5t^
J
i
THE
PRIMACY
OF THE
APOSTOLIC SEE,
AND THK
AUTHORITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS,
V I N D I C A T E D.
IN A SERIES OF LETTERS
ADDRESSED TO THE
RIGHT REV. J. H. HOPKINS, D.D.
BISHOP OF THE TROTESTAST EPISCOPAL CHIRCH OF VERMONT.
nV THC
RIGHT REV. FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK, D.D.
BISHOP OF ARATH, A5D COADJUTOR OF THE BISHOP oF PHILADELPHIA.
"Omnia te video dixis.-je ronira Calholiram : inio iniilia pro
Catholica, cum Catln)liciis iioii sis."— (>/(<a/uj(, /. ],^:>,p.4.
I'im-.\I)i:i,l'III.\:
JAMES KAY, JUN. & BROTHER, 1^> CHESTNUT STREET
I'lTT.sni'RCM : JOHN I. KAY Sc CO.
Il.M.TIMOHF. : y. I.rtAS, JI.N.
1838.
Entered according to the act of congress, in the year 1837, by Francis Patrick
Kenrick, in the office of the clerk of the district court of the United States in and
for the eastern district of Pennsylvania.
TO THE
MOST REV. SAMUEL ECCLESTON,
ARCHBISHOP OF BALTIMORE.
Most Reverend Sir :
Your eminent station, and still more your zeal
for our holy Religion, encourage me to inscribe to
you the following Letters, directed to vindicate the
Primacy of the Apostolic See. The influence of
your example must be powerful with those who
reflect that you sacrificed early prejudice to truth,
and that whilst you yield to none in love of coun-
try, and attachment to its free institutions, you
cherish profound veneration for the high authority
which Christ established for the government of
his Church. With such a Prelate at the head of
the American Hierarchy, who recommends Reli-
gion by the exercise of the mild virtues which it
inspires, we may hope that many of those who lie
scattered throughout this vast and flourishing
Republic, like sheep without a shepherd, will
soon be brought to the fold of Jesus Christ. This
is, doubtless, your highest ambition, and most
earnest prayer, as it is likewise the object dearest
to the heart of him who, with veneration and
esteem, subscribes himself.
Your devoted brother in Christ,
t FRANCIS PATRICK KENRICK,
Bishop of Arath and Coadj. Philadelphia.
Philadelphia, December 8, 1837.
PREFACE
The followinor Letters have been written in reply
to the work which has recently appeared from the
pen of the Protestant Episcopal bishop of Ver-
mont, in which "the Church of Rome, at the pre-
sent day, is compared with the Church of Jiome
in her primitive purity," and which is ''addressed
to the Roman Hierarchy." The investiiration
which has been thus opened is hii,dily interesting,
and the mode in which it is conducted sufficiently
novel to increase the interest. Thoui>h the early
writers of the Anglican Church made free use of
the Fathers, it was found by experience so difficult
to suit their testimony to the doctrines of the day,
that appeals to their authority have become com-
paratively rare in Protestant polemics, l^ishop
Hopkins has ventured anew on ground whence
many a chaminon of Protestantism had been forced
to retreat, and has advanced close to our camp,
brandishing weapons taken from our own armory.
Not confining himself, as some more cautious dis-
putants, to the earlic^st Fathers, styled Apostolic,
he has extended his researches to the nuddle of
the fifth century, and presented, in regular array,
a host of writers, with aj)|)areiit confidence in the
favoural)le character of their testimony. C^atholics
owe him a debt of Liralitude for directing public
attention to tlu^se venerable witnesses of ancient
faith; and Protestants must feel ilattcnd that so
PREFACE.
plausible a defence of their principles could have
been made by their ingenious advocate. To in-
spire confidence in his proofs, Bishop Hopkins
cited at the bottom of the page, in many instances,
the original Greek and Latin, and in some cases
the received Latin version of some Greek Fathers.
I regret to be obliged to dispute the fidelity of the
English translation of several passages; and though
I willingly acquit him of intentional misrepresen-
tation of the meaning of the text, the learned reader
will admit, that it has been, in many places, greatly
mistaken. The frequency of my corrections, which
I have generally made in the notes, may appear
unkind, perhaps pedantic; but the errors sometimes
materially affected the sense, and w^ere made the
occasion or ground of false argumentation. It is
pleasing to find that a desultory mode of contro-
versy has not been pursued by Bishop Hopkins,
his arguments being directed almost exclusively
against one tenet of Catholic faith — the Supre-
macy of the Pope. It is, indeed, to be regretted
that the Bishop did not confine himself to that
tenet, which would have fixed attention so com-
pletely on it that the reader might have more
easily formed his judgment. The occasional ob-
jections introduced against General Councils have
called for a reply, but have not afforded an oppor-
tunity of a full development of the nature and au-
thority of these venerable assemblies. The Letters,
then, may be deemed the vindication of the Pri-
macy alone, though incidentally the authority of
General Councils is likewise vindicated. The
main subject has been somew^hat encumbered, in
the work of Bishop Hopkins, by the introduction
of supposititious works, and of passages having
little or no connexion with it: which render the
task of the writer and reader more tedious than it
PREFACE. ni
would otherwise have been. By the repetition of
assertions of the same kind in numberless places,
the respondent has been k'd to repeat, with some
variety of phrase, what a dilVerent arrangement
would not have ref[uired. The plan, however, of
the original work is somewhat new and pleasing,
and well calculated for its end, uniting much art
vrith apparent simplicity. The style is that of a
gentleman and a scholar — and abounds in profess-
ions of kindness — in exhortation — in appeals —
and in prayer — but withal it conceals the bitter-
ness of reproach and accusation. In the answer,
great care has l)een taken to repress the strong
feeling which groundless imputations awaken — to
temper its expression — and to sustain truth with-
out violating charity. It has been deemed unne-
cessary to swell the book by giving all the })assages
in the original Greek, or Latin, or in the Latin
version of the Greek text, as most readers cannot
profit l)y the facility which it allbrds of judging of
the accuracy of the English version : but wherever
a doubt might be excited as to the meaning of the
words, or a correction was to be sustained, or the
words seemed peculiarly important, they have
been given in the notes. These Letters, wTitten
purely with a view to vindicate a divine dogma,
appear without any ])rctensions to adventitious or-
nament; and are submitted in the hope that they
may fall into the hands of some who are not as
yet of the fold of Jesus Christ, Imt whom his mercy
designs to bring, that they may be of the one fold,
under the one Pastor.
CONTENTS
LETTER I.
Promotion of Christian union. The Catholic principle. Canon law.
Fathers — Extent of their authority. Use and meaning of Anathema.
Apostolic Fathers. Apostolic Canons. Apostolic Constitutions. Coun-
cil of Florence. Pontifical rights and privileges.
LETTER IL
Scriptural proofs of the Primacy. Promise of Christ. Metaphor of
the Rock — Of the keys of the kingdom. Distinction between Petrusand
Petra abandoned. Greek text. Syriac version. Arabic, (/haldaic.
Bloomfield, Bishop Marsh, Rosenmiiller. In what sense is Peter the
foundation .' Supposed literary blunder. Vigilius. Charge of Christ
to Peter. Prayer that his faith may not fail. Pastoral commission. Ar-
nobius. Protestant interpretation. Exercise of the Primacy. Elec-
tion of Matthias. Chrysostom. Council of Jerusalem. Decree of Peter.
Jerome, Theodoret. Cave. Perpetuity of the Primacy. Peter, Bishop
of Rome.
LETTER in.
Objections. Christ the Rock, the foundation. St Leo. Bishop Marsh.
Bloomfield. Humility inculcated. Domination. Vanity. Power of
forgiveness. Peter and John sent. Peter vindicates himself Paul's
visit. Reproof of Ceplias. Order of the Apostles. Foundation of the
Church of Rome. St Francis de Sales. Scriptural allusions.
LETTER IV.
Spurious Documents. Canons of the Apostles. Apostolic Constitu-
tions. Decretals of Isidore. Sources. Letter of Hormisdas. John of
Constantinople.
LETTER V.
Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius. Roman Church presiding. Clement
of Rome. Letter to the Corinthians. Irenanis. Splendid testimony.
More powerful principality. Agreement with the Roman Ciiurch. Pas-
chal question. Victor. Threat of excommunication. Ancient usages
Perpetuity of the Roman See. Undying sovereignty. Fanciful hypo-
thesis. Primitive views. Seat of ernpire.
CONTENTS. IX
LETTER VI.
Tertiillian. Peter the Rock. Bishop of hishops. Church of I'oter.
Apostolic. Keys left tlirouijh I'eter to the Church. Ingenious inter-
pretation. Council of Jerusalem. Fal>er's acknowledgment. SucceiiB-
ion to Peter. Montanisin. Key of knowledirr. Apostolic Churches.
Vindication of TertuUian.
LETTER VII.
Clement of Ale.xandria. Hypotyposcs lost. Fracrment in F^usebius
Precedency of Peter. Ancient Church. Unity of the Church. Figu-
rative terms. Gospel of Mark.
LETTER Vin.
Origen. Keys of Scripture. Mystical interpretation. Privileges of
all the Apostles. Moral application. Gates of hell powerless against
the Rock and Church. Heterodox. Connexion not iinine(jiat<'. Claims
of the episcopacy. Capricious exercise of power. On Pet«'r the Church
is built. To him supreme power is given. Visit to Rome. Profession
of faith.
LETTER IX.
St Cyprian. One Church. One Chair. Communion with Corne-
lius, tliat is, with the Catholic Church. Authority of the Roman
Church. Pl.ice of I'cter. Pag.iti eiii|Mror jealous of the Roman Bishop.
Acknowlednment of Bishop Hopkins. Iluman church. Liberty of
bishops. Scliismatics. Letter to Cornelius. One Bishop. One Judge.
Preventive of heresy and schism. Peter speaks for all. .M.ijesty of the
Church. Roman faith inaccessible to perfidy. Appeals to Rome. Right
not questioned. Root and parent of the Catholic Church. Power to
depose bishops. Unity of the Episcopate and Church. Peter its Guar-
dian. Letter to Quintus. Doubt raised as to the genuine character of
the writings on baptism. Incorrect translations. St Gregory the Great.
Mutual appellations. Greatness of Home.
LETTER X.
Controversy concerning baptism. Narrative of St Vincent of Lerins.
Zeal of the Apostolic See. No innovation. Cyprian not mentioned.
Plea for liim by St Augustin. Kusebius. St Jerome. F'irmilian. Ad-
missif)n of the superiority f)f Stephen. Cause of excited feeling.^ Abuse
of authority. Political illustration. Supposed submission of Cyprian.
Victor and Stephen sustained by councils. Example of Cyprian
LETTER XI.
Lactantius. Catholic Church. Kusebius. Circumstantial evidence
Paul preceded all the Christian apologists. Silence of Mark.^ Pet<*r
the first— the most powerful and the great.'st of the Apostles. Fanciful
interpretation of this testimony. The priniacy of a skilful lawyer. Chair
X CONTENTS.
of Peter. Roman Bishop successor of Peter. Paschal controversy.
Remonstrance of Irenaeus. Letter of Dionysius of Alexandria. Coun-
cil of Antioch. Ancient discipHne. Reference by Aurelian to the
bishops of Italy and Rome. Letter of Constantine. Judgment of Mel-
chiades. Council of Aries. New trial unnecessary. History of Euse-
bius. Offensive language of Bishop Hopkins.
LETTER XIL
General Councils. PontiiTs right of convocation. Of presiding. Dis-
tinction between doctrine and discipline. Council of Nice summoned
by Constantine, with the assent of Sylvester. Address of Constantine.
Untimely introduction of the Council of Jerusalem. Imperial convoca-
tion not suited to the divided state of Christendom. Letter of the orien-
tal bishops to Damasus. Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Osius
of Cordova. Order of Councils. Council of Constantinople. Unjust
reproach by Bishop Hopkins. St Cyril presiding by commission of Ce-
lestine. Second Council of Constantinople. Assertion of Bishop Hop-
kins refuted. Council of Chalcedon. Presidency of the emperor.
Western Councils. Right of confirmation.
LETTER XHL
Nicene Canons. Sixth Canon. Metropolitical rights. Patriarchates.
Primacy. Proceedings at Chalcedon. Exceptionable authority of Ques-
nel. Modification of ancient legislation.
LETTER XIV.
St Athanasius. Mode of defending Councils. Authority of the Ni-
cene Council. False Councils of Arians. Nicene definition unchangea-
ble. Imaginary contrast. Real harmony of doctrine. Testimony of
Bishop Bull. Of Saywell. Regard for the Holy See. Efforts of the
Eusebians. Synod summoned by Julius. Athanasius acquitted. Judg-
ment of Julius. Historical facts. Eusebians acknowledge the pre-emi-
nence of the Roman Church. Literary criticism of Bishop Hopkins.
Judicial forms. Reversal of sentence. Letter of Julius. Splendid evi-
dence of the Primacy. Council of Sardica. Testimony to the Primacy.
Titles. Bishop of the Catholic Church. Liberius. Pseudo-Athanasius.
Letter of Pope Agatho. Acknowledgment of Whitaker.
LETTER XV.
St Cyril of Jerusalem. False translation. Peter the most eminent.
The Prince of the Apostles. Power of the keys. Overthrow of Simon
Magus. Primacy of jurisdiction. Irrelevant texts. Translator of Cyril.
Catholic Church. Shameful insinuation.
LETTER XVI.
St Hilary of Poictiers. The Church built on Simon Peter. Power
of the keys. Faith of Peter. A rian heresy. Literary criticism. Apos-
trophe to Peter. Epitliets. Polity of the Church. Sense of Scripture.
Strong foundation. Bishop Pearson.
CON TK NTS.
LETTER XV 11.
St Basil the Groat. l\'ter the foundation. Prayer for the I'atriarch.
Diptychs. Order of tile Church. Peter preferred Received tin- keys.
Letters to Athanasius. Implores tlie autliority of tlic Roman Rinliop.
Signal fact. Eustatiiius restored hy Liherius. Roman Chureli mother
of all cliurchea. Baptism administered by heretics. Nicene Council.
LETTER XVI II.
St GrejTory of Nazianzum. Peter called a rock, and entrusted with
the fountiations of the Church. False translation and false readinjj.
Mistake of Rishop Hopkins. Virtues of the elder CJreirory. Ri.shopof
the Catholic Church. Hackneyed objection. Unity of faith. Councils.
LETTER XIX.
St Ambrose. Where Peter is, there is the Church. Faith of Peter.
He is called a rock, and made the strength of the (Church. Received a
kingdom from Christ. Moral application. Peter Bishop of the Roman
Church. Powers common to the Apostles. Peculiar |)reroirative of
Peter. Unity of action in the three Divine Persons. Unfair use of iso-
lated expressions. Equality of merit in Peter and Paul. Peter the foun-
dation. Pastoral commission. Vicar of Christ. Pious usage. Council
ofAquileiat Record of trial. Splendid testimony. Council of Capua.
Satirus.
LETTER XX.
St Jerome. Letter to Damasus. Chair of Peter. Communion with
Damasus. Letter to Evagrius. Equality of the Episcopal character.
Peter the foundation. Abuse of the power of the keys. Confession.
City of Rome. Local usages. Jerome's motives and sentiments. Ex-
hortation to Demetrias. Roman faith. Adoption of Jerome's senti
raents.
LETTER XXI.
St Augustin. Hesitancy ns to the rock. Bishops Pearson and Beve-
ridge. l*rincipality of the Apostleship. Allegorical interpretation. Pri-
macy of Peter. Excellence of Peter. First among the A[)ostles. In him
unity is commended. Catholicity of the Church. Roman Church.
Apostolic Chair. Letter tr) Hesychius. Misrepresentation of its mean-
ing. Roman usages. Doctrinal tribunal. Acknowledgment of Casau-
bon. African Councils. Authority of ihe Holy See.
LETTER XXII.
St Chrysostom. Peter Prince of the Apostles. (Diarge given to him
and his successors. Power of binding and loosinjr. Commission to feed
the sheep. Peter the head of the .\postlc8. On him the Churrli is bjiMt
Divinity of Christ proved by his gif\s and promises to Peti'r. Petit
placed over tiie worM. Doctor of the whole world. Rock of faith. Ap-
peal of Chrysostom to Innocent.
Xll CONTENTS.
LETTER XXllI.
St Isidore of Pelusium. Confession of Peter. Church not to be over-
thrown. St Prosper of Aquitaine. Authority of the ApostoHc See.
Condemnation of the Pehio^ians. E.xtraord nary assertion of Bishop
Hopkins. Vincent of Lerins. Pope Stephen. Ri^me head of the
world. Rule for Scriptural interpretation. Catholics follow it. Bishop
Pearson and Archbishop Potter. Primacy always, every where, by
ALL admitted.
LETTER XXIV.
General testimonies. St James of Nisibis. St Epiphanius. St Gregory
of Nyssa. St Asterius of Amasea. St Optatus of Mela. St Cyril of
Alexandria. St Peter Chrysologus. Council of Ephesus. Of Chalcedon.
LETTER XXV.
Interpolation of the Fathers. Jansenist Quesnel. Unjust charge.
Retort. Vigilius of Thapsis. St Maximus of Turin.
LETTER XXVI.
Claims of the primitive Roman Church. Admission of Hallam. Si-
ricius, Innocent, Zosimus, Leo. Council of Sardica.
LETTER XXVII.
Temporal power. Profession of faith. Sir Edward Sandys. Gre-
gory VII. Condition and compact. American independence. Depo-
sition by Innocent IV. Public opinion. Benefits of Papal power. Fo-
reign Quarterly and London Quarterly Reviews. Southey. Third
canon of Latran. Council of Trent. Council of Florence. French de-
claration. Opinions. Disclaimers of temporal claims. German empire.
False construction. Offensive assertion. General character of Pontifical
authority.
LETTER XXVIII.
Mode of election. Ancient form. Modifications. Coronation of the
Pope. Electors. Mistakes of Bishop Hopkins.
LETTER XXIX.
Catholic Church. Ancient respect for Papal authority. Questions
answered. St Cyprian on Unity. Jerome. Optatus. Obedience to
Pope. Creed of Pope Pius. Ancient rites. Anathema. Council of
Constantinople. Choice of words. Unjust accusations. Infallibility.
Failing and falling. Prayer of Christ. St Leo. Plan of reunion. In-
fluQUce of government. Groundless assertions. Ascendancy. Spiritual
triumph. Friendly discussion. Exhortation.
INTRODUCTORY LETTER.
ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
Right Reverend Sir :
Your recent work, " addressed to the Roman Hierarchy"
and dedicated " to the cause of Catholic unity," has been read
by me with no small degree of interest and attention. As one
of the body addressed, which you are pleased to designate " nu-
merous, powerful, and august," I could not be insensible to
your very solemn appeal on a subject involving our eternal
interests, and those of the millions over whom we watch, being
to render an account for their inunortal souls : as a friend
to Catholic unity, I hail every overture for reconciliation
coming from the highly respectable and influential body to
which you belong. In the perusal of your work, I have been
afforded great gratification, no less by the method which you
have adopted, and which, if constantly followed, must lead to
the end we both have in view, than by the treasure of testimo-
nies which it contains, regarding the rights of the apostolic see,
which cannot be too highly valued. Some inaccuracies, how-
ever, have escaped you, which I feel warranted in pointing out,
although perfectly aware of the delicacy of the task, and of the
responsibility incurred by anticipating my more experienced
and more competent colleagues. I rely, however, on your
indulgence, and on theirs, and only plead sirjcere zeal for
the cause of Catholic unity.
You commence by stating that the principle on which you
proceed is our own principle ; and, by way of explanation, you
add, that you should make your appeal in every case to the
14 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
authorities sanctioned by our own canon law. The use of such
documents as have the sanction of the Church is certainly
allowable, provided, however, they receive only that degree of
authority which she ascribes to them : but as the body of canon
law — especially that part styled the decree of Gratian — has re-
ceived no solemn sanction, no weight can be given to passages
extracted from it, beyond what the document to which it refers
may possess intrinsically, or derive from the usage of the
Church.*
According to Gibert, whom you quote, and to whose posi-
tion I willingly assent, the holy scriptures are the fountain of
law, both as to faith and morals, when expounded by compe-
tent authority, not by private interpretation, in accordance with
that faith which was originally delivered to the saints. From
it, he adds, we learn the necessity, utility and form of councils ;
the model of which is found in the council of Jerusalem, whose
proceedings are recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Acts of
the Apostles. General councils are placed by him next; and
passing over the Pontifical decrees, which form a great portion
of the canon law, he gives us a list of Fathers mentioned with
approbation in a decree of a Roman synod, held towards the
close of the fifth century. St Cyprian, bishop of Carthage,
and martyr, is the first on this list ; and it is said, in the origi-
nal decree, that his works are to be received in all things:!
yet as among his reputed works are some J in defence of what
is now acknowledged by all to be an error, — the invalidity of
baptism administered by heretics, — we must suppose that these
were rejected as supposititious, or that this general phrase ad-
mits a certain latitude of signification. Although St Augustin
was an ardent admirer of the great bishop of Carthage, he
* See Devoti institut. Juris Can. 1. I, § 79.
t " In omnibus recipienda." Cone. Rom. § iv. torn. 11. Cone. Hard.
Col. 939.
X Some learned men in Germany, and elsewhere, strongly contena
that these are not genuine. See Binterin's excellent work on the disci-
pline of the Church in the early, middle, and late ages.
AUTHORITY OF THE FATHERS. 15
avowed his perfect freedom as lo such opinions as were not in
harmony with Scripture, "^ and expressly rejected those ascrib-
ed lo him against the validity of such baptism ; *♦ I do not ad-
mit, I say, the opinion of blessed Cyprian concerning the bap-
tizing of heretics and schismatics, because the Church does not
admit it, for which blessed Cyprian shed his blood. "t As you,
Right Reverend Sir, desire to proceed on our principles, I beg
of you to notice, that the general approbation of the works of
any individual father does not imply a solemn sanction of every
thing that may be contained in his writings. The Church re-
gards the Fathers as witnesses of ancient faith and tradition,
wherever they unanimously declare or vindicate some doctrine ;
but, as the enlightened bishop of Hippo remarked, in re-
gard to the writings of Cyprian, she does not consider their
works as canonical and divine.J Thougli their testimony be
worthy of credit, and their individual sentiments should be treat-
ed with respect, on account of their learning, piety, and their
connexion with tlie primitive church, yet Catholic principles
necessarily free us from the yoke of individual authority, and
subject our intellect to Christ alone, speaking by the tribunals
which He has established in his Church.
In the list which you give, as taken from Gibert, and found
in the canon law, you represent as " accursed, whoever does
not embrace the letter of the blessed Leo to Flavian, the
bishop of Constantinople, even to a tittle." Instead of the awe-
inspiring word "accursed," I could wish that you had retained
the simple "anathema" of the original, and left your readers
to learn its meaning from some one who might give it tKe less
odious, but more correct, interpretation, of "separation from the
Church of Christ." Baron de Starck, a professed Lutheran min-
ister, thoiigh almost a Catholic in sentiment — perhaps in the end
entirely Catholic, in liis profound essay on the reunion of the
* S. Aug. I. 11. contra Cresconiuin, c. 3'J. " Quod aulcm iion con-
gruit cum pace ejus rcspuo."
t Ibid.
X S. Aug. 1. II. contra ('n>sc(»iiiiun, r. 32. also Epist. 1 1 1
16 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
Christian Churches, gives the obnoxious word this milder signifi-
cation.* For the present, I will state why so great a penalty as
exclusion from the Church of Christ was decreed against such
as would not receive unreservedly this Epistle of Pope Leo,
whilst no such sanction is given to the rest of his admirably
writings, or to those of the other Fathers whose names are men-
tioned. That epistle was a solemn exposition of the faith of
the Church on the adorable mystery of the Incarnation, which
was then assailed by Eutyches, who denied the distinction of
the two natures of God and man in our Redeemer Jesus Christ.
It was read publicly in the great Council of Chalcedon, and
the assembled prelates of the Catholic world hailed it as the
voice of Peter speaking by the mouth of Leo. Anathemas re-
sounded throughout that venerable assembly against all who
did not hold the faith of the Fathers, so correctly and solemnly
declared by the successor of Peter. Before quitting this sub-
ject, it may be well to remind you that this '* anathema" is
borrowed from St Paul : " Though we, or an angel from hea-
ven, preach a gospel beside that which we have preached to
you, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA. As I Said bcforc, SO I Say now
again, If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which
you have received, let him be anathema."!
Besides the works of the Fathers specified in the list which
you give, you use others, mentioned with commendation by
St Jerom, to whose discrimination and judgment great defer-
ence is deservedly manifested, without any prejudice, howev-
er, to our liberty of respectful dissent, wherever it is not corro-
borated by the positive sanction of the Church. With regard
to the works of minor character which you use, such as Pi-
card, Gibert, Tuberville's Catechism, Butler's "Book of the
Church," I can have no objection that you should use them
* '' L'anatheme n'emporte point un jugement de damnation." P. 415.
" Cette sentence ne designe pas une excommunication reunie aux ma-
ledictions." P. 421. Entretiens Philosophiques traduits de I'allemand.
2d ed. Paris, 1821.
t Gal. i. 8, 9.
SPURIOUS WORKS. 17
for the elucidation of any point in dispute ; alilioufrh they do
not possess such wei«,dit of autliority as could make liieir testi-
mony conclusive. In an investigation of this kind, the highest
authorities only should iiave been selected.
WJien noticing the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, I regret
that you have introduced the " Apostolic Canons," and " the
Apostolical Constitutions," for, as all the learned agree that
these latter collections are not the genuine works of the Apostles,
reference to them is calculated unnecessarily to incumber and
embarrass the controversy. Truth, as it was anciently deliv-
ered and professed, being your object, you should have, at once,
set aside all documents of a questionable character, and still
more those which are known to be supposititious. The same
consideration should have determined you to leave unnoticed all
such works as, in passing through the ordeal of criticism, have
not stood the application of its legitimate tests ; such are
eome works falsely ascribed to the Fathers, and the decretals
attributed by Isidore to the Popes of tiie first three centuries.
This would have preserved you from the temptation of express-
ing yourself in a manner that might be thought offensive, and,
consequently, inconsistent as well with the very kind profess-
ions with which your letters abound, as with the altainnient of
ihat end you have so much at heart. It would have left the
sincerity of your search after truth beyond the reach even of
suspicion ; whilst the introduction of these literary forgeries
may be thought designed to convey the false impression that
they were contrived by the advocates of the primacy to supply
the want of better evidence. This course would have afforded
the reader greater facility in judging of the real merits of the
case, by concentrating his attention on documents of unques-
tionable authenticity, whose weight may now be diminislicd,
in his mind, from the connexion with false and forged testimo-
nies, which you likewise bring forward. For this I cannot give
you praise.
Instead of staling our belief on the primacy of the Apostolic
See in your words, or in those of Tuberville, I beg to sul)mii
18 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
the definition of the General Council of Florence : " We define
that the holy Apostolic See and Roman Pontiffhasthe primacy
throughout the entire world, and that the said Roman Pontiff
is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles,
and the true Vicar of Christ, and the head of the entire
Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians ; and that
to him, in the person of blessed Peter, full power was given
by our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule and govern the Uni-
versal Church; as is even contained in the acts of (Ecumenical
Councils, and in the Sacred Canons."* With this strong
expression of the power and authority of the Apostolic See
before us, we can easily dispense with the explanations of
TuberviUe's Catechism, and with the passages which you
quote as extracts from the Canon law. You seem to have
borrowed them from Gibert, to whose works you refer ; but
as these are not now within my reach, I cannot ascertain the
sources whence he has derived them. I shall observe, how-
ever, that the pompous phrases in which the Pontifical au-
thority may be occasionally expressed, are not the fair criterion
of its character, which must be ascertained by the solemn and
deliberate definition of the Church, such as that of the Fathers
of Florence. To adduce one instance, you quote a passage
which you thus translate : — " The Roman Pontiflf bears the
authority not of a mere man, but of the true God upon the
earth. "t Some one might imagine that the Pope was here
held up as the true God ; whilst the obvious meaning of the
text is, that he acts as vicegerent not of a mere man, but of
the true God, — our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ. The
various privileges or rights ascribed to him should not be con-
founded with the primacy itself, since, as you yourself after-
wards state, a diversity of opinion exists among Catholics
themselves as to the extent of his prerogative, though the
* Cone. Flor. Collat. 22, p. 985. T. ix. Edit. Paris, 1714. Cone. Col.
Hard.
t " Romanus Pontifex non puri hominis ; sed veri Dei vieera gerit
in terris." Gibert, torn. 2. p. U.
DOCTRINE OF THE PRIMACY. 19
divine institution of the primary is admitted by nil. Those
who seriously desire unity, should carefully distinguish be-
tween the defined doctrines of failii, in which all harmonize,
and those opinions which are tolerated by the Church. If we
could agree on the doctrine, we might, at our leisure, in the
bosom of the Church herself, consider the weight of authority
which may sustain each sentiment, and adopt or reject it as
our enlightened judgment would dictate. I recollect a very
interesting essay for Catholic communion written by a minister
of the church of England, in which was stated, with great
candour and accuracy, what Catholic faith essentially de-
manded, and how far Anglican divines had advanced on each
disputed point. The difference between us appeared very
small, when the concessions made by your divines were placed
at the side of the Catholic tenet. With a similar view the
great Bossuet composed his simple but profound exposition of
the doctrine of the Catholic church on matters of controversy.
In the same spirit I beg to state, that it is my design to main-
tain the doctrine and faith of the Catholic church on the
primacy, without entering into the vindication of any disputa-
ble claim : and if the authorities which I shall have occasion to
bring forward, or the expressions which I may use, should go
beyond these limits, I shall not be supposed to urge any
thing questionable, as a condition for Catholic communion.
The primacy which I mean to defend is the Spiritual Presi-
dency of the Church of God,* established by Jesus Christ, for
the maintenance of faith in its integrity, for the good order and
government of the church in things spiritual, and for all that
appertains to eternal salvation. Could I indulge the hope of
inducing you. Right Reverend Sir, to recognise this Catholic
dogma, as one plainly delivered in the Scriptures, acknowledged
by all the Fathers of the Church, solemnly admitted and declared
* I borrow the phrase from St Chrysostom, who says that Christ gave
to Peter " the presidency of the Church in tiie whole world:" — "per
totum orbem lerraruin ccclesio; proesidentiam tradidit." Ad pop. An-
tioch. horn. bO de pcenil.
20 ON CATHOLIC PRINCIPLES.
by the General Councils of the bishops of the Christian world,
I should undertake my present task with alacrity and joy.
But deep and strong as is my own conviction and faith on this
subject, I know, like Augustine, how difficult it is to rid
oneself of false opinions imbibed in infancy — and which too
frequently grow with our growth and strengthen with our
strength.^ Still I enter on the work as a duty which I owe to
truth — to the Apostolic See — to the Church of Jesus Christ.
May his Spirit guide my pen, and prepare our hearts for the
influence of his grace.
- Aug. I. 2, de civ. Dei. c. 1. Tom. III. 1. 7, p. 31.
LETTER IT.
SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
Right Reverend Sir:
Your fourth chapter commences the important investigation
of the claims of tlie Cliurcli of Rome, to what you, somewhat
ambiguously, call " universal dominion," but which would
more correctly be termed, Ijer claim to authority in defining the
doctrines of faith, and in maintaining religious unity. You
quote the celebrated passage of St Matthew, in whicli Catho-
lics believe Christ promised this authority to Peter, who died
bishop of Rome. The occasion on whicli the words were
spoken must be remembered, in order to perceive their full
force. Christ had asked tlie Apostles what opinions were en-
tertained of him, and had been told by them that some said he
was John the Baptist, others Elias, some Jeremias, or one of
the prophets. He then asked, who they themselves believed
him to be. Peter stood forward and said : " Thou art Clirist,
the Son of the living God."* He alone speaks, and to him
alone the Redeemer addresses his reply. " Blessed art thou,
Simon Bar-Iona ; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it
to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee,
that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,
and tlie gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give
to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou
shah bind on earth shalt be bound also in heaven, and whatso-
ever tliou shalt loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven."
Peter's confession of faith is declared to be divinely inspired,
and on account of it he is pronounced blessed. His name is
• Matt. xvi. IG.
28 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
changed ; the son of lona is henceforth to be called Cephas, a
Syriac word,* which in Greek is rendered Petros, in English,
a rock.t As Jacob was called Israel, because in the mysteri-
rious conflict he prevailed over the angel of God ; — as Abratn
was called Abraham, because chosen to be the father of a count-
less multitude; — so Simon is called Cephas or Peter, because
made by divine grace a rock of faith. Nor is the firmness of
his faith a mere personal endowment; he is to become the
foundation-stone of the Church of Christ. That Church is the
house the wise man built upon a rock. Christ Jesus is the
architect : Peter is placed by Him as the foundation : the build-
ing is to be raised by the power of the divine Founder, and,
owing to the immovable nature of the foundation, is to be so
solid, so compact in its parts, that waves and winds may dash
against it, but cannot overthrow it. Time cannot crumble it
into dust ; no engine of human power can raze it ; hell itself is
powerless against it. Peter is to it what a strong foundation is
to a vast building, — its strength, its necessary and permanent
support. Take away the foundation, and the building tumbles
to the ground. He is, then, not merely the first to profess aloud
the divinity of his master, nor merely the first to preach the
Gospel to Jews and Gentiles, but he is the rock on which the
Church rests, and with which it is inseparably united.
To this striking and expressive figure, Christ adds another,
still more clearly designating the governing and supreme power
which he determined to impart to Peter. The keys of the
palace, or of the gates of the royal city, were the known em-
blems of power and authority.."}: Christ promises to give him
^ Kiplia, the Greeks write KtitpAi.
t In three Arabic versions he is styled the rock : the definite article
being prefixed : thou art the rock. See Ecchellensis, par. 2. p. 195.
X Isaiah xxii. 22. " I will lay the key of the house of David upon his
shoulder; and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and
none shall open." This is said of Eliacim, who was to be substituted to
Sobna in the high priesthood. Of Christ the same prophet foretells :
"the government is upon his shoulder," Is. ix. 6; making an allusion to
the manner of carrying the keys.
PROMISE OF THE PRIMACY. 23
the keys of the kingdom of lieavcn, whicli, in the New Testa-
ment, means eillier tlie (.'hurcli of G'oil on earth, or llie celes-
tial kingdom itself. To Peter, then, was promised the govern-
ing power in the Church, — the power of opening heaven itself
to man. His relation to the (Jhurch is to be one of power and
authority. Whatsoever he shall loose upon earth, either by
unfolding the dilhculties of the law, as that phrase sometimes
was understood among the Jews, or by remitting the oflences
of the penitent, as the collation of the power of forgiveness ma-
nifests, shall be also loosed in heaven: whatsoever he shall
bind on earth, by his authoritative definition and decree, shall
be also bound in heaven. This surely conveys the idea of the
liighest degree of power which Christ could communicate for
our instruction, government, and salvation. The promise is
made to him distinctly, and that on account of his glorious con-
fession, and the privileges and power which it indicates are con-
sequently to belong to him. Christ afterwards, indeed, promised
to all the apostles the power of binding and loosing : still what
was promised in common to all, must be acknowledged peculiarly
and pre-eminently to have been promised to Peter, — else why
was it that he received in particular what in common with his
fellow Apostles he would equally have got ? Surely it was
not without the special view of marking his high authority and
essential relation to the Church, that he alone was declared its
fundamental rock — its ruler, bearing the keys of this heavenly
kingdom.*
I am surprised to find you. Right Reverend Sir, endeavouring
to weaken what appears to me the obvious meaning of the words
"upon this rock," by referring to the diilerent words, almost
similar in sound and signification, by which Peter and the rock
are expressed in the Greek text. Still more am 1 astonished at
" " As to tlio expression * the keys,' it may also refer to the power and
autljorily for tlie said work; especially aa a key was anciently an usual
8ynil>ol of authority, and presentinfr with a key was a common form of
invfstiniT with authority, insomuch that it was afterwards worn as a
bad^e of ollice. " liluomfield, a learned Protestant commentator, on tJiis
text.
24 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
your objection to profit by the aid which the language spoken
by our Lord affords for the elucidation of this passage. Its
meaning is, indeed, equally clear in the Greek, and in our own
language ; but as the genius of the Greek induced a slight va-
riety in the terms, and as the English does not at all present
the force of the allusion, it is reasonable and necessary to exa-
mine what were the precise expressions used by our Lord. To
sustain your objection, you bring forward the authority of the
Vulgate, which, although we are forbidden to reject, we are
not prohibited from illustrating, by reference to the original
text, where it exists, or to the peculiar genius of the original
languages, to remove any ambiguity or obscurity that may be
in some term of that version. You ask us, *' do we mean that
the original Gospel, which is in the Greek, is not our only sure
authority?" We fully admit the authority of the Greek text;
but this admission does not in the least degree interfere with
our right to clear up any difficulty by reference to the language
in which many believe that Gospel to have been written, or in
which, at least, our Redeemer spoke. These are not, as you
suggest, ** imaginary words which our Lord might have used,"
but they are the words which he really used. One of them is
known from the Gospel of St John to have been Cephas, and
the other is ascertained by examining whether there is the va-
riety of gender and termination in the Syriac term as is found
in the Greek. The Syriac term admits no such variation. The
very ancient Syriac version proves the correctness of this re-
mark, and modern learned Protestants are so far from contest-
ing it, that, according to the testimony of one of them, almost
every modern expositor of note has abandoned the distinction
between Peter and the rock as untenable.* The French trans-
lation fully exhibits the force of the allusion as it was made by
our Saviour ; because in French, as in Syriac, the same term
which signifies a rock, is also an appellative noun. Were we
to give a strictly literal translation of the sentence into English,
we would either say, " thou art a ROCK, and on this ROCK
* Bloomfield in locum.
I'KOMI.^i: OF Tin: I'RIMACV. 25
I will build my (-iimi-Ji ;' or, thou art PETEH, and uj)on this
PE'l'ER I will build my (-'luin-h ; but, then, eiilicr tlie name
given to Simon is suppressed, or the strength and power wiiicii
it indicates do not appear to be properties of his name as well
as of his olliee. 'I'he same may be saiil of the CJerman, whilst
the Latin, Italian, and Spanish, as you remark, follow the
Greek, and retain, with the variation of gender, something of
the original allusion. t I am, then, perfectly unable to conceive
how you could speak of this reference to the original terms as
*» the fanciful notion of what our Saviour might have said in
Hebrew ;" and speak of the Greek *' as the actual record of
what he did say;" especially as afterwards, in your remarks on
a text of St John, you adopt the principle which in this instance
you reject. Christ certainly spoke not in Greek, but in the
language then generally spoken in Judea, whether you please
to designate it Hebrew, Syriac, or, more correctly, Syro-Chal-
* The Syriac version of the New Testament is deservedly of high re-
pute, on account of its early date, and of the near affinity between the
Syriac language and the Syro-Chaldaic, which our Lord used, and in
which, according to tlie most probable opinion, St. Matthew wrote his
Gospel. In this version, the words " Peter" and " Rock" are expressed
by the same characters :
Anath chipha, vehall hada chipua.
In the Arabian version, which, from its connexion with the language
in which Christ spoke, is well calculated to elucidate the present sul)-
ject, we read
Anath alsaciira, wahal hada ai.sacmha.
Another Arabic version translates Peter and rock by a different word
fiom that used in the above (jiiotation, but in both instances the same
word (Usaphu, is put for Peter and the rock.
A most ancient Chaldee manuscript of St Matthew's gospel, in thi'
collection formerly belonging to Cardinal JJarberini, written in charac-
ters long obsoh.'te, and professing to have b(>en made in Mesopotamia
in the year 330, uses but one word to express Peter and the Rock, :fciuha.
See the learned treatise of Ecchelensis, a Maronite de origine nominis
Papaj,&c. RomiD, MDCLX.
t iMtin. Tu C8 Pclrus et super banc prtram, &c.
Italian. Tu sei Pietro, e sopra questa pietra, &c.
Spanish. Tu eres Pedro, y sobre esta piedra, &c.
German. Dm bist Pclrus und auf diesen Fclsen.
C
26 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
daic. He certainly called Simon, Cephas, for we are assured'
of it by St John,* and he manifestly referred to him when he
said : " thou art Cephas (a rock), and on this Cephas (rock) I
will build my Church."
The reason why the Greek interpreter of St Matthew used two
distinct terms, was, because although the feminine noun properly
expressed the force of the original term, yet the Greeks never
applied a feminine noun to a man except in derision.t He chose,
then, a masculine noun, less expressive, but more appropriate.
No ambiguity could have arisen from this circumstance, had
not the ingenuity of controversial writers sought to wrest from
us this splendid proof of the prerogatives of Peter. Every rule
of correct interpretation has been recklessly trampled under foot
in the attempt; and although the preceding words were mani-
festly directed to Peter, and those which followed were also
acknowledged to regard him, still he was denied to be the rock
on which the Church was built, as declared in the intervening
words which were necessarily applied to him. Happily for the
cause of truth, Cameron,:}: Bishop Marsh, and many respectable
modern interpreters, have rejected this subterfuge, so unworthy
of literary men, and better calculated to show the weakness of
those who recur to it, than to invalidate or obscure the strong
argument supplied us by the text, in the only interpretation it
can consistently have. The most recent editor of the Greek
text in England, acknowledges that " almost every modern ex-
positor of note refers it to Peter himself;" " and with reason ;
for certainly," as is observed by Bishop Marsh, § " it would be
a desperate undertaking to prove that Christ meant any other
person than Peter. In fact, they can indicate no other, con-
sistently with the rules of correct exegesis. Moreover, the
words following x*/ croi ^^'7a> imply that there had been some
previous gift or distinction. In short, the sense is : Thou art
by name JRotk; (i. e. thy name means Rock,) and suitably
to thai will be thy work and office; for upon thee (i. e. upon
* John i. 42.
t Synopsis Crit. in locum.
t See Synopsis Crit. in hunc locum.
§ Comparative View. App. p. 27.
PROTESTANT INTERPRETERS. 27
thy j)reachin^, as upon a rock) shall the foumhition of the
church be laid." It may, indeed, seem straiifre, that so natu-
ral and well founded an interpretation shouUl liave been passed
over by any. — Hut that may be attributed parthj to the cause-
less fears into whicli Protestants have been betrayed ; lest, by
admittiui^ it, they should give a countenance to the Papal claim
of supreniacy ; and parthj to an idea that s-uch a sense would
be contrary to what is elsewhere said in Scripture, namely, that
Christ is the onhj fuumlation. See 1 Cor. iii. 11. Hut as to
the first, the fear is groundless: it being (as Hishop Middleton
observes) dilhi-ult to see what advantage coidd be gained ; un-
less we could evade the meaning of /ai5-a»c7-:< txV xm<o-, which
follows. "And as to the laiier fear, it is equally without founda-
tion ; since the two expressions are employed in two very
different senses."* You will pardon, Right Reverend Sir, this
long extract from a Protestant commentator of deservedly high
repute, who, whilst he asserts that the fears of Protestants were
groundless, and endeavours to explain away the force of the
text by referring it to a certain precedency of Peter in preaching
the Gospel, betrays the weakness of Protestantism, and shows
how the obvious meaning of Scripture has been obscured in
order to avoid the admission of an authority it so clearly indi-
cates. With regard to the interpretation of the entire passage,
given by those who acknowledge the keys to be the emblem of
power and authority, it is rather a bold stretch of ingenuity to
understand this, as well as the other no less strong metaphor
which precedes, of mere priority in announcing the Gospel to
Jews and Gentiles. The same may be observed of the interpreta-
tion of Rosenmiiller, who, however, renders a splendid tribute to
the Catholic explanation, and completely explodes your distinct-
ion between Pctros and Pitra, and all the various modes
whereby the manifest reference to Peter is sought to be evaded.
" The rock," says he, ♦' is neither the confession of Peter
nor Christ, pointing out himself by his finger, or by a shake
of the head (whicii interpretations the context does not admit),
• Bloomficld. Com. Mnt. xvi. Ir, !'.», p. TK. Edit. IJoston, 1-:}?.
28 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
but Peter himself. The Lord, speaking in Syriac, used no
diversity of name, but in both places said Cephas, as the
French word pierre is said both of a proper and appellative
noun. He pointed out Peter therefore either by his finger, or
nod ; for that gesture suited his purpose to explain the reason
of giving him this name. So it was said of Abraham : Thy
name shall be Abraham, because I liave made thee father of
many nations. Of Jacob : Israel shall be thy name, for thou
actest as a prince with angels and men. So Christ says :
Thou art called by me Peter, because thou wilt be as a rock.
And he promises that he will build his Church on Peter.
Allusion is made to the custom prevailing in Palestine of build-
ing houses that are exposed to floods and whirlwinds, on a
rocky soil, that they may be able to resist the violence of
waters and winds. Mat. vii. 24, 25. Therefore whosoever
thinks of building a durable house, should above all look
around for a rock, or firm ground : the rock is the first thing
whence the work is to be begun."*
Although these observations, emanating as they do from men
adverse to the Catholic church, are sufficient for my purpose,
the two following extracts need no apology':
In *' Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism" is contained
the following justobservaiion — Canon 511 : "The most obvious
and natural sense is to be set aside only when it is absolutely
contradictory to something plainly taught in Scripture." He
then remarks that " the opposite way has been taken by all
sects;" and quotes the 18th verse of the 16th chapter of St
Matthew. " Thou, &c., building on Peter, is explained by-
some, as contrary to the faith that Christ is the only founda-
tion (1 Cor. iii. 2.), and as favouring the succession of Peter
and his successors ; but the connexion shows that PETER IS
HERE PLAINLY MEANT." Edition of Boston, 1823.
Such is the language of this text-book of many Protestant Col-
leges and Theological Institutions, both in this country and in
England.
^ Scholia in Novum Test., Tom. I, p. 336. Norumb. an. 1815.
LITERARY BLrNDER. VKMLIL'S. 29
The Reverend Mr Thompson of Cilastrow, in liis Munates-
saroHy reprinted at Baltimore, 1829, p. 194, on this text, gives
three interpretations. He thinks the two first unfounded, and
thus quotes the third :
" Tlie third opinion is, that both the words petros iiud pftra
are here used as appellations of the Apostle ; and, consequently,
Peter was the rock on which Christ said liis Church should bo
built. To this the connexion and scope of the passage agree.
There seems to be something forced in every other construc-
tion, and an inaptitude in the language and ligure of the text in
every attempt to construct the words otherwise. Protestants
have betrayed unnecessary fears, and have, therefore, used all
the HARDIHOOD of LAWLESS CRITICISM in their at-
tempts to reason away the Catholic interpretation."
Although not immediately connected with my present sub-
ject, I must notice what you call " a strange error based upon
a text in the Gospel of St John, which several of the popes of
Rome have advanced in their solicitude to find authority for
their favourite doctrine." It is thus slated by V'igilius in a
letter to Eleutherius: *' Although the election of all the Apos-
tles was the same, yet it was granted to blessed Peter that he
should be raised above the rest; whence ho was called Cephas,
because he was the head and the fust of all the Apostles, and
what precedes in the head, must necessarily be followed in the
members."* You smile at this supposed literary blunder, be-
cause you imagine that Vigilius confounded Cephas, a Syrian
term, with the Greek word, of somewhat similar sound, t«9a>^''.
signifying t/ic hrud, and that he thence inferred that Peter was
the head of the Apostles, 'i'he text which you bring forward
does not, however, prove this mistake, for though the writer
argues from Peter's name that he was head and first of all the
Apostles, he does not say that the name signified " a head."
We make a like inference from the same appellation ; yet we
know the meaning of the term Cephas to be not *' a heoil,'^ but
' Mansi, Tom. 1, p. 77 Cul. Cone. •' Unde ct Cephas vocatur. 'juia
caput et primuri ost omnium apostolorum."
c*
30 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
*' a rock.^^ The relation of a foundation to a building may be
compared to the relation of the head to the body, and conse-
quently of a ruler to the spiritual kingdom of Christ.
The letter in question, as well as the other passage quoted
by you, is, at best, of doubtful authenticity. The publisher
of the collection of the Councils gives it as a part of some
tract on the primacy, which came to light in the early part
of the sixteenth century ; and he avows that his object is to
preserve the various writings on that subject, whatever be
their character. It has no place among the writings of Vigilius,
given in their regular order, but is placed in the first volume
with other documents confessedly spurious. In the genuine
writings of that pontiff we find that he assumes higher ground
than a mere verbal allusion. In his letter to the whole Catholic
Church, speaking of the part which his predecessors Celestine
and Leo took in the condemnation of heresy, he observes : " Our
God from heaven armed the pastoral ofiice against these fierce
errors : recommending which office to blessed Peter, with thrice
repeated injunctions, he says. Feed my sheep : and justly was
the charge of feeding them committed to him, whose glorious
confession of faith was praised by the mouth of God. For
when he confessed in a saving manner, and said : Thou art
Christ, the Son of the living God, perpetual blessedness is
given him in return, and he is called the son of the dove, and
receives the keys of the heavenly kingdom.* You perceive,
that Vigilius, addressing *' the whole Catholic Church," does
not rest his authority on a " literary blunder," but on the pro-
mises of our God and Saviour. To account for the supposed
blunder, you observe that the name of this apostle " appears to
us in two shapes, indeed, because the Saviour spoke in He-
brew, and St John wrote in Greek, but they have the same
signification." What, Sir, refer to the language used by our
Lord, after having, a few pages before, condemned such a
reference as no better than '* a fanciful imagination calculated
to prostrate the authority of the whole word of God ?"
* Vigilii, p. ep. ad univ. Eccl. Tom. III. Cone. Hard. Col. 5.
CHARGE OF CHRIST TO PETKR. 81
The promise made by Jesus Christ to Peter was to be ful-
filled after his resurrection. At the last supper, a contention
having arisen among tlie Apostles which should be tlie greater,
Christ took occasion to inculcate to all the necessity of humility
and mutual condescension. Addressing Peter in a special man-
ner, he apprised him of the violent efforts of Satan against them
all, but gave him the consoling assurance that he had prayed
for him in particular,* that his faith might not fail. He re-
minded him of the obligation which his office would impose of
confirming his brethren in the faith, and urged him to its per-
formance : *' Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have
YOU that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for
THEE that THY faitli fail not: and thou being once converted,
CONFIRM THY BRETHREN. t An addrcss of this kind on such
an occasion shows that Peter was to be the superior of the
rest, and on that account was the special object of the prayer of
his divine Master — that being himscll' strong in faith, he might
be able to confirm liis brethren. That prayer did not prevent
his grievous fall on that very night, although Christ be " al-
ways heard for his reverence ;" but it was directed to a sub-
limer object than the personal perseverance of Peter : it regarded
the office which he was to exercise towards others, and the
performance of which was so earnestly enjoined. When ele-
vated to the pastoral dignity, he was to look around, from time
to time,± to the various portions of his great charge, and
* ty/wic — 5-K. Thechangeof number, more apparent in the Greek text
than in the English translation, shows that while Satan directed his
efforts against all the Apostles, Christ prayed especially for one — Peter.
t Luke xxii. 32.
t o-u irort iT/r^i^flic. The learned Clrotius discovers in Uiis express-
ion a Hebraism, denoting the repetition of an act : " tu quoque olim
vicissini fratrcs confirma:" "do thou also, on thy part, from time to
time confirm thy brethren." The Septuagint U8e this Greek verb for
the Hebrew DIBT*, which, when united with anotiier verb, may be ren-
dered by the adverb, again. Thus : iTTir^i^atc <ra.»cri/c */Ufltc, "Thou will
again save us." Pb Ixxxv. G »See Synopsis Sac. Crit. in hunc locum.
Also, John xxi. 20, tTnr^*<ptis^ means turning toirards. Many eminent
32 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
strengthen, by his teaching and authority, those who might be
weak in faith.
It is worthy of observation, that our Lord prepared the Apos-
tles for his most important institutions by a promise made long
before their actual establishment. Thus, in the course of his
life, he promised to them all the power of binding and loosing ;
and, after his resurrection, he gave them the power of forgiving
and retaining sins, which he had previously and principally de-
signated by that of loosing and binding. He had made a spe-
cial promise to Peter that he would give him the keys of the
kingdom of heaven ; and he accordingly gave to him, in an
especial manner, the charge of feeding his lambs and sheep,
thereby constituting him shepherd of the entire flock. The
fact is thus related by the Evangelist St John: " Jesus saith
to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more
than these ? He saith to him : Yea, liOrd, thou knowest that
I love thee. He saith to him : Feed my lambs. He saith to
him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to
him : Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to
him : Feed my lambs. He saith to him the third time : Simon,
son of John, lovest thou me ? Peter was grieved, because he
said to him the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he said to
him : Lord, thou knowest all things : thou knowest that I love
thee. He said to him : Feed my sheep."*
There were present on this occasion, at least, Thomas the
Apostle, and John and James, the sons of Zebedee, and two
other of his disciples, besides Nathaniel, of Cana in Galilee.t
Christ addresses Peter alone, questions him as to his love, but
is not satisfied with a declaration of ordinary love. He asks
whether he has a special love for Him, greater than that which
the others cherish ; " Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more
than these ?" He must then mean to confer a special preroga-
tive,— to constitute him Pastor in a sense more sublime than
writers, however, explain it of the duty to be performed after his con-
version, when he was to be constituted Pastor of the fold, and to receive
the grace necessary to discharge faithfully his office.
* John xxi. 15. i John xxi. 2.
GRANT OF THE PRIMACY. 33
that in which Thomas, or John, or James, were Pastors. Peter
having declared liis greater love, and having appealed to the
Saviour himself, as knowing his aflection, receives the charge
to feed the tender lambs of Christ : " Feed my lambs." ' The
question is again and a third time repeated, not to ascertain what
Christ so well knew, — not merely to require the three protesta-
tions of love as an atonement for the three denials, and a condi-
tion for elevating him to the pastoral oihce, since he receives the
authority and commission on his first declaration of love, — but
to point out in a strong manner the peculiar and sublime cha-
racter of his pastoral authority. He is first commanded to feed
the lambs of Christ, and the term used denotes strictly tlie act
of giving them food or pasture, that he may understand that his
duty is to give the pastures of eternal life — tlie divine doctrines
of faith — to the weakest, lowliest of the faithful, that their souls
may be therewith nourished. On his second protestation of love,
the nature of his office is more fully developed. He is told to do
all the duties of a shepherd ;t not only to give them salutary pas-
tures, and lead them to the refreshing streams, but to tend, to
watch over, to restrain, to bring back the stray sheep to the
fold, to cast away the contagious, and in all things to imitate
Him whose place he holds, whose sheep he tends, whose name
he bears — the one Shepherd of the one fold. Again, the Sa-
viour demands the declaration of his love, and the alllicled
Apostle appeals to Him, as the searcher of hearts, to whom all
things lie open, and who consequently knows the sincerity of
his love: '♦ Lord, thou knowest all tilings : thou knowest that
I love thee." The pastoral charge is then extended to the
sheep of ('hrist — to those who are as the parents of the tender
lambs — those who bring them forth in C'hrist: "Feed my
sheep. ":{: The term by which this exercise of pastoral care is
t wii/xAiit Tat fr^i0AT» fxou. The Vulgate road apvisL. The Greek
term is taken for governinj;, aH kinjrs were called shepherds of the peo-
ple : ^ti/uiric Aato»r. Se»r IltJiner, pasHiiii.
34 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
expressed, signifies to give food, because it is the chief duty of
the great Shepherd to phice in salutary pastures the sheep, that
they and their tender offspring may be nourished. Dropping
the metaphor, he must communicate to them, in its integrity,
the divine doctrine, such as he received it from Christ, that they
may be fit to teach others. His duly towards them is chiefly to
instruct them, though, as shepherd of the entire flock, he can
wield, even in their regard, the staft' of pastoral correction.
Hence it is manifest that blessed Peter, and in him his success-
ors, received from Christ full power to feed, to rule, and go-
vern the Church of God; that is, the entire flock of Christ, as
the Council of Florence defined.
The character of this authority is beautifully represented by
the image of a Shepherd, which is presented in so tender a man-
ner in the Old as well as the New Testament; and the accom-
plishment of the divine design is indicated of uniting Jews and
Gentiles in one fold under one Shepherd. Arnobius, a French
writer of the fifth century, thus expatiates on the appointment
of Peter to the office of Pastor : " Behold the penitent Apostle,
who is the bishop of bishops, is relieved, and a higher dignity
is given to him after his tears, than was taken away from him at
his fall. This I prove from the fact that none of the Apostles
was styled Shepherd : for the Lord Jesus Christ alone said : I
am the good Shepherd, and again my sheep follow me. He
granted, then, after his resurrection, this holy name to penitent
Peter; and he who was denied, gave to him who had denied
him, the power which he alone had."*
The justness of our interpretation is fully sustained by some
eminent Protestant annotators on this place. " The true inter-
pretation," says Bloomfield, in reference to the comparison made
in the first interrogation, " seems to be that of the ancient, and
many of the most eminent modern commentators, as Lampe,
Campbell, Kuinoel, and Tittman, who assign the following
sense : Dost thou love me more than those do? It is proper to
observe, that though our Lord asks the question thrice, yet the
* Arnobius in finem, Ps. cxxxviii.
EXERCISE OF TMF PRIMACV. 35
admonition, which each time follows it up, is not quite the
same ; for /S-.a-Ktn signifies simply to feed, provide willi pasture ;
rroifJiaLirtiv both to feed and to tend ; the former being especially
applicable to ifu* (meaning young, raw professors), and the lat-
ter to rrpcfixTx, OT the morc advanced and mature professors.
And the notion of tending necessarily carries with it that of
guiding and governing."*
I submit these critical remarks of the learned vicar of Bis-
brooke, to show that, although many Protestants, from a dread
of findinor the privileges of Peter in these words of Christ, have
given to them a forced, inane, and even ridiculous inter])retalion ;
yet that others, who have a character for learning and impar-
tiality, admit the substantial correctness of our interpretation,
whilst they deny the necessary consequence of their own ad-
missions, and, to use the words of St Hilary, ofTer violence to
the glorious words of our Redeemer.
I know not in what more solemn manner Christ could have
manifested his will that Peter should govern the Church by his
authority. He declared him the rock on which it was built —
he gave him the keys, the emblem of power and authority,
thereby clearly api)ointing him the ruler of his spiritual king-
dom. Of him, especially, he declared, that what he should bind
on earth would be bound in heaven ; what he should loose on
earth would be loosed in heaven. For him, especially, he
prayed that his faith might not fail — and to him alone he gave
the charge to confirm his brethren. In fine, after exacting from
him a protestation of special love, he commissioned hiin lo feed
his lambs and sheep ; to perform towards both all the duties ol
a Shepherd.
The actual exercise of the pastoral and governing authority
of Peter is clearly marked in the divine Scriptures. One of the
most solemn acts of authority is to create subordinate pastors,
and especially to communicate the Apostolic power and cha-
racter. Judas had left his place vacant in the Apostolic col-
lege, and l^eter took the earliest opportunity to fill tiie vacancy.
" Notes on Greek ttxt of John x\i. Jo.
36 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
Whilst the Apostles and other disciples of the Lord, to the
number of about one hundred and twenty, were persevering
with one mind in prayer, awaiting the Holy Spirit, who was
promised them, " Peter, rising up in the midst of the brethren,"*
urged the necessity of choosing one " to take the place of this
ministry and Apostleship." Though he did not act at once and
of himself, but sought the advice and concurrence of the bre-
thren, yet, by originating the measure, he showed that his office
imposed on him the duty of seeing that the vacancy was filled,
whilst he manifested condescension and regard for the sugges-
tions and wishes of his inferiors in authority. He could, doubt-
less, as St Chrysostom observes, have acted with entire inde-
pendence, but he had been educated in the school of humility,
and learned to imitate Him whose power he was commissioned
to exercise : " How fervent he is," exclaims Chrysostom,
"how he manifests that the flock was committed by Christ to
his charge, — see how he is the prince of this band, and every
where is the first to speak. — Why did he not alone ask of
Christ to give him some one to be substituted in the place of
Judas ? Why do they not rather of themselves make the choice ?
Peter had already become better than he was. — Consider
how Peter does all according to the common wish of the
disciples — nothing by his own authority, nothing in an im-
perious manner. — Men, brethren, he says : since the Lord
called his disciples brethren, it is still more becoming that
Peter should thus address his fellow disciples, wherefore he
spoke to all present; Behold the dignity of the Church: be-
hold the angelic state of harmony and love. — Why does he
consult them on this matter ? liCst it should become an occa-
sion of dissention and dispute. — But he himself points out those
from whom the choice should be made : ' of these men who have
been with us all the time.' Was it not lawful for himself to
make the choice? It was, and, indeed, pre-eminently lawful::}:
* Acts i. 15.
t Quid ? an non licebat ipsi eligere ? licebat, et quidem maxime. —
P. 182, Vol. 111. St Chrys. edit. Par. 1C87.
COUNTIL OF JERUSALKM. 37
but he abstains from it, lust lie should appear to favour any
one. Justly he first of all takes to himself authority in tliis
matter, as having them all under his control ; for to liini (.'lirist
said : " thou being onee converted, conlirm thy brethren."" It
is pleasing to be able to sliow in what light this act was viewed
by so bright an ornament of the Greek Church in the fourth
century. It is not, then, as you assert, we who strive to find
Scriptural authority for the Primacy, but one of the most il-
lustrious men of antiquity, — one occupying the chair of the
rival city, the new Rome, who recognises a splendid instance of
the (uoderate use of supreme power in the conduct of Peter on
this occasion.
A still more illustrious exercise of his high office, as "guar-
dian of the faith, "t occurs in the history of the first Council
of Jeru^falem. Great excitement was caused at Antioch by cer-
tain Judaizing Christians, who insisted that the converts from
the Gentiles should be subjected to circumcision and the legal
observances. " Paul and liarnabas had no small contest with
them,"]: but were unable to induce all to acquiesce in their judg-
ment; wherefore it was determiiuHl that they ''and certain
others of the other side, should go up to the Apostles and
j)riests to Jerusalem about this question." " The Apostles and
ancients came together to consider of tliis matter, and when
there was much disputing, l*eter, rising up, said to them :
Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made
choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear
the word of the Gospel, and believe. And God, who knowetli
the hearts, gave them testimony, giving to them the Holy
Ghost as well as to us : and made no diflerence between us and
them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why
* St Clirys. hotn. III. in 1 cap. Act. pp. li?l, \t2.
t TIh' appellation givfii to Cclcstint', as successor of Petor, in the
Gen»'ral Council of Ephesus, an. i'M : Kixir<'r» tc* >Ja«x/ tmc TiTimc,
one of the acclamations after the public reading of his doctrinal exposi-
tion of tlic faith against the heresy of Eutyches. Cone. Eph. Act. 11.
T. I. Cone. Hard. Col. HTii.
t Acta XV. 'J.
38 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples,
which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But by
the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved even
as they." I pray you to observe the result of this discourse:
" All the multitude held their peace."* Previously there had
been at Antioch great opposition and contest, notwithstanding
the reverence due to the Apostolic character in Paul and Bar-
nabas : the collision of sentiment Ivad been renewed in the Coun-
cil with considerable feeling. Peter authoritatively speaks, re-
minds them that he had been chosen to announce the Gospel to
the Gentiles, that God had given evidences of his favour
towards them, reproaches his brethren with seeking unne-
cessarily to burden them with the multifarious observances of
the ceremonial law: and declares the great principle of faith in
Jesus Christ as the only foundation of hope for Jew or Gen-
tile. No sooner has he spoken than all acquiesce : no dissent-
ing voice is heard, no murmur : all opposition ceases ; and who-
ever rises to speak only confirms, like Paul and Barnabas, by
the narrative of miraculous facts, what Peter had declared of
the favour shown by God to the Gentiles ; or, like James,
refers to the prophecies, adding the suggestiont of the mea-
sures to be decreed, that the principle might be carried into suc-
cessful execution. I do not see how any man can read the sim-
ple history of this controversy, by the inspired writer, and not
perceive the great weight of Peter's authority in its termination.
The letter of the Council, drawn up in the name of the Apos-
tles and ancients, expressive of the principle laid down by Pe-
ter, and of the practical measure suggested by James, is declared
to emanate from the Holy Ghost : " it hath seemed good to the
Holy Ghost, and to us. "J The writers of antiquity speak of
it as the sentence or decree of Peter. In the third century,
* Acts XV. 12.
t K^tvce "I judge," is the simple expression of sentiment, whether
authoritative, or void of authority. See Thucydid. iv. GO. It corresponds
to the Latin censco.
i lb. v. 28.
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. 39
Terlullian describes it as the exercise of liis power of binding
and loosing : " liie decree of l*eler loosed such things of the law
as were set aside, and bound fast such as were retained."' In
the fourth, St Jeroni says that Peter was the author of this de-
cree,! and the celebrated Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, speaks
of the controversy, as a matter referred by Paul to Peter, thai
by his supreme authority it mi^dn he definitively settled. ♦• If
Paul," says he in his letter to Pope Leo, " who was the herald
of truth, the organ of the Holy Spirit, had recourse to the great
Peter, in order to obtain a solution from him concerning the
observances of the law for those who disputed at Antioch on
this subject, with much greater reason we, who are abject and
weak, iiave recourse to your Apostolic Sec, that we may receive
from you remedies for the wounds of the churches. For it is
tit that you in all things should be first. "J Cave explains the
words of Paul, that *' he went to Jerusalem to see Peter," of
his going up on this occasion. §
Your assertions that this Council was not called by Peter,
that Peter did not preside in it, and that its decrees were not
confirmed by him, are, to say the least, perfectly gratuitous. He
was evidently the leading character in the Council, as Cave ad-
mits. Chrysostom calls our attention to the wisdom with which
he permitted the discussion, and then authoritatively interposed :
** See," says he, " he permits the inquiry and dispute to go on,
and then he himself speaks :"|| and he observes it as an evidence
of the harmony and condescension which prevailed, that Paul
was allowed to speak after Peter had pronounced judgment:
♦' See, Paul speaks after Peter, and no one closes his mouth. "f
* TortuUian, 1. do pudicitia.
t " Princippin hujus fuisso docrcti." S. Ilicron. Aug. Ep. 75, alias
xi., inter August. S. b, col. 172. Tom. II.
t Theodorot. ad Leonem.
§ Pelruin ibi convenit occaaionc, utvidctur, Concilii Apostolici — cu-
JU8 Pclrus pars magna fuit." Sn'C. Ap. p.G.
II S. Chrys. horn, xxxii. inc. xv. Act. Ap. p. 2r.O. Tom. III. Edit
Paris, HW7.
IT Horn, .xxxiii. p. 200.
40 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
To establish the primacy of Peter, it is not necessary to prove
that he exercised, at all times, and in every circumstance, his
prerogative to its utmost extent: since moderation, condescen-
sion and humility, had been prescribed to him by his divine
master; and Chrysostom testifies, that in this spirit he abstain-
ed from appointing the Apostle to fill the place of Judas, ^vhich,
nevertheless, he was fully authorized to do. The performance,
however, of any act which supposes superior power, is a proof
that he possessed it ; because an Apostle of Christ was not likely
to usurp a power not communicated by the Redeemer. When,
therefore, we see him stand forward, and silence the disputants
by his meek rebuke, we cannot fail to recognise him as the high
judge of religious controversy.
It has pleased the Holy Spirit to leave on record but a few
of the circumstances connected with this model of councils :
but these few sufficiently show that Peter was there, that he
either called the council, or assented to its convocation, that
he spoke with authority and effect, silencing all disputation by
his discourse, and that the decree was in strict conformity with
his judgment. The forms are of little importance where the au-
thority is fully respected and admitted. To be Prince and Primate
in the Church of God, it was not necessary that he should stand
alone, separated from his colleagues in the apostolate and episco-
pacy, and resting solely on the prerogative of his station. It is
delightful to see him in the council of his brethren, causing
the ardour of disputation to subside by authoritative instruction,
and enlightening the minds of his colleagues, and of the faithful,
by unfolding to them the oracles of God. The decree which ex-
presses his judgment, and that of his colleagues, and the faith of
the whole Church, is no way derogatory to his high prerogative.
The perpetuity of the privileges of the Prince of the
Apostles in the Church is a necessary consequence of the
divine institution of the Primacy. It is the foundation
which must remain as long as the edifice which it supports
subsists — it is the governing power, without which the king-
dom of Christ would be divided and brought to desolation
— it is the pastoral office, by which the sheep of Christ are
PERPETUITY OF THK PRIMACY. 41
to be for ever preserved in uniiy, ami lo be one fold under one
Sheplierd. As llie perpcluily of the Apostolic commission
to teach, baptize, and perform the other functions of the sacred
ministry is admitted, though the words were addressed lo the
Apostles only, with the assurance, however, that Christ would
be with them till the consummation of ages; so must the per-
petuity of the governing power and pastoral oftlce, originally
conferred on Peter, be acknowledged, especially since, in im-
mediate connexion with it, the assurance was given that the
gates of hell should not prevail, — a promise which at least in-
directly regards the rock on which the Church is built.
*' Neither against the rock on which the Church is built, nor
against the Church s1il\11 the gates of hell prevail."*
That Peter founded the Church of Rome, and in conjunction
with Paul exercised there his Apostolic ministry, and that both
Apostles died martyrs for the failh in that city, are facts at-
tested by all antiquity, and freely adiniltcd by tlie most respect-
able Protestant writers. " We intrepidly aflirm," says Cave.
** with all antiquity, that Peter was at Rome, and for some
time resided there. "t You deny that he was Bishop of Rome,
because the Apostolic commission was general ♦' to the whole
world :" but the government of that particular Church did not
prevent his discharge of all the duties of the Apostleship.J
The early writers, as Irenajus, speak conjointly of Peter and
Paul, as founding the C/hurch of Rome, because of their joint
labours, and tl'.eir martyrdom in that city at the close of their
apostolic ministry: some, as Epiphanius, designate them both
its bishops, as Cave remarks ; but whenever the Roman See is
spoken of in reference to one Apostle as its first bishop, thai
Apostle is uniformly Peter, and not Paul. Hence, it is called
• Origen, in C. xvi. Mat. Tom. XII., p o"J().
t Cave Stcc. Apost. S. I'ctrus, p. 5, col. 1 Edit. Gcnevm, an. 170G.
t " All, both ancient and modrrn, will, I think, agree with me that
I'eter may be called Hisliop of Rome in a less strict sense, inasmuch as
111- laid the foundations of this Church, and rendered it illustrious by his
martyrdom." This admissir)n is made by Cave, lhou;T|i he questions
whether Peter should be styled IJishop of Home in a strict sense. V 'i
D*
42 SCRIPTURAL PROOFS OF THE PRIMACY.
by St Cyprian, " the place of Peter,"* by St Jerom, " the chair
of Peter,"! and the succession from Peter in that See is avow-
ed, by St Aiigustin, to be one of the great evidences of truth
which retained him in the Catholic communion. " I am kept,"
says he, " by the succession of bishops from the very See of the
Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after his resurrection, in-
trusted the feeding of his sheep, down to the present bishop."!
Ambrose, the master of Augustin, styles Peter " Bishop of the
Roman Church. "§ Whatever share the Apostle Paul may
have had in the government of that Church, it must have ne-
cessarily had one bishop, since the general practice of antiquity,
and the positive testimonies of the ancients, unanimously teach
that there can be but one bishop of one Church. To suppose
that neither Apostle governed it as bishop, is to create an
anomaly in the organization of the churches, by leaving one
without a special ruler. In whatever way we view the matter,
and whatever share in the administration we may ascribe to St
Paul, the Church of Rome is the heiress of both apostles, sanc-
tified by their labours, and enriched by their doctrine and their
blood. She claims all the privileges and powers which either
enjoyed or exercised ; and if she rests with peculiar emphasis
on those of Peter, it is because his privileges were more sub-
lime, and of a more enduring character, than those of the
Apostle of the Gentiles. I care not then to insist on the ap-
plication of the term " bishop," to Peter as governor of the
Roman Church, although it is perfectly applicable : it is un-
questionable that he governed it, at least in his apostolic cha-
racter, and died whilst so governing it. The authority with
which he was invested was a fundamental principle of Church
organization, which could not cease without the destruction of
the Church itself. It must then continue, in the bishops who
succeed him in the government of that Church, over which
he presided up to the time of his martyrdom.
* S. Cyprian, Ep. ad Antonian. t Jerom. ep, ad Damas.
t Aug. 1. adv. ep. Man. fundam. C. IV. Tom. VIll.,p 153.
§ S. Ambros. 1. 3 de Sac. c. 1, §. (5. Tom. II.
LETTER III.
OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE
PRIMACY.
Right Reverend Sir :
Having reviewed the Scriptural evidence of the Primacy,
which you pass over rather slightly, it is but just to meet the ob-
jections which you derive from some passages of Scripture. You
say that the rock was the Redeemer; for " no one can lay ano-
ther foundation, but that which is laid, whicii is Christ Jesus." '
To have the true meaning of this passage, and to perceive the
weakness of the objection grounded on it, the context must be
attended to, from wliich it will at once appear, that the founda-
tion of which St Paul speaks is different from that mentioned
by Christ. The Apostle addressing the Corinthians, whom he
had brought to tlie knowledge of Cliristiaii faith, says: *'You
are God's building. According to the grace of God that is given
me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation, and another
buildclh thereon. But let every man take heed how he build-
eth thereupon. For no man can lay another foundation, but
that which is laid — which is Christ Jesus.'* The Apostle,
anxious to maintain his spiritual children in the integrity of
faith, compares them to a building erected, by his own hands,
on faith in our divine Redeemer; and he declares that no other
foundation can be laid. In Him we must believe; in Him we
must hope; Him in all things we must obey; for, as St Peter
expresses the same idea in clearer terms, "there is not salvation
in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given to
• 1 Cor. ii. 11.
44 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
men, whereby we must be saved."* This is the obvious mean-
ing of St Paul.t The text has no relation whatever to the pro-
mise of Christ to Peter, except the illustration of a different
truth by a similar image. Christ wished to signify to Peter the
reward of his faith by the authority which he would enjoy in
his Church, and with this view he likened the Church to a
building, himself to an architect, Peter to a rock on which the
foundation of the building would be laid. The similitude is apt
and expressive in both cases, but confusion is necessarily pro-
duced when the two similitudes are confounded together, and
what is said of Christ in the one place, where he is represented
as the foundation, is applied to him in the other, where he
speaks of himself as the architect. The passages are parallel
in their character, but different in their object: in both, the
foundation is distinguished from the architect. Where Paul is
the architect, Christ is the foundation : where Christ is the
architect, he makes Peter the foundation. Do we then reject
Christ ? God forbid ! He is for us also the foundation of faith,
— the basis on which our hopes of immortality are built. Our
sentiments are correctly and eloquently expressed by one of
the most distinguished of Peter's successors, the first Leo, with
whose name posterity has associated the appellation of " Great."
Paraphrasing the address of Christ to Peter, recorded in the
sixteenth chapter of St Matthew, he says : " As my Father has
manifested my divinity to thee, I make known to thee thy dig-
nity : for thou art Peter, that is, as I am the inviolable rock,
the corner-stone, who make both one, — I the foundation, other
* Acts iv. 12.
t The rule prescribed by the Protestant critic, Gerard, should here
be attended to, 45G : " Every term should be considered as it stands, in
the proposition of which it makes a part, and explained, not by itself,
but so as to bring out the real sense of that whole proposition." He
shows the violation of this rule by an Antinomian, who should under-
stand the rock on which the wise man builds his house. Matt. vii. 24,
to be Christ, the Rock of Ages. The rule is equally violated, when the
rock, of which Christ speaks, Matt. xvi. 18, is understood to be himself
See Gerard's Institutes, p. 134.
DOMINATION FORBIDDEN. 45
than wliich no one can lay — nevertlieless thou also art a Rock,
because thou art strengthened by my power, so that what things
belong to me by nature, are common to thee with me by far-
TiciFATioN."* Every prerogative then wjjich we acknowledge
in Peter is the gift of his bounty; all authority emanates from
him. In fact, Bishop Marsh, and, after him, Bloomfield ad-
mit that there can be no real difficulty in reconciling these two
passages, because Christ and Peter are called the foundation in
a very different sense. *' The Apostles, generally, are in other
parts of the New Testament called the foundation on which the
Cliurch is built ;t but Peter is specially called such, and even
designated a rock, to denote his peculiar strength and connexion
with the Church."
You adduce various passages of Scripture in which pride and
domination are condemned, and humility is prescribed : and you
assert that ♦' all these instances are related as occurring subse-
quently to the gift of the keys to Peter." You suppose, that
if die words of Christ had the meaning which we assign them,
he would have reproved his disciples when contending about
superiority, and *' have reminded them that he had constituted
Peter tiie governor and chief already." Allow me to observe,
that Peter did not receive the power which was promised to
him, until after the resurrection, when Christ gave him the
commission to feed his lambs and sheep. It is not wonderful
that the AposUes did not at tliat time fully understand the sub-
lime promise of the Saviour, for, as yet, they were slow of un-
derstanding, and had no adequate idea of the institutions whicli
Christ meant to establish. Already, indeed, they saw a mark-
ed preference manifested for Peter, since Christ paid the tri-
bute for him as well as for himself, and gave other indications
of peculiar favour: but he was known to cherish a tender love
for John, and his kindness towards all rendered it still a matter
of (juestion which was the greatest favourite with their divine
master. He took occasion from this, and other circumstances
• S. Leo. Maij. Scrm. 3, dc a.ssurnptionc sua ad I'ontificatuin.
t Bloomfield Coin. Matt, xvi., and quotes Eph.ii. 20, and Rev. xxi 1-1.
46 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
which showed his disciples' imperfection, to teach them —
notequahty, but liumility. Thus, when the mother of the sons
of Zebedee sought for her children, that they might sit, one on
his right hand, and the other on his left, by his throne, " the
ten hearing it were moved with indignation against the two bre-
thren." He called them to him, and observed, that lordly do-
mination characterized the rulers of this earth, but that, if they
wished to be great in his sight, they should humble themselves,
and become as servants to each other : " Even as the Son of
man came not to be ministered, but to minister, and to give his
life a redemption for many."* In this surely was implied, that
there was to be amongst them a difference of rank ; but, never-
theless, that the highest should imitate the humility of their
Lord and Master, so that the exercise of authority, however
great, should be marked by kind and fraternal feeling. This
divine lesson was inculcated by Peter, when, addressing his
colleagues in the sacred ministry, he bade them " feed the flock
of God" entrusted to their charge, not domineering over the
portion of the Lord's inheritance committed to them, " but
being made a pattern of the flock from the heart."! The exer-
cise of power is, in all circumstances, to be tempered with hu-
mility; but the power is not, on that account, less real or effi-
cacious.
In the second passage objected by you, Christ forbids pha-
risaical vanity and ostentation, which delights in " salutations
in the market-place," and in titles of distinction : " be not you
called Rabbi. For one is your master, and all you are bre-
thren.":}: If this passage be alleged to prove that no one of the
Apostles was superior to the other, it may be, with equal pro-
priety, used to show that the Apostles were in no respect supe-
rior to the multitude, for the discourse was not addressed to the
Apostles alone, but " to the multitude and to his disciples. "§
You are scarcely prepared for this perfect equality. You admit
superior powers in the Apostolic college, and you consequently
* Matt. XX. 28. t 1 Peter V. 2, 3.
t Matt, xxiii. 8. § Matt, xxiii. 1.
POWERS OF THE APOSTLES. 47
cannot urge this passage farther than to show that vanity is re-
preliensible in all, wheliier they he the tilled dignitaries of the
churcli, or the less conspicuous members of the laity.
The ninth chapter of Luke aflbrds you another objection.
" There entered a thought into them which of them should be
greater;" and their divine Master " took a child, and set him
by him, and said to them : whosoever shall receive this child in
my name, receivelh me: and whosoever shall receive me, re-
ceiveth him that sent me. For he that is the least among you
all, he is the greatest."* The Lord thus beautifully insinuates
humility, which is the best disposition for elevation to the high
ollice of the Apostolate. He says nothing to exclude the supe-
riority of one above the rest in dignity or rank ; but teaches all
that the lowliest in station may be greatest in merit before God,
provided he be profoundly humble.
The objection derived from the twenty-second chapter of
Luke is similar to that which you have before advanced, from
the twentieth chapter of Matthew, and which I have already
explained. It regards the mode in which superior power is to
be exercised : " he who is the greatest among you, let him be as
the least, and he that is the leader as he that servelh. For
which is greater, lie that sittelh at table, or he that servelh ? Is
not he that sittelh at table ? But I am in the midst of you, as
he that servelh. "t There was then a leader, there was one
greatest among them, but he was to imitate Ilim who was above
all, but wIjo nevertheless humbled himself as the servant of all.
He sufliciently indicated the leader, when, addressing Peter on
that occasion, he told him to " confirm his brethren. "J
You found the next objection on tlie twentieth chapter of St
John's Gospel, wherein (Jhrist, addressing all the Apostles,
says : ♦♦ Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, 1 also
send you. Receive ye the Holy (Jhost. Wliose sins you shall
forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall re-
tain, they are retained.") You argue that, as no distinction is
• Luke xxii. 2G. t Ibid. xxii. S*).
t ibid. 3*J. § John. XX. -JI.
48 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
made between Peter and the other Apostles, the power confer-
red on all was alike, and that *' as the character of his office is not
to be determined by the time when it was first promised, but
by the rights actually conferred, it seems abundantly evident
that this passage decides the whole controversy." There might
be something more than plausibility in this reasoning, had the
same Evangelist neglected to record the special commission to
feed the lambs and sheep of Christ, given to Peter alone, after
a thrice repeated protestation of loving his Lord more than the
others loved him. Peter received, with the others, the power
of forgiveness, which he and they were to exercise ; but sepa-
rately and apart from them, he received the pastoral commission
to govern all the sheep of Christ, and, as the vicegerent and
visible representative of Christ, to be the one shepherd of the
one fold. The character of his office is determined both by the
promise, which was special, and by the rights actually confer-
red, which fully corresponded with the sublime promise. Peter
had powers common to the whole Apostolic college ; he had,
besides, authority peculiarly his own.
I have already shown that the Apostolic commission pre-
sented no obstacle to the administration of a particular Church
by an Apostle. He had privilege to exercise his power every
where, but he was not necessarily obliged to be witliout any
fixed residence or See, as is evident from the case of the
Apostle James, who occupied the See of Jerusalem. As you
here promise presently to prove from Irenaeus that Linus, and
not St Peter, is set down as the first bishop of that city, it is
but just to observe that you labour under a misconception of
that writer's meaning, as will appear when we shall come to
the examination of his testimony.
You observe, that on some occasions Peter appears, in the
Acts of the Apostles, " like one more ruled than ruling." The
chief instance which you give is, that when the conversion of
the Samaritans, through the ministry of Philip, was made
known to the Apostles who were in Jerusalem, they sent to
them " Peter and John,"* But, surely, this is too slight a
* Acts viii. 14.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 40
ground for questioning the superior authority of Peter, esta-
blished by so many and such strong Scriptural proofs. A
superior cannot, indeed, be authoritatively sent by his subjects,
yet he is said sometimes to be sent when he is induced to go
at their solicitation. Were we to rely on a similar argument, —
the equivocal meaning of a word ; were we to oppose it to
solemn and clear and express testimonies of Scripture, convey-
ing power and authority, you would surely regard us with a
feeling of pity, if not of indignation.
After the baptism of Cornelius, when Peter went up to
Jerusalem, they who were of llie circumcision disputed against
him," and Peter explains the wliolc matter, concluding in
the 17lh verse by saying: *' Who was I, that I could oppose
God?" "Neither he nor his accusers on this occasion," you
observe, ** seem to have had any notion of his superior dignity."
But is it a matter of surprise that a people so attached to their
religious traditions as the Jews, and so recently converted to
Christianity, should have viewed with displeasure a measure
so novel, and so repugnant to their ideas, and should have been
wanting in due respect for the auliiority of the first Pastor ?
You need only call to mind the frequent murmurings of their
forefathers against Moses, even shortly after many and stu-
pendous prodigies had convinced them that he was the chosen
servant of (lod, and was acting in obedience to the divine will.
Peter was not unconscious of iiis authority, but did not deem
it unworthy of his high dignity to explain the motives of his
conduct, and thus take away from their weak minds the occa-
sion of scandal and dissention. 'I'he recognition of the hio^h
authority of l^elcr, even by the converts from Judaism, as well
as his own sense of that authority, is manifest from the history
of the Council of Jerusalem, of which I have already treated.
I must refer you to my remarks for the solution of the objec-
tion which you seek to draw from it.
You mention, as something unfavourable to the prerogative
of Peter, that " the whole of liu; remaining chapters of the
' Arts xi. "2.
50 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
book of the Acts, is devoted chiefly to the labours of the great
Apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter is hardly named again."
Is it possible that you seriously object this circumstance ? St
Luke, the writer of the Acts, was the companion of Paul in his
travels, as the Apostle himself testifies.* He gives a com-
pendium of the chief events which marked the rise of the
Church until the conversion of Saul, and thence confines him-
self, almost exclusively, to the subsequent history of St Paul,
having been himself an eye witness of many of the events
which he records.
The arguments which you produce to prove that St Paul
-acknowledged no superior authority in Peter, are, to say the
least, weak indeed. To convince the Galatians that his gospel
was divinely revealed, St Paul observes that, on his conversion,
lie had not gone to Jerusalem, to the Apostles who had pre-
ceded him in the faith : but what he adds is worthy of your
most serious consideration: "Three years after, I came to
Jerusalem to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days."t
Can we suppose that this was a visit of mere courtesy, and not
rather an official act of respect to the authority of the prince of
the Apostles, with whom Paul wished to consult on the im-
portant concerns of the Church? The Greek verb suggests
the idea of consultation, or inquiry .J " Peter," says Chrysos-
tom, " was the organ and prince of the Apostles: wherefore
Paul went up to see him in preference to the rest."§ Cave
himself, as you have seen, believes that the visit was made
with a view to obtain the decision of the controversy about the
observance of the ceremonial law.
The reproof given by St Paul to Cephas, I| is alleged by
you, after most Protestant writers on the subject, as evidence
that he recognised in Peter no superior authority. The Fathers,
ho\yever, discovered in it nothing more than the liberty w^hich
an inferior may use in admonishing his superior, when the
* 2 Cor. viii. 18. Col. iv. 14. 2 Tim. iv. 11. Philem. 24.
t Gal. i. 18.
t <ri§«?A', to confer with. See Jones's Greek Lexicon.
§ S. Chrys. horn. 87 in Joan. || Gal. ii. 11.
CEPHAS AT ANTIOCH. 51
conduct of the latter is such as is likely to bo prrjudirial to
the interests of truth. No station, liowever elevated, places
man beyond the reacli of respectful admonition, or even strong
reproof, if his conduct ilescrve it. " Paul," says Tcrtullian,
*' reproved Peter, for no other reason, however, than the change
of his mode of livinjj;, wliich he varied according to tlie class of
persons with whom he associated, not for any corruption of
divine truth."* In regard to this fact, Augustiu ol)serves : "a
just liberty is to be admired in Paul, and holy humility in
Peter."t ;
You avail yourself of tiie statement of St Paul, that to" him
" was committed the Gosjiel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter
* Tertullian, 1. v. contra Marcion,c. 3.
t Aujr. Ep. 6^2. n. 22. Nov. edit.
t I have granted to Bishop Hopkins that Cephas here mentioned is
the same as Peter, as I do not wish to encumber the investigation
with a question of a mere critical character. The Fathers of the Church
generally take him to be the same, but in a question of this kind, totally
independent of doctrine, a mistake may be supposed without disrespect
to their venerable authority. It is certain that Clement of Alexandria
maintained that Cephas, who was reproved by St Paul, was one of the
seventy disciples, and Euscbius has recorded this testimony, wiUiout
any indication of dissent. Eusebius, 1. i. c. 12. In all ages liiis sentiment
of Clement has had advocates, although the contrary opinion has been
always more general. Among modern writers the learned Feller, in his
historical dictionary, manifestly favours the less generally received
opinion. Hardouin expressly defends it. Kerkherdere in his cojuitus
noTus de Ccpfui riprrhoiso, published at Louvain in 1713, maintains it,
and Molkcnbuhr, in 17-;.'), published a Scriptural critical dissertation to
the same effect. The authors, both Catholic and Protestant, who have
confounded the two, are strangely embarrassed to find a time at which
the reproof of Peter can be supposed to have happened, some placing it
before, some after tlio Council of Jerusalem. The simple fact seems to
be that Cephas, one of the disciples, being reproved sharply by Paul for
tergiversation of conduct, " no small contest" ensued, which led to the
reference to Prter and James and their colleagues at Jerusalem. Tlic
conduct of Peter in defending his reception of Cornelius into the
Church, and his bold reproof of the Judaizing Christians in the Council,
pivc us a view of his character totally inconsistent with the dissimula-
tion of the weak disciple.
52 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
was that of the circumcision ;"* but surely you know that these
expressions do not signify that the exclusive charge of Gentiles
or Jews was given to either apostle. The universal character
of the apostolic commission regards not only places, but classes
of men: and the Apostle only intimates that the chief exercise
of his own ministry was to be among the Gentiles, whilst Pe-
ter was chiefly to exert his zeal for the conversion of the Jews.t
Peter was the first to receive the Gentiles into the Church, in
the person of Cornelius and his family; and you cannot sup-
pose that he, or any of the Apostles, had not full authority to
exercise his ministry in favour of ail classes of men. Besides,
there were at Rome many Jews, amongst whom Peter no doubt
especially laboured, whilst Paul more particularly devoted
himself to the conversion of the Gentiles. Each, as opportunity
was offered, extended his zeal to Jew and Gentile ; but the
general superintendance of all still remained in him whom
Christ had commanded to feed his lambs and sheep, and con-
firm his brethren.
The order observed by St Paul in the mention of those who
were regarded as pillars of the church, "James, Cephas, and
John," seems to you evidence against the primacy of Peter.
To the learned Hardouin and others it appeared to favour the
opinion that Cephas here mentioned was a disciple, and not
the Apostle ; because in all the Gospels, and in the writings of
St Paul, wherever Peter is named, he uniformly precedes all
others, unless where the latter place is the more honourable
from the nature of the subject,;}: and by St Matthew he is ex-
pressly styled " the first."§ This, though the least proof of
* Gal. ii. 7.
t " St Peter was chiefly but not entirely occupied by the Jews, and
St Paul chiefly, but not wholly, with the Gentiles," says Bloomfield on
this passage. See also Synopsis Grit, in locum.
t Gal. i. 12 , iii. 22.
§ Mat. X. 2. 0 TT^atTo?, "the first." That this is not a mere ordinal
adjective is proved by the fact that no such adjective is placed after the
names of the other Apostles enumerated in this list. It is remarkable
that the Evangelists observe no order injthe catalogues they have given,
except in regard of two — Peter and Judas. The first of whom always
PREACHING OF PETER AT ROME. 53
his superiority, afl'ords no slight presumption of it. Waiving,
however, whatever advantage might he derived from this
circumstance, I shall beg, in reply to your objection, to
state that the name of Cephas is altogether wanting in tliis
place in a mo:it ancient manuscript, which Grotius judges to
be correct.* Moreover the incidental mention of the name
of the Apostle, without regard to the precedency of his office,
cannot render questionable his authority.
You labour to prove that Paul, and not Peter, was the first
founder of the Church of Rome, and you do not hesitate to
assert that 'on this point the book of the Acts is clear and posi-
tive.' But, sir, all that is clear from that divine history is that
Paul was brought to Rome in chains, and that during his stay
there, whicli lasted two years, he instructed those who liad
recourse to him at his own hired lodginji.t Before he had
seen that city,J he wrote his Epistle to the Romans, in which
is placed at the head of the catalogue ; tlic last uniformly occupies the
lowest place. The eloquent bishop of Mcaux presents, at one view, the
various circumstances in which Peter appears foremost in the Gospels :
" Peter," says he, " appears the first on all occasions : tlie first to confess
the faith ; the first to express his obligation of love ; the first of all the
Apostles who saw Christ after his resurrection, as he was th«' first to
bear testimony to this fact before all the people. We find him first,
when there was question of filling up the number of the Apostles ; the
first wh(j confirmed tiie faith by a miracle, tiie first to convert the Jews,
the first to receive the Gentiles; in short, every thing occurs to estab-
lish Ixis supremacy. The power divided among many, imports its re-
striction : conferred on one alone, ozcr all and without exception, it bears
the evidence of its plenitude. All receive the same power, but not in
the same degree, nor to the same extent. Jesus Christ commences by
the chief, and in the person of the chief developes all his power — in
order that we should learn that the ecclesiastical authority, being origi-
nally centred in one individual, has been diffused only on the condition
that it sliould always be reflected back on the princij)]e of its unity ; and
that all they who share in it should be inseparably connected with that
See, which is the common centre of ail churclics." — Bossuet. Disc, sur
lunit^ de I'Eglise, premiere partie.
' See Critic. Sac. Synop. in hunc locum.
t Acts xxviii. 30.
I Five or six years before his imprisonment, about the year of C^hriul
E*
54 OBJECTIONS FROM SCRIPTURE AGAINST THE PRIMACY.
he declares his earnest desire to see them, to be consoled by
the evidence of their faith, the fame of which had already
spread to the utmost limits of the empire.* You have fallen
into the strange mistake of quoting this epistle in proof of the
success of his preaching in that city, whilst he declares in it
that he had never been there : " I would not have you ignorant,
brethren, that I have often purposed to come to you (and have
been prevented hitherto), that I might have some fruit among
you also, even as among other nations."!
You complain that " after all this St Paul should be made to
act a secondary part to St Peter in founding the Church of
Rome, and that the Sacred Oracles should thus become subor-
dinate to the testimony of tradition." But it is manifest, from
the passage of Scripture just quoted, that St Paul was not the
original founder of that Church, and that it was flourishing and
celebrated before his eye had ever rested on that magnificent
city. Tradition comes to our aid on a point not stated in Scrip-
ture, by informing us who it was that first entered the seat of
Paganism to preach salvation in the name of the crucified Re-
deemer : it does not set aside the Sacred Oracles, but gives us
information for which they had prepared us. Chrysostom, in
regard to the establishment of religion by Peter in the capital
of the empire, observes : " The fisherman Peter, because he
practised virtue, and occupied the imperial city, shines, even
after death, brighter than the sun. "J TertuUian, at the close of
the second century, speaks of those whom Peter baptized in
the Tyber.§
You " remind us, that in the two epistles of St Peter, there
is not one word of intimation on the supreme rule and govern-
ment supposed to be conferred on him." But it is enough
that he writes to his colleagues in the ministry with the dignity
and authority that becomes the prince of the Apostles ; and such
57 or 58. See Bloomfield, Notes on the Acts and on the Epistle to the
Romans : also Macknight on the Epistles. See also Cave, Saec, Apost.
^ Rom. i. e. t V. 13.
t S. Joan. Chry. in Ps. 48, p. 370, Tom. I.
§ Tertull. 1. de bapt.
SCRIPTURAL ALLUSIONS. 55
is the judgment which an eminent Protestant critic has passed
on his style.* He speaks as one to wliom pastors and people
were alike entrusted ; and whilst, with the humility which his
divine Master inculcated, he regards himself as a fellow-labourer,
he prescribes to the dignitaries of the Church the spirit in which
they should exercise their power.t
In fine, you ask us, as you delight in interrogatories, " have
we never wondered that the supremacy of Peter has been
passed by in all the Epistles and in the Acts of the Apostles?"
We reply that we have no cause for this supposed wonder, as
we see ils exercise very distinctly marked in the Acts, and its
divine origin strongly declared in the Gospels. Great, indeed,
is our astonishment, and deep our regret, that many read these
divine writings and perceive not these truths, but prefer vain
conjectures and weak reasonings to the plain and solemn
words of Jesus Christ. Perhaps, sir, you may not have per-
mitted your attention to be directed to the various passages in
the Gospels, in which the Primacy of Peter is indirectly, but
significantly intimated. ♦' Is the Church," says St Francis de
Sales, J " likened unto a house ? It is placed on the foundation
of a rock, which is Peter. Will you represent it under the
figure of a family ? You behold our Redeemer paying the
tribute as ils master, and after him comes Peter as his repre-
sentative. Is the Church a bark? Peter is its pilot; and it is
our Redeemer who instructs him. Is the doctrine by which
we are drawn from the gulf of sin represented by a fisher's
net? It is Peter who casts it: it is Peter who draws it; the
other disciples lend their aid ; but it is Peter that presents the
fishes to our Redeemer. Is the Church represented by an
embassy ? Saint Peter is at its head. Do you prefer the figure
of a kingdom ? Saint Peter carries its keys. In fine, will you
have it shadowed under the symbol of a flock and a fold ?
Saint Peter is the shepherd and universal Pastor under Jesus
Christ."
• Grotius. Sec Synops. Grit. Proleg. Ep. 1, Petri.
t 1 Ep. Peter, c. v.
t Controvcrses de S. Franc, de Sales, disc. 42.
LETTER IV.
SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS.
Right Reverend Sir :
From the Scriptural proofs of the Primacy of Peter, you pro-
ceed to the ancient canons, styled, of the Jipo sties ; and you ob-
serve, that in them no evidence of it is discoverable. That they
are not regarded by us as the true productions of the Apostles,
you candidly acknowledge ; and hence I can see no reason why
you should bring them forward in this investigation, especially
as all learned Protestants agree with us in rejecting them.*
Allowing you, however, the privilege of using them, you can-
not find a single expression in them which impugns the Pri-
macy of Peter and his successors. The prohibition of the trans-
fer of bishops from one see to another, unless by the judgment
and earnest recommendation of many bishops, does not prove
that there was then no Primate, because the present discipline
requires his consent for so important a change ; this being a
matter entirely dependent on positive enactment. In the first
three ages espef*ially, when persecution raged, the communi-
cation between the prelates, scattered abroad over the empire,
and even beyond its limits, was necessarily difficult; and it
cannot be matter of surprise, that recourse to the chief Pastor
was enjoined only in cases of vital importance to the general
interests of the Church. Besides, the See of Alexandria, found-
ed by Mark, the disciple of Peter, and that of Antioch, founded
by Peter himself, had extensive jurisdiction, afterwards deno-
* See Cave Sa^c. Ap. Op. Sup. p. 19. Gen. cd. He thinks that they
were collected together chiefly from the usage and regulations of the
Church about the end of the second age.
CANONS OF THE APOSTLES. 57
minated patriarchal, according to the beautiful order established
from the comraencement. The general affairs of these vast
districts were committed fully to their authority, as appears by
the sixtli canon of Nice. If the bishops of the east, whose dis-
cipline is thought to be represented by tiiose canons, authorized
episcopal translations, whenever judged expedient by many
neighbouring bishops, it was an enactment no wise derogatory
to the supremacy of Peter's chair. At a later period, the ex-
pediency of further restrictions to prevent ambition became
manifest, whilst the facilities of communication were increased,
and the patriarchal sees having failed, occasion was oflercd for
the more direct and frequent exercise of pontifical authority,
even in the most distant provinces. An absolute prohibition
of all translations has been made, whereby they became unlaw-
ful, except by the dispensation of the general ruler of the
Church. The thirty-third canon exhibits that order which is
to be maintained in the respective portions of the Christian
world ; the bishops of each province or nation looking up with
reverence to their local head, or metropolitan, as continues to
be enjoined even unto this day: but who can thence conclude
that there is no common head, whom even metropolitans should
reverence and obey ? In the enactment of canons, the Coun-
cils of the three first ages, which were all local, intended to re-
gulate local concerns, not general discipline ; and consequently
legislated without the remotest intention to interfere with the
general organization of the Church. In this spirit, provincial
Councils were to be held twice a year, and local controversies
were therein examined and determined : but when the general
interests of religion were at stake, their acts were sent to the
chief guardian of the divine deposite, as we shall see in the case
of Paul of Samosata, and in the celebrated controversies con-
cerning baptism administered by heretics, and the necessity of
grace. These fretjuent Councils were advisable, in consequence
of thediflicullies for which no legislation had yet provided, and
were practicable among neighbouring bishops, whose dioceses
were generally small. Such Councils are still prescribed to be
lield, at least every third year, and, within the last ten years,
58 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS.
they have been thrice held in our ecclesiastical province. Thus
our practice is substantially the same as that of the early a^es, and
neither interferes with the prerogative of the Pope. The judg-
ment of bishops, accused of grievous delinquency, was some-
times left to their colleagues of the province, except the bishops
of Alexandria and Antioch, whose patriarchal dignity gave them
the privilege of being judged by the Pope ; but when aggrieved,
they raised their voice from the East, and from the West, to
the father of bishops, whose power was often exerted in their
behalf. The extinction of those patriarchates, and a desire to
protect the episcopal dignity from unjust and rash aggression,
subsequently induced the reservation of all such cases to the
mature examination and impartial judgment of one whose ele-
vation raises him above the partial influences to which other
bishops might be exposed.
I have thus offered an explanation of difficulties which have
no direct bearing on the subject of our investigation, and which
I could have justly passed over without notice, because taken
from supposititious documents. Your assertion, that these ca-
nons are directly adverse to our doctrine, is surely not easy to
be sustained. I hope you now see how perfectly they har-
monize with the admission of a governing power, watching
over the general interests of religion, and interfering more or less
in local concerns, according to peculiar exigencies and circum-
stances. As to our evading evidence, as you insinuate, it is as
far from our thoughts as it is foreign from our practice to seek
it in spurious sources.
In your progress among these impure sources, you next come
to the *• Apostolic Constitutions," which, although confessedly
spurious, you bring forward to bear evidence against us, de-
claring that " you have searched them in vain for any trace of
our doctrine on the Primacy." 1 regret. Right Reverend Sir,
that you should have occupied yourself in examining docu-
ments of this character, from which no conclusive evidence
could, in any case, be derived ; but, as I am obliged to follow
you in the path you have chosen, I will proceed, although re-
luctantly, to consider the justness of your conclusions, ^rn n
DECRETALS OF ISIDORE. 59
what is or is not contained in these unimportant writings. You
observe that these Constitutions apply to all bishops, in the plural
form, the very language addressed to Peter. This is a niislakc.
The words which you cite are those which were addressed to
all the Apostles.* No where do you find all the bishops styled
the rock on which Christ built his Church. Even from these
spurious decrees the pre-eminence of Peter is apparent. They
are drawn up chiefly in his name, and he is represented as
speaking throughout the most of them. He is named and styled
first, as is apparent from the passages which you quote, in the
translation of one of which you have rendered ihis particularity
less apparent to the reader. The text should be thus translated:
" I therefore tbe first, Peter say ;" which you have rendered :
** I therefore Peter say, first. "t Wiicn Peter and Paul are
united in the decree, the precedency of Peter is still maintained :
•* I Peter, and I Paul, ordain. "J
You have, at last, reached a class of spurious documents
which you avow are highly favourable to the claims of the
Roman Pontiff, the decretals of Isidore xMercator. You dwell
on these with peculiar emphasis;, and not only do you charge
the forgery of them on Kiculphus, bishop of Moguntum, about
the year 787, but, at one fell swoop, you make the Popes ac-
complices of the fraud by their countenance and sanction.
The compliment you pay to the Catholic literati of the present
day for their honourable rejection of these false decrees, but
badly compensates for the wound which you endeavour to in-
flict on the religion which they have defended, when you repre-
sent bishops and Popes as *' paltering with every principle of
truth, whilst they boasted of infallibility." The facts of the case,
however, do not warrant these reproaches. The collection
was not certainly framed at Home, but in Germany: and its
author is still problematic, though you unhesitatingly pronounce
liim to have been a bishop, 'i'lic literary fraud did not consist
• Matt, xviii. 18.
f TTfmroi «r »>»' fn/jii riiT^sf. ** Ego igitur primus Tetrus dico.
t E^M niTjic «, iyei Ilai/Aoc Ji*rx((o/unfiit. Const. 1. viii. c. 33.
00 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS.
in forging the documents altogether, with a view to introduce
new doctrines, or a new system of ecclesiastical polity, for the
calvinist Blondell h'mself acknowledges that genuine docu-
ments were used as the materials of this imposture ; whilst
false inscriptions and clumsy combinations gave to the collec-
tion an air of remote antiquity. It is a curious fact that "the
Apostolic Constitutions," which you have read with intense
interest, and which you describe as rich in doctrine, in elo-
quence, and in forms of devotion, have been used freely by the
compiler of these false decretals. Large extracts are taken
from them, sometimes word for word, sometimes with some
slight variation, and given in the name of some Pope of the
first three centuries. The Recognitions of Clement, another
work of the same spurious character, was also used by Isidore ;
and even works of undoubted authenticity, such as the writings of
Saints Leo and Gregory, were employed in the same manner. You
ask: *' does not the existence of such a fraud bring a dark cloud
upon the very character of the claim itself?" I answer confi-
dently, it does not. As well might an unbeliever argue against
the divine character of the Christian religion, because spurious
gospels and other literary frauds were circulated at a very early
period by some whose zeal was not according to knowledge.
If you can speak in raptures of the Apostolic Constitutions, ac-
knowledged by all to be a literary imposture, why are you so
vehement in your invectives against the compilation of Isidore,
founded in a great measure on these Constitutions, or on w^orks
undoubtedly authentic? You say, that this imposture was exe-
cuted by a bishop ; but surely you must know that this is quite
uncertain : you add that it was patronised by successive Popes ;
but you are aware that the usage of three centuries had given
the decretals the force of law before the Popes admitted them
into the body of laws used in the Roman Church. Nicholas I.,
in rebuking Hincma, bishop of Rheims, for having rejected
them, assumed, as certain, the fact of their being such as they
were represented, — the decrees of the early PontiflJs, whose
authority was not dependent on their insertion in the general
collection of tlie canons : but he had not examined, and did not
DECRETALS OF ISIDORE. 61
pronounce, on the alleged fact of their aullienlicily. If you
will take llie pains of comparing the decretals with their sources,
you will lind how very easy it was, at a lime when critical in-
quiry was almost unknown, to he mistaken in regard to a fad
of this nature. But there are documents, the authenticity of
which is admitted by the most enlightened critics, not excepting
those adverse to our faith, which so fully establish the Primacy
and its privileges, that 1 am almost teni])ted to imitate your
language, and tell you that they force a sigh of deep regret
over the shame of men who, by ascribing the origin of the
pontifical privileges to these false decretals, trifle with every
principle of truth, wiiilsi they boast of impartiality. You say
that '* it is undf.iicd and undeniable that forgeries so extensive
were actually palmed upon the churches for many ages, by the
successors of Nicholas the 1st." The decretals of which you
speak being presented by their author, presumed to be Bene-
dictus Levita, in connexion with authentic decrees and canons,
got credence and currency first in Germany, where they were
contrived, afterwards in France, and subsequently in Rome
itself, wIk'm usage had given them the force of law. They
were forgeries, because ascribed to the ancient Popes : but they
were for the most part the expression of primitive faith and of
the received discipline of the Church. The question of their
authorship was a matter of minor importance, when their con-
formity to primiiive tradition was known in regard to the great
principles of faith, and the organization of the Church ; and
their suitableness to existing circumstances in disciplinary
regulations was proved by experience. It mattered little
whether a decree purporting to be of Pope Fabian contained
his sentiments and injunctions, or those of St Leo, St Celes-
tine, or St Gregory, from whose works the compiler borrowed
his materials : and the prerogatives of the Apostolic See, as
explained by Innocent and Siricius, were equally sacred, as
when declared by Evaristus or Alexander, 'i'he Popes, who
admitted these decretals into tlie body of canon law, after they
had been j-lsewhere adopted during three centuries, did not
study the inlercols of their See, so much as uniformity of ilis-
F
62 SPURIOUS DOCUMENTS.
cipline. The special object of the contriver of the fraud was
most probably to shield bishops against their accusers, for to
this much of what may be considered original in the decretals
is directed. The scheme of imposition was certainly not con-
cocted by the Roman Pontiffs, nor can a shadow of evidence
be offered of this injurious assertion. In the progress of this
work I shall have occasion to adduce documents of undoubted
authenticity, long prior to the ninth century, which gave birth
to the false decretals ; and I shall prove from them that the
Primacy, with great amplitude of prerogative, was acknowledged
in all ages. For the present I shall give you one specimen
from the false decretals, with reference to the genuine docu-
ments which have been copied or imitated. A letter purport-
ing to be of Pope Eusebius, directed to the bishops of Tuscia
and Campania, is found in the collection of Isidore. The
exordium is with some slight variation a copy of the com-
mencement of the genuine letter of Pope Hormisdas to all
the bishops of Spain, written at the beginning of the sixth
century: the continuation is borrowed from the letter of John,
bishop of Constantinople, to Hormisdas, in which the authority
of the Hol}^ See is set forth in the strongest terms. I willingly
forego the advantage to be derived from the view of the Papal
prerogative given by the pseudo-Eusebius : but is not the loss of
two centuries in date amply compensated by the weight of
authority derived from the acknowledgment of one who might
be considered most likely to question the privileges of the
Bishop of ancient Rome ? Hear then John of Constantinople,
giving an account of his faith to Hormisdas. "The first thing
necessary for salvation is to observe the rule of sound faith,
and to deviate, in no respect, from the tradition of the Fathers,
for the sentence of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be disre-
garded : * Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my
Church.' What was said is proved by the event: for the
Catholic religion is always inviolably maintained in the Apos-
tolic See. Being desirous, therefore, not to fall away from
this faith, and following in all things the decrees of the Fathers,
we anathematize all heresies. Wherefore, following in all
DECRETALS OF ISIDORE. 63
tilings the Aposlolii; Sec, we also preach all things decreed by
it: and for that reason I hope iluit I shall he united with you
in the communion of that laith which is proclaimed hy the
Apostolic See, in which is the entire and perfect solidity of
the Christian religion. We promise that hereafter the names
of such as are separated IVoiii the communion of the Apostolic
Church, that is, such as do not in all things harmonize with
the Apostolic See, shall not be recited in the celebration of
the sacred mysteries."* Compare this with the false decretal,
and say candidly, whether the clumsy contrivance could have
been needed to establish the rights of the Apostolic See.t
Candour then will admit that the compilation of Isidore,
changed nothing in the principles of the Church, or in the or-
ganization of the hierarchy, and induced few, if any, variations
in the established discipline, as may be inferred from the very
fact of the success of the imposture. In no age can men be so far
duped as to surrender, without reluctance, their acknowledged
rights to any claimant. As well might an impostor hope to
change the principles of common law, by the pretended dis-
covery of Dome-day book, or of the Code of Edgar, or of Ed-
ward, as Isidore could expect, even in the ninth century, to
effect any essential change in the organization or polity of the
Church, by the pretended decretals of the Popes of the first
three centuries, which, even if authentic, would liave been
disregarded as obsolete, had not actual usage sustained them.
The belief of the divine institution of the Primacy, so clearly
expressed in the Sacred Scriptures, was deeply seated in the
minds and hearts of the faithful long before the days of Isidore,
as was solemnly declared four centuries before by the Council
of Carthage. J
• Act. Cone. Hard. Tom. II. lulT.
t Ibid. Tom. I. col. 241.
; Kp. 17(5. oliin. 1)2, p. (522, Tom. II. op. Aug. cd Ven., " arhilrainur —
aucloritati sanctitatis tucc dc sanctarum scripturarum aucloritatc dc
pompta; fncilius cos ense ccssuros" ad Innocent.
LETTER V.
APOSTOLIC FATHERS AND IRENiEUS.
Right Reverend Sir :
From the examination of spurious works, we pass to the ge-
nuine writings of those venerable men, who, from their close
connexion with the Apostles and the Apostolic age, are styled
Apostolic Fathers. They claim our respect, from the charac-
ter of their authors, the station they occupied in the Church,
the sanctity of their lives, and their sufferings for religion. You
observe, that *' nothing positive can be derived from them on
the point in question:" yet you seek to make them appear ad-
verse to the Primacy. Thus, you object that, " in one of the
epistles of Ignatius, addressed to the Romans, his entire silence
on the supposed pre-eminence of their Church, and the derived
supremacy of Peter, looks altogether adverse to your claims."
Yet he is not altogether silent. The address of his epistle is
strongly expressive of the pre-eminence of the Roman Church.
It runs thus : " Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church
that has obtained mercy through the magnificence of the most
higli Father, and of Jesus Christ his only begotten Son ; the
Church, beloved and enlightened through his will, who wills
all things that are according to the charity of Jesus Christ our
God ; which PRESIDES in the place of the Roman region,
being worthy of God, most comely, deservedly blessed, most
celebrated, properly organized, most chaste, and PRESIDING
in charity, having the law of Christ, bearing the name of the
Father." I know not in what more emphatic language the di-
vinely bestowed privileges and pre-eminence of the church
WHICH PRESiDi: s could be expressed. The source of its prero-
K.NATH .S AM) CLEMKNT. 05
galives is also iiulicaled in llie boily of llie Idler, in wlut-li allu-
sion is made to its I'oinulation by Peter and Paul : " 1 do not
command you, as Peter and l^iul : iliey were Apostles, I am
a condemned man ; they were Tree ; 1 have hitherto been a
slave."* Ignatius, who succeeded Evodius in the See of Anti-
och, notwithstanding the prior foundation of that See by the
Apostle Peter, proclaims the presiding character of the Roman
Church, and regards it as peculiarly beloved and enlightened
by God : and yet to you he appears entirely silent on its pre-
eminence !
The letter of Clement, IJishop of Rome, to the Corinthians,
is the next document to which you direct our attention. He
was a cotemporary of Peter and Paul, and his letter is supposed
by some to have been written about the year 90 ; by others, at
an earlier period. It is written in the name of the Church of
God, dwelling at Rome, to the Church of God dwelling at Co-
rinth.t The revolt of the Corinthians against their ecclesias-
tical superiors was the occasion of lliis " most powerful letter,"
as Irenmus designates it, which was intended to " recall them to
peace, and to renew their faith."; 'I'he inscription, you ob-
serve, is ♦' an humble beginning ; lor Clement, instead of atlect-
ing to rule the Corinthians by his ollicial power, unites with his
Church in a fraternal expostulation." Hut, sir, il was the cus-
tom of antiquity to consider affairs of great importance in an
assembly of the bishop, with the leading members of the
clergy, and the result of the deliberation was given in tiie name
of the whole Church ; for, according to Cyprian, " the Church
is the people united with the priest, and the (lock following its
pastor; wlicnce, you should know that the bishop is in the
t '• Ecclcsia Dei quoB incolit lloinain :" 7r«^:<jciir«- In the work of
Hisho|) Hopkins it is translaUd : " worships at " This unimportant niis-
l:ikt' would not bi* noticed but for llu' scviTity of llie bisljop towards otin r
translnlors. Of all men, he ought to be tlie most indulgent in this regard
t Irr:r'>'' h'' in ."Iv hr>'r. r. ill.
1 *
bb APOSTOLIC FATHERS.
Church, and the Church is in the bishop."* Notwithstanding
that inscription, you yourself, after the early writers, speak of
the letter as of Clement. His interference in the local concerns
of this distant Church is inexplicable, if his superior authority
be not admitted. John the Apostle was still alive, and both
from his character and proximity to Corinth, was the most
likely to display his zeal on such an occasion, if zeal only, and
not the order of Church government, were the moving princi-
ple. But Clement makes no mention of his supremacy. — It
was not called in question, and therefore it was unnecessary to
assert it : he proved it by his interference, and exercised it most
effectually by paternal remonstrance, mild rebuke, and sublime
instruction. Why, you ask, does he not complain of the dis-
regard of the rights of the Apostolic See, by the violent depo-
sition of the bishop of Corinth without its concurrence ? He
does complain of the deposition as a violation of the order esta-
blisshed by Christ in his Church — the divine law by which the
laity are bound to obey those who are set over them. This
was their crime ; this was the evil to be cured by salutary ad-
monition. The rights of the Holy See had only been indirectly
and remotely invaded, inasmuch as that See is the guardian of
the order divinely established. Had the discipline then prevail-
ed, whereby the deposition of bishops is reserved to the Pope,
still reference to that circumstance would have been unneces-
sary, because no form of judgment had been observed. The
expulsion or deposition of the bishop and clergy was not an act
of an inferior tribunal taking cognizance of a cause reserved to
a higher power, in which case Clement might have complained
of an aggression on his own authority ; but it was an act of po-
pular violence, in which the divine law itself had been trampled
under foot. Though, then, the letter of Clement makes no men-
lion of his supremacy, it is a precious and splendid evidence
of that "solicitude of all the churches" which belonged to his
Apostolic office, and of the salutary influence of that authority
* S. Cyprian, Ep. 60, ad Pupianum, p. 220. Edit. Wirceburg.
ST IREN.EUS. G7
which Christ wi-i'ly eslablislicd, to preserve the faith, and re-
store to peace the discordant members ot^ the Cluirrli. The
want of such a presiding power is deeply felt in modern sects,
who have no remedy for tliose evils which the passions of men
so often indict on religion, and sec their preachers and ministers
either obliged to court favour, at the sacrifice of the independ-
ence which becomes the ambassador of Christ, or to yield to
the violence or intrigue, which the enemies of order and authori-
ty are ever ready to employ.
Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, about the middle of the second
century, a disciple of Polycarp, the disciple of John the Evan-
gelist, bears splendid evidence of the powerful principality of
the Roman Church, — of the high authority of her tradition, —
and of the succession of her bishops, from her glorious found-
ers, Pelor and Paul. Every elTort to explain away his testi-
mony must always prove vain. You admit tiiat " he grants to
that Church an important rank." 'I'iiis admission is important,
since we shall see that at so early a period, when her bishops
were constant objects of persecution, she could have derived
that rank only from her Apostolic founders. Writing against
the Gnostics, Irenoeus says: " All who wish to sec the truth,
may see in all the Church the tradition of the Apostles, mani-
fested throughout the whole world : and we can enumerate the
bishops who have been ordained by the Apostles and their suc-
cessors, down to our own time, who taught, or knew no such
doctrine as they madly dream of. — But since it would be very
tedious to enumerate the succession of all the Churches in thi:?
work, by pointing to the tradition of the greatest, and most an-
cient Church, known to all, founded and established at Rome
by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to her
lailh announced to men, coming down to us by the succession
of bishops, we confoiind all those who in any injproper manner
gather together, either through self-complacency or vain-glory,
or through blindness and perverse disposition. For with this
Church, on account of the more powerful principality, it is nc-
ceesary that every Church, that is, the faithful, w ho are in every
68 ST IREN^rS.
direction, should agree, in which the Apostolic tradition has
been always preserved, by those who are in every direction."*
Much ingenuity has been exercised to destroy the force of
so solemn a testimony. You ask : " Does he not make the
establishment of the Church of Rome the joint act of both Peter
and Paul, saying, in positive terms, that they set Linus over
that Church as its bishop, and not intimating, in the slightest
degree, that Peter ever established himself as bishop there?"
We grant that both Apostles concurred in its establishment,
and the Popes are accustomed in all their solemn acts to unite
both, not only as patrons whom they invoke, but likewise as
Apostles whose authority they inherit. These holy Apos-
tles acted in concert, without jealousy, labouring for the glory
of their common Master, though the prerogative of Peter was
special. What regards Linus is tlius expressed by Euse-
bius, in the original words of Irenseus : " The blessed Apos-
tles, having foimded and built up the CImrch, delivered to
Linus the ministry of the episcopate."! You infer hence that
Linus was the Bishop of Rome, even in the lifetime of Peter
and Paul : but were this the case, how could the succession be
counted from the Apostles ? Thus Irenaeus tells us that on the
death of Anaclelus, Clement succeeded, " in the third place
from the Apostles. "J Linus tlien must not have been Bishop
of Rome, until after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, though
he received the episcopal character in their lifetime, and was
appointed to be the bishop of that city after their decease, and
probably exercised many acts of his order before it, with their
assent, and under tlieir direction. Tfiere is no reason to sup-
pose that whilst tlie two Apostles continued in Rome, a bishop
was created to govern it with independent authority.
* S. lrena)us, lib. iii adv. lia'r. c. iii.
iHKh)f'^iiv >.ivrf) T«v Tii^f iTrtCKOTrH; hinov^yiav ivi^ii^i^xx'. Euscb. 1. v.
hist. c. G. The Latin version as given in Irenceus is : " Fundantes igitur
et instruentes beati apostoli ecclesiam Lino episcopatum administranda?
ecclesioe tradidernnt."
t Tpiru Ti/Ta) t'ri tuv u-TiTi^ctV . (lt>.)
ST IRENiEUS. CO
♦•With respect to the more powerful prinripnlily of wliich
Irenaeus speaks, he does not," you sny, ♦♦ use one word which
connects Uie principality wiih the Church, or wiih ils hishop ;
hut refers simply to its location in that city, which was then,
and for many centuries before and after, the acknowledged
mistress of the world." For my part, after an attentive exa-
mination of the passage, I am perfectly unable to find the least
mention whatever of the city, or ils imperial greatness, but
solely and exclusively of the Church founded by the Apostles.
On what ground, then, do you assert, that the more powerful
prinripnlily ilc>ignaled the civil dominion ? Suppose it for a
moment, and insert the explanatory words. '* By pointing to
the tradition of the greatest and most ancient Church, known
to all, founded and established at Kome, by the two most glo-
rious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to her faith announced to
men, coming down to us by the succession of bishops, we
confound errorists of every kind : for with this Church {be-
cauae the city in icliich it is situated is the seat of tJie Roman
empire) every Church must agree."* Would you admit such
a reason ? Substitute the words which explain the more power-
ful principality of spiritual authority, and you will find the
reasoning forcible and coherent. IJy referring to the tradition
of the Roman Church founded by the Apostles, — to its faith
perpetuated through the regular succession of its bishops, we
•;onfound all sectarists, because with this Church {on account
of the supreme authority ivith which its Bishop is divincfy
invested)^ every other Church must agree."
" " MaximoB et antiquissimo?, ct omnibus cognito;, a gloriosissimis
(Juobus apostolis Petro et Paulo fundatin et constitula; ecclesicR earn
<{uam habct ab apostolis traditionem, ct annuntiatam hominibus fidein
per successioncB cpiscoporuin pervenientcra usque ad nos indicantes,
confundiiuus omnes eos (jui quocjuo xnodo, vel per sibi j)laccntia, vrl
vanatn gloriarn, vol per ccecitatein ct inalam sententiam, pra'lcrquain
oportnt colligunt. Ad banc enim ecclesiam, propter potentiorem prin-
cii)alitateiu necegsc est oinnem convcnire ecclesiain, hoc est, cos qui
sunt undique fidclcd : in qua semper ab liis <jui sunt undiquc, conservala
est ca qua; < st ab apostolis traditio." S. Iren. 1 iii. c. iii.
/U ST IREN.EUS.
Though you are "not fond of resting any religious question
on mere verbal criticism," you cannot forbear observing that
Irenaeus does not say : on account of " its" more powerful
principality, whence you conceive yourself authorized to infer
that he referred to the principality of the city, not of the
Church : as if when the relative is omitted, as is frequently
done by writers in every language, what is said must be re-
ferred, not to what immediately precedes, but to something not
before spoken of in any way ! Few will be inclined to adopt this
canon of interpretation. In the present instance the preposition
propter determines the relation : for with this Church on ac-
count of the more powerful principality every Church must
agree : just as in the following chapter the Son of God is stated
to have submitted to be born of a virgin, on account of ihe most
extraordinary love towards his creatures.* As well might it be
said that the love spoken of v/as not his love, because the rela-
tive is wanting, as that, in the other instance, the powerful
principality is not the principality of the Church.
You think that the scope of Irendeus, which was to refute
the Gnostics, ^ho boasted of wisdom superior to the Apostles,
and of secret traditions, will serve to illustrate his meaning.
"He had been employed," you observe, " in refuting the wild
absurdities of the Gnostic heretics from the authority of Scrip-
ture, and now he desires to put them down by the authority of
tradition." Undoubtedly ; but he points to the tradition of the
Roman Church especially, because the greatest of all Churches ;
because with it all the genuine disciples of Christ every where
had always harmonized ; and consequently its tradition, authori-
tatively declared by its Bishop, was the solemn attestation of
what the Apostles had originally taught.
But you object that the Latin term " convenio,"t used by
the translator of Irenaeus, cannot be rendered to " agree" with-
out a want of grammatical accuracy, and that the idea conveyed
" Qui propter eminentissimam erga figmentum suum dilectionem.'
S. Irenaeus, 1. iii. 4, p. 242. Edit. Col. Agrip. an. 159G.
t " Ad banc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem
necesse est oninem convenire ecclesiam." Irenseus, supra.
I
ST IREN.F.rS. 71
by it would have no connexion wiili ilic argument. I refer
ilie reader to llie dictionaries, and to the note'' for tlie meaning
of tlie disputeil term. If there were any ambij,aiiiy in the
phrase, its meaning should be determined by lljc context,
wliicli necessarily expresses agreement, and not resort to the
j)lace, as will appear by the paraphrase according to this latter
exposition. — " To this Church, on account of the imperial do-
minion, it is necessary that the whole Church, that is, the
failliful from all quarters, should come up." 'I'he greatness of
the city might give occasion to some of the faithful to visit
Iconic, but it never could impose such a necessity on all. Nay,
it was a circumstance in most cases unfavourable to their visit-
ing it, because the public authority was there more vigilant,
and more hostile to the Christian profession. You forget the
limes in which Irenanis wrote, when persecution raged at
Rome against the Churcli, and every successor of Peter was
a martyr. Was the political pre-eminence of tlie city likely
in such circumstances to attract the clergy and the faithful of
nil the surrounding cliurches, to sec its lowly and persecuted
IJishop ? I am astonished at the fanciful conjectures which
men seriously put forward to evade the force of a j)lain and
powerful testimony.
The fact whicji you allege to justify your interprc't:uion of
this passage, shall now be considered. During the lifetime
of Irena^us considerable excitement was occasioned in the
churches of Asia, by an eflbrt to bring them to conformity
with the oilier cliurches of the world, in the observance of
the Paschal festival. They were accustomed to celebrate it
* Bishop Hopkins is not accurate in stating, tliat when convenio
refers io place, it is usually followed by the accusative, but when to sen-
timent, as when it means to consent or agree, it generally lakes the da-
tive." The nearest phrases I can find in Uie classical authors like that
of IrentDUs, are : " Convenit optime ad pcdem cothurnus," and " convc-
nit ad eum ha-c contumelia," both found in Cicero, the former signify-
ing " the boot fits the foot well," the latter, ** this insult alfects him."
It is j)rol)ablr that the translator adhered closely to the Greek idiom.
The verb furtt^/xcrTaf, to harnjoni/.e, is construed somelimes with t^sc
and the accusative.
72 ST IREN^US.
on the same day as the Jews, whether that was Sunday or not,
whilst the general practice was to celebrate it on the Sunday
immediately following the vernal equinox. Councils were
convened in various places, and the voice of all was unanimous,
that uniformity should be insisted on. Irenaeus presided over
a synod in Gaul, in the name of which a letter was directed
to the Asiatic churches. A letter also was sent from the Ro-
man synod, bearing the name of Victor the bishop. Poly-
crates, at the head of several Asiatic bishops, undertook to
justify the peculiar usage of his countrymen, in a letter
which he addressed to Victor and to the Church of the Ro-
mans. On the receipt of the letter, Victor resolved to separate
from the communion of the Universal Church, the discordant
churches of Asia and of the neighbouring provinces, whose
obstinate adherence to this practice might eventually endanger
the integrity of faith by a too close imitation of Judaical obser-
vances. With this view he despatched letters to all his col-
leagues, declaring, or threatening to declare — for the matter is
doubtful — the recusant bishops aliens from ecclesiastical com-
munion. To many of the bishops, who before had urged the
necessity of uniformity, this severity seemed uncalled for and
untimely. On this occasion Irenaeus wrote to the Pontiff a re-
spectful remonstrance. He called to his recollection the mode-
ration observed, on the same subject, by his predecessor
Anicetus, who having vainly endeavoured to induce Polycarp,
wlien he visited Rome, to abandon the peculiar practice of the
Asiatic churches, wisely passed over this difference of usage,
and treated his venerable guest with distinguished honour.
These are the facts as related by Eusebius in his history.* I
am pleased that you have referred to them by way of illustra-
tion. The letter of Polycrates to Victor in justification of the
Asiatic practice, shows that he recognised in the Bishop of
Rome a special authority ; for it does not appear that he
deemed it necessary to justify his practice to the other bishops
who had addressed him. The measures to which Victor re-
* Euseb. 1. V. c. xxiii. xxiv
PASCHAL CONTROVERSY. 73
sorted, or threatened to resort, prove that he felt himself in-
vested with power even over his colleagues in the episcopacy
in the most distant parts, and that he had authority to punish,
with the highest ecclesiastical censure, obstinate departure
from the general discipline of the Church. The remon-
strance of Irena3us does not give tiie least indication of any
usurpation of power by Victor, but is grounded solely on the
inexpedicjicy of exercising it in those circumstances. The ex-
ample of Anicetus affords a splendid instance of the indulgence
and forbearance of the Holy See, in points of a discretionary
character, especially where personal merit recommends the
advocacy of ancient usage. The unwillingness of Polycarp to
relinquish a practice which he believed to have originally had
the sanction of tlie Apostle JSt Jolin, implies no resistance to
the positive injunctions of a Superior, wlio had wisely confined
himself to mere persuasion.
The notion of supremacy which would require the abandon-
ment of ancient national usages at the mere suggestion of the
Pontiff, without the least expostulation, or representation of
the inconveniences that might thence ensue, is a far more ex-
alted view of it, than is entertained by the most devoted de-
fenders of Papal authority. The Pontiffs themselves have
generally — I might say, uniformly, manifested wise and en-
larged views in regard to local usages, and have seldom
threatened to enforce points of mere discipline by severe cen-
sures, unless they perceived some danger to faith likely to re-
sult from the want of uniformity.
I agree with you, that the subject of this controversy was of
no trifling importance. 'J'he practice of celebrating the resur-
rection of our Lord, on one day of the week rather than ano-
tlier, was indeed in itself indillcrent ; and the Apostle St John
had wisely sanctioned its celebration in Asia on the very day on
which the Jews celebrated their passover, in order to facilitate
the transition from Judaism to (Jlirislianity, in places where the
Jews were most numerous. In other portions of the Church,
where this motive did not exist, the Sunday was chosen for its
celebration, as the very day consecrated by his triumph over
o
74 ST IREN^US.
death ; and all coincidence with the Jewish observance was
avoided, that it might be the more clearly understood, that the
Mosaic rites had entirely passed av/ay. As Christianity ad-
vanced, the motives for indulgence towards the Jewish con-
verts became fewer and less strong, and that toleration which
the Apostles had extended to the ceremonial observances, was
no longer necessary or expedient. Anicetus desired to see uni-
formity prevail throughout the whole Christian Church, but re-
spected the attachment of a venerable man to long established
usage. At a later period Victor perceived that the practice was
subject to great inconveniences, and not entirely free from the
taint of error,* as some considered it an obligation of the Mosaic
law : wherefore he judged that it was time to cut off the refrac-
tory adherents to it from the general body of the Church. The
entreaties and counsels of Irenaeus induced him to relent : but
the event showed the wisdom and prudence which influenced
Victor, as the Quartodedmans^ or obstinate observers of this
usage, were finally separated from the Church in the general
Council of Nice.
You advise us to try the experiment of acting as Polycarp
did towards Anicetus. The counsel is needless. Every day
bishops from various parts of the world, where usages pre-
vail different in many respects from those most cherished by
the Holy See, go to Rome, and are received by the Father
of the faithful as brothers, with all the marks of ecclesiastical
communion. Their remonstrances, their explanations, their
defence of national practices, are heard with patience ; and even
when the Pontifl' earnestly desires and recommends conformity
to the general law, he tolerates, with wise indulgence, the dis-
crepancies which he cannot remove without a painful exercise
of authority.
In the language of Irenfcus, as understood by you, you think
that you have found the solution of the mystery with which the
question of Roman supremacy is connected. You " do not
wonder, that the very fact of this supremacy existing so long,
* ere^ocTt^iicrAo-. Eusebius, loc. cit.
PKRIMTIITV OF THE ROMAN" SEE. 76
wilhoul any apparent support from the temporal power, should
strike our imajrinations as being almost conclusive evidence in
its favour." My judgment, at least, rests satisfied with the
proof. I see thrones totter, and empires fall, where human
wisdom and power promised perpetuity : but the " better prin-
cipality" of the successor of tlie fisherman survives, though
assailed by all the power and malice of this world's potentates.
From Nero to Napoleon, what efforts have not been made for
the annihilation of this undying sovereignty ! The Pontifls of
the three first centuries were, with scarcely an exception, vic-
tims of pagan cruelty ; but, at the end of this fierce conflict,
Constanline, as if struck with the superior majesty of the Vicar
of Jesus Christ, leaves the imperial city to be the peaceful re-
sidence of the humble Silvester. How often, since that time,
liave not the barbarian and the Christian entered in wrath into
that city, — imprisoned or led captive its Bishop, and left him to
pine away, or die in foreign dungeons ! And w hen we see the
meek Pius come forth from his mil to be borne in Iriumpii
back to his capital, and now behold the humble Gregory, the
successor of his oflice and his virtues, still governing with pa-
ternal authority the Universal Church, are we not justified in
concluding that this ♦'powerful principality" is dillerent from
all governments of human origin ? " Count over," we say to
you, with Augustin, *♦ the bishoj)s, from the very See of Peter
the Apostle, and sec in that list of Fathers the succession of one
to the other. 'J'his is the rock against which the haughty gates
of hell cannot prevail."*
To account for tiie human origin of this power, you describe
the greatness of Rome '* at the time when the Apostles, Peter
and Paul, established the Church there ;" and you suppose, that
in wealth, in numbers, ami importance, it must soon have sur-
passed all others. As great cities influence the whole nation,
you infer that the Roman Church must have acquired a ♦* pri-
macy of influence and consequence" over the other Churches.
To illustrate this, you represent what would be the probable
" Aug. I's. contra parlriu Donati.
76 ST IREN.EUS.
consequence if, at the present day, missionaries to China should
succeed in establishing Churches in several of tlie provinces,
and subsequently in the capital, which would naturally absorb
all solicitude, and practically become the centre and directing
rule of missionary exertion. You would write to these mis-
sionaries : " Be careful about union, and in all your proceed-
ings consult together : but, especially, do nothing without con-
sulting with your brethren of the capital ciiy. In order that
the good cause should prosper, it is necessary that you should
resort to the Church established there as often as you can ; by
reason of its most powerful principality, being the seat of go-
vernment, and the very heart of the empire, the Church located
there is the most important of the whole, and the brethren placed
over it should have the chief direction in all your councils."
Compare your language with that of Irenaeus, and see
whether it agree.* Your implied admission, that from the
very commencement the Roman Church had a primacy of
influence, and the chief direction in the Councils of all the
churches, is not without importance. To attribute it, how-
ever, to the great influence of the Roman Bishop with the
pagan emperors, praetors, and other officers who professed
and exercised constant hostility to Christianity, is an hypothe-
sis at variance with the roost certain facts of history. The ex-
ample of that vast empire, controlled and kept in union by a
single will, suggested, you suppose, the expediency of giving to
the Roman Bishop a controlling power over all Christendom.
The primitive Christians reasoned thus, in your opinion :
*' Why not secure to the whole Church that order, and subor-
dination, and peace, under a single earthly head, as the Lord's
vicegerent, which heathenism had brought, in the afl'airs of hu-
man government, to such a marvellous system ? Should the
hosts of Satan be better marshalled than the hosts of God?
Should one single will be felt and obeyed, to the remotest
bounds of that mighty empire, and should not one single
Church, which is the spouse of Christ, be much rather the
* Supra, p. 67.
FANCIFUL HYPOTHESIS. 77
ruler and mistress ilirou»rh llie whole of Christendom ? On such
a plan, iiow mucii more union might he expected, liow nuicli
more peace, how much less opportunity for heresy and false
doctrine, and how much more glorious would he the victory of
the Lord's people, when they should appear to the heathen one
mighty host, * briglit as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible
as an army with banners.' That the best men of tlie primi-
tive age, being accustomed to have this astonishing empire of
the world continually before their eyes, might readily be led to
contemplate the desirableness and practicability of a similar sys-
tem in the Church, and that under this influence of their ha-
bitual views they would find in Scriptures analogies, and even
precepts, that they would lay hold on our Lord's addresses to
Peter, and begin to interpret them in favour of their ecclesias-
tical empire ;" — these, sir, are suppositions groundless in them-
selves, injurious to the early professors and teachers of our
faith, and far from aiding the cause they had been brought for-
ward to sustain. For thus you virtually admit, that, even in
the primitive ages, the Primacy of the Roman Bishop existed :
that it implied authority and control, for otherwise it would not
have anywise resembled the power of Caesar; and that it was
sustained by reference to Scriptural texts, though in your opin-
ion it originated in the political pre-eminence of Rome, and in
the admiration of the organization of its vast empire. You dis-
cover this in "the more powerful principality," mentioned by
Irenacus, whilst we, witii that primitive age, conceive that prin-
cipality to be the institution of the wisdom of Him who wished
that his Church should be a united kingdom — a compact body;
and wc discover in its perpetuity the exercise of that power,
against which the powers of darkness cannot prevail. How
you can still pretend to place the Church of Rome at this day
in contrast with the Church of Rome in the primitive age, is to
me strange ; for though you may conceive human causes to have
given occasion to the assertion of the Primacy, you own that it
was then, as it is now, supposed to rest on the addresses of
our Lord to Peter. Thus you admit conformity wiierc you
had pledged yourself to prove a contrast; and you substitute a
78 ST IRENiEUS.
liuman origin, of your own imagining, to the divine foundation
of the Primacy, which, in common with the Church of the pre-
sent day, the primitive Church believed. How vain are all
the attempts of man to take away from the organization of the
Church its divine character ! While Rome was the residence
of the Caesars, God permitted the Church and her Chief Pastor to
be constantly assailed by the Roman power ; and he caused the
first Christian emperor, shortly after he had come to the know-
ledge of faith, to remove the seat of empire to Byzantium, so that,
in after ages, the privileges of the Roman Bishop might not be
thought to have been the gifts of the civil power, or the acci-
dental appendages of his office, derived from the city in which
he presided. The secular origin of the Primacy is manifestly
disproved, by the hostility to the Christian faith which the civil
power exercised whilst Rome was the capital: and by the utter
improbability that the memory of its ancient grandeur could have
been the foundation of its privileges, after a rival city had arisen,
around which was gathered all that imperial munificence and
power could collect or bestow. Rome, in the zenith of her
glory, was the unrelenting enemy of the cross, and would lend no
jewel to adorn the mitre of her Bishop ; in her fallen state, she
could add no lustre to his crown.
Note. — "An Essay on the Invalidity of Presbyterian Ordination,"
by John Esten Cooke, M.D., published at Lexington, Kentucky, in J 829,
has come into my hands since this letter went to press. He quotes the
testimony of Irenaeus, and gives a translation entirely conformable to
mine on those points in which I have had occasion to dissent from Bishop
Hopkins : " With this Church, on account of its greater pre-eminence,
it is necessary that every church should agree."
LETTER VI.
TERTULLIAN.
Right Re\t.rknd Sir :
Leaving lliose truly primilive witnesses of the faith once
delivered to the saints, wlio either received it immediately from
the Apostles, or were those faithful men to whom the precious
deposit of Apostolic tradition was committed hy the immediate
disciples of the Apostles, we come to Tertullian, a priest of Car-
thage, who lived at the close of the second and the beginning
of the third century of our era. He is adduced by you as a
witness, " adverse to the Primacy," although, in the very first
extract from his writings, which you bring forward to support
your position, you have the proof of that Primacy you are so
willing to impugn. Contemporary witli this writer lived cer-
tain sectaries, who asserted that the Apostles did not know all
things. This ardent defender of the ancient faith indignantly
asks: "Was anything hidden from Peter, who was called
the rock on which thcCluirch was to be built, and who obtain-
ed the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loos-
ing and binding in heaven and on earth ?' You deny that this
passage contains the slightest allusion to the superiority of one
Apostle over the other; although you acknowledge that "this
Father seems to authorize our interpretation of the passages of
Scripture. To deprive us of his authority iti this point, you
wish him to be heard in explanation, and with this view you
quote a long passage from his work " On Chastity," written,
• Tert. (Jo Prn-s. § xxii. " Latuit aliqiiid Pctrum, n«(lificandu3 Ecclc-
sicB petrain dictum, clavcs regni cn-loruin consccutuin, et solvcndi cl al-
ligandi in coclis ct in tcrris potestatcm ? P. 238, Ed. Lut
80 TERTULLIAN.
as you acknowledge, after he had become a follower of Monta-
nus. For this eloquent apologist of Christianity, and defender
of the Church, was so far influenced by the severity of his dis-
position as to exclude from pardon those who were guilty of
adultery and other grievous crimes, however penitent they
might appear. To oppose this rising error, the Bishop of Rome
published a decree, by which such sinners were declared ad-
missible to penance and forgiveness. On this occasion Tertul-
lian wrote his work ** On Chastity," in which he says: — "I
hear that an edict has been published, and, indeed, a peremp-
tory one : namely, the ' Bishop of bishops,' which is equivalent
to the ' Sovereign Pontiff,'* proclaims: I pardon the sins of adul-
tery and fornication, to such as do penance.t" Endeavouring
to prove that the power of the keys was given to Peter alone,
and was not communicated to his successors, he says: — "now I
ask your own sentiment, whence do you claim this power for
the Church? If because the Lord said to Peter, ' on this rock I
will build my Church: to thee I have given the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, or whatsoever thou shalt bind or loose upon
earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven,' thou presumest, on
that account, that the power of loosing and binding has come
down to thee ; that is, to the whole Church allied to Peter —
who art thou that overturnest and changest the manifest inten-
tion of the Lord, who conferred this on Peter personally : On
THEE, he says, I will build my Church, and to thee I will give
the keys, not to the Church, and whatsoever thou shalt bind or
loose, not what they shall bind or loose. "J Here Tertullian is
manifestly with us, as far as regards the rock, which he iden-
tifies with Peter, and the power of the keys, which he main-
* " Pontifex, scilicet, raaximus, quod est Episcopus episcoporum."
This is an inversion not unusual in Tertullian. The title which the Pop.e
assumed was " Bishop of bishops j" but Tertullian says that it is equivalent
to " Sovereign Pontiff," a title as yet exclusively applied to the pagan
high priest. Bishop Hopkins translates it : "the pontiff, namely, the
chief, which means the Bishop of bishops !"
t Tertullian, 1. de pudicitia, p. 715. Edit. Lutetiae, 1G41.
X Ibid. p. 703..
TERTULLIAN. 81
tains to have been the exclusive privilege of Peter. He denies,
indeed, that this power descended to the successors of Peter,
but does not question the succession itself, wliich he admits, by
calling the Bishop of Rome *' Apostolic."* His denial of the
inheritance of Peter's power of forgiveness by Peter's suc-
cessor, arose from his attachment to an error, condemned by
one of them, and, consequently, loses all weight, since it
must be regarded as the rejection of a power by which the
error, which TertuUian defended, was proscribed. In the de-
fence of a false principle, it cannot surprise us that he advanced
erroneous interpretations of Scripture ; and hence his authority,
in other respects imposing, has no weighty wlien he becomes
an avowed partisan of ascertained error. The partial exposi-
tions of Holy Writ, put forward by a writer in such circum-
stances, will often be found in contradiction with those of the
same writer at other times. Thus TertuUian, in his work
called '♦Scorpiace," extends to the Church, ihroutrh Peter, and
even to every member of it who may confess Christ, as he did,
what he here explains of Peter, personally and exclusively.
♦* For if," says he, " you still think that heaven is shut, re-
member that the Lord here left its keys to Peter, and through
him to the Church. "t
The following attempt of TertuUian to explain the power of
the keys of the personal acts of Peter, shows much ingenuity,
vainly employed, to evade the force of the Scriptural proof
brought against his error. He maintains, that the event cor-
responds with his explanation of the promise : ♦' For so even
the event teaches. On him the Church was built: that is,
through him : he first used the key : see what key : ' Ye men
of Israel, hear what I say : Jesus of Nazareth, destined for you
by God.' He finally opened the avenue of the celestial king-
dom, through Christian baptism, by which the sins before bound
" TertuUian, 1. de pudicitia, p. 7(>3.
\ " Nam ct si adhuc clausum putos coclam, memento claves ejus hie
Dorainum Petro, ct por cum Ecclcsia3 rcliquisse." Scorpiacc, p. G28.
Ed. LutctiiD, an. 1641.
83 TERTULLIAN.
fast are loosed, and what was not loosed, according to true sal-
vation, are bound fast; and he bound Ananias with the chain of
death, and loosed the lame man from his infirmity."* I need
not labour much to convince you, or the reader, that the cure
of the lame man was no exercise whatever of the power of loos-
ing or binding. The key which Peter is said to have given the
Jews, by pointing out Jesus of Nazareth, will scarcely be
thought to be one of those keys of the kingdom of heaven which
Christ promised him. Every one sees that this is an allego-
rical and forced explanation. The opening of the avenue to
heaven by baptism cannot be considered as the exclusive pre-
rogative of Peter, and the mere precedency in its administration
does not adequately fulfil the strong and splendid promises of
Christ. Peter is not merely a foundation, but a rock, a strong
and permanent foundation : the keys given him are those of a
kingdom, the emblems of sovereignty : he binds and looses, in
a manner peculiar and extraordinary.
Tertullian is more correct in considering the judgment of
Peter in the Council of Jerusalem, as an exercise of that autho-
rity to bind and loose, which our I^ord had given him : "Also,"
says he, " in the controversy, whether the law should be observ-
ed or not, Peter, first of all, impelled by the Spirit, and having
spoken of the call of the nations,! said : ' Now why do you
tempt the Lord by imposing a yoke on the brethren, which
neitlier we nor our fathers were able to bear ? But by the grace
of Jesus, we believe that we shall be saved, even as they.
This sentence:]: both loosed the things of the law, that were
laid aside, and bound those that were retained.' "§ This acute
African was too devoted to his favourite error to admit that the
* L. de pudicitia, p. 743.
t " De nationum vocatione praefatus." Bishop H. renders it : " fore-
told the calling of the nations."
t " Hffic sententia." Bishop H. translates it " opinion ;" but an opin-
ion neither looses nor binds : it plainly means here, judgment, decree,
sentence.
§ Tertul. de pudic. p. 743.
fader's acknowledgment. 83
power to bind ami loose extended to the remission of the most
grievous sins. His testimony, tiien, even after he hail passed
to the sect of Montanus, shows that the passages of Scripture
were by him, as well as by the Bishop of Rome, and Catholics
in general, understood of Peter; and tliough he and the secta-
rists wished to restrict their meaning to Teter personally, the
Bishop of Home claimed, in virtue of them, to be •' Bishop of
bishops," and to inherit the powers of Peter, and the Ca-
tholic worUl admitted tliose claims. A modern apologist of the
Anglican churcii has had the ingenuousness to acknowledge,
that " in the time of 'I'ertullian, whose life extended into the
tliird century, a considerable advance had plainly been made by
the Sec of Rome, in the claim of the I'rimacy, inasmuch as he
calls the Bishop of that Church the Supreme Pontiff, and dis-
tinguishes him with the authoritative title of ♦ Bishop of
bishops.' — * He supposes the rock to mean Peter: but he
carefully restricts the character to Peter as an individual ; he
deems the privilege to be altogether personal; and he flatly
denies, that it can be construed as belonging to what then began
to be esteemed Peter's Church."'' You are displeased at this
admission ; you '* leave it to our candour to say, whether Ter-
tullian does not apply tliese titles rather in irony than in sober
allowance;" and you contend that "he had no idea of doing
honour to the Bishop of Rome, but the contrary." I freely con-
cede that he used the titles in a spirit of bitterness and sarcasm,
because the edict of the Pontiff was directed against his favourite
error; but had the Bishop of Rome claimed no superiority over
other bisliops, tliere would have been no ground whatever for
applying to him these titles. He was acknowledged by Ca-
tholics to be " the Bishop of bishops," and Tertullian durst
not question his superiority, thouL^i in anger he remarks, that
such a title is equivalent to ihe name hitherto applied only to
the heathen priest. You say, " every metropolitan bishop who
liad bishj)ps under him, might be called a chief pontiff, and a
bishop of !)i.shops ;" but the usage of the Church has not given
• Fabcr 8 Difficulties of Romanism, Note, p. liOl. riiil. I'M.
84 TERTULLIAN.
to metropolitans this latter appellation, and the former does not
appear to have been given to the Bishop of Rome, except sar-
castically by Tertullian : " None of us," says Cyprian, " makes
himself bishop of bishops,"*
We can easily withstand the force of Tertullian's authority
as to the restriction of the powers to Peter, when it is granted
that he, though at that time a declared adversary of Peter's
successor, admitted Peter to be the rock, and that it was also
admitted and believed that the Church of Rome was Peter's
Church.t Catholics and Montanists agreed on these two
points, and the transmission of the power of forgiveness was
only called in question because it was exercised with greater
lenity than suited the severe disposition of Tertullian. How
you can cite him as a witness that the spiritual supremacy of
the Church of Rome was not the doctrine of his age, even in
the Church of Rome itself, is to me surprising, since he testifies
that the Bishop of that Church was Bishop of bishops — that he
issued an absolute peremptory decree,:}: — that as successor of
Peter he claimed the powers granted to this Apostle, — and that
the Roman Church was the Church of Peter ! This then was
the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and of the Catholic
Church generally, whilst the error which denied the transmis-
sion of the power was rejected, with Montanism whence it
sprung, by the judgment of the Catholic world.
The fact of the succession of the Roman Bishop to Peter,
was not denied by Tertullian, even after he had suffered his
mind to be bewildered by the vagaries of Montanus. He still
called liim "Apostolic," and regretted that his authority had
been employed against the sect, under the influence, as he
alleged, of Praxeas, wliereby the peace of the churches of Asia
and Phrygia was prevented, which would have been restored
* Cone. Carthag. de rebapt. p. 339. Operum Cyp. Ed. Bas. 1521.
t " Ad omnem Ecclesiam Petri propinquam." Tertul. ib.
t '' Audio etiam edictum esse proposituin, et quidem peremptorium,
Pontifex scilicet maxinms, quod est, episcopus episcoporum edicit."
P. 7]5.
PETER THE ROCK. 85
by the approbation of tlie prophecies of Montanus, Prisca, and
Maximilla.* In earlier and belter days Tertullian was the
loud asscrtor of that succession, and boldly challenged secta-
rists to exhibit any thing bearing a like weight of authority :
"Let them then give us the origin of their churches : let them
unfold the series of their bishops, coming down from the be-
ginning in succession, so that the first bishop was appointed
and preceded by any of the Apostles, or of Apostolic men,
provided he persevered in communion with the Apostles. For
in this way the Apostolic Churches exhibit their origin, as the
Church of Smyrna relates that Polycarp was placed there by
John; as the Church of Rome likewise relates that Clement
was ordained by Peter; and in like manner the other churches
show those who were constituted bishoj)s by the Apostles, and
made conservators of the Apostolic seed. Let heretics feign
any thing like this !"t
According to your own avowal, Tertullian '• admits the ap-
plication of the term ' rock' to Peter;" but you err in stating
that in this he difieis from the other Fathers, for I shall have
occasion to prove to you that it is the general explanation
given by these venerable men. His observation that by the
knife of stone employed in circumcision we may understand
the precepts of Christ by which our hearts are circumcised,
♦* because Christ is proclaimed the rock in many ways and
under many figures, "t is evidently an allegorical exposition,
having no force whatever as an illustration of the text, and not
at all weakening his literal interpretation of the rock spoken
of by Christ, as the foundation on which he would build his
Church. The very passage which you quote from his work
against Marcion, is immediately followed by tlie declaration
• Tcrtul. adv. Praxoam sub initiuiii.
f Tert. de prascr. hanT. " Edant ergo origiiu'in cccli'siarum suarum ;
evolvant ordinem episcoporum suoruin, ita per succcssiones ab initio
decurrentem, ut primus ille cpiscopuH aliquem ex apostolis — habiurit
auctorem et anlecessorein. — Sicut Romanorum (rcdcsia) Clementein
a Pctro ordinatum — C'onfingant talo aliijuid hiL-rctici.
t Tertullian adv. Judrcos, p. iild.
U
86 TERTULLIAN.
that Christ called Peter a rock, choosing to communicate to
him his own appellation rather than to use any term not applied
to himself. I regret that yon have withheld from your readers
the following sentence, with which the passage concludes, and
which illustrates so clearly the meaning of the author : *' There-
fore he preferred to give a name to the dearest of his disciples
from among the figures which regarded himself, than from
those which were not applied to himself."* Having asked
the question why Simon was designated Peter, he says : *' If
to express the vigour of his faith, many substances of a solid
nature would present a suitable figure derived from their own
special quality." He rejects this reason as unsatisfactory, and
asks : " was it because Christ himself was styled both a rock
and a stone ? since we read that he was placed as a stone of
offence an^ a rock of scandal ; to pass over other passages in
which the same terms are applied to him." In this Tertullian
acquiesces, and says, that Peter was styled a rock, because
Christ was styled a rock, the Lord vouchsafing to communicate
peculiarly to this most favoured disciple the name which in a
figurative sense was applied to himself, as having a more in-
timate reference to himself, and being better calculated to ex-
press the gifts of Peter, than other figurative expressions bor-
rowed from objects not referred to Christ,! He does not, then,
* " Ita |ue adfectavit carissimo discipulorutn de figuris suis pecu-
liariter nomen communicare, puto propius quam de non suis." Tertul.
adv. Marcion, 1. iv. p. 520.
t Ibidem. " Sed et cur Petrum ? Si ob vigorera fidei, multse materiie
solidffique nomen de suo accommodarent. An quia et petra, et lapis
Christus ? Siquidem et legimus positum eum in lapidem oflfendiculi et
in petram scandali. Omitto caetera. Itaque adfectavit carissimo disci-
pulorum," etc. Some curious mistakes are observable in the translation
of Bishop Hopkins : " But why Peter ? If on account of the vigour of his
faith, there are many and solid arguments which would accommodate
this name to him ?" He ends his version by the words : ^' I omit other
matters," but the author means : " I omit other passages of Scripture."
The" solidae materia)" are not solid arguments, but substances such as a
pillar, or any other object which might have afforded a figurative ex-
pression.
FIGURATIVE LANfa'AGE. 87
as you conceive, *' leave ilie question williout seemiiicr at all
conscious that Peter could be calletl a stone by reason of the
whole Church beinjr built upon him," for he expressly declares
that, were the object of the Redeemer merely to signify the
strenglli of his faith, he could have found many images calcu-
lated for that purpose, but he was pleased to communicate his
own name peculiarly, that as he himself was called the rock,
Peter might be designated a rock likewise: — '* the rock on
which the Church was to be built," as TertuUian elsewhere
expresses it: — " Pclrum acdificunda; ecclesia? pctram dictum."*
I know not why you have quoted the passage from his '* Ex-
iiortalion to Chastity," wherein he argues against second mar-
riages, because one who has been twice married is not eligible
to the priesthood. In his anxiety to sustain tlie error of Mon-
tanus, he says that laymen also are priests, that the distinction
between the clergy and laity has been eslablisiied by the
Churci), and that the laity can baptize and perform other
sacerdotal functions, when no priest is to be had. Are these,
sir, your sentiments ? or have they any thing to do with the
question now before us ? Again, I beg to remind you, that
whatever is advanced in support of an exi)loded error, carries
with it no authority.
When TertuUian, writing against Marcion, asks: "What
key had tlie doctors of the law, but the interpretation of the
law?" he speaks of the Jewish doctors, who in virtue of their
office and profession, might be said to have the key of know-
ledge, but who, nevertheless, as he subjoins, '' neither advanced
to understand it, nor sullered others to approach."! It is surely
unwarrantable to apply to a controverted text of Scripture a
figurative expression used by an author, two centuries after-
wards, without the least reference to the text in question. He
speaks of the key of knowlcd:;e : " clavem agnitionis habens :|"
Christ promised to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
" TrrtuUian do prtrs. huT.
i Tcrtul. adv. Marcion, 1. iv. p. 5J'.>. Kd. Luteliu', 444, in the edition
used by Hisliop Hopkins.
X Ibid.
88 TERTULLIAN.
The passage, wherein the author says that every confessor
of the faith will carry with him the keys of heaven, which " the
Lord left to Peter, and through him to the Church," is one of
the numberless instances in which the Fathers, supposing the
literal sense as well known, take occasion to recommend virtue
by a moral application of the text. Protestant critics, and all
conversant with the writings of the Fathers, know, as Gerard
remarks, that even " when they stick to the literal sense, they
study not so much to determine it with accuracy, as to ac-
commodate the most obvious meaning to their subject, or to
apply it to practical purposes in a rhetorical manner."* Thus
Tertullian says : " Know that the ascent to heaven has been
rendered smooth by the footsteps of the Lord, and that its
entrance has been thrown open by the power of Christ, and
that Christians will meet with no delay, and be subject to no
examination at its threshold, since they have not there to be
distinguished, but they are merely to be recognised, and are not
to be questioned, but admitted : for if you think that heaven is
still shut, call to mind that the Lord here left its keys to Peter,
and through him to the Church, which keys every one who
is here questioned, and who confesses the faith, will bring
along with him."t The author here applies to the confession
of the faith and martyrdom, what in its literal and obvious
meaning must be understood of power peculiarly granted to
Peter, as he himself elsewhere declares. :{: You say that we
have in this and other passages " an interesting variety in the
idea;" but candour will also force you to avow, that the
mystical interpretations, in which this variety is found, must
be corrected or explained by those passages of the author in
which the literal sense is clearly pointed out. You furnish us
with a splendid testimony in favour of the authority of the
Roman Church, the depositary of the doctrine and power of
Peter: "Come then," says Tertullian, in the passage which
you quote, " you who wish to exercise your curiosity to more
* Gerard, 6G9. t Tertullian Scorpiace, p. 628.
J Tertul. 1. de pudicitia, p. 743, supra cit.
ROMAN CIILRCir. 80
advantage in llic ailair of salvalion, go llirougli ihe Aposlolic
Churclie:?, in which the very chairs of the Apostk's coniinue
aloft in their places, in which their very original letters are
recited, sounding forlii the voice, and representing tlic counte-
nance of each one. Is Achaia near you ? You have Corinth.
If you are not far from Macedon, you have Philippi, you have
Thessalouica. If you c:in go to Asia, you have Ephesus. If
you are near Italy, you have Uonie, whence authority is at
hand for us.* How happy is this Cliurcii to which the Apostles
poured fortii their whole doctrine with their blood! where
Peter is assimilated to the Lonl in his martyrdom: where
Paul is crowned witli a death like that of John: where John
the Apostle, after he had been dipped in boiling oil without
suffering injury, is banisiicd to the island : let us sec what
this Church learned, wiiat she taught, what she professed in
her symbol in common with the African churches."*^ You
say that there is not in this testimony " any tiling that looks like
ihe Roman Church having a superior authority !" What, then,
is the meaning of the words, that " from llience authority was
at hand" for Tertullian and his fellow believers in Africa?
Why does he pass rapidly over the other churches founded by
the Apostles, preserving still their chairs, and their epistles, and
when he has reached the Roman Church pause, exclaim in
raptures, how happy is she in possessing tiic abundant treasure
of Apostolic doctrine, and appeal to her tradition, to her teach-
• " Si autem Italia? adjaccs, habcs Roiiiam, undo nobis quoque aulho-
ritas pra-slo est. Ista quam felix ccclesia, cui totain doctrinaiii npos-
toli cum sanguine suo profuderunt : ubi Petrus passioni Dominica)
adcequatur : ubi Paulus Joannis exitu coronalur : ubi apostolus Joannes
posteaciuam in oleum igneum demersus, nihil passus est, in insulam
relegatur: videanms quid didiccrit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoqui'
ecclcsiia contesserarit." The translation used or given by Bishop Hop-
kins is any thing but correct : *' where Peter was made equal to the en-
durance of the passion of his Lord, where Paul was crowned (with
martyrdom) at the exile of John : where the Apostle John was afterwards
plunged into boiling oil, and suffering nothing, was banished loan island
Let us sec, too, what one mifjht learn, what he iniirlit teach, when h<
should also have compared his Hymb«jl with the churches of Africa."
H*
90 TERTULLIAN.
ing, to her solemn profession of faith, in which she was the
guide of the African churches, her docile children ? Could we
say more in her praise ? Need we claim for her higher pre-
rogative ? She is the Church whose symbol is the great watch-
word of faith, and with which the African churches harmonize,
*' because with her, on account of her more powerful princi-
pality," as Irenaeus has already taught us, " every church must
agree."
I shall not interfere with your vindication of Tertullian from
the charge of Montanism. The extracts already given show
his sentiments on monogamy, the pardon of penitent adulterers,
and the prophecies of Montanus, Priscilla and Maximilla. It
remains only to advert to his celebrated maxim, which you
quote : " What is first, is true ; and what is subsequent, is
adulterated." Listen now to its application from himself:
*' Since it is evident, that what is true is first, that what is first
is from the beginning, that what is from the beginning is from
the Apostles, it also must be equally manifest, that what is held
sacred in the Apostolic Churches must have been delivered by
the Apostles. Let us see with what milk the Corinthians were
fed by Paul ; according to what standard the Galatians were re-
formed ; and what instructions were given to the Philippians,
Thessalonians, and Ephesians ; what also the Romans proclaim
in our ears, they to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel sealed
with their blood."* You may remark, that the appeal to the
other churches chiefly regards the Apostolic letters directed to
them, whilst the faith of Rome, as loudly proclaimed, is spe-
cially referred to; for by its tradition coming down unchanged,
by the succession of bishops, from its glorious founders, all
errorists and sectarists are confounded.
* Tertullian, 1. iv. adv. Marcionem, p. 505. " Quid etiam Romani
de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine
quoque suo signatum reliquerunt."
LETTER VII.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
Right Reverend Sir :
It is a rule of sound criticism, that, where positive docu-
ments in proof of any fact exist, the argument wliicli is derived
from tlie silence of some individual should not easily be re-
ceived. This species of negative argument has no weight but
in the absence, or deficiency, of positive proof, and when the
silence can in no way be accounted for, except by supposing
that the fact had no existence. As we have abundant positive
evidence of the Primacy, you might have dispensed with this
uncertain and unsatisfactory line of argumentation. You, ne-
vertheless, devote a whole chapter to *' the testimony" of Cle-
ment of Alexandria, though you avow that " it is purely nega-
tive." To you it appears decisive ; because, had the Primacy
been then admitted, Clement " could not," you say, " have
avoided a plain statement of the fact, or, at least, some intelligi-
ble allusions to it." It should be recollected, that several of his
works, mentioned by the ancients, are no longer extant, so that
it cannot be asserted, with certainty, that he did not in any way
treat of the Primacy. In his Ilypotijposes, a work which is
lost, but of which Eusebius has preserved some fragments, he
carefully distinguished Cephas, whom Paul reproved at Anti-
och, from the Apostle Peter.* In his Stromata, or Miscella-
nies, which are still extant, he speaks of his instructors, who
" guarded with care the genuine tradition of Apostolic doctrine,
which, as children from their parents, they had received in un-
' EusebiuH, 1. i. hist. c. xii-
92 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
interrupted succession from the holy Apostles, Peter, James,
John and Paul."* The precedency of Peter, so remarkable
here, and generally in the Scriptures and Fathers, shows the
harmony of Clement on this point with all antiquity. This
work, as well as such otlier of his works as are extant, is chiefly
directed to confound the Gentiles, Jews, and pseudo-Gnostics,
and to set forth the character of the true Gnostic or Christian.
It is not wonderful, therefore, that the organization of the
Church should not be developed in them, nor the relative pov^^ers
of its prelates determined. The passage which you adduce
from the seventh book is irrelevant, for nothing is said in it
which can warrant any inference against the Primacy. Treat-
ing of an objection urged against Christians by Jews and Gen-
tiles, derived from the discordance of Christian sects, he re-
torted on them, and referred to the divisions which were found
in Judaism and paganism.! He afterwards observed, that " we
must not, on account of the dissentions, transgress the eccle-
siastical rule, "J and that those who desire, can find out truth,
which is capable of proof and demonstration. This being the
case, " the questions must be examined, and from the Scriptures
themselves we must learn demonstratively how the heresies
have fallen away, and how in truth alone, and in the ancient
Church, is most accurate knowledge. "§ On this you remark,
that the ancient Church signifies here, as in Irenajus and Ter-
tuUian, the Church as it was first planted, without distinction
of place, or of one Apostle over another. You know, how-
ever, that Irenseus speaks specially and distinctly of the Church,
" founded by the most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul ;" and
that TerluUian likewise makes distinct reference to it. Clement
speaks of the same Church, since, in the passage which you
have quoted, he says, that it is easy to prove that heretical con^
* Clemens Alex. 1. i. Strom, p. 17.
t Strom. 1. vii. § xv. p. 511. Ed. Wirceb.
t lb. p. 513. arai kai Hfjietc kxta fxn^tvu. t^ottoi rov EKK\ntrid.?-tKOV
§ lb. 1. vii. p. 755, p. 517. Edit. Wirceb.
UMTV OF THE CHURCH. y3
venticles are posterior, in point of lime, to the Catholic Church,*
from the very fact that the ministry of Paul was consuinnialed
under Nero, whilst Basilitles broached iiis heresy only under
the elder Antonine, — Glaucias, who was an interpreter of Peter,
having been his teacher, and " Simon Maf^us himself having
listened for a time to the preaching of Peter." The reference
to these Apostles especially, rather than to St John, who sur-
vived both, shows that the ancient Church, of which Clement
treats, is that which was founded by these Apostles, and was
guided by their doctrine. 'I'he churches of all Christendom
were in communion with the Church of Rome, and formed that
one ancient and Catholic Church, which was prior to all here-
sies. *» This being the fact,t it is clear," continues the author,
" from the most ancient and true Church, that these later here-
sies, and such as are still more recent, are marked as innova-
tions of spurious origin. From what has been said, I think it
manifest that the true Church is one, that which is truly an-
cient, in which are enrolled those who are just, according to
the divine purpose." The two following sentences are omit-
ted in your (}uotation, but serve to show how essential unity
was deemed by Clement: " for as there is one God and one
Lord, on this account what is highly venerable is praised for
unity, being the imitation of the principle which is one. The
one Church is, then, associated with the nature of the one Be-
ing, which Church heresies endeavour to divide into many.j
In its essence, therefore, in its conception, in its principle, and,
by reason of its excellence, § we say, that there is one only an-
cient and Catholic Church, gathering together into the unity of
the one faith, according to her own covenants, or rather, ac-
cording to the one covenant, at dilTcrent limes, by the counsel
" Strom. 1. vii, § xv. p. 539.
t (kr luTU( ip^orTar. " Quoj cum ita habcant." Bishop Hopkins trans-
lates it: " which things if they were bo I"
\ T)i ym TK iroc <;>u7ti 9uyn.Xn^>iTxi ExxMtff-igt >i fxitt, ni u: TroXKtc
KXToLitfxtnf 0n^ctraii «i^iy«/c. Stromal. 1. vii. p. 539.
§ K*Tat Tjjr uirorurir, »siTct ti 'frircur, kata rt a^^^^r, jtarat ri
94 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
of the one God, and through the one Lord, those who are al-
ready preordained, whom God predestined, having known, be-
fore the foundation of the world, that they would be just. And
the eminence of the Church, as well as the principle of its con-
struction, is from unity, surpassing all other things, and liaving
notliing like or equal to it."* He adds, that " as the doctrine
of all the Apostles was the same, so likewise tlieir tradilion.t
Though in this long and beautiful passage, tlie Primacy of Peter
is neither asserted nor denied, the unity of the Church is re-
presented so forcibly, that I am glad you quoted it. Of that
unity Peter was the guardian ; but the mention of this was not
so well calculated to convince or confound heretics, as to object
to them the notorious fact of their recent origin. The silence
of Clement on the supremacy of Peter is therefore easily under-
stood, and perfectly reconcilable with his admission of that doc-
trine. We often use a similar argument against innovators, as
we are sensible that the authority of the Holy See can be effec-
tually employed only against those who already admit it. The
very antiquity of a doctrine forms a presumption in its favour,
not to be removed, unless by positive evidence of its origin at
a period subsequent to the Apostolic age. We say then, with
Clement, that the ancient Church is the only true Church, and
that the fact of the posterior origin of the sects, is at once the
refutation of all their claims. You observe, that " he refers this
unity to its substance, its knowledge, its beginning, its excel-
lency, and to the unity of the faith, as handed dow-n to the
Apostles." If you mean to insinuate that he admits any di-
versity of doctrine, and limits unity to some points of high im-
portance, you mistake his meaning, since he complains of here-
sies, as violently endeavouring to divide into many parts that
Church, whose unity is an emblem of the unity of God. When
he says, that it is one in substance, it is, as the Latin interpre-
* P. 540. a\Kct }cu) « i^^X^ "^"f (KKK>lO-lsti KdB-ctTTSp » agPC" '^^^
<rv<>cL(nm(r, kxtsl tuv fAcvuJ'x er/v, TreivrA ra. oihha. v7ri^0A\xou(rct., kai
t Ibid.
CANON OF INTF.RPRKTATIOV. 95
ler has rendcretl it, in essence, that is, cssontially oiio. 'J'lie term
gives no ^^rouiul whatever for understanding it of unity on some
particuUir points. When lie adds, that it is one in idea, or con-
ception, he speaks of the idea which we necessarily conceive of
it, according to its divine institution. In saying that it is one
in its principle, he means God, from whom it emanates, of
whose unity it is an imitation.* Il is finally one in excellence,
for it far surpasses all human institutions, none of which, whe-
ther they be the conventicles of sects, or civil establishments,
presents any thing equal, or like this divine institution. '* Con-
fingantlale aliquid haeretici!"
Availing yourself of the figure of tlic key which Clement uses,
you assert, that "it is manifest that Clement regards the keys
in the sense which Tcrtullian recognises, namely, the interpre-
tation of Scripture." I have already shown that TertuUian did
not at all speak of the keys of the kingdom of heaven given to
Peter, when he used liie figure of a key, but spoke of the Jew-
ish doctors, who, not having the key of knowledge, did not in-
terpret the Scripture correctly. Figurative expressions being
applicable to an infinite variety of objects, of the most dissimilar
nature, it is not at all warrantable to apply to one object what
may have been said of another, merely because the same meta-
phor is applied to both. It is inconsistent with every rule of
sound interpretation, to explain the Scriptural texts by passages
of the Fathers, having no relation whatever to them, except the
accidental employment of a similar metaphor, for purposes
widely diflerent. Clement says that, ** the Gnostic alone," —
by which term he understands the enlightened Christian, —
" who had grown old in the study of the Scriptures, and had pre-
served the Apostolical and ecclesiastical rule of correct dogmas,
lives properly a(!cording to the Gospel ;"t and he warns his
readers, " that we must not imitate the followers of heresy, and
^^ fjLifxtifjL* if a^^nc TXfl" fxixc." I'..':?-'.
T*y. P. r»:M.
96 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
adulterate truth, or steal away the rule of the Church ;"* after
which he thus introduces the figure to which you have made re-
ference : *' those, then, who are imbued with impious princi-
ples, and deliver them to others, and who employ the divine
words, not properly, but in a perverse manner, neither enter
themselves into the kingdom of heaven, nor suffer those whom
they deceive to come to the knowledge of the truth. But they
themselves not having the key of entrance, but a false key, and,
as is usually said, an anti-key, by means of which, not being
able to raise up the veil, as we who enter in by means
of the tradition of the Lord, they cut down the side door, and
clandestinely break through the wall of the Church, passing over
the truth, become the initiators of the spirit of the impious."!
Here Clement speaks of divine tradition as the key to the di-
vine Scriptures, for the want of which heretics cannot raise the
veil ; wherefore they rush forward, trampling under foot reveal-
ed truth, and breaking down the wall of Church authority. Who
can hence infer, that when Christ promised to Peter the keys
of his kingdom, with power of binding and loosing, he meant
no more than the tradition by which Scripture might be ex-
plained ?
No note of distinction among the Apostles, as you observe,
is added by Clement in the passage which you quote from the
fourth book of the Stroinata, wherein he speaks of the Apos-
tles : but this is not surprising, for even we, when we have
occasion to speak of the Apostles in common, are not accustom-
ed to distinguish Peter from the other members of the Apostolic
college. A striking distinction was made by our Redeemer
himself, in the text which Clement thus refers to, and which
you have passed over in your quotation : '* Martyrdom, then,
seems to be the purification of sins with glory. The shepherd
[Hernias) says particularly : " You will escape the fangs of the
wild beast, if your heart be pure and faultless ; but even the Lord
himself says: Satan has sought you, to sift you; but I have
* t«f« fX»\l KXiVTitV TOr KOLVOVA T«f EjC»X>fC"/Ctf . P- 536.
t p. 538. juv^etyceyoi t«? rav u<rfSi»v -^u^^i.
FAVOURABLE TO THE PRIMACY. Vt
prayed. The Lord, therefore, alone drank the chalice, for ihe
purification of those men who laid snares for him, and of unbe-
lievers : in imitation of whom the Apostles, as being truly Gnos-
tics and perfect men, sullercd for the Churches which they
founded."* It is manifest that Clement treats of the martyrdom
of the Apostles, and not of their official character or relative
powers : consequently, there was no reason wliy he should dis-
linguisli Peter from the rest. As to the epithets '• good," " no-
ble," '' divine," which Clement applies to Paul, they aflbrd no
ground for calling the Primacy of Peter in question. Both
Apostles might receive these appellations without prejudice to
truth, or to the higher prerogative of Peter ; and if they happen
not to be applied to this Apostle, the circumstance is too trivial
to ofler evefi the shadow of an argument.
The writings of Clement, which are extant, contain then no-
thing whatever against the Primacy, and much in confirmation
of the authority of the one ancient. Apostolic, and only true
Church. The loss of his other works, especially his Hypoty-
POSEs, is to be regretted, as, from fragments quoted by Euse-
bius and John Moschus, we learn, that in them he stated the
distinction between C'ephas the disciple and Peter, and nar-
rated that Christ baptized Peter alone.t and that Peter baptized
Andrew : also that Peter sanctioned the Gospel of Mark, and
authorized it to be read in the Churches. t Whatever weight
may be given to his testimony on liiese points, it is manifestly
favourable to the Primacy.
• Clemens Alex. Strom. 1. iv. § 0, p. 571 Edit. Wirceb. p. 503.
Edit. H.
t L. 5. Hypotyp. cit. in prato spir. c. 171).
X L. (i. Hypotyp. apud Euseb. 1. 'i, Hist. Ecci. c. 15.
LETTER YIIL
ORIGEN.
Right Re^tirend Sir :
We pass from Clement of Alexandria, one of the most learned
of the Fathers, to Origen, the most illustrious of his disciples.
You invite our attention to his application of the figure of the
keys : " First, then, let us look at a fine application of the figure
of the keys, which will prove, in accordance with the other
Fathers, how well this term was understood to signify the sci-
ence of interpretation. On account of its obscurity, says Origen,
the whole Scripture, divinely inspired, is like to many chambers
within one house, but when the key applied to each chamber
is not fitted to it, the keys become scattered through the cham-
bers, not answering to those chambers to which they are ap-
plied ; and it is truly a difficult work to find the proper keys,
and adapt them to the locks, so that they may open them ; thus
it is that the more abstruse Scriptures are to be understood,
the argument of our knowledge being taken no otherwise than
from the Scriptures themselves, v/hich have dispersed amongst
them the reasons of their exposition."* Those of your readers
who may have thought this to be the interpretation of il:f; keys
of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter, may be surprised to
learn that it has not the remotest connexion with them, and is
a similitude borrowed by Origen from a .Jew. It is found in
the preface to the interpretation of the Psalms, and is preceded
by these words : "As we are about to enter on the interpreta-
tion of the Psalms, we shall premise an excellent observation
* ?. 102.
KMT5 or WTEWltETATlOX. 19
gentnUj oo the whole dirine Scripture, made lo os by a Jew.
He said that the whole dirinely inspired Scripture, oa accooat
of its obscaritT, is like to many chambers, ^c.*** To addoee
this similitude to prove that the term of the keys was nader-
stood by Origen to signify the science of interpretatioo, is swely
calculated to nislead. Clear texts may be aptly called keys of
obscure pa> - : the use of such a meuphor, by a Jew, or
by a Fathe . norch, does not at all imply that the keys
of the kingdom of heaven, specially promised to Peter in re-
ward of his faiih. mean no more than dear texts, whereby he
raifht amre at the real meaning of passages which for others
woold be obscure. If yon would sabetitnte the words, " dear
texts'* for ** the keys of the heavenly kingdoB' * in the pumy
of Si Mauhew, you will see the revolting incoosislniey of this
far-fetched interpretation.
Did I suppose you to have designedly omitted the prefatory
portion of the sentence, which so clearly explains its source
and determines its meaning. I should smile at the following
apology which precedes the next passage: '•It will require a
very long extract to do it justice, but no labour should be thought
too great for the aearchei after tn2th.**t Besides pervsiBf loag
extracts, it is also desirable that the inquirer should rmwidrr
the custom of the Fathers in general, but especially of OrigeSv
to indv ' -stations of Sacred Scripture, eil-
coatee virtue, but which neither he« nor
the other Fathers, ever wished to have substituted for the literal
and obvious meaning of the text. Thus he wouU easilT um-
defstand how it was that Origen, in the pussage io questiou,
takes occasion from the profession of faith made by StmoBv aud
the appellation of *' rock** given him by his divine Master, lo
obserre that if we confess Christ, under the same heuvealy in<
fluence, we also will be a Peter, or rock oi faith. In this I
discover nothing favouraMe to your interprets tic n, for Or j*"
expressly understands the original words of Peter, and iJ
nes n»rf*< and n»Tp«, which you labour so smnnoiisly to ^>'
* Ocig^ in Pnlww, Pnet pw ISS, T«L ziiL E£t. Wlrofb-j^^
• P 101
100 ORIGEN.
tinguish. "Every disciple of Christ is a rock, of whom they
drank who drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and
on every such rock tlie whole ecclesiastical teaching,* and
corresponding government, is built: for in each of the perfect,
who have the collection of words, and works, and thoughts, the
Church is inwardly built by God." You see clearly how your
author indulges in mysticism, and, with a view to animate all
to the imitation of Peier, asserts that every just and perfect man
is not only a rock, but that his pious maxims, works and words,
form a Church, built on him as a foundation. If you please to
follow him thus far, you are welcome to the benefit of his tes-
timony. To prove that others besides Peter could partake of
the rewards of his faith, he asks, can it be supposed that the
Church is built on Peter in such a manner as to exclude the
other Apostles from all participation in the benefits of the
Church, or the privileges of the ministry? *'If, indeed, you
think that the whole Church is built by God upon this one
Petert (rock) only, what do you say of John, the son of thun-
der, or of each of the Apostles ? Shall we venture to say that
the gates of hell shall not prevail against PeterJ in particular,
but shall prevail against the other Apostles, and against the
perfect ? Is not what was said previously, verified in regard
to all and each one : ' the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it?' Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord
to Peter alone, and shall no other of the blessed receive them 1
But if this be common to the others, ' I shall give thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven,' how should not all the things which
go before, and follow after,§ be common likewise 1 For here it
seems to be said to Peter, ' whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound also in heaven, &c. &c. Sic. : but in the Gospel
of John, the Saviour, giving the Holy Spirit to the disciples by
* O ix,)i\»(rtu;iKo: TTsLc Koycg^ Kctt « xsct' etCrov Troxmict. Origenes
in Matt., Tom. XII. p. 516.
t E/ Si iTTl TOV fVX iKilVOV UiTpOV VO/Ut^lt; CtTO T« 668 OlKoJ'o/Xil^Ctt
TJfV WatO-StV fKKXWlltV /UCVOV. t iSlUiQ.
§ jratvTet T* T6 TTfiotipn/uiva., Kcti ret iTTipifofxiva.. Bishop Hopkins
translates it : " those things which precede it, and which are evidently
connected with it."
APPLICATION OF TIIK WORDS OF t HKIST. 101
breathing on llieni, s:iys : Heceivc ye the Holy Ghost, <fec.
&€."• You are aware, that in asserting ilie priviU'ires of
Peter we do not adopt the exclusive principles wljich Origen
ascribes to those who doubted whether eacii perfect man, imi-
tating his faith and confession, might be, like him, a rock, and
partake of the rewards bestowed on iiim. "We believe him to
be the chief foundation placed by the hand oflhe Divine Archi-
tect; but we regard all the Apostles, in a general way, as the
foundation on which we are built, Christ Jesus himself being
the chief corner stone, as we are taught by St Paul. We do
not say that the gates of hell shall prevail against the other
Apostles, or the perfect, or the Church at large, when we
assert that they cannot prevail agaiiist the Kock on which that
Ciiurcli is founded. We do not claim lor Peter the power of
the keys — of binding and loosing — so exclusively as to deny
to the other Apostles the exercise of a similar power, though
we maintain that the special address to Pcirr indicates that he
pre-eminently possesses it. Wlien (Jrigen says, the promise
that the gales of hell phall not prevail against it, is verified in
regard to every perfect man, — lie is stilliabouring to prove, by
ihc application of the text, in a mystical sense, tiiat each one
may be a rock of faith which no power of hell may overthrow. t
He expressly avows that the words, in their literal sense,
regard Peter, and are aj)plicable toothers only in a spiritual or
myslicalsigniiicalion. " if any one say to hijn: ' Thou art Clirist,
ilie Son of the living God ;' not taught by llesh and blood, but
by the Father who is in heaven; he will obtaini what was
promised to that Peter, as the letter of the Gospel says, but as
' Origi'ii in Mai., Tom. \1I. j). .'>!(;.
t Gerard remarks that " even such of the Fathers as did not wiiolly
neglect the literal sense of Scripture, are fond of ailcgorizinir it, and
drawing from it mystical meanings, which are altogether fanciful, and
of no use." G7(). Inst Bib. Criticism, p. 'JOH. Origen is the first wliom
Gerard mentions as indulging in tlu'se niystical interpolations.
t Tit/^iTs/ T*r (/{Jt/uirttr, »c yuir tc ■^^t/jLfit. tk iuxyytkiH Ktyu, irf 6c
«Kl/rir Tsr IIiT^sr, •; /• ts -rrmifjL* auth JUavku, w§sc Tsttr* roy ■) trcutrcr
-Tiio; i riiTgoc mtitoc. Origen, t. xii. p. 51^.
I*
102 ORIGEN.
its spirit teaches, to every one that becomes such as that Peter
was. For all the imitators of Christ are styled from the Rock,
— the Spiritual Rock which follows those who are saved, that
they may drink from it spiritual drink, and they are styled from
the Rock, as Christ : but, as being members of Christ, they
have been designated Christians from his name, so from the
Rock, Peters."* Conformably to his purpose, Origen says,
that every perfect man may be styled Peter, from the stead-
fastness of his faith, and solidity of his virtue, as Christians
are so styled from being incorporated in the mystic body of
Christ. To show that against such a man the powers of dark-
ness cannot prevail, he proceeds : " Taking occasion from
these things, you may say, that they are denominated just, from
the justice of Christ, and wise, from the wisdom of Christ;
and thus, from his other names, you may form epithets for the
saints ; and to all such persons would be said by the Saviour
what was said : ' thou art Peter, &:c. &;c. They shall not
prevail against it:' What does it refer to? Is it the rock on
which Christ builds the Church, or the Church ? or is it the
Church and rock, as one and the same thing ? for the word is
ambiguous. I think the last to be the true meaning : for nei-
ther against the rock on which Christ builds the Church, nor
against the Church, shall the gates of hell prevail ; as it is im-
possible to find the track of the serpent on the rock, according
to what is written in the Book of Proverbs. But if the gates
of hell prevail against any one, such a one cannot be the rock
on which Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by
Christ on the rock : for the rock is not accessible to the ser-
pent, and is stronger than the gales of hell which struggle
against it; so that on account of its strength, the gates of hell
cannot prevail against it : and the Church, as the building of
Christ, who wisely built it on a rock, is impregnable to hell's
gates, which prevail indeed against every man out of the rock
ovTSf, TTU^eevv/uci ix^ff^^'^Krav ;^g/r/itv<;/, Tm-^'n; tfg, wiTgo;. Origen in
Matt., Tom. XII. p. 518.
APPLICATION OF TIIK WORDS OF CHRIST. 103
and out of the Church, but cannot eflcct any lliinir against it.
Seeing, then, that each of the sins which lead to Iieli, is the gate
of hell we shall understand tliat the soul which has spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing, and which, by reason of sin, is
neitlicr holy nor spotless, is neither the rock on which
Christ builds the Church, nor the Church, nor a part of the
C'hurch, which Christ builds upon the rock."* 1 have added
to the extracts which you have given, this long passage from the
works of this Father, that the reader might have a better oppor-
tunity than is afforded by the passages you have quoted of know-
ing his real senlinient. His object was to excite the faith-
ful to imitate Peter, that they might be victorious over the pow-
ers of hell. He maintains, that the infernal powers cannot
prevail either against the Church, or against the rock of its
foundation, — and passing from the letter to the spirit, he con-
cludes that they cannot prevail against any individual firm in
faith and unwavering in his attachment to duty. In the same
mystic style of interpretation, he regards sin as the avenue or
gate of hell, and excludes every sinner from the privileges of
the Church and rock. He admits that there is a multitude of
men called members of the Church, against whom the gates of
hell will prevail, on account of the vices to which they are en-
slaved. Among sins, he reckons heresies, which he terms
gates of hell, that war in vain against the Church. "Thus
every author of a perverse sentiment becomes a builder of a
gate of hell ; — and the co-operators in the doctrine of the au-
thor of such things, are minisiers and dispensers of the per-
verse teaching, the source of the impiety. But many and num-
berless as are the gates of liell, no gate of hell will prevail
against the rock, or the Church which Christ builds upon a
rock. And truly, each of the heterodox, who brings forth any
knowledge, falsely so called, has built a gate of hell. Marcion
has erected one, Basilides another, and Valrnlinus another. "t
The author here insensibly returns to tlie literal meaning, and
shows that no efforts of heresy can destroy the Church of
• Origfu in Matt., Tom. XII. p 520. f lb. p. .^.£2
104 ORIGEX.
Christ, or the rock on which it rests : yet he does not lose
sight of the moral application.
You give us a few sentences which follow, and passing over
nearly a page, commence your paragraph as if it was an infer-
ence drawn by Origen from what you had just recited. I am
not disposed to complain of the omission of the intervening
passages ; but in so important an investigation, it was right to
give some indication that the connexion was not immediate;
and it was still more necessary to avoid every thing which
might convey the false idea of a conclusion drawn from pre-
mises. Instead of beginning the paragraph : " We see by all
this,* how it may be saidt to Peter, and to every one who is
as Peter," fidelity to the text required that you should have
written : *' Now (cifter these things) let us see how it was said
to Peter, and to every Peter : I will give thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven." You must have observed in the origi-
nal, that the article is even prefixed to the name of the Apostle,
as being by excellence " the rock," whilst the name without
the article is used to denote every perfect man the imitator of
his faith.J Blending the literal and mystical senses together, or
at least giving the mystical interpretation, without losing sight
of the literal, he proceeds to explain the force of the words as ap-
plicable to the perfect. " In the first place I think, that to the
words, ' the gates of hell shall not prevail against il,' have been
rightly subjoined, § ' To thee I will give the keys of ihe kingdom
of heaven :' for he who is defended agfnJnsi the gates of hell, that
they may not prevail against him, is worthy to receive from the
Word himself, the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; as it were
for a reward, because the gates of hell were powerless against
him ; receiving the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that he may
* The Latin version given by Bishop Hopkins is different from that
which hes before me. Instead of " post hcBC videmus," I read, post hoec
videamus. The Greek text shows that my reading is correct. Merst
TAWTA iSufj.iv. t True AsxeicTsi/, how it was said.
X The definite article is also used in the Syriac, Arabic and Chaldaic
versions of the text of Matthew xvi. IG, ''thou art the rock."
§ a-KOKn^oci Mhix^J^i, Bishop Hopkins translates it: " First, indeed,
I think these words are to be connected with the others."
MYSTICAL EXPOSITION. 105
open to himself the gales wliich are shut against such as are
overcome by tlie gates of liell ; and he enters in, as chaste
through the gate of chastity opened by the corresponding key,
and as just througli tlie gate of justice, opened hy the key of
justice ; and so of tlie other virtues."*
These mystical explanations may interest and edify the
pious, but cannot pass with any enlightened man for the
writer's view of the literal meaning of the passages thus alle-
gorized : nor are they given as such by their ingenious author.
Further on he says : "See what power the rock has on which
the Church is built by Christ, and every one has who says :
* Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' so that his judg-
ments remain firm, God as it were judging in him, so that in
the very act of judging, the gales of hell cannot prevail against
him.t Therefore, against him who judges unjustly, and who
does not bind on earth according to the word of God, nor
looses on earth according to his will, the gates of hell prevail ;
but that man judges justly against whom the gates of hell do
not prevail. For this reason he has the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, opening to those that are loosed on earth, that even
in heaven they may be loosed and free ; and shutting to those
who are bound by his just judgment on earth, that even in
heaven they may be bound and condemned. But since those
who claim the rank of the Episcopacy use this passage, as
Peter, and having received from the Saviour the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, teach that the things bound by them, that
is, proscribed, are also bound in heaven, and the things that
are pardoned by them are also loosed in heaven ; it is to be
observed that they speak correctly if iliey have the quality on
account of whicii it was said to that Peter : * thou art a rock ;'
and if ihey be such that upon them the Church is built by
• Origon in Malt., Tom. XII. p. .VJO.
t **o»rt Tate K§<o"i/c fjniui ^i^^iA: TttTtt, mc xjirevTCc tr aire* tit Si*,
ittt it durm te$ x^uiir ^m Kxrtv^va^mvn ait/Tk irukaLi aVk. P. 528.
Bishop Hopkins rondors it: ''that his judirini'nts may remain firm,
as of God, justified by him, so tliat througli Uiis judgment the gales of
hell may not prevail against him."
106 ORIGEN.
Christ, and that to them it may be referred with propriety.
But the gates of hell ought not to prevail against him that
would bind and loose. If he himself is bound fast by the cords
of his sins, he binds and looses in vain. But as God would
not bind the man who is not bound by the cords of sin, so
neither would whoever is a Peter bind him. But if any man,
not being a Peter, and not having the qualities here specified,
thinks that he, like Peter, can bind on earth, so that the things
which he binds shall be also bound in heaven; and thinks tiiat
he can loose on earth, so that the tilings which lie looses be
loosed in heaven, such a man is proud", not knowing the sense
of the Scriptures, and being puffed up with pride, he falls into
the snare of the devil." You perceive tli.at throughout
Origen continues in his favourite application of this cele-
brated passage, but with a distinct reference to its literal mean-
ing: He admires the power possessed by the rock on whom
the Church is built; he declares his judgments firm, God as it
were judging in him, and the gates of hell being unable to
prevail against him in the very act of judgment. All this
literally regards Peter, whom by excellence he denominates
0 Tiirpo? *' the Peter." But he extends it to every one who,
with the faith and fortitude of Peter, confesses that Christ is
the Son of God ; and thus limitations become necessary, which
he ventures to apply even to those who occupy the Episcopal
chair. If bishops in general should claim for themselves a
power of judgment like to that of Peter, their claim, he says,
is admissible, provided they also be Peters : but he protests
against a capricious exercise of that power, without regard to
justice. The principle is true, that no wanton exercise of au-
thority can be defended, merely on the plea of power received,
because that power is necessarily to be exercised in conformity
with the maxims of sanctity delivered by the Redeemer who
communicated it. The ratification promised in heaven cannot
extend to what is in manifest opposition with the will and law
of the divine King.
Our readers. Right Reverend Sir, will have no reason to
complain of the paucity and brevity of our quotations from
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THK PRIMACY. 107
Origen, but they will be amply repaid for this trial of their
patience, if they acquire a correct idea of his sentiments and
views on this important subject. Were I not afraid of appear-
ing to allcct your oft rej)eatcd and solemn appeals, I would beg
of you to divest yourself of every sectarian bias, and judge as
a scholar and a critic, of his true meaning. From many errors,
somewlmt allecting the fidelity of your transhuioii, I fear that
you have hastily adopted the version of some writer in whom
you have placed unnicrilcd confidence, or that you have made
your own version without reference to the original text, or
without sulficient attention even to the Latin interpreter. Mine
is as literal and as exact as I could make it.
When not moralizing, or indulging in mystic flights, he
stated in the simplest but strongest terms what should forever
prevent you from bringing him forward as a witness against
the Primacy of Peter. " Peter," says he, ♦' on whom the
Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall
not prevail, left one epistle generally admitted."* in his Com-
mentary on the Epistle to the Romans, the supreme authority
of Peter, as Pastor of the sheep of Christ, is expressly aflirmed.
Speaking of the excellence of charity, he says: " When the
supreme power to k'ei\ the sheep was given to Peter, and the
Church was founded on him, as on a rock, the declaration of no
other virtue is required of him, but of charily."! With these
facts and testimonies as kei/s, you may unlock the secret
chambers of mysticism, and discover the meaning of those
texts, in which, passing by what he regarded as obvious to all,
he showed his hearers the edification which they should derive
from them.
* Apud. Euseb. 1. vi. c. 2a, Ilidt. Eccl.
t I'elro cum Kuiiuna reruin de pascondis ovibus traderolur, ct super
ipsum, vclut super terrain, fundarctur Ecck'sia, nullius alterius ab eo
virtutis cor)ft'8sio, nisi charititiH cxigitur." Origen in Epist. ad Iloin. 1.
V. n. 10. 1 have rendered on a rock, as I find the testimony quoted by
Sardagna svper pelram, and as the Scriptural reference warrants. It is,
however, super terram, on the rurt/i in the edition fidw !.••(. n- me.
Wirceburg, MDCCXCIV. p. 272.
108 ORIGEN.
I shall not say a word to weaken the force of your vindica-
tion of Origen's memory from the imputation of heterodoxy.
For our present purpose it is sufficient that he recognised the
Primacy of Peter, and, through respect for the See which this
Apostle made the depositary of his power, he earnestly longed
to visit that most ancient Church, and gratified his wishes in
the days of Pope Zephyrine. To Fabian, his successor, as the
chief judge and guardian of faith, he sent the declaration of his
faith when his orthodoxy was elsewhere called in question.
For both facts Eusebius is my voucher.*
You conclude your chapter on Origen by a dissertation on
his orthodoxy, as if nothing remained for the triumph of your
cause but to prove the credibility of your witness. He has,
however, testified against you. He has explained invariably
of Peter, what you contend should be referred to Christ ; and
if in his usual style of mystic interpretation he has given a long
exhortation to perfection from the motive of obtaining rewards
like those of Peter, he has not neglected to inform us that he
was explaining, according to the spirit, what according to the
letter regards him whom he emphatically styles " the Peter."
* Euseb. hist. 1. vi. c. 14 and 36.
LETTER IX.
ST CYPRIAN.
RiGJiT Reverend Sir:
The illustrious Bishop of Carthago, St Cyprian, is llie next
witness brought forward by you against the supremacy of Peter
and his successors, although you candidly acknowledge that
several passages in liis works look very like our doctrine. In
a letter to his people, on occasion of the schism of five factious
priests who ofTered the peace and communion of the Church
to those who had fallen from the faitii in t!ie persecution, he
thus animadverts on their conduct : — " They now offer peace,
who themselves have not peace. They promise to bring back
and recall to the Church those that are fallen, who themselves
have left the Church. There is one God, and one Christ, and
one Church, and one Chair founded by the voice of the Lord
upon a rock.* That any other altar should be erected, or a
new priesthood establislied, besides that one altar and one
priesthood, is impossible. Whoever gathers elsewhere scal-
tereth. Whatever is devised by human frenzy, in violation of
the divine ordinance, is adulterous, impious, sacrilegious."
This truly looks very like our doctrine, and cannot, without
great ingenuity, be turned to any other meaning. As you offer
no explanation of it, save that which may be deduced from your
general view of Cyprian's sentiments, I leave it in its own
• Super pttram. It is so given in the edition of Basle, anno lCy'2\,&n(\
in that of \Vircehur|r. JJishop Hopkins reads Pctrum, which probably
is the correct reading. Tiie sense is the same. St Cy()r. ad pUbein. cp.
p. 59.
X
110 ST CYPRIAN.
simplicity and strength, to the candid consideration of every
inquirer after truth, and proceed to your next quotation.
The letter of St Cyprian to the bishop Antonian, was written
in consequence of the representations of Novatian having made
this bishop waver in his determination to recognise Cornelius
as the Bishop of Rome. I will beg leave to give somewhat
more copious extracts than you have furnished from this im-
portant document. It begins thus : " I received your first letter,
most beloved brother, which firmly maintains the harmony of
the priestly college, and the communion of the Catholic Church,
inasmuch as you intimate that you hold no communion with
Novatian, but that you have followed our counsel and are in
harmony with Cornelius our fellow bishop.* You also wrote
that I should forward a copy of the same letter to Cornelius,
our colleague, that he might lay aside all anxiety, knowing that
YOU COMMUNICATE WITH HIM, THAT IS, WITH THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH."! — This may aid you to understand the full force of
some other passages in the sequel. The Bishop of Rome, at
that early day, was the centre and bond of Catholic commu-
nion : through him the bishops of every part of Christendom
communicated with each other, and thereby formed that Epis-
copal College, of which Cyprian so often speaks, — being one
in its character, tendency and spirit. On hearing that Antonian
had subsequently suffered himself to be m.oved by the repre-
sentations of Novatian, who calumniated both Cornelius and
Cyprian, the saint resolved to undeceive him, and to lay before
him all the facts that were calculated to recall him to Catholic
unity. As to Cyprian's own conduct in regard to tlie fallen,
he observes, that during the vacancy of the Roman See, he Jiad
communicated his views to the clergy of that Church, who
wrote to him a letter approving of his determination: "This
* " Three bishops, who ordained Novatian, the schismatic bishop,
were deposed, and others ordained to succeed them by Cornelius, Bishop
of Rome, whose proceedings in this matter were generally approved all
over the world." Archbishop Potter on Church Government, p. 302,
t St Cyprian, Ep. ad Antonian, p. 109.
MEASURES TOWARDS THE FALLEN. Ill
letter (he observes) was dcspalchetl ihroughoul the wliole world,
and brought to the knowledge of all the churches and all the
brethren." This extraordinary importance attached to the
provisional government of that Church, if I may be allowed
so to designate it, shows the authority which ordinarily be-
longed to it, and the extent of its jurisdiction. After peace had
succeeded the persecution, and an opportunity was alforded of
assembling the bishops of Africa, as Cyprian had purposed,
and the Roman clergy liad approved, the Council was held,
and measures were adopted in which severity and indulgence
were ble!ided. Though the number of bishops assembled was
great, • still they deemed it right to communicate their judg-
ment to the Koman Pontiff, that it might be strengthened by his
superior authority. With the deliberation and wisdom which
have always characterized the acts of the Holy See, Cornelius
assembled a number of bishops, and declared his concurrence
in the measures of the African prelates. ♦♦ If the number of
bishops in Africa (says Cyprian to Antonian) appear insuflicient,
we wrote even to Rome on this point to Cornelius, our col-
league; who also, himself, having held a council with many
bishops, consented to the same decree as we had made, with
equal severity and salutary moderation. "t
Having thus vindicated himself, he proceeds to the case of
Cornelius: "I come now, most beloved brother, to the person
of Cornelius, our colleague, that you may know him truly,
as we do, and not from the false statements of malignant slan-
derers, but according to the judgment of the Lord (lod, who
made him Bishop, and by the testimony of his fellow-bishops,
the entire number of whom, throughout the whole world, has
Cnpiosus ppiscftponim numorus.
t " Cyprian and the council of bishops, of which ho was president, in
their cpiHtlc to two churches of Spain, whose bishops had lapsed into
idolatry, tells them, that both they theuisclves, and all other bishops in
the whole world, and rAiiTici'i.AUi.Y Cornemi's, Hisiior ok Romk, had
decreed that Inpsers should be admitted to penitence, but not allowed to
continue among the clergy." Archbishop Poller on Church Govern-
ment, p. 34ii, referring to Cyprian, Ep. fi7, p. 81)1 .
112 ST CYPRIAN.
assented with perfect unanimity." — It appears, then, that the
whole body of bishops considered the Bishop of Rome as one
in whose election all were interested ; and their communion with
him followed from a knowledge of the fact of his being law-
fully promoted. — " He was made Bishop by many of our col-
leagues, who were at that time in the city of Rome, who sent to
us, on his ordination, honourable and laudatory letters, distin-
guished for the testimony which they bore to his merit.* And
Cornelius was made Bishop according to the judgment of God,
and of his Christ, according to the testimony of almost all the
clergy, with the suffrage of the people who were present on
the occasion, and he was selected from the college of aged
priests and good men ; when no one had been appointed before
him, and the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter, and
the dignity of the priestly chair was vacant: which place being
occupied according to the will of God, and being strengthened
by the consent of us all, whoever now seeks to be made bishop
must necessarily be without, nor can he have ecclesiastical ordi-
nation who does not hold the unity of the Church. Whoever
he be, though he vaunt himself and put forward great claims, he
is a profane man, a stranger, he is without. And since after
the first there can be no second, whosoever was made (bishop)
after the one who alone should be such, is not the second, but
he is no bishop. Finally, having received the Episcopal office,
which he did not ambition, or seize on, but in conformity to the
will of God who makes priests, how great was his virtue in the
Episcopacy which he had received ! how great his fortitude !
how firm his faith ! (which we should intimately regard and
praise in simplicity of heart) to have sat intrepid in the sacer-
dotal chair at Rome, at a time when the hostile tyrant menaced
the priests of God with dire punishments, and would hear with
greater patience and forbearance that a rival prince had risen
against him, than that a priest of God was established at Rome."
* " Testimonio succ prcDdicationis illustres de ejus ordinatione mise-
runt." The version of Bishop Hopkins is not accurate. The letters
were to certify his ordination, and they were full of his praise. Prcadi-
catio does not here mean 'preaching.
ACKNOWI.KnCiMKNT OF HISHOP llOl'KlNH. 113
'I'his illustrious lesliinony lo the pre-eminence of liic Komau
Church, as tlie ciiair of I'etcr, forces from you the admission :
*' 'riial the Cluirch of Home was the seat of Peter, Cyprian
doubtless believed ; and, therefore, lie attaclies the same im-
portance to it that he atlaclies to Peter in relation to the other
Apostles." You add, " all this amounted to no more than
what belongs to the foreman of a jury, the senior judge upon
the bench, the precedency among peers, or any other case in
which a number being united in the same work with the same
powers, one for the sake of order goes before the rest." Pray,
sir, does not the illustrious martyr say, that to communicate
with the Roman Bishop is to communicate with the Catholic
Ciiurch ; that it is impossible for any altar to be erected, or
priesthood, or chair lo subsist, separated from that chair " found-
ed by the voice of tiie Lord upon Peter?" Was not the pre-
eminence and power of that Uishop so notorious, that a perse-
cuting emperor regretted more liis election than tiie rise of a
rival, and a foe ?
Anlonian had requested to be informed what heresy Nova-
lian had inlrotluccd. Cyprian replied, it was a mailer of no
consequence, as long as he was separated from tlie Church by
his opposition to its lawful Bishop: "As to what regards the
person of Novatian, concerning whom you have requested that
I should inform you what heresy he has introduced, know, in
the first place, that we should not be curious to know wliat he
teaclies, since he teaches without. Jflwcver he is, and whatever
qualifications he possesses, he is not a Christian who is not i)i
the Church of ChristJ*^ 1 believe, sir, you will find no advocate
of the l*apal authority insist on the necessity of communion with
the Apostolic See, in terms stronger than these. From this epis-
tle, nevertheless, you have brought forward an objection which
will be best refuted by preseniiiig it in connexion witii the con-
text of the place whence it is taken. Immediately after the
word.-* just quoted, Cyprian continues: "Though he boast of
his philosophy, or proclaim his eUxiucnce in haughty words,
he who has maintained neither fraternal charity nor ecclesia.^-
114 ST CYPRIAN.
tical unity, lias lost what he had been before. Unless he ap-
pears to you to be a bishop, who after a bishop had been made
in the Church by sixteen bishops, endeavours through ambition
to be made by deserters, an adulterer and a stranger, and whilst
there is one Church divided by Christ into many members
throughout the whole world, and one Episcopacy spread abroad
through the concordant multitude of bishops, he, contrary to
the tradition of God, contrary to the unity of the Catholic
Church, connected and joined together everywhere, endeavours
to make a human church, and sends his new apostles through
many cities, to lay some foundations of his new institution ;
and whilst long since, throughout all the provinces, and in every
city, bishops have been ordained, — advanced in age, sound
in faith, tried in times of oppression, proscribed in persecution,—
he dares create pseudo-bishops in their stead." You may not
have had the whole text under your eye when you argued that
there is no superior authority in the Bishop of Rome above his
colleagues, because the Episcopate is one : for surely whoever
reads the text must manifestly see that the saint is not labour-
ing to establish the equality of all bishops, but their union for
one great purpose — the government of the Church ; whence he
concludes that the refractory intruder, Novatian, by his oppo-
sition to Cornelius, was cut off from the communion of all
bishops, and of the Church. He does not, in this passage, un-
dertake to explain their relative powers, but he has already
stated the high authority of the Bishop of Rome.
There is one other passage in this letter which, though not
objected by you, I shall explain, as it may serve to illustrate
other places. "In the time of our predecessors," says he,
*< some of the bishops here, in our province, thought that peace
should not be given to adulterers, and totally shut the ave-
nue of penance against adultery ; but they did not, however,
withdraw from the college of their fellow-bishops, or break the
unity of the Catholic Church by obstinate severity or censure,
so as that because peace was given to adulterers by some,
whosoever did not give it should be separated from the Church.
r.VlTY OF THE KriSCOTATE. 115
Wliilsl the bond of concord remains, and llie indivisible mystery*
of tlie Calliolic CImrch conlinues, eacli bishop disposes and
directs his conduct, being to render to the Lord an account of
his determination." The saint speaks of a mailer of discipline,
— on wliich no general law had been passed, and with regard to
which each bishop consequently had a discretionary power.
In matters that interfere not with tlie integrity of faith, and that
are not determined by any general law, — the bond of concord
being thus maintained, the mysterious unity of the Catholic
Church, which is in Ciirist, being inviolate — each bishop gov-
erns and legislates for the portion of tlie flock commiited to his
charge. This nowise excludes the vigilance and control of
the Ciiief Bishop, for subordination to him appertains to that
bond of concord which must remain firm and unbroken ; yet
his power is rarely interposed, except to maintain faith in its
integrity, or to urge the observance of the general laws of the
Church.
Further on you cite a very strong passage from the letter of
St Cyprian to Cornelius, regarding Fortunatus and Felicissi-
mus. At the risk of being tedious, 1 shall venture to give the
substance of the letter, with some further extracts from it. It
was written after the saint had received a letter from Cornelius,
full of brotherly love, zeal for ecclesiastical discipline, and sacer-
dotal judgment.! In it Cornelius had informed him that Feli-
cissimus, a schismatical priest, who had been degraded for mis-
conduct, by Cyprian and the African prelates, having come to
Rome, was driven from the Church by the orders of Cornelius.
In another letter, whicli accompanied the former, Cornelius
communicated to him the apprehensions he entertained in re-
gard to the probable violence of the schisnjatic and his abettors.
Cyprian remonstrates with him i»n these fears, as unworthy the
high ofTice which he held. '* If, beloved brother, the audacity
" I'crsovcranto Catholic® Ecclesia' individuoSacrnmonto." It iniffht
he rondorod with more proprirly, tlioufjli not so literally, ** the sacred
and indiviHibli- unity of tin- Catholic Church." P. IIG, Ep. ad Anton.
f " Sacerdotalis censurtc." St Cyprian ad Cornt-l. p. G.
116 ST CYPRIAN.
of the wicked must be feared, and if they accomplish by rash
and desperate means what they cannot do justly and righteous-
ly, the vigour of the Episcopacy is lost, and the sublime and
divine power of governing the Church is no more, nor can we
any longer continue, or be Christians, if we have come to such
a state as that we must fear the threats and snares of abandoned
men The immovable strength of faith ought to abide with
us, beloved brother, and permanent and unshaken virtue ought
to oppose all attacks, and break the violence of the roaring
surges, as with the strength and mass of a rock lying in their
way." He proceeds to observe, that we must not regard the
source of the danger; and he expatiates on the crime of calum-
niating the priests of God, adducing to this end the example
of the punishment awarded in the Mosaic law against whosoever
should contemn the sentence of the high priest. *' How can
they escape the judgment of an avenging Lord, who do such
things not only to their brethren, but to the priests, to whom
such great honour is granted through the divine condescension,
that whoever would not obey the priest of God, the judge for
the time being, should be immediately put to death. In Deu-
teronomy, the Lord God says : ' he that will be proud, and re-
fuse to obey the commandment of the priest, or judge, whoso-
ever shall be in those days, that man shall die ; and all the
people hearing it shall fear, and they shall not afterwards act
impiously.'" Having quoted some other passages of Scripture,
he draws this conclusion : " Since these weighty and numerous
examples, with many others, exist, whereby the priestly au-
thority and power, through divine concession, is established,
what think you of those, who, being the enemies of the priests,
and rebels against the Catholic Church, are not awed, either
by the threat of the Lord who forewarns, or by the aveng-
ing judgment that awaits them ? For from no other source
have heresies arisen, or schisms sprung up, than from not obey-
ing the priest of God, and not reflecting that there is one priest,
for the time, in the Church, and one judge, for the time in the
place of Clirist, to whom, if all the brotherhood yielded obe-
OBEDIENCE TO THE FONTTFF. 117
dience according to the divine instructions, no one would at-
tempt any thing against the college of priests : no one, alter the
divine judgment, after the suffrage of the people, after the con-
sent of his fellow bisliops, would make him!?elf judfire, not of the
bisho]), but of God ; no one would rend the Church of Christ
by the breach of unity ; no one, through vanity and pride,
would form a new heresy apart and without."* He proceeds
to show that the appointment of the Priest of God is made in
the Church, under the special direction of divine providence,
whilst out of the Church it is otherwise; and he applies this
observation specially and distinctly to the Bishop of Home,
Cornelius, whose virtues he sets forth, dwelling especially
on the rage of the persecutors against him : — " I speak un-
der provocation — I speak reluctantly — I am constrained to
say it; when a bishop is substituted in the place of the deceas-
ed ; when he is chosen in peace with the suffrage of the whole
people ; when he is protected in persecution by the aid of God ;
being united faithfully with all his colleagues; already, during
years of his Episcopacy, pleasing to his people ; promoting
discipline in time of tranquillity ; proscribed in stormy times ;
so often called for, the name of his Episcopacy being specified
and added, that he might be delivered over to the lion ; honour-
ed witli the testimony of divine condescension in the circus
and in the ampilheatre : — at the very time at which I wrote to
you, dcmaniled anew in the circus by tlie shouts of tlic multi-
tude : ' To the Lion,^ on account of the sacrifices which the
people were ordered by an edict to celebrate : — when such a
man, beloved brother, is assailed by some desperate and aban-
doned men, who are out of the Church, it is manifest by whom
he is attacked ; not truly by Christ, who either establishes or
protects the priests, but by liim who being the adversary of
• Ncqiic cnim aliunde hrrrosca ohortfP sunt, ant nata sunt Bcliismata
quam indc quod sacordoti Dei non obtrmjx'ratur : noc unus in Kcclrsia
ad tcinj)U.s Sacordos ct ad teinpus judex vice Christi cogitatur : rui pi
secundum magistcriadivina obtcmperarct fraternitas universa, nemo ad-
versum Sacrcdotum collegium quidquam moveret." P. 8.
118 ST CYPRIAN.
Christ, and enemy of his Church, persecutes with his malice
Him who is set over the Church ;* that the pilot being removed,
he may more fiercely and violently proceed to effect the ship-
wreck of the Church." If these last words do not convince an
impartial mind that Cyprian regarded the Bishop of Rome as
the ruler of the Universal Church, the one priest and judge who
for the time is in the place of Christ, and whom all the brethen
should obey, conformable to the divine mandate, I am wholly un-
acquainted with the power of words. Let us, however, proceed.
Cyprian remarks, that we should not be surprised at the de-
fection and revolt of some against the priests and Church of
God, since the Lord and his Apostles had foretold that such
things would come to pass ; and he himself, notwithstanding
the splendour of his miracles, had been forsaken by some weak
disciples. " And yet," says he, " he did not rebuke them as
they went away, or grievously threaten them ; but rather, turn-
ing towards his Apostles, he said : ' Will you also go away V
Peter, however, on whom the Church was built by the same
Lord, speaking, one for all, and answering in the name of the
Church, says : ' Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the
word of eternal life ; and we believe and have known that thou
art Christ, the Son of the living God ;' signifying thereby, and
showing, that those who depart from Christ, perish by their
own fault ; but that the Church which believes in Christ, and
retains what it has once known, never by any means departs
from Christ; and that they are the Church who continue in
the house of God."
Cornelius having complained of not having received imme-
diate and full information, in regard to the proceedings of the
schismatics, Cyprian answers : " I did not deem it necessary
to report to you speedily and pressingly the artifices of heretics;
for the contrivances of heretical and schismalical audacity
ought not to interest the majesty and dignity of the Church."
* " St Cyprian Ep. Corn. p. 9. Edit. Basil. " Ob hoc Ecclesiae praepo-
situm sua infestatione persequitur, ut gubernatore sublato, atrocius atque
violentius circa ecclesice naufragia grassetur."
EFFORTS OF SCHISMATICS. 119
He adds, that he liad lately sent him a list of all llie orthodox
bishops of Africa, lie goes on lo relate the proceedings of the
schismatics in regard to the making of Fortunaliis bishop, and
then going to Home with a ♦ cargo' of falsehoods ; and dwells at
length on their facility in admitting to communion, without
penance, those who had fallen in i)ersecution.* — " In addition
to these things, liaving obtained for themselves a false bishop,
ordained by heretics, they venture lo set sail, and carry letters
from schismatical and profane men to the chair of Peter, and to
the principal! Church, whence sacerdotal unity has arisen : nor
do they reflect that they are Romans, whose faith is extolled
by the Apostle, lo whom perfidy can have no access." From
this it is manifest that the schismatics ihemselves looked up to
Kome as the great and ruling Church, and sought by every art
to enlist its authority in their favour: whilst Cyprian cherished
a well grounded confidence that all their efforts would prove
vain ; and regarded their insidious attempt on the faith of the
chair of Peter as the height of audacity, 'i'he words which
immediately follow, express the unwillingness of St Cyprian
and the African bishops, that priests condemned by their au-
thority, should have recourse to Rome, which could not be so
fully informed of their offences as those who were on the spot.
'• What cause had they to come (tc Borne) and announce the
false bishop who was created against the other bit^hops I For
they are either pleased with what they did, and persevere in
their wickedness; or, if they are sorry, and abandon it, they
know whither they can return. For since it was determined
by us all, and is equally just and proper, that the cause of every
one should be tried wher(; the crime was committed ; and since
to each of the pastors a portion of the Hock is given, which each
one may rule and govern, being to render an account of his
conduct to the Lord : it is certainly meet, that those over
" The translntion of Hishoj) Hopkins is soiiu'what iimccurate in tlu-
coinmencfiiu-nt.
t " Catlu'dra principalis ;" it prnprrly rinMns tlic princely or ruling
Church, and corrt-spunds admirably lolhe " potiorem principaiitatcui" of
IrcniLUs.
120 ST CYPRIAN.
whom we preside should not run about, and by their crafty and
fallacious temerity disturb the perfect concord of bishops ; but
that they should plead their cause, where they can have both the
accusers and witnesses of their crime, unless a few desperate
and abandoned men undervalue the authority of the bishops of
Africa, who have already passed judgment on them, and have
recently, by the weight of their sentence, condemned their con-
science, bound with many chains of sins. Already has their
cause been tried ; — already has the sentence been passed : nor
is it suitable for the judgment of priests to be reproved with the
levity of a fickle and inconstant mind."*
To one eager to find a pretext for calling in question the Pri-
macy, the foregoing passage may, perhaps, appear sufiicient ;
but to the lover of truth, to the man who considers it in con-
nexion with the whole letter, it does not offer any ground for
doubt. Felicissimus had gone to Rome with the letter of the
pseudo-bishop Fortunatus, and had attempted to intrude into the
Church, as if entitled to all the privileges of ecclesiastical commu-
nion. Foiled in this effort, he made such representations as might
induce Cornelius to doubt of the justice of the sentence pro-
nounced against him by the African bishops. Cornelius wrote
to Cyprian, primate of Carthage, to know the facts. Cyprian
states them at length, and does not question the right of Corne-
lius to inquire into the case, or even to revoke the sentence ; but
he strongly urges the inexpediency of receiving such appeals
from refractory priests, the cognizance of whose cause could
best take place where their delinquency had occurred. This
was also the view of his colleagues, and it continued to be re-
spectfully urged on the attention of the successors of Cornelius,
down to the days of Pope Zosimus. The abstract right of re-
ceiving such appeals was not called in question ; the right of
aggrieved bishops to appeal to the chief Bishop, was exercised
and admitted : but to extend this privilege to all priests seemed,
to the African prelates, likely to open a door to clerical im-
punity, and to lead to the contempt of the Episcopal authority.
* S. Cypr. ad Corn.
POWER TO DEPOSE UISHOPS. 121
When ('yprian says, thai lo each Bishoj) is coinmiiied a por-
tion of ihe flock lo rule and govern, wilh responsibility lo God,
he does not assert the independence of each bishop from everv
other bishop in that government; otherwise there could not
exist the harmony and unity of the Episcopal College, on which
he loves to dwell : but he alleges the responsibility of each
bishop to God, to show that in the exercise of his authority
over his clergy and flock, he was not likely to act unjustly.
In reply lo a complaint of Cornelius, that some letters from
the province of Hadrumelum had been directed to the priests
and deacons of Home, rather than to the Ponlifl' himself, he
slates the prudential motives which had induced this temporary
measure, but assures him that ♦' he had exhorted all who sailed
from Africa to Rome, to acknowledge and hold fast the root
and parent of the Catholic Church." This surely 'looks very
like our doctrine.'
In a letter of St Cyprian to Stephen, the successor of Cor-
nelius, he informs him of intellifrence which had reached him
concerning Marcian, bishop of Aries, who, adopting ihe severity
of Novaiian, refused reconciliation and communion to those
who had fallen in persecution, however penitent they after-
wards appeared. Far from regarding this as a matter in which
each bishop might rest on his own authority, and decline all
responsibility, Cyjirian earnestly urges Stephen to cut ofl' Mar-
cian, without delay, from the communion of the Church. Tiie
bishop of Lyons, and other bishops of the province, had ad-
dressed Stephen, informing him of the facts of the case ; and
Cyprian writes to stimulate his zeal to adopt prompt and deci-
sive measures. " Let letters," he says, " be directed by you lo
the province and to the people of Aries ; in virtue of which,
Marcian being deposed, another may be substituted in his
place, and the flock of Christ, which is now despised, having
been scattered and wounded i)y i'.im, may be gathered toge-
• " Scinms noH horlatoH von cusc ut Kcclosia; Calliolictp rndicfin ci
matriccm agnosceront ac tencrent." E[)ist 44. Cornclio, p. 1U4 Edit.
Wirceburgi. Kdit. Uusil. ab Eroaino, p. 1G4. an. MDXXI.
L
122 ST CYPRIAN.
iher."* This exercise of authority, whicli the bishops of the
province did not attempt, was implored by Cyprian, who /cer-
tainly could not have solicited it, had he thought each bishop
to be irresponsible, or the Roman Bishop to be no more than
the ' foreman of a jury !' He concludes by asking the earliest
information of the action of Stephen, and its results. " Inti-
mate to us plainly, who shall have been substituted at Aries in
place of Marcian, that we may know to whom we should di-
rect our brethren, and to whom we should write." He men-
tions elsewhere the fact of Basilides, a deposed bishop, who
"going to Rome, deceived our colleague Stephen far distant
and ignorant of the fact and truth, ambitioning to be unjustly
replaced in the bishopric from which he had been justly de-
posed." Instead of reprobating this act as an usurpation of
authority on the part of Stephen, h.e only expresses his indig-
nation at the decej)lioii practised on him. " For he who was
inadvertently deceived, is not so much to be blamed, as he is
to be execrated, who fraudulently deceived him."t
As you quote from the admirable work on the unity of the
Church, in which Cyprian affirms the unity of the Episcopate,
and the distribution of its powers amongst many ; I shall cite
some passages from the same work, which will show that the
saint merely maintained tliereby the unity of Church govern-
ment, by the concurrence of all bishops, each in his place, to
the one great object, and the exercise of their powers in strict
and close communion with the Apostolic chair of Peter — " The
Lord says to Peter : ' I say to thee that thou art Peter, and on
this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. To thee I will give the keys of the king-
dom of heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall
be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon
earth, shall be loosed in heaven.' And after his resurrection he
says to him : ' Feed my sheep ;' and although after his resurrec-
tion he gives to all the Apostles equal power, and says : ' As
* S. Cyprian. Stephano, 1. 3, 13, Ep. p. 90. Edit. Basil,
t L. 1. Epist. 4. Edit. Basil, p. 10. Felici Presb.
PETER THE Ol'ARDIAN OF I'NITY. 123
llie Father haili sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the
Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven
them : whose sins you shall retain, they are retained :' yet to
manifest unity, he ordained, hy his authority, the origin of the
same unity, beginning from one. Even the oilier Apostles
were certainly the same as Peter, admitted to the equal partici-
pation of honour and power; but tlie commencement arises
from unity, that the Church may be shown to be one."* It is
clear that the saint, in asserting the ecpialily of the Apostolic
mission and power, in regard to the forgiveness of sin, and
other acts of their ministry, always imderstands that Peter was
constituted the head of the rest, and vested witli a power by
which unity couM be maintained.
'J'he passage which you quote from the letter to " The Fall-
en," harmonizes perfectly with the others, in which the Pri-
macy of Peter is declared. Some of the unhappy persons who
in the persecution had sacrificed to idols, and thus fallen from
the faitli, addressed Cyprian a letter in the name of the Churcli,
as if they constituted the Church. The holy Bishop commen-
ces his reply by showing them, from the words of our Lord to
Peter, that the pastor, with his clergy and flock, are the
Church ; and that tliis name cannot be usurped by a band of
deserters from its faith. — ♦* Our Lord, whose precepts and ad-
monitions,! we ought to observe ; establisiiing the honour of
the bishop, and the system of his Cliurch, speaks in tiie (Jos-
pel, and says to l*eter : 'I say to thee, that thou art Peter;
and on this rock I will build my Church ; and the gales of iiell
shall not overcome it; and to thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth,
shall be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shall loose
upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.' Thence by the
flux of limes and successions, tl»e ordination of bishops and
• Edit. Wircchur^i, p. !M'J. In thin last edition the text roads : *' l*r:-
matua I'elro datur ut una CliriHli cccleHia, ot cathedra una inonstrrtiir.
I have not followed this reading, as it is wanting in some nianuHcripta
t *' Pra'ccptactmonita;" Bishop Hopkins reads " projceptameluere.
124 ST CYPRIAN.
the system of the Church runs along ; so that the Church is
established upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is
governed by the same presidents. Since, therefore, this is es-
tablished by the divine law, I am surprised that some, with
audacious temerity, have ventured to write to me in the name
of the Church, while the Church consists of the bishop, clergy,
and all the hearers."*
When, then, he says that the Episcopate is one, far from de-
nying the superior pov^er of Peter and his successors, he ne
cessarily presupposes it ; for the multitude of bishops could
not be preserved in this essential unity, except by some con-
trolling power ; and he himself has taught us that it was lodg-
ed in Peter, since from him unity began. The harmony of
the Episcopal body, and not their equality in every respect, is
only asserted by him : '* Does he who opposes and resists the
Church, flatter himself that he is in the Church ?t whilst the
blessed Paul the Apostle teaches this, and shows the mystery
of unity, saying, one body and one spirit ; one hope of your
calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God. Which
unity ought to be firmly held and maintained, especially by us
bishops who preside in the Church, that we may prove that
the Episcopate itself is one and indivisible. Let no one
deceive the brotherhood by falsehood : let no one corrupt the
truth of faith by perfidious prevarication. The Episcopate is
one, of which a part is held by each one to the whole : the
Church is one, which is extended more widely by the increase
of its fecundity. "J Had he meant the perfect equality of all
bishops, and their absolute independence one of the other,
there could not be the one Episcopate — the one faith — the one
Church. Not only would the government of each church vary
* Epist. 27, lapsis, p. 66. Edit. Wirceburgi.
t I cite from the edition of Erasmus, published at Basle in 1521. A
later edition, which lies before me, presents a splendid testimony of the
Primacy : " Qui Ecclesise renititur et resistit, qui calhedram Petri super
quem fundata est Ecclesia deserit in Ecclesia se esse confidit?" Wirce-
burgi, an. 1782. p. 349. As the true reading is contested, I have taken
the less favourable.
J S. Cyp. 1. de unit. t:cc1.
WRITINGS ABOUT nAI»TlSM. 125
according to the caprice or jiulL^inont of its prolate, but the doc-
trine itself would be likewise subject to the same variety and
the same clianges. Instead of that unity wliicli Cyprian so
powerfully inculcates as tlie vital principle of relifrjoi), there
would be endless discord and contradiction. Evidently, then,
the saint does not athrm the equality of all bishops; but he
justly concludes, from the foundation of the Churcli on Peter,
and its continuance through the successions of bishops, that
bishops with their tlocks, and not some laymen of themselves,
arc the Church. He does not here treat of the relative powers
of bishops, the discussion of which was foreign to his imme-
diate object.
The letter to Quintus, directed to prove the invalidity of
baptism administered by heretics, with all the other writings
in defence of this error, might be justly passed over; for the
very reason, that they are directed to maintain what you,
as well as I, acknowledge to be erroneous ; and lalse princi-
ples, and incorrect expressions may be expected, when a fa-
vourite, though false, opinion is to be sustained. It might even
be remarked, that several learneil critics, in Germany and else-
where,* have called in question the autlienlicity of those writ-
ings, or at least have believed that they were adulterated by
the Donatists, inasmuch as they think them altogether unworthy
of his pen. They cannot find in them the dignity, the ma-
jesty, the eloquence, the humility, and the sweetness, which
mark his otlier works. I do not make this observation with a
view to deprive you of any benefit you may hope to derive
from them, but merely from a sense of justice to the illustrious
martyr, who, though he may have entertained an erroneous
sentiment, in regard to a usage on which the authority of the
Universal Church was not then fully ascertained, always cher-
ished the most abundant charity, and the most inviolable at-
tachment to the unity of the Church, as St Augustiiie repeat-
edly testifies. The passage in question, however, far from of-
* Sco Hiritrrim'fl work, " Dio vorziJglichntcn Dcnkwiirdigktilcii der
christkatliolischen Kirchc ;' article I'abHt
h*
126 ST CYPRIAN.
fering any difficulty, affirms the Primacy. Pope Stephen,
when the decree of the African council, requiring that all who
came from any heretical sect to the Catholic Church should be
baptized, was made known to him, rejected and condemned it,
and forbade any innovation on the ancient and general practice
of the Church: Nihil innovetur, nisi quod traditum est.
The author of this letter thus opposes this fundamental rea-
son: "Custom must not be allowed to prescribe, but reason
must prevail. For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose
to be tirst,^ and on whom he built his Church, when Paul after-
wards disputed with him in regard to circumcision, inso-
lently claim, nor arrogantly assume anything, saying that he
held the Primacy, and should be obeyed by those who were
new and posterior to him.t Nor did he despise Paul, be-
cause he had been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted
the counsel of truth, and readily agreed to the just reason which
Paul alleged, giving us an example of concord and patience,
that we should not obstinately cherish our own sentiments, but
rather adopt as our own those which are sometimes usefully
and wisely suggested by our brethren and colleagues. "J This
observation is evidently directed to show that Stephen should
not rest on his superior authority, but rather imitate the con-
descension of Peter, who, waiving the consideration of his own
* '' Quem primum Dominus elegit." Bishop H. translates it incorrect-
ly : " whom the Lord chose first." Peter was not the first called, since
Andrew, his brother, and another of the disciples of John, were previ-
ously invited, by the Saviour, to come and see, and Peter was invited by
Andrew. John ch. 1.
I " Obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere." The
translation which Bishop H. has followed in this place, is a literary curi-
osity : " obtemperari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere :" " that it
was fit that Paul should comply with him in his new and lately devised
ways !"
t Cypr. ad Quint. Ep. Ixxi. p. 227. Ed. Wirceb. Stephen op-
posed the ancient usage to the novelty : the writer replies that reason
should prevail over usage, and that Stephen should not rest on his supe-
rior authority. The letter to Pope Stephen, which contains a reference
to this letter, is suspected by Launojus (no friend to the Holy See) of
being supposititious, and both seem to have come from the same source.
INCONSISTENCY OF BISHOP IJOPKINS. 127
Primacy, yielded to the prudent sutri;eslion of Paul. 'J'he au-
thority itself is not at all questioned, hut its mild and prudent
exercise is commended. A similar reflection often occurs in
the writings of those Fathers of the Churcli who have identi-
fied the prince of the Apostles with Cephas, reproved hy Paul.
**Lo!" cries St Gregory the Creat, " he is reproved hy an in-
ferior, and he vouchsafes to receive the reproof, nor cares to
remind liim that he has received the keys of tiie kingdom of
heaven.""
The appellations of '* colleague," " fellow bishop" and
"brother," which Cyprian and Cornelius mutually give each
other, are evidences of the charily which united them, and of
the Episcopal character common to botli : but the superiority of
the Hishop of Rome is manifested whilst it is acknowledged
that he is the successor of Peter, occupies the princely Chair,
and has power to depose delinquent bishops. " Venerable bre-
thren," is the title which to this day is used by the Pope when
addressing his fellow bishops ; yet no one thinks lliat he means
thereby to place liimself on perfect equality with them.
I am at a loss to conceive how you could have asserted, that
Cyprian *' assigninfr the reason why Rome takes precedence of
Carthage, makes not the slightest allusion to any difierence
among the Apostles, or amongst the bishops w ho succeeded
them ; but puts it on the ground of local advantage, accordiuL^
to the principle mentioned before : ' Plainly, therefore, sailh he,
on account of its magnitude, Rome ought to precede Carthage.' "
Had you not already told us that " Cyprian doubtless believed
that the Church of Rome was the seat of Peter, and, therefore,
he attaches the same importance to it that he attaches to Peter
in relation to the other Apostles ?" As to the passage brought
forward by you, it regards Novatus, who having factiously and
ambitiously made a deacon in Africa, went to Rome, and there
attempted to intrude Novaiian into the cliairof Peter. *♦ Truly,
since Rome should surpass Carthage, in consequence of its
greatness, he committed greater and more heinous crimes there.
" St Grog., 1. 2. in Ezrrh. hnm. I-^.
138 ST CYPRIAN.
He who here had made a deacon against the Church, there
made a bishop." The saint, in aUuding to the greatness* of
Rome, does not specify of what greatness he speaks, and as
throughout his works he so often makes reference to its spirit-
ual principality, — " Cathedram principalem," it is but just to
understand him as aUuding to it in tliis passage. Besides, he
is not, as you insinuate, explaining why Rome precedes Car-
thage in the affairs of the Church, but he merely takes occa-
sion from the greatness of the Roman Church to observe, that
it might be expected that the daring and desperate sectarist
would attempt there greater crimes. Is the cause of truth ad-
vanced by adducing such arguments as have no clear reference to
the point at issue ?
As you, after other writers, lay great stress on the con-
troversy regarding the validity of baptism administered by
heretics, I shall defer the full examination of it to my next let-,
ter, and conclude for the present with the beautiful remarks of
the saint, in his letter to Pope Cornelius, on the words of Peter
to Christ, related in the sixth chapter of St John : " Peter, on
whom the Church had been built by the same Lord, one speak-
ing for all, and answering with the voice of the Church says :
' Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the word of eternal
life, and we believe and have known that thou art Christ, the
Son of the living God;' thereby signifying and showing that
those who depart from Christ, perish through their own fault,
but that the Church which believes in Christ, and holds what
she has once known, never by any means departs from him,
and that they are the Church who remain in the house of
God."t
* Pro " magnitudine sua." Cyp. Corn. xlix. p. 112.
t S. Cyp. ad Cornelium, Ep. Iv. p. 146.
LETTER X.
CONTROVERSY CONCERNING BAPTISM.
Right Reverend Sir:
In the statement of tlie controversy concerning the validity
of baptism administered by heretics, you allege *' that Stephen,
the Biahop of Rome, next but one after Cornelius, maintained the
validity of baptism when administered by heretics and schis-
matics, and was warmly opposed on this account by Cyprian
and the bishops of Africa, who held a provincial council on the
subject. 'I'his is reversing the order of facts, and giving the
reader to understand that the sentiment of Stephen was the
origin of the controversy, and became the subject of examina-
tion by an African council ; whereas the truth is, that the views
of Cyprian and his colleagues on this head becoming known
at Rome, by means of the acts of their council, Stephen, witli
the authority of his ofiice, forbade them to depart from the an-
cient usage of the Church. Allow me to state the case in the
words of an impartial writer, whose memory is iield in venera-
tion by you, no less than by the Catholic Church. St Vincent
of Lerins, in his Connnonitory^ shows the zeal with which
novelty is always opposed, especially by the Apostolic See,
and refers to this controversy for the proof. " Not to be tedious,
we shall select one instance, and this especially from the Apos-
tolic See, that all may see more clearly than in meridian light,
with what energy, with what zi;al, with what pcr^ieverance the
blessed successors* of the holy Apostles have always defended
the integrity of Religion as it was originally delivered. For-
• " Hcata succcssio." The srrios Ih put for those who form it.
130 CONTROVERSY CONCERNING BAPTISM.
merly, then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, a man whose
memory is venerable, was the first to maintain that baptism
shoul(i be repeated, in opposition to the divine canon, to the
rule of the universal Church, to the judgment of all his fellow
priests, to the custom and decrees of his predecessors : which
presumption was the cause of so much evil, that it not only
gave all heretics a form of sacrilege, but even gave occasion of
error to some Catholics. When, therefore, all cried out from
all quarters against the novelty, and all priests, in every place,
struggled against it, each according to his zeal. Pope Stephen,
of blessed memory, who at that time was prelate of the Apos-
tolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues, but yet
more than his colleagues, resisted, thinking it Jit, as I suppose,
that he should surpass all others in the devotedness of his
faith, as much as he excelled them by the authority of his
station. Finally, in the epistle which was then sent to Africa,
he decreed in these words : that ' no innovation should be
ADMITTED, BUT WHAT WAS HANDED DOWN SHOULD BE RETAINED.'
What power had the African council or decree 1 None,
through the mercy of God."* How different was the light in
which this venerable author of the fifth century viewed the
part which Pope Stephen, in virtue of his eminent and Apos-
tolic dignity, acted in this controversy, from that in which you
have presented it to your readers.
The name of St Cyprian is not mentioned by Vincent, pro-
bably because he did not regard the fact of his being an abettor
of the erroneous practice as altogether unquestionable. St
Augustin assures us that there were several who maintained
that Cyprian had not at all entertained that opinion, but that
the letters and documents were composed by presumptuous and
deceitful men, with a view to give it the sanction of his illus-
trious name ;t and though he did not choose to rely upon this
* Commonit., c. viii.
\ " Quamquam non desint qui hoc Cyprianum prorsus non sensisse
contendant, sed sub ejus nomine a proesumptoribus atque mendacibus
fuisse confictum." Epist. xciii. ad Vincentium Rog. S. 38, p. 246. Tom.
II. Edit. Vcn.
'' Cum illud concilium, vel ilia scripta, si vere ipsius sunt, et non.
ST AUGU8T1N 8 SOLUTION. 131
defenre, yet he ohserveil in reply to the Doiialists : •♦ ('yprian
either did not at all think, as you represent him to have thoufjht,
or lie aflerwards corrected this error i)y the rule of truth ; or lie
covered this blemish, as it were, of his fair breast, wiih the
abundance of his charity, whilst he defended most eloquently
the unity of the Church spread ihroughoul the whole world,
and held most steadfastly the bond of peace."* You have, now,
tVom the eloquent Augustin, the satisfactory solution of the
dirticulty which you press on our attention. '* If this glorious
branch [of the mystical viney — says he, elsewhere, " had in
this respect need of any purification, it was cleansed by the
glorious scythe of martyrdom, not because he was slain for the
name of Christ, but because he was slain in the bosom of unity
for the name of Christ : for he himself wrote, and most confi-
dently asserted, that they who are out of unity, though they
should die for that name, may be slain, but cannot be crowned."!
The proofs which you adduce, of the resistance of the
African bishops to Stephen, are not in my mind satisfactory,
though to avoid every unnecessary discussion, where vital
truth only should be sought, 1 am willing to let the fact of
their dissent be assumed as certain, and the documents by
which it is sustained pass as aiithentic. In the days of
Augustin, both were matters which to him, as well as to
others, appeared questionable. Eusebius, indeed, states that
Cyprian maintained llie necessity of rebaptizing those who
had been baptized by heretics, and that Stephen judged that no
change should be made in the ancient tradition ; but he has not
mentioned any act, on the part of the sainted bishop of Carthage,
subsequent to the prohibition of tlic PoniilT, in derogation to it.|
Bicut aliqui pulaiit, sub ejus nomine conscripta atquo conficta." Ep.
cviii. p. 3U1).
• " I'orro autemCyprianiis aut non sonsit omnino quod iniin scnsissc
recitatis ; aut hoc postea corri'xit in rcj^ula vcritatis, aut hunc quasi
najvuin Hui candidissimi pectoris cooperuit ubere caritatis duiii unitatern
Eccleaitt; lolo orbc cregcentiB, et copiohiHsiine defendit, et perst vtrantis-
simc tcnuit vinculum pacis." V. 2-17, ad Vincentium.
t Epist. cviii. ad iMacrohium, p. :W.». Edit. Ven.
t Euticb. 1. vii. c. 3. Hist. Eccl.
132 CONTROVERSY CONCERNING BAPTISM.
St Jerom, on the contrary, informs us that the African bishops
reformed their decree in consequence of the judgment of
Stephen : " St Cyprian (lie says) endeavoured to shun pits
that were broken, and not to drink of the water of oihers, and
on that account reprobating the baptism of heretics, forwarded
the African synod, on this subject, to Stephen, then Bishop of
the Roman city, the twenty-sixth from blessed Peter : but his
effort proved fruitless. Finally, those very bishops, who with
him had determined that the heretics should be rebaptized,
turning back to the ancient custom, issued a new decree."*
Waiving, however, all these motives for doubting of the fact
which you allege, I proceed to your authorities, — the principal
one of which is a letter bearing the name of Firmilian, bishop of
Cesarea, in Cappadocia, whom, however, you repeatedly de-
signate one of the African bishops. This document bears
ample testimony to tlie authority claimed and exercised by
Stephen, whilst it severely censures its exercise. " I am,"
says the writer, "justly indignant at this so open and manifest
folly of Stephen, who, whilst he so boasts of the place of his
bishopric, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter,
upon whom the foundations of the Church were placed, never-
theless, brings in many other rocks, and builds the new edifices
of many churches, whilst he defends their baptism by his au-
thority."!
Was not this the occasion to deny, in express terms, the
truth of Stephen's claims, if they could at all be brought in
question? Your author, however, is content with imputing to
him folly, for an admission which appeared adverse to his own
claims, and subversive of the constitution of the Church ; but
he admits the fact of his succession to Peter, and that on Peter
the Church was founded. The next passage which you cite,
arraigns the Roman usages in the observance of Easter and
other disciplinary matters; but admits that these usages do not
militate against Catholic unity, and blames Stephen for ven-
turing to disturb this concord and union, and to reflect infamy
* S. Hier. dial, contra Luciferian.
t Ep. Firmiliani inter Cyprian, p. 2G5. Tom. III. Edit. Wirceburgi.
sri'PosKD Aiu'si: of towkk. i;i3
on llie Apostles Peter :intl Paul, by tracing to them the practice
which he then ilefendetl, as if il had come down to him by the
tradition of Ins See." In the tliird passa<re, lie opposes to this
custom that truth which came down from Christ and the
Aposth's, and whicli he fancied to favour Iiis sentiment. All
this does not imply a denial of the Primary, hut supposes an
abuse of its powers, to sustain a local usage adverse to the
true principles of Christianity. In llie heat of disputation, this
and much more might be said, by one professing, most sin-
cerely, submis^sion to the legitimate exercise of the Pontifical
authority. In the defence of a false principle, a man, exas-
perated !)y the threat of an exercise of authority which he re-
gards as wanton and unjust, will say much that is inconsistent
with the reverence which he owes it and habitually cherishes :
and the cause of the unbecoming langmge of Firmilian — if the
letter be really his — is thus mentioned by Eusebius : " Stephen
had written concerning Helenus, and Firmilian, and all the
priests through Cilicia, Cappadocia, and all the neighbouring
provinces, that he would not communicate with them for this
very reason, that they rebaptizcd heretics."!
The passages of the letter to Pompey, attributed to Cyprian,
contain bitter complaints of the sanction apparently given to
heresy by the decree of Stephen. The tradition which was
alleged by him is impugned, and he is accused of placing a hu-
man tradition above the truth of God. His Primacy, however,
is not assailed, though he is censured as abusing the authority
with which he is invested. You know too well the human
heart, and the blind attachment of man to the error By which he
is seduced, not to find il easy to reconcile these murmurs and
strictures with the abstract admission of a superior authority.
In the political occurrences of the day, we have a strikingevi-
dencc of the admission of superior power, accompanied by cen-
sures on its exercise, and in some cases by open resistance to
• " Adhuc ctinm innimauM I'rtrtitn ct rauliim bcatns aposiolos, quasi
hoc ipsi trndiflcrint " Kiriiiilian, E|». T.'i, int«'r «HM'ra Cypriani, p. 25H.
t Dionys Alrx. ad XyHluin V. ri'lat. nb Kusebio Iliul. Eccl 1. vii. 5.
M
134 CONTROVERSY COXCERNING BAPTISM.
it, as an abuse of official prerogative. Those who were most
vehement in denouncing the exercise of the veto by our late
president, admitted the authority of his office, and even the
constitutional right with which he was invested: and when a
southern state placed herself in an attitude of resistance to the
execution of some measures of the general government, she did
not, in the assertion of her own sovereignty, deny that certain
powers were lodged in the general government; but, on the con-
trary, she professed a willingness to respect their constitutional
exercise. If the fact of resistance to authority imj)lied its de-
nial, or non-existence, I know not what power, civil or Eccle-
siastical, could be maintained.
To the list of interrogatories which follow your proofs, I
have only to reply, that you will find them abundantly answer-
ed in this and the preceding letter, in which numerous and
strong passages of the saint have been cited, testifying the Pri-
macy of Peter, and of the princely Chair which he founded, and
recognising the right of the Roman Bishop to depose bishops
unworthy of their office. Cyprian is on the calendar of saints,
because, from the time of his conversion to Christianity he ex-
ercised the sublime virtues, and in death he proved the ardour
and constancy of his faith and love by a glorious martyrdom.
If, at a time when the general practice of the Church was not
fully ascertained by him, he favoured an erroneous sentiment ; —
if in its defence, through zeal for the exclusive privileges of the
Church, the spouse of Christ, he was wanting in deference to
the Chief Bishop — which I am unwilling to believe, — there was
in him no obstinate attachment to any heresy formally and
solemnly proscribed in his day ; there was no rejection of the
principle of authority, no proud revolt against his superior ;
and the imperfections to which this controversy may have given
occasion, were covered by the abundance of his charity, and
expiated by his death for the faith of Jesus Christ. Stephen,
as became his office, justly resisted the dangerous novelty,
though sustained by a prelate so illustrious in the Church, and
menaced to exercise those powers which God had given him,
not against the truth, but for the truth. Flis decree was ground-
CONSEQl'FNCKS OF STPrHIIN's DKCREK. 1M5
ed on the practice of llie Cliurcli, atitl received subsequently
ilie assent of the most venerable assemblies of its pastors; and
liis memory is likewise in benediction, for he is honoured as a
saint and martyr of Christ, lliough you assert that he " at-
tained no such distinction." You tliink, that had our system
then prevailed, "the act of Stephen would have produced one
of those two results: either Cyprian and his African colleagues
must have submitted immediately, or they must have been cut
off as obstinate schismatics." The submission of Cyprian is
supposed by St Augustin," and maintained by ISt Jerome ;t but
granting that he did not submit, Stephen not having actually
executed his threat of excommunication, the rebapiizing bish-
ops were not obstinate schismatics. 'I'liey were men whose
attachment to a novel practice placed them in opposition with
the governing authority of the Church, and their disobedience
could only be extenuated by the error of judgment, which im-
plied no heresy as long as a formal delinition was wanting on
the subject.
You admit that Stephen acted towards the Africans in a man-
ner similar to that in which Victor had acted towards the Asi-
atics. In both instances the Pontiffs were correct, and their
judgment was sustained by plenary or general councils. Willi
regard to your assertion, that the Council of Aries confirmed
the indt'j)endence of the African church, I cannot but express
my regret that you have allowed yourself to hazard a position
which cannot be sustained by proof.
The very abettors of the practice of rebaptizing derived
their strongest argument from the promises made by Christ to
Peter, which, according to them, regarded liim only, and the
Church connected with him, and could not at all be extended
to heretical conventicles. " The greatness of the error," writes
Firmilian, in the passage quoted by you, ♦* and the strange
blindness of him who says that the remission of sins can be
given in the synagf)gues of horctirs, and does not abide on the
foundation of the one Church, which was once built by Christ
• S. Au£r. sup.cil . p \'M. f S. Jerome, 8up, p i:W
136 CONTROVERSY CONCERNING BAPTISM.
on the rock, may be understood from this, •■ that to Peter alone
Christ said : ' Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth, shall be
bound in heaven : and whatsoever thou shall louse on earth,
shall be loosed also in heaven.' "t
You assert that Cyprian was not blamed for his independ-
ence; but you have heard his great admirer, St Augustin,
speak of his conduct in this respect, as the blemish of a most
pure soul, covered with the breast of charity, and cleansed with
the scythe of martyrdom. This saint refuses to review or to
vindicate what, under excited feeling, Cyprian may have writ-
ten against Stephen. J Your inconsistency in censuring Victor
and Stephen for " tyrannical assumption of power," whilst you
admit that they sustained the correct principle and practice,
must be apparent to every reflecting mind : still more manifest
is the inconsistency of your attempting to prove a contrast be-
tween the primitive Church of Rome and the Church of Rome
at this day, whilst you state that these two PonlifTs, — the one
living in the middle of the third century, the other towards the
close of the second, — assumed those very powers which are now
claimed, and exercised the highest acts of Church authority. It
is easy to imagine a contrast, and to cast censure on the dead,
whilst history, holding up facts to view, dissipates light theo-
ries and assertions, and vindicates these illustrious men. Victor
and Stephen, martyrs of Christ, are above the reach of censure.
Cyprian, likewise a saint and martyr, needs no apology but that
ofiered by the great Augustin, whose words, addressed to the
Donatists, shall close tliis letter: " You are, indeed, accustom-
ed to object to us the letters of Cyprian, the opinion of Cyprian,
the Council of Cyprian : why do you take the authority of Cy-
prian for your schism, and reject his example for the peace of
the Church ?"§
* " Hinc intelligi potest — qualis error sit." Bishop Hopkins trans-
lates it: "He should understand," referring it to Stephen. This violates
grammar and sense.
t Firmilian, ad Cypr. inter opera Cyp. p. 157. Ed. H.
t S. Aug. 1. V. contra Donatistas, c. 25, p. 158. Ed. Ven. Tom. IX.
'' Jam ilia qua) in Stephanuin irritatus effudit retraetare nolo."
§ S. Aug. 1. ii, de bapt. contra Donat. c. iii. p. 98.
LETTER XL
LACTANTIUS AND EUSEBIUS.
Right Reverend Sir :
Yor introduce us to the fourth century by referring to L.ic-
tantius, whose testimony, however, you declare to be merely
" negative." I should hope to be dispensed from hearing such
a witness ! Though negative for you, he clearly stales that
Peter and Paul preached at Rome all that Christ had revealed,"
as appears from the passage which you quote ; and towards the
close of the same cliapler, he mentions their martyrdom in that
city under Nero. The plan of his work did not require him to
enter into ar. exposition of the organization of the Christian
Ciiurch, since he wrote to show, that in Christianity was to
be found that true wisdom, which was sought for in vain in the
schools of pagan philosophy, in the last chapter only he ad-
verts to the heresies introduced among the professors of the
religion of Christ; and he is content with pointing out some
obvious marks whereby all sects may be avoided, and the true
religion ascertained, which you would do well seriously to con-
sider. " For when," says he, *' they are styled Phrygians, or
Novalians, or Valenlinians, or Marcionitcs, or Anihropians, or
Arians, or by any other name, they have ceased to be Chris-
tians, since, having lost the name of Christ, they have adopted
human and strange appellaiions. 'I'hcrefore the Catholic
Church is the only one which retains the true worship. This
is the fountain of truth, this is the dwelling of faith, this is the
temple of God, into which whoever does not enter, or from
• Lactantius de vera Hap. 1. iv. § 2*21, pp. 2*,*7. 'i'J-'.
M*
138 EUSEBIUS.
which whoever departs, forfeits the hope of life and eternal
salvation. It behoves no one to flatter himself by obstinate con-
tention, for life and salvation are at stake, which will be lost
and forfeited, unless cautiously and diligently provided for.
But, however, as all the assemblies of heretics think that they
especially are Christians, and that theirs is the Catholic Church,
it should be known that the true Church is that in which con-
fession and penance exist, which happily cures the sins and
wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is subject."* With
this testimony, we have every reason to be satisfied.
We shall now pass with you to Eusebius, the Church histo-
rian, who, you say, " furnishes the strongest circumstantial
evidence against our doctrine of supremacy." I thank you
for the avowal, and might at once dispense myself from exam-
ining his testimony. He furnishes, confessedly, no positive
evidence against it, and as circumstantial proof, like negative
argumentation, is only admissible where positive evidence is
wanting, we might spare ourselves, and our readers, the labour
of an investigation which is necessarily inconclusive. The
authority of Eusebius, as a commentator of Scripture, is first
put forward. On the twenty-eighth verse of the sixty-seventh
Psalm, which you call the sixty-eighth, after the Hebrew divi-
sion, where it is said : " there is Benjamin, a youth in ecstacy
of mind,"t or as some render it, " their instructor," " their
ruler," Eusebius remarks that Paul, of that tribe, seems to be
pointed out by the Psalmist; whence you infer that Paul being
the subject of special prophecy, and being said to rule over the
churches first, and after Paul the other Apostles, the Primacy
of Peter must have been unknown to Eusebius. You must,
however, know, that no argument can be adduced from so un-
certain an interpretation, and that as it does not prove a ruling
* Lactantius de vera sap., 1. iv. c. xxx.
t Bishop H. states for our satisfaction and information, that Jerome,
and after him Montanus, give the passage according to the Hebrew DTI.
The Vulgate follows the Septuagint interpreters, who certainly knew
Hebrew, but the sense of the passage is obscure.
FIRST APOSTLK. 1 3*J
power ill Paul above the other Aj)osiles, so it ilocs not disprove
a superior authority in one ol them above liiin. lie niiglit have
been pre;:cnl to the proplietie vision as the most conspicuous
in the Apostolic choir, for tlie greatness of his labours, the
number of his writings, anil the ardour of liis solicitude for all
the churches. His miraculous conversion, whereby a perse-
cutor became an Apostle of Jesus ('Ijrist, was a suflicient reason
why he should be made the dislinci subject of prophecy: but
the order established among the Apostles must be determined,
not by any obscure or mystical allusion, but by the express
words of their Divine Master.
The casual expression of Eusebius, who calls I*aul " the lioly
Apostle, and truly the first of all," is entirely misunderstood by
you, as you yourself will allow when I give you the whole
sentence. In this work the author purposes to overthrow a
prevailing prejudice, that Christian faith was a rash assent sus-
tained by no proof. He declares that he will adduce many and
manifest arguments to the contrary, and adds : '* for since with-
in the recollection of our Fathers, some writing against the
(ienliles and answering them, others expounding the divine
Scriptures, others more accurately proving the dogmas of truth,
have left many works to us, this method which we now adopt
has been discovered, althougli first of all that holy Apostle
Paul, casting far away all probable cavilling, and bringing
certain proofs, said: 'Our discourse and preaching are not
in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in the mani-
festation of the spirit and of power.' "• I leave it to your
candour to say, whether Paul is liere called ' first of all the
Apostles,' and not rathcry?r.?/, as having long before all apolo-
gists of Christianity proved it by unquestionable evidences of
its divine origin. 1 cannot suppose that with a knowledge of
the context, you ventured to lay stress upon this expression.
It would be much more conducive to the cause of truth to ad-
• Eu»<'b. <J(? I'rirp. Evang. I. I.e.;}. '' rriimiH omtiimn sneer ille
ApoHtoIu.M I'aiilun, probahiliUtiMii omnnn cnvillntoriani longe abjiciens,
ac certas atrcrens probationcs ait."
140 EUSEBIUS.
vert to the passages of this same chapter in which the privileges
of the Church, founded on the rock, are strongly insisted on.
"It is certain, then," says Eusebius, " that our Saviour fore-
told that his doctrine would be preached throughout the world
in testimony to all nations, and that the Church which was
afterwards to be established by his power, would be invincible
and impregnable, nor ever overcome by death, but would be
firm and immovable as established and founded on a rock:
and he has in fact done what he foretold. For already the
fame of his Gospel has filled the world from east to west, and
has reached all nations, and its preaching spreads daily. The
Church, also, receiving its appellation from him has taken root,
and being celebrated to the skies by the discourses of holy
men, shines with the light and splendour of orthodox faith ;
nor does it flee before its enemies, nor yield to the very gates of
death, in consequence of the few words which he uttered : ' On
the rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it.' '**
After this I shall leave you to enjoy the benefit of your
argument, from the praises bestowed by Eusebius on St Peter,
for not causing to be recorded by Mark the glorious promise
made him by the Saviour. It was enough that he established
the Church at Rome, and left there the chair of authority ; and
that in the distant churches of Asia, where the pre-eminence
of the Roman See was most likely to be called in question, the
Gospels of Matthew and of John attested the privileges be-
stowed on him who was its founder. The modesty which
does not make an ostentatious display of power is no argument
against its existence.
That the authority conferred on Peter was not merely
personal is evident from its nature, from its exercise and
recognition in all succeeding ages. It was the authority of a
pastor over the entire flock of Christ, which always needs the
same care and government; it was that of the ruler of a
spiritual kingdom, which must always continue, lest by divi-
* Euseb. de Praep. Evang. 1. 1, c. 3.
MODESTY OF PKTKK. Ill
sions il slioulil be broiiglil lo tlesolalion ; il was as a fouiulalion,
the taking away whereof would necessarily be the overthrow
of the entire edifice. You assun\e, as undoubted, ih:il l*eter
suppressed all mention of it in his communications to Mark,
and omitted it in his preaching ! because Eusebius admires his
modesty in not causing it to be recorded by his disciple.*
There is a diirerence, which docs not seem to have occurred
to you, between St Peter and St Paul, in regard to the magni-
fying of their office, which you think Peter should have done
were he really Primate. Doubtless, both Apostles might have
done it lawfully and usefully, whenever it was necessary to
vindicate it against the censorious and malignant, as it was in
the case of St ]*aul when certain teachers at Corinth decried
his authority ; but, in stating the divine origin of his apostle-
ship, this Apostle took care lo observe, that he had been a per-
secutor, ;uul that he was not worthy of the name of an Apostle.
Had l*eter referred to the occasion in which the extraordinary
promises had been made him, he would have appeared in some
measure to proclaim his own praise, since his glorious con-
fession of the Messiah had given occasion to the eulogies and
favours which our Saviour bestowed on him. His successors
in the See of Rome can, without any appearance or danger of
vanity, dwell on the privileges of their ollice, because they
are not conferred on them as a personal reward, but are an
inheritance derived from the prince of the Apostles, whose
merit, as St Leo so beautifully remarks, does not fail even in
the unworthy heir of his authority.!
Arguments, such as those just refuted, couhl only have been
brought forward in the entire absence of all real evidence
against the Primacy. You invite us, now, to open the history
of this ancient writer, and you as.sure us, that his testimony
• Ji '.mti*( irfi<9ifUf /usfTUfinc Bishop Hopkins trnnnlatCB it:
" by hi«f own toMlimony." It HJiouhl be " a domestic tesliinony"
t Cujiis etiain dignitos in indigno haercdc non deficit, tf. Leo de
annivcrsar. assumpt. suic.
142 EUSEBIUS.
tlierein, " both negatively and circumstantially is absolutely
fatal to our claim."
" The names of our Saviour's Apostles," says Eusebius,
" are sufficiently obvious to every one, from the Gospels, but
of the seventy disciples, there is no catalogue any where. Cle-
ment, in the fifth book of the ' Hypotyposes,' says, that the
Cephas, of whom Paul says that he came to Antioch, and that
he withstood him to his face, was one of the seventy disciples
who had the same name with Peter the Apostle."* So far, at
least, Eusebius has done no injury to the Primacy by preserv-
ing the testimony of Clement of Alexandria, on a point of some
critical interest. Another passage in this chapter escaped your
notice, in which it is stated, on the authority of St Paul, that
Christ, after his resurrection, appeared " first of all to Cephas,
and afterwards to the twelve ;" a circumstance not unworthy of
attention. t
You next give us an extract from the first chapter of the se-
cond book, in which Eusebius thus uses the testimony of Cle-
ment. " He (Clement) says, that after the ascension of our
Saviour, Peter, James and John, though they had been prefer-
red by the Lord, did not contend for the honour, but chose
James the Just for bishop of Jerusalem." And again: "The
Lord imparted the gift of knowledge to James the Just, and to
John, and Peter, after his resurrection." The passage relating
to the miraculous call of Paul to the Apostleship, does not con-
* Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 1. i. c. 12.
1 Potter, archbishop of Canterbury, has not thought this circum-
stance unworthy of remark. " Our Lord appeared to Peter after his re-
surrection, before the rest of the Apostles; and, before this, he sent the
message of his resurrection to him in particular." He relates the various
acts of Peter after the ascension of our Lord, and concludes thus : '* From
these and other examples which occur in the Scriptures, it is evident
that St Peter acted as Chief of the College of Apostles, and so he is con-
stantly described by the primitive writers of the Church, who call him
the Head, the President, the Prolocutor, the Chief, the Foreman of the
Apostles, with several other titles of distinction." — On Church Govern-
ment, pp. 72,74.
ACTS OF PETl.K. 143
tain a word lo warrant llie idea llial he was t!ie chief of ihe
Apostles, nor is tliere any semblance of proof that sucli was the
opinion of Eiisel)iiis. 'J'he admiration expressed by Clement,
that there was no contention among the lliree most favoured
Apostles of Christ about the iioiiour of being bisliop of Jerusa-
lem, does not surely suppose that bishopric lo be something
greater than their actual dignity as Apostles; but shows that
they were disinterested, and that they cared not to secure to
themselves a place which, at that early period of the Church,
had more attractions than any other. Peter might have assumed
that special bishopric, and made Jerusalem, what Rome after-
wards became, the seat of his authority : but he regarded not
his own convenience, but the will and glory of the Almighty.
In this chapter Eusebius mentions that Simon Magus was finally
detected by Peter, and sullered the just punishment of his per-
fidy. In the fourteenth chapter this is stated more at large,
and the Primary of Peter is plainly and broadly asserted.
Eusebius first slates that Simon Magus was confounded and
exposed in Judea by Peter the Apostle, and that having ihence
proceeded to Rome, " the all-bountiful and kind providence that
watches over all things, led to Rome, as against such a pest of
life, the strongest and greatest of the Apostles, Peter, who, by
reason of his virtue was the leader of all the rest."* You
find fault with the version of this passage given by Valesius,
and you trarislate it : *' Peter, the powerful and great Apostle,
who, on account of his ability, was the advocate of all the rest."
Not to embarrass the general reader with a critical disquisition,
I refer lo the nolet for the justification of ihe received version,
» ^uttiyA^'ot ftoti <;>iXAi^^afr6TxTH tu* oXflr» TrfnnoL rir xct^ritir
««l f*iy*r rmf «Tos-ixa»r, rsr s'^itnc <ri«a Ta»r xeiTor» i,rcirrttf frjeii.
yo^it H«T{e», •▼/ rtif pm/u»it m: tri t*>./ji«tc» yu/utanot 0i)i ^ti^otyoLy^i-
Euscb. Hint. Keel. 1. ii. 11.
t I am sorry to find that lJisln>|) lIopkiiiH clmrgfs Valesius with un-
faithfulness in his translation, U'causf he liaii given the 8UiK»rlalive most
poicerful and greatest, and called IVter Prince and Patron of the Apo«-
lies, rather tlian their advocate. Every Greek scholar will perceive that
the bishoj), and not Vnleitius, is mistaken. Adjectives in tlie positive
form, followed by a genitive plural, sometimes convey a sujierlatire
144 EUSEBIUS.
and merely observe, tliat the text contains a comparison which
your translation conceals, — ascribes to the virtue of Peter what
you attribute to his ability, and represents him as a leader.
You gather from it only *' the primacy which an advocate
possesses by his skill in pleading a cause for his clients," as if
fluency of speech, tact, and other natural qualifications, gained
for him a certain precedency of place, whilst the Scripture
ascribes an authoritative Primacy to his faith and love.
It is needless to copy out the passage which you have quoted
from the next chapter of Eusebius, in which he relates the great
success of the preaching of Peter at Rome, and the occasion
which was thereby presented to Mark to write his Gospel, in
order to satisfy the ardent wishes of the faithful : or the twenty-
fifth chapter, in which the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is
narrated, reference being also made to it in the first chapter of
the third book. As we are agreed on these facts, the reader
maybe spared their repetition. You observe that the authority
of Peter over the other Apostles is not stated ; but it was already
mentioned in the passage which we have examined, of the four-
teenth chapter of the preceding book, and no occasion was fur-
ther offered to the historian to make mention of it. History is
written to record facts, rather than to set forth or define the spe-
cial powers of the various prelates of the Church.
From the narrative of Eusebius, that " after the martyrdom of
Paul and Peter, Linus was the first who received the Episco-
pate of the Church of the Romans," as is stated in the second
and fourth chapters, you conclude that Peter was not himself
Bishop of Rome. We must then say that it had no Bishop
in the lifetime of the Apostles, and that Peter governed it with
the plenitude of Apostolic authority. But the object of the
historian is to show the succession of those who followed Peter,
sense. cT/i Qiuav means 'svpremc goddess .' Slot. yuvAix.o'v, Hhe most excel-
lent of women.' Iliad, pa.ss\m. ^cttfxovu ^uvm. 0! most excellent guest,
Odyss. xiv. 448. Patronus corresponds to tt^ck^-c^oc. It means some-
times * one who pleads a cause,' but in this sense it could scarcely be ap-
plied to Peter, as the Apostles needed no defender. In adding " Prin-
ceps," Valesius only meant to develope the meaning more accuratelj'^,
and used a word applied by all the Fathers to Peter.
ROMAN IllSllOP SUCCESSOR OF PETIiR. 145
whicli presupposes the exercise of Episcopal aulliorily bv Inin
to whom all olliers succeed. He does not, ihereforc, poinl oul
Linus as the first who governed the Homan Church, but •' as
the first after Peter," as he expressly says,* and all anli(iuiiv
designates that See " the Chair of Peter."
In recording the names of the bishops who occupied tlie
various Sees, Eusebius does not appear to you to make any
distinction between the bishops wliose succession he records.
Thus you say •'in Book iv., ch. 4, he gives us an account of
what the title to the chapter calls the bishops of Alexandria
and Rome under the same emperor." 'J'he inversion of order
in your version is here somew hat singular, since the title speaks
of Home and Alexandria: nor is this ijie only instance of this
character. Eusebius generally observes this precedency, as in
the passage which you have partly quoted : ** In the third year
of the reign of Hadrian, Alexander, Bishop of the Romans,
dies, having terminated llie tenth year of his administration,
and was succeeded by Xystus. About the same time Justus
succeeds Primus, who was in the twelfth year of his presidency
over the parish of the Alexandrines."! There is, surely, some
distinction in ilie order and in tlie expressions, and though I
am not anxious to give importance to either, whilst more conclu-
sive evidences abound, I cannot but remind you of them, when
you assert so confidently the total absence of all distinction.
You censure Valesius for rendering in some places the "Epis-
copate" by tlie classical term of Pontificate, though long before
the days of Eusebius, the Bishop of Rome was styled by Ter-
tuUian, — sarcastically indeed, but yet with reference to his ac-
knowledged power, — tlie Sovereign Pontifi'.
If nothing, then, be said, as you observe, of the Apostolic See,
it is nevertheless distinctly stated that Elcutherus, the twelfth
in succession from the Apostles, received the Episcopate. | If
fl-piTi^sr KKP^ei^'tK /i/jiAfcTc/i. Kiis«-l). 1. iii. c. 4.
t KuHcb. Hist , 1. iv. c. 1
t Eus. 1. iv. c. 1. Hi«t. Ecc.
146 EUSEBIUS.
' the chair of Peter,' ' the Chief See,' ' the mother and root of all
churches,' be not mentioned by the historian, it is sufficient for
us to know that all these terms were applied to the Roman Church
by St Cyprian, nearly eighty years before Eusebius wrote his
history. What you allege on his authority, that the very chair
on which James the bishop of Jerusalem sat, was preserved
with reverence down to his time,* proves how natural and how
ancient is the veneration of relics, or memorials of the departed
just: but it proves nothing against the Apostolic authority of
Peter and his successors, and I know not how its introduction
here can illustrate the point in dispute.
In regard to the controversy concerning the paschal observ-
ance, as I have already treated of it elsewhere, I feel that it
would be abusing the reader's patience to re-open its examina-
tion. The facts related by Eusebius fully harmonize with our
principles. Local synods were convoked, but that of Rome
carried with it greater weight than all others. Victor directs
Polycrates to assemble his fellow bishops, and endeavour to
induce them to conform to the general usage of the Church.
Polycrates obeys: but all remonstrate. Victor, finding that
persuasion and all conciliatory measures fail, resolves on the
severest exercise of his authority. Some deem this harshness,
and write with bitterness against it, whilst Irenseus respect-
fuUyt remonstrates ; and the Pontiff relents, and tolerates what
he cannot now remedy, without severing from the Church many
of its valuable members.
Of the points you have marked as hostile to our claims, the
first is the convocation of these local councils without any direc-
tion from the Bishop of Rome : yet you tell us immediately
after, that "Victor, the Bishop of Rome, takes upon him to
request Polycrates, bishop of Samos, to summon a council and
concur with the decision of the Western churches ; threatening
him, too, as it seems by Polycrates's answer, with the conse-
quences of refusal." A request, accompanied by a threat, you
* Eus. 1. vii. c. 19.
t ngoo-«x6vT»f. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 1. 5. c. 24.
VICTOR s i»u\vi:k admit ikd. 147
will allow, very mucli resembles a commaiul, and ii stems iliat
Polycraies, far from disregardincr ihe threat, summoned the
rouncil, althouf^h he sent a slron^^ remonstrance in vindiration
of the pratiiee of tlie Eastern churches. As to the oilier synods,
it matters little for our point whether they were called together
!)y order of Victor, or whether they assembled in virtue of a
summons iVom the local prelate of highest rank. 'J'o this day
provincial councils can be held without any special leave or
»)rder from the Bishop of Rome. You slate that Euscbius con-
lieiuns Victor. 1 have, again and again, perused his narrative
without being able to find ihe proof of your assertion. He re-
lates the nuirmurs and remonstrances of several bishops against
the threatened measure, who, as you rather ambiguously trans-
late, "pressed upon him with great severity."* The whole
narrative shows that the historian regarded the obstinacy of
the Asiatics as unjustifiable, though he may have inclined to
the sentiment of those who thought the severity of Victor pre-
cipitalc.t
Eusebius's narrative of the controversy concerning baptism,
shows that he considered Cyprian m error as innovating on
ancient usage, and Stephen right in opposing the change. 'I'he
great displeasure which, as he informs us, Stephen felt;}: at the
attempt of Cyprian to introduce a new practice, surely indicates
the feeling of a Superior who watehed over the integrity of
faith, and the maintenance of tradition unchanged throughout
T* Bi»Tc{:c. The verb here used means invariably in Honior t«> address
courteously. Some later writers use it to express invective. See Dain-
uiii Lexicon Ilomericum.
t Archbishop Potter speaks of the act of Victor as unjust, but add.s
" however, it is a good evidence that excommunication was used at this
time in the Church," — On Cliurch Gorrrnmcni, p. 'XV). lie might have
said with equal truth, that it is good evidence that the Roman JJishop
claimed and exercised power over the bishops of Asia, and that these
claims were nut called in question, though the exercise of the power
was complained of.
\ Eus. Hist, 1. vii. c. 3. Eiri roi/TOt Jtr-)xtaxrti-
148 EUSEBIUS.
the whole Church. The letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to
Pope Xystus, of which the historian gives an extract, shows
the measures which Stephen had threatened to adopt against
the Asiatic prelates who presumed to rebaptize, but does not at
all present these measures as acts of usurped authority. On
the contrary, he states that, as it was reported to him that in
very great synods the practice of rebaptizing had been sanc-
tioned, he had written to Stepiien in terms of earnest entreaty.*
How all this is "totally irreconcilable with our doctrine of
supremacy," you may have perceived, but certainly have not
informed us. We see in it strong evidence that the Bishop of
Rome exercised at that time the same power which his success-
or now claims, and though some clung with fond attachment
to usages which he condemned, they did not question the au-
thority of his office. They remonstrated and entreated, and in
some instances proved refractory, always alleging that the cir-
cumstances did not call for the measures which were urged on
them.
The history of the council of Antioch, as related by Euse-
biuSjt appears to you inconsistent with our doctrine on the
Primacy of the Roman Bishop, because the heresy of Paul of
Samosata, bishop of Antioch, was condemned in that council,
he himself deposed, and Domnus substituted in his place, with-
out any intervention of the Bishop of Rome. Give me leave
to observe again, that a wide distinction exists between the
Primacy itself, which is of divine institution, and the exercise
of rights that may emanate from it, which may be regulated by
special arrangements and enactments suited to the diversity of
times and places. 'J'he causes of f^iith are, according to the
present discipline of the Church, reserved to the Holy See and
(Ecumenical Councils ; but before the introduction of this dis-
cipline, they were often examined in councils, provincial, na-
tional, or of a more ample, though not general character. The
decisions were transmitted, however, to the successor of St
* Eus. Hist , 1. vii. c. 3. Utp) tovtocv tlum TTdLvrctv Siojuivoc-
t Euseb. 1. vii.c.27. Hist. Eccl.
ACTS OF COUNCILS SENT TO UOMK. 149
Peter, and comiiuinicaletl likewise to the prelates of tlie Uni-
versal Church, liiat by llie confirmation of Ilini uiiose privi-
lege it is to confirm his brethren in faith, and the concurrence
of iiis colleagues, tliey might be regarded as the authentic
judgment of the whole Episcopal College. Hence, the coun-
(!il of Antioch directed the report of their proceedings in the
first instance to Uionysius, Bishop of Rome, next to Maximus?
of Alexandria, and then to all their colleagues, and the whole
Catholic Church. 'J'his was done with one accord, by unani-
mous determination,* to give the last seal to the decision, and
it was only when the approbation of liome was received, that
the cause was considered as terminated. t
The deposition of the heretical bishop, and the substitution
of another by tiie council, were in accordance with the disci-
pline of that age. As long as they were not reserved to the
Chief Pastor himself, these acts could be done by the local tri-
bunal formed by the bishops of tiie province, with their metro-
politan at their liead, or a greater assembly of bishops with a
higher presiding prelate. 'I'o save the Episcopal character and
dit'nity from being sacrificed to individual partialities and local
prejudices, both are now referred to the iJi>hoj) and Fatiier of
bisliops. Your reasoning, then, on the proceedings of the
council falls to the ground, when the diversity of disciplinary
regulations in various ages is attended to. These proceedings
were right, and perfectly in harmony with the Primacy ; but at
this day, the course would be somewhat dilfcrent, because
modified by posterior Ecclesiastical legislation. I need not
tell you, tiiat in republics and empires, the exercise of ijic pre-
rogatives of j)ublic functionaries, even of the iiighest order, may
wisely vary in cijuformity witli positive enactments or regula-
tions suited to circumstances.
The high rank of the Bisliop of Kouic in the Church of
IK xwrirr ytci/unc, cx cotnintini sciitentiu. liisiiop Hopkins's ver-
sion iias ' by comnion consent' in italics, an if to insinuati' that it was a
matter of courtosy and choice, rather than a duty whicli they jmljjed it
necessary lofultil. The force of the (Ireek text is, by unanimous dccrtr.
t Augustin, Serin. 132, dc vcrhis Apcst. c 10.
1 50 EDSEBIUS.
Christ, is not only apparent from the mention of his name at
the commencement of the epistle of the council, but also from
the fact that the pagan emperor, Aurelian, left the decision of
the right of property or occupancy of the Church, from which
Paul of Samosata was driven, to him, at least virtually, by or-
dering the building to be given up to those to whom the bishops
of Italy and the Bishop of Rome should write.* The special
mention of the Roman Bishop shows his pre-eminence, and
the mention of the bishops of Italy in conjunction with him
was, because they were known to be in his communion. Nei-
ther he, nor they, could have been regarded in the affairs of
the Eastern church, had no special Ecclesiastical power been
vested in either. It is manifest that they could not claim it:
and consequently it must be his prerogative.
The letters of Constantine, which Eusebius has preserved,
are referred to in the next place, for evidence against the Pri-
macy of the Roman Bishop. To form a more correct judg-
ment of them, it is necessary that we should explain the occa-
sion on which they were written. Early in the fourth century,
the disappointed ambition of some individuals gave rise to the
schism of the Donalists, who both assailed the character, and
called in question the lawfulness of the election and ordination of
Cecilian, bishop of Carthage, and endeavoured to intrude Majori-
nus in his stead. They accused him of having been ordained
by, and continuing in communion with, bishops guilty of de-
livering over the Divine Scriptures to the pagans in the time of
persecution. The schismatics applied to Anulinus, proconsul
of Africa, and, through him, to the emperor Constantine, beg-
ging that the facts of the case might be investigated, and that
the judges might be chosen from Gaul, where the emperor then
was. Constantine, on reading their petition, observed : '♦ You
ask of me a trial in the world, when I myself await the judg-
ment of Christ."t However, he deemed it expedient to yield
to their request, and therefore appointed three French bishops
to assist at the trial, but referred the examination of the cause
* Euseb. 1. vii. c. 30. t Optat. Milev. I. 1, n. 23.
J r Dr. mi: NT of miilciiiadks. If)!
to Miliiatles, llie Tisliop of liomr, llial "before him, as also
before Klieticius, M iteriius and Marinus his colleagues, Cecilian
niijjhl be Jioard, as was most conformable lo the divine law."
On this occasion he addressed a lelier, whose inscription now
reads: " Constantine Augustus to Miltiades, Bishop of Rome,
and to .Marcus."* ♦' Here it is evident (you observe) that the
Hisliop of Home is not addressed as a man who already held
the othce of appellant judge over the whole Church, but con-
jointly with Marcus, and merely as an equal among his col-
leagues." To me, this is not, by any means, evident. On the
contrary, Constantine having already expressed his astonish-
ment, that his authority should be at all appealed to in a cause
of this nature, and havirng referred the matter lo Miltiades, con-
trary to the wishes of the Donatists, but " as was most con-
formable to the divine law," yielded only so far to their request
as to name three French bishops.t who would concur with the
PontitTin the hearing of the cause. He knew, therefore, that
of divine right it appertained lo this tribunal. The appoint-
ment of these bishops, as associate judges, was a measure of
prudence, directed to conciliate the Donatists, and to dispose
iliem for receiving the decision with submission ; but neither
was it intended nor calculated to reduce the PontifT to a state
of equality with his colleagues, in which he might be forced to
yield to their votes. With the same view of making the ex-
amination with the greatest solemnity, Melcl)iadest called to his
aid fifteen Italian bishops, so that the trial took |)lace in the
presence of nineteen bishops, over whom Melchiades presided.
Hence the judgment passed on this occasion is styled by St
Auguslin in many parts of his works ♦* the judgment of Mel-
(•hiade8."§ It is plain, therefore, that he was not as an equal
among his colleagues, and that he did not act by the mere de-
legation of the emperor; for what delegate judge, to whom as-
• Euncb. I lift. Eccl. 1. X. c f).
t MatiTnuH of Colognr, Ihrn rnij»idrrr(l ai part of tho Gtiiils, Rhrti-
ciua of Autun, and MarinuH of Arl<n Thry arc inaccurately called
" bishops of Italy" by Bishop Hopkins
t The name is variously written.
^ Brevic. CoUat. dici. 3. c. ]S. c. 2<>, " in judicio Melchiadis "
152 EUSEBIUS.
sociates had been given to control and guard his decision, would
dare call in a number of others, and place them on the judg-
ment-seat with those specially appointed ? As to Marcus,
named after Miltiades in the inscription, we know not who he
was, so that it is not easy to derive an argument from the ad-
dition of his name to that of the PontifT. * It is not strange that
the complaints of the Donatists were made to the emperor, and
not to the Pope ; for schismatics are wont to crouch to the civil
power, and to seek its favour and protection ; but Constantine
sufficiently declared, that the divine law had provided a differ-
ent tribunal.
The next letter of Constantine, quoted by you from Euse-
bius, is addressed to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse, and is a
summons to attend a council to be held at Aries, for the pur-
pose of terminating the schism for which the sentence of the
Roman Council under Melchiades had not proved an efficacious
remedy. You compare the address of this epistle " singly to
the bishop of Syracuse," witli that to Miltiades, the Roman
Bishop, and Marcus ; and without caring to ascertain by what
chance this name came there, or whom it designates, you say
that this letter was addressed to Miltiades and others. But
this surely is too trivial for a scholar. You remark that " the
peace of the Church had not been restored by the judgment of
the bishops of Italy, including the Bishop of Rome : but is it
any thing strange that schismatics should not acquiesce in
a sentence pronounced against them ? " How can it be ex-
pected,"— asks St Augustin, in reference to this very case, —
*' that a party with a bad cause should praise the judges by
whose sentence he was defeated ?"t The obstinacy of the
Donatists excited the indignation of the emperor himself, who,
on hearing of their appeal, exclaimed : " O raging and frantic
* See Baron. Ann. an. 313. Tom. III. p. 105, whoconjecturesthatitis
a mistake, and that an epithet of the Roman Bishop was originally there.
The learned lawyer Clinch thinks differently. See his work on Church
Government, p. 160. Note.
t Aug. Epist. WZ.
NKW TRIAL UNNECKSSARY. 158
audacity ! as is usual in ihe causes of llic CJenlilcs, il»cy have
Iodised an appeal !"* His solicitude, however, to restore peace
induced him to allow the cause to be re-opened at Aries in a
more numerous assembly, that the complaints mailc by the
Donatists of the partiality of the judges might lose all semblance
of truth. ♦' He granted," says St Augustin, *' thio new trial at
Aries, by other bishops, not because it was any longer neces-
sary, but yielding to their perversity, and desiring by every
means possible lo restrain their importunity. "t Tiie adoption
of iliis measure by the emperor, with these views and under
these circumstances, in a cause that more immediately regarded
persons than faith, is no proof that he did not recognise the
Primacy of the Holy See. His interference in the whole affair
was manifestly reluctant, and solely directed to procure peace,
by the adoption of every measure that might appear equitable
and just, even to the most refractory. In the letter to Chr'estus,
he expressly states that the discord should have censed, by the
willing assent of the parties, on the issuing of the juilgment.
This you understand of a voluntary agreement, though a deci-
sion surely iniplies the obligation of submission.
With your eulogies of Kusebius, whom you have placed
among the saints, 1 am not disposed to interfere, farther than to
remark that he is generally reputed to have been infected with
the heresy of Arius. But his history is a precious treasure of
antiquity, in which are preserved many docunu-nts that would
otherwise have been lost, and the memory of many facts thai
might otherwise be unknown. It is, nevertheless, liable to
many exceptions, though not as containing any thing irrecon-
fileablo with the Primacy of Peter and his successors in the
lioman See. 'i'he *' circumstantial evidence" which you
have thought that you discovered in it against this Primacy, is
j)urely imaginary. lOusebius, on the contrary, bears positive
evidence in its favour, by asserting that Pt'ier was the strong
' " () rnbida furoria audacia ! Sicut in causis igrrntiliutn fieri solct,
appcUntionrrn intrrpojiurrunt." S. Opt. Mil. 1. i. n. 524.
f S. Auj;. Kp. n.2.
154 EUSEBIUS.
and great one of the Apostles, tlie leader of the rest— that on
him, as on a rock, the Church was built — that he preached the
faith, successfully, at Rome, and sealed it by martyrdom — that
the succession of bishops was there continued — that to Rome
recourse was had in all the great controversies of the times —
and that its bishop issued his decrees to Asia, and to Africa,
equally as to the less distant provinces, and enforced them with
the highest exercise of Ecclesiastical power. These facts are
sufficient to convince us of the faith and practice of the Christian
world, during the ages which Eusebius has described, and
abundantly supply the absence of pompous phrases, or learned
dissertations on Pontifical prerogative.
The silence of the Council of Aries, in regard to the authori-
ty of the Holy See, will not surprise those who consider that
no controversy agitated the Church at that time, and that it is
not the practice of the Church to define undisputed doctrines.
It was enough to enforce the observance of the general practice of
the Church in regard to baptism administered by heretics, and
thus by the fact to sustain the exercise of Pontifical authority.
You conclude your fifteenth chapter with the observation,
that you " will not say that no honest mind, with these facts be-
fore it, can subscribe to our doctrine, because you cannot tell
to what extent an honest mind may be deluded." You will not,
of course, be ofl^ended, if I, for the same reason, abstain from
saying, that no honest mind, with the authorities of Scripture,
and of the early writers of the Church, and the facts of early
history before it, can reject the Primacy ; but when you add,
that our appeal to antiquity on this head presumes most strongly
on the ignorance of mankind, the confidence of your assertion
leaves me without expression. For its refutation, I need only
refer to the testimonies which you yourself have quoted,
LETTER XII.
GENERAL COUNCILS.
Rkjht Reverend Sir:
Your sixteenth chapter contains an exposition of our doc-
trine on General Councils, derived from our Douay Cate-
chism, and from our canon law, as you stale, on the autho-
rity of the canonist Gibert. I regret that, in an investiga-
tion of such importance, you have not had recourse to the foun-
tain, rather than to any channel through which its waters may
flow ; and that you should embarrass the controversy concern-
ing the Primacy, by discussions about its rightful prerogatives.
Christian union being so desirable, we should seek to ascertain
what is absolutely essential to our agreement in faith, and re-
serve other investigations, as of minor importance, to the happy
time in which we might mutually embrace each other as breth-
ren in Christ. Hut I am not disposed to be fiistidious, and 1
cheerfully assent to the statement of the Catechism that '* the
definitions of a General Council, approved by the Pope, are in-
fallible in matters of faith." The reasons and proofs adduced
by the author of a Catechism, or a writer on canon law, in sup-
port or exj)lanaii()n of this principle, are to be distinguished
from the doctrine itself. Willi (Jibcrt, I maintain, that it is
the rightful prerogative of the Chief Pastor of the Church,
to convoke the bishops of the (^'hri.siian world in General
Council; for there exists no oilier individual, Ecclesiasti-
cal or civil, whose summons all bishops throughout Christen-
dom are bound to respect. It is his right to preside; for in an
Ecclesiastical assembly, the highest dignitary of the Church
should surely occupy ihe first place. Its dcfinilions of fniih,
156 GENERAL COUNCILS.
made with his concurrence, are like those of the Apostolic
Council, the authentic manifestations of revealed truth, being
made by the authority of the Holy Ghost ; but they are distin-
guished from the Holy Scriptures, inasmuch as these latter were
written under the impulse and dictation of the Holy Spirit,
whilst the doctrinal definitions of councils suppose only a
peculiar assistance of the same divine Spirit, by which those
who compose them are preserved from error. The distinction
between doctrine and discipline, which you seem to treat ra-
ther lightly, must be constantly held in view : for the former,
being the revelation of God, who is one and unchangeable, must
never vary ; whilst the latter, being a matter of usage and posi-
tive enactment, is liable to change, at the discretion of the legis-
lative power by which it was enacted. You have not caught
the meaning of your author, when you represent him as
teaching that *' the decisions of General Councils on matters
of law are infallible !" " Circa jus^^ means, " on principle,"
or right, as distinguished from personal facts. The judgment
of the tribunals of the Church in regard to persons, is not in-
fallible, because it depends on human testimony, which may
deceive ; but the declaration of right, or principle, of what
is lawful or unlawful, according to the divine law, is made
with unerring authority.
The inferences which you draw from the principles of your
author are not correct. From the contUtions sj)ecified being
sufficient and ordinarily required to constitute a General Coun-
cil, it does not necessarily follow, that the absence of one or
other of them can in no way be supplied, and that no decrees
can attain the same authority, unless all the conditions have
been observed. For instance, it is the right of the Pope to
call the bishops together; but if they have come together at
the call of another, or by a spontaneous movement, and he ap-
prove of the convocation, and give his full concurrence to its
proceedings, the informality of the first measure cannot vitiate
the acts of the Council. In like manner it is his riglit to pre-
side, either in person, or by one or more specially delegated to
represent him : but if a Council were held in which he was
CONVOCATION or coiNc U.S. 157
not present or rc'[)rc'stMiled, of whose acis, however, wlieii com-
iminicated to liiin, he approved, — this ratilicalion would supply
the deficiency ; and the decrees iniglit be re<Tarded as the ex-
pression of ilie faiili of the Epiiscopal hody and its head — that
is, of the entire doctrinal tribunal (d' the Church. It may be
well to keep in mind these remarks wiien viewiuij the proceed-
ings of Councds hehl in a tj^real diversity of circumstances. In
approaching the examination, you anain implore our patience,
and urge us to perseverance in our incjuiries after truth ; vou
even pray for that sincere and candid spirit which is essential
to every lover of truiii. May your prayer have been heard !
I shall spare my readers the labour of examining your proofs
thai the Emperor Constantine summoned the Council of Nice,
by admitting the fact. I beg, however, to observe, that if that
ironvocaiion was made at the request of the PontifT, or if it was
acquiesced in by him, it could neither detract from its authority
as a General Council, nor disprove the right of convocation,
which ollicially belongs to the head of the Church. That it
was acquiesced in by Silvester, is beyond question ; and we
have higlj authority for believing that it was made at his ex-
press solicitation. Kutinus, an author of the fifth century, says,
that Constantine convoked the Council in compliance wilii the
wishes of the priests:* and in the sixth (Jeneral Council held
at Constantinople, Constantine and ISilvester are said to have
assembled the xNicene (-ouncil.t In the Council of Chalcedon,
held about one hundred and twenty-tive years after that of Nice,
the Legate of the Holy JSee insisted, successfully, on the exclu-
sion of Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, from the Council, be-
cause he had *• presumed and dared to celebrate a General Synod
without the authority of the Holy See, which never had been al-
lowed, never had becMi done. "4: Would tins have been affirmed
" " Turn illc, ex Sacerdotuin Rcntc'ntia,npud urbcm Nicasam Episcopalc
Concilium convocat." — KufVin. 1. 1. HIbI. KccI. c. 1.
t ** Constanlinus Hcinp<r Augusluii, cl SiIvcHtcr laudabihs, nm^r'iam
atquc insigneiu in Niciva iSynuduui congregabanl. " — Act. Ic:', in Serin.
Prosphonctico.
t "Quia prcDsumpsitjCl ausuicsl Synoduni Gcncralcm faccrc sineau-
O
158 GENERAL COUNCILS.
without contradiction, if tlie authority of that See had not
sanctioned the convocation of the very first Council? The
reasons why the formal summons was issued by Constanline
are sufficiently obvious. The lloman laws forbad all assem-
blies unless sanctioned by the emperor,* and the poverty of
most of the bishops would have kept them from the council,
had not the imperial munificence furnished them with the privi-
lege of conveyance at the expense of the state. t Hence Theo-
doret, relating the summoning of the bishops, says, that Con-
stantine autliorized them to use the public horses and beasts of
burthen, and ordered all things to be furnished necessary for
their journey. ±
In alkiding to this call, the emperor, addressing the bishops,
observed: "Being particularly desirous that a remed}' might
be found for existing dissentions, through my exertions and
diligence, I sent for you all without delay. And although, in-
deed, I rejoice exceedingly in beholding your assembly, yet 1
consider that I shall have accomplished my desires, § then espe-
cially, when I shall see all united in mind, and one peaceful
harmony prevailing among all, which it were becoming for
you, who are consecrated to God, to obtain for others like-
thoritate Sedis Apostolicae, quod nuinquam licuit, numquani factum est.'
Act. J , Cone. Chalc.
* Cod. Theod. tit. de episcopo et clericis. L. Conventicula.
t Hence the letters called " Tractoriaj." Vide Cod. L. xii. de cur.
pub. tit. 2, et tit. 3. evectiones. | Theodoret, Hist. 1. 1. c. 7.
§ Bishop Hopkins professes to cite from our own version, but he
mistakes " ex animi sententia," for the expression of the sentiments of
Constantine, whereas it means, " according to his desire,'^ as may be
seen in Cicero, and as is manifest from the text: totj «fi /uixtra. x.pivct
KOLT* lu-xjtz ifjt.u.vrov Trpa^iiv. The bishop's translation is: ^^ I think it
becomes me so to order matters by the expression of my sentiments .'' He
has been equally unlucky in his version of the latter part of the sentence :
" which {peaceful agreement), indeed, it is right for you, since you are
consecrated to God, and also for others to make the subject of earnest
prayer to the Deity." The text means what 1 have expressed above,
and the Latin version gives the same meaning . itv ^ fripois vfAoa
TrptTTOV ail iin 7rpi(r0iviiv t»c tcd Qiai x-ct^-itfa/uivovc See Euseb. 1. iii.
de Vita Constant, c. xii. et Col. Cone. Mansi, Tom. H. Col. GGl.
FAPAI. M'GATKS AT M( 1,. 1 j'J
wise." Voii Iraiislalii llu? tPXi, or vprsi(»n, in such a way lljal
llie coininoii reader iiiiglil suppose Conslanliiie hoped to eon-
troiil the bisliops by tlie expression of his seiiliinrius, which
was Au" from being the rase, since he showed the most marked
respect towards them, declinins^ to take his seat iiniil iliey had
requested him,* and then leavinir the presidents of the Council
at liberty to open the proccedinj^s.t
Vour introiluclioM here of the Council of Jerusalem, of which
we have already treated, calls simply f()r this remark, that,
allh(jui(h the Scripture does not state who convened it, il slates
that Peter was there, and spoke with authority and efTect.
Silvester, " Bishop of ancient Rome," was also at Nice, in the
person of his legates, his extreme old age having prevented his
personal attendance.! The assembly, therefore, though not
formally convened by his summons, had his sanction. You
triumph in the silence «jf the emperor, in his address, in regard
to Silvester; but it is enough that Eusebius and Thcodoret
specially marked the cause of absence. S It was not to be ex-
pected that the emperor shoidd introduce his name into the
address, which was directed to express the ardent desire which
he entertained of seeing all concordant in faith. The presence
of the legates of Silvester was a sufticient evidence to the
bisliops that he approved of the holding of the Council. Had
!''ustaihius, bishop of Anlioch, spoken in reply, as you con-
ceive, he had no ground for complaining of any omission, in-
consistent with the respect due to the Pontifical authority, nor
would courtesy have permitted it; but, the fact is, he addressed
the emperor, at the opening of the assembly, in a brief nianner,
thanking (loil for the triumph of (Christianity over paganism,
and exhorting the emperor to zeal for the faith. |i The emperor
then delivered his address.
The assembling of the bishops of all Christendom, at the
• •all of the first (Jhrislian emperor, was a matter of no (lilViculty.
" Euscb. 1. iii. de Vita Constantini, c. z
t lb. c. xiti. irtfUiiiu fir Xoysr toic t»c vuttJcu Tfi-.tJeuc
t Euseb. 1. iii. c. vii. Vita? Constantini.
§ Theodoret, I. i Hijit. c. vii. p. '21.
II Euseb. 1. iii. Vila* Constant, c. xi. Thcodtirct 1. i Hist c. vii. p. 85.
160 GENERAL COUNCILS.
because the empire was co-extensive with Cliristianity: but in
a different order of things, when rival and hostile potentates
divide the dominion of the ('hristian world, a General Council
would be impracticable, if it depended on the civil power.
Christ could not have left his Church dependant, in a matter of
such importance, on the contingency of the universal dominion
of one sovereign, or on the concurrence of many. He m.ust
have left in the Church itself a power which, amidst all tlie
vicissitudes of civil government, might be exercised. " The
Bishop of bishops" is the only one whose mandate can at all
times reach all, and gather together, " from the East and from
the West," those whom the Holy Ghost has placed to govern
the Church of God. The judicious Count Le Maistre ob-
serves, that " those who have ascribed this power to the tempo-
ral authority, have not paid attention to the strange paralogism
of which they were guilty. They suppose an universal and
even eternal monarchy : they always go back, without reflect-
ing on it, to the times in which all the mitres could be convoked
by a single sceptre, or by two."*
You say, on the authority of Gibert, that " the first Council
of Constantinople in their epistle to Theodosius, in which they
give him thanks, and render an account of what they had done,
declare that they had been summoned together at his command."
Yet '* the whole truth" required you to state that in their
synodical letter to Pope Damasus and the Roman synod, they
declare tliat they liad assembled at Constantinople in conse-
quence of letters addressed by him to the emperor to that
effect.t This shows us " the concord of the emperors in the
cause of piety, "| — Damasus and his colleagues, " calling them,
as his own members, to the synod at Rome, by means of the
letters of the most pious emperor, "§ that the Bishop of Rome
* Du Pape 1. i. c. iii.p. 24.
t ejc Tuv 7rif>ua-t ypa.ju/u.:iTaiv tuv Tretpa rue C/uiTipac tijuiothto? /utra
Tuv iv uuvxiHa atjvzSov, Trpo; rov ^ii<pihirat.TOV jisi7ih'iA ^ioSoaiov imr-
t VVV iV TM TXV OLVrOKpU-TOpatV TTipt TfV iU<r'i0UAV (TV fxtptuviu. .
§ MyMXf af oIkhu /AiKii TrpoTiK'i.KiiTdLT^i Six Toev T» ^iofihtTxra
PRESIUENtY OF COINCII.S. 101
and his collcagurs " nii<;l)t not rci^ni :il(>nc, hut the Eastern
bishops might reign with them."' The eon vocation of the
General Council of Ephcsus was made in like manner by
Theodosius the younger, but with the full assent of Pope Ce-
lestine, who, addressing the emperor, informs him that he would
be present by those whom he sent.t St Leo, addressing the
emperor Mareian, assures him that his zeal, which had led him
to convoke a synod, was highly acceptable ;l and the bisliops
of M.Tsia, writing to the emperor Leo, successor of iMarcian,
observe : " Many bishops assembled in the city of Chalcedon
by order of Leo, the Roman IJishop, who is truly the head of
i)ishops."§
These facts of history \c\iye untouched i\n' privilege wliicli we
claim for the Primacy, because the assent of the J^oiitill* is in
all cases manifest, at least, from the fact of his being repre-
sented in the council. You will, perhaps, not deny that the
emperor had no divine right to summon the bishojis to council,
and if you deny this right to the l*ontin\ you must suppose
that there is no authority left by Christ whereby these import-
ant and venerable assemblies can be efleclually convened. 'J'he
convocation of the Western Councils of an (JOcumcnical cha-
racter, having been confessedly made by the immediate autho-
rity of tlie Roman Hishop, confirms the reasoning whereby
this right is vindicated as the privilege of Jiis oflice.
'J'he i)residency of General Councils is another privilege
which our canonists claim for the Roman Pontiff. Osius, a
bishop of Cordova, a small town in Spain, is admitted to have
presided at Nice, but, on the authority of Gibert, } on assert
that there is no proof that he was there as the legate of the
Apostolic See. A fact o( this kind, however, is to be deter-
mined, not by the denial or assertion of any modern writer,
but on historical testimony, or, in its absence, on presumj)live
iiid circumstantial evidence. (Jelasius of ('yzicuuJ, an author
• fjii x*f*( i/uiatt fiiviKtCfHTt. Thcotl. Eccl. Ili.st. 1. v. c. ix.
f S. Cclest. Ep. ad Tlicod.
{ S. Leo, Ep ad Mareian Imp.
§ Cone. Chalc. Act. Col. Cone. Hard.
0»
162 GENERAL COUNCILS.
of the fifth century, expressly states, on the authority of Euse-
bius, " that the far-famed Osius himself, of Spain, ^VHO held the
PLACE OF Silvester, Bishop of the great Rome, together with
the Roman priests Vito and Vincentius, was present, with many
others, in that assembly."* Photiust refers to the same passage ;
and though it is not found in Eusebius at this day, men of great
critical judgment consider that the present reading warrants
thebelief that it originally existed in it, as quoted by Gelasius.
"From Spain itself," it now reads, "one of great renown,
with many others, was present in that assembly. "J No men-
tion being made of his name, we are warranted in suspecting
that it, with the other words cited by Gelasius, has disappeared
from the text. Socrates, the historian, mentions him first, in
conjunction with the priests Vitus and Vincentius, confessedly
Roman legates, and gives to the three precedency of the bishops
of Alexandria and Antioch, which they could not have obtain-
ed, unless as representatives of a Bishop superior to these pa-
triarchs.§ To suppose that the presidency was given to Osius
on account of his age, or personal merit, is to show little ac-
quaintance with the principle of order uniformly observed in
all the Councils of the Church. The dignity of the See, which
he occupies or represents, uniformly determines who shall pre-
side in these venerable assemblies, since, according to St Leo,
" although the merits of prelates be sometimes different, the
rights of their Sees continue unchanged. "||
Your observations on the Council of Constantinople, and its
subscriptions, might have been spared, had you adverted to the
acknowledged fact that it was an oriental council, which subse-
quently obtained a degree of authority equivalent to that of a
General Council, from the harmony of its decrees with that of
the Roman synod, ^ to which its decrees were forwarded, with
* Gelas. 1. 2. Hist. Cone. Nic. c. v.
t Photius Cod. 88. t Euseb. 1. 3, de Vita Constantini.
§ Socrates,!. 1. c 9.
II St Leo, cit. ab Hincmaro, Ep. ad Nicolauni, p. 520.
f See the letter of the oriental bishops to Pope Damasus. Theodoret,
1. 5, c. 9. Eccl. Hist.
CYRIL Di:rrri:n dv celestine. 103
a request to Pope Dainasus to adopt them. That the Bishop
of Rome was not tliere, either in person or by his repreeenla-
lives, is, llierefore, no proof against his right to presiile at a
council perfectly Gi^cunienical. " Tlic melancholy evidence of
fraud in the forgery of false subscriptions," on which yon dwell
so pathetically, might not appear (juile so just a suhject for
your strictures, had you rellecled in how many instances the
confusion of records, or the mistakes of copyists, may liave
produced the errors which you rather hastily ascribe to preme-
ditation and corrupt design. Ciiarily, which ihinkelh no evil,
would have reijuircd you to pause before you made a charge of
80 serious a character. Your alle^jalion is disproved by the fact
that no eflort is made to prove that Papal legates presided,
though the names of some who presided at the Council of
Chalcedon were by some mistake attached to one manuscript.
Catholic divines are wont to examine with the severest scrutiny
all the writings which have come down from the early ages of
the Ciiurch, and if they discover any reason to doubt of their
authority, they avow it without hesitation, although they do
not easily ascribe to malice what may have arisen from mistake.
That St Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, presided in the third
General Council, is a fact which you stale after Ciibcrt,
Whether this author suppresses a fact equally certain, that Si
Celesline, Hishop of Rome, had by a special letter commis-
sioned liim to exercise his authority and hold his place,* I am
unable to say, as his works are not wiiliin my reacli ; but fair
and honourable controversy certainly required that it should
have been noticed.
As to the second Council of Constantinople, wliich, like the
first, was not (Ecumenical in its origin, but obtained, sul)se-
quently, by the assent of the I'ontilT and of the Church, the
authority of an (Ecumenical Council, the absence of the Pon-
tiff, or his legates, is sufficiently accounted for. 'I'iie oriental
n/mirtp* TV r-i.iru JuSn^n it* i^urix ^Hfci/uttoc. Letter of Cel. lo Cyril,
c. xiii. Act. Cone. Eph. p. 3123. Coll. Hardouin, Tom 1
164 GENERAL COUNCILS.
bishops used every possible effort to induce Pope Vigilius, who
was then at Constantinople, to be present; but he, being appre-
hensive of a soiiism in the West, from tlie condemnation of the
works called the " three chapters," refused to attend. The
bishops there assembled deemed the scandal which the tolera-
tion of these works occasioned in the East greater than any evil
that might arise from their condemnation, and, after repeated
embassies to Vigilius, proceeded to hold the council without him.
They did not form a General Council, since the West was not in
any way represented : but they conceived that the condemnation
of these writings might take place in a council not absolutely
general, and they hoped ultimately to succeed, as they in fact
succeeded, in obtaining the assent and ratification of the Pontiff.
When you blazoned forth in capitals, that " the fathers of
THAT council DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE OUR DOCTRINE," yOU
must have been but little acquainted with its acts and proceed-
ings. In their letter to Vigilius, they thus loudly profess their
veneration for the Apostolic See : " We receive and embrace
the epistles of the prelates of the Apostolic See of Rome, as
well of the others, as of Leo, of holy memory, written con-
cerning the right faith, and the four councils, or any one of
them."* They pray him to grant that the matters may be exa-
mined— "Your holiness presiding over us."t Prudence
prescribed to him a different course, but he granted permission
that the council should be held. " Knowing your desire," says
he, " we grant your petition, that a canonical synod be held,
about the three chapters, concerning which dispute has arisen."!
The Fathers read this document at the opening of the council,
as their authority for proceeding: and yet you say that tliey
did not acknowledge our doctrine!
You do not notice the great Council of Chalcedon, held in
the year 451, in which the presiding officers are thus stated:
"Paschasinus and Lucentius, most reverend bishops, and Boni-
* Collut. i. p. G2. Col. Hard. Tom. III.
X T))f C/uiTipct; itTViaim riv tt'o^ov iyvaKoric, iVivtva-af^sv ha 7r«g/
LKCATllS AT CIIALC KDO.V. 105
lace, a most religious priest, holding the place of the most
holy ami most beloved of God, Leo, Archbishop of ancient
Rome."* From these and other similar preambles and facts, it
is evident that the right of presiding was most formally and so-
lemnly acknowledged to belong to the Bishop of Rome, by the
Fathers of the liflh synod ; that it was unquestionably exercised
in the fourth great Council of Chalcedon, and the third Gene-
ral Council of Ephesus, by the legates of the Apostolic See;
and that its exercise in the great Council of Nice is the only
satisfactory means of accounting for the presidency of Osius,
and rests on the best historical evidence that exists as to this
j)arlicular fact.
You are careful to remark, with (libert, that in the acts of
ijic sixth General Council, which is the tiiird of Constantino-
[)le, the emperor is said to have presided ; but I should suppose
lliat this canonist must have added something to qualify this
.-tatcmtnt, since the acts expressly and repeatedly place the
two priests and the deacon of the Roman Church at the head
of all the bishops, as " holding the place of the most blessed and
holy Archbishop of ancient Rome," and these legates subscribe
lirsl, ** as holding the place of the Universal Pope Agalho."t
It was also worthy of notice, that Constantine Pogonatus sub-
scribed after all the bishops, as having read and assented to the
decrees. The kind of presidency ascribed to the emperor can-
not be mistaken. He sat in a place of honour, surrounded by
his ollicers, who are mentioned on the occasion ; but the synod
consisted of the l)ishops, and the acts accordingly make the
distinction, and invariably place the Roman legates at their
head. The emperor sat to witness the deliberations of the Fa-
ihers, and to encourage them by his favour and protection; but
the representatives of the Chief Bishop were the presidents ol
the synod, who directed and sanctioned its proceedings. The
admission of the Fmprcss Irene to presiile at the eighth session
• Cone. Chal. Pam. J, p.Jvl. Toin. II. Hard. C'ol.
f Tc» T9W6» »wi)^mr AymJ^miot m /MdU<{i«»T«'T* mat 6<it«juiri«»( TaT«
iTiKtai: V»fAii(.
160 GENERAL COUNCILS.
of the scveiuh General Council, must at once determine the ex-
pression to signify the mere honorary distinction of place; for
the degradation of the Episcopal character was not then so
complete that bishops should recognise in a woman the Head
of the Church, and the fountain of Ecclesiastical authority. In
this way also the Emperor Basil presided in the eighth coun-
cil. If you turn to the records of tliese venerable assemblies, you
will find the authority of the Apostolic See marked on almost
every page, in characters not to be mistaken. The seventh
General Council, which is the second of Nice, was opened, —
" Peter, the most reverend Arch-Priest of the most holy
Church of Rome, of tlie holy Apostle Peter, and Peter, the
most reverend priest, monk and abbot of the monastery of St
Sabbas at Rome, holding the place of the Apostolic See of the
most holy Hadrian, Archbishop of ancient Rome ;"* — and its
definitions were subscribed to by them before all others.! When
their proceedings were drawing to a close, and the doctrinal
decrees had already been made, the empress and her son signi-
fied their wish that the Fathers should assemble in their pre-
sence, which led to an adjournment from Nice to Constantino-
ple. The most honourable place was occupied by her. She
did not, however, preside with authority, but as an humble
disciple of faith, she begged that the definition which had been
made might be read in the hearing of her and of all the faith-
ful.| The eighth General Council was opened, — " Donatus and
Stephen, bishops most beloved of God, and Marinus, holding
the place of Hadrian, tlie most holy and blessed Archbishop of
ancient Rome."§ The emperor was not present before the
sixth session, when he is said to have presided, being seated
on the right; but he is distinguished from the synod, which
consisted of the bishops, with the papal legates at their head.||
* Act. Cone. Tom. IV. p. 27. Hard. Col. Prima Actio.
t Ibid. p. 748. t Ibid. Cone. Hard. p. 483.
§ Ibid. Tom. V. p. 764.
II Ibid. P. 824. " Proesidente eodem piissimo et amico Christi im-
peratore in dextera parte magni nominis templi magnce ecclesiae : con-
veniente sancta ac universali synodo, id est Donato, etc.
WESTERN COl'NCILS. 107
The legates, as usual, subscribe before all others, as lioldint^
the place of the Sovereign Pontiff" and Universal Pope ;"^ but
they specially limit the confirmation of the decrees to such as
may be approved of by him : — " Usque ad voluntalem ejusdem
eximii pnesulis." 'I'hus there is satisfactory evidence that the
eight councils held in the East were convened, either at the re-
quest, or wiih the concurrence of the PontifTs, who presided by
liieir legates in the six which were G^^cumenical. The right to
convene and to preside was distinctly admitted to belong to the
Pontiff by the other two, which originally were not of the
same higii authority. 'J'he Western councils olTer tiie most
incontrovertible proofs of the same riglits, inasmucli as they
were all solemnly convened by the Popes, who presided in
most of them in person, in the rest by their legates. You
assert, that even in the West " there were some instances to-
tally subversive of our doctrine," and you make special refer-
ence to the Councils of Pisa and Basle; but you shoukl know
that both these councils are of a questionable character, and
that even in them the Primacy of the Roman Bishop was ex-
plicitly avowed. The Council of Pisa was convened by some
cardinals, at a time when there were tv.o claimants to the Pon-
tifical chair; a case wherein Gibert, with other canonists, as
you have stated, maintain the right of assembling without the
summons of the Poniifl'. The cardinals acted on that j)rinciple,
but at the same lime declared, in the most solemn icrms, the
divine institution and j)riviicges of the Primacy. "Our Lord
and Saviour Jesus (Jhrist, the Son of God," say they in their
letter to Gregory XII., " when about to ascend to his Father,
not to leave without a Shepherd the fiock redeemed by his blood,
laid the foundations of his militant Church principally on bless-
ed Peter; and in oriicr that he might distribute his gifts tiirough-
out the whole body from him, as from the head, and might
strengthen others in the Christian religion by the stability of
liis faith ; — tluit bv this one Head he might dcsijrnate one ori-
gin, and one Church, wliicli extends her branches through the
• Cone. Hard Tmi. V. p. 'J2t>.
.168 GENERAL COUNCILS.
entire world with abundant fertility ; that thereby lie might
show to the successors of blessed Peter, and to the flock of the
Lord, that there is one spouse of Christ, uncorrupt and chaste,
guarding chastity with chaste modesty."* The Council of
15asle was called by Pope Eugenius, and was opened under the
presidency of Cardinal Julian, legate of the Apostolic See.t
These councils, then, whatever may be thought of their au-
thority, and whatever disputes were excited in the latter about
the extent of Pontifical prerogative, afford no grounds for ques-
tioning the right of the Pope to convene general councils, and
to preside in them, either in person or by his legates. As you
are silent as to the confirmation of councils by the Pontiff, I
have not introduced it into this discussion, though it is a still
more splendid evidence of his spiritual supremacy. From the
East, as well as from the West, their decrees were sent to
Rome to receive the sanction of him whose office it is to con-
firm his brethren. " We pray you," say the Fathers of Chal-
cedon, in their synodical letter to Leo, " to honour our judg-
ment by your decrees, and as we have added the harmony of
our assent to our head in what is good, so may your Holiness
vouchsafe to supply to your children what is wanting. "J Privi-
leges of this high character, voluntarily admitted by the assem-
bled prelates of the whole Christian Church, in all ages, are no
equivocal evidences of the Primacy.
* Cone. Pisan. X. Litteras Cardinahum ad Gregorium, Tom. VIII.
Col. Hard. Col. 15G.
t Cone. Bas. lb. Col. 1106.
t Act. xvi. Cone Chale.
LETTER XIIL
NICENE CANONS.
Right Reverend Sir:
To determine the meaning of laws, it is doubtless of great
importance to ascertain the occasion of their enactment. You
charitably suppose that the attempts of the Bishop of Rome to
extend his authority to the Asiatic and African churches, led
the Fathers of Nice to enact the celebrated sixth canon, with a
view to prescribe limits to his ambition. " Let the ancient cus-
toms," says the council, " be kept, which are in Egypt,
Libya and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria may have
general power overall these, as this is the custom also with the
Bishop of Rome. In like manner, also, in Antioch and in the
other provinces, let the privileges, dignities, and authority of
the churches be preserved."* Were tlie object of the Fathers
to restrain Roman power, they should surely have made some
direct prohibition, as you yourself argue, in regard to the detini-
* Coll. Hard. p. 432. This canon, as recited at Chalcedon, is trans-
lated by Clinch: "Let the imnieniorial usages prevail, which exist in
Egypt; so that the bishop of Alexandria shall have general authority there,
because such is the usage with the Bishop in Roinc." iti//« kxi ra ^v
PufxM tTnaiio7r(» THTo crvYif^K trt. Clinch justly observes, that " from the
Greek it appears, Hrst, that no confirmation was given at Nicea to the
usage of the Church of Rome : that, on the contrary, the usage of Alex-
andria wa.s confirmed, because it had the authority of Roman usage. Se-
condly, it is equally plain, that no boundaries arc either marked, or al-
luded to, within which the Roman ijishnp exercised that general autlu.rity
which the Fatln^rs had in view." See Letters on Church (Government,
by James Rernard Clinch, Esq, Barrister at Law, p. 27\. Dultlin,
1812.
P
170 NICENE CANONS.
tion of the Council of Florence, and not limited themselves to
an incidental reference, which implies no restriction whatever.
On the contrary, the reference is expressly made in confirma-
tion of the usages and privileges of Alexandria, as conformable
to the usage of the Roman Bishop, without the least indication
of any undue exercise of authority by him.
The manifest object is to settle and maintain the rights of
the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch throughout the districts
immediately subject to them, as metropolitans, or as patriarchs,
according to a more modern appellation. Hence the canon
afterwards declares, that if any bishop be made without the
consent of his metropolitan, he is not a bishop. History has,
fortunately, recorded the true cause of this canon, which hap-
pens to be altogether different from that which you have ima-
gined. We are informed by St Alhanasius that Meletius, a
bishop of Egypt, having been deposed by St Peter of Alexan-
dria, formed a schism, and threw off* all dependence on the
bishop of that city. He even took on him to establish new
churches as Episcopal within his intended province.* In com-
manding then the ancient usages to be maintained, whereby
Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis were subjected to the bishop of
Alexandria, the Fathers indirectly proscribed these schismatics.!
Vv'hether the words or object of this canon be considered, your
inferences from it are unwarranted. You assert that it traces
the origin of the power of the Roman Bishop to custom : but
there is nothing in it to sustain this position. The Fathers
decreed nothing about Rome : they defined not the limits or the
origin of its authority; but they order the privileges of the
bishop of Alexandria to be maintainp,d, because it is customary
also with the Bishop of Rome. The sequel shows that it was
* Apol. 2. Athanas.
j Archbishop Potter admits that "this canon was enacted, upon a
complaint of Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, that the metropoliti-
cal rights of his See had been invaded by Meletius, the schismatical
bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, who had taken upon him to ordain bish-
ops without Alexander's consent."— Church Government, p. 188. See
also Theodoret, Hist., 1. 1, c. ix.
SIXTH NIC F.N E CANON. 171
l!»e invasion of imMi-oj)()liiic';il riglils by scl^^;m:l^!t• ordinations,
not any ag-^ression on llie nietropolilnns by ibe Konian Hi.shop,
thai was souglit lo be guarded against. You thence, liowever,
take occasion to argue against llie Prinnacy, because the ap-
pointment or confirmation of bisliops is one of the prerogatives
exerci?ed, at present, by the Holy 8ce ; but you make no al-
lowance for dilTerence of discipline adapted to diversity of cir-
cumstances. We freely admit that recourse was not then had
from the remote parts of tlie Cliurcii, — from the provinces sub-
ject to the patriarciis of Alexandria and Anliocii, — to the Bishop
of Rome for iiis confirmation of Episcopal appointments. Each
patriarcli exercised within iiis limits ample jurisdiction'' in all
tilings appertaining to the ordinary government and wants of
the Ciiurch. This system was adapted to the times, and had
the full sanction of the Holy See. Did these two great patri-
archates still continue in their ancient splendour, there is no
probability that any attempt would be made to innovate on this
ancient order of things : but tiie Mussulman has long since over-
turned the chairs of Antioch and Alexandria; and the bishop
of that See, which alone has been proof against all the powers
of hell, is urged by the solicitude for all the churches, to pro-
vide them with pastors in a way best suited lo their wants.
The mode of the appointment of bishops is one of those matters
of discipline which depend on positive legislation or concession,
and which can vary according to the wisdom of the Church.
The commencement of this sixth canon of Nice, as recited
in the Council of Ephesus, states that " the Roman Church
always had the Primacy." You take occasion, hence, to ex-
press your ''sorrow at being obliged to notice one of those
cases in which our writers have thought it expedient to make
authority when they could find none." It may assuage your
grief lo learn that the fraud is iiotciuite so certain as you fancy.
The authority of Quesnel, whom you seem to have taken for a
devoted C'atholic, is not sullicienl to convince us that this por-
tion or title of the canon is a forgery, and the surmises of the
* tutrix.
172 NICENE CANONS.
Jansenist, on this point, must be tested by an appeal to evi-
dence. In the fifteenth session of the great Council of Chal-
cedon, held in the year 451, a canon was passed^ giving to the
bishop of Constantinople the second place in the hierarchy, to
the prejudice of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch. In the
subsequent session, the legates complained of this enactment,
and read for the Fathers the special instructions which they
had received from Pope Leo, to maintain the order approved of
at Nice, and the dignity of the Apostolic See. By consent of
the council the subject was re-opened for discussion, and per-
mission given to read the documents that had reference to the
case. Paschasinus, one of the legates, commenced by reading
the sixth canon in these words : " The Church of Rome always
has had* the Primacy : but let Egypt observe that the bishop
of Alexandria should hold general power there, because such
is the usage of the Bishop of Rome, &c." If the assertion of
the Primacy of the Roman Church, publicly made in the council
by the legate, were unfounded, — if it was an addition to the ori-
ginal canon, surely the attempt would have met with instant
exposure and vehement reprobation. But, perhaps, it was sub-
sequently added to the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, with
a view to sustain the Primacy. Why did not the bold inter-
polator add it rather to the collection of Nicene canons ? Be-
sides, the Primacy was fully acknowledged in the council by
the judges, even whilst they persevered in the measure against
which the legates had contended. " We consider,*' say they,
" that the Primacy of all, and that the chief honour, according
to the canons, should be preserved to the most beloved of God,
Archbishop of ancient Rome."t There was, then, no need of
foisting the passage into the text of the sixth canon; and the
reference made by the judges to the canons is proof that their
authority had been alleged. The legates entered their protest
against the privileges granted to the bishop of Constantinople,
* i^i hahuit. Bishop Hopkins puts hahcat. Is this a different read-
ing, or an attempt to make it appear that the Primacy was, at most, only
by concession of the council? Act. 16, Cone. Chalc. Col, 637.
t Ibidem, Col. 641.
OBSOLETE CANONS. 173
until the Holy See should take such measures as might seem
necessary.
I do not wisli to dwell furliier on the authenticity of this
passage, as the proofs of the Primacy are otherwise unques-
tionable and abundant. It is enough to have shown that there
is strong ground to believe it to be authentic, and that there is
no shadow of reason for supposing it to have been added to the
text, from any wish or design to "make authority." As the
right of appeal, of which you speak in your note, on the autho-
rity of Quesnel, will probably occur in our progress, I shall
not notice, at present, the rash assertion of that writer, whose
opposition to the Apostolic See is easily intelligible, when we
recollect that one hundred and one Jansenistical propositions,
extracted from his works, were condemned by that authority
which lie insidiously laboured to undermine.
Let me now ask you, if the riglits and privileges of the Bishop
of Rome were to be determined by the words of the Nicene
canon, as it now reads, without that prefatory remark, would
it be possible to ascertain what they are ? If you were one of
a numerous assembly anxious to put a barrier against Roman
encroachments, would you content yourself with words so
vague and indefinite ? How then can you preteni^that such
was the view with which they were adopted ? You ask: " why
the Fathers did not put in some clause saving the rights and
privileges of the Apostolic See?" I answer that they did in
the terms recorded at Chalcedon. But, waiving this proof, I
maintain that, having specified no limits to its power, and left
wholly untouched its prerof^atives, they showed sufficiently
that its rights fiowed from a higher source than Ecclesiastical
legislation.
Your efforts to prove that whiUl wc claim infallible autho-
rity for the Nicene decrees, we do not ob^^erve them, will not
make much impression on those who understand the wide dif-
ference that exists between auihenlic declarations of revealed
truth, and laws appertaining to order and discipline. You hold,
I presume, as an oracle of the Holy Ghost, the decree of the
Apostolic Council, declaring the exemption of converted Gen-
174 NICENE CANONS.
tiles from the Mosaic observances; and yet, notM'ithstanding
the prohibition of eating blood which accompanied it, you
would scarcely scruple to violate the letter of the enactment.
The canon prescribing the holding of provincial councils
twice in each year, though a wise and salutary enactment for
that period, is no longer in force ; and our present discipline
limits the obligation to triennial councils. The severity of
public penance has vanished with the decay of Christian fer-
vour; but the Chief Bishop of the Church still exercises that
indulgence which the twelfth canon leaves to the discretion of
bishops in favour of the penitent. The discipline of not bend-
ing the knees on the Lord's day, and on the day of Pentecost,
is retained in regard to certain prayers performed at other
times on bended knees ; though the more solemn acts of hom-
age are now performed in that most humble posture. How
you could seriously bring such things forward to disprove the
infallibility of the Church, or the Primacy of the Pontiff, is to
me surprising, especially as you know and feel the difference
between doctrine and legislation.
You refer to the seventh canon, which confirms the ancient
custom of giving special honour to the bishop of Jerusalem,
without pipjudice to the rights of the metropolitan ; and you
observe : " Here, as in the other canon {the sixth), we see the
council referring to custom and ancient tradition, desirous to
prevent encroachment, and altogether silent with respect to
Rome." There was no occasion for reference to Rome in
legislating on the relation between an Eastern bishop and his
metropolitan. You could, with much greater plausibility, have
expressed surprise at the silence observed with regard to the
patriarch of Antioch, to whom the metropolitan bishop of
Caesarea, and the bishop of Jerusalem, were more immediately
subject. The omission of all reference to the Roman bishop,
is only remarkable whenever the general interests of religion,
specially committed to his guardianship, are at stake : but on
such occasions you find him a prominent character, preceding
all his colleagues in the measures for maintaining truth and or-
der, or adding to their decrees the weight of his high authority.
LETTER XIV.
ST ATHANASIUS.
Right Reverend Sir:
You assert " that the Fathers of tlie age in wliicli the Coun-
cil of Nice was held, did not attribute any infallibility to it,"
and, in proof of your assertion, you extract several passages
from the works of the celebrated champion of its faith, Athana-
sius. " He defends," you say, " the council by Scripture and tra-
dition, but never assumes the ground that its decisions were of
equal force with Scripture, and dictated by the Holy Spirit."
As there is some ambiguity in tliese last piirases, I should pre-
fer saying, — that its decisions were made under the guidance, and
willi tiie special assistance, of the Holy Spirit, 'i'o defend the
doctrines defined in a council by Scripture and tradition, is
quite conformable to our principles and practice, because we
claim for llie Churcli no right to invent doctrines, but to de-
liver them as they came down from the commencement. Wlieii
labouring to convince those who reject tlie Council of Trent,
and refuse assent to the proofs of its authority, we also are ac-
customed to show from Scripture and tradition the several doc-
trines which have been revealed ; nor do we urge solely, or
principally, the argument derived from Church authority. In
impugning the autliority of councils, 1 am surprised that you
should venture to appeal to a work of Athanasius, in which he
most expressly maintains the authority of the Nicene Council,
since in the very first passage which you have quoted, it is slated
that its adversaries were " condemned by all," and that their mur-
murs against its decrees resembled tiiosi; of the unbelieving Jews
Somewhat further on he says : " How is it possible, that they
176 ST ATHANASIUS.
should not be regarded as impious, if they even entertain the
thought of contradicting so great and so (Ecumenical a Council ?
Are they not to be esteemed as outlaws, if they blush not ma-
lignantly to assail those decrees justly passed against the Arian
heresy ?"" The truth of the dogma which the Fathers defined
is powerfully sustained by Athanasius, by numerous testimo-
nies of Scripture which prove the divinity of Christ; and the
adoption of the term " consubstantial," as expressive of this
dogma, is vindicated, because, although new, and not found in
the Scripture, the adoption of this term was rendered necessary
by the artifices of the Arians, who contrived to conceal their
heresy under other forms of speech more strictly scriptural.
" Therefore," says Athanasius, " the synod, having well weigh-
ed the matter, justly declared him to be consubstantial, with a
view to overtiirow the malice of the heretics, and to show that
he was difi'erent from creatures : and immediately after the
decree, subjoined : ' The Holy Catholic Church anathematizes
such as say that the Son of God came into existence, or was
created, or is cliangeable, or is any created work, or came forth
from a difi'erent substance.' "t T know not what stronger evi-
dence need be given, that the Fathers conceived themselves to
be the organ of the Catholic Church ; infallible in expounding
the Scripture and defining the doctrines of revelation, and that
Athanasius sustained them in asserting that infallible authority.
"In these words," he continues, " ^ that he is from the Father ,''
and '' tJiat heis consubstantiar the Fathers wished peremptorily
to eliminate the subtleties, that the Son was created, or made, or
was changeable, or did not exist before he was born in the flesh.
For whosoever entertains such sentiments, contradicts the sy-
nod : on the contrary, whosoever does not coincide in senti-
ment with Arius, ought necessarily know and think as the sy-
* *' Qui igitur fieri potest, ut non scelerati habendi siiit, si tanto et
tarn OEcunienico Concilio vel contradicere cogitent ? aut non pro legi-
rupis existlinandi, si malignis oculis non vereantur a decretis illis rite
contra Arianicani lia^resim factis obtrectarc !" S. Athanas. do. Syn. Nic.
p. 355. Edit. Basil, an. 15G4.
t Ibidem, p. 3G7.
NICENK SYMBOL. 177
nod."* Ashe proceeds, he establislies that the doctrine whicli
ihe council professed was that of the Fathers and iUuslrious
writers of llie preceding ages; and lie lljus addresses the Ari-
ans, with holy indignation, as modern Jews and disciples of
Caiphas : *' All detest you, except the devil, the author of
your revolt from Christ. He originally insinuated this impiety
into your hearts, and now moves you to censure the council of
the worldjt for no other reason than because in that council,
doctrines were not sanctioned favourable to your error, but
those which were delivered from the commencement by those
who themselves were eye witnesses, and ministers of the
Word. For the faith which is sanctioned by the writings and
decrees of the synod, is that of the whole Church." In this
style of defence is seen the most perfect harmony with our
doctrine and our practice, so that you could not have brought
forward a witness less likely to sustain you in the imaginary
*' contrast" you have laboured to establish. Why you stated,
so emphatically, from Athanasius, that the Fathers were con-
strained to express in clearer words the divine dogma, I can-
not conceive, except it were your intention to convey the idea,
that the words contain an argument against the infallibility of
the council, which, certainly, they do not. You are careful
to remind us, that the followers of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
not the Church historian of Ca?sarea, are spoken of by the saint,
when he inveighs against the Eusebians ; but sulVer me also to
remind you, that Eusebius of C^sarea is specially stated by
him to have rashly erred, and conibatted the true doctrine, to
which he afterwards gave a tardy and unwilling assent. :|:
In a letter concerning the councils which the Arians propos-
ed to hold at Kimini and Selcucia, Athanasius rejects the pro-
ject, because the Council of Nice had already determined the
controversy which it was their design to re-open ; and on the
authority of divine Scripture, and the constant faith of the
* P. :i4i7. Atli. (Je Syn. Nic.
f " Nunc vobis aullior est ut orbis Icrrarum concilium vituperetii."
P. 373.
\ S. Athanas. de isyn. Nic. p. 335.
178 ST ATIIAXASIUS.
Church, liad anathematized witli an irrevocable decree, the
heresy of Ariiis.* " When treating of faith" he observes, *' they
did not write: ' i7 appears to us:'' but, '■the Catholic Church
believes in this way^^ and immediately the confession of faith
was added, that they might show that it was not a new opinion,
but Apostolic doctrine ; and that what they wrote was not
their invention, but the teaching of the Aposdes. Now what
just cause have they {the Avians) for holding their synods ? If
any new heresy has arisen subsequent to that of Arius, let
them state what are the tenets, and who are the authors of the
sect ; but in the mean time, let them anathematize, in their
writings, all heresies prior to their council, and amongst the
rest, even the Arian sect, as the Fathers of Nice did ; so that
they may seem to have some plausible reason for their pro-
ceedings. But if such be not the case, and they can allege
nothing of the kind, but speak rather because they are infect-
ed with the Arian heresy, and having been condemned, change
their form daily ; what use, I pray, is there in councils, since
the Council of Nice is sufficient to prostrate the Arian and
other heresies, which it condemned in conformity with sound
faith ?t .... In vain, therefore, they run to and fro, pretending
that they are asking for councils on account of the faith, since
the Divine Scripture is more powerful than all. "J If you can
infer, from this passage, that this illustrious doctor did not be-
lieve in the infallible authority of the Council of Nice, your
powers of reasoning are of a different nature from those which
have fallen to my lot. He objects to any re-opening of the
cause on which that council had pronounced judgment, and
maintains that a preliminary measure to any new synod must
necessarily be, the pronouncing of anathema against the heresy
which it anathematized. In adding, that the Scripture is more
powerful than all, he speaks of it as expounded by the unerring
* Ea causa fuit cur universus orbis in concilium coiret, ut haeresis
quae suppullulaverat, anathemate perculeretur : quod et factum est. S.
Athanas. de Synod. Arimini et Seleuciae, p. 477.
f Quum Niccenum Concilium adversus Arianam coeterasque hsereses
satis valeat, quas per sanam fidem condemnavit." Ibid. X Ibid.
NICENE COUNCIL. 17U
aulliority of iliat cMumcil,' ami opposes it to the nianv discord-
aiU convenlicles wliicli the Arians held: *' I supjjo.scd," says
lie, writing to Epictcliis, bishop of Corinth, *' that the garrulity
of all heretics that ever existed, was silenced by the Council of
Nice: for the faith which there was delivered by tlie Fathers,
in accordance with the ISacred ^>criplures, and whieh was con-
firmed by their confessions, appeared to me well calculated and
sulliciently powerful to overthrow all impiety, and to establish
that piety and faith which are in Christ. For this reason, in the
different councils which were celebrated throughout Gaul, and
Spain, and at Rome, all who were in that assembly unanimous-
ly, and UNDER TliK IMPULSE OF THE ONE SPIRIT,t SlfUclv with
anathema tliose who shun liie light, who even at present con-
tinue to conceal themselves, and cherish the opinions of Arius,
namely, Auxentius of Mdan, Ursacius, Valens and Gains
of Pannonia, because these usurped for their conventicles the
names of synods, whereas no synod should be regarded in the
Catholic Church except that of Nice alone,| which should be
considered as the trophy of all heresies, and especially of that
of Arius : nor is this wonderful, since this synod was assem-
bled for the condemnation of that heresy particularly. "NVilh
what audacity, then, do liiey institute disputes and questions,
after the authority of so great a council ?§" Athanasius main-
tains, that there can be no synod in the Catholic Church but
that of Nice, — none, tiiat does not harmonize with it in faith,
as those of Gaul, Spain and Home, which issued anathemas
against its adversaries, being impelled by the same Spirit. lie
says elsewhere, that *♦ it is not lawful to seek any thing beyond
the definition of the Nicene Council. "i| " If they believed pro-
• *' Verbum antom illud Domini per CEcumcnicam Nicece Synoduni
in Kternum mane." Ad Kpiscopos in Africa, p. 520.
t Unius SpirituH incilalu." Ad Kpict. p. 73.
t " Quuri) nulla sit in Catlmlica Ikclcsia Synodus cxisliinanda prn'-
icr unicain Nico'natn, (\iiw. oinniiiin liuTcscon proflifjataruni, ac in j>ri-
niis AriantP trnphnMini lialx-nda est." Ibidem.
§ ** Q'la i^ritiir nudacia fit, ut post lanli concilii autoritatfin, discrp-
tationcs aut qun'stioncH inntituant r" — Ad Kpictctuni, pp. 7'A, 71.
II " Ncfa.s rst quicqiiain ultra Nica;num Concilium rcquirer« ." — Ad
Antiocli. r. '■7.
180 ST ATHANASIUS.
perly, they would be contented with the Nicene faith, promul-
gated by a council of the entire world."* Yet you say, that he
or the other Fathers of his age, did not attribute any infallibility
to it, and did not regard its decrees of faith as made under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit !
You conclude your chapter with an imaginary contrast be-
tween our doctrine and that of Athanasius. Allow me to show
its harmony. He maintains, that the Nicene Council's ex-
position of Scripture, and its declaration of Apostolic tradi-
tion, and of the faith of the Catholic Church, must be embra-
ced ; that its judgment must not be re-examined ; — that its ana-
themas must be repeated by all the children of faith ; — that
the very terms which it consecrates to express divine doc-
trines must be adopted, even though they be not found in
Scripture. All this we hold. We claim for an QEcumenical
Council this authority in matters of faith, and no more : and
we exhort you, as Athanasius exhorted those whom he ad-
dressed, to admit the same authority, and to admire tlie zeal of
every council, truly (Ecumenical, in the maintenance of divine
truth, and its diligence in unfolding the ancient tenets. t You
have some illustrious examples in your own communion.
The celebrated defender of the Nicene faith. Bishop Bull of
the English establishment, applied to the Council of Nice the
promise of Christ to be with the apostolic ministry till the
consummation of the world, and ascribed to its decisions all
the weight which we are called upon to recognise in them :
"If," says he, "in a question of so vast importance as this,
we can imagine that all tlie governors of the Church could fall
into error so prodigiously, and deceive the people under them,
how shall we be able to vindicate the veracity of our blessed
Lord, promising to be with his Apostles, and in them with their
successors to the end of the world ? A promise whicli could
not be true, seeing the Apostles were not to live so long, unless
their successors be here comprehended in the persons of the
* Contra Arianos oral. 1. p. 109.
t See end of letter de Syn. NicKn. p. 37G. £d. Bas.
ANGLICAN DIVINES. 181
Aposiles themselves :* — Saywell, anollier tiivine of the Cliuroli
of England, is still more explicit : '* We know well," says this
writer, *' that the Apostle foretold that heresies must come —
' men will arise speaking perverse things.' 'I'hat may happen
in many councils : but nothing of the kind can be said of
councils truly Ecumenical, received and approved of by the
Catholic Church. Nor is there any ground for objecting
Scripture, and the tradition of the Church, to the tradition of an
(Ecumenical Council, generally received and approved of, for
they teach the same, and harmoniously announce the Evangeli-
cal faiih : nor is the testimony of the pastors spread throughout
the world difl'erent from that which they give when gathered
together in councils tiiat are truly free. The same truth is
contained in traililion, and is contained in (Ecumenical (Coun-
cils.— If the meaning cf the Scripture and faith of tlie Church
is matter of controversy, the pastors, being enlightened for this
purpose by the illustration of the divine Spirit, bear testimony
to the doctrine which has been transmitted, and to its true
meaning."!
To return from this digression, naturally suggested by the
defence of the Xicene faith, for which Bishop liuU obtained sucli
deserved celebrity, it is certain that Athanasius was still more
unequivocal in his maintenance of the authority of the council.
His regard for the prerogatives of the Holy See will be seen
from his own statements of the efforts made against him at
Rome. He relates that a synod, which had assembled at
Alexandria, consisting of the bishops of Egypt, Thebais,
Lybia, and Pentapolis, addressed a letter to all the bishops of
the Catholic Church, to repel the calumnies with which he
was loaded. Towards the end of it tliey observe that the
Eusebians excited the Arians, though anathematized by the
whole (Jhurch, and that they were incessant in their efforts to
disseminate the heresy by every artifice. ♦• Tiiey cast the
Church into schism ; they write in commendation of the
• See Life of I)r John Uull, p. 2^0. Ed. Oxiord, \SUk
t Saywell in prcef. ad Edit. Epist. Launoii, Canlabrigin^, an. 1089.
Q
182 ST ATHANASIUS.
heresy, ami vituperate the Church, as you may discover from
their letter to the Bishop of the Romans, and perhaps to your-
selves."* Athanasius, who copies this letter into his Second
Apology, subjoins: — "The Egyptians, indeed, wrote thus to
all, and to the Roman Bishop Julius. Moreover, even the
Eusebians sent letters to Julius, and, in order to frighten us,
called for a synod, and referred the judgment of the causet to
Julius himself, should he be pleased to undertake it. "When,
therefore, we had reached Rome, Julius immediately wrote to
the Eusebians, by two of his priests, Elpidius and Philoxenus :
but they, when they had heard of our presence at Rome, were
greatly troubled, because, contrary to their expectation, I had
gone to Rome.t Having declined, therefore, to undertake the
journey, they devised sundry idle and vain pretences to excuse
themselves, whilst, in reality, they wexe kept back by great
fear, lest they should be convicted of the same crimes which
Valens and Ursacius had confessed. § Afterwards the priest,
Viton, brought more than fifty bishops to the council, where
our defence was admitted, and we were judged worthy of the
communion, and agape, !| and great indignation was felt against
the Eusebians, to whom they requested Julius to reply, as he
had received letters from them. Julius accordingly wrote, and
sent the letter by Count Gabianus."
You pause, after this quotation, to direct our attention to
some points which you conceive to be inconsistent with the
doctrine of the Primacy. The use of the Latin term ^' jusse-
* Apol. 2, p. 389.
t " Synodum jusserunt convocari, et ipsi Julio, si vellet, arbitrium
causae detulerunt." The sequel will sustain the translation.
X " Quod contra spem eorum me Roniam contulissem."
§ These heretical bishops had acknowledged their unjust persecution
of Athanasius, and sought from Julius reconciliation with the Church.
They say tliat they embrace the communion of Athanasius, encouraged
by the pardon which the Pope had vouchsafed to grant them for their
past unjust hostility : '' maxime quia tua in Deum pietas veniam,
secundum genuinam suam probitatem, nostro errori impertiri dignata
est." See the document recorded by Athanasius. Apol. 2, p. 413.
II The friendly ban(]uet of Christian community and charity.
RKFERENCE TO JILIL'S. 183
rimt,'' Nviiii'li you have iranslalcd " ordered," alVords the oc-
casion of your lirst remark, and the term ♦' arbitrium," ren-
dered by you *' arbitration," is llie subject also of observation.
" The Eusebians," you say, as giving the meaning of the text
of Athanasius, " sent letters to Julius, and in order to frighten
us, ordered a council to he called, and referred the arbitration
of the case to Julius himself if he was willing.''^ I shall not
trouble the reader with any literary disquisition on the force
of these terms, but refer him to the note ;* and merely rest on
tlie facts as attested by Athanasius, and by the early Church
historians, Theodore!, Socrates, and Sozomen. It is manifest
that the F^use'jians could give no order to Julius, who certainly
was not subject to their authority, and that they did not even
seriour^ly wish the council to be held. The facts are these:
Athanasius, in the year 33.5, whilst Conslunline was still alive,
had been condemned and deposed by a council in Tyre, at
which Flacillus, patriarch of Antioch, presided. Constantine
l)anished him, under the influence of the Eusebians, but towards
his death he relented, and his sons, after his demise, in com-
pliance with his wishes, permitted Athanasius to return. —
The Eusebians, mortified at his restoration, made every eftbrt
for his ruin, sent legates to Constance and Constans, and wrote
against him to Julius, the Roman Pontiflf. Without awaiting any
act of the emperors or PontifT, they held a council at Antioch
in 341, and regarding the restoration of Athanasius as irregu-
lar, chose Gregory of Cappadocia, an Arian, to be bishop of
Alexandria, and sent him with the prefect Philagrius, and a
military escort, to take possession of the Sec. They had pre-
viously sent Martirius and Ilesychius, two deacons, as depu-
ties to Rome, who meeting there the deputies of Athana-
sius, and failing to sustain the cliarges, found themselves un-
' "JuRserunt," somctimcH means "ordered," hut it admits great
latitude of signification: ** Dionysium veUm salvere jubeas ;" says
Cicero : which may be translated : •* Please present my compliments to
Dionysius." .■irlntriuvi , sometimes means supreme power : " Arl)ilriuni
urbis Romulus habot :' — Odd. '' Koinuhis has the government of lh<-
city.'" In the text, il means ^^ judgment."
184 ST ATHANASIUS.
der the necessity of calling for a trial,* in order not utterly to
abandon their cause. Julius accordingly called a council, in
order to have a full investigation. In the mean time Athana-
sius arrived at Rome, having fled from the violence of the in-
truder Gregory and his partisans. The Pontiff sent legates to
summon his accusers, and determined to institute inquiry into
the crimes which they, or their partisans, had committed, and
to punish them accordingly.t 'i'hey detained the messen-
gers, and in the end wrote an offensive letter, in which, how-
ever, they admitted " the pre-eminence of the Roman Church
as avowed by all, as having been from the commencement the
school of the Apostles and the metropolis of piety, "J but they
complained of the intended re-opening of the cause of Athana-
sius in a new council. Notwithstanding their opposition, Ju-
lius proceeded to examine the cause of Athanasius in a coun-
cil consisting of fifty prelates. The acts of the Council of
Tyre, and of the committee of bishops who were appointed to
examine the facts at Mareotis, where they were said to have
occurred, were submitted, and judged to be irregular and un-
just: and Athanasius was acquitted by the unanimous judg-
ment of the Pope and his colleagues. They requested Julius
to communicate by letter the result of their investigation, which
he accordingly did in the admirable letter which has been pre-
served by Athanasius, and which unites mild persuasion with
authoritative judgment.
Without cavilling on words, the complaint made by the Euse-
bians in their letter of the re-opening of the cause in a new
council, shows that they had not ordered, or seriously asked
* " Concilium indici postularunt, litterasque et ad Eusebianos, et
Athanasium Alexandriam, quibus convocarentur mitti, ut coram omni-
bus justo judicio de causa cognosci posset : turn enim se de Athanasio
probaturos esse, quod jam nequirent. — Epist. Julii, p. 391.
t " Certe fratres nostri Romae anno superiori infensi prioribus eorum
factis,quum nondum scelera ista accesserant, pro ultione sumenda con-
cilium indici, celebrariquevoluerunt."—S.Athanas. ad Orthodox. P. 338.
t <>«/>6/v ^tiv yiip 7ra.7i (^iKoToixidLV tvv pa/udieev ejtKA«(7/stK iv Toi{ ypot/u.-
f/.a.!riY, Ufxcxoycvv, &>? i7ro<^oKa)V (ppcvri^nptov, kxi »u(TiQti{i.i (JLnipovroKiy
*? ^?X^^ yfyivvufAivuv. Sozomen. 1. 3. Hist. Eccl. c. viii.
Jl'DGMENT OF JLLll .-. 185
lor a council, and that ihe demand made by llieir deputies was
the last subterfuge, when they liad failed to substanliale iheir
charges in the less solemn discussion with the deputies of Atha-
nasius.* It is for this reason tliat they expressed themselves
as willing to abide by the judgment of Julius, if lie should
please to undertake the investigation. They hoped that he
would not ; and when their olfer was accepted, those who had
sent them shrunk from the trial, and sought by every frivolous
pretence to excuse their default. No order then was given by
them for the holding of the council, and no order was given by
the council to Julius. It was tiis decision ; for to him the
cause had been referred, and consequently those whom he iiad
voluntarily associated with him in its cognizance, to give it a
character of greater equity and solemnity, could not give him
any command as to the procedure which he should adopt.
They might counsel and suggest, but they could not order. It
is spoken of as Jns judgment by ilie council subsequently held
at Sardica. You say, that the Arians " referred the cause to
the arbitrement of Julius, if he was willing," and offered to
make him " arbitrator." I pity the cause whose advocate is
obliged to avail himself of the ambiguity of a term or phrase.
It is expressly called a judgment by the council just referred
to, and it has all the qualities that constitute a real exercise of
judicial authority. Complaints had been lodged with Juliu*
against Athanasius, as with a judge and superior; and tlie ex-
ercise of his authority had been called for, before the alleged
proposal for an arbittation : afterwards, the cause proceeded
entirely against the will of the party in whose name the inves-
tigation had been demanded. This is manifestly the exercise
of a supreme and independent judicial power, not derived from
the voluntary act of the parties conrcrned. You assert that
Julius claims in his letter no superior rights, and pronounces
no official judgment. I beg you to observe, that he claims,
distinctly, the right of summoning all the parlies to his tri-
" Id cniin eoruin Icgati, quuni so vinci aiumadvcrlerent, i>ottuIa-
rnnt." — Athanas. a<l vitain sol. agento*. p. 440.
186 ST ATHANASIUS.
buiial. At the head of the accusers was Fiacillus, patriarch of
Antiocli: — the accused Athanasius was the patriarch of Al-
exandria, the highest dignitary after the Roman Bishop; and
yet all were embraced within the jurisdiction of the Pontiff.
As a proof of the innocence of Athanasius, Julius alleges
that he freely presented himself in Rome, and a year and a-
half awaited the arrival of his accusers. He adds, that " by
his presence, he put them all to shame, for he would not have
presented himself for trial, were he not confident of his in-
nocence, nor would he have spontaneously appeared, but call-
ed to trial by our letters, as we summoned you in writing."*
After this, can you doubt that the judgment was official, and
proceeded from a recognised tribunal? The details of the
proceedings, as given in that letter, are such as constitute a
trial. The accusations had been communicated in letters writ-
ten by Eusebius and his adherents against Athanasius ; the
crimes were stated for which he had been condemned at Tyre,
on the report made by a committee of bishops which sat at
Mareotis ; the records of that trial were presented by Marty-
rius and Hesychius on the part of the accusers ; the leading
accusers were absent by default; Athanasius was heard in his
defence ; a number of witnesses were examined, and the
sentence of acquittal was pronounced on the double ground of
irregularity in the proceedings, and falsehood in the accusa-
tions. At Mareotis the liberty of defence had been denied to
Athanasius, and he and his witnesses had been excluded,
whilst his accuser alone was heard : " This we know," says
the Pontiff, " not merely from his statement, but from the re-
cords of the acts brought by Martyrius and Hesychius ; for on
reading them, we found that Ischyras his accuser was present,
but that Macarius and Athanasius were not present, and that
the priests of Athanasius were not admitted, though they ear-
nestly demanded it. Dearly beloved, if indeed that trial were
* " Suaque prajsentia pudefecit omnec : non enim judicio stetisset,
nisi sui fiduciam habuisset, neque sponte, sed litteris nostris ad judicium
vocatus comparuisset, quemadmodum vos per litteras citavimus." — Julii,
Ep. apud. Athanas. Ap.2, p. 396.
JUDICIAL FORMS. 187
carried on \viili siiiccriiy, it was necessary llial not only ihe
accuser but the accused should be present."* You see, that
llie Pope had some idea of the regular forms of trial. He felt,
likewise, that in virtue of his ofllce, he could annul this irregu-
lar sentence, as he could, if Athanasius had been guilty, liave
condemned him. The merits of the case had been canvassed,
no less than the mode of proceeding. It was proved from the
very records of the former trial, that the chief accuser, Ischy-
ras, was convicted of perjury by his own witnesses. " Since,
then," says Julius, ♦' these things were brought forward, and
so many witnesses appeared in behalf of Athanasius, and he
made so just a defence — what was it becoming us to do? — Was
it not our duty to proceed according to the hZcclesiastical ca-
non ? Sliould we not therefore abstain from condemninsT the
man, and rather admit, and regard him as a bishop, as in truth
he is ?"t He complains severely of their proceedings whilst
the cause was pending before his tribunal — the Eusebians hav-
ing violently intruded Gregory into the See of Alexandria
without awaiting the decision : " For in the first place," con-
tinues the Pontiff, *' to speak candidly, it was not right that,
when we had issued letters for the celebration of a synod, any
one should anticipate the judgment of the synod." — lie also
intimates tiiat the Eusebians themselves would have been put
on trial, had they appeared ; and states distinctly, that accusa-
tions had been formally presented against them, and accuses
them of contumacy for neglecting to appear to stand their trial. J
I believe these extracts will satisfy most readers, that, at that
(;arly period of the Church, the Hishoj) of Home exercised real
jurisdiction in the most important causes, in whatever part of the
world the parties resided, or whatever rank they occupied in
• " Oportcbat auteni, dileclissinii, siquidem sincerilcr illud judicium
agcbatur,non »(»luin accusatorem, sed ct reuin pra'sentcm sisti." — I'. 31>1.
t ** An non quod Ecclesiaalici canonis est? hotnincinquc proinde non
condemnaremuB, sed potius rccipcreinua ?" — P. 305.
I " Alacrius a vobia el sine rccusalionc occurrendum fuit, nc qui
iiactenus infamia istorum sccleruni laborant, contumacia non conipa-
rendi in judicio, hbcllos contra sc dales, vidcantur rcfcllcre non potu-
isse. " — Ibid
188 ST ATIIAXASIUS.
the hierarchy. You acknowledge that the close of the letter
indicates some advancement towards the Primacy ; but had you
read the letter wiihout undue bias, you would have found the
exercise of that high authority marked in almost every line.
Julius, indeed, complains that the Ecclesiastical canon has been
violated ; but he speaks plainly, as the authoritative guardian
of the canons. To him, as such, and as the divinely constituted
ruler of the whole Church, not only Athanasius and Marcellus,
" but also many other bishops from Thrace, Caelosyria, Phoe-
nicia, Palestine,"* came complaining of the wrongs which
they had endured, and which had been inflicted on their re-
spective churches. The plea that the Eusebians offered for filling
the Sees of Athanasius and Marcellus, could not be put forward
to palliate the violence by which these were driven away from
their Sees. — "Suppose," says Julius, "that Athanasius and
Marcellus, as you write, were removed from their Sees ; — what
can you say of the others, who, as I have said, have come
hither from various places, both priests and bishops ? — for they
also affirm that they have been driven away, and that they have
suffered similar outrages. O! beloved. Ecclesiastical trials are
no longer conducted in conformity with the Gospel, but with a
view to exile or death. If, as you say, they were absolutely
guilty, the trial should have been carried on according to the
canon, and not in that way. You should have first written to
us all, that so what is just might be decreed by all. For they
who suffered these things were bishops, and not of an ordinary
Church, but of one which the Apostles themselves had by their
labour instructed in the faith. Why then have you neglected
to write to us any thing, especially concerning the city of Alex-
andria ? do you not know that it is the custom to write first to
us, that what is just may be hence determined? Wherefore,
if suspicion of that kind had fallen on the bishop tiiere, it should
have been reported to our Church. Now, after having done
as they pleased, without informing us at all, they wish us to
approve of their sentence of condemnation, in which we had
* P. 397.
ORDER OF rUOCEEDlNG. 189
no share. Such are nol llie ordinances of Paul — sucli is not
the teacliing of tlie Fathers — but lliis is arrogance and innova-
tion. I beseech you, liear me willingly : 1 write for the gene-
ral advantage. I intimate to you wliat we have learned from
the blessed Apostle Peter; nor would I write things which I
am persuaded you know already, had not the transactions filled
us with affliction." —
All this does not convince you tliat Julius exercised the pre-
rogatives of Chief IJishop. You observe, " here we see plainly
a claim set up for the Church of Rome, to be first informed of
what is amiss, that justice may be done:" but you add, that he
contemj)lales the action of a council ; — but of what council ? Is
it not of such of his colleagues as he might gather around him,
to aid him to form a just and equitable judgment ? Socrates, the
Greek historian, explaining this claim, says, that "the Eccle-
siastical canon forbids the churches to take any measures with-
out the sanction of the Roman IJishop.* *' This giving in-
formation to the Church of Rome is," you say, " put on the
score of custom, and not one word is to be found that looks like
a claim by divine right." Custom is, indeed, alleged; the
canons of the Church are likewise referred to ; but that custom
and those canons were conformable to the ordinances of l*aul,
and to the teaching of Peter, as the holy Pontill' is careful to
observe. *' There is here," you say, " no jiersonal authority
for Julius himself." It was to Julius liimself, " ./; Jio 2/;5i,"
the reference was made : the sanction of the Roman Bishop, ac-
cording to Socrates, was required. Wjien, then, Julius speaks
in the plural number, he modestly unites with himself his col-
leagues whom he was wont to associate with him in judgment.
Tiie splendid evidence of the Primacy, aflbrded by these
documents, is no wise affected by the sequel of the history of
Athanasius. You say that the Council of Rome and the letter
of Julius *♦ produced no result," because the Council of Sardica
was subsequently summoned by the emperors, Constantius and
" m inxxwy/ar/jiK na'rsrtc «iAH/'e»T6c, /uji Jtlr ^$1^^ -^rae/uny t« it/*'.
Kiirn pw/xifc Kxtoti^tit Tctc imnKtivUt. — Socrates, 1. 1. Eccl. HiBt. c. 17.
190 ST ATHANASIUS.
Coiistans, on the same case. But the circumstances must be
taken into consideration. Gregory, the intruded Arian, was in
actual possession of the See of Alexandria : the Eusebian fac-
tion were powerful at the court of Constantius, and used every
effort to prevent the execution of the decree of Julius. To
give it effect, it was necessary that the civil power should
concur, and that concurrence could not be hoped for, unless
Constantius were undeceived. It was with this view that
Julius urged the Catholic emperor Constans to prevail on
Constantius, his Arian brother, to hold a council of the Eastern
and Western bishops, that the facts of the case might be placed
in a true light, and Athanasius put in possession of his See.
Sozomen assures us of it,* and Socrates tells us that the Euse-
bians ascribed to Julius the holding of the Sardican Council.t
Athanasius tells us, "that it was summoned lest those who
had been wrongfully treated should suffer further injury, or the
aggressors should continue to inflict outrages. "±
In enumerating the bishops who assembled in this council,
you begin by Spain, although the inscription of the council
is : " The Sacred Synod through the grace of God assembled
at Sardica from Rome, Spain, Gaul," &c.§ As you pass from
the beginning to the end, observing, however, that mention was
made by the Fathers " of the fruitless effort of Julius and his
brethren in the Council of Rome" to terminate the troubles, it
may be allowed me to give the precise words that have reference
to it. The Fathers observe that the accusers of Athanasius,
though present at Sardica, " did not dare appear in the council
of the holy bishops : from which circumstance the justice of
the judgment of our brother and fellow bishop Julius most
clearly appeared, who passed sentence not with rashness, but
* Sozomen, 1. iii. Hist, c x.
i Socrates, 1. ii. Hist. c. xx.
t Athan. ad Solit. Vitam Agentes, p. 442.
§ Col. Cone. Hard. Tom. T. Col 65G. This would scarcely be worth
notice, did it not seem designedly done, as elsewhere the order observed
by Eusebius, " Rome and Alexandria," is reversed. These are trifles,
but look badly.
COUNCIL OF SARDICA. 191
after malme clclibcraiion." Here you peri'eive ilial ihe sen-
lencc is wholly allribuled to him, so that hence you may solve
for yourself those dilKcullies which you have found in expres-
sions that seem more directly to refer to the council in whicli
he presided. In tiie letter of the Fathers of tSardica, to the
Eg)'plian and African bishops, they mention the accusations
preferred to Julius, Bishop of the Roman Church, against
Athanasius, — liie letters written to him by bishops of various
places in his defence, — tlie summons issued to the Eusebians to
appear, and their shrinkiuo- Irom the trial: whence they infer
their guilt, — " because being summoned by our beloved fellow
minister Julius, they did not present themselves for trial."*
It is towards the end of this second letter that the j)assage is
found which you have quoted as the conclusion of the pre-
ceding one. Your inferences from these documents are totally
incorrect. The innocence of Athanasius was fully established
by the judgment of Julius ; but the violence of his enemies
was not subdued, and the intruder, who was sustained by the
civil power, was not ejected. Hence the Fathers of this
council, in their tirst letter, implore the emperors not to suffer
the public olFicers to pass sentence on clergymen, or to molest
the brethren, but to leave every one at liberty to follow the
Catholic and Apostolic faith, without being subject to the
violence of persecution, 'i'hey make known to him, likewise,
that Gregory, the intruder into the See of Alexandria, is de-
posed. These things may explain how matters were settled
at Sardica, if, indeed, the sentence of this venerable assembly
had put an end to the sufferings of Athanasius, but his own
writings give us melancholy proofs that heretical outrages
were not even then repressed. The mention of Osius, in the
first place, and then of Julius, by his priests, as subscribing the
letters, on which you lay some stress, is not satisfactory evidence
that Osius was not the chief legale of the Pontill*. Athanasius
has not given us the actual subscriptions, but the names of
those who subscribed, so that we do not know the peculiar
* *' Judicio non steterunt."
192 ST ATHANASIUS.
title which Osius assumed : but we do know, from all the
records of all councils, that the dignity of each See, rather than
individual merit, determined the place of each bishop in the
council, and the order of signatures. Tiie inscription of the
first letter states that the synod was gathered from Rome,
Spain, and Gaul, which is no small indication that the first
signers of the decrees were the representatives of Rome. The
great importance justly ascribed, by Catholics and by Arians,
to Osius, for his piety and zeal, could never make him, as bishop
of a petty diocess in Spain, rank, in an assembly of bishops,
above the other bishops of the Catholic world.
You have neglected to observe that the Fathers of this coun-
cil bore the most splendid testimony to the privileges of the
Primacy. Osius proposed, " If any bishop be condemned in
any cause, and thinks that his cause is good, and that a trial
should again take place, if it meet your approbation, let us
honour the memory of the holy Apostle Peter, and let those
who investigated the case write to the Roman Bishop, and if
he judge that a new trial be granted, let it be granted, and let
him appoint judges- But if he judge that the cause is such
that the proceedings should not be called in question, they shall
be confirmed. Is this the will of all ? The synod answered. It
is our will."* Gaudentius, a bishop, then proposed an amend-
ment, that should an appeal be lodged to Rome, no bishop should
be ordained in place of the deposed prelate: which was agreed
to. These canons were adopted by the council, and report was
made of the whole proceedings to Julius, the actual Bishop of
Rome, in a synodical letter, in which tiie Fathers say: "This
will seem to be excellent and most suitable, if the priests of
the Lord report to the head, that is, to the See of the Apostle
Peter, from the several provinces."!
* Sardic. Cone. Can. iv. Tom. I. Cone. Hard. Col. C40.
t " Hoc enim optimum et valde congruentissimum esse videbitur, si
ad caput, id est, ad Petri Apostoli sedem, de singulis quibusque provinciis
Domini referant Sacerdotes." Ep. Synod. Sardic. Apud. Hard. Col.
Cone. Tom. I. Col. C53.
DISHOl' OF THE CATHOLIC ( liriU II. IW
This council was lu kl a lew years nfler llial of Nice, Osius
being present at both. Koine is recognised by the Fathers as
the See of Peter, and the mode of proceeding in Ecclesiastical
causes is regulated with a marked deference to its Bishop. It
is acknowledged to be the head, and Julius is requested to ad-
monish by his letters all bishops not to communicate with
those whom the council had condemned. I leave you to reflect
whether your cause is served by reference to this venerable
assembly.
The ** few other little matters" which you notice in connex-
ion with Athanasius, might have been passed over without any
detriment to your cause. The term "Pope" applied by Con-
stantine to Athanasius, was given in ancient times to bishops
in general, as being *' Fathers" of the faithful ; but '• Pope of
the Universal Church" was an appellation given exclusively
to the Bishop of Rome, as early, at least, as tiie Council of
Chalcedon. We do not rely on an ambiguous term for the
Primacy, which we believe to have been divinely conferred on
Peter. Custom, so arbitrary in the use of titles, has, for many
ages, appropriated the term to the Father of Bishops ; but au-
thorities and facts prove that he has thereby gained no ac-
cession of prerogative.
The title of " bishop of the Catholic Church of Alexandria,"
given somewhere to Athanasius, is perfectly correct, but long
before, in the days of Cornelius and Cyprian, the Bisliop of
Rome was styled " Bishop of the Catholic Church."* It was
unnecessary to qualify it by the mention of the particular Church
of Rome, for thou<rh also truly styled Bishop of Rome, he, pos-
sessed authority tliroughout the whole Catholic (yhurch. 'i'he
same style is still retained in all the solemn acts of the Church,
and the addition of the term " Roman," in popular use, neither
limits nor changes the power of the Chief Bishop, or the eha-
* Cornt'lium Kpiscopun) yanctiHsiiiui- CaUiohcJL- Ecclcsia', Ep. 10,
inter Cypr. p. 107. Tom. III. Ed. Wirceb. The penitent schisinatics
were obliged to acknowledge Cornelius by this title, whicli, I btliive,iii
nowhere in antiquity applied to any one but th«' Roman liishops. All
other bishops rccoive it with the qnalifyin<; (lo«i«rnati<'ii of their >'••■.
R
194 ST ATHANASItS.
racier of the Churcli. Alhanasius was a Roman Catholic in
the same sense as any bishop in communion with the Apostolic
See at this day. High as was his station in the Church of God,
pure as was his faith, ardent his zeal, unblemished his virtue,
he did not refuse to stand at the tribunal of the successor of
Peter, and await with humility his sentence. In this he had
the example of those who had preceded him in the See of Alex-
andria, amongst whom he mentions Dionysius, who being ac-
cused to the Roman Pontiff of the same name, wrote to him to
repel the charge, and satisfy him as to his orthodoxy.*
You " find the terms in which Liberius and Rome are spoken
of rather inconsistent with our doctrine." I find them perfectly
consistent, and I thank you for directing attention to them.
Speaking of the Arian persecutors, Athanasius says : " In the
lirst place, they have not even spared Liberius, the Roman
Bishop, being restrained by no consideration either of its being
an Apostolic See, or of Rome being the metropolis of the Ro-
man dominion ; or that they themselves had styled him ' Apos-
tolic' in their writings, but confounding all things together,
they were equally forgetful of all, having no regard for any-
thing but impiety alone." Allow me to continue the quota-
tion : "For when he [Constantius) saw that Liberius was or-
thodox, and detested the Arian sect, and was eager to reclaim
all from that heresy, impious men thought within themselves :
If we succeed in gaining Liberius to our opinion, wo shall
shortly overcome all : they, therefore, propose the matter to
the emperor; and he, hoping through Liberius to be able to gain
all, sends to him a eunuch, of the name of Eusebius, with a
letter and gifts, to allure him with the gifts and threaten him
in the letter. The eunuch then having set out for Rome, first
* llomam ascenderunt, ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nomi-
nis Romanum pra^sulcm accusavei'unt." De Sent. Dionys. Alex. p.
345. Also de Syn. JNic. p. 371. Bishop Bull makes mention of "the
Roman synod held under their bishop Dionysius, in the cause of Dio-
nysius of Alexandria, who was accused by some of the Church of Penta-
polis, of denying the consubstantiality of the Son of God." — Discourse
IV. p. 189, vol. 2. Oxford Edit. 181G.
LIBERIUS. 1(J5
uracil Lihcrius lo subscribe agiiinst Albanasius, and comrnuni-
cale wiili ihe Ariaiis, because ibe emperor desired it and rom-
inaiuled il absolutely; then, poinlins^ lo ibe gifts, be continued
to persuade bim, and taking Liberius by ibe hand, addressed
him : Obey the king, and lake lliese gifts. 'J'lie Hisbop, in re-
ply, asked bini how could ibis be done against Albanasius .'
how shall we condemn (said he) a man whom not one, but two
synods, entirely acquitted of all guilt, and whom the Roman
Church dismissed in peace ? who would approve of our con-
duct, were we lo condemn in his absence a man whom we
treated with aflTection when present, and with whom we held
communion ? 'I'his is not the Ecclesiastical canon : nor the tradi-
tion which we received from our Fathers, and which they de-
rived from the blessed and great Apostle I'eter."'^^ I willingly
leave to the reader to judge whether the incidental mention of
the greatness of the seat of empire which Constantius should
have respected, can detract from the testimony here borne to
il as being an Apostolic See, preserving the tradition of the
great Apostle Peter, and whose prelate was, on that account,
styled *' Apostolic," the gaining of whom was considered, by
the enemies of faith, the conquest of all. Tho terms in which
Osius is spoken of cannot refer to anything but great personal
merit connected with the conspicuous part he had acted, and the
high functions committed lo him ; for as bishop of Cordova, he
could not l)e of great influence or rank: whilst those applied
to Liberius, plainly regard his ollice as successor of Peter in
the Apostolic See of Rome. How anxious the enemies of the
Primacy are lo find a rival, or a superior to the Roman Bishop !
You say, that "perhaps you ought not to close the extracts
from Aibanasius, without taking notice of the forgeries which
have been palmed upon the world for some centuries under hi^
name." Vow ought not to have wasted your valuable timt
with any document confessedly false, nor should you have in-
sinuated that such forgeries were at any time thought necessary
to sustain the rights of the Holy See. Candour would liave
* Alhan. ad Vitatn Solil. agcntcs, p. 4.'>1
196 ST ATIIANASIUS.
avowed that in documents of undoubted authenticity, express-
ions and passages are found which probably tlie contriver of
that literary fraud had before him. The title of "Apostolic,"
which he uses, is, at least, as ancient as Tertulliau — " Pope of
the Universal Church" can be found at Chalcedon — " root and
mother of churches" in Cyprian — "the head" in the synodical
letter of the Fathers of Sardica. The letter of Pope Agatho,
which was read and received with acclamation in the sixth
council, as the voice of Peter, contains as strong language in
regard to the providence that has watched over the Apostolic
See, and seems to have been borrowed or imitated by the
pseudo-Athanasius. Allow me to submit an extract from it.
" For this is the rule of true faith which the Apostolic Church
of Christ, this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire
(the Pontif}' writes to Constantine Pogonatus) warmly held, and
defended, both in prosperity and in adversity, which Church,
through the grace of Almighty God, is shown to have strayed
at no lime from the path of Apostolic tradition, and never suc-
cumbed, perverted by the novelties of heretics ; but as from the
commencement of Christian faith it received from its founders,
the princes of the Apostles of Christ, so it incormptibly re-
mains to the end, according to the promise of our Lord and
Saviour himself, which he declared to the Prince of his Apos-
tles, as in the Gospel, saying: ' Peter, Peter, lo ! Satan hath
sought to sift you as one sifteth wheat : but 1 have prayed for
thee, that thy faith may not fail : and thou being once convert-
ed, confirm thy brethren.' Let, then, your serene clemency
consider that the Lord and Saviour of all, whose gift faith is,
and who promised that the faith of Peter should not fail, charg-
ed him to confirm his brethren : and it is notorious to all that
the Apostolic high priests, my predecessors, have always done
so intrepidly."* Having solemn and authentic documents of
this kind, which attest not merely the claims of the Pontifi',
but the conviction of a General Council, composed especially
of oriental bishops, you may conceive that we easily dispense
' Cone. Constant., iii. Act. iv. c. 1081. Col. Hard. Tom. III.
FORGERY. Jy?
with any aid lo be tlerived from a work falsely ascribed lo
Alhanasius, or any olher individual Fallier. Your reference lo
such a work exposes you to the suspicion of seeking lo dimi-
nish the lustre of the evidence which dazzles and overwhelms
you, by insinuating that forgery was a necessary means for
sustaining our tenets. Hut forgery is not our besetting sin. A
divine of the establishment, the celebrated antitiuary, Dr Whi-
taker has made a humiliating acknowledgment on this subject:
" Forgery — I blush for the honour of Protestantism while I
write it — seems lo have been peculiar to the Reformed — I look
in vain for one of these accursed outrages of imposition amongst
the disciples of Popery."*
* See his words, quoted in tile Dubhii Review, No. 2, p. 540.
LETTER XV.
ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
Right Reverend Sir :
St Cyril, who was bishop of Jerusalem about the middle
of the fourth century, follows in your list of authorities. " The
Lord," says he, " is merciful and prompt to pardon, but slow
to avenge. Let no one, therefore, despair of his salvation.
Peter, the highest and the prince of the Apostles, denied the
Lord thrice in the presence of a vile handmaid, but being
touched with compunction he wept bitterly."* I am surprised
that you translate the Greek terms as if a mere " foreman" or
*' leading preacher" were designated, and venture to assert
that they do not warrant the Latin translation of the learned
Touttee. It is painful to trouble the general reader with dis-
cussions of verbal criticism ; but as you have endeavoured to
destroy the force of these terms, it is proper to state distinctly
that the former signifies, according to the use of the classical
authors, and the explanations of lexicographers, "the highest,"
"the most eminent," "the first in power," "the greatest in
dignity."! The second term designates " the foremost in bat-
tle," and in a secondary sense, " a prince" or "leader."^ It
is now easy to judge whether you, or 'i suttee, represent the
author's meaning with greater exactness. As the same terms
occur in the second passage, with some slight variation, the
- S. Cyril, Hieros. c. 11, § 19. Ed. Paris, A. D. 1720, p. 31. Edit.
Oxon. p 32. Uirpof 0 KOpufxtoratroc itcti TrpceToarxTyK Tiuv aTToa-roKMy .
t Herod, vi. 23, " the very highest, the most eminent."
t Sec Jones's Greek and English Lexicon, Danimii Lexicon Home-
ricum, Hiderici, Schrevelii Lexic. Herod.
peti:k, I'UIM k ov Tni: apostles. 11)U
same observnlions may be applied to lliem. " IVier, the prince
of the Apostles, ami tiie supreme herald of the Church."' 'J'lie
term "preacher," but feebly expresses the idea conveyed bv
the Greek word, which signifies raliier the auiiiorilaiivc pro-
clairaer of sovereijrn mandates, the chief organ of the Church.
The use of the adjective in the positive det^ree in Greek, does
not at all prove, as you allege, amplification on the j)art of the
translator, because its meaning, in its simplest form, is — " placed
on the top ;" the substantive, itself, signifying " head," or " sum-
mit;" and it is in the other passage ai)plied to Peter in the super-
lative. I must refer you to the'aiithors and to the dictionaries,
as also to Milies, the IVoleslant editor of the Oxford edition of
the works of this saint, who gives the sam(} Lalin translation
of these words as 'I'oullee.t
It may gratify some readers to know on what occasion these
appellations were given to St Peter. It is in reference to the
confession of the divinity of Clirist, which he made when the
Apostles were questioned whom they believed him to be: "All
of them remaining silent," says St Cyril, " for the doctrine
was beyond the reach of man, Peter, the prince of the Apos-
tles, AND the supreme HERALD OF THE Church, nol following
his own invention?, nor persuaded by human reasoning, but
enlightened in his mind by the Talher, says to him: 'Thou
art Christ,' not simply this, but ' tiie Son of the living God.' "
It is easy to perceive that no allusion is made to his preaching,
but to his ollice as prince of tlie Apostles, and the cliiof organ
of the failii of liie Ciniicli ; so that your commentary, — " the
preacher who look the lead, inasmucii as he preached the first
sermon to the Jews," is surely inadmissible.
Your third extract from St Cyril is found in the fourteentli
discourse. The saint is engaged in proving the resurrection of
the Saviour, and thus aj)peal3 to the witnesses of tlie fact:
«ji>w^. 8 Cyril Hior. p IM) Edit. Tar. p. i:U). KcJit. Oxon. ("at xi
§ 1
t " relrurt pnncrpn ApoHtoloruni fxcrilcnlissimus," ia the translation
of Milies in the Oxford edition
200 ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
" Peter, and John, and Thomas, and all the other Apostles.—
Peter testifies it, who before, indeed, denied him, but having
thrice confessed him, was ordered to feed his spiritual sheep."
These passages precede thai which you have quoted, in which
the saint exhorts the faithful, when disputing with the Jews, to
show the excellence of the glory of the Saviour, by the greater
privileges granted to tlie Apostles above Moses and the pro-
phets : " Be not ashamed of thy Apostles," he says to each
Christian, " they are not inferior to Moses, nor second to the
prophets, but they are as good as the good, and better than the
good : for Elias was taken up into heaven ; but Peter has the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, since lie heard : ' whatsoever
thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.'
Elias was taken up only to heaven ; Paul to heaven and to
paradise." The sequel offers nothing to diminish the force of
his assertion, that Peter was more privileged than Elias,
though the prophet was snatched up in a fiery chariot; for the
Apostle received the power of the keys of the kingdom of hea-
ven— a sublimer gift — a more divine privilege. To him was
given the commission to feed the spiritual sheep of Christ.
— You say : " it is evident that, on the whole, the saint ex-
presses himself more fully and warmly in favour of the privi-
leges of Paul." Let us not trifle about the length of sentences,
or the beauty of expressions. lie makes no comparison be-
tween the Apostles : but he ascribes to Peter special power and
authority, which he does not ascribe to l^aul, though he speaks
of his raptures, his preaching, and his martyrdom.
Your fourtii quotation takes us back to the sixth discourse,
in which St Cyril relates the overthrow of Simon the Magi-
cian, effected by the prayers of Peter and Paul ; to render
which credible, he refers to the power of the keys which Peter
had received, and the rapture with which Paul had been favour-
ed : "Let it not" says he, "appear wonderful, however won-
derful it be in itself; for Peter was he who carried around* the
* Trtpi^fipeev. Tliis teini expresses very strongly the habitual power
and its exercise.
ri:TKK CAKIilKS ABOUT THK KKVS. 201
keys of heaven : nor i.s it surprising; i<ince Paul was he wlio
was wrapt up into the third heaven and to paradiise, and who
heard ineffable words, which it is not lawful for man to utter."
In this passage, every thing confirms the power wiiich we as-
cribe to I'cier. — Hut it is in the manner of introducing tlie nar-
rative that you find room for objection. 'J'hc saint states, that
as the errors of Simon Magus were being spread, " a pair of
good men, Peter and Paul, the prelates of the Church,"* in-
terposed, and checked their progress by the miraculous over-
throw of their author, 'i'he application of the same term •' pre-
lates" to both Apostles indicates, you imagine, an equality of
office and authority ; but the same style is observed by us iH
speaking and writing of these Apostles, though no one can sup-
pose that we thereby exclude the Primacy of Peter. Both
were prelates and princes of the Church ; Peter as supreme
ruler, Paul with Apostolic power, but subordinate to Peter, who
is peculiarly styled prince of the Apostles, a iille which, I be-
lieve, you will never find given to Paul unless in conjunction
with him.t
'i'he inferences whicii you draw from these passages are
strange indeed, and the assertions which are made to sustain
them are equally surj)rising. *' 'J'he strongest epithet applied
to Peter — that of a president of the Ciiurch — is given to St
Paul in connexion with liim." Allow me to reniind you of
these much stronger epithets, no where given to the Apostle
Paul : — " Peter the most eminent and the prince of the Apostles
t It is nowise strango, as Hishop Hopkins appears to think, that the
version should vary, whore the orijrinal terms are different, npcrrarea
is correctly rendered •' prtesules," as this term is determined by general
Ecclesiastical usage to signify "bishops" or "prelates," nol presidents,
OM tin- bishop rrndeiH it. MiUes presents the same variation : " EcclesitE
pra'fccli." Neither interprelt-r could have meant to diminish the force
of the term. Uftinvr^THc, having; an immediate reference to the other
Apostles, has l>een proprrly renden'd " prinrops," prince, chieftain, or
leader. It is {uiinful to obiwrvc (rri)undless charges of infidehty or cor-
rupt desi{jn advanced or inHiiiuatrd against int«-rpreters, by those who,
in their attempt to sustain lliem, lay Uiemselves open to similar imputa-
tions.
202 ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
— the supreme herald of the Church." I cannot persuade my-
self of what you say every one knows, that tliese terms do not
import jurisdiction. Never was there a more idle and perni-
cious abuse of words than if they were used to " signify sim-
ply a certain precedency among equals." Power and authority
were necessarily implied by them, and their signification was
determined and confirmed by the often repeated declaration —
that Peter received and carried about the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, and that he was commissioned to feed the sheep of
Christ. You state that " his having the keys of the kingdom
of heaven, is compared with Paul's being taken up into hea-
ven." I cannot discover a vestige of such a comparison. I
see that the possession of the keys by Peter, and the raptures of
Paul, are referred to with a view to prove that the Apostles of
Jesus Christ were more privileged than the prophets of the an-
cient dispensation: but this implies no comparison between
the power of Peter and the favours granted to Paul. The
comparison lies between the Apostles and the prophets. In
like manner the power of Peter and the raptures of Paul are
alleged to render credible the fact, that the artifices of Simon
Magus were defeated by both, and resulted in his miraculous
overthrow ; but no comparison is made between the Apostles
themselves. The author's silence as to the erection of the Ro-
man bishopric by Peter, is no wise surprising, since he was
engaged in pointing outtiie heresies regarding the Deity which
had been broached by Simon Magus ; and he merely digressed
to relate the miracle that had marked his overthrow : so that
this cannot have even the semblance of a negative argument,
since his subject did not call for a second digression.
I regret you have rendered our investigation so tedious, by
having recourse to reasoning of a purely negative kind, which,
if it do not create confusion in the mind of most readers, will
certainly niake the study of this subject less interesting. How-
ever, 1 must glance at the passages you have adduced. " Christ,"
says St Cyril, " is a High Priest, having a priesthood that
passes not away,* who neither began his priesthood in time, nor
* a.7ra.fiA^(t.T0\/ .
I'KTFR CAUKIKS AnOl'T THE KKVS. !>03
has a successor in his lii<fli-prit'.sihoo(l."* Wliy is he silenl
aboiil ihe viccgereiicy of the Pope ? — Because he is engaged in
instructing the Catechumens or Neophytes in llie divine func-
tions and character of ('hrisl. You would liave him unneces-
sarily digress, and speak of the organization of the hierarcliy,
and the powers left for the government of tlic Church. The
Pope, you well know, does not claim to be successor of Christ,
who, as he livelh for ever, lias a perpetual priesthood, and is
the Head over all the Church. 'I'iie vicarial powers, wi)ich
are exercised by his authority, are not inconsistent, as you ac-
knowledge, with this sublime doctrine.
The saint, in his lificcnlh discourse, deplores the schisms
and scandals that already existed, and speaks of the still greater
evils that will prevail in tlie days of antichrist: " 'i'he wars
among the nations terrify me ; the schisms of the churches ter-
rify me ; the mutual haired amongst brelliren terrifies me."
Why, you ask, does he not point out the cause of liie evils,
departure from the See of Peter ? — Because he was neither
treating of the causes or remedies of the evils, but strengthening
the catechumens against existing scandals, whilst he explained
to them what Christ liad predicted was to come to pass. 'I'he
great cause of the evils at that lime was not, however, de-
|)arture from the See of Peter, but obstinacy in maintaining the
impiety of Arius, and separating thereby Uourisliing churches
from the Catholic communion.
The beautiful passage from the sixteenth chapter appears to
you hardly reconcilable with our dogma. The saint invites
the catechumens to consider the boundless influence of the Holy
Spirit, whose graces and gills are dillused in abundance over
the countless multitude of the faithful throughout the whole
world. After the enumeration of nations, he refers to the dif-
ferent classes of men: " See," says he, " in each nation the
bishops, the priests, the deacons, the monks, the virgins, and
the laity, and consider this great Ruler :uul Dispenser of (Jifls,
Cat. \. § xiv. J). 1 13. Edit. Paris. § vii. Edit. Oxon. p. KU
204 ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
how throughout the world he gives to one indeed chastity, to
another perpetual virginity, to another the love of poverty, to
another the power of resisting adverse spirits." You look in
vain for the Pope, whom you expect to find every where ; but,
once more, you should remember that the saint is expatiating
on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and not on the organization or
powers of the hierarchy. He refers to tlie various classes, with-
out specifying their relations, which had no connexion with his
subject. Had he professed to describe the whole constitution
of the Church, the rank and powers of its officers, you would
no doubt have seen the Bishop of Rome at their head, as you
find him in all monuments of antiquity that present a view of
the hierarchy. Your comparison of the historian forgetting the
king, in describing a monarchy, is not exact, since Cyril was
not an historian, but an orator, and undertook no description of
the Church.
That, in speaking of the communication of the Holy Ghost
to the Apostles, when they were empowered to forgive sins, St
Cyril should have given no intimation that Peter was consti-
tuted their head, is no matter of surprise, since it was not on
that occasion the special power of governing the flock of Christ
was conferred on this Apostle. It was when he was charged
to feed the sheep, as the saint has elsewhere specified.
It was scarcely proper to introduce here the remarks of the
translator of St Cyril, who, as you must admit, in observing
that Jerusalem was the mother of all tlie churches, merely meant
that the divine religion of Christ was first preached and esta-
blished there, and did not at all call in question the right of the
Roman Church to be called m.other of all others, because most
have been brought forth to Christ by Apostolic men whom she
sent to preach the Gospel, and all are governed by her with
maternal authority and aflJection. Wliat end is attained by
availing one's self of an ambiguous phrase, where the author's
meaning is manifest?
In the seventeenth discourse, whence you cite the next testi-
mony you bring from St Cyril, you complain that no intima-
lion is given of the Primacy of Peter, yet you will find it thus
CATHoi.ir cHrRcii. 205
clearly and strongly expressed: — " In ihe same power of ihe
Holy Ghost, Peter, also, the prince of the Apostles, and the
key-bearer of the kingdom of heaven, cured iEneas, a palsied
man, in the name of Christ, at Lydda, now called Diospolis.*
You have furnished your readers with some admirable ex-
tracts from ihe eighteenth discourse, wherein the article of the
creed — " I believe in the Holy C'aiholic Church," — is heaulifully
expounded. " Many things," says the saint, ** might he said of
her, but we shall be brief. She is called Catholic, therefore,
because she is dill'used throughout the world, from one ex-
tremi-ly to the other. And because she teaches in a Catholic
manner, and without imperfection,! all the dogmas wliich
should come to the knowledge of men, concerning visible and
invisible things, heavenly and earlhly. And because she sub-
jects every class of men, the rulers as well as their subjects,
the learned and unlearned, directing them to piety. And be-
cause universally curing and healing every species of sins,
committed by the soul or body, she possesses in herself every
kind of virtue, by whatever name it may beJvnown, in works
and words, and sj)iritual gifts of every kind. — She is also
properly styled a (Church, or convocation, on account of the
calling and assembling of all in her. The Psalmist says : * I
will confess to thee in the great Church : 1 will praise thee in
the numerous people ! ' Before, it was sung in the Psalms : ' In
the churches bless ye the Lord («od from the fountains of
Israel :' but after the Jews fell from grace, in consequence of
the snares laid for the Saviour, he instituted another society,
formed of the Geniiles — our holy Christian Church : of which
he said to Peter: * On this rock I will build my Church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' — Of this lioly
Catholic Church, Paul writes to Tinu)lhy : ' that thou mayest
know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the Church of the living (.'od, the pillar and the
groimd of truth.'
♦♦ But since the name of church is applied lodiircrent things,
• r. 2o:{. Edit. Ox. t JtAO-CAuarc icxi «HKAI/T«r;.
8
206 ST CYRIL OF JERUSALEM.
as it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians ;
'And saying these things he dismissed the Church' — and witli
justice and truth one might say, that the church of the wicked
is the conventicles of heretics, to wit — Marcionites, Manicheana
and the rest ; therefore, now faith lias delivered to you most
firmly this article — and in one holy Catholic Church, that you
may shun the polluted conventicles of these men, and persevere
throughout in the holy Catholic Church, in which you were
regenerated. If, perchance, you travel abroad in cities, do not
simply ask : where is the Lord's house ? for even the various
sects of the impious endeavour to call their caverns the houses
of the Lord : nor ask simply : where is the Church? but where
is the Catholic Church ? for this is the proper name of the holy
mother of us all, which truly is the spouse of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the only begotten Son of God."*
I would compliment but little the intellect of my readers
were I to offer any comment on this text. You, however,
cannot find in it any thing like our doctrine. What unbiassed
man, who compares them, will hesitate to pronounce them one
and the same ? The Pope is there, though you cannot see him,
for on Peter, as on a rock, the saint declares that the Church
is built. Strange infatuation ! You complain of not finding, the
privileges of Peter, where nothing warrants you to expect
them, and you close your eyes on those characters of light in
which they are recorded !
You add some passages from Cyril's works to show the
authority of Scriptures. With Cyril we venerate the oracles of
God. With him we say : — " we recognise salvation in Christ
Jesus: Was Christ incarnate to no purpose? the God-
man whom the Scriptures declare. Are these doctrines
fond inventions and sophisms of men ? Are not the divine
Scriptures our salvation ? are not the predictions of the pro-
phets ? Keep, then, this permanent deposit, and let no one
shake your faith : believe that God became man."t — Concern-
ing the Holy Spirit we likewise hold what the Scriptures teach,
* Catech. xviii. § 23, 25, 26. \ 12 Cat. p. 155. Edit. Oxon.
8T THOMAS OF AQl'lV. 207
nor do we venture to search, with rash curiosity, into this
mystery beyond wliat he lias been pleased to reveal of liiinself.
This is all tliat the saint states.
You mii^Iit, Right Heverend Sir, liave cried "alas!" for
very dinereiit reasons than those wiiich you sul)join in your
affectionate appeal. Alas ! lor the prejudi(;e that is not dissi-
pated by the blaze of evidence presented by the sainted bishop
of Jerusalem ! But how could you venture to close your chap-
ter with an insinuation against the memory of the illustrious
doctor, St Thomas of Aquin ? Because, in an age when the facili-
ties of judging of the authenticity of works were not such as
we possess, a passage was quoted by him from a work, which
passed as genuine, you write as if it were a forgery, contrived,
or sanctioned, by that venerated writer. I feel for the accuser
of such a man.
LETTER XVI.
ST HILARY OF POICTIERS.
Right Reverend Sir :
From Jerusalem you transfer us to Gaul, to receive the de-
positions of St Hilary, bishop of Poictiers. In his treatise " On
the Trinity^'''' he addresses God the Father, declaring his belief
in the divinity of the Son, and beautifully states the grounds of
his faith by a reference to the authority of Moses, the Prophets,
the Evangelists, and the Apostles Peter and Paul. Were he in
error, he boldly says that his ruin should be laid to their charge.
Of these he speaks in those terms : " Matthew, from a publican,
chosen to be an Apostle ; John, through the familiarity of the
Lord, made worthy of a revelation of heavenly mysteries ; and
after his confession of the mystery, blessed Simon, lying be-
neath, that the Church might be built on him,* and receiving
the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and all the others preach-
ing by the Holy Spirit; and the vessel of thy election, Paul,
from a persecutor made an Apostle, living in the depth of the
sea, a man raised to the third heaven, in paradise before martyr-
dom, the offering of perfect faith being accomplished in his mar-
tyrdom. By these I have been instructed in what I hold: with
these doctrines I am unalterably imbued. And forgive me, O
Almighty God, for adding, that in these doctrines I cannot im-
prove, but I am able to die in their belief."! — You maintain that
the words which refer to Peter, taken in connexion with the
* Edification! Ecclesiae subjacens." Bishop Hopkins has rendered
: " Lying at the foundation of the Church."
t S. Ilil. de Trin. 1. vi. Tom. VIII. n. 20. Edit. Wirceb. p. 154.
PETER TIIK lOLNDATION. 209
rest, prove nothing for our doctrine ; hut I cannot discover what
they lose by tliat connexion. The saint, indeed, is not hihouring
to prove tiie prerogatives of Peter, but tlie divinity of Ilim
whom Peter confessed to be the ^on of the living God. Inci-
dentally, however, he mentions that Peter was the foundation
on whicii the Ciiurch was built, — for this surely is the force of
the words, — and lie declares that he received the keys of the
kingdom of heaven. This proves clearly the intimate and im-
portant relation which Peter bears to the Churcli, and the high
authority which he specially exercises ; and as the building
must have at all times its foundation, the inference of the per-
manence of the power in the successors of Peter is too obvious
to be fairly called in question. The strength of the proof is ra-
ther increased by the indirect manner of the reference to the
powers of Peter, because it indicates that they were admitted
facts.
In the address of Hilary to the Apostles, you appear to your-
self to find a positive demonstration, that in the passage just
alleged no peculiar power or prerogatives were ascribed to
Peter. He thus aposlropliises them : " O holy and blessed
men, wiio llirough the merit of your faiih ol)tained the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and received the power of binding and
loosing in heaven and on earth, you had seen so great prodi-
gies, so worthy of God, performed by our Lord Jesus Christ."*
This does not at all demonstrate the point in question, for in
addressing a number of persons, one of whom possesses some
peculiar power, whilst others have powers of a similar character,
though with a certain subordination, it was most natural to use
language common to all without any nice distinction. It is not in
rhetorical apostrophes that you should expect tlie accurate distinc-
tions of the schools. To all the Apostles Christ gave the power
of binding and loosing: — to Peter, on account of the excellence
of his faith, lie gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven. When-
ever this Apostle is spoken of in particular, you will find this
specially observed; and if at any time the power of the keys
• Hilar, dc Trin I vi Tuiu VIII p. ]iA'j. Ed. Wire p. IH. Kd. Par
8»
210 ST HILARY OF POICTIERS.
is attributed to the otliers, it is without any derogation to the
eminent mode in which it belongs to him. Although we strenu-
ously maintain his Primacy, we are accustomed to speak of the
exercise of the ministry by the most lowly of the priests, as of
the exercise of the power of the keys. The use, then, of simi-
lar language does not detract from his high prerogative.
When speaking of the confession made by Peter, Hilary
shows that it was extolled by the Saviour, as divinely revealed,
because it was an acknowledgment, not merely of his being
the Messiah, or the adopted Son of God, but that he is his true
and eternal Son : " For praise," says he, " was given to Peter,
not merely on account of the confession of the honour (due to
Christ), but on account of his acknowledgment of the mystery,
because he confessed not merely Christ, but Christ the Son of
God.* The Father saying, ' This is my So7i,^ revealed to
Peter, that he might say, ' thou art the Son of God.' On this rock
of confession, therefore, the Church is built. This faith is the
foundation of the Church : through this faith the gates of hell are
powerless against her. This faith has the keys of the heavenly
kingdom. What this faith binds or looses on earth, is bound and
loosed in heaven. This faith is tlie gift of the Father's revela-
tion, not falsely to assert that Christ is a creature drawn forth
from nothing, but to confess him to be the Son of God, accord-
ing to his natural property. O ! impious frenzy of wretched
folly, that does not understand the martyr of blessed old age
and faith, the martyr Peter, for whom the Father was prayed,
that his faith might not fail in temptation — who, having twice
repeated the profession of the love God demanded of him,
siglied, on being a third time interrogated, as if his love were
doubtful and unceriain, thereby also meriting to hear thrice
from the Lord, after being purified of his weaknesses by this
threefold trial : ' Feed my sheep :' — who, whilst all the other
Apostles remained silent, understanding, in a manner beyond
human infirmity, from tlie revelation of the Father, that he was
the Son of God, merited pre-eminent glory by the confession
of his faith ! To what necessity of interpreting his words are
* S. Hil de Trin. 1. vi. p. 168.
PETER 8 FAITH. 211
we now brought ? He confessed Christ to be the Son of God :
but you {Jlr'uin), the lyiuir priesthood of a new Apostolate,
urge nie to believe* that Clirisl is a creature brought forth from
nothing. What violence you ofler to his glorious words ! He
confessed tiie Son of God : for this lie is blessed. This is the
revelation of the Talher, tliis is the foundation of the Church,
this is the security for eternity. Hence, he hast the keys of
the kingdom of heaven — hence his judgments on earth are rati-
fied in heaven. He learned by revelation the mystery hidden
from ages — he spoke the faith — he declared the nature — lie
confessed the Son of God. Whoever, rather acknowledging
him a creature, denies this, should first deny the Aposlolate of
Peter, his faith, blessedness, priesthood, martyrd«)m ; and then
let him understand that he is estranged from Christ, because
Peter, confessing him to be the Son, merited these things. . . .
Let there be a diflerent faith, if there be difl'erent keys of hea-
ven. Let there be a dillercnt faith, if there is to be another
Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. Let
there be another faith, if tlierc will he another Apostolatc, binding
and loosing in heaven what it binds and looses on earth. Let
there be another faith, if Christ shall be preached a diflerent
Son of God than he is. liut if this faith only that confessed
Christ to be the Son of God, merited in Peter the glory of all
beatitudes, that which acknowledges him rather a creature from
nothing, must necessarily be not the Church, nor of Christ,
since it has not obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
and is contrary to the Apostolic faith and power.**|
I have been somewhat more difl'use than you, in my quota-
tions from this Father, that the reader might have a full and
correct view of his sciitinicnls. Yon " find our witness de-
• " Mihi ingoriH. " The correct translation is hort' given. iJishop II
inistakfs it for castinir nut ( hrtst.
t *' Hinc rrgni ctrlorum liabct clavca. " IJishop Hopkins's transla-
tion iH Burcly not a fuitliful r^'proscntation of the text: ** hence, arc the
keys of the kingdom ofht-aven !" Why thia?
t S. Hil. dc Trin. I. vi. p. lO'.K
212 ST HILARY OF POICTIERS.
daring, that not Peter, but the faith which he confessed, was
the foundation of the Church." — Point to the passage wherein it
is said that Peter was not the foundation. It nowhere occurs.
The object of St Hilary is to show tliat tlie Arian heresy had
no part or share in the power of tlie keys, or the privileges
granted to Peter, because it had not the faith which obtained
for Peter these privileges. There is not the least effort to es-
tablish a distinction between Peter and the confession of faith
which he made : but the Arians are confounded by being told,
that, as they deny Christ to be the Son of the living God, they
have no power of the keys, and are not inheritors of the pro-
mises made to the Church. Peter, then, confessing the divinity
of Christ, is the foundation: his is the Apostolate, the acts
whereof are confirmed in heaven : the Church connected with
him is that against which the gates of hell cannot prevail : there
can be no other faith, no other power, no other Church.
Your translation of the passage of St Hilary, wherein he
speaks of the cure of the mother-in-law of Peter, and says that
Peter is " the prince of the Apostolate,"* appears to me inac-
curate, and the earnestness with which you solicit attention to
your remarks on the term " princeps," occasions some sur-
* S. Hilar, in Matt. c. vii. "Primus credidit, et Apostolatus est
princeps." Bishop Hopkins translates this passage — '' he first believed,
and is the beginning of the Apostolate," He maintains that "princeps"
may be rendered " beginning," and that *' prince" is only a secondary,
or rather a third meaning, its primary signification being first, original,
primitive. I shall not dispute with the bishop as to its primary meaning;
but the learned will admit that its general acceptation is a c/iie/, or ruler,
and it is manifest that in most of the passages of the Fathers, it cannot
receive any other explanation. Though " princeps mensis" means " the
first month," I know no passage of sacred or profane authors, where
"princeps" means <Ae beginning. Perhaps the bishop had principium
in his mind. He remarks, in a note, that a bishop is styled by Hilary
" princeps ecclesiae," which certainly does not mean the beginning of
the Church, but "a prince of the Church," a governor, a ruler. Peter
was " prince of the Apostolate," governing the others, that no schism
might arise. All bishops may be called princes of the Church, because
they are governors of portions of it ; but one is set over all.
APOSTROPHE TO PETKR. 213
prise. I refer the reader to the note, and only remark, that if
there were any amhiguity in the term, the many passages in
the writings of this Father, in which he speaks of Peler, with
holy enthusiasm, should have removed all doubt from your
mind as to its meaning. In his commentary on tiie glorious
confession of this Apostle, he observes: *' The confession of
Peter obtained a siiiiable reward, because he saw the Son of
God in the man. Blessed is he, who was praised for observ-
ing and seeing beyond what human eyes could see; — not be-
holding what was of llesh and blood, but discerning the JSon of
God by the revelation of the heavenly Father; and who was
judged worthy to be the first to recognise in Christ his divine
nature. O thou foundation of the Church, happy in the new
appellation which thou rcccivest ; O! rock, worthy of that
building which is to destroy the infernal laws, and the gates of
hell, and all the bars of death ! O ! happy gate-keeper of hea-
ven, to whose discretion the keys of t!ie eternal porch are de-
livered, and whose judgment on earth is a prejudged authority
in heaven, so that those things which are bound or loosed on
earth, obtain in heaven a like condition and determination."* —
The elTort which you make to explain away the force of this
passage, by referring it to the faith of Peter, as if this were
elsewhere distinguished by the saint from Peter confessing
Christ, needs no reply. Whoever does not wish to mistake
the meaning of the author, can easily discover it.
You quote a passage in which Hilary says: "This is to
be considered in regard to Peter, that he preceded tiic others
in faiih : for when the others were ignorant, he was the first
to answer: *Thou art the Son of the living (iod.' He was the
first to reject the idea of his sulVerint?, thinking it to be evil. \\v
was the first to pronjise that he would die rather than deny Him.
He was the first to refuse to have his feel wahhed. He also drew
the sword against those who came to seize on the Lord." To
this (quotation, you subjoin this remark : " This passage is one
• S. Mil. Comm. in Malt., c. xiv. p. 110. Wire. Kdil. p. r*7J Tar
Edit.
214 ST HILAllY OF POICTIERS.
of many which explain what the ancients meant by Peter's
Primacy. But Hilary is not here engaged in explaining the
Primacy, or the Scriptural texts by which it is sustained. He
is speaking of the walking of Peter on the waters : and he cer-
tainly says nothing inconsistent with the Primacy, — nothing to
weaken the force of those passages in which he expressly treats
of the prerogatives of Peter. I need not trouble the reader with
the passage from the commentary on the 118lh Psalm, where
the saint takes occasion to dwell on the answer of Peter to
the cripple who sought alms: " Silver and gold I have not:
but what I have, 1 give you : in the name of the Lord Jesus,
I say to thee, arise." You think that St Hilary should have
observed, that Peter, besides the power of miracles, had pleni-
tude of power over the Apostles. Did the occasion demand
any such reference ?
In the commentary on the fifty-second Psalm,* you find a
passage in which, speaking of the Apostles, Hilary says that
" they received the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The ex-
planation already given of a similar expression, in the sixth
Book on " The Trinity," will be found stricdy applicable to
this. He was not labouring to prove that they all had
equal power; but since the Psalmist complains of the general
corruption of men, and says, that there is none good — no, not
one — Hilary inquires, "how then was Abel pleasing to God,
Seth approved of, Isaac made heir, Enoch translated, Noe
preserved, Melchisedech sanctified, Abraham chosen, Jacob
made Israel, Job declared without blame, Moses the friend of
God, Aaron his anointed, David a man according to the heart
of God, the prophets spiritual men, and how did the Apostles
receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven ?"t Such a phrase
could be correctly understood of the Apostolic College, even
were that power vested in only one of them, because such ge-
* Bishop Hopkins calls it fifty-first, because it is thus numbered in
the Protestant Bible : but it is fifty-second in Hilary, as well as in our
Vulgate ; and in quotations accuracy of reference should always be ob-
served.
t P. 243. Edit. Wire. p. 70G. Edit. Paris.
POLITY OF THE CHURCH. 216
neral phrases applied lo coninuinilies, or collections of men, are
sullicienily verilietl if llie jiower is lodged somewhere in the
body. Wc cheerfully admit that all ihe Apostles had the
power of the keys, inasmuch as thai jiower is idenlified with
the general funciions of the Christian ministry, especially the
authority to bind and loose: though we contend that the grant
of that power lo Peter individually, and by this peculiar em-
blem, proves the possession of it in an eminent degree, espe-
cially for the general government of the kingdom of Christ on
earth.*
The epithets " Master," or " Teacher of Nations," *' Doctor
of Nations," "Chosen Teacher of the Church of Christ," and
any others applied by St Hilary, or the other Fathers, to St
Paul, are given by us also to this great Apostle, without any
detriment to the ofticial prerogatives of Peter : nor are our proofs
of the Primacy dependent on words of similar import. The
terms which we allege in support of it, are such as denote supe-
riority and power, and their meaning is determined by the cir-
cumstances in which they are used, and by clear and unequivo-
cal testimonies and facts.
You ofler us, in addition, some passages, which you say
" exhibit clearly the polity of the (Jhurch, and tlie regard paid
to councils in the days of Hilary." In his letter to the Arian
emperor, Constantius, he complains of his banishment, occa-
sioned by faction and false messengers of the council, who de-
ceived the emperor.t Of what council ? Of the Arian synod,
held at Hcrry, in which Saturnine, the Arian bishop of Aries,
" Archbishop Potter acknowledges the keys to be the emblem of
!»upremo power : " Our blessed Lord, an the kin<j of this household, who
has the supreme power lo admit and exclude whoinH<K'ver he ploaselh,
is said to have the keys of David." He «*ndcav(>ur8 lo cxtnid this power
lo all bishops, though il was given especially to I'etrr. *• The supreme
power of the keys, thai is, the authority of admitting and excluding, be-
longs to Christ, the King; but the name is ex«'rris<'d by his Aposlh-s and
their successors, whom he has nppointrd to govern Ihr Church, as his
stewards or vicegerents."— On Church Guvcinmcnt, p. 300."
t ilil. 1. 'J. ad Constant. Aug.
216 ST HILARY OF POICTIERS.
prevailed against Hilary, precisely because he strenuously de-
fended the Nicene faith.* You say he refers the emperor to
Scripture. Not certainly with a view to render questionable
the doctrine defined at Nice, which his whole life was spent in
sustaining. His abundant quotations from Scripture are all di-
rected to this end. In vain would he have urged the authority of
Nice to an Arian : — it was necessary to proceed at once to the
cause in question, and show that nothing new had been intro-
duced in that council, but that the ancient and divine doctrine
was simply propounded. Yet he does not fail to observe, that
those who reject that council are involved in uncertainty, and
are daily coining new confessions of faith : " Whilst," says
he, " as there is but one God, and one Lord, and one baptism,
so also there is but onefaith,t we depart from that faith, which
is the only one, and whilst many forms of faith are invented,
the matter is brought to tiiis, that none exists. "J He speaks
here as if he were one of the composers of new creeds ; but I
need not tell you that it is a rhetorical communication of phrase,
adopted to render less painful his poignant remarks. What he
adds of the many jarring councils of his time, is evidently di-
rected against the Arian conventicles, in which the power of
the emperor was employed to induce the Catholic bishops to
recede from the great symbol of Nice. Hence, in his first
book, he speaks with applause of the conduct of Eusebius,
bishop of Vercelles, who, in a council convened at Milan,
through Arian influence, being called on to subscribe to the
condemnation of Athanasius, would not suffer the measure to
be at all entertained, until the faith of the bishops was mani-
fested by their assent to the Nicene formulary, and thereby
broke up the assembly. § His appeal to the Scriptures in sup-
port of this faith, was very unlike that of modern sectarists :
* See Ilil. 1. un. adv. Constant. § 2.
j " Excedinius ab ea fide, quae sola est." Bishop Hopkins, or the
translator whom he follows, has mistaken the verb, and translated, " cut
out."
X S. Hil. ad Constant. Aug. 1. ii. n 4. Tom. IX. Ed. Wirceb.
§ S. Hil. 1. i. ad Constant. § 8, p. 5. Wire. ed.
SKXSE OF scRii'Trui:. 217
" Remember, however," he says, " ihal there is none o\ ihe
lieretics wlio does not falsely allege, that tiie blaspliLMiiics which
he preaclies are accordiii'; to the Scriptures. All ol" iliein speak
Scripture, without regardin«r the sense of Scripture, and boast
of faith, wiiilst they have no faitii. For tlie Scriptures do not
consist in the reading, but the understanding, nor are thev in
prevarication, but in ciiarity."* This is what immediately pre-
cedes tlie last passage wliich you have adduced, and wiiicii,
you would have your readers believe, contain a pledge on the
part of Hilary, to confine himself to the Scriptures alone, with
total disregard of the Nicene decree. You sliould have known
that, like Athanasius, Hilary was the chanjpion and the martyr
of that definition. You deduce tlie total inefllcicncy of coun-
cils to command acquiescence or general assent, from the dis-
tractions of the Church, as staled by Hilary: but ho drew a
very different inference from the Arian intrigues and persecu-
tions, which you call ♦' the distractions of tiie Church." " 'J'he
integrity," says he, ♦* of this faith is commended by the au-
thority of the Gospel, and the doctrine of the Apostles, and by
the vain intrigues of heretics, murmuring on every side. For
this foundation stands strong and immovable, against all winds,
rains, torrents: it is not to be blown down by storms — it can-
not be penetrated by rain — it cannot be washed away by floods :
and that must be excellent, which, assailed by many, can be
overthrown by none."t
May I add the observation of a learned bishop of the Fn-
glish establishment ? *' When Christ sj)ake first i)arlicujarlv to
St Peter, he sealed his speech willi a powerful promise of per-
petuity, saying: * Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
a: "I
" S. III!. 1. ii. p. 11. ad Connt.
I S. Ilil. 1. ii. lit- Trill. § 2*2, p. 45. Edit. Wirccb.
I Binhop reafHon on the Creed. Art. ijc. p. 515.
LETTER XVIL
ST BASIL THE GREAT.
Right Reverend Sir :
I pass with you to St Basil, bishop of Caesarea, to whose
works you assign the date A.D. 370. Your first quotation is
from his second book against the Apologetic of Eunomius, in
which he observes, that the names of individuals designate the
distinction of their persons and qualities, but not the difference
of their nature. He illustrates this remark, by referring to
Peter, the mention of whose name immediately suggests to us
his distinctive qualities : " Immediately," says he, " on hear-
ing this word, we understand Peter the son of Jonas, of Beth-
saida, the brother of Andrew, who, from a fisherman, was
called to the function of the apostolate ; who, on account of
the excellence of his faith, received upon himself the edifice
of the Church."* This passage clearly establishes the fact,
that Peter is distinguished from all others, inasmuch as he was
made the foundation of the Church, in reward of his divinely
inspired confession. As his faith was eminent, so was his pri-
vilege peculiar. — " We see here," you say, " the oft repeated
fact, that Peter was the first foundation-stone in the building of
the Church, because he was the first to acknowledge his Re-
deemer." This, however, is not the reason assigned by the
illustrious bishop of Caesarea. He says, that " on account of
the excellence of his faith, he received on him the edifice of
• S. Basil, contra Apol. Eun. lib. ii. Tom. I. p. 240. Edit. Bened.
Paris, p. 322. Basil edit.
DIPTVCHS. 219
the Church.""^ He does not distinguish him as the first foiin-
daiionslone ; but, with reference to the metaphor used by our
Lord, he says, that he received the editlce on Ijimself, as tlie
foundation receives the material building. You think he should
have said, that Peter was called to the government of the
apostolate, had he received superior authority; but I need not
tell you, that the highest ruler \\\ the Church is but the minis-
ter of Christ.
The extract given by you from tlie liturgy bearing the name
of Basil, in \vliich prayer is oflered for the bishop of Alexan-
ilria, and not for the Pope, oilers no evidence against the Pri-
macy. At Caesarea the prayer must have been rather for the
bishop of Anliocli, to wliose patriarchal authority it was subject.
But the omission of prayer for the Pope is sulliciently account-
ed for by the use of tlie diptychs^ or sacred tablets, on which
the name of the reigning PontifT was invariably inscribed, so
that when Acacius, tlie heretic bishop of Constantinople, to-
wards the close of the fifth century, presumed to cancel from
them the name of Felix, who then held the chair of Peter, the
act was regarded as the climax of impiety. Nicephorus, the
Church historian, speaking of it on the authority of Basil of
Cilicia, describes it as an act of frenzy. t The names even of
the deceased Popes were preserved on these tablets, as is ga-
thered from the letter of the Emperor Constanlinc Pogonatus
to Pope Domnus, in which he states the wish of the patriarch
of Constantinople to cancel from the diptychs the name of
Pope Viialian, on account of the disscntions that had arisen in
regard to Moiiollielism. Yet liiough the memory of Ilonorius
was clouded by the suspicion either of favour to the rising
heresy, or negligence in suppressing it, still the patriarch liim-
TQ1 im T*( irineic i/^t^oX"* ** **uror rut iiM.oio/uin¥ txc tKK\Hriaii
Si^Afjt%iii, Adv. Kunoiii. lib. ii. Bishop Hopkins translates it: ^^ be-
cause he stood be/lire others in faith." Tliis neitlier expresses the text,
nor the Latin ycTH\nn Jldr pnrstnbat.
\ Nin-phoruH, 1. xvi. c. 17. " Acacium usque adeo condeninationein
eain non reapexisse, ut niente scnsuque orani captus, primus ipsr rapti!
nomcn e aacro albo excmcrit."
220 ST BASIL THE GREAT.
self observed, that his name was retained through reverence for
the Apostolic throne of ancient Rome."* The emperor re-
sisted the attempt to cancel the name of Vitalian. In the canon
of the mass, according to the Latin rite, there is no more than
the simple mention of the name of the Pope, the priest praying
for the Catholic Church, " togeliier with thy servant our Pope
Gregory," so that this usage corresponds with that of the an-
cient diptychs. No argument, therefore, can be derived from
the omission of a special prayer for the Pope in the liturgy of
Basil. Neither is the prayer for the patriarcli any evidence
against the Primacy ; because it became the foithful specially
to pray for him to whom they were more immediately subject,
and who was watching over them, " being to render an ac-
count to God for their souls." The term, " Pope," applied
in the prayer to the patriarch, is conformable to ancient usage,
which gave this title indiscriminately to the highest members
of the hierarchy, and is, confessedly, no criterion whereby the
authority of the person so named is to be determined. Where
terms are ambiguous, or are variously used in different ages,
the power of the officers to whom they are applied must be
learned from other sources. All the learned agree that the
Greek terms denoting "bishop" and " priest" were at first in-
discriminately used ; would you admit this to be a proof of an
equality of power ?
The long passage which you have given from St Basil's pre-
face to his moral treatise, styled " On the Judgment of God,''''
relates to the dissentions caused by the Anomaeans, and other
Arian heretics. You observe, that the original Greek signifies
those " who were unlike each other;" but you know that the
term was applied in a far different sense, to those Arians who
denied that the Son was like in nature to the Father. When
the saint speaks of such prelates as being in the Church of
God, he must be understood of those who did not avow the
* ^£tO-;tOVT6f OvODpiOy /UVUJUOVil/iO-B'OLl iV TO/f SlTTTV^OiC Si:t TDV Tly.HV
ToZ CtTTOTOKlKH •3'fOVK TJ*; 7rpi7 ^VTif^ti; Vu/LiU^. Ep. Const. Ill ActlS. D,
Cone. Tom. HI. Hard.
ordi:r of the cml'rch. 221
heretical setuimcnls which ihey secretly cherished ; or he re-
gards the Episcopal character which they had received, and the
aialion which ihey occupied : whilst in reality, as he attests,
*' they cruelly strove to tear the Church in pieces, and ihev
harassed the llock violently and atrociously, so that in them,
doubtless, at that time the prediction of the Apostle was ac-
complished, this new heresy being cherished in their minds :
* or your own selves men will arise speaking perverse things,
to lead away disciples after them.' "* All the evils which
arose from the intrigues of the Arian bisjiops, he justly ascribes
to their rejection of the Omnipotent King atui (Jod, Jesus
Christ, and to the abandonment of his doctrine. This is the
sum and substance of what he says, adding: " lor I perceived
that in any njultitude, discipline ant! harmony are usually pre-
served, as long as all agree to obey the authority of one j)rince :
and on the contrary, dissentions and discord, and a numi)er of
rulers arise, when there is no one who has supreme command :
and this I perceived, even in a collection of bees, who, by an
instinct of nature, follow their king: — If order of discipline
and harmony are found in those who depend on the will of
one, and obey one king, doubtless all disturbance, and all dis-
cord are proofs that there is no one to govern. "t All this is
intelligible enough to any one acquainted with the history of
those times, and the actions and writings of this great doctor of
the Church. The faith of the Church was one : all its bishops
harmonized in maintaining the Nicene symbol: there was one
ruler in it, governing in the name of Christ. Hut there were
also many bishops secretly infected with Arianism, or notori-
ously avowing it, who were irUruded into the places of Catlio-
lic prelates. They dissented Irom the faith of the Nicene Fa-
thers, and they were at endless variance among themselves,
seeking to disguise, from others, and from themselves, in a
variety of ways, the heresy which they sustained, contrary to
the Divine Scriptures, as expountled and dec-lared at Nice. It
• Protpm Dc judicio Dei, p. 1M3. Edit. Col ;> r.V2 Kdit Ho-hiI
t Ibid.
222 ST BASIL THE GREAT.
was embarrassing for a youth, or even for a man of maliire age,
to see this division among bisliops ; but Basil traced the evil to
its source, and saw that it was the judgment of God on those
who denied the Lord who bought them. Though in the pass-
age in question no distinct reference is made to the council,
or to the Pope, yet as the dogma itself was that which the
council defined, and which the bishops in communion with the
See of Peter defended, there is an implicit reference which the
comparisons adduced by the saint strongly sustain.
His remarks, that he had been from his childhood instructed
in the Scriptures, and that in the perplexity of his mind, occa-
sioned by the dissentions which he witnessed, he adverted to
the truth which he recognised in the divine writings, are quite
in harmony with his known devotedness to the Nicene faith.
When we, at this day, appeal to the Scriptures as affording
manifest proofs of the Eucharistic mystery — when, amidst the
wanderings of the mind, or the sophisms of unbelievers, we
sustain ourselves by calling to our recollection the words of
Jesus Christ, — we surely do not speak or think in any way in-
consistent with our belief in the authority of the Pope, or of
councils. The saint had not undertaken, here, to explain by
what means revealed truth could be ascertained amidst the
conflicts of opinion, or what authority had been left by Jesus
Christ for the remedy of schism ; but he meant to moralize,
and to show how the judgments of God are provoked by that
species of sin which is directed immediately against himself.
In treating the subject, he makes, however, very intelligible
reference to the authority which God has placed in the Church,
and which all should obey.
*'It is," says Basil, " worthy of our attention, how great is
the indignation which the Divine Scripture manifests against
such as hearken not to the decree of the priest or judge. ' He
that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the
priest who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, or the
judge who shall be in those days, that man shall die, and thou
shalt take away the evil from the midst of Israel ; and all the
people hearing it shall fear, and they shall not afterwards do
PtTER I'RKl EKKKD. 223
impiously.' From which words wo may easily Miulcrsland
liow solicitous wc should be, and how greatly wc should Tear.
♦Bringing,' says the Apostle, 'into captivity, to the obedience
of Christ, every understanding,' not this or tliat one: * and hav-
ing in readint'ss to revenue all disobedience.' " He refers sub-
sequently to the punishment of Ananias, in regard of which
he says : ** What did Peter do, I'.ie executioner of so awful a
judgment, the indignant minister of the decree of God against
the author of the sin ? That hlkssed one, who was preferred
TO THE other DISCIPLES, and who alone received a testimony
above all the others, and was pronounced blessed, rather than
all the others, and to whom the keys of the heavenly king-
dom WERE ENTRisTED."* 'I'licsc passages, wliicli are taken
from the very work Iroin which you have drawn your object-
ion, prove that Basil acknowledged that Peter had received,
in a special manner, the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and
the previous mention of the authority of the high priest under
the old law, warrants the inference that he ascribed to Peter
ihe right of definitive judgment. You will now, perhaps, be
able to answer some of the questions which you iiave put to
us ; since you plainly see, that there is reference to the appoint-
ed and authoritative mode of terminating the divisions which
the pride of man creates, by judging of the mysteries of faith,
without regard to the teaching of that tribunal which Christ
established. Were there no such tribunal, in vain would Basil
have exhorted the fiitliful to be subject to the heavenly king,
since men would still deny his divine attributes, however clearly
Uiey might appear to be marked in the Sacred Writings.
The letter of St liasil to Si Alhanasius, in which he entreats
liim to urge the l)ishoi)s of the West to use their inlluence with
the emperor Valens, does not make any special reference to
the Bishop of Rome ; l)ut in all ecclesiastical concerns, especi-
• r. 246, Edit. Colon. " Illr in«|iiatu t)oatu9, qtii ct en lor'.H nntelatus
disciptibs fuil, cuiquo mnjjnifirfntiiis quani rcliqiiis t>mnibus dnttiin Irs-
tiinonium rst, inagLsqur quam reli(jui «)inno8 bcatus appellatus, cui clave«
regni coulestifl commiMS."
224 ST BASIL THE GREAT.
ally of the Western church, he was always included, as will
appear from another letter. The Arian emperor, however, was
not likely to be moved by his individual authority, but rather
by the great number of the bishops who might address him,
whicii the saint aptly calls, " the authority of the multitude."*
In a case of this kind, where the person to be addressed was
an alien from the faith, it would be idle to urge the individual
power of the Roman Bishop ; but the remonstrances and peti-
tions of many might prove efficacious.
When addressing Athanasius with a view to procure the ex-
tirpation of heresy, and the correction of scandals, by the im-
mediate action of the proper ecclesiastical authority, Basil dis-
tinctly specifies the Bishop of Rome, who, though accustomed
in matters of importance to act with the concurrence of his col-
leagues assembled in synod, radically possessed all the power
necessary for the wants of the churches. " It appears to me
proper," says he, " that a letter should be written to the Bishop
of Rome, that he may take into consideration what has here
taken place, and decree;! and since it is difficult that any per-
sons should be sent thence by a common and synodical decree,
he, himself, using his authority in this case, may choose men
able to support the fatigue of the journey, and also calculated,
by the meekness and facility of their disposition, to correct
those amongst us who are crooked and perverse ; tempering
their discourse aptly and providently, and bringing with them
all the documents of what has been done for the necessary re-
scinding of the acts of Rimini. — Some there, also, desire, and,
as we think, properly, that when they come they should ex-
press their execration of the heresy of Marcellus, as evil and
pernicious, and opposed to sound faith. — And when those who
may be sent shall arrive, with the divine blessing, let them not
occasion schisms in the churches ; but rather let them draw to
unity by every means those who entertain the same sentiments,
* Letter xlviii. p. 415. <' Qui rerum potiuntur multitudinis auto-
ritate permoveantur."
SIGNAL FACT. 225
althoiij[Th they may meet with some who may allo^o peculiar
•^rounds of clisseiiiioii ; lest they separate the orthodox people
from their prelaii's, and divide them into many parties. For
care must he taken that all ihinirs must he sacrificed to peace :
and especially thai the churcli of Antioch be healed, lest in that
sincere (orthodox) church a portion, becoming weak through
personal attaclimenls, he cut off."* In this you cannot find a
sentence to warrant our doctrine, though the saint solicits the
exertion of the authority of the Bishop of Rome,t independently
of any synod — an authority sufficient, in his mind, to heal the
wounds of the patriarchal cliurch of Antioch.
Basil gives a signal instance of the exercise of that author-
ity which was admitted by an oriental svnod, thous[h the
Fathers were conscious that the Pope had been deceived by
the wiles of the heretical bishop, Eustathius, whose character
he depicts in dark colours. 'J'hisman having been deposed for
heresy and other crimes in the synod of iMelite, devised a plan
for recovering his station, namely, to have recourse to the
supreme authority of the Pontiff: *'What was proposed to him,"
says Basil, •♦ by the most blessed bishop Liberius, and what he
consented to, we know not; but he brought back with him a
letter directing that he should be restored, and having present-
ed it to the synod at Tyana, he was replaced in his station. *':J^
This surely was a manifest recognition of the right of the Pon-
tiff to rescind by his authority the judgment of the synod:
since it was respected, though exercised on false information.
After so many testirtionies and evidences of the authority of
the Holy See, I scarcely need notice your attempt to derive an
argument from expressions used by Basil in regard to Antioch,
and other churches. In exciting the zeal of Athanasius to
cause the Western bishops to aid in the settlement of the dis-
sentions of Antioch, he dwells on the great importance of that
See, and observrs, that ;is n sKilful physician attends, in the lirst
* Epittt. lii. ad Aliian. p 41G.
X Lc-ttrr 71, p. r-iir
226
ST BASIL THE GREAT.
instance, to the more dangerous disorders, afiecting the princi-
pal parts, so should the cure of Antioch be first effected, that,
like a sound head, it niiglit impart health to the whole body.
This might be said of that patriarchal See, which was the most
important church then labouring under the malady of schism,
by reason of the contentions of the friends of Eustathius and Me-
letius. When, however, he addresses tlie bishops of the West,
he uses language which can only be applied to Damasus, their
head, as well as the head of all the churches : ''Since, then, the
head cannot say to the feet I have no need of you, neither will
you reject us." — After the statement of the desolation of the
churches, he adds : "Think not that we speak thus with a
view to teach you, or excite your diligence, for we know that
you never forget us, no more than a mother forgets the chil-
dren of her womb. Stretch forth your hands to the churches
that are tossed by the storm, lest being entirely abandoned they
suffer shipwreck. It was fit that many *of us should hasten
to your Reverence, and that each one should be the reporter
of his own affairs and sufferings."*
WHien addressing the clergy of the church of Nicopolis, he
warns them, as you observe, not to indulge in strife with their
mother, the church of Nicopolis, and calls this church a ten-
der mother, — the nurse of piety; but who does not perceive
the propriety of these terms, and that they involve no compa-
rison with other churches? Each particular church is a mother
to the clergy and faithful witliin her limits: each church that
has sent forth Apostolic men to etablish other churches may be
styled mother in their regard: each church of higher dignity
is a mother of the subordinate churches ; but the Roman
Church is the mother of all churches, by reason of her autho-
rity, and of that tender solicitude which Basil has so affectingly
described.
You here introduce a rule of St Basil concerning the bap-
tism administered by heretics, with a view to prove that he
disregarded the authority of the Roman See. In his letter to
* Ep. Ixx. p. G70.
• COUNCIL OF NICE. 227
Ampliilocliiiis he slates, that cerlaiii heretics, wljo did nut use
the iiivoi-aiion of l!ic Trinity, siiouUl by all means be baj)lised,
on coinin<^ to the Cliurch. In lliis lie is in pcrlcct liarniony
witli the decree of Pope Stephen, whicli regarded those wiio,
in baptism, invoked the Trinity. He makes reference to ilie
opinion of Cyprian and Firmilian, wlio rejected baptism admi-
nistered by heretics, even though the rite were strictly observ-
ed; but adds, that since it appeared riglu to many Asiatic bishops
that those baptized in the regular way sliould be received
into the Church without a new baptism, through a motive
of economy and dispensation, — by whicli he seems to mean
prudential considerations connected with the harmony of the
prelates, and peace of the Church, — let them be received. In
this, likewise, he assents to the practice which Stephen had
inculcated. With regard to tlie Encrutites he observes, that
as nothing had been clearly determined in their regard, he
thinks no account should be had of their baptism, for reasons
peculiar to this sect : but in case a contrary usage some-
where prevailed, he does not insist on this, to the prejudice
of harmony. This is the substance of the first canon, or
rule, as given in the translation of (Jentian Ilervelus.* In it
there is nolliing in direct opposition with the principle laid
down by Stephen, as the whole question is reduced to the case
of the Encrutites, on which special case no decree had emana-
ted, and whose mode of baptizing may not have been ascer-
tained with certainly. The version which yon used must have
given a difierent meaning.
The mode in which he speaks of the Council of Nice seems
to you inconsistent with the high authority which we ascribe
to a General Council. lie says, indeed, that those who reject
the term ♦' consubstantial," sanctioned by those Fathers, are
censurable, though some may be, in some degree, excused on
account of their not understanding it correctly, especially as
they heard it fiercely assailed. Vou a.sk : " Did Basil ihink
that the Nicene creed was inspired ?" — Neiih.er do we deem it
• Edit. Col. p. 5C0.
228 ST BASIL THE GREAT.
such, in the sense in which inspiration is strictly applied to
Scripture. He believed, as we do, that the dogma defined by
the Fathers and declared in that creed, was a revealed truth,
whicli they were divinely assisted to define, and to propound
correctly. In this consisted tiieir unerring authority. He be-
lieved them further empowered to express that dogma by a
term which they should deem best calculated to meet all the
cavillings of heretics, and to make its profession in that way
a necessary condition of Churcli communion. This exercise
of autiiority resulting from the governing power of the Church,
and from the ciiarge given her to guard the divine deposite of
revelation, is closely connected with her right to define, and
commands the respect of all her children. 'J'iiere may be cir-
cumstances, however, that extenuate, in some degree, the fault
of those who, holding the doctrine in all sincerity of heart,
might regret the adoption of a term which had become the sub-
ject of fierce disputation. This is all that the holy doctor
teaches. Not only did he repeat the creed of Nice, with the
anathema of the Catholic and Apostolic Cjjurch against those
who deny Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, true God of true
God, but he added, " according to this formulary we cling to
the faith of the Church :"* and he proved his faitli by his suffer-
ings, which he has so eloquently pourtrayed, in giving us the
picture of the desolation caused by Arian impiety.
In the passage wincii you have quoted from his epistle to
Cyriacus, you have a splendid evidence of his profound vene-
ration for the formulary of laith adopted by the Ni(;ene coun-
cil. Ho exhorts the faithful at Tarsus to " profess the faith
set forlli by our fathers wlio ("onnerly came together at Nice,
and not to reject a word of it, but to be convinced that these
three hundred and eighteen Fathers, who, without dissention,
agreed on that formulary, had so spoken not without the assist-
ance of the Holy Spirit. "t You understand by this, no more
than iIk; ordinary tiid of divine grace whereby the faith is pro-
fessed by any individual : because " no man can say : Lord
* Ep. Ix. Eccl. Antioch. t P. 207. rar.ed.
ASSISTANCE OF TIIK IIOl.Y OIIOST. 2*29
Jesus, but by llie Holy Ghost."* liul surely, there' wns no
need of such solemn asseveration to prove that ihe I'aihers had
such aid as all receive. How vain are all the efTorls of human
ingenuity to evade the expressions of this illustrioiis doctor!
He speaks evidently of an extraordinary light from above, sucli
as that which authorized the first council to say: *' It hath
seemed good to the Holy (ihost and to us:" he speaks of that
special assistance which Jesus Christ promised the pastors of
his Church, in the person of the Apostles, when he said : •' I
will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete,
that he may abide wiih you for ever: the Spirit of truth;!"
♦♦ ho will tearli you all things, and will bring to your mind all
things whatsoever I shall have said to you."| — When he inti-
mates that the explicit profession of the divinity of this Holy
Spirit should follow the creed, he does not suppose any error,
or neglect, on the part of the Nicene Fathers ; but the temerity
of man having, subseciuenlly to the holding of the council, as-
sailed the divinity of the Holy Ghost, it was proper to give
Him, in the most express manner, that homage which was al-
ready implied in the simple words of the symbol. 'J'hesc Fa-
thers had added nothing to its meaning, when they declared
i!ie consubstantiality of the Son ; for from the commencement
of the Church he was always believed and adored as the True
God, as well as Saviour : nor did the faiihfid detract from their
authority, when, to express their horror of a new blasphemy,
they proclaimed aloud, that the Holy Spirit was no creature ;
but the same God as the Father and the Son.
" 1 Cor. xii. 3. ( John liv. IC. \ John xiv. 2(3.
LETTER XVIIL
ST GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM.
Right Reverend Sir :
The intimate friendship that existed between St Basil and
St Gregory of Nazianzura, has led you to subjoin the testi-
nriony of the latter to that of the eloquent bishop of Caesarea.
Your introductory passage is from his twenty-sixth discourse,
in which he shows, that order is perceivable in all the works of
creation, and in the human body in particular; — in the Aaronic
priesthood and in the Church ; whence he infers that all ought
not to take on themselves to discuss the mysteries of faith, still
less should they indulge a bitter and unrestrained spirit of con-
tention. His remarks are pungent indeed : " If we chance,"
says he, " to acquire triflino- fame, or not even this oftentimes,
but if we have got by heart two or three passages of Scripture,
and these in a mutilated way, and without attention to their
meaning — with this knowledge attained in a day, and like that
of the tower-builders at Chalan [Babel), where the tongues
were divided, we rise up senselessly in revolt against Moses,
and we become contumelious and impious, like Dathan and
Abiron, whose arrogance we should avoid, and not imitate
their frenzy, lest we meet with their end. Do you wish that
I should present you with another instance of order, one wor-
thy of praise, and also worthy of being mentioned and seriously
considered on the present occasion? Do you see that among
the discii)les of Christ, all of whom were sublime and worthy
of their election, one is called a rock, and is entrusted with the
foundations of tiie Church ; another is loved more, and rests
on the breast of Jesus ; and the others bear patiently the prefer-
I'IMKR THK ROCK. 231
ence/'* The use of the lerin " chicresl," in your iiaiislalion
of llii;? passage, is liable lo exception, as the ori<fiiial term, and
its Laliti version, is in the positive degree, and siiould be ren-
dered *' bigl>" or sublime. t The obscurity of the phrase " re-
ceives in faith the foundation of the Church," is scarcely ex-
cusable, and still less your version given in the note — *' be-
lieves in the foundation of the Church," — this not being the
meaning of the author, as may be seen below. j The ob-
ject of St Gregory being to show, that there is order in all
things, and that even among the Apostles — all of wliom were
elevated in dignity and power, and were worthy of their high
calling — this order was established ; so that Peter was a rock,
and was specially entrusted with the foundation of the Church,
whilst John received marks of special love, and the other Apos-
tles witnessed and bore without jealousy the privileges and
preference of the favoured two, we must infer, that ]*eter was
specially invested with authority, as John was specially belov-
ed. 'J'he whole scope of the discourse warrants this conclu-
sion. When he asks, " where is austerity observable in the
mode of acting of the Apostles ? where lust of domination ?§"
he only shows the meekness wliich marked their exercise of
• S. Greg. Naz. 20. cd. Colon, an 1(>(>0. t C-^^Mhrnr.
Bishop lloj)kins reads tc/c ^^tjuty^iitc — but he must have mistaken the
contracted for the ordinary Greek. This contraction appears in the
Paris edition of 1G30. In that of Cologne, 1 «»:)(), there is no contrac-
tion. The edition of Basle, in 1550, and Sclielstrate in his Antiqui-
ties, have tlie same readinfr^ wliich is the only one which the con-
text will bear. Bishop Hopkins says, that the orirjinal term does not
warrant the Latin viision. With jrreal deference, I submit that it
docfl, for •' Ecclesia; fundamenta in fidem suam recipiat," means, " he
takes charge of the foundations of the Church," aa may be seen by the
use of the phrase in /idem recipere, in Cicero, and other classical au-
thors. The Greek verb, which, in the active voice, means /o belirrr, or to
ifire in rfuirffr, in the middle and passive voices, joined with the accusa-
tive, means to bt chnrfrcd or cntruslrd irith, as in 1 Cor. ix. 17, eiaero.
juiur ntrn-tvfjiai: "a. dispi-nHAtion is committed unto me." See Dioge-
nes LaiTtiuH.l. vii. c. 1. § 2'^, Tifiu^ttrc( mt tt \\tp')m./uf» lii^Kn^tixtti
** brine fntrustrd tcith the rhar/rf of the library in Pergamus."
232 ST GREGORY OF XAZIANZUM.
authority, and the submission with which it was embraced. In
speaking of " Peter, John, and James, as being before the
others, and being regarded as such," he does not establish an
equality between these three Apostles; but he mentions the
peculiar favour shown them, and he specifies particularly, in
regard to Peter, what that favour was, since ho was styled the
rock, and specially entrusted with founding and establishing
the Church. Hence, he calls him elsewliere " the strength or
support* of the Church" — " the most honoured of the disciples. "t
When St Gregory, in speaking of the virtues of his departed
father,! dwells on his faith, and on the glory that resulted to
the church of Nazianzum, from his administration, no one can
so far mistake his meaning, as to suppose that he is asserting
any prerogative for that church. You state, that he styles
" the church of Nazianzum a new^ Jerusalem, an ark borne on
the waters," and *' as much as it was inferior to others in num-
ber, so much did it surpass them in celebrity, resembling, in
this respect, Bethlehem, which, though a small city, was yet
the metropolis of the world." All this is true, but let the sen-
tence be read entire, and its meaning will be manifest. "That
great man of God, and truly worthy to be styled a theologian,
entertaining these sentiments (in regard to the Trinity),
and being moved by the Spirit concerning these things, what
else can we say, than that, as that great Noe of old, the father
of this new world, he caused this church to be called a new
Jerusalem, and an ark borne on the waters ? And this, because it
raanifesdy rose above the deluge of souls, and the malicious
attacks of heretics : and as much as it was inferior to others in
the number [of its children), so much did it surpass them in
celebrity ; resembling, in this respect, Bethlehem, which, al-
though a small city, was yet the metropolis of the world, being
the nurse and mother of Christ, who made and overcame the
* risT/joy — TO Tiff gxxx»<r/*f i/!£/o-^st. Apolog. ad Patrem. Orat. vii. p.
141.
t Uirpa TH ri/utet^ATH rav /ua^nTtrv. P. 157. Orat. ix.
I St Gregory, the elder, was married before his baptism, and long
after the birth of his son Gregory, was elevated to the priesthood.
VIRTUES OF THK ELDER CREOORV. 233
world."* I deem it quite unnecessary to give any explanation
of this oratorical elFusion, which, as every one sees, is not di-
rected to set forth the authority of tlie ciiurch of Nazianzum,
but the eminent virtues of its deceased |)aslor. 'I'he letter of
the elder Gregory, to wiiich you next refer, fully confirms what
even this panegyric implies, that Nazianzum was a small flock
— a Bethlehem, whose whole glory the piety of the son attri-
butes to the distinguished zeal of the father. The archiepiscopal
dignity of the church of Ca?sarea, gave it far greater import-
ance in the hierarchy, and hence the election of its bishop en-
gaged all the solicitude of the venerable bishop of Nazianzum.
He wrote to the people of that church during its vacancy, and
recommended Basil as the fit person to be chosen for that See:
** Care, indeed, must be taken," says he, " of every church,
as of the body of Christ, but especially of yours, which was
from the beginning, and now is, and is considered, the mother
of almost all the churches, and to which the communityt looks,
as a circle inscribed around a centre, not only on account of its
orthodoxy, proclaimed to all in times past, but also for the gift
of harmony granted to it manifestly by God." I have made
this translation literally from the original which now lies be-
fore me, because I find you avail yourself of the literary flour-
ish of the ordinary version, to make it appear that Ca^sarea was
regarded as the centre of the whole ('hrislian world.; No
doubt all Christendom felt interested that the metropolis of
Cappadocia should have an orthodox bishop ; but the churches
which were in its vicinity, and were subject to the authority
of that See, whicli was the mother and foundress of almost all
of them, fell most deeply this interest, since they were as the
radii issuing forth from her, as from the centre. The saint
never could have entertained the idea that a metropolitan
church, subject to the patriarchal See of Antioch, shoulil be
• S. Greg. Naz. Oral xix. p *il)7 Edit. Col.
t Tfic «» Ts «c/f:» 0KtTu, mc «i»t;» Kt/«A^ wtfiypa^iun^. £p. 22,
ad Cesar. P. 7ri5. Edit. Col.
; " Ad quam tota Rospublica Christiana oculos conjicit."
234 ST GREGORY OF NAZIANZU3I.
regarded as the mother of almost all churches of the universe,
and the centre of the whole Christian commonwealth. Basil
has beautifully declared which Church is the mother of all
churches, when addressing the Roman Church in behalf
of the See of Caesarea, and the other Eastern churches, he so
touchingly remarks, " that he is convinced she does not forget
them, as the mother forgets not the children of her womb."
The will of Gregory, who was afterwards transferred to the
church of Constantinople, begins thus: "I, Gregory, bishop
of the Catholic church, which is in the city of Constantinople,
have consecrated all my property to the Catholic church at
Nazianzum, for the service of the poor belonging to the said
church." You remark this phrase, in order to deprive us of
the benefit which the numerous testimonies of the Fathers bring
to the Catholic cause ; but, I conceive, it refutes triumphantly
a hackneyed objection of Protestants, that the phrase, " Roman
Catholic Church," is a solecism. Gregory speaks of the
Catholic Church in a particular city, without destroying, by
this limitation, or specification, its universal character as a por-
tion of the orthodox Church spread throughout the world.
With equal propriety we can speak of the Catholic Church of
Rome, having reference to the principal See, with which all
the churches communicate, without detracting any thing from
its universal character or authority. It is to offer violence to
the obvious meaning of their words, to suppose that the Fathers
spoke of any other Church than that which alone is orthodox,
and alone universal, " because," as St Cyril of Jerusalem so
forcibly remarks, " it teaches, without imperfection or diminu-
tion, all truth," and because " it is spread throughout the world."
This passage sufficiently refutes your observation, that the
Fathers — writing at the time when the world was said to be
leagued against Athanasius, — did not mean, by Catholic faith,
the faith which was then universal, but that which had been
universal from the beginning. Notwithstanding the persecu-
tion which that champion of orthodoxy endured, and the appa-
rent prevalence of Arianism, from the violent intrusion of Ari-
ans into many Sees, the faith was still Catholic, in the mean-
ONE FAITH. 235
Ing of Cyril and the other Fathers, because it was in reality
spread tliroii<;hout tlie world, and everywhere professed and
taught by bishops in communion with the See of Peter. Hence,
somewhat later, St Auguslin confounded the Donalisls hy the
very fact of their sect being confined to a corner of Africa —
whilst llie Ciuircli of Christ, according to the divine promises,
is necessarily, in all ages from her first establishment, Catholic,
spreading the splendour of one faith from the rising to the set-
ting of the sun.
The distracted state of Christendom, which Gregory, in the
funeral j)anegyric of Hasil, so graphically describes, does not
imply any diversity of faith in the Ciiurch itself. 'JMirough the
violence of the Arian emperor, V'alens, " bishops professing
the orthodox faith were driven from the churches ; others were
intruded, professing the pestilential and destructive heresy sup-
ported by the emperor,"* but one faith was common to all those
who communicated with tlie Apostolic See of Peter, as Basil
himself testifies. " We have not," says he, '♦ a different faith
at Seleucia, a diflferent one at Constantinople, and a diflerent
one at Zelis, and a different one at Lampsacus, and a different
one at Rome ; ami that formulary which is now used, is not
different from the preceding, but one and the same."t The
calamities which afllicted the Church arose from imperial vio-
lence and Arian intrigue. There was no freedom, as you as-
sert, claimed or exercised by any of the portions of the Church,
to take any course different from that which the Nicene Fathers
had pointed out, and whicji the See of Rome laboured to main-
tain. Gregory, and IJasil, and all the illustrious bishops of that
age, spent themselves, and suffered in defence of that faith :
whilst false bishops yielded to the will of Caesar, or employed
his power to disturb llie peace, and destroy, were it possible,
the faith of the Church, 'i'he eloquent panegyrist aptly styles
their faith, ** the imperial pestilence. "+ You may now under-
• Oral. XX. p. :M7. E.lil. Col.
t S. litutW, Ep. 72, p. (171. Basil.
t rti( (iartKitii Awmkuac. P. 348. Oral. xx. S. Greg. Na«.
236 ST GREGORY OF NAZIANZUM.
stand how, notwithstanding the recognition by the Catholic
world of the chieftancy of the Roman Bishop, and the belief of
the doctrine expressed in the symbol of Nice, Christendom
was still torn to pieces, and provinces were desolated which
once had been the chosen vineyard of the Lord. A wild boar
laid them waste. No Church authority could subdue the ob-
stinacy of heresy leagued with the civil power.
The sentiments of Gregory in regard to the councils of his
time, which you gatiier from his letter to Procopius, are not in-
consistent with his known veneration for the definitions of faith
made by an OEcumenical Council. During the greater part of his
public career, the violence and intrigues of the Arians had pre-
vented any happy result from the various synods that had been
convened ; and though in the Council of Constantinople the
error of Macedonius had been proscribed, yet even there the
jealousies and contentions of some bisliops had given the saint
just cause of pain. Having resigned the government of that
church, thus to remove every occasion of dissatisfaction, he
did not wish to abandon his retreat, and in his advanced age
take part in the proceedings of any such assembly. You pre-
tend to discover his true sentiments in this letter, in which
he declines to attend a council, and begs of Procopius to ex-
cuse him to the emperor, especially on account of his age and
infirmity ; as if you would insinuate that such a man did not
always profess his real sentiments, and act in accordance with
them. We need not examine the private letters of a Gregory,
or a Basil, to discover their true sentiments, for throughout
life both of them proved, that not even the frowns or threats
of an emperor could intimidate them. When, then, they
avowed their unreserved belief in the Nicene creed, they real-
ly venerated the definition of an GScumenical Council: and
when Gregory, in the Council of Constantinople, united with
his colleagues in anathematizing the heresy of Macedonius, he
was firmly persuaded that God had charged the bishops of the
church to guard the deposite of revelation, and that such doc-
trinal definitions as are the expression of the general faith, are
pronounced under the influence of divine assistance. That
COUNCILS. 237
council was not indeed a'cumenical, but it was a larL'^e col-
lection of oriental bishops, whose faith was known to accord
with their Western colleagues ; and its act was a n»easure
adopted on the spot where the error was broached, and it assu-
med the character of a general definition, when the Western
bishops with Daniasus proclaimed tlieir failh with similar so-
lemnity. Gregory had never been in a council strictly cecu-
menical ; but had this last council been such, still he might
have said with regard to the councils of his time in general,
that he had never witnessed the happy termination of any of
them. Such general expressions would not necessarily em-
brace every council without exception. IJut in regard to Ge-
neral Councils themselves, we are far from denying, that the
members of them are liable to imperfection and sin. We claim
for them only what is guaranteed by the divine promises, in-
fallibility in their doctrinal decisions. AA'hen your author Gi-
bert stales that a General Council can neither sin, nor err, he
does not certainly mean, that no sin can be committed by its
members, even in their solemn deliberations. Men vested
with the most sacred authority, and discharging the most so-
lemn functions of a divine ministry, are still liable to the im-
perfections and weaknesses of humanity. There was much
discussion, most probably attended with some fault, under the
eyes of the Apostles themselves, in the first council: but the
decree which went forth, determining the controversy, had the
sanction of the Divine Spirit, whose assistance is granted to
the tribunal of the Cliurch, in virtue of the prayer of Christ,
without regard to our unworthiness.
LETTER XIX.
ST AMBROSE.
Right Reverend Sir :
From the East, desolated by Ariaii impiety and imperial
persecution, we return to the West, to hear the testimony of
Ambrose, the illustrious archbishop of Milan. The remarks
by which you commence the examination of his sentiments
sufficiently indicate how forcible is the testimony he renders to
the Primacy of Peter and his successors in the Roman See. In
his commentary on the fortieth Psalm, he says : " This is that
Peter to whom Christ said : ' Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my Church.' Therefore, where Peter is,
THERE IS THE Church, there death is not, but life eternal : and
therefore he added: 'and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it : and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven.' Blessed Peter, against whom the gate of hell did
not prevail, and tiie gate of heaven was not closed : but, on
the contrary, he destroyed the porches of liell, and laid open
those of heaven : therefore, whilst on earth, he opened heaven,
and shut hell."* Saint Ambrose wrote thus when refuting
the Arians. He speaks of the question put by our Redeemer
to his disciples as to what opinions were current among men
concerning him. He observes the silence of Peter in this cir-
cumstance ; but he calls our attention to his promptitude in
answering the question as to their own belief, *' This, there-
fore, is Peter, who answered rather than the other Apostles,
yea, for the others, and he is therefore styled the foundation,
* S. Ambros. in Psalm xl. enarr. § 30, p. 7C2. Ed. Paris, an. IGGl.
I'KTF.Il TMF, FOINDATION. 239
because lie knew how* lo preserve not only that whicli was
his own, but also which was common to all. To him Christ
gave his approbation; the Father revealed it: for he, who
speaks of the true generation of the Father, learned it not
from flesh, but from the Father. Faith, therefore, is the foun-
dation of the Church : for it was ncU said of the flesh of Peter,
but of his faith, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it: but the confession overcame hell. And this confession
does not exclude one heresy only : for since the Church, like a
good ship, is lashed oftentimes by many waves, the foundation
of the Church ouglit to prevail against all heresies. 'I'he day
would close before I should have enumerated tlie names of the
heretics and difl'erenl sects : but against all of them that faith
is general, that Christ is the Son of Cod, eternally proceeding
from the Father, born in time of the Virgin."! When Amhrose
says, tliat faith is the foundation of the Church, he speaks of
that faith as professed by Peter, that is, of Peter professing the
faith. He is, therefore, styled the foundation, in reward of
his promptitude to confess (yhrist before the others, and in
their name, because he showed his solicitude for their general
welfare and happiness. The confession which he made of the
divinity of Christ, was, indeed, the expression of his divinely
inspired individual faith, but it was made by him in reply to a
question that regarded all ; nor did he give it in as his own parti-
cular faith. Thus he knew how to preserve the common inte-
rest, and was worthy to be made the foundation, and principal
member of the Church. St Ambrose insists that the Church
was not built on the flesh of Peter, but on his faith ; because
it was no mere natural (jualily that gained for him this prero-
gative, but his faith in the divinity of Christ, and this faith is
ever to prove the bulwark of the Church against the endh^ss
varieties of heresy. As the saint wrote against the Arians, he
" Hie v»l CTgo I'l'trus, qui nspondit prtr cceleris Apostolis, inio pro
ca'toris, rt idco fundninontun) dicitur, quia novit non soluui proj)riuin,
Bod etiauj cotunuinc scrvaic Iluic a«tipulatu8 est Christus, rovrlavit
Pater.
t S. Anibros. dc incarn. c. 1 and."), p. 2-2\. Tom. II. Kdit. Basil.
240 ST AMBROSE.
particularly insisted on the necessity and efficacy of this di-
vinely inspired belief. The text is obviously to be understood
of the faith of Peter, not as distinct from him ; and numberless
testimonies of Ambrose confirm this meaning. Thus, in his
work on faith, he observes : " That you may know that what
he asks as man, he ordains by his divine power, you have in
the Gospel what he said to Peter : ' I have prayed for thee,
that thy faith may not fail.' And when Peter said before :
* Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,' he answered:
* Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,
and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'
Could he not, therefore, strengthen the faith of him to whom
he gave a kingdom of his own authority, and whom, in call-
ing A ROCK, HE MADE THE STRENGTH OF THE ChURCH ? Con-
sider when it is that he prays — when it is that he commands.
He prays when he is about to suffer; he commands when he
is believed to be the Son of God."* Peter, then, according to
this holy doctor, is the rock of strength on which the Church
rests : he has received a kingdom from Christ. Elsewhere he
says : — " In consequence of the solidity of his devotion, he is
styled the rock of the Churches, as the Lord says : ' Thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church :' for he is
called a rock, because he was the first to lay the foundations of
faith among the nations, and like an immovable stone he
HOLDS TOGETHER THE STRUCTURE AND MASS OF THE WHOLE
Christian fabric. "t — Speaking of the cure of the lame man,
he observes: "We have said frequently, that he was called
Peter by the Lord, as he says : ' Thou art Peter, and on this
rock I will build my Church.' Since, therefore, Peter is the
rock on whicii the Church is built, it is meet that in llie first
instance he should heal the feet The rock sustains and
RENDERS firm THE NATIONS LEST THEY FALL. "J
* S. Ambros. de Fide. l.iv. p. 99 Edit. Basil.
t " Tamquam saxum immobile totius operis Christian! compagem mo-
lemq: contineat." S. Ambros. Serin. 47, p. 35G. Edit. Basil.
X Serm. Gd, p. 3G1.
KXHORTATION TO lAlIH. 211
It is manifest llial St Ainhrose inlcrprolcd l!;e texts of Scrip-
ture precisely as u e interpret tliein, atul recognised in i*eler
special powers and ])rer()gatives not granted to ilie (Ulier Apos-
tles of Christ. He was tlie rock, — the lonndation, — the sirengili
and support of the Clinrch, — sustaining ail the parts of the vast
fabric, hokhng then) togi'lher in unity, and imparting to them
strengili and durability. He received a kingdom from Clirist,
— that lieavenly kingdom wiiose keys were entrusted to him.
But you refer us to texts in which the saint exhorts every one
to believe as Peter believed, that he also may be blessed, and
asserts that whosoever overcomes the flesh, is a foundation of the
Church. — Surely in this no more was intended than an exhorta-
tion to faith and piety, with the assurance that those who imi-
tate the faith of Peter, will receive a divine blessing, and be-
come serviceable to religion. Such as are familiar with the
writings of llie Fathers know, that it was their constant prac-
tice thus to take occasion from every fact, or sentence of Scrip-
ture, to moralize and to exhort, 'i'he saint mostclearly intimates
it in the very sentence itself: " Whosoever," says he, ♦* over-
comes the llesh, is a foundation of the Church, and if he can-
not equal Pttrr, he can iuiitafc him.''* It is in the same
spirit that he continues in this paragraph to treat of the term
*' rock.'" " Christ," says he, " is a rock : ' for they drank of
that spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was
Christ.' He did not deny the favour of this appellation even
to his disciple, that he may also be Peter, because from the
rock he derives the solidity of constancy, and the firmness of
faith. "t Thus far he retains the literal meaning of the text,
and often and strongly inculcates it. Thence he takes occa-
sion for exhortation. " Strive, then," continues he, " that
thou also may be n rock. Look not out of thee, but within
thee, for the rock. Thy rock is thy action : thy rock is thy
mind. On this rock h-t thy house be built, that it may not be
lashed by the storms of ilic spiri'.s of wickedness. Thy rock
' S. Aiiibrns 1. vj Liir. c ix. j>. Mi. IMil. liasil, anno l't'.V<.
♦ Ibid. p. to.
V
242 ST AMBROSE.
is faith — tlie foundation of the Church is faith. If thou art a
rock, thou wilt be in the Church, because the Church is on the
rock. If thou art in the Church, the gates of hell will not
prevail against tliee. The gates of hell are the gates of death :
but the gates of death cannot be the gates of the Church. But
what are the gates of death, that is, the gates of hell, unless
the several sins ? If thou art a fornicator, thou hast entered
the gates of death : if thou hast violated thy faith, thou hast
entered the gates of hell: if thou hastcommitted mortal sin, thou
hast entered the gates of death."* You justly observe the corres-
pondence of Origen and Ambrose in this strain of edifying, but
mystic, interpretation. No interpreter of Scripture would ven-
ture to adopt it as the genuine and literal meaning ; nor is there
the least reason to believe that it was givesi as such by its ingeni-
ous authors. St Ambrose, speaking of the name of rock as com-
mon to Christ and to Peter, says: " Some believed the Lord
to be Elias, some Jeremias, some John the Baptist. Peter alone
confesses him to be Christ, the Son of God. There are cer-
tain gradations of faith, and he who believes more devoutly,
confesses more religiously. In consequence of this devotion
it is said to Peter : ' Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh
and blood liath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in
heaven. And I say to thee : thou art Peter, and on this rock
1 will build my Church.' His name then being Simon, he was
called Peter on account of this devotion. We read in the
Apostle of the Lord himself: ' they drank of the Spiritual Rock,
and the Rock was Christ.' Justly, since Christ was a Rock,
Simon was named Peter, that he who enjoyed the communion
of faith with the Lord, might have, with the Lord also, the
unity of the Lord's name ; that as the Christian is called from
Christ, so also the Apostle Peter should derive his name from
Christ the Rock."t Peter, then, is a rock in a peculiar sense,
made such in reward of his faith, and that he might be the
strength and support of the whole Church. " Peter," says
be, elsewhere, " is therefore styled a rock for his devotion,
* S. Ambros. 1. vi. Luc. c. ix. p. 89. Edit. Basil, anno 1538.
t Ambr. Scrm. 84. Tom. III. p. 383.
I'ETKR, inSIlOP OF Tilt; ROMAN (MU'RCII. 243
and the Lord is slyled a Kock lor his power, as the Apostle
says ; ' they drank of the Spiritual Kock that lollowed them,
and ilie Kock was Christ.' lie jiisiiy deserves the conimuni-
catioii of the name, uho is made worthy to partake of the work,
for Peter in the same house laid the foundation. Peter plants,
the Jjord gives an increase, the Lord waters."* As for the
passage wherein it is said, that " all the chddren of the Church
are priests, "t as it has no connexion willi our j)resent investi-
gation, 1 can only e.xpress my surprise at its unseasonahle in-
troduction. Besides, its explanation is immediately subjoin-
ed : ** for we are anointed to the priesthood that we may offer
ourselves spiritual victims to God." Peter was a priest in a
far snhlinjer sense ; lie was, as St Ambrose teslilies, " Bishop
of the Koman Church. "t
The passage which you object from tlie commentary on the
thirty-eitrluh Psalm, to be properly understood, must be read
in coimexion with the context of the place whence it is taken.
The last verse of the Psalm reads thus, in our Vulgate trans-
lation : — "O forgive me, that I may be refreshed, before I go
hence and be no more." On these words St Ambrose writes —
*'F«)ri;;ive me, that is, fori^ive me here where I have sinned.
Unless you forgive me here, I shall not be able to find there
the repose consequent on forg'veness: for what remains bound
on earth, shall remain bound in heaven, what shall be loosed
on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Therefore, the Lord gave
to his Apostles, what previously was reserved to his own judg-
ment, the discretionary power§ of remiitintr sins, lest what
should be speedily loosed should remain bountl for a long time.
Finally, hear what he says: ' I wdl give to thee the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on
earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth, shall be looseil also in heaven.' 'i'o thee, he
• S. Arnbros. i. v. § :V3. Kdit. Par. p. 13(V4.
t Smn. 47, p. WM.
* S Ami., dr Sac.l. lii. c. 1, p. 37}. T-.m. IV. Kdit. U lail.
§ ./Ecjuilalt'in.
244 ST AMBROSE.
says, I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that thou
mayst loose and bind. Novatian did not hear this, but the
Church of God heard it : therefore, he is in his fallen state ;
we are in the way of forgiveness : he is in a state of impeni-
tence ; we, of grace. What is said to Peter, is said to the
Apostles. We do not usurp the power, but we obey the com-
mand : lest, when the Lord shall afterwards come, and find
those bound who should have been loosed, he be excited against
the dispenser who kept the servants bound, whom the Lord
had ordered to be loosed.'** Li this beautiful vindication of
the power of forgiving sin, as exercised by the Catholic Church,
there is nothing that destroys the distinction which Christ
made in the powers of the Apostles. The saint quotes the
words addressed to Peter, to prove tliat the Church, founded
on Peter, has the power of forgiving sins. He observes that
this power was not confined to Peter, Christ having spoken in
like manner to all the Apostles. He does not say, that he
spoke precisely the same words, or gave the same degree of
power; but he says, that he gave to them, likewise, the power
of forgiveness. He does not treat, here, of the governing power
of the Church, as typified by the keys of the heavenly kingdom,
which were peculiarly given to Peter, but of the power of for-
giving sin, of binding and loosing, which was common to all.
When speaking distinctly of the power of the keys, he ascribes
it to Peter alone : " Peter, says he, who received the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, went up to the mountain: Jolm, to
whom his mother is entrusted : James, also, who first ascended
the Episcopal throne."! The reception of the keys of the
heavenly kingdom was consequently his characteristic, as it
was the peculiar privilege of Jolin to receive in his charge the
mother of the Lord, and of James to govern with Episcopal
authority the church of Jerusalem. You discover equality of
privilege where " Peter, James, and John, and Barnabas" are
* Enar. in Psahn xxxviii. p. 744. Edit. Par. an. 1662.
t S Ambios. Comm. in Lucam, 1. vii. c. 9. p. 92. Tom. V. Ed. Col.
See also in Psalm cxviii. Serm. 20.
I'KTKU S l'RKRi)OATI\ i;. 245
Styled pillars, :i.s if lliij^ ironornl rxprossion (Iclermiiu'd llie de-
gree f.f miiliorily with which llicy were rcspiMiivcly vested.
And even when liie saint calls Peter — " an eternal gate, against
wlion) the gates of hell shall ni)t prevail,"^ you imagine that
his prerogative is destroyed by the application of the same
symholical expression to John and James, though lie assigns a
quite different reason, namely, the appellation of " sons of
thunder," which was given them. It appears to me lliat a
distinction, evi^ry where so strongly marked, manifestly de-
notes special prerogative.
When Si Ambrose says, that " not only in Peter the one
operation of the Father, fc>on and Holy Ghost is found, but also
the unity of the divine operation in all the Apostles is revealed,
and a certain authority of the divine ap|)ointment ;t for the di-
vine operation implies command, not service ;J he d«)es not at
all speak of the degree in which the lliree divine persons
wrought in Peter and in the other Apostles. He was engaged
in proving that the operations of tlu' Deity are common to tlie
Father, Son, aiul Holy Ghost, and he illustrated the principle
by reference to Peter. As Paul was expressly set apart lor the
ministry hy the Holy Ghost, and as he testilied that the same
who had wrought in Peter for tliose of the circumcision had
wrought in him for the Gentiles, he shows that the Holy Spirit
wrought in Peter. The operation of the Father is established
by the testimony of Peter himself, who declares, that God chose
that the nations should hear the Gospel from his lips : " Be-
hold, therefore," Si Ambrose remarks, " God wrought in Peter
the grace of preaching: in which thing, since he was certainly
chosen and assumed hy Christ, who dares call in question the
operation (jf C'hrisl, since the JiortI himself says: 'Feed my
• S. Ambros. de fide, 1. iv. c. J. § tl't. Tom. H. p. [Hi. Ed. Bas.
\ " Qua-darn superno) constituliunis auloritas." The tcnn " consti-
lutio," is applied by St Ambrose to the appointment and establishment
of the Apostles: "Nam si constitulionem separes el polestatem, qua'
erat causa ut quos posuernt Apnstolos ('bristiis, poneret deus pater, po-
ncret et Spirituii Sanclus^" — S Ambros dc Spir. S. I. ii. c. I'i, p. lf*'.\.
Tom. II. Ed. Una. I Ibidem.
V»
246 ST AMBROSE.
lambs?' The operation of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is,
therefore, one." His object, then, is not to prove tlie equality
of the Apostles, but the imitij of the operation of the three di-
vine persons ; so that whatever grace, or power, was commu-
nicated to the Apostles, shoukl be ascribed to the Holy Ghost,
equally as to the Father and the Son, — as " all the Apostles
were not only disciples of Christ, but also ministers of the Fa-
ther, and of llie Son, and of the Holy Ghost." I may admire
the skill by which texts having no relation whatever to the
subject in dispute are thrown together, because the words taken
by themselves, apart from their context, appear favourable to
your position ; but I cannot deem it the most effectual method
of arriving at an author's meaning, or of conveying that mean-
ing to others. You add, from the same work, — " Therefore,
we behold unity of government, — unity of system, — unity of
bounty." Of what government does the author speak? You
introduce him as if he was establishing equality of powers in
the Apostolic government; and yet he speaks not of them, but
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost concurring in the estab-
lishment of the Church ! I shall recite the passage, with its
context, and leave the reader to judge of the fairness of your
application of it. " The Spirit gives," says St Ambrose, *' what
the Father gives, what the Son also gives. Let us, then, un-
derstand more expressly what we touched upon before, that the
Father and Son, and likewise the Holy Ghost, ordain the oflice,
and establish the same persons. For Paul said : ' Take heed
to yourselves, and to the whole flock in which the Holy Ghost
has placed you bishops to rule the Church of God.' There is
unity, then, of ordinance, unity of appointment, unity of com-
munication.* For if you separate the establishment and power,
what reason was there that God the Father, and the Holy
Ghost, should place those whom Christ had constituted Apos-
tles ?"t The unity of command, of which he speaks, is the
concurrence of the three Divine Persons in ordaining the ofKce ;
* " Unitas igitur imperii, unitas constitutionis, unitas largitatis."
I Ibid.
EQUALITY OF MFMHT. 247
— llie unity of appoinlnuMit is llioir concurreiico in ronstiuiting
the iiulividiials who are to tlisclrar<;e it, — the uniiy of coiiimu-
nication is their coiieurreiice in beslowiiitr the graces whereby
it is to he exereiseil.
It is in connexion with this that tlie saint proceeds to dwell
on this unity of majesty in tiie Father, Son, and Holy (Jhost,
which, lie says, tnight be more aptly termed by a Greek word —
T«wTCT«:, or '* identity," which is not a mere union of afTection,
but is the very ** substance of the Trinity." " 'I'his," he sub-
joins, " is the inheritance of Ai)oslolic faith and devotion, which
may be seen from their acts. 'I'herefore did Paul and Harna-
bas obey the commands of the Holy Spirit: and all the Apos-
tles obeyed, and immediately ordained those whom the Holy
Spirit had ordered to be set apart: ' Set apart for me,' he says,
*Paul and Barnabas.' " It is impossible, sir, that the text of
St Ambrose could have been before you when you endeavoured
to prove an equality of power among the Apostles, from a
passage in which the author establishes only the identity in
substance of the three divine persons, and the obedience yield-
ed to the commands of the Holy Spirit by the Apostles.
The last passage you bring forward is tlie only one which
appears to refer to the (piestion at issue between us : yet it can
easily be seen that the equality of Paul to Peter is asserted,
not as to the power of office, but as to the merit of virtue ; and
this with a view to prove that the choice of the Holy Spirit was
full of wisdom. "You see," says Ambrose, " the command
of Him who orders: consider the merit of those that minister.
Paul believed; and, because he believed, he forsook the pur-
suits of a persecutor, and bore away the crown of justice. He
who laid waste the churches bclieveil; and, being converted to
the faith, he preached in the spirit what the spirit commanded.
The spirit anointed his chamj)i()n, and liaving shaken of]' from
him the dust of in)j)iety, presented to the various assaults of
the impious, an invincible concjueror of unbelievers, and, by
divers sulTerings, prepared him for iUo. j)rize of the heavenly
vocation in ('hrist Jesus. IJariiahas also I)elieved, and, because
he believed, lie obeyed. '1 herefore, being chosen by the com-
248 ST AMBROSE.
mand of the Holy Spirit, wliioh is abundant evidence of the
excellence of his merits, he was not unworthy of so great a
college. For the same grace slione forth in those whom the
same spirit had cliosen. Nor was Paul inferior to Peter,
THOUGH THE ONE WAS THE FOUNDATION OF THE ChURCK, and
the other a wise architect, knowing how lo establish the steps
of the nations that believe. Paul, 1 say, was not unworthy of
the college of the Apostles, since he also may be con)pared
with THE FIRST, and was second to none: for he who does not
acknowledge himself inferior, makes himself equal."* The
meaning of the saint is obvious. lie is careful to mark even
here the distinguishing characteristic of Peter as the founda-
tion of the Church, and first of the Apostles, whilst he sup-
poses Paul equal in merit, and, on that account, to be compared
even with the first.
The pastoral and governing authority of Peter is clearly set
forth by St Ambrose in many places', wherein he treats of the
commission given to him by Clirisl to feed his sheep. In his
forty-sixth sermon he observes : " When he (Peter) was thrice
questioned by the Lord: 'Simon, dost thou love me?' He
answered thrice : ' Lord, thou knowest that I love thee.' The
Lord says : ' Feed my sheep.' This was thrice, which, being
thrice said, served to compensate for his former fault, for he
who had denied the Lord thrice, confesses him thrice, and as
often as he had contracted guilt by his delinquency, he gains
favour by his love. See, therefore, how profitable to Peter was
his weeping ! Before he wept, he fell ; after he wept, he was
chosen, and he who had been a prevaricator before his tears,
after his tears was made Pastor, and he received the govern-
ment of others, who before had not governed himself."t In
his commentary on the one hundred and eighteenth Psalm, he
says : " therefore did Christ commit to Peter to feed his flock,
and do the will of the Lord, because he knew his love. "J In
* S. Ambros. 1. de Sp. S. § 158.
t S. Amb. Serm. 4G, p. 335.
X Serm. 13, p. 516.
ROMAN CIllKCH. 249
liis commentary on LiiUo, 1h» says of Peter: " lie is aniicted,
because he is questioned ihc tliircl lime: ♦ Dost iliou love me?'
But the Lord does not (loul)t ; he interroirates him not to learn,
but to teacli him, whum, when about to he elevated to heaven,
he left to us as thk vicar of iiis lovk. For thus you liave :
* Simon, son of John, dost thou love me V ' Thou knowest,
Lord, that I love thee.' Jesus said to him : ' Fvvd niy lambs.'
And because lie alone of all professes his love, hk is pre-
ferred TO ALL."'' l*eter then was made pastor and governor,
and vicar of Jesus Christ, to jjerform towards men the kind
ofTices which the love of our Redeemer inspired, and he was pre-
ferred TO all in this pastoral ofhee.
To these exi)lieii and splendid testimonies of the superior
authority of the Prince of the Aposdes, you oppose what you
conceive to be '♦ a direct proof of the independence which Am-
brose exercised with rcganl to the Church of Rome." The
reader may ask, does it regard any detined doctrine? — or any
general law? — or the communion with that Church? The
answer must necessarily be negative. JNol only did he firmly
hold the symbol t)f faith, which, as he aHlrms, "the Roman
Church always guards and preserves inviolate,! but he even
declares that he " follows the example and form of that ('hnrch
in all things. "I He conceived, ho^vever, that, without disre-
spect to its authoriiy, he might retain a pious usage of the
church of Milan, though not adopted in the Roman Church,
namely, the washing of the feet of the neophytes, on their
coming forth from the font, in commemoration of what our
Lord performed at his Last Supper. In this he violated no law,
but was sustained by the ancient usage of his church, which,
in regard to reli<:ious rites, and other discij>linary matters, has
the fori!eof law. Besides, the rite naturally recalled to the mind
of the neophyte the prayer of Peter, that not oidy his leel, but
his hands and head should be cleansed; wherefore Si Ambrose
• S. Ainbros. in Liir. I. 10. n. IT.'j.
1 L. I. Kj). 7, ad Siricium.
I "Cujuslypuiii in omnibus Bequiimir elfunnain." — L. iii. do sac. c. 1.
250 ST AMBROSE.
remarks: " We follow the Apostle Peter himself: we adhere
to the example of his devotion. What does the Roman Church
say tt) this? Truly the Apostle Peter himself, who was Bishop
of the Roman Church, is our authority for this assertion."*
The saint shows liis profound respect for the authority of that
Church, of which Peler was Bishop, and says that it is his
" anxiruis desire to follow it in all things. "t You profess your
vvillinjrness to he a "Catholic of the primitive stamp, and ask
no hetter rule than the example of the sainted Ambrose." —
Follow then his example: acknowledire Peter to have been the
Bishop of the Romaii Church: cherish its communion; hold
its faith, and endeavour to follow its example in all things.
The a(tts of the Council of Aquileia, which you present as
evidence of the senliments and practice of Ambrose, who took
the leailing part in its proceedings, are rejected as suppositi-
tious by the learned Chitflct; but as they are generally admit-
ted by others, you are entitled to the full benefit to be derived
from them. They do not, indeed, wear the usual form of the
proceedings of councils, the (/bvjons reason of which is, that
they are the plain record of the trial intended to be presented
to the emperors, who had called together the Fathers, at the
solicitatioti of Palladius and Secundianus. 'J his will explain
to you an obscure sentence, the meaning of which you have
evidently mistaken. After much informal discussion, during
which many Arian blasphemies were uttered by Palladius and
Secundianus, Ambrose proposed ihat the j)ublic notaries should
take minutes of the proceedings, lest there should be any room
for tergiversation. — " We have," said he, " long enough treated
of matters, without any record being made of our proceedings.
Since such horrible blasphemies are uttered in our hearing by
Palladius and Secundianus, that it might appear incredible that
they should have dared blaspheme so openly ; lest they after-
wards, by any cunning device, attempt to deny their expres-
sions, though no doubt could be entertained of what the
* L. iii. de sac. c. 1.
t " In omnibus cupio sequi ecclesiam Romanam. — lb.
COUNCIL OF AQI'IIKIA, 251
venerable bisfiops here asseinblcd wouUi lisiiiy ; — yel since
sucli is ibe good pleasure of all ihe bishops, lei ihe proceedings
be written down, that each one may not have it in his power
to deny his assertions. You must, holy brethren, declare your
will." All the bish«)ps cried out: *' It is our will." Ambrose
the bishop said : " Our proceedintijs should be authorized by
the reading of ihe imperial decree, that they may be alleged
in evidence." The deacon JSabinian read it. Alter the read-
ing of it, Ambrose liie bishop saiil : '* Behold what the (chris-
tian emperor has ileitrmined. He would not d<j an injury to
the bishops : he appointed the bishops themselves to examine
the case."* 'JMie cause proceeded, and the accused bishops
were convicted of heresy, and deposed, and liie result commu-
nicated to the emperors in a sy nodical epistle, that the impe-
rial aulhoriiy might prevent the heretical bishops retaining
possession of their Sees. You represent this as " an abiire-
ment, the authority for which was derived from the imperial
decree."! The proceedings show that the imperial summons
and decree merely directed the attention of the bishops to the
case, which, of right, belonged to the ecclesiastical tribunal ;
bishops being the proper judges, and recognised as such by
the emperor. 4: — IJut the Pope, rather than the council, should
have been calleil on to judge these two bishops of Ma^sia, and
yet, you observe, *' not one word occurs in the whole, recog-
nising or alluding to the Pope of Rome." According to more
recent discipline it would be his exclusive prerogative. At
that early period, however, the powers of councils were not
so limited, th()u;,'h their acts were subject to be rescinded Iiv
the Pontiir, as was done by Julius in. favor of Alhanasius, wlio
• Cone. Aqiiil. col. r'S}. Tom. I Cone. Col. Ilarilouin.
t " Disccjilaliones nostra; ex re firinanda; sunt scripto iniperiali ut
allegcntur." IJi»ho|) Hopkins translates it: " Uiir arbitreinent upon
this iM.'ittiT is to bf conHrin<-(i by the imperial warrant, as it may be ap-
pointed." This version is evidently wrong. Hardouin reads discrrpa-
tioncs.
\ " Noluit injuriam faccre sacerdolibus ; ipsos inlerpretes constiluit
episcopos." — C. e2G.
252 ST AMBROSE.
had been deposed by the Council of Tyre. Possibly the new
attempt of LFrsiciniis to disturb Damasus, the lawful Pope, may
have been the reason why no mention is made of him in the
record of the trial. It certainly was the occasion of a most
splendid tribute to the supremacy of the Roman Church, given
by the Fathers in a synodical letter addressed to the emperors,
in which they are earnestly implored to guard the peace and
rights of the Apostolic See : " Your clemency should be en-
treated not to suffer tlie Roman Church, which is the head of
THE m'hole world, and the sacred faith of the Apostles to be
disturbed ; for the venerable rights of communion flow
THENCE TO ALL,"* I leave you then to consider whether it
was right to assert that " not one word occurs in the whole,
recognising or alluding to the Pope of Rome," because he is
not mentioned in the record of the trial, whilst so solemn a testi-
mony is borne to his spiritual chieflancy in the synodical letter
of the prelates. All your interrogatories are at once answered
by this undeniable fact.
In another synod, held at Capua, at which Ambrose was
present, the authority of the Bishop of Rome was distinctly
recognised. Flavian, who claimed the patriarchal See of An-
tioch, had been called to Rome, to await the judgment of the
Pope, but fearing the result, he excused himself on various
pretexts. The right of the Roman Bishop to judge him was
not controverted, but to obviate his objections, his cause was
referred by the Council of Capua to the patriarch of Alexan-
dria, on condition that he should report his proceedings and
await the approbation of the Roman Pontiff. " Truly," said
the Fathers in their letter to Theophilus, patriarch of Alexan-
dria, which was composed by St, Ambrose, " we judge that
report should be made to our holy brother the Bishop of the
Roman Church, since we presume that you will pass such a
judgment as cannot dis{)lease even him. For in this way will
the measure be efhcacious, and peace and tranquillity will be
* Cone. Aqui). Tom. I. col. Hard c.837. Pie reads'" comnionitionis :"
The received reading is " communionis."
AGREEMENT WITH 1111: IIO.M AN ( IlllUir. 253
secured, il* your tietc^nniiuilion he sucli as will nol cause dis-
sention in our communion, tliat the collection of our decrees
being received, we may joyfully share the fruit of this investi-
gation, wlien we shall know that what has been done is un-
doubtedly approved of by the Roman Church."* Thus, the
supreme authority of thai Church is most distinctly avowed.
St. Ambrose, elsewhere, commends the inviolable integrity of
its faith, and in his funeral oration on liis brother Salirus, he
is careful to mark the caution witii wiiich, on reachin<r shore
after shipwreck, he inquired whether the bishop of liie place
*' agreed in faith with the Catholic bishops, that is<with the
Roman Church."! 'IMie agreement with that Churcli, spoken
of by Irenaeus, was, in the days of Ambrose, likewise, the crite-
rion of orthodox faith.
• S.Ambros. Ep. 78.
I " Percontatusq. ex eo est utrumnam cum cpiscopis catholicis, hoc
est, cum ccclesia Roinana conveniret." Do obitu fratris, p. 24, Tom. III.
cd Basil.
LETTER XX.
ST JEROME.
Right Reverend Sir :
In introducing to us the solitary of Bethlehem, you acknow-
ledge that "it is not to be disputed that in drawing to the
close of the fourth century, we find increasing proofs of the
advancement of the claims of Roman supremacy towards the
zenith of their maturity." This, of course, cannot surprise
those who have already learned from you that, even in the pri-
mitive age, under pagan and persecuting emperors, some of
the best of men conceived the design of introducing into the
Church this supremacy, in imitation of the imperial power,
and fancied that they found in Scripture divine precepts to
sustain their supposed innovation. Admitting your hypo-
thesis, our astonishment should be, that the advancement was
so gradual. The attentive reader has, I trust, already perceiv-
ed that the belief of this power is coeval with the Church, and
grounded on the divine writings ; — that its exercise in all ages
is manifest ; — and that if the evidences accumulate, as we de-
scend the stream of time, it is because the occasions of exerting
it increased, and because the monuments of these latter ages
are more numerous.
St Jerome, writing to Pope Damasus, professes, in the most
solemn manner, his devoted attachment to the Apostolic chair
of Peter. Having passed to the East, he found the church of
Antioch disturbed by llie adherents of three ckiimants of the
patriarchate — Paulinus, Meleiius, and Vitalis. A considerable
controversy had arisen about the use of the term — " hypostasis,"
— which by some was understood to indicate, " substance,"
fHAlK or M-.TKR. 255
or " nature," ami liy others, •* subsistence," or " person ;" so
that, even amouj^ ihe orthodox, there was apparent division, —
some afllrminj;^ that there were three hifpostases in llie Deity,
whilst otiiors maintained that there was but one. At Antioch
the profession of tlirec hypostases was demanded as a condi-
tion of communion ; and Si Jerome, hesitating to adopt an am-
biguous phrase, wrote to Damasus, to solicit tlie direction of
his authority. You liave given a long extract from tiiis vp.lua-
ble document: "Since the lOast," says Jerome, "dashed to-
l^elher by tlie olil frenzy of the people, tears [)iecemeal the
seainless and well-hemmed coat of the Lord, and the foxes
destroy the vineyard of Christ, so that among broken cisterns
which hold ni) water, it is diHicult to understand where the
sealed fountain, the enclosed garden, maybe found: llierefore,
I have ihouirlit it best for me to consult the chair of Peter, and
the faith praised by the Apostle's mouth ; asking at this time
food for my soul from the same quarter, where formerly I re-
ceived the garments of Christ. For the vast extent of water
and land that lies between us, cannot keep me from seeking the
pearl of price. Wherever the body is, tliere are tlie eagles
gathered together. The patrimony being cast away by a per-
verse offspring, the heritage of the Fathers is preserved uncor-
ruptcd with you alone. 'I'here the ground with its prolific soil
declares the purity of the Lord's seed, by the return of a hun-
dred fold : here the grain, drowned in the furrows, degenerates
into tares and straw. Now the sun of justice rises in the West:
but in the F^ast, that Lucifer, who had fallen, has placed his
throne above the stars. You arc the light of the world, you
are the salt of the earth, you are vessels of gold and silver —
here the vessels of earth and wood await the rod of iron and
eternal fire. Notwithstanding, therefore, your greatness de-
ters, yet your kindness invites me. With earnestness I ask a
victim of salvation from the priest, the defence which the sheep
requires from the shepherd. Let it not appear invidious: let
the pomp of Roman majesty withdraw :* I speak with the siic-
'• Kacctjsat invidia: Rojuuni culininis recedat atiibitif).'" This ad-
256 ST JEROME.
cessor of the fisherman, and a disciple of the cross. I, who
follow none first except Ciirist, am united in communion to
your holiness, that is, to the chair of Peter : on that rock I
know that the Church is built. Whoever eats the lamb out of
this house is profane. AVhocver was not in Noe's ark must
perish in the deluge. And because for my sins I have come
to the wilderness which separates Syria from the confines of
Barbary, and cannot always seek the body* of the Lord from
your holiness, through so great an intervening distance : there-
fore, I follow here your colleagues, the confessors of Egypt,
and amidst the merchant vessels I lie hid in a little boat. I
know nothing of Vitalis, — I reject Melelius ; — I care not for
Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you, scatters ; that
is, whoever is not of Christ, is of Antichrist. For now, — O
shame ! after the Nicene faith, after the Alexandrine decree, —
the West also concurring, the new phrase of three hypostases
is exacted of me, a Roman, by the bishop of the Arians, and by
the Campenses.t What Apostles, I pray, have put forth these
terms? Wliat new Paul, the teacher of nations, has taught
these things ?"J
I am surprised that you should venture to assert, that this
document has no reference whatever to the real question at is-
sue. That question involves several points : whether Peter
was constituted by Christ the head of his Church ; whether the
Bishop of Rome is his successor ; and whether, as such, he is
the teacher of all Christians, tlie pastor of the entire flock of
Christ, the ruler of the whole Church. The testimony of Je-
rome bears on all these points. With him, the chair of Peter
is " the rock on which the Church is built ; — Damasus is " the
dress of an humble priest to the Chief Pontiff of the Church might seem
bold. The saint excuses his boldness by adverting to the occupation of
Peter. Erasmus remarks that by invidla he indicates " quod odiosum sit
ad hunc modum interpellare Summum Pontificem."
* Sanctum Domini. Erasmus understands corpus Domini, It might
also mean, the oracle of the Lord.
t Those of Campas, a part of Cilicia.
X Hieronymus Damaso, f. 60. Tom. III. Edit. Bas. an. 1516.
COMMINION WITH IMITKk's CHAIR. 257
successor of the fishermmi ;" — he is tho pastor evon of Jcrorae,
who was then far distant from Rome, and in the disirirl of the
patriarch of Aiiliooh : he is " j)laced on the siinuiul of Roman
power;" — he is the authoritative tearlirr, whom this most
learned man desires to hear, and to wliose decision he professes
himself ready to yiehl most implicit ohetlience. Jerome's
opinion was adverse to the use of the phrase of three liyposta-
ses ; but it is thus submitted without reserve to the judgment of
the First Pastor: — "1 shall not fear to say three iiyposlases."
It concludes with the most solemn appeal to his authority : —
" I beseech your holiness, by Him who was crucified, the Sa-
viour of the world, by the consubstantial 'I'rinity, to give me
authority in your letters to omit mention of three hypostases,
or to declare them."*
The second letter of the saint on the same subject, in conse-
quence of the delay of Pope Damasus to answer, fully sus-
tains the consequences which I have drawn from the former:
'♦ The Arian frenzy, supported by the powers of the world,
rages on the one side. On the other, the Church being divid-
ed into three parties, each of them hastens to snatch me to
their side. The ancient authority of the monks that live
around here assails me. In the mean lime I cry aloud : ♦ Jf'/io-
ever is uniled with (he chair of Peter is mine.'' Meletius,
Vitalis, and Paulinus say that they adhere to you. I could
believe one asserting it : now two or all of them utter false-
hood. Tiierefore, I beseech your holiness, by the cross of the
Lord, by the necessary regard for tlu; Iionour of our faith, by
the passion of Christ, that as you succeed Apostles in dignity,
you emulate their merit, and thus may you sit on a tlirone
with the twelve in judgment: thus may another gird yon as
Peter in your old age:t thus may you obtain with Paul the citi-
zenship of heaven, by signifying to me by your letter with
whom I ought to communicate in Syria. Despise not a sold
• Hior Kp. f. CO. Toiii. III. His. Kd.
t Ho prayathat Daiiioiius may bo found worthy of inartyrtlom.
\v
258 ST JEROME.
for which Christ died."* — Not only did Jerome cling to the
chair of Peter, but the various chiefs of the parties into which
the church of Anlioch was split, claimed its communion; so
universally was it recognised by all Catholics as the centre
with which all should be united. As to Jerome himself, you,
surely, cannot persuade yourself that he would have felt au-
thorised to use such solemn adjurations in two successive
letters^ had he not believed that Damasus, in virtue of his
station^ was empowered by God to prescribe the terms by
which the orthodox faith should be expressed, and to give or
withhold his communion from bishops, according as their faith
should appear to him sound, or liable to suspicion.
You ask the reader to turn to the letter to Evagrius, that he
may have a better view of Jerome's sentiments. The assertion
of some one that deacons were above priests, was the occasion
of this letter, and the object of it consequently was to lower
the pride of some deacons, by showing the high character of
the priesthood. For this end St Jerome has recourse to a fa-
vourite idea, that priests were originally called bishops, and
partook of the government of the Church, and were reduced,
subsequently, to an inferior rank, more by positive ecclesiasti-
cal law and arrangement, than in virtue of the divine institution.
This is not the place to develope or to canvass this opinion ;
but it was necessary to state it, that the reader may understand
the passages which you have objected, and which, I must say,
in your own words on anotlier occasion, " have no reference
whatever to the question at issue." The saint does not write to
defend the rights of any bishop against the Bishop of Rome, or
to establish the equality of all bishops, but to maintain the supe-
riority of priests above deacons: "I hear that some one has
broken out into such frenzy as to prefer deacons to presbyters,
that is, to bishops : for whilst the Apostle teaches that presby-
ters and bishops are the same, what possesses the minister of
tables and widows that he should haughtily raise himself above
those by whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are con-
* Hier. Ep. Tom. III. f. CI.
EQUALirV Ol EPISCOPAL LHAIIACTKU. 259
secrated ?"• He proceeds to establish the identity of priest-
hood and Episcopacy from various texts of Scripture, and refers
to the mode ori^Mually followed in ilic election of liie hishop of
the church of Alexandria. As tlicse are matters whicii you
wouhl feel bound to explain to your Calvinistic brethren, I can
spare myself and readers the trouble of all elucidation. After
the reference to the church of Alexandria, he adds what may
be deemed a savin<T clause: *' What docs a bishop do, except-
ing ordination, which a presbyter may not do?" Then, with
special reference to the hij^h pretensions of some deacons of the
Church of Home, he says: *' The Church of the Koman city
is not to be thouirht one thinir, and the Church of the whole
world another. Gaul, and Ikiiain, and Africa, and Persia, and
the East, and India, and all the barbarous nations adore the one
Christ, — observe tlie one rule of Irulh. If authority is sought
for, the world is greater than one city. Wherever a bishop is,
whether at Rome, or at Eugubium, or at Constantinople, or
Rhegium, or Alexandria, or Tanis, he is of the same merit, of
the same priesthood. The power of wealth, and the lowliness
of poverty makes a bishop more elevated, or less exalted :t
however, all are successors of the Ai)Oslles. But you say, how
is it that at Rome the priest is ordained on the testimony of
the deacon ? Why do you urge to me the custom of one city ?
Why do you allege, as laws of the Church, the paucity whence
haughtiness has taken rise ? Every thing that is rare is sought
after. Paucity makes deacons respected ; the multitude of
priests brings them into contempt. However, even in the
Church of Rome, priests sit wiiilsl the deacons remain stand-
ing." The reader can now judge whether the ciiuality of merit
and of priesthood, which Jerome claims for every bishop,
wherever he reside, be intended to include an equality of juris-
diction. He asserted the ecpiality of the Episcopacy, evidently
with a view to embrace even the priests, in defence of whose
privileges he was writing. Would you assert the perfect
• Hicronym. Kvagrio. f. 150. Tom. 111. Edit. Basil.
t The edition of Eraainus at Basic has not the negation.
260 ST JEROME.
equality of the sacerdotal and Episcopal character and office?
Would you, in the face of all the monuments of antiquity,
maintain ihat the bishops of Rome and Eiigubium, of Alexan-
dria and of Tanis, were distinguished by no difference of juris-
diction ? The Episcopal character is, indeed, alike in all ; the
bishop of Eugubium is, in this respect, equal to the Bishop of
Rome; but the governing power, or jurisdiction, widely differs,
for to the one the care of a small portion of the flock of Christ
is committed, — to the other the charge of all the sheep and
lambs is given.
But Jerome seems to depreciate the authority of the Roman
Church. — Not when she teaches by the mouth of him who
occupies the chair of Peter ; not when, in harmony with the
churches of the universe, she proclaims the divinely inspired
faith, for which Christ prayed that it fail not ; but he sets aside
the practice of a few deacons, who took occasion, from the
eminence of that Church in which they enjoyed special distinc-
tions, to treat with less reverence those who were their supe-
riors in the sacred ministry. Such customs as are peculiar to
the Church of Rome, need not be adopted by the other churches
in her communion : and the abuses of individuals attached to
that Church may be condemned, even by those who, like
Jerome, cry aloud that they cling to the chair of Peter, — who
receive its faith and tradition with reverence, and who cherish
its communion, because they " know that it is the rock on
which the Church was built." The passages from this epistle,
which you consider decisive, are such in regard to the inferi-
ority of deacons to priests — but prove nothing beyond this,
unless you are willing to allow the perfect equality of priests
and bishoj)s.
I have not partaken in the surprise which you anticipated
from the views of this Father on the manner in which the
Church was built on Peter. Jovinian had r.ssailed virginity
and clerical celibacy, and, like some moderns, had objected
the example of Peter, who, having a mother-in-law, as the
Scripture assures us, must have had a wife. St Jerome replied
that his wife might have died before his call to the Apostleship,
PKTKK THK FOI'NDATKJN. 201
a conjecture rendered |)robable l>y ilie omission (tf all mention of
her in Scripliire, and by llie molber-in-law serviiijr al llie table
wlien the fever Iiad left lier. He proceeded to sbow lliat John,
on account of bis virginity, enjoyed the special love ol Christ,
and was admitted to special faniiliarily by the liedecmer. lie
then objects to himself, that Peter was chosen to be the foun-
dation of the Church ; and ho meets it by observiiinr ijjat the
Other Apostles likewise received eimilar powers, tliough he
admits lliat, to prevent scjiism, Peter was chosen to be the head
of all. lie further inquires why the virgin, John, did not re-
ceive this distinction, and answers that the age of Peter was a
reason for preferring him : " IJut, you say," says he, " the
Church is founded upon Peter: though the same thing is else-
where done upon all the Apostles, and all receive the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, aiid the strength of the Church is equally
consolidated upon all : yet, neveribeless, one is chosen amongst
the twelve, that a head being establisbed, the occasion of schism
may be removed. Hut why was not tlie virgin John chosen?
Regard was had to age, because Peter was the elder, lest a
very young man should be preferred to men of advanced age."*
It is clear, that whilst the saint advocates so strongly the ex-
cellence of virginity, and its special prerogatives, he is careful
to lay down in strong and precise terms the primacy of Peter.
All the Apostles are, indeed, in a certain degree the foundations
of the Church, since of the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the
Church in glory, it is said : " the wall of the city had twelve
foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of
the Lan»b."t Hut Peter is strictly the humdation, since to him
only, and not to tlie others, Christ said : " Tliou art Peter, and
on this rock 1 will build my Church." Ail of them have re-
ceived the keys of the kingdom, inasmuch as all have received
the power of binding and loosing; but to Peter alone was said :
•♦To thee I will give llur keys of the kingdom." If Jerome could
be thought to have allirmed the contrary, we would ask : where
• S. Ilior. Adv. J.,v. 1. 1, p. IT). Tom. 111.
t Apoc. xxi. 14.
262 ST JEROME.
are the Scriptural passages to wliich he refers? But his mean-
ing is phiin. He maintains that similar powers were granted
to the others, wherefore, it may be justly said, that upon all
of tlieni the strength of the Church rests and is consoli-
dated : but Peter is the head, invested with all the authority
necessary for maintaining order and unity ; a head, by the ap-
pointment of whom all |)lausible pretext for schism is removed.
Were not this his peculiar privilege, the saint would have had
no occasion to ex|)lain why John was not chosen.
In his commentary upon the similitude of the wise man who
built his house upon a rock, he observes : " On this rock the
Lord founded the Church : from this rock Peter the Apostle
derived his name. The foundation which the Apostolic archi-
tect laid, is our Lord Jesus Christ alone : on this stable and
firm foundation, and of itself founded with a strong mass, the
Church of Christ is built."* These passages no wise weaken
the force of the many others in which he treats expressly of
the foundation of the Church by Christ on Peter. In reference
to the similitude used by the Saviour, it was most natural to
observe, that he was the wise man who built his church upon
a rock, and that from this circumstance Peter was styled a
rock. It would, indeed, be a strange phrase to say, that he
built his Church upon himself, thus confounding the architect
with the foundation, as would be said were he the rock of
which Jerome speaks. Hear him elsewhere : "As Plato was
the prince of philosophers, so was Peter of the Apostles : on
him the Church of the TiOrd, an enduring structure, was built."t
In his letter to Marcellus he says: "Peter, upon whom the
Lord built his Church. "J
Tlie allusion to the text of St Paul presents a change of
metaphor. In the former Christ was the architect, and Peter
the foundation : in this Paul is architect, and Christ the foun-
dation. Metaphors and similitudes admit of this variety, and
it would be unjust to transfer what regards one similitude to
* Comm. Mat. c. viii. f. 12. f S. Hier. 1. 1 , adv. Pelag. c. 4,
t Class. 2, Ep.4, n. 2.
I'KTKK THK ROCK. 2G3
anollicT, somewhat diircronl. .No man can lay any other foiin-
daiion llian Cluisl — his duclriiie — liis insiiiulions — i»is merits,
since there is salvation in no other name : bnt when (.'hrist
liiniseir pleases to sj)eak of iiimseU" as architect, the fonnda-
tion which he lays must naturally be distinguished from him-
self, iVoni whom, however, it derives all its strcngtii and en-
during qualities.
The commentary of Jerome on the promise of tlie Saviour
lo Peter, plainly establishes this relation between them. " What
means,*' asks he, " * 1 say to thee V Because thou hast said to
me : * Thou art Christ, the Son of tlie living God : I also say
to thee ;' not in vain discourse, void of ellect, but I say to thee,
because my word eflects what it implies : * that thou art Peter,
and on this rock 1 will build my Church.' As he ga've light lo
the Aj)ostles, that they might be called the light of the world,
and they received oilier appellations from the Lord : so also
he bestowed the name of Peter on Simon, who believed in the
rock Christ; and according to the metaphor of a rock, it is
properly said to him : ' 1 will build my Church upon thee,
and the gates of iiell shall not prevail against it.' I think that
the gales of hell are the vices and sins of men ; or ccrlaiidy
the doctrines of heretics, by which men being allured are led
lo hell. Let no one, therefore, imagine that it is said of death,
as if the Apostles whose martyrdoms he sees celebrated, were
not subject to the condition of death."* Here this learned
interpreter applies lo l*eter the term rock, and explains the
promise, as if it were said: I will build my Church on thee.
Against this Church neither the vices and sins of men, nor the
doctrines of heretics, will prevail. Scandals must come, and
may obscure the lustre of the Church, but they cannot effect
her overthrow : heresies may be broached even by those who
were children of the Church, but they can never receive her
sanction, because ('hrist teaciies in her '* all days even to the
i-onsummation of the- world."
'I'he observaiion of the saint in regard to bishops and priests
" S. Ilieron. Com. in .Mnlt.Tom IX. f. 24,23. E<1. Has an. lolO.
264 ST JEROME.
who abused the power of the keys, by rashly loosing those
who should be bound, has no relation to the point at issue. It
establishes the necessity of confession, since, as Jerome re-
marks, the bishop or priest, "in virtue of his office, when he
hears the various sins, knows who is to be bound or who is
to be loosed."* Though the saint applies the text in this
place to the remission of sins by any bishop or priest, as we
are wont to do, when speaking in general terms, yet he under-
stands it specially of power granted to Peter; wherefore,
shortly after, when commenting on the rebuke of Christ: " Go
behind me, Satan," he supposes his reader to inquire, how
this is compatible with the sublime address made him, and
with the powers conferred on him. "If," he answers, " the
inquirer reflect, he will perceive that the benediction, and beati-
tude, and power, and the building of the Church upon him,
were promised to Peter for a future time, and were not granted
at the present time : ' I will build (he says) on thee my Church,
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it : and to thee I
will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;' — all in the fu-
ture tense. Which had he given immediately, the error of a
perverse confession {Jiis denial) would never have taken place
in him."t
I do not find in the edition of this Father's works which I
use (that of Basle, an. 1516), the passage from the commentary
on the epistle to Titus which you quote. The only remark
made on that verse {Jmjus rei, ^-c.) is, *' Correct straight for-
ward what things arc wanting, and then you will be able to
ordain priests, when all persons in the Church will be up-
right."J However, the words which you object present no
difficulty. They state that it is the privilege of the Apostolic
dignity to lay the foundation of a Church, which no one but an
architect' can lay, and that there is no other foundation but
Christ Jesus. In this we are perfectly agreed, as I have
already explained. Christ is the foundation of our faith and
of all our hopes ; and he was first proclaimed to the nations
* S. Ilieronym. Corn, in Matt. Tom. IX. p. 24, 25.
I Ibid. \ Tom. IX. f. 189.
CITY OF uuMi;. 265
by llie Aposiles, anil in succeeding ages by men einulaling llieir
zeal, aiul partaking ol ibeir character. " Inferior w urkujen
may carry on the building on that foundation."'
The argument sought to be derived from wliat yon conceive
to be the opinion of Jerome in regard to the original eijualiiy
of priests and bislioj)s, rests on very questionable grounds.
You are aware tliat Protestants, no less than Catliolics, liave
laboured to explain his sentiments in accordance with the ge-
neral testimony of tradition on this point. Dut were we to
allow that such had been his view in regard to the priesily and
Episcopal character, it would not militate against the superior
prerogative of one priest, or bishop, to \\hom Christ hail made
a special promise. It would indeed suppose, that Peter re-
ceived no more than the common character of priesthood, but
with special power to found the Church, and exercise that
governing authority, by which, subsequently, according to this
opinion, the ecclesiastical distinction between priests of vari-
ous orders was ordained, or sanctioned. Not to wander too
far from our subject, and place weapons in the hands of your
Calvinistic brethren, tiiis argument may be set apart.
The apocalyptic expressions of St Jerome in regard to Rome,
relate to t!ie luxury and vices of the inhabitants of that great
city. It was in a spirit of humiliation that he referred to that
period of life in which he lived, "jure (iuiritum," after the
manner of its citizens, too much given to the follies of life. He
meant not at all to detract from its spiritual prerogatives as the
See of Feter, nor to utter any thing disrespectful to hiui who
occupies that chair. On the contrary, he observed, that he un-
dertook the work in obedience to the holy Pope Damasus : —
" Pope Damasus, who first had urged me to this work, now
sleeps in Christ. "t When he invited Marcella to flee from
tliis city to IJethlehem, it was that, in solitude, she might en-
joy thai trancpiillity of spirit which the distractions of such a
city so easily interrupted. He repeated and applied to her
S. IliiTon. Tom. IX. f. l-l'.
t S. Ilieron. ad rauliiiianuiii in hb. Didyiiti de Spir. S.
266 ST JEROME.
the propiielic order to go forth from Babylon, " even though
Jieathenism was trodden under foot," — because he saw the vices
of pagan Rome still cherished by many of her Christian citi-
zens. You discover not one redeeming word of veneration in
his description. Please read over and ponder on these words :
— " There is there indeed a holy Church, there are the tro-
phies of the Apostles and martyrs, there is the true confession
of Christ, there is that faith which was praised by the Apos-
tle, and there the Christian religion is daily making new ad-
vances over prostrate heathenism."*
The principle which Jerome lays down, that in regard to
daily communion, the fast of the Sabbath, and such other things
as are not opposed to faith,t the immemorial usages of each
portion of the Church may be followed, is correct, entirely
worthy of this enlightened Father, and quite consistent with
the spirit and authority of the Apostolic See. He was not the
advocate of what you so confidently infer from his words —
equal rights, and total absence of deference for Rome. That
deference is shown especially by cherishing her faith, by ob-
serving the universal discipline of the Church which she is
studious to maintain, and by maintaining no local usage to the
prejudice or endangering of faith.
After the review of these passages, you return to the epistle
of Jerome to Pope Damasus. You tell us that, in consequence
of the distracted state of the East, where Arianism had prevail-
ed, Jerome " turns to Rome, in which he had become a pres-
byter some years before, and whose Bishop he was desirous to
propitiate, in order to secure a kind and favourable reception."
Was Jerome then the sycophant who thus flattered Pontifical
pride ? Did he not commence his letter by bidding " the pride
of Roman supremacy to be laid aside," and reminding the Pon-
tiff that he is the successor of the fisherman ? Did he employ
the awful adjuration of the crucified Redeemer, and consub-
stantial Trinity, for no other purpose than to gratify the vanity
* " Est ab Apostolo pracdicata fides, et gentilitate calcata, in sublime
se quotidie erigens vocabulum Christianuin." — Ep. ad Marcellam, Op.
om. Tom. I. p. 82. Edit. Par.
t " PrcDsertim quae fidci non officiant." — Ep. ad Lucinium, ib. p. 126.
ROMAN FAITH. 267
ol* an aired Bishop ? I :iin sorry lliat you liave equally mis-
taken his character and nieaninir. You adduce Erasmus, to
prove that by the chair of Peler, on which as on a rock the
Church was built, Jerome did not mean Rome: but can the
hesitating remark** of a man of more than suspected faitli, jus-
tify you in otlering violence to tlie plain and positive words of
this Father? Besides, lOrasmus on the following words re-
marks : '• Here Jerome by all means seems to think that all
churches should he subject to the Roman See, or certainly not
estranged from it, as it peculiarly glories in the Apostle, who
held the Primacy amonj^ the Apostles ; and is orthodox in such
a way as to be the first in dignity of the orthodox churches. "t
You explain the words of Jerome as nreaning: " I am not
in communion with these heretical Arians — our faith is not the
same. But I am in communion with you, for you hold the
faith of Peter, together with his chair. On that faith — that
rock — I know that the Church is built, out of which Church,
whoever eatelh the lamb is profane." — Compare your words
with those of Jerome, and mark their diflerence. He speaks
of assaults on the one side by the Arian frenzy, on the other by
conflicting parties in the Church — the adherents of three pre-
tendants to the patriarcliale. As to the Arians, he needed no
advice — he had no doubts; but he doubted which was the real
patriarch; and he further doubted, whether he could profess
three hypostases, which was required as a condition of commu-
nion with the church of Antioch. He refuses, then, to com-
municate with any of the claimants, until the PonlilF shall in-
form him with whom he ouglit to hokl communion ; he de-
clines professing three hypostases, until he shall be directed
by the same authority. He grounds his application on his
knowledge, that the chair of I'eter is the rock on which the
Church is built. How, then, r:\n it be pretended, that it is the
mere accident of a common belief that leads him to apply to the
occupant of that chuir, more to flatter him than to receive the
necessary nuihoriiy and direction! "His very object, you
'•■ Ulnrbitror." — F.rnsmun.
Kra.sin. Srliolia in Ilicr. fol. (UI Tom. HI
268 ST JEROME,
say, was to ingratiate himself with the Pope, and obtain an hon-
ourable recall from his self imposed exile." How unjust is
this imputation ! how inconsistent with the evidence which his
history and his writings afford !
But Jerome, you say, protests " that he follows no primate
but Christ."* Neither do we. It is his divine authority we
reverence and adore when we yield obedience to him whom He
has entrusted with the care of his flock. You beg us to con-
sider, that our construction of this epistle requires us to set
Jerome against himself. To me this does not appear. He is
throughout perfectly consistent. In determining the legitimate
pastors of the Church, he judges by their communion with the
See of Peter ; in tire choice of expressions by which the doc-
trine of faith is to be maintained inviolate, he appeals to its au-
thority. To it he constantly refers where faith is in question.
Thus, twenty years afterwards, writing to the virgin Demetri-
as, he observed ; " When you were a child, and the bishop
Anastasius of holy and blessed memory governed the Roman
Church, a fierce tempest of heretics from the eastern parts at-
tempted to pollute and destroy the simplicity of that faith
which was praised by the voice of the Apostle. But this man,
very rich in his poverty, and full of Apostolic solicitude, im-
mediately struck the noxious head, and broke the hissing
mouths of the hydra. Since, I fear, and even have learned by
report, that these poisoned plants are still remaining and ger-
minating in some, I think you should be charitably warned, to
hold the faith of the holy Innocent, who is the successor and
child of the Apostolic chair, and of the holy man just mention-
ed ; and not to receive any strange doctrine, however prudent
and wise you may appear to yourself."! Writing to Theophi-
lus, patriarch of Alexandria, he says : " Be it known to you,
that nothing is more sacred for us, than to maintain the rights
of Christ, nor to move the limits which the Fathers have plac-
* "Nullum primum nisi Christum sequens." — Hier. Damaso. f. GO.
The version " no primate" is equivocal. It would be more literally ren-
dered : " I follow no one first, but Christ."
I S. Hier. Ep. 130, n. IC, clas. 4. Edit. Vallars.
ADOPTION OF HIS SKNTIMKNTS. 2G9
ed, and always to bear in iniiui, that the Komaii I'ailli was
praised by tlie inoulh of llie Apostle, of wliicli fuiili the Cliurcli
of Alexandria glories to partake."* All this is perfectly con-
sistent with liis disregarding the assumption of some deacons
of the Church at Home, and objecting to them the contrary
practice of the Church ihrouirhout the world. His recognition
of the supreme authority of iis Hiijhoj) is nowise at variance
with iiis assertion, that the Episcopal cliaractcr is the same in
the bishop of the humblest JSee. He has not, however, exactly
said, as you have imagined, " that every bishop should con-
sider himself as Aaron, and the j)rcsbyters as Aaron's sons, and
the deacons as Levites." He does not disiinguisjj these grades
with such precision. His words are: " Wiiat Aaron and his
sons and the Levites were in the temple, the same let the
bishops and priests and deacons claim for themselves in the
Churcii."t Through the whole letter he speaks of bishops
and priests as the same ; hence it n)ight be fair to infer, if sucli
comparisons warrant any strict inference, that the chief Bishop
in the new dispensation corresjionds with the High Priest un-
der the ancient covenant.
The questions which you have added towards the close of
the chapter are fully answered by the exposition of the texts
already given. You are pleased to conclude by stating your
conviction, " that if the ('hurch of Rome would consent to a
thorough adoption of the sentiments of Jerome, there would be
very little material for serious controversy remaining." You
must then be prej^ared for the adoption of clerical celibacy,
the veneration of relics, and many other i)oints hitherto treated
with little favour, which, you admit, were defended by him,
and yon must particularly cry oul in his language to the actual
Bishop of Rome : " Whoever is united with the chair of Peter
is mine; I am joined in communion to your holiness, that is
to the chair of Peter, On that rock I know that the Church
wa- built."
• S Hitr. Kp. G:?, clas. :i, an. 3!>7.
t Ad Evngr. Tr»ii) II i. ',»•,*! Ivln I'lr
x '
LETTER XXI.
ST AUGUSTIN.
Right Reverend Sir :
I FULLY agree with you that " a brighter name than that of
St Augustin can hardly be found in the annals of the Church
since the Apostolic day." In some of his works he affirmed
that Peter was the foundation of the Church ; but you main-
tain that he afterwards abandoned this interpretation. For
proof of this assertion you refer to the twenty-first chapter of
the first book of his " Retractations ;" which, as you know,
designate his review of his former works, accompanied with
the retouching of the matters already handled, but not always
with the abandonment of former sentiments. I shall give the
entire paragraph : — " During the same period of my priest-
hood I wrote also a book against the letter of Donatus, who
was the second bishop at Carthage after Majorinus, of the
party of Donatus, in which letter he endeavours to prove that
the baptism of Christ should be believed to be only in his
communion : which position we oppose. In which book I
said, in one place, concerning the Apostle Peter, that the Church
was founded on him as on a rock : which sense is celebrated
by many mouths in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose,
where he says of the cock : ' At his crowing the very rock of
the Church washes away his fault.' But I know that after-
wards I very frequently explained what was said by the Lord :
' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I shall build my Church,'
in such a way, that it might be understood to mean, on him
whom Peter confessed, saying: ' Thou art Christ the Son of
the living God :' and thus Peter, being named from this rock,
IIESITANCV. 271
sliould represent the Churcli, which is hiiilt upon this rock, and
received the keys of the kint;doni of lieaven. For it was not
said to him : * Thou art a rock : ' but tliou art Peter ;' ♦ but the
rock was Christ,' on confessing whom, as the wliole (^'liurcli
confesses liim, Simon was called Peter. Let the reader choose
which of tiiese two explanations is the more probable. "t 'Pliis,
sir, is far from an absolute 'abandonment' of the former inter-
pretation. Augustin, indeed, seems to incline to the second
mode of undcrsiandincf the text, but he makes reference to the
former, and subniiis both to the judgment of the reader, that
he may adopt the one that seems more correct — a circumsiance
which you have been careful not to notice. His own mind
wavered, because he was struck with that difierence of gender
which he found in the Greek, and being unacquainted with the
language spoken by our Saviour, he was unable satisfactorily
to solve for himself a difficulty which a slight knowledge of
that language would have entirely dissipated. You would
willingly abridge the liberty which the holy doctor, in the un-
certainty of his own mind, left to his readers, and you would
determine our judgment contrary to the most obvious rules of
sound interpretation. We respect the modesty of Augustin in
manifesting the hesitancy of his mind. Of the two explana-
tions which he offers, we adopt that which is most obvious,
most conformable to the context, and supported by the suffrages
of the ffrcal host of ancient and modern interpreters. Besides
the Protestant interpreters already produced, | liishop Pearson
expressly says, that the Church was " built upon Peter accord-
ing to our Saviour's promise;") and Bishop Beveridge, not
venturing to deny this, vainly attempts, contrary to the mani-
fest tenor of the Lord's discourse, addressed specially to Peter,
to extend it to the other Apostles : *' I also say unto thee, thou
art Peter (a rock as the word signifies), and upon this rock 1
■ I'ctra — I'ctrus.
t " Ilarum autorn duarum Bcntentiarum qumsit probabiliorcligat lec-
tor." S. Aug. 1.1, Retract, c. xx'i.
\ See Letter II. pp. iiJ. 2i'>, 27, 2-.
§ PeaTBon on the Creed, art. ix. p. r)UO.
272 ST AUGUSTIN.
will build my Church; that is, thou shalt be one of those upon
whom I will build my Church, like an house upon a rock that
shall never be moved."* In the days of Augustine, Ambrose,
whose canticle he quotes, declares Peter to be " the very rock
of the Church," and this interpretation was recognised as cor-
rect by the many, who, throughout the Church, sang the hymn
composed by that sainted prelate. Was it perfectly fair in
you to have concealed this fact from your readers, by leaving
a hiatus in your quotation ?
Though Augustin wavered as to the application of the term
"rock" in this passage, he had no doubt whatever of the pri-
macy of Peter. In his polemical works against the Donatists,
he declines abiding by the authority of Cyprian, and justifies
himself by observing, that even Peter — whom he takes to be
Cephas, mentioned by St Paul to the Galatians — did, in one
instance, deviate from the correct path ; and so Cyprian might
be admitted to have erred, without any disrespect to his
memory. " I think," says he, " that without any disrespect
to him, the bishop Cyprian is compared with the Apostle
Peter, as far as regards the crown of martyrdom : but I ought
rather to fear lest I should be disrespectful to Peter: for who
does not know that the principality of the apostleship is
TO BE I'-REFERRED TO ANY BISHOPRIC ?"t
When Augustin says of the Lord : " that he gave those keys
therefore to his Church, that those things wiiich she should
loose on earth should be loosed in heaven, and that those which
she should bind on earth should be bound in heaven, "J — he
speaks of the power as existing in the Church, without specify-
ing in wiiom it is lodged. He adds, by way of explanation,
" that whosoever would not believe that his sins are forgiven in
* Beveridge's Serm. Christ's Church Established on a Rock, vol. i.
p. 155.
t S. Aug. 1. ii. contra Donat. c. i. § 2. " Quis enim nescit ^llum
Apostolatus principatuni cuilibet episcopatui prseferendum ?" A differ-
ent reading is given in a Belgic manuscript apud Lov. *' Ilium Apostola-
tus principatu cujuslibet episcopatui praeferendum."
; L. i. de doct. Christ. C. xv. p. 10. Edit. Ven.
ALLEGORICAL INTKUPRE TATION. 273
the Church, ihey slioukl not be rortriven liiiii ; but wliosoevcr
believed it, and, being corrected, turned away Ironi sin, being in
the bosom of the same Cliurch, should be healed by the same
faith and reformation." — This does not at all signify tliat the
keys are given to each individual ; but it aflirms that no one
can benetit by this power, unless lie truly believe its existence
in the Church, and also abandon the vices to which he has
been subject. 'i'his faith and reformation j)repare him for
receiving the benefit of this divine power in the tribunal of
penance.
The passage which you object from the commentary on the
twenty-first chapter of JSt John, contains the explanation of the
rock, which Augustin gave, under tlie erroneous impression,
tliat the change of gender was intended to denote the distinction
of the persons, lie proposes to himself the question, why
Peter is ordered to follow Christ, and John is directed to re-
main until his coming: also, why Peter, who loved Christ
more than the other Apostles, was not rewarded with the love
of his Divine blaster in a greater degree than the others, John
being styled " the disciple whom Jesus loved." lie answers,
that Peter was a figure of the Church in her present state of
misery and infirmity, which is directed to follow Christ, by
ardent love and patient sulfering, to the kingdom of his beati-
tude ; but that John was the figure of the saints in glory, who
are loved by Christ, and abide tranquilly in his enjoyment:
" which two lives Peter and John tyj)ified, each of them one."
Whilst indulging in this allegorical interpretation, he observes
that, amidst the frailties and miseries of life, — *' we are pro-
vided with the succours of alms, to ensure the success of our
prayer: forgive us our 'trespasses as we forgive those who
trespass against us.'" "The Cliurch, haj)py in hope, does
this in this wretched life: of which Church Peter the Apostle,
oti account of the Priinacij of his ^Opost/c.s/np, sustained the
perscfn, in a figurative universality. F'or, as to what strictly
regards himself, he was by nature an individual man, by grace
an individual Christian ; but, by more abundant grace, he was
an Apostle, and the first: but when it was said to him: ' To
274 ST AUGUSTIN.
thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and what-
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven ;
and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also
in heaven,' — he represented the whole Church, which in this
world is agitated by various temptations, as by showers, floods,
and tempests, and which does not fall, because it is founded on
the rock whence Peter derived his name.* What follows is
but the development of this idea, as already set forth in the
passage from the book of retractations. Every one must see,
that the holy doctor gives an allegorical, and not a literal inter-
pretation, when he says that Peter, by a figurative universality,
represented the Church militant — the whole collection of be-
lievers in the present state of imperfection and misery — espe-
cially meaning thereby to prove that the words '^follow me,"
are to be considered as addressed to this same universal multi-
tude of believers. Yet he is careful to state why, above all the
other Apostles, he was the representative of this Church mili-
tant: " On account of the Primacy of his Apostleship" — "be-
cause he was the first Apostle. "t As by his application to all
the faithful of the words "follow me," Augustin could not
mean to deny, that they were primarily and literally addressed
to Peter ; so by his application to them of the words : " To
thee I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," — he did
not signify, that these keys were not primarily, and in the ob-
vious meaning of power and authority, given to Peter. The
reason of his generalizing them is to sustain his position, that
the Church, in its present state, in which it needs the remission
of sin, is signified by this Apostle: "Therefore," says he, "the
Church, which is founded on Christ, received, through Peter,
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the power of bind-
ing and loosing sins. For what the Church is, strictly speak-
ing,:}: in Christ, Peter is the same mystically in the rock : ac-
* S. Aug. Tract. 124, in c. 21. Joan. Ev. Tom. III. Col. 822. Edit,
Ven.
t " Cujus Ecclesioe Petrus Apostolus, propter Apostolatus sui prima-
tum, gerebat figurata generalitate personam." — lb. Col. 822.
t " Quod est enim per proprietatem in Christo Ecclesia, hoc est per
FIRST OF TIIK AP08TLKS. *-i75
cordiii«^ to w"«Jii(li t-i»fnitH':Ui'>n ('lirisi is llie rock, Peter the
Cluirch. This Church, lliLTtifDrc, which Peler represented, as
long as she is in the niiilst of evils, is freed from evils, hy lov-
ing anil foHouing Christ. And she follows him, especially by
means of those who contend unto death for the truth. But to
the multitude is said, 'follow me,' for which multitude (^hrist
suffered."*' In j)ursuino this alle<][orical explanation, Augustine
evidently presupposes that the keys were given to Peter, and
that through himt the Church received them, inasmuch as not
for himself only — " an individual man, an individual Christian"
— but for all the Church, he, who was "an Apostle, and first
of the Apostles," received this power.J *' For all the saints,"
says he, " inseparably belonging to the body of ('lirist, Peter,
THE FIRST OF THE AposTLES, rcccived the keys of the kingdom,
for its government in this most tempestuous life, to bind and
loose sins :§ and with reference to the same saints, John the
Evangelist reclined on the bosom of Christ, to express the
most tranquil repose of this most secret life" with (lod. Some-
what further on you assert that Augustine "extended the same
representative capacity to John," and you quote freely from
ihis commeiiiary on the iweniy-tirst chapter ol" the evangelist,
lo prove tiiis position: but you should have observed, that John
significationcm Petrus in potra; qua significationc inlclli<iitur Christus
petra, Petrus Ecck-sia." — lb.
* "Sod universitali dicitur : soquere me."
t " Ecclesia ergo qua; fundatur in Chrislo, claves ab eo rcgni ca'Io-
rum accepit in Petro, id est potcstatem ligandi solvendique peccata."
—Aug. Tract. 124, in Joan. Col. b22.
\ Quo(] enini ad ipsuin proprie pcrtinot, natura iinus homo crat, gra-
tia unus Clirislianus, abundanliore gratia unus idnnquc primus .Iposto-
Ins: sod quando ti dictum est. Tibi dabo claves regni ca'loruin, el
(juodcurnque li^averis in terra, <rit ligaluin vi in cadis, et qui)drumque
solveris super terrain, erit sfilntuin ct in ctrlis, universarn .sicrnifieab.it
cclesiain." — lb.
§ " Omnibus igitur sancli.s ad Cliristi C(jrj)us inseparabiliter perlint n-
tibu.s, propter liujus vitie procello.si.HHimic gubernacuium, ad liganda et
Bolvenda peccata claves regni codorum primus Apostolorum Petrus ac-
cepit."— lb. Col. h24. The C/hurcli is here represented as a ship whose
helm has been entrusted by Christ to Peter.
2Tt» ST AVGUSTIX.
is not spoken of as the representative of the Cliurcli militant,
which representative capacity is peculiarly assigned by the
holy doctor to Peter, " on account of the primacy of his Apos-
tleship.'' John is said to represent or signify the Church
triumphant, inasmuch as, reposing on the bosom of Jesus, he
presents an image of the happiness of the saints reposing in the
enjoyment of God. The representative character of Peter is
clearly marked as official and authoritative, directed to the
government of the Church militant in this stormy life : he is
the pilot placed by Christ at the helm ; — he is the ruler, having
received from Christ the keys of his kingdom. But the repose
of John is merely emblematic of heavenly beatitude. "^Yhocan
confound what is so clearly distinguished in the Scripture, as
well as by Augustin ?
The passage which you object from the commentary on the
lifth chapter of the first epistle of John, is the explanation of
the text : " every one who believeth that Jesus is the Christ is
born of God." The saint observes that demons confessed this
truth no less than Peter, but Peter through affection. To the
question of our Saviour — '• 'Who do men say that I am V Peter
answered, and said: 'Thou art Christ the Son of the living
God.' And he heard from the Lord : ' B^sed art thou Simon
Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not rerealed it to thee, but
my Father who is in heaven.' — See what praises follow this
faith : ' Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my
Church.' — V.'hat is it: 'On this rock I will build my Church T
On this faith — on what was said: 'Thou art Christ the Son of
the living God.' On this rock, he says, I will found my
Church. This is great praise."* In this place it is manifest
that Augustin approaches nearer the general interpretation of
the Fathers, and the natural meaning of the text. It is no lon-
ger on Christ that the Cliurch is understood by him to be built
by Christ — an incongruity of phrase which must strike every
one — but it is on the confession of the divinity of Christ, as
Aug. in Ep. Joan. c. 5, Tract. 10. Tom. III. Col. 804. Edit. Venet.
PRINCEDOM OF THE AP0STLES1IIP. 277
made by Peier, or in other words, on Peter confessin? his
divinity.
In the passage which you have quoted from the seventy-
sixth sermon on the fourteenth cliaptcr of St Mattliew, Angus-
tin indulges a little in what the taste of his age permitted, a
play on the words *'/^e/rw«" and **/)e/ra;" and concludes the
paragraph by giving, as the meaning of our Redeemer: "On
myself, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church. I
will build thee on me, not me on thee."' It is injustice to
Augustin to adduce this specimen of his biblical criticism,
arising from a want of knowledge of the original binguage in
wliich our Lord spoke: but it is still niore unjust to use it
as a proof that he disbelieved the primacy of Peter, which, in
the very passage itself, he supposes, and in the context
most strongly affirms. Thus he says here, that *' he was
called Peter, to signify the Church, for, because Christ is
the rock, the Christian people is Peter, for the rock is the
principal name, therefore Peter from petra the rock, as Christ
is not called from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ."t
In regarding Peter as the representative of the entire Church,
he evidently considers him as its head and Primate, as he him-
self thus explains: "The same Peter by the rock surnamed
blessed, bearing the figure of the Church, holding the prince-
dom OF THE AposTLEsnip — after he heard of tlie future passion
of the Lord, which he foretold to his disciples would soon take
place, displeased him.":; He calls him repeatedly "first and
chief in the order of the Apostles."}
When the holy doctor, in the commentary on the twenty-
first chapter of John, says, that " not only Peter, but the entire
Church, binds and looses sins," it is because the power of
• Serm. 76, alias 13 de verbis Domini, p. 415. Tom. V. Edit. Ven.
f lb Col. 415.
\ " Ecclesice figuram portans, Aposlolatus principatum tenens." — P.
416. Tom V. Ed. Ven.
§ " Ipse enim Petrua in ordtnc Apostolorum primus" — " in illo ergo
uno Apostolo, id est, Petro, in ordme Apostolorum primo et prsecipuo."
—lb. Col. 415, 4 IC.
Y
278 ST AUGUSTIN.
Peter was not personal, for llie exaltation of himself, but for
the benefit of the Church at large, wherefore it is exercised by
his successors ; and because it is common, as far as the remis-
sion of sins is concerned, to the Apostles, and to all legitimate
pastors of the Church, to whom that power was granted ex-
pressly by Christ. Hence Auguslin asks : " Are not these keys
in the Church where sins are forgiven daily? But since Peter,
in signification, represented the Church, what was given to him
individually, was given to the Cluirch."* In this sense he
says elsewhere : " On account of the person of the whole
Church, which he alone represented, he was made worthy to
hear : ' 1 will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.'
Not an individual man, but the unity of the Church received
these keys. Hence, therefore, the excellence of peter is
PROCLAIMED, bccause he represented the universality and unity
of the Church, when it was said to liim : ' I give to thee,' what
was given to all. For that you may know that the Church has
received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hear what the Lord
says elsewhere to all his Apostles : ' Receive ye the Holy
Ghost.' And immediately afterwards : ' Whose sins you shall
fortrive they are forgiven them ; whose sins you shall retain
they are retained.' This appertains to the keys, of which it
is said : ' Whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed
also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall
be bound also in heaven.' "t
The application which Augustin makes to all prelates of
the command to feed the sheep, is an extension of its meaning,
made, in the general style of the Fathers, for purposes of
edification, and is not at all adverse to the literal sense, which,
on t!ie contrary, it presupposes. It is because "in Peter alone
the unity of all pastors was represented. "J "Justly did the
Lord, after his resurrection, entrust to Peter the feeding of his
* S. Aug. Serin. 149, de verbis Act. 10, p. 70C. Tom. V.
t S. Aug. Serm. 29G, in Natali Apost. 1.
X S. Aug. Serm. 147, de verbis Evang. " In uno Petro figurabatur
unitas omnium pastorum." P. 702. Tom. V. Ed. Ven.
CATHOLICITY OF TJIE CHI'RCH. 279
slieep ; for he was not the only one among the disciples who
was maile worthy to feed the sheep of the Lord : but when
Christ speaks to one, unity is conirnended: and to Peter pri-
marily, because he is the first amonh; thk Apostles."*
When Augustin observes that "what was commended to
Peter — w)iat was enjoined on Peter — not Peter only, but like-
wise all the Apostles heard, held, kept, and especially that
companion of his mart\ rdoni — even as to the day — the Aiios-
tle Paul,"t — lie slates what all admit, that the other Apos-
tles emulated the zeal of l*eler in feeding the ilock of Christ;
but he does not assert that the general charge of it was common
to all. It was not a commission, the exercise of which was to
be confined to Peter exclusively, though it was his office to
see that his colleagues fed that portion of the flock of Christ
assigned to each.:{: He and they were to concur in this divine
task, and the power and the duties were to be perpetual in the
Church, her prelates at all times being charged to give to others
the food of heavenly doctrine, which, as a divine deposit, is
transmitted to them: wherefore Augustin beautifully says:
" We feed: we are fed in common with you." But "blessed
Peter, the first of the Ai'ostles,"§ is the Chief Pastor, who
directly from Christ received his authority and charge.
The passages of Augustin which relate to the catholicity of
the ('hurcli, might, as you justly observe, be quoted in such a
number as to fill a volume : but you must have read them rather
cursorily, if you have not perceived "the slightest allusion to"
the supremacy, or, if you will, " the domination of the iloman
See." Some of the references to that See may, probably, have
escaped your notice, from the African custom of speaking of
the Koinan Church, and the Western churches, in its commu-
nion, as the churches beyond the seas. With regard to Car-
" *' Quando Christus ad unum loquitur, unitns coininondntur ; ot Pe-
tro priinilutt, quia in Apostolis I'etrus est primus." — Sena. 2UlJ, p. Il'.>5.
Tom. V.
t Scrra. in Natali Ap. Petri ct Pauli, Tom. V. p. S'M).
t " Food the flock of God which is among you" — 1 Pet. v. 2.
§ " lieatus Petrus Apostolorum primus." — St-rm. li'.MJ. sub initium.
280 ST AUGUSTIN.
thage, Augustin remarks, that " the city was convenient to the
regions beyond the seas, and of illustrious renown : wherefore
its bishop had no small authority, and might disregard the
combined multitude of his enemies, when he saw himself united,
by letters of communion, to the Roman Church, in which
THE PRINCEDOM OF THE APOSTOLIC CHAIR ALWAYS FLOURISHED,
and to Other countries from wliich the Gospel came to Africa,
where he was ready also to plead his cause, if his adversaries
should endeavour to estrange these churches from him."* In the
passage which you quote from the Council of Zerta, which you
call Tertensian, the saint states that the Donatists *' acknowledged
they had nothing to allege against the Catholic Church, which is
spread throughout the world. t" By this they meant the Church
in communion with the Roman See, as may be learned from the
sequel of the letter, in which the prelates, in whose name it was
written by Augustin, observe that the Donatists, when pressed
in regard to some charges, pleaded that one cause or person
should not be suffered to create prejudice against another cause
or person ; and thus " they confirmed by their own words what
we before said concerning the Church, that the cause and per-
son of Cecilian, whatever it might be, could not prejudice not
only the Catholic Church beyond tiie seas, against which they
acknowledged that they had nothing to allege, but even the
African Catholic Church which is united with it in commu-
nion."J In his book against Petilian, he explains more pre-
cisely what Church beyond the seas is that with which the
African was united: "If," says he, "all throughout the whole
world were such as thou most wantonly assertest, what has
* S. Aug. ad Glorium et Eleusium Ep. 43. Olim 1C2, p. 92. Tom. II.
Ed. Ven.
t " Confess! sunt enim contra ecclesiam Catholicam, quK toto ter-
rarum orbe difFunditur, nihil se habere quod dicerent." — Cone. Zertens.
Ep ad Donat. inter opera Aug. Tom. II. p. 457. Bishop Hopkins gives
a strange translation : <' They have made their confession against the
Catholic Church, which is diffused throughout the whole world, and have
no wore that they can say."
t S. Aug. Ep. 142. Tom. II. p. 4G2.
COMMUNION- WITH THi: ROMAN CHrUCII. 281
been done lo thee by the C'luiir of the Koiuan (.'luirch, in whicli
Peter sat, and in wbicb Anastasius sits at this day, or of the
church of Jerusalem, in wliich James sat, and in which John
now sits : with which we are joined in (Jathoiic iiuity, and from
which you separated yourselves through impious frenzy ?"•
In the letter to Saturnine and Euphrates, in which Augus-
tin congratulates them on their return to the Church, he ob-
serves, that " this house of God is not confined to one corner
of the earth, but spread throughout the world." Having prov-
ed it by many passages of Scripture, he adds : '* The enemies
of this great house yielded to tliese and sucii like testimonies,
of which so many are found throughout the whole Scripture,
so far as to acknowledge that they had no cause of complaint
against the church beyond the seas, which, nevertheless, they
confessed to be Catholic. We communicate with this church,
that we may be made worthy to be united to the members of
Christ."t
In reference to the investigation which took place at Rome
under Melchiades, in regard to Cecilian, St Augustin writing
to those of Cirta proposes this dilemma: — "Let them reflect
on this very short, and if I mistake not, decisive point — that
either the case has been investigated in the ecclesiastical trial
beyond the seas, or it lias not. If it has not been investigated,
the Christian society throughout all the nations beyond the
seas is innocent, of wh.ich society we enjoy the communion ;
and therefore thry (the Donatists) are separated certainly by
a sacrilegious rupture from those innocent men. If the cause
has been tliere investigated, who does not understand — who
does not perceive — ^wlio does not see — that they with whom
communion was from that lime interrupted, were overcome in
the investigation ?'\;
From the passage ycni have given from the letter of Augus-
tin to Hesychius, '^ on the end of the world, ''^ as " a specimen
• L. ii. contra. Lilt. Pctiliani. c. 1. p. Q.')!. Ed. Ven.
t Kp. 142. Tom. II. p. 4t;j
X S. Aug. Cirtcnsibus, Ep lU. p. \i'0. Tom. II. Edit Ven.
282 ST AUGUSTIN.
of his views in regard to Roman supremacy," most readers
would imagine that he maintained, some nations had received
the faith without submitting to the authority of the Bishop of
Reme. Yet he speaks of the fulfilment of propliecy in the con-
version of nations, and in this sense, he observes, that "the
Lord with an oath promised to the seed of Abraham, not the
Romans alone, but all nations, in consequence of which pro-
mise it has already happened that some nations, which are not
included in the Roman empire, received the Gospel, and were
united to the Church which fructifies and increases in the
whole world."* — He states, that " there are in Africa number-
less barbarous nations, in which the Gospel has not yet been
preached — and who are not all under the Roman power," but
who, nevertheless, are embraced within the divine promise.
Could I believe that you introduced the passage which you
have quoted with a view to give your readers to understand
that Augustin vindicated Christian nations from the authority
of the Bishop of Rome, I could not give you credit for the can-
dour which you claim, and which never should be wanting in
honourable controversy.
The advice given by St Augustin to Casulanus, which you
object as adverse to the primacy, is in conformity with the au-
thority and practice of his master St Ambrose, and in perfect
harmony with our principles, as has been already shown. The
fast of Saturday, observed at Rome, was obligatory on the faith-
ful of that Church, either by positive enactment, or ancient
usage, having the force of law ; but its obligation did not neces-
sarily extend to all the churches of the universe, because no
general law had been then made to that effect. Where the
usage did not exist, the faithful were at liberty to conform to
the discipline of their respective churches for the reason which
Augustin thus assigns : " for in those matters wherein the Di-
vine Scripture determines nothing, the custom of the people of
God, or the institutions of our forefathers, are to be regarded as
* Ep. 199, ad Hesychium de fine scec. p. 758. '' Qugb non tenentur
ditione Romana."
DOCTRINAL Tinm NAI.. 283
law."* In tliis epistle, llie holy doctor quotes ilie words ol'
lliose who urged the practice on the ground that " I*eter, head
of the Apostles, gate-keeper of heaven, and foundation of the
Churcli, taught its observance to the Romans, whose faith is pro-
claimed throughout the entire world." He does not dis;pute these
titles ; but as the fast was not generally established, he recom-
mends the iuHtation of the harmony which existed between
Peter and his colleagues. " As, therefore," says he, " Peter
aud liis irllow disciples lived harmoniously, so let those who
fast on Saturday, whom Peter |)lanl('d, and those who dine on
Saturday, whom his fellow disciples planted, live in harmony. "t
The concluding recommendation, to follow in such matters the
custom of particular churches, and the authority of the bishop,
is the same as would be given at this day by every divine in
the Catholic communion. You need only refer to any of our
moral theologians. |
Your last argument from Augustin, is taken from his list of
heresies. You cannot persuade yourself that a doctrinal tri-
bunal, such as we believe, was generally acknowledged in the
early ages, wherein so many heresies prevailed : although you
acknowledge that several of them existed even in the days of
the Apostles; and surely you must admit that there was then,
at least, a teaching authority, capable of defining revealed truth,
and proscribing error. 'J'he history of the Church testifies
how efhcient the authority of the Bishops of Home was in this
regard ; and the learned Protestinl, C'asaubon, admits that " no
one w ho is the least versed in ecclesiastical Ijistory, can doubt
that (iod made use of the Holy See, during many ages, to pre-
serve the doctrines of faith. "§ 'J'he pride, corruption, and
ignorance of men, explain how heresies multiplied, notwith-
standing the recognition of a divinely established tribunal.
You allege, that among the eighty-eight heresies, not one sen-
• 8. Au{r. Casulano, Ep. 3(;. Tom. II. p. 0)8. i Ibid.
t See Th*'ol. Mor. 1*. Thornn' n C'liarincs. tract, de legibus. Art. V.
Par. :i, p. K).
§ Casaubon Exorcit. xv. ad Anna!, iiuron.
284 ST AUGUSTIN.
lence can be found upbraiding the heretics with their departure
from the Church of Rome. The catalogue was not composed
for them, and departure from the Church was common to them
all, whilst St Augustin undertook to specify the peculiar er-
rors of each sect. Nevertheless, he marked down the eflort of
the Donatists to maintain the semblance of the authority of
Peter in their sect, by sending a bishop to reside at Rome, or
sending some bishops of the sect to consecrate one there. If
he did not upbraid them with departing, he at least affection-
ately invited the heretics of his day to return : " Come, breth-
ren, if you wish to be ingrafted on the vine. It is a cause of
affliction to us to behold you lying cut off from it, as you are.
Count over the Bishops from the very See of Peter, and see
how one succeeded the other in that list of Fathers. This is
the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail."*
The profound veneration of Augustin, and of all the Catho-
lic bishops of Africa, for the Roman See, was manifested in the
most solemn manner, in the measures adopted against the he-
resy of Pelagius and Caelestius. A numerous council, held at
Carthage in the year 410, addressed Pope Innocent as their
" most blessed and honoured lord, and holy brother," and
prayed, " that the authority of the Apostolic See might confirm
their decrees, in order to provide for the salvation of many, and
correct the perversity of some." They concluded by express-
ing their undoubted confidence that his judgment would be such
as would fill them all with joy.f In a letter from a similar
venerable assembly, held shortly after at Milevis (Mela), the
bishops begin by observing, that '« Since the Lord, by a spe-
cial gift of his grace, has placed you in the Apostolic See, we
beseech you to vouchsafe to use your pastoral diligence in behalf
of the great dangers of the weak members of Christ." Among
the texts by which they establish the necessity of grace, they
allege the assurance of our Lord to Peter : " I have prayed for
thee, that thy faith may not fail ;" and they conclude thus : —
* Ps. contra partem Donati.
t Ep. 175, olim. 90. Tom. II. p. G17.
AFRICAN COUNflLS. 285
'• We think that, through the mercy of the Lord our God, wlio
vourhsafes both to direct your counsels and to hear your pray-
ers, those who entertain such perverse and pernicious opinions,
will readily assent to the authority of your Holiness, derived
from the authority of the Divine Scriptures, so that we may
have occasion rather of gralulalioii at their correction, than of
sorrow at their ruin."* The Poutiff recoornised in the refer-
ence made to his authority, noihing more than faithful ad-
herence to the exauipk's of anticjuity, and due respect for
the rights of the chair of Peter. His authoritative decree, di-
rected to the prelates of Carthage, begins thus : — " In investi-
gating those things, which it is meet should be treated of with
all care by priests, and especially by a true, and just, and Ca-
tholic council, following the examples of ancient tradition, and
mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you have properly main-
tained the vigour of our religion, not less now in consulting us,
than before, when you pronounced judgment; since you deter-
mined that your juilgmcnt should be referred to us, as you know
what is due to the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this
station desire to follow the Apostle himself, from whom the
episcopacy and the whole authority of this order proceeded:
following whom, we know how to condemn what is evil, and
to approve what is praiseworthy. Observing the institutions of
the Fathers with priestly fidelity, you do not allow them to be
trodden under foot ; for they decreed, not by human impulse,
but by divine direction, that whatsoever might be done in pro-
vinces, liowcver separate and remote, should not be deemed
terminated until it had come to the kiiowledgc of this See ; that
the judgment, which might be found just, might be confirmed
with its whoh; authority, and the other churches (as waters
issuing from the fountain, and through the dilTerent parts of the
whole world (lowing, pur«; streams from an un|)()lluted source),
miglil thence take what they mi^ht j)r('s«M-ibe."t His letter to the
prelates of Mela is also coucIhhI in the language of one having
* Kl.. 17»;, olim. 92, p. G20. t Kp. 1-1.
280 ST AUGUSTIN.
authority.* Neither document was viewed by Augustin or his
colleagues as marked with the character of arrogant assump-
tion ; but they considered "the pestilence condemned by the
most manifest judgment of the Apostolic See:"t and they
maintained that further examination was unnecessary: "Why,"
cried Augustin to the Pelagians, " do you still demand an inves-
tigation, which has already taken place at the Apostolic See ?"j
A few months after the confirmation of the African councils had
reached Africa, addressing his flock, he observed: "Already
have the decrees of two councils on this matter been sent to the
Apostolic See : the rescripts from thence have reached us : the
cause is decided : would to heaven the error were for ever aban-
doned."§ Allow me, then, Right Reverend Sir, to conclude
this letter in the very words of this illustrious doctor : " Shall
we hesitate to take refuge in tlie bosom of that Church, which,
from the Apostolic See, through the succession of bishops,
even to the acknowledgment of mankind generally, has obtain-
ed supreme authority, heretics raging around in vain, condemn-
ed as they have been, partly by the judgment of the people
themselves, partly by the authority of councils, partly also by
the splendour of miracles? To reject its authority, is truly
either the height of impiety or desperate presumption. "||
* Ep. 182, olim. 91. 93. Tom. II. p. 635, inter Aug.
t Ep. 191, olim. 104, p. 709. Tom. II.
t Operis imperf. contra Julianum, 1. ii. c. 103, p. 993. Tom. X.
§ Serm. 131, de verbis Apost. c 10, Col. 645. Tom. V.
II De utilitate credendi, c. 7, Col. 69. Tona. VXH,
LETTER XXII.
ST CIIRYSOSTOM.
Right Revkrend Sir:
The last witness of the faith of the fourth century whom
you introduce to our notice is the eloquent bishop of Constan-
tinople. In his work *' On the Priesthood," — by which he
understood the Episcopal ollice — he speaks very clearly, and
quite to our satisfaction. He observes that Christ, " speaking
with the Prince of the Apostles, says: * Peter, lovest thou
me?' and Peter answering allirniatively, he adds: 'If thou
lovest me, feed my sheep.' 'J'he Master interrogates the dis-
ciple, whether he is loved by him: not that he may be inform-
ed— for how should he seek information, to whom the hearts
of all men were open ? — but to teach us how much he regards
the government of his flock. Mow great reward will he not
bestow hereafter on the pastors and rulers of this flock ? Where-
fore, when the discijjle had answered : ' Thou knowest, Lord,
that I love thee ;' and had appealed to himself, who was loved,
as the witness of this afleclion, the Saviour Jesus did not cease,
but added also the judgment of love.* For he did not then wish
a declaration of the great love which Peter bore him, for that
was already manifest to us by many proofs : but he had it in
view to teach both Peter and the rest of us his own «^reat bene-
volence and love for his Church: that by this means we also
might cheerfully assunje the care and charge of the same
• S, Joan. Chrys. 1. ii. dv Saconlotio. In tlir Latin translation it is
rcndf^rcd, " Anioris (jiioqui' jucliciiiin adjnnxit." It kccmis t<i inran the
reward adjud^rcd to tlic love of I'etcr. Bishop Hopkins iiiistukcs it for
indicium.
288 ST CHRYSOSTOM.
Church. For why did he shed his blood ? Certainly that he
might purchase to himself the sheep, tlie care of wliich he en-
trusted to Peter, and to the successors of Peter. Justly then
Christ thus spoke : ' Who then is the faithful and prudent ser-
vant whom the Lord placed over his family V " You perceive
that Peter is here styled the Prince of the Apostles, and receives
immediately from Christ the charge of his (lock: but you ima-
gine that the force of the expressions is weakened by the rea-
soning of Chrysostom, who infers, from tlie charge of Christ
to Peter, that our love should be manifested in feeding his flock.
This inference does not at all imply the extension of the words
of Christ to others besides Peter and his successors in his See ;*
but inasmuch as the love of Peter was rewarded by his being
entrusted with the charge of the flock of Christ, so those who
are pastors and rulers of his flock may expect that a great re-
ward is reserved for them hereafter. It is of this reward, ra-
ther than of the proof of love, that he speaks. Peter alone,
according to Chrysostom, was Prince of the Apostles, '* en-
dowed by Christ with special authority," and " far surpassing
the other Apostles. For he says : ' Peter, dost thou love me
more than all these V "t Yet you assert that there is nothing
in this which necessarily implies authority over the other
Apostles !
The beautiful passage of the third book, wherein Chrysos-
tom speaks of the power of binding and loosing granted to the
priesthood, as a divine power not communicated to angels and
archangels, cannot be oflfered as an explanation of any of the
texts on which we lay peculiar stress as proving the Primacy
of Peter. No mention whatever is made in it of the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, but only of binding and loosing, and
of forgiving and retaining sins, which powers were promised
and communicated to the Apostles in common, on occasions al-
together distinct from those in which Christ said to Peter:
♦* To thee I will give tlie keys of the kingdom of heaven : feed
* To/f /uer' iKitvov. This properly means " successors," occupants of
his See. t Ibidem.
CIllUCH miLT ON PKIFR. 289
my lambs; feed my sheep." — '♦Why," asks (^hrysoslom,
commeiiliiig on this latter passage, ** does he address Peter con-
cerning llie sheep, passing by t!)e others ? He was the chief
of the Apostles, and mouth of the disciples, and summit of that
body: wherefore Paul also went up to see liim in preference
to the others."*
Hid you cited a little more of the passage from Chrysos-
tom's eiglily-lhird homily on St Matthew, 1 should not feel it
necessary to do more than copy the quotation. In that dis-
course he observes, that Christ '* permill<'d the very summit
{head) of the Apostles lo deny him."t — It is in rehiiioii to the
prayer of Christ, that the failh of Peter miglit not fail, that
Chrysostom observes: "As he is going to suffer, he speaks
more humbly, that he may show his human nature: for He,
who, on his confession, so founded ami fortified the Church,
that no danger, nor death itself coidd overcome it; who grant-
ed him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and committed to
him so great power, and who never needed to pray for them
all, — how much less should he need it in this circumstance ? For
with supreme authority he said: *I will build on t/iee my
Church, and will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of hea-
ven."!— W iil> tliis exposition of the text before you, you could
easily have perceived what he meant when he s;»i<I, that on the
confession of Peter the Church was founded and fortihed, —
namely, on Peter himself confessing Jesus Christ.
Such, also, is the obvious meaning of the passage wliich you
object from the (ifty-fifth homily. In rch'rcnce lo the question
of the Saviour, ns to whom the Aposiirs believed him to be,
Chrysost(»m says: — " What tlxMi does Pefr, the mouth of all
the Apostles, the summit of the whole college? When all had
been questioned, he alone answers W hat then does Christ
say? *'riiou art Simon, the son of Jona, thou shah be called
Cephas: for siiu-c thou hast proclaimed my Father, I also
X^f- ^ Jonn (^lirya in c. xxi. Juan lioin b7. Tom. III.
t S. Jii.ifK ('liry» liom. hxxiii. in .Malt. J Ibidem.
z
290 ST CHRYSOSTOM.
mention him u-ho begot thee.' .... But since he [Peter)
added: 'thou art the Son of God;' [Clirisl) to show that
lie was ' the Son of God,' as he [Peter) was son of Jona,
of the same substance with liis father, therefore, added :
' and I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my Church,' tiiat is, upon the faith of the con-
fession.* Here he manifestly foretold that the multitude of
believers would be great, and he elevates the thoughts of Peter,
and makes him the pastor of the Church. — 'And the gates of
hell shall not prevail against it.' If they shall not prevail
against the Church,— much less shall they prevail against me.
. . . . ' And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of hea-
ven.' What means — ' I will give to thee?' As the Father
has given to thee the knowledge of me, so I will give to thee.
And he did not say : 1 will ask the Father to give thee : but,
though the power was great, and the greatness of the gift in-
effable, nevertheless, he says : ' I will give thee.' What I
pray, dost thou give ? ' The keys,' he says, ' of the kingdom
of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall
be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon
earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.' How then is it not be-
longing to him who says — ' I will give to thee,' — to grant also
to sit on the right hand and on the left? You perceive how
he leads Peter to a more exalted idea of himself, and reveals,
and shows himself to be tlie Son of God by these two pro-
mises. For what God alone can grant, namely, the remission
of sins, and that the Church, so many and so great waves
violently rushing on it, should remain immovable ; whose
head and shepherd, a loichj fisherman, should surpass ada-
mant in strength, the whole world struggling against him — all
these things, 1 say, which God oidy can effect, he promises
that he will give. Thus, the Father also said to Jeremiah :
*I have made thee a pillar of iron, and a wall of brass.' But
the Father set him over one naiion : CHRIST PLACED
* T« Trtnt T)if o/uohoyloL^. Bishop Hopkins criticises the version
fidem et confcssioncm. At the sacrifice of perspicuity, I have given a
literal version.
I'KTKU TLACKI) OVF.ll Till: WORM). *J()1
THIS MA.N OVER 1111: lON'rilU:: WORLD. » Wliere-
fore, I would willingly ask those; who say lh:it the di<rniiy of
the Sou is less than that of the Father, whicli <(ifis appear to
them greater, those which the Father, or those wliicli tlie Son
granted to Peter? The Father iiiade to him the revelatjon of
his Son ; hut the Sou j^^rauted to liiin partly to he ahle to diffuse
every where throuirhout the world the revelation holh of the
Father and of liu; Son ; partly that though he was a mortal
man, he should, ncveriheless, have celestial power, and have
the keys of the kingdom of iieaven ; so Peter showed that the
(Jhiirch, spread through the entire world, is stronger than the
firmament: ' for heaven and earth shall pass away,' he sailh,
' but my words shall not pass away.' How is He inferior,
who granted these things — who accomplished these things for
Peter? I do not speak thus, as thinking that the works of the
Father and of the Son are distinct: ' for all things were made
by him, and without him was made nothing:' but I speak
with a view to silence those who utter such things. But, do
you understand with me from all these things, how great is his
power. *I say to thee, he says, thou art Peter, and I upon
THEE will build my Church ; I will give to thee the keys
of the kingdom of heaven.' "t You were wisely brief in your
quotations from this eloquent Father. It is easy to cavil
on a word, and to mislead a reader by referrin<i to an ambigu-
ous phrase; but to persuade an unbiassed mind that Clirysos-
tom, — who styled Peter, — '* the summit of the whole Apostolic
band," — who magnified the power given him by Christ, as
great, the gift as ineffable, — who adduced it as an evidence of
Christ's divinity, that *' a lowlij Jiahrrmiin should be made the
shepherd of the flock," — " the head of llie mystic, body," — and
should surpass in strength adamant itself, so that the whole
worhl should struggle in vain against him, placed, as he was by
Christ, over the entire world, — (Midowed with celestial power,
— to persuade us, that (Mirysostom proclaiming all these privi-
i S. Chry«. horn. 55.
292 ST CHRYSOSTOM.
leges of Peter, did not admit the primacy, was not an easy task,
and which you, therefore, prudently declined.
The use of the term " principality" in regard to the Apos-
tleship of Paul, and even with reference to the Episcopal dig-
nity, in the third book of the work of St Chrysostom on the
Priestliood, seems to you sufficient to explain away all these
splendid testimonies. But where is it said that Paul had the
principality of the Apostleship itself, — that he was the summit
of the Apostles, — that he was set over the whole world ? No
one, you say, as if on the authority of Chrysostom, " was a
greater favourite with the Lord than Paul ;" that is, according
to the force of the original terms, none was more acceptable ;
his virtues were eminent, his labours immense, his sufferings
extreme, his privileges great — but he had not heard from the
lips of Jesus the divine words : *' Thou art a rock, and on this
rock I will build my Church, — to thee I will give the keys of
the kingdom of heaven."
As you have given but few quotations from this great lumi-
nary of the East, I may be allowed to submit some more spe-
cimens besides those already adduced. In his panegyric on
the martyr Ignatius, who was bishop of Antioch, where Peter
had for a time resided, he dwells on the great honour thus be-
stowed by God on that city : " for he set over it Peter the
doctor of the wliole world, to whom he gave the keys of hea-
ven, to whose will and power he entrusted all things."* Pane-
gyrizing both the Apostles Peter and Paul, he thus carefully
distinguishes the high prerogatives of Peter : — " Peter the
leader of the Apostles, Peter the commencement of the ortho-
dox faith, — the great and illustrious priest of the Church, —
the necessary counsellor of Christians, the depositary of super-
nal powers, — the Apostle honoured by the Lord. What
shall we say of Peter? the delightful spectacle of the Church,
— the splendour of the entire world, the most chaste dove, the
teacher of the Apostles, the ardent Apostle, fervent in spirit,
angel and man, full of grace, the firm rock of faith, the mature
* In S. M. Ignatium, p. 687, Tom. V.
PKTKR TIIK ROCK <»F FAITH. 298
wisdom of ihe CImrcli, who, on nccoiint of liis purily, lieard,
from llie mouth of the Lord, hiniscU .styled 1 Icssrd, and son of
the dove: who received Irom the Lord liimself the keys of the
kingdom of heaven. — Ihjoice, OPtter^rockoffaitJi!.^'* This
is, indeed, the language of panegyric ; but it would have been
utterly unwarrnntalde, if Peter were not in fact the necessary
counsellor of Chrisiiians, the teacher of the Apostles, the rock
of faiil). It is not only when expressly engaged in panegyric
that Chrysostom thus speaks of Peter. They are his favourite
expressions, and every where occur in his writings : " Peter,"
say he, '* is the basis of the Church, — the fisherman who cast
his net into the sea, and caught in it the whole world. t — He left
his ship, and undertook the government of the Church; he
was called the key-hearer of the kingdom of heaven.; — lie was
the Coi'ijphrtKS who occupied the iirst place, and to whom the
keys of the kingdom of heavc5i were entrusted. §" — He was " the
pillar of the Church, the i^asis of faith, the head of the Aj)ostolic
choir."'^ — "'J'o him the Lord gave the presidency of the Church
throughout the whole earth. "^ To these splendid testimonies
I shall only add the still more solemn evidence of Aicts. As
Athanasius, the great champion of the Nicene faith, was driven
from his See, Chrysostom also was unjustly condemned and
violently driven from the See of Constantinople, by Tlieophilus,
j)atriar(di of Alexandria. h\ his distress he appealed to Inno-
cent, Bishop of Rome, and invoked the exercise of his supreme
aulliorily. ** I beseech you," says he, *' to direct, that what
has been done wickedly against me, in my absence, and whilst
I did not shrink from a trir\l, shall be void, and they who have
thus acted be subjected to ecclesiastical punishment."** The
• In. SS. Pctruin ct Pauluin. Tom. V. p. (JlKt.
t Oc Verbis Isaia; liom. 1, p. G()l>. Tom. I.
X In duodocirn A post. Tom. V. p. (»IU.
§ In Ep. ad Corinlli i. c. ix. horn. 21.
II Horn. 2. de ptcn. in Psahn I...
!i Ad pop. Antioch. horn. J^d. de ptcnitenlia.
•' Chryn. Tom. V. p. 390.
294 ST CHRYSOSTOM.
Pontiff heard his prayer. "Innocent," says Palladius, "de-
creed that the sentence of Theophilus should be null and
void."* Why, may I ask you, did you not advert to this fact,
and explain by what authority Innocent reversed the decree of
the Alexandrine patriarch, and restored to his See the bishop
of the imperial city ? Could a more signal evidence be given
of his spiritual supremacy ?
* Palladius in vita Chrys.
LETTER XXIIl.
ISIDORE, rUOSPER AND VINCENT.
Right Reverend Sir :
In your ihirlieth cliapler you present us wiih the leslimony
of tliree Falliers, Isidore of Pelusium, in E^ypl, a disciple of
St Clirysosloni, Prosper of Aquilaine in Gaul, and Vincent, a
monk of Lerins, an island on the coast of Gaul, who all lived
before the middle of the fifth century. Isidore observes, that
Christ interrogated the Apostles, not through ignorance of the
opinions of men in his regard, " but with a view to deliver to
all a certain confession, which Peter, inspired by him, laid
down as a basis and foundation, on which the Lord built his
Church."* Tiiis interpretation is by no means, as you con-
ceive, " in direct hostility to our present argument," for when
Peter is said to be the foundation on which the Church is built,
he is not regarded merely as en individual man, but as an Apos-
tle confessing the faith : hence, the confession of the divinity
of Christ made by Peter, is easily identified with Peter mak-
ing that confession. On him the Lord built his Church, not
as on an individual man; but as a man divinely enlightened,
and chosen to be the chief instrument in the divine work. The
other passage presents no semblance of dilliculty, for our Lord,
as a good physician, according to the observation of Isidore,
expelled the triple denial of which Peter iiad been guilty, by
* S. Isidor. Pi'lus. do intrrp. div. Script. Kpist. 1. 1, Ep. 23o. " Vl
hac rationo certain omnibus confessioiicm Iradcrct, quain ab on inspiratus
I'etnis, tnniquaiii ba.siin ac fuiidauKiitum jfcil. super quod Doininus Ec-
clesiaiii Huain cxtruxit."
296 ST PROSPER OF AQUITAINE.
requiring of him a triple declaration of love, whilst he thus pre-
pared him for the power which he was about to confer of feed-
ing his lambs and sheep. Nothing, in the least degree adverse
to the prerogatives of Peter, can be gathered from the works
of Isidore, which, on the contrary, bear splendid testimony to
the enduring character of the Church founded on the rock.
*' By the gates of hell," says he, " the divine word designates
the assemblies of impious men, and the blasphemies of here-
sies: all of which the Church of God resists, and breaks down,
and overthrows, whilst she cannot be overcome by them."*
The first of the two passages you take from St Prosper, is
found in his exposition of the one hundred and first Psalm: —
" The sons of the servants of God," saith he, " are the sons
of the just, — the sons of the patriarchs, prophets. Apostles and
martyrs ; the sons, in fine, of the whole Church, which is the
body of Christ, the mother of all tlie Fathers, and of all the
sons."t The citation of a passage like this is certainly not
calculated to throw any light on the question under considera-
tion, as it neither asserts nor denies the Primacy, and has not
even an indirect bearing on it. The commencement of the
other passage speaks of the Church as one man, Christ being
the head: " The whole Church, with her head, which is Christ,
is one man, whose proper ofiice is through all time to bless
God."! In this, as well as in the former passage, the saint is
explaining some verses of the Psalms in a mystical way. Christ
is the supreme head of the Church, and Peter, or his successor,
though styled the head of the visible Church, in relation to the
other members, is only the chief member under Christ. No
mention of this visible head is here made, because the exposi-
tion of the Psalm oflfered no occasion for it ; but in many places
of his works Prosper speaks of tlie authority of the Roman
See as being the throne of Peter. In liis letter to Rufinus, he
says, that "the judgments of the eastern bishops, and the
* Isidor. Pelus. 238. Sereno.
t Prosper Aquit. in Ps. ci. Ed. Par. 1711.
t Prosper in Ps. cii.
ArnioiUTY OF Tin: apostolic see. 297
aulhority of the Apostolic Sec, and the viL'ihviice of the Airican
counrils delected the arliliccs of ilie l*el:ii^iniis." ' — Speaking
elsewhere of those who asserted that AuLMisliiie had ik)! cor-
rectly defended the Catholic (h)ctrine, he dwells " on the great-
ness of the injury which, in the person of this one doctor, they
inflict on all, and especially on the Pontiffs of the Aj)ostolic
See."t He repels the assertion as ahsnrd : " Accordinj^ to
your censure, the hlessed Pope; Innocent, most worthy of the
See of Peter, erred. 'I'he two hundreil anil hnirtcen bishops
erred, who in the letter which they prelixeil to their decrees,
thus addressed blessetl /osinnis the prelate of the Apostolic
See: 'We have determined that the sentence passed against
Pelagins and Celestine hy the venerable Bishop, Innocent, from
the See of the most blessed Apostle Peter, shall continue in
force until they most unreservedly confess that we are aided
in each act by the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our
Lord, not only to know, but to perform justice, so that without
it we can have, thiid;, say, or do nothing of true and holy
piety.' The holy See of Peter erred, which by the mouth of
blessed Zosimus thus speaks to all the world: ' We, neverthe-
less, through the inspiration of Cod — for all good is to be re-
ferred to its author and origin — have reported all to our brethren
and fellow bishops.' "^ He shows that these errors, having been
once proscribed by Apostolic authority, should not be again
discussed : *♦ We are not again to enter into a new conllict with
them {the Pelagians), nor are special contests to be begun as
against unknown enemies : their engines were broken in pieces,
they were prostrated in the companions and princes of their
pride, when Innocent, of blessed memory, struck the heads oi
the impious error with the Apostolic sword .... when Pope
Zosimus, of blessed memory, added the streng'h of his sentence
to the decrees of the African council. "§ '• See," he says in
• Prosper ad Iluf. p. KVI, App. ad Aug. Ed. Vrn. Tom. X.
f \s. contra Collatorcin, p. 171.
t rrosper, I. contra, Cullat. p. 170.
§ lb. p. VXi,
298 VINCENT OF LERINS.
another place, " die rebels everywiiere laid prostrate by the thun-
derbolt of the Apostolic decision."* He calls Rome "the
throne of Peter,"t " the throne of Apostolic power,"± the " head
of the world, § governing witli religious empire nations which
its arms had not subdued." Willi these words of Prosper be-
fore you, how could you thus write: "On the subject of Pe-
ter's autliority over the other Apostles, or the derived supre-
macy of the Church of Rome, I find nothing in the works of
Prosper?" Need i express my astonisliment at this declaration?
In referring to the " Commonitorium" of Vincent of Le-
rins, you have studiously avoided citing those passages which
bear directly on the subject, and confined yourself to a general
principle, which is perfectly correct, but in the application of
which you are peculiarly unfortunate. You should have turned
to the eighth chapter, wherein you might have seen him illus-
trating his principle " by an instance taken from the Apostolic
See, that all might see in meridian light — with what energy, with
what zeal, with what determination the blessed successors of the
blessed Apostles always maintained the integrity of the religion
once received. Pope Stephen, of blessed memory, the Bishop
of the Apostolic See, in conjunction, indeed, with his colleagues,
yet in a more conspicuous manner than they, resisted innova-
tion, judging it fit, as I think, that he should excel all the
REST IN the DEVOTEDNESS OF HIS FAITH, AS MUCH AS HE SUR-
PASSED THEM IN THE AUTHORITY OF HIS STATION. "|| In the pe-
nultimate chapter, speaking of the letters of Julius, the Bishop
of Rome, which were read in the General Council of Ephesus,
he observes : " That not only the head of the world, but
* stratosqiie rebelles
Oris Apostolici fulmine ubiquo vide. — Prosp. in Ohtrect. Aucr.
t Ergo Petri solium Romam, et Carthaginis altae
Concilium repetant. — Carm. dc ingratis.
X Juris Apostolici solio. — lb.
§ Sedes Roma Petri, quae pastoralis honoris,
Facta caput mundi, quidquid non possidet armis,
Religione tenet. — lb.
II S. Vine. Comm. c. viii. p. ^G. Ed. Aug. Vindelic.
lU'LK OF IN ri:i{i'Ki;TATi<)\. 299
also its sides iiii;;ht give tfsiimony for llial judLMiient, llie most
blessed Cyprian, bishop ofCarliiage, and niarlyr, was bronght
forward from the soiiili, Si Ambrose, l)isli()p of Milan, from
the north. "' In ihe lasl chapter he adduces ♦♦ two auiliorita-
live declarations of the Apostolic See, one, namely, of the holy
Pope Sixtiis, which venerable man (he says) now adorns the
Roman Church, the other of his predecessor of blessed me-
mory, Pope Celesiine. — Whoever opposes these Apostolic
and Catholic decrees, must first insult the memory of St Celes-
tine, who decreed that novelty should cease to assail antiquity,
and must mock the decrees of St Sixtus, who judged that no-
velty should have no indulgence, because nothing should be
added to antiquity. "t
The maxims which you have cited from this admirable work
are ours, and we alone can stand the test of their application.
•' If I," says he, *' or any other, desire to detect the frauds of
heretics, who are rising up around us, and to avoid their
snares, and to continue sound and whole in sound faith, he
ought to fortify his faith, by the help of God, in a twofold
manner ; first, by the aulliorily of the divine law, and next by
the tradition of the Catholic Church. But here, perhaps, some
one may say: Since the canon of the Scriptures is perfect, and
abundantly suni(!es to itself for all j)urposes, what need is there
that the authority of the ecclesiaslical inlerpretaiion should be
added .' Because, iMdced, all men do not understand in one and
the same sense the S('rij)lure, in consecjuence of its sublimity ;
but each one interprets its words diH'erenily, so that as many
opinions as there are men seem to be d(;riv('d from it. Thus
Novaiian expounded the Scriptures in one way, Sabellius in
another, Donaius in another; Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius,
each in his own way; Photiinis, Apollinaris, J^riscillian, Jo-
vinian, Pelagius, Celestius, each dillerently; and last of all,
Neslorius. And, therefore, it is very necessary, on account of
the many and varn»us turnings of error, that llie line of pro-
" Comtn. r. penult, p. Ilo.
t lb. c. nil. p. KM).
300 VINCENT OF LERIN3.
phetic and Apostolic inlerpretation should be directed accord-
ing to the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic understand-
ing."*
Give me leave to point out to you the true application of this
excellent rule. To avoid the prevailing errors, we cling to that
interpretation of the Scriptures wliich has received the solemn
sanction of the Church. The words of Christ to Peter appear
to us so plain, that we are forced to conclude that no mind not
already biassed can mistake their meaning. One unenlightened
by faith may disbelieve the power of Peter, because he doubts
of the power of Christ to accomplish what he says: but who-
ever believes the divine power of our Saviour, cannot consist-
ently call the prerogatives of Peter into question. They flow
irresistibly from the words of Christ. Thus we fortify our faith
in the first place by the Divine law, as Vincent of Lerins
states. Next by the tradition of the Catholic Church. If the
ingenious but tortuous interpretations of those who deny the
Primacyt could shake these common sense conclusions, the
* Comm. c. ii. p. 16,
t The following are some specimens from the most distinguished di-
vines of the English establishment. Bishwp Pearson says: " It will be
necessary to take notice, that our Saviour, speaking of it {the Church),
mentioneth it as that which then was not, but afterwards was to be ; as
when he spake unto the great Apostle : < Thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my Church;' but when he ascended into heaven,
and the Holy Giiost came down, when Peter had converted three thou-
sand souls, which were added to the hundred and twenty disciples, then
was there a Church, (and that built upon Peter, according to our
Saviour's promise) for after that we read: 'The Lord added to the
Church daily such as should be saved.' " — Bishop Pearson on the Creed,
Article IX. p 506. Here the Catholic interpretation of the rock is dis-
tinctly admitted, but an attempt is made to explain the sublime promise
of the mere reception of the first converts. It is easy by such a mode
of interpretation to evade the plainest testimonies. " Our Lord," says
Potter, " received from God the keys of heaven ; and by virtue of this
grant, had power to remit sins on earth : the same keys, with the power
which accompanied them, were first promised to Veter, as the foreman of
the Jipostolic colic (Tc " — Potter, Archb. Canterhurij,on Church Government,
p. 60. — This qualifying phrase has no foundation in the sacred text.
PAPAL UFXISIONS. 301
aulhorily of thai interpreialion wliii-h ihe Cliurcli always,
EVERYWHERE, aiicl BY THE MOiTHs OF ALL, lias ilelivert'il, woiild
remove every possibility of doubt. Aflcr the review which I
have made of your quotations, I can confidently appeal to the
testimonies of all the Fatiiers whom you have brought forward,
as well as to others, whom you have not noticed, some of
whose testimonies will be found in the succeeding letter.
You ask, why did not Vincent of Lfriiis slate, " that the only
thing required to avoid heresy was to abide by the decisions of
the Vicar of Christ?" His object was to show tiiat Catholic
faith is the simple erjunciation of what has been believed from
the beginning, and is still believed throughout the world, since
the highest authority of the Church is only its guardian and
expounder. He speaks distinctly of the zeal with which the
ancient faith had always been maintained by the successors of
Peter in the Apostolic chair: but he enters into no nice distinc-
tions of what gives a doctrinal delinition the character of a
solemn expression of the faith of the Universal Church. How-
ever, all the monuments of Christian antiquity prove that those
whose orthodoxy was called in question, felt bound to render
an account of tiieir faith to the Roman Bishop — that he was
consulted from every pari of liie workl on (questions or contro-
versies concerning faith — that his solemn juilgments were di-
rected to the Universal Church, and that even (Ecumenical
Councils listened to them wiili reverence.
2 a
LETTER XXIV.
GENERAL TESTIMONIES.
Right Reverend Sir:
Having followed you through the list of your authorities,
and produced ample proofs of the full admission of the Primacy
of Peter and his successors by the illustrious men whose testi-
mony you have endeavoured to bring forward against the truth
which they professed in word and work, I may now add a few
out of many other witnesses of the ancient faith to whom you
have not invited attention.
St James of Nisibis, one of the Nicene Fathers, says : " Si-
mon, who was called the rock, on account of his faith, was
justly styled rock."*
St Epiphanius, bishop of Salaraina in Cyprus, in the fourth
century, calls Peter " the first of the Apostles, the solid rock
on whicli the Church of God was built. "t
St Gregory of Nyssa says: " The memory of Peter, who is
the head of the Apostles, and together with him the other mem-
bers of the Church, are glorified; but the Church of God is
rendered solid in him : for he, according to the prerogative
granted him by God, is the firm and most solid rock on which
the Saviour built his Churcli.":}:
St Asterius, bishop of Amasea in Pontus, in the fourth cen-
tury, thus commented on tlie pastoral commission given to
* S. Jac. Nis. Apud. Galland. Tom. V. p. 3, n. 13.
t "ES'ti rov Trpcerov uTn^CihceV t»v Trirpstv t«v 9'ip'e^v, ip' riv « ExxAxcr/*
Tj< 6e» aKoSo/Ahrui.'" — S. Epiph. in Ancorato.
X S. Greg. Nyss. laudatio altera S. Steph. protom.
ST OPT ATI'S, ST CVIill. OF ALT-N ANDKIA. 303
Peter: " When, tliorefore, our Saviour was about to sanctify
mankind by subjecliuu himself, of liis own choice, lo tlealli, he
dclivcH's to this man the Universal Churcli every wlicrc (liHused,
as a precious deposit, after liavinjr asked liim thrice : ' dost
thou h)vc mc V and as with great ahicrity lie rej)lied to the
questions by an equal number of protestations, he received the
world in charge, as one s!iej)herd, one llock, having heard,
' feed my sheep :' and tlie liOrt! i^ave to those who should come
to the faith, tiie most laiihful disciple, almost in his own stead
as a falher, and lawgiver, and instructor."*
Si Oplitus, of Mela in Africa, addressing the Donatists,
wrote: ** To err knowingly is a sin: tiic ignorant are some-
times pardoned. You cannot deny liiut you kr.ow the Episco-
pal chair in the city of Uoinc was first bestowed on Peter: that
Peter, the head of all the Apostles, sat therein ; in which one
chair unity should be preserved by all — so that now, whoever
would place another chair against this one, woulil be guilty of
schism. "t
To these writers of the i'ourlh century 1 subjoin some of the
succeeding age. St Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, com-
menting on the twelfth cliapter of John, says : ** He (Christ)
was pleased to call him l*cter, frtim the rock, by an apt simili-
tude, as the one on whom he was about to lound the Church.":}:
St I'cter Chrysologus, the celebrated bishop of Ravenna,
wrote lo Eutyches : ♦♦ We exhort you, honourable brother, lo
attend with docility in all things lo what shall be prescribed to
" O /utr cut fmrup hjuott Hvix* •/uixxii' ayi^^nv tu xu&aupirm dmiaTei
TOi/T* Ta» itifi 7rtptrifitr:n, rpiror aWTH wbifjurct to, fixiic /ui. flf Jt
TAit i^wTJiViai fA*^.<t 7rf:.^Cu(k( Irafiduiuc Tate i/xsAcj/ac ^fiibi-ro, «Aot/Si»
T6» niffjiif i/c iT//uiA«4ar »c /uixf xyiKtit «<c voifxttf, axiv<Tu.(. fiivnt to.
utl'n. /utt. Ksi r^tjit oitbi isri/Tsu Tif ?r/rora'Tcr yua6*Tjli' f/*xir o nvfiit
Tcic irpc9-»>.6rtic ■r*rip*, it«i tzpjti*, itcci irmitvni. — S. Asterius, Oral.
in Petrurn ct Fauluin, T. I. Auclnrii Grirr. Pat.
\ S. Oplalus Mil. I. ii. n.2.
t ptpi»t6/uiu( it mn Tile irtTpac /MiT»»4/ua^i irirpo* tr'awrei ytp
tfxi>.>.t Txr JUT)'. 6iwi>iKr »««> Jiff/ai'. — S. Cvril. AK'X. 1 ii. in c. xij. Joan.
304 GENERAL TESTIMONIES.
you by the most blessed Pope of the Roman city, since BLESS-
ED PETER, WHO IN HIS OWN SEE LIVES AND
PRESIDES, grants the knowledge of the true faith to those
that seek it."*
The solemn testimony of the bishops assembled from all
Christendom may be added. The great Council of Ephesus,
held in the year 431, affords us a most s])lendid evidence of
the authority exercised by the Bishop of Rome, and admitted
by the Universal Church, as the legitimate prerogative of his
See. Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, had sought to adul-
terate the faith, and Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, appeared
as its strenuous defender. Celestine, Bishop of Rome, having
been informed of the error, addressed Nestorius a letter of pa-
ternal remonstrance, and authoritative injunction, concluding
with this sentence : " Know, then, manifestly, that this is our
decree, that unless you preach concerning Christ our God what
the Church of Rome, and of Alexandria, and the whole Catho-
lic Church holds, as also the holy Church of the great city of
Constantinople has held steadfastly until your time ; and unless
you, by an explicit confession in writing, condemn this per-
fidious novelty, which attempts to separate what the venerable
Scripture unites, you are cast forth from the communion of the
entire Catholic Church." The Pope addressed Cyril, author-
izing him to preside in his place in the synod, but charging
him most strictly to execute the sentence of excommunication
if, within the time specified, Nestorius should not retract. The
Fathers proceeded to its execution, declaring themselves *' con-
strained to do so by the canons and by the epistle of our most
holy Father, and fellow minister Celestine, Bishop of the
Church of Rome."t The Pontifical legates having arrived
after these proceedings, Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem, at the
opening of the third session, inquired of the legates whether
they had read over the act of deposition. Philip, the priest,
one of the legates, replied that they had, and that they felt sa-
* S. Petras Chrys. Ep. ad Eutycheten,
t P. 14G2, Cone. Col. Hard. Tom. I.
COUNCIL OF KPlllLSrs. 305
lisfie«l that all hail been ilonc m strict accordance with the
canons ; vet he requested that the acts should be read anew in
the council, in order that in compliance with the orders received
Iroin Celcslinc, they niii'lit conlirni what had been decreed!"*
The rctjiiest was ^n*aiitcd wilhoul dilliculi} : and the decrees
having been read, th(; lej^atc thus began the eonlJrinatory sen-
tence : " It is not doubted by any one, but rather it has been
well known in all ages {of the Church)^ that the lioly and most
blessed l*eler, the princet and head of the Apostles, the pillar
of lailh, and the loundalion of the Catholic Church, received
from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Uedeenier of man-
kind, the keys of t!ie kingdom : and to him was given power
to bind and loose sins, who, down to the present time and for-
ever, in his successors lives and ji'Dgls. His successor,
then, in regular order, the occupant of his place, our holy and
most blessed Pope, the IJishop Celestine, has sent us to this
holy synod to supply his i)resence." He proceeds to state the
obstinacy of Neslorius, who sulVered the lime prescribed by
the Apostolic See to elapse without retracting his error: and
then declares that the sentence passeil against iiim by the con-
sent of tlie hishojjs of the East and of the West is firm, and
that he is cut ofl' from the communion of the Catliolic Church.
The other two legates spoke to the same clVecl, after whom
Cyril, the patriarch of Alexandria, proposed that the proceed-
ings of both sessions siiould be presented to the legates for
subscription. Arcadius, one of them, observed that the proceed-
ings of the holy synod were such that they could not but con-
firm them. 'J'he synod ol)served, that as the legates had spoken
in a manner becoming them, it now remained for them to fulfil
their promise, and subscribe the acts, which they accordingly
did. 'J'hus in all things was seen, as I'liilip the legate observed,
the union of the holy members with their holy head, '* for your
t '*i*iX'^- — Actionc 3. 0)nc. Kpli. p. I !7r. mid 1177. Tmih. I. Hard.
Col.
30G GENERAL TESTIMONIES.
blessedness," he said, addressing the Fathers, '* is not ignorant
that the blessed .Apostle Peter is the head of all faith, or even
of the Apostles:''^
I know not what more solemn and splendid testimony could
be given of the general belief of the divine institution of the
Primacy. The bishops who composed this venerable assembly,
were, with the exception of the Roman legates, oriental and
African : yet they heard, without a murmur of contradiction, the
strong assertions of the legates ; — they submitted their acts to
them for confirmation — and they declared themselves constrain-
ed to execute the sentence of Celestine against Nestorius.
The great Council of Chalcedon, reporting their proceedings
to Leo the Great, refer to his letter, which they had received
with acclamations, and declare that " he is established the in-
terpreter for all of the voice of Peter the Apostle." They say
that he presided over them, as the head over the members, in
the persons of those who occupied his place : and they speak
with indignation and horror of the impiety of Dioscorus, the
fallen patriarch of Alexandria, who, to his heresy, had added
frantic violence against the successor of Peter. — " He has,"
say they, " extended his frenzy even against him to whom the
care of the vineyard was intrusted by the Saviour, namely,
against your Apostolic holiness."! In these expressions and
acts of this venerable assembly, as well as of that of Ephesus,
you have the clear recognition of the divine institution of the
Primacy,
* « Ki<pdLxii oxus r»( Tria-Tiui « *, Tav AvoToKm. — Act. 2. Col. 1472.
Tom. II. Edit. H.
t T. II. p. 655. Col. Hard.
LETTER XXV
INTERPOLATION OF I'lIE FATIIEHJS.
Right Reverend Sir :
Yoi'R chapter on the interpolation of the Fathers indicates
some misgiving as to the result of their examination. You
have indeed reason to despair of ever overthrowing the Primacy
or any other Catholic tenet by their aid. From your enume-
ration some might be led to think that every passage in their
works relating to this point had been brought forward, or at
least, that all the witnesses, up to the middle of the fifth century,
had been examined : but it must now be seen that most import-
ant passages, which dissipate any obscurity that might exist
in others, have been left unnoticed, and several Fathers have
not at all been presented for examination. I could have added
many more, but I have reason to indulge the fear which you
express, that this tedious investigation may prove wearisome
to our readers.
You state your " conviction that the expurgations which our
scholars have made of these ancient writings have left them
still far from immaculate." Do you mean to insinuate that no
reliance can be placed on the integrity of any of those works .'
The translator of Athanasius states, that many false and spuri-
ous books }jad been attrii)uted to him : but have not the learned
laboured successfully to separate these from his genuine works ?
Are there not many works of this and other Fathers bearing
evident marks of authenticity, which Protestant and Catholic
critics unite in acknowledging ? The assertion of the Jansenist
Quesnel may pa?s for what it is worth ; but what friend of lite-
308 INTERPOLATION OF THE FATHERS.
rature, or truth, will consent, that, on such a vague suspicion, the
splendid monumenls ol' the genius, learning, and zeal of the
early ages, should be all marked as uncertain ? Let this literary-
skepticism be indulged, if you will, wherever there is a shadow
of reason to support it : but let not these precious records be
capriciously subjected to suspicion, merely because the parti-
san of error feels himself overwhelmed by their harmonious
evidence. Whoever calls in question the authenticity of a
work, should show the intrinsic characters which it presents
of forgery, or at least the absence of external authority to
warrant its being ascribed to its allep^ed author. 'J'he man who
asserts that a work has been interpolated, should adduce reason
to convince us that the passages which he questions are not
consistent with the known sentiments of the author, elsewhere
clearly expressed, or with facts which the author must have
known, and would not have contradicted. Notwithstanding your
oft-repeated professions of kindness and of courtesy, you con-
clude this chapter by asserting that our predecessors have confess-
edly interpolated the works of the Fathers to suit the doctrine
of their day. Should I retort the charge, 1 might appear unkind,
but certainly I would be supported by evidence greater than
that which you can allege. Many of the works rejected by the
learned as supposititious, inasmuch as they were once errone-
ously ascribed to authors who had not composed them, were
not literary forgeries, but works written by men sound in faith,
and which by mere mistake were attributed to others. Some-
times the identity of name caused the work to be ascribed to an
author who had flourished in a different country and age:
sometimes the want of any name led to the conjecture that the
work belonged to some celebrated author who was known to
have treated the subject. When vellum and parchment were
scarce, the copying of a small work at the end of a large volume
gave occasion to consider both as the production of the same
author. Since the printing of books, most of tfiese errors have
been detected, by a critical examination of tlie works them-
selves, by the collection of manuscripts, and by reference to
other works in which citations were made, or catalogues given.
8T MAXIMl'S OF TURIN. 309
Though there is still room lor the exercise of just criticism to
ascertain the correct reading of some passage, or the authenti-
city of some document, reasonahle evidence of the want of au-
thenticity must be demanded, unless we choose to plunge into
the gulf of universal scepticism. Were we to act on your appa-
rent principle, we might hesitate to admit the Bible itself, since
it is undeniable that spurious books once were esteemed as di-
vine, and interpolations or alterations of the Sacred Text — some
of which may yet remain — were made by accident or fraud.
Was there no attempt by Catholic writers wilfully to pass
under some illustrious name their own productions t There
was, but from motives very dilferent from those which you
have attributed to them. Vigilius, bishop of Thapsis, in the
fifth century, published some works under the name of Atha-
nasius, because he wished to avoid the Arian persecution,
which by writing in his own name he might have drawn upon
him. Others, like Isidore Mercator, may have done in like
manner for less worthy motives : but no Catholic thereby in-
tended, or could have hoped to introduce a new dogma, or to
give rise to a new practice. The forgeries proceeded from
Judaising Christians in the first ages, and subsequently for the
most part from the abettors of various heresies. An enlight-
ened criticism will not regard all works as doubtful, because
sometimes a romance is published, or a literary hoax proves
successful. I will submit an instance of a suppositious work,
which modern Catholic criticism has assigned to its real author,
and from which it will be seen how little the suppositious char-
acter of a work detracts from its real worth, and how willing
our writers are to assign every document to its proper author.
Among the sermons formerly ascribed to St Ambrose, was one
on the festival of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, which is now
known to be the production of St Mnximus, bishop of Turin,
who nourished about the middle n{' the fifth century. The
catalogue of his discourses was given by d'ennadius of Mar-
seilles, at the close of that century, and it served to dis-
cover them amidst the writings o\ St Ambrose and St Au-
310 INTERPOLATION OF THE FATHERS.
gusiin, with which they had been confounded. The error does
not at all affect their authority, for though Ambrose flourished
half a century before Maximus, and shed a brighter light on
his own and succeeding ages, yet the name of Maximus is
likewise held in veneration for the sanctity of his life, the in-
tegrity of his faith, and his sacred and sublime eloquence. The
critical discovery adds another witness to the privileges of the
prince of the Apostles, and presents another link of the chain
of traditionary testimony. " Since," says he, " all the bless-
ed Apostles obtain equal grace of holiness before God, I know
not how Peter and Paul seem to excel the others by a certain
peculiar degree of the virtue of faith in the Saviour : which, in-
deed, we can prove by the judgment of our Lord himself. For
to Peter, as a good steward, he gave the key of the heavenly
kingdom ; on Paul, as a fit doctor, he imposed the duty of ec.
clesiastical instruction : so that whom the one instructs unto
salvation, the other receives them to rest ; and Peter opens the
kingdom of heaven to the souls of those whose hearts Paul
opened by his teaching Both of them, therefore, receiv-
ed keys from the Lord, the one the key of knowledge, the
OTHER THE KEY OF POWER : onc dispenses the riches of immor-
tality, the other bestows the treasures of knowledge : for there
are treasures of knowledge, as it is written: — 'In whom are
all the treasures of knowledge hidden.' Tlierefore, blessed
Peter and Paul shine forth among all the iVpostles, and excel
by a certain peculiar prerogative. But it is uncertain which is
to be preferred to the other: for I think that they are equal in
merits, since they are equal in suffering, and that they lived
with similar devotedness of faith, as they attained together to
the glory of martyrdom. For let us not imagine, that it hap-
pened without motive, that, on the same day, and in the same
place, they suffered by the decree of the same tyrant. They
suffered on the same day, that they might attain to the glory
of Ciirist at the same time, — in the same place, that Rome
should possess both, — under the same persecutor, that equal
cruelty should be exercised towards both. The day, then, was
KO.MK, IlKAD OF NATIONS. 3J1
decreed in conseciuenre of ihcir incril — ilie j)la( o for their glory,
— the persecutor for llieir virtue. Ami in w luii place did ihey
suffer martyrdom ? In the city of Rome, which obtains the
sovereignty, and is the liead of nations, namely, that where the
head of superstition was, the head of sanctity might repose :
and wliere the princes of the Ccnliles dwelt, the princes of
the churches might reside."*
• Scrni. Ixv. p. lUi'.t. Vol. III. Edit. Baa. inter opera Ainbrosii, S.
Maxiinus Taurin.
LETTER XXVI.
CLAIMS OF THE PRIMITIVE ROMAN CHURCH.
Right Reverend Sir :
Without wishing to impugn the sincerity with which you
express the confidence you have in the result of your examina-
tion, I must guard the reader against being influenced by your
conviction, or misled by your professions. — " I conceive it
proved," you say, " by superabundant testimony, that the pri-
mitive Church of Rome professed to hold no authoritative su-
premacy over the other churches, and that she interpreted the
language of Christ to Peter in precise accordance with the gen-
eral voice of the Fathers, as conveying no official grant of su-
preme power or domination." You may conceive all this ; and
it is perfectly true that Rome, neither in ancient or modern
times, has claimed any domination in the odious sense of ca-
pricious and arbitrary authority. She professed herself at all
times powerless against the truth, but powerful for the truth,
— to level every height that exalteth itself against the know-
ledge of God, and to bring into captivity every understanding
to the obedience of Christ. She acknowledged that the power
which the Lord had given her, was for edification, not for de-
struction: yet she alleged and exercised that power, and she
was sustained in her claims by the general voice of Christen-
dom.* As you have given few quotations from the writings
* " Long before the earliest epoch that can be fixed for modern his-
tory, and, indeed, to speak fairly, almost as far back as ecclesiastical
testimonies can carry us, the Bishops of Rome had been venerated as
first in rank among the rulers of the Church." This is the admission of
Hallam, a learned living author, nowise disposed to favour Catholic
WRlTlNCiS AND ACTS OF TllK PONTlFtS. 313
of ihc aiicieiil limnaii Fonlilfs, whicli allbrd ihe most solemn
evidence of \v!)al ilio priniiiive (.-liiirch of Home jirofe.sscd to
hold, I submit to the reader some passages.
The authority wliich Victor exercised over the eastern
churches has already been seen. St Cornelius, in his letter to St
Cyprian, gives him the pleas^ing intellitrence, that t^everal \%ho
had been involved in the scljism of Novatus liad returned to the
unity of tlie Church, and with deep conjpunction made the
public avowal of tlieir faith and submission, lie gives the pre-
cise words in which it was made : " We know that Cornelius
was ciiosen by Almigiily God, and by Christ our Lord, Bisliop
of the most holy Catholic Church. We confess our error
For we are not ignorant that there is one (iod, and one Christ,
the Lord whom we have confessed, one Holy Ghost, and that
there should be one Bishop in the Catholic Churcli."* It is
clear, that at this early period, the Bishop of Rome was styled
"Bishop of the Catholic Church," and the one Bishop placed
in it by Christ our Lord for its government. He liad, indeed,
numerous colleagues, but he was the one Bishop whose vigi-
lance and authority extended over all.
Julius, whose proceedings in the case of Allianasius have
been already noticed, had no less exalted an idea of the charac-
ter which, as successor ol" Peter, he sustained in the Church
of Jesus Christ. t
Pope Siricius, about the year 385, writing to Ilimcrius of
Tarragona, and prescribing certain rules to be observed, says:
** Henceforth, let all priests observe the foregoing rule, who do
not wish to be separated from the solidity of the Apostolic
rock, on which Christ built the universal Church." . . . .
'* We decree, by a general enactment, w hat must be followed
hereafter, and what nuist be shunned by all the churches." —
He orders his decree to he communicated to the bishops of
t<'nets. Soc iiifi View of the State of Kuropo during the Middle Agci;.
Ch. vii.p. 2(51). Ed. Now York.
• Cornehus ad Cypriaiuim. Coll. ('onr. Labb^-. Tom. I. p. ^'M . Ed.
Flor.
t Ep. ad Orient. HUpra. Ivlt. xiv. p. Ic4,et8rq.
2 B
314 CLAIMS OF THE PRIMITIVE ROMAN CHURCH.
Carthage, Boetia, Lusitania and Gallicia, that it may be invio-
lably observed, and all pretext of excuse be taken away, which
he determines never to receive."*
St Innocent, who lived at the beginning of the fifth century,
thus writes to Deeentius, bishop of Eugubium : — " Who does
not know, or perceive, that what was delivered to the Roman
Church by the prince of the Apostles, Peter, and is still re-
tained, must be observed by all ?"t In his letter to the Coun-
cils of Africa, he speaks still more solemnly of the privile-
ges of the Primacy, especially in causes of faith.
St Zosimus, addressing the Fathers of the Council of
Cartilage, observes : " The tradition of the Fathers has giv-
en so great authority to the Apostolic See, that no one would
dare call its judgment into question So great power
canonical antiquity, by universal consent, ascribed to this Apos-
tle, from the very promise of Christ our Lord, that he should
loose what was bound, and bind what was loose. "J
I shall close this evidence with one out of many passages of
Leo the Great. " Christ," says he, " having assumed him
(Peter) to a participation in his indivisible unity, was pleased
that he should be styled what he himself was, saying: ' Thou
art Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church :' that the
building of the eternal temple by the wonderful gift of the
grace of God should rest on tlie solidity of tiie rock, strength-
ening his Church by this firmness, so that neither human
temerity could afl^ect it, nor the gates of hell prevail against it.
But, whosoever attempts to infringe on his power, indulges ex-
cessive and impious presumption, in seeking to violate the
most sacred firmness of this rock, God, as we have said, being
the builder."§
You, yourself, suppose that the Bishops of Rome conceived
* Syricius Himerio, Cone. Col. Hard. Tom. I. Col. 848.
t S. Innocent Decentio. Jb. Col. il95. See, also, his Letter to the
African Prelates. Apud. Aug. Ep. 181. Col. 035. Tom. II.
X S. Zosimus, Ep. 1'2. apud Couslant, Aurelio ac caeteris, &c.
§ S. Leo. Tom. 11. Col. 1315. Edit. Bullerin.
HYPOTHESIS OF BlSHOl' HOl'KINS. 315
ihe idea of eslablishiiij^ llieir supremacy at a very early day ;*
how, then, you can consisleniiy say, liiat iho priruilive ('hiirch
of Home, of which ihey were the organs, professed to hold no
aulhoritalive supremacy over the other cliurches, is to me in-
explicable. You attribute their plan to human policy, though
you aihnit their sincerity in thinking that the peace and pros-
perity of the Churcii would thereby be greatly promoted : but
on what grounds do you ascribe to human policy, what they
uniformly attribute to divine institution? and by what right do
you atlribule worldly wisdom to those whom their iioly lives
and gb)rious deaths prove to have been the chosen ones to
whom the Father revealed tlie secrets of his kingdom ?
You ask yourself a puzzling question: " how the doctrine
of il;c Papal supremacy could have been admitted by the
Churcli, if it were not founded upon tlie authority of the Re-
deemer?" Your answer is, that " tlie rank and influence of
the Roman See, having given it a great and increasing prepon-
derance in the councils of the Church, the canons of these
councils by degrees confirmed its dignity. Thus, the right of
receiving appeals was conferred upon it lirst by the Council of
JSardica, some years subsequent to tlie Council of Nice. The
acknowledgment, that it was the first of all the churches, was
made still later by the Council of Constantinople." — Why did
not you explain how it attained that rank and influence, when
the very circumstance of the city being the seat of empire, ex-
posed its Bishop to all the fury of persecution, when, consequent-
ly, he could borrow no lustre, and derive no influence from
the tiirone.t It was "the imiesidino Church," even when Igna-
* An instance of tlio oxorciso of supremo power occurred before the
days of Victor, in the absolution of Cordon from the excommunication
intlicted by the Asiatic bisiiopg — " Another, whom the Church of this
age excommunicated for heresy, was Cerdon, who, coming to Rome
when }Iyginus was Bishop there, recanted his errors, and was restored
to communion. — Poller on Church (inrcrnmfnt, p. 3IJ3.
i Vail ntinian 111, in the year IV), in his constitution, called *' Novel,'
makes mention of the dijrnity f)f the llomancity, but dwells especially on
the authority of blessed I'cter, ns recognised by the canons of the
316 CLAIMS OF THE PRIMITIVE ROMAN CHURCH.
lius went to martyrdom, — it was, when Irenaeus wrote, " the
Church of more excellent, more powerful principality," — it
was for Cyprian, who lived nearly a century before the Coun-
cil of Nice, " the princely chair."* You have staled, what you
seem now to forget, that the sixth canon of that council was
directed to guard against the encroachments of the Roman Bi-
shop.t Were this the fact, it would be strange that, a few
vears afterwards, the Council of Sardica should have enlarged
the privileges of the Roman See, by making it a high court
of appeals from the sentence of councils, by wliich bishops
were deposed. It is for you to reconcile these statements. At
the same time you may explain how it hapjiened, that long
before the Councils of Sardica, or Nice, Basilides, a deposed
bishop, of whom St Cyprian speaks, going to Rome, imposed
on Pope Stephen, not acquainted with the facts, and obtained
a decree that he should be restored to his bishopric. It may
be also worth explanation, how, in the interval between the
Councils of Nice and Sardica, tlie patriarch of Alexandria, for
whose protection the Nicene canon is said by you to have been
specially made, was accused to the PontifT, anticipated the
summons to appear before his tribunal, submitted to trial, or,
rather, appealed to his justice, and had the sentence of depo-
sition reversed by his high authority. At the same time, two
other bishops, Paul pnd Marcelius, of Ancyra, appealed to the
Church : " Cum igitur sedis ApostolicEe primatum B. Petri meritum,
qui est princeps sacerdotalis coronjE, et Romanaj dignitas civitatis,sacraB
etiam synodi firmavit auctoritas." " The merit of blessed Peter, w^ho is
the prince of the priestly order, and the dignity of the Roman city, the
authority, also, of the holy synod, strengthened the Primacy of the Apos-
tolic See." — See Hallam, Middle Ages, c. 7, p. 270.
* " At a much earlier period {thmi that of Val entinian) , Irenaeus ra-
ther vaguely, and Cyprian more positively, admit, or rather assert, the
Primacy of the Church of Rome, which the latter seems even to have
considered as a kind of centre of Catholic unity." — Hallam, ibidem.
t Cabassutius understands it, on the contrary, as grounding the Al-
exandrine privileges on the implicit concession of the Roman Bishop,
v.'ho knew and approved of them : " quia illud ei jus tribuere solet Ro-
luanus episcoj)Us." — JVotitia. EccL p. 112.
COr.NClL OF SAHUK A. .'H 7
PonlilT from the senlcncc of inferior trihimals, and Sozomen,
the Greek historian, gives us in these words the result. ♦♦ The
Hoiuan Bishop havin<r taken cojjnizance of the cases of each of
lliem, and tinding them all to harmonize in the Nicene faith,
admitted them to his communion. And since, on account of
THE DIOMTY OF HIS 8kK, TIIK (ARE OF AliL nKLONOKI) TO HIM,
he restored eacli one to his clnirch."*
These facts are inex{)lical)lo in llie hypotliesis that the right
of appeal was conferred hy the Fathers ofSardica on the IIolv
See. A close inspection of the two canons that regard this
matter, will convince you that the Fathers conceded no such
right, though they fully recognised its existence. The first
enactment which they made on this suhject, was intended to
correct an abuse, not to confer a privilege. Before this, a con-
demned bishop had the facility of obtaining a new trial from
the bishops of the neighbouring province, without alleging sa-
tisfactory reasons. To prevent this, it was enacted that no
new trial should be granted, unless by the special autliority of
the holy See, who shoidd appoint the judges. This enactment
abridged the power of the Metropolitans, who could no longer
grant a new trial, whicli, before, was left to their discretion.
With regard to appeals to the Pope, " from the judgment of
those bishops who belonged to the neighbouring parts," the
council, at the suggestion of (laudenlius, decreed, that if a
bishop "should proclaim lliat his cause shoidd be lieard in the
city of Rome, another bishop should not, after his appeal, by
any means, be ord.iined in the place of him who appears to be
deposed, unless the cause be deterniiiied !)y the judgment of
the Roman Bishop." This enactment su|>poses the rii^ht of
appeal, and does not create it; but it restrains the provincial
* O tat it TMc xoLiTeir miJt/uttietc atvTO* irforntiovfftic //« Tilr ttpiay tcC
0-/}rc(/, iimrai Tjir tiisi tKM.\tta iai xit'tietz*. — Sozomen, 1. iii. Hist. EccI
c. 7. " The opinion of the Roman Spc'b supremacy, seems to have pre-
vailed very nuich in the fourth century. FIcury brinjjH remnrknblc
proof of this from the writinj^H of Sorraten, Sozonn-n, AmmianuB. Mar-
ccllinufl, and Oplalufl." — Ilallam. MidtUe .lifts, ch vii. p. M7{).
2 B*
318 CLAIMS OF THE PRIMITIVE ROMAN CHURCH.
bishops from proceeding to the ordination of a new bishop,
even after a second trial, should the condemned bishop inter-
pose an appeal for a tiiial hearing in the Roman conrt. It de-
termines this appeal to have the elTect of suspending all pro-
vincial acts.* The case of Athanasiiis, into whose See, whilst
his cause was pending at Rome, Gregorius had been intruded,
gave occasion to these canons. Had the right of appeal been
conferred by that council, it would still be worthy of remark
that it was with a view to lionour the chair of Peter. The in-
Huence of the Roman Bishop, had it at all originated in the
greatness of tiie imperial city, must have been on the wane ever
since Constantine raised the new seat of empire at Byzantium.
The prejudices of Constantius sliould have made him view,
with peculiar jealousy, every new privilege of a See whose
Bishop was the avowed and implacable enemy ofArianism,
and had so lately sustained Athanasius against the Arian faction,
which that emperor so much favoured. The Fathers of Sar-
dica had been called together by the letters of this Arian empe-
ror, at the instance of Constans, whose influence Julius em-
ployed for that purpose. Every thing, then, concurred to
persuade them to diminish, rather than augment, the pre-
rogatives of that See ; and nothing could have induced them to
recognise its superiority, or admit its riglils, but the deep-rooted
conviction that they were the rich inheritance bequeathed by
the prince of the Apostles to his successors.
With regard to the statements of Fleury, you may enjoy the
benefit of them as far as they may be sustained by historical
facts; wherever these are wanting, we are free to dissent from
his peculiar views, or reject his statements. But when you
claim "his acknowledgment as conclusive, that a vast and de-
plorable change has passed over our primitive doctrine," you
mistake doctrine for discipline, and you confound the extent of
prerogative with essential rights. Fleury was of opinion that
the false decretals served for the amplification of papal prero-
** See " Del Concilio di Sardica Dissertazione Polemico-Canonica,
Roma, 1783."
FLEURV's SKNTl.MKNTS. 319
galive, wliicli, with other French divines, he was anxious to
confine within tlie narrowest limits: but he and they loudly
prochiimed tiie Catholic doctrine of the divine institution of llie
Primacy. It is foreign to my purpose to examine tlie correct-
ness of these views, as I am only anxious to vindicate doctrine,
without embarrassing the invesligalion by disputes about the
extent of privilege ; but 1 may be allowed to observe, with a
modern Protestant writer, that, some years before the compila-
tion of Isidore, *' there was a genuine collection of canons, pub-
lished by Adrian I., in 785, which contain nearly the same
principles, and many of which are copied by Isidore, as well
as Charlemagne, in his capitularies."*
• Hallam, Middle Ages, p. 273.
LETTER XXVII.
TEMPORAL POWER.
Right Reverend Sir:
Having vindicated the spiritual supremacy of the Holy See,
by the divine authority of Scripture, and the testimonies of the
venerable ancients, I should consider my task completed; but
I regret to find that you have presented another topic for dis-
cussion, which is more likely to awaken prejudice, than to
dispose for the investigation of truth. The temporal power of
the Pope is, you would appear to believe, and are willing to
persuade others, an article of Catholic faith, or, at least, was
proposed as such for several ages by the Popes who sitccess-
ively occupied St Peter's chair. You even intimate that each
Catholic is sworn to sustain the exercise of that power, should
it be attempted, and you allege to this effect a portion of "the
profession of faith," published by Pius IV. : " I acknowledge
the holy Catholic and Apostolical Roman Church to be the
mother and mistress of all cliurches, and I promise and swear
true obedience to the Roman bisliop, the successor of St Peter,
the prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ." Though
you are mistaken in supposing that this oath is taken by every
Catholic, since it is almost exclusively confined to persons
occupying some office or dignity in the Church, or to converts,
on their admission to her communion, yet I freely admit that
the obligation which it implies, is common to every member of
the Catholic ('hurch. It is manifestly no more than submission
to the spiritual authority of tlie Pontiff, for obedience is pro-
mised him only as successor of the fisherman, and vicegerent
ALLEGIANCE TO CIVIL GOVERNMENT. 321
of Ilim whose kiiio^dom is not of iliis world. 'J'lie prolales and
priests who huve iiiatle lh:il premise al the foot of the ahar, have
not liesilaled, no more than tlie laity, to stand forward before
the public tribunals, and, on their oaihs, renounce allegiance to
every foreign princ^e or poiefitate. You insist that *' it is plainly
impossible to know what true obedience means, unless we
understand the extent to which the Pope has a just right to
demand it." Notwithstanding the disputes of tiie schools, as
to the extent of pontifical prerogative, we understand j)erfectly
well what true obedience nicaiis, tiaincly, submission to the
legitimate exercise of pontifical authority, as generally recog-
nised and admitted by the (.'atholic Church. It consequently
implies submission to those decrees which are directed to main-
tain the general order of the Church, so wisely regulated by
the canons, which have emanated from (leneral Councils, or
from the Holy See itself. We know tiiai no obedience is due
to any authority, in any thing immoral or wrong. In command-
ing us to honour our parents, God has not appended any limi-
tation to the commandment; and yet, no one feels that it war-
rants obedience in any thing adverse to the Divine law.
With the disputes which once agitated the schools and the
world, with regard to the rights of Poi)es over sovereigns, we
have nothing to do : we live in a dinVrcnt stale of society from
that which gave rise to them, 'i'he Ponlifl'is no longer the
recognised head of the commonwealth of Christendom, as he
naturally, and almost insensibly became, when the nations of
Europe, being all Catholic, looked uj) to him as the common
Father of all, the highest interpreter of the relative duties and
rights of all, and tlieir most sacred and powerful protector.
" 'J'he l*ope," says Sir Hdward Sandys, a Protestant, " was the
common F'ather, adviser, and conductor of Christians, to recon-
cile llieir enmities, and decide their dilfcrences."* Kings ap-
pealed to him tojud;^'e of the justice of their complaints against
each other, before they summoned their subjects to the field of
* Survey of Europe, p. 202.
322 TEMPORAL POWER.
battle to avenge their wrongs.* Nations raised their voice to
him, imploring him to admonish the sovereign who abused his
power, lest suffering sliould goad them into revolt, and the
horrors of anarchy succeed ihe more tolerable evils of oppress-
ion. Before Gregory VII. hurled the pontifical anathema against
Henry, the Saxon subjects of this monarch had accused him,
to Alexander, the predecessor of this PontiiT, as having com-
mitted flagrant injustice, in deprivingOthoof Bavaria of his duke-
dom.t Impatient of his tyrannic sway, they afterwards broke
out into open revolt, and the auihoriiy and mediation of Gre-
gory were employed to iiuhice submission, with a pledge that
he would use his influence on tlie side of justice. It was only
when the excesses of Henry defied all remedy, and were ag-
gravated by a direct attack on the Pontiff himself, in an attempt
to depose him, that Gregory ventured to declare that the ties
whicii hitherto had bound his subjects to such a monarch, were
snapped asunder. J The ground of this extraordinary act, al-
leged by a writer almost cotemporary, was the violation of a
compact between freemen and their elective head. " Freemen,"
said this writer, "put over them Henry as king, on condition
that he should study to judge his constituents with justice, and
govern them with royal solicitude : which compact he has con-
stantly broken and slighted. Therefore, even without the judg-
ment of the Apostolic See, the princes could justly refuse to ac-
knowledge him any longer as king, since he disregarded the
fulfilment of the compact, to which he had assented at his elec-
tion, and which, being violated, he could no longer be king."§
* See Novalis, Schriften, Berlin, 1826, 1 Th., p. 191 ; also Lettres sur
THistoire, Tom. II , Lett. 41, et Tom. HI, Lett. G2; also in Mat. Paris,
A. D. Hi)."), the appeal of Richard I. to Celestine TIL, against the duke
of Austria, for having detained him prisoner atTrivallis. The Pope ex-
communicated the Duke for refusing to do justice. — Quoted by Milner,
Letter 40, on Supremacy.
t See Baronii Annales, Tom. XL, an. 1072, p. 405,
t Ibidem, an. 1073, p. 479.
§ " Liberi homines Ilenricum eo pacto sibi prneposucrunt in regem,
ut electores suos juste judicare, et regali providentia gubernare satage-
ABSOLl'TION FROM ALLEGIANCE. 323
There is, then, a cIosit afliiiily ihari at first apjicars, belwecn
the poliiical principles of lliat a«,'e and those of the present day.
Tlie crown was held on the sireii{(i!j of a virtual, if not express
compact, which necessarily snj)posed correlalivc ohIitjMtioiis on
the sovereign and tiie people." The Pontill did not prtti nd that
he could, at will, annul these obliuaiions, hut, on tiie conliary,
he used all his inlluence to obtain 'heir fullilnient; and when,
after every ellort hai failed, he it^sued the sentence of deposi-
tion, he meant to dispense with no moral duty, but authorita-
tively to declare that, in consequence of the abuse of power, it
had reverted to those by whom it bad been committetl to the
sovereign, in trust for the public giKul.
The justness of this view of the principles on which (iretrory
and some ol his successors acted, will appear from comparison
between a modern absolution from the oath of allegiance with one
of the thirteenth century. After the etiumeration of the griev-
ances which the American colonies had suffered from Ci'eorge
III., the Declaration of Independence concludes : •' We, there-
fore, the representatives of the United States of America, in
general congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge
of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name,
and by authority, of the good people of these colonies, sob mnly
publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of
right ought to be, free and independent states; that they auk AB-
SOLVED FKOM all allegiance TO THi. I'.iuTisu CROWN; and
that all poliiical connexion between them and the stale of Great
Britain is, and ou-jbt to be, totally dissolved." — In like man-
ner, the enumeration of oaths made to the Pontiff by Henry on
his coronation, and on other occasions, and afterwards violal-
ret, quod pactum ille po8toaprtDvaricari,rl contcmncrc non cessavit, cVc.
Ergo, et absque sedia ApostoUcoj judicio, principos cum pro rege mcrilo
refutare posscnt, cum pactum adimplcre coMlempserit, quod iis pro eltc-
tione sua promisi^ral ; cjuo non adimph-to, ner. rex esse poterat." — Vila
Grcgorii VII., in Muralori Script. lU-r., Ital., T. III., p. 'M2.
• Thus, in cdU, Guido was elected king of Italy, to protect and ;rovern
with royal care. " Ad protegendum el rcgalilcr gubern;u>duui." — An-
nali dltaUa, Maratori, Tom. XII. p. 12-').
324 TEMPORAL POWER.
ed, as also of violence, rapine, and other crimes, precedes the
sentence pronounced by Innocent IV. in the first Council of
Lateran : — " Tlie aforesaid prince," says Innocent, " having
rendered himself so unworthy of tlie empire and kingdom,
and of all honour and dignity, and being cast off by God on ac-
count of his iniquities, that he should not reign, or command ;
and being bound fast by his own sins, and cast away, we show
and denounce him as deprived by the Lord of all honour and
dignity, and nevertheless, by our sentence we deprive him, and
absolve for ever from their oath, all who are bound to him by
the oath of allegiance."* In both cases, tliere is a solemn de-
claration, that the people are absolved from the oath of alle-
giance: grievances, excesses, and tyranny are alleged as the
ground of either declaration. The American declaration is
made by men who lay no claim to any divine autliority in ex-
pounding moral obligation, but rest on facts of public notoriety,
and principles of natural right : the Pontifical declaration ema-
nates from one recognised as the authoritative guardian of faith
and morals, and is grounded on facts equally notorious ; — on
pledges solemnly given and violated, and on principles result-
ing from the very frame of society as it then existed. It was
intended and calculated to give the sanction of religion to the
assertion of natural right, and to quiet the conscience of the
timorous, by showing that the public trust, having been flagrantly
abused, the pledge of fealty given to the liolder of it ceased to
be obligatory, and the right of choosing a more faitliful guar-
dian of order, reverted to those whose privilege it was to
choose him. The Pontiff accordingly added: "Let those,
then, to whom the election of an emperor in the said empire
belongs, freely choose his successor."! I am not surprised,
that those who have proclaimed llie divine origin and absolute
character of regal authority, should veliemently inveigh against
these acts of the Pontiffs ; but I am astonished that the princi-
* Cone. Lug. T. VII. Cone. Hard. p. 385.
t " 111! autem ad quos in eodem imperio Imperatoris spectat electio,
eligant hbere successorcm." — Innoe. IV. in sent. dep. Frederici Cone.
hu^. I. T. VII. Cone. Hard. p. 380.
KOVAI.TV A TRIST. 325
pics OH wliicli llie Koiuaii l*oiuiirs ucled, should iiol be r(v<pcct-
ed by ihose who regard royally as a trust for the peo|>l« . and
the highest officer in every form of goveriiinenl as a public
servant, wlio may be dragged from his elevation if he abuse his
power, — princij)les enterlaiiud and acied on in the ages erro-
neously supposed to have been unillumined by a spark of lib-
erty. Long before the lirst instance of Pontifical inlcrfcrenco,
forfeiture was deemed a consequence of the violaiioii of the
condition on whicli kings and emperors held their scep-
tres. 'J'liis was the sentiment, and the feeling of those
ages, and the Poiititfs, whom circumstances placed at the
head of society thus constructed, gave expression to that
sentiment, and the sanction of religion to that feeling. " The
public opinion of Europe in t!ie eleventli century," says a mo-
dern writer, '* was represented by a truly great man, Hilde-
brand, or, as he was called after his accession to the chair of
St Peter, Gregory VII. In his own age, every one of these
measures counteracted some evil principle, and iielped to work
out an antagonizing principle of civilization."'' Another living
writer, evidently adverse to the Popes, is forced to express his
admiration of their influence in the middle ages. "'J'liat was,
indeed, a splendid dominion which had been erected over the
mind of man by the (iregories antl Innocents! Its temporal
were always subordinate to its spiritual ends. It was a fyran-
ill/, which repaid, by ample and substantial benefits, its demands
upon the independence of mankind. It required tribute and
homage, but it bestowed order, civilization, and, as far as was
possible, in such fierce and warlike times, peace. It was a
moral sway, not, like the temporal sovereignties of the time,
one of brute force. It had comparatively nothing narrow or
personal; it united christkndom into a vast federal re-
piBLic ; it was constantly endeavouring to advance the borders
of the Christian world — to reclaim the heathen barbarism of
the north of Europe — or to repel the dangerous aggressions of
M«)hammedanism. The Papacy, during the dark ages, not-
• Foreign Qunrlcrly Review, fur January, ir^'M.
2 C
32G TEMPORAL POWER.
withstanding its presumptuous and insulting domination over
the autliorily of kings and the rights of nations, was a great in-
strument in the hand of Divine Providence, a counteracting
principle to the wild and disorganizing barbarism which pre-
vailed throughout Europe, a rallying point for the moral and
intellectual energies of mankind, when tliey should commence
the work of reconstructing society upon its modern system.
In such lawless times, it was an elevating sight to behold an
emperor of Germany, in the plenitude of his power, arrested in
his attemps to crush tlie young freedom of Italian republics : a
warlike, or a pusillanimous tyrant, a Philip Augustus of France,
or a John of England, standing rebuked for their crimes and
oppressions, at the voice of a feeble old man in a remote city,
witli scarcely a squadron of soldiers at his command, and with
hardly an uncontested mile of territory."* Such is the tribute
which the evidence of facts has extorted from men, by no means
devoid of prejudice. It is time to do justice to the great and
good men, who laboured strenuously and successfully for the
good of society, as well as for the advancement of religion.
The maxim, that not to oppose error is to approve of it,
cannot be applied to the acts of the Pontiffs, to give tiiem a
weight paramount to a doctrinal definition, for no abstract
maxim opposed to faith was broached, but a power was exer-
cised, which might be regarded as an accidental appendage of
their office, arising from their relations to the actual social sys-
tem ; or they might be considered as merely authoritatively
declaring the cessation of obligations, on account of the viola-
tion of conditions on which they were originally made to de-
pend. The prevalence of the opinion for some ages proves
that it must have been sustained by something more than the
mere example of Gregory VII. It must have had its root in
the very nature of the relative obligations of the governors
and the governed, according to the frame of society which
then existed.! It must have been in accordance with the gene-
* London Quarterly, for February, 183G.
\ ^' If," says Southey, " the papal power had not been adapted to the
condition of Europe, it could not have existed." — See Fletcher, p. 157,
Comparative View.
CANON OK LATUAN. 327
ml feeliniTs of right aiul justice, g^rowiiig out of these sofial re-
lations, and it cannot have heen that capricious and wai.toii in-
terference with puhlic rii^ht, which some liave imntrined. But,
common as tlie sentiment may have heen, and deep as may
have been the conviction of the Ponlilfs that it was the prero-
gative of their station, cither as heads of the social system, or
as ex|)ouiulers of moral ohliL^alion, it never attained to the au-
thorilv of a (lo«;ma, not even when Innocent III., to justify his
interference in tlie quarrel helween Philip Aujiustus and Rich-
ard of Kn«jland, maintained, that '' though he could not judge
of the riirhl to a tief, yet it was his province to judge where sin
is committed, and to prevent puhlic scandals ;• — or, when the
advisers of Boniface VIII. applied the same principle to regal
acts in general, and contended that rafione peccati, as far as the
sinfulness of acts of regal authority might come in question,
the king was subject to the PontilT.t
The third canon of Latran, which you object in connexion
with this subject, is founded on the feudal system. The vassal
voweil homage to his lord, tlie baron to his sovereign, and
sovercifi^ns themselves, in many cases, to the Pope,t the recog-
nised head of the whole system. When bandittis filled the
Christian lands with desolation, pillaging or destroying the
churches and monasteries, assailing the defenceless virgins of
God, massacring the clergy, measures were adopted, in the
absence of a well-constructed system of civil polity, to check
" This is an instance of the successful interposition of the Pope to
prevent war between Chriatian princes. Pliilip easily acquiesc»'d : Rich-
ard yielded to the threat of ecclesiastical severity. — I'lta Innoccnlii III.
T. Ill parti, p. 503.
t " The sovereign Pontiffs," says Count Lc Maistre, " never endea-
voured to increase their temporal dominions to the prejudice of the law-
ful princes, or to molest Uiem in the exercise of «over<'ignty, much less
to usurp it. They never claimed but the rijfht to judge princes subject
to their spiritual authority, when these princes were guilty of certain
crimes." — l)u I'fipr, Tom. II. ch. viii.
* The Kmperor Lothaire III. consented to pay homage to Inrmcent
11. for the lands of Countess Matilda, and made the oath of fealty. —
Muratori, Annili, an. 1133
328 TEMPORAL POWER.
these excesses. The councils of the Church were the occa-
sion of the union of the emperor with kings and barons, as in
general congress :* and whilst the decision of revealed doc-
trines was left to the bishops, measures of a mixed character
were adopted by the common council, or with the assent and
concurrence of the civil authorities. t It was decreed, then,
that in case any baron, or inferior lord, should foster the here-
tics whose excesses were enumerated,:}: he should forfeit his
territory, the property of which had been given him by his
liege lord on conditions incompatible with such favour. The
declaration of forfeiture was reserved to the head of society, to
the peace and welfare of which, the delinquent baron was re-
garded as a traitor. — All this, you perceive, has relation to
times that are no more, and that never can return. It has no
semblance of a definition of faith, but it is a mere legislative
act, made in the assembly of the states general of Europe.
The zeal of the Council of Trent against duelling, led the
Fathers to enact, that any prince holding a city as a fief frona
the Church, should forfeit it, were he to permit that detestable
practice in his territory. You allege this as a proof of the
temi)oral claim being sustained by the Fathers, because you
cannot conceive that they could otherwise add a new condition
to the tenure, and one so important, that a breach of it should
* " What a parliament is in England, a general synod was for Chris-
tendom ; and so necessary was the assistance and authority of the tem-
poral powers conceived to be (since the capitularies of Charlemagne) to
the making of such a synod, that without such legal strength it did not
proceed." — J. B. Clinch, in an anonymous Vindication of Dr Troy, p.
166.
t The incapacities and pains attached to the Manichean heresy, in
the Lateran Council, are exactly the same as in the Justinian Code ; and
they had the temporal authority, at least 650 years before they were stat-
ed in this council." — Clinch, ib. p. 210.
I " Who exercise such horrid cruelty upon Christians, as neither to
regard churches, nor monasteries, nor to give quarter to widows, or to
orphans, or old men, or boys, or any age or sex ; but who, like heathens,
destroy and desolate all before them." — III Lat. Can. ult.
SPIRlTrAL SIiPREMACY. 329
work a forleilure : but you iniisi know, tluit llio lemirc of all
fiefs was coiuliiioiial, there being in every such leiiure an im-
plied condition, that the interests of the lord p:iramount should
be sacredly firuanled.* 'I'he limitation placed by the council
showed the caution of the Fathers not to interfere with territo-
ries wherein no such feudal dcpcndance existed. But why do you
refer to an order of society which has passed away ? Chris-
tendom is no longer a republic united under one head: the
spiritual authority of the Pontifl' is discarded by the sovereigns,
whose predecessors once knelt to do him homage; the na-
tions wiio formerly looked to his interposition as the best
shield against oppression, now rely on other means of protec-
tion : the thunders of the Vatican, which at times shook
thrones, and struck down tyrants, are no longer heard, except
when faith is assailed, or the order of the Church is violated:
and the Pontiffs are content, as in the earliest and brightest
days of Christianity, to send the ministers of peace abroad to
the world's extremity, preaching the everlasting Gospel. On
what principle, then, can it be pretended, that a pledge of obe-
dience to the Roman Ijishop, as successor of Peter, and Vicar
of Christ, implies any obligation inconsistent with the most
perfect and undivided allegiance to the civil government under
which we live ? Such a construction of our oath is not only
against the natural and obvious meaning of the words, but
their well known and universal acceplaiion : and you are loo
well acquainted with ethics and jurisprudence to snjipose that
any other construction is to be put uj)on an oaili, llian that in
* " The essential princijilc of a fief, was a mutual contract of sup-
port and fidelity. Whatever obhgations it laid upon the vassal of ser-
vice to his lord, correspondincr duties of protortion wore imposed by it
on the lord towards Ins vassnl." — lln\\i\iu,Miil(lJr .iires, cli. ii. p. 7"), note.
Blackslonc teaches, that every fii>f is subject to escheat, if the vassal
commit an enormous crime : because " the tenant, by perpetrating the
atrocious crime, showed that he was no lon;;er to be trusted ns a vassal,
having forgotten liis duty as a hubject, and, th'^refore, forfeited his feud,
which he held under lh«' imj)Iied condition, that lie should not be a trai-
tor or a felon." — liluclintnnc's Commcnlaiirs^ 1. ii. n, 1\\.
9. !'•
330 TEMPORAL POWER.
which it is generally understood, and avowedly taken. It is,
then, unfair and unkind to indulge the conjecture, that, by any
possibility of construction, that oath could give rise to any
obligation having relation to an order of society which for ages
has had no existence. The reference which you make to the
Council of Florence, in which we are taught, that to the Roman
Pontiff " in the person of blessed Peter, full power was given,
by our Lord Jesus Christ, of feeding, ruling, and governing
the Universal Church," — refutes your objection : for the pleni-
tude of power is there clearly determined by the very terms to
regard the feeding with sound doctrine, ruling with salutary
laws, and governing with just administration the Church of
God. — We care not what sentiment may have prevailed when
that creed was set forth : it is sufficient, that it was not embo-
died in the formulary itself, that it cannot in any way deter-
mine its meaning. The fluctuating and jarring opinions which
may from time to time prevail to a greater or less extent
among schoolmen, are entirely distinct from the defined dog-
mas of Catholic faith. When the sainted Pius V. and the
stern Sixtus Quintus hurled the Pontifical anathema against
Elizabeth, whom an act of the English parliament had previ-
ously declared illegitimate, they did not define any point of
doctrine : yet, though they relied on the fact of illegitimacy as
a radical defect in her title to the crown, they did not obtain
the acquiescence of the English Catholics on this delicate point
of civil authority. Not even the iron rule of Elizabeth herself,
which would have driven any other class of men to a general
revolt, was for them a sufficient motive to hesitate in their al-
legiance. Since her day, no instance can be pointed out of
any attempt of a similar character.
You suppose that the Pontiffs still cherish the pretension,
and you strengthen your suspicion by the measures which were
adopted to induce the clergy of France to recede from the po-
sition which they had taken in compliance with the wishes,
and, as you say, through obsequiousness for the judgment of
their royal master. Had they merely denied the deposing
power, your inference might appear just; but you are aware^
OlMMONS. 331
ihat their lanioiis derlaraiion of 1082 contained three otlier
articles of a very distinct character. It was sulVirient, that any
one of the articles was open to discussion, to warrant the Pon-
tiff to treat with reserve a body that seemed to anticipate the
decision of tlic Church by so solemn a declaration, in a matter
regarding his authority. The bishops of France actrd, liien,
as became prelates careful to preserve invictjate the unity of
the Church, wlien they wrote to Innocent XII., tlial they had
never intended to make a decree of faith by their declaration,
and assured him of their profound su!)niission to the rights of
the Holy See.
'riie four opinions given by that profound jurist, .Mr Butler,
with regard to the extent of Pontifical prerogative, only show
the liberty which we enjoy in all thin<rs where the defined doc-
trines of faith are left untouched. You '* cannot comprehend
the unchangeableness of a creed, the meaning of which its
own best friends find it so hard to discover." There is no
difficulty whatever, among Catholics, on the points which
Mr Butler has accurately stated : " It is an article of Caliiolic
faith, that the Pope has, by divine right, 1. A supremacy of
rank ; 2. A supremacy of jurisdiction in the spiritual concerns
of the Koman Catholic Church ; and 3. The principal authority
in defining articles of faith." If you cannot comprehend the
unchangeableness of a doctrine comprising these points clearly
and distinctly, you have less perspicuity than your skilful at-
tack on the Primacy would lead me to suppose. The disputes
excited on certain exercises of prerogative, do not render ques-
tionable prenigalives loudly proclaimed by all. How many
political controversies agitato the republic with regard to the
precise extent of the power of llio Prt^^idciit, and yet the j)resi-
dency itself is acknowlcilgcfd by all, and iis chief prerogatives
are recognised with equal unanimity.
You express your opinion, that Mr Biuler, who was so pro-
foundly versed in legal science, must have smiled within him-
self, at the weakness of his argument, when he urged the oath
established by the British parliament for the Roman Catholics,
and the answers of live universities, and tlieo|)inion of tlie (Jal-
332 TEMPORAL POWER.
lican and English divines, with others, as settling- such a ques-
tion." Though not a lawyer, I venture, on common sense
principles, to say, that Mr Butler could, with propriety, urge
these proofs as abundiuilly sufficient. A code of oppressive
laws weighed down a devoted and faithful people, whose al-
legiance to the government, proved by their general conduct,
was vexatiously questioned, on the ground that they cherished
an opinion of Pontitical prerogative adverse to the supreme
authority of the state. They disavowed it on their oaths.
This, surely, in itself, was settling the question, for they were
known to be so tenacious of the doctrines of religion, and so
full of reverence for the sanctity of an oath, that they chose to
suffer the loss of all their civil rights, rather than renounce the
faith of their forefathers. Notliing more was necessary. Yet
the minister of state consults foieign universities in France,
Spain, and Flanders ; countries distinguished for their devoted
attachment to Catholicism and the Holy See — unless you
please to except France, on account of some disputes about
the extent of Pontifical prerogative and national privileges.
All concur in disavowing the opinion, and yet you smile at the
jurist who considers the question settled. — I submit the view
taken of it by a clergyman of the Establishment, which fully
coincides with that of Mr Butler : — " If it be asserted," writes
the Rev. A. O'Callaghan, *' that such are the claims of the Holy-
See, or the pretensions of the Roman Catholic Church, or the
opinions of the Catholic laity of the present day — the imputa-
tion is equally false, unprincipled and insidious. It is re-
futed by the daily practice of every district in the Catholic
world ; by the acts of independent states, whether republican
or monarchical ; by the solemn declarations of universities,
canonists, and professors of divinity ; and by the oaths, either
sworn or tendered, of the whole Catholic body. I do not
envy the casuist, or divine, who circulates Bibles without note
or comment, and resists such evidence as this. I do not envy,
but I am astonished at him."*
* Observations on the State of Political and Religious Feeling in
Ireland. By the Rev. A. O'Callaglian. London, 1827.
NO DKFIMTION.
333
I waive, however, all advantage to be derived from the Oalli-
can declaration, or from the answers of the Universities ot Sor-
bonne, Louvaine, Doiiay, Alcalaand Salamanca, all disclaiming
the temporal power, or from the oaths of the English and Irish
Roman Catholics, abjuring it; and I stand on the broad ground
of Catholic faith, and deny lliat we must he charged with prin-
ciples that are not found in the aulhoriz^d symbols of faith, or
doctrinal definitions. You assert, that " from the days of Gre-
gory VII. up to the time of ISixlus V., the claim of temporal,
as well as spiritual supremacy, was constantly proposed l)y the
Popes as an article of faith, acquiesced in, both tacitly and pro-
fessedly, by the great body of the Church." I regret that you
should have hazariled an assertion which you cannot sustain by
Tair and honourable argument. Why not refer to some defini-
tion or decree in which this article of faith was propounded ?
Such does not exist.* The Pontifi's who entered into collision
with sovereigns, issued no solemn definition of their right, or
of its origin ; but acted on principles which were acknowledged,
and which were intimately connected with the established order
of society. The solemn deposition of the Emperor Frederick,
made by Innocent IV. in the presence of the bishops assembled
in councilt at Lyons, could not, from that circumstance, derive
the character of a definition, even should you insist that their
presence was equivalent to api)robatiou ; because even a solemn
act of the whole council is nut a doctrinal decree, and does not
necessarily establish a right or principle, though it may form a
presumption in its favour. When the Gorman empire is in
question, ii must be remembered that it rose into existence in
* " The (loposinir power of Popes nrv<'r was nn article of faitli, or a
doctrine of the Church ; nor was it ever proposed as such, by any coun-
cil, or by the very I'opes ihenisrives who exercised it. At present it is
not njainlained even as an opinion by Ilonian ('alhf)lic Iheolosrians." —
Archbishop Troy, of Dublin, in his Supplcmtnt to thr Pastoral Instruction
of 17".>3, p. \2y\.
t " Praiaente Concilio." In tlie sentence of deposition this style is
observed. In the decrees, jrenerally, we read : " Sacroapprobante Con-
cilio."
J
334 TEMPORAL POWER.
the person of CharlerDagne, under the influence, and with the
sanction, of tlie Pontiff. I care not to examine critically the
degree of that influence, and the weight of that sanction : it is
suflicient that the great Charles bowed to receive the crown
from the Pontiff's hands, and that the name of emperor falling
from the lips of the third Leo, was repeated with enthusiasm
by the millions spread throughout the resuscitated empire.*
From that moment the Pontiff was looked up to as the guar-
dian of the imperial crown : it was his prerogative to give it to
the successful aspirant, who even journeyed to Rome to receive
it. No one received the title, or exercised the authority of em-
peror, until crowned by the Pontiff :t and the gates of the Va-
tican were thrown open for the coronation only after he had
pledged himself that he would sacredly maintain the privileges
of the Church, as well as the riglitsof all classes of his subjects.^
Is it then wonderful that the Pontiff was regarded as authorized
to examine whether the pledges had been redeemed, and in case
of tlieir violation, to declare liie forfeiture of power held by such
a tenure ? Luden, a Protestant, has observed what is true in a
sense still more comprehensive than he intended : " The impe-
rial crown obtained its real importance through the Popes."
" The Popes," he says subsequently, " acquired the full con-
sciousness of the power, which, in those ages of vicissitude
and tempest, the wants of men had accumulated upon their
See."§ Of the exercise of that power Ancillon, no friend to the
Popes, says: "In the middle ages, when there was no social
order, it was the influence and power of the Popes that per-
haps alone saved Europe from the stale of barbarism. They
formed a supreme tribunal, erected in the midst of universal
anarchy ; and their decrees were, in general, as respectable as
they were respected. It was their power that prevented and
stayed the despotism of the emperors ; that replaced the want
* Muratori, Annali, Tom. X. an. 800.
t Ibid. Tom. X. an. 876, p. 441. An. 879, p. 15. An. 880, p. 31.
An. 901, p. 229. An. 1027, p. 23.
t Ibid. An. 91G, p. 299. An. 1014, p. 395. An. 1109, p. 107.
§ Geschicte des Teutschen Volkes, von Ueinrich Luden.
FALSK coNSTiirc ri(»\. 335
of eqiiilibrinin, ami iliniinislitd ilu; iiiconveiiienct's of ilic Oudal
system. •
You put it lo our own good sense and candour to say, wliat
the Pope hinjseir wouUl he likely lo pronounce, if the question
of his temporal j)o\ver were submitted lo him, and you j^ive
several reasons why he should put such a construciion on the
delinilion of Florence, as lo assert his claim lo temporal autho-
rity. Cnminon sense forhids it: the jiropriety of words would
be manifesily violated, anil the faUe and forced construction
would he glaring. It is not in this way that the Apostolic See
expounds the detinitions of councils, or sustains its privileges.
There is not the ni«)st indirect reference lo such a power in the
Florentine decree; and the Fathers cannot he thought lo have
in any way sanctioned an opinion of which they look not the
slightest notice.
I am sorry that such a vain hypolliesis has led you to pen
the concluding sentence : " And, therefore, I am compelled lo
conclude, that the oath to render true obedience to your su-
preme Poniiir, takes high precedence of every human obliga-
tion, as your system now stands ; and that there is as yet no
sufficient warrant for any other dcfinilion of Papal power, than
that which has been inscribed upon the history of nations, in
characters of blood.''' What, sir, were your repeated profess-
ions of kindness to conduct us to this conclusion I Was it your
intention, when you had laboured in vain to disturb our faith
in the divine insiituli«)n of the Primacy, to throw susj)icion on
our allegiance and devoted attachment lo tiie government under
which we live ? Did you design to force on us a false interpre-
tation of our creed, and thence to infer that you louml no war-
rant for any olher definition of the spiritual power which we
" Ancillon, quoted by Fletcher, (,'omi»aralivo View, p l")?, American
edition. *' Feu«lah«rn was the worst foe to Horial ord«T, becauhc it was
equally opposed to the sovereignty of the monarch, and the liberty of the
people. Could it have held its position, Kurope must have sunk into
barbarism; but it had to oppobc a powerful principle — the inthience of
the Church. In the eleventh cenluiy, the i'apacy fougiil the battle of
freedom and civilization." — Foreign (Quartet hj , fur January, \y^'MV
336 TEMPORAL POWER.
reverence than one inscribed in characters of blood ? You
must read history anew if you have so far mistaken its bear-
ings. You will find the Papal power exerted in the person of
Clement to restore unity where it had been disturbed by the
violence of faction, and from that period down to this, employ-
ed for the same purpose, so worthy of the representative on
earth of the meek Saviour of men. You will find its history,
for the first three ages, marked only with the blood of the mar-
tyred Pontiffs. You will see the ancient faith at all limes
strenuously defended by the Bishops of Rome, and every error,
whether it proceed from a bishop of Constantinople, or a pa-
triarch at Antioch, or Alexandria, authoritatively condemned.
You will see the missionaries of Rome going to the world's
extremities to announce the glad tidings of salvation, with the
sacrifice of all life's pleasures, and at the peril of torments and
death. If we appreciate the blessings of the Christian reli-
gion, we must acknowledge that to Rome, under heaven, all of
us are originally indebted for them. And even that power
which associated itself with the Primacy in the middle ages
was eminently beneficent.* History shows that it was inter-
posed, generally, to correct vice, to shield the weak, to pre-
vent civil war and anarchy. The legates of the Pontiff were
angels of peace, entreating the rival monarchs to be recon-
ciled : — pleading with the haughty sovereign in favour of an
oppressed people. The blood that occasionally flowed in the
contests that followed the exercise of Pontifical authority,
would have been shed, in many instances, had no such inter-
position taken place : and if sometimes it has flowed at the
bidding of the Pontiff, it was mostly when the helpless-
ness of female virtue was to be defended against the aggression
* Southey says " the Papacy was morally and intellectually the
conservative power of Christendom. Politically, too, it was the saviour
of Europe." Another modern writer says: "The Papal power was
for ages the great bulwark of order amid the turbulence of the semi-
civilized people of Europe." — American Encyclopedia, Article, Gregorrj
Vll.
t
nr.NF.FiciAL REsri.Ts. 337
of marauders, or llie cause of jtislice and humanity was to be
sustained. If, in the complicated relations of the Popes, and
the general disorganization of society, excesses sometimes hap-
pened, over which humanity weeps, it should still be remem-
bered that the power of the ('hurch, in the main, *' was a
blessing which God bestowed upon the middle ages — where
every thing would have been darkness, and bloodshed, and
disorder — that alone guarded and perpetuated order, and jus-
lice, and light."*
• Foreign Quarterly, for April. 183G. — History of the Franks.
2d
LETTER XXVIII.
MODE OF ELECTION.
Right Reverend Sir :
In your chapter on the mode of electing the Pope, and llie
ceremonies of his installation, you say : " That the bishop of
Rome, as well as all other bishops, was elected, in primitive
times, by the clergy of his own city and diocess, with the con-
curring suffrages of the people, is a fact so manifest, through-
out the writings of the Fathers, that it cannot be, and never
has been, questioned by any." Although the share which each
class had, at different times, in these elections, may, I believe,
be a fair matter of inquiry, I am unwilling to embarrass our
discussion by entering into it at present. A similar feeling
prompts me to pass over your assertion, " that after the estab-
lishment of Christianity in the Roman empire, the sovereigns
exercised the right of confirming the election of the Pope, and
that, after much contest upon the subject, it was left to the
cardinals, in the eleventh century, to elect the Popes without
any interference on the part of emperor, senate, or people, and
such has been the course pursued from that period to t!ie pre-
sent day." Whatever inaccuracy may be in this general state-
ment, does not demand any special correction at this time.
The measures now adopted to secure the tranquillity and
freedom of the electors, and to preserve them from all bias, are
mentioned by you, and your surprise at the adoption of such a
system, *' for the purpose of securing a result which is to be
attributed to the divine direction," is, to me, a subject of aston-
ishment. Surely, our reliance on God would assume the clia-
MODIFICATIONS. 33U
racier of presumption, were we to neglect the precautions which
prudence prescribes for ohiaininjr a happy result. Your own
bisliop IJuU has well said : *♦ The divine assistance and hu-
man industry always went together hand in hand, and an ana-
thema is due to that doctrine that separates and divides them."*
Since, tiien, public elections were sonictinjcs attended with
disorder and tumult, through the intrigr.es and violence of the
factious and anibiiious, you should admire the retirement of the
conclave, where all is conducted in the utmost tranquillity.
The cardinals are the chief of the clergy of the I^>man (.'hurch,
having the titles and priiicipnl charge of the ancient churches
of the city, with a few of the neighbourinL' bisliops, who were
wont to intervene in tlie election of the Bishop of Kome. They,
consequently, exhibit the ancient form of election, though,
with some modification, found necessary by the change of cir-
cumstances. Besides the precautions taken to prevent external
influence, they daily invoke the Holy Ghost during the con-
clave, at a solemn mass, celebrated for that purpose, and they
swear aloud, that their vote, which they place in the sa-
cred chalice, on the holy altar, is accordintr to their conscien-
tious judgment : "1 call to witness Chris^t the TiOrd, who is to
judge me, that I choose llie person who, before (lod, I judge
ought to be elected. "t However 1 may admire the simplicity
of the primitive ages, I cannot but think that the mode of elec-
tion now in use is better guarded against undue influence and
other disorders. You style this mode tlic most extraordinary
known in the history of man, but it is attended with nothing to
give it this extraordinary character, save its sacred solemnity
and inviolate liberty. The term election hy acrntimj, which
you use, might be mistaken by your readers for some mysterious
mode, that gave this extraordinary character ; and though it
literally corresponds to the Latin term, you might translate it
• Bishop Bull's Sorm , " lltiman Mnitis I'srfu! to Inspirrd Persons^'
Vol. I., p. 2«^2, Oxford rdil., IHIT..
t See Bull of Gregory XV., /Klrrni TatriH Kilius.an. li.'JI, Tom. Ill
Bullarii, p. :ilM'), edit. Lugd., an l<-!''i
340 MODE OF ELECTION.
*' vole by ballot," as it really means, which would not be very
extraordinary to your readers. Two-thirds of the electors
must concur in a choice ; and when, on balloting, this is found
not to be the case, a new balloting occurs, unless some accede
to a candidate, and thereby give iiim the necessary majority.
The tickets o{ accession are given in with the same caution as
in balloting, to secure the electors from the influence of fear,
or favour. No cardinal can, in any case, vote for himself, and
his vote is never, through compliment, counted in his favour.
The ceremonies which follow tiie election, are indeed mag-
nificent— indicative of profound veneration for him who, by the
judgment of God, if I may borrow the language of Cyprian, is
to occupy the chair of Peter. You surely cannot have any
serious difficulty about the term adoration^ used in the cere-
monial, as it originally signifies respect or reverence, and is not
at all intended here to signify divine homage. The genuflex-
ions— kissing of the feet and hands — are ceremonies of orien-
tal origin, used, in primitive times, to all bishops. The eleva-
tion of the newly elected Pope on the altar, is intended to
express that he is to be the special representative and vicege-
rent of Christ. The tiara which is placed upon his head, is an
ornament of great value, but designed to represent a far more
precious crown, that awaits him, if he prove a faithful steward
of his Divine Master. The epithet " Father of princes and of
kings," designates his high authority in the Church of God, in
which princes and kings are undistinguished from the lowliest
of their subjects ; and he is styled *' Ruler of the world," in
the same sense as Peter is said, by Chrysostom, to have been
placed over the entire world. It may be, that the magnificence
of this ceremonial ill accords with modern feeling and senti-
ment ; but it is enough that its object is to impress our minds
with veneration for tlie vicegerent of Christ, and that it has
precedents in antiquity, and derives authority from the splendid
ritual which God himself prescribed to the ancient priesthood.
Why should we be fastidious about vesture, or marks of re-
spect, if we revere in the Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ,
MISTAKES. 341
the High Priest of the new covenant, whose miiiisiry he exer-
cises i
In endeavouring to prove that the present mode of election
is opposed to the Nicene canon, which, however, did not at all
regard the IJishop of Home, but the general j)rovincial ordina-
tions, you have fallen into several mistakes. You slate that the
cardinal electors " are bishops already, although only titular
bishops, consecrated by the Pope, for some far distant coun-
try, without the least intention of ever beholding their nominal
dioceses." Allow me to set you rigiil. Of the cardinals, six
only are cardinal bishops, and these of the neighbouring Sees of
Oslia, Porto, Alhano, Prentste, Sabine, and Frescati. Some
belonging to the order of cardinal j)riests are bishops, having
Sees in Italy, France, Spain, or oilier countries, where ihey
reside, governing their dioce.ses, unless the Pontiff, for the
general interests of the Church, calls them to assist in his coun-
cils. Of this class was the late Archbishop of Bourdeaux,
whose memory is cherished with such veneration throughout
this country, no less than in the See where he closed his Apos-
tolic ministry. Fourteen are cardinal deacons ; so that of the
seventy who compose the council of the Pope, like the elders
who aided Moses in the government of the people, only six
belong to the order of cardinal bishops, and few, if any, are
of the class which you have described. It is wisdom to be
cautious in making assertions, and not easily to censure what,
when well understood, might be found worthy of approbation.
The present mode of electing the PontiO' is proved, by the
experience of ages, to be the best calculated to secure the
choice of a worthy successor to Peter, by leaving the electors
free from secular influence, whether it be imj)erial or regal
controul, or popular violence. It may be popular to extol an-
cient forms of election, when the ri/^ht of suffrage was more
extensive, but it would be fair to consider the tragic scenes
which sometimes disgraced public election.^, and which were
the occasion of the abridgment of lay, or clerical privileges.
Chrysosiom observed, that Peter could himself have chosen a
2 D»
342 MODE OF ELECTION.
successor to the fallen Apostle, without suffering any nomina-
tion to be made by others, and that, in granting leave to the
faithful to propose candidates, he limited their choice to a cer-
tain class ; a power which his successors used, in the regula-
tions from time to time made for the proper management of
Pontifical elections.
LETTER XXIX.
CONCLUSION.
Right Reverknd Sir:
You wish to be permitted to hope, that tlie chiiins of Ponli-
lical supremacy will soon be abandoned : it might be cruel to
preclude iiope, if it were not criminal to foster delusion. The
organization of the Church, such as it was framed by its
founder, must remain unclianged until the consummation of the
world ; and the foundation must continue, whilst the edifice
stands — the monument of his power and wisdom. Every plant
that the Father halh not planted, will be rooted up; every
house, built on the sandy foundation cf iiuman wisdom, shall
fall in ruins ; every kingdom divided against itself shall be
brouglit to desolation: but that tree of life which the right
hand of Cod hath planted, will bloom, in undecaying verdure
and fruitfulness — against that house which is founded on a rock,
the winds and waves dash in vain — against the kingdoan go-
verned by Peter, who received the keys from Christ — the gates
of hell cannot prevail. Unity is its strength, and the See of
Peter is the principle of that imity.
You claim to belong to the Holy Catholic Church, but your
claim is necessarily vain, as long as you reject that unity which
is her vital principle, and refuse to harujonize, in faith, with
that Church " with \shich," now, as in the days of Irenacus, "on
account of iicr j)owerful principality, all must agree." To be
in the communion with ihe Catholic Cjiurch, you must, as
('yj)rian and Auibiose, Augusiin and Ojitalus have tauiiht us,
be in the coinmunion of the Hishop of Rome. In the symbol
of the Ai)Ostles, you profess to "believe in the Holy Catholic
344 CONCLUSION.
Church ;" but as long as you refuse to hear the voice of that
Shepherd, to whose care Christ comnutted his lambs and sheep,
you have no claim to be of his flock. The Arians repeated, with-
out difficulty, the Apostolic symbol, and would have been well
satisfied if no other test of their faith were exacted, than to
believe *' in Jesus Christ our Lord, the only Son of God the
Father." You say that " you profess liie faith held by the
primitive Church ; taught by the early Fathers ; sanctioned by
the first four General Councils." If you profess their faith
in regard to the mysteries which they protected against the
temerity of man, imitate, I pray you, their profound veneration
for the successor of Peter. You have heard the enthusiastic
acclamations of the Fathers of Ephesus, when the letter of
Pope Celestine was read : ^' This is a just judgment — to Ce-
lestine, the guardian of the faith — to Celestine, who harmo-
nizes with the synod — to Celestine, the whole synod returns
thanks. There is one Celestine — one Cyril — the faith of the
synod is one — the faith of the world is one."* On the reading
of the doctrinal letter of Leo, at Chalcedon, you have heard
the Fathers exclaim : " This is the faith of the Fathers — this
is the faith of the Apostles. All of us have this belief — the
orthodox believe this. Anathema to him who does not believe
this. PETER HAS SPOKEN BY LEO."t With what
appearance of consistency can you claim communion with those
venerable men, whilst you reject that authority under whose
guidance they proceeded, in their most solemn acts ? What
avails it to receive their definitions of the dogmas then contro-
verted, if you listen not, as they did, to him who " is estab-
lished the interpreter for all of the voice of Peter the Apostle ?":{:
Would not the Fathers of Chalcedon, could they re-appear on
earth, rebuke you for what, in their strong language, they
would call " frenzy against him to whom the care of the vine-
yard was entrusted by the Saviour ?"§
* Act. IL, Cone. Eph., Tom. I., Coll. Hard., Col. 1472.
t Cone. Chalc., Act. II., Tom. II., Coll. Hard., Col. 505.
t Synodical Letter of the Council of Chalcedon to Leo, Tom. II. , p.
655, Coll. Harduin. § Ibid.
EXCLUSIVE SALVATION. Jii)
Leaving you to answer lliese qucslions, 1 proceed to reply
to yours. *' Why do you insist that (christians, who hold the
same ancient creed, are not equally belonging to the Catholic
Church, because they are alienated from each other on minor
points of polity or doctrine ?" Were one question to be an-
swered by another, I would ask you why you would exclude a
Unitarian from the Catholic (.'hurch, who would repeat the
Apostolic creed in his own sense and meaning t But I reply,
more directly, that we exclude none from the Catholiir Church
for mere dillerence on minor points of polity; but for dissent
from revealed doctrines, solemidy defined by the highest doc-
trinal tribunal in the ('hurch, or for the violation of unity. Our
authority for this exclusiveness is no less than that of the di-
vine P^ounder of the Church, who ordained that the refractory
against her decree, even in a matter of much less importance,
should be regarded as the heathen and the publican. A\'hen
at the end of the profession of faith we declare that out of this
Catholic faith none can be saved, we certainly do not include a
belief in the deposing power ; and you are sufliciently acquainted
with our principles to know, that we do not, thereby, take
upon us to anticipate the divine judgment, in regard to such as,
through misfortune, rather than by their own fault, might be
ignorant of some article expressed in that formidary.^ You
know, also, in what terms Cyprian, Augustin, (Jptalus, and
the Fathers generally, urge the necessity of unity ; and how
unreservedly they declare that martyrdom itself cannot avail,
where unity is violated. You can, then, easily conceive why
" Episcopalian divines arc equally vehement in a.sscrtinjj the neces-
sity of belonging to the Catholic Church, though they are liberal en*)Ujrh
to embrace a strange amalgamation of sects, under this term. Bishop
Beveridge, in his sermon on " Salvation in the Church only," says .
" Seeing, therefore, that the Ilf)ly Ghost hath so positively affirmed that
the Lord added to the Church xucli as should be saved, and likewise
hath given us such extraordinary instances of it ; it is no wonder that
the F'alhers so frequently assert that there is no salvation to he liud out
of Christ's Holy C^atholic Church ; but that whosoever would l)e a mem-
b<'r of ilu' Church triumphant in heaven, must first be a member of the
Church licrc iinlitant on earlh. " — I'. 77, \ Ol. I.
346 CONCLUSION.
we attuch so much importance to obedience to its guardian.
There is one faith, as there is one Lord ; and that faith re-
gards all things, whatsoever Christ teaches by the Apostolic
ministry, even to the consummation of the world. The images
which you use to illustrate the nature of the Church, are not
apposite when applied to dissentient sects: "Does a body
cease to be united to its head, because one member becomes
torpid, and another deformed, and a third spasmodic ? Does a
fold cease to be one, because the rams of the flock are accus-
tomed to contend, instead of feeding side by side in peace?
Does a family cease to be one, because the nearest relations
have quarrelled ? Does a crew cease to be one, because they
refuse to eat together ? Does a nation cease to be one, because
factions and party-spirit divide the people?" — I have learned
from the Divine Scriptures, that obstinate error against faith,
is the cancer that spreadeth,* and the limb must be amputated.t
The member that communicates not with the head, no longer
appertains to the body. The child who has abjured parental
authority, is not regarded as of his father's household. Mu-
tinous sailors, who will not acknowledge the captain, cannot
be any longer regarded as the crew of the vessel. A portion
of the people that refuses to recognise, in any way, the gene-
ral government, ceases to belong to the nation. Suppose that
any stale of the Union should utterly discard the national insti-
tutions, and not only assert its own sovereignty and independ-
ence, but refuse to pay any regard to the enactments of con-
gress, or the constitutional acts of the President ; could any man
say that a state thus asserting and maintaining its absolute
independence, would still continue to be one of the United
States? The bickerings of the schoolmen, national antipa-
thies, the rivalries of individuals, and all the miseries of weak
humanity, within the Church, do not cause separation ; but the
moment a proscribed error in doctrine is publicly avowed, or
the governing authority constituted by (^hrist is cast off, the
individual gains independence at the cost of the sacrifice of
* 2 Tim., H. 17. t Gal. V. 12.
CASES NOT IN POINT. 347
communion with the Holy Catholic Church. In priilo and
folly he has left the house of his I'aiher, and cann<»l enjoy the
privileges of a son, until he return humble*! and uuhnjissive :
♦* He cannot," says Sl(Jyprian, '♦ have (iod for his father, wlio
has not the Cliurch for his mother. "• Your cases are not in
point, ^^'hen Paul and Harnahas separated, neither of them dis-
agreed in doctrine, or hroke the bonds of Cjiurch communion,
but merely difVered in rej^ard to the indulijence to be exercised
towards one, w.hose former conduct seemed to demand severity.
If Victor actually executed his threat to cut oif the Asiatic
churches from the communion of tiie ('.iih(dic Church, which
may be questit)ned, they nuisl have remained cut oH", until the
remiMistrances of Irenicus and other j)rel:ites induced him to
revoke the measure. Slej)lien never excommunicated (Jypri-
an, but forbad any change in the ancient usage; and though he
thought that those who might persevere in the innovation
should be separated from the communion of the Catholic
Cliurch, peace, liowever, prevailed in his heart, and in the
hearts of the dissentient, that no evil of schisui should arise
between themt
You ask, secondly : Why do we " aver, that the creed of the
j)rimiiive Church Catholic warrants you in placing the supre-
macy of the I'ope among the articles of fiith ?" Becatise the
Apostolic creed speaks of only one " Holy Catholic Church,"
and that of Nice and Constantinople explains it as •* one
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." The Church could
not be one, without a princij)Ie or centre of unity, which is
only found in the government of the one Pastor of the entire
fold: it couhl not be Apostolic, unless the succession of its
ministry were preserved uninlerru()tedly fmm the days of ihr
Apostles; and this succ(>s8ion is only found in the See of
Rome, and in the chun-hes in i'onnnunion with it. •; Obedi-
• S. ('yi>ri;in, l)v Unit K<c\., p. H.J, i dil. Haail.
t S. Aug. I. .'>. do Bapt. contra. Donal. r. 2r>.
t " \Ve do not deny that the ApoNtolicai succroHion hntii l»» < n r<ui-
tinned in the Cliurcii of Rome." — HiKJiop Biveiidge Seriii. I. Christ's
Presence tnlh his .Minislcr.n, p. 21, Vol. I.
348 CONCLUSION.
ence to the Bishop of Rome, as Bishop of the Catholic
Church, was acknowledged as necessary in the days of Cor-
nelius and of Cyprian ; and whatever forbearance was practis-
ed in regard to those, who, admitting the authority, remon-
strated against some acts of its exercise, those who obstinately
rejected the authority itself, were considered aliens from the
Church, and from Christ. Thus, Cyprian argues from the
words of Christ to Peter, that tliough the Apostles were equal
to him in the honour and power of the Apostolate, " Christ, by
his authority, ordained the origin of the same unity, that the
Church may be shown to be one — the commencement comes
from unity, that the Church may be shown to be one." Hence
he speaks ofNovatius as an alien from the Church, because not
subject to the authority of Cornelius, its lawful Bishop, and his
followers as persons separated from the Church ; and he treats all
who are not under one Bishop, as aliens from her communion.
His words are emphatically strong: — "By the mystery of his
[seamless) garment, Christ declared the unity of the Church
Who, then, is so wicked and perfidious — who so maddened by
the rage of discord, as to imagine, that the unity of God can
be rent, or as to dare rend it — the garment of the Lord — the
Church of Christ? He, himself, warns us in his Gospel, and
teaches us, saying : ' There shall be one flock, and one Shep-
herd.' And does any one think, that there can be in one place
either many shepherds or several flocks ? . . . . What peace,
therefore, do the enemies of the bretliren promise themselves?
what sacrifices do the rivals of tlie priests believe that they
celebrate? When they are assembled, do they think that
Clirist is with them, who are gathered together out of the
Church? Even should such persons be slain for the name of
Christ, that stain is not washed away by blood. The inexpi-
able and heinous crime of discord is not cleansed by suff'er-
ing. He who is not in the Church, cannot be a martyr."*
Take tliese words, and reconcile them with the theory which
would make a Catholic and Episcopalian bishop in the one city,
* S. Cyprian de Unit., p. 1G7 et 168.
8T OPTATUS. 34W
with llioir separate flocks, portions of the C'atholie Clnin !» ;
and woiikl prei^eiU so many sects wiilioul any connecting link,
without any common authority to himl them together, as com-
posing the one foKl of the one Shepherd. Jerome surely be-
lieved with us, tliat communion with the successor of Peter
was esseniial, when he adilressed Damasus, assuring him that lie
knew that the Church was founded on that rock — th^t whoso-
ever is out of it, is like those out of the ark when the flood
came — ihat it is profane to eat tlie mystic Iamb out of this
house — that whosoever doth not gaiiier with him, scatlereth, and
that not to be with liim, is to fall away from Christ, a?id to
declare oneself a friend of Antichrist. Optatus believed the
same, when he declared it schismatical and sinful to erect any
Episcopal chair in opposition to that of Peter, and reproached
the Donatists with calling themselves the Church, whibt they
were in a state of separation from that See: " Christ," savs
he, •* indicates in the canticle of canticles, that his dove is one,
that she is a chosen spouse, an enclosed garden, and a sealed
fountain ; so that all heretics neither have the keys which Pe-
ter alone received, nor the ring with which the fountain is said
to be ."^ealed : and to none of them the garilen belongs in which
God plants the shrubs." .... *' What," he afterwards re-
marks, " can you say to these things, you, who secretly cher-
ish, and shamelessly defend schism, taking to yourselves the
name of the Church ?"•
If you believe, that an oath of true ol)edience to the Pope is
taken by every ('atholic, you are in this, as in other matters,
egregiously mistaken. Obedience is due to him by all, as the
prelate placed over all ; but that obedience is given, when the
faith is preserved, and the laws of the Church, and its order,
are maintained. What individual Catholic receives from him
a command ? Yet, to read your book, or.e would suppose that
we are daily receiving from him, or expecting to receive, new
mandates. 'I'he obligation of obedience, resulting from the di-
vine insiitulion of the Primacy, is strengthened by no special
• Opt. Afri. 1. I. pp. 7. 17. Edit. Wircibiirg.
2 E
350 CONCLUSION.
pledge on llie part of the infinite majority of Catholics. The
pledge is scarcely given by any, except the clergy placed in
offices of high responsibility, as it is meet that they should
give a solemn engagement to fulfil the trust reposed in them.
Converts, in some places, make it on their admission into the
Church; because, having been previously estranged from this
authority, it is deemed proper that they give a voucher of their
sincerity.
You proceed to ask us : " Why do you, in the same creed
of Pope Pius IV., retain the clause by which the professor of
your faith most firmly admits and embraces Apostolical and
ecclesiastical traditions, and all other constitutions and observ-
ances of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, when there
are so many changes, variations, and innovations, brought in
upon the primitive system ?" — Because it is meet, that all the
children of the Church should view with reverence her observ-
ances and institutions, whether they come down from the Apos-
tolic age, or be of later introduction, resting on the legislative
and governing authority of the successors of the Apostles.
The terms regard disciplinary usages, rather than articles of
faith, and are applicable to any modification of discipline which
may be sanctioned by the Church. As to the points on which
variation in discipline is asserted by you to have taken place,
I think it unnecessary to enter into any discussion ; for in all
things merely disciplinary, tlie discretion of the governing power
may be exercised: but when you begin by " the kiss of c/iari-
/y," which, however, is still preserved among the rites of so-
lemn mass, ordination, and other functions, you remind me of
the trivial causes of separation alleged by the Greeks against
the Latins in the eleventh century, one of which was, that the
Jjatins shaved their beards !
Fourthly, you ask : " Why do you retain another clause of
the same creed : ' I also admit the Sacred Scriptures, according
to the sense which the holy mother Church has held, and docs
hold, nor will I ever lake or interpret them otherwise than ac-
cording to the unanimous consent of the Fathers,' when it is so
manifest, that the Failiers do almost unanimously interpret
ANATHF.MA. 351
your lavounie texts in plain opposition to your present sys-
tem ?" 'J'o us, al least, this is not quite so niaiiircsi, and, I should
hope, that you yourself have serious niisj/ivirigs as to the cer-
tainty of your inference from these words. 'I'he rule, how-
ever, is borrowed from St Vincent of Lerins.*
Fifthly, '* Why,** you say, " do you (we) profess another
clause of the same creed : • I also profess, and undoubtedly re-
ceive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the
sacreil canons and general councils, and particularly by the
Holy Council of 'JVcnt,' when you know so well, that a vo-
lume might be filled with those passages from the canons and
councils which retain no place in your present system ?" —
There is not a single dogma defined by a General Council, that
is not professed by the Catholic world at this day. The doc-
trine of the Catholic Church, her solemn definitions, and au-
thoritative expositions, are especially contemplated by that
clause. None of the terms are strictly applicable to enact-
ments : so that you cannot fill a line, mucii less a volume,
with things delivered, defined, and declared, which are not in
full vigour.
** AVhy," you again ask, '• do wr eoniinue tiie clause that
follows, in which the believer is bound to declare, that he con-
demns, rejects and anathematizes all things contrary thereto,
and all heresies whatever condemned and anathematized by the
Church V — The formulary is a close imitation of the seventh
canon of the first Council of Constantinople, which is the se-
cond of the four councils whose faith you profess to hold. In
that canon, the Fathers require that converts from heresy should
anathematize several sects of heretics by name, and, in a general
way, every heresy opposed to the teaching of the holy. Catholic,
and Apostolic Church of God.t You understand by anathema
a solemn curse: we have already seen, that there are others
who interpret it in the more gentle sense of separation from
• Common, n. 3 ot n. 2;^.
t m.nL^%fjL%Ti^iir%( vm.vs.t miftrir /ui $f9f cur at m( ^pct*i i tiyln rt
^■ttt x<d-:A.ixii i «Vcroxi«a imnKnvi*. — Can. Tii. Cone. 1. Const. Col
812. Tom I.
352 CONCLUSION.
the Church of God; but as the heresies are the object of the
anathema, it may not appear so odious to analliematize
them as it wouhl be the persons who profess them. You are
compelled to admit that the primitive Church was wont to use
this formulary; but you assert that "she confined it to errors
in the fundamental articles of faith."* Tiie canon just quoted
proves that she was equally unsparing as the Council of Trent
towards all heresies whatsoever: and all ecclesiastical history
shows that the Church anathematized all errors against re-
vealed truth, whether that truth was fundamental or otherwise.
Thus the Novatians, whose error regarding the power of for-
giveness, and the Quartoderimans observing Easter on the
same day as the Jews and the Rebaptizers, fell under the ana-
thema of the ancient Church. This formulary, borrowed from
St Paul, was considered as sanctioned by the divine injunction
— " If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the
heathen and the publican."! You need no longer be scanda-
lized at the use of this expression in regard to heresies or here-
tics, for it has great precedents and high authority in its favour.
You know that the acclamations of the Council of Trent were
but the echo of all the ancient councils. If it pronounced
many anathemas, it is only a melancholy evidence, that errors,
opposed to the truth of God, were broached in great number.
I shall leave you to interpret " anathema" as you please, and
only observe that the Fathers of Trent affected no greater charity
than that which animated the early Fathers, who, in like man-
ner, proscribed every novelty that opposed the knowledge of
God — and that which the Apostle of nations cherished, who
himself would have wished to be an anathema from Christ for
the sake and salvation of his erring brethren.
I almost sicken with disgust at perceiving men delicate in
the choice of words, w^hen the rejection or detestation of per-
* Bishop Bull, of the Establishment, wrote against Episcopius, in
vindication of the analhima pronounced at Nice against the Arians. —
See his work entitled "Judicium Kcclesiae Catholicte, &c." Episcopius
had called the Nicene anathema ** harsh and uncharitable."
\ Malt, xviii. 17.
pravi:r for civil AniiouiTiKs. 353
nicioi'.s error is to be expressed, :uul reckless in advancing
chari'es aHeclino^ ihe character and the rijjhls of millions of llieir
fellow beings. You say: '* throughout the British dominions
you are bound to curse, as a herrfic, the monarch whom you
obey as a king." You bring the mailer to our doors: •' True
it is, that even in the United Slates, the same melancholy ne-
cessily pursues you." It does not become me to repel ihese
assertions in the strong language which ihey provoke and so
juslly merit: but I must inform you that you are grievously
mistaken. The early Christians prayed for the pagan
emperors, even for those who persecuted them : and we sin-
cerely pray for all those who arc in high station, whether
they oppress or protect us. The anathemas which the tribu-
nals of the Church have pronounced against the professors of
heresy, deprive them of tiie privileges of ecclesiastical com-
munion, but do not change the social relations. We are
known publicly and solemnly to pray for the president, for
congress, for the governor and legislature, and for all our fel-
low-citizens ; and we yield to noi'.e in ihe sincerity of our sup-
plications for the prosperity of the national and slate govern-
ments, and the happiness, temporal and eternal, of all — even of
those who either openly traduce us, or who, with the honied
accents of kindness on their lips, utter unworthy insinuations
against our principles and conduct.
Lastly, you ask : " why do you cling to the phantom of in-
fallibility ?" You may call it a phantom, but Jesus ('hrist
gives us the assurance that it is He who teaches through the
Apostolic ministry :• and his Aposile declares that ihe ('hurch
is " the pillar aiul the groimd of truth. "t Tiie experience of
eighteen centuries shows that his words have not failed, for not
a single dogma has ever been solemnly defined which it has
been found necessary to recall or abandon, 'i'he temporal
power of ihc I'oj)c haunts you as a phantom ; and because it
appeared in the middle ages, and disappeared when society
had assumed anew form, you insist that the infallibiliiy of our
• Matt, xxviii. '>, uit. t 1 Tim. iii. ITi.
2e*
354 CONCLUSION.
doctrinal tribunals has been forfeited. You will not consider
whether the Pontiff acted as the higliest interpreter of moral
obligation, defining the limits of relative (kuies- between sub-
jects and sovereigns, wlien both appealed to his judgment — or
whetiier his peculiar influence in the revival of the western
empire gave him special rights over the occupant of the throne;
— or whether the voluntary acts of sovereigns themselves gave
him the authority of a lord paramount; or whether the very
structure of society disposed men tacitly to concede, or recog-
nise this power.* None of these, or other considerations,
though all grounded on facts of history, are admitted by you to
account for the prevalence of the opinion favourable to the tem-
poral claim : but you fancy it to be a dogma, though no Pontiff
ever proposed it as such ; and you reason thence against what
you are pleased to call " the phantom of infallibility!"
You make a distinction, which, to me, is somewhat novel, he-
iween failing 2LWi\ falling. " The Saviour" you say "prayed for
St Peter, that his faith should not fail : therefore, that faith was
certainly infallible. But although the Apostle's faith was not
allowed to fail, it was assuredly allowed to fall, so that he de-
nied his master !" When Christ disclosed to Peter the vio-
lent efforts which Satan was determined to make against all
the Apostles, and gave him the assurance of having made a
special prayer for him, he did not surely refer to the approach-
ing temptation of that tragic night, for then he was to prove
more frail than the others. He especially regarded the time
in which he was to discharge the duties of his ofTice, as head
of the Church, by confirming his brethren in faith. How
beautifully, how naturally, does the great Leo explain the Sa-
cred Text! " The danger arising from the temptation of fear,
was common to all the Apostles, and they likewise needed the
* Although the empire was not a feud, the whole fabric of society was
feudal, and the dependance of sovereigns on the Pope, as the representa-
tive of Him who is the source of power, was more easily conceived than
the dependence of an inferior lord on the sovereign. The ideas of men
were borrowed from the actual social relations, and every thing assumed
a feudal charactei-, just as the republican system prevails, and its forms
are assumed here most naturally in all the relations of society.
PLAN OF RE-UNION. 355
aid of the Divine proleoiion, since llie devil was desirous of
hanissin^r llieni all, and of destroying ilieni all ; and yel, .«^j)ecial
care of Peter is taken by the Lord, and supplicmion is made
especially for ihe failli of Peter, as if the slate of the others is
likely to be more sec'ure, if the mind of the prince be not over-
come."* But, explain as you will this text, have you not
heard Christ's promise, that the gates of hell shall not prevail?
I am not disposed to borrow your phraseology, and term your
nice distinction between y'c/////j if nnd /'(t//ini( mere trifling; but
when I see you perpetually recurring to the opinion about the
temporal power, 1 cannot but think that you feel the difficulty
of combating, by direct argument, the certain prerogatives of
the Primacy.
AVe have, at length, arrived at your conclusion. You ad-
vert to the plan of re-union, which was entertained, for a lime,
by Bossuet, Leibnitz, and some others, but which was soon
abandoned ; and you express your reasons for believing that
there is, al present, an approximation towards unity. I am
surprised, however, to tindyou laying great stress on the part
which governments should lake in bringing about so desirable
an object. Surely this observalion is, at least, useless in this
country, where the government cannot in any way interfere in
matters of a purely religious nature, and is scarcely in harmony
with the sj)irit of the age in which wt* live. '*'J'he ellbrts,
however," you add, addressing us, " necessary for such a pur-
pose, rest chielly with yourselves," and ihe reason you give,
is indeed extraordinary in liie exlren)e. *' As your claims now
stand, it is a mistake lo sujipose that you can be sali.'irutl with
equal rights and privileges. You may think so in a country
like the United States, so long as nothing belter is attainable.
You may think so in a country like (iieat Britain, where you
have been deprived of those equal riuhis for cenluries :" you
might have added that we think so in France, and in B( Igium,
where we arc cmphalically the nation. But, by whal right
S. Leo M. Svrin. 3, in anniv. asauinpt. suic.
356 CONCLUSION.
do you make an assertion so prejudicial to our civil rights, and
excite the jealousy and suspicion of our fellow citizens, belong-
ing, as you do, to a church which, in the only country in which
it can be said to have had existence, or, at least, influence and
power, has "galled us," as you admit, "with the yoke of
Protestant ascendancy ?" Do you not lay yourself open to the
suspicion of sigliing after the union of church and state, when,
after having, throughout your work, laid much stress on
the part which emperors took in convoking councils, at its
close you distinctly state, that the great majority of the early
councils WERE ORDERED BY THE GOVERNMENT? What WOUld
you say of us, were we to repeat your remark, that "a judi-
cious employment of encouraging eflbrt, on tlie part of those
governments which have an established religion to maintain,
would soon, under God, produce a settlement of all serious
difficulty?"
You multiply assertions, which, to say the least, are ground-
less. Thus, addressing us, you say : " You are bound in
conscience, to contend for power, until your Church is what
you think she ought to be, the acknowledged mistress of the
world. You are bound in conscience to be discontented un-
til your rulers conform to your faith." . . . You accuse us "of
being compelled, by the very terms of our professed belief, to
intrigue, to agitate, to proselyte, to strive and to peisevere,
until we have gained every inch of our ancient territory."
These are serious ciiarges : they ought not to have beenliglitly
or wantonly made. Permit me to say, sir, with all the em-
phasis which truth can warrant, or self-respect allow, that we
have no power to contend for, save the triumph of truth, by
the acceptance of the eternal Gospel of Him whose kingdom
is not of this world. AVhen He shall reign in the minds and
hearts of all, from one extremity of the earth to the other, then
shall his Church appear as a queen on his rigiit hand in golden
vesture, sparkling with every precious ornament. The vir-
tues of her chiklren — the humility of their faitli — the purity of
their love— their patience under oppression — their heroic re-
SPIRITUAL TRIUMPH. 367
turn of kindness to tlieir traducers — are llie brightest jewels
of lier crowii — and she covets no dominion — no ast-cndancy —
save that of virtue over vice — of faith over unbelief — of the
truth of God, and of his grace over the passions and pride of
his rebellious creatures. ♦* The weapons of our warfare are
not carnal, but powerful through God to the destruction of for-
tifications, subverting of counsels, and every height that ex-
alteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into
captivity every understanding to the obedience of Christ."^
— Our ol)ligaiions are somewhat belter understood by our-
selves, than you have succeeded in explaining them. We are
bound to respect our rulers, and to submit to every legitimate
exercise of the established authorities, — to obey the laws, — to
maintain the order of society — to love all men — and last, not
least of all, to pray for them that persecute and calumniate us.
There are persons who intrigue, who agitate, who proselytize,
who are never weary in devising schemes for gathering mo-
ney, and scattering tracts, and who send agents in every direc-
tion, avowedly to oppose the diffusion of our faith ; and yet I
would rather ascribe all this to that zeal which is not according
to knowledge, than to any malignant spirit of anti-christian
hate. You exhort us to examine over and over again the
grounds of our system : but, it has been the study and guide
of our youth — the meditation which occupied mature age, and
gave us strength for virtuous exertion ; and we have seen num-
bers expire in the settled conviction of its truth and divine
origin. Every examination confirms the belief, that God is
its author, and challenges the expression of our gratitude to
Him, who strengthens the pupil of our eye to gaze on his
glory, as here rellecled through the mirror of revelation, for
** he liath not done in like manner to every nation, nor hatli
he manifested his judgments to them."t
You seem to have written for the government of England
and for the congress of sovereigns, whom you urge to bring
2 Cor. X. 4. t Psalm cxlvii.