THE POPE AND THE CHURCH.
PRINTED BY
JAMES STANLEY, ROBHAMPTOK 1 .
THE
POPE AND THE CHURCH
CONSIDERED IN THEIR MUTUAL RELATIONS
WITH REFERENCE TO THE
(Errors of tlje U?ig;Ij Cljurclj $att? in (England
BY THE
REV. PAUL BOTTALLA, S.J,
Ptofessor of Theology in St. Beit no's College, N. Wales.
PART I.
THE SUPREME AUTHORITY OF THE POPE.
LONDON :
BURNS, GATES, AND Co., 17, PORTMAN STREET.
MDCCCLXVMI.
PREFACE.
THE present work has been ready for some time past,
although its publication has been unavoidably delayed.
On the appearance of Dr. Fuscy's Eirenicon, the writer
formed the intention of giving a condensed account of
the whole controversy between Catholics and the Trac-
tarian School. Further consideration, however, con-
vinced him that it would be better to confine himself
to the two fundamental points of the entire controversy,
for by these, and by these alone, can it be decided,
and these once settled, all minor difficulties will speedily
vanish.
Hence the subject of this treatise is the Authority
and Infallibility of the Pope and Church ; two crucial
topics, misunderstood alike, if not equally, in every form
of religion external to Catholicism ; the former being
concerned with the constitution of the Church itself, the
latter having reference to its claims as a teacher. Now,
though the High Church party, as they are called,
most nearly approximate to that Church which alone
is Catholic, they too share in the common error of Pro-
\ i Preface.
tcstants, inasmuch as the communion which they mis-
take for the true Church has, according to their system,
no visible foundation or centre of unity, nor do they
attribute to it the office of an infallible teacher, since
they consider the Scriptures to be in some sense the
exclusive deposit of revelation.
The truth is, that Jesus Christ founded the Church
upon St. Peter and his successors that is, upon their
authority, which is supreme in ruling and infallible in
instructing, and He committed His teaching to the
Apostles and their successors in the Episcopate, with
the object of transmitting it from one generation to
another till the end of time, entire and unaltered, pre-
served in its integrity by the might of that Holy Spirit,
\vho was to be with the Church for ever, and to teach it
all truth. It follows, consequently, that the whole fabric
of Christ's Church is held together by the Supreme
Authority of the Pope, whilst Infallibility resides in the
living, unerring magistcriuvi.
These two points have been treated with especial
reference to the errors and misconceptions of the Trac-
tarian School. For the sake of clearness and method,
the work is divided into three portions. The first, now
presented to the public, has for its theme, the Supreme
Authority of the Pope as centre and foundation of the
whole Church. The second will treat of Papal Infalli-
bility, and explain its intimate connection with the
Church, its nature and its extent. The concluding
volume will be occupied with the consideration of
Preface. vii
Catholic teaching in its true origin and real de-
velopment.
It has been the author's endeavour to assign as large
a space as was practicable to the historical and other
difficulties which seemingly contradict the principles laid
down, and which prejudice and misrepresentation have
caused so many sincere inquirers to consider quite
irreconcilable with the present system of the Church.
Amongst these are the refusal of St. Gregory the
Great to assume or allow in others the title of
" Universal Bishop," the African controversy in the
fifth century, the Canons of the Council of Sardica,
the well-known Twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon,
the Gallican system, the Councils of Constance and
Florence, the errors ascribed to Popes Liberius and
Honorius, the development of doctrine, and other such
questions.
Brevity and solidity have been consulted as much as
possible. Thus each volume will be of a very moderate
size, though each will contain a complete treatment of
the matter discussed. At the same time, to prove that
nothing is asserted arbitrarily, brevity has not been
allowed to stand in the way of constant reference to
authorities, and of frequent quotation of the documents
referred to.
The author tenders no apology for faults of style.
Were there none it would not be his own work, and that
there are no more is owing to the kind assistance which
he gratefully acknowledges. He is aware that the earnest
viii Preface.
seeker after truth and for such alone he writes
knowing the vital importance of the subject, will set
more store upon the matter here treated than upon
the dress in which it comes before him.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
(pp. i6.)
I. Importance of the Subject Opinions of Mr. Palmer and of
Dr. Browne in accordance with the Catholic Doctrine. II. Design
of the Treatise. III. Principles of Dr. Pusey and of Anglicans
generally concerning the Papacy. IV. Summary of their system.
SECTION I.
UNITY AND SUPREMACY IN* THE CHURCH OF CHRIST,
(pp. 729.)
I. False idea of Church Unity held by Protestants Divine Pro-
totypes of the Church. II. The essential character of these Pro-
totypes The Church centre must be numerically one. III. Close
connection between Church Unity and Supremacy according to
the ancient Fathers : St. Cyprian, Pope Cornelius, St. Ambrose,
St. Jerome St. Cyprian's beautiful conception of Church Unity
and Papal Supremacy St. Jerome on the same subject SL
Optatus of Milcvis. IV. The doctrine was fully acknowledged
by the Gallicans as a matter of faith Terms on which Bossuet
would have agreed to the union of England with Rome. V. Dr.
Wake and Du Pin Great mistake of Dr. Pusey concerning
the matter. VI. Two passages of St. Cyprian misrepresented by
Dr. Pusey. VII. They prove the opposite doctrine to that which
he quoted them to prove. VIII. The Greek and Protestant view
of Church Unity is contrary to that conveyed in the Epistles of
St. Paul It is illogical. IX. It is contrary to the view of the
Scripture and of the ancient Fathers.
x Table of Contents.
SECTION II.
THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF PRIMACY IN THE CHURCH OF
CHRIST.
(pp. 2961.)
I. Close connection of Supremacy of St. Peter with that of the
Popes acknowledged by Schismatics and ProtestantsConflicting
Protestant views concerning St. Matt. xvi. 18 Their common
error. II. The words of St. Matthew refer to St. Peter No
other literal interpretation admissible. III. The Fathers of the
first five centuries are not at variance about the meaning of St.
Matthew's words All other interpretations of the Fathers are
perfectly consistent with their literal interpretation of the text, and
supply its full meaning. IV. Passages in illustration. V. False
interpretation of St. Matthew's words adopted by Mr. Palmer, &c.
It derives no support from the words of Tertullian -The passage
of the Pseudo-Ambrose, or rather, of St. Maximus, makes against
it. V-I. The Catholic interpretation of the " Rock " is supported
by all antiquity. VII. Supremacy of St. Peter is grounded on
the passages of the Gospel, St. Matt. xvi. 19 The Fathers are
unanimous as to the meaning of the texts. VIII. St. John xxi.
15 17 The title of Shepherd belongs principally to Christ
Extensive power given to St. Peter in that title. IX. Inequality
of the Apostles with reference to St. Peter's Supremacy Ex-
ceptional privileges personally granted to the Apostles.
SECTION III.
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY PROCLAIMED BY PREDECESSORS OF
GREGORY I., AND BY THAT GREAT POPE HIMSELF.
(pp. 6280.)
I. St. Gregory's declaration against the title of CEcumenical.
II. The Predecessors of St. Gregory solemnly proclaimed their
Supremacy de jure divino over the whole Church : Siricius I.,
Innocent I., Zosimus, Boniface I., Celestine, Sixtus III., Leo I.
Other Popes. III. St. Gregory I. held the same view on Papal
Supremacy. IV. Extracts from St. Gregory's works misunderstood
by Anglican critics St. Gregory's doctrine on the Headship of
the Church is that of Scripture and of all antiquity. V. Summary
of his doctrine on the subject. VI. St. Gregory's teaching on the
Table of Contents. xi
Patriarchates affords new light and support to his doctrine of the
Papal Supremacy. VII. Controversy between St. Gregory and the
Patriarch of Constantinople on account of the title of "(Ecumenical
Bishop" Twofold meaning of the title as referring to Order or
Jurisdiction Pope Gregory condemned it in both senses as
assumed by the Bishop of Constantinople He refuses to assume
that title in the former sense He declines it as a title of honour;
but not as implying the right of Universal Jurisdiction in the
Church. VIII. This new title of honour refused by the Popes out
of humility and prudence.
SECTION IV.
THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE EXERCISED OVER, AND ACKNOW-
LEDGED BY, THE EASTERN CHURCH. CANON TWENTY-EIGHT
OF CHALCEDON.
(pp. 81 109.)
I. Evidences of Papal Supremacy Its exercise over the pro-
vinces of the East denied by Protestants, but acknowledged by
the Oriental Church. II. Pope Damasus and the heresy of
Apollinaris His predecessor, Julius, had acted with the same
fulness of power, claiming it as the right of the Roman See.
III. Pope Celestine and St. Cyril in the cause of Nestorius
The Council of Ephesus recognises the Supreme Authority of the
Pope Declaration of the Papal Legate in the Synod. IV. Dr.
Pusey, misled by a false translation of a Letter of Pope Celestine
Further proofs of the Supremacy exercised by Pope Celestine.
V. Mr. Palmer on St. Leo's view of his Supremacy His
Authority dc jure divino acknowledged by Emperors and Patri-
archs ; by the Council of Chalcedon Declaration of the Papal
Legates in the Synod The Council unequivocally recognises St.
Leo's Supremacy in the Church to be dc jure divino. VI. Dr.
Overbeck's groundless remark on the Guardianship of the Vine,
which he explained by the Twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon
The history of that Canon furnishes one of the best arguments for
the Papal Supremacy Brief history and character of the Byzan-
tine Patriarchate Aim of the Patriarch Anatolius in framing the
Twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon. VII. Words of that Canon
Its meaning may be gathered from the Third Canon of Con-
stantinople It favours the Papal Supremacy This is more clearly
shown by the explanation given in the Sixteenth Session of the
Synod The Council, the Patriarch, and the Emperor seek confir-
xii Table of Contents.
mation of the Canon from the Pope as their Superior. VIII. Pope
Leo, by virtue of his divine uncontrolled authority annuls the
Canon The Canon was consequently not inserted in the authori-
tative Collections till the time of the schism of Photius Sanction
at length given by Innocent III., in the Fourth Council of Lateran
Reasons for the Popes' opposition till that time. IX. Dr. Pusey's
alleged Papal Contradictions True meaning of Pope Adrian's
Letter proved from the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, and from
St. Gregory's Letters No contradiction between the Letters of
Leo and St. Adrian concerning the Patriarchate of Constantinople
Historical mistake of Dr. Pusey.
SECTION V.
THE SAME INQUIRY CONTINUED DOWN TO THE SEPARATION OF
THE GREEK FROM THE LATIN CHURCH. CONVERSION OF
RUSSIA.
(pp. 109137.)
I. Subject of this Section Divine Authority exercised by the
Popes over the Oriental Church : Pope Simplicius. II. Pope
Felix III. Definitive Sentence of the Pope against the Patriarch
Acacius. III. Other Popes Letter addressed to Pope Symmachus
by the whole Episcopate of the East Relation of 168 Oriental
Clerics and Archimandrites forwarded to Pope Hormisdas Full
submission of the whole Eastern Church to the formulary of union
imposed by the Pontiff This formulary equivalent to a definition
of faith. IV. Appeal of 90 Archimandrites to Pope Agapitus
Definitive deposition of Anthimus by the Pope, and appointment
of Mennas The Divine Supremacy of the Pope acknowledged by
Anthimus, by Mennas, and by the Emperor Justinian I. Pope
Vigilius deposes the Bishop of Csesarea, although protected by
the Emperor All submit to the sentence. V. St. Gregory I.
exercises the same authority over the Eastern Church Four
instances in proof Evident conclusion in favour of the Papal
Supremacy The Statutes of Pope Pelagius were the guide of
St. Gregory's conduct. VI. Testimony of Stephen, Bishop of
Dora, in favour of Papal Supremacy ; of Sergius, Bishop of
Cyprus; of St. Maximus ; of the Sixth Synod; VII. of the
Seventh Synod St. Adrian's Letter to Tarasius, Archbishop of
'Constantinople. VIII. Beginning of the Eastern Schism Pope
Nicholas exercises his Supreme Authority against Photius The
Table of Contents. xiii-
Kmperor Basil fully submits to the definitive sentence of the
Pontiff Ignatius professes the Papal Supremacy divine, as the
Eighth (Ecumenical Council does the same Photius, restored to
the Patriarchal Sec, acknowledges the Papal Supremacy in the
Synod of Constantinople He is again deposed by the authority
of the Pope The Eastern Church acknowledges the Pope's
Supreme Jurisdiction The Schism brought about in the East
through Michael Ccrularius Testimonies of the East in favour
of the Papal Supremacy during the Schism. IX. Bold assertion
of Dr. Pusey in this matter His statements regarding the Con-
version of the Russians refuted.
SECTION VI.
KALSE DECRETALS AFRICAN CONTROVERSY CANONS OF SAR-
DICA ON APPEALS CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THE
SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.
(pp. 138 157.)
I. Erroneous views of the False Decretals Two principal
mistakes in this matter True view of the Decretals now r
generally received. II. Erroneous comparison of the Schismatic
Church of England with that of Africa in the time of St.
Augustine Testimony of St. Augustine The African Church
never denied the claim of the Pope to receive Appeals True
view of the African controversy : it was a disciplinary question
- Totally different position of the Anglican Church. III. Erro-
neous view taken of the Canons of Sardica Long before the
Council of Sardica the Pope received Appeals. IV. Those Canons
imply no grant of Appellate Jurisdiction Meaning of the Fourth
Cancn Of the Seventh. V. Reason why Pope Zosimus in his
Commonitorium quoted the Seventh and Seventeenth Canons
of Sardica Submission of the African Church to the Jurisdiction
of the Pope The Canon of Carthage on Appeals does not
impeach the Supreme Jurisdiction of the Pope Character of
the African controversy. VI. Further difficulties against the
Pope's right to receive Appeals The instances adduced affirm
the right Case of Basilides and Martialis St. Cyprian plainly
acknowlcdgcd the right of the Popes to receive Appeals. VII. In-
consistency of Dr. Pusey The case cited docs not imply an
Appeal. VIII. Dr. Pusey confounds substance with accident, and
hence draws a false inference.
xiv Table of Contents.
SECTION VII.
GALLICANISM : ITS ORIGIN, PROGRESS, TENDENCY, AND EFFECTS,
(pp. I57I83.)
I. Partiality of Protestants for the Gallican School and its
Writers Dr. Pusey's misapprehensions with regard to Galli-
canism. II. The Gallican School never departed from the
fundamental Catholic doctrine as to the Divine Supremacy of
the Pope Natural tendency of Gallicanism Historical sketch
of its origin and progress. III. Pagan maxims denying eccle-
siastical independence spread over Europe during the thirteenth
and following centuries Western Schism. IV. Two opinions as
to healing it Doctrines of the extreme faction Doctrines of the
moderate party Principles on Church Authority generally re-
ceived at that time. V. Irreligious tendency of the Parliaments
of France Decrees of the Pseudo-Synod of Basle Pragmatic
Sanction It is condemned. VI. Preponderance of the Parlia-
ment of Paris, and its hostility to Papal Authority - Gallican
Liberties a cloak for real oppression of the Church Pithou.
VII. Dupuy They are condemned by the Episcopate of France,
but supported by the Parliament Progress of Schismatical
doctrines in France Judgment of De Maistre, Flcury. and
Fenelon on the matter. VIII. The Gallican maxims are spread
among the Clergy They receive encouragement The Contro-
versy of the Regalia under Louis XIV. National Assembly of
1682 Object of it The Four Articles. IX. Their import
Bossuet, and his conduct in the Assembly The Dcfinsio Dcda-
rationis Cleri Gallicani Bossuet is not responsible for this
publication, nor for the principles contained in it. X. The Four
Articles are condemned by several Universities and Bishops; by
the Popes ; finally rejected by Louis XIV. and by the Clergy
of France Gallicanism and Jansenism Progressive decline of
their maxims. XI. Gallicanism gives no countenance to Dr.
Pusey's principles.
SECTION VIII.
THE DIVINE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE AND THE GENERAL
COUNCIL SYNODS OF CONSTANCE AND FLORENCE.
(pp. 184209.)
I. Subject of this Section. II. Inconsistency of the Gallican
Articles. III. Normal and abnormal state of the Church during
Table of Contents. xv
schism caused by the rival claims of doubtful Popes In such ;*
case a General Assembly of Bishops has a right to settle the
question between the competitors Its authority is limited The
doctrine of the Pope's Superiority to the Council is the doctrine
of antiquity. IV. Occasion of the Four Articles of Constance-
They are opposed by the Cardinals and Bishops of Italy A
double question concerning these Four Articles. V. They were
not proposed in the Synod as matters of Faith. VI. They do
not concern the Church in its normal state They were proposed
by the Gerson faction in the wider sense, but adopted in the
narrower. VII. The Decree of the Pseudo-Synod of Basle has
no authority in the matter Miserable end of the Synod-
Conduct of Catholic England towards it It was fully con-
demned in the General Council of Florence. VIII. The (Ecu-
menical Synod of Florence defines as a matter of Faith the
Divine Supremacy of the Pope The Eastern Church in the
Florentine Council fully accepted that definition It implies the
Superiority of the Pope to the General Council, although, out
of prudence, this was not explicitly stated. IX. Groundless
objection against the foregoing interpretation drawn from the
Greek text of the Decree. X. This doctrine was always pro-
fessed by antiquity Cause of the decay of Gallicanism in
France Catholic maxims of the French Clergy before the
Assembly of 1682 Conclusion of the Section.
CONCLUSION.
ANGLICANISM: ITS ORIGIN, NATURE, AND EFFECTS ONLY
REMEDY FOR ITS EVILS.
(pp. 2IO- 228.)
I. Tendencies and difficulties of the High Church Party in
England Their inconsistent proposal about limiting the Papal.
AuthorityTrue origin of the English Schism. II. The Apostacy
of the Sixteenth Century Anglican Schism the work of Kings
Dr. Pusey's twofold mistake in the matter- Schism of Henry VIII.
consummated before the Bull of Excommunication, and the work,
of the King alone. III. The Church of England did not reform
herself under Henry VIII. Abject prostration of the English
Clergy since the act of schism. IV. The Reformation carried
out by Henry's supreme and uncontrolled authority. V. Dread
and abhorrence of the Papacy a necessary consequence of schism
and heresy Mr. Palmer's singular remark on the obedience due
xvi Table of Contents,
to the Pope. VI. Effects of the rejection of Papal Authority in
England Dr. Pusey's erroneous estimate of the present state of
the Anglican Church The last spark of life in it near extinction.
VII. The re-establishment of the English Church is to be ex-
pected from her submission to Rome Grounds for hopes of her
conversion.
ERRATUM.
In p. 19, note 50, the author cited from memory a passage from
Ammianus Marcellinus, and the words are erroneously given. They
are as follows : " Id cnim ille (Constantius) Athanasio semper
infestus, licet sciret impletum, tamen auctoritate qua potiores
asternse Urbis Episcopi firman desiderio nitebatur ardenti."
L. xv., //&/., c. vii., p. 99. Lugd., 1693.
THE
SUPREME AUTHORITY
OF
THE POPE.
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
I. " THE doctrine of the Primacy of the Bishop of
Rome over the universal Church is the point on which
all other controversies between the Roman and the
other Churches turn : for if our Lord Jesus Christ insti-
tuted any official supremacy of one bishop in the whole
Catholic Church, to endure always, and if this supremacy
be inherited by the Bishop of Rome, it will follow, that
the Catholic Church is limited to the Roman Com-
munion ; and that the councils, doctrines, and traditions
of that Communion are binding on the whole Christian
world." With these words, Mr. Palmer begins Part VII.
of his Treatise on tJic Church of Christ. 1 We most
willingly adopt them in beginning this book on the
Supremacy of the Roman Pontiffs, the more readily
because Mr. Palmer expresses in them the views of a
large and influential party.
Dr. Harold Browne, the present Bishop of Ely,
who probably had in view this part of Mr. Palmer's
work in commenting on Article XXXVI I., expresses
1 Palmer : Treatise on tJic Church of Christ, pt. vii.. c. i, vol.
ii., p. 369. London, 1842.
B
2 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
the same opinion. " If once," he says, " the supreme
authority of the Roman Patriarch is conceded, all other
Roman doctrines seem to follow as of course. And
so it will probably be found, that all converts to the
Roman Church have been led to it from a conviction of
the necessity of being in communion with the Supreme
Pontiff, not from persuasion of the truth of particular
dogmas." 2 We gladly admit that Mr. Palmer and Dr.
Browne have well understood and fairly state the full
bearing of the matter in controversy. For in truth the
main, the capital question between Catholicism and its
opponents, turns entirely on the Pope's Primacy of divine
right over the universal Church. Were Dr. Pusey and
the whole High Church party to receive the Catholic
doctrines of Transubstantiation, of Purgatory, of Devo-
tion to the Blessed Virgin, of the Immaculate Concep-
tion, &c. ; were they to hold all Catholic dogmas as
explicitly as the schismatic Greek Church they would
be substantially no nearer to the true Church of Christ
so long as they denied the claims ' of the Bishop of
Rome. The true Church of Christ is one body : hence,
no one can be a member of the body unless he be
subject to the visible head which rules over the body.
II. The subject-matter of this work is by no means
novel. Able and learned theologians have long since
published many elaborate treatises upon this theme.
The writer's purpose is not to exhibit under a new shape
the results of their successful labours, but to meet the
challenge implied in some modern publications, and
chiefly in a late work of Dr. Pusey. 3 The object of the
book is to prove as succinctly as possible, how wide of
the mark are the blows aimed against that supreme
divinely instituted authority, and that the arms wielded
2 Dr. Browne : An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles,
Art. XXXVII., sect, ii., pp. 802, 3. London, 1856.
3 Eirenicon.
Introduction. 3
arc unsuitcd to the purpose for which they are employed.
The writer will consider in the first place the divinely
conferred supremacy of the Roman Pontiff, not only as
an historical fact acknowledged by all Christian an-
tiquity, but also as a matter of right, based upon the
authority of Scripture itself. In a succeeding volume,
the Infallibility of the Pope will be treated with reference
to its foundations, extension and consequences. But, to
proceed with method and clearness, the opinions held on
the supremacy by Anglicans in general, and by Dr.
Puscy himself, must first be examined.
III. Dr. Pusey, in terms, does not question that
there is a visible head of the Church. In his Eirenicon
he hints that he and his friends do not deny the
visible head of the Church any more than the Eastern
Church owns the monarchy of the Bishop of Rome. 4
And in the famous letter addressed by him to the
\Veekly Register (November 26, 1865), he declares that
he " readily recognizes the primacy of the Bishop of
Rome : the bearings of that primacy upon other local
churches he believes to be matter of ecclesiastical, not
of divine, law." Moreover, in the Vindication of Tract
XC., Dr. Pusey, in accordance with the Thirty-nine
Articles, denies " that the Bishop of Rome has any
lawful claims to spiritual supremacy over England."
Nevertheless, he adds: "it may be said that a primacy
of order and the claim that no council should be con-
sidered oecumenical and authoritative which lacked the
concurrence of so eminent a see, as they will abundantly
satisfy both the concessions of any of the early Fathers
and the claims of the earlier Popes, so may they be
obviously conceded without any risk to the safety of our
Provincial Church." 5 In Tract XC. itself we find the
4 Eirenicon, p. 66.
5 Pusey : 77/6- Articles treated in the Tract XC., &c.. p. 139.
Oxford, 1841.
L 2
4 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
doctrine which Dr. Pusey here intended to vindicate.
It asserts that " there is nothing in the Apostolic
system which gives any authority to the Pope over the
Church, which it does not give to a bishop. It is
altogether," it says, "an ecclesiastical arrangement, not
a point de fide, but of expedience, custom, or piety,
which cannot be claimed as if the Pope ought to have
it, any more than on the other hand the King could of
divine right claim the supremacy." " Bishop," it states,
" is superior to bishop only in rank, and not in power,
and the Bishop of Rome the head of the Catholic world,
is not the centre of unity, except as having a primacy
of order." All these statements, indeed, follow from the
Anglican view of the Church of Christ. Because, as
is said in the Tract, "the portions of the Church need not
otherwise have been united together for their essential
completeness than as being descended from one original.
They are like a number of colonies sent out from a
mother country. . . . Each church is independent
of all the rest, and is to act on the principle of what
may be called ' episcopal independence,' except, indeed,
so far as the civil power unites any number of them
together." 6 In this manner Tract XC. clears the
English Church from the charge of schism, since in
releasing itself from the Roman Supremacy, it remained
essentially complete without Rome. So that the An-
glicans, in order to free themselves from the charge of
schism, are forced to alter the essential features of the
divine plan of the Church of Christ.
IV. Dr. Pusey, with the Anglicans, adheres to the
statement of Tract XC., which formally denies the
monarchical character of the Church, both under the
government of the Apostles and that of their successors.
They acknowledge in St. Peter a pre-eminence of honour
.) sec. 12, pp. 78, 79. Edition of 1841.
Introduction. 5
given by Our Lord, for reasons, which, as Mr. Palmer
says, were not revealed to the Church. 7 They recog-
nize too in the Bishop of Rome a pre-eminence, which he
did not inherit by divine right from St. Peter, but which
may be accounted for by the peculiar circumstances of
the Church of Rome. Nevertheless, they add, this pre-
eminence of honour gave him no claim over other
bishops and their flocks. This system was fully de-
veloped by Mr. Palmer ; s it is, more or less, that of the
old Church of England divines, and it has been set forth
in Tract XC., and was obstinately maintained by the
Oxford party throughout the course of the Tractarian
movement. The Thirty-Seventh Article is commonly
interpreted in the same sense by the standard expositors.
We may, for example, cite Burner., 9 Beveridge, 10 Dr.
Browne, 11 and others. The Anglican system, therefore,
can be summarily stated as follows : I. Jesus Christ-
did not bestow on St. Peter a supremacy of jurisdiction
over the other Apostles, but only a pre-eminence of rank,
incapable of transmission. Hence, a divinely-instituted
monarchical government is not to be found in the Church.
2. The Bishop of Rome does not possess a primacy by
divine right : his pre-eminence is owing to certain
peculiar circumstances, and to ecclesiastical institution.
3. To this we may add, on the assertion of Dr. Pusey,
that the extension of the Papal power is to be attri-
buted in an especial manner to the false decretals, which
7 Palmer: 1. c., p. 370.
8 Palmer : Treatise on the Church of Christ, chs. iii. vi.,
pp. 384416.
9 Burnet : Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 386,
et seq. London, 1826.
10 Beveridge : The Doctrine of the Church of England; Dis-
course upon the Thirty-nine Articles. Works, vol. vii., p. 571,
<:t seq. Oxford. 1845.
11 Browne: An- Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, p. 803,
ct seq.
6 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
introduced a system alien to the original constitution of
Christ's Church. These are the chief heads of doctrine-
concerning the authority of the Roman Pontiff implied
by the Anglican system as set forth by the divines of
the Church of England who are held in most esteem,
and by the Tractarian school of the present day. The
grounds on which these principles rest, in no means
differ from those by which schismatics and Protestants
of all times have ever sought to justify their apostacy
from Christ's holy Church.
SECTION I.
UNITY AND SUPREMACY IX THE CHURCH OF
CHRIST.
PROTESTANTS of every denomination have constantly
misapprehended the fundamental idea of Catholic unity.
Despite the efforts and influence of the Tractarian move-
ment, the Oxford school did not, in the least, succeed in
removing or modifying this misapprehension ; for we
find that the very starting-point of the Tractarian
system is the assumption that bishops are naturally
independent. Now this independence of the Episcopate
is declared to mean that no church or diocese can exer-
cise control or jurisdiction within the boundaries of
another church or diocese. But such is not the true
idea of that Catholic unity which Christ revealed, and to
which all antiquity bears witness. This may be seen
from a consideration of the two chief prototypes on
which the Church was to be modelled. These are :
(i.) the Word made flesh ; (2.) the most Holy Trinity.
With reference to the former, St. Paul tells us that, " As
the body is one, and has many members, and all the
members of that one body, being many, are one body,
so also is Christ." 12 Now, in this and similar passages,
as the Fathers have aptly observed, 13 the apostle desig-
12 I Cor. xii. 12. KaOdttp yap TO ffufia sv sffrtv 7,ai (J^\r^ s^si
co>.Xa, Tavra 8s ra fj,s/.r t D tfw/xaro; -ToX>.a ovra sv sffnv aZtpa,
Guru: '/.at 6 XpiffTog.
13 See St. Chrysostom : Horn. xxx. in I Cor. n. i (Op., torn, x.,
pp. 26970. Edit. Maur). August. : De Civit. Dei, 1. xxii., c. xvii.
(Op., t. vii., p. 513. Edit. Maur, Antwerpiae). St. Gregory of
Nyssa states that the Church is often (roXXa;pi) named (xarow-
fAd^rai) Christ by St. Paul. De Vita Hosts (Op., torn, i., p. 226.
Edit. Parisiis, 1637).
8 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
nates the Church by the name of Christ Himself. For
as Eve was formed by the divine hand from the flesh of
Adam, and fashioned to the likeness of God, so the
Church is formed from the flesh of Christ, and made to
His likeness. 14 Our blessed Lord Himself, in the prayer
addressed to His divine Father, has revealed to us the
second, and a heavenly, prototype of His Church the
Holy Trinity : <4 Neither do I pray for these alone, but
for them also which shall believe on and through their
word ; that they all may be one ; as Thou, Father, art
in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us :
that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me." 15
Christ, by these words, evidently meant His Church as
it was destined to endure until the consummation of the
world, since unto the last there were to be believers in
Christ, for whom He was then praying. This is clear
from the text itself. Moreover, He said of His Church,
that it should bear the likeness of that divine unity of
the Father with the Son in which consists the great
mystery of the most Holy Trinity. So that the Word
of God made Man, and the most Holy Trinity, are the
two great Scriptural prototypes after the pattern of
which the Church was to be modelled. The Church,
therefore, was intended to reveal to all future ages the
essential characters of those divine types. Nay, the un-
believing of the world, by seeing in the Church the copy
of patterns so perfect, were to be led to believe that the
doctrine of Christ was from God, for Christ Himself
added in His prayer " that the world may believe that
Thou hast sent Me." 16
II. What, then, are the essential characters of these
divine prototypes ? The first, the most prominent, and
the one common to both, is that most singular and
14 Ephes. v. 30, coll., Gen. ii. 20, 21.
16 St. John xvii. 20, 21. (Protestant version.)
10 St. John xvii. 21. ivoc, o xotf/xoj ^lanvd^ ori cv fit
Unity and Supremacy in the Church. 9
incomparable unity, which is divinely associated with an
admirable plurality of persons in the most Holy Trinity,
and of natures in the Incarnation : the unity of the
former is a unity of nature, the unity of the latter is
a personal unity. But the nature of the Triune God, and
the person of the God-man, are the centre and the
source of every virtue, power, and prerogative. Further,
both the persons of the most Holy Trinity, and the
natures in the Man-God, are really distinct, but not
separate : the absence of distinction would destroy
their plurality, any division would destroy their unity
plurality and unity are the two great pivots, so to say,
on which these divine mysteries turn. The Church of
Christ, consequently, would not show forth the essential
characteristics of its divine prototypes, unless it possess a
centre which is to serve as the source of its unity, power,
and greatness. Thus, plurality without division, and
union without confusion, are to be the essential charac-
ters of the Church of Christ. Again, Christ required
that His Church should be one with a unity as perfect in
its kind as that by which the Father is in Him and He
in the Father. Now, if the most complete and perfect
unity possible is to be the condition of the Church, it
follows that since numerical unity is the most perfect
expression of unity, none other can be such as is re-
quired by our Lord in His Church. 17 On this account,
unity which, by divine institution, exists in the Church,
whilst harmonising perfectly with the Catholic doctrine
of the supremacy of St. Peter and his successors, is in
glaring contradiction with the Anglican view ; and the
more so as the perfect unity intended by Christ was, as
we have said, to be apparent and visible. 18 For, since
iv uaiv. V cr. 21. ^a wtf/v rereXe/w/xsvo/ e/'g sv. V er. 23.
18 Mr. Allies, in his learned work, The See of St. Peter (sect.
iii.), has handled the subject with his usual ability ; but we have
taken a somewhat different view of the matter, and, by closer adher-
io The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
the Church is spread over all the earth, and is destined
to last until the end of the world, in no way could a
unity so perfect be made apparent and visible unless
by a visible centre numerically one, to which, as to a
common focus, every part of the whole Church might
converge, and from which jurisdiction, authority, and
life might spread, permeating the several grades of the
hierarchy from the highest to the lowest. Now, such a
visible unity necessarily implies the supremacy of St.
Peter and his successors in the Church.
III. The Fathers, and all Christian antiquity, ac-
knowledge the closest connection between the unity of
the Church, as represented by Christ, and the headship
of one universal pastor. " Wherefore," says St. Cyprian,
" the Lord, speaking of the unity which is derived from
a divine authority, declares and says : ' I and the
Father are one.' And, reducing His church to this unity,
He again says : ' And there shall be one fold and one
shepherd.'" 19 The same doctrine was inculcated by
those confessors of Christ who returned from the
Novatian schism to the unity of the Church. " We
know," said they, "that Cornelius has been chosen
Bishop of the Holy Catholic Church by^the Almighty
God and Christ our Lord. We confess our error. We
have been seduced by calumny. For we are not igno-
rant that God is one, that Christ our Lord is one, whom
we have confessed : the Holy Ghost is one, and the
Bishop of the Catholic Church should be one." 20 In
ence to the text, have been able, we trust, to make the reasoning
more cogent.
19 " Idcirco Dominus insinuans unitatem de divina auctoritate
venientem ponit et dicit : Ego et Pater unum sumus. Ad quam
unitatem redigens Ecclesiam suam denuo dicit : Et erit unus grex
et unus pastor." Epist. Ixvi., ad Magnum. Edit. Baluz., p. 150.
20 " Nos Cornelium Episcopum sanctissimas Catholics Ecclesiac
electum a Deo Omnipotente et Christo Domino nostro scimus.
Nos errorem nostrum confitemur. Imposturam passi sumus.
Unity and Supremacy in the Cliurcli. ir
the same sense Pope Cornelius, in his epistle to Fabius,
Bishop of Antioch, used the following expression, point-
ing out the crime of Novatus : " This assertor of the
Gospel did not know that there can be but one Bishop
in the Catholic Church." 21 In both these letters the name
of Catholic Church is applied to the Church of Rome
exclusively that is, to St. Peter's Chair on account of
its being the centre, the root, the source, and the matrix,
of Catholic unity. 22 And to the same effect St. Ambrose
writes: "Where Peter is, there is the Church." 23 By
which words the holy Doctor means that Peter and his
successors are the centre of the unity of the Church, the
source and root of its power and life, thus containing, as
it were, the whole Church within themselves. St. Jerome
had the same thought before his mind when writing his
well-known letter to St. Damasus, in which he solemnly
proclaimed : " Whoever is united to the Church of Peter
is with me." 24 He then, as well as St. Ambrose, ac-
knowledges in the Chair of St. Peter the centre of unity,
and the source of authority in the Church, since he
solemnly asserts that whoever was in connection with
that chair, ought to be regarded as in communion with
Nee enim ignoramus Deum esse et unum Christum esse Dominum
quern confessi sumus, unum Spiritum sanctum, unum Episcopum
in Catholica Ecclesia esse debere." Epist. Cornclii Papa ad
Cyprianum (inter Epist. St. Cypr., epist. xlvi.). Edit. Baluz.,
pp. 60, 61.
21 Epist. Cornelii ad Fabiuin Antioch., penes Eusebium, Hist.
EccL, 1. vi., c. xliii. Edit. Valesii., p. 244. *O x<5/x?jrr, oliv T-JU
Gva'yy&Jov oOx jjTT/ffraro svot, sT/tfxo-TO^ Ssiv &v xa^oX/XTj sxx/.Tjff/a.
- u Ecclesia: Catholicae radicem et matricem." S. Cyprianus,
Epist. xlv., ad Cornclium Papam, p. 59.
J3 S. Ambrosius : In Psalmum xl., n. 30 (Op., torn, i., p. 879.
Edit., Maur., Parisiis). " Ubi Petrus ibi et Ecclesia."
;4 " Ego interim clamito, si quis cathedrae Petri jungitur, meus,
cst." S. Hieronym., Epist. xvi., ad Damasnm Papam, n. 2. (Op.,
vol. i., p. 43. Edit. Vallarsii.)
12 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
the universal Church, being in communion with the very
source of authority, jurisdiction, and life in the Church-
The language of these Fathers may throw light upon
another passage of St. Cyprian : " The Church," says
this Father, "is one, though she be spread abroad and
multiply with the increase of her progress, even as the
sun has many rays, yet but one light, and the tree many
boughs, yet its strength is one, residing in the deep-
lodged root ; and as, when many streams flow from
one source, though a multiplicity of waters seem to
be diffused from the bountifulness of the overflowing
abundance, unity is maintained in the source itself." 25
Now, what in the language of St. Cyprian is meant
by the sun which has many rays ; the root which
distributes vegetative life through many branches ; the
source from which flow a multiplicity of streams and
waters ? Unquestionably, the primacy and the autho-
rity of St. Peter. Indeed, in the very place from
which we have quoted the above passage, and in
immediate connection with it, we find the following :
" Upon Peter, being one, He built His Church, and
though He gave to all the apostles equal power, . . .
yet, in order to manifest unity, He by His own authority
.so placed the source of the same unity as to begin
from one." 26 And in many places of his epistles
also, the same holy Father and martyr inculcates the
doctrine that " the Gospel unity springs from the chair of
St. Peter, and the principal Church " (of Rome). Thus,
in his letter to Pope Cornelius he writes : 27 " The one
Church was founded by Christ our Lord upon Peter, the
fountain-head and principle of unity." Again, in the
- 5 S. Cyprianus : De Unitate Ecclesia, p. 195.
26 " Super ilium unum asdificat Ecclesiam suam et illi pascendas
mandat oves suas," c. I.e.
27 " Cathedra Petri et Ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacer-
.dotalis exorta est." Epist. lv., p. 86.
Unity and Supremacy in the Church. 13
letter to the Bishops of Numidia, 28 he teaches that by
the appointment and doctrine of Christ unity should
spring from Peter. Again, in the letter to Jubajanus.-'
And we find similar expressions in his epistles to Pope
Cornelius and to Antonianus: 30 he declares that to be in
communion with the Bishop of Rome is equivalent to
being in communion with the whole Catholic Church.
Thus, according to St. Cyprian, the centre and root of
unity in the Church, the source of its strength and life,
is numerically one, and made visible in the supremacy of
St. Peter. Neither were the Fathers of the following-
centuries ignorant of this primary doctrine. St. Jerome
taught it most distinctly in his work against Jovinian, as
well as in his dialogue against the Luciferians. For
instance, he assigns the reason why one Apostle was
chosen out of the twelve, " that a head being appointed,
the occasion of schism might be removed." 31 And he
urges the same doctrine upon the Luciferians, warning
them that unless the dignity and supreme authority of
the Roman Pontiff be maintained, the Church, rent by
schisms, would fall to ruin. 82 Such was the teaching of St.
28 " Una Ecclesia a Christo Domino super Petrum originc
unitatis ct ratione fundatur." Epist. Ixx., p. 125.
29 p e t r o primum Dominus super quern aedificavit Ecclesiam
et unde unitatis originem instituit et ostendit, potestatem istam
dedit." Epist. Ixxiii., p. 131.
30 "Te Collcgao nostri et communionem tuam idest Catfiolictr
Ecclesice luiitatein paritcr et caritatem probarent rinniter et
tencrent/' Epist. xlv., ad Conic!., p. 59. " Ut sciret (Cornelius
Papa) te sccum, hoc est cum Catholica Ecclesia communicarc.' 1
Epist. lii., ad Antonianum, p. 66.
::1 " Propterea inter duodccim unus eligitur ut capite constitute,
schismatis tollatur occasio." S. Hieronym, 1. i., adv. Jovinianinn.
n. 26. (Op., t. ii., p. 279.)
32 " Ecclesia? salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet : cui si
non exors quaedam et ab omnibus eminens dctur potestas, tot in
Ecclesiis efncientur schismata. quot sacerdotes." Adv. Lucifer..
n. 9. (Op., t. ii., p. 182.)
14 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
Jerome in the fifth century, and his doctrine is a perfect
echo of that of the two preceding ages. St. Optatus, of
Milevis, in his well-known work on the schism of the
Donatists, proclaimed the same principle, which had
been transmitted to him from the age of St. Cyprian.
'"In the city of Rome," he says, " the Episcopal chair
was first conferred on Peter, wherein the head of the
Apostolic College was to sit, whence, too, he is called
Cephas, to the end that in this chair unity might be main-
tained by all." 33 He further adds, that, " To secure unity,
blessed Peter . . . both merited to be preferred before
all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the
kingdom of heaven, in order that he should communicate
them to the rest." 34 In the same age, St. Pacian, a con-
temporary of St. Optatus, speaks to the same purpose.
His words are as follows : " According to the relation of
St. Matthew himself, the Lord spoke first to Peter alone :
He spoke to one, in order that He might lay the
foundation of unity from one." 35
IV. But it is needless to accumulate quotations from
the Fathers in a matter which has been acknowledged
even by enemies of Catholic unity. The very leaders of
Gallicanism, to whom so bold an appeal is made, unani-
mously held the doctrine of all the Fathers on this sub-
ject. Bossuet, in his Exposition de la Doctrine CatJtolique
says : " Le Fils de Dieu ayant voulu que son Eglise fut
une, et solidement batie sur 1'unite, a etabli et institue
33 " Igitur negare non potes in urbe Roma Petro primo cathc-
dram episcopalem fuisse collatam in qua sederit omnium Aposto-
lorum caput Petrus ; unde et Cephas appellatus est : in qua una
cathedra, unitas ab omnibus servatur." Optatus Milevit, DC Schis-
mate Donatistarum, 1. ii., c. ii. Edit. Migne, p. 947.
34 Ibid.) 1. vii., c. iii., p. 1087. "Bono unitatis beatus Petrus
, . . et prceferri Apostolis omnibus meruit et claves regni coelorum
communicandas casteris, solus accepit." And p. 1088, " Peccator
(Petrus) accipit claves ut unitatis negotium formaretur."
35 S. Pacianus : Epist. iii., n. xk (penes Galland., t. vii., p. 265).
Unity and Supremacy in tJic Church. 15
la Primaute de St. Pierre pour 1'entretenir et la cimenter.
C'est pourquoi nous rcconnaissons cette meme Primaute
dans les successcurs du Prince des Apotres, auxquels on
doit pour cette raison la soumission et 1'obeissance que
les Saints Conciles et les Saints Peres out toujours en-
seignee a tous les fideles." And he adds: "Si les
auteurs de la Reformation pretendue eussent aime
1'unite, ils n' auraient ni aboli le gouvernement episcopal,
qui est etabli par Jesus-Christ meme, et que Ton voit
en vigueur des le temps des apotres, ni meprise 1'autorite
de la chaire de Saint Pierre qui a un fondement si certain
dans 1'Evangile, et une suite si evidente dans la Tradition :
mais plutot ils auraient conserve soigneusement et 1'auto-
rite de 1'Episcopat, qui etablit 1'unite dans les eglises
particulieres, et la primaute du siege de Saint Pierre,
qui est le centre commun de toute 1'unite Catholique." 36
Bossuet both in the above-mentioned Exposition, and in
the Dcfcnsio Dcclarationis Clcri Gallicani, declares that
the doctrines he had set forth concerning the Apostolic
See in the earlier work were dogmas of Catholic faith ; 37
and he again insists in the latter book that " the primacy
of St. Peter was established in the Church for the defence
and support of unity;" and that "the Apostolic See is
the centre and the root of that unity."" 8 Nay, more,
Bossuet rejected the error of Du Pin, and stigmatised it
in the severest terms, as contrary to the Catholic faith.
Let us hear how the great Bishop of Meaux spoke of
this suspected doctor of the Sorbonne in his Mcmoirc to
36 Bossuet : Exposition de la Doctrine Catholiquc, c. xxi.
Ouvrages, torn, iv., p. 400. Edit. Paris, 1862.
37 " Quo loco de Sede Apostolica vera Ecclesiae fides exponenda
csset." Bossuet, Defensio Dcclarationis Clcri Gallicani, t. i., p. i.,
1. iii.. c. xii., p. 85. Basileae, 1730.
!8 "Ecclesiam imitate nixam, tuenda? ac firmandae unitati
Primatum S. Pctri a Christo institutum, Sedemque Apostolicam
hujus unitatis centrum et radicem esse." Ibid.
1 6 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
the Chancellor of France. " Dans 1'abrege de la discipline
notre auteur (Du Pin) n' attribue autre chose au Pape
sinon que 1'Eglise Romaine fondee par les Apotres S.
Pierre et S. Paul, soit consideree comme la premiere entre
tous les eveques, sans attribuer au Pape aucune jurisdic-
tion sur eux, ni dire le moindre mot de restitution divine
de sa Primaute ; au contraire, il met cet article au rang
de la discipline qu' il dit lui meme etre variable. . . .
Une des plus belles prerogatives de la Chairc de S.
Pierre, la Chaire principale, ou tous les fideles doivent
garder 1'unite, et comme 1'appella S. Cyprien, la source de
r unite saccrdotalc. C'est unc des marques de 1'Eglisc
Catholique divinement cxpliqtiee par S. Optat . . .
C'est le genie de nos critiques modernes de trouver
grossiers ceux qui reconnaissent dans la Papaute une
authorit^ superieure etablie de droit divin. Lorsqu' on
le reconnait avec toute 1'antiquite, c'est que Ton veut
flatter Rome et se la rendre favourable, comme notre
auteur le reproche a son censeur." 39 From the passage
here quoted from Bossuet, Anglican divines and their
followers may learn the terms on which Bossuet would
have agreed to the union of the Church of England with
that of Rome. 40 They are as follows : i. Christ, in
order to give unity to His Church, founded it on the
primacy and supremacy of St. Peter's Chair. 2. This
doctrine is contained both in Scripture and in the tradi-
tion of all antiquity. 3. Episcopal authority is intended
to give unity to particular churches, but the unity of the
whole Catholic Church flows from the supreme authority
of the see of Rome, which is its root and centre. 4. The
chair of Peter, in virtue of its supremacy, has jurisdiction
39 Bossuet : Mcmoirc dc cc quc cst a corrigcr dans la Nouvdlc
Bibliothcquc dc M. Du Pin. (Ouvragcs, torn, vi., p. 662.)
40 " On the terms which Bossuet, we hope, would have sanc-
tioned, we long to see the Church united.-' Pusey, Eirenicon,
P- 335-
Unity and Supremacy in the Church. 17
over all bishops, and this jurisdiction is of divine right.
5. These propositions regarding the supremacy of St.
Peter and his successors belong to the deposit of faith,
and are not merely a part of the variable discipline of
the Church.
V. We were surprised to read in Dr. Pusey's
Eirenicon, the bold assertion that he would be content
to unite England with Rome upon the terms which have
the sanction of Bossuet. Does he not know that the
doctrine of Bossuet was grounded exclusively on the
authority both of the Church and of the Roman Pontiff?
On this ground, his Exposition of tJic CatJiolic Doctrine
was approved and praised by Innocent XL in two
briefs addressed to the author. 41 But on that very
account it was obstinately opposed by members of the
English communion of that day, and notably by Dr.
Wake, " whose writings published on this occasion," says
Dr. Madame, "gave him a distinguished rank among
the victorious champions of the Protestant cause." 42
Later on, Dr. Wake listened favourably to the views of
Du Pin ; but the basis of their correspondence, as ap-
pears from its perusal, was the utter overthrow of Papal
authority ; 43 for Du Pin was always on the verge of
Protestantism, and he well deserved the judgment passed
on him by Clement XL, who spoke of him as " a man
most unsound in doctrine, and guilty of many excesses
against the Apostolic S<:r." 44 Dr. Pusey cannot be
ignorant of this : why then does he place Dr. Wake
and Du Pin on a level with Bossuet ? as if the teaching
41 Bossuet : Outrages, t. iv., p. 375, et seq.
' 5 - Maclaine : Account of the Correspondence between Dr. Jl~.
irate, Archbishop of Canterbury, and certain Doctors of the
Sorbonnc. (Appendix to the fourth volume of Mosheim, Soames'
edition, p. 513.)
43 Maclaine was right in making that remark in the Account,
&c. f p. 515.
:4 Feller : Diet. Hist. Du Pin. p. 255. Lyon, 1818.
C
1 8 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
of the illustrious Bishop of Meaux had aught in common
with that of the Jansenistic writer. How is it that he
longs for communion with Rome on terms which Bossuet
would have sanctioned, whilst maintaining the explana-
tion given to the Thirty-seventh Article by Du Pin
and agreed to by Dr. Wake, although this explanation
wholly discarded the divine authority of the Pope? 45
How can he claim to agree with Bossuet, when he even
"professes to admit no connection whatever between
the unity of the Church and the primacy of St. Peter ?"
VI. It is, indeed, wonderful that a man, whom we
know to have devoted his life mainly to the study of
the Fathers, can have failed to perceive the intimate
connection of the doctrine of the unity of the Church
with that of St. Peter's primacy, which is so clearly
stated by the Fathers of every age. Dr. Pusey speaks
of that doctrine as of an opinion held by certain parties
or schools of little importance. " If is alleged," he tells
us, " that the Papal power has been the centre of unity.
Christendom was united when it was persecuted by
emperors ; proscribed, and, as they thought, annihilated ;
when the Bishop of Rome had a precedence of dignity,
not of power, and the Church was connected and joined
together by the cement of bishops mutually cleaving to
each other, 46 each bishop ordering and directing his own
proceedings, having, hereafter to give account of his
intentions to the Lord." 47 In this passage Dr. Pusey
betrays complete ignorance of the fact that antiquity
has ever taught that the institution of the supremacy
is connected with the very fundamental plan of the
Church, and was intended by Christ to secure to it
45 See Eirenicon, p. 234.
46 Eirenicon, p. 236. Dr. Pusey quotes these words from St.
Cyprian's Epist. Ixvi. Edit. Oxford Tran., p. 204.
47 Dr. Pusey quotes these words from Epist. Iv. of St. Cyprian.
Edit. Oxford Tran., p. 129 ; and Epist, Ixix., p. 165.
Unity and Supremacy in the Church. 19
unity. Thus, he says, " It is alleged that the Papal power
has been the centre of unity." As if such a fact could
be ascribed to external and accidental circumstances, as
Mr. Palmer seems to have imagined in his Treatise of
the Chureh.^ Dr. Pusey next asserts that Christendom
was united during the fearful persecutions of the pagan
emperors. Certainly ! But how can he prove from
this that the constitution of the Church was different
then from what it is at present ? Or that even at that
time the monarchical supremacy of Peter was not the
source of the Church's unity ? Even though no visible
traces remained of this supremacy, still its non-existence
would not be proved. To establish this, we must have
positive facts showing that persons who expressly denied
that supremacy, and opposed it on principle, were
regarded as remaining in the communion of the Church
Catholic. But is it true that the supreme power of the
successors of St. Peter lay dormant during the first
centuries of the Church ? A fuller answer shall be given
to this question hereafter. For the present we will
merely remark that there is no ground for supposing
with Dr. Pusey, that from the first ages of Christianity
to the promulgation of the false decretals, 49 the Bishops
of Rome had a precedence of dignity, but not of primacy.
We are astonished that the members of the High Church
party, notwithstanding the zeal they profess in the study
of antiquity, should be ignorant of that which was known
to Ammianus Marcellinus, a writer of the fourth century,
and commonly reputed a pagan. He relates, as a
matter of public notoriety, " that the supreme authority
over all Christians was vested in the Bishop of Rome." 50
48 Palmer : Treatise on the Church of Christ, pt. vii., c. iii.,
vol. ii., p. 384.
49 Eirenicon, p. 237, et seq.
50 "In Episcopo Romano positam esse praecipuam auctoritatem
Christianorum." Amm. Marcellin., 1. xv., Hist., c. vii.
C 2
2O The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
In the course of our work this assertion will be fully
demonstrated.
VII. But the two passages quoted from St. Cyprian
prove the exact opposite of that for which they are
adduced. In both passages Dr. Pusey cites the last
words only, omitting the preceding portion of the text,
which tells completely against him. St. Cyprian, in his
epistle to Florentius, 51 is writing against those who
departed from their own bishops. He says that, unless
they are in communion with their own bishop, they
cannot be in connection with Christ ; and the reason is
given, that, though they withdraw from their pastors, the
Church (that is the flock with its shepherd) does not
depart from Christ. And it is in vain that they pretend
to be in communion with some of the bishops, because,
he continues, " the Church, which is Catholic and one,
is not rent and divided, but connected and joined
together by the cement of the bishops mutually cleaving
to each other." 5 ' 2 Now, we remark, first, if the Catholic
Church is one, and, therefore, not rent and divided (scissa
non est ncqnc divisa\ how can it consist of three divided
branches, as in the system of Dr. Pusey and of the High
Church party in England ? Secondly, if, according to
St. Cyprian, it is an essential character of the Catholic
51 Epist, Ixix., p. 123^24. Baluze's edition.
52 The whole passage is as follows : " Loquitur hie (Joan. vi..
68 70) Petrus, supra quern sedificanda fuerat Ecclesia, Ecclesue
nomine docens et ostendens quia, etsi contumax et superba obaudire
nolentium multitude discedat, Ecclesia tamen a Christo non recedit,
et illi sunt Ecclesia plebs sacerdoti adunata et pastori suo grex
adhasrens. Unde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse et
Ecclesiam in Episcopo, et si quis cum Episcopo non sit, in Ecclesia
non esse, et frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum sacerdotibus
Dei non habentes obrepunt et latenter quosdam communicare se
credunt, quando Ecclesia quae Catholica et una est, scissa non sit,
neque divisa, sed sit ubique connexa et cohserentium sibi invicem
sacerdotum glutine copulata." 1. c.
Unity and Supremacy in the Church. 21
Church that all its bishops cleave one to another, how
can the Anglican Establishment be a portion of the
Catholic Church, when its bishops are in formal and
absolute disagreement with all the bishops of hundreds
of millions of Christians ? And when, moreover, accord-
ing to the Anglican principle, each bishop with his own
flock is a complete church, which depends as little on
other .bishops as an ancient and independent colony on
other settlements of the same race scattered up and
clown the world ? Thirdly, in the view of St. Cyprian,
the bishops are as the circumference of a circle. In
order then that unity may be perfect, they must cleave
to each other so as to entirely close the pale of the
Church against schismatics and heretics ; and they must
cleave to the centre of the circle so that they may be
gathered into a perfect unity : and thus, as every parti-
cular church is in the bishop, and its unity is constituted
by him, the universal Church may be also in the bishop
of all the bishops this being the essential condition of
its unity. Now, had St. Cyprian in this epistle men-
tioned the first kind only of the unity which is main-
tained by the bishops in the Church, it would not follow
that he had denied the second, especially as the passages,
quoted above, from the writings of this holy martyr,
prove the contrary. But such is not the case. St.
Cyprian, in the very passage on which we are com-
menting, mentions the second kind of unity, which the
bishops are to guard, when he writes : " Then (St. John,
vi., 86 70) speaks Peter, upon whom the Church was
to be built." He then adds that Church means "the
people united to its pastor and the flock adhering to its
shepherd:" therefore, every bishop united to his flock
was to be built upon Peter. Is not this the second kind
of unity, which all the bishops are to maintain in the
Church of Christ? As regards the other passage 53 of
53 Edit. Balutii. Epist. lii., p. 72.
22
The Supreme Authority of the Pope,
St. Cyprian, quoted by Dr. Pusey, from the epistle to
Antonianus, the writer expressly says : " Having pre-
served the bond of concord, and constantly kept the
sacrament of the individual unity of. the Catholic Church,
each bishop ordering, &c." 54 If the passage be quoted
at full length, it presents no difficulty whatever against
the Catholic doctrine, since no one has ever denied
the divine authority of each bishop within the limits of
his diocese, provided he keeps the laws of Catholic
unity, which oblige every bishop to subordination to
the supreme jurisdiction of the successor of St. Peter.
And this is proved by the other epistle, to Cornelius,
quoted by Dr. Pusey, 55 where St. Cyprian, alluding
to the authority of the bishop, asserts that the chair
of St. Peter is the centre and the source of episcopal
unity. 56 Thus, so far from these passages making
against the doctrine of supremacy, they harmonise
with it, and complete the idea of the unity of the
Church as established by Christ.
VIII. But if the High Church party rejects the
doctrine of the supremacy, from what principle then can
unity be derived to the Church ? Necessarily from the
headship of Christ, and from that alone. 57 The views of
Anglican writers on this point are identical with those
of the Greek communion, 58 as well as with the principles
54 The entire passage is as follows : " Manente concordioi
vinculo et perseverante Catholicas Ecclesiae individuo sacramento,
actum suum disponit et dirigit nnusquisque Episcopus, rationem.
propositi sui Domino redd i turns:' 1. c.
55 Edit. Balutii, Epist. lv., p. 86.
5C "Pseudo episcopo sibi ab haereticis constitute, navigare
audent, et ad Petri cathedram, atque ad Ecclesiam principalem,
tinde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est." 1. c.
i7 Eirenicon, p. 54 56.
58 A/daffp/6/xs^a c&k fjt,6voc o Xp/rfro, s/vai /cspa/.r/ rr,~ ixxXtfff/as
y.ara rr^v d/datfxaX/'av rov acrotfroXoy. Conf. Orthod. Resp. ad
Interrog. 85. Schelestrate : Ada Orient. EccL, p. 495. Winer :
Comparative Darstellung des Lchrbegrijfs, p. 171. Leipzig, 1837..
Unity and Supremacy in the Church. 23
admitted by all Protestants. 59 Dr. Pusey, nevertheless,
admits that " Christ employs the outward ministry of
men, appointed in succession, from the day when he
breathed on the apostles." 60 He further admits that
the Church was framed like a body, to which spiritual
nourishment is ministered by Christ in order to the
growth of the whole. Now the capital error of Dr.
Pusey, as well as of all Protestants, is to confound
the inward source and supreme principle of invisible
unity in the Church with the outward and subordinate
principle of its visible oneness. The action of this
double principle is necessary in every part of the
economy of the Church. Christ is really the vine,
from which the sap of life is infused and distributed
throughout the mystical body of the Church. His
Holy Spirit abides in it for ever, teaching it all truths ;
maintains its energy and vigour in its never-ending
struggle with the powers of darkness, and pours into it
divine consolations in its afflictions and persecutions.
Christ is, indeed, the head of the Church, and the
Church is His body and fulness. 61 St. Paul often in-
culcates this doctrine in his epistles; 62 but the holy
Apostle never calls Him the sole head of the Church,
whilst he does point to Him as the sole saviour of men ;
and at. the same time he teaches that the Church is one
body, even as God is one, faith one, baptism one. 63
Thus the doctrine of the Apostle on the headship of
Christ in the Church, does not exclude a secondary and
visible head, but rather implies it. The Church is com-
" Ecclesia non potest ullum aliud h^bere caput quam Chris-
tum.''^/: Helv., ii., c. 17 ; and other passages quoted by
Winer, 1. c., p. 171-72.
60 Eirenicon, p. 55.
01 Ephes. i. 23.
62 Ephes. i. 22 ; v. 23 ; Coloss. i. 18.
C3 Ephes. iv. 4, 5-
24 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
pared by St. Paul to a body on account of its visible
unity. Now, the image of a visible body cannot be
preserved without a visible head ; for who can imagine
a body one and visible, whose head only is invisible ?
Especially as, according to the doctrine of St. Paul, the
external ministry and the ecclesiastical hierarchy were
called forth and established by Christ in His Church for
the purpose of bringing it to an outward and visible
unity ; " for the perfecting," says the Apostle, " of the
saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of
the body of Christ ; till we all meet in the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a
perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the
fulness of Christ." 64 Truly it is from Christ and His
divine influence that "the whole body/' as the same
apostle speaks, " fitly joined together and compacted by
that which every joint supplies, according to the effectual
working in the measure of every part, makes increase of
the body unto the edifying of itself in love." 65 But still,
according to the divine economy of Christ's Church, that
invisible divine influence could not have realised and
perfected the visible unity and action of the Church
without the external framework of a visible hierarchy.
Dr. Pusey, indeed, as we have already remarked, does
not deny this position ; but he refuses to admit the
consequences which flow from it. In fact, the doctrine
of the unity of the Church implies the unity both of
each diocese, as of an integral portion of the whole
Church, and of all dioceses collectively, as constituting
one and the same body. Now, the unity of individual
dioceses is maintained and signified by the oneness of
the bishop, in whom, as the fathers speak, the Church
culminates ; so that a church separated from its bishop
is separated also from Christ, and is consequently de-
M Ephes. iv. 12, 13. C5 Ephes. iv. 14.
Unity and Supremacy in the Church. 25
prived of the mystic influx of His headship. But how is
unity to be maintained in all the numerous members of
the great body of the Church, if not by a universal
bishop, the image of the divine and invisible bishop who
is in heaven ? a universal bishop, inferior and sub-
ordinate to Him, and receiving at His hands authority
and power, but at the same time the channel of juris-
diction and unity in the Church. It is altogether
illogical for those who admit the necessity of a bishop
for each diocese, to deny the necessity of a universal
bishop. Presbyterians are less inconsistent in this
matter than Episcopalian Protestants. And, in truth,
on what ground is the view based which denies the
necessity of a universal bishop for the maintenance of
the unity of the universal Church ? Christ, they say, as
Head of the Church suffices to give it unity. But if He
is sufficient to give unity to the whole, why may He not
give the same property to the several parts ? If the
existence of an invisible divine head be not inconsistent
with the existence of the hierarchy of bishops, why
should it be incompatible with the existence of a visible
head and centre of unity ? If a visible head be necessary
in each diocese to maintain the unity of the same, is it
not still more requisite that there should exist a visible
head whose function is to maintain the unity of the
Church Catholic ? Consistency seems to require that
this be admitted.
IX. This will be rendered still more apparent if we
compare the principles of the Eirenicon in the matter
of unity with those of Tract XC., to which Dr. Pusey
professes to adhere. In Tract XC., sec. 12, we read as
follows : " Each Church is independent of all the rest,
and is to act on the principle of what may be called
episcopal independence, except, indeed, so far as the
civil power unites any number of them together. . . .
Each diocese is a perfect independent church, sufficient
26 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
for itself, and the communion of Christians one with
another, and the union of them altogether, lie . . . in
what they are and have in common, in their possession
of the succession, their episcopal form, their apostolic
faith, and the use of the sacraments." From this
statement we conclude that, in the Anglican view, the
Church has no unity whatever ; each church and each
bishop is wholly unconnected with any other, except so
far as some are bound together in external communion
by the authority of the state ; but the state has no
mission whatever to interfere with the organisation of
the Church : so that in the system advocated by Tract
XC. y the unity of the Church is an internal only and
invisible unity. Now let us apply to the Tractarian view
the argument lately developed. St. Paul insists on the
necessity of an outward and visible hierarchy in the
Church, for the purpose of originating and preserving its
unity. But of what unity is St. Paul speaking ? Doubt-
less of the unity of the body (tv <*//,) ; but this is an
outward and corporate unity, according to the language
of the Scripture. The unity of the body implies social
organisation : what the joints are in a body, that is the
ecclesiastical hierarchy in the Church. But that cannot
be called a body which is not "fitly joined together and
compacted by that which every joint supplies;" there-
fore, that is no church in which the hierarchy of pastors
in strong and compact organisation does not concur to
unite the whole into one. It follows that the Anglican
view of the Church is in evident contradiction with the
doctrine of unity as taught in Scripture. The author of
the Eirenicon wishes, perhaps, to give some colour to
this view, when, adopting as his own the words of St.
Cyprian, quoted above, he maintains that "the Church
was connected and joined together by the cement of
bishops mutually cleaving to each other." 66 Now, is
60 Eirenicon, p. 236.
Unity and Supremacy in the Church. 27
what is here stated a mere fact, or a fact and at the same
time a principle ? If it be meant as a fact, and a fact
only, we yet need to be told what is the principle of
unity in the Church as established by Christ. If Dr.
Pusey denies any such principle, he should first explain
how the Church can be one body when individual parts
are complete in themselves. If the Church must be a
body, its parts must appear complete, not only regarded
in themselves, but also when looked at in connection
with the whole, since the idea of the member of a body
implies incompleteness in relation to that whole of
which it is a member ; and it implies, moreover, the
necessity of being joined to the whole in order to com-
pleteness in the nature of a member. Further, its
connection with the whole must be both an inward and
an outward connection, because its incompleteness as a
member is internal as well as external. But if the
above words are intended to convey both a fact and a
principle, then we reply, first that this principle con-
tradicts the Anglican view, as set forth by Tract XC. ;
and, secondly that collective and representative unity
is not the unity which Christ destined for His Church.
This was the unity of an organic body, and, therefore,
an outward and visible unity, compacted in its joints,
and culminating in a visible head. Now the paradigm
of this perfect unity, given by our Blessed Lord Himself,
is the unity of the most Holy Trinity, and of His own
divine personality ; and this unity, as we have shown
above, must be centred in a person who is its root and
source. According to the writer to whose doctrine we
here address ourselves, the bishops are the source of
unity in the Church ; but, according to the Scripture
and the Fathers, episcopal unity is to spring from the
chair of St. Peter, in which the fulness of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction is concentrated. It is, indeed, pitiable to
see how the Tractarians strive to elude the evidence
28 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
of the Catholic demonstration, which arises from the
language of St. Cyprian. In the Oxford translation of
the treatises of that Father, the page bears the running
title, "St. Peter is the principle of unity;" but in a
foot-note we read that "each bishopric realises the
oneness of the Church." 67 The mode of this realisation
is explained in a note at the end of the treatise, wherein
we are informed "that in theory there is one visible
bishop, . . . each individual bishop being but a
reiteration of every other." So that the conclusion is,
"they (the Catholics) make St. Peter the real centre of
unity ; we the emphatic (sic) image and lesson of it ;
they make St. Peter's chair, the holy Roman see, a
necessary instrument of grace; we a symbol, &c." G
What inconsistency and confusion is here. The title
asserts that, according to St. Cyprian's doctrine, St.
Peter was the principle of unity ; in the note, this is
alleged to be an opinion only of the Romanists. More-
over, while it is true that the Episcopate, considered as
an Order, is one, and that each bishop, in virtue of his
consecration, enjoys an equal portion of it, it is also true
that the whole Episcopate in union with Peter and his
successors is one as regards ecclesiastical jurisdiction ;
because it is through union with Peter that this juris-
diction resides in its fulness in all the bishops, who by
their union constitute the Church of Christ. But it is
not true, as shall be shown hereafter, that each indi-
vidual bishop is absolute and supreme over the whole
flock of Christ, as if he were alone in the world. 69 We
hope to lead the reader to see that they err who believe
such a theory to be countenanced by apostolic teaching.
67 Treatises of St. Cyprian. Tract V., p. 134. In the Library
of the Fathers, vol. Hi., Oxford.
68 Ibid., p. 150.
09 This is taught in the place last cited.
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 29
Were it so, there would be in the Church as many heads
as bishops, with, of course, as many bodies as heads ;
and hence a state of confusion and disorder, which could
never represent the unity of the most Holy Trinity and
of the Incarnate Word of God.
SECTION II.
THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OE THE PRIMACY IN THE
CHURCH OF CHRIST.
MEMBERS both of the High and Low Church parties in
England have ever understood that St. Peter's supremacy
is the foundation of the authority of the Pope ; that if a
real primacy of jurisdiction over the other Apostles be
once acknowledged as belonging to St. Peter, the autho-
rity of the Pope, as asserted by Catholics, would of
necessity follow. Therefore, all Protestants, as well as
the followers of Photius, 70 obstinately deny St. Peter's
divine supremacy, that so they may be able con-
sistently to reject the divinely conferred supremacy of
his successors. Nevertheless, none of these refuse to St.
Peter a primacy of Honour and Order, a pre-eminence
of dignity among the Apostles ; neither do they refuse
such a pre-eminence to the Popes, but they refuse to
extend to it a higher character than that of an eccle-
70 Macarius: Theolog. Dogm. orthod., t. ii., pt. 3, c. i., sec. 175.
30 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
siastical institution. 71 Andrewes, 72 Montague, 73 Bram-
hall, 74 Beveridge, 75 Barrow, 76 &c., held the same view,
which has been adopted by modern divines of the
English establishment Bloomfield, 77 Palmer, 75 Alford, 79
Milman, 80 Browne, 81 &c. ; and the Tractarians, with Dr.
Pusey at their head, have not advanced one step in this
-matter. But as regards the passages of Scripture by
which the Catholic doctrine of Peter's supremacy is
proved, all do not take the same view. With regard to
the principal passage in Matt, xvi., 18, a few, indeed,
among recent English commentators, following in the
steps of Beveridge, deny that the words of Christ refer
to Peter. 82 Some, as Mr. Palmer and Dr. Browne, think
71 Blondel says, "Protestantes nequc apostolicas cathedrae digni-
tatem unquam veteri Romae denegasse, neque primatum, quern
habet in vicinas Ecclesias, immo etiam quern aliqua ratione obtinet
in universa, ita tamen ut Ecclesiastico juri dumtaxat id tribuant,
quod pontifices divino jure ad se pertinere contendunt." De Pri-
matu Papa, p. 24, (apud Ballerini, t. i., p. 17).
72 Andrewes : Respons. ad Apolog. Bellarmini, c. i., p. 14.
Edit. 1610.
73 Montague : Origincs Ecclcs. Pars posterior, p. 185.
74 Bramhall : Schism Guarded, Discourse iv., sec. i., chs. i., x.
xii., pp. 371-2, 468-9, 483 ; sec. viii., p. 609 (Works, vol. ii. Oxford).
75 Beveridge : On the Thirty-nine Articles (Works, vol. vii.,
p. 580. Oxford).
70 Barrow : A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy, supp. i., p. 144,
&c. (Works, vol. vii. London, 1831).
77 Bloomfield : Greek Testament. Matt. xvi. 18, note p. 95,
vol. i. London, 1839.
78 Palmer : On the Church of Christ, pt. vii., c. i., vol. ii., p. 370, seq.
79 Alford: Greek Testament. Note on Matt. xvi. 18, vol. i.,
p. 163.
80 Milman : History of the Latin Church, bk. ii., c. i., vol. i.,
p. 80. London, 1857.
81 Browne: On the Thirty-nine Articles, art. 37, sect, ii., p. 808,
seq. London, 1856.
82 We are not surprised that Wordsworth saw Christ only in
the Ksrpa, of St. Matthew, for which, notwithstanding, he was
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 31
that it is doubtful whether they relate to Christ or to
Peter, or to the faith in the divinity of Christ manifested
by him ; and that on this account it cannot afford
ground for an article of faith. 83 Many, as Marsh, Bloom-
field, Alford, 8 * &c., moved by the authority of German
interpreters, such as Fitscher, Kuinoel, Bengel, 85 c., not
only admit that the words " upon this rock " (SKI ravrv) ry
xsrpa) should be understood of Peter, but think any
other exposition strange, unnatural, and founded upon
gratuitous suppositions. They, nevertheless, deny that
by these words any supremacy of jurisdiction is implied.
We will, therefore, attempt to show first, that these
words most certainly apply to St. Peter, such being
the unanimous persuasion of all antiquity ; and,
secondly, that by the terms employed concerning St.
Peter, a primacy of jurisdiction is meant.
II. As regards the literal meaning of the words of
St. Matthew, we have the warrant of many Protestants,
both German and English, that the most natural and
straightforward interpretation is that which refers the
words "upon this rock" to Peter. Dr. Bloomfield writes
as follows: "It is strange that it should have been passed
over by any." 86 Now, if we consider the context of the
chapter in question, any other literal interpretation will
appear wholly inadmissible. St. Peter, enlightened by
the Holy Ghost, makes the most solemn confession of
faith in the divinity of Christ ; in reward of which Christ
severely censured by Dean Alford (1. c.) ; but we are truly surprised
that Dr. Burton, a writer of no small repute among the High Church
party, thinks that Christ, in the above-mentioned passage, told all
the Apostles that they are the rock on which He intended to build
His Church. (Greek Test., note on Matt., 1. c.) Dr. Burton is
evidently afraid of the consequences of the common explanation.
83 Palmer : 1. c., p. 373. Browne : 1. c., pp. 806-7.
84 Bloomfield and Alford : Note on Matt. xvi. 18.
85 See their Commentaries on Matt. xvi. 18.
86 Bloomfield: I.e.
32 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
bestows on him a magnificent encomium : calls him
blessed with heavenly blessedness (/xaxa^/oj) ; and pro-
fesses His purpose of bestowing a proportionate reward,
in correspondence with the sublimity of his faith. "And
I also say unto thee," Ka/w ds <ro/ s.'syu, Christ replies
with full authority, as the Lord of heaven and earth, as
the Son of God, according to St. Peter's solemn pro-
clamation. It was then most fitting that He should
use words of an import adapted to express not only
the reward bestowed on Peter's confession, but also His
own power and Godhead. Now, according to the
Protestant interpretation, which we are combating, after
that solemn introduction, "And I also say unto thee,"
Christ would only have said to Peter that he was Ceplias
(lisr/jof) ; that is, merely repeated to him what He had
already announced long before, when He promised to
change his name into that of Cephas? 1 Nay, more, He
Avould only be repeating the very fulfilment of that
promise ; ss and further still, He would be warning
St. Peter that the new name bestowed upon him had
no office, no dignity whatever, connected with it ; that
Himself was the rock, on which His Church was to be
built, while Peter himself was nothing. Who does not
see the untenable character of this interpretation, which
Canon Wordsworth, and those who sympathise with him
in his views, have so strenuously maintained ? 8a On the
John i. 42. 2i
88 Mark iii. 16. Ka; scrs^/csv oraycta rSJ 2//xwv/ Hsrpov.
8U We do not dwell upon the common difficulties urged by some
Protestants of the old school, founded on the difference between
x'srpo; and x'srpa in the above passage. It would have equal force
against the interpretation which we are combating ; and it has
been moreover frequently refuted, not only by Catholic but even
by Protestant critics ; for instance, Rosenmtiller, Michaelis, Kuinoel,
Bengel, and others.
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 33
contrary, how natural, how reasonable, and how neces-
sary, is the interpretation which every Catholic advo-
cates ? What Christ expressed so solemnly by the
words " Kyw & col \syu," And I also say unto thee,
was meant to correspond with what had been as
solemnly said by Peter in the words " 20 tJ 6 Xp/drog 6 vi&s
roD 0soD roD %uvro$" Thou art Christ the son of the living
God. So that as Peter had been the first among the
Apostles to proclaim solemnly, under an especial influence
of the Holy Ghost, the divinity of Christ, in like manner
Christ appointed him to be the rock on which He would
build His Church. In this view, all the passages which
refer to the new name of Simon the son of Jona, are
seen to be in admirable harmony. As soon as Simon
was presented to Christ by Andrew, his brother, our
Lord, who well knew his destiny, and what was the
office and the character for which he was to be chosen,
gave a promise to change his name into that of CepJias.
When the number of the Twelve was completed, He
gave him that name ; but He did not promise him the
office and the character to which it had reference,
before having obtained from him a solemn and public
confession of His Divinity. Still, although Peter by a
prophetic name, and by an explicit promise of an
eminent office, had been designated by Christ to be
the heacl and the ruler of His Church ; yet Christ, as
long as He remained on earth, did not invest him with
the high dignity of oecumenical pastor, since Peter was
not to be Christ's vicar and the visible head of the
Church, until Christ had left this world and gone to
His Father. Now, to return to our main point, both
the literal sense of the words of Matthew, and the
context, no less than the harmony of the Gospels on
this point, unquestionably prove that the words of
Christ, "Upon this rock I will build My Church,"
are necessarily to be understood of Peter.
D
34 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
III. Mr. Palmer, Dr. Browne, and other modern
English writers, make no allusion to the literal sense
of the above passage, nor to the context. They strive
rather to throw doubt and uncertainty over the true
and manifest meaning ; and on this account they con-
tend that the Fathers, by their conflicting explanations
of the above words, have sufficiently proved the uncer-
tainty of their purport. Now we absolutely deny the
existence of such a conflict among the Fathers. In
the first five centuries of the Church there are at least
twenty-seven Fathers who understand Peter to be the
rock on which the Church was built ; that is to say,
more than the High Church party could appeal to in
support of any other doctrine whatever. Mr. Palmer,
on the authority of Du Pin and Natalis Alexander,
mentions fourteen only of these. They are Tertullian,
Origen, St. Cyprian, St. Hilary, St. Basil, St. Ambrose,
St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, St. Augustin, St. Cyril of
Alexandria, St. Leo, St. Maximus, Theophylact, and
Euthymius. But we add to this number at least
thirteen others, whose words will be found at the foot
of pp. 34 6. They are St. Firmilian, 90 St. James of
Nisibis, who was present at the Council of Nice, 91 St.
Ephrem, 92 St. Gregory of Nyssa, 93 St. Pacian, 94 Caius
90 Firmilianus : Epist. ad Cyprianum (inter Epist. S. Cypr.,
Ixxv. Edit. Balutii, p. 148). "Super quern Petrum fundamenta
Ecclesias collocata sunt."
91 Jacobus Episcopus Nisib. : Serm. vii., n. vi. " Suscepit
eum (Petrum) Dominus noster, fecitque ilium fundamentum
et vocavit eum petram asdificii Ecclesise." (Gallandi, t. v.,
p. Ivi.-vii. See also Serm. i., n. xiii., p. ix., and Serm. xi.,
n. xii., p. Ixxxiv.)
92 S. Ephrem Syrus : Serm. xiii. (inter Sermones Syriacos, t. ii.
Edit. Rom., p. 433-34). " Suscepit nimirum lapides qui suam aedift
caturus erat Ecclesiam super Cepham."
93 S. Greg. Nyss : Laudatio ii. in Stcphanum. ouro; yap sen
xarcc rfy dcfttfaav avrGj tfapa rou Kuf/ou duptav r t a
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 35
Marius Victorians, 95 St. John Chrysostom, 96 St. Asterius, 97
Paul Orosius, 98 Boniface I., 99 Felix III., 100 Pseudo-
Ambrosius, 101 and Gelasius. 102 In a word, in addition
y.ai fr/jj^rarri -fr^a s qv r^v ExxXjJtf/av o 2wr^ oUxooo/
(Penes Gallandi, t. vi.. p. 600.)
94 S. Pacianus : Epist. iii., n. ii. (Gallandi, t. vii., p. 265). " Ipso
rcfercnte Matthaeo, paullo supcrius ad Petriim loquutus est Dominus ;
ad tmum, ideo ut unitatcm fundaret ex uno ; mox id ipsum in com-
mune pracicipiens qualitcr tamen ad Petrum incipit : Tu es Petrus
et super hanc petram," etc.
95 Caius Marius Victorinus : In Epist. ad Galat., i. 18. "Si in
Pctro fundamentum Ecclesiae positum est, ut in Evangelic dictum ;
cui revclata erant omnia Paulus scivit videre se debere Petrum ;
quasi eum cui tanta auctoritas a Christo data esset, non ut ab eo
aliquid disceret." (Mai., Script. Vet. Nova Collectio, t. iii., pt. ii.,
P- 9-)
<JG S, Chrysostomus : Horn, in illud, Hoc Scitote, n. 4. (Op.,
t. vi. Edit. Maur, p. 282). Ilsrpog o zop'j<pa.?0y roD %opoD, rb 6r6f&a
rZiv d~o<J-6Xuv avdvrUY) i] Xt<pa\j[ rr,: pparpiag sxs/VTjs, 6 rr,z
fjixrjup'svvis acatfjjs TpoffrarT?;, o SepsXios r^:, =xx./.^ff/ac. See also
Horn, iii., DC Poenit, n. 4 (Op., t. ii., p. 300).
97 S. Asterius Amasenus : Horn, viii., in SS. Petrum et
Paulum (Edit. Migne, PP. Gracci., t. xl., p. 267). 'O dz
^.-j sJ TIsTpog, xa/ frr/ ra-j-r, rr, -'-
98 Paulus Orosius : L. de Arbitrii Libcrtatc, n. 23. (Edit.
Migne, PP. LL., t. xxxi., p. 1192.) "Testimonio dilectionis Domini
(Petrus) nunc petra fundamenti Ecclesiae constituitur." "O Petre
supra quam petram Christus suam fundavit Ecclesiam." n. 27
(1. c., p. 1195), n. 30 (I. c., p. 1199), &c.
99 Bonifacius I. : Epist. v., n. i. (Coustant., Epist. RR. PP.,
p. 1022). " Neque potest tibi esse non proximus (Petius), qui
pastor dominicarum ovium est perpetuus constitutus ; ant aliquam
ubivis positam Ecclesiam non curare in quo universalis Ecclesicc
Posit n in legimus fundamcntu m"
100 Felix III. : Epist. xii., ad Zcnoncm Sup. (Labbe, Acta Cone.,
t. v. Edit. Vcnetiis, p. 208). " Summum Apostolorum B. Petrum
et Petram fidei esse." See also Epist. v., ad cundein Zetwnem (1. c.,
p. 164, seq.).
101 Pseudo-Ambrosius : Sermo. xliv., n. 3 (In Op. S. Ambrosii.
Edit. Maur, t. ii., p. 499). " Pro hac devotione dicitur Petro : Beatus es
D 2
36 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
to the obvious meaning of the words themselves, we
have, in favour of that meaning, all the Fathers and
Doctors of antiquity, who, without exception, bear the
same witness to the traditional sense throughout the
Catholic Church of the words of Christ. Where, then,
do we see any trace of a conflict between the inter-
pretations, as given by the Fathers, of this passage
of St. Matthew ? Mr. Palmer and his friends, on the
authority of Du Pin, reply that many Fathers under-
stood the rock to mean our Lord ; others, the true
faith ; and others, the Apostles collectively. But Mr.
Palmer supposes that those Fathers intended to give
their interpretations as being the literal sense of the
words of Christ. If such is his opinion, he does a
great injustice to the Fathers, by supposing them to
have adopted a strange, an unnatural, a distorted, a
fanciful interpretation ; for such are the terms which
Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, Bengel, Bloomfield, Alford, and
others, apply to these various interpretations ; and,
moreover, by falsely representing them as guilty of
self-contradiction : for all the Fathers who, before the
sixth century, seem to have adopted any of the above-
mentioned interpretations, referred the rock literally
to St. Peter. As is done, for instance, by Origen,
Hilary, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome,
St. Augustine, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria,
St. Leo, &c. Our adversaries cannot deny the fact, as
it results even from the bare comparison of the lists
of names subjoined by them to each of the above-
mentioned opinions. Now, if those very Fathers who
understood the rock either of Christ, or of St. Peter's
Simon Barjona, etc. Recte igitur quia petra Christus, Simon nuncu-
patus est Petrus ; ut qui cum Domino fidei societatem habebat, cum
Domino haberet et nominis Dominici unitatem : ut sicut a Christo
Christianus dicitur, ita a petra Christo Petrus Apostolus vocatur."
102 Gelasius I. : Epist, xiv., sive Tractatns. (Labbe, t. v., p. 341).
Divine Institution of the Primacy, 37
faith and confession, 103 arc to be found maintaining
the obvious reference of the rock to St. Peter, it
manifestly follows that, in proposing that collateral,
mediate, and indirect exposition, they did not forget
the immediate, original, and traditional interpretation
of the rock y ever maintained by the Church Catholic.
But further, the literal interpretation which refers the
rock to St. Peter, so far from excluding the other
interpretations given above, is perfectly consistent with
them. Nay, all these interpretations, if we put them
together, supply us with the complete and full meaning
of Christ's words ; for St. Peter was, it is true, appointed
the rock on which the Church was to be built, but
he was not to be the principal, the original rock, from
which the Church was to derive its internal strength.
Peter was not himself to be the rock : " That rock
was Christ," according to the words of the Apostle ;
.and "other foundation can no man lay than that which
is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 104 Peter was to be the
rock of the Church, but secondarily to Christ, from
whom the Church was to receive its stability. Yet
he was to be the outward and visible rock, whilst
Christ was the inward and invisible foundation. For
the secondary and visible rock cannot be conceived
without the primary foundation. Moreover, faith, and
faith in Christ, is the principle which constitutes Christ's
Church. Therefore, Peter was appointed to be the
rock of the Church, on account of his faith in, and
public confession of, the divinity of Christ In other
words, our Lord founded His Church upon Peter,
who had solemnly professed his faith in His divinity.
Peter, then, is the rock, because he represents and,
in a manner, embodies the principle of faith in Christ.
103 In the course of this Section we will show that by the term
'rock" we must not understand all the Apostles.
104 I Cor. iii. II ; x. 4.
38 The Supreme Authority of tJic Pope.
On this account, some of the Fathers, whilst taking
the rock in its literal sense, at the same time say also
that faith in Christ, or public confession of this faith,
is the rock of the Church. These interpretations, far
from being incompatible, rather are naturally implied
each in the other, and serve to bring out the full
import of the words of Christ. What wonder, then,
if in the fourth and fifth centuries, when Arianism
impugned the divinity of Christ, and attempted to
shake the rock of the Church, the Fathers lifted up
their voice, and denounced the heretics as destroyers
of the Church for the Church, as they teach, is built
on the rock of Christ, on the confession of His divinity ?
In speaking thus, they did not reject the literal sense
handed down by the tradition of the first three centuries,
which they themselves had already repeatedly set forth
in their writings. But in opposing the Arian heresy
and its offshoots, they preferred to aim a blow against
it by the use of the mediate, indirect, and relative
interpretation. A few passages of the Fathers will
serve to confirm our statement.
IV. Indeed, the Fathers expressly distinguish be-
tween the primary and the secondary rock on which the
Church is founded. u On this rock," says St. Jerome,
"the Lord founded the Church; from this rock the
Apostle, St. Peter, obtained his name. . . . The
foundation which the Apostle, as an architect, laid down,
is none other than our Lord Jesus Christ. On that
foundation, firmly set in its own massive strength, the
Church is built." 105 Now this passage of St. Jerome by
lor> S. Hieronymus : 1. iii., Conun. in Matt. vii. 25, 26 (Op., t. vii.
Edit. Vallarsii, p. 42). " Super hanc petram Dominus fundavit
Ecclesiam, ab hac petra Apostolus Petrus sortitus est nomen . . .
fundamentum quod Apostolus Architectus posuit, unus est Dominus
noster J. C. Super hoc fundamentum stabile et firmum ct per se
robusta mole fundatum, jedificatur Christi Ecclesia."
Divine Institution of t/ic Primacy. 39
no means implies the exclusion, but, rather, the de-
velopment of another passage in the same'commentary,
where he says : " To Simon, who believed on the rock
which is Christ was given the name of Peter. And,
in accordance with the metaphor of a rock, is it justly
said to him, 'I will build My Church upon thee.'" 10G
In both these passages the doctrine is the same : Christ
is represented as the fundamental rock of the Church,
the rock which draws its strength from itself. But still
it is stated that the Church is built on St. Peter; that
St. Peter was the rock of the Church, but not the
independent rock not the rock solid and massive in
its own strength, but the rock which owes its stability
to the fundamental rock on which it rests. The doctrine
of the other Fathers is in perfect harmony with that of
St. Jerome. "Although," says St. Basil, "Peter is the
rock, he is not the rock as Peter ; for Christ is really
the unshaken rock (Xp/d-o; yap w~u; -srpa drfaXsyroj), but
Peter by reason of the rock (x'srpo; ds dia rr,v x'erpav).
Because Christ bestows His gifts, not as parting with,
but retaining what he bestows." 107 St. Gregory of Nyssa
expresses the same view when saying that Simon " was
perfected by faith, and having cleaved to the rock,
became a rock " (ertXsiudri d;a r?j; -/crswc, y.ai --pofftpuGiz r?j
xsrpq, clrpo; s/si/sro). 108 The same is the sentiment of
Asterius : " He (Christ) who is truly the first, was cast
"' S. Hieronymus : In Matt. xvi. 18, p. 124.
Basilius : Horn, dc Pocnit, n. 4 (Op., t. ii. Edit. Maur,
Parisiis, 1722, p. 606). Although Gamier and Tillemont doubt
whether this homily is to be ascribed to St. Basil, yet many
critics consider it genuine ; and Gamier himself maintains that it
must have been written by some cotemporary bishop against the
Novatians and Montanists. (See preface in t. ii., Op. S. Basilii,
sec. vi., p. xviii.)
108 St. Gregory Nyss. : Horn. xv. in Cant. Cantic (Op., t. i. Edit.
Migne, p. 1088).
40 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
down, as some vast and strong stone, into the hollow of
this world ; t>r, as David says, into this vale of tears.
. . . But with a like appellation did our Saviour
also adorn that first of His disciples, denominating him
the rock of the faith." 109 The same is inculcated by St.
Ambrose : " Christ," he says, " is the rock . . . but He
did not refuse to bestow this title even upon His disciple,
so that he, too, might be Peter, on account of deriving
from the rock solid constancy and firmness of faith." 110
All the Fathers speak in the same sense when they un-
derstand the rock to mean St. Peter's faith. Without
faith in the divinity of Christ, Simon would not have
become Peter, the rock of the Church. Therefore, the
faith and the confession of St. Peter are the true rock
of the Church ; and on this account the Fathers, even
in the Council of Ephesus, call St. Peter the rock and
pillar of the Church, the rock and pillar of the con-
fession ; and for that reason they say that Christ laid
the foundation of the Church on the confession of St.
Peter. 111 This explanation may be confirmed by the
words of the author of the first sermon on Pentecost,
who, speaking of the Church, says : " Christ did not
build upon a man, but upon his faith." 112 Neither does
the doctrine of St. Augustin, if looked at in its true
light, differ from that common to all antiquity. In
fact, he says : " Rock is a principal name ; therefore,
109 S. Asterius : 1. c.
110 S. Ambrosius : Exposit. in Lucam, 1. vi., n. 97 (Op., t. i.,
Edit. Maur, Parisiis, p. 1407).
111 These words are of St. Chrysostom. Horn. Ixxxii. al. Ixxxiii.
in Matt., n. 3. Edit. Maur (Op., t. vii., p. 786), and in I. Epist. ad
Galat., n. i. (t. x., Op., p. 657). The same Doctor had called Peter
rock of the faith, &c., as in Horn, de Deb. decent Talent, n. 3 (t. iii.,
Op., p. 4), and in Horn. Contra Ludos, n. i. (t. vi. Op., p. 273). For
the passages of the other Fathers, see Ballerini, De vi ct ratione
Primatus, t. i., c. xii., sec. i., p. 67, seq. Edit. 1770.
112 Sermo i. in Pentec. (in t. iii. Op. S. Chrysostomi, p. 790).
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 41
Peter is denominated from the rock (Pctrus a petrd),
not the rock from Peter (nou Pctra a Pctro). . . .
'Thou art Peter,' said Christ, 'and on the rock which
thou didst acknowledge when saying, "Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living God," I will build My
Church.'" That is to say: I will build My Church
upon faith in the Son of the living God ; I will build
thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. 113 Thus St
Augustin, with all the other Fathers, acknowledges
I. That Peter, by his name, derives his strength and
firmness from Christ, who of Himself is the true and
self-subsisting rock. 2. That the first foundation of the
Church is Christ, not Peter. 3. That Peter became
the rock of the Church by being founded on Christ,
and by the public confession of His divinity. Now, the
doctrine of Peter being the head of the Church rests
upon these three points ; the doctrine which the Catholic
Church has ever taught, and which she will teach till
the end of the world. Innocent III. summarily ex-
presses it in the most explicit terms. " Although," says
he, " the first and principal foundation of the Church be
the Only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, according
to the Apostle (i Cor. iii. 2), yet the other, and secon-
dary foundation of the Church, is Peter." 114 But, more-
over, what doubt can there be about the mode in which
the word rock must be taken in the text under conside-
ration, when the Universal Church has invariably and
solemnly declared that she understands it of St Peter?
In two Councils those of Ephesus and Chalcedon
the literal interpretation was assumed as true without
the least contradiction. In the Council of Ephesus,
Philip, the legate of the Roman see, openly asserts that,
" St. Peter is the prince and the head of the Apostles,
113 S. Augustinus : Serin. Ixxvi., n. i. (Op., t. v., Edit. Maur,
p. 290.)
114 Innoccntius III.: Epist. ccix. Reg., 1. ii., Pontific, an. ii.,
A.D. 1198.
42 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
the pillar of the faith, the foundation of the Catholic
Church." 115 And in the Council of Chalcedon, Pascha-
sinus and Lucentius, the papal legates, made the same
declaration, calling St. Peter, " the rock and ground-
work of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of
the orthodox faith." 110 Moreover, the rock is understood
of Peter in the well-known formulary of faith set forth
by Pope Hormisdas to the Eastern Church after the
schism of Acacius. 117 This formulary was received and
signed by all the patriarchs and bishops of the Oriental
Church ; and in the Eighth CEcumenical Council it was
again confirmed by all the Fathers, both of the Latin
and Greek Churches. 118 So that, as Bossuet remarks,
that formulary may be said to be sanctioned by the
whole Catholic world. 119 In the face of all this evidence,
how can Mr. Palmer, Dr. Browne, and their followers,
believe it to be " proved incontestably that the Church
has not received any certain Apostolical tradition as to
the meaning of this part of the text ? " (Matt. xvi. i8). 12(>
115 (Labbe, t. iii., Cone. Ep/i., act. iii. Edit. Venetiis, p. 1153.)
TLsrpoc o s^oipxpz '/.at TtspaXJi ruv a-ooT&'/.wv, 6 y.iuv TY^ c/ffrew;, <>
^s/AsXiog rqg ?ca^oA//c?5 s
no "Oc (llfrpoc) son v'-rpa, xai
/.at TTjg opMo'g'/jc xfarsus o SS/AS>./O;. (Labbe, t. iv., Cone. Chalced.^
act. iii., p. 1305.)
117 " Non potest D. N. J. C. prastermitti sententia dicentis :
Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam."
(Labbe, t. v., in libello Joan. Episc. Const, ad Hormisdam, p. 622.)
Denzinger, Enchiridion. Edit. 1865, p. 49.
118 Cone. viii. CEcnm., act. i. (Labbe, t. x., p. 497.)
119 Bossuet : Defensio Dccl. Cleri GalHcani, pt. ii., 1. xv., c. vii.,
p. 338, t. ii. Edit. Basil, 1733. " Hasc professio fidei ab Hormisda
Pontifice sic data ab omnibus Episcopis Orientalibus, eorumque
antesignanis Constantinopolitanis Patriarchis est rccepta. Qua de
re Occidentales Episcopi, prassertim Gallicani, multum in Domino
collsetantur, ut certum sit, hanc formulam a tota Ecclesia Catholica
comprobatam."
120 p a i mer : Treatise on the Church of Christ, vol. ii., 1. c.,
p. 375. Browne : Op. cit, 1. c., p. 808.
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 43
V. Mr. Palmer, however, following- in the footsteps of
Bloomfield, Rosenmiiller, Bengel, Kuinoel, &c., in order
to get rid of the difficulty, adduces a new interpreta-
tion. He thinks that, " St. Peter was the rock on
which the Church was founded, because he was the
first who professed his faith in Christ, and who first
preached to the Jews," &c. 121 Now, the first reason given
by Mr. Palmer in support of his opinion amounts to
this : Christ, in order to reward the faith of Peter, who
was the first to believe in His divinity, appointed him
a rock that is to say, the first who believed in His
divinity. Idem per idem. But on what grounds is it
asserted that the rock implies only that St. Peter was
to be the first to preach to the Jews ? Their interpre-
tation is said to be suggested by the authority of the
Pseudo-Ambrose, and of Tertullian, in a passage
written after he had fallen into the Montanist heresy.
But even if those two ancient writers had ventured
on such an interpretation, what weight would their
authority have had in comparison with all Catholic
antiquity, which knows nothing of it ? Besides, we need
not allow ourselves to be moved by the words of Ter-
tullian, when, in the Book DC Pudicitia (c. xxj.) he
says that the Church was built through Peter, not on
Peter ; for this same Tertullian, while yet a Catholic,
and even after his fall, often stated that the Church
was built on St. Peter, not through him. 122 Moreover,
Tertullian, in the above-quoted passage, intends to
defend the capital error of his sect ; and, therefore, he
no less than the Anglicans, both of the High and of
m Palmer : 1. c., p. 376.
122 DC Prescript., c. xxii., t. ii., Op. Edit. Migne, p. 34. Adv.
Marcioticui, 1. iv., c. xiii.. Op., t. ii., p. 387. And in the very book,
De Monogiimiii, written by him when a Montanist (c. viii., t. ii..
P- 939)5 he says : " Ecclesia supra ilium Kdificata est."
44 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
the Low Church at the present day was in the same
necessity of repudiating the primacy of St. Peter in
order to justify his schism and heresy. But what shall
we say with regard to the passage alleged from the
Pseudo-Ambrose? We say: i. That it is not of Pseudo-
Ambrose, but of St. Maximus Taurinensis. Had Mr.
Palmer looked at the works of St. Ambrose, edited
by the learned Benedictines of St. Maur, or at the
splendid edition of the writings of St Maximus pub-
lished by Pope Pius VI., he would have found the
words he has quoted. 123 2. We may say that the passage
cited by Mr. Palmer is a patent proof of the real
primacy of St. Peter, and as such it was quoted by
Pius VI. himself in his dedicatory preface, addressed
to the King of Sardinia. 124 In fact, our adversaries
quote the first part only of that passage, and thus
distort its meaning. St. Maximus says : " St. Peter,
on account of the solidity of his steadfastness (to Christ)
is called the rock of the Church, as our Lord declares,
'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My
Church.' For he is called rock, because he was the
first to lay the foundations of the faith among the
nations, and because, like a universal rock, he binds
together (or encloses) the compacted mass of the whole
structure of Christianity. Peter, therefore, is called a
rock on account of his steadfastness ; while the Lord
is called a rock on account of His power." 125 Now this
123 S. Maximus Taurinensis Episc. : Horn. Hienial, horn. liv. de
S. Petro Apost., p. 169. Romas, 1784. The Maurists put only the
title of that sermon in the Index Sermonum prcctcrmissorum. (Op.
St. Ambrosii, t. ii., App., p. 378.)
124 Op. cit, p. iv.
125 petrus pro soliditate devotionis Ecclesiarum petra dicitur,
sicut ait Dominus : tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo
Ecclesiam meam. Petra enim dicitur, eo quod primus in nationibus
fidei fundamenta posuerit, et tanquam saxum immobile totius operis
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 45
passage contains three parts ; Mr. Palmer and his
friends quote the second only, detached from the con-
text, and thus have falsified its meaning. St. Maximus
says : " Peter is called a rock, because he was the first
to lay the foundations of the faith among the nations ;"
and Mr. Palmer, who, with Bloomfield and Alford,
followed in the footsteps of the Rationalists of Germany,
explains the denomination given to Peter by his being
the first preacher to the Jews, as well as to the Gentiles.
But the text under consideration has an entirely different
purport. St. Maximus, after mentioning the great grace
which St. Peter received when, "As a good shepherd,
he received the flock in his keeping . . and became the
support of all men, so as to be able by the firmness
of his faith to establish the rest," proceeds to explain
the reason for which he was gifted with such a privilege,
and he discovers it in the depth of his devotedness to
Christ, for which, he says, he was called the rock of
the Church. But what is the meaning of that designa-
tion ? St. Maximus says that it implies two things :
(i.) St. Peter's public confession of the divinity of
Christ, for this, being the first made to the world, was
the foundation of the Church, which rests on the faith
of Christ's divinity ; (2.) his supremacy, by which,
" like a universal rock, he binds together the compacted
mass of the ivliole structure of Christianity'' That is
to say, St. Peter, whilst he gave a beginning to the
Church by his public profession of faith in Christ's
divinity, became, by the favour of Christ, the centre
and stay of unity in the Universal Church. Therefore,
the doctrine of St. Maximus is in accordance with that
of all the Fathers, and declares evidently the supremacy
Christiani compaginem molcmque contineat. Pctra autem pro
dcvotione Pctrus dicitur et petra pro virtute Dominus nuncupatur."
1. c.
46 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
of St. Peter. But that Anglicans may have a still
stronger proof of this, we invite them to read the
following words of St. Maximus, Sermon Ixxxix. : " Our
Lord," he says, "entered the one boat of the Church,
in which Peter was appointed the pilot, when He said,
'On this rock I will build My Church.'" 126 Thus,
according to the doctrine of St. Maximus, when Christ
said to St. Peter, " On this rock," &c., He intended to
appoint Peter the pilot, or supreme ruler of the Church.
He intended to entrust to him the helm of the whole
Church, as he speaks in another sermon. 127 So that,
in the universal perdition of the world, they only
will be saved who are received into the bark of St.
Peter. 128
VI. From all this, we may conclude that the above-
mentioned interpretation given to the rock by the
Rationalists of Germany, and the High Church party
of England, was unknown to antiquity, and rests only
on the fancy of those who first devised it. On the
contrary, the Catholic interpretation of the rock, which
implies St. Peter's primacy, is not only supported, as
we have seen, by St. Maximus, but by the concurrent
voice of all ancient Catholic writers ; since all assign
this sense to the words addressed to St. Peter by our
Lord. And the Fathers undeniably teach that by the
Church being built upon St. Peter, Christ set forth
the origin of unity. So St. Cyprian. 129 "That St. Peter,
126 "Hanc igitur solam Ecdesiae navem ascendit Dominus, in
qua Petrus Magister est constitutes, dicente Domino : Super hanc
petram aedincabo Ecclesiam meam." Serin. Ixxxix. de Divcrsis,
p. 641.
127 "Quantum igitur meriti apud Deum suum Petrus erat ut ei
post naviculs parvae remigium, totius Ecclesise gubernacula tra-
derentur?" Serm. Ixx., p. 225. Edit. cit.
128 " Quas navis in altum sasculi ita natat ut pereunte mundo,
omnes quas suscipit, servet illassos." Serin. Ixxxix., 1. c.
129 S. Cyprianus : Epist. Ixxiii. Edit. Baluz., p. 131.
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 47
through the superiority of his faith, received on him-
self the building of ; the Church." So St. Basil too. 130
"That since Christ told Peter, 'On this rock I will
build My Church/ where Peter is, there is the Church,
where the Church is, there is no death, but eternal
life." Thus St. Ambrose. 131 Moreover, the Fathers
considered the name of rock given to Peter in connec-
tion with the stability and strength which accrues to
the Church from that foundation ; and this is in accord-
ance with what Christ says in the same place : " And
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." In this
sense St. Peter is styled by St. Hilary, the "happy
foundation of the Church, and rock worthy of the
building of that which was to destroy the rule of hell
and the infernal gates, and all the bars of death." 132
St. Epiphanius calls him, " the first of the Apostles, that
firm rock upon which the Church of God is built, and
against which the gates of hell shall not prevail : The
gates of hell are heretics and heresies." 133 In the
same spirit, St. Asterius, after having said that Christ
called Peter rock of the faith, adds : " Through Peter,
who became a genuine and faithful doctor of religion,
the stability of the Church is preserved incapable of
fall and unswerving. . . . Nothing was seen to be
more powerful than the bulwark set up by God
50 S. Basilius : Adv. Eunomium, 1. ii., n. 4 (Op., t. i., p. 240.
Edit. Maur).
131 S. Ambrosius : In Ps. xl., n. 30 (Op., t. i.. p. 879. Edit.
Maur). " Ubi Petrus ibi et Ecclesia."
!2 S. Hilarius : Conun. in S. Matt, xvi., n. 7. Edit. Maur,
P- 749-
133 S. Epiphanius : In Anchorato, n. 9 (Op., t. ii. Edit. Petavii,
p. 14). See also Origencs penes Euscbium H. E., 1. vi., c. xxv.
Edit. Valesii, p. 227. Greg. Nyss. : Orat. de S. Stephano (penes
Gallandi, t. vi., p. 600). S. Hieronymus : 1. i., contra Pelagianos,
n. 14 (Op., t. ii., p. 707). S. Chrysost. : Homil. liv. al. Iv. in Matt,
n. 2 (Op., t. vii., p. 547, seq).
4$ The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
because it is the edifice of the faith which had been
built by the holy hands of the first of the Apostles." 134
St. Avitus, 135 and many other Fathers, speak in the
same manner. Finally, Caius Marius Victorinus, in*
quiring into the cause why St. Paul went up to
Jerusalem in order to see St. Peter, says : " For if the
foundation of the Church was laid on Peter, as is said
in the Gospel, Paul knew for all things had been
revealed to him that he ought to see Peter, as one to
whom so great authority had been given by Christ ;
not as though he could learn anything from him." 136
St. Chrysostom speaks in the same sense of the name
given by Christ to His disciple, "A name of power
and authority which was to represent the office with
which he was to be invested." 137 It is then unquestion-
able that, according to the judgment of all antiquity,
St. Peter, in virtue of his being called the rock, became
the centre of unity in the whole Church, the source
of its power and strength, the ruler of the whole body,
with full authority even over all the princes of the
Church. Nor does St. Peter's supremacy imply any-
thing more than this. Thus the objections of the
134 S. Asterius : Horn, viii., /;/ SS. Petnnn ct Paulum (Edit.
Migne, t. xl., PP. Grace., p. 268-69).
135 S. Avitus : Fragm. i. (in Gallandi, t. x., p. 746).
130 Victorious: /// Epist. ad Galat., i. 15 (penes Mai, Scrip.
Vet. Nov. Collec., t. iii., pt. ii., p. 9). " Si in Petro fundamental!*
Ecclesias positum est, ut in Evangelic dictum, cui revelata erant
omnia, Paulus scivit videre se debere Petrum, quasi eum, cui tanta
auctoritas a Christo data esset, non ut ab eo aliquid disceret."
137 Ou ya.p s/crsi/ (Joa. i. 24.), 'Eyw fc /xsrovo/x/affw Hsrpov, xa/
ftov n|v 'ExxX^tf/av SKI rr, -zrpa, raur??, aXXa ffu x
aj. *Exs7vo yap alti&vriac. r t v /:/ s^outf/ac /&f/ovof. *O 6s
TiMy ru'Trzivorzpov (p^zyye-ai .... ctco ruv Kpay/Aaruv ra ovo/uara
rftz<&ai o-rrsp ^'/jcro-j xa/ 'll>./a; cgco/jxg. S. Chrys: /fcw*. xviii. al.
xix. in Joan., n. 2 (Op., t. viii. Edit. Maur, p. 112-13).
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 49
Anglicans, and all who agree with them, against Peter's
supremacy, as established by the text of St. Matt. xvi. 1 8,
come to naught. And this is the more clear since the
Fathers give the denomination of rock, as well as that
of head of the Church, promiscuously to St. Peter,
deriving this designation from the image of the human
body by which the Church is represented. "The
Church," says St. Jerome, "is founded upon Peter,
although, in another place, this selfsame thing is said
of all the Apostles . . . nevertheless, for this reason,
out of the twelve one is selected, that by the appoint-
ment of a head the occasion of schism may be re-
moved." 138 St. Peter, then, by being appointed the
rock of the Church, was constituted its head, as the
centre and stay of its unity. The other Fathers hold
the same view, 139 and the Council of Ephcsus itself
allowed the Legate of the Holy See to call St. Peter,
not only the rock, but the head of the Apostles (xKpal.ri
ruv 'A-TorfroXwv). 140
VII. But it is not only on the words of St. Matthew
xvi. 1 8, that we rest the supremacy of St. Peter and
his successors. The nineteenth verse of the same
chapter, and the other two classical texts in St. John
xxi. 15 17, and St. Luke xxii. 31, 32, afford the most
solid and evident demonstration of our doctrines. But
as we do not intend to write a treatise on this subject,
we cannot dwell at length on each of these passages ;
we shall therefore confine ourselves to a few short
remarks on each point. Now, as regards the passage
of St. Matthew xvi. 19, it is evident that Christ our
138 S. Hieron. : Adv. Jov., 1. i., n. 26, p. 279 (Op., t. ii. Edit.
Vallarsii).
139 S. Optatus Mil. : DC Schism. Donat., 1. ii., c. ii. " In qua
(cathedra) sederit omnium Apostolorum caput Petrus." Edit.
Migne, p. 947.
140 Cone. Ephcs., act. iii. (Labbe, t. iii, 1. c.).
E
5O The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
Lord addressed to Peter these words : " I will give
unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, ami
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
shall be loosed in heaven." Christ had told Peter in the
preceding verse that He would build His Church upon
him, as upon an immovable rock ; He now confers on
him, under another image, the same power and
authority or, rather, He invests him with the supreme
and monarchical office closely connected with his
supremacy in the Church. Now, a key has always
been considered a symbol of power and authority ; and
therefore, the presentation of a key to a person was
the recognised form of investing him with that power
and authority. 141 He who possesses the key has the
power of admitting into the house, and excluding
therefrom, and hence is the master of the house. God
spoke of Christ by the prophet Isaias : " The key of
the house of David I lay upon His shoulders : He shall
open, and none shall shut ; and He shall shut, and none
shall open." 14 ' 2 In the Apocalypse, Christ is called,
" He that has the keys of David : He that opens, and
no man shuts; and shuts, and no man opens." 143
Now, if we compare these two passages with another
of Isaias where he says, "The government shall be
upon His shoulder," 144 we shall easily understand that
the key on Christ's shoulder means His supreme and
ruling authority over that kingdom which was given
to Him by His Divine Father. St. Peter was endowed
by Christ with the same power in the Church. Thus
141 This principle is fully acknowledged by Dr. Bloomfield in
his note on St. Matt. xvi. 19, p. 99. Edit. cit. And with him arc
all the learned Protestants.
142 Isaias xxii. 22.
143 Apoc. iii. 7.
144 Isaias ix. 6.
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 51
Christ, being the primary and original rock of the
Church, communicated to His disciple the solidity of
that rock, that Peter might become the foundation of
the Church. Christ possessed in His own right the key,
as badge of supreme rule in the Church, and He shared
His own authority with His disciple, that Peter might be
the visible and outward ruler of the Church, of which
Christ, remaining in heaven, was to be the invisible and
inward governor ; that Peter might govern the Church
as vicar and representative of Christ, whilst Christ was
to govern it as its Lord and God. Now the Fathers
are unanimous in asserting that in the above-quoted
passage, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with the
power of binding and loosing in heaven and on earth,
were given to Peter directly and immediately. " Re-
member," says Tertullian, " that the Lord in this place
left the keys of heaven to Peter, and, through him, to
the Church." 145 Optatus of Milevis likewise expresses
the same doctrine : " Blessed Peter," he says, " both
merited to be preferred before all the Apostles, and
alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that
he might communicate than to the rest. 1 *** Neither does
St. Augustin enunciate a different doctrine when he
says : " Some passages are found which seem to relate
to Peter, but which, nevertheless, have no clear meaning,
unless by reference to the Church, of which he is ac-
knowledged to have been the personification in figure,
on account of the primacy which he had amongst the
146 Tertullianus : Scorpiace, c. x. Edit. Migne, p. 142 (Op., t. ii.).
* Memento claves ejus (coeli) hie Dominum Petro, et per eum
Ecclesiaj reliquissc." See also DC Prescript, c. xxii. (t. ii., Op.,
P- 34)-
140 S. Optatus Mil. : DC Schismate Doiiat., 1. vii., c. iii. (Edit.
Migne, p. 1087, t. xi., PP. LL.). u B. Petrus et praferri Apostolis
omnibus meruit, et claves regni coelorum communicandas creteris
solus accepit."
E 2
52 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
disciples; as for instance: 'To thee I will give the
keys of the kingdom of heaven.'" 147 Thus the gift of
the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter, implied
his primacy and supremacy over the Church, by reason
of which he represented the Church ; and the keys
given to him were to be communicated to the Church
itself, of which he was head and leader. "The Church,"
says the holy doctor, "of which St. Peter, on account
of the primacy of his Apostleship, bore the figure, re-
ceived from Christ the keys of the kingdom of heaven. " 14s
But the keys, as the same Father asserts in another
place, were given to Peter, and to Peter alone (illi nni).
The divine institution of the primacy in the Church was
intended, as we have before said, to maintain unity.
Hence St. Cyprian says : " First to Peter, upon whom
He built the Church, and from whom He appointed
and showed that unity should arise, the Lord gave
this power that what he should have loosed on earth
147 S. Augustinus : In Ps. cviii, n. I (Op., t. iv.,pp. 910-11). " Sicut
cnim qucedam dicuntur quae ad Apostolum Petrum proprie pertincrc
videantur, nee tamen habent illustrem intellectum, nisi cum re-
foruntur ad Ecclesiam, cujus ille agnoscitur in figura gestasse
pcrsonam, propter primatum, quern in discipulis habuit : sicuti est,
* Tibi dabo claves regni ccelorum."
148 Serm. clxix., n. 4 (Mai Nova Biblioth. PP., t. i., p. 380).
u Ecclcsia cujus Petrus propter primatum Apostolatus, nguram
gerebat, claves a Christo regni ccelorum accepit." St. Augustin
frequently alleges that St. Peter represented the Church, on
account of his supremacy, as a king represents his nation. See 1. ii.
DC Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. i., n. 2 (Op., t. ix. Edit, cit.,
p. 65). In that place he says: " Apostolum Petrum, in quo pri-
matus Apostolorum tarn excellent! gratia praeeminet . . . Ouis
nescit ilium Apostolatus principatum cuilibet episcopatui pra^fe-
rcndum ?" Moreover, in the Scrm. Ixxvi., c. ii., n. 3 (Op., t. v..
1>. 291), he says: "Petrus a petra cognominatus beatus, Ecclesia-
riguram portans, apostolatus principatum tcncns"
149 Serm. cxlix., c. vi., n. / (Op., t. v., p. 492).
Di\'inc Institution of the Primacy. 53
that should be loosed in heaven." 1 -'' All the old
Catholic writers speak in the same manner. That this
is true of the Greek Fathers, may be seen by reference
to the passages quoted from Firmilian, 151 Origen, 152 St.
Chrysostom, 153 St. Basil, 154 St. Gregory of Nyssa, i:>:>
St. Gregory Xaxianzen, 150 and many others, down to
Photius himself, who could not but own that to Peter
the keys were committed, and the guardianship of the
gates of heaven. 1 "' 7
VIII. But, as already remarked, so long as Christ
our Lord was upon earth, ruling His disciples as their
sovereign head and divine master, He did not confer
upon Peter the authority which He had promised him
i: ' S. Cyprianus : Epist. Ixxiii. ad Jnbaianuin, p. 131. Edit.
Balut
1 '' Firmilianus : Epist. ad S. Cyprianum (inter Epist. S. Cypr.
Ixxv., p. 148). "Soli Petro Christus dixerat : ' Tibi dabo claves,
&c.' ; '
1:>2 Origcncs : Tom. xii.. in Matt., n. 11 (Op., t. iii. Edit. De la
Rue, p. 525-26), et t. xiii., n. 31, pp. 613-14. id/cf, rnro Tpor'sraxrui
l-t -t)\) \i=Tp(j-j ro, Aouffw 601 ra-; /./.?:: -r,c jSaaiXsiaz ruv ovpavZj';
- . . . 6J yap os.iyrt diapopd rov Hsrpov S/AT^SVCC/ rue y./.s/'o'a.c
Sjy. '],}>; r,-jpa>ti, a/.7.a x/.smuv. This then, according to Origen,
is the difference between St. Peter and the other Apostles.
15:5 S. Chrysostomus : Horn. liv. al, lv., in Matt, n. 2 (Op., t. vii.,
PP- 547-48).
" >4 S. Basilius : In Proccuiio dc. Judicio Dt'i\ n. 7 (Op., t. ii., p.
1: ' 5 S. T.reg. Nyss. : DC Castigatwnc (Op., t. iii. Edit. Mignc,
]>. 311). &t& Tltrpov tittKt -rf; S-IG-/.(J~OI: rr.v '/.'/.-Tda ruv farovpavfott
lt; S. Greg. Naz: Cannin, 1. i., sec. ii.. Poem. Moral, in landau
Virginitatis, vs. 488, 489 (Op., t. ii. Edit. Caillau, 1840, Parisiis,
P- 3^4).
1; ' : Photius : Epistolar^ 1. i., epist. viii., n. 26 (Op., t. ii. Edit.
Migne, p. 661). OiJrw Tlzrfxjz 6 xopufa/bz rw axoarfo.uv, xai ruv
c, -/.^T: ifMn*iar*Vf*iH>t 7-ut rr t v s'/tiodov . . . ovruz
/v, o'Jrwr ^.a/V, T^?; fttr ixs/vou;,
54 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
as the rock and supreme ruler of the Church ; but
immediately before leaving this world and ascending
into heaven, He actually committed to the Apostle's
hands the government of His Church, that he might
discharge in it the office of visible head. We read
this in the Gospel of St. John, xxi. 15 17. Christ
appointed Peter universal shepherd to feed His whole
flock ; but as the manifestation of a sublime faith had
been required before his establishment as the immovable
rock of the Church, so now an extraordinary charity,
surpassing that of his fellow Apostles, was exacted, in
order that he might be invested with the title of
shepherd, which so specially belonged to his Master.
This was, in truth, one of the most glorious titles under
which the Divine Saviour had been prophetically an-
nounced in the Old Testament. u I raise one shepherd
over them," said God, by the mouth of Ezechiel, "and he-
feeds them, even my servant David. He shall feed them,
and he shall be their shepherd." 158 " He shall feed his
flock like a shepherd," is the prophecy of Isaias ; " He
shall gather together the lambs with his arm, and shall,
take them up in his bosom." 150 He is also presented
under the same figure by others of the prophets, as
Micheas and Osee. 100 And the Divine Redeemer chose
that one title before all attributed to Him by the
prophets, and was pleased to call Himself a shepherd
"I am the Good Shepherd." 101 He represented His
disciples and followers a. c . His sheep, who hear His
voice, 102 promising to bring all His sheep into one fold,,
that there might be one fold and one shepherd ; 103 lastly,.
as a good shepherd, He laid down His life for His.
sheep. 164 Now this favourite title He gives to Peter
158 Ezech. xxxiv. 23. li9 Isaias xl. ii.
150 Michaeas v. 4. Osee iii. 5. 1Gl S. Joan. x. 1114.
183 S. Joan. x. 27. 1(r> S. Joan. x. 16. 1M S. Joan. x. u.
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 55
to whose care He intends to commit His whole flock,
placing it under his rule. " Feed My lambs, feed My
sheep." That charge, thrice repeated by our Lord to
Peter, regards Peter, and Peter alone, because it refers
to him who was thrice asked: "Simon, son of Jona,
lovest thou Me more than these ? '' Moreover, the power
here conferred is no more limited than is the number
of those over whom it is given ; and " My lambs," " My
sheep," comprise not only all the faithful, but even
the Apostles themselves, as belonging to the flock of
Christ : so that Christ entrusted His sheep to Peter
without any exception or limitation whatsoever. Thus,
by those words, our Lord invested Peter with authority
over the whole body of the Apostles ; that is to say,
He appointed him oecumenical pastor. Such is the
doctrine taught by the Fathers both of the East and
of the West. St. Ephrem speaks of the flock com-
mitted to St. Peter's care, as spread over the whole
world, and of St. Peter being their pastor and their
head. 105 " To him," writes St. Epiphanius, " was com-
mitted the flock : he leads the way admirably in the
power of his own master." 166 St. Chrysostom, com-
menting on these words of St. John, speaks yet more
forcibly. "Why," he says, "passing by the rest, does
He discourse with Peter concerning these things ? He
was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of
the disciples, and the head of the company. For this
cause, also, did St. Paul take his journey and visit him
before the rest. And, withal, showing him that hence-
forth he must have confidence, for his denial has been
done away with, Christ places in his hands the empire
iGa p enes Assemani : Bibl. Orient., t. i., p. 95.
106 S. Epiphanius : /;/ Anchorato, n. 9 (Op., t. ii. Edit. Pet.,
p. 15)- *O fWFHtmtfM96f rr t v fot/jtvqv 6 xaXuz odr,yuv sv r
56 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
over the brethren." 167 Hence the saint concludes :
"Should anyone say, 'Why then did James receive
the episcopate of Jerusalem ?' this is my answer : that
He appointed Peter, teacher not of that church, but
of the habitable globe." 168 St. Asterius is still more
explicit on this point. "When our Saviour," he says,
" was about to sanctify the human race by a voluntary
death, he commits the Universal and Oecumenical CJinrck
as a special trust to Peter, after having thrice asked
him, 'Lovest thou me?' But as he readily replied to
these three questions by as many confessions, he re-
ceived the world in charge, as it were one fold under
one shepherd; having heard 'Feed My lambs/ &c." 1(!1 '
We shall mention, later on, the letter of the Eastern
bishops to Pope Symmachus, as well as the Libel Ins
Prccum presented by the Bishop of Dora to Pope
Martin I., both of which express the like view. It
would be useless to bring a catena of Fathers of the
Latin Church in support of this doctrine. Some we
have already quoted. We promised to be brief in
this matter ; and so we shall be content \vith adding
the words of St. Ambrose only. " The Lord," he says,
"does not doubt: He puts a question, not in order
to learn, but to teach him, now that He is about to
be raised to heaven, whom He would leave unto us
as the vicar of His own love. . . . And therefore,
167 Horn. Ixxxviii., in Joan., n. I (Op., t. viii, p. 5-5)- ly
rrtv Tpodraaiav ruv adiXfiuv fpotaraffo ruv
It is surprising to find Mr. Palmer quoting the second part of this
passage of St. Chrysostom in order to show that we cannot rely
on the words of St. John with regard to St. Peter's supremacy. It
is lost labour to read the Fathers merely in the light of pre-
conceived opinion.
168 Ibid. n. i, p. 527.
109 S. Asterius : Horn, viii., in SS. Pctrnm ct Pauhim. Edit.
Migne, cit., p. 281.
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 57
because he alone of all makes this profession, he is
preferred before all, for his love is greater than that
of all. . . . And now he is ordered to feed His
lambs ; not only His younger sheep, as in the second
instance, but also His sheep, that the more perfect
may govern the more perfect." 170
IX. From what we have briefly stated in the two
preceding sections, it appears evident that "there is
something in the Apostolic system which gives an
authority to the Pope over the Church." And the
patrons of Tract XC. would have found it, had they
studied that system with more care and freedom from
prejudice. Doubtless, all the Apostles were entrusted
with the power of binding and loosing ; but Peter, and
Peter alone, received the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
All were to concur in laying the foundation of the
Church of Christ ; but Peter, and Peter alone, was to
be its rock. All the faithful were to be founded upon
the Apostles ; but the Apostles themselves, together
with all their several flocks, were to be grounded on the
great rock, Peter. All the Apostles were sent to feed
all nations with the doctrine of Christ ; but Peter alone
was to be the supreme and oecumenical pastor over the
whole world. All nations were the sheep of the Apostles ;
but all nations, together with their pastors, were to be
the sheep of Peter, since all the sheep of Christ, without
exception, were committed to him. Such truly is the
doctrine expressed by the Fathers on the inequality of
the Apostles with reference to St. Peter's supremacy.
"To Peter," remarks St. Cyprian, "He says, after His
resurrection, ' Feed My sheep.' Upon him, being one,
He builds His Church, and though He gives to all the
Apostles an equal power, and says, 'As My Father sent
170 S. Ambrosius : Comm. in Lucam, 1. x., n. 1/5-76 (Op., t. i.
Edit, cit., p. 1542).
58 77/6- Supreme Authority of the Pope.
Me, &c.,' yet, in order to manifest unity, He has by
His supreme authority so placed the source of the same
unity as to begin from one." 171 Origen, 172 St. Basil, 17 *
St. Gregory Nazianzen, 174 St. Optatus of Milevis, 175 St.
Ambrose, 176 St. Jerome, 177 St. Augustin, 178 St. Leo, 17d
St. Asterius, 180 and other Fathers bear witness, precisely
and definitely, to the same doctrine. Indeed, there is
no Father who has ventured to ascribe either to indi-
vidual Apostles, or to the Apostolic College, the titles
assigned by Christ to Peter ; but on him, in order to
show his real pre-eminence and authority over his
fellow Apostles, they lavish the most singular expres-
sions of praise. 181 Moreover, regarding St. Peter as
the head of the Apostolic College, they represent the
power of the Apostles to be derived from him, and to
171 S. Cyprianus : DC Unitatc Rcclesia', p. 195. In many MSS.
and editions, after the quoted words we find " Et primatus Petro
datur, lit una Christi Ecclesia et cathedra una monstretur."
172 Origenes : In Matt., t. xiii., n. 31 (Op., t. iii., p. 613).
173 S. Basilius : Scrm. vii., n. 5 (Op., t. iii., p. 508, et in Prof.
</i* Judicio, n. vii. (Op., t. ii., p. 221).
174 S. Greg. Naz. : Orat. xxxii., n. 18 (Op., t. i. Edit, cit, p. 591).
175 S. Optatus Mil. : De Sch. Don., 1. ii., c. ii., p. 947. Edit.
Migne.
176 S. Ambrosius : Comm. in S. Lucam, 1. x., pp. 175-6 et 1542
(Op., t. i.).
177 S. Hieron. : Adv. Jovin., 1. i., n. 26 (Op., t. ii. Edit.
Vallarsii, p. 279).
178 S. Aug. : Scrm. xlvi., c xiii., n. 30 (Op., t. v., pp. 168-69).
179 S. Leo: Serm. iv., c. ii. (Op., t. i. Edit. Ball, p. 16); EpisL
xiv., c. xi., p. 691, seq.
180 St. Asterius : Scrm. viii.. cit. Edit. Migne, p. 268, seq.
181 The Greek Fathers called St. Peter Kpurov, rbv psyiffroVf
rbv (Azyav /car ^o^r t v' rov Kpoxpirov, rov a^aaff/ov, rbv xavivdo^ov,
rravaytov ; ap^qyov ruv avrov /za0?jrwv, Kpordp-^ov rojv Xo/crwv
acroffro'?.wv, r.opvpaiorarov xai ^po6rdrr,v ruv axoarfauv. The Latin
Fathers have the like expressions. See Father Schrader, S.J., De
Unitatc Ecclesice Romance, 1. i.. c. iv., n. viii., pp. 166 68, in notis.
Edit. Friburgi, 1862.
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 59<
flow from the head into the whole body. 182 Thus
antiquity has ever expressed its deep and immovable
conviction that the Apostolic Church was not founded'
on the principle of the equality of the Apostles, but on
the basis of the supremacy of St Peter. The Catholic
writers of antiquity always regard the supremacy of
St. Peter as a supremacy of Jurisdiction, between which
and a supremacy of Order a broad distinction is con-
stantly drawn. All the Apostles were equally bishops,
in virtue of the ordination received from Christ ; they
were also equally endowed with the power of the
Apostolate, in virtue of the mission entrusted to them
by Him. Peter, therefore, in respect of Order, had the
same Apostolic commission with the others, since,,
no less than the rest of the twelve, he was a bishop
and an Apostle ; but he was superior to all, in respect
of Jurisdiction whereby he was independent of all,
while on him all were dependent ; so that they
were unable to exercise the office of their mission
unless in connection with, and in subordination, to him.
Nevertheless, the Apostles had received from Christ such
extraordinary privileges and universal power, that the
Apostolic age constituted in a manner an exceptional
state in the government of the Church, and one not
destined to last beyond their lifetime, while the powers
conferred on them for the government of the Church
episcopacy and supremacy were intended to be per-
manent. The first of these was to represent the
source and the perfection of Order; the second the
fountain-head of Jurisdiction. St. Peter and his suc-
cessors were not to be superior to other bishops as
182 S. Optatus Mil. : 1. vii., DC Sch. Don., c. iii., pp. 1081 88 ;
S. Leo, Epist. x., ad Episc. Vicn., n. i. (Op., vol. i. Edit. Ball.,
p. 633); Epist. v., Siricii papae, n. i. (Constant., p. 651) ; Epist.
ii., Innocentii I., n. ii. (Constant., p. 747), et Epist. xxx., n. ii.
(Coustant. p. 899) ; Epist. v., Xysti III., n. iii., p. 1255, c.
60 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
regards the episcopal character, which in virtue of
sacramental ordination they received from God, but by
virtue of their supreme jurisdiction, whereby the rest
were to be kept in subordination and unity. Thus did
the Apostolic government prefigure and foreshow the
system of government instituted by Christ for His
Church. But the ordinary and regular government
must be distinguished from that which is extraordinary
and exceptional. The Apostleship, indeed, conferred
on the Apostles extraordinary and exceptional powers
in connection with their universal mission, in union
with Peter and in subordination to him : but the
Apostleship had only one definite task to perform, that
of laying the foundations of the Church. Those once
laid, the Apostleship gave way to the ordinary and
regular government, and the bishops who succeeded
the Apostles saw the sphere of the exercise of their
power limited by the boundaries of their dioceses ; 183 as
was, in fact, the case even with the Apostles after the
division of provinces. 184 No bishop but one ever
183 That the bishops Avho succeeded the Apostles were bound
to confine the exercise of their power within a limited field, appears
not only from the absence of any proof to the contrary, but also
from the positive evidence of passages both of the Scripture and
of the Fathers. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians i. I.,
Timothy is called, " Our Brother unto the Church of God, which
is at Corinth.'"' Moreover, the bishops never pretended to act
authoritatively in any other diocese but their own. Thus we may
quote St. Ignatius the martyr, Epist. ad Ephcs., capp. iii., iv. (Edit,
jacobson, pp. 270 72); ad Magn. cap. ii., iii. (p. 308 12); ad
Trull., capp. i., iii. (pp. 334 36), &c. St. Dionysius of Corinth
writes to other churches, only because he was asked by their bishops
(Euseb., 1. iv., c. xxiii. Edit. Valesii, p. 145).
m After the division of the provinces in which the Apostles
were to preach the Gospel, they did not exercise their Apostolical
power in a province different from their own unless exceptionally,
as in a case of heresy. See Schelestrate : Antiquitas Ecclesia,
t. ii., dis. ii., c. ii., p. 85, seq. Edit. Roma?, 1697.
Divine Institution of the Primacy. 61
claimed universal power in the Church, as having
succeeded to the Apostles ; but the Bishop of Rome, as
successor of St. Peter in the supreme rule, maintained
and enforced his power in the Universal Church. He
has never ceased to proclaim himself the centre and
the visible head of the Church, holding the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and entrusted with the care
of the whole flock of Christ ; while the bishops through-
out the Church, primates and patriarchs, successors of
Apostles in Apostolic sees, did not oppose his power ;
nay, they submitted to it. Is this not an evident
demonstration of the divine institution of the primacy
of St. Peter and his successors ?
SECTION III.
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY PROCLAIMED BY PREDE-
CESSORS OF GREGORY I., AND BY THAT GREAT
POPE HIMSELF.
!. DR. PUSEY, in the usual tone of Protestant sectarians,
complains of the excessive extension of the Pontifical
power, and of the practical system of Rome, which,
with great simplicity, he attributes to the false de-
cretals. 185 He, therefore, pretends to believe that the
supremacy established by Christ, and exercised by the
Roman Pontiffs over the Universal Church, is one of
.the great corruptions of the Roman communion. For
this reason, he and his whole party, like other Pro-
testant writers from the beginning of the Reformation
.down to our own time, agree in appealing to the Achilles
^of their arguments namely, that St. Gregory refusec
to assume the title of oecumenical pastor, after having
condemned the assumption of it by the Patriarch o
Constantinople. 186 In the opinion of Dr. Pusey anc
his followers, this fact presents an insurmountable
obstacle to any justification of the progress and growth
of Papal authority, for, as they conceive, it shows that
St. Gregory, with his predecessors and his successors
till the age of the forged decretals, disclaimed any
supreme authority over the Universal Church ; since
unless the predecessors of St. Gregory had, at least
practically disclaimed such supreme authority in the
Church, the expressions used by that Pope would be
of no avail to prove that a doctrinal change on this
165 Eirenicon, p. 237, seq. ls6 Ibid, Postscriptum, pp. 30914.
Claims of Predecessors of Gregory I. 63
rpoint was forced upon the Church by the Pseudo-
Isidorian forgery. It is strange that hereditary opinions
can so far distort the testimony of antiquity in the eyes
of Protestants, who so constantly and so boldly appeal
to its decision. An ordinary acquaintance with the
authentic letters of the early Popes might at least
have taught them that these venerable pontiffs con-
ceived themselves to be jure divino heads of the
Church. But, in truth, the study of antiquity is often
neglected, even by those who are foremost in ascribing
to it doctrines which it utterly repudiates.
II. Let us examine the original letters, 187 by which
the Popes exerted their prerogative of governing the
whole Church, from the commencement of the series at
the close of the fourth century. What are the views ex-
pressed in them ? what authority do they claim ? Upon
what ground do the Popes rest their power and their pre-
rogative ? First, Pope Siricius (385 398) shall answer,
speaking as follows to the Bishop of Tarragona : " We
bear the burdens of all who labour, or rather the blessed
Apostle Peter bears them in us, he who in all things,
.as we trust, protects and defends us, the heirs of his
administration." 188 And he declares that he had been
entrusted with the care of all the cJinrclics of which
the Roman Church was the head. 190 Innocent I. (402
417) expresses the same conviction when he says, that
applications had been made to him as to the head and
apex of the episcopate ; 191 and he asserts that the
episcopate itself, and all the authority of the Roman
187 The letters of the Popes for the first three centuries are
lost ; their regular series commences with Pope Siricius.
188 S. Siricius : Epist. i., n. I (Coustant., p. 624).
169 Ibid., Epist. vi., n. I (Coustant., p. 659).
190 Epist. i., cit., n. 20 (Coustant., p. 637).
101 S. Innoccntius I. : Epist. xxxvii., n. i (Coustant, p. 910).
'"Ad nos quasi ad caput atquc ad apicein episcopatus referre."
64 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
See, owes its origin to the Apostle Peter. 192 Pope
Zosimus (417 418) writes still more clearly on the
authority of the Apostolic See. He declares that such
was its authority, that no one might venture to question
its judgment ; that St. Peter himself was the fountain-
head of this authority, which, therefore, descended from
him and rested on the divine promises made to him. 193 "
In like manner, Boniface I. (418 422) inculcates this
truth throughout his fifteenth letter, wherein he solemnly
declares that the care of the Universal Church was en-
trusted to St. Peter, who was its rock ; and that hence
the authority of the Roman See embraced both East
and West : 194 for which reason he calls it the head of
all the churches spread over all the whole world. 195
Celestine (422 432) makes use of similar language to
express the s-ame doctrine as to his Pontifical authority,
which, as he says, extends its care wherever the name
of God is preached. 190 And, accordingly, he wrote in
192 S. Innocentius I. : Epist. xxix., n. i (Coustant., p. 888).
u Scqui desideramus Apostolum ... a quo ipsc cpiscopatus
et tota auctoritas hujus nominis emersit."
193 S. Zosimus : Epist. xii., n. I (Coustant, p. 974). " Traditio
Patrum Apostolicae sedi auctoritatem tantam tribuerit, ut de ejus
judicio disceptare nullus auderct ... a quo (Petro) ipsa quoque de-
scendit ... ex ipsa quoque Christi Domini nostri promissione ut
ct ligata solveret . . . cum tantae auctoritatis Petrus caput sit, c."
194 S. Bonifacius I. : Epist. xv., n. I (Constant., p. 1039).
" Manet B. Petrum Apostolurr per sententiam dominicam univer-
salis ecclesiae ab hoc sollicitudo suscepta ; quippe quam, Evangelic
teste, in se noverit esse fundatam : nee unqtiam ejus honor vacuus
potcst esse curarum, cum certum sit summam rerum ex ejus deli-
beratione pendere."
195 S. Bonifacius I. : Epist. xiv., n. i., p. 1037. " Hanc (Eccle-
siam Komanam) ergo Ecclesiis toto orbe diffusis velut caput
suorum certum est esse membrorum."
19C S. Ccelestinus : Epist. iv., n. i (Constant., p. 1066). " Circa
quamvis longinqua spiritalis cura non deficit, sed se per omnia,
qua nomen Uci praedicatur, extendit."
Claims of Predecessors of Gregory I. 65
this sense to the people of Constantinople, when they
were rent asunder by the perverse doctrines of Nestorius.
He reminds them that "His daily pressure of toil was the
care of all the churches ; so that, having learnt that his
members were being rent asunder by perverse doctrines,
he was inflamed with paternal solicitude for them, feeling
the heat of the fire which was burning them, . . . since
they were his bowels." 197 Sixtus III. (432 440), his
successor, bears witness to the same doctrine, saying
that " The blessed Apostle Peter had transferred to his
successors what he had received." Whence he con-
cludes : " Who then would separate from the doctrine
of him, whom the Master Himself declared to be the
first among the Apostles?" 198 But the works of Pope
Leo the Great (440 461) are, throughout, full of the
great idea of the dignity conferred on the See of Rome,
and of its universal divine authority over the whole
world. 199 This great Pontiff carefully laid down the
distinction between the hierarchy of Order and that of
Jurisdiction. He shows the Apostolic See to be that
centre whereon the care of the universal Church rests,
and with which nothing should be at variance.' 200 He
197 S. Coelcstinus : Epist. xiv., n. I (Coustant., p. 1131).
198 S. Xystus III. : Epist. vi., n. 5 (Coustant., p. 1260).
199 S. Leo I. : Epist. v., c. ii. Edit. Ballerini (Op., t. i., p. 617).
" Per omncs Ecclesias cura nostra distenditur, exigente hoc a nobis
Domino, qui Apostolicae dignitatis B. Apostolo Petro primatum,
fidei suae remuneratione, commisit, universalem Ecclesiam in
fundament! ipsius soliditate constituens."
200 S. Leo I. : Epist. xiv., ad Anast. Episc. Thess., c. xi. (Op.,
t. i. Edit. Ball., p. 691, seq.). " Haec connexio totius quidem
corporis (Ecclesiae) unanimitatem requirit, sed pnecipuc exigit
concordiam sacerdotum, quibus cum dignitas sit communis (the
power of Order), non est tarn en ordo generalis (the power of Juris-
diction), quoniam et inter Beatissimos Apostolos in similitudine
honoris fuit quaedam discretio potestatis, et cum omnium par esset
clectio, uni tamcn datum cst ut caeteris prseemineret. De qua
forma quoque Episcoporum estortadistinctio, et magna ordinatione
F
66 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
wrote to the metropolitans of Illyricum : " Whereas our
care extends to all the churches, this being required of
us by the Lord, who committed the primacy of the
Apostolic dignity to the most blessed Apostle Peter,
in reward of his faith, establishing the Universal Church
on the solidity of him the foundation, we are associated
in that necessary solicitude which we feel for those
who are joined with us in the charity of (episcopal)
fellowship." 201 Were we in need of further testimonies,
the letters of St. Leo would furnish us with many more
quotations. Nor do the successors of St. Leo fail to
employ similar language. It is useless to multiply
extracts from their letters, when each and all agree in
solemnly maintaining the fundamental idea that the
flock of Christ spread over the whole world the Universal
Church was committed by Christ to the paternal care of
St. Peter and his successors. We can refer to St. Sim-
plicius (468483) ; 202 St. Felix III. (483492) ; 203 St.
provisum est, ne omnes sibi omnia vindicarent, sed essent in
singulis provinciis singuli quorum inter fratres haberetur prima
sententia : ct rursus quidam in majoribus urbibus constituti sollici-
tudinem susciperent ampliorcm, per quos ad unam Petri sedeui
universalis Ecclesice euro, conflueret^ et nihil usquam a suo capitc
dissiderct." In Serm. iv., c. ii. (Op., t. i., p. 16), he says, " Quamvis
in populo Dei multi sint sacerdotes, multique pastores ; omnes
tamen proprie regat Petrus, quos principaliter regit ct Christus."
201 S. Leo I. : Epist. v., ad Episcop. Metrop. per Illyricum
constitutes, c. ii., p. 617.
- 02 S. Simplicius : Epist. iv.. ad Zenonem Imp. (Labbe, t. v.,
p. 98). " Perstat in successoribus suis (Petri) ha:c et eadcm
Apostolicce norma doctrinas, cui Dominus totius curam ovilis in-
junxit." See also Epist. x., ad Zenonem Imp. (Labbe, 1. c., p. n6\
203 S. Felix II.: Epist. i., ad Zenonem Imp. (Labbe, 1. c.,
p. 143-44). " Postquam . . . ministerii, quod regebat (Sim-
plicius) ad meas humilitatis officium giibcrnacula pervenerunt, in
diversas generalis Ecclesiac curas, quas ubique terrarum cunctis
populis christianis summi Pastoris voce delcgante, B. Petrus
Apostolus pervigili moderatione dispensat ; continue me sollicitudo
Claims of St. Gregory the Great. 67
Gelasius (492496) ; 204 St. Anastasius II. (496498) j 20 ''
St. Symmachus (498 5I4); 206 St. Hormisdas (514
523 ; 207 and many others who, in unbroken succession,
defend the dignity and the authority of the Apostolic
See : and, as we hope to show in the next section, their
acts were in accordance with their words.
III. Now, after reading this series of the testimonies
of Pontiffs, predecessors of St. Gregory L, it seems
strange to hear from the High Church writers, and from
Protestants of every shade, that before the seventh
century the Popes had no thought of claiming supreme
authority in the Universal Church. It is childish to
think that the objection made by St. Gregory the
Great to the use of the title "oecumenical bishop,"
is an unanswerable refutation of the divine supremacy
of the Pope in the Universal Church, when we know
that a long line of preceding Pontiffs had publicly and
explicitly proclaimed the opposite doctrine. But did
maxima . . . urgebat tarn Alexandrine urbis quam status totius
oricntalis regionis cxcepit."
- 04 S. Gelasius : Epist. v., ad Horn. Dalmat. Episc. (Labbc,
t. v., p. 298). " Pro sedes Apostolicse moderamine totius ovilis
Dominici curam sine cessatione tractantes, quam B. Petro Salvato-
ris ipsius nostri voce delegata est." And in Epist. xii., ad sEonium
.1 ?-</. Episc. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 324). " Ouanto totius ovilis curam
Christo Domino delegante, susceptam B. Petri Apostoli gubernatio
principals universe gregi debet in orbe terrarum, tanto pietatis
affectu, cunctas Ecclesias, earumque rectores amplectitur, c." See
;ilsn Kpist. viii., ad Anast. Imp. (Labbe, 1. c., pp. 308 311).
. Anastasius : Epist. i., t uf . InasL Imp. (Labbe, t. v.,
p. 406). ' ; Sedes B. Pctri /;/ universali Erclesia assignatiini sibi
a Domino Deo tenet princifKUum?
)G S. Symmachus: Epist. viii., <ni Orientates (Labbe, t. \. ;
p. 433). Its words in the next section.
Ul the letters of Pope Hormisdas are evidently written
under the conviction of the supreme authority of the Roman Sec
over the whole Church. Sec 7T/vV. \ii.. xi. xiv. (Labbc. t. v..
pp. 574. 586, 588590).
F 2
68 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
St. Gregory the Great in any wise contradict the
teaching of his predecessors ? We deny it ; and un-
equivocally maintain that this great Pope ever spoke
in harmony with all the other successors of St. Peter,
both when stating the character of the Papal authority,
and when condemning the term of " universal bishop."
Unquestionably, St. Gregory uniformly held the same
view as to the authority of the Apostolic See over the
Universal Church. In fact, he called that see "Head
of all the Churches* Head of the Faith" so that other
churches, according to his view, formed its body and
were its members ; but the health of the body, and
all its members, depended upon the soundness of the
head. 209 For this reason he frequently and repeatedly
inculcated in his letters that his Pontifical cares ex-
tended over the Universal Church, since he occupied
the Apostolic See which is raised above all the
churches ; 210 that hence no bishop, when rebuked or
corrected by the Supreme Head of the Church, could
refuse subjection to him. 211 Moreover, he intimated
that the universal authority of the Pope is derived
from the prerogatives divinely conferred on St. Peter; 21 ' 1
208 S. Gregorius I. : Epist., 1. xiii., epist. xlv., capit. ii. (Op., t. ii.
Edit. Maur, Parisiis, p. 1254). "Apostolica sedes omnium Eccle-
siarum caput est."
209 S. Gregorius I. : Epist., 1. xiii., epist. Ivii. (1. c., p. 1244).
210 S. Gregorius I. : Epist., 1. iii., epist. xxx. (1. c., p. 645) ;
Epist., \. v., epist. xiii. (1. c., p. 737) ; Epist., 1. vii., epist. xix. (1. c.,
p. 865), &c. " Cunctarum Ecclesiarum injuncta sollicitudinis cura
constringet."
211 S. Gregorius I. : Epist., 1. ix., epist. lix. (1. c., p. 976). " Si
qua culpa in episcopis invcnitur, nescio quis ei (Apostolical Sodi)
episcopus subjectus non sit."
212 S. Gregorius I. : Epist., 1. v., epist. xx., ad Manrit. Imp.
(1. c., p. 748). " Cunctis Evangelium scientibus liquet quod vocc
Dominica sancto et omnium Apostolorum Petro Principi Apostolo
totius Ecchsitc cura commissa est. Ipsi enim dicitur, &c. (Joan.
Claims of St. Gregory the Great. 69
so that in some places he speaks of the Apostolic See
under the name of St. Peter. 213 And when Eulogius,
the Patriarch of Alexandria, declared his conviction
that " Peter was still living in his successors in the
Roman See," St. Gregory replied that he had been
extremely delighted with this expression of the Egyp-
tian Patriarch concerning the Chair of St. Peter, the
Prince of the Apostles, to the effect that he still
continued to sit therein in the person of his successors. 21 *
Thus docs St. Gregory speak of the authority of the
Apostolic See. His claims are seen to be neither
wider nor more restricted than those of every one of
his predecessors and of his successors down to the
present day.
IV. After having perused the foregoing testimonies,
taken from the works of St. Gregory, the reader may
be at a loss to account for the stress laid by Dr. Pusey
upon certain passages of that Pope's writings quoted
by him in his Eirenicon. He informs us that St.
Gregory used the following expression : " Christ Him-
self (the Mediator between God and man) is that rock
from which Peter received his name, and upon which
He said that He would build His Church." And in
.another place : " It is now said to the Universal Church,
'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,' &c." 215 He
adds that St. Gregory spoke as follows in one of his
xxi. 17, Matt. xvi. 18, Lucas xxii. 31.) . . . Ecce claves regni
c<.L-lestis accepit, potestas ei ligandi et solvendi tribuitur, euro, ei
tot ins Ecclesicc ct principatus committitur?
al3 S. Gregorius I. : Epist., 1. vi., epist. liv., Iv. (1. c., pp. 831,
832)-
4 S. Gregorius I. : Epist., 1. vii., epist. xl. (1. c., p. 887, seq.).
"Suavissime mihi sanctitas vestra multa in Epistolis suis de S.
Pctri Apostolorum Principis cathedra loquuta est, dicens, quod ipsa
in ea mine usque in suis successoribus sedeat"
- 15 Eirenicon : Postscriptum, p. 309.
70 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
letters to the Patriarch Eulogius : " And thus, though
the Apostles be many, yet the see of the Chief of
the Apostles, which belongs to one, though it is in
three places, alone prevailed in authority, by virtue
of the headship of that one. For it is he who exalted
the see in which he also condescended to take his
rest, and finish the present life. It is he who adorned
the see, to which he sent the Evangelist, his disciple,
It is he who established the see, in which he sat for
seven years, though he was to leave it Inasmuch,
then, as the see, over which by divine authority three
bishops now preside, is one man's, and one, whatever
good I hear of you I lay to mine own account/' 210
'Now by all these extracts Dr. Pusey intends to prove
that when St. Gregory maintained that the only head
of the Church is Christ our Lord, and that the sees
of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, are equal in
authority, he shows himself to hold doctrines un-
favourable to the claims set forth on behalf of Papal
supremacy as a divine institution. But the author
seems not to understand St. Gregory's doctrine aright
For the holy Father's teaching on the point is that of
all antiquity, the doctrine of the Catholic world, the
teaching of the whole line of Pontiffs down to the
present day. Christ is, indeed, the principal and
invisible head of the Church ; He is the primary founda-
tion of it, whereon Peter was set to be a secondary
foundation, from Whom the Apostle received his name,
his strength, and his stability. We have already set
forth this doctrine according to the mind of the
Fathers, and we have shown that Peter's divine
supremacy not only does not exclude this principle,
but rather implies it as a necessary complement
What wonder then if, in the words of St. Gregory, ,
210 Eirenicon, Postscriptum, pp. 308, 309.
Claims of St. Gregory the Great. 71
" St. Paul rejects the idea of members of the Lord's
body being subjected to certain heads, as it were,
beside Christ (extra Christum), and that even to the
Apostles themselves, as leaders of parties (ipsis Apostolis
snbjici partialitcr cvitavit)" &c. 217 St. Gregory, indeed,
with the rest of the Fathers, following in the footsteps
of the Apostles, represents the Church as the mystical
body of Christ, of which He is the head. In this point
of view the faithful cannot be under other heads who
are not in unity with Christ, who are separated from
Him as independent parts detached from the whole
(partialitcr) ; they are to be under Christ, the supreme
head, and to be joined to Him as His members, but
they cannot be members of Christ if they be subject
to such as are in no connection with Christ, to such
as set themselves up as principal head, each inde-
pendent of any other. For Christ is found in unity,
not in division. Is Christ divided ? His mystical
body is one, and none can be under Him, as divine
head, unless he be a member of His body. Therefore,
St. Gregory, regarding the Apostles and Peter himself
from that point of view, declares them to be all
members of the Holy Universal Church, all members
under one head. Surely all the Apostles, and Peter
their chief, in comparison with Christ, were but His
members ; not one of them is the head, all are built
upon Him He is the foundation. This doctrine of
St. Gregory is no other than that of the Fathers, and
of the whole Catholic Church. But is it inconsistent
217 S. Gregorius : Epist., 1. v., epist. xviii. (t. ii., p. 743) ; and
Dr. Pusey, 1. c., p. 313. We do not approve of the version adopted
by Dr. Pusey and others, of the words of St. Gregory, "extra
Christum " (besides Christ). St. Paul, speaking of members of the
mystical body of Christ, meant nothing by " extra Christum," but
"out of Christ;'' that is to say, detached from the union of the
mystical body.
J2 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
with the doctrine of St. Peter's supremacy in the
Church ? In St. Gregory's opinion it was not.
V. It is undeniable that in this same series of
letters he asserts, and in the most explicit terms, the
doctrine of St. Peter's supremacy. To call this in
question would betray a complete ignorance of what
the illustrious Pontiff again and again 'repeats con-
cerning the prerogatives of St. Peter and his see of
Rome. The extracts given above suffice to prove
beyond all possibility of cavil that on this point his
faith was identical with that of all Catholics. We
now invite attention to St. Gregory's epistle to the
Emperor Maurice, some passages of which we quoted
in the earlier part of this section. " All who know
the Gospel," he says, in this epistle, "are aware that,
by the divine word, St. Peter, the Prince of all the
Apostles, was entrusted with the care of the whole-
Church ; because to him were addressed the words we
read in St. John xxi. 17, St. Matt. xvi. 18, St. Luke xxii.
31, "&c. 218 Therefore, according to St. Gregory's principles,
St. Peter was appointed head over the whole Church,
in order to rule it in virtue of authority received from
Christ. And the Pontiff, after having quoted the
passage from St. Matthew, proceeds in the same place :
" Peter received the keys of the kingdom of heaven ;
on him is conferred the power of binding and loosing ;
to him is committed the care and the Princedom of
the whole Church." He inculcates the same doctrine
in another of his letters, when he says : " Peter certainly
received power over the heavenly kingdom, so that
whatever he binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed
in heaven." 219 Again, Peter is directly and explicitly
affirmed to be the foundation of the Church. " Who
218 See No. 212 of this section.
219 Epist., 1. xi., epist. xlv. (1. c., p. 1129).
Claims of St. Gregory the Great. 73
docs not know," he says, "that the Holy Church is
founded on the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles?" 2 ' 20
All must perceive by these extracts from St. Gregory's
letters that his teaching on this point is the very same
as that of the whole Catholic Church in all times.
His doctrine can be summed up in these few proposi-
tions : Christ is the principal head, and the primary
foundation on which the Church was built ; Peter,
therefore, with respect to Christ, is the secondary head
and the secondary foundation ; but with respect to the
Church, he is its head and its foundation, himself being
founded on the solidity of the corner-stone, Christ
our Lord. Again, St. Gregory repeatedly asserts that
Peter received from Christ the keys of the kingdom
of heaven ; but he does not, nor can he, deny, that the
power of the keys was committed by Christ to the
whole Church in union with Peter as its head. Because,
first, although to Peter in an especial manner, as to
the supreme ruler of the Church, Christ addressed
the words recorded in St. Matthew xvi. 19, yet on
another occasion the words, " Whatsoever you shall bind
on earth shall be bound in heaven," &c. (Matt, xviii. 18),
were spoken by Him to the Universal Church united
to its head, and represented by the whole Apostolic
College. Secondly, even when Christ gave to Peter
the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he conferred that
power on him as the head and supreme ruler of the
Church. When the head of the Church received that
power, the Church received it in and through him.
Therefore the Fathers, and especially St. Augustine,
say : " The Church received in Peter the keys of the
kingdom of heaven." 221 On this account, St. Gregory
220 Epist., 1. vii., epist. xl. (1. c., p. 888).
221 S. Augustinus : Tract, cxxiv., in Joan., n. 5 (Op., t. iii.,
p. 599. Edit. Antwerp.).
74 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
could safely assert : " It is now said to the Universal
Church, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,'" &c.
St. Augustine adds, by way of explanation, " That St.
Peter then represented the whole Church in virtue of
the character he bore." 2 But if we inquire what was
that character, the same doctor answers that it was
his supremacy ; a remark which he repeats over and
over again throughout his works. 223
VI. As regards the words of St. Gregory's letter
to the Patriarch Eulogius, concerning the three sees of
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, it is evident that that
passage has been entirely misunderstood. For how
else could such a stress have been laid on it as tending
to show that St. Gregory was at variance with the
teaching of the Holy Catholic Church concerning the
Papal supremacy? In that passage St. Gregory declares
and explains the origin, the authority, and the final
scope of the institution of the patriarchal sees. It
cannot be denied that no other churches were in early
times denominated patriarchal but those which had
been established by the Prince of the Apostles, or by
his care and authority. Hence, three only were regarded
as patriarchal churches namely, those of Rome, of
Alexandria, and of Antioch. It is for this reason that
the Council of Nice alludes to them in its sixth canon.
Later, the Church of Constantinople was by a special
privilege raised to this rank in the Second (Ecumenical
Council, as was that of Jerusalem at the Council of
Chalcedon. But even after this addition, the first three
were still considered as properly patriarchal churches,
from the fact of their having been instituted by St.
Peter. Moreover, these three churches, in virtue of
222 S. Augustinus : 1. c.
223 S. Augustinus: Serm. Ixxvi., n. 3 (Op., t. v., p. 596), De
Baptismo contra Donat.; 1. ii., n. I (Op., t. ix., p. 181-2) ; In Ps.
cviii., n. I (Op., t. iv., p. i?33)j & c -
Claims of St. Gregory the Great 75
their origin and privileges, had authority and jurisdic-
tion over certain other churches, which regarded the
patriarchal see as their immediate 'source (up'/j,) from
which they derived their origin, and as their centre,
with which they were connected, and through which
they were kept in unity. And certainly the communion
of all the churches with Rome through the union of
the patriarchal sees with the See of Peter was the
essential and immediate effect of the institution of the
patriarchates. St. Gregory, in the letter quoted above,
most distinctly points out that end. He moreover
expresses the same view in another letter to the same
Patriarch Eulogius ; 2 ' 24 and in a third epistle, addressed
to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, he com-
pares the three patriarchates with the leaven which a
woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the
whole was leavened (St. Matt. xiii. 33). 225 But notwith-
standing this, St. Gregory knew very well that although
each of the Patriarchal sees was the apyji of the inferior
churches comprehended within the limits of its jurisdic-
tion, yet, as regards the Church Universal, Rome only
the Apostolic See, not the united patriarchal churches
was the aptf, of all other churches, to which all other
patriarchs were subject. Hence, as has been said, he
called the Roman See head of all the churches, head of
the faith, divinely raised above all the churches, and
224 S. Greg. : Epist., 1. vi., epist. Ix. (1. c., p. 836). " Longe a
nobis non sumus qui unum sumus. Hanc autem esse nobis cum
coeteris fratribus communem semper optamus. Est autem aliquid
quod nos erga Alexandrinam Ecclesiam quadam peculiaritate con-
stringit et in ejus amore proniores existere speciali quodammodo
lege compellit. Nam sicut omnibus liquet, quod B. Evangelista
Marcus a S. Petro Apostolo Magistro suo Alexandriam sit trans-
missus, sic hujus nos magistri et discipuli unitate constringimur,
ut et ego sedi discipuli praesidere videar propter magistrum, et vos
sedi magistri propter discipulum."
225 S. Greg. : Epist., 1. v., epist. xliii. (1. c., p. 772).
76 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
entrusted witk the care of all, to which every bishop is
subject, and by which he must be corrected when found
in fault. He therefore maintains that to go to the
Roman Pontiff was the same as to go to St. Peter ; 226
and he declares that for any of the four patriarchs it
would be a grievous scandal to resist the decrees of the
Roman Pontiff. 227 Such was the real teaching of that
great Pope, who is so much venerated both in the
Western and in the Eastern churches : from which it is
apparent that St. Gregory's doctrine on the patriarchal
sees, far from disparaging the supreme authority of the
Papacy, affords it a new light and support.
VII. We will now briefly clear up another difficulty
on which some Protestant writers insist with confidence.
This is based on the great controversy between St.
Gregory and the Patriarch of Constantinople on account
of the title of cecumenical bishop. The point which we
undertake to explain presents a double aspect ; one
concerns St. Gregory's having strongly protested against
the Patriarch of Constantinople for his having assumed
the title of " universal bishop ; " the other regards his
having declined to accept it himself. Now the title of
" universal bishop " has a twofold meaning. The first
implies that there is but one bishop in the whole Church,
in whose person the universal episcopate is comprised,
and, as it were, concentrated. The other asserts a
supreme power over every bishop in the Universal
Church. Unquestionably, in neither of those senses did
the term justly belong to the Bishop of Constantinople,
and if assumed by him in either of these senses it well
deserved to be reprobated in the strong terms employed
by St. Gregory and so carefully repeated by Protestants
when speaking of this matter. 228 In truth, for some
226 S. Greg. : Epist., 1. ii., epist. liii. (1. c., p. 619).
227 S. Greg. : Epist., 1. ii., epist. Hi. (1. c., p. 618).
323 Eirenicon, Postscriptum, p. 310.
Claims of St. Gregory the Great. 77
centuries the Patriarch of Constantinople had mani-
fested a strong tendency to fall into schism : he aimed,
on the one hand, at emancipating himself from the
jurisdiction of the Apostolic See ; on the other, at
subjecting to his power all the churches of the Greek
empire. 229 The history of the fourth and fifth centuries
supplies such evident proof of this assertion as to dis-
pense us from any lengthened demonstration. 230 Such
being the state of things, we need not wonder if St.
Gregory opposed with all his might the assumption
of this title, and called it a puff of arrogance, a proud,
a blasphemous name, the corruption of the Catholic
faith, a harbinger of Antichrist, the invention of the
first apostate, &c. &c. It should nevertheless be under-
stood that when St. Gregory passed so severe a sentence
on the assumption of the title, he considered it not only
as implying order, but also jurisdiction. In illustration
of this we may use one of the passages of St. Gregory's
letters which are used in the Eirenicon : " If one is
universal," he writes to Bishop Eusebius, " it remains
that you are not bishop." 231 This, too, was one of the
reasons for which he refused to assume the title of
universal bishop, which, as he often asserts, 232 none of
his predecessors had ever assumed, although it had
been offered to them by the Council of Chalcedon.
And he intimates repeatedly that if the appellation-
2JO See on this subject the following section, n. vi., seq.
- 3() See Lupus, Scholia ad Can., xxviii., Cone. Chalccd. (Op., t. ii.,
p. 109, seq. Venetiis) ; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, t. i., DC
Patriarch. Constant., c. xii., p. 67, seq. ; Vita S. Grcgorii, scripta.
:i Maurinis, 1. iii., c. i. (in Op. S. Greg., t. i., p. 248, seq. Edit.
Parisiis), c.
J1 S. Gregorius : Epist., 1. ix., epist. Ixviii. (Op., t. ii., p. 984).
52 S. Greg. : Epist., 1. v. } epist. xviii. (1. c., p. 743) ; epist. xx.
(1. c., p. 749) ; epist. xliii. (1. c., p. 771) ; 1. viii., epist. xxx. (1. c.,
), &c.
yS The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
of universal is given to him, all other bishops would
be deprived of their dignity. 233 He means thereby that
should the Pope become universal bishop, by that title
he would absorb all the power of the other bishops, and
concentrate episcopacy in his one person alone. That
would indeed be a subversion of the constitution of the
Church and the overthrow of the primacy itself; for
the Pope is a bishop, and as such he is the equal merely
of every other bishop, his primacy being one of Juris-
diction, not of Order. It is true that the Council of
Chalcedon, when offering this title to the Pope, 234 did
not intend it to be taken in the meaning which is
destructive of the economy of the Church. The Libelli
in which that term occurs did not contemplate any
power of Order, but of Jurisdiction only. Nevertheless,
in this second sense of jurisdiction we should again
distinguish in that title the right which it imparts,
and the honour which it is intended to convey. Now
the Libelli did not mean to impart to the Pope a new
right, especially since the title was not decreed in a
conciliar form. Besides, we have seen already, and will
further prove by fresh evidence, that long before the
Council of Chalcedon the Popes had proclaimed and
enforced their supreme authority over the whole Church.
The council therefore intended to give the Pope a
title of honour only, such as might witness to his
universal jurisdiction. What, consequently, did St.
Gregory decline to assume the right itself of universal
pastor, or the honour of being called by that glorious
title ? Doubtless he could not reject the right, as he
could not fail to know what had been the mind ' of
his predecessors, when he declared the Roman Church
2:33 S. Gregorius : 1. c.
234 This title was given to Pope Leo in some Libelli presented
to the Council of Chalcedon. -See Harduin, Conc. t t. ii., pp. 321,
325, 33i ? 335-
Claims of St. Gregory the Great. 79
to be entrusted with cura omnium Ecclesiarum, and
enforced and used his authority as shall be seen in
the fifth section both over the Greek and the Latin,
churches. And, indeed, it would have been the most
glaring contradiction to refuse on one side the right
of supreme jurisdiction, and on the other to exercise
it over the whole world. It is surprising that none of
the Protestant disputants who have written upon the
subject seem to have recognised the inconsistency.
St. Gregory, in truth, refused the honour only of that
singular title, as he constantly insinuates wherever, in
his letters, he speaks of the offer made in the Council
of Chalcedon. All the letters quoted in the two fore-
going notes prove this nay, even one of his letters
cited in the Eirenicon bears testimony to the same
effect. " How is it," he says in this letter to the
Emperor Maurice, "that while we seek not the glory
of this name, though offered to us, yet another pre-
sumes to claim it, though not offered ? " 235
VIII. But why then did St. Gregory and his
predecessors refuse the title of " universal bishop ? "
After all we have said on the question, further expla-
nation is hardly needed. They refused this honorary
title because they remembered that they were the
vicars of Him who has said, " Learn of Me ; for )
am humble of heart " (St. Matt. xi. 20). Their office was
to inspire their fellow-bishops with the same sentiments
of humility, and they could not have effectually suc-
ceeded in this task, had they coveted so singular a
title ; they recollected the great lesson taught them
by Christ : " He that is greatest among you, let him
do as he that serves" (St. Luke xxii. 26). Having refused
the title of ''universal bishop," they adopted that of
scn'i scrrerum Dei, in order to follow the divine counsel
235 S. Greg. : Epist., 1. v.. epist. xx. (I. c., p. 749).
8o The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
by making themselves the least of all, though superior
to all in power and authority. And, certainly, by thai-
mark of humility alone could the Popes check the
pride and ambition of the Bishops of Constantinople,
who, in opposition to every principle of right and
justice, had usurped the title of " universal," extending
their authority and their jurisdiction beyond all lawful
bounds. How difficult would it have been to overcome
the proud stubbornness of the Greek Patriarchs had
the Popes shown themselves too fond of titles of
honour ? Thus humility and prudence induced the
Popes to abolish that title, which would have added
nothing substantial to their divinely-bestowed authority.
In the next section we shall see how the Popes, and
Gregory the Great himself, acted on the principle of
their divine supremacy, and we shall learn how their
authoritative voice was listened to and obeyed in the
Universal Church. This will cast such a light on the
.subject as to defy contradiction on the part of
Protestants or schismatics of every shade.
SECTION IV.
: SUPREMACY OF THE 1'<>PE EXERCISED OVF.R, AND
ACKXOWLKDCKi) 15V, THE EASTERN CHURCH-
CANON xxvin. OK CHALCEDOX.
I. Xo doctrine in the Church of Christ is so clearly
deducible from the records of ecclesiastical history as
that of the supremacy of the Apostolic See. To deny
this doctrine is nothing less than to gainsay the clear
testimony of indisputable facts and documents. It is
'rising that so many Protestants who pretend to
learning seem unaware of the existence of these historical
evidences, or at least unable to appreciate their import.
But it is yet more strange to see such men labour at
drawing darkness from the clear light of history, and
throwing into obscurity the fundamental doctrine upon
v.hich rests the divine economy of the whole Church.
-t Protestants, probably, and the High Church party
especially, would not attempt to deny that the Popes in
early times exercised a supreme authority over all the
Western Church, but they consider that this authority
enjoyed by the Bishops of Rome in their character
of Patriarchs of the West, having been invested by
the Church itself with supreme power over every parti-
ir church within certain boundaries. Further, they
would not shrink from acknowledging that the Eastern
Church recognised a Papal primacy. Thus far they
.vith us, but they deny that the supreme authority
was exercised and acknowledged throughout the whole
Church, and they maintain that the Eastern Church,
:r having admitted the divine right of the supremacy,
G
82 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
has never varied in her doctrines regarding- it. The
High Church party, therefore, agree with all Protestants
in countenancing the Greek schism, which they unani-
mously attribute to usurpations of the Popes. Dr.
Pusey, who cites the words of the schismatic Bishop
of Zerniza, 230 seems to be of the same mind. But if
history be read in its original sources, it will be seen
how much these writers do violence to its evidences,
and destroy its teachings. We learn, indeed, from Dr.
Overbeck's recent work, that in this the Puseyite party
has for an accomplice the schismatic church of the
East. 237 But in the present section we hope to show,
historical documents in hand, that the divine supremacy
was uniformly and universally acknowledged in the
Eastern Church until the time of its final separation
from the Catholic communion, and that the rulers of
the East, whether ecclesiastical or civil, never disputed
the supreme authority of the Pope.
II. It cannot be questioned that in the fourth century
the supreme authority of the Apostolic See was fully
acknowledged in the Oriental Church. As soon as
the heresy of Apollinaris and his disciple Timothcus
arose at Antioch, the neighbouring bishops sent letters
to Rome to Pope Damasus, requesting the deposition
of these heretics, both of whom were bishops in the
Eastern Patriarchate. Pope Damasus applauded the
bishops for having given to the Apostolic See the
honour which was due to it. 238 He afterwards declares
230 Kircnicon, p. 63.
'-'"" Catholic Orthodoxy and Anglo-Catholicism. By J. F. Over-
beck, D.D. London, 1866.
Js S. Damasus: Epist. xiv., n. I (Constant., p. 571). "Quod
debitam Apostolicae Sedi rcverentiam exhibet caritas vestra, in eo
vobis ipsis plurimum przestatis, filii carissimi." Other facts de-
monstrative of Papal supremacy during the first three centuries,
will be adduced in the volume in which the infallibility of the Pope
Admitted by the Eastern Church. <S3
.that Apollinaris and Timotlicus had already been de-
posed by the sentence of the Apostolic See ; that he
had once for all issued a confession of faith ; and finally,
that. " Whoever professes himself a Christian must keep
\vhat has been handed down from the Apostles. "-''
We here see that even before the Oriental bishops had
applied to Pope Damasus, two of their brethren had
been condemned and deposed by him. In virtue of
what power was this done? Doubtless, in virtue of
that power of holding the helm which, as he himself
intimates, belonged to the bishop who sat in the Chair
of the Apostle Peter,- 40 and by no other authority.
Damasus restored the Patriarch Peter to his see of
Alexandria when he had been deposed by the intrigues
of a certain Lucius.- 41 And in this he followed the
example of his predecessor, Julius ; for when the five
banished bishops St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St.
Paul of Constantinople, Asclepias of Gaza, Marcellus
of Ancyra in Galatia, and Lucius of Hadrianople
being driven from their sees by their opponents, came
to Rome, and appealed to the authority of this Pontiff,
Julius judged their cause with supreme authority, and
finding their profession of faith to be in harmony with
his own, he sent them back with his authoritative
will be treated. For the present, we refer our readers to H.
Hagemann, Die Romischc Kirclie, itud ihr Einfluss auf Disciplin
mid Dogma, pp. 128, 134, 439. &c. Freiburg, 1864.
!:l S. Damasus: n. 2. " Scitote igitur quod profanum ilium
Timotheum Apollinarii hojretici discipulum cum impio ejus dog-
mate damnavimus." ///>/, n. 3, " Quid igitur depositionem
Timothei a me denuo postulatis, qui et hie judicio Sedis Apos-
toliciu . . . depositus est una cum magistro suo Apollinario ?''
See the l*rofrssion of Faith in Constant., p. 518, seq.
- 40 S. Damasus: n. i. " Ftsi maxime in Sancta Ecclesia in
qua S. Apostolus sedens docuit. docet nos quodam modo clavuin
tcnere. quern regendum suscepimus," &c.
- n Socrates : Hist. AVr/V/.. 1. i\ .. c. xx.xvii. Edit. Yalesii. p. 254.
C 2
8-j. The Supreme Authority of the Pope
letters, and restored them to their sees. But Socrates
and Sozomen, who relate this fact, remark that Julius
acted in this according to the prerogative of the Roman
See, since, on account of the dignity of his See, the
care of all belonged to him.- 4 - Thus, two of the earliest
historians of the Oriental Church bear witness to the
fact of the exercise of the supreme Papal authority over
the Universal Church. They acknowledge, as a maxim
universally received, that the care of all belongs to the
Pope ; and they attribute to that supreme authority the
right of judging the causes of the bishops of the East,
and of deposing them from their sees, or restoring them
when unjustly deprived. We 'here have strong evidence
that the Papal supremacy was acknowledged in the
Oriental Church.
III. But proofs still more cogent are not wanting,
in the Council of Ephesus held against Nestorius, the
doctrine of the supremacy over the whole Church is
asserted as plainly as possible, by word and act.
St. Cyril, Patriarch of the most eminent see of the
East, applied to Pope Celestine against Nestorius, the
Patriarch of Constantinople, who, like heresiarchs of
every age, had already appealed to the Pope, in the
hope of gaining authoritative support for his doctrines.
St. Cyril, writing to the Bishop of Rome, uses the
following expressions : " We have not openly and
publicly separated from communion with Nestorius
before making known the whole matter to your Holi-
ness. Be pleased then to prescribe what you think right
to be done. Whether it behoves us to persevere in
communion with him, or to declare openly that com-
munion is impossible with one \vho fosters and teaches
! - Socrates: Hist. Kcclcs., 1. ii., c. viii., p. 91. Sozomen: 1. iii., c. viii.
Edit. Yalesii., p. 507. The words of Sozomen are as follows : ola.
bia
Admitted by the ] Eastern CJinrch. 85
doctrines so erroneous."- 4 :; Thus the Patriarch of Alex-
andria does not take any effectual step against the
heresiarch until he has heard the determination of the
Bishop of Koine, and received orders from him. And
at the same time he declares it to be " An ancient
custom of the Churches, that all affairs of such a
nature should be communicated to the Pope's Holiness,
to whom, of sheer necessity, he feels compelled to
write."- 14 Pope Celestinc, even before having received
the letter of St. Cyril, judged Nestorius, condemned his
errors, ordered him, under pain of excommunication
from the whole Catholic Church, to subscribe the pro-
fession of the Catholic faith, and by writing solemnly
to condemn his novel doctrines. At the same time he-
writes to St. Cyril : " In virtue of authority delegated
to you by our See, and acting in our stead, and by our
commission, you will execute our sentence with exact
severity."- 4 "' We cannot fail to recognise, in the words
of Celestinc, the language in which a superior addre-
-an inferior. The Pontiff, conscious of his full authority
in the Church, passes a solemn sentence, and deputes,
on the one hand, a Patriarch to see to its execution;
on the other, he puts forth a confession of faith, and,
under threat of excommunication, calls upon a second
Patriarch to adhere to the doctrine so set forth. This
- 4; /// Cone. Ephcs.* pt. i., cap. xiv. (Labbe, t. iii., p. 893).
-i>f>-i' r <* <> rr^ -pb; a-j-'w %uvu\,Ia; 5/.-3a/./.r>/zsy ia-jrr/l; psrn
f,r>ia.z <rpiv av raZra rr t nr t %to0tj3ticf aMCXWVMtfCtf/tfrf&X dio o/;
' ' C:
- 4I L. c., p. 889. "<* /xaxta riv ly.'/.'i.Y l rHM i^r, -
-*'' In Labbc, 1. c.. pp. 898, 899. " ( Hiamobrcm nostr.i?
auctoritatc adscita, nostraquc vice ct loco cum potestatc usus
cjusmocli non absque cxquisita sovcritatc scntcntiam cxcqucris," &.c.
86 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
he does, not as a bishop giving friendly counsel to a>
brother bishop, but as the head of the Church, effica-
ciously enforcing his orders, and threatening a guilty
Patriarch with exclusion from Catholic communion.
We here find a plain evidence of Papal supremacy..
Moreover, the Council of Ephesus, which assembled-
in the following year, in the first session promulgated
the Papal excommunication against Nestorius and de-
posed him ; the Fathers of the Council declaring that
they " Were compelled to pass that sentence by the-
canons and by the letters of their most holy father
and fellow-labourer, Celestine, Bishop of the Church of
the Romans."- 4 ' 1 In truth, the Acts of the Council of
Kphesus furnish at every step a clear demonstration
of the Papal supremacy. With what reverence did the
assembled Fathers listen to the letter addressed by
Celestine to the synod ; with what unanimous approval
did they hear that the Pope had already decreed the
condemnation and excommunication of Nestorius !' 247
Then Philip, a priest, legate of the Roman See, re-
turned thanks to the synod, because, as became holy
members, they had, by their voices and acclamations,
united themselves to their holy head ; " For," continued
he, " your blessednesses are not ignorant that the holy
Apostle Peter is the head of the entire faith, and chief,
likewise, of the Apostles." 848 So also in the third session
the legate again made a solemn declaration of the
supremacy of the Holy See. " We do not doubt/' he
says, " nay, rather it is a fact well known in all ages,
that the holy and blessed Peter, Prince and Head of
the Apostles, Pillar of the Faith, Foundation of the
Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ,.
- 4(i Cone. Ephcs.* pt. ii., act. i. ('Labbe, 1. c., p. 1077).
~ 4T Ibid.* act. ii. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 1147).
- 4S Ib'ul. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 1150;.
Admitted by the Eastern Church. 87
the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, the keys
of the kingdom, and that to him power was given to
ls>ose and to bind sins. And Peter has, in his successors,
lived and exercised judgment up to this present da}',
and for all future time will live and judge. Wherefore
the successor of St. Peter, and his representative in the
regular order, our holy and blessed Pope Celestine, has
sent us to the synod to supply his place." 149 When
the legate spoke thus no dissentient voice was raised
in the synod, for the doctrine of the Papal supremacy
was no novelty in the Church, but a matter universally
recognised.
IV. After all this, it is strange to find a passage
<>f the letter addressed by Pope Celestine to the Council
of Kphesus quoted by Dr. Pusey as evidence of the
perfect equality of all bishops, and their absolute inde-
pendence of the Apostolic See. " Pope Celestine de-
clares," he says, " that the charge of teaching has
descended from the Apostles equally upon all bishops.
\Ve are all engaged in it by an hereditary right; all
we who have come in their stead preach the name
of our Lord to all the countries of the world, accord-
ing to what was said to them ' Go ye and teach all
nations.'"-" The strength of this argument lies in the
italicised adverb equally, which word is due merely to a
false translation, for in the original text we have in
commune " in common ; " this is rightly represented
in the Greek by ro xo/vov. 251 The genuine import of this
passage expresses the teaching of St. Cyprian and of
the other holy Fathers, who represent the Episcopate
as one office, in which all the bishops share in solid inn.
Hut neither these Fathers, nor Celestine himself, intend
l;l Cone. Ephes.* act. iii. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 1154).
V.-.0 Eirenicon^ Fostscriptum, p. 307.
51 Cone. Ephes., act. ii. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 1144).
88 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
thereby to deny the existence of gradations of jurisdic-
tion in the episcopal body. On the contrary, Celestinc,
in connection with this very matter, supplies irrefrag-
able proofs of his supremacy over the whole Church.
For besides the passage which we have already quoted,
we find that on sending his legates to the Synod of
Ephesus with the letter cited by Dr. Pusey, he instructed
them that, " They should take care that the authority of
the Apostolic See be maintained." In other words, their
instructions amounted to this : They were to be present
at the council ; if a dispute arose, the}- were to pass
judgment on the issue, and to hold themselves aloof from
contention and dispute.' 2 '" 12 Celestine's orders were exactly
executed, not only by the legates, but by the council
itself.- 53 This is not the style of one who believes
himself to be merely the equal of the bishops who sat
in the council But even the enemies of the Catholic
faith in the East solemnly confessed at that time the
doctrine for which we contend. Eleutherius, Bishop of
Tyana, and Helladius, Bishop of Tarsus, wrote not long
after to Pope Sixtus against the decrees of Ephesus ;
and in their letters they bear the clearest testimony to the
supreme and divine authority of the Apostolic See.
They styled the Pope u another Moses," " another
Peter," " the divinely-appointed ruler of the Church ; "
they commemorate the triumphs of his See over heresy
and infidelity ; they appeal to him to stretch a saving
hand, and to command an inquiry to be made into all
the irregular proceedings of the council.-"' 4
V. But the divine supremacy of the Pope was no
'-'''- Coinmonitorium Paper Cti'Icstiui, c. (Constant., p. 1152).
2:>3 The Acts of the First and Second Sessions were read to the
legates, according to their demand, and were approved and signed
by them. Cone. Ephes., act. iii. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 1158, seq.).
' J;>1 Epistola Ekitthcrii ct Hclladii Episeopornm (Gallandi, t. ix.,
P. 523).
Admitted by iJic 1:. astern C/utrc/i. 89
less acknowledged at the time of the Council of Chal-
cedon, A.I). 45 I. We do not know how far other Anglican
divines agree with the judgment passed by Mr. Palmer
on Pope St. Leo, of whom he says that his " continual
object was, to assert that St. Peter still lived in his
successors, and that all the promises made to him were
also made to the Bishop of Rome."- r ' fl Mr. Palmer
forgets that besides Pope Leo, the Fathers of Ephesus,
as we have just seen, and those of Chalcedon, as we
shall see presently, were convinced that St. Peter still
lived in his successors ; he even explicitly denies that the
Oriental Church fully and authentically acknowledged
the power which St. Leo assumed and exercised. But
fortunately the historical records of the time are eloquent
witnesses as to the matter. Did the authoritative-
la nguage of St. Leo ever receive any manner of contra-
diction from the Oriental Church, either by the mouth
of individual bishops, or by that of the General Council
of Chalcedon ? Pope Leo solemnly and frequently in-
culcates on the Eastern Church his divinely-conferred
supremacy ; and emperors and bishops as openly
acknowledge it by deeds, no less than by words. As,
for example, the Emperor Theodosius, in a public
decree ;- :>li and the Emperor Marcian, in a letter ad-
dressed by him to St. Leo on his ascending the imperial
throne. >J: ' 7 Moreover the great Pontiff orders Anatolius,
'"' 1 'aimer: Letter \. to Card. Wiseman, sec. 4, p. 48.
- : " ; Const it it tio Imp.-Theodosii ct Valcntiniani (In Codice Theocl.
Nov., 1. i., tit. xxiv., t. vi. Edit. Gothof., Lipsirc, p. 67. Et in
Op. S. Lconis, t. i.. p. 642. Edit. Bnllcrini). ' k Cum Scdis Apos-
tolica^ primatura S. I'etri mcritum qui princeps est episcopalis
coromc ct Romanic dignitas civitatis, sacrai etiam Synodi firma-
vcrit aucloritas, no quid prajter auctoritatem scdis istius inlicitum
pni'sumptio attemptarc nitatur."
-'" Epist. Marciani Imp. ad Lcoiicm Papani (inter Epist. S.
Lconis, t. i., Op. Edit. Ball., pp. 101719). k ' Tuam sanctitatem
principatum diviruu ridei possidcntcm sacris litteris in principio
justum crcdimus alloqticndum.''
QO The Supreme Autliority of the Pope
Patriarch of Constantinople, to abstain from reciting at
the altar the names of those who had taken part in the
infamous Pseudo-Synod of Ephesus. 2r>s He commands
that Actius, a priest unjustly deprived of the dignity of
archdeacon by the Patriarch of Constantinople, should
be restored to his office. He decrees the degradation
of the heretic Andrew, on whom the same dignity had
been bestowed. Anatolius not only faithfully executes
the orders mandata of the Pope, but declares that
he would never resist them, whatever they might be. 259
St. Leo acts in like manner, and with the same supreme
authority, in the case of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus,
who, having been deposed, appeals to the Roman
Pontiff, " For on all accounts," he says, in his letter,
" the Primacy justly belongs to you. Therefore," con-
tinues he, " I now await the sentence of your Apostolic
See, and i pray and entreat your Holiness to assist me,
appealing to your just and equitable tribunal, and to
command me to come to you, that I may show how r
my teaching follows the footsteps of the Apostles."- 110
Theodoret was accordingly judged by the Apostolic
tribunal, and restored to his see, and was then enabled
to take his seat at the Council of Chalcedon ; when,
therefore, he was introduced into the Council, the
assembled bishops declared that he had a right to enter,
" because the Most Holy Archbishop Leo had restored
him to his bishopric.'" 201 As regards the Patriarchate
of Alexandria, the authority exerted by St. Leo in
258 S. Leo : Epist. Ixxx., ad Anatoli tun Patriarch., c. ii. (Op.,
t. i., p. 1051).
ii.9 Epist. Anatoli! Patriarch i ad Leon cm Papam, capp. i., ii.,
inter Epist. S. Leonis, epist. cxxxii. (Op., S. Leonis, t. i., p. 1262),
ct Epist. cxxxv. S. Leonis ad Anatoli n in, c. ii. (1. c., p. 1278).
'JOG ]?pi s t, Thcodoriti Cyr. ad S. Lconcm, capp. i., v., inter Epist.
S. Leonis, epist. lii. (1. c. pp. 941 947).
201 zxtibri a-7ro-/,arsGrr l Gsv avr& rr t v s-iff'/.o--'/;'; o aytura-oz ap-
\\w.Conc. Chalced., act. i. (Labbe, t. iv., p. 873).
Ail mi tied by the Eastern Church. 91
every vicissitude of that Church evidently shows that
the supremacy of the Apostolic See was full}' acknow-
ledged at that time throughout Kgypt. As soon as
Dioscorus was appointed Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope
Leo reminds him of the supremacy of the See of Rome ;
that St. Mark was the disciple of St. Peter ; and that he,
therefore, could not bring into his Church regulations
different from those which St. Peter had decreed for the
Roman Church. He adds : " I cannot suffer that while
professing to belong to the same body and to hold one
faith, we should differ in anything whatever ; so that the
regulations of the Teacher should seem to be at variance
with those of the disciples." And therefore, in the tone
of a superior, he intimates his will to Dioscorus, and
obliges him to the observance of those laws which the
Fathers had laid down. 2 "- No less authoritative is the
manner in which the same Pope declares both to the
Kmperor Leo and to Gennadius, Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, that Timothy the Cat must be expelled from
the See of Alexandria and deprived of his dignity,
even though he present an orthodox confession of
faith ; and on that account he orders the election of a
new Patriarch. - <;:: But passing over these instances, let
us turn to the Council of Chalcedon, where the whole
Oriental Church was assembled. Let us see what were
the views expressed by the synod with regard to the
Papal supremacy, and whether it did not plainly acknow-
-'''-' S. Leo : Epist. ix.. iiif Dioscontm Alex. J-lpisc., c. i. (Op.,
t. i.. p. 629). ' Ouod ergo a patribus noslris propcnsiore cura
novimus esse scrvatum, a vobis volumus custodiri," &c. Et c. ii.
(1. c., p. 631). " I't autem in omnibus observantia concordet, illud
quoquc volumus custodiri.''
:: S. Leo : Epist. clvi., ad Leonein Imp. (1. c., p. 1321, seq.) ;
Epist. clvii.. ad Amitolium (1. c., p. 1326) ; Epist. clxiv., ad Leon.
Imp. (I.e., p. 1344); Epist. clxix., ad cundem (1. c., p. 1431); et
1-lpist. clxx., ad Cienmulium, Patriarch. Const. (1. c., p. 1433).
*9~ The Supreme Authority of the Pope
ledge the Pope's supreme divine power over the Universal
-Church. The Acts of the Synod leave no doubt upon
:the point. In fact, in the first session, Paschasinus,
-Bishop of Lilybanim, and legate of the Apostolic See,
'together with the other legates, stood in the midst of
Hhe council, and said, " \Ye have orders from the most
.blessed and Apostolic Bishop of the City of Rome, who
is the head of all the Churches, vouchsafing to set forth
that Dioscorus must not sit in the council, and that
should he attempt to do so he must be expelled."- 04
When the assembly of the bishops asked what was the
charge against him, the legates replied, "' That he had
-dared to hold a synod without the authority of the
Apostolic See, which was never done, and never
allowed." 2or> The legates asserted most plainly in these
Avords the claims of the Apostolic See. Yet none of
the Eastern bishops, who constituted the main body
the assembly, urged the least objection to these claims,
or questioned their validity. All submitted in silence
to the orders of the Apostolic See. Dioscorus came
forth as a criminal ; and his crimes being sufficiently
proved, the legates were asked by the council to pro-
nounce a final sentence in the name of the Roman
Pontiff. Paschasinus, therefore, as the Pope's vicegerent,
pronounced as follows: First, he granted pardon, in Pope
Leo's name, to those who had unwillingly taken part
in the Latrocininm of Ephesus, and who had since con-
tinued obedient to the Most Holy Archbishop Leo,
and to every most holy and oecumenical council.-" 1 ' 1
- 1 ' 4 Com: Clinked., act. i. (Labbc. t. iv.. p. 863).
-''' L. c., p. 866.
- l!l ' Con. Clialccd., act. iii. (Labbc. t. iv., p. 1303). "Illis Apos-
tolica Sedes veniam prasstitit dc iis qiuu ibi (in Conciliabulo
Ephesino) non voluntaric ab eis gcsta sunt, qui et hactenus pcr-
manserunt obedientes sanctissimo Archicpiscopo Lconi et omni
isancto et universal! concilio."
Admitted by the Eastern Church. 93.
Then ho proceeded to pronounce the condemnation of
Dioscorus : " The Most Holy and Blessed Leo, Arch-
bishop of the [rrcat and elder Rome, through us and
the present most holy synod, together with the thrice-
blessed and most glorious Apostlo Peter, who is the
rock and support of the Catholic Church, and the
foundation of the orthodox faith, has deprived Dioscorus
of his episcopacy, and has removed him from all sacer-
dotal rank."-' 17 One must be blinded by inveterate
prejudice not to see in this fact the supremacy of the
Apostolic See fully exercised, and acknowledged by all
the bishops of the Eastern Church, who, by subscribing
the Acts of the Council, manifested how unreserved was
their concurrence in the views expressed in this judg-
ment.-' 1 ^ They were each and all of them convinced that
St. Peter lived and spoke in his successor, and that the
Pope had supreme authority over the whole Church of
Christ. Therefore, when in the second session of the
council St. Leo's dogmatic letter was read, all the
assembled bishops unanimously exclaimed, " This is
the faith of the Apostles ; this is the faith of the
Fathers. This do we and all the orthodox believe.
Anathema to him who believes it not. Peter has
spoken by Leo."-' ;; ' Moreover, in the synodical letters
addressed by the Fathers to Pope Leo, speaking
'(>nc. CJialccd., 1. c., p. 1306. " Uncle sanctissimus ct beatissi-
mus Archiepiscopus impure et senioris Romie Leo per nos ct per
]>r,; senteni :-;inctam Synod um una cum ter beatissimo et omni
1 ancle clijjno I>. IV: re. Apostolo, qui est petra et crepiclo Catholics
Kcclesiu. et rectic tklei fundamentum. nuclavit eum tarn episcopatus
di^nitate. quam etiam ab omni sacerdotali alienavit ministerio."
See the subscriptions of all the bishops (1. c., pp. 1306
'one. Chalccd.* act. ii. (Labbc. t. iv.. p. 1236;. a : j-r, r, -ic-i;
rar.-f-oiv. aurr, r, -inn: riv A<TO(TroXft)V, \ra.^--:. ol/rw ftertfof&St
tit op^o3o^o/ 6jrw cr/ffriUOUff/y, r^a'h' //'.; rOj ftr, o'Jrw cn<Tn6owi. Tlsr^o;.
o/a \'~(^TO: rai : ',T. ;t ,.
94 The Supreme Authority of tJie Pope.
of Dioscorus, they say, 4< He turned his insane rage
against him to whom our divine Saviour entrusted the
care of the vineyard that is, against your Apostolic
Holiness ; and he attempted to inflict a sentence of
excommunication upon you, whose endeavour it is to
make the body of the Church to be one." 270 It was
then, as is evident, the conviction of the Fathers of
Chalcedon, that the Pope had received from Christ the
charge of the vineyard, or of the whole Church. And
so we obtain a clear proof of the acknowledgment by
the Eastern Church of the supremacy of the Roman
See.
VI. But Dr. Overbeck, after having described the
Papacy as "a naive and unhistoric conception," 271 attacks
the argument in favour of the supremacy drawn by Mr.
Allies from the guardianship of the vine, which, accord-
ing to the Council of Chalcedon, was entrusted to Leo
by the Saviour. After quoting a passage of Mr.
Allies' pamphlet, 272 Dr. Overbeck exclaims, as if in
great surprise, " The very same council, which issued
the famous Canon xxviii., advocating the Roman supre-
macy !" 273 "Wonder," says an Italian proverb, "is the
daughter of ignorance." 274 Had Dr. Overbeck studied
the Acts of the Synod of Chalcedon, he would have
blushed to betray such surprise. For what has the Canon
xxviii. of Chalcedon to do with the guardiansJiip of the
rinc .' Let us hear Mr. Overbeck himself "It is a
hermeneutical rule," he says. " that a controverted
- 70 Com: C/nih:, pt. iii.. c. ii. (Labbc, 1. c., p. 1776). ?*"/ xa/xar
Tj-roD Tfj\j Tr,:. a/JwreXov Tr\v fj'/.a'/^v rrapd ro\J "Surqpoc f
~r t v (Mtvictv J^srs/i/s, AS^O//.JV f>Y t * T^:. fir t : off/ or?/ roc, y.ai
y.ara, rw TO tf;,aa TT,: ExxXi)0/a; ivoDy ff-roi/^atfavro, /*fXsn)0f
- :1 Overbeck : Op. cit., p. 121.
272 Allies : Dr. Puscv ami the Anciuit Church, p. 68, seq.
273 Overbeck: 1. c., p. 122.
274 " La maraviglia clclP ignoranza e figlia.''
The. Twenty-eighth Canon of CJialccdon. 95
passage of an author is to be interpreted by other
plain passages of the same. Well, the Canon xxviii.
is unmistakably plain ; is an impregnable bulwark
against Papal encroachments, and shows fully the con-
sciousness of the Fathers that, in opposition to Rome,
they must keep on the defensive, or they are sure to
lose their position. From this feeling, the necessity of
the canon arose. We know that the Pope and the
Romish Church did not approve of this canon. But
what was to be done ? No subsequent oecumenical
council cancelled the canon, and it obtains up to this
day its place in the Canon Law of the Eastern Church,
whether orthodox or Papal. Why has not the Pope
used his divine power (if the council knew such a thing)
to abolish it ? Now, these very same Fathers call Pope
Leo ' the I'cry person entrusted by the Saviour with the
guardians/lip of the i'iiu\ "- 7:> A superficial acquaintance
with the history of the canon in question, will show that
its true bearing is entirely different from what it is here
represented to be, and we are glad to be led to the
consideration of this subject, as it furnishes us with one
of the best arguments in favour of the Papal supremacy.
We, therefore, accept the Canon xxviii. of Chalcedon as
the exponent of the expression, "guardianship of the
vine." Dr. Overbeck qualifies the canon as unmistakably
plain; and certainly its meaning can easily be discovered
in the Acts of the Sixteenth Session of the Synod of
Chalcedon ; but a few preliminary remarks will be use-
ful, in order to set before our readers a more complete
view of the subject. It is well known that, at the time
when the seat of the empire was first established at
Constantinople, the episcopal see of that city was sub-
ordinate to the metropolitan church of Heraclea. The
patronage of the Emperors raised the sec to the rank
L. c.
96 The Supreme Authority of tJic Pope.
of an archbishopric ; but it remained subject to the
Patriarch of Alexandria from the time of Theodosius I.
to the First General Council of Constantinople, by which
(Canon ii.) it was raised to the rank of a Patriarchal
see. The greatness of the Byzantine empire, and the
privileges of its capital, puffed up the P>ishops of Con-
stantinople with pride and ambition. They could not
bear to see their ecclesiastical jurisdiction restrained
within the narrow boundaries of their own diocese ;
much less could they endure the precedence of the
sees of Alexandria and Antioch, which a decree of the
oecumenical council placed next in rank after the See
of Rome. Their' wishes and their efforts were, there-
fore, constantly directed to extending the limits of their
jurisdiction, and to exalting their see to the rank of a
Patriarchate, second to none but Rome. They endea-
voured by every means to extend their power over the
sees of Ephesus and Caesarea, in the Asiatic and Pontic
dioceses, and to establish Patriarchal jurisdiction over
the metropolitans of Asia, of Thrace, and of Pontus. 270
Doubtless, the Byzantine Bishop already enjoyed a
precedence of honour, granted to him on account of
the majesty of the imperial capital. 277 He had, also,
exercised his authority in the ordination of some metro-
politans, who, out of deference to the first city of the
empire, had not refused to be subordinate to the Bishop
of Constantinople. But the honorary precedence over
the Patriarchs of Alexandria and of Antioch, decreed
to him in the Third Canon of the Synod of Constanti-
nople, had not been acknowledged by the Roman
Pontiff. This we learn from a letter of Boniface I. 27S
2:0 Q n ^15 ma tter see Le Ouien, who treats the history of the
Patriarchate at length in his Or tens Christianus, t. i., capp. ii. v.,
pp. 10 30.
-" Cone. Chalccd.. act. i. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 889).
278 Bonifacius I. : Episf. xv., nn. 4, 5 (Constant., pp. 1041-42).
Tlic Twenty-eighth Canon of Chalccdon. 97
I lence, Anatolius, the Bishop of Constantinople, at the
time of the CEcumenical Synod of Chalcedon, sought
to obtain its sanction for the Patriarchal prerogatives
claimed by his see over the dioceses of Asia and Pontus,
and the churches of Thrace ; and, also, a confirmation
of his honorary precedence over the Patriarchs of
Alexandria and Antioch. No occasion could be more
favourable to the designs of the Byzantine Bishop ; for
the Patriarch of Alexandria had been condemned and
deposed ; Maximus, Patriarch of Antioch, had been
ordained by Anatolius, and was, therefore, devoted to
his interests. Moreover, the see of Ephesus was then
vacant, and the other metropolitans of Asia, Thrace,
and Pontus, were most favourable to him and his views.
In fact, the Synod of Chalcedon had already sanctioned
some of the Patriarchal privileges coveted by the see
of Constantinople. 279 But Anatolius aimed higher. He
wished to have the Patriarchate fully and canonically
erected, with plenary jurisdiction over Asia, Thrace,
and Pontus, and precedence granted to it, not only
over the newly established Patriarch of Jerusalem, 280
but also over those of Alexandria and Antioch. Such
was the real purpose of the Canon xxviii. of Chalcedon.
If we examine the words and the bearing of the canon,
the meaning will appear plain and unmistakable ; but
far from being " an impregnable bulwark against Papal
encroachments," it will, on the contrary, both in its
wording and by the circumstances wherein it originated,
afford a strong proof of the divinely established primacy
of the Apostolic See.
VII. The canon in question runs as follows: "We,
following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers,
279 Cone. Chalccd., act. xv., can. ix. et xvii. (Labbe, 1. c.,
pp. 168588).
80 Ibid., act. vii. (Labbe, 1. c., pp. 1517 19).
II
98 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
and acknowledging the Canon of the 150 most religious
bishops which has just been read, do also determine and
decree the same things respecting the privileges of the
most holy City of Constantinople, the new Rome. For
the Fathers properly gave the primacy to the throne of
the elder Rome, because that was the imperial city.
And the 150 most religious bishops, being moved with
the same intention, gave equal privileges to the most
holy throne of new Rome, judging with reason, that
the city, which was honoured with the sovereignty and
senate, and which enjoyed equal privileges with the
elder royal Rome, should also be magnified like her in
ecclesiastical matters, being the second after her. And
(we also decree) that the metropolitans only of the
Pontic, Asiatic, and Thracian dioceses, including the
bishops of the aforesaid dioceses, who are amongst the
barbarians, shall be ordained by the above-mentioned
most holy throne of the most holy Church of Con-
stantinople ; each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses
ordaining the bishops of the province, as had been
declared by the divine canons ; but the metropolitans
themselves of the said dioceses shall, as has been said,
be ordained by the Bishop of Constantinople, the proper
elections being made according to custom, and reported
to him." 281 This is the famous Canon xxviii. of Chal-
cedon, to which so much importance has been attached.
It is evidently built on the above-mentioned Third
Canon of Constantinople, which will help us to deter-
mine its true meaning. The words of the latter canon
are the following: "The Bishop of Constantinople
shall have the privileges of honour (r xpsafttfa rr,g nuqc)
after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the
new Rome." 282 The Synod of Constantinople does not
281 Cone. Chalccd., act. xv. (Labbe, 1. c., pp. 1692-3).
282 Cone. Constantinop., can. iii. (Labbc, t. ii., p. 1138).
The Twenty-eighth Can on of Chalccdon. 99
hint, even remotely, at any extension of the jurisdiction
of the Byzantine Bishop: it regards only privileges of
honour r -&<(>3sTa rr,= nur,:. But the Canon of Chal-
ccdon employs exactly the same words. It cannot,
therefore, mean anything like jurisdiction, but only a
precedence of honour, which was given to the Bishop
of Constantinople after the Bishop of Rome (//,sr rfa -r^
'Fuur,: j-T/rt/.ocTv.'). Hence, in the Canon of Chalcedon, as
well as in that of Constantinople, there is no question
whatever concerning the primacy of jurisdiction : this
belongs to the Pope alone ; it treats merely of a pre-
rogative of honour and precedence, the highest degree
of which belongs to the Pope as Patriarch of the West,
and next after whom ranked the Patriarchs of Alexandria
and Antioch. According to the Canon of Chalcedon,
the Bishop of Constantinople, far from disputing the
Pope's supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church, did
not even dispute his pre-eminence of honour : he merely
M >ught to rank between the Patriarch of Alexandria and
the Pope, and to obtain the precedence, previously
acknowledged, belonging to the former. Nor had
the Fathers of Chalcedon any other intention in this
canon. The Canons of Nicrea and Constantinople con-
cerning the prerogatives of the Patriarchal sees, were
read after the protest on the part of Leo's legates
against the reading, and the Fathers having expressed
their views on the subject, the judges of the synod
proceeded to sum up the decision of the whole council
in the following words : "The primacy (r TpursTa) and
. the chief honour must by all means be preserved to
'the Archbishop of old Rome, and the Archbishop of
! the imperial City of Constantinople, new Rome, should
I enjoy the same privileges of honour. He ought also to
e the power to ordain of his own authority the
metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian
:cses," &c. Whereupon all the -bishops cried out
II 2
ioo The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
at once that they ratified this decision as in conformity
with their judgments. 283 From this we are able to
show clearly what was the mind of the Fathers of
Chalcedon in framing the Canon xxviii. Far from
intending by the act to diminish the prerogatives of the
Roman Pontiff, they asserted a determination to main-
tain these prerogatives in full force. They did not by
their decree assign to the Bishop of Constantinople any
share in the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope : they
acknowledged that ra vpursTa, the primacy in the Church,
belonged to the Pope, and to the Pope alone ; while they
accurately distinguished from this, the pre-eminence of
honour (Hv s^aipsTov nfir,v), which, also, they acknowledged
to belong to the Roman See. They conferred on the
Byzantine Bishop no primacy of authority, but merely
the prerogative of honour (ra --psaSsTa rr t g n^g). Hence,
in enacting the Canon xxviii., the Fathers of Chalcedon
had no thought of erecting an impregnable bulwark
against Papal encroachments, as Dr. Overbeck asserts :
their only aim was to bestow a privilege of honour, at
the same time that they confessed the supremacy of
jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, received by him, not
as a grant, but as the divine inheritance of the successor
of St. Peter. 264 In the very act of issuing the canon,
they did not regard themselves as competent to legislate
upon the matter without the sanction of the Papal
authority. They, therefore, addressed a synodical letter
to St. Leo ; and in it entreated him, with every mark of
veneration and of submission to his authority, that he,
as their Father, would be generous towards his children,
and grant them the confirmation of that canon, which
expressed the unanimous wish of the Oriental Church. 285
283 Cone. Chalced., act. xv. (Labbe, t. iv., p. 1756, seq.).
284 Relatio Synodica Cone. Chalad. ad Leoncni Papam, pt. iii.
(Labbe, 1. c., p. 1774, seq.).
285 Ibid,, p. 1777, seq.
The Twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon. 101
With the vic\v of inclining the Pontiff to give his
consent, the Patriarch Anatolius himself,-* the Emperor
Marcian, 287 and the Empress Pulcheria, 288 addressed
letters and entreaties to Pope Leo in favour of the
canon. An attentive perusal of these humble and sub-
missive requests will sufficiently show that Pope Leo,
in the judgment of all the Oriental Bishops, was the
successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ, the supreme
ruler of the Universal Church ; that it therefore de-
pended on him to rescind the Canons of Nicaea, to
subject the Bishops of Thrace, Pontus, and Asia, to
the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the imperial city
of the East, and to raise him above the Patriarchs of
Alexandria and Antioch. The Fathers of Chalcedon
knew well that without the sanction of the Pope no
law would have Catholic authority in the Church ; and
they also knew that the will of an absolute superior
can be inclined by prayer and submission alone ; they
therefore had recourse to submission and prayer, plead-
ing their cause before Pope Leo, whom they owned as
their own superior in the Universal Church. To judge
then by Canon xxviii., the "guardianship of the vine ''
must be understood in the sense adopted by Mr. Allies
and by all Catholics.
VIII. " But why," says Dr. Overbeck, "has not the
Pope used his divine power (if the council knew such a
thing) to abolish it ?" How is it, we ask, that Dr. Over-
beck is ignorant of the facts of the case? Pope Leo un-
questionably did act in the very manner here suggested.
The Canon xxviii. was not only opposed in the synod
" ; Kpistola Anatolii, inter Epist. S. Leonis, cpist. ci. (Op., t. i.,
p. 1121).
~ Epistola Marciani, inter Epist. S. Leonis, epist. c., c. iii. (Op.,
L c.. p. 1114).
* See Epist. cv., .S". Leonis ad Pulchcriam (Op., 1. c.,
P-
IO2 The Supreme Authority of tJic Pope.
by the legates of Leo, 260 but it was directly and ex-
plicitly annulled by the Pope, in virtue of his divine
and supreme authority in the Church. In proof of which
we set before the reader the very words of Pope Leo
in their original language : " Consensiones," he says,
" Episcoporum, Sanctorum Canonum apud Nicajam
regulis repugnantes, tinita nobiscum vestne fidei pie-
tate in irritum mittimus, et per auctoritatem Beati
Petri Apostoli generali prorsus dermitione cassamus. 1 "-- 1 "
Thus did Pope Leo annul the decision unanimously
come to by the Fathers in the Fifteenth Session of Chal-
cedon. strike their canon out of the ecclesiastical code,
and when so doing, declare that he acted by the autho-
rity of the Prince of the Apostles. He expressed these
sentiments with Apostolic energy in his letters to the
Synod of Chalcedon,--' 1 to the Patriarch of Antioclv'-
to the Emperor Marcian,- -y and to Anatolius, Bishop
of Constantinople ;' 294 he even required the latter to-
express in writing his submission to the decision of the
Roman See,- :): ' and Anatolius did not delay to forward
to Rome the documents required. 21 '" The Emperor
himself could not refrain from praising the Apostolic
( 'one. CJialecd., act. xvi. (Labbe, t. iv., p. 1748, seq.).
*'' S. Leo : Ef)ist. cv., ad Pulcheriam Imp., c. iii. (Op.. 1. c.,
- 1 -' 1 S. Leo : Epist. cxiv., c. ii. (Op., 1. c., p. 1197, seq.).
'-' S. Leo : Epist. cxix.. capp. iii. v. (Op., 1. c., p. 1214, seq.).
1:5 S. Leo : Epist. civ., cxxviii., cxxxiv., ad Mareianuiii Imp..
(Op., 1. c., pp. 1143, 1249, 1274).
- Ji S. Leo : Epist. xiv., ad .-[iiatolium (Op., 1. c., p. 1157, seq.).
- :): ' S. Leo : Epist. cxxvii., ad Jiiliannm Epise., c. iii. (]. c.,
j). 1249); Epist. cxxviii., ad Mare. Imp. (1. c., p. 1250); Epist.
cxxxiv., ad cnndem, c. i. (1. c., p. 1275).
-'"' Epist. Anatolii Epise. ad Leo item Papam, inter Epist. S.
Leonis, epist. cxxxii. (Op., 1. c., p. 1261). S. Leo: Epist. cxxxv.,,
ad Anat. (1. c., p. 1277, seq.) ; Epist. cxxxvi., ad Mare. Jmp. (1. c.,
p. 1280).
The Twenty-eighth Canon of CJialcedon. 103
firmness of the Pontiff in refusing a suit which had
the support of the imperial influence.- 1 ' What, then,
became of the canon ? It needed no other general
council to annul it, and it never obtained a place in
the Canon Law either of the West or of the East.
Theodore t did not insert it in his Synagogc, nor do
Theodorus Lector, nor Joannes Scholasticus mention
it in their Collections. Dionysius Lxiguus, and the
other Latin collectors of canons, though deriving the
Canons of Chalcedon from Greek sources, go no further
than Canon xxvii. Nay more, in the ancient Greek
MSS. of the council, the canon is not found ; 2i)s from
all which we may see how much credit is due to the
bold assertions which have been put forward upon the
subject. So far did the canon lose all force of law
when rejected and annulled by Leo L, that during the
controversy of Acacius, that ambitious prelate did not
dare to appeal to it in defence of his unlawful usurpa-
tions.' 2 ''' The pseudo-synod in Trullo (A.l). 691), as-
sembled by the authority of the Patriarch Callinicus,
strove, in the Canon xxxvi., to revive the decree of
Chalcedon. 800 But the Trullan Canons were never
recognised by the Universal Church, and that pseudo-
synod, stained with Monothelism, was reprobated in
every part of the Catholic world. 301 If, in after times,
the Bishops of Constantinople, puffed up with pride and
ambition, carried their pretensions to greater lengths,
and extended their influence and jurisdiction over the
- ; ' 7 Epist. Marcinni luip. ad Lconcm Papam, inter Epist. S.
Lconis, epist. ex. (1. c., p. 1183).
* Anuot. ad Can. xxviii. Cone. Chalccd. (Labbe, t. iv., p. 1691).
; * Marchetti: Del Coneilio di Siirdica, pt. iii., n. 73, p. 311,
seq. Roma.*, 1789.
w Canons Ecctcsiu- cum Conun. Th. Kalsamonis, Syn. vi. in
Trullo, p. 401. Lut., Par., 1620.
Labbe, t. viii.. p. 37, seq.
IO4 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
metropolitans and bishops of the provinces bordering
upon their diocese, it was by a usurpation which derived
both shelter and support from the authority of many of the
Byzantine Emperors, who were the sources of so much
trouble in the Church of Christ.'' 502 But the Canon of
Chalcedon, faithfully as it expressed the ambitious spirit
of the clergy of Constantinople, 808 was never enforced as a
law before the time of the schismatic Photius. We must
not then wonder that it is found in the collections of
Balsamon and Zonaras, two adherents of the schism, 304
or " That it obtains up to this day," as Dr. Overbeck
tells us, " its place in the Canon Law of the Eastern
Church." Tt is true, as the same writer adds, that it
is inserted in the Canon Law not only of the Eastern
Communion, but also of the Papal Church. It certainly
was not so inserted before the year 1215, at which date
the City of Constantinople, being occupied by the
Franks and a Latin Patriarch placed in that see, the
Fourth Council of Lateran, sanctioned in its Fifth Canon
the honorary precedence of that Patriarch over those
of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. 305 Up to that
time the Popes had firmly withstood the Canon xxviii.
of Chalcedon, partly because, without any sufficient
:502 Codex Justin : 1. i., tit. ii., DC Sacr. Ecclcsiis, n. xvi. (In
Corpore Juris Civ., t. ii., pp. 19, 20. Edit. Herrmanni. Lipsia:,
1865) 5 Nov. cxxxi., DC Keel. Can. ct Privil., c. ii. (Op. cit., t. iii.,
P- 593).
303 Sec Epist. Anatolii ad Leone in /*., inter Epist. S. Leonis,
cpist. cxxxiii., c. iv. (1. c., p. 1263).
304 Theod. Balsamon, and other schismatics, went so far as to
take the particle (^zra (after) of the canon to mean inferiority of
time, not of honour due to the Patriarch of Constantinople after
the Pope. The error here committed was so patent as to provoke
a censure from Zonaras himself. See Allatius, DC Eccl. Orient, ct
Occident, perpctiia Consensionc, 1. i., c. xvii., n. 5, p. 253, seq.
Colonia-, 1648.
305 Cone. Lat. iv., can. v. (Labbe, t. xiii., p. 938).
The Twenty-eighth Canon of Chalccdon. 105
reason, it infringed the decrees of Nicaea, but princi-
pally because they well knew the unbridled ambition
of the Byzantine Patriarch and clergy, and the fatal
results which could not fail to be the consequence of
their conduct. Their fears were justified by the incessant
encroachments and impudent usurpations of the see
of Constantinople, which continued without intermission
until the time of the entire separation of that see from
the centre of unity. The ambition of the Patriarch
passed all bounds ; he forced into subjection bishops
and metropolitans who had been declared independent
by oecumenical councils ; he domineered over the
Oriental Patriarchs, and usurped the vainglorious title
of oecumenical. One prerogative alone remained unas-
sailed, and that was the supremacy of the Roman
Pontiff. Despite these usurpations, as we shall see
more clearly in the next section, the Byzantine Church
ever acknowledged the Papal supremacy not merely
by the use of expressions of devotion and affection,
as Dr. Overbeck and Protestants would have men
believe, but by evident marks of a dutiful submission.
This church dared not arrogate to itself a divine
authority built on the rock of Peter ; disdaining, at
length, to be held back in its ambitious course by
any bonds of piety, however sacred, it refused to render
obedience to the Apostolic See, but it had no thought
of transferring to Constantinople the universal authority
which, by Christ's appointment, was exercised at Rome.
The schism of Photius and Michael Cerularius, though
the fruit of an exorbitant ambition, succeeded, never-
theless, in carrying along with it the whole Oriental
Church ; for the prelates of the East, bishops, metro-
politans, and Patriarchs, had long been slaves, bound
in the fetters of the grasping Byzantine see. But God
cast down this idol of pride and ambition, and the
church which claimed to be independent of the successor
106 The Supreme Auiiiority of ihc Pope.
of St. Peter was delivered up to the despotism of the
Sultan. We commend this page of history to the
careful study of all who wish to understand the true
purport, and to appreciate the real consequences, of the
Eastern schism.
IX. Before leaving this question, we may notice
an argument adduced by Dr. Pusey. In the list of
alleged Papal contradictions which he brings forward
as inextricable difficulties to Catholics, :m he confronts
together two passages taken from epistles of Leo I.
and Adrian II. on the Canon xxviii. of Chalcedon.
" The first," says the author,- ".rejects the Twenty-eighth
Canon, which placed Constantinople in the second rank
to Rome, as being opposed to the rules of the sacred
canons established at Nicaja. On the contrary, Pope
Adrian says, 307 ' He (the Patriarch of Constantinople)
never could have ranked second, save for the authority
of our holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as is plain
to all,' which rank Constantinople took and held on
the authority of the canon from the time of the council
itself/' 308 Upon this we make the following remarks:
First, Dr. Pusey we think does not translate Adrian's
words with exactness, as will appear from the original,
given below in the note. Again, Pope Adrian, writing
to Constantine the Emperor of the East, expresses his
surprise that in the Imperial Acts the Patriarch Tarasius
was termed " universal ; " and he further asks, as his
name is with difficulty ranked second, through the
authority of the Apostolic See, how is it that he is
called universal, by which term he would be raised
300 Eirenicon^ p. 318.
307 Adrian's words are as follows : '" In sccundo ordino, si non
per nostrae sanctas Catholicas et Apostolical Ecclesiae auctoritatem
(sicut in omnibus patet) mmquam valuit nomcn habere." /// Coiu\
AW. ii., act. ii. (Labbe, t. viii., p. 764).
308 Eirenicon, p. 315.
The Twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon. 107
above the Roman Sec itself? To know what is meant
by the Byzantine Patriarch's name being ranked second,
through the authority of the Apostolic See, we must
read the proceedings of the first session of the Synod
of Chalcedon, and the beginning of the Twenty-fifth
Epistle in the first book of St. Gregory's letters. In the
session alluded to, Anatolius took the first place after the
legates of the Pope, as appears from the list of the
bishops assembled in the council. The Papal legates,
far from objecting to this, themselves declared that
it was according to the rules of the Church ; nay, they
censured Dioscorus for having reduced Flavian to the
fifth place in the Latrocinium of Ephesus. " We," said
Paschasinus, one of the legates of Pope Leo, " according
to the will of God, ranked first Bishop Anatolius, and
they of Ephesus placed Blessed Flavian the fifth."
Then Diogenes, Bishop of Cyzicus, remarked : " That
is because you know the rules of the Church." ;;09 Now
the legates who in the first session followed the canons
of the Church in ranking Anatolius first after themselves
as the Pope's representatives, in the sixteenth session
opposed the Twenty-eighth Canon, protested against
it, and declared it contrary to the established law.
But in acting thus they no way contradicted themselves,
nor did Pope Leo cast the least censure upon their
conduct. Again, Pope Gregory gave no sanction what-
ever to the Twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon, although
in addressing the above-quoted epistle to the three
Patriarchs of Constantinople, of Alexandria, and of
Antioch, he assigns the first place to the Byzantine
Patriarch." 10 From this we gather that there is no con-
tradiction whatever between rejecting the Twenty-eighth
Canon of Chalcedon, and asserting that through the
* Cone. Chalced, act. i. (Labbc, t. iv., p. 889).
010 Op., t. c., p. 507.
108 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
authority of the Apostolic See, the first rank after
Rome had been conferred upon the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople. Long before the Council of Chalcedon,
and as far back as the time of Theodosius I., the
Roman See had consented that the Bishop of Constan-
tinople, on account of the majesty of the imperial
capital, of the special protection received by him from
the Emperors, and of his influence over the whole
Eastern Church, should be named as second in dignity
in all official acts, and that in the great assemblies of
bishops he should hold the next place to the Pope, or
the Papal legates. But a broad distinction was always
made between that kind of honour granted freely to
the Byzantine Bishops, and the prerogatives which the
Council of Chalcedon would have given to that prelate.
The former honour could have no influence upon the
canonical arrangements of bishops and Patriarchs in
the Eastern Church. But the Canon of Chalcedon, in
the hands of an ambitious prelate, surrounded by a yet
more ambitious clergy, would have given a master to
all the bishops and Patriarchs of the East, and disturbed
the ecclesiastical economy of the whole Church. The
letters, therefore, of Leo and Adrian are in perfect
accord ; no trace can be found of want of harmony
between them. In the same way the rest of the imagi-
nary Papal contradictions, whereof so long a list has
been brought together, vanish on examination, as we
have already seen in part, and shall further see in the
course of the present and a future volume. Finally,
the parenthetic expression found at the end of the
above-quoted extract, is historically incorrect, for Con-
stantinople enjoyed the rank mentioned as belonging
to it in Adrian's letter, before the time of the Council
of Chalcedon, and not in pursuance of the Twenty-
eighth Canon.
As we have said, and as we shall see again in the
Admitted in East before Gregory f. 109
next section, the Byzantine Bishops owed the rank
which they held in opposition to the Apostolic See to
illegal grants of monarchs of the Lower Empire, and
to usurpations of their own.
SECTION V.
THE SAME INQUIRY CONTINUED DOWN TO THE
SEPARATION OE THE GREEK FROM THE LATIN
CHURCH CONVERSION OF RUSSIA.
I. The history of the Eastern Church affords proofs so
numerous in favour of the divine supremacy of the
Pope, that to give each one in detail would be to write
the whole history afresh. A summary statement of a
few of them is all that we are able to give in the present
section. Pope Simplicius (468 483), who, after no long
interval, succeeded to the Chair of St. Leo, exerted the
full extent of his supreme power against the usurpations
of the heretics who \vere at that time disturbing the
Churches of Alexandria and Antioch. His letters,
addressed to the Emperors Basiliscus and Zeno, to the
Patriarch Acacius, and to the clergy of Constanti-
nople, 311 clearly exhibit him as convinced of his supreme
authority. Thus, he describes himself as speaking with
the voice of the Apostle Peter. 312 He declares that to
311 S. Simplicius : Kpist. iv. vii. (Labbe, t. v., pp. 96, 99, 101).
12 " Quo magis U. Petri Apostoli voce qualiscumque sedis ejus
minister obtestor." Epist, iv., cit. (1. c., p. 99).
no TJie Supreme Authority of the Pope
teach the true doctrine laid down by the Apostles
belongs to him as supreme pastor of the whole Church,
to whom all the flock is committed, and who holds the
inheritance of the promises of Christ. 313 In accordance
with this principle, he adopts a tone of supreme autho-
rity, and enforces on the Emperors themselves the
observance of their duty. 314 In spite of this language
and conduct of the Pope, no protest, no objection of
any kind was raised against his interference in the
affairs of the Oriental Church. On the contrary, the
tyrannical determination of the Emperor Basiliscus suc-
cumbed to the energetic efforts of St. Simplicius ; 315
the Emperor Zeno yielded to the advice of the same
Pontiff, 310 and in compliance with it begged of him
a dispensation from a certain disciplinary Canon of
Nicsea, regarding the election and consecration of the
Patriarch of Antioch. 317 Finally, Acacius himself, in
solemn form, acknowledged that the Pope was entrusted
with the care of all the Churches. 318
II. It is foreign to our present purpose to give a
detailed account of the Acacian controversy under Pope
Felix III., the successor of Simplicius (483 492),
though it would furnish irresistible evidence of the
L. c., pp. 9799-
314 Ibid., Epist. \. viii. (1. c., pp. 99 104).
315 " Basiliscus tyrannus et hasreticus scriptis Apostolicre Scdis
vchcmenter infractus est et a plurimis rcvocatus excessibus." hi
Epist. xiii. S. Gelasii Papa (Labbe, t. v., p. 332).
310 Evagrius : Hist., 1. iii., c. viii. Edit. Valesii, p. 309. Codex
Justin : 1. i.. tit. ii., leg. xvi., pt. ii., p. 19. Edit. Herrmanni,
Lipsiae, 1865. Brcvicnlus Hist. Eccl., apud Labbe, t. v.,
p. 144 ; et Epist. x. S. Simplicii, ad Zcnoncni (Labbe, 1. c.,
P. 1 06).
;:i: See Epist. xiv., xv., S. Simplicii (Labbe, 1. c., pp. no-n).
318 Epist. Acacii ad Simpl. Papam (Labbe, 1. c., p. 104). "Solli-
ritudinem omnium Ecclesiarum secundum Apostolum circumfer-
cntes nos indesinenter hortamini," &c.
Admitted in ]\.ctst before Gregory L in
divinely-instituted supremacy of the Popes. We see
throughout the controversy between Pope Felix III. on
the one side, and the Emperor Zeno and the Patriarch
Acacius on the other, that neither the Kmperor nor
the Patriarch makes the least protest against the ex-
tensive power claimed by the Pope over the Patriarch
of Constantinople. No doubt of his jurisdiction over
the Oriental Church is intimated by them ; they never
arrogate to themselves what we have seen claimed
on behalf of the Anglican communion/ 51 '- 1 " that they
had a right to regulate the affairs of their own church
by and for themselves, independently of the Bishop of
Rome." Although Felix III., as became the true vicar
of the love of Christ, in the earlier stages of the con-
troversy, used with them the language of a tender father
anxious for the salvation of his children, 320 he did not
forget that he had received from God the office of
their superior in spiritual matters, and of judge of their
usurpations. Measures of kindness and conciliation
were at length exhausted, and when the Church of
Alexandria had been brought to the verge of utter
ruin through the protection afforded by Acacius to the
heretical usurper of that see, Pope Felix deemed that
the time had come for him to perform the duty of a
supreme judge. Thereupon he summoned the Patriarch
of Constantinople to present himself before the Apos-
tolic See to give an account of his conduct, and to
receive his sentence. 321 At the same time, under sanc-
tion of the divine vengeance, he commanded the
Emperor Zeno to put an end to the evils of the Church
of Alexandria, and to oblige Acacius to submit obedi-
9 Pusey : Vindication of the Thirty-nine Articles p. 139.
320 St. Felix III.: Efiist. i., ii. (Labbe, t. v., pp. 143
148).
321 Libellus citatioiiis ad Acacium (Labbe, 1. c., p. 217).
112 77/6* Supreme Authority of the Pope
ently to the summons of the Roman See. 322 Neither
the Emperor nor the Patriarch raised any protest
against the jurisdiction exercised by the Pope over the
latter. Acacius, it is true, did not obey the orders of
the Pope, who on this account, and in virtue of his
supreme power, pronounced against the rebel a solemn
sentence of excommunication, and deposition from all
ecclesiastical pre-eminence. " Acknowledge," says the
Pontiff in his letter, " acknowledge that you have been
separated from the Catholic communion, and from the
number of the faithful, that the name and the office of
the priesthood has been taken away from you ; that
you are condemned by the judgment of the Holy
Ghost, and by the authority of the Apostolic See ;
that you shall never be freed from the bonds of the
anathema. I, Citcilius Felix, Bishop of the holy
Catholic Church of Rome, have gigned this sentence." 323
At the same time he forbade the clergy and people of
Constantinople to communicate with the deposed Patri-
arch, 324 and threatened with excommunication all who
should attempt to act against his orders. 325 These facts
imply nothing short of a divine supreme authority
exercised in its fulness by the Pope, and as fully ac-
knowledged by the Oriental Church.
322 Libdlns Fclicis III. ad Zenonem Imp. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 218).
"Divino judicio suggerimus . . . ut idem frater et coepiscopus
meus Acacius ... ad haec quae de se pervidet intimari apud
Beatissimum Petrum Apostolum diluere obedienter procuret, nee
ullo modo existimet differendum."
323 St. Felix III.: Epist. vi., ad Acacium (Labbe, 1. c., p. 169).
Rrevicitlus Hist. Eutych. sen de nomine Acacii (Labbe, 1. c., p. 177).
Liberatus : Brev. Hist., c. xviii. (Gallandi, Bibl., t. xii., p. 150).
Theophanes : Chroii. ad A.D. 480, vol. i. Edit. Bonnae, p. 205, &c.
:} - 4 St. Felix III. : Epist. x., ad Clcrum ct Plebem Constantinop.
(Labbe, 1. c., p. 178, seq.).
325 Edictum S. Felicis III. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 177).
Admitted in East before Gregory I. 113
III. We must be brief, and we therefore pass over
the glorious Pontificates of Gelasius (492 496) and
Anastasius II. (496 498) ; but we cannot omit those
of Symmachus (498 514), and Hormisdas (514 523),
under whom the whole Oriental Church sent to the
Roman Pontiff a clear and solemn declaration in ac-
knowledgment of the divine supremacy of the Pope. p ' 2r>
Symmachus, faithful to the duties of his ministry, failed
not to notice the trials endured by the Oriental Church
under the tyrannical yoke of the Emperor Anastasius.
He left no means untried in his attempt to bring it
back to the paths of order and grace. Anastasius
remained obdurate in his impiety, but the whole episco-
pate and the lower clergy of the East rendered the
most solemn homage to the Catholic cause and to the
supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff. They ad-
dressed a letter to him openly confessing that Christ
Himself had entrusted to his Holiness the Chair of St.
Peter ;" 27 that he (Symmachus) had been taught by
the Prince of the Apostles to feed the sheep committed
to his care throughout the habitable world; 328 that to
him was the power given, not of binding only, but also
of loosing. 3211 They declared that next to God they
looked to him, in order to receive from him light and
direction ; 330 they besought him, therefore, to enlighten
326 The title of that letter is, Ecclesia Oricntcilis ad Synnnachiim
Episcopum Romanian (Labbe. t. v., pp. 433 38).
"-" " Sicut docuit gloriosorum Apostolorum Princeps, cujus
cathcdram bcatitudini tuae credidit Christus optimus Pastor," c.
(1. c., p. 434).
Xon enim ignoras ejus ingcnium qui quotidie a sacro
doctore tuo Petro doceris oves Christi per totum habitabilem
mundum creditas tibi pasccre non vi, sed sponte coactas " (1. c.).
N : on in ligando tantum potestas est tibi tradita sed in
solvendo quoque diu vinctos ad imitationem magistri " (1. c.).
50 " Omnes post Dcum tuai lumen visitationis et assumptionis
oppcrimur" (1. c., p. 436).
I
1 14 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
them with the light of faith, with the light of his
spiritual wisdom; 331 and in order to move his paternal
heart, they laid open to him the fatal wounds of the
Oriental Church, that being himself a good physician, and
as vicar of the Divine Physician, he might heal them. 332
Nor did the 168 clerics and archimandrites, in the
Relation addressed by them to Hormisdas, manifest any
discrepancy of doctrine from that of the above letter.
In express terms they recognise Hormisdas as the most
holy and blessed Patriarch of the whole world, who
holds the See of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. 333
They apply to him as the prince of pastors, the doctor
and physician of souls, the head of all. 334 On this account
they lay before him the evils and sufferings of the
Kastern Church, and denounce the wolves who were
ravaging it, in order that by the power of his own
authority he might expel them from the midst of the
sheep. 335 We cannot then wonder that the whole of
the East submitted to the hard conditions imposed
by Hormisdas as the terms of the long-desired re-
conciliation ; 33G nor that all the bishops of that
331 illuminate Orientem recta: fidei lumine " (1. c.). " Illumi-
nate nos spiritualis scientiae vestrae lumine " (1. c., p. 437).
J2 "Quia non est ulcus, aut macula, aut plagatumens, sed totum
ulcus est a pedibus usque ad caput . . . vos jam boni medici et
illius veri medici, vcl bonorum discipulorum ejus certissimi planta-
tores festinate ad curam," &c. (1. c., p. 436).
333 Relatio Archiinandritarum, Sr^c., ad Hormisdam Papam
(Labbe, 1. c., p. 598). " Sanctissimo et Beatissimo universi orbis
terras Patriarchal Hormisdae continenti Sedem Principis Aposto-
lorum Petri."
334 " Christus Dcus noster principem pastorum et doctorem et
medicum animarum constituit vos," &c. (1. c., p. 598).
335 " Ut auctoritatis baculo eos (lupos) cxpellat dc medio
ovium," c. (1. c.).
336 See the Libclhts of the Legates of the Popes (Apud Labbe,
1. c., p. 612, seq.).
Admitted in East before Gregory I. 115
church, 7 with their Patriarchs and their Kmperor, signed
the formula of union amidst shouts and tears of universal
. i:i8 In that solemn exposition of faith they profess
to believe the divine supremacy of the Roman Pontiff,
whose faith is the faith of Peter, as to Peter belongs
the chair of doctrine on which he sits. :W!) They therefore
promise to follow the Apostolic See in all things, and
to teach whatever it defines, for in it is the solid
foundation of the Christian religion. 340 Hence they
conclude that those who are not with the Catholic
Church that is, who do not agree in all things with
the Apostolic See should not be named in the sacred
mysteries. 341 This precious document of the faith of
the East, signed by all the Patriarchs, and accepted,
of course, by the whole Western Church, has a weight
of authority not less than that of a definition of faith
pronounced by an oecumenical council. Now, according
to the principles of the High Church school in England,
:;:!: Rusticus who wrote under Justinian, the successor ot
Justin says that the formulary of Hormisdas was signed by 2,500
priests (saccrdotes, bishops) of the Eastern Church. Disputatio
contra Acephalos (Gallandi, Bibl., t. xii.. p. 75).
338 Suggest io ii. ct iii. Leg, Honnisdtc (Labbe, 1. c., pp. 620-21).
Snggesiio Gcrniani (1. c., p. 625).
33 " N on p t c st D. N. J. C. prretermitti sententia dicentis :
' Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam.'
qiiyc dicta sunt rerum probantur effectibus : quia in Sede
Apostolica inviolabilis semper Catholica custoditur relijrio.'"-
K.\ -cmplum libclli Joaiuiis Episc. Constant, ad Hormisdum Pa pa in
(Labbe, 1. c., p. 622).
340 " Quamobrcm, sicut praediximus, sequentcs in omnibus
Sedem Apostolicam ct prsedicamus omnia quae ab ipsa decrcta
sunt ... in qua est integra Christian^ religionis et perfecta
soliditas " (L c.).
" Promittentes in sequent! temporc sequestrates a com-
munione Ecclcsiac Catholicae, idest in omnibus non consentientes
Sedi Apostolica?. corum nomina inter sacra non recitanda mysteria"
vl. c.).
I 2
1 1 6 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
when the three branches of the Church that is, the
Roman, the Greek, and the Anglican agree in a
dogmatic definition of any doctrine, this doctrine must
be regarded as a matter of faith. They would find
it difficult to prove that in the time of Pope Hormisdas
there was the least disagreement in any of the so-called
branches of the Church with regard to the divine
supremacy of the Roman Bishop.
IV. But the signature of this solemn act under
Hormisdas failed to put an end to the troubles of the
Oriental Church. As soon as the patronage of the
Kmpress Theodora had seated Anthimus in the Patri-
archal chair of Constantinople, he cast off all disguise,
and showed himself an open Eutychian. The Church
of Constantinople was again in distress, again needed
assistance to rid itself of the heretical Patriarch. Whither
then did it turn its eyes ; to whom did it look for aid in
its troubles ? It turned to Rome, to Pope Agapitus.
Upwards of ninety archimandrites of Constantinople
poured forth their supplication to the Roman Pontiff
in a letter addressed, " To the most holy and blessed
Agapitus, Archbishop of ancient Rome and universal
Patriarch." 342 The bishops and clergy of the province
also wrote, " To our lord, the most holy Father of
Fathers, Agapitus, Archbishop of Rome." 343 Both the
archimandrites and the bishops urged the Pontiff to
condemn and depose the Patriarch Anthimus. Agapitus.
therefore, being at the time in Constantinople, in virtue
of his supreme power divinely bestowed, stripped the
heretic Anthimus of all the prerogatives of the priest-
hood, and appointed the orthodox Mennas as his suc-
342 Libcllus MonacJtonun Agapito Paper obtains, in Actis
Cone. Constan., act. i. (Labbe, pp. 983 1000).
343 Libcllus Episcoporum Oricutaliiim oblatus AgiipHo, 1. c.
(Labbe, t. v., pp. 1000 1010).
Admitted iu Easi before Gregory /. 117
ccssor. Theophanes does not hesitate to record the
fact in these terms; 344 and the Council of Constantinople
itself, held under the new Patriarch, bears convincing-
testimony to it :J4fl Now, who does not see in the conduct
of Agapitus that of a superior divinely appointed to
redress the wrongs of Christ's Church, to whom bishops
and Patriarchs were bound to submit ? For, remark, we
have the authority of the General Council itself, as-
sembled under Mennas. We read in the Acts of the
Council, that Anthimus, in order to avoid the sentence
of deposition, sent to the Emperor a dutiful profession
of faith, promising, " That he would do whatever the
Pontiff of the great Apostolic See should decree ; " and
he wrote to all the holy Patriarchs, " That he would
in all things follow the Apostolic See" 346 submission
to the Roman See being treated as an unequivocal mark
of orthodoxy. Moreover, Mennas himself delivered,
before the assembled synod, the subjoined profession of
faith : " We follow and obey the Apostolic See, holding
communion with those who communicate with it, and
condemning others, whom it condemns." 347 The pro-
fesssion of faith presented to Pope Agapitus by the
Emperor Justinian was conceived in the same terms :
" Following in all things the Apostolic See, we set forth
what has been ordained by it, and we profess that these
things shall be kept without fail, and we will order
344 Theophanes : Chronographia ad A.D. 529, vol. i. Edit.
Bonnae, p. 337. Agapitus himself speaks of it in his letter
addressed to the Patriarch of Antioch (Labbe, t. v., pp. 1010
1012).
::4: ' Scntcntin Synodi contra Anthimum (Labbe, t. v., p. 1052).
Scnttntia Mcniur contra cinidon (1. c., p. 1056).
340 Sentcntia Xynodi contra AntJiintiHii (Labbe, 1. c.).
:u ~ Scntcntia JAv///c<' contra Anthimum (1. c., p. 1057). V"'
yap . . . 7(jj A-Toffro/./xoD $p6vtft J~axo/.ot>^oD/./,v ?:, xa/ crs/i'o/xs^a,
xa/ ToG:: xwvuvixovf ajTOj, xo/vwv/xoO i^/o,arv, xa/ roO; \J-TT
$ xa/ r l i-7:. x
n8 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
that all bishops shall do according to the tenor of that
formulary the Patriarchs to your Holiness, and the
metropolitans to the Patriarchs, the rest to their, own
metropolitans ; that in all things our holy Catholic
Church may have its proper solidity." 848 Pope Vigilius
(537 555), likewise, supplies us with another proof of
supreme authority over the Oriental Church. He was
aware that Theodorus, Bishop of Ca^sarea, confident in
the imperial patronage enjoyed by him despite his
scandalous usurpations and excesses, had grown obsti-
nate in his errors. Yet he hesitated not to assemble
several bishops in the Church of St. Peter at Constanti-
nople, and to pronounce in their presence a solemn
sentence of excommunication and deposition against
that impudent usurper of ecclesiastical rights. 349 At the
same time he anathematised the Patriarch Mennas, and
all the bishops who had favoured or approved his ex-
cesses.^"' This sentence of the supreme Pastor did not
fail of effect. Justinian withdrew the orders which he
had given in reference to the Three Chapters, and in
348 Secunda formula Fidci a Justiniano oblata Agapito Papu'
(Labbe, t. v., p. 948).
349 The words of the condemnation are as follows: "Ex
persona et auctoritate B. Petri Apostoli . . . hac Theodorum
Caesareae Cappadociac civitatis quondam episcopum, sentential'
promulgatione, tam sacerdotal! honore et communione Catholica
quam omni officio episcopal! seu potestate spoliatum esse decerni-
mus" (Labbe, 1. c., p. 1316).
350 - k Teque Mennam Constantinopolitame civitatis episcopum,
qui non dissimili culpa constringeris, cum omnibus metropolitanis
ct micropolitanis episcopis ad tuam dicecesim pertinentibus, sed ad
tuos Orientales, vel diversarum provinciarum majorum minorumque
civitatum episcopos, qui his excessibus pro quibus Theodorum
Caesareae Cappadocias quondam episcopum condemnavimus, prae-
buistis assensum, humaniore sententia, pro Dei consideration*-'
tamdiu a sacra communione suspendimus, donee unusquisque
vestrum errorem suac praevaricationis agnoscens, culpam apud nos.
propriam competent! satisfactione diluerit " (1. c.).
Admitted in Hast under Gregory I. 119
accordance with the will of the Pope, 351 referred the
question to the General Council. Theodorus and
Mennas, with many others of the bishops, who had in-
curred Papal anathema, humbled themselves at the feet
of the successor of St. Peter, submitted to his decrees,
and implored from him pardon and penance for their
faults. 352 These facts furnish another incontrovertible
proof that the Oriental Church fully recognised the
divine supremacy of the Pope.
V. The following instances show that St. Gregory
the Great exercised no less authority than his pre-
decessors : (i.) Athanasius, a priest of Isauria, had
been condemned for heresy by the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople. He appeals to Pope Gregory, who, after
having examined the process and the documents sent
to him by the Byzantine Patriarch, pronounces his
definitive sentence in favour of Athanasius, and notifies
it to the Patriarch. His words are quoted in the note,
and none could more strongly express the conviction of
his supreme authority. 353 And still the Eastern Church
in no wise objected to his jurisdiction. (2.) Again, a
priest of Chalcedon had been condemned as a heretic by
the same Patriarch. Pope Gregory, appealed to by the
condemned priest, cancelled the process in the Second
Roman Synod, declared him innocent, and openly
351 See Baronius' .-Inn ales A.D. 552, n. 16, p. 468, t. vii. Edit.
Lugd.
'onstitntum Vigilii Papic (Labbe, 1. c.. p. 1318).
' ; " Ab omni te hajretica: perversitatis macula juxta professi-
Diiom tuam liberam esse decernimus atque Catholicum et sincene
fidci in omnibus professorcm atque sequacem Christi Jcsu salvatoris
gratia claruissc pronuntiamus. . . . De hoc quoque et dilect-
issimo fratri nostro Constantinopolitanss civitatis antistiti, qui in
supra dicti Sancti Joannis loco ordinatus est, nostra volumus scripta
transmitterc." -Epist., 1. v., epist. Ixvi., ad Athanasium prcsbyt.
(Op., t. ii., p. 803. Kclit. Maur).
12O TJic Supreme Authority of the Pope
censured his judges as guilty of injustice. 354 He inti-
mated that sentence to the Patriarch John in the most
authoritative terms, 355 and in the same manner he wrote
to the Emperor Maurice, and to Theotistus his brother-
in-law, in order to secure protection to the priest John
against the unjust violence of his enemies. 055 Now, if
Gregory I. was no more than equal in jurisdiction to
the Patriarch of Constantinople, how could the proud
spirit of that Patriarch, who had been so stubborn in
defending the new title of Universal, endure silently the
interference of the Pope with his judgment, and the
authoritative quashing of his sentence ? If it be true,
as Bingham declares, that " From the judgment of a
Patriarch there lies no appeal," 357 how could Pope
Gregory, like his predecessors, exercise such an appel-
late jurisdiction, save in virtue of a supremacy fully
recognised throughout the whole Eastern Church ?
(3.) A third proof of the supreme jurisdiction exercised
by St. Gregory over the Patriarch of Constantinople
is afforded in the sentence passed by him on the monks
of Isauria condemned as heretics in the Court of the
Byzantine Patriarch. Pope Gregory reversed that sen-
tence, and acquitted the monks. 358 (4.) But the conduct
of Pope Gregory towards John, Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, casts the fullest light on the matter, and admits
of no reply whatever ; for upon hearing that the
354 Cone. Rom. ii. (Labbe, t. vi., p. 135). S. Gregorius : Epist.,
]. v., epist. xv., ad Joan. Episc. Constant., p. 803.
i:> S. Gregorius (1. c., p. 804) : u Eapropter eorumdem judicum
reprobantes sententiam nostra cum definitione Catholicum et ab
omni hreretico crimine liberum esse, Christ! Dei Redemptoris
nostri gratia revelante denuntiamus."
350 S. Gregorius : Epist., 1. v., epist. xvi., xvii. (1. c., pp. 804-5).
y *~ Bingham : Christian Antiquities, bk. ii., c. xvii., sec. xiv..
vol. I, p. 238. London.
368 S. Gregorius: Episl., \. vii., epist. xxxiv., ad Eulogittm Episc.
Alex. (1. c., p. 8Bz).
Admitted in East under Gregory L 121
Patriarch was obstinate in claiming the title of universal
bishop, he sent instructions to Sabinian, his Apocrisi-
arius in Constantinople, to act with the fullest authority
in restraining that ambitious prelate.* He wrote to the
Patriarch representing himself as under the obligation of
correcting any disorder which might arise in the Universal
Church ; he said that, acccording to the example of the
meekness of Christ, he had repeatedly used the mildest
forms of admonition and exhortation ; that should these
efforts be treated with contempt, he should be forced
to make use of the authority of the Church, for when
a dangerous wound cannot be healed by gentle handling,
we must have recourse to the knife. 360 Now, what
bishop in the Church ever had the power resccandi
I'ulncra, using the knife to the wounds of another bishop
his equal ? Where are the canons which authorise
even a metropolitan to act thus towards his suffragans ?
Had a Patriarch the authority to inflict a sentence of
condemnation and deposition upon another Patriarch ?
Unquestionably no Patriarch was ever allowed to act
thus against the Western Patriarch, and Dioscorus, who
attempted it, was excommunicated and deposed ex-
359 S. Grcgorius : Episf., 1. v., cpist. xix. (1. c., p. 747). " In hac
causa quidquid agendum est cum summa auctoritate agat/'
360 S. Gregorius : Epist., 1. v., epist. xviii. ad Joan. Episc. Const.
(1. c., p. 742). " Si emendare nolles cum (Sabinianum Apocrisa-
rium), Missarum solemnia cum fraternitate vestra celebrare prohibui,
ut sanctitatem vestram prius sub quadam vcrecundias reverentia
pulsarem : quatcnus si emendari nefandus et profanus tumor vere-
cunde non posset, tune ad ea debuisset, quas sunt districta atquc
canonica perveniri. Et quia resecanda vulnera prius leni manu
palpanda sunt : rogo, deprecor et quanta possum dulcedine ex-
posco," &c. Ibid., cpist. cit. (1. c., p. 746) : " Ego itaque per
Responsales mcos semel et bis verbis humilibus hoc quod in tota
Ecclesia peccatur corripere studui : nunc per me ipsum scribo.
Quidquid facere humiliter debui non omisi. Sed si in mea correp-
tione despicior, restat ut Ecclesiam debeam adhibere."
122 TJic Supreme Authority of the Pope
pressly on that very account in the Council of Chal-
cedon. 361 On the other hand, the Roman Patriarch
exercised this supreme power over all other Patriarchs
of the East, each and all of whom submitted to his
authority ; none of them raised the least objection to
his supreme jurisdiction. The divine supremacy alone
can furnish the explanation of these facts. But in order
better to understand the conduct of Pope Gregory
towards John, Patriarch of Constantinople, and, conse-
quently, the nature of the authority exercised, we must
recall to mind the Statutes sanctioned by Pope Pelagius,,
from which his successor, St. Gregory, declared that
he would never depart. 302 These are contained in a
letter addressed by the Pontiff to the bishops of the
Eastern Church. 363 In this letter, Pelagius asserts the
divine supremacy and authority of the Apostolic See ;
he speaks of the act of John in calling a synod without
the authority of that See as presumptuous, and annuls
all the decrees of that synod relating to the title of
iTcumcnical bishop, which the Byzantine Patriarch had
usurped. 364 St. Gregory, confiding in the same Apostolic
BC1 Cone. Chalcedon, act. v. (Labbc, t. iv., p. 1448).
o-j xaQfipsdri ^loGKOpoc, a/./.' =-=/' br { dzoivwrtGiav
ASOVT/ TU> dp^is-TTiGKO-Trui.
362 S. Gregorius : Epist., 1. ix., epist. Ixviii. (1. c., p. 984).
' Ciijus (Pelagii) nos rectitudinis zelo per omnia inhaerentes statuta
ipsius sine refragatione, Deo protegente, servamus, quia dignum est
ut rectam decessoris sui viam gressibus inoffensis incedat, quern de
eodem loco ad reddendam rationem itterni judicis tribunal ex-
pcctat."
363 Pelagius II. : Epist. vii. (Labbe, t. vi., p. 633). This epistle
belongs to the Isidorian collection, and is, therefore, probably
interpolated. Nevertheless, \ve quote that part only to which
allusion is made in the genuine letter of St. Gregory.
3C4 Pelagius l\.\. Epist. vii. (Labbe, t. vi., p. 634). Penes S.
Gregorium : Epist. cit. (1. c., p. 984). " Quod beatae recordationis
Pelagius decessor noster agnoscens omnia gesta ejusdem Synodi,
Admitted in East after Gregory I. 123
authority, and supported by the example of all his
predecessors in St. Peter's Chair, followed in the foot-
steps of Pelagius. His conduct was that which became
the head of the Church divinely appointed by Christ,
and the Greeks, by submitting to his orders, acknow-
ledged his authority over the whole Church.
VI. We should never make an end were we to enu-
merate all the instances in which the Eastern Churches
manifest their recognition of the Papal prerogative. At
the end of the Monothelite controversy, evidences in
favour of this recognition are of frequent occurrence.
Stephen, Bishop of Dora, had been educated in the
Catholic principles of Sophronius, who alone, of all
the Patriarchs of the East, during this period, remained
firm in fidelity to the revealed doctrine of the Incarna-
tion. Stephen had been one of the earliest members
of the synod held at Jerusalem against the new heresy ;
being sent to Rome by Sophronius, he presented to
Pope Martin, in the Lateran Council (A.D. 649) a
Libdhts in which he bore the most luminous testimony
to the Pope's supremacy. " Who shall give us," he
wrote, " the wings of a dove, that we may fly and la}'
down our distress before your supreme See, the ruler
and governor of all, that the wound may be entirely
healed ?" He continues to show that Martin's authority
was the authority of St. Peter, appointed to feed the
whole flock of Christ. Finally, referring to the mission
entrusted to him by Sophronius, he reported that the
holy Patriarch had addressed him as follows : " Go thou
with all speed from one end of the earth to the other,
till thou come to the Apostolic See, where the founda-
pra-tcr ill.i qua; illic de causa venemncUc memoriae Gregorii Epis-
copi Antiocheni sunt habita, valida omnino districtione cassavit
districtissima ilium increpatione corripiens, ut se a novo et a
tcmerario superstitionis nomine cohiberet."
124 The Supreme Authority of tJic Pope
tions of the true faith arc laid." 305 In the same Lateran
Council, another testimony to the divine supremacy of
the Roman See may be found which came from a diffe-
rent Eastern province. Sergius, Metropolitan of Cyprus,
wrote to " The most holy and blessed and godly lord
the Lord Theodoras, Father of Fathers, Archbishop,
and Universal Pope. Christ our Lord," he proceeds,
"has established the Apostolic See, oh sacred head, as a
divinely fixed and immovable basis, at which the faith
is learnt in its brightness. For as the divine Word truly
pronounced, ' Thou art Peter, and on thy foundation the
pillars of the Church arc placed.' To thee has He
committed the keys of heaven, and given the charge
of binding and loosing. Thou art appointed the de-
stroyer of profane heresy, the leader and doctor of the
orthodox and immaculate faith." '- m St. Maximus, that
illustrious Doctor of the seventh century, raised up by
God to contend against the Monothelites, also bears
clear testimony to the supremacy of the Holy See as
acknowledged in the Eastern Church. " Whosoever,"
he says, " anathematises those who condemn Pyrrhus,
anathematises the See of Rome, that is to say, the
Catholic Church." 3 ''' 7 And he goes on to say that this
Sec is the centre and the exemplar of faith, communion
with which is necessary to all who wish to belong to the
Catholic Church. The Sixth General Council (A.D. 680)
testifies to the same truth. In the prosphonetic letter
addressed to the Emperor Constantine, the Fathers of
that synod declare that the great Prince of the Apostles,
in the person of Pope Agatho, his successor, struggled
a6r> Libcllus Prcctim Stcphani Do re u sis. In Cone. Later. I.,
secret, ii. (Labbe, t. vii., p. 105, seq.).
' M(} LibeUus Sergii CyprL In Cone. Later, i., 1. c. (Harduini,
, \cta ConciL, t. iii., pp. 728-29).
367 Diffloratio ex Epist. S. Ma.vimi ad Petntm ilhistrcm (Op.,
t. ii. Edit. Migne, p. 144).
Admitted in East aftci Gregory I. 125
against error. They believe that Peter himself spake
through Agatho. :;(!S The same assertion is repeated in
the synodic letter addressed to the Pope : " To thee
who art the first See, and the ruler of the Universal
Church, we leave the office of deciding what course
must be adopted, since thou art founded on the solid
rock of faith." They add that they had willingly read
the letters forwarded by Agatho to the Emperor/ 50 and
that they had acknowledged them as divinely written
by the chief of the Apostles. 370
VII. In the next General Council, being the Second
of Nicaea (A.D. 787), a letter was read from Pope
Adrian I. to Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
wherein the Pontiff states most plainly the divine
authority of his supremacy. He writes as follows :
" ' The gates of hell shall not prevail against her.' And
again, ' Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build
My Church.' . . . Whose See was appointed the head
of all the Churches of God, as holding supremacy over
the whole world. Wherefore the blessed Apostle Peter,
through the word of God feeding the Church, has
retained, and will ever retain, the Princedom. . . .
The Saviour of the world gave the Apostle Peter
princedom and authority over the whole world ; and
through the same Apostle in whose place we, although
unworthy, at present sit, the holy Catholic and Apostolic
Roman Church has up to the present time held, and
'/)isf. Frosphonctica Condi, vi. ad Constantinuni Imp.
(Labbc, t. vii., p. 1089.)
59 Epist. Agathonis Papu- ad Constantinitr,i Imp. (Labbe, 1. c.,
]>. 652, seq.).
Jl Epist. Synodi Cone. \\. ad AgatJionctn Papa fit (Labbe,
t. vii., p. 1109.) "O':hv y.at r^fz. u: -purodptyu ffoi rr t ,
~lnr- r j); . . . a-~sp xa/ oj: a-ro rr^ -/.
126 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
will for ever hold, his princedom and authority. . . .
It is the head of all the Churches of the world." Then
the council, Tarasius himself being among them, having
heard Adrian's letter, unanimously exclaimed, " We
follow, accept, and admit, these letters." 371 The Patriarch
Tarasius also, in a letter addressed to the Pope, fully
acknowledged the divine supremacy of the Apostolic
Sec. 37 - The holy Nicephorus, his successor (A.D. 806),
did not swerve from this guiding principle. Not only
did he profess to follow the doctrine of the Roman
Pontiff, who was divinely instructed, and was his
Apostolic father and lord ; 373 but he also expressly
maintains the primacy of the Apostolic See, without the
consent of which, as he maintains, no examination and
sanction by a General Council would render it possible
practically to enforce a doctrine in the Church. 374 About
the same time, Theodorus Studites, who is still honoured
among the greatest saints in the Greek Church, affords
the most unequivocal testimony to the firm and universal
persuasion of the East as to the question before us. He
calls the Pope "most divine head of all heads; 375 chief
Hadrianus I. : Epist. ad Tarasinni* in act. ii. Cone. Nic. ii.
.Labbe, t. viii., p. 772). E.\- collect ionc. Auastasii Bibl., p. 764. The
synod answered scro/xs^a xai otyJi'A&a. /cat Kpoffi'-fA&a (L. c.,p. 776).
372 Epist. Tarasii Patr. ad Hadrianiun /., in act. viii. Cone.
Xic. ii. (Labbe, t. viii, p. 1280}.
373 Epist. .S. Xiccphori Patr. Constant, ad Leone in III. Papani
(Labbe, t. ix., p. 292, seq.).
374 S. Nicephorus : Apologetic us -pro Sanctis Iniaginibus (Op.
Edit. Migne, PP. Grac., t. c.. p. 597). &v an-j ofypa Kara rr t v
v yjvov/Azvo^ dzG/j,ot'g xa^wi'/.dl:. ~/.ai hpariKoTf sfeo
i
ruv Kara rr^v hputivwjv s8>p*iv, '/.at ruv
y r
375 S. Theodorus Stud. : Epist., 1. i., epist. xxxiii., ad Lconcni III.
(Op. Edit. Migne, PP. Grasc., t. xcix., p. 1017.) 0g/orarj ruv
o^ uv xtpaXw '/.-paXr t . See also epist. xxxiv., p. 1024.
Admitted in East after Gregory I. 127
pastor of the whole Church under heaven; 376 Apostolic
head over all appointed by God, pastor of the sheep
of Christ, keeper of the kingdom of heaven, rock of
the faith, upon which the Catholic Church was built,
Peter himself holding and governing the See of Peter." 1 ' 77
He asserts that the Papal authority is from God, 378 and
therefore he calls his princedom in the Church divine. 3?J
In accordance with these expressions, he styles the
Roman Church the head of all the Churches, through
which we unite ourselves with the three Patriarchs, 1 ' 5 "
supreme over all the Churches of God, the supreme
chair, the foundation of the Universal Church on earth. 3 * 1 ' 1
He states to the Emperor Michael that, according to
the primitive tradition the doctrine of faith is to be
transmitted from Rome ; 3B - and from it the certainty
of faith is to be derived. 383 So that he thus begins his
letter to Pope Leo : " Since Christ our God, after be-
stowing the keys of the kingdom of heaven, conferred
upon the great Peter the dignity of pastoral supremacy,
it is necessary that reference should be had to Peter, or
to his successor, when those who go astray from the
truth attempt to bring innovations into the Catholic
370 S. Thcodorus Stud. : L. c., p. 1020. Zuaov r,pa; dpyj-rf^v
rr,; {/TT oi/paioy 'ExxXj<7/a.
r ' 77 Ibid., Epist., 1. i.. epist. xii., ad Paschalcm Papain, p. 1 152 ;
ct 1. i., cpist. xxiv., ad Leone m Papain, p. 1025.
id., Epist.. 1. ii.. epist. xii., p. 1153. fyjt* ~o ir.yjtw era fa
<d;> z-/. roD Kavruv tfpotrtvsiv.
ro Ibid.^ Epist.. 1. ii., cpist. xxxiii., ad Econcni Papain, p. 1020.
40 Ibid., Epist., 1. ii., epist. Ixxiv., ad Michacle.ni Imp., p. 1309.
S1 Ibid., Epist., 1. i.. epist. xxxv., ad Basiliuni Archim., p. 1029 ;
1. ii., epist. Ixii., ad Fratrcs. p. 1280; epist. Ixvi., p. 1289; epist.
Ixxvi., p. 1332, &c.
3S - Ibid., Episf., 1. ii., epist. Ixxxvii.. ad Mic/iaf/cm Iinp.,^. 1332.
" 3 Ibid., Epist., 1. ii., epist. cxxix., ad Leoncm Xaccllariuin,
p. 1420. We shall quote this important passage in the second
volume of this work.
128 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
Church." 384 We defy criticism so to strain these passages
as to prevent a full acknowledgment of the Pope's divine
supremacy being drawn from them. During the ninth
century then, at which time fatal schism was at hand, the
persuasion of the divine jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff
had struck very deep root in the East ; and we learn,
from the plainest facts and least disputed documents of
that age, that this belief was not checked in the begin-
ning of the Photian schism.
VIII. As soon as the impious Emperor Michael had
deposed Ignatius, and raised to the Patriarchal see
Photius, a layman and a soldier, he was filled with
anxiety lest his usurpations should be counteracted and
opposed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff. He
therefore sent ambassadors to Nicholas I. with the most
calumnious accusations against the holy Patriarch
Ignatius. 385 But Nicholas, not misled by the craft of
the Greek Emperor, assumed, as a matter of course, the
character of supreme judge. He reserved to his own
tribunal the cause of Ignatius and Photius. 386 And at
the same time he solemnly declared that his authority in
the Church was supreme, that it extended over all the
sheep of Christ, that it was a divine authority, to the
decrees of which people and emperors must submit ;
for the power of emperors is confined to temporal
things, whilst the authority of the supreme pastor
embraces the spiritual interests of the Church and of
souls. He pressed these truths strongly upon all the
bishops of the Eastern Churches," 87 upon Photius, 388 and
;; ' 4 S. Theodoras Stud. : Epist., 1. ii., epist. xxxiii., ad Lconcm
Pa pain ) p. 1018.
^5 p p e Nicholas I. relates it in his Epist. i., ad Univ. Cath*
(Labbe, t. x., p. 1289).
3SG Ibid., Epist. Hi., ad Photium (Labbe, t. ix. } p. 1297).
387 Ibid., Epist. i., cit., I.e.
58 Ibid., Epist. vi., ad Photium (Labbe, 1. c., p. 1303, seq.).
Admitted at the time of PJiotius. 129
the Emperor Michael, to whom, with pastoral authority,
he points out what duties regarding ecclesiastical affairs
belong to him as Emperor. 389 Afterwards, in the synod
mbled in Rome, he pronounces the final sentence
of anathema and deposition against Photius, and decrees
the restoration of Ignatius to the see of Constantinople,
from which injustice and violence had expelled him.
With divinely-conferred authority he communicated his
definitive sentence to the Emperor, 390 to Photius, 391 to
Ignatius, 392 and to the clergy and the senate of Con-
stantinople ; 303 reminding them in each of these letters
of the divine supremacy entrusted to the Apostolic
See, that all might understand the ground whereon he
rested his claim to the authority of supreme judge.
Although, despite the exhortations and the reproaches
of the Sovereign Pontiff, 394 Michael failed to obey, Basil,
his successor, fully submitted to the Papal decrees. In
his letter to Pope Nicholas, he called the sentence
Apostolic and divine ; 395 he acknowledged the Roman
Pontiff to be the pastor appointed by Christ to rule
the Universal Church ; 396 and he begged of the Pope
to give still greater solemnity to his sentence by pro-
nouncing it before the apocrisiarius deputed by Ignatius
' 9 Pope Nicholas I. : Epist. ii., v., ad MicHaclcm Imp. (Labbc,
1. c., p. 1291, seq., et p. 1299, scq.).
30 Ibid., Epist. vii., ad cundem (Labbe, 1. c., pp. 1307 u).
391 Ibid., Epist. xi., ad Photiitm (Labbe, 1. c., p. 1389, scq.).
392 Ibid., Epist. xiii., ad Ignatium Patriarch. (Labbe, 1. c.,
p. 1400, scq.).
93 Ibid., Epist. x., ad Clcriun Constant. (1. c., p. 1370, seq.);
Epist. xiv., ad St'nat. Const., p. 1407.
34 Sec the Epist. viii. and ix. of Pope Nicholas to the Emperor
Michael (Labbe, 1. c., pp. 1316 1370).
395 Epist. Basilii Imp. ad Nicolaum /., in act. iii. Cone. viii.
(Ecum. (Labbc, t. x., p. 516). When that letter arrived, Adrian II.
held the Pontifical See, after the death of Pope Nicholas I.
390 L. c., p. 517.
J
130 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
and Photius jointly to the Holy See. 397 No sooner was
Ignatius restored to his see, than in a letter addressed to
the Pope he again gave the clearest testimony to the
divine supremacy. In this letter he calls the Pope,
" The head of us all, and of the spouse of Christ, the
Catholic and Apostolic Church ; " and he adds that,
" the words which Christ addressed to St. Peter (St.
Matt. xvi. 1 8, 19) were not confined or limited to the
chief of the Apostles only, but through him were trans-
mitted to all who, after him, should like him be chief
pastors and most divine sacred Pontiffs of the elder
Rome."'"' 98 Such language is diametrically opposed to
that held by partisans of schism. But we would rather
refer to the Eighth (Ecumenical Council, in order to
show how far the authority claimed at that time by
Nicholas I. was acknowledged without opposition by
the whole Oriental Church. Adrian II., through his
legates, imposed a formulary of union to be signed by
all the Fathers of the synod, 309 in which the divine
supremacy of the Apostolic See is asserted in. the very
words of the previous formulary of union proposed by
Pope Hormisdas. It runs as follows : 4< By following in
all things the Apostolic See, and observing all its
decrees, we hope to be enabled to join communion with
the same Apostolic See, in which the solidity of the
Christian religion is to be found in its truth and in-
tegrity. And we promise not to recite at the holy
mysteries the names of those who are cut off from the
communion of the holy Church that is to say, who do
not agree with the Apostolic See." The Papal legates
L. c., p. 517-
398 Epist. S. Ignatii Patriarchs ad Nicolaum Papam (Labbe,
I.e., pp. 517-18).
:;9J In act. i. Cone. CEcuitt. viii. (Labbe, t. x., pp. 497-98). That
formulary had been proposed by Nicholas I. to the Greek Church,
and Adrian II. prescribed the same in the synod.
Admitted at tJic time of Photiits. 151
read this formulary, and asked the Fathers whether
they admitted it ; general acclamations testified their
approval of it as they cried out that it pleased them.^*
Xor was this all. After the death of Ignatius, Pope
John VIII. was led by reasons of prudence to yield
to the prayers of the Emperor Basil, and to confirm
Photius in the Patriarchate ; but the Pontiff was most
careful to impose as a condition that Photius should
recant in a public synod all that he had uttered against
the- authority and doctrines of the Catholic Church. 4 " 1
All know how the hypocrite complied with this require-
ment ; 402 but still he could not avoid giving public
testimony to the supremacy of the Apostolic See, for he
was persuaded that by this solemn declaration he should
strengthen his own power. Although he interpolated
all the letters of Pope John VIII. he did not dare to
suppress the Pontiff's claim to his divine authority, nor
his plain statement of his supremacy in the Church. In
the synod held by Photius at Constantinople (A.D. 879),
he read the interpolated letter of Pope John to the
Emperor Basil, wherein we find the following words :
" The Apostolic See received the keys of the kingdom
400 L. c., p. 500.
11 Joannes VIII.: leftist, cxcix., ad ttasilium I)tif>. (Labbe.
t. xi.. p. 128, scq.). When Photius had heard of his condemnation
by Nicholas I., and of the mission of the Papal legates into
Bulgaria, he sent to the Oriental Patriarchs a most bitter cnc\-
rlical against the doctrines of the Latin Church. (Epist. xiii.
rjiotii. Op., t. ii. Kdit. Migne. p. 721, seq.) Then, assembling
a synod at Constantinople, he audaciously pronounced a sentcmv
of excommunication and deposition against Nicholas I. ---See
Anastasius, in Pnrf. ad Cone. viii. (Labbe, t. x., p. 476) ; Jager.
Hisioirc <ic Photiits, 1. v., p. 146, seq. 2nd Edit. Paris.
12 Photius interpolated the letters of Pope John, in order u>
himself from the humiliating recantation of his errors.- See
them in Labbc, t. x., p. 966, seq.. p. 983, seq. ; t. xi.. p. 132.
p. 141, seq.
J 2
132 TJic Supreme Authority of tJic Pope
of heaven from the Great Pontiff Jesus Christ through
Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, to whom He said,
'To thee I will give the keys/ &c. It has the power
of binding and loosing throughout the world. . . By
the authority, therefore, of Peter, the Prince of the
Apostles, we, in union with the holy Church, announce
to you, and through you to all our holy brothers and
fellow-ministers, the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem, and all other bishops and priests, and
t< > the whole Church of Constantinople, that we consent
and agree to all things which you have asked." The
letter then proceeds: "Receive Photius as the Patriarch
of your Church, and conform your love and faith, and
with reverence obey him and through him the holy
Roman Church, for whosoever receives him not, receives
not our decrees or those of the holy Roman Church
concerning him ; nor does such a one wage war against
him only, but against the most holy Apostle Peter,
yea, even against Christ the Son of God." 403 When the
Fathers of the synod were asked by Peter, cardinal
and legate of the Holy See, whether they agreed with
the letter of the Roman Pontiff in all its parts, all joined
with Photius in answering that they agreed. 404 In like
manner other letters of John VIII. were read in which
the same doctrine of the Pope's divine supremacy was
repeatedly asserted, and unanimous consent was given
to them by the synod. 405 When Photius soon afterwards
cast off his hypocritical mask, John. VIII. inflicted
upon him a sentence of excommunication and deposi-
tion, 400 and Leo the Wise, successor of the Emperor Basil,
403 Kpist. Joannis VIII. ad Basil. Imp. (corrupts a Photio) in
act. ii. Cone. Photiani (Labbe. t. xi., p. 366, seq.).
* L. c, p. 378-
''"' Labbe, 1. c.. pp. 383, 426, seq.
4oo j-) c Pscutto-Synado Photii* in App. ad Cone. viii. (Labbe,
t. x., p. 953).
Admitted at the time, of P /ID fins, 133
executed both this sentence and that of Stephen VI., the
successor of John. 407 Additional proofs of our position
might be derived from the letter written on that occa-
sion by the Oriental Bishops, Stylianus, Kusebius, &r..
to Stephen VI. ; UIS and from those of Stephen to the
Emperor 409 and to all the Eastern bishops; 410 and of
the Popes Formostis 411 and John IX., 412 to Stylianus ;
and it must be observed that these testimonies belong
to the very time when Photius was gratifying his pride
and ambition by promoting the great schism. The
Eastern Church remained united with that of Rome
until Michael Cerularius obtained the Patriarchal See of
Constantinople. Ambition of the Emperors, no less
than of the Patriarchs, and shameful servility on the part
of the clergy towards their temporal princes, were the
true causes of that deplorable schism which detached
from the centre of union one of the noblest Churches
of Christendom, and cast it down into ignominious
slavery under the Sultans of Constantinople. 413 Up to
the time of the infliction of this tremendous punishment,
the Apostolic See spared no efforts to avert it, and to
recall to union the portion of Christ's flock that had
so miserably gone astray. The two Councils of Lyons
and Florence remain as noble monuments of the endea-
l " : L. c.
l ' K EpistoUr Styliani aliorninqnc Episcflporum ad StcpJninum
17. Papam, in App. Cone, viii., cit. (Labbc. t. x., p. 902, seq.,
p. 914, seq.).
19 Epist. Stcphani VI. ad Rasilium fmp. (Labbe, 1. c.. p. 895,
sei|. . The Emperor Basil was dead when the letter of Pope
Stephen reached Constantinople.
4111 Epist. .Stcphani 17. ad omncs itbique Episcopos (Labbc, 1. c.,
p. 911).
;1 Epist. i., I r onnosi Papa* ad Stylianum (Labbe. t. xi., p. 6i2\
- Epist. ii., Joannis IX. ad Stylianum (Labbe, 1. c., p. 688).
IJ See Pitzipios : LEglise Orientate. pt. iii.. c. i.. p. 82, seq.
Rome, 1855.
134 Th? Supreme Authority of t/u- Pope.
\<>iirs made by the Roman Pontiffs to bring back the
Eastern Church to Catholic unity. In both these
councils the whole episcopate, as well as the Byzantine
Emperors, acknowledged the divine supremacy of the
Roman See, and testified to it by documents, which
their relapse into schism has not been able to invali-
date. 414
IX. After all the proofs which we have brought
forward, it is strange that the leading writers of the
I figh Church in .England should deny that the Greek
Church ever acknowledged the existence of such a divine
authority in Christendom. It is yet more strange to
read in the Eirenicon that, " The conditions of recon-
ciliation (imposed on the Eastern Church) were absolute
submission to an authority which had grown up since
the separation." 41 '"' To maintain that the Papal supre-
macy was wholly unknown to the Greek Church up to
the time when Michael Cerularius broke the bonds of
union with the West, betrays great ignorance of the
history of the Greek empire and Church. Dr. Puscy,
in a succeeding passage, professes not to understand
how it can be that the Eastern Church " is no part of
the Church of Christ, because it does not subject itself
to the West, under which God did not place it?" 41<i
.But in this sentence the author falls into the fallacy
which in logic is called a pclitio principii; and assumes
as certain two principles, both of which are not only
unproved, but false first, that Christ did not institute
in His Church any supremacy in the person of St.
Peter and his successors ; and secondly, that the Greek
4U Formula l^idci Mich. /;///>., in Cone. Lugdim. (Labbe, t. xiv.,
p. 511). SacrauiL'iilii)}! Gnccorum (Labbe, 1. c., p. 516). Decrctum
( 'nionis, in Cone. Florentine (Labbe, 1. c.. p. 1183). ' In the eighth
section \ve shall speak of this important decree.
u: ' Klrc.nicon^ p. 62.
1111 L c., p. 63.
A'ussia Converted before the Schism. 135
Church never acknowledged such a supremacy, nor
submitted to it. Moreover, in order to judge of the
sentiments of the Greeks, even before their schism, we
must not look, as Dr. Pusey has done, to the writings of
Elias Meniates, Bishop of Zerniza, towards the end of
the seventeenth century. 417 We agree with the Oxford
divine, that at present "the chief controversy between
the Greek and the Latin Church, as between Protestants
and Catholics, is the supreme power of the Pope ; " but
we do not hold with him that the dispute about the
supreme power of the Pope was the principal cause of
the separation of the Greeks from the Catholic Church.
The facts and documents produced in the course of this
section afford sufficient evidence of our assertion, and
free us from the necessity of giving any further proof.
But Dr. Pusey goes on to remark, on the authority of
the Archimandrite Macarius, 418 "That the great Russian
empire, converted to the faith by the preaching of monks
and missionary bishops since the separation of the East
from the West, is a witness to the Greek Church that
she is a true member of the one Church." 419 The author
evidently misconceives the history of the conversion of
the Russian empire, and thus, from an erroneous suppo-
sition, draws a consequence which cannot stand modern
criticism. 4 ' 20 The true date of the conversion of the
Russians to Christianity is undeniably to be placed be-
tween the middle of the tenth century and the middle of
the eleventh. For although some attempt to convert that
nation had been made under the Emperor Basil, in
417 Eirenicon, p. 63.
418 History of Christianity in Russia, p. 394 (in the Eirenicon,
p. 62).
419 Eirenicon, 1. c.
420 It is pitiful to find that A. Possevin, in his pamphlet, Df
Rebus Muscoiiitis (pt. ii., p. 92), fell into the same mistake. But
the criticism of the age of Possevin was not that of the present time.
136 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
A.I). 876, and a bishop consecrated at that time by the
Patriarch Ignatius had been sent into Russia, 421 no very
great fruit was gathered from that mission, nor from
any of the others which were sent, probably, after the
deposition of Ignatius, and which Photius extolled with
so much vanity in his famous encyclical. 422 The true
beginning of the conversion of the Russians is to be
found in the year 955, when the Grand Duchess Olga
was baptised at Constantinople. 423 Her conversion,
however, did not immediately incline the bulk of the
nation to embrace the faith of Christ ; but when her
grandson, Wladimir, became a Christian (988), the
Russians flocked in great crowds to receive baptism in
the Dnieper. From that time Christianity continued to
make great progress in Russia, until, under Jaroslav, it
became firmly established (1019 IO54). 424 Now, during
the whole of this period, the Greek Church was in full
communion with Rome, and in regular subjection to the
Apostolic See ; the fatal schism did not begin till the
year 1054, when the sentence of excommunication was
pronounced by the Papal legates against Michael Ceru-
421 Constantinus Porphyrogenitus : In Vita Basilii (Theophanes
Contin., n. 97. Edit. Bonnae, p. 343, seq.) Cedrenus : Hist.) t. ii.,
p. 242. Edit. Bonnae.
422 The learned Asseman not only proved the falsehood of what
Photius wrote in that encyclical about the conversion of Russia,
but also asserted that the whole of that encyclical was concocted
by Photius after the year 869, as if he had written and published it
long before his exile. See Kalendarium Ecclesia Univ., t. ii.,
pt. ii., c. i., sec. xiv., p. 253, seq. Romae, 1755.
423 Const. Porphyrog. : De Caeremoniis Aulee Byzantince, 1. ii.,
c. xv., p. 594. Edit. Bonnae. See also Stilting : De Conversions
ct Fide Russorum, sec. ii. (Acta SS., t. ii., Septembris, p. v., seq.).
F. Gagarin : Origincs Catholiqucs dc VEglise Russe, sec. iii. {Etudes
Thtolog. Hist., t. ii., 1857, p. 161, seq.).
424 See the documents in Op. cit. of Stilting, 1. c., sees, iii., iv.
(Acta SS., t. c., p. vi., seq.). Gagarin : 1. c., sees, iv., v. (1. c.,
p. 174, seq.).
Russia Converted before the Schism. 137
larius. 4 - 5 But we do not intend to dwell on this subject,
the difficulties of which have already received satis-
factory explanation ; 4 - r> we are content to refer the
reader to the learned works of Count de Maistre, 4 - 7
Aug. Galitzin, 428 F. J. Gagarin, 429 P. C. Tondini, 430 &c.
These writers contain a valuable collection of extracts
from the original ancient liturgical books of the Russian
Church. The divine supremacy of the Pope will be
found to be stated with so much clearness and emphasis
as to make it impossible to maintain that those docu-
ments were framed by a church which had not from
its cradle been under the influence of Rome.
A - :> Stilting : Op. cit., sees, v., vi. (1. c., p. xii., seq.). Gagarin :
1. c., sees, vi., vii. (1. c., p. 210, seq.).
426 Besides the two above-mentioned works of Stilting and
Gagarin, see also Vizzardelli : Dissertatio dc Originc Christiame
Religions in Russia. Roma?, 1826. Blatter, in his Political
Hist., t. iv., ix. Theiner : De la Situation dc PEglise Catholiquc
dcs deux rites en Pologne et en Russie. &c.
427 DK Pape, 1. i., c. x.
428 Un Missionaire Russc en Amcriqnc. Append. Paris, 1856.
429 Les Staroveres, or FEglisc Ritsse, et le Pa.pe, sec. vi. (Etudes
cit, t. ii., 1857, p. 64, seq.).
430 La Primautc de Saint Pierre prouvee par les titrcs que lui
donnc rKglise Russc dans sa Liturgie. Paris, 1867.
SECTION VI.
FALSE DECRETALS AFRICAN CONTROVERSY CANONS
OF SARDICA ON APPEALS CONSIDERED IN RELA-
TION TO THE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE.
I. WHAT we have seen of the relations between the
Eastern Church and the Apostolic See, would not have
prepared us for the assertion so frequently made that
the present state of isolation of the Eastern, as well as
of the English Church, is owing to the forgery of the
False Decretals. Yet Dr. Pusey attributes to these that
practical system of authority which, he thinks, com-
pletely changed the position the Roman Church occu-
pied in the fourth and fifth centuries. 4 ' 31 The documents
produced in the two foregoing sections are more than
sufficient to show that the Decretals had nothing to do
with the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff, which
the Latin and the Greek Church alike had ever acknow-
ledged. Neither Emperors nor Patriarchs would have
submitted to it, had they not been persuaded of its
divine origin. The East most certainly had no knowledge
of the False Decretals ; nor was any appeal made to them
by the Popes when exercising a supreme jurisdiction
over the Eastern Patriarchates. That jurisdiction had
been exercised by the Popes, both in the East and in the
West, long before the appearance of the so-called
Isidorian Collection in the ninth century, and those who
maintain the contrary should produce proof that for
nine centuries the Pope was no more than primus inter
pares, and regarded as such both by East and West.
431 Eirenicon, p. 236, seq.
Supreme Authority of the Pope. 139
And even if which is impossible this were demon-
strated, still it would remain to be shown that the
universal and supreme authority of the Popes was built
upon the False Decretals. For had the collection changed
the essential constitution of the Church, set up over all
an authority unknown for nine centuries, and given to
it rights and prerogatives nowhere previous!}' heard of,
how could such a collection have found acceptance in
the Church ? Nicholas L, contemporary of the author
of that collection, solemnly asserted and maintained,
both in the West and East, his supreme divine authority,
and exercised its rights and privileges, and yet no objec-
tion was raised against his pretensions on the part of
riiher the \Yestern or of the Eastern episcopate. Dr.
Pusey has fallen into two great mistakes in this matter.
The first is to believe with Floury a bitter Gallican
and with some very few Protestants, that the Papal
i>ower was increased by the Forged Decretals; 432 the
>econd is to believe that "The system built upon that
forgery abides still;" which leads him to say that,
" The Cireek Church could not be admitted to com-
munion with the West without merging its whole Patri-
archal, or episcopal system, such as it inherited from the
times of the undivided Church, so that her bishops
should be the mere delegates of the Roman Pontiff,
liable to be deposed at his mere will, as the eighty
French bishops were by Pope Pius VII., in his concordat
with Napoleon I. Our communion was rejected, because
our forefathers used the same freedom which the Church
of St. Augustine enjoyed." 4 - By the system built on
this forgery, the author appears to mean the divine
supremacy of the Pope in full exercise in the Universal
Church. Now as regards the first mistake, reference
should have been made to some writer of more authority
rt - Eirenicon, p. 237, scq. 4:c; Ibid., p. 256.
140 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
on the origin and bearing of the Decretals than the
Abbe Fleury. The merest tyro in Canon Law knows
that the false opinion of Fleury, and of two other
writers, A. Theiner and H. E. Eichhorn, is at present
abandoned on every hand, and almost forgotten. Several
writers of great erudition and ability, Protestant as well
as Catholic, have discussed the matter, and have come
to a totally different conclusion. In addition to the two
Ballerini, whose opinion is of the very greatest weight,
we may cite Walter, Rosshirt, Mohler, Spittler, Plank,
Drosle-Hulshoff, Knust, A. Wasserschleben, Gfrorer,
Hefele, Denzinger, Phillips, and Hinschius ; and this list
could be increased, if necessary. The works of these
writers show that the age of the Abbe Fleury and of
Du Pin is dead and buried ; history requires, in these
our times, deep, critical study, not fanciful and a priori
views and puerile declamations. 434
II. As regards the second error, we do not know to
what scholar Dr. Pusey could make appeal in support of
his opinion. The Popes, as we have proved, evidently
exercised their supreme jurisdiction over the whole
Church long before the False Decretals had appeared in
the West. Their authority was based on the words
addressed by Christ to St. Peter ; and on this head,
at least, the Decretals contain nothing which was not
laid down by the Apostles, and constantly practised in
the Universal Church. Again, we are startled at meet-
ing with the bold assertion that the Church of England
is now no more independent of Rome, in fact, than was
the African Church in the time of Augustine. 435 We
434 -y^e do not intend to speak here of the true author of the
Decretals, nor of the age in which they were put in circulation.
This controversy, which has been so well treated by many learned
writers, does not concern our argument so nearly as to make the
discussion of it necessary.
436 Eirenicon, p. 256, and p. 66, seq.
Shewn in the Apiarian Controversy. 141
do not intend at present to explain at length the
controversy which arose in the African Church on the
occasion of the appeal of Apiarius to the Apostolic See.
But we will make some remarks on the subject, in order
to solve the groundless objection against the Catholic
doctrine, which is based on the incident. In the first
place, St. Augustine, who is quoted as an authority upon
this point by the author of the Eirenicon, bears clear
testimony against the teaching of that book, for he
acknowledges that even in the year 311, before the
Councils of Nicaea (325) and of Sardica (347), the Popes
had exercised the supreme jurisdiction to decide eccle-
siastical disputes which arose in the African Church. 436
In another place the same great Doctor openly confesses
that the Apostolic See held its supremacy long before
the assembling of the First General Council in the
Church. 437 Secondly, it is altogether erroneous to assume
that in 419 the African Church either was ignorant
of, or contradicted, the claim of the Pope to receive
appeals, and to reverse, if he saw proper, the sentence
of all ecclesiastical tribunals, or to appoint new judges
who should pronounce their sentence without appeal.
It is true that the African Fathers did not find in the
records of the Nicene Council the canons to which Pope
Zosimus appealed in his Commonitorinm ; nevertheless,
they restored Apiarius to his former degree, according
to the sentence of the Papal legates, who had been
associated with the neighbouring bishops by the Roman
Pontiff as judges in that cause. 438 They could not
refuse submission since they had always acknowledged
5. Augustinus : Episi. xliii., nn. 7, 9 (Op., t. ii. Edit. Maur.,
pp. 69, 70).
4::: In Roinana Ecclcsia .\\inpcr Apostolicce CatJicdra' viguit
principatns* e^r., 1. c., n. 7, p. 69.
438 Sec the vi. Council of Carthage (Labbe, t. iii., p. 443, seq.) ;
Epist. Coucilii ad Bonifacium /., n. 2 (Coustant., p. ion).
142 The Supreme Authority of the Pope
the Roman Pontiff as the Vicar of Christ upon earth.
Besides, as the learned Ballerini remarks, 439 in all the
letters addressed by the bishops of Africa to Popes
Boniface I. and Celestine I., there is nothing which can
be understood to imply the least idea of resistance to
the supreme jurisdiction of the Pope in receiving appeals.
All the reasons alleged in them by the African Fathers
refer to the discipline of the African Church, which, as
they thought, was not at variance with any decree of
a general council. Their reasons referred, also, to the
distance of the two countries, the difficulties of procuring
the necessary information, the danger of scandal which
would frequently arise, and other inconveniences, which
do not relate to any claim of jurisdiction. Nay, they
made no objection to appeals of bishops to the Roman
Pontiff, but only to those of the inferior clergy, to whom,
according to the ancient customs of the African Church,
appeal to the Roman tribunal was not allowed. On this
account decrees had been made in the Council of Hippo
(393), and in that of Carthage (397), that the causes of
simple priests should be definitively settled by the
sentence of six bishops. But after the case of Apiarius,
greater allowances were made in favour of the inferior
clergy, for they were enabled to appeal to the provincial
synods, and even to the general councils of all Africa.
There is no mention of any decree in the African
councils by which a bishop is prevented from appealing
to the Apostolic Sec, for it was always understood that
the causa; majorcs were to be definitely judged by the
supreme tribunal of the Roman Pontiff. In conformity
with this state of the law, the letter addressed by the
African bishops to Pope Celestine supplicated him not
to admit the appeals of the inferior clergy, for this
430 Ballerini : Obscrvationcs in i. partcm Dissert. \.
n. 30 (in Op. S. Lconis, t. ii., p. 971).
Admitted by Saint Augustine. 143
would be against the ancient discipline of the African
Church. But with regard to the bishops, they besought
the Pope not to receive their appeals so easily, or to
listen to their defence. 440 In proof of this, we may cite
the instance of Anthony, Bishop of Fussala, who being
deposed from his episcopal administration, appealed to
Pope Boniface, the successor of Zozimus, and afterwards
to Celestine. This Pope sent legates into Africa to
execute his sentence. Now the Africans did not deny
the jurisdiction of the two Popes who received the
appeal, but they complained only of the manner in
which the Apostolic sentence had been carried into
execution, the Papal legates having called in the support
of the civil authorities. Complaint was also made of
the deceitful means used by Bishop Anthony to gain
the Pope over to his side. 441 The African Church
never denied the right of the Pope to receive appeals
in the case of bishops, and even of priests. Such a denial
was impossible, since that Church had always looked upon
the Roman Bishop, as not only its Patriarch, but also
the supreme pastor of the Universal Church. 442 Yet,
in the face of all this, we are told that the Anglican
Church is not now more independent of Rome than
was the African Church in the time of St. Augustine.
Had the author of the Eirenicon attentively considered,
with the learned Schelestrate and Ballerini, the ancient
monuments of the African Church, he would not have
ventured upon so sweeping an assertion. We refer
the reader to the passage in which Mr. Allies, in his
u Sec Ballerini in Obscrr. cit., c. vi., nn. 20, 21, &c. (I. c.,
V- "55, seq.).
441 See S. August. : /-/V.t/. ccix.. n. 9 (Op., t. ii., p. 593) ; Epist.
Afrorum ad Ca'lt'stinum Papam (Constant., p. 1058, seq.) ; Bini,
Xotic in Cone. Cartk. (Labbe. t. iii., p. 455, seq.).
442 Schelestrate : Eccksia Africana, dissert, i.. c. viii.. p. 56.
Varisiis, 1679.
144 The Supreme Authority of tJie Pope.
pamphlet on the Ancient Church, contrasts Anglican
independence of the Pope and the union of the African
Church with him in St. Augustine's age. 443 We further
invite attention to the Catholic epistle of the African
bishops of the seventh century to Pope Martin in the
Lateran Council, wherein they bear the most solemn
testimony to the faith of their Fathers and predecessors
in acknowledging the divine supremacy of the Apostolic
See. 444
III. But Dr. Pusey, in common with many other
anti-Catholic writers, insists on the Canons of Sardica
as proving that the Papal prerogative of receiving
appeals does not rest on any divinely conferred right,
but is of merely ecclesiastical institution. A scholar is
certainly far behind the present age in historical erudi-
tion who does not know that, long before the Council
of Sardica, the Popes received appeals from all Churches
and passed definitive sentence, especially in those causes
of great importance which were called causes majores.
The history of antiquity has preserved the records of
the appeals of Privatus Lambesitanus, who had been
condemned by a synod of ninety bishops (250) ; 445 of
Basilides of Astorga, and Martial of Merida (262) ; 44G
of Paul of Samosata, who had been deposed in the
Council of Antioch (262) ; 447 and of many similar cases.
But especial mention must be made of the appeal of
St. Athanasius and of the other bishops who, on account
443 Allies : Dr. Pusey and 'the Ancient Church, p. 61, seq.
144 Labbe, t. vii., p. 131, seq.
445 See Coustant. : Epist. RR. PP.Notitia epist. non extant.
Xtephani Papa, n. ii., p. 223. In the course of this section we
shall answer the remarks of Dr. Pusey on this appeal.
440 See Balutius : Not a in Epist. Ixviii. S. Cypriani, p. 492.
Kdit. Parisiis, 1726. Pamelius in Adnot. in Epist. cit.
447 Zaccaria : Antifcbronio^ pt. ii., 1. iii., c. ii., sec. 6, p. 464, seq.
Ccsenae, 1770.
The Sard lean Canons and Papal Appeals. 145
of their heroic defence of the con substantiality of the
Divine Word, had been expelled from their sees by the
Arians. Julius heard them, absolved them as innocent,
and with supreme authority restored them to the sees of
which they had been most unjustly deprived. 448 That
important judgment of the Roman See took place,
according to some authorities, in 337, 449 according to
others, in 341 : 450 that is at least six years before the
Council of Sardica, which did not meet till 347. Thus,
whatever the Canons of Sardica imply, they certainly
did not bestow on the Popes any new right, any right
which had not been inherent in them by virtue of
their divine supremacy, and which they had not long
before exercised in the Universal Church. 4:>1 But the
fact is, the Canons of Sardica contain nothing which
favours the interpretation put upon them.
IV. The well known Canons of Sardica in question
are three in number: the third, the fourth, and the seventh
which in the Greek text is numbered as the fifth. 4 "'-
41 " Socrates : H. E., 1. ii., capp. xi., xv. Edit. Valcsii. pp. 89,91.
Sozomenus : H. E., 1. iii., c. viii. Edit. Valcsii, p. 507.
440 Constant.: Op. cit., p. 351. Zaccaria : Thesaurus Theolog.*
t. vii., pt. L, p. 725, scq.
'"'' Valesius : Obscwationcs in Soa\ ct Sozoni., 1. i., c. iii., p. 175.
4->1 This argument has been treated with great erudition by
Ballcrini : Obser--<atioucs in pt. i., diss. v., Qucsncllii (in Op. S.
Leonis. t. ii., p. 925, seq.). Lupus : Summiim Roui. ^\post. Sedis
rri~>ilegium circa Ei'ocationes et Appellationcs. Bononia:, 1742.
/.accaria : Op. cit., pt. ii., c. ii., n. 8, p. 470, seq. Stcfanucci :
Dissert, dc Appdlationibus ad Rom. Pont if. Edit. 1768.
452 The three Canons of Sardica are as follows : Canon iii. " Si
in aliqua provincia aliquis episcopus contra fratrem suum epis-
copum litem habuerit, nc unus ex duobus ex alia provincia advocet
episcopum cognitorem. Ouod si aliquis episcoporum judicatus
Hierit in aliqua causa et putet se bonam causam haberc, ut iteruni
concilium rcnovetur ; si vobis placet, S. IVtri Apostolt memoriani
honoremus, ut scribatur ab his qui causam cxaminarunt, Julio
Rom. Episcopo ; et si judicaverit rcnovandum esse judicium,
K
146 77/6' Supreme Authority of the Pope.
Now, the first of these docs not relate to appeals ;
the other two acknowledge appeals to the Pope as an
historical fact, but they make no new enactment what-
ever regarding the right of appealing to the Apostolic
See. The words, " Let us honour the memory of the
holy Apostle Peter/' belong to the Third Canon only,
by which a new discipline was introduced, in no way
relating to appeals, nor to any revision whatever. Ac-
cording to the old discipline, a bishop who had been
condemned by a synod of his own province could
appeal to a second synod, which was to be formed of
the bishops of the neighbouring province. These were
to be summoned according to the ordinary procedure
by the metropolitan ; but, by abuse, they had sometimes
been convoked by the condemned bishop, or by his
accuser. 453 The Fathers of Sardica, in the first part
of their Third Canon, forbade this abuse. Moreover,
renovetur. et det judices. Si autem probaverit talem causam essc
ut non refricentur ea quse acta sunt ; quae decreverit confirmata
erunt." Canon iv. " Gaudentius cpiscopus dixit : Addendum si
placet, huic sentential quam plenam sanctitate protulistis, ut cum
aliquis episcopus depositus fuerit eorum episcoporum judicio, qui
in vicinis locis commorantur, et proclamaverit agendum sibi nego-
tium in urbe Roma ; alter episcopus in ejus cathedra, post appella-
tionem ejus qui videtur esse depositus, omnino non ordinetur nisi
causa fuerit in judicio Episcopi Romani determinata" (Labbe, t. ii.,
p. 674). Canon vii. u Si episcopus accusatus fuerit, et omnes judi-
caverint episcopi regionis ipsius, et de gradu suo eum dejecerint,
si appellaverit et confugerit ad bcatissimum Rom. Ecclesias Epis-
copum, et voluerit se audiri ; si justum putaverit, ut renovetur
examen, scribere his episcopis dignetur Episcopus Rom. qui in
finitima et propinqua aliqua provincia sunt, ut ipsi diligenter
omnia requirant, et juxta lidem veritatis definiant. Ouod si is ...
deprecatione sua moverit Episcopum Rom., ut de latere suo Pres-
byteros mittat, erit in potestate quid velit et quid asstimet," &c.
(Ibid., p. 675).
453 Marchetti : Dissert, sul Cone, di Sardica, p. ii.. sec. ii., n. 30,
seq., p. 133. seq. Roma, 1789.
The Sanlican Canons and Papal Appeals. 147
with regard to the convocation of the second .synod by
the metropolitan, they changed the old discipline, for
they decreed that, should the bishop condemned by a
synod ask for a second trial, the matter should be
referred to the Pope, that he might judge whether or
not justice required it, and if so, appoint new judges.
This is the literal sense of the canon, which can hardly
bear a different meaning. 4 "'* The simple perusal of
the text will be sufficient to prove that the canon in
question does not grant any appeal, nor even any
revision of the cause, as De Marca inclines to think,
and as Dr. Pusey so positively asserts ; this opinion
being founded on the fact that according to the Latin
text, the Pope is requested to appoint the judge of the
new tribunal, and in the Greek he is requested to refer
the case to the bishops of the neighbouring province. 4; ' ;i
As regards the Fourth Canon, we have in it one of the
best proofs of the ancient and legitimate right of the
Pope to receive appeals, and to correct the sentences of
synods when he found them erroneous. For the bearing
of the canon in question is simply to suspend the effect
of every sentence of deposition and condemnation pro-
nounced by the provincial synods in the second instance
until the Pope had decided the cause of the appellants.
Hut the council did not say whether or not bishops who
had been judged in the second instance could appeal to
the Pope ; nor does it expressly grant to deposed bishops
the privilege of such an appeal. The council states no
more than the following hypothetical case : "Should the
deposed bishop declare that he will pursue his cause
at Rome, after the appeal made by him who has been
deposed, no other bishop must be ordained in his place
4l<l M;irchetti : 1. c.
cud TUJV ys/rv/ou'/rwv rr; .--Tap^// f-ryffxo-Twv, :-/ fi=o/.
'mu.G7rit.iw (Labbc. t. ii.. p. 660).
K 2
The Supreme Authority of tJic Pope.
till the cause be decided by the judgment of the Roman
Bishop." We conclude then from this canon (i.) that
the custom of appealing to the Pope, after the sentence
of the tribunal in the second instance, existed long before
the Council of Sardica, and remained unmodified by the
decrees of that council ; (2.) that since the judgment of
the Pope was effectual to annul the sentence of the
tribunal in the second instance, the Council of Sardica
thought fit to decree that in case of appeal to the Pope
no bishop should be ordained in the place of him who
was deposed, because, should the sentence of deposition
be reversed, the newly-elected bishop would remain
without a see. The meaning of. this canon is so evident
that it is needless to spend more time on the explana-
tion of it. Finally, the Seventh Canon is so plain as
scarcely to require elucidation. The object is to en-
force the ordinary discipline of the Church concerning
appeals to the supreme tribunal in causes which had
not passed through the courts of inferior jurisdiction.
Doubtless, in case of appeal, the Pope could ex plcni-
tudine potestatis decide a cause which had been judged
by a tribunal of the first instance only ; but the council
intended to state and enforce the ordinary discipline
which the Pope, as supreme defender of the laws of the
Church, ought in ordinary cases to maintain and enforce ;
ii decree was therefore enacted that, " Should a bishop,
judged and deposed by a tribunal of the first instance,
appeal to the Pope, if the Pontiff thinks fit to grant a
new trial, he will be pleased to write to the bishops of
the neighbouring province to examine the cause in
synod. But it will be in his power, if he pleases, to send
his legates to the synod, that they may take part in the
judgment." \Ye see then that in this canon, no more
than in the one we have before considered, the right of
the appellant is not questioned as if such appeals were a
new practice, unheard of before the Council of Sardica ;
The Controversy concerning Apiarins. 149
the right is, on the contrary, fully acknowledged by the
Fathers as a legitimate course of proceeding, which tlu /
by no means censure or reform. Thus there is no colour
for the assertion that the Popes were endowed with the
new prerogative of receiving appeals by the Canons
Sardica alone.
V. Dr. Fuse}' seems to believe that Pope Zosimus,
in the Cominonitorinm given to the legates whom he
sent to Africa, 456 quotes the Third Canon of Sardica ;
but this is not so, and hence the remarks of the learned
professor on the words, "Let us honour the memory of
the holy Apostle Peter,'' on which so great a stress is
laid, falls to the ground. Zosimus quoted Canon vii.
of Sardica, 457 in order to show that he did not intend to
-act in the case of Apiarius according to his extraordi-
nary jurisdiction, ex plcnitudinc potcstatis, but according
to the ordinary discipline of the Universal Church. He
therefore did not himself pronounce sentence in the
matter, but was content with appointing new judges in
Africa, and sent his legates thither in accordance with
4:>0 Commonitorium Zosimi 1\ip<c mi Lcgatos (Constant, p. 981,
scq.).
4i '' 7 Zosimus quotes in his Commonitorinui the Canons of
Sardica as if they belonged to Nicnca, because in all the old
manuscripts they are found with the Acts of the Niccnc Synod
without any distinct title : so that not only Zosimus and ]>onifaci-.
but also St. Jerome, Innocent I.. St. Leo, &c.. called them Nicem-
Canons. The old codices, which still exist, contain the Canons of
Sardica with the Acts of Xica:a, without any distinction whatever
<Coustant.. A>>/. KR. />/'.. p. Ixxxii., n. 84. J^allerini : DC Antiu.
Collect. (,'<';/., pt. ii., c. i., sec. iii., n. 19, in Op. S. Leonis, t. iii.,
p. Ixii. Marchctti : Op. cit., pt. ii., sec. v., n. 62, p. 228, seq.) H:.:
the Popes known for certain that these canons belonged to tin-
Council of Sardica, they would have made the fact known to the
Atrican Church, since this Church expressed its readiness to con-
form to them had they been decreed by any Catholic Council.
Jiallerini's Obscri: in Dissert, v. Qitesncllii^ pt. i., c. vi.. n. xx. (in
Op. S. Leonis. t. ii., p. 955;.
150 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
the discipline mentioned in the Council of Sardica. He
moreover quoted Canon xvii. of the same synod, with
the same purpose of showing that, according to the
discipline then in vigour, any of the inferior clergy, after
condemnation by his bishop, had a right to have his
cause reheard by a tribunal of the second instance. The
object of the Pope in this quotation was to show that he
had acted in harmony with the canons of the Church
\vhen he resolved to commit Apiarius, a simple priest,
to the judgment of a second tribunal of bishops. In this
manner the Vicar of Christ manifested those feelings
<>f moderation, of humility, and of meekness, of which
Christ Himself set so perfect an example. Neverthe-
less, Zosimus did not in any degree lower his supreme
authority, nor were the African bishops tempted by the
Pope's forbearance to diminish in any degree their
respectful submission to the Pontiff. The address of
the bishops assembled at Miievis had already shown
what were their sentiments with regard to the supre-
macy of the Apostolic See ; 4:>8 and even in the matter
before us, as has been remarked above, the}' gave proof
of their respect and obedience to the supreme jurisdic-
tion, which, not long before, Zosimus himself had
authoritatively claimed in the controversy of Celestine. 4 '" 1 ' 1
It is true that in the council held at Carthage in 419,
the inferior clergy were forbidden, under pain of excom-
munication, to appeal to Rome ; but we must remark
first, that in the same canon the African bishops decreed
that from that time forth priests and deacons could
have a first and second appeal from the sentence of
their bishops to the provincial synod, and again to the
t:>s Epist. Milc-rit. L'luu: ad Innocent in m /. (Constant., p. 873,
scq.).
459 S. Zosimus : Epist. xii., ad Synod. Carthag^ n. i. (Constant.,.
P- 974).
Tlic Controversy concerning Apiarius. \ 5 1
general synod of Africa ; and that they introduced thi.s
change into their ancient discipline in order to render
it conformable with the Seventeenth Canon of Sardica
mentioned in the Commonitorinm of Pope Zosimus.
Secondly, neither Pope Zosimus nor his successor, Boni-
face, ever condemned or rescinded the African discipline
which forbade the African clergy to appeal to Rome.
We cannot then wonder if the African bishops, after
having made great concessions to the inferior clergy,
and put them, with regard to appeals, on a level with
the bishops themselves, thus enforced and sanctioned
their ancient discipline, more especially since civil and
ecclesiastical law have alike ever condemned appeals
which do not keep the order established by the law.
In a word, the African controversy concerning appeals
has nothing to do with the acknowledged supremacy
of the Pope and his right to receive appeals as a
supreme judge appointed by God over the whole
Church. It must be considered as having a double
bearing. The African bishops on the one hand were
anxious to prevent abuses, and to check the auda-
city, deceit, and scandalous excesses of guilty clerics,
who endeavoured to set at naught the authority of
the laws of the Church, by obtaining at Rome, through
unlawful means, an undeserved protection. On the
other hand, the African synod in the above-mentioned
canon forbade nothing but the formal and judicial
appeal of the inferior clergy to the See of Rome ;
it did not, and it could not, forbid their private re-
course to the supreme pastor of the Church ; and if,
under any exceptional circumstances, the Pope saw fit,
he might suspend the effect of the general canon, and
enable the condemned priest or deacon to lay a formal
and judicial appeal before his court. From all this we
conclude that neither the Canons of Sardica, nor the
controversy about appeals carried on for five years in
152 TJic Supreme Authority of tJic Pope.
Africa, can impeach either the acknowledged divine
supremacy of the Pope, or his right to receive appeals
as the supreme judge over the Universal Church.
VI. But other difficulties remain to be considered,
which have been brought forward in order to weaken
the argument which we derive from the right of appeal
in favour of our position. We will again quote from
Dr. Pusey : "Heretics," he says, "or bad men excom-
municated in their own country, betook themselves to
Rome, where their merits were not known ; as, contrari-
wise, Pelagius, condemned in the West, betook himself
to the East." 460 Assume that the fact is so. If bad
men like Marcion, and good men, like St. Athanasius,
appealed to Rome, it is clear that the Apostolic See
had a right to judge anew, and to reverse, if faulty,
the sentence by which they had been condemned. If,
on the other hand, bad men condemned in the West
betook themselves to the East, this does not prove that
the East had any authority of reversing sentences pro-
nounced against a criminal by an ecclesiastical tribunal
in the West. Throughout Church history, no single
instance could be found of an appeal carried to an
Eastern synod, provincial or general, or to any of the
Oriental Patriarchs, from a sentence of a Western synod
under the sanction of a Pope. But innumerable examples
occur of persons who, after condemnation in the East,
appealed to the Papal court, and of this sufficient proof
has been given in the two preceding sections. It is
true that bad men, who had been condemned in the
West, often betook themselves to the East, in order
there to do the mischief which the notoriety of their
true character rendered impossible elsewhere. Such a
one was Pelagius ; he defended his errors in the synods
both of Jerusalem -and of Diospolis, but he appeared
460 Eirenicon, p. 73.
Objections of Dr. Pitscy answered. 153
before these assemblies .is a criminal his accusers
being, in the former, Orosius, in the latter, Eros and
Lazarus, two bishops of Gaul. 4 ' 51 But Dr. Puscy con-
tinues, " The case of Basilides and Martialis is more
interesting, because the people and the clergy of
Astorga, Merida, and Leon, had appealed to St. Cyprian,
who, assembling thirty-seven other bishops, in a syno-
dical letter judged that the deposition of Basilides and
Martialis was right; the election of Felix and Sabinus,
of which an account had been sent, was canonical,"
&c. 4t ' 2 What conclusion is meant to be drawn from
this ? Is it that the Pope had no right to receive
appeals before the grant to him of that privilege by the
Council of Sardica, or that St. Cyprian was a'n advocate
of the Protestant doctrine, and denied the right of the
Pope to judge all causes, wherever they might arise ?
Why, the very fact of the appeal of Basilides and Martialis
to the Apostolic See, and the judgment pronounced by
Pope Stephen in their case, is an evident proof that
the right of the Pontiff to receive appeals was practically
acknowledged by the Universal Church. Nor can it
be said that St. Cyprian denied that Papal prerogative,
for neither from his Sixty-eighth Epistle, nor from any
other place in his writings, can a single word be cited
which implies a charge against the Roman Pontiff of
usurping episcopal rights. Moreover, in the Fifty-fifth
Epistle, he acknowledges the right of the Apostolic See-
to receive the appeal of Privatus Lambesitanus, a bishop
who had been condemned by the two African synods. 41 '" 1
If, in the same letter, he seems to speak somewhat
4lU Marius Mercator, editus a Garnerio, S.J. : Diss. ii. de Synodic
habitis in causa Pelagiana^ t. i., p. 165, seq., p. 169, scq. Parisiis.
1673.
4(52 Eirenicon, p. 75.
403 P. 84. Edit. Balutii. Ibid., Epist. xxx.. Cleri Rom. ad
S. Cyprianutn. p. 41.
154 The Supreme Authority of tJic Pope.
harshly of appeals to Rome, he is not considering
appeals of bishops, but those of simple priests, such
as Fortunatus and Felicissimus, to whom the African
discipline did not allow recourse to Rome. St. Cyprian,
when explaining and justifying this discipline, does not
deny to the Pope the supreme power ex plcnitudinc
potestatis.^ Neither is this the only case in which,
while St. Cyprian was Primate of Carthage, appeals of
bishops were carried to Rome. He mentions the appeal
of Bishop Novatus, and when stating the crimes by
which he incurred condemnation by the bishops of
Africa, he does not at all deny the right of appealing, 46 ''
declaring that all causes of great importance (causes
tnajorcs] should be referred to the Papal tribunal."
Nay, St. Cyprian himself applied to Pope Stephen to
transfer the cause of Marcianus, Bishop of Aries, guilt)'
of Novatianism, to his own tribunal, and to condemn
and deprive him of his see, in order that they might
proceed to elect another bishop in his stead. 467 De
Marca, whose authority is so highly appreciated by
Protestant writers, remarks, on this point : " In vain
do Protestants endeavour to make little of this testi-
mony, for it is futile to say that Marcianus was not
deposed by Stephen, but only declared worthy to be
deposed. St. Cyprian plainly requires of Stephen, in
464 L. c., p. 86. In this letter St. Cyprian gives two reasons for
which that discipline had been established in Africa for the inferior
clergy, (i.) " Oportet cos quibus pra?sumus non circumcursare."
(2.) "Nee episcoporum concordiam coharentem subdola et fallaci
temeritate collidere." Such were the faults of the inferior African
clergy, which that discipline intended to obviate. See Lupus : DC
Africans Ecclcsicc Appe.llationibus, c. xvii., Op., t. viii., p. 220.
465 S. Cyprianus : Efiisf. xlix., ad Cornelimn, p. 64. Edit. Balut.
406 Ibid., Epist. lv., ad Corncliittn, p. 83.
467 Ibid., Epist. Ixvii., ad Stcphanum Papain, p. 116. " Diri-
gantur in provinciam et ad plebem Arelate consistentem a te litterae
quibus, abstento Marciano, alius in loco ejus substituatur," c.
Objections of Dr. Pusey answered. 155.
the most explicit manner, to condemn Marcianus by
his letters, and let another be appointed to his sec. 403
VII. But, on the other hand, it is absurd to say that
the people and the clergy of Astorga appealed to St.*
Cyprian. According to the theory put forward by Dr.
Pusey, all bishops are equal ; so that each diocese is
a perfectly independent church, and is to act on the
principle of episcopal independence. Now it cannot be
denied that appeal is a recourse from a sentence of an
inferior to a superior judge ; a ininorc jndiee ad major cm
firoi'ocatw* say the jurists. How then, on the theory
just mentioned, could the people and clergy of Astorga
appeal to St. Cyprian from the sentence of Pope
Stephen ? Kven if Stephen were not the supreme
pastor of the whole Church, he was undoubtedly the
Patriarch of the West, and hence had, in virtue even
of that dignity, the right of judging in the last instance.
I le was at least a bishop, and as Dr. Fuse}' would grant,
in no respect inferior to St. Cyprian. How, then, could
an appeal be made from his sentence to the tribunal
nf an African bishop? But we need not dwell on this
discussion, when the very letter of St. Cyprian to the
clergy and people of Spain plainly tells us what was the
nature of their application to the Bishop of Carthage.
*' As soon as we assembled," writes St. Cyprian and the
other bishops with him, " we read your letters ... in
which you inform us that Basilicles and Martialis, being
tound guilt}* of the charges of idolatry and other ne-
farious crimes, ought not to preserve their episcopal
dignity and the administration of th>j divine priesthood.
And you wish that we should answer your question,
that your just and necessary anxiety might be allayed
by the consolation or the help of our opinion." They
continue : " But, better than our advice, the divine
463 DC Marca : DC Concordia, 1. i., c. x., n. viii., p. 42.
156 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
precepts will satisfy your desires.'' 400 Now, who does
not see that the clergy of Spain, and, in an especial
manner, the two bishops newly consecrated in the place
of Basilides and Martialis, merely sought advice in
addressing themselves to the Primate of Africa. They
propose to him a case of conscience and of Canon Law.
They wish to know whether the election and consecra-
tion of Felix and Sabinus, after the deposition of
Basilides and Martialis, had been canonical and valid ;
whether the deceit and fraud used at Rome by Basilides
and Martialis could have the effect of invalidating the
lawful and canonical election and consecration of the
two newly-appointed bishops. The synod assembled
by St. Cyprian examined the proposed question, and
gave an opinion thereon. This has nothing to do with
formal appeals.
VIII. Finally, Dr. Pusey, following in the footsteps
of DC Marca, 470 gives the name relations to what all
antiquity calls appeals; and he remarks that, "These,
in the times nearest to the Apostles, were very different
from those which the Church of England laid aside." 471
In the times nearest to the Apostles, the head of the
Church, the Roman Pontiff, had the same authority, the
same jurisdiction, as in the fifth or in the sixteenth
century, because his authority and his jurisdiction arc
of divine origin. But the form in which he exercised
this jurisdiction in ecclesiastical judgments was not
always the same, for it varied according to the require-
ments of the discipline of successive centuries, and of
the divers needs of the Church and particular pro-
vinces. Dr. Pusey first confounds substance with acci-
dent, and then, with no less inconsistency, concludes
4CD S. Cyprianus : Epist. Ixviii.. p. 117.
4:0 De Marca : Op. cit., 1. i., c. x., n. 2. seq., p. 37, seq.
471 Eirenicon, p. 76.
Gallicanism : Mistaken view of it. 157
that the Knglish Church, in the sixteenth century, did
more than the African in the fifth. We have seen how
this author has misconceived and misrepresented the
African controversy concerning appeals to Rome. The
African Church did not complain in the fifth century,
more than in the fourth, of the supreme authority of
the Pope, nor of Roman appeals ; it merely protested
in favour of an old provincial custom, which no law,
either of Popes or of general councils, had ever repealed.
The English Church, in the sixteenth century, rejected
Roman appeals because it refused to acknowledge the
divine supremacy of the Apostolic See.
SECTION VII.
GALLICANISM: ITS ORTGIX, ITS i'ROGRKSS, ITS
TENDENCY AND EFFECTS,
I. DR. Prsi-:v and Protestants in general show great
sympathy for the Gallican Church of the time of
Louis XIV. They appeal to the writers of that country
and period as to infallible oracles ; eulogize their
works as treasures of erudition, and draw upon them
as storehouses for charges against the Catholic Church.
Du Pin, Fleury, and the author of the Dcfcusio Dccla-
rationis Clcri (lallicani, are, in the eyes of Protestants,
great names before whom all must bow. The Gallican
system seems to them the pure system established by
the Apostles before the Papal usurpations ; and they
are indignant at those who dare to assert that Galli-
158 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
canism is now extinct in France. Dr. Pusey throughout
his Eirenicon expresses sentiments such as these, and
goes so far as to say that he would rest his principles
on the Gallican system ; that the Church of Du Pin
would have been able to restore communion on the basis
of the explanation appended to the Articles of Lambeth,
" had not the ascendancy of the Jesuits quenched the
hope of the restoration of the union ;" 472 that "he would
long to see the Church united on the terms which," as
he fancies, " Bosstiet would have sanctioned." 473 In
writing this, Dr. Pusey has fallen into three palpable
mistakes. First, he seems to believe that the Gallican
Church and its principal writers agree with him on
the essential question of Papal authority. Secondly, he
represents the Gallican system as a source of liberty
and independence for the episcopacy. Thirdly, he
thinks that the Gallican doctrines were those of the
early Church, not only in France, but also in the whole
world. These three points once explained, no ground
will remain for imagining that the Gallican system gives
any countenance to the opinions of Protestants.
II. First, the Gallican school, in all its phases, has
ever professed to believe that the Papal supremacy was
of divine institution ; that the Pope is not only the first
in order among the bishops, but that he has also a real
jurisdiction over the whole Church, and is the centre of
unity in the Church ; tnat he can exercise a coercive
power in order to enforce this jurisdiction ; and, finally,
that communion with the Pope is equivalent to com-
munion with the Church, and is, therefore, necessary
to salvation. We challenge our adversaries to point
out a single theologian of the Gallican school, even of
the times of Louis XIV. or his successor, who does not
explicitly maintain these doctrines, which are essential
472 Eirenicon, p. 236. 47G Ibid., p. 335.
Gallicanism : Mistaken view of it. 159
to Catholic communion, and as such, plainly professed
in the famous Articles of the Gallican Church. Hence,
Du Pin was suspected of Protestant principles ; and
on this account strongly opposed by Bossuet, 474 severely
censured by Pope Clement XL, and obliged by Harley,
Archbishop of Paris, 475 to make a solemn recantation of
his errors against the Apostolic See. Du Pin did not
belong to the Gallican so much as to the Jansenistic
school in France : he was a Jansenist at heart, and in
the opinion of many, a Protestant. Certainly his
Explanation of the Thirty-nine Articles, offered to the
Anglican Establishment in the person of Archbishop
Wake, did not originate, as Dr. Pusey asserts, 470 from
'" the Roman side," but from a Jansenistic plot, in which
Du Pin was the principal agent. Hence the Commoiii-
torinm of Du Pin cannot be supposed to represent the
mind of the moderate Gallicans of 1719, as Dr. Pusey
imagines it to do. 477 The moderate members of the
party at that date followed the example of Bossuet in
condemning the audacious maxims put forth by Du Pin
-against the supremacy of the Pope, which they ever
maintained according to the principles of the Catholic
Church. We have already remarked that the Assembly
-of 1682 itself, in the first of the well-known Four
Articles, affirmed the divine supremacy of the Roman
Pontiff. W T e do not, however, deny that Gallicanism,
considered in its natural tendency, is truly a schism in
disguise. Its' real nature was sufficiently revealed by
Febronius, the disciple of Van Espen, by whom its
genuine principles were developed and propagated : but
we must distinguish the historical from the logical
171 Sec the first section of this book, n. iv., p. 16.
475 Feller: Diet. Hist. Art. Du Pin, t. xiii.. p. 431. Paris,
182729.
476 Eirenicon^ p. 210.
477
160 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
question. Gallicanism, historically considered, was an
offshoot of Protestantism, and the well-spring of Febro-
nianism. This is the reason of the sympathy evinced
for it by Dr. Pusey and Protestants generally. But
Gallicanism, regarded logically, did not assert an entire
independence of the Holy See, nor did it leave to the
Pope merely the empty title of Head of the Church,
without jurisdiction. 478 Hence the Gallican Church was
never cut off from Catholic communion, nor condemned
by any formal judgment of the Apostolic See as guilty
of heresy or of schism. An historical sketch of the
origin, progress, and development of the Gallican system
will put this question in a new light, and will show
plainly whether the system was the support of the
ecclesiastical liberty of France, or rather the source of
its servitude and depression.
III. Long before the pretended Council of Basle
the seeds of schism and rebellion against the supreme
authority of the Church had spread over Europe. Many
causes concurred in fostering this evil tendency and
widening its effects ; among which causes no little
influence must be ascribed to the revival of the Roman
jurisprudence. The new jurisconsults, inspired with the
pagan maxims of imperial autocracy, regarded the juris-
diction of the Holy See as an unlawful usurpation of the
rights of the civil authority. By exaggerated doctrines
regarding the prerogatives of princes and Emperors,
these lawyers created a jealousy of Papal authority.
In the name of the independence and power of princes,
they declared the bitterest war against the jurisdiction
of the Apostolic See, and drove temporal rulers into a
478 Hericourt : Les Loix Ecclcsiastiqucs dc France, pt. i., c. xvii.,
j). 115. Paris, 1721. M. Hericourt protests against those who
"font consister nos libertes dans line independance entiere du Saint
Siege, laissant au Pape un vain titre de chef de TEglisc sans aucune
jurisdiction."
OrigiJi and Progress of Gallicanism. 161
miserable struggle with the supreme pastor of the
Church. Such was the source whence sprang the
wicked attempts of Philip the Fair, Kyig of France,
against Boniface VI II., and of Louis of Bavaria, the
pretender to the imperial crown, against John XXII.
But the long residence of the Popes at Avignon,
followed, after their return to Rome, by the Western
schism, caused these schismatical principles to spread
far and wide, and to strike deep root in Europe. The
Papal authority at this time was everywhere disparaged
and vilified. The competitors for the Popedom clung
to princes for support, and these sold their protection
at a very dear price.
IV. But whilst the Western Church was rent
by schism, whilst the Pontifical authority was ever
sinking lower and lower, through the contention of
parties and the rivalry of aspirants to the Papal Chair,
and a licentious freedom was spreading far and wide,
a common earnest desire grew gradually among the
different factions to put an end to the unhappy state of
things and to restore to the Church its unity, discipline,
and order. But disappointment in the past and despair
of success in the future, caused a new division among
those who entertained this wish, as to the means best
adapted for attaining the intended purpose. Two parties
sprang up among the theologians of that age. The first
was disposed to carry on the work of reformation by
using violence against the contending Popes, and,
ready even to cast off the yoke of central authority
in favour of the institution of national and independent
churches, aimed at effecting a radical revolution in the
Church, at originating a movement which, once on foot,
would have infallibly led to a formal schism. Such a
movement had already been initiated in the fourteenth
century by the factions of Philip the Fair and Louis
of Bavaria, both of whom had sought to put arbitrary
L
1 62 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
limits to Papal authority. We find the seeds of their
schismatical principles more or less developed in the
works of Occam, 479 ^Egidius de Columna, 480 John of
Paris, 481 and especially of John of Janduno, 482 and
Marsilius of Padua. 483 But side by side with this reck-
less party stood a more moderate one, headed by
D'Ailly, 484 Gerson, 485 Nicholas Cusa, 480 John Major, 487
James Almain, 488 and Nicholas of Clemangis himself. 489
These held fast, indeed, to the essential necessity of unity
in the Church, and of communion with the Apostolic
See ; they acknowledged the divine supremacy of the
Pope as identical with the essence of Christianity itself,
but they lowered the divine authority of that sovereign
head, subordinating it to the power of the one Universal
479 Occam : Dialogns (Goldasti Monarchia, t. ii.) ; Ocio Qitacs-
tioncs (ibid}.
480 ygidius of Colonna : Qucrstio in utramque partcm dispu-
tatam dc Potcstate Rcgia ct Pontijicia (Goldasti Mon., t. ii.).
481 John of Paris : DC Potcstate Regia et Papali (Goldasti
Monar., t. ii.).
482 John of Janduno helped Marsilius of Padua in his work,
Defcnsor Pads. He himself wrote a book, DC Potcstate Ecclcsi-
astica (in MS. Bibl., Colbert., cod. 506).
483 Marsilius of Padua : Defcnsor Pads; DC Translations
Imperil (Goldasti Monarchia, t. ii.).
484 Petrus de Alliaco : DC necessitate reformations Ecclesia' in
capitc ct in mcmbris (in Op. Gersonis, t. ii., p. 885, seq. Edit.
Du Pin).
485 Gerson : Opera, t. ii., p. 246, De Potcstate Ecclesiastica,
consid. xii., &c. Likewise in other works, such as the DC aufcri-
bilitate Paper ab Ecclcsia; DC Modis uniendi ct rcformandi
Ecclcsiam in Concilio Universali, &c.
480 Nicholaus Cusanus : DC Concordia Catholica libri trcs (Op.,
t. ii. Edit. Basileae).
487 Joannes Major : Comment, in lib. Sent., 1. iv., dist. xxiv. (in
Gersonis Op., t. ii., p. 1121).
488 Jac. Almainus : E.rpositio circa decisiones J/. Guil. Occam
super Potcstate R. Pontif. (in Gersonis Op., t. ii.. p. 243).
489 Nicholaus de Clemangis : DC Ruina Ecclcsicc.
Origin and Progress of Gallicamsm. 163
Church, which they put forward as the highest ful-
filment of the economy of Christ. Consequently, the
authority of single bishops w r as magnified more than
was fit, the independence of single national churches was
proclaimed, and Popes were subjected to the control of
general councils. This party, in their desire to heal the
unhappy schism, saw no other means to attain that end
but to establish as a general theory for the normal state
of the Church, what was adapted only to the particular
and transitory state of schism. Their idea was that the
episcopate assembled in a general council could alone
do away with the schism ; but how assemble a general
council, when its convocation needed the concurrence
of both the competitors for the Papal Chair, and
each of them, Peter de Luna especially, showed
himself disinclined to take part in such a pro-
ceeding. Even if the two parties had agreed in con-
voking a council, would they submit to its decrees
concerning either the union or the reformation of the
Church ? In these circumstances, the more moderate
theologians believed that no .theory could save the
Church but one which set up general councils in inde-
pendence of the control of the Pope and in supremacy
over his authority. Principles such as these w r ere there-
fore spread and supported in Europe by the authority
of Gerson, D'Ailly, and others. They formed the cha-
racteristic of a party which strove hard for preponde-
rance in the University of Paris. But, at the same
time, the greater number of theologians held fast to the
traditional doctrines of the Church, and strongly opposed
the promoters of the new monarchico-aristocratic system
of Church government. In France, the free spirit which
spread in the University of Paris was opposed and con-
demned by the principles upheld by the University of
Toulouse ; but among the writers who at that time
defended Pontifical authority, the first place must be
L 2
164 The Supreme Author it}' of the Pope.
assigned to Cajetan 490 and Cardinal Turrecremata. 49 '
The works of these writers throw light on the contro-
versies which were rife at that period concerning Papal
authority.
V. But the French faction of Gerson, after its bold
appearance in the Synod of Pisa and Constance, would
have been held in check and entirely forgotten, even
in France, after the election of Martin V. and the re-
union of the Western Church, had it not been again
called to life and vigour by the despotism of the Parlia-
ments of France. For, as Gieseler himself remarks,
" The feeble light of the Council of Constance grew pale
before the new splendour of the new Pope, the first, for
a long time, who had been universally acknowledged ;
and the Papal monarchy immediately raised itself again,
without opposition, above all the limits which the eccle-
siastical aristocracy meant to have imposed." 492 Every
country in Europe rejected and condemned the system
of the University of Paris. Italy, Spain, and Portugal,
had always remained faithful to the principles of the
constitution of the Church, and they now adhered
to the Pope more closely than ever. Germany and
England had accepted the Concordats offered to them
by Martin V. in the Council of Constance. 493 The
French Parliament alone resisted the general tendency
400 Cajetanus : DC Comparationc Auctoritatis Papcc ct Concilii;
DC Compa rat a Auctoritatc Paper ft Concilii Apologicr. 1511 et
1521.
491 Card. Turrecremata : Siunma de Ecclesia ct cjns anctoritatc
(Lugd., 1496 -Venet., 1561) ; Summi Pontificis ct Concilii Aitcto-
ritas (in Actis Cone. Labbe, t. xvii., p. 1427).
402 Gieseler : Eccl. Hist., vol. iv., div. v., ch. i., sec. 131, p. 301,
Edinburgh.
493 Martini }\ c t Nations Gcnnairicce Concordata (in Sess. xlii.
Cone. Const. Labbe, t. xvi., p. 735) ; Martini V. et Nationis
Anglicctm? Concordata (ibid t p. 739).
Progress of Gallicanism in France. 165
of Europe towards order and unity, and submitted to
the sway of schismatical principles. They refused to
accept the Concordat offered at the Council of Constance
to the French nation and accepted by its bishop
and when King Charles VII. attempted (1419) to repeal
some ordinances enacted the year before, in prejudice of
the discipline of the Church, they rendered the royal
edict void, and enforced their decrees. 495 Charles
VII. was truly desirous to show his devotion to Papal
authority ; he therefore, at a later period, published
(February 4, 1424) a royal edict, in which he ordered
obedience to the decrees of the Apostolic See, notwith-
standing any contrary order or decree published either
by the King or by the Parliament. 400 He was, neverthe-
less, entangled in the system of parliamentary routine ;
nor could he succeed in breaking asunder the bonds of
that crafty administration. At the same time, the
reformatory decrees published by the Council of Basle
after its final breach with Pope Eugenius IV. impelled
the King into a course of opposition to the Apostolic
See, which proved highly favourable to the schismatical
tendency of that age. Charles VII. was no doubt
sincerely averse to the course of open hostility to Rome
adopted by the assembly of Basle, and he was very far
from approving the insulting decrees enacted against
the Pope. Nevertheless, the interest of securing to his
national Church the liberties decreed at Basle, per-
suaded him to assemble the bishops of France at Bourges
and to sanction twenty-three of the decrees of Basle,
under the title of the Pragmatic Sanction (1438); the
494 Constitutions facto 1 in Cone. Const, non acccptatic in Curie.
Parliament! rcgii Parisicnsis (Labbe, 1. c., p. 729).
4<J:> Bulaeus : Hist. Unii'. Paris., t. v., p. 335 ; Prcuves dc
T'Eglisc GaUicanc, c. xxii., n. 17.
406 The royal edict is dated Febr. 10, 1425.
1 66 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
Parliament of Paris registered this measure on the I3th
July, I439. 407 Such is the real origin of the Gallican
liberties. 4!)> Martin V. was ready to redress every
abuse which, during the schism, had crept into the
exercise of Papal authority with regard to annates,
reservations of benefices, and appeals, and in the Con-
cordat agreed to at Constance, regulations and modi-
fications respecting these points had found a place. But
no Pope could ever have tolerated that a synod which
had proclaimed its authority supreme in the Church
and superior to that of the Pope, should curtail the
rights of the Holy See and excite a new schism in the
Catholic world. Now the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges
was grounded on the false maxims of Basle, and partook
of the schismatical tendency of that council. 499 The
Popes, therefore, being ever decidedly opposed to the
proceedings of Basle, strongly disapproved of the Prag-
matic Sanction. Eugenius IV., Pius II., Sixtus IV.,
Innocent VIII., Alexander VI., Julius II., successively
tried by every means in their power to have it erased
from the laws of the French nation. Under Pius II.,
Louis XI. King of France, in 1461, repealed the
measure."' 00 At length, in the Fifth Council of Lateran,
under Leo X., the repeal was confirmed by a clause
of the Concordat then agreed upon between the Pope
497 The history of the Pragmatic Sanction can be found in the
Trait cs dcs droits ct Hbcrtes dc PEglisc Gall ica tic. Paris, 1/31.
See Rohrbacher's Hist. I'm'?', dc FEglise Cath., t. xxi., 1. 82,
pp. 58587. Paris, 1845.
41)8 See Charlas : Tract, dc lib. Eccl. Gall.. 1. i., c. xvi., p. 48,
seq. Leodii, 1684.
409 See the first title of the Pragm. Sanction.
500 Littenc Lndoi'ici XL Regis Gallic? abrogations Pragm.
Sanct. (Labbe, t. xix., p. 749) ; Monitorium contra Pragmat.
Sanct. (ibid., p. 750, seq.) ; Bulla contra Pragmat. (ibid., p. 753).
See also other documents in Labbe, t. xviii., pp. 1370-71.
Progress of Gallicanism in France. 167
and Francis I. of France, which continued in force till
the revolution of I789/ >01
VI. But notwithstanding the abrogation of the Prag-
matic Sanction ordered by Louis XL, and its final
abolition decreed by Francis I., the maxims from which
it had emanated did not lose currency, but continued
with obstinate persistence to be the guiding principle
of the Parliaments of France, and especially of the
Parliament of Paris, which, in the fifteenth century
had acquired no small political importance. This as-
sembly had insensibly gained more decided authority
by its control over what was at first the formality of
promulgating or enregistering the royal ordinances.
That formality soon came to be considered essential
to the validity and legal force of the royal edicts, and
increasing power and influence soon enabled this body
to refuse to the pronouncements of the royal will the
character of legal enactments. 502 When Louis XL
repealed the Pragmatic Sanction which his father had
signed, the Parliament most obstinately opposed the
measure ; and though ultimately it yielded this point,
yet it never ceased to maintain that hostile attitude
towards Papal authority which, originating in the
schismatical principles of the fifteenth century, in-
creased in strength with the spread of Calvinistic
errors. It strove therefore, by every means, to ensure
in France the triumph of the new schismatical maxims ;
and for this purpose it gave countenance to the revolu-
tionary party of the University of Paris, as a check
upon the preponderating doctrine of the absolute
supremacy of the Apostolic See ; and it even went so
:
501 Bulla abrogalionis Pragni. Scuict. In Sess. xi. Cone. Lat. v.
Labbe, t. xix., p. 965, seq.).
502 Hallam : State of Europe during the Middle Ages, vol. i.,
i., pt. ii., p. 289, seq. London, 1834.
1 68 77/6' Supreme Authority of tJic Pope.
far as to pass a censure upon and condemn certain
principles which seemed favourable to the Catholic view
of Papal authority. 503 But one of the most disastrous*
results of the Pragmatic Sanction is the appeal ex abusu
to the civil tribunals against the sentence of ecclesi-
astical judges. The Parliaments of France, nurtured
in those pagan views of authority which had already
spread throughout Europe, not content with placing
themselves on the same level with the ecclesiastical
power, even claimed to be superior to it. The orders
of Charles II., the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanc-
tion, the bulls published by Sixtus IV. and Julius II., 504
and, finally, the Concordat concluded between Leo X.
and Francis I., were alike ineffectual in restraining, or
even in setting limits to their arbitrary encroachments. 505
Nay, the ordinance published by Francis I. upon the sub-
ject had the effect of inspiring the Parliaments with greater
obstinacy in their despotic usurpations of the rights of the
Church ; for in the ordinance of the King the appeal
ex abusu was treated as an integral part of the royal
prerogative. 506 These tyrannical abuses were maintained
in France, in spite of the complaints and resistance of
the national clergy ; 507 and they were scarcely restrained
503 Sec D'Argentrc : Collcctio Judicionun dc Novis Erroribns,
t. i., pt. ii., pp. 227, 240, 305.
504 Bulla Sixti IV. pro Libcrtatc Clcriconim (Labbe, t. xix.,
P- 377) 5 Bulla Julii II. contra Pragm. Sanct. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 753).
505 Charlas : Op. cit., 1. xii., capp. i. viii., pp. 754 788.
Affre : De VAppd comme cTabus, pp. 174, seq., 178, &c. " Les
rois," says Mgr. Affre, "apres avoir doming le clergd dans les
elections, essaient de 1' asservir par les Concordats ; ces traites, en
les rendant maitres du choix des chefs, les rendaient maitres du
corps entier," c. See Sfondrati : Gallia Vindicata, diss. iii.,
sec. ii., n. 4, p. 590. Edit. 1702.
506 HeVicourt : Op. cit., pt. i., c. xix., n. iv., p. 127; c. xxv.,
n. xxxiii., p. 206.
881 Charlas : Op. cit., 1. xii., c. v., n. ii, p. 773 ; c. vi.. p. 779.
Progress of Gallicanisni in France. 169
by the indomitable will of Louis XIV. After the death
of this monarch, they reappeared under the patronage
of the Janscnist party. 508 And we have seen in our own
day that the new empire of France still clings to the
appeal ex abusu, as if it were a precious and inalienable
jewel of the imperial diadem. The pretext set forth
in order to maintain this state of things was the
necessity of upholding the liberties of the Gallican
Church and of remaining faithful to the ancient canons.
But in reality, the lawyers intended to degrade the
Church and to render it the slave of the civil autho-
rity ; 50!) and Calvinism and paganism banded together
to accomplish the purpose of despotic oppression. To
render success more secure, care was taken to flatter
the national vanity, and to enlist this passion as an
auxiliary in the work. With this view, treatises on the
liberties of the Gallican Church were composed by the
lawyer Guy Coquille, 510 and by Peter Pithou, a juris-
consult of Calvinistic principles, the latter of whom
dedicated his work to the King of France. The treatise
assumes throughout the two following principles : first,
that in the temporal order the Popes have no jurisdic-
tion whatever, either general or particular, in the king-
dom of France ; and secondly, that the Papal authority
is limited in its exercise by the canons of such councils
of the Church as had been received in France. Hence
Pithou concluded that the Popes could not interfere
with the Gallican liberties, which rested on the ancient
'hillips : Droit Ecdcsiastiquc, vol. iii., sec. cxxxv., p. 207,
seq. Paris, 1851.
309 Charlas was right when he defined the Gallican liberties
' ; Oppressioncm jurisdictionis ecclesiastics a laica et depressionem
auctoritatis Rom. Pontif. a clero Gallicano." Op. cit., 1. i., c. xiii.,
n. 6, p. 39.
510 Guy Coquille : Traitcs dcs libcrtcs VEglisc Gallicane. 1594.
P. Pithou : Traitcs dcs droits et liber tes de VEglisc Gallicane. 1609.
170 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
canons of the Church ; and thus the authority of the
Pope was subordinated to that of the canons and of the
councils, while the authority of the canons and of the
councils themselves was made subordinate to that of the
Parliaments and lawyers. For Pithou and his school
did not admit absolutely the authority of canons and
councils, but of those only which had the sanction of
the Parliaments. The right of giving or refusing their
sanction had been claimed by these judicial bodies, and,
on this account, even before the publication of Pithou's
treatise, the Parliaments had been persistent in refusing
to receive the decrees of the Council of Trent, because
they did not find them favourable to the Gallican
liberties. Hence Charlas is fully justified when he
defines the Gallican liberties, " An arbitrary power to
select among the ancient canons of the Church, and
to admit from the new ones only those which seem to be
useful." 511
VII. Dupuy, a jurisconsult of the same school with
Pithou, followed in his master's footsteps, and published
a collection of historical documents in defence of his
work. 512 Dupuy, no less than Pithou, was an organ
of the Parliaments of France, and both these writers
proclaimed the systematic slavery of the clergy under
the specious pretext of the Gallican liberties. The
episcopate of France protested against illusory privileges
which implied a real servitude, and condemned the
book of Dupuy as containing poisonous and heretical
principles concerning the authority of the Church. 513
But the maxims of paganism, spread and upheld by
the Parliaments, had already infected the royal councils
511 Charlas : Op. cit, 1. c., n. 7, p. 39.
su Proces-vcrbaux du Clcrge dc France, t. iii., n. i. See Soardi :
De Ecclesicc Gallicancc Sentcntia de R. Pont if. auctoritate, 1. iv.,
c. iv., pt. ii., p. 137, seq. Heildelbergas, 1793.
612 Dupuy : Preiwes des libertes de rEglise Gallicane. 1639.
True Tendency of Gallicanism. 171
and placed them under the control of lawyers half
heretics and half infidels. The Parliament of Paris
and the King united together in favour of the principles
of ecclesiastical oppression. The Eighty-three Articles
of Pithou were regarded as inviolable principles under
the palladium of France. On the contrary, the sentence
of the episcopate was censured and cancelled by the
Parliament ; and the book of Dupuy reappeared, deco-
rated with a royal patent and a splendid encomium. 514
Thus all the lawyers in France were encouraged to
draw from the works of Pithou and Dupuy maxims
most hostile to the Apostolic See. Richer, Fevret,
Launoy, Ellis, Du Pin, Richard Simon, were formed in
this school, to which Fleury himself belongs, who,
having begun life in the robe of a lawyer, put on
the ecclesiastical soutane, without renouncing maxims
he had learnt in the Parliament of Paris. With such
support, the Parliament shook off all restraint, and went
boldly forward in the path of schism. The magistrates
of the Parliament, in the words of the Count de
Maistre, "Regenterent les Eveques; ils saisirent leur
temporel. . . . Pour detruire un ordre celebre, ils
s'appuyerent d'un livre qu'ils avaient fait fabriquer
eux-memes, et dont les auteurs eussent ete condamnes
aux galeres sans difficulte dans tout pays ou les juges
n'auraient pas ete complices. Ils firent bruler des man-
dements d' Eveques, et meme, si Ton ne m'a pas trompe,
des bulles du Pape, par la main du bourreau. Ils
finirent par violer les tabernacles et en arracher Teucha-
ristie, pour 1'envoyer au milieu de quatre bai'onettes,
chez le malade obstine qui ne pouvant la recevoir, avait
la coupable audace de se la faire adjuger." 515 In a
514 See the edition of that work. Paris, 1651. 2 torn, in folio.
515 De Maistre: De FEglise Gallicane, 1. i., c. ii., pp. 118-19.
Bruxelles, 1838.
i? 2 Supreme Authority of the Pope.
word, the Galilean liberties, in which Dr. Pusey and his
friends take such interest, were, to use again the words
of the author just quoted, "Licence parlementaire envers
1'Eglise qui agreait insensiblement 1'esclavage avec la
permission de 1'appeller liberte." 516 It might, perhaps,
have been anticipated that Count de Maistre would
pronounce such a sentence on the Gallican liberties ;
but we find that Fleury himself, towards the end of
his life, expressed a like appreciation of them. In his
Opuscules he speaks as follows : " La grande servitude
dc 1'Eglise Gallicane, c'est 1'etendue excessive de la
jurisdiction temporelle. . . . On pourrait faire un
traite des servitudes de 1'Eglise Gallicane, comme on
en a fait des libertes ; et Ton ne manquerait point de
prcuves. . . . Les appellations comme d' abus ont
acheve de ruincr la jurisdiction ccclesiastique." 517 And
Fenelon, that illustrious ornament of the French clergy,
spoke of the Gallican liberties as, " Libertes a Tegard
du Pape ; servitude a 1'egard du Roi. Autorite du Roi
sur 1'Eglise devolue aux juges lai'ques. Les lai'ques
dominent les Eveques ; . . . examinent les Bulles sur
la Foi . . . jugent le tout" 518 Dr. Pusey accuses the
successive governments since the Restoration of 1815
of being alone in oppressing the Church. 519 But, in
truth, the oppression of the Church in France dates
from the introduction of the Gallican liberties, which
are nothing else than systematic oppression.
VIII. At the same time, it cannot be denied that
after the Church of France had been labouring for two
centuries under the arbitrary despotism of the Parlia-
516 Ue Maistre : Op. cit., 1. ii., c. xlv., p. 352.
517 Fleury : Sur les libertes de VEglise Gallicane, pp. So, 95, 97.
Paris, 1807.
518 Memoircs de Fenelon dans son Hist, par Baussct, t. iii.
Pieces justif. du liv. vii., n. viii., p. 496. Paris, 1809.
519 Eirenicon, Postscriptum, p. 288.
Tendency and Effects of Gallicanism. 173
ments and of the Courts, a part of the clergy began to
look favourably on the system of bondage to which
they were habituated. The Faculty of Theology of
the Sorbonne, which had long before given an infamous
example of servility in the condemnation of Joan of
Arc, 520 espoused the cause of the Parliaments of France.
Already during the schism the maxims of Occam, of
Marsilius of Padua, and afterwards of D'Ailly and
Gerson, had prepared the minds of its leaders to uphold
principles of a schismatical tendency. Moreover, by
the influence of the jurisconsults and the ambition of
the Kings of France, those only were called to eccle-
siastical dignities and honours who showed themselves
favourable to the new system. This is proved by the
promotion of De Marca to a place in the Royal
Council, through the good offices of Dupuy; and the
practice was an encouragement to every ambitious spirit
to defend doctrines, the advocacy of which would open
the way to preferment. In this manner, a body of
men soon arose formed in the principles of the school
called Gallican courtiers, ambitious, ready to sacrifice
the unity of the Church itself for the sake of pleasing
the King and the Parliaments. These filled the highest
places in the Church of France, and tried to wean the
clergy from that spirit of submission and devotion to
the Apostolic See of which it had ever given the
brightest examples/" 1 ' 21 Hence, the tendency towards
520 Duvernet : l[isfoire dc hi Sorbonne, t. i., c. xxi., p. 143 ;
c. xxii., p. 146, seq. Paris, 1791.
5 - 1 Alexander III., in his Letter xxx. to Louis VII. of France,
says : " Ecclesia Gallicana inter omnes alias orbis Ecclesias, qure-
cumque alia; provenicntibus scandalis in tribulatione nutassent,
nunquam a Catholicas matris Ecclesias unitate recessit, nunquam
ab ejus subjectione et reverentia se subtraxit, sed tanquam devo-
tissima filia firma semper et stabilis in ejus devotione permansit "
(Labbe, t. xiii., App. Sirmondi. ii., p. 179). Gregory IX., in a letter
to the Archbishop of Rheims, says : " Gallicana Ecclesia post
174 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
a formal schism grew so strong that in the seventeenth
century it would have ended in a real separation had
the King been favourable to such a course. The reign
of Louis XIV., and especially the dispute between that
monarch and Innocent XL on the subject of the regalia,
afford plain proofs of what is here advanced. The Council
of Lyons, in 1274, had conceded to the King of France
the right of the regalia for those sees only which had
already been subject to his crown ; but it severely
forbade the further extension of this right. 522 Now
Louis XIV. resolved to extend it to all the Churches
of France, and to impose upon the clergy the burden
of a new servitude/"'-'* Innocent XI. firmly resisted
the pretensions of the King ; 524 but the Parliament
proclaimed that right to be inherent in the Crown,
assigning the ridiculous reason that the Crown of
France was round. 525 And the French bishops, who
in former times would have protested against such a
usurpation, now, with the exception of those of Pamiers
and Alet, so far bowed to the will of the King and
of the Parliament, as to address to the Pope a letter
advising him to consent to the decree of the Parlia-
ment 520 But in vain Innocent XL was inflexible in
Apostolicam Sedcm est quoddam totius Christianitatis speculum ct
immotum fidei fundamentum, utpote quae in fervore fidei Christiana?
ac devotione Apostolicao Sedis non sequatur alias sed antecedat "
(in Opere cit., Soardi, pt. ii., p. 199. Extr. from the Preface of
Langlet to the Commentary of Dupuy on the work of Pithou).
<v22 Cone. Lugdun. ii., can. xii. (Labbe, t. xiv., p. 528).
523 E ven the French bishops acknowledged that the Regalia
were a new servitude for the Church of France. See Sfondrati :
Gallia Vindicata, diss. i., sec. iv., p. 79. Edit. 1702.
524 See Sfondrati : Op. cit., 1. c., p. 78, seq.
525 Fieury : Nouveaux' Opuscules. Anecdotes sur V Assemble c
de 1682, p. 136, seq.
520 Epistola Cleri Gallicani ad Innocent ium XL (in Op. cit.,
Sfondrati, docum. Iviii., p. 335, seq.. et docum. lix., p. 345, seq.).
The National Assembly of 1682. 175
his resistance. 5 ' 27 Whereupon, Colbert and Le Tellier,
the ministers of the King, persuaded Louis XIV. to as-
semble a national synod of all the bishops of France,
with the view of putting pressure upon the Popc/'- s
The questions intended by Colbert for discussion in
that assembly (1682) regarded the nature and limits
of the Papal prerogatives, for he thought that in a
period of dissension the episcopate would contend for
its liberty, and set limits to what he called Papal
encroachments. Notwithstanding the opposition of
Bossuet, who foresaw the dangerous effects of agitating
this question, the King gave orders that it should be
treated in the synod. 529 Colbert drew up the famous
propositions to be presented for sanction to the as-
sembled bishops, though they owe their final arrange-
ment to the hand of Bossuet. 530 The question was one
of the utmost importance for the whole of France.
The French bishops, accustomed to a servile submission
to the King, would have been ready to proclaim a
schism, had not such a course been strongly opposed
by the eloquence of Bossuet ; moreover, it would have
been contrary to the intentions of Louis XIV., who,
satisfied with the bishops having adopted the Four
Articles of the Declaration, dissolved the assembly im-
mediately after the signature of the bishops had been
appended, decreeing, at the same time, that the decla-
ration should be acknowledged throughout the kingdom
of France. 531
527 Rcsponsio Innoccntii XI. ad Epistolam Clcri Gallicani (ibid.,
docum. lix., p. 345, seq.).
528 Fleury : Anecdotes cit., p. 138, seq.
529 Ibid., p. 139.
530 Le Dieu : Mcmoircs et Journal sur la vie ct Its outrages de
Bossuet, vol. i., p. 8. Paris, 1856.
531 The decree of the King was registered by the Parliament on
March 23rd, 1682. See De Maistre: Op. cit., 1. ii., c. xi., p. 305, seq.
1 76 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
IX. The Four Articles regard, first, the nature of the
power of the Pope, limited, according to the declaration,
to spiritual things, i.e., things concerning the salvation
of souls ; the second states, that the plenitude of the
authority of the Apostolic See must be reconciled with
the decrees of the Fourth and Fifth Sessions of Constance,
which were not to be understood of the case and time of
schism only ; the third asserts the irrevocability of the
so-called Gallican liberties ; the last, maintains, that the
judgments of the Pope on matters of faith are reform-
able, that is, open to correction and subject to revision.
Although the Four Articles contain assertions most
erroneous, and most contrary to the doctrine of even
the Gallican Church in earlier times, yet Bossuet drew
them up in such a vague and indefinite manner that, in
many instances, they admit of a mitigated interpretation.
Moreover, Bossuet could not be induced to number
amongst the doctrines of the French Church the right of
appeal to a council from the sentence of the Pope, since
he well knew that this doctrine had been repeatedly con-
demned by the Bulls of Pius II. and Julius II., and even
of Martin V. in the Council of Constance. 532 Bossuet was,
unquestionably, the draftsman only, and not the pro-
moter of the Four Articles, as Fleury himself confesses. 533
He tried by every means to discourage the assembly
from entering into the path along which it blindly ad-
vanced under the standard of the Gallican liberties. He
courageously attacked the declaration of the Bishop of
Tournay, declaring it to be schismatical in its tendency,
and procuring its rejection. 534 Bossuet, it is true, drew up
532 Fi eur y : Anecdotes, p. 139.
533 Ibid., 1. c., pp. 174-75. u Bossuet est bien le redacteur des
Ouatre Articles, mais il n'en fut point le promoteur."
534 See Fenelon : De Summi Pontificis Auctoritate, c. vii., cui
titulus : " Narratur controversia D ni - Bossueti Epis. Meld. adv.
D nm - Choisseul Episc. Tornacensem " (Op., t. ii., p. 269, seq.
Edit. Versailles, 1820).
Bossnefs Deft' nee of the Declaration. 177
the Four Articles ; but in them he expressed the doc-
trines of the assembly, for which the French Govern-
ment was mainly responsible. The fault of Bossuet
was that of an exaggerated submission, or rather, of a
pitiful servility towards King Louis XIV. ; and it was
in obedience to that monarch that he undertook the
Defence of the Declaration of the Assembly of 1682,
against the work of Roccaberti, Archbishop of Valencia.
A man like Bossuet could not act against his conscience.
He, therefore, recast his work two or three times. He
kept it unpublished for no less than twenty years. Before
his death, he attempted to write it anew upon different
principles, and to give it the title of Gallia Orthodoxa.
Being surprised by death, he rigorously required of his
nephew, the Abbe Bossuet, to let no one have the work,
but to place it in the hands of the King alone. That
monarch, who always held Catholic principles when his
mind was not blinded by his passions, had already
yielded to the ever-increasing reluctance felt by Bossuet
to publish a work so injurious to the Church and dan-
gerous to Catholic nations. He, accordingly, refused to
receive the deposit at the hands of the nephew of the
deceased prelate ; and only after six years of importu-
nity did he consent to let it lie in a box in his royal
palace. 535 It was the nephew of Bossuet unworthy to
bear that illustrious name who, forty-one years after
the death of his uncle, published at Amsterdam the
Dcfcnsio Dcclarationis Cleri Gallieani (1745), having
previously secured the loss of the papers in which
Bossuet, on his death bed, had recast his work. 530
Bossuet had deeply considered for twenty years the
53r> See the two beautiful chapters vii. and viii. of bk. ii. of
VEglise Gallicanc, of the Count de Maistrc, who confirms with
important documents what we here assert with regard to Bossuet
(p. 257, seq. Edit. cit.).
53ti De Maistrc : Op. cit., 1. ii., c. ix., p. 278, seq.
M
178 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
effect of the Galilean Declaration, and had clearly
understood its inconsistency. The books written during
that time against the Four Articles had cleared away
former prejudice, and opened his eyes to the abyss
of schism and heresy into which they were leading
the Church of France. Hence his perplexity, his
trouble, and his repentance with regard to his volume,
which always weighed on his mind as a most heavy
burden. Bossuet himself would never have consented
to publish a work from which the enemies of the Church
have so eagerly drawn weapons against her. He had
already, in a manner, judged and condemned the book
by keeping it for twenty years in his secret desk, and by
confiding it, under the condition above mentioned, in his
last will, to his nephew, the Abbe Bossuet, who trea-
cherously violated the trust. We, therefore, cannot
regard the Dcfcnsio Dcdarationis Clcri Gallicani, as a
fair exponent of the mind of the Bishop of Meaux,"' :>7
nor even as a genuine production of his hand. But what-
ever may have been the authority of Bossuet and of the
Bossuet, long before his death, had understood the slavery
into which the so-called Gallican liberties had plunged the Church
of France. On the 5th Oct., 1707, he wrote to Cardinal de
Noaillcs, as follows : " J' implore le secours de Madame de Main-
tenon, a qui je n' ose ecrire (great liberty of a Gallican bishop!).
Votre Eminence fera ce qu'il faut ; Dieu nous la conserve ! On
nous croira a la fin, et le temps decouvrira la verite ; mais il est a
craindre que ce ne soit trop tard, et lorsque le mal aura fait de trop
-rands progres. J' ai le cceur perce de cctte crainte" (Hist, de
Bossiict, par Bausset, 1. xii., n. 24, t. iv., p. 289, seq. Versailles,
1814). In another letter, of the 3ist Oct., 1702, he had written :
" II est bien extraordinaire que pour exercer notre ministerc, il nous
faille prendre 1'attache de M. le Chanccllier, et achcver dc mettre
rEglisc sous lejoug. Pour moi j'y mettrais la tete." On the 24th
Oct., in his letter to Cardinal de Noailles, he said : " On veut
mettre tous les eVeques sous le joug, dans le point qui les inte'ressc
le plus, dans 1'cssentiel de leur ministerc qui est la foi ! " (1. c.,
p. 290).
The Declaration judged by the Chnreli. 179
Gallican bishops of the Assembly of 1682, as soon as
the Four Articles were published, the whole Catholic
world lifted up its voice to condemn them as absurd and
detestable. 538 The University of Douay addressed to the
King a formal complaint against the Declaration. The
Sorbonne itself, which had given great support to the
Gallican system, refused it admission on the Register.
But the Parliament of Paris, with its usual overbear-
ing manner, inserted the Articles in the register of
the university, regarding them as the stronghold of
Crcsarism -and of its own uncontrollable despotism over
the Church. 539 Nevertheless, the sentence of unanimous
condemnation pronounced by the Catholic world was
confirmed by the voice of the Apostolic See. Inno-
cent XL, in his Brief of April nth, 1682, addressed to
the Assembly of the Gallican Bishops, declared null
and void of all effect all the acts of that ecclesiastical
assembly, and exhorted the clergy to make a frank
and speedy recantation of their proceedings. :>4 More-
over, he firmly refused to grant confirmation of episcopal
dignity to those who had promised by oath to maintain
the Four Articles of the Declaration. 541 Alexander VIII.,
his successor, went further, and shortly before his death
v> The Assembly of the bishops of Hungary, by the decree
of Oct. 24th, 1682, used these terms of the Gallican Declaration,
The Spanish episcopate (July loth, 1683) openly protested against
this famous Declaration.
v{9 De Maistre : Op. cit., 1. ii., c. v., p. 228.
~' 10 Rcsponsio Innoccntii XI. ad fcpist. d'cri Gallic. (If! Gallia
Vindicata, diss. i., sec. viii., doc. lix.. p. 345, seq.).
'' 41 Rohrbacher : Hist, i'nii'. dc /7:V//.sr, t. \\v;., 1. Ixxxviii.,
p. 219. Louis XIV. thereupon ordered that the Chapters should
appoint as spiritual administrators those who had been elected
to the episcopal dignity. In this manner he violated the decree
of the Second (Ecumenical Council of Lyons, while maintaining
in the articles of the declaration that the Pope could not change
the canons of the general councils. What inconsistency !
M 2
I So The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
published (Aug. 4th, 1690) in the presence of twelve
cardinals the Bull Inter Multipliers, by which he con-
demned and annulled the Articles of the Declaration
of March 2nd, i682. 542 Finally, Innocent XII. succeeded
in persuading Louis XIV. to withdraw the Gallican
Declaration, and to allow the clergy to send to the
Apostolic See an authentic act of entire submission
and formal retractation. 543 Such were the terms im-
posed on the King as the condition of the confirma-
tion of bishops named by him. But, notwithstanding
these acts of retractation and of submission, the spirit
of the Gallican principles was not extinguished in the
clergy of France, and especially in the Parliaments of
that kingdom. The Jansenists spared no effort to revive
in full vigour that spirit of opposition and rebellion
against the Sovereign Pontiff ; so that in the beginning
of the eighteenth century the Gallican bishops, in an
encyclical letter, insisted upon those very maxims of
the Gallican system which Alexander VIII. had already
condemned. Clement XL was obliged to renew (Aug.
3 1st, 1/06), in a brief to Louis XIV., the condemnation
passed upon the Declaration, and to warn the monarch
that principles such as those proclaimed in the Church
of France, would, whilst they struck at the root of eccle-
siastical authority, shake also, and overthrow along with
it, his royal power/' 44 But after the death of Louis XIV,
during the regency of the libertine Duke of Orleans, all
hopes of bettering the condition of affairs were dashed to
r ' 4 -' Bnlla Alc.viuidri VIII., n. xxii. (Bnllarhun Ro;nanm;i, t. x..
p. 38, seq.).
r,43 T j lc L c tt cr of Louis XIV. to the. Pope, in Soardi, Op. cit.,
pt. ii., c. viii., p. 132. See also De Maistre : Op. cit., 1. ii., c. vi.,
p. 235, seq. 77/6- Letter of the Bishops to the Pope, in Fleury,
Anecdotes cit., p. 167. See, moreover, De Maistre : Op. cit.. 1. ii.,
c. vii., p. 245, seq.
644 De Maistre : Op. cit., 1. ii., c. iv., p. 225, seq.
The Evil Fruits of Gallicanism. 181
the ground. The Janscnists lifted up their heads, and
with them the Gallican spirit arose more boldly than
ever, finding new allies in the infidel party which was
dominant in the Parliaments of France. Louis XV. pub-
lished anew the edict of the 2nd March, 1682 ; and the
Gallican maxims, strengthened by royal favour, spread
rapidly in France, and prepared the field for the great
Revolution which overthrew the throne and the altar.
Pius VI., in his Bull Auctorcui Fidci (Aug. 28th, 1/94),
struck another blow at the Gallican system \^~' yet its
deadly influence was not extinct at the end of the Great
Revolution, and exhausted and lifeless as it seemed
after that sanguinary epoch, it still lingered on for some
years. But in vain. In 1826, we find a few bishops
only who endeavoured by their example to recall it
to life. Their proclamations met with no response from
the clergy, who had learned from a long and painful
experience that Gallicanism was nothing but a sure
source of slavery for the Church of France. 1 ' 40 At
present it lies like a dead corpse, which the Universi-
tarian Bureaucracy galvanizes from time to time in
order to fetter anew the liberty of the Church.
XI. From what we have said in this section, we
must conclude that no argument in favour of the
Anglican views of the Church can be drawn from the
maxims of the Gallican sect. We have seen that those
maxims owe their origin to the spirit of schism and
rebellion propagated in Europe under the shelter of
ambitious princes during the fourteenth and fifteenth
M;I Riilla Pii 17.. n. 985 (Bull. Rom. Con fin., t. ix., p. 395).
" l ' ; See on the subject of the Gallican liberties and their evil
fruits, the Dissertation histon'qnc snr /es liberte's de I'fcglise
Gallicane ct r Assemble dn Clerge de France de 16821829.
Moreover, Carne : La Monarchie Francaise an xviii. Siecle. 1857.
Rupert : Le Gallicanisme ct raneien regime. 1862. Cantu :
ii'., t. xvi.. c. ix.. p. 161, seq. Paris, 1865.
1 82 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
centuries, and to the pagan maxims of Caesarism which,
already wide-spread in Europe, prevailed principally in
the Parliaments and Court of France. We have seen,
too, that if at a later period the clergy began to profess
those principles, the cause is to be sought in servility
rather than in heresy. The clergy of France con-
demned in practice the errors of the Declaration, because
they have always professed the divine supremacy of the
Apostolic See, and expressly rejected in their formulary
of submission every principle injurious to that supreme
authority. The Articles, indeed, were never logically
confronted by the French clergy with the doctrine of
the divine supremacy of the Pope, nor developed accord-
ing to the principles of rigorous discussion. Had the
clergy followed more closely in the steps of Jansenism,
they would have arrived at the fatal and heretical con-
clusions which Febronius (Nicholas de Hontheim) drew
from Gallicanism, as explained to him by his master,
Zeger Bernard Van Espen/' 47 But the French priest-
hood submitted to the dogmatic condemnation of
Jansenism pronounced by the Supreme Head of the
Church ; and even those, who with Cardinal de Noailles
had appealed to the future General Council against the
Bull Unigenitns, did not dare to resist the Bull Pasto-
ral is Officii (1717) of Clement XL, in which the major
excommunication was threatened against those who had
persisted in the rejection of the earlier decision. Shortly
after, the clergy with the King solemnly condemned
Jansenism, which from that time ceased to have legal
existence in France. Of course its schismatical spirit
continued to find a dwelling in the Parliaments,
which had ever been the stronghold of the separatist
tendency of Gallicanism. But the clergy of France
f)4 ~ Zaccaria : Antifebronhis I'hidicatits, vol. ii., dissert, v., c. vi...
p. 448, seq. Catenas, 1771.
No Union on Basis of Gallicanism. 183
remained Catholic, however inconsistently with their
Gallican principles; 548 and on this account the Apostolic
See, whilst repeatedly condemning- the Articles of the
Declaration, did not denounce the French clergy as
guilty of schism or heresy. On the other hand,
Clement XIII. did not abstain from applying the
censure of heresy to the errors of Febronius ; 549 and
the bishops of Germany unanimously assented to that
condemnation. 550 It is, therefore, vain for Dr. Pusey to
long to see the Church united on a basis of Gallicanism.
The Church can rest only on the immoveable rock on
which Christ built it. That rock is the Pope's divine
supremacy. The Gallicans were Catholics in the age
of Louis XIV. and of his successor, because they con-
fessed this divine supremacy as a revealed dogma.
Dr. Pusey and his followers will be Protestants, and
separated from the Church of Christ, as long as they
persist in denying that doctrine, for it is the standard
and the test of Catholicity.
548 See c. xvi., 1. ii., Op. cit. of Count de Maistrc, p. 375, seq.,
m which the learned writer examines the causes which kept the
Gallican Church in submission to the Holy See. He reduces
.. those causes to three : the prudence and moderation of the Popes,
the Catholic attachment of the French Kings to Rome, and the
noble character of the Gallican clergy.
549 See the letters of Clement XIII. to the Bishops of Wurtz-
burg and Mayence (Bullarium ROM. Continual., t. ii., pp. 450-51).
550 See Zaccaria : App. Momnnentorum in Antifebr. Vindic.*
t. i., diss. i., c. i., p. 35, seq. Edit. cit.
SECTION VIII.
THE DIVINE SUPREMACY OF THE POPE AND TIIK
GENERAL COUNCILS SYNODS OF CONSTANCE
AM) OF FLORENCE.
I. THE task we undertake in this section, is to prove
that the doctrines contained in the Four Articles of
1682 concerning Papal authority, are not only in con-
tradiction with other doctrines admitted in the Gallican
system, but, also, that they were unheard of in the
early Church. Nevertheless, since the second part of
this work will be altogether devoted to the consideration
of Papal infallibility, we shall in this section confine
ourselves to examining the Second of the Gallican
Articles, which maintains the superiority of general
councils to the Pope. It runs thus " The decrees of
the CEcumenical Council of Constance, enacted in the
Fourth and Fifth Session, approved by the holy
Apostolic See, confirmed by the practice of the whole
Church and of the Roman Pontiffs, and religiously
observed by the Gallican Church, are to remain in
their full vigour." And it is added, that "The
Church of France does not approve the opinion of
those who attempt to represent these decrees as void
of authority, or as intended only for the time of schism."
According to what is here said to be the teaching of the
Gallican Church, the Synod of Constance ruled that
the general council is superior to the Pope, even in
the normal state of the Church ; and that decrees to
this effect had been approved by the Pope himself,
and confirmed by the practice of the whole Church.
General Councils not superior to Pope. 185
At the same time a profession is made of belief that
the Pope possesses by divine right the plenitude of
authority in spiritual matters.
II. Before turning our attention to these two sin-
gular assertions of the Gallican Articles, we will notice
their evident inconsistency with the doctrine of that
divine supremacy which they maintain. For if the Pope
is the visible head of the Church, and therefore of all
the bishops, who, as a part of Christ's flock, were
entrusted to him, how can he be inferior to the
council ? The council, in reality, detached from the
Pope, is nothing but a headless corpse ; and it would
be foolish to inquire whether such a body is superior
to the head. The head represents the principles of
direction and command over all the members, which
so adhere to it as to coalesce in the unity of a human
body. As the body without the head is a lifeless
trunk, so the assembly of the bishops without the head
of the Church cannot represent the body of the Church
the mystical body of Christ and the abode of the
Holy Ghost. Should such a separation take place in
the Universal Church, the Church would cease to exist.
Christ did not establish his Church as a corpse deprived
of its head, but as a perfect and living body, in which
He was eternally to dwell by His Holy Spirit. As,
therefore, it is impossible that the gift of indefectibility
should depart from the Church, so it is absurd to
imagine that the true visible head of the Church can
detach itself from the mystical body of Christ. It is,
consequently, absurd to institute comparisons between
the body and the head in a state of real separation,
and yet in a state of life and action. On this account,
the question whether or no the Pope be superior to the
council, having no meaning, is absurd. What existence
can a council have without the Pope ? The council
represents the Universal Church ; but the Universal
1 86 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
Church does not exist apart from its visible head,
which is the centre of its unity and the fountain of
its life. The question, therefore, as proposed by the
Gallicans, is absurd in its very terms, unless a denial
be implied of the vital organization of the Church under
one head, and consequently of the divine supremacy of
the Pope. But were it possible to compare the whole
of the bishops in a general assembly with the Pope,
in what sense could the subordination of the Pope to
such an assembly be maintained ? Are not all the
bishops sheep and lambs entrusted to the care of Peter,
and in him to that of all his successors ? Were not the
keys of the kingdom of heaven given to Peter ? Was
not he appointed the rock on which the whole Church
should be built ? If so, how can he be subordinate to
them ? How could they be otherwise than in the
number of his lambs and sheep? How could they
cease to be founded on him, and kept under his supreme
jurisdiction? The idea which the Fathers and the
Doctors in every age conceived of the constitution of
the Church, of itself excludes and condemns the Gallican
error, that the assembly of the bishops is superior to the
Pope.
III. W r e have in the preceding section traced the
origin of what is called Gallicanism, and have given
the names of the authors who originated it, with the
reasons which led them into their error Gerson, D' Ailly,
and their faction, who confounded the normal with the
abnormal state of the Church. When a Pope has been
canonically elected and universally acknowledged, he
is divinely empowered to rule the Universal Church ;
and clergy and people of every rank are subject to him.
But when the validity of his election is contested, at
least, when the opinion of a large part of Christendom
is adverse to it, he cannot enforce his authority
over the whole Church ; nor are submission and
The Origin of the False Opinion. 187
obedience to be required from those who call in
question the canonicity of his election and regard him
as an intruder. If this party come to the resolution of
choosing another Pope, and consider him as the true
Vicar of Christ, then a material breach of unity, a
material schism, separates the members of the same
Church : but as all still acknowledge one head, one centre
of authority over the whole Church, according to Christ's
institution, they have not formally broken the bond of
unity, since they are only doubtful as to the person w r ho
by canonical election has inherited the divine right of
supremacy in the Church. This was the case in the
Western schism. Now, since the Church has the right
to existence in accordance with the constitution of Christ,,
it has, consequently, the right of pronouncing a final
sentence on the fact of the election of the two Popes,
and of restoring the external bonds of unity and charity
to all. In this way we see that during such a schism
the bishops of Christendom have the right and duty
to assemble together with or without the contending
Popes, in order to ascertain the truth concerning the
contested election, and to find out the fittest means-
of restoring personal unity in the headship of the
Church. But having once declared the legitimate Pope,
whom all should obey, and reinstated the Church in
its normal position, their task is at an end, and the
helm of the Church passes of itself into the hands of
the Pope lawfully elected and universally recognised.
Hence, general assemblies of bishops, such as those of
Pisa and Constance, up to the time of the election of
Martin V., are not councils, properly speaking, either
general or particular, because they do not represent the
Church in its normal state, and they have no other
authority except that of giving to the Catholic Church
a visible head, to whom St. Peter's power is divinely
transferred. They cannot, consequently, be said to be
1 88 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
in any manner superior to the Pope ; because, during
that state of uncertainty and material schism, the Pope is
not visible to the Church, nor is he able to exercise his
divine power over it. They have no mission but that
of dissipating the clouds which keep the true Pope from
the eyes of the true Church ; or, if that be not possible,
of choosing canonically a new Pope, who shall be
acknowledged by all as the Vicar of Christ. But when
the lawful Pope appears, these assemblies cease to have
any legal authority and existence in the Church, unless
they receive the sanction of the new Pontiff and are
presided over by him and his legates. This is the
doctrine of all antiquity, which was so universally and
firmly held in the Church when the Western schism
broke out, that the opposite opinion was suspected of
heresy, and generally condemned. We need not quote
many authorities on this point, as this truth was ex-
plicitly admitted by Gerson himself. He says that at
the time of the Council of Constance, God enlightened
the minds of all, that they might understand that the
Pope was subordinate to the general synod. 551 But
before that council, as he acknowledges, the doctrine
of the Pope's superiority to the council was so univer-
sally maintained, that those who dogmatised in the
opposite sense were suspected of heresy, or were con-
sidered to be guilty of it. ;>32 This admission of Gerson
551 Bcnedictus Deus qui per hoc sacrosanctum Constantiense
concilium illustratum divinse legis lumine, dante ad hoc ipsum
vexatione pra?sentis schismatis intcllcctum, liberavit Ecclesiam
suam ab hac pestifera, perniciosissimaque doctrina (namely, that
the Pope is superior to the general council)." Ibid, consid. x.,
p. 127.
552 "Ante celebrationem hujus sacrosanctteConstantiensis Synodi
sic occupaverat mentes plurimorum, litcraruin inagis quam litera-
tornin ista traditio, ut oppositorum dogmatizator fuisset de hasretica
pravitate vel notatus vel damnatus." Gerson : DC Potcstate Ecclc-
siastica, consid. xii., p. 135 (pt. i. Op. Edit. Parisiis, 1606).
Occasion of the Council of Constance. 189
enables us to dispense with further discussion on this
point. Nevertheless, after having examined the decrees
of Constance, and destroyed the main foundation of
this error, we shall return to the subject. But by* an
inquiry into the purport of the Articles of Constance,
we hope not only to overthrow the foundation of the
Gallican system, but also to afford the reader a new
argument in favour of the divine supremacy of the
Roman Pontiff.
IV. Now, in order to give a just idea of the well-
known decrees of the Fourth and Fifth Sessions of the
Council of Constance, it is necessary to state before-
hand the occasion and the circumstances under which
they were framed. The Synod of Pisa, which, notwith-
standing the election of Alexander V., opened amidst
very sanguine expectations on all sides, nevertheless
failed to satisfy the hopes universally entertained of
its terminating the schism. Nay, the Church had then
to lament the existence of three Popes, who multiplied
the divisions of Christendom. But John XXIII., suc-
cessor of Alexander V., with the consent of Sigismund,
Emperor of Germany, summoned at Constance (Nov. 5,
1414) a general council, in order to apply a remedy to the
evils of the Church, and put an end to the lamentable
schism. When, however, the synod was solemnly opened
at Constance by John XXIIL, the assembled Fathers
thought that there was no better means of doing away
with the schism than the voluntary resignation of all
the three Popes, and the election of another by the
three obediences. John XXIIL had been persuaded
to resign ; and in the Second General Session, in
accordance with that promise, he adopted a formula
satisfactory to the council, and swore to it.'' ;>:! But,
:. enfant : Hist, tin Cone, de Constance, 1. i., sec. Ixxix.. t. i..
p. 76. Edit. Amsterdam, 1714. See also Labbe. Cone. Const..
sess. vi.. t. xvi.. p. 91 ; and Hardt, t. iv., p. 53.
icp The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
.afterwards, he secretly left Constance and repaired to
Schaffhaussen, under the pretext of bad health (March
2nd, 1415). It was then that the Fathers, encouraged
by the language of Gerson and of the Emperor
Sigismund himself, resolved to continue the synod,
despite the departure of the Pope, and to pass a
solemn decree declaratory of their authority. In
fact, in the Third Session it was asserted that, not-
withstanding the departure of the Pope, the council
remained undissolved ; and when next the council
-met, the four famous Articles were enacted, which
.appeared to claim for a general council superiority
to the Pope (March 29th). 554 All the Italian bishops
..and cardinals opposed these decrees, and declared
654 The First and the Second Articles are as follows : " Hire
sancta Synodus Constantiensis, generale concilium faciens pro ex-
tirpatione presentis schismatis et imione et reformatione Ecclesia^
Dei in capite ct in membris fienda ad laudem Omnipotentis Dei in
vSpiritu Sancto legitime congregata, ad consequendum facilius,
securius, uberius et liberius unionem et reformationem Eccleshu
D-ei ordinat, dcfinit, statuit, dcccrnit et declarat ut sequitur. Et
primo declarat quod ipsa in Spiritu Sancto legitime congregata
generale concilium faciens et Ecclesiam Catholicam militantem
rcpresentans, potcstatem a Christo immediate habet, cui quilibct
cujuscumquc status vel dignitatis, etiamsi Papalis existat, obedirc
tcnetur in his, quae pertinent ad fidem et extirpationem dicti schis-
matis, ac generalem reformationem Ecclesiam Dei in capite et in
membris. Item declarat quod quicumque, cujuscumque conditionis,
status vel dignitatis etiamsi Papalis existat, qui mandatis statutis,
sen ordinationibus, aut praeceptis hujus sancta? synodi aut cujus-
cumque alterius concilii generalis legitime congrcgati, super pra>
missis, seu ad ea pcrtinentibus, factis, vel faciendis obedirc
contumaciter contempserit, nisi resipuerit, condignae poenitentia;
subjiciatur et clebite puniatur, etiam ad alia juris subsidia, si opus
fiterit, recurrendo." Cone. Const. , sess. iv. (Labbe, t. xvi., p. 67 ;
Hardt, t. iv., p. 89). Schelestrate has abundantly proved (in his
Diss. Hist. Thcolog. in Act. Cone. Constant.) by many old MSS.
of this council, that the clause of the First Article did not exist in
the original decree of the Fourth Session.
Decrees of the Fourth and Fifth Session. 191
that they would not attend the council unless, at
least, the clause of the First Article concerning the
reformation of the Church in its head and its members,
as well as the whole of the three last, were suppressed.
They finally agreed that only the clause objected to
of the First, and the whole of the Second Article, should
be omitted. Nevertheless, in the Fifth Session, through
the influence of Gerson's party, the articles re-appeared
without alteration. In spite of this, in order to avoid
scandal, the cardinals did not cease to attend the
session, but refused to vote. 555 On this a double
question arises first, were those Articles proposed by
the Assembly of Constance as a matter of faith ?
secondly, were they received by the majority of the
synod without any limitation, and as general principles
of ecclesiastical law even for the normal state of the
Church ? Questions of such importance as these call
for a rigorous examination.
V. With regard to the first, we must remark, in the
first place, that the Articles in question do not exhibit
any of those characteristics which distinguish a doctrinal
decree. The synod did not promulgate the maxims of
the Four Articles as dogmas, nor did it qualify the
contrary views as heretical ; nor did it even impose
them as articles of belief upon the faithful. These
Articles were unquestionably proposed by the council
as sy nodical constitutions the term applied to them in
the acts themselves. 550 Neither could they have any
of the authority belonging to a decree enacted by a
general council. For to clothe a synodical decree with
that authority, it is necessary that it should be maturely
discussed in the general assembly, according to the
Icf. Gv.v. Constant, a Schclcstratc cclita (Labbe, t. xvi.,
p. 76, seq.) ; Lcnfant, 1. ii., sec. xv., scq., sec. xxv., seq., p. 101, seq.,
p. 1 14, seq.
" >G Labbc : Cone. Constant., sess. iv.. v. (t. xvi., pp. 66, 72).
1 92 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
invariable practice of all oecumenical councils. Now,
the Four Articles were discussed only in a private
meeting of some theologians, under the presidency of
Cardinal Zabarella ; and it was there that the resolution
was taken to publish them in their integrity, as having
been framed by the Chancellor of Paris. 557 Thus the
greater part of the bishops and doctors of the assembly
had no opportunity of raising their voices in favour of
the Catholic doctrine in a matter which concerns the
very essence of the Church's constitution. The victory
was won in the council by the Gerson faction, whose
doctrines had already been solemnly put forth, both
before and during the council, 558 in spite of the protest
of the whole College of the Cardinals, and the oppo-
sition of the most learned theologians of the time.
In fact, when, in the Sixth Session, Cardinal D'Ailly
proposed that the sentence of condemnation against
Wiclyffe should be issued in the name of the council,
without any mention of the Pope, twelve only of the
theologians appointed to report on the matter agreed
with D'Ailly ; the others firmly maintained that the
council had power only when closely united with the
head of the Church. 559 The discussion and decision are
new evidences going to prove that the Articles of the
Fourth and Fifth Sessions were not intended as matters
of faith, especially as the Patriarch of Antioch openly
asserted in the Sixth Session that, the Pope being
superior to the council, every decree should be pub-
"'"" Lenfant : Op. cit., 1. ii., sec. x\ iii., p. 108. He quotes the
acts as edited by Hardt and Schelestrate.
:>> See the works of Gerson, especially that on the Power
of tlie Church, quoted above, and the Oration delivered to the
council after the departure of John XXIII. (Op., pt. i., p. 317,
seq.).
559 See Lenfant, 1. ii., sec. xlii., seq., p. 131 ; and Hardt., t. iv.,
p. 136.
They contain no Matter of Faith. 193
lished in his name, and not in that of the council, 560
while Cardinal D'Ailly did not dare to accuse him of
heresy. 561 Nothing was ever defined as of faith con-
cerning which the Roman Church and its head were
not consulted, or against which the whole College of
the Cardinals entered its protest It was determined
by the Council of Constance itself that, without the
Cardinals as representatives of the Roman Church, no
decree of faith should be passed in the synod. 502 Now,
Martin V. openly declared to the Poles that he intended
to approve those decrees only which had been enacted
in accordance with the rules of general councils (con-
ciliariter)?* But the Articles in question, as we have
seen, did not satisfy these conditions; because, (i.) they
were not properly and publicly discussed by the council,
and (2.) they were not approved by the Roman Church
and its head the Pope. These cannot, therefore, be
comprehended among the decrees which Martin V.
intended to sanction in his answer to the Polish deputies.
Finally, we have in our favour D'Ailly and Gerson
themselves. For D'Ailly, in his treatise De Ecclesice
et Cardinalium Potcstatc, after having endeavoured to
prove that the general council is superior to the Pope,
professes at the end that he did not mean to decide
the question, but only to put forward arguments
favouring his view, leaving it to the general council
to pronounce a definitive sentence on the subject. 564
500 Propositio Patriarchs Antiochice (Labbe, t. xvi., App. Cone.
Constant., n. xiii., p. 821, scq. Hardt, t. ii., p. 295 ; t. iv., p. 64).
!1 Lcnfant : 1. ii., sec. xlvi., scq., p. 134, seq.
50 - Sec Hardt: t. ii., p. 288. Becchetti : Hist. Eccl. Contin-
uazione eT Orsi., t. ii., p. 337, seq.
53 Cone. Const., sess. xlv. (Labbe, t. xvi., pp. 746 748).
SGI ( ) urc tamen non definitive determinando sed doctrinaliter
-suadcndo posita stint : nam hujus rci defmitionem sacri Concilii
determinationi submitto." D'Ailly : DC Ecclcsics et Cardinalium
Potestatc, c. iv., pt. iii. (in Gersonis Op., pt. i., p. 934).
N
194 Th e Supreme Authority of the Pope.
He would not have spoken thus in a matter of faith.
Moreover, Gerson, in another treatise which bears the
same title, says that, after the Council of Constance,
the contrary doctrine was held by many. 505 This shows
that the Articles were not really received by the synod as
definitions of faith. Let us proceed to inquire what is
the true meaning of these synodical constitutions.
VI. Protestants German as well as English have
asserted that the Fathers of Constance ruled that the
council is superior to the Pope, and that the former
has a coercive power over the latter. The Gallicans
maintained the same principle, and asserted it in the
second of the Four Articles of 1682. "A peculiar
embarrassment," says Gieseler, "was prepared for the
Popes by the fact that they were obliged to regard the
Council of Constance as oecumenical, in order to prove
the validity of their own succession ; while they were,
nevertheless, compelled to reject its fundamental prin-
ciples, which were the groundwork of the Gallican
system." 566 Mr. Palmer also thinks that, "The Synod
of Constance decreed that a general council was superior
to the Pope." 567 It is doubtless true that the Gerson
faction had no other purpose in view in drawing up
the Articles in question. The writings published by
Gerson, both before and during the council, and espe-
cially his Oration after the departure of John XX 1 1 1.,
would afford sufficient evidence of the fact, even were
we destitute of other proofs. But it is not established
that the majority of the Assembly of Constance ad-
mitted these Articles in the precise sense of the Gerson
665 Gerson : De Potcstate Ecclesiastica, consid. xii. (Op., pt. i.,
p. 135. Edit. cit.).
S66 Gieseler : History of the Church, vol. iv., pt. iii., c. i..
sec. 136, p. 432.
667 Palmer : Church of Christ, pt. iv., c. xi., sec. iv., vol. 1L
p. 172.
.
True. Meaning of the Four Articles. 195
faction. On tin. contrary, we have sufficient proofs
that they did not approve them as guiding principles
for the normal state of the Church, and with regard
t<> a Pope lawfully elected and universally recognised
as the legitimate head of the Church. We main-
tain that these Articles were understood to hold good
only for the time of a schism caused by doubts as to
the legitimate Pope. We will state briefly the chief
reasons in support of our assertion. First, all know how
anxious the Fathers of Constance were, that, after the
grievous disorders caused by the schism, a scheme should
be drawn up for reform in the discipline of the Church.
Xo\v, in the Session xxxviii., the German nation proposed
that should the Pope about to be chosen neglect
before his coronation to secure the reform intended by
the council, the decree of his election should be invali-
dated. But the assembly rejected the proposal, re-
marking that, " The Pope, once elected, could not be
so bound." 508 In accordance, therefore, with that reso-
lution, a decree of reformation was framed by the
council in the Session xl. without any penal sanction,
because it concerned the legitimate Pontiff then about
to be elected. 509 They adopted the same course with
regard to the synods which were to be assembled by
the new Pope. 570 But in that very session, when they
were contemplating the case of a schism in the event
of contending Popes, they imposed on such the obli-
gation of calling a general council, adding the most
grievous penalties, and even deposition, in case of
neglect/' 71 Now, the striking difference of these deer
affords a key to the meaning of the Articles of the
* " KIcctus non potcst ligari." Cone. Const., sess. xxxviii.
.bbc, 1. c., pp. 694-5).
569 Ibid., sess. xl., p. 706, seq.
570 Ibid., sess. xxxix. p. 700.
r>:i Ibid., pp. 701-^.
X 2
196 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
Fourth and Fifth Session. We see that when the council
treats of doubtful Popes, it exercises a coercive power,
but when it deals with certain and legitimate Popes, it
lays no claim to such power, because the lawfully-elected
cannot be bound. Hence the Articles of the Fourth
and Fifth Session have reference only to a doubtful
Pope in a time of schism. Moreover, in the last session
of the same council, when the representatives of the
Polish nation intended to appeal to the future council
from the sentence of the Pope, Martin Y. inhibited
them from so doing under pain of excommunication. 57 ' 2
And yet in that numerous assembly no one objected ;.
for, had any one raised his voice against the Papal
sentence, Gerson would not have failed to mention
the fact in the treatise which he wrote on the subject
.after the council had separated. 573 On the contrary,
the person who had been the author of the Articles of
the Fourth and Fifth Session, and had understood
them in the Galilean sense, remarked, that they could
not be reconciled with the decision of Martin V. against
the appeal to the council. 574 Nor did the Synod of
Constance attempt even to exercise any power of supre-
macy by the deposition of the three conflicting Popes.
From the Acts of the Council, it clearly appears that
John XXIII. was not deposed by the council, but he
himself, by a solemn act, resigned his Papal dignity
into the hands of the synod. 575 Gregory XII. followed
in the same path, and committed his Pontifical autho-
rity to the council/ 76 Peter de Luna (Benedict XIII.)
572 Cone. Const., sess. xlv., pp. 746748.
573 Quomodo et an liceat in causis ficlei a summo Pontince
.ippellare" (in Op. cit., pt. i., p. 431, seq.).
w Ibid., p. 437-
: ' 7 -'' Cone. Const., sess. x. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 175) ; et sess. xii.,
p. 214.
'' Coitc. Const., scss. xiv. (Labbe, 1. c., pp. .2-4-5}.
The Pseudo- Synod of Basic. 197
alone was deposed at the close of the council, when
he was openly guilty of schism and heresy, and the
Church was already united under the new Pope,
Martin V. In the sentence of deposition, De Luna
is declared a schismatic and a heretic, rejected by God
Himself, and cut off from the body of Christ. 577 If,
then, the Fathers of Constance did not dare to treat
even doubtful Pontiffs, in a time of schism, according
to the maxims of the Articles of the Fourth and Fifth
Sessions, how can we believe that they intended to
enforce these very Articles as general rules for the
Church in its normal state ?
VII. It is true that the synod assembled at Basle
(Dec. 14, 1431) not only renewed the Articles of Con-
stance in the Second Session, but intended thus to
assert against the legitimate Pontiff, Eugenius IV., its
supremacy and independence in the Universal Church ;
nay, even pretended to make of them a matter of
faith. 578 But first, before the synod had renewed these
'decrees in the Second Session, Eugenius IV, on De-
cember 10, 1431, had issued the bull of its dissolu-
tion ; 579 so that Cardinal Julian, who had been appointed
by the Pope president of the council, 550 in obedience
to this new order of Eugenius, resigned his offic
Thus that decree was made without the concurrence
of any representative of the Holy See ; and, moreover,
only by seven or eight prelates, who were then as-
" l77 Cone. Const., sess. xxxvii. (Labbe, 1. c., pp. 681-2).
678 Concilium BcsiUenst^ sess. ii., .suss. x\ iii., ft sess. xxiii.
(Labbe, t. xvii., pp. 236, 305, 389). Epist. Syiiodi fiiuilecusis nd
Oratorc.s Principnni (I. c., p. 536, seq.).
:>7 ' J J^it I la Ku genii II'. ilc Revocation e Cone. Basilccn. (in App.
v. ;id Cone. Basil^ n. Hi. Labbe, t. xvii., p. 733).
680 Litt. Eugsnii IV. ad Cord. Julianum (in sess. i. Cone. Basil.,
1. c., p. 227).
681 In Bnlla Rctrctctaiionis Pii II. (In Collection? Mon;< wen to-
rum, Op. L. Veith. DC Primatu Papa, p. 208.)
1 98 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
scmbled at Basle, and who dared to brave the orders
of the Head of the Church. 582 With regard to the
eighteenth Session, these Articles were not acknow-
ledged by the legates of the Pope, of whom some
were absent, and some protested against the decrees ;
if several signed them, they acted as private persons,
to secure the honour of presiding in the council. 583
"Rut not even then was the council lawfully assembled,
for it had not complied with the conditions imposed
by Pope Eugenius IV. in the bull by which he with-
drew and cancelled the order of its dissolution. These
conditions were : (i.) That all whatsoever had been
cither said or written in the synod against the authority
of the Pope should be annulled ; arid (2.) that the
Roman legates should be admitted to a real presi-
dency of the council/'* 1 Now the synod not only did not
annul the decrees against the authority of the Apostolic
See, but it sanctioned them again and again, and pro-
posed them as articles of faith. Moreover, it refused to
allow the legates to exercise their full power, 58 '"' imposing
on them conditions most injurious to the Papal claims/* 4
Thus it follows that even in the Eighteenth Session,,
when the decrees were renewed against the supreme-
authority of the Pope, the Synod of Basle was under
the sentence of dissolution pronounced by Pope Euge-
Vido Hullam cit. I'ii II., 1. c. Litl. Ku^f.nii IV. ad Cone.
I>asiL (in App. ad hoc Cone., n. xlv. ; vel in pi. i. Owe. Florcntini,
\\. xiii. Labbe, t. xviii., p. 880, scq.). The Fathers of Basic con-
fessed the smallness of their number in the Resp. Synod., n. xvi.,
in Conr. Basil. (Labbe, t. xvii., p. 567).
5S3 Turrecremata : /// Resp. ad Basilccnscs in Cone. Florenf.,.
pt. ii., n. 19 (Labbe, t. xviii., p. 1480).
Vide /-In I/am Ei'gtnii IV., in sess. xvi. Cone. Basil. (Labbe,
t. xvii.. p. 292, seq.). Turrecremata : 1. c., n. 18 (Labbe, t. xviii).
Cone.. Basil., sess. xvii. (Labbe, i. xvii., p. 304). Turrccrc-
: 1. c.
' ! .. c.
The Assembly devoid of Authority. 199
nius in the Bull of December 18, 1431. All know what
was the miserable end of that synod ; it went so far
in its overbearing rashness as to impeach the Pope
himself (July 31, 1437) ; 587 to pronounce upon him, first,
a sentence of suspension (January 24, 1438),^ and at
length a final sentence of deposition (May 25, I439). 589
But its vote, and its Anti-Pope Felix V., met with
nothing but contempt from the Catholic world, already
wearied by the long schism healed at Constance. Princes
and people took no notice of the decrees of Basle, but
adhered to Eugenius IV., the real head of the Church,
the true representative of Christ, apart from whom no
council invested with supreme authority can exist.
Anglicans should remember that at that period that
is, half a century before the great apostacy of Pro-
testantism England declared itself for Pope Eugenius
and his supremacy, against the authority of the council.
Henry VI., then King of England, rebuked in severe terms
the Assembly of Basle for having shown such rashness
as to judge the Sovereign Pontiff and cause the good
to fear lest the day of Antichrist were at hand. And
he ordered that, in spite of its decrees, the annates
should be paid to Pope Eugenius. 500 The Bishops of
England firmly resolved that should the Synod of Basle
choose a new Pope, they would adhere to Eugenius IV.,
and obey his orders. 501 And they refused to acknow-
Cfir Cone. Basil., scss. xxvi. (Labbe, t. xvii., p. 349, seq.).
l " Cone. />'</.>//.. sess. xxxi. (Labbe, t. xvii., p. 376, scq.).
689 Cone. Basil., scss. xxxiv. (Labbe, 1. c., p. 390, seq.).
690 p a tricius : Hist. Cone. Basil, ct Florcnt., n. Ixxii. (in Labbe,
t. xviii., p. 1368} ; ct in Act is Cone. Florcnt. (1. c.. p. 873).
601 Convoeatio P>\c!at. ct Clcri in Eeetesia S. Pauli. London,
\.n. 1433. (In Actis Cone. />'///., A. Wilkins, t. iii., pp. 521-2.)
The question proposed in that synod was " Si procedatur per
concilium (Basilcense) quod absit, ad electionem novi Summi
Pontificis, numquid obedietur domino nostro Papai modcrno, aut
2OO The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
ledge Felix V., the nominee of the Council of Basle.
All this evidently shows how deep was the conviction
in England, as well as in the whole Catholic world, that
the Pope is, by divine institution, superior to all
bishops, whether dispersed throughout the Church, or
assembled in general council ; and in the (Ecumenical
Synod of Florence, the Catholic doctrine was solemnly
affirmed, with the approval of all parties. Eugenius
IV., with the full consent of the assembled Fathers,
in his Bull Moyscs, peremptorily condemned the errors
of the Council of Basle regarding the authority of the
Roman Pontiff. 698 Cardinal Turrecremata expressed the
same view when, in the name of the Pope, he answered
the Orator of the Assembly of Basle at the Council
of Florence. He proved most solidly that the Pope
is superior to the general council, and that the Synod
of Basle had misunderstood and misrepresented the
meaning of the Articles of Constance. fl93
VIII. But further, in the decree of Union of the
Churches of the East and West, the Council of Florence
expressly acknowledges the supreme divine authority
of the Pope over the whole Church to be a matter of
faith. The definition of the Florentine Council on this
point presents all the characters requisite to an cecu-
alteri sic per concilium eligerdo, aut ncutri eorum ?" And the
unanimous answer of the council was " Conclusit clerus unani-
miter quod domino nostro Papas moderno tanquam vero et indu-
bitato Sumno Pontifici, sicut in ipso prsesenti tempore extitit
obeditum, ita in futurum obediendum ; nee esset obedientia suae
sanctitati debita quomodolibet subtrahenda," c.
692 Bulla Moyscs, in Cone. Florent, pt. iii. (Labbe, t. xviii.,
p. 1202). u Constantiense Concilium in malum ac reprobum
sensum et a sana doctrina penitus alienum pertrahunt," &c. (1. c.,
p. 1205).
693 Responsio Card. Turrecremata in Cone. Florentine ad Past-
leenses (Labbe, t. xviii., p. 1428, seq.).
Council of Florence on the Supremacy. 201
menical decree. 594 Some of the extreme Gallicans, as
Launoy, do not number this synod among the general
councils, whilst they blush not to give that name to
the miserable conventicle of Basle. And they contest
its legitimacy on the ground of its having met whilst
the rival Synod of Basle was yet holding its sessions.
But Natalis Alexander, himself a Gallican, has triumph-
antly proved this point against them ; 595 and since we
do not wish to go into the subject, we refer the reader
to his work. The learned dissertation of the Dominican
should be read by all who, like Mr. Palmer, 590 agree
with Launoy ; they will gain from it a just idea of the
authority of the Council of Florence. We will proceed
to examine the force of this council's definition con-
cerning the supreme power of the Roman Pontiff. "We
define," the Fathers declare, "that the holy Apostolic
See, and the Roman Pontiff, possess the primacy over
the whole world ; that the Roman Pontiff is the suc-
cessor of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, the true
Vicar of Christ, the Head of the whole Church, the
Father and Doctor of all Christians ; further, that the
full power of feeding, ruling, and guiding the Universal
Church was entrusted to him, through blessed Peter,
.MM - Item ck'finimus sanclam Apostolicam Scdom et Rom.
Pontificem in universum orbem tenere primatum, et ipsum Pon-
tificem Rom. successorem esse B. Pctri Principis Apostolorum et
verum Christi Vicarium, totiusque Ecclcsiae caput et omnium
Christianorum Patrem et Doctorem existere ; et ipsi in B. Petro
pascendi regendi ac gubernandi Universalcm Ecclcsiam a Domino
Nostro Jesu Christo plenam potestatem traditam esse : quemad-
modum etiam in gestis oecumenicorum conciliorum et in sacris
canon ibus continetur." Cone. Flor., in sess. xxv., textus Grseco-
Latinus (Labbe, t. xviii., p. 526, seq.).
\atalis Alexander: Hist. Eccl., t. xviii., diss. x., art. i.,
p. 604. Edit. Mansi, 1790).
696 Palmer : Church of Christ, vol. ii., pt. iv., c. xi., sec. v..
p. 177.
2O2 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
by Jesus Christ our Lord, as is also contained in the
oecumenical councils and in the sacred canons." This
decree contains the final definition by the Council of
Florence of the divine supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.
The Pope is represented as the successor of St. Peter,
as Vicar of Christ, as the head and the pastor of the
whole Church, as the sovereign teacher of all Christians ;
his authority is considered to be in its nature full and
supreme, in its extension universal, in its origin divine,
being derived from Christ Himself. The meaning of
this definition could not be misunderstood by the
Eastern bishops and Patriarchs. About two centuries
before the Council of Florence, the Greek Emperor
Michael had fully admitted, in the name of his nation,
the formulary of faith presented to him by Gregory X.
in the Second GEcumenical Synod of Lyons, and in
it he had plainly acknowledged that the Roman Pontiff
was divinely entrusted with full and supreme authority
over the whole Church ; that all controversies of faith
were to be settled by his judgment ; that all persons
were free to appeal to him from any Church tribunal
whatever ; that all the privileges of the other sees, and
especially of those of Patriarchal dignity, were to be
ascribed to a concession by the See of Rome, the
prerogative of which was always to be maintained in
the general councils, as well as in all other circum-
stances. r>97 This formulary received the signatures of all
the Greek bishops. In the meetings held at Florence
by the Eastern bishops for the purpose of coming to
an agreement concerning the authority of the Pope, they
had required two conditions from the Holy See first,
that the Pope should not assemble any general council
without the previous consent of the Greek Emperor
597 Littene Michaclis Palceologi hup. ad Grcgorium X., in Cone.
Lugd. ii. (Labbe, t. xiv., p. 512).
Papal Superiority over Councils implied. 203
and the Patriarchs ; secondly, that in case of appeal
to Rome against a sentence of a Patriarch, the latter
should not be obliged to appear at Rome before the
tribunal of the Pope. But Eugenius IV. declined to
admit either of these conditions ; he explicitly de-
clared that he would maintain the authority which
he had received from Christ, to which even the Patri-
archs were subject. Thereupon the Emperor and the
Greek prelates, after some difficulty and hesitation^
finally complied with the will of the Pontiff, and ac-
knowledged his full authority over the Universal
Church. 598 Thus, in the Synod of Florence, the Greek
no less than the Latin Church confessed as a dogma
of faith the divine supremacy of the Roman Pontiff.
They therefore condemned the error that the authority
of the Pope over the whole Church is not juris divini,
or that it is derived from the Church itself ; for it would
be absurd to suppose that the Pope, who is by divine-
institution the head and the teacher of the whole
Church, regards his own authority as received from that
very Church. Hence, although the Council of Florence
did not explicitly define the superiority of the Pope
to the general council, still it implied this superiority
by necessary consequence, for it defined his authority
in an absolute manner, excluding every limitation
of it, and deriving it from the institution of God
Himself. How then can the council be supposed to
have adjudged that the divinely appointed head of the
Church should be subject to the general assembly of
the bishops, who, without the Pope, cannot represent
the Universal Church ? How could the council believe
that the divinely-established pastor of the whole flock
of Christ people and bishops should be fed by the
'"" A eta (ri'n\~o-Latina Cone. Florentini, sess. xxv. (Labbe,
t. xviii., pp. 514517).
204 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
bishops in a general meeting ? Hence the Synod of
Florence listened, without protest, to the oration de-
livered by John, provincial of the Dominicans, in which
he plainly stated that the Pope, as the head, the pastor,
the teacher, and the ruler of the Universal Church, is
superior to the bishops assembled in synod. 599 They,
moreover, evinced no surprise when Turrecremata in-
culcated the same doctrine in still more explicit terms
in the answer addressed to the deputies from Basle. 600
The Fathers of Florence, though they felt that the
Pope was of necessity superior to the council, did not
express that doctrine in an explicit form in their defi-
nitions of faith, out of deference to the suggestions of
prudence, on account of the schismatical behaviour of
the Assembly of Basle. The ultra-Gallicans were well.
aware of this, and on that account endeavoured to
disprove the oecumenical character of the Council of
Florence, that so they might lessen the authority of
those maxims, which they knew to be contrary to the
second of the Articles of 1682.
IX. After all we have said, it is easy to clear away
the difficulty which Gallicans and Protestants attempt
to found on the last words of the foregoing passage
" Quemadmodum etiam in gestis cecumenicorum con-
ciliorum et in sacris canonibus continetur." They
maintain that by these words the Council of Florence
asserted the subordination of the Pope to the bishops
assembled in a general synod, and his consequent sub-
jection to the laws which they should enact. For this
purpose they have recourse to the Greek text, in which
the words -*.&$ ov rpo-ov */ x. r. X. seem to them to bear
-a meaning at variance with the Latin text and with
599 Joan. Prov. Disputatio de Primatu Papa, collat. xxii. Cone.
Florentini, Act. Latina (Labbe, t. xviii., p. 1156).
600 Responsio Card. Turrecremata ad Basileenses, pt. ii. (Labbe,
t. xviii., p. 1476, seq.).
Gallican Difficulty answered. 205
the common Catholic doctrine. But they are grossly
mistaken ; for, in the first place, the original text of the
decree of union was not, properly speaking, in Greek,
but in Latin. The Latin text approved by the Pope
was laid before the Greek Emperor, Patriarchs, and
bishops. It was afterwards translated into Greek,
copied and read aloud in both languages in the council,
and then signed by the Pope, the Emperor, and all the
bishops both of the Latin and the Greek Churches. 601
Therefore, although the Greek as well as the Latin text
may thus be regarded as original, yet the Greek is to be
explained by the Latin rather than the Latin by the
Greek. Now the Latin text is inconsistent with the
interpretation devised by the author of the Dcfcnsio
DecL Clcri Gallicani^ and adopted by Protestants.
But, omitting this consideration, does the meaning of
xaf Zv rpfaov %.ai differ from the qiicmadmoduui ctiam of
the Latin text ? By no means. But as clear proofs of
this have been again and again adduced by numerous
writers, it would be useless to spend time in solving a
difficulty which a very small amount of Greek scholar-
ship shows to be of no weight. The Acts themselves of
the Florentine Council fully show that the expression
y.af ov <r[>o-~ov y.v.l of the Greek text cannot have any
meaning different from that of qucmadmodnm ctiam in
the Latin. For the Byzantine Emperor and the Greek
bishops by the use of that expression did not con-
template putting the slightest limit to the authority
of the Pope, but wished to point out the trustworthy
historical evidences by which it was to be confirmed
and explained. It was the Latins who had inserted
the final clause " Ouemadmodum definiunt scripturae
sacra* et dicta sanctorum." But an objection being
601 Labbc, I. c., p. 1183.
602 Bossuet : 1. vi., c. xi. (Op., vol. vii.. p. 295, jcq. Paris, 1863).
206 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
raised by the Greeks to the dicta sanctorum, the Latins,
in order to remove any difficulty in the way of union,
agreed to substitute " Quemadmodum etiam in gestis
oecumenicorum conciliorum et in sacris canonibus
legitur ; " for the words and the acts of the general
councils, in addition to their force as dicta Sanctorum
Patrum, have a more decisive authority in illustration
and confirmation of the prerogatives of the Pope. 603
X. The Council of Florence then, in accordance
with all the earlier oecumenical synods, unequivocally
acknowledged the supreme and absolute authority of
the Roman Pontiff. That synod, as we have before
remarked, asserted and confirmed his superiority to
the general council, although it did not insert in the
decree of union an explicit definition of this prerogative.
No doubt then can remain that the self-contradictory
error of the Gallicans as to the superiority of the council
over the Pope, was, as we observed above, of recent
origin, whilst the contrary doctrine had its roots deep
in the Church and rested on the ground of divine
revelation. The acts of the first eight councils afford
a plain proof of our assertion, as the learned Ballerini
have solidly demonstrated. 004 But we need not proceed
further with this question, especially since in the second
part of our work we shall have occasion to treat the
subject anew, when we shall speak of the infallibility of
the Pope. For the preseiV we will only remark that the
maxim held by all antiquity was, that no general synod
could have any authority except it were confirmed by
the sanction of the Roman Pontiff. This principle is
plainly affirmed by the Greek historians Socrates and
Sozomen, and even by the schismatic Niccphorus, as
603 Acta GrcECo-Latina Cone. Florcntini. sess. xxv. (Labbe,
t. xviii., p. 518).
f>04 Ballerini : De Potestate Eccl. Sitmmorum Pontificum et
Condi. Gcneralium, c. v., sec. i, p. 67, seq. Aug. Vindel., 1770.
Same Doctrine taught by Antiquity. 207
also in the Acts of the (Ecumenical Councils of
Ephesus, Chalcedon, and others. But it would br
useless in this place to reproduce documents, which
have been quoted by so many writers, as for instance
by Charlas, 605 Zaccaria, 606 and especially Cardinal Orsi,
who, in his erudite work on the power of the Pope over
general synods, has fully and triumphantly refuted the
errors of the author of the Dcfcnsio Dec!. Clcri Galli-
cani!' (Tt The principal proofs of our doctrine are
given in even the ordinary courses of dogmatic theo-
logy ; GOS so that it were needless to repeat here what
may be seen in works which are in the hands of
everyone. We will confine ourselves to pointing out
that, if Gallicanism is now nearly extinct in the Church
of France, the reason is found in the conviction of the
clergy of that Catholic country that these opinions had
their roots in the despotism of the civil power over the
Church, and their fruit in the servitude of the Church
to the civil power. It has been clearly understood that
the maxims of Gallicanism have never been the doctrines
of antiquity, even in the Church of France. Half a
century before the Assembly of 1682, all the bishops of
France, assembled in a general synod, had clearly ex-
pressed their deep conviction upon the subject. "The
bishops," they said, " shall also reverence our holy Father
the Pope, the visible head of the Universal Church, the
605 Charlas : De Liber tatibus Red. Gallic., \. v., c. ix., p. 261,
seq. Leodii, 1684.
606 Zaccaria : Antifebronio. t. iv.. 1. iv., pp. I 201. Ccscna, 1770.
Antifebronius Vindicatns, pt. ii., diss. iv., capp. v. viii., pp. 88
197. Csesenae, 1771.
607 Orsi : De Rom. Pontificis Auctoritatc in Synodos CEcu-
menicas, \. vii., c. iv., t. ii., p. 155, seq. Roma^, I??'-
608 See Kilbcr : Principia Theologica, disput. ii., c. iii., art. iii.
(in Tkeolog. Dogm. Wircebitrgensi^ t. i., pt. i., p. 311, seq. Parisiis,
1852). Perrone : Pnelcct. Thcol., vol. viii., pt. i.. sec. ii., c. iii.,
prop. ii.. p. 431, seq. Lovanii, 1843.
2O8 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
Vicar of God on earth, the bishop of bishops and patri-
archs ; in a word, the successor of St. Peter, from whom
the apostlcship and the episcopacy had their beginning,
and upon whom Jesus Christ founded His Church, by
delivering to him the keys of heaven, with infallibility in
iiiith, which in his successors we have seen miraculously
endure without change to the present day." 609 Such
were the sentiments of the French clergy before the
Assembly of 1682 ; and very many similar quotations
might be adduced. But we need not repeat the argu-
ments which have been so well put by others. We, there-
fore, invite all honest Protestants to apply for further
proofs to Kilber, 610 Andruzzi, 611 Petitdidier, 612 Charlas, 613
Sfondrati, 611 and Soardi, 615 who have treated the question
at greater length than we have done. Their learned
writings will spare us the labour of extending further
this first part of our work.
XI. We trust that what we have said has been
sufficient to show that neither in antiquity, nor even
in the Decrees of Constance, can any support be found
for the erroneous opinion of the superiority of the
general council to the Pope. That opinion evidently
comprises in itself all the elements of schism and heresy;
and it was adopted in the French Church at a time
009 /;/ Monitis ad Archiep. ct Epp., A.D. 1626. Penes Kilber:
DC sensu Eccl. Galileans, Yeith. De Primat. Papa; (in Coll. Mon.,
p. 251. Mcchliniae, 1824).
Cl Kilber: Op. cit., 1. c., p. 248. scq.
611 Andruzzi : DC Perpctua Ecdcsitc Doctrimi tie Infall. Papu;
1. ii., capp. L. ii., iii., pp. 121 149. Bononiie, 1720.
C1 - Petitdidier : Traitc Thcalogiquc sur rAutoyltc ct rinfall.
;'.'s Ps pcs, c. xiv. Luxemburg, p. 348, seq.
613 Charlas : Op. cit., 1. ii., c. xiii., p. 146, srq.
eu Sfondrati : Gallia Vindicata, diss. iii., sec. vi., p. 668, seq.
Kdit. 1702.
615 Soardi : De Rom. Pontificis Auctoritate Ecdesuc. Gallicana
ScHtentia, 1. iv., c. iii., p. 108, seq.
Schismatical tendency of Gallicanism. 209
when that Church was verging upon schism and heresy,
under the influence of the erroneous system of the so-
called Gallican Liberties, the tendency of which is in
itself schismatical and heretical. But the more the
French Church faithfully adhered to Catholic principles,
the more decidedly did it reject the schismatical maxims
which it had adopted in compliance with the will of an
imperious prince wounded in his pride and ambition.
The French Church, both before and after the Assembly
of 1682, and especially in our own age, has solemnly
acknowledged the independence of the supreme authority
of the Roman Pontiff of any synod, and its superiority to
all general assemblies of bishops. Those retrograde
spirits who still persist in defending a system which
has no meaning in our time are few in the France
of the nineteenth century, and they arc found nowhere
but among the courtiers of an empire which emulates
the greatness of Louis XIV., or among that class of
clergy who see no other way open to dignities and
to the patronage of the civil power save the course
of adulation and court intrigue, to the prejudice of
ecclesiastical authority.
CONCLUSION.
ANGLICANISM: ITS ORIGIN, NATURE, AND EFFECTS-
ONLY REMEDY FOR ITS EVILS.
I. THE High Church party in England is, in our days,
more than ever looking and longing for communion
with that Roman Church which the Anglican divines
for three centuries stigmatised as tainted with schism
and heresy. But while aiming at union, they are filled
with alarm at the prospect of what they call the prac-
tical system of Papal authority being forced again upon
this country : they protest against the power which was
exercised by Rome in olden times; to this they attribute
the schism of the East, and the isolated condition of the
Anglican Establishment ; they assert that without limi-
tation and curtailment of the Papal authority, no basis
can be laid for their reconciliation and communion with
Rome. 616 After what has been said in the foregoing
sections, we have no need to examine what retrenchment
and limitation of Papal prerogative they demand. For
beyond all doubt, should the principle of episcopal
independence, as set forth in the Anglican system, 617
be maintained, Papal authority would not only be
limited in its claims and jurisdiction, but utterly over-
thrown and annihilated. The proposal to introduce
limitations of the excessive power of the Pope as a
means to facilitate reunion in the Universal Church,
616 This proposal has been made more than once in the Church
of England. See, for instance, Bramhal! : Vindication of the
Church of England, disc, ii., c. x. (Op., t. i., p. 279. Edit. Oxford).
617 See Introductory Chapter, n. Hi., p. 3, seq.
The Supreme Authority of the Pope. 211
has been a constant pretext put forward by heretics
ind schismatics in every age, with the view of justifying
their apostacy and their obstinacy in separation from
Rome. But no schism or heresy, ancient or modern,
ever originated in the exaggerated prerogative of the
Roman Pontiff. We have given a sufficient sketch
of the true causes of the Eastern schism, which the
High Church writers so obstinately ascribe to the
encroachments of Papal authority. 018 Those who rely
on historical evidence, should not remain ignorant that
the Photian system sprang from a spirit of ambition and
violence, which shook off the control of authority that
it might rush unbridled into disorder. This spirit has
survived the Eastern schism. The utter depravity into
which the Greek clergy of Constantinople have sunk,
and the abuse and cruelty found in the exercise of their
temporal power over the Christians of their communion,
may well account in our days for the obstinacy of their
separation from the centre of Catholicism. 610 So that
the stereotyped assertion of Protestant disputants will
fail in its object of distorting historical evidence, and
misleading those who view public events by the medium
of light derived from these writers.
II. It is especially asserted that the excessive and
tyrannical authority of the Popes caused the great
apostacy of the sixteenth century in Europe. This
view, so generally maintained by Protestants, is utterly
false. We have at hand the authoritative testimony of
a writer above all suspicion. " II n f est pas vrai," says
M. Guizot, "qu' au seizieme siecle la cour de Rome
fut tyrannique ; il n' est pas vrai que les abus propre-
ment dits y fussent plus nombreux, plus crians qu'ils
See section v. of this book, n. viii., p. 128, seq.
619 On this matter consult the work of J. G. Pitzipios, L*Eg!isc
Orientate, pt. iii., chs. ii., i\'.. pp. 88, 134, seq. Rome. 1855.
O 2
212 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
n'avaient etc dans d'autres temps. Jamais peut-etre,
ait contraire, le gouvernement ecclesiastique n'avait ete
plus facile, plus tolerant, plus dispose a laisser aller
toutes choses." 620 And with regard to the Anglican
schism, the same publicist wrote as follows : " La revo-
lution religieuse no s'accomplit point en Angleterre
commc sur le continent ; ellc y fut 1'ceuvrc des rois
eux-memes . . . le pouvoir se fit revolutionnaire." 621
Yes, the Anglican schism was not the work of the
English Church, but of a tyrannical king, who was
determined to enslave both Church and State, to secure
the full indulgence of his monstrous licentiousness and
unbridled ambition. Dr. Pusey, in his Eirenicon, shows
some embarrassment when speaking of the origin of
the Anglican schism. He endeavours to prove, after
his manner, that in the fourteenth century the power
of Rome had become exorbitant, and that the reforms
so much needed at the close of the Western schism
were constantly delayed ; he then continues, " And
if after the Pope had not only excommunicated King
Henry VIII., but had deposed him, deprived his
future children, given away his dominions, laid the
kingdom under an interdict, absolved his subjects from
allegiance, and stirred up other princes against them
if they rebelled not, given them to be slaves to their
captors, and their property to be a spoil the Church
of England reformed herself, it was allowed to a
provincial council to make decrees in matters of faith,
subject to the ultimate authority of the Universal
Church." " \Ye do not intend to point out each and
every misstatement contained in this extract ; we limit
620 Guizot : Jfisf. dc hi Civilisation en Europe, le$. xii., p. 341.
Jjruxclles, 1838.
"- 1 Ibid., Op. cit., le(j. xiii.. p. 358.
622 Eirenicon, p. 80.
Dr. Puscys Idea of the Origin of Anglicanism. 213
our remarks to two points only, which arc more imme-
diately connected with our subject. First, Dr. Puscy
represents the apostacy of the Anglican Church in the
sixteenth century as a consequence of enormities perpe-
trated by the Pope against King Henry VIII.: secondly,
he asserts that the Church of Kngland of that
reformed herself. Now the Regius Professor of Hebrew
seems to have forgotten the history of his own country,
so far is he carried away by the errors and the preju-
dices of previous writers. The bull of Paul III., to
which allusion is manifestly made in the foregoing
passage, bears date August, 1535, while Henry VIII.
had already, as early as 1531, transferred to the crown
the Papal prerogatives, and set up an ecclesiastical
supremacy in his own person. 6 - 3 Long before the bull
of Paul III., Henry VIII. had conceived the ambitious
design of following the Machiavellian counsels suggested
to him by Cromwell, and precipitating his kingdom
into the crime of apostacy. ' 24 We read in Collier :
" Having got the clergy entangled in a pramunire % he
'(Henry) resolved to seize the juncture, and press the
advantage." - 3 In fact, a form of submission was then
forced upon the clergy in Convocation, by which they
were to recognise King Henry as supreme head of the
Church of England, in order to be discharged of the
consequences of the pr&niunire?* Bishop Tunstal and
others, at the head of the Convocation of York, protested
against these measures, which, by threats, had been
c - r - The Bull of Pope Paul III. in Wilkins (Cone. l>rilannica.
vol. iii., p. 792). Collier : Ecclesiastical History, pt. ii., bk. i.,
pp. 6 1, 62.
'''-' Card. Pole : Apologia ad Carolina V., nn. xxvii., xxviii.
(Op., t. i., p. 118, seq. Brixia,-).
C2i Collier, 1. c., p. 62.
r - r ' Collier : 1. c. Dodd : Church History, vol. i., pt. i., art. iii.,
p. 234, seq. London, 1839.
214 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
imposed upon the Church of England ; 6 ' 27 but they
did not know, as Dodd well remarks, "That the decla-
ration of the King's headship was a step towards dis-
carding the Papal supremacy." 028 It was as early as
1534, a whole year before the above-mentioned bull, that
Henry VIII. proclaimed, in unmistakable terms, his
absolute ecclesiastical supremacy, as being the fountain
of all authority, both temporal and spiritual, declared
the power of the Pope to be a mere usurpation, and'
abolished it in its name, title, and jurisdiction. 6 ' 29 The
Convocation of the time, like a flock of scared sheep,
submitted to the imperious will of the tyrant ; bishops
and abbots lent their authority to the act of apostacy,
and signed the royal proclamation ; the University
of Oxford, which had so lately joined with the selfsame
king in defending against Luther and his followers the
supremacy of the Pope, now took part in this igno-
minious act. Finally, Parliament passed the bill abro-
gating the Papal supremacy, recognising the like
supremacy as part of the royal prerogative, and declaring
guilty of treason all those who opposed the statute.
Thus, before Paul III. had fulminated his anathema
against the royal apostate, the Church of England
had torn itself from the centre of Catholic unity, and
entered on the downward path of schism and heresy.
Such is the plain history of those times, which English
writers misrepresent, in order to clear their country from
the charge of schism. 630 The English Church was not
impelled to deny the Papal supremacy and to assert
its own independence out of love for its king, nor
627 See his Protest in Wilkins (Cone. Brit., vol. iii., p. 745).
028 Dodd : 1. c., p. 234.
029 The King's Proclamation, in Wilkins, 1. c., p. 772.
630 The various documents are quoted by Dodd in the above-
mentioned place, and by Rev. M. A. Tierney in the notes to the
article.
The real Origin of Anglicanism. 215
indignation at the manner in which he was treated by
the bull of excommunication. The point was carried
by bribery and intimidation. Although the far greater
part of the nation, with the majority of the bishops
and the clergy, wished to maintain the Papal supre-
macy, still, when constrained by the penalties of
treason, they suffered themselves to be borne along
by the stream ; few were found like Cardinal Fisher
and Sir Thomas More, the Lord High Chancellor, to
set themselves courageously against the heretical pre-
tensions of the royal tyrant, ready to suffer all risks
rather than renounce their faith. G::1 In a word, the
religious revolution in England was the work, not of
the clergy, but of the king alone. The history of the
reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth serves only to
confirm our assertion.
III. It is easy to refute the second assertion, above
quoted, from Dr. Pusey. His language would lead to
the belief that the Church of England, as soon as she
had been emancipated from the heavy yoke of Rome,
and had gained independence, introduced the needful
reforms into her own body. There is not even the least
ground for this statement. As long as the clergy of
England were under the obedience of the Universal
Pastor of the Church, they were able to act inde-
pendently of the civil power in all matters purely
spiritual, so far as even to meet and exercise the power
MI --The main body of the clergy was certainly very reluctant
to tear themselves, at the pleasure of a disappointed monarch, in
the most dangerous crisis of religion from the bosom of Catholic
unity. They complied, indeed, with all the measures of Govern-
ment, far more than men of rigid conscience could have endured to
do ; but many, who wanted the courage of More and Fisher, were
not far removed from their way of thinking." Hallam : The Con-
stitutional History of England, t. i., c. ii., p. 93. London, 1832.
Strype often expresses the same.
216 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
of making laws concerning faith and morals. 632 But no
sooner were they forced to disclaim the supremacy of
the Holy See, than they became a branch of the civil
power, and slaves of the crown. The maxim which at
that time guided the English Parliament was, that ''an
independent power in the clergy to make laws, though
in matters purely spiritual, was prejudicial to the civil
magistrate." 633 Hence the rights and independence of
the clergy were so curtailed, their spirit so broken, that,
in the forcible words of Mr. Hallam, " they became the
most abject of Henry's vassals, and dared not offer any
steady opposition to his caprice, even when it led him
to make innovations in the essential parts of their
religion." 634 The well-known formulary of the sub-
mission of the clergy to the King bears sufficient witness
to what we assert. 635 But even that act of submission,
though it enslaved the clergy, does not reveal their
ignominy to the full. In order to fill the measure of
their degradation, Henry named as his vicar-general
Cromwell, a layman, a great enemy to the clergy and to
religion in general, placing him at the head of Con-
vocation, not only to preside over synods and other
ecclesiastical assemblies, but also to reform both places
and persons, to decree ecclesiastical censures against the
contumacious, and to correct disorders by any other
penalty determined by law. 030 All, archbishops and
bishops, with the whole of their clergy, submitted like
lambs to the utterances of Cromwell, learning from him
632 Dodd : Op., and 1. c., pp. 237-38. Lathbury : History of the
Convocation of the Church of England, c. v.. p. no. London, 1842.
633 Dodd : 1. c., p. 238.
6?4 Hallam : Op., and 1. c., p. no.
635 Instmmentum super submissione clcri coram domino J\
c., in Wilkins (Cone. Brit., vol. iii., p. 754, scq.).
636 Regis commissio constituent T. Cromwell vicarium-geue-
ralem, in Wilkins (1. c., p. 784, seq.).
The real Origin of Auglicaitis 217
which festival days they were to observe, what prayers
to say in their churches, what things to preach to their
flocks, how to administer the sacrament of confession,
how to regulate the worship of saints and their images,
with many other points of a like nature. 637 Moreover,
Cromwell, as vicar-general, was commissioned by the
King to make a general visitation of the clergy, during
the progress of which their powers were wholly sus-
pended. t;i:!S "In this manner," says Strype, "the King,
taking all the episcopal jurisdiction and power into his
hands for a time, and exercising the same, it might
serve as a perpetual monument of his supremacy. And
they, receiving their power again from the King, might
recognise him for the spring and foundation of it." 6
Accordingly, a commission was issued, appointing
each prelate a deputy of the King, and authorising
him to exercise his spiritual jurisdiction in that capacity
during the royal pleasure. But each bishop was in-
formed that the authority granted to him belonged
exclusively to the King, and that he was entrusted with
it only because Cromwell, the royal vicar-general, was
prevented, owing to the multiplicity of his affairs, from
exercising it everywhere and in every instance. 040 Such
l ' 37 Injunction by Th. Cromwell, his Majesty's vicar-general, in
Wilkins (1. c., p. 815, scq.). "From that the clergy concluded,' 1
says Burnct, " that they were now to be slaves to the Lord Vice-
gerent." History of the. Reformation, t. i., pt. i.. bk. iii., p. 365.
London. Edit, of Nares.
' ; Inhibitio pro visitationc, in \Yi! 1 ;ins (1. c., p. 197). Sec
Strype: Ecclesiastical Memorials, vol. i., pt. i., c. xxix., p. 321.
Oxford, 1822.
039 Strype : Op. cit., 1. c., p. 322 ; and App. of Documents.
n. Ivii., vol. i.. pt. ii., p. 216, seq.
Ouia tamcn ipse Thomas Cromwell nostris et hujus regni
no ;tri Anglia? tot et tain arduis ncgotiis adeo pra?peditus existat,
quod ad omnen jurisdictionem nobis ut supremo capiti hujusmodi
competcntem ubique locorum infra hoc rcgnum nostrum et pni>
2i8 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
was the abject state to which King Henry reduced the
clergy of England, and from which they were unable
to raise themselves. It is sheer trifling to represent
these poor slaves of the crown as an independent body
exercising a full power of reforming the Church by
their own act and deed in those assemblies, in which
they admitted the presidency of an infamous layman ;
yet the assumption of Dr. Pusey, of Mr. Palmer, and
of other writers of the High Church Party, amounts
to nothing short of this.
IV. Let us now examine the grounds of the assertion
that the Church of England reformed herself by her own
authority after the rejection of the Papal supremacy.
King Henry and his successors, in virtue of the Statute
of 1534, were invested with full power and authority
" to redress, to reform, order, correct, restrain, and
amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, . . . whatso-
ever, the which, by any manner of spiritual authority
or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed."
They were hereby constituted the fountain of all juris-
diction. The bishops were appointed their deputies,
to exercise a power which could not be exercised by
the King's vicar-general on account of the multiplicity
of his affairs. And what are the principal instruments
of reformation during Henry's reign, which Mr. Palmer
deems "very little inferior in importance to that made
in Edward's reign ?" G41 Mr. Palmer points out princi-
serlim in his qua: moram commode non patiuntur, aut sine subdi-
torum nostrorum injuria diffcrri non possunt, in sua persona
expediendis non sufficiet ; nos hujus in hac parte supplicationibus
inclinati, et nostrorum subditorum commodis consulere cupientes,
tibi vices nostras, sub modo et forma infcrius descriptos, com-
mittendas fore, teque licentiandum cssc dccrevimus," &c. Commis-
sio a Rcgc data pro jurisdiction* episcopal!, in Wilkins (1. c., p. 798).
641 Palmer : Church of Christ, pt. ii., c. vii., vol. i., p. 386.
3rd edition. London.
Anglicanism 1he Creation of the Slate. 219-
pally the following: the so-called Articles of Faith, the
Injunctions of Cromwell, the Institution of a Christian
Man, and the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition. But
who does not know that the whole authority of those
documents rests merely on the King's prerogative and
sanction ? Henry VIII., after having usurped the Papal
supremacy, had already, even before 1536, done main-
things tending to advance the Reformation without so
much as consulting Convocation. 042 In that year he
devised certain Articles of Faith as necessary to be
maintained by all in order to restore unity among the
dissident factions of the kingdom. 64 " These were pre-
sented by Cromwell to Convocation. " But probably,"
we learn from Lathbury, " nothing more was done by
the bishops and clergy than to hear them read and give
their assent." 1 " 44 At all events, the Articles were pub-
lished by royal authority, 645 and were speedily followed
by the King's Injunctions to the Bishops concerning
their Preaching.^ The Injunctions of Cromwell are
manifestly orders which he, the King's vicar-general,
gave the bishops, without requiring their consent and
sanction. Yet Mr. Palmer gives this as his principal
proof of the important reformation carried out by the
authority of the English Church under Henry VIII. 647
As to the Institution of a Christian Man, it is true
that it was drawn up in Convocation, and was therefore
642 Lathbury: Op. cit., c. vi., p. 128. Strypc : Op. cit., vol. i.,,
pt. i., c. xxxi., p. 335, seq.
643 Burnct : Hist, of Rcf., 1. c., p. 345. Collier : Eccl. Hist.,
vol. i., pt. ii., bk. ii., p. 122. Strypc : Mew., vol. i., pt. i., c. xxxix.,
p. 466.
044 Lathbury : Hist, of the Con?'., c. vi., p. 131.
4 '' Sec those Articles in Collier, 1. c. ; Burnct, 1. c. ; Wilkins,
1. c., p. 817, seq.
t!4C Burnct : 1. c., p. 363, seq. Wilkins, 1. c., pp. 813, 825.
G4: Palmer : Church of Christ, vol. i., pt. ii., c. vii., p. 386, seq.
22O 77/6' Supreme Authority of the Pope.
called the Book of the Bishops*^ But we must remark,
(i.) that the King issued a commission to divers bishops
for compiling that book ; G49 (2.) that the book, though
revealing a tendency to further the cause of the Refor-
mation, still contained every doctrine set forth in the
Book of the Articles and in that of the Injunctions
addressed by Henry and Cromwell to the bishops;
(3.) from the Preface of that book, dedicated to the
King, we may well understand what degree of authority
for reforming the Church the clergy of England in
Convocation attributed to themselves under Henry VIII.
After having fulfilled their commission, they apply to
the King, " most humbly beseeching the same to permit
and suffer it in case it shall be so thought mete to his
moste excellent wisdom, to be printed, and so with his
supreme power set forth and commanded to be taught
. . . Without the which power and licence of your
Majestic, we know and confess, that we have none
authority either to assemble ourselves together for any
pretence or purpose or to publish anything that might
be by us agreed on and compyled." 050 Nor was
the King's permission requested merely as a matter of
form, but as a sanction of the doctrine proposed and
explained in the book. In fact, they conclude the
address by saying : " We moste humbly submittc (the
book) to the moste excellent wisdom and exact judg-
ment of your majestic, to be recognised, overseen, and
corrected, if your grace shall find any word or sentence
in it mete to be changed, qualified, or further expounded
.. . . whereunto we shall in that case conform ourselves,
as to our moste bounden duties, to God and to your
MS Collier: Op. cit., pt. ii., bk. ii., p. 139.
649 Strypc : Mem., vol. i., pt. i., c. xli., p. 485.
650 The Convocation's Preface, in Wilkins (Op. cit., 1. c..
p. 831).
Anglicanism the C /'cat ion of the State. 221
highness, appertained!." "' 1 Thus, not the clergy, but
the king, uas the reformer both of the clergy and of
the Church. In a word, the clergy in Convocation were
the humble sycophants of King Henry, ready to sacri-
fice any point of the Catholic doctrine, or even their
own heretical opinions, in order to please their master.
It was two years after the publication of the Insti-
tution of a CJiristian Man, wherein they had tried to
suppress the doctrine, and the truth itself, of " Tran-
substantiation," and to encourage the movement of the
reformation, that they approved in Convocation of the
famous Six Articles the first of which was an explicit
and definitive sanction of Transubstantiation as an article
of faith ; nor were the other articles less calculated to
check the tendency towards Protestantism, and to strike
terror into its partisans. 652 The English clergy sub-
mitted to the will of Henry, to which they were
enslaved. Finally, in 1543, the Institution of a Chris-
tian Man was altered in its form and in its doctrine,
and moulded into another work set forth by the
authority of the King. The title was, A necessary
Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man set forth
I)}' the Kings Majesty of England. It was therefore
styled the Kings Book. Now, although in this work
the article of the Institution concerning purgatory
was wholly omitted, and other doctrines and rites either
called into question or rejected, for it was, indeed, a
further step to reformation ^ nevertheless, " \Vherc the
Erudition" says Collier, " differs from the Institution,
it seems mostly to lose ground to go off from the
851 L. c.
6S - See the Statute of the Six Articles, st. 31 Henry VIII., c. 14.
Sec Wilkins, t. iii.. p. 848, seq. ; and Dodd, Op. cit., vol. i., Append.,
p. 442 --449.
' J See Collier: Op. cit., pt. ii., hk. ii., p. 189-191.
6:1 Strypc : Memorials, vol. i., pt. i., c. 1., p. 589.
222 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
primitive plan, and reform backwards." 655 But this
new step, whatever its tendency may have been, was
certainly brought about by the power of the King,
who had gathered up and centred in himself the whole
authority of altering, changing, and reforming the
symbol, the discipline, and the rites of the Anglican
Church ; of prescribing the prayers to be said privately
.by the people -, 056 of decreeing new saints' days, or
abrogating other holy days, 057 and even of granting
licence to preach, 658 or dispensation to eat white meats
during Lent. 0> ~ c In a word, it is by no means true
that the Church of England reformed herself; but it was
the King who shaped her according to his interest and
* caprice by the shameful exercise of his usurped power. 000
V. It is needless to continue this subject in further
justification of the judgment formed on the religious
revolution by M. Guizot after an unprejudiced conside-
ration of the reign of Henry VIII. From what we
have said we may safely conclude that it is a mere
-calumny to assert that the excessive power of the
Popedom, by which the national clergy were deprived
655 Collier : 1. c.
GOG g cc the p rc f ace made by the King to his Premier, in Wilkins,
1. c., p. 873.
067 In Wilkins, 1. c., pp. 823, 824, 859.
658 The form of that licence may be found in Collier, Op. cit.,
1. c., p. 143-
IM- i n Wilkins, 1. c., p. 867. Edward VI. granted a dispensation
to Archbishop Cranmer, to the Bishop of Exeter, and others, to
t>at flesh meat during Lent. The documents in Dodsworth,
Anglicanism considered in its results, n. iv., p. 58, note. London^
1851.
600 On this point Dr. Ovcrbcck is right in saying, " The English
people never introduced the Reformation. It was imposed upon
them, and so to say, octroyce, by unprincipled tyrants, supported
by a handful of innovators. But in spite of tyranny and perse-
cution, the English would not part with their Church/ 7 &c.~-
Catholic Orthodoxy, p. 114.
The Nature and Results of Anglicanism. 223
of their authority, was the principal cause of the reli-
gious revolution of this kingdom. Meanwhile, it is
true that the more a nation separates itself from the
Roman centre of unity, either by schism or by heresy,
the more repugnance docs it feel in again submitting
itself to that supreme authority which rules over the
whole Church. It is in the very nature of schism to
hate the authority which is its antagonist ; and it is
natural for heresy to protest against that power which
in every age victoriously combats and infallibly destroys
it. The Papal supremacy was instituted by Christ for
the very purpose of preserving the Church from schism
and heresy ; schism and heresy must therefore be its
mortal enemies as long as it preserves the character
conferred upon it in its original institution. For this
reason, we are not surprised that all nations which
have been torn from the centre of Catholic unity dread
the Papacy, and regard it as the principal cause of their
separation. Nor can we wonder that Elias Meniatcs,
Bishop of Zerniza, should have asserted that the con-
troversy concerning the sovereignty of the Pope is the
great wall of separation which divides the Greek and
Latin Churches. ^ When we consider the present situ-
ation of the Greek and Protestant communions, we see
that this assertion could be safely made with regard to
each of them, for abhorrence and hatred of the Papacy
are the necessary offspring of schism and heresy ; and
the more obstinately a nation retains its rebellious atti-
tude, the more deeply will these feelings take root in
its heart. What marvel, then, if the Papacy is regarded
as a stumbling-block, and the cause of isolation ? Mr.
Palmer holds a very singular opinion on this subject :
" The principle of obedience to the Roman Pontiff, as the
true test of Catholic unity, was," he tells us, "a principle
C01 In Dr. Puscy's Eirenicon, p. 63.
224 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
tending to schism." As the ground of this view, he
states, that this principle is not only not taught by the
Gospel, but that, " It interrupted the communion of
the Church, whenever any Church refused to submit
to the unjust pretensions of the Roman See." 002 By
this very strange mode of reasoning, we might get rid
of the principle of obedience even to individual bishops,
and to the national synods, on which Mr. Palmer so
strongly insists. 003 We might turn the author's argu-
ment against himself, using his own words. " The
principle of obedience to individual bishops, and to the
synod, as a true test of Catholic unity, is a principle
tending to schism, because it interrupts communion
whenever any individual refuses to submit to the unjust
pretension of his bishop, or of the synod." If, as Mr.
Palmer holds, the Pope is not infallible and the general
council of the Church may err, much less is each bishop
or each particular synod infallible, especially when
acting in subservience to the civil power. If unjust
pretensions can be urged by the Roman See, each
and every bishop and synod of England can be guilty
of the same fault. Consequently, according to this
principle, the ultra-democratic form of government would
be that best adapted to the Church of Christ, in order
that all possible causes of schism and separation might
be avoided. Mr. Palmer must surely have forgotten
the unanimous teaching of the Fathers of the Church--
that as the bishop is appointed to be the centre of
each diocese, in order to prevent any schism within it,
for the same reason is the Pope appointed to be the
centre of the Universal Church. The proof of this
assertion will be found in the first section of this work.
VI. Finallv, let us ask ourselves what were in
WJ Palmer : Church of Christ, pt. ii., c. ii., n. x., vol. i., p. 346.
65 ' j Ibid.) Op. cit., pt. i., c. iv., sec. ii. ; p. 38, seq.
Present State of the Anglican Church. 225
England the consequences of separation from the centre
of Catholic unity? An endless multiplication of schisms,
an enormous increase of errors and heresies, an out-
pouring and spread of infidelity in the pale of the
Anglican establishment itself. There is no city, no
small town even, in which we could not number by
the dozen the distinct communions which, in the midst
of mutual strife, emulate each other in propagating the
most absurd errors and heresies. The Established
Church is now far from embracing the major part of
the population, so great has been the spread of dis-
sent and infidelity, and in this very Establishment, it
would not be easy to find two or three bishops agreeing
in the same doctrines of faith. Such is the tough and
vigorous life of the Church of England, of which Dr.
Pusey speaks so boastfully j 064 such its career upon the
whole ; such the way it has been moving along these
three hundred years ; a life and a way of errors and
heresies ; moving from Catholicism to Calvinism, from
Calvinism to Sabellianism, Unitarianism, Latitudinari-
anism, to and fro, amidst all kinds of error. Such is
the path in which Anglican divines have been walking
for three centuries, and such is the evidence of their
alleged orthodoxy. 665 " Where does the Church of
England find itself at the end ? " asks Dr. Pusey. 666
We answer, in the words of Dr. Ovcrbeck, u At an
unfathomable precipice." 667 The learned professor of
Hebrew docs not deny that " Rejection of Catholicism
064 Eirenicon, p. 283.
606 See The Variations in the Church established by Law.
London, 1846. Macaulay : Essays, vol. ii., on Gladstone, pp. 485
89. London. 1844. Dr. Ward : Anglican Establishment con-
trasted with the Catholic Church of firry age, n. iv., p. 23, seq.
London, 1856.
cc6 Eirenicon, p. 277.
W7 Catholic Orthodoxy, p. 85.
P
226 The Supreme Authority of the Pope.
ends, in the long run, in Rationalism, and that it is
an inclined plane, on which generations cannot stand." 668
He confesses that, "We have seen the truth of this
in Lutheranism and Calvinism, in the length and
breadth of the land which they occupied." 669 But how
can he make exception of the Anglican Church ? How
can he assert that after more than three centuries, it
alone has a more vigorous life than ever ? The Church
of England, in truth, consummated its rejection of
Catholicism when it disowned the divine supremacy
of the Pope, and yielded to the teaching of foreign
reformers, who sapped by degrees the fundamental
doctrines of the Catholic Church. It is no less strange
o
that Dr. Pusey should exempt the Anglican Establish-
ment from all responsibility in connection with the
errors of those numerous sects which have revolted from
it. 670 Was it not the Establishment that opened up
among the English people the great source of schism
and heresy ? Was it not the Establishment that gave
birth to Latitudinarianism, to the principles of the
" Broad Church " party, the next step to which is
Rationalism ? Yes, the Anglican Church was the great
rebel of the sixteenth century, who, by rebellion,
inflicted on herself a mortal blow. By disgraceful
submission to the spiritual supremacy of the King, it
utterly destroyed its vital principle, and became a
mere function of the civil power. Nevertheless, from
i$34 to 1717, it had preserved a phantom existence
as a Church, although unable, without a royal licence,
to meet in synod, to make new canons, to pass any
censure upon irreligious books, to condemn a heresy,
to proclaim a Catholic doctrine. But from that year,
after the Bangorian controversy, even that shadow of
668 Eirenicon, p. 283.
663 Ibid., p. 284. ' L. c.
Ground for Hope of England's Conversion. 227
life vanished. 671 At present, although convocation meets
with every Parliament, the meeting is a mere formality,
and serves no purpose but that of a corpse, proving the
previous existence of a life which has now departed.
VII. And so shall it be until the English nation
shall again proclaim, as did their ancestors for more
than a thousand years, that the Pope is the pastor of all
pastors, the supreme head of the whole Church, his See
the See of St Peter, on which the great Apostle still
continues to sit ; G72 until it shall again submit to the
divine supremacy of Rome, and accept at its hands
the doctrines of the Catholic faith. Then, and then
alone, shall the schism which separates England from
the body of Christ be healed, by the unifying virtue
of Catholic authority. Then shall the errors and heresies
of the authors of this separation be utterly dissipated
by the infallible magistcrium of the Universal Church.
Then shall a new life be infused into the decaying
members of the Church of England ; the clergy, now
without orders or jurisdiction, will be restored to their
ancient dignity and power, and will display the majesty
of their divine authority. We feel confident that the
time is not far distant when the English Church is
destined to be relieved from its misery, and recalled
to its original greatness. The prodigious multiplication
of errors and heresies in every part of the kingdom
has already spread alarm among the English people,
in whom respect for the past is emplanted by nature ;
671 Lathbury : History of the Convocation, c. xiv., p. 372, scq.
672 See, for the British Church, an instance in the Council of
Aries, Epist. Synodi ad S lives t mm Papam, in Labbc (Cone., t. i.,
p. 2449), and the Canons iv., v., vi., and vii. of the Synod of
Sardica, which was also attended by British prelates. For the
Anglo-Saxon Church, sec the documents collected by Dr. Lingard,
Hist, and Antiq. of the Anglo-Saxon Church, vol. i., c. iii., n. iii.,
pp. 113 117. London, 1845.
228 The Supreme Authority of tJic Pope.
the restoration of long-disused observances, and the
revival of ancient doctrines, have aroused Catholic
feelings within the very boundaries of the Establish-
ment ; the growth of Rationalism and infidelity, which
is blighting every principle of Christianity throughout
England has terrified every true Christian heart ; whilst
the majesty of the Roman Popedom contrasted with the
misery of Protestant communions its manly strength
amid storms of every description, its steadily increasing
power all over the world, the veneration with which
200,000,000 men of every nation and tongue listen to
its voice and submit to its orders have awakened
throughout the country a marked sympathy for Rome,
and still continues to multiply the number of con-
versions to the Catholic Church. Dr. Pusey, with his
Vindication of Tract XC., and his Eirenicon as well
as the various Protestant associations, with all their
means of deception and corruption, will not, we are sure,
succeed in checking this Catholic movement, which grows
every day deeper and stronger, and defies every contriv-
ance and opposition on the part of its enemies. May it
reach, before long, its highest pitch, and triumph over
all obstacles ! Then the Church of England, replaced
on the immovable rock of St. Peter, will take its noble
and ancient rank in the Church of Christ, to the glory
and support of the Catholic faith both in the Old World
and in the New.
' ;::; Sec The Articles treated in Tract XC. vindicated, by Dr.
Pusey, p. 153, seq. As to the Eirenicon, it was a very general
opinion that Dr. Pusey published that book in order to prevent a
large secession from the Establishment to the Roman Catholic
Church.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11