 

I  now  ask  any  impartial  reader  to  say  whether  I  implied  that 
Renan  was  a  Protestant. 

But  Dr.  Rentoul  asks  me,  "  Does  the  Archbishop  imply 
that  to  call  a  man  a  Rationalist  is  to  say  that  he  is  not  a 
Protestant?"  I  answer,  with  all  due  deference  to  Dr.  Rentoul's 
more  extensive  knowledge  of  Protestantism,  that  I  have  always 
believed  that  to  call  a  man  a  Rationalist  is  etpiivalent  to  saying  that 
he  is  not  a  Protestant.      Protestants  believe  in,  and  argue  from 


ArPENDIX.  200' 

revelation,  and  the  latest  dictionaiies  give  us  as  the  meaning  of  the 
word  Rationalist,  "  One  who  accepts  Rationalism  as  a  theoiy  or 
system,"  and  Rationalism  is  defined  to  l)e  "  the  doctrine  or  system 
of  those  who  deduce  their  religious  opinions  from  reason  oi-  the- 
iTnderstanding  as  distinct  from,  or  opposed  to,  Revelation."  But 
perhaps  Dr.  Rentoul  knows  better. 

Finally,  Dr.  Rentoul  might  have  shown  more  reverence  for  true 
greatness  by  not  coupling  John  Henry  Newman's  name  with  an 
offensive  epithet,  and  might  have  shown  more  judgment  hy  not 
comparing  things  that  have  no  connnon  measure. — I  am,  &c. 

+  THOMAS  J.  CARR, 
May  20.  Archbishop  of  Melbourne. 


II. 

DR.    RENTOUL'8   SECOND   LETTER   IN   REPLY. 

To  THE  Editor  (ok  "Akcu's"  and  "A(^e.") 

Sir, — Archbishop  Carr  struggles  stoutly  to  extricate  himself  from 
the  meshes  of  difficulty  in  which  he  has  placed  himself  by  his 
"quotation""  from  Renan,  and  his  statements  regarding  it.  But  my 
primary  affirmation  remains  unaltered  and  unshaken,  viz. : — 

"lam  surprised  at  the  Archbishop's  boldness  in  quoting  from  the  brilliant 
critic  Eenan  in  support  of  the  Roman  claim  for  the  Papacy.  I  am  more  surprised 
that  the  quotation  was  so  maimed  and  mutilated  that  it  gave  almost  the  opposite 
sense  of  what  Kenan  intended  to  say.  I  must  protest  against  the  implication  in 
Archbishop  Carr's  lectures  that  Renan  was  a  '  Protestant.'  He  never  was. 
He  was  educated  for  the  Romish  priesthood,"  &c.  (Lecture  1,  'The  Argus,  May  5.) 

I  have  read  very  attentively  and  with  genuine  wonder  the  suc- 
cessive utterances  of  Archbishop  Carr  in  reply  to  this.  But  the 
fact  stands  out  still,  and  no  amount  of  words  on  the  Archbishop's 
part  can  alter  or  gloze  it  over,  that,  even  taking  tlie  ({notation  as  he 
now  gives  it,  my  charge  made  then,  and  made  now,  remains  good 
and  unanswerable.  TJie  professed  quotation  from  Renan  "is  so 
maimed  and  mutilated  that  it  gives  almost  the  opposite  sense  of 
what  Renan  intended  to  say." 

This  is  the  gra\e  and  serious  part  of  mj^  charge.  I  have  already 
unanswerably  proven  it  by  contrasting  verbatim  et  literatim  the 
Archbishop's  quotation  with  tlie  exact  words  of  Renan.  I  now  do 
so  again. 

In  the  Arrnis  [and  At/e]  of  Wednesday  last,  2()th  May,  I  printed 
at  full  length  the  shape  of  the  Archbishop's  quotation  from  Renan 
as  given  in  the  long  abstiact  of  the  Archbishop's  first  lecture 
published  in  the  Ari/us  of  9th  May.  Then  below  that  "qiiota- 
tion"  I  gave  the  shape  of  the  quotation  as  presented  in  the 
Archbishop's  letter  in  the  Argus  of  19th  May,  and  as  he 
declares  it  was  given  in  his  lecture.     (He  now  for  the  first  time 


210  APPENDIX. 

tells  us  it  was  thus  given  in  the  lecture  as  "published  hi  extenso  in 
the  Advocate  of  the  14th  and  21st  March.")  That  form  of  the 
cjuotation  has  two  additional  sentences.  In  my  last  letter  I  marked 
these  two  additional  sentences  in  square  brackets,  and  showed  that, 
with  these  two  sentences  included,  "it  is  not  a  full  quotation  from 
Renan,"  but  still  leaves  Renan's  tremendous  passage  in  a  "shape, 
garbled  in  its  connection,  and  drained  of  all  its  main  meaning." 
And  I  say  this  strongly  and  earnestly  still.  I  further  in  the  same 
letter  printed  the  Avhole  passage  of  Renan,  drawing  special  attention 
to  the  all-important  sentences  which  had  been  excised  by  Arch- 
bishop Carr,  so  altering  the  entire  meaning  and  impression  of  the 
sense. 

But  the  Archbishop  says  I  should  have  read  the  account  of  his 
lecture  as  published  in  extenso  in  the  Advocate.  Now,  I  must 
frankly  reply  two  things— (1)  I  thought  I  had  really  got  "exten- 
sion" enough  of  the  Archbishop's  characteristic  "quotations"  when 
I  had  waded  through  two  columns  of  them  done  into  small,  compact, 
clear,  and  definite  type  in  the  Argus  newspaper.  2.  I  do  not 
read  the  Advocate,  I  find  that  it  is  far  safer  to  trust  oneself,  in  all 
that  pertains  to  candour,  truth,  and  sacred  fair  play,  to  the  daily 
newspapers  than  to  trust  to  the  denominational  organs.  In  the 
Argus  the  Archbishop's  lecture  stood,  with  its  "quotations"  unchal- 
lenged by  him,  from  March  9  until  May  4,  when  in  my  first  lecture 
I  began  to  anah^se  them.  Furthermore,  I  have  now  gone  to  the 
Advocate  and  studiously  read  "in  extenso^^  the  Archbishop's  lecture. 
But  this  does  not  in  the  least  improve  the  Archbishop's  position. 
The  so-called  "  ui  extenso'''  quotation  in  the  Advocate  is  exactly  the 
same  as  the  second  shape  in  which  I  printed  it  in  the  Argus  [and 
Age]  of  last  Wednesda3\  The  charge  I  brought  against  the  quotation 
in  my  first  lecture  I  bring  against  it  still.  There  have  been  cut  out 
from  the  heart  of  it  the  two  passages  Avhich  give  meaning  and  colour 
to  the  whole  as  Renan  wrote  it  and  intended  it  to  be  understood. 
Here  is  the  one  passage,  in  which  Renan  declares  that  the  Roman 
tradition  on  which  the  whole  Catholic  Roman  claim  is  built  is  as 
legendary  and  mj'thical  as  the  old  pagan  legend  of  Romulus  and 
Remus: — 

"By  an  unequalled  to)/,-  deforce  the  Church  of  Rome  had  succeeded  in  giving 
itself  the  name  of  the  Church  of  Paul  also.  A  new  and  equally  mythical  duality 
replaced  that  of  Romulus  and     emus  ." 

That  is  the  one  passage  which  the  Archbishop  cut  out.  And  the 
other  is  this :  — 

"The  poor  Artemonites  -  a  kind  of  Arians  before  Arius— have  great  reason  to 
complain  of  the  injustice  of  fate  which  has  branded  them  as  heretics,  although 
up  to  the  time  of  Victor  the  whole  Church  of  Rome  was  of  one  mind  with  them. 
Fi-om  that  time  forth  the  Church  of  Rome  put  herself  above  history." 

Those  two  great  and  crushing  passages  are  the  inmost  fibre  of  the 
statement  of  Renan,  of  which  Archbishop  Carr  professed  to  quote, 
to  a  great  public  audience,  the  testimony.  Yet  not  a  trace  of  them, 
or  a  hint  of  the  interrelated  meaning  of  them,  is  to  be  found  in  the 


APPENDIX.  211 

qiiotation  as  given  in  cxtenso  in  the  Advocate,  or  as  given  when  the 
Archbishop  spoke  his  lecture.  When  at  last  I  nnveiled,  in  my  first 
lecture,  the  real  contents  of  this  part  of  Renan's  book,  as  a  sample 
of  the  Archbishop's  quotations,  it  caused  intense  surprise.  And 
it  causes  intense  surprise  still. 

The  surprise  ought  to  deepen  when  one  reflects  that,  in  this  same 
book  of  Renan,  it  is  declared  in  a  chapter  entitled  "  The  Legend 
of  the  Roman  Church  :  Peter  and  Paul" — "  If  there  is  anything  in 
the  world  which  Jesus  did  not  institute  it  is  the  Papacy."  And  it  is 
further  declared  that  "nothing  can  be  less  admissible"  than  "the 
unfortunate  chronological  scheme  which  accordingto Catholics  brings 
Peter  to  Rome  in  the  year  42."  It  is  further  declared  that  "Peter 
had  not  yet  arrived  in  Rome  when  Paul  was  brought  there — that  is 
to  say,  in  the  year  61."  It  is  further  declared  in  the  chapter  from 
which  Dr.  Carr  purported  to  quote,  that  the  success  of  Catholicity 
at  Rome  rested  upon  the  notion  that  "docility  is  salvation."  It  is 
further  declared  that  the  supremacy  of  this  notion  was  due  to  means 
such  as  are  described  in  the  following  two  sentences  (p.  175) : — 

"  Every  kind  of  authority,  every  kind  of  artifice  served  her  (Rome)  to  that  end. 
Policy  never  recoils  from  fraud,  and  policy  had  always  found  a  home  in  the 
most  secret  councils  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  vein  o  apocryphal  literature 
was  constantly  worked,"  &c. 

Truly,  a  quite  amazing  book  from  which  to  quote  in  support  of  the 
historicity  of  the  Roman  Papacy  ;  and  to  sustain  the  thesis  which 
the  Archbishop,  a  few  sentences  above  his  quotation  from  Renan, 
affirmed,  that,  at  the  time  spoken  of,  "according  to  the  generally 
received  Protestant  teaching,  the  faith  of  the  Church  was  pure,  and 
the  sanctity  of  the  Roman  pontiff  conspicuous."  This  is  said  in 
special  reference  to  Milman's  "testimony."  Neander  is  quoted 
immediately  after.  And  then  comes  Renan.  Then  the  Archbishop 
passed  on  at  once  to  the  other  and  second  part  of  his  lecture,  viz., 
the  ' '  '  testimony'  of  the  Early  Fathers. "  And  he  opens  this  part 
thus  as  an  immediate  sequent  on  the  "quotation"  from  Renan  : — 

"  And  back  beyond  the  close  of  the  second  centurj'  to  the  very  dawn  of  unin- 
spired Christian  history  we  can  trace  the  primacy  of  the  Roman  pontiff." 

This  is  one  of  the  three  things  the  Archbishop  took  in  hand  to 
prove,  and  which  he  gave  the  long  string  of  Protestant  "quotations" 
to  buttress. 

When  my  pamphlet  is  published,  it  will  l)e  seen  that  I  have 
analysed  a  few  more  of  the  Archbishop's  quotations.  And  they 
will  afford  a  few  pages  of  curious  and  interesting  reading. 

The  other  matter,  stoutly  contended  for  in  Archbishop  Carr's 
letter,  is  of  much  less  importance.  He  tries  to  maintain  that  in  his 
lectures  he  did  not  "  imply"  that  Renan  was  a  Protestant.  Now,  I 
have  done  \\\j  best  to  look  at  Archbishop  Carr's  words,  and  their 
necessary  implications,  in  the  most  favourable  light ;  and  I  say, 
when  read  intelligently,  they  bear  no  other  construction  than  the 
sense  in  which  they  first  conveyed  that  meaning  to  me.  This  is 
necessitated  by  the  whole  balance  of  the  first  lecture,  in  its  two 


212  APPENDIX. 

parts,  by  the  \\ords  which  usher  in  Kenan's  quotation,  and  by  the 
distinct  statement  in  the  opening  of  the  second  lecture.  There  the 
Archbishop  himself  distinctly  states  that  he  did  two  things  in  his 
first  lecture;  he  "quoted  exclusively  Protestant  testimony,"  and 
"next  addressed  himself"  (please  mark  the  words  "next  ad- 
dressed") "to  the  testimony  in  favour  of  the  primacy  of  the  Roman 
pontiff,  which  is  contained  in  the  first  uninspired  document," 
&c.  (viz.,  Clement  of  Rome).  Why,  the  very  name  last  on  the  list 
of  quotations,  before  the  Archbishop  "next  addressed  himself"  to 
Clement  of  Rome,  is  Renan  himself. 

But  Archbishop  Carr  begins  to  define  "  Rationalism,"  as  the  last 
straw  to  clutch  at.  Very  well !  I  only  ask  your  readers  to  go  to 
the  EncycloiHcdia  Britannica  (last  edition)  and  read  there  the 
article  on  "  Rationalism,"  and  see  it  treated  as  a  great  phase  of 
Protestantism,  and  see  Kant's  definition  of  it.  Renan,  rightlj" 
speaking,  was  not  a  "Rationalist,"  and  he  was  not  a  Protestant. 
He  was  a  Pantheist.  The  whole  make-up  of  Archbishop  Carr's 
words,  with  his  special  fling  at  Protestantism  being  "satisfied  if 
Rome  suffered  equally  with  Revelation"  from  the  influence  of 
Rationalism,  left  the  distinct  implication  that  Renan  was  both 
a  Rationalist  and  a  Protestant 

Turning  away  from  these  things,  Archbishop  Carr  says  that  I 
*'  coupled  John  Henry  Newman's  name  with  an  offensive  epithet." 
May  I  ask  where  and  when. — I  am,  &c., 

J.  LAURENCE  RENTOUL. 

Ormond  College,  21st  May. 

III. 

DR.  CARR'S  THIRD  LETTER. 
To  THE  Editor  (of  "Argus"  and  "Aue.") 

Sir, — As  I  am  unwilling  to  question  Dr.  Rentoul's  candour,  the- 
conviction  forces  itself  upon  me  that  the  heat  of  controversy  has 
considerably  warped  his  judgment  If  he  had  considered  the 
matter  dispassionately  he  must  have  seen  that  all  the  "crushing 
passages"  and  "tremendous  sentences"  with  their  "interrelated 
meaning,"  which  he  quotes  from  Renan  with  amusing  iteration  and 
vehemence,  so  far  from  weakening  my  argument,  only  serve 
indirectly  to  strengthen  and  confirm  it.  Indeed,  if  such  passages 
as  Dr.  Rentoul  quotes  were  not  to  be  found  in  abundance  through- 
out Renan's  lectures  I  should  not  have  thoi^ght  of  quoting  him  at 
all.  The  special  value  of  his  testimony  is  based  on  the  fact  that  he 
was  a  renegade  from  the  Church,  and  belonged  to  a  school  whose 
"wholesale  and  destructive  criticism  of  revealed  truth  the 
Catholic  Church,  and  she  alone,  has  consistently  condemned."  For 
this  very  reason,  as  I  said,  "we  must  regard  their  admissions  in 
favour  of  the  Roman  Primacy  as  the  irresistible  outcome  of  the  facts 
of  history." 


APPENDIX.  213 

Renan,  then,  was  cited  to  give  testimony  not  to  his  own  belief  or 
disbelief  in  the  Primacy,  but  to  historical  facts.  What  were  these 
historical  facts  in  supportof  which  Renan's  testimony  M'as  adduced  ? 
They  were,  as  the  context  most  clearly  shows,  the  claims  put  for- 
ward by  the  Roman  Pontiffs,  andacknowledged  by  the  Christians  of 
the  first  three  centuries.     Here  is  the  immediate  context : — 

"  Neander  testifies  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Papal  claims  to  a  Primacy  of  juris- 
diction. 

"  '  Very  early  indeed,'  he  says,  '  do  we  observe  in  the  Roman  bishops  traces  of 
the  assumption  that  to  them,  as  successors  of  St.  Peter,  belonged  a  paramount 
authority  in  ecclesiastical  disputes.' 

"  His  evidence  is  not  the  less  valuable,  though,  like  other  Protestant  contro- 
versialists of  far  less  note,  he  writes  of  what  he  calls  'the  assumption'  of  the 
Roman  bishops.  "We  are  not  to  forget  that  he  is  dealing  with  those  very  ages  in 
which,  according  to  the  generally  received  Protestant  teaching,  the  faith  of  the 
Church  was  pure  and  the  sanctity  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  conspicuous.  And  as  we 
shall  see  in  the  course  of  our  inquiry  these  '  assumptions'  were  filially  recognised 
by  those  primitive  saints  and  doctors  to  whose  writings,  when  it  suits  their 
purposes,  Protestants  so  confidently  appeal." 

Then,  passing  from  Protestant  testimony  to  a  class  of  testimony 
even  more  telling,  because  the  witnesses  were  still  further  removed 
from  any  sympathy  with  the  Catholic  Church,  I  immediately 
added : — 

"  Little  as  we  may  admire  the  methods  of  Rationalistic  wi'iters,  we  must  at 
least  regard  their  admissions  in  fa\our  of  the  Roman  Primacy  as  the  irresistible 
outcome  of  the  facts  of  history.  The  Catholic  Church,  and  she  alone,  has  consis- 
tently condemned  their  wholesale  and  destructive  criticism  of  revealed  truth,  whilst 
Protestantism  seemed  satisfied  if  Rome  suffered  equally  with  Revelation.  Renan 
may  surely  be  taken  as  a  typical  representative  of  this  school,  and  there  is  no 
room  for  mistake  in  his  words." 

The  admissions  in  favour  of  the  Roman  Primacy  to  be  found  in 
Renan's  "  Hibbert  Lectures"  are  not  confined,  as  Dr.  Rentoul 
seems  to  insinuate,  to  the  passages  (quoted  by  me,  but  are  numerous 
and  emphatic. 

Page  124. — Of  St.  Clement,  Renan  says  : — "  He  is  the  first  tj-peof 
Pope  which  Church  history  presents  to  us;"'  and  (page  125)  of 
Clement's  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  written  t^pwards  the  end  of 
the  first  centur}^  about  thirty  years  after  8t.  Peter's  death,  he 
writes  : — 

"  Already  the  idea  of  a  certain  primacy  belonging  to  his  Church  was  beginning 
to  make  its  way  to  the  light.  The  right  of  warning  other  Churches  and  of 
composing  their  differences  was  conceded  to  it.  Similar  privileges — so  at  least  it 
was  believed  (Luke  xxii.,  32)— had  been  accorded  to  Peter  by  the  other  disciples, 

"  A  very  ancient  tradition  ascribes  the  composition  of  it  to  Clement." 

Page  127. — "Its  letter  to  the  Corinthians  is  the  first  manifesto  of  the  principle 
of  authority  made  within  the  Church,"  and  in  a  note,  "few  writings  are  so 
authentic." 

Page  128.—"  Some  years  ago  a  great  outcry  was  raised  against  a  French  Arch- 
bishop, then  a  senator,  who  said  from  the  tribune,  '  my  clergy  is  my  regiment.' 
Clement  had  said  the  same  thing  long  before." 

Page  150. — "The  centre  of  a  future  Catholic  orthodoxy  was  plainly  here.  Pius, 
who  succeeded  Hyginus,  showed  the  same  firmness  in  defending  the  piirity  of  the 
faith.  Cerdo,  Marcian,  Valentinus,  Marcellinus,  are  removed  from  the  Church  by 
the  sentence  of  Pius.  In  the  reign  of  Antoninus  the  germ  of  the  Papacy  already 
exists  in  a  very  definite  form." 

o 


214  APPENDIX. 

Antoninus  reigned  from  138  a.d.  to  161. 

Page  175.  —This  precedence  of  the  Church  of  Rome  only  became  more  marked  in 
the  third  century." 

Page  176. — The  tradition  of  the  Roman  Church  passes  for  the  most  ancient  of 
all.  Cornelius  takes  the  lirst  place  in  the  affair  of  Novatianism.  We  see  him,  in 
especial,  depriving  Italian  bishops,  and  nominating  their  successors.  Rome  was 
also  the  central  authority  of  the  African  Church." 

Page  180. — Speaking  of  Pope  St.  Victor's  time,  at  the  close  of  the  second 
centuiy,  Renan  says,  "The  Papacy  was  already  born,  and  well  born." 

Page  198. — "That  Roman  Primacy,  which  is  so  brilliant  a  fact  in  the  second 
and  third  century,  ceases  to  exist  as  soon  as  the  East  has  a  separate  existence  and 
a  separate  capital." 

Just  immediately  after  the  passage  which  Dr.  Reutoul  so  unfairly 
complains  of  me  for  mutilathig,  Renan  bears  this  striking  testimony 
to  the  pre-eminence  of  the  Roman  Church.  It  will  be  observed  how 
he  translates  the  famous  passage  of  Iremeus.  Primacy  is  his  render- 
ing of  Rome's  PriacipaUtas  :  — 

Page  173. — "The  writing,  of  which  the  fragment  known  as  the  Canon  of  Mura- 
tori  formed  a  part  and  which  was  produced  at  Rome  about  the  year  180  a.d., 
shows  us  Rome  already  defining  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  alleging  the  martyrdom 
of  Peter  as  the  foundation  of  Catholicity,  repudiating  Montanism  and  Gnosticism 
alike.  Irenyeus  refutes  all  heresies  by  reference  to  the  belief  of  this  Church,  '  the 
greatest,  the  oldest,  the  most  illustrious,  which  possesses  in  virtue  of  an  unbroken 
succession  the  true  tradition  of  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  and  to  which,  because 
of  its  primacy,  all  the  rest  of  the  Church  ought  to  have  recourse.'  "— (Irenaeus, 
iii.,  iii.  2,  pp.  173-4.) 

In  the  "  Hibbert  Lectures"  there  are  several  indirect  testimonies 
to  the  existence  of  the  Roman  Primacy  in  the  Early  Church,  as  well 
as  several  references  to  that  Church's  purity  of  faith  and  morals. 
But  these  I  have  given  will  suffice  to  show  that  I  was  under  no 
necessity,  as  I  certainly  had  no  wish,  to  mutilate  or  garble  quota- 
tions from  Renan  or  any  other  author. 

Now,  in  face  of  this  al)undant  testimony,  is  it  not  "  pitiable"  to 
find  Dr.  Rentoul  straining  out  a  gnat  when  he  has  to  swallow  a 
camel  ?  With  what  in  another  would  appear  to  be  assumed  earnest- 
ness, he  asks  why  did  I  omit  these  tremendous  sentences.  I  answer, 
because  they  had  no  possible  bearing  on  the  matter  in  hand  ;  because 
they  regarded  not  what  I  was  dealing  with,  namely,  the  claims  put 
forward  by  the  early  Roman  Pontiffs  to  a  primacy  of  jurisdiction, 
but  the  well-known  opinions  of  Renan  concerning  the  Papacy  ; 
because  they  regarded  not  the  early  existence,  but  Renan's  views  (of 
which  I  gave  sufficient  indication),  in  relation  to  the  origin  and 
character  of  the  Primacy.  The  (question  at  issue  was  not  what  Renan 
believed,  but  what  he  witnessed  to,  regarding  the  admitted  claims  of 
the  Roman  Pontiffs  to  the  Primacy  in  the  confessedly  pure  ages  of 
the  Church. 

I  have  considered  all  that  Dr.  Rentoul  has  said,  and  I  now 
deliberately  state  that  I  am  satisfied  that  these  "tremendous  sen- 
tences" were  properly  omitted  as  being  entirely  irrelevant. 

I  thank  Dr.  Rentoul  for  the  information  he  gives  regarding  the 
Rationalism  of  Protestantism.  This  patting  on  the  back  of  Ration- 
alism by  a  distinguished  Presbyterian  divine  of  our  day  is  indeed 


APPENDIX.  215 

nevv  to  me,  but  it  serves  to  explain  nnich  that  I  could  not  pre- 
viously reconcile  in  the  faith  and  practice  of  some  I'rotestants. 

In  return  I  beg  to  inform  Dr.  Rentoul  that  he  applied  an  offensive 
epithet  to  John  Henry  Newman  when  and  where  he  described  him 
as  a  "Romanist"  cardinal,  and  that  he  repeated  the  offence  to 
Catholics  as  often  as  he  referred  to  the  "  Romish"  priesthood.  I 
cannot  help  wondering  that  Dr.  Rentoul  was  ignorant  that  these 
epithets  are,  and  are  intended  to  be  offensive. — Yours,  &c. 

+  THOMAS  J.  CARR, 
22nd  May.  Archbishop  of  Melbourne. 


III. 
DR.  RENTOUL'8  THIRD  LETTER  IN  REPLY. 

To  THE  Editor  (of  "Arous"  and  "Age.") 

Sir, — Through  the  huge  haze  of  words  with  which  Archbishop 
Carr  has  striven  to  envelop  the  reality,  some  solid  facts  now  stand 
forth  clear  and  indisputable : — 

(1)  The  one  vital  matter  at  issue  is  the  truth  or  falsity  of  the 
Roman  claim.  That  claim  is  that  the  Roman  Papacj'  rests  on  a 
twenty-five  years'  bishopric  of  Peter  at  Rome,  and  that  from  this 
bishopric  a  line  of  successive  supreme  bishops  ruling  at  Rome,  with 
"a  primacy  of  jurisdiction,"  descended  in  unbroken  succession  in 
th  etirst  and  second  centuries. 

(2)  In  support  of  this  daring  claim  Archbishop  Carr  professed  to 
cite  a  large  number  of  accurate  and  trustworthy  "  quotations "  as 
impressive  "Protestant  testimony."  In  connection  with,  and  as  the 
jinale  of,  this  ciunulative  ' '  testimony, "  he  tried  to  make  it  appear  that 
even  the  "Rationalistic  writers"  had,  by  "their  admissions"  con- 
firmed and  made  i;nanswerable  this  claim.  He  accordingly  gave 
what  purported  to  be  a  genuine  and  reliable  quotation  from  Renan. 
To  make  it  more  impressive,  Archbishop  Carr  introduced  it  by  the 
declaration — "There  is  no  room  for  mistake  in  his  words." 

(3)  It  is  now  jjroven  that  the  professed  "quotation"  from  Renan, 
instead  of  being  reliable,  or  favourable,  or  a  testimony  to  the  Roman 
Papacy  as  "the  irresistible  outcome  of  the  facts  of  history"  was 
made  to  appear  so  only  by  a  drastic  mutilation  of  Renan's  sentences 
— a  mutilation  so  drastic  that  it  cut  the  backbone  and  living  heart 
out  of  Renan's  meaning. 

(4)  It  is  now  proven  that  Archbishop  Carr's  attempt  to  shield 
himself  behind  the  Advocate  report  has  not  in  the  least  improved  his 
position.  That  report  gives  what  Archbishop  Carr  has  declared 
to  be  the  accurate  shape  of  his  quotation ;  and  it  presents  the 
passage  of  Renan  still  mutilated  so  as  to  convey  just  almost  the 
opposite  meaning  of  what  Renan  intended.  ^ 


216  APPENDIX. 

(5)  The  entire  passage  of  Renan,  had  it  been  read  without 
mutilation,  would  have  declared  that  the  Roman  Papacy  rests  on  a 
huge  legend  "  equally  mythical"  with  the  pagan  legend  of  Romulus 
and  Remus.  Had  this  been  frankly  quoted  to  the  audience  to 
which  Archbishop  Carr  spoke,  it  would  have  fallen  upon  them  with 
dismay. 

(6)  The  whole  context  of  Archbishop  Carr's  "  quotation "  makes 
the  mutilation  still  more  surprising.  Just  a  few  sentences  above  his 
"quotation"  from  Renan,  Archbishop  Carr  had  declared  that  in  the 
times  of  which  he  was  speaking  "  the  faith  of  the  Church  was  pure 
and  the  sanctity  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  conspicuous."  But  in  his 
quotation  from  Renan  he  cuts  out  a  passage  which  declares,  as  a 
fact  of  history,  that  in  those  very  times,  and  up  to  the  time  of 
Victor,  the  whole  Church  of  Rome  was  of  one  mind  with  them," 
viz.,  with  "the  poor  Artemonites,  a  kind  of  Arians  before  Arius." 

Now  this  discussion  might  here  determine,  for  the  facts  above 
stated  are  unanswerable.  But  in  his  last  letter  Archbishop  Carr 
attempts  two  things,  in  explanation  of  his  mutilation  of  the  "  quo- 
tation" from  Renan  First,  he  says  he  "  omitted  these  tremendous 
sentences"  only  ' '  because  they  had  no  possible  bearing  on  the 
matter  in  hand  ;  becau.se  they  regarded  not  what  he  was  dealing 
with,  namely,  the  claims  put  forward  by  the  early  Roman  Pontiffs 
to  a  primacy  of  jurisdiction,  but  the  well-known  opinions  of  Renan 
concerning  the  Papacy,"  &c.  This  ingenious  distinction  will  not 
stand  a  moment's  investigation.  Higher  up  in  his  letter.  Arch- 
bishop Carr  had  stated  his  object  in  quoting  Renan,  viz.,  that  it 
was  testimony  "  in  favour  of  the  Roman  primacy  as  the  irresistible 
outcome  of  the  facts  of  history."  Now,  Renan  showed  that  the 
Roman  primac}^  instead  of  being  "  the  irresistible  outcome  of  the 
facts  of  history,"  was  the  ecclesiastical  and  sacerdotal  outcome  of  a 
huge  legend  as  mythical  as  that  of  Romulus  and  Remus.  But 
Archbishop  Carr  deftly  cuts  out  of  the  "  quotation"  all  reference  to 
that  fact.  And  so  also  with  the  other  statement  of  Renan  about 
the  actual  facts  of  the  state  of  the  faith  of  the  ChiTrch  of  Rome  in 
the  second  century.  Archbishop  Carr  deftly  cut  that  also  out  of 
the  quotation.  I  am  bound  to  say  that  you  could  make  "  quota- 
tions" prove  anything  whatever  if  you  were  allowed  to  make 
"  quotations"  by  this  method. 

The  other  effort  of  Archbishop  Carr  is  to  make  a  number  of  new 
and  irrelevant  quotations  from  Renan  with  respect  to  Clement  of 
Rome,  &c.  I  wish  I  had  space  to  set  these,  each  in  its  true  connec- 
tion, before  the  public.  But,  as  the  Americans  tersely  say,  "  they 
don't  belong  here."  I  was  the  first  in  this  controversy  to  give  the 
name  of  Renan's  book  and  the  page  and  the  facts  and  the  connective 
meaning  of  it.  I  urged,  and  I  urge  still,  the  public  to  get  it  and  to 
read  it  as  a  whole.  It  shows  clearly  how  "the  episcopate,"  and 
then  the  Papacy,  arose  out  of  the  original  simple  "  presbyterate," 
until  at  last  the  most  potent  "  bishop"  made  himself  a  '"bishop  of 
bishops."   It  shows  also  that  the  Papacy  is  mainly  due  to  "  a  vast 


APPENDIX.  217 

Ebionite  legend "  about  Peter,  which  arose  just  shortly  after 
Clement's  death.  "A  vast  Ebionite  legend  arose  in  Rome,  and,  under 
the  name  of  'The  Preaching,  or  'The  Journeys  of  Peter,'  took  a  fixed 
shape  about  the  year  130  a.d. — that  is  to  say,  66  years,  more  or 
less,  after  the  death  of  the  Apostles."  And  it  testifies  that  in  the 
letter  of  Clement  of  Rome  prior  to  this  movement — ' '  We  find  no 
trace  as  yet  of  a  preshyterus  superior  to,  and  about  to  dethrone,  the 
rest."     And  Renan  proves  these  things  by  documentary  facts. 

In  Archbishop  Carr's  reference  to  "  Rationalism"  and  Protestant- 
ism he  is  equally  unfortunate.  Instead  of  Protestantism  "patting 
on  the  back"  Rationalism,  it  was  the  Archbishop  who  first  manufac- 
tured Renan  into  "  Protestant  testimony,"  and  then  into  a  "Ration- 
alist," and  then  represented  Renan  as  patting  on  the  back  Roman 
Catholicism.  It  will  not  do !  I  pointed  Archl)ishop  Carr  to  the 
Encyclopcedia  Britannica  to  let  him  know  that  the  much-misused 
word  "Rationalism"  may,  rightly  used,  imply  no  rejection  of  the 
facts  of  Revelation.  Protestantism,  as  history  proves,  is  not  kin  to 
what  the  Archbishop  seeks  to  call  "  Rationalism."  It  is  kin  to 
"  Reason"  on  the  one  hand  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  kin 
to  "  Faith"  that  rejects  superstition  and  credulity.  Protestants 
say,  as  Christ  said,  "  Search  the  Scriptures."  Archbishop  Carr  is 
on  perilous  ground  in  talking  of  Protestantism  and  disbelief.  Has 
not  he  read  the  statement  in  a  recent  magazine,  from  one  of  oui- 
greatest  living  masters  in  the  philosophy  of  religion  and  of 
history :  — 

"It  is  now  as  then  (the  eighteenth  century).  It  is  Catholic  countries  that  show 
the  most  radical  revolt  of  the  intellect  from  religion,  and  a  revolt,  not  at  one  point, 
but  at  all." 

I'need  not  enlarge  on  this  tragic  and  palpable  fact.     Renan  himself 
is  too  striking  an  instance  of  it. 

Archbishop  Carr  completes  the  serio-comedy  by  confessing  that 
the  "offensive  epithet"  he  accused  me  of  applying  to  John  Henry 
Newman  was  to  call  him  a  "  Romanist  Cardinal."  And  this  from 
an  Archbishop  who  has  flung  "epithets"  all  round  him  of  a  very 
sardonic  kind  against  his  Protestant  antagonists !  And  he  himself 
also  has  spoken  of  the  '"Roman  See"  and  the  "Roman  Pope." 
Evidently,  the  Ai'chbishop  was  hard  up  for  something  to  complain 
of.  I  used  the  term  "  Romanist  Cardinal"  without  thought  of 
offence.  But  if  the  umbrage  at  it  implies  the  assertion  on  the 
part  of  Romanists  that  they  have  any  better  right  to  the  name 
"Catholic"  than  Anglicans  or  Presbyterians  or  any  Protestants 
have,  then  I  will  use  it  again. — I  am,  &c., 

J.  LAURENCE  RENTOUL. 

Ormond  College,  The  University,  25lh  May. 


218  APPENDIX. 

IV. 

ARCHBISHOP  CARR'S  FOURTH  LETTER. 

To  THE  Editor  (of  "Age"  axd  "Argus.") 

Sir,  — Allow  me  to  reply  very  briefly  to  Dr.  Rentours  last  letter. 
I  will  not  add  a  single  word  to  what  I  have  already  written 
regarding  the  main  points  of  the  controversy.  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  abide  by  the  judgment  of  those  who  have  attentively 
followed  the  whole  discussion.  But  I  may  inform  Dr.  Rentoul  that 
he  takes  undeserved  credit  to  himself  for  being  the  first  to  give  the 
name  of  Renan's  book  and  the  page,  &c.  If  he  will  take  the  trouble 
of  turning  to  my  Replies  to  the  Anglican  Bishop  of  BaUarat  and 
the  Rev.  Canon  Fotter,  published  last  year  in  pamphlet  form,  he 
will  find  that  I  gave  the  full  name  of  Renan's  book  {Hibhert 
Lectures),  the  date  of  delivery  (1880),  and  the  very  page  and 
passage  in  which  the  disputed  quotation  is  found  [Lecture  II., 
p.  37-8).  Everyone  knows  that  it  is  not  usual  to  give  manj^  references 
in  a  newspaper  report  of  a  lecture,  particularly  when  the  matter  is 
to  be  afterwards  published  in  permanent  form.  But  if  Dr. 
Rentoul  honours  me  by  reading  the  first  lecture  of  the  late  series, 
as  it  was  already  printed  in  sheets  before  his  first  lecture  was 
delivered,  and  as  it  will  soon  appear  published  with  the  other  five 
lectures  of  the  series,  he  will  find  the  name  of  Renan's  book  and  the 
date  and  page  given  as  exactly  as  he  can  desire. 

Catholics,  I  may  observe,  have  no  objection  to  the  title  "Roman," 
indeed  they  glory  in  it  as  indicating  the  centre  of  their  unity.  But 
if  Dr.  Rentoul  will  persist  in  calling  us  "Romanists,"  and  our 
doctrine  and  priesthood  "  Romish,"  we  must  try  to  bear  the  offensive 
epithets,  as  we  have  had  to  bear  many  other  hard  things  he  has 
said  of  us.  In  conclusion,  I  sincerely  hope  that  however  we  may 
differ  theologically,  at  least,  in  the  amenities  of  life,  the  proverb 
may  be  fulfilled  in  our  regard :  Aniantium  ircc  amoris  integratio  est. 
— Yours,  &c., 

+  THOMAS  J.  CARR, 

Archbishop  of  Melbourne. 
St.  Patrick's  Cathedral,  26th  May. 


IV. 

DU.  RENTOUL"S  FINAL  LETTER. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  "Argus." 

Sir, — I  have  no  desire  to  prolong  this  controversy.  With  the 
only  new  matter  in  Archbishop  Carr's  letter  of  to-day  I  will  deal 
briefly.  He  says  that  I  "  take  undeserved  credit  to  myself  for 
being  the  first  to  give  the  name  of  Renan's  book  and  the  page,  &c." 


APPENDIX.  219 

This,  I  must  say,  is  another  instance  of  his  lack  of  accuracy.  What 
I  .said  was  that  I  was  "  the  first  in  this  controversy  to  give  the  name 
of  Renan's  book,  and  the  page,  and  the  facts,  and  the  connective 
meaning  of  it.  I  urge,  and  I  still  urge,  the  public  to  get  it  and  read 
it  as  a  whole.  Even  the  title  of  the  book,  if  given  in  full,  would 
indicate  its  meaning. " 

I  am  exceedingly  surprised  at  Archbishop  Carr's  courage  in  refer- 
ring me  to  his  "  Replies  to  the  Anglican  Bishop  of  Ballarat  and  the 
Rev.  Canon  Potter,"  published  last  year,  in  reference  to  a  quite 
different  controversy,  and  quite  different  antagonists.  I  have  con- 
sulted the  Replies,  and  my  surprise  at  Archbishop  Carr's  courage  is 
deepened.  The  professed  "quotation"  from  Renan  on  that  printed 
page  (p.  40)  is  mutilated  just  as  in  the  recent  lectures.  I  had  not 
dreamt  that  the  Archbishop  had  once  before  presented  that  strangely 
garbled  passage  to  the  public  as  the  "testimony"  of  Renan. 

Then,  again,  another  astonishing  thing  is  that,  in  the  Replies 
(pp.  37-49),  Archbishop  Carr  distinctly  declares,  just  as  in  his  recent 
lectures  he  "implied,"  that  he  was  quoting  only  "Protestant 
testimony"  when  including  Renan.  He  says  (p.  87)  that  he  will 
"anticipate  Canon  Potter's  objection  to  Catholic  authorities," 
and  will  "  confine  himself  to  Protestant  historians."  The  five  to 
whose  "testimony"  he  then  proceeds  to  confine  himself  are  Dr. 
Nevin,  Hallam,  Milman.  Neander,  and  Renan.  Let  the  reader 
attentively  compare  this  part  of  the  Replies  with  Archbishop  Carr's 
recent  first  lecture  and  his  assertion  at  the  opening  of  the  second 
lecture  that  he  had  "  tjuoted  exclusively  Protestant  testimony." 

The  most  surprising  thing  of  all,  however,  is  that,  in  his  Replies, 
Archbishop  Carr  actually  calls  himself  and  his  co-religionists  by  the 
name  "  Romanists."  Rays  the  Archbishop — ^"  The  Romanists  are 
not  the  only  denomiTiation  likely  to  interfere  with  the  good  bishop's 
hope  of  union."  (Replies,  p.  10.)  Truly  a  prelate  of  much  versa- 
tility is  Archbisho])  Carr  !  In  two  series  of  lectures  he  pigeon-holed 
Renan  along  with  the  "Protestant  testimony."  In  another  mood  he 
objected  to  me  for  poiiiting  out  that  he  had  placed  him  there.  In 
his  Replies  "published  last  year"  he  calls  himself  and  his  Church 
"Romanists."  This  year,  when  I  courteously  call  a  gentleman  a 
"  Romanist  Cardinal,"  he  terms  it  an  "  offensive  epithet." 

Archbishop  Carr,  oddly  enough,  complains  of  the  "many  hard 
things"  I  have  spoken  of  the  Roman  Catholics.  Surely  he  should  be 
the  last  to  speak  thus.  Any  "  hard  things"  I  have  spoken  have 
been  about  the  Roman  Catholic  claim,  not  about  the  men  and  the 
people.  But  read  Archbishop  Carr's  writings  !  You  find  them 
made  up  mainly  of  two  things — "  quotations"  and  "hard  things" 
about  the  great  names  and  men  all  Protestants  and  liberals  revere. 
Even  Wycliffe  was  a  "  hypocrite  ;"  Tyndale,  the  martyred  trans- 
lator of  our  English  Bible,  "  was  a  most  irreverent  mind,"  and  was 
"  the  very  man  to  pei^vert  the  meaning  of  Holy  Scripture;"  Foxe 
"  was  a  deliberate  falsifier  of  history."  This  is  the  Archbishop's 
mildest.  No  wonder  that  in  his  eyes  Dr.  Littledale  is  "  a  discredited 


220  APPENDIX. 

controversialist.-'  These  be  "  hard  things  !''  What  if  we  retaliated 
by  telling  some  facts  of  history  about  the  double  line  of  Pontiffs  and 
the  lives  of  Popes  ?     But  we  have  not  done  so. 

With  this  I  am  content  to  leave  the  matter  to  the  public,  asking 
tliem  to  remember  that  all  this  concerns  the  one  point  in  my  lectures 
which  Archbishop  Carr  has  ventured  to  controvert.  Of  one  thing  I 
am  quite  sure — Renan  will  not  again  be  quoted  in  Melbourne  as 
"  testimony"  to  the  historicity  of  the  Roman  claim.  Rather  will^he 
be  remembered  as  having  likened  the  basis  of  that  claim  to  the 
"  equally  mythical  duality"  of  Romulus  and  Remus. — I  am,  &c., 

J.  LAURENCE  RENTOUL. 
Ormond  College,  The  University,  28th  May. 


McCarron,  Bird  and  Co.,  Printers,  479  Collins-street,  Melbourne. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01017  3062