CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
OF BISHOPS
BY THE SAME AUTHOK.
Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
THE DOCTRINE OF CONFIRMATION.
Considered in Relation to Holy Baptism as a Sacramental
Ordinance of the Catholic Church. With a Preliminary
Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
Crown 8vo. 33. 6d.
THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH
AND PEOPLE IN SOUTH AFRICA.
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
LONDON, NEW YORK, AND BOMBAY.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ILLUSTRATED BY THE HISTORY AND CANON LAW
OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH FROM THE
APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE COUNCIL
OF CHALCEDON, A.D. 451
BY THE REV.
A. THEODORE WIRGMAN, D.D., D.C.L.
LATE FOUNDATION SCHOLAR OF MAGDALENE COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
VICE-PROVOST OF S. MARY'S COLLEGIATE CHURCH
PORT ELIZABETH, SOUTH AFRICA
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
39, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY
1899
All rights reserved
Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & Co.
At the Ballantyne Press
VIRO : ADMODVM : REVERENDO
IACOBO : GREEN, A.M.
DECANO : MARITZBVR
QVI : PER : QVINQVAGINTA : ANNOS
FIDEI : CATHOLICS : REBVS : IN : ARDVIS
CONFESSOR : STRENVVS
ET : PASTOR I FIDELIS
VITjE : SACERDOTALIS
SPECVLVM : ET : EXEMPLAR : PR^EBVIT
HOC : OPVSCVLVM
DEDICAT : AVCTOR.
2O67379
PREFATORY NOTE
THERE are two points with regard to the following
pages towards which I would venture to draw the
attention of those who may read them.
In the first place, the main object of the investi-
gation may seem academic rather than practical
to Churchmen in England. From these I would
crave patience, because questions which touch the
daily practical working of the Free Churches of
the Anglican Communion must necessarily seem
at present merely academic to Churchmen whose
organisation is still linked with the State. Secondly,
I desire the indulgence of all my readers on ac-
count of the necessarily frequent repetitions of
the same arguments and the same enactments, in
slightly varying forms, which this book contains.
It seemed to me impossible to avoid this in a con-
secutive historic examination of the mind of the
Vlll PREFATORY NOTE
Church as expressed in the gradual evolution of its
jurisprudence.
I trust, however, that I have avoided wearisome
iteration in dealing with a somewhat difficult and
complex subject.
I have made free use of our great English
Canonist, Bishop Beveridge, and also of the Rev.
W. Clark's translation of Bishop Hefele's standard
work on the Christian Councils, besides other
authorities acknowledged in the text.
I owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. A. W. Good-
man, of Sedbergh School, who has taken the
responsibility of seeing this essay through the
Press.
A. T. W.
S. MARY'S RECTORY,
PORT ELIZABETH, SOUTH AFRICA,
Christmas, 1898.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL EPISCOPAL
AUTHORITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE
PAGE
The Church, a Divine Society ....... I
The Apostolic Ministry is from God 3
It possesses the Sacerdotium ...'.... 4
S. Augustine as sacerdotal as S. Cyprian 4
The Historic Backbone of the Church 5
Need of due historic proportion 6
The Mosaic Polity fulfilled in the Catholic Church ... 7
Life through the Church as a visible Polity 9
Belief in the Church precedes Baptism 9
The Constitutional Authority of Bishops 10
Difficulties created by Roman Despotism 1 1
The difficulties of Eastern Christendom 1 1
Anglican difficulties 12
Need of a centre 13
The Ministry of the Apostolic Church 14
Influence of the Levitical Hierarchy upon the Apostles . . 15
Both Ministries called of God 16
The Church independent of the State 17
The Primacy and Centre of the Levitical Polity . . . -17
Our Lord's guidance of the Apostles 18
The true principle of Primacy . . . . . . -19
S. Peter's Primacy does not involve Supremacy .... 20
The true Primacy of S. Peter 21
Scriptural evidence of his Primacy 21
S. Peter's judgment on Ananias and Sapphira .... 23
X CONTENTS
PAGE
" Tibi dabo claves " 24
Professor Ramsay on S. Peter's Primacy 25
The Apostolic Mission to Samaria 26
Its importance as a new departure 26
It was led by S. Peter as the Primate Apostle .... 27
Position of S. James at Jerusalem 28
S. Peter at Antioch 29
The Gentiles at Antioch and S. Peter 29
Primacy of S. Peter over the whole Church . . . -31
The Council of Jerusalem 32
S. Peter's Primacy at the Council 32
True significance of the presidency of S. James .... 32
S. Peter's Primacy not effaced by S. Paul 34
The beginnings of Diocesan Episcopacy 36
A Second Apostolic Council 36
Late date of i. Peter 38
S. Peter survived S. Paul at Rome 39
Primatial authority in the Apostolic Age 40
Note A. The Mosaic Polity and Ritual finds fulfilment in the
Catholic Church . . ... . .41
Note B, The Levitical Ministry not the delegates of the
people . . 43
Note C. The Primacy of S. Peter 44
Note D. The reading Kal ol d5eX0ot 46
Note E, The principle of Primatial authority in the Apos-
tolic Age 47
CHAPTER II
THE WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOMC AGE TO THE CONSTI-
TUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS, AS LIMITED BY THE
PRINCIPLE OF PRIMACY WITH REGARD TO THE UNIVERSAL
EPISCOPATE, AND BY THE COUNCIL OF PRESBYTERS WITH
REGARD TO EACH DIOCESE
Constitutional authority manifest in the first century ... 53
Human elements in the Divine visible Polity . . . -55
The Church organised upon the basis of the civil organisation of
the Empire 56
CONTENTS xi
PAGE
The Pagan and Christian organisations 57
Development of the localised Episcopate 58
The Primacy of S. John at Ephesus 59
The Primacy of S. Clement of Rome 60
The Roman Church not Presbyterian 61
Primacy of the Roman See 62
S. Clement writes in the name of the Roman Church ... 63
Authoritative tone of his letter to the Corinthians ... 64
Evidence of the Pastor of Hermas 65
S. Clement and " the cities abroad " 66
As Primate he sends the message to them 67
S. Clement no mere " foreign secretary " 68
But the Persona Ecclesia of the Roman Church .... 68
S. Clement on the Rulers of the Church 70
S. Clement's analogy from the Threefold Levitical Ministry . 71
And from the Roman Army 71
Absence of a Bishop does not involve Presbyterianism . . 72
Limits of the rights of Laymen 74
Summary of S. Clement's witness 75
S. Ignatius of Antioch 76
S. Ignatius on the Threefold Ministry 77
Constitutional authority of the Bishop 77
S. Ignatius testifies to the universal rule of Bishops ... 79
The necessity of the Threefold Ministry So
A valid Eucharist implies the Bishop's consent . . . .81
S. Ignatius on the Roman Primacy 81
The Apostolic Ministry and the Laity 83
The Priests are the Bishop's councillors 83
The Bishop acts with his Priests 84
The Bishop is the lyre, the Priests are its strings ... 85
The Bishop not an Autocrat, but a Constitutional Ruler . . 85
Distinction between the three Orders 86
Note A. The legitimate Primacy of the Roman See . . 87
Note . The Unified Church 94
Xll CONTENTS
CHAPTER III
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS AS DEVELOPED
IN THE PERIOD OF THE "ECCLESIA PRESSA" BEFORE THE
EDICT OF MILAN, AND THE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXERCISE
OF PATRIARCHAL AND METROPOLITICAL RIGHTS BY THE
CHIEF SEES OF CHRISTENDOM
PAGE
Prominence of the Metropolitan 103
Provincial decisions not final 104
Constitutional rights of Bishops, Clergy, and Laity . . . 105
The case of Marcion 106
The Paschal Controversy . . . . . . . .107
Action of Pope Victor . . . . . . . . .108
His excommunication resisted 109
True position of the Primate of Christendom . . . . 1 1 1
Its due limitations in
View of S. Irenseus . . . . t . \, . .112
Rome the centre of unity . . 113
The Patriarch of Alexandria 115
His dealing with Origen . . 116
Interdependence of Patriarchal Sees . . . . . . 117
Synod at Antioch against Novatian 118
Paulus of Samosata 119
First Council of Antioch against Paulus 120
Proceedings against Paulus 121
He is deposed by the Council of A. D. 269 122
Paulus evicted by Aurelian 123
(Ecumenical Epistle of the Council 124
Addressed to Rome and Alexandria 124
Dionysius and Felix of Rome condemn Paulus . . . .127
Legitimate Primacy of Rome 128
S. Cyprian on the Episcopate .129
Constitutional rights of the individual Bishop . . . .130
Each Bishop shares in the universal Episcopate . . . . 1 30
The lus Liturgicum . . . . . . . . .132
S. Cyprian and Pope Stephen 133
No one is Episcopus Episcoporum ... ..133
S. Cyprian admits a legitimate Roman Primacy . . . .134
His statements on the subject 136
CONTENTS Xlil
PAGE
Neither Ultramontane nor Protestant . . . . . . 137
S. Cyprian guards the rights of the Priesthood and Laity . .138
He consulted his Clergy and Laity , 140
Rome and Carthage at one on this point 141
The assenting voice of the Laity in Synod 142
S. Cyprian as Primate 143
The Bishop acts first as Diocesan 144
The Apostolic Canons mainly Ante-Nicene .... 145
Canon xxxv. on Metropolitans and Primates .... 146
The Greek and Latin Versions of these Canons .... 146
Canon xxxv. refers to Primatial Authority generally . . . 148
Significance of the Phrase, " Of each nation " .... 149
Canon xxxviii. on Provincial Synods . . . . . .150
Canon Ixxiv. on the trial of Bishops 151
Penalty of contumacy . . . . . . . . .152
The Apostolic Constitutions 153
Priests and Deacons not to act without the Bishop . . 154
Bishop's constitutional veto 155
Consecration of Bishops 156
Consecration by one Bishop irregular . . . . . .156
Note A. The Provincial Synods on the Paschal Question . 158
Note B. On the formation and sub-division of Dioceses . . 1 59
Note C. Communion with the Roman See not essential to
Catholic Communion 161
Note D. S. Cyprian and the modern Papal theory . . 163
CHAPTER IV
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS, AND THE RIGHTS
OF PATRIARCHS AND METROPOLITANS AS FINALLY DEVELOPED
BETWEEN THE EDICT OF MILAN (A.D. 313) AND THE COUNCIL
OF CHALCEDON (A.D. 451).
Patriarchs and Primates 169
Desire of Constantine for Church Unity 169
The Church and the Empire 170
Increased power of the Roman Patriarch . . . . . 171
Evil results of the union between Church and State . . . 173
The period of (Ecumenical Councils. The Council of Elvira . 174
XIV CONTENTS
PAGE
Its 53rd and 58th Canons 174
The Spanish Primacies 176
The Donatist Schism 177
Consecration of the Primate of Carthage 178
His Patriarchal position . . . . . . . .180
The Council of Aries 181
Its relations with the Roman Patriarch ..... 182
It forbids Episcopal intrusions 183
It regulates the consecration of Bishops . . . . .184
The Council of Ancyra 185
Case of a Bishop not accepted by his Diocese . . . .185
A modern instance 186
Need of centralising the Anglican Communion . . . .188
Dangers of Provincial autonomy 189
Council of Neocaesarea . . . . . . .189
Council of Nicsea 190
Who summoned it ? 190
The idea of a legitimate Primacy of Rome ..... 193
Probability that Sylvester was consulted 194
And presided by his Legates 195
In accordance with historical probability 195
And Church Order 196
The appointment and confirmation of Bishops .... 198
The power of the Metropolitan in Canon iv 198
The process of Election . . . . . . .199
The Clergy elect, the Laity assent . 201
Nullus invitis detur . . . . . . ... . 202
The Confirmation and Consecration ...... 202
Power of excommunication in Canon v. . . . . 203
Powers of a Bishop limited ........ 206
He is responsible to the Universal Episcopate .... 208
An Appeal lies against his Sentence 209
Episcopal authority not autocratic 209
The Bishop's veto is not absolute 209
The rights of Patriarchal Sees in Canon vi. Special privileges
of Alexandria . . . . . . . . .211
The Roman Patriarch . . . . . . . .212
Primate, but not Monarch . . . . . . . .212
The Patriarch of Antioch 214
The lesser Primacies 215
CONTENTS XV
PAGE
The rights of the Metropolitan 217
The seventh Nicene Canon . . . . . . .218
The See of Jerusalem 218
Raised ultimately to a Patriarchate 220
The Translations of Bishops and Clergy forbidden by Canon xv. 221
But allowed for a reasonable cause 222
Allowed only permissu super iorum ...... 223
And not by the will of individuals 226
Nor for personal ends 226
Canon xvi. on unlawful Ordinations 226
Canon xviii. on Deacons 227
S. Athanasius and Pope Julius 229
The Eusebians and Pope Julius ....... 230
Reply of Pope Julius to the Eusebians . . . . -231
The Council of Antioch in Enctzniis ...... 232
Its ninth Canon 234
Its definite provisions 235
Rights of Metropolitans and Bishops 235
Appeal to a Higher Synod 236
Limit of Appeals 237
The Metropolitan not Index solus ...... 238
The Council of Sardica 239
Its decision on Appeals 239
Canon iii. ........... 241
Canon iv 243
Canon v 243
The Appeal to Rome ......... 243
The Gallican view untenable 244
Motives of the Sardican Fathers 245
Real meaning of these Canons 248
Definition of the Appeal to Rome 248
The Council of Sardica not OZcumenical 249
Patriarchal jurisdiction defined by its Decrees .... 250
The Emperor Gratian gives coercive jurisdiction to the Roman
See 251
The case of Apiarius . 252
The Second CEcumenical Council 253
The Meletian Schism 254
The second Canon of Constantinople 255
The third Canon 256
Xvi CONTENTS
PAGE
It was disputed in the West -257
Effect of the second Canon in defining the Patriarchates of the
East 258
Canon vi 259
Appeal to Patriarchal Synod 259
Not to the Civil Power 260
The African Code of Canons . 261
Canons of 4th Council of Carthage 262
The lus Cypriiim. Its true significance 264
As applied to the Church of England 265
The Council of Chalcedon 266
Its importance as an CEcumenical Council ; 266
Canon ix. The Appeal to the Patriarch 267
Canon xxviii. . 268
The Prerogative of Constantinople 269
The title of Patriarch 270
The title of Archbishop 270
Justinian's enactments . . . . . . . .271
The Metropolitan tried by the Patriarch 271
Value of Primitive principles 272
CONCLUSION
Note A. Chorepiscopi 273
Note B. The authority of Law and Custom .... 274
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
OF BISHOPS
CHAPTER I
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL EPISCOPAL
AUTHORITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE
THE Gospel of Christ announces to us the true
reXo? of human life, and reduces to definiteness
and exactitude the indefinite nobility of the Pla-
tonic ideal of being " as like to God as is pos-
sible." 1 In order to guide us towards this end,
the Gospel is embodied and enshrined in a Visible
Society an outward system whereby the "means
of grace " lead us to the realisation of the " Hope
of Glory." For this reason no question concern-
ing the structure or discipline of the Visible
52 b/jLoiuffis Oey Kara TO dwardv. (Theset. 176 a.) KaJ
erty els offov Swarbv avOp<J)ir<{) 6fJ.oiov(rffai Gey. (Rep.,
613.) It may be urged that the words 6/w>/w<nj StKaiov ical S<no
fj-CTo. ippovriffeus yevtuBai (Thenet. 176) constitute a definition of the
likeness of God. But righteousness, holiness, and wisdom were prac-
tically and fully defined by the Incarnate Christ alone.
A
2 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Society can be relegated to the region of purely
historical or archaeological inquiry.
We may reasonably set aside in this category
questions concerning the laws or polity of Repub-
lican or Imperial Rome. But there is a direct
spiritual import in all questions concerning the
laws and polity of the Catholic Church. It is our
duty to elucidate them in a spirit of judicial and
impartial investigation, and we must employ every
resource placed at our disposal by the methods
and discoveries of history and archaeology, without
forgetting that we are on sacred ground, because
the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ.
A failure, conscious or unconscious, to recog-
nise this primary fact, caused Dr. Hatch to fall
into serious errors in dealing with the origin and
development of the Christian Ministry.
It is foreign to the principles of this inquiry
to deal with an argument which compresses the
scriptural evidence upon the Christian Ministry
into the limits of a single page ; l which doubts
the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, 2 and de-
clines to discuss the ecclesiastical polity of the
New Testament, apart from certain strange theo-
ries which the author has formed of the Ministry
in the sub-apostolic age.
When we are virtually told by this author that
1 Hatch's Bampton Lectures, p. 48. 2 Ibid., p. 82.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 3
Christ did not form a Visible Society, that all Chris-
tians did not regard membership of the Church
as essential, that they gradually coalesced into
societies, that the functions as well as the nomen-
clature of the Christian Ministry were derived
from Pagan and Judaic sources, that a Bishop was
merely a " chief almoner," destitute of spiritual
or pastoral authority, we have chaos instead of
the divinely appointed order and method of the
City of God. We postulate in these pages the
simple fact that the Apostolic Ministry was de-
veloped from above, and not from below ; from
God, and not from the people. When an author
asserts that the Church and its Ministry " is divine
as the solar system is divine," l it logically follows
that the Head of the Church is divine as Buddha
is divine, and that the Catholic faith in the In-
carnate Christ is " a fond thing vainly invented."
We are also compelled to traverse absolutely
the conclusions of another author, who, whilst
he opposes Dr. Hatch on historical grounds,
and truly calls the Apostolic Ministry of the
Church " that ministerial order threefold, un-
equal, historic " which he believes " to have
been initiated, accepted, adopted by the Holy
Apostles," : immediately proceeds to deny the
1 Hatch, Bampton Lectures, p. 20.
2 Dean Lefroy, The Christian Ministry, p. 189.
\
4 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
logical consequences of the facts which he admits.
To deny the " sacerdotium " of that Threefold
Ministry which he owns to be Apostolic, in the
face of the fact that it is the connecting link
between the sacerdotium of our Lord and the
sacerdotium of all the members of His Body the
Church, is utterly contrary to the testimony of
Christian antiquity. To attempt the proof of this
denial from Tertullian and S. Irenaeus, whilst
stating that " Apostolic truth had been adul-
terated " 1 in S. Cyprian's day, so that the tes-
timony of S. Cyprian is inadmissible ; to urge
inconsequently that S. Augustine (a much later
writer) is a witness we must accept, because " it
is clear that S. Augustine did not accept the
theory of the official derivation of grace," and
" it is no less clear that he did not believe in the
principle of Apostolic Succession," 2 is so strange
and strained an effort of human reasoning, that
we must be pardoned if we decline to pursue its
fallacies in detail. It is enough to say that Dr.
Hatch saw clearly enough that " the Augustinian
theory of the nature of the Church " was as sacer-
dotal as S. Cyprian's, and was absolutely opposed
to his own theories. Dr. Hatch understood the
plain meaning of S. Augustine. It is evident that
Dean Lefroy preferred to read his own meaning
1 Dean Lefroy, The Christian Ministry, p. 383, n. 2 Ibid., p. 394.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 5
into S. Augustine's words, and declined to accept
what S. Augustine meant to teach. 1
We are compelled unwillingly to allude to these
inadequate and heretical theories of the origin
and development of the Christian Ministry, in
order to clear the ground and to make it quite
plain that these pages are written from the
Catholic standpoint. We do not desire to deal
with theories but with plain facts facts illumi-
nated and illustrated, directly or indirectly, from
the Catholic consent of the Undivided Church.
The Divine origin and authority of the Three-
fold Apostolic Ministry is a root fact embedded
in the life and history of the Catholic Church.
It has been called "the historic backbone of
the Church." But it is more than this. It is
the divinely appointed channel of sacramental
life and grace. It is the guardian of the faith,
discipline, and worship of the Visible Kingdom
of Christ on earth. By virtue of the authority
of their Apostolic descent, the Ministers of Christ
1 Fortunately Dean Lefroy quotes the passage it is the well-known
place referring to confirmation : " Nos autem accipere quidem hoc
donum possumus pro modulo nostro ; effundere autem super alios non
utique possumus, sed ut hoc fiat Deum super eos a quo efficitur invo-
camus." (S. Aug. De Trin., xv. 26.) The meaning is plain. The
Apostolic Ministry is not the source but the channel of the gift of the
Holy Ghost. Therefore the Prayer of Invocation is used before the
laying on of hands to emphasise this truth, and thus this prayer is
always considered to be the form of Confirmation, as the imposition
of hands is its matter.
6 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
are the stewards of His Mysteries and the organs
of His Body. The Apostolic Ministry, in its
threefold order, pertains to the esse, and not
merely to the bene esse of the Church. It adapted
itself progressively to each stage of the develop-
ment of the life of the Church, as an integral
factor of that life, as it expanded century by
century.
We can learn usefully from Dr. Hatch the
lesson of due historic proportion. We need to
remember carefully the varying characteristics of
each passing century of the life of the Church.
" Different centuries have been marked in ecclesi-
astical, as in social history, by great differences
in the drift and tendency of ideas." 1 We recog-
nise the wide gulf which separates S. Clement
of Rome from S. Leo the Great, and our eyes
can measure the yet wider gulf between S. Leo
the Great and Leo XIII. But we shall find that
certain common and essential principles lie behind
the vast outward differences that sever the various
distinctive periods of Church history.
Even the huge and unwieldy fabric of the
modern Papacy veils from sight inner principles
of ecclesiastical polity and order which the Rome
of Leo XIII. holds in common with Constantinople
and Canterbury. To question this fact would be
1 Hatch, Bampton Lectures, p. 10.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 7
to deny the possibility of the corporate reunion
of the Catholic Church. We shall endeavour to
investigate these principles as the true elucidation
of the present inquiry.
In the first place, we must bear in mind that
the Catholic Church of the Day of Pentecost was
developed from the Church of the Old Covenant,
and that the world-embracing Israel of God under
the New Covenant is a legitimate historic develop-
ment, expansion, and fulfilment of that narrower
and more exclusive Israel which S. Paul views
as the root of the Church of Christ. 1 Our Lord
" came not to destroy but to fulfil," 2 and the
Mosaic polity of type and shadow finds its analogy
and fulfilment in the divinely ordered polity of
the Catholic Church. 3 S. Paul resisted the false
Judaisers of his time, but there is a true Judaism
of fulfilled type and prophecy and order in the
Catholic Church of to-day which cannot be set
aside, if we would view the Apostolic Ministry
the Christian sacerdotium and the ecclesiastical
discipline of the kingdom of God from its right
standpoint.
1 Rom. xi. 1 8. We may add that our Lord's High-Priestly prayer
(S. John xvii. 6-8) points distinctly to His disciples as already form-
ing a corporate Body, which can be viewed as the link between
the Old Covenant and the Church of Pentecost. So Hengstenberg,
Christology of Old Testament, vol. iv. p. 58.
2 S. Matt. v. 1 8. 3 See Note A.
8 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
In the next place, we may note that the Church
came first, and Christians afterwards. The Church,
as a visible polity and society, was not created
by the tendency of Christians to associate together,
and form organisations framed on maxims of
human wisdom and experience. 1 The continuity
of the Israel of the New Covenant with the Israel
of the Old Covenant, is a fact which forbids the
idea that the Church was created by Christians.
Our Lord did not come down from heaven merely
as a teacher of certain new religious ideas, which
men could assimilate at their will, and then
embody them at their leisure by forming associa-
tions for the purpose of propagating the new
doctrines they had learnt from Him. The Church,
as expanded at Pentecost, is the divinely ordered
society into which converts were admitted by
Holy Baptism as the ianua Sacramentorum. The
branches could not create the Vine, nor could
1 " Miraculous powers were given to the first preachers of Chris-
tianity, in order to their introducing it into the world ; a Visible
Church was established in order to continue it, and carry it on success-
fully throughout all ages. Had Moses and the Prophets, Christ and
His Apostles, only taught, and by miracles proved, religion to their
contemporaries, the benefit of their instructions would have reached
to but a small part of mankind. ... To prevent this, appears to have
been one reason why a Visible Church was instituted, to be like a
city upon a hill ... to be the repository of the oracles of God ; to
hold up the light of revelation in aid of that of nature, and propagate
it throughout all generations to the end of the world." Bishop Butler's
Analogy, ii. 10.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 9
the members the Body. The baptismal interroga-
tion of S. Cyprian's day sums up the truth con-
cisely, " Dost thou believe in eternal life and the remis-
sion of sins, through the Holy Church ? " l
Belief in the visible polity and organisation of
the Church, as the divinely ordered Society and
Kingdom, necessarily preceded enrolment upon
its list of free citizens, and admission to the
privileges of its membership. 2
The careful preparation of catechumens included
the distinct teaching that all must believe in the
Church, as the Civitas Dei, who desired to exchange
the bondage of sin for the freedom of her franchise.
The question of the constitutional authority of
Bishops in the Catholic Church is one which
1 "Credis invitam seternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam
Ecclesiam ? " S. Cyprian, Ep. Ixx. 2.
2 We may note here some remarkable words of the Archbishop of
Canterbury (Dr. Temple) on Individualism and Catholicism. " Men
speak as if Christians came first and the Church after ; as if the origin
of the Church was in the wills of the individual Christians that com-
posed it. But, on the contrary, throughout the teaching of the
Apostles we see that it is the Church that comes first and the members
of it afterwards. Men were not brought to Christ, and then determined
that they would live in a community. ... In the New Testament, on
the contrary, the Kingdom of Heaven is already in existence, and men
are invited into it. ... Everywhere men are called in ; they do not
come in and make the Church by coming. They are called in to that
which already exists ; they are recognised as members when they are
within ; but their membership depends upon their admission, and not
upon their constituting themselves a body in the sight of the Lord."
Twelve Sermons Preached at the Consecration of Truro Cathedral,
pp. 17-20.
10 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
vitally affects its organisation. We purpose to
investigate this question under the guidance of
the preliminary considerations and principles which
have already been stated. We shall keep in mind
the facts which belong to the life and polity of
the Church, and endeavour to discover from the
evidence of history how they were manifested in
the gradual development of its government.
It will be necessary to set aside resolutely the
prejudices and prepossessions which result from
the present unhappy divisions of Christendom.
We must be capable of examining dispassionately
the claims of a visible Primacy, without losing our
hold upon the claims of the Invisible Head. 1 We
may recognise to the full the independence which
belongs to individual Bishops, without admitting
the theory that the Catholic Church consists of a
number of autocephalous dioceses wherein each
Bishop does that which is right in his own eyes,
without let or hindrance. The unhappy fact that
the historic Primacy of Christendom has degene-
rated into a despotism, which, under certain con-
ditions, claims to be infallible, need not cause us
1 No one will accuse Dean Stanley of ecclesiastical prepossessions.
He did not hold the Catholic doctrine of the Ministry of the Church,
and yet he could write thus of the Pope's position : " Even those who
entirely repudiate his authority must still'regard him as the chief ecclesi-
astic of Christendom. If there is such a thing as a body of clergy at
all, the Bishop of Rome is certainly the head of the profession."
Stanley, Christian Institutions, p. 220.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE II
to forget the inherent infallibility of the Catholic
Church, or permit us to destroy the constitutional
order of her government by allowing the divinely
ordered equality of Bishops to degenerate into
anarchic diocesan independence. 1
The fact that the Primate of Latin Chris-
tendom has become an unconstitutional despot
has reacted unfavourably upon the Primates
of Eastern and Anglican Christendom. In the
East the Patriarchal See of Constantinople is
overshadowed by Byzantine traditions of undue
subserviency to the civil power. This begat
mischief enough in the centuries immediately
preceding the fall of Constantinople ; and the
independence of the Primate of the East has
suffered still further from the fact that a Moslem
Sultan stepped into the place of a Christian
Emperor. In our own day the future of Eastern
Christendom is bound up with the political power
and religious zeal of Russia, which may, at no
distant date, replant the Cross upon the desecrated
1 The danger alluded to is no visionary one. The lack of the Pro-
vincial system, and of Metropolitical authority, is deeply felt in the
American Church. At the present time we see in the Australian Church
the un-Catholic anomaly of the Synod of the Diocese claiming power
to reject the Canons of Synods General and Provincial. In South
Africa we have seen a Bishop claiming the right of an absolute -veto,
beyond the scope of any appeal, upon the decrees and resolutions of
the Synod of his Diocese, although the claim was subsequently dis-
allowed by the House of Bishops.
12 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Church of S. Sophia, and restore the ancient
glories of the See of Constantinople. The
Patriarch of New Rome would then recover the
primatial rights accorded to him by the Council
of Chalcedon, freed from the centrifugal tendencies
which modern political changes have impressed
upon the rulers and people of the Orthodox
Church of the East. 1
The difficulties which encompass the true
development of the Primacy of Canterbury are
different in degree and kind.
It is true that the Tudor tyranny was worse
than the Byzantine, even under the Sultan. " The
Commander of the Faithful " might now and
again hang a Patriarch, but he did not crush the
spiritual liberties of the Church under the forms
of law, as Henry VIII. did. The present-day
difficulty, however, is that the Henrician forms of
law still encompass the throne of Canterbury,
1 "The Greeks of to-day have no common blood. They include
Cappadocians, Isaurians, Pisidians, Albanians, as well as Greeks by
race. . . . They are united by nothing except the forms of the
Orthodox Church. For old Rome as its centre was substituted the
new Rome of Constantine. The political changes of the present
century have even destroyed in appearance the unity of the Church ;
but still the idea remains, and every Greek looks forward to a future
unity of the Church and its adherents, with free Constantinople as
its metropolis." (Ramsay, The Church and the Roman Empire, p.
467.) Professor Ramsay's view of the religious aspirations of the
Greeks may be modified by recent events, which have tended to
cause thoughtful Greeks to view Russia as the sole hope of Eastern
Christendom.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 13
although its jurisdiction has developed from an
insular Primacy to the virtual Patriarchate of a
world-wide communion. 1 To the two Established
Provinces of Canterbury and York are linked
the unestablished and Free Churches of America
and Greater Britain, and to the disestablished
Churches of Ireland and Scotland, by a common
acknowledgment of the Primacy of Canterbury.
The problem before our ecclesiastical statesmen
is to consolidate the Anglican Communion upon
the true principles of Apostolic discipline and
Catholic order. The vigour of the Anglican
protest against the Papal conception of a single,
infallible, spiritual monarch of Christendom has
naturally weakened our hold upon any centralised
system of Church government. The rule of the
individual Bishop has been emphasised amongst
us at the expense of the due authority of the
Metropolitan and the Provincial Synod ; whilst
our central Primatial authority is necessarily some-
what vague and indefinite. This may be traced
to a want of distinct ideas in the minds even
of those who urge its claims, and most strongly
1 "The successor of S. Augustine is coming to be regarded as the
Patriarch in substance, if not in name, of the Anglican Churches
throughout the world ; the proud title, papa alterius orbis, has a far
more real meaning now than when it was conferred many centuries
ago." (Bishop Lightfoot, Report of Wolverhampton Church Congress,
P- '3-)
14 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
realise the need of a centre, carefully guarded
from the possibilities of future despotism. It may
be given to us to restore the ancient and primitive
ideal of the Patriarch, the Metropolitan, and the
Diocesan Bishop in their true relations, as ex-
pressed and manifested in Synods General, Pro-
vincial, and Diocesan. Unless we do so we are
face to face with the danger of disintegration.
We have made a beginning. The Primacy of
Canterbury can become a Patriarchate just as
readily as the Lambeth Synod can develop into a
decennial General Council of Anglican Christendom.
We must return to first principles, and the present
inquiry may in some measure aid us to do so.
We must deal in the first place with the evidence
of Holy Scripture.
We are met, first of all, with the fact that the
Apostles and their converts on the day of Pente-
cost were brought up in the Church of the Old
Covenant, with its strict discipline and orderly
hierarchy. Dr. Hatch recognises this fact, but
unfortunately overweights it with a theory which
derives the second order of the Threefold Apostolic
Ministry from the Jewish elders, 1 and at the same
1 " It seems certain upon the evidence that in these Jewish com-
munities . . . there existed a governing body of elders, whose functions
were partly administrative and partly disciplinary. With worship and
teaching they appear to have had no direct concern. . . .
" The elders of the Jewish communities which had become Christian,
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 15
time denies that the Christian Priesthood had ori-
ginally any concern with worship and teaching.
We may fitly leave a theory so subversive of the
fundamental conceptions and ideas of the Christian
Ministry to refute itself, and we may safely turn
from theory to fact. We may inquire briefly what
influence the facts of the Levitical hierarchy and
polity were likely to have upon the minds of the
Apostles, without forgetting the all-important factor
of the teaching they received from our Lord dur-
ing the Great Forty Days. We may justly infer
that our Lord, who " came not to destroy but
to fulfil," would incorporate into the wider polity
of the Catholic Church whatever leading ideas
and principles of permanence might be embedded
in the Church of the Old Covenant.
We note first of all that the Levitical hierarchy
was of Divine appointment, and that the Aaronic
priests were not merely delegates of the nation as
" a kingdom of priests." This fact is emphasised
by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the
words, " No man taketh this honour " (i.e. the
Apostolic Ministry) " unto himself, but he that is
called of God, as was Aaron." 1 The Ministers of
were, like the elders of the Jewish communities which remained Jewish,
officers of administration and discipline. The origin of the Presbyterate
in those Christian communities which had been Jewish is thus natural
and simple." Hatch, Bampton Lectures, pp. 58-61.
1 Heb. v. 4. See Note B.
1 6 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
the New Covenant, like the Ministers of the Old
Covenant, are called of God, and are not called
as delegates of the people. The representative
character of the Apostolic and Aaronic priesthood
is emphasised all the more clearly, because they
were appointed by God to represent God to the
people and the people to God.
The priesthood of the people was not permitted
to usurp the functions of the divinely appointed
priesthood either under the Old or the New
Covenant. The usurpation of the functions of
the Aaronic priesthood by Korah, and its punish-
ment, showed that the Aaronic priesthood and
the priesthood of the people were parallel facts,
with a clear distinction between them. S. Jude's
allusion to " the gainsaying of Korah " l shows
that the same sin could be committed against
the Apostolic priesthood as was formerly com-
mitted against the Aaronic priesthood, and that
the wider and more glorious priesthood of the
people under the New Covenant did not involve
or permit any invasion of the special functions
of the divinely appointed Threefold Apostolic
Ministry.
The disciplinary distinction between the divinely
appointed priesthood of ministry and sacrifice
and the general priesthood of the people was thus
1 S.Jude 11.
continued under the New Covenant as it was
under the Old Covenant.
The Apostles were taught by our Lord to
" render unto Caesar the things that be Caesar's,
and unto God the things that be God's." 1 The
Catholic Church was not to be subservient to
secular governments in spiritual matters. This
root-principle of true ecclesiastical life and order
was not unfamiliar to the Apostles. It came from
the heart of the Levitical polity. Uzzah's hand
must not be laid on the Ark. King Uzziah is
stricken with leprosy for usurping the priestly
function, and Israel is taught that secular hands
are not to be laid on things sacred. The principle
of the separation of secular and sacred jurisdic-
tions is laid down by Jehoshaphat : " And, behold,
Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters
of the Lord ; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael,
the ruler of the house of Judah, for all the king's
matters." 2
The Chief Priest's jurisdiction extended over
the priests and the Levites who were more imme-
diately in relation to his primacy, and in dealing
with " the matters of the Lord " he had primarily
to enforce discipline over his subordinates. The
slackness of Eli's discipline over his sons, as priests,
constituted the offence which was punished by the
1 S. Matt. xxii. 22. 2 2 Chron. xix. n.
B
1 8 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
removal of the honour of the priesthood from his
branch of the house of Aaron. The ecclesiastical
polity of the Old Covenant made Jerusalem a
centre of spiritual discipline and organisation, as
well as a centre of worship. The Apostles would
have the lofty ideal of the City of God before
them, " a joy of the whole earth," with a visible
and well-disciplined organisation, fitted to wider
purposes than that of the Jewish national Church
in which they had been brought up a kingdom
of law and order, a true home of the liberty of
Christ's freedmen, who are sheltered from the
tyranny of evil by the very order and method
and discipline which encompasses them as citizens
of the Kingdom of Christ.
In dealing with the evidence of the New Testa-
ment upon the subject of the organisation of the
Catholic Church, we must never lose sight of the
fact that the Apostles were guided by our Lord's
teaching during the Great Forty Days, concerning
" the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." *
It follows, therefore, that the indications we can
trace of the beginnings of that jurisdiction, which
1 Acts i. 3. " If the things which He spake were things pertaining
to a kingdom, they must have been things pertaining to rule, to offices,
to organisation, to means of transmission, as well as to matters pertain-
ing to internal and spiritual religion." Preb. Sadler, Comm. in loc.
The Apostles had received their previous training and discipline
before the Crucifixion, as is graphically described in that book of
original thought, Pastor Pastorum (Latham).
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 19
in after ages took more definite shape in the
authority exercised by Patriarchs, Metropolitans,
and Councils, must be considered as part and
parcel of the constitutional organisation of the
Church. When it is stated that Bishops are equal
iure divino, and that the primacy exercised by
Patriarchs and Metropolitans is only iure ecclesi-
astico, and therefore of less moment and authority,
it is unwise to forget that ius ecclesiasticum has its
origin in the regal power of Christ in His Church,
and that the authority of Patriarch and Metro-
politan is necessary to the orderly government of
the kingdom of Christ. 1 It will not be necessary
in these pages to discuss the Scriptural evidence
for the Petrine claims, or the Vatican definitions
of the Petri privilegium as inherent in the Roman
See.
The fact that these claims are unsupported by
Apostolic authority, Scriptural and historical evi-
dence, and the general consensus of the teaching
of the undivided Church, need not compel us to
reject the idea of a Primus inter pares in the Apos-
tolic College, or of a similar Primacy of Chris-
tendom, purged from the theories which found
their expression in the false Decretals and the
1 "All the twelve Apostles were equal in mission, equal in com-
mission, equal in all things, except priority of order, without which no
society can well subsist" Abp. Bramhall, Just Vindication of the
Church of England, chap. v. pp. 152, 153.
20 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
"Priest-King" theory of Hildebrand and Inno-
cent III. 1
We may seem to be stating a truism, but some-
times truisms need stating and re-stating. The
usual aim of the most Catholic-minded anti-Papal
controversialists is to content themselves with the
comparatively easy task of rebutting the Papal
claims, and avoiding any constructive theory of
polity upon which the corporate reunion of Chris-
tendom can be based. We hear little of the con-
stant appeal of the Anglican Reformers to an
unfettered (Ecumenical Council, and very little
practical effort is made to convince Catholics in
communion with the See of Canterbury of the
danger of their centrifugal tendencies. We do
not incur the risk of admitting the Vatican doc-
trine of S. Peter's supremacy, in admitting to the
full his Primacy of honour and order, 2 and in
maintaining that the principle of such a Primacy
1 "The Papacy is, as it were, the Eucharist of Christ's government
in His Church." Rivington, Authority, p. 21.
" Though we would grant the See of Rome her ancient Primacy, yet
we cannot accept it as it is now offered, transformed into a quasi-
sacramental Headship." Primary Charge of Bishop King, p 28.
2 The Vatican Decree condemns those who hold this Primacy of
honour, and leaves no -via media between Ultramontanism and Ultra-
Protestantism. "If any one shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle
. . . received a Primacy of honour only ... let him be anathema "
(Vatican Decrees). If the arguments of the following pages seem to
any to concede too much in the direction of a Petrine Primacy, it
is satisfactory to know that the view here upheld lies under the
anathema of the Vatican Council.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 21
of Christendom does not conflict with the cor-
porate rights of Bishops as the successors of the
Apostles.
We pass by the controversy occasioned by our
Lord's words to S. Peter in S. Matt. xvi. 17-19,
S. Luke xxii. 31, 32, and S. John xxi. 1517, save
that we must deal briefly with the consequences
which appear to have their origin in the words,
" tibi dabo daves," and in " the special pastoral
charges " of the " Pasce oves." l
The Primacy of S. Peter during our Lord's life
on earth, as viewed in the light of the passages
cited above, was necessarily confined to a personal
prominence, and a priority in order as shown
in the lists of the Apostles. We trace it in his
speaking in their name, and in his association
with S. James and S. John, as first amongst the
chosen three. We naturally look into the dawn
of Church history after the Day of Pentecost for
the development of the Primacy of S. Peter, after
our Lord's teaching during the Forty Days. What
shape did it assume then ?
(i.) In the interval between the Ascension and
Pentecost he takes steps for the election of an
Apostle to fill the vacancy in the Apostolic College
1 S. Peter "holds the first place in all the lists ; he has a precedence
of responsibility and of temptation. . . . Above all, he receives special
pastoral charges." Bishop Lightfoot, S. Clement, p. 481. See also
Note C.
22 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
left by Judas the traitor. 1 The method of the
election is abnormal, but the procedure of S. Peter
in notifying the vacancy and ordering the election,
is in the main that which all Primates and Metro-
politans follow at the present day. The narrative
of Acts i., vers. 15, 21, 22, is the foundation of
the Canon Law of Christendom which deals with
the action of Primates and Metropolitans when
Episcopal vacancies occur within their provinces. 2
(ii.) He preaches the first Missionary Sermon
on the Day of Pentecost, and thereby unlocks the
door of the Catholic Church to the Jews, thus ful-
filling in one sense our Lord's promise, tibi dabo
claves (Acts ii. 14 and 28).
(iii.) He works the first miracle of the Church,
at the gate of the Temple (Acts iii. 6).
1 "Two persons appear to have been fixed, under the direction of
S. Peter, by the assembled believers, of whom one was chosen to the
Apostolate by God through the casting of lots. The person so chosen
was admitted into the Apostolical College by what process is not
stated in detail. Our translation states that he ' was numbered with
the eleven Apostles.' The Greek appears to imply considerably more ;
it is <TvyKa.Te\j/i](f>i<T<h]." Gladstone, Ch. Principles, v. p. 209.
2 The Primate or Metropolitan issues the mandate to the vacant
Diocese to elect a godly priest as their Bishop, and with his corn-pro-
vincial Bishops confirms the election, and consecrates the Bishop-elect.
This procedure is followed by the unestablished and disestablished
Churches in communion with Canterbury. See Irish Church (Const,
cap. vi.), Scottish Church (Canon iii.), American Church (Canon xix.),
South African Church (Canon iii.), Australian Church (General Synod
Determ. i.), Church of New Zealand (Canon i.), Church of West
Indies (Canons iii. and v.), Canada (Province of Rupertsland, Canon
vl), and compare the procedure laid down with its foundation in
Canon iv. (Cone. Nicaen.).
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 23
(iv.) He again preaches to the Jews as the
leader of the Apostles (Acts iii. 12).
(v.) When he is summoned before the San-
hedrin with S. John he speaks officially for the
whole Church (Acts iv. 8).
(vi.) He exercises coercive jurisdiction as the
Primus inter pares of the Apostolic College in the
case of Ananias and Sapphira. 1 It is not quite
legitimate to parallel this judgment of S. Peter's,
which was exercised on offending Christians, with
S. Paul's denunciation of Elymas the sorcerer,
who was outside the pale of the Church. Both
judgments were followed by direct supernatural
penalties, but there is a difference of a very distinct
kind between them. One was an exercise of ecclesi-
astical discipline, in which solemn sentence is pro-
nounced by the Primate Apostle, with the result
that " great fear came upon the whole Church "
(Acts v. n). The other was the outward and
manifest victory of the true religion in the person
of S. Paul over the false religion in the person
of the Magian impostor. Both S. Paul and the
Magian were endeavouring to gain the ear of
Sergius Paulus. The true parallel here is the
rivalry between Moses and the Court-magicians of
1 "After the first gift of grace comes the first visitation of anger in
the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira. Peter asserts his Primacy
here also, and the guilt is punished." Bishop Lightfoot, S. Clement,
vol. ii. p. 489.
24 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Pharaoh, and not the solemn ecclesiastical judg-
ment of S. Peter in the case of Ananias and
Sapphira, or his subsequent judgment on Simon
Magus.
(vii.) S. Peter is for the second time the spokes-
man and representative of the Church before the
Sanhedrin (Acts v. 29).
(viii.) He opens the door of the Church to the
Gentiles, and for the second time exercises the
prerogative of the promise tibi dabo claves (Acts x.
34-48).
(ix.) He sums up the debate in the Council of
Jerusalem, and S. James, as Bishop of Jerusalem,
and, in that capacity, President of the Council,
refers to S. Peter's words as the basis of his judg-
ment and of the decree of the Council (Acts xv.
7- 2 5)-
(x.) S. Paul, at the beginning of his ministry,
went up to Jerusalem " to visit Cephas " (la-roptjarat
Kt]<pav), taroprjcrai is somewhat emphatic. " A word
used," says Chrysostom, " by those who go to see
great and famous cities " (Lightfoot in Gal. i. 1 8). 1
S. Paul acknowledged no Primacy of infallible
authority in S. Peter. The relations of S. Paul to
S. Peter at Antioch (KUTO, Trpocrunrov avru)
iu) nvd = persotiam aliquem insignem coram cognosce, de facie.
Grimm, N. 71 Clavis, p. 21 1. "Paul says he went up to see Peter
(evidently regarding him as the leading spirit in the development of the
Church)." Ramsay, S. Paul the Traveller, p. 381.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 25
Gal. ii. n) are enough to cause reasonable theo-
logians to reject the Papal theory of the Petrine
claims.
But this passage shows that S. Paul visited S.
Peter officially as the Primate Apostle. It makes
for the Patriarchal and Metropolitical authority of
the Primus inter pares, just as much as the episode
at Antioch makes against the Hildebrandine view
of the Papacy.
(xi.) We find S. Peter exercising a Primate's
duty in visiting the Churches. " Peter passed
through all quarters" (TleTpov Siepxo/mevov Sia Trdvrwv),
Acts ix. 32. No one can accuse Professor Ramsay
of viewing the Apostolic age from a purely ecclesi-
astical standpoint. Yet he traces in this passage
the leadership of S. Peter, 1 and infers that this
leadership is also to be traced in the journey of
S. Peter and S. John to Samaria for the purpose
of ministering Confirmation to the Samaritan con-
verts of S. Philip the Deacon. This mission of
S. Peter and S. John to Samaria has been utilised
by Anti-Papal controversialists in a fashion which,
to say the least, is strained. It may be perfectly
true that we cannot imagine the College of
Cardinals sending Pope Leo XIII. and Cardinal
1 "It appears from Acts that Peter was the leading spirit in these
journeys of organisation, which knit together the scattered congre-
gations in Judaea and Samaria." Professor Ramsay, S. Paul the
Traveller^ p. 42.
26 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Vaughan on a mission to America, for instance, to
deal with some question of importance. 1 But al-
though the mission to Samaria is conclusive as
an argument against the Petrine monarchy, it is no
argument against the Petrine primacy, when its
issues are considered at their true value. Once
more we may be permitted to remark that the worst
way to combat the un-Catholic and unscriptural
Petri privilegium is to ignore the Scriptural witness
for Primatial authority in the Apostolic age. The
mission to Samaria was a momentous departure.
Hitherto the Church had been a purely Jewish
community, which superadded the doctrines of
Christ to a strict adherence to the Temple worship
and Mosaic ritual.
Was the Church to expand into the Catholic
ideal of Pentecost, or was it to remain a Jewish
sect rigidly centred upon the Temple worship at
Jerusalem ? 2 The Hellenist pressure had already
1 "That the subject Apostles should send their supreme Pontiff and
also one of their fellow-subjects on a joint mission that is incredible."
Puller, Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, p. 117.
2 The Primitive Church had clung to Jerusalem, and lived there in a
state of simplicity and almost community of goods, which was an in-
teresting phase of society, but was quite opposed to the spirit in which
Jesus said, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to the
whole creation." For the time it seemed that the religion of Christ
was stagnating into a sociological experiment (Ramsay, St. Paul tht
Traveller, p. 41). This view is substantially true, although a modifi-
cation of it is strongly urged by Mr. Simcox (Early Church History,
p. 6).
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 27
caused the choice and ordination of the seven
Deacons. The teaching of the Archdeacon S.
Stephen (to adopt a later nomenclature) was the
first assault upon the idea that the Catholic Church
should be permanently fettered with Jewish swad-
dling clothes. The persecution after his martyrdom
scattered abroad the Christians of Jerusalem, who
" went everywhere preaching the Word " (Acts viii.
4). The Hellenist Deacon S. Philip was unfettered
by the narrow traditional hatred which severed
Jew and Samaritan. The Samaritan received the
Gospel of Christ. The news must have been a
shock to the innate prejudice of the Church at
Jerusalem.
Here was the parting of the ways, so soon to
be emphasised still further by the baptism of
Cornelius and the final decision of the Council of
Jerusalem in favour of Gentile liberty and co-
equality with the Jew in the Catholic Church. We
cannot imagine that this crisis did not cause
anxious debate amongst the Apostles at Jerusalem.
S. Peter, as primus inter pares, would naturally
advocate the ratification of S. Philip's work in
Samaria in the most formal and authoritative
manner possible. The most natural course was
adopted. S. Peter and the Apostles decided that
the mission to Samaria was so important that the
Primate Apostle should undertake it himself, and
28 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
that he should be accompanied by S. John, as the
next available in Apostolic rank, since the local
episcopate of Jerusalem belonged to S. James,
who was therefore stationary. 1
It is safe to say, without risking anachronism, that
the position of S. James at Jerusalem was the Apos-
tolic prototype of the monarchical and localised
episcopate which we find in the Ignatian Epistles. 2
There was, however, another far-reaching con-
sequence of the martyrdom of S. Stephen besides
the conversion of the Samaritans. Some of the
scattered Christians, " men of Cyprus and Cyrene,"
came to Antioch and taught the Gentile Greeks the
1 It is thoroughly in accord with the idea of the Primatial and
Metropolitical Office that the Bishops of a Province should request their
Metropolitan to undertake a special office or mission of importance, and
that he should associate one of their number with himself by their
consent.
2 The position of S. James in the Clementine romance, which may
be dated at the end of the second century (according to Dr. Salmon,
or even earlier, in Bishop Lightfoot's opinion), is undoubtedly that of
Primate of Christendom. The Clementine Recognitions and Homilies
are Ebionite in their doctrinal tone, and their author naturally in-
sists on the Primacy of S. James and the Church of Jerusalem. The
position of S. Peter is secondary. He has to send to S. James his
Discourses and his Acts year by year. (Clem., Homilies, i. 20, and
Recognitions, i. 72.) But it is possible that the Epistle of Clement to
S. James, which gives an account of S. Clement's succession to S.
Peter after the Apostle's martyrdom, may be dated as early as A.D. 220,
and it may represent a tradition of S. James's Primacy as a natural
sequence of events, since the writer of the supposed letter believed that
S. James survived S. Peter. In this case the address to S. James as
"Bishop of Bishops" is natural enough, although we believe that the
tradition of S. James's Primacy is historically incorrect, since he was
martyred before S. Peter and S. Paul.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 29
Gospel of Christ. 1 The ApostolicChurch at Jerusalem
heard of this influx of Gentiles into the Church,
and sent S. Barnabas (and subsequently S. Paul
was summoned from Tarsus by him to aid in the
growing work), the result of which action was that
the Gentile Church of Antioch speedily almost
rivalled in importance and influence the Mother
Church at Jerusalem. Christendom then was divided
into the Mother Diocese of Jewish Christians which
had extended throughout all Judaea, and Galilee and
Samaria, 2 and the Gentile Diocese of Antioch, which
had outgrown its Jewish foundation. The primary
question was to blend Jew and Gentile into one
Catholic Church. We must not, however, pass by
the very weighty tradition which is linked with the
festival of the " Cathedra Petri " at Antioch.
S. Jerome considers that S. Luke's account of the
Church in Antioch omits the previous planting of it
in that city by S. Peter. 3 His authority is late, but
he represents one of the firmest and most positively
asserted traditions of Ecclesiastical History. The
1 Acts xi. 20. 2 Acts ix. 31.
3 " Primum Episcopum Antiochenas Ecclesiae Petrum fuisse eumque
Romae translatum." (S. Jerome, Comm. in Gal. ii.) The Eusebian
Chronicle makes the same statement. Ilrpos 6 Kopv<t>cuos rrjv tv
'AvTioxdq- irp&rov 6/j.e\i<Ii<ras eKK\rjffiav. So also Euseb., H. E. iii. 34.
We may note (without giving undue weight to its authority) that the
Paschal Chronicle says : rer&prtf ret rijs et'j ovpavofo dvaXij^ewj TOV
Kvplov, rUrpoy 6 'A?r6ffToXos diri 'lepocoXvftuv Iv 'A.vrioxfl$ TTJ fJLeyd\rj
rbv \6yov TOV Qeov fSLS
30 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
probable solution is that S. Peter founded the
Church of the Jewish Christians in Antioch about
four years after the Ascension, before " the men of
Cyprus and Cyrene" had begun their mission to
the Gentiles. This view will help to account for
S. Peter's temporising with the Judaisers at Antioch.
If he was the founder of their Church, and had
been subsequently convinced by the baptism of
Cornelius, and by other events, that the Church was
destined to be Catholic and not merely Jewish,
Antioch was the very place where he might be
tempted to make concessions to the prejudices of
those whom he had taught, before he had himself
grasped the full consequences of the world-wide
character of the religion of Christ. It has been
recently held that this temporising of S. Peter and
its rebuke by S. Paul may have taken place before
the Council of Jerusalem. 1 This view is antecedently
probable, and it seems difficult to believe that
S. Peter would have acted in such a manner after
the Council of Jerusalem. With regard to the bear-
ing of that Council upon S. Peter's position, we may
safely say that it does not militate against his
Primacy, whilst it is conclusive against his Supre-
macy in the Vatican sense.
Whilst avoiding the anachronism of a local
Primacy, which was an after-development of the
1 Professor Ramsay, S. Paul the Traveller, p. 164.
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 31
subsequent local and territorial Episcopate, we
may once more safely say that the Church, at the
era of the Council of Jerusalem, may be roughly
considered as consisting of the Mother Diocese
of Jerusalem, where the beginnings of a local
Episcopate are discerned in the position of
S. James, and the Gentile Diocese of Antioch,
which had expanded out of the local Jewish
Church founded by S. Peter. The Primacy of
S. Peter would be unquestioned at both centres.
His leadership was needed to keep them from
drifting apart. We may well believe that the
organising genius of S. Paul saw that a Council
was necessary to keep the Jewish and Gentile
Christians in the unity of the One Flock and the
One Shepherd.
If we accept the sequence of events which sets
his resistance to the temporising policy of S. Peter
before the Council of Jerusalem, we find that
S. Peter's strong words on the side of freedom
may be in some measure traced to the influence
of S. Paul. The position of S. Peter as primus
inter pares is in no way minimised by S. Paul's
action at Antioch. A strong Bishop may at any
time influence the policy of his Primate, and even
overshadow him, as Laud, when Bishop of London,
overshadowed by his commanding influence the
last days of Abbot's Primacy.
32 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
When we deal with the action of the Council
itself, we find the Primacy of S. Peter clearly in
evidence. After much discussion, in which the
Judaisers must have put forward their whole case,
S. Peter intervenes with Primatial authority and
decisive argument. He sets before the Council
the plea which S. Paul had used to him at Antioch.
S. Paul had pointed out that it was inconsistent
in him to allow the Judaisers to force their law
upon the Gentiles, whilst he himself, though a
Jew, used his Christian liberty. 1 S. Peter tells
the Council that the Church had no right to im-
pose on Gentile Christians a yoke of ceremonial
observances "which neither we, the Jewish Chris-
tians, nor our fathers were able to bear." 2 In his
address S. Peter asserts his Primacy, by reminding
the Council that "God made choice among you,
that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the
word of the Gospel." 3 Then came the testimony
of S. Barnabas and S. Paul, who were filled with
the fresh experiences of the first great Missionary
Journey.
And lastly we find S. James, as the local Head
of the Mother Church at Jerusalem, pronouncing
the formal judgment of the Council, and basing
that judgment upon the previous words of S. Peter. 4
1 Gal. ii. 14. - Acts xv. 10. 3 Ibid. v. 7.
* Herpes dr)(i.T)yopei, d\X' 'Id/cw/3os vofj.o0T(i. S. Hesychius. Migne,
Patrol. Grcec. xciii. 1480. These words do not mean that S. James
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 33
It will be noted that the decree ran in the name
of the Apostles and elders and brethren, 1 and not
in the name of the Bishop of Jerusalem alone,
as subsequent custom might lead us to expect,
if the Council had been merely the Synod of one
Diocese.
A recently published view of the Council goes
so far as to deny that S. James was actually its
President. 2 But whilst we have the narrative as
it stands, we do not feel it possible to disturb
the conclusion we have adopted, even on the
authority of a name so weighty. But we note
the view taken by Dr. Hort as conclusive against
the airy confidence with which another writer has
said that "the Council was to have been a pre-
legislated as Primate, and can be reconciled with the view we have
taken.
1 Acts xv. 23. The reading xai oJ &8e\<f>ot will be briefly considered
in Note D.
2 In his chapter on "The Apostles in relation to the Ecclesia,"
Dr. Hort comments as follows upon Acts xv. :
"There is nothing in St. Luke's words which bears out what is
often said that St. James presided over the conference at Jerusalem.
If he had it is strange that his name should not be mentioned separately
at the beginning, where we read only that the Apostles and elders were
gathered together. In the decisive speeches at the end, the lead is
taken by St. Peter, the foremost of the twelve. After Barnabas and
Paul have ended their narrative, James takes up the word. . . . Then
again the words which begin his conclusion, ' Wherefore my judgment
is ' cannot reasonably be understood as an authoritative judgment pro-
nounced by himself independently. ... It is just the same afterwards,
the decision is said to be made by the Apostles and the elders with
the whole Ecclesia." The Christian Ecclesia, by F. J. A. Hort, D.D,
(Macmillan).
C
34 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
cedent (on a small scale) for that of Nicaea ; it
was turned into a precedent for that of the Vatican
only we must remember that it was S. James
who was Pope ; S. Peter was no more than a
liberal Cardinal." 1 We may safely conclude that
the Council of Jerusalem is a witness to the historic
Primacy of S. Peter, whom Dr. Hort unhesitatingly
calls " the foremost of the Twelve."
The silence of the historian of the Acts con-
cerning S. Peter's doings after the Council of
Jerusalem does not involve the extinction of his
Primacy, or the substitution of the Primacy of S.
Paul for that of S. Peter. S. Luke centres his nar-
rative in its later stages exclusively upon the life-
work of S. Paul, but this does not countenance the
theory of an effacement of S. Peter's Primacy. It
is hard to accept a theory of this nature, when the
fact of S. Peter's residence in Rome is considered,
and its outcome as manifested in the tone and
character of his first General Epistle. There are
good reasons for believing that S. Peter survived
S. Paul, 2 and lived at Rome some ten or twelve
1 Simcox, Early Church History, p. 85. The Primacy of S. Peter
is no more jeopardised by the position of S. James at the Council of
Jerusalem, than the Primacy of Pope Anastasius was by the decree of
the Council of Turin in A.D. 401, on the Ithacian schismatics who
were to be reconciled on the terms set forth in " the former letters of
Ambrose of blessed memory, and of the Bishop of the Roman Church."
(Concilia, ii. 1383, ed. Coleti.) Here Milan comes before Rome in
the decree of a Council of the Province of Milan.
2 Dr. Hatch is not inclined to give undue weight to ecclesiastical
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 35
years after the martyrdom of the Apostle of the
Gentiles, which we may date in A.D. 67.* But we
must note some events which took place during the
closing years of the life of S. Paul. The death of
Festus, and consequent temporary vacancy of the
Procuratorship, gave an opportunity to Hanan
to bring S. James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, before
the Sanhedrin, and according to Josephus, he
was condemned to death by stoning. 2 He was
succeeded by Symeon the son of Clopas, and
during the interval between the first and second
imprisonments of S. Paul, the Episcopate received
a further addition by the consecration of S. Timothy
traditions. Yet he is inclined to accept the hypothesis of a long resi-
dence of S. Peter at Rome on account of the strength of traditional
evidence ; for he says, " It is difficult to suppose that so large a body
of tradition has no foundation in fact." "Hatch on S. Peter," in
Encyclopedia Britannica.
1 Dr. M'Giffert, a modern Protestant writer, goes so far as to say
that though " in the light of such early and unanimous testimony it
may be regarded as an established fact that Peter visited Rome, it is
equally certain that he cannot have gone there during Paul's lifetime.
. . . And yet a somewhat prolonged residence and activity in Rome
seems to be imperatively demanded by the traditions of the Roman
Church, and by the universal recognition which was later given to the
claim of that Church to be the see of Peter. It is true that there is no
single witness to whom we can appeal with any degree of confidence,
and it is true, moreover, that the tradition of a twenty-five years'
episcopate is worthless. But the honour in which Peter's memory was
universally held by the Christians of Rome, and the way in which his
figure overshadowed that of Paul, can hardly be explained on merely
dogmatic grounds. Nothing less than his leadership and personal
domination in the Roman Church can account for the result." Dr.
M'Giffert's History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, p. 591.
2 The account of the martyrdom of S. James by Hegesippus (apud
36 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
as Bishop of Ephesus and S. Titus as Bishop of
Crete. We do not mean to imply that S. Paul con-
secrated S. Timothy or S. Titus to the position of
the Diocesan Bishops of the Ignatian age. 1 They
may rather be considered as Apostolic delegates
with Primatial jurisdiction, who moved from place
to place, like the " Prophets " in the A^a^v, while
we may consider that S. John, in subsequent years,
established Diocesan Episcopacy (in the Ignatian
sense) in the Churches of Asia Minor. The
Apostles, at the death of S. James, may have
taken common measures to establish "the first-
fruits of their ministry" as Diocesan Bishops. It
is at least probable that they met in a second
Apostolic Council to concert this measure. 2 But
Euseb. ii. 23), seems to show that he received the Ebionite and ascetic
view of the life and character of the first Bishop of Jerusalem. His
account of the martyrdom of S. James by stoning is confirmed by
Josephus : ical irapayaywv ets aim>i)j rbv dde\<pbv 'Itjffov rov XptcrroO
\eyo/j.4vov, 'Idxufios 6vofJ.a dvrif, icai TIVO.S trtpovs, ws irapavo/j.rjO'dvTuv
Karijyopiav iroiijffdfj.ei>os , iraptduKf XfVff9i]ffOfj.evov!. [Jos. Ant. xx. 9. I.]
Hegesippus regards the martyrdom of S. James as the immediate cause
of the siege of Jerusalem. Origen says, ravra 8t avufiffi-riKev 'lovSalois,
Kdl tKdiKijffiv 'Iaicw/3ov TOV Stuatov. K.T.\. (Contra Celsum, i. 47).
1 "But though it may be thought an anachronism, and even a mis-
leading one, to call them bishops, it seems plain that they were in the
fullest sense vicars that they were intended to be successors of the
Apostles." Simcox, Early Church History, p. 129.
S. Timothy and S. Titus "respectively were stationed to act as
the delegates of S. Paul in Ephesus and in Crete." Gladstone, Church
Principles, p. 213.
2 The idea of a second Apostolic Council is partly based by Rothe
upon his rendering of K.a.1 /uerai> ^vivonrjv 8eSwKa<riv (Clem. Rom. Ad
Cor. xliv.), "afterwards added a supplementary direction." The recent
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 37
the condition of the Church at the death of S.
Paul seems to have been somewhat as follows :
S. Peter, the Primate Apostle, lived at Rome with
S. Mark as his " interpreter " for the Latin language. 1
The Church at Jerusalem under Symeon lost its
discovery of an eleventh century Latin MS. of a clearly primitive
translation by Dom Morin strengthens Rothe's rendering. The Latin
for kirtvo[j.T}v deti&icaffiv is legem dedcrunt. Bishop Lightfoot reads
fTTLfjiovriv ga.ve permanence to the office. But there is no MS. authority
for this, and the sense of the passage does not suffer whichever view is
taken. It is difficult to avoid seeing in the phrase "prospiciente concilio"
of the Ambrosian Hilary (on Eph. iv. 12) an allusion to a second
Apostolic Council. Rothe holds that the Council of the Apostles,
which appointed Symeon to succeed S. James as Bishop of Jerusalem,
"discussed larger questions than the appointment of a single Bishop,
and that the constitution and prospects of the Church generally came
under deliberation. . . . The centre of the system then organised was
episcopacy, which at once secured the compact and harmonious work-
ing of each individual congregation, and as the link of communication
between separate brotherhoods formed the whole into one undivided
Catholic Church" (Anfange, &c., pp. 354-392). We have quoted
Bishop Lightfoot's paraphrase of Rothe's view, and since the Bishop
does not adopt his theory, we may with more readiness accept his
statement of it If we reduce Rothe's theory to the establishment of a
local Episcopate, we may very well accept it. We have already seen
that the Primatial system, as well as the Episcopate, existed in germ
in the Apostolic Age. We may very well believe that the idea of
localised Primacies and Bishoprics emanated from Apostolic decision
and direction.
Zypa\l/v, ov fjL^vroi rdfet ret virb rov XptaroO JJ
Papias, Routh Rel. Sacr. i. 13.
Even De Pressense, writing from a strong Protestant standpoint,
feels bound to admit that S. Peter resided at Rome. " The unanimity
of tradition as to Peter's stay at Rome appears to us of weight. It is
so much the more worthy of credence because several of the Fathers
for example, Tertullian and Irenseus had no interest in establishing
the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome." Early Years of Christianity,
vol. i., p. 214.
38 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
pre-eminence owing to the Jewish war, which was
to end in the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction
of the Temple in A.D. 70. S. John was organising
and ruling the Church in Asia Minor, aided pro-
bably by S. Andrew and S. Philip, whose name is
linked with Hierapolis l with some measure of
certainty. The Neronian persecution, of which S.
Paul was the most illustrious victim, seems to have
been a localised outburst of hatred, organised by
Nero and his courtiers to divert suspicion from
himself as the real incendiary who caused the great
fire at Rome. The attitude of the Flavian em-
perors was a policy deliberately hostile to all who
confessed " the Name " of Christ, and struck deeper
than Nero's savage attack upon an obscure and
unpopular Jewish sect known as " Christians."
The First General Epistle of S. Peter seems to
have been written under the pressure of the
Flavian policy, and mainly on this account we
postulate for it a later date than is commonly
assigned to it. 2 It is addressed to the Gentile
1 rb fiv otv Kara ryv 'Iep<iiro\it> $i\LTnrov rbv air6ffro\ov &/j.a rats
Ovya.Tp6.at Siarpfyai. K.T.\. (Euseb. iii. 39).
2 The difference between the Neronian and Flavian policy may be
briefly summed up as follows : Nero persecuted the Christians for
certain specified offences against Roman society (odium humani generis).
Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) gives an account of Nero's action, and the Chris-
tians were tried for serious offences connected with "the Name of
Christ " (flagitia coharentia nominf). Pliny's letter to Trajan and his
reply show that the Flavian policy which Trajan continued was more
thorough. Offences need not be proved. The mere acknowledgment
EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 39
Churches of Asia Minor, and it is written from
Rome. 1 The traces of his Roman residence are
manifest from S. Peter's line of thought, and the
general tone of this Epistle. It is virtually ad-
dressed to the Catholic Church as a whole, and
it shows that the fisherman of Galilee has risen
to the conception of the Church as a spiritual
empire. Persecution for the name of Christ
threatens the whole Church, and the Primate
Apostle sets the spiritual empire of " the strangers
and pilgrims," who are yet "the chosen genera-
tion" and the "royal priesthood," in battle array
against the hostile world-empire of Imperial Rome.
And then, in his Second Epistle, written shortly
after the first, we find S. Peter calmly awaiting
his inevitable martyrdom.
After the martyrdom of S. Peter, which we venture
to date about A.D. 85,2 S. John became the Primate
of the " Name " is a crime against the State. S. Peter's First Epistle
points to this latter policy being in force when he wrote. Professor
Ramsay's main reason for a later date for S. Peter's First Epistle is
based upon this specific difference between the Neronian and Flavian
policies. It is right to add that Professor Ramsay's view has been
opposed by Dr. Sanday and Professor Mommsen. But there are other
reasons for believing in a later date for this Epistle, based upon the
uniform tradition of S. Peter's residence at Rome for a period of some
length, as well as upon the internal evidence of the Epistle itself.
1 The idea that S. Peter wrote from the literal Babylon is most
conclusively disposed of by Bishop Lightfoct. (S. Clement, vol. ii.
p. 492.)
" It is far advanced on the path that leads to the letter of Clement
to the Corinthians." Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, p. 287.
* S. Clement mentions S. Peter and S. Paul as having suffered
40 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Apostle by virtue of the pre-eminence accorded to
him in the Gospels and Acts, even if other Apostles
still survived. Before long he became the sole sur-
vivor of the Apostles, and personally guided the
transition of the government of the Church from the
Apostolate to the localised territorial Episcopate.
An attempt has been made to deny the Johannine
authorship of the Fourth Gospel upon the grounds
that its author desires to present S. John as the
victorious rival of S. Peter. An examination of
the Gospel of S. John from this point of view is
enough to refute this baseless theory. 1
The principle of Primatial order and authority
is clearly traceable during the Apostolic age. 2 We
shall trace its development, subsequent to the
martyrdom (Ad Cor. c. iv.). But there is no reason for inferring from
this reference the truth of the later tradition that they suffered at the
same time. S. Clement, if we accept the theory that he was ordained
by S. Peter, would naturally mention him first, and even if we reject
this theory of S. Clement's ordination as Bishop, the Scriptural priority
of order, and its outcome, would naturally lead him to mention S.
Peter first. Dionysius of Corinth writes of S. Peter and S. Paul visit-
ing Corinth and Rome "and having taught there suffered martyrdom,"
ArarA rbv avrbv naipbv (Euseb., H. E. ii. 25). But Bishop Lightfoot
justly observes that " the expression KO.TO. rbv avrbv icatpbv need not be
pressed to mean the same day or the same year." The arguments of
Professor Ramsay with regard to the internal evidence of I Peter
demanding a much later date than is usually attributed to it are con-
vincing. (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 284.)
1 " The representative official precedence of S. Peter thus really
underlies the whole narrative of the Fourth Gospel. The nearness of
S. John to the Lord is a relation of sympathy, so to speak, different in
kind." Bishop Westcott, S.John (Introduction, p. xxiii.).
8 See Note E.
THE MOSAIC POLITY AND RITUAL 41
death of S. John (A.D. 100), and the further rela-
tions of Bishops to their clergy and the laity in
the Sub-Apostolic Age.
NOTE A.
The Mosaic Polity and Ritual finds fulfilment in the
Catholic Church.
When, in process of time, the clergy adopted distinctive
vestments at all times of their ministration, it is interesting
to note that liturgical writers drew a parallel between the
vestments of the Aaronic priesthood and those used by
the Apostolic ministry. The principle of symbolism in
worship has passed from the Old Covenant to the New,
and reverence is preserved by the stately solemnity of
the ritual of the Church. A thoughtful theologian, writing
of the Apocalypse, states that "its description of things
above is plainly a vision of the same truth which, in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, is set forth argumentatively, that
the whole Jewish ritual was an example and shadow of
heavenly things (Heb. viii. 5). [Wilberforce On the In-
carnation, p. 256.] "According to the mind of ancient
expositors (on Heb. x. i) the word ovaa would best be
rendered here by sketch or outline (and not shadow), and
the word et/cwv by picture (not image). There are three
things considered here i. The reality of the future good
things in Heaven and in Eternity ; ii. The etKwv, or clear
picture of them in the Gospel ; iii. The o-xta, or dim
outline of them in the Law. Umbra in Lege ; Imago in
Evangelio ; Veritas in ccelo. (S. Ambrose on Ps. xxxviii.)
Bishop Wordsworth in loc.
42 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
So S. Chrysostom : "Eos pfv yap dv os ev ypa^y Trepidyrj
Ti<s TO. xptopaTa, (TKid TI'S ecrriv. orav Se TO av#os firaXeiifsy
Tts, KCU irf)(pi(rg TO. ^pw/iara Tore CIKWV ytWrou. Totoirrdv
TI KCU 6 vd/tos ryv. (Horn. xvii. on Heb. x.)
Theodoret, Theophylact, and CEcumenius comment on
the same text in the same sense.
S. Ambrose applies the same idea to the memorial
Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist. " Umbra in Lege, imago
in Evangelic, veritas in coelestibus. Ante agnus offerebatur,
offerebatur et vitulus, nunc Christus offertur : sed offertur
quasi homo, quasi recipiens passionem; et offert se ipse
quasi sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat ; hie in imagine,
ibi in veritate, ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi advocatus
intervenit." (Zte Officiis Ministrorum, I. xlviii.)
The outline of the Law, glorious even when its distinc-
tive ritual is administered by " the ministers of condemna-
tion," is exceeded in glory by the bright colours of the full
picture of the Gospel, which "the ministers of righteous-
ness" administer. (Cf.z Cor. iii. 9.)
The principle here laid down is clearly expressed by
Walafrid Strabo in the ninth century, in dealing with
the Vestments. " Statutum est Concilio Bracarensi ; ne
sacerdos sine orario celebret missam. Addiderunt in ves-
tibus sacris alii alia, vel ad imitationem eorum quibus
veteres utebantur sacerdotes, vel ad mysticae significationis
expressionem. Quid enim singula designent, quibus utimur
nunc, a prioribus nostris satis expositum est. Numero
autem suo antiquis respondent : quia sicut ibi tunica,
superhumeralis linea, superhumerale, rationale, balteus,
feminalia, tiara et lamina, sic hie dalmatica, alba, mappula,
orarium, cingulum, sandalia, casula, et pallium. Unde
sicut illorum extremo soli pontifices, sic horum ultimo
summi tantum pastores utuntur." (De Rebus Ecclesiasticis,
cap. xxiv.)
THE LEVITICAL MINISTRY 43
So, too, Ivo of Chartres, a twelfth-century writer : " Iste
autem sacrarum vestium ritus per Moysen sumpsit exor-
dium ; quamvis Christiana religio plus intenta rebus quam
figuris, sacerdotes suos non omnibus illis veteribus induit
ornamentis." (Sermo de significationibus indumentorum
sacerdotalium, &c.; Migne, Patrol. Lat. clxii. p. 520.)
NOTE B.
The Levitical Ministry not the Delegates of the People.
It is contrary to the primary sense of the Old Testament
teaching to consider the Aaronic priests as the delegates
of the people, for their representative ministry was derived
from God, and their priestly functions involved far more
than mere delegation. The view that they were delegates
is apparently based on a single passage, where it is said
that "the children of Israel shall put their hands on the
Levites" (Numb. viii. 10). Commenting upon this text,
Bishop Lightfoot says that " the Levites are, so to speak,
ordained by the whole congregation. The nation thus
deputes to a single tribe the priestly functions which be-
long to itself as a whole." (Dissertation on the Christian
Ministry, p. 182.)
But, pace tanti viri, we may be permitted to remark that
though Israel is called a nation of priests, it is inaccurate
to say that "priestly functions" belong to the whole con-
gregation. The priesthood of the whole nation finds its
expression and direct representation in the " priestly func-
tions" discharged by Aaron and his successors. The
Levites discharged no " priestly functions," and even if we
admit that the action of the congregation in laying hands
on the Levites involved some sort of delegation, it can,
at the most, have meant that the Levites discharged their
44
special subordinate ministries as representing the people.
God vindicated the Divine appointment of His priests by
His judgment upon those who assumed that the priesthood
of the nation could be manifested by self-appointed indi-
viduals. " There came out a fire from the Lord, and con-
sumed the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense.
The censers of these sinners against their own souls were
made broad plates for a covering of the altar : to be a
memorial to the children of Israel that no stranger, which
is not of the seed of Aaron, come near to offer incense
before the Lord ; that he be not as Korah, and as his
company." (Numb. xvi. 35, 38, 39, 40.)
The parallel truths of the general priesthood of the
people (under the Old and New Covenant alike), and the
special and representative priesthood, appointed by God
to discharge " priestly functions," are alike to be accepted
as a part of the Divine Revelation.
NOTE C.
The Primacy of S. Peter.
The " Pasce Oves " may very reasonably be interpreted
as a charge given to the Primate Apostle, as the represen-
tative of the other Apostles, and the symbol of the unity of
the Church. Bishop Moberly says of S. Peter : " Though
his fall was great greater than that of all who forsook their
Lord and fled yet was his restoration great too; for he
was again chosen of them all to be the one to receive, as
representing all, the great Pastoral Commission." (Dis-
courses on the Great Forty Days, p. 190.)
The same idea pervades the well-known passage of
S. Cyprian in his Treatise on the Unity of the Church :
THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER 45
" Super unum sedificat ecclesiam, et quamvis apostolis
omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tri-
buat . . . tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis eius-
dem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit.
Hoc erant utique et caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari
consortio praediti, et honoris et potestatis, sed exordium ab
unitate proficiscitur, ut ecclesia Christi una monstretur."
(De Unit. Eccl, 4, p. 212, ed. Hartel.)
Bishop Lightfoot has noted the later interpolations of
this passage (S. Clement, p. 485). But we are not now
concerned with anti-Papal arguments, so that it is not
necessary to deal with the interpolations. We content our-
selves with quoting the genuine text of S. Cyprian, and
illustrating it with the following words of Archbishop
Benson :
" The Divine reality of such their unity had been taught
especially in the respective charges of the Lord to Peter
and to the Twelve. The authority and power committed
is the same to each several Apostle. But for the sake of
showing that many Apostles did not make many Churches,
but one only, therefore the first declaration of the founda-
tion of a Universal Church is couched in language addressed
to one only S. Peter. For that one occasion the words
are to one, but the meaning is for ever to all." (S. Cyprian,
His Life, His Times, His Work, by E. W. Benson, D. D.,
late Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 196.)
Archbishop Benson was firmly impressed by the power
and Primatial position of the Throne of S. Augustine, which
he so worthily filled. If his words do not directly involve
the idea that Patriarchal and Primatial authority is as neces-
sary to the unity of the Church now as it was in the Primi-
tive Church, they certainly tend in that direction. The
many Anglican authorities who admit to the full the
Primacy of S. Peter, do not see with equal clearness that
46 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
the principles involved therein are necessary to Church
unity in every Province and in every Patriarchate of the
Catholic Church.
NOTE D.
The reading KCU ol dSeA<ot.
The Textus Receptus has the reading ol curoo-ToAc-i KOL ol
Trpfo-/3vTpoL KCU 01 a8cX<f>oi. Westcott and Hort, and the
R.V., omit KCU ol before dSeX^oi, and Professor Ramsay
accepts as probable Dr. Blass's theory that the word dSeXfoi
is an accidental corruption. We cannot follow this view.
The consent of " the whole Church " to the decree of the
Council is clearly expressed in Acts xv. 22. (Tore eSoe
TOtS aTTOCTToAoiS KCU TOl? 7T/3eCT/3vTpOlS CTVV oXf] TQ CKKA^CTl'p.) 1
The consent of "the whole Church" is a subsequent
necessary condition which renders the decree of a Council
binding as a true and unerring definition of the "Faith
once delivered to the Saints." It is in accordance with
the relative positions of Bishops, Priests, and laymen in
Synods, that the decision arrived at (86yp,a) by the Bishops,
as possessing a votum dedsivum to define the Faith, with
the aid of the Priests, as consenting counsellors and assessors,
should be promulgated with the concurrent assent (which
does not involve initiative or deliberative rights in matters
of faith and doctrine) of the laity. If we believe that the
laity shared in the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit,
and that "the whole Church" is the Spirit-bearing Body of
Christ, the right of the laity to concurrent assent in the
1 S. Chrysostom's comment on these words is worth noting : tdott>
T)/J.?V yevo/jitvois bfj.odvft.a56v, . . . (Serre Se?ai, Sri oi> rvpavviicus, Sri iraffi
TOVTO SoKei, &TI ytterd tirurictyeus TO.VTO. ypatpovaiv. (S. Chrys., In Acta
Apost., Horn, xxxiii.)
THE READING KOI oi aSe\(j)oi 47
decrees of Councils is a foregone conclusion. If Acts
xv. 22 expresses this right, it is at the least reasonable to
suppose that the formal decree would run in the name
of "the Apostles and Elders and Brethren." The other
reading seems quite meaningless, and the evidence for the
word aSeA^ot is too strong for it to be dismissed as an
accidental corruption, whilst the evidence for the words
KCU oi is strong enough to demand its acceptance on the
basis of admitting a reading which makes sense, instead
of a reading that is unintelligible. The history of the
Church and the logic of facts must sometimes be taken
into consideration by textual critics.
The reading KCU ot is adopted by Tischendorf, in which
he follows E, G, H, and most cursives. It is omitted in
the uncial codices A, B, C, D, and in the Codex Sinaiticus.
But the corrector of the Codex Sinaiticus marked c inserts
KOU ot, and Scrivener observes "that one object of this
corrector was to assimilate the Codex to MSS. more in
vogue at his time." If this correction may be dated as
that of a fifth or sixth century copyist, it is extremely
unlikely that he would insert /cat oi in the interests of the
laity. The tendency of things ecclesiastical at that date
was all the other way. It is therefore an admissible theory
that he had access to some uncial MS. which is now lost.
NOTE E.
The Principle of Primatial Authority in the Apostolic Age.
We may note that Bishop Beveridge and Dr. Hammond,
two of the most learned divines of the Caroline period,
which closed the epoch of the Anglican Reformation,
unhesitatingly refer the establishment of the principle of
48 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
primatial authority to the Apostolic age. Bishop Beveridge
says : " Sed mirari subeat, nee quidem immerito, qua
tandem ratione hsec consuetudo in ecclesiam primo intro-
ducta sit, ut licet Episcopatus ubique gentium unus idemque
sit, unus tamen in unaquaque provincia episcopus cseteris
praeesset, et maiorem, quam reliqui, auctoritatem haberet.
. . . Quod si Concilia generalia et vetustiora Ecclesiae
statuta consulamus, nihil prorsus de prima huius consuetu-
dinis institutione, vel etiam initio, in iis inveniemus. In-
ccepta est enim, vel instituta, priusquam universalia Con-
cilia celebrari cceperint, quae propterea earn nusquam
instituunt, sed prius institutam ubique supponunt, et sua
demum auctoritate confirmant."
Bishop Beveridge alludes here to the sixth Canon of
Nicsea, which deals with Metropolitical and Primatial rights,
on which he observes that " Synodus Nicaena Metro-
politanorum iura TO. dp-^ala tOy, antiquos mores vocavit."
He carefully guards himself against admitting that the
principle of Primatial authority involves the theory of a
Papal monarchy.
Referring to the thirty-fourth Apostolic Canon, he says :
" Quo tamen non decernitur, ut in unaquaque gente unus
Episcopus esset primus, sed ut omnes cuiusque gentis
Episcopi rbv tv avrois TT/XOTOV, ilium, qui in iis primus
est, cognoscant et tanquam caput existiment. Ubi prop-
terea pro concesso sumitur, quotcunque in ulla gente Epis-
copi erant, unum inter eos Primum fuisse, sive Primatem,
eundemque reliquorum caput esse, atque ita proinde ab
illis existimandum. Nulla itaque primse huiusce rei institu-
tionis vestigia videre est, quam nihilominus ab ipsis Ecclesiae
primordiis ubique gentium obtinuisse pro comperto habe-
mus. Quapropter vix dubitare licet, quin aliquo saltern
modo ad ipsos Apostolos referatur, qui si non ipsi hunc
primatum instituerunt, instituendo tamen viam straverunt
PRIMATIAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 49
apertissimam." (Beveridge, Cod. Canonum, 6<r., torn. ii.
pp. 60, 61.)
Bishop Beveridge here adopts the line of argument
advocated in these pages. The principle of Primacy is
plainly visible in the Apostolic age, and this principle
involves the further grouping of Metropolitans under
Patriarchs, one of whom is necessarily primus inter pares.
He proceeds to strengthen his argument by noting how
the world-wide Church adapted itself to the civil organisa-
tion of the world-wide empire of the Apostolic age. The
civil Metropolis became the ecclesiastical Metropolis,
because the Church in the mother city became naturally
influential and important. As the Roman roads became
highways for the Gospel, so the grouping of the Empire
into civil " Dioceses " and " Provinces " formed the
providential basis of ecclesiastical organisation. It was
said of Pagan Imperial Rome that "the powers that be
are ordained of God," and therefore the civil organisation
of the Empire under those powers could unconsciously
become the handmaid of the Catholic Church. Antioch,
Corinth, Ephesus, and Thessalonica, to give notable
instances, were, civilly, metropolitan cities, and became
naturally metropolitan centres of Church organisation.
Bishop Beveridge notes that S. Paul's Epistles were
written to metropolitan cities like Rome, Corinth, and
Ephesus, or to the Church in a civil Province, as Galatia
was: "Vel denique ad Primum in provincia Episcopum
Metropoli praefectum, ut ad Timotheum et Titum" (p. 65).
Bishop Beveridge believes that S. Timothy and S. Titus
were Primates, which is much nearer to the ideas of their
special position adopted by modern scholars than the
view which made them local Bishops of Ephesus and
Crete. He quotes S. Chrysostom to prove his view :
Se fcrriv evrev&ev, on e/cKA^criav XoiTrov r
D
50 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
/icvos 6 Ti/zo0eos, 17 Kai edvos 6XoK\r)pov TO rfjs 'Acrtas. K.T.A,
(S. Chrys., /&?/. xv. in i Tim.). He proceeds : " Idem
dicendum est de Epistola ad Titum ; quern totius insulae
Cretae Primatem fuisse, sive Primum Episcopum, ex ipsis
Pauli ad eum verbis liquido constat, dicentis Tourou x-P LV
KoreAiTrov ere V K.prJTy, iva TO. Aewrovra CTrtSiop^akry.
K.T.A." (Tit. i. 5). Bishop Beveridge lays stress upon the
hundred cities of Crete, and the fact of its becoming an
Ecclesiastical Province with Gortyna as its Metropolis.
But even if we think that he does not sufficiently realise the
fact that local Diocesan Episcopacy was not organised so
early as he appears to imagine, the Primatial idea appears
clearly enough in the position of SS. Timothy and Titus
as Apostolic delegates in charge of Provinces of the Church.
Bishop Beveridge sums up as follows : " Quamobren
Apostoli, etiamsi singulas peragrare ut provincias, summam
tamen ad Metropoles curam iure meritissimo contulerunt ad
Romam Imperii caput, ad Antiochiam Metropolim Syriae,
ad Corinthum Metropolim Achaias, ad Ephesum Metro-
polim Asias, ad Thessalonicam Metropolim Macedonian,
etc., ut e supradictis patet. Cum ipsi igitur Apostoli in
Ecclesia propaganda tantam provinciarum et Metropoleon
rationem habuerint, exemplo quidem licet non praecepto
suo Metropolitanis et Primatibus in Ecclesia instituendis
occasionem praebuerunt " (Ibid., ii. p. 69).
Bishop Beveridge may be considered by some moderns
an out-of-date theologian. But he belonged to the days
when it was truly said, " Clerus Anglicanus stupor mundi,"
and Bishop Hefele, the modern Roman canonist and theo-
logian, paid him the just tribute of practically adopting his
settlement of the controversy upon the date and authority
of the Apostolic canons as final. (Hefele, Councils, vol. i.
p. 45 2 -)
The arguments of Dr. Hammond are formed upon the
PRIMATIAL AUTHORITY IN APOSTOLIC AGE 51
same lines as those of Bishop Beveridge. He traces the
metropolitical or Primatial authority of S. Timothy and
S. Titus over their provinces. ( Works, vol. ii. Oxford ed.,
p. 217.)
Dr. Hammond also shows how the Church adapted
herself in Apostolic days to the Roman organisation of
Provinces and their mother cities (pp. 221 and 222). It is
remarkable that the researches of Professor Ramsay have
led him to adopt practically the same conclusions. Deal-
ing with the unifying efforts of the State Paganism of the
Roman Empire, he says : " Everything that the imperial
policy did in the provinces during the first century was so
arranged as to encourage the unity of the entire Roman
Province ; and the priests of the imperial religion became
by insensible degrees a higher priesthood, exercising a
certain influence over the priests of the other religions of
the province. In this way a sort of hierarchy was created
for the province and the Empire as a whole ; the reigning
Emperor being the religious head, the Supreme Pontiff of
the State, and a kind of sacerdotal organisation being
grouped under him according to the political provinces.
As time passed, gradually the Christian Church grouped
itself according to the same forms as the imperial religion,
not indeed through conscious imitation, but because the
Church naturally arranged its external form according to
the existing facts of communication and inter-relation. In
Pisidian Antioch a preacher had unique opportunities for
affecting the entire territory whose population resorted to
that great centre. So Perga was a centre for Pamphylia,
Ephesus for Asia. But the clerical influence of these
centres was confined to the Roman district or province.
In this way, necessarily and inevitably, the Christian
Church was organised around the Roman provincial metro-
polis, and according to the Roman provincial divisions.
52 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
The question then is, when did this organisation of the
Church begin? I can see no reason to doubt that it began
with Paul's mission to the West. It grew out of the cir-
cumstances of the country, and there was more absolute
necessity in the first century than later, that if the Church
were organised at all, it must adapt itself to the political
facts of the time, for these were much stronger in the first
century. The classification adopted in Paul's own letters
to the Churches which he founded, is, according to pro-
vinces, Achaia, Macedonia, Asia, and Galatia. The same
fact is clearly visible in the narrative of Acts ; it guides and
inspires the expression from the time when the Apostles
landed in Perga. At every step, any one who knows the
country recognises that the Roman division is implied."
(S. Paul the Traveller, pp. 134, 135, 136.)
CHAPTER II
THE WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE TO THE CONSTI-
TUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS, AS LIMITED BY
THE PRINCIPLE OF PRIMACY WITH REGARD TO THE
UNIVERSAL EPISCOPATE, AND BY THE COUNCIL OF
PRESBYTERS WITH REGARD TO EACH DIOCESE.
THE development of the authority of the Historic
Episcopate is clearly traceable in the Apostolic
age. But we have also seen that it is an authority
constitutionally limited by the principle of Primacy
on the one hand, and by the central idea of the unity
of the whole body of the faithful on the other.
The lesson of the Council of Jerusalem is un-
doubtedly that of constitutional authority. The
Primate Apostle is no infallible autocrat of
Christendom. The Apostles are not autocepha-
lous and independent ecclesiastical monarchs.
The Cyprianic maxim of co-ordinate responsibility
is plainly manifest. 1 The " Elders " of the Second
Thrones have their consultative voice, and the body
of the faithful, "the whole Church," expresses its
assent through the " brethren " who are associated
1 Episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur.
(De Unit. Eccl., ed. Benedict., p. 195.)
53
54 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
with the "Apostles and Elders" in sending forth
the decree of the Council.
The result of the Council may not have been
immediately manifest. Yet it virtually set forth
the world-wide ideal of the Catholic Church of
Pentecost. The spiritual Kingdom of our Lord
was fashioned visibly by the wisdom and organisa-
tion which the Apostles learnt during the Great
Forty Days, and we can, to some degree, measure
that Divine Wisdom by its historical results.
Nothing really good was to be cast aside. The
faults of previous formative efforts in human
organisation, whether in things spiritual or temporal,
were alone to be discarded. "The finger of the
Hand Divine," God's Holy Spirit of order and
symmetry of method, was clearly traceable in the
history of the world. And so the Catholic Church
was fashioned out of the Church of the Old
Covenant, 1 and the spiritual empire of the Lord
Christ adapted its organisation to the " Dioceses "
and " Provinces " of Imperial Rome. 2 The Visible
1 After the Christian Churches had ceased to circle round Jerusalem,
and had begun to take the form of a new spiritual empire wide as
the Roman Empire itself, there grew up a conception that the new
Eccksia Dei, whose limits were the world, was the exact counterpart,
though on a larger scale, of the old Ecclesia Dei, whose limits had been
Palestine. (Hatch, Hampton Lectures, p. 138.) But the conception
did not grow up, as Dr. Hatch imagines. It was rooted in the very
idea of the Catholic Church as the visible Kingdom of God on earth.
2 Peter de Marca says : "Apostolos orbem Ecclesiasticum in Pro-
vincias distribuisse ad exemplum dispositionis civilis." And he further
WITNESS OF THE SUB- APOSTOLIC AGE 55
Church was not at war with human society as
such. Its warfare was directed against " the world ; "
or, in other words, against human society, organised
apart from God. Every sound element of human
wisdom in statecraft and organisation was quick-
ened with the Breath of Pentecost, and fashioned
to the service of the City of God. The fact that
we can trace there human elements in the organisa-
tion of the Church does not lead us to minimise
the Divine powers inherent in her ministry and
sacraments. This recognition of the human ele-
ment does not drag down the Church to the level
of an ordinary human organisation. 1 It rather
uplifts the human into the region of the Divine.
We are not afraid to make comparisons and trace
resemblances between the polity of the Roman
Empire and the polity of the Catholic Church.
Each such resemblance shows us that certain
details of wise organisation in an earthly kingdom
were " good gifts " from " the Father of Lights,"
and were therefore worthy to be wrought into
the Divine statecraft of the City of God.
adds : " Apostolos cum Ecclesias distribuerent in Provincias, in animo
habuisse ut in eis corpus Episcoporum statueretur sub preesidentia
Episcopi Metropoleos." (De Concord, VI. i.) The learned Gallican
divine is here practically in agreement with the latest results of modern
research as expressed by Professor Ramsay.
1 Here is the fundamental error which dominates the careful, and
otherwise most useful, historical researches of Dr. Hatch.
56 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
We must now deal with the circumstances
which marked the close of the Apostolic Age.
The Church was organised upon the general
lines of the civil divisions of the Empire. The
hostility of the Empire to the Church was in
accordance with the nature of things. The unity
of the Empire was bound up with the idea of the
various local cults being permitted to exist upon
the sole condition of owning the supreme autho-
rity of the Emperor, in his religious capacity as
"Pontifex Maximus," and recognising his Pagan
hierarchy with its delegated authority in each Pro-
vince. The civil power dimly began to perceive
that the Catholic Church set up a rival organisation
with absolutely exclusive claims to spiritual alle-
giance. The mere fact that this new organisation,
with its unique spiritual powers, followed the lines
of the organisation of the Empire, would intensify
the growing hostility of the Pagan State to the
Catholic Church. The commanding influence of
the Church of Rome, organised and guided by the
two great Apostles S. Peter and S. Paul, the one
being the Primate Apostle and the other the
Apostle of greatest intellect and power, was the
parallel (to a certain limited extent) of the influence
of the " Pontifex Maximus," a title which later
Bishops of Rome shrewdly appropriated and
utilised. The Pagan High Priest of the Provincial
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 57
Metropolis found himself faced by the Metropolitan
of the Christians, who wielded a mightier authority
than his own an authority kindled by the new
enthusiasm of living spiritual forces, which caused
the cold and effete State Paganism to shrivel in
its presence. The fierce flame of the Neronian
persecution burnt itself out in vain efforts to
terrorise the disciples of the new Faith. The
relentless legal warfare of the Flavian Emperors
against the Christians was an equal failure. The
Church held its own, with various periods of
repose, when apathy and indifference suffered the
laws against Christianity to become for a time
dormant, until the final outburst under Diocletian
was followed by the victory of Constantine and
the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. But we have antici-
pated the development of events. What was the
organisation of the Church at the close of the first
century ? We have seen how it followed the lines
of the Empire and became localised, when Apos-
tolic missionary journeys resulted in the formation
of organised centres of Church life.
The threefold Apostolic Ministry was first mani-
fested in the Apostles, the Presbyter - Bishops
appointed by them, and the Deacons. The Pas-
toral Epistles show us another stage in the life of
the Church. The Apostolic delegates, S. Timothy
and S. Titus, exercise an Apostolic jurisdiction
58 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
apart from the unique gifts of the Apostles them-
selves. The " Prophets " of the ^iSa-^tj 1 seem to
hold an analogous position, whilst the Angels of
the Seven Churches appear to be Bishops with
local Sees, like S. James at Jerusalem. We find
this local Episcopate firmly established all over
Christendom by the days of S. Ignatius, and the
commanding position of the See of Ephesus in the
East is mainly due to its being the centre whence
this localised Episcopate spread under the guidance
of the last surviving Apostle. 2 We find no trace of
autocephalous independent action on the part of
1 The Prophets of the AtSax^ are called High Priests. Haaav
dvapxr}v . . . Sticms rotj trpo(pT?iTais, avrol yap elffiv ol dpxitptis v
But the Prophet, as Ruler or Apostolic Delegate, is not absolute. He
is to be honoured as dpxiepetfs, but the Presbyter-bishops and deacons
exercise the same ministry, and are to be honoured together with the
Prophets and Teachers who occupy the first rank in the Apostolic
Ministry, valv yap \eirovpyovffi Kal afrrol TTJV Xeirovpylav r&v irpo^irrwv
Kal SiSaffKaXuv /j.i) otv vrrepidrjre aurofa' avrol yap fiaa> ol Ten.fi.tiiJ.tvoi
V/JLUV uerd rCiv irpo<pijTCiv Kal SiSaffKa\uv. (Atdaxy, xiii. and xv. )
2 S. Irenseus tells us that S. John survived until the reign of Trajan.
'AXXd Kal i] iv 'Etpfoy iKK\t)<rla virb TlavXov fitv TeOeufXiufJ^vr}, 'ludvvov
$t irapanfivavTOS atirois M^X/ 34 r ^ 3V TpaiiavoO yj)bv(av, udprvs d\-r)9^s fan
T^J TU>V diroffT(>\uv irapaS6ffeus, (Contr. Hisr., iii. 3, 4.) S. Clement
of Alexandria, in a well-known passage, tells us something of S. John's
exercise of his Primacy. 'En-etSTj yap roO rvpdvvov TeXetmjeraj'ror dirb
Tys Kdruov rrfi vfoov uerr)\6ei> etj TT]V "E<f>e<roi>, avfiet irapaKaXouuevos
Kal tirl rd irX?;(7i6xwpa T&V iOv&v, STTOV utv tTrurKoirovs Karaar/jcruv,
dirov 5^ SXaj tKK\i)alas dpu6ffwv, STTOV Si KMipy iva y4 riva K\-rjpwffuv T&V
virb TOV Hvet/MiTos cri]/j.au>o/j.{i>ui>. (Quis Dives, &c., c. 42.) The
Muratorian fragment tells us that S. John wrote his Gospel " at the
urgent entreaty of his fellow disciples and Bishops " (cohortantibus
condiscipulis et Episcopis suis). (Canon Muratorianus, ed. Tregelles,
p. 17.) We may date this fragment on the Canon at about A.D. 170.
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 59
these localised Bishops. The Seven Churches of
Asia looked to the Bishop of Ephesus as their
Metropolitan. Its importance as the civil metro-
polis would naturally make it the headquarters of
S. Timothy, whose position as Apostolic delegate
would probably devolve upon him the care of all
the Province of Asia. But though Ephesus stands
first on the roll of the Asian Sees, 1 the Metro-
politan of Ephesus is addressed in the Apocalypse
by one higher than himself. He is bidden to
listen to the inspired voice of the Apostle S. John,
whose unique position as the last of the Apostles
lent an authority to his guidance and governance
which none else could challenge whilst he yet lived.
But the years rolled on, and the old age of S. John
forbade his active intervention.
A dispute arose in the Church at Corinth when
certain presbyters were unjustly deposed by the
1 We have already noted that the importance of Ephesus as the
Church centre of the province of Asia came from the fact that S. John
grouped around him some of the surviving Apostles and disciples of
the Lord in addition to the weight of his personal presence. These
are the " condiscipuli " of the Muratorian fragment which we have
already quoted.
" When after the destruction of Jerusalem S. John fixed his abode
at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of the oldest surviving
members of the Palestinian Church accompanied him into ' Asia,'
which henceforward became the headquarters of Apostolic authority.
In this body of emigrants, Andrew and Philip among the twelve,
Aristion and John the Presbyter among the other personal disciples
of the Lord, are specially mentioned." (Bishop Lightfoot, Colossians,
P- 45-)
60 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
people. The inhabitants of the Provinces had
learnt to bow to Imperial Rome. The Roman
Christians were a powerful and well -organised
body, with the prestige of the Primate Apostle and
S. Paul still with them. Linus, the friend of S.
Paul, had been appointed by the Apostles, Bishop
of the central city of the ancient world. 1 Cletus
had followed Linus, and now S. Clement was
Bishop of Rome. In the name of the great and
influential " Church of God which sojourneth at
Rome," he wrote to " the Church of God which
sojourneth at Corinth," 2 a letter of kindly and
authoritative reproof on account of their recent
dissensions. We need not minimise the Primatial
position of the writer of this letter, or the authori-
tative tone of the letter itself, in order to guard
against the assumptions of the Vatican Decrees.
There is no trace in S. Clement's letter that he
claimed to inherit S. Peter's Apostolic Primacy,
and if, as seems certain, his letter was written
before the death of S. John, the most that can be
claimed for him is that since the last surviving
Apostle was silent from the infirmities of old age,
1 Bishop Lightfoot, after an exhaustive examination of the evidence
upon the subject, finally adopts the order of succession which is followed
here, which is the same as that which appears in the Latin Canon of
the Mass. (S. Clement, vol. i. 201-345.)
2 'H 'EKKAHSIA TOV 0eoO ij irapoiKovtra 'Pw/mji* TTJ 'E/fK\i7<n'p rj
KopivOov, K.T.\. (S. Clement, i. I.)
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 6 1
the next available person to deal with the Cor-
inthian difficulty would be the Bishop of the
Imperial city. We do not forget that this very
Epistle of S. Clement has been used to deny S.
Clement's own position as Bishop of Rome, 1 and
the doctrine of the Historic Episcopate as a fact
of Church life and history. But we are not
now concerned with theories that involve forced
interpretations of ancient documents, and a total
isolation of their testimony from the general
tone of their contemporary environment. It is
just as wilful an anachronism to imagine that
the Church of Rome in S. Clement's day was
Presbyterian, 2 as it is to believe that S. Cle-
ment wielded the authority claimed by a mediaeval
Pope. The undoubted fact that the Primacy
of Rome appears in S. Clement's Epistle to
be centred in the Church rather than in the
individual who presided over it, does not really
1 The theory of some modern critics that Linus, Cletus, and S.
Clement were "fellow presbyters" who governed at the same time a
Presbyterian Church of Rome, instead of being Bishops who succeeded
each other in regular order is unhesitatingly condemned by Bishop
Lightfoot. (S. Clement, vol. i. p. 67.)
2 When Mr. Simcox says that he is " certain that the Churches
founded by the Apostles were originally presbyterian," he is either
confused and confusing, or does not use the word " presbyterian " in its
customary sense. In the same sentence he states that in the Apostle's
days the Episcopate existed, but unlocalised. The Presbyterianism of
Calvin could not coexist with any Episcopate at all, localised or un-
localised. (Early Ch. Hist., p. 214.)
62 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
militate against that legitimate conception of
Primacy which has existed in the Church from
the days of the Apostles to our own. The
Primate owes his position to the See which he
occupies, and not to his own personal qualities
of leadership. The Church of Rome, in the
first and second centuries, derived its authority
from its Apostolic foundation, and from the
position of the Imperial city in its relation to
the provinces, and also to what S. Ignatius calls
" the presidency of love." l We note first of all
the authoritative and Primatial tone of this Epistle
of S. Clement, which Bishop Lightfoot describes
as " urgent and almost imperious." The Bishop
goes so far as to say : " It may seem strange to
describe this noble remonstrance as the first step
towards papal domination. And yet, undoubt-
edly, this is the case." ' Upon the principle of
corruptio optimi pessima we can agree with the
Bishop. S. Clement's Epistle is an authoritative
assertion of the true principle of Primacy and
Church order, as against autocephalous action
at Corinth, which terminated in disorder. The
Vatican decrees, which refer to the Pope's posi-
tion in Christendom, are perversions and exag-
1 S. Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans, i. TrpoKaB^/j^vr) TTJS
" The Church of Rome, as it is first in rank, is first also in love."
Bishop Lightfoot in foe.
2 Bishop Lightfoot, 5. Clement, vol. i. p. 70.
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 63
gerations of the legitimate Primacy of Rome, 1
which amply justify all Catholics who decline
to accept them, because they are at variance
with the doctrine and discipline of the Primitive
Church.
The fact that S. Clement's name does not
appear in the letter only emphasises the truth
that the Bishop of Rome was so identified with
the Primacy of the Church over which he ruled,
that he wrote in its name. 2 As the persona ecclesice
his primacy was identified with the Church of
Rome rather than with any idea of his personal
succession to the Primate Apostle. 3 He claims no
personal Petri privilegium as centred in himself.
At the most he alludes to " the good Apostles,"
S. Peter and S. Paul, as personally known to him,
and as "the noble examples which belong to our
generation." 4
i
1 See Note A.
2 This practice continued for a considerable time. In A.D. 165 Pope
Soter wrote to Corinth in the name of the Roman Church. (Euseb.,
iv. 23.)
3 S. Jerome says that S. Clement " scripsit ex persona ecclesice
Romance ad ecclesiam Corinthiorum valde utilem epistulam, et quam
in nonnullis locis etiam publice legitur," &c. (De Viris Illustribus,
c. 15.) The fact that S. Clement does not call himself Bishop of Rome
is no argument against his being so. Within about a hundred years of
his death S. Clement of Alexandria uses the title "Apostle" to de-
scribe his position as Primate of the Apostolic See of Rome. Kal ^T\V
tv T-fi irpbs Kopivdiovs liriffroh^ 6 d7r6oroXos KX^i/y . . . Xyet. (S.
Clem. Alex., Strom., iv. 17-19.)
4 TOVS dyaOofa dwoffTo\ovs. (S. Clem., Ad Cor., vi. ) "Such an
64 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
S. Clement does not exclude the idea that
the ministry of S. Peter and S. Paul at Rome
constituted it the one Apostolic See of the West,
and that the residence of the Primate Apostle at
Rome would, after the fall of Jerusalem, make the
Roman Church the centre of Christendom. 1 The
authoritative tone of his letter to the Corinthians
is based upon a tacit assumption of this fact, as
well as of the other fact which has already been
noted, namely, the position of Rome as the capital
of the world. It is difficult to construct any other
hypothesis to account for the authority claimed in
this letter. 2 But although the Primacy of the
Roman Church was the historic cause of the
Primacy of the Roman Bishop, we need not mini-
mise unduly the position of S. Clement and his
successors in the " Cathedra Petri." Although
epithet may be most naturally explained on the supposition that
Clement is speaking in affectionate remembrance of those he had
known personally." Bishop Lightfoot in loc.
1 "The later Roman theory supposes that the Church of Rome
derives all its authority from the Bishop of Rome as the successor of
S. Peter. History inverts this relation and shows that, as a matter of
fact, the power of the Bishop of Rome was built upon the power of the
Church of Rome." (Bishop Lightfoot, S. Clement, vol. L p. 70.)
2 The recently recovered portion of this Epistle (in the MS. dis-
covered at Constantinople by Bryennios) adds to this tone of authority.
8faffOe TTJV ffvfj./$ov\r)v ij/J.iav, Kal J-ffTCU. dft,era/j^\7)Ta vp.lv (c. 58).
'Ed* Sf nves dweiff^ffuffiv rots vir' avrov 5i TJ/J.WV eipi)fj^voi.s, yivuffKt-
ruffav Sri irapaiTTtafffi. Kal KivSuvip ov (JtiKpa eavrovs evS^ffovcriv. /c.r.X.
(c. 59)-
Xapctv yap Kal dya\\laffiv rjfj.lv Tra/^ere, ear VTTTJKOOI yev6fifvoi roll
v<f>' rnj.S)v ycypanpfroi* 8ia TOV ayiov Tvei/^aroj. K.T.\. (c. 63).
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 65
the " Cathedra Petri " did not minister unique
personal immunities and prerogatives to its occu-
pant, it conveyed dignity and primacy to the
Church over which he presided, and by degrees
his position as the first in rank of all the Patri-
archs and Primates of Christendom was acknow-
ledged without question. There is an allusion to
S. Clement's position with regard to the other
Churches of Christendom in the Pastor of Hermas,
which throws some light on the subject. The
date of Hermas is uncertain, but if we accept the
later date, which makes him the brother of Pope
Pius (A.D. I4Q), 1 there is no reason for rejecting
Bishop Lightfoot's view of him as a younger con-
temporary of S. Clement, whose death may be
placed at A.D. 100. The evidence of Hermas on
Church organisation is the evidence of a man who
had seen the earlier nomenclature of the Apostolic
age crystallise into the Bishops, Presbyters, and
Deacons of the Ignatian epistles ; but he uses the
1 " Pastorem vero nuperrime temporibus nostris in urbe Roma
Hermas conscripsit sedente cathedram urbis Romse ecclesise Pio epis-
copo fratre eius" (Muratorian Fragment on the Canon). So, too,
the Liberian Chronicle, " Sub huius (Pii) episcopatu frater eius Ermes
librum scripsit," &c. Hermas may very well have known S. Clement
as a young man, and, pace Dr. Salmon, who rejects the Muratorian
statement, he may have accommodated the ecclesiastical condition of
affairs as seen in the Pastor, to that which obtained in his youth, rather
than to that which existed when his brother Pius was Bishop of Rome.
We need not quote instances of such treatment in allegories or
romances.
E
66 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
earlier language to suit the date he has fixed for
his visions and allegories. He speaks of Presbyters
and Deacons, and of " Church rulers," l who form
the highest order of the Ministry. In his Vision
he sees the Church personified as a woman 2 ("a
pre-existing, divinely-created idea," as Professor
Ramsay so fitly remarks), and she commits to his
charge a book which she tells him to copy. Again
she meets Hermas, and tells him she has other
words to add. " But when I finish all the words,
all the elect will then be acquainted with them
through you." Hermas is thus to be the mouth-
piece of a message from the personified Church
to all the elect. It is a message urbi et orbi.
"You will write, therefore, two little books, and
you will send one to Clement and the other to
Grapte. So Clement shall send it to the cities
abroad, for this cJtarge is committed unto him, and
Grapte shall instruct the widows and the orphans,
while thou shalt read it to this city together
1 Hermas, Vis. iii. 9, 7 > Sim. ix. 26, 2 ; tpeis otv rots irpoijyovfifrois
TT?S K(cXij<rfoj. Vis. ii. 2, 6.
2 " Hermas states the view held by the early Church as to its own
origin. The Church appears as an old woman, 'because she was
created first of all, and for her sake was the world made.' The
Church was for Hermas a well-articulated organism, and not a collec-
tion of individual Christians, with no bond of union beyond certain
common rites and beliefs ; yet its organisation was not constructed
by the early Christians, but was a pre-existing divinely created idea,
independent of the existence of actual Christians to embody it in the
world." (Ramsay, Church in K. ., p. 362.)
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 67
with the presbyters who preside over the
Church." 1
Grapte, evidently a deaconess, has to instruct
the order of widows, and to teach this revelation
to the orphans in the exercise of her subordinate
ministry. Hermas himself shares with the priests
of the city the duty of reading the revelation to
the Christians in Rome. Thus the message is
proclaimed urbi. But S. Clement, the Primate of
Christendom, sends it forth orbi to the cities
abroad, and to all the elect (TO?? e/cXe/cror? Tracn)
who dwell outside Rome, and have to receive,
through Hermas, the message of the personified
Church. The visions of Hermas may not touch
a very high level of thought and power. We
may rate their spiritual value as low as we please,
without invalidating their incidental testimony to
contemporary Church life and organisation.
This passage is a clear testimony to the Primatial
position of S. Clement. We decline to recognise
in it merely the fact that S. Clement was the
medium of communication between the Church
of Rome and the rest of Christendom. To see
in this passage a bald statement that S. Clement
1 'Gray oZv dTroreXtVw rd, pi^uara iravra, ota ffov yvuffdrjffovTai TO?S
iraffi. Tpd\J/eis oZv 860 j3i/3Xt5d/>ia, /cai Tr^^ets ?v KX^/ueprt Kal
Tpairry. Il^t^ei o$v KXij/^s ei's ras w ir6Xetj e'/caVw yap TTI-
pa-rrraf Tpainr) dt vov6er-/ifffi. rds X~nP a * Ka ^ T< >vs 6p<j>a.vovs' <ri> 5
eis ravrriv TTJV Tr6\iv /j.era. rdv irpefffivrtpuit TWV
TJS tKK\i)fflas. (Hermas, Vis. ii. 4.)
68 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
was merely " the foreign secretary " of the Roman
Church is a minimising of evidence which leads
to historic disproportion. It is hard to believe that
Hermas, the brother of Pope Pius, would minimise
the dignity of his brother's office by describing his
brother's most illustrious predecessor as a sort of
" foreign secretary " or correspondent of a govern-
ing Synod of Presbyters. The personality of S.
Clement is too strong for such a view, even if
we modify it so far as to suppose that the letter
to the Corinthians was sent forth as the joint
production of a Synod of the Roman Church over
which S. Clement presided. The letter is evidently
the work of one man, and bears no traces of
emendation by members of a Synod, even if it
were submitted to such a body before it was finally
despatched to its destination.
The manifest unity of authorship which is evi-
dent in the letter shows the strength of S. Cle-
ment's position as persona ecclesice. His position
was such that he was enabled to write this letter
in the name of the Roman Church, and with the
full weight of its authority. Dr. Hammond's
theory, 1 that the Church in Rome was divided
into a Petrine and Pauline party, with Linus as
the Pauline Bishop and S. Clement as the Petrine,
both parties being fused afterwards during
1 Hammond, De Episcopatus lurlbtis (ed. 1651), p. 257.
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 69
S. Clement's episcopate is not a tenable hypo-
thesis. The monarchical episcopate was developed
at Rome under the Apostles, and the order of
the early Bishops (in the succession which we
have already indicated) must be accepted as his-
toric. But no doubt a Petrine and a Pauline
party existed at Rome, and S. Clement united
them and welded them together. 1 The command-
ing influence exercised by S. Clement finds its
natural expression in his letter to the Corinthians.
It was read in the public worship of the Corinthian
Church for many years, and, as Eusebius tells us,
in very many Churches elsewhere as well, 2 and
the 85th Apostolical Canon (Coptic v. 5) 3 orders
it to be read in Churches as quasi - canonical.
Naturally this epistle has been the battle-ground
of controversy upon the subject of Church organi-
sation. The bulk of these controversies may be
dismissed as foreign to our subject, 4 although we
1 "Not separate organisations, but divergent tendencies and parties
within the same organisation this would be the truer description.
Under such circumstances Clement was the man to deal with the
emergency. At home and abroad, by letter and in action, in his
doctrinal teaching and in his official relations, his work was to com-
bine, to harmonise, and to reconcile." (Bishop Lightfbot, S. Clement,
vol. i. p. 98.)
- ev irXe/orais tKK\r)cria.is firl rod KOIVOV df8r)noffievjj^i>i)i> irdXai re Ka.1
KO.O' TJ/JLO.S O.VTOVS (Ecc. Hist. iii. 16). S. Jerome's testimony to the same
effect has already been cited.
3 Only fifty of the Canons called " Apostolical " have any claim to
be considered Ante-Nicene. But this does not touch the argument.
4 We may note in passing that eminent Lutherans like Mosheim and
70 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
may note in passing that S. Clement uses the
nomenclature of the Pastoral Epistles with regard
to the Presbyter-Bishops and Deacons. But, like
Hermas, he sets above these "the Rulers" of the
highest order of the Threefold Ministry, who are
also termed " distinguished men " where the allu-
sion evidently refers to Apostolic delegates, like
S. Timothy and S. Titus, or to the Bishops who
were the immediate successors of the Apostles. 1
Neander have condemned as spurious S. Clement's testimony to the
Apostolic succession and organisation of the Church, which begins with
cap. 40. This condemnation is due to the inherent difficulty which
besets persons who examine the Fathers from the standpoint of a fore-
gone conclusion. Whatever stands in the way of that conclusion must
be got rid of by an arbitrary process of ci-devant criticism. The real
learning of Mosheim and Neander does not save them in this instance
from themselves. Cf. Mosheim, De Reb. Christ., p. 156; and Eccl.
Hist., vol. i. p. 80, where he says that " this Epistle seems to have been
corrupted and interpolated," &c.
Bishop Lightfoot says that " Neander attacked the passage (c. 40)
on the ground of its sacerdotalism. But the attack had no other basis
than the writer's own subjectivity, and notwithstanding his great name,
it has fallen into merited oblivion." (S. Clement, vol. i. p. 363, on
Neander's Church History, vol. i. p. 272.)
1 S. Clem., Ad Cor. c. i. tiiroTao~o~6/Jjvoi rots rjyovufrois V/JLUV, ical rifjLrjv
TTJV Ka.d-f)Kovffa.v airovf/j.ovTfs TOIS Trap' iifuv irpffffivrtpois. Also c. xxi.
TOI)J Trpo'riyov/J.tvovs T)fJ.&v aldeffdu/JLev, roi>s Trpfff/Hurtpovs ij/j.wt> rifjLrjffUfjifv.
Both places refer to "Rulers" who were superior to Presbyters. We
tcannot adopt the forced interpretation which would render " Presby-
ers" in these passages " older men ," and not the Presbyters of the
Church. With these "Rulers" we must identify the t\\6ytnot dVSpej
of c. xliv. There is clear evidence in this chapter of the chain of
Apostolic Succession. The Apostles themselves appointed Presbyters,
and then made provision for the continuance of the succession by means
of Apostolic delegates, like S. Timothy and S. Titus, and Bishops, like
S. Clement himself, and those constituted by S. John in Asia Minor.
These t\\6ytfj.oi AvSpes ordained Presbyters and appointed them to their
WITNESS OF THE SUB- APOSTOLIC AGE 71
The highest order of the Ministry, according
to the plain sense of S. Clement, had the power
of ruling and of ordination. The principle of
Apostolic Succession is clearly laid down. The
Apostolic Ministry is developed from above. 1 The
mind of S. Clement is imbued with the Roman
conception of law and order, and he sets forth the
idea that it is the will of God that definite ministries
should exist, and the duty of obedience to ecclesi-
astical authority, by means of the analogy of
the Threefold Ministry of the High Priest, Priest,
and Levite of the Old Covenant ; whilst the layman
is to abide by "the layman's ordinances." 2 He
instances the discipline and subordination of ranks
in the Roman army as a model for due subordina-
tion. " All are not Prefects, nor rulers of thousands,
nor rulers of hundreds, nor rulers of fifties." 3 We
may perhaps trace in this passage the ideal of
spheres of work with the consent of the Church. The ejected Corin-
thian Presbyters apparently belonged to both classes, some of them
being ordained by the Apostles themselves and some by their immediate
successors.
1 Oi dir6ffTO\ot r/fuv ev-riyyeMffdrjcrav dirb rov Kvplov 'IijtroO XptoroO,
'It)<rovs 6 X/3i<rr6j dir6 rov Qeov ^eir^/j.<pdrj. '0 X/oiords oZv airb roO GeoO
Kal ol dir6ffTO\ot dirb rov XptoroD ' fyrfWTO oZv dfj,<f>6repa eirrctKT&jj ex
6e\r]/j,a,Tos OeoO. . . . Kara xw/aaj ofiv Kal 7r6\ets KrjpijffffovTes Kadicrravov
TCIS a.Trapx&s ai/Twv, 5oKi/j.d<ravTes ry iri>e6(J.a.Ti, els eiriffKbirovs Kai dia.K6vovs
T&V (j.\\6vTii)i> TriffTeijfiv. (Ad Cor. xlii. )
2 T(/5 yap dpxifpfi tSiat. \eirovpyiai SeSo/M^vai fialv, Kal rot's lepevffiv fStos
6 rbiros irpoffTtraKTai, Kal Aeufraiy tdiai diaKovlai lirlKtivraC 6 Xai'6j
avdpuiros rots XCUKWJ irpovTayfj.a<rLV dtderat. (Ad Cor. xl.)
3 Oi) Trdvrts dfflv UTrapxot ot>5e x^apxoi oi;5e eKar6vrapxoi ov5
ov8 rb /co^e^s. (Ad Cor. xxxvii.)
72 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
ecclesiastical organisation that possessed the mind
of S. Clement. The subalterns, or rulers of fifties,
may have represented the Deacons, the centurions
the Priests, and the tribunes or rulers of thousands
the Diocesan Bishops, whilst the Prefects would
represent Primates and Metropolitans, such as he
was himself, as Bishop of the Imperial City, and of
the Church first in rank amongst the Apostolic
Sees. 1 It has been argued that the Corinthian
Church was Presbyterian when S. Clement wrote
this letter, because he does not mention the Bishop,
but confines his reproof to the factious members
of the Church who had unlawfully deposed their
Presbyters. Bishop Lightfoot supposes that " there
was a vacancy in the Bishopric at that time, or
that the Bishop's office had not yet assumed at
Corinth the prominence which we find a few years
1 It is worthy of note that the very word "Eparch," which S.
Clement here uses of a military office, also meant a civil " Prefect,"
and afterwards became an ecclesiastical equivalent for " Metropolitan."
Ei 5 irpbs rbv TTJS O.VTTJS ^irapx/as ^TpoTro\iT"r)v eirlcrKOTros fi K\TjpiKbs
d/^tcr/fyTofy. K.r.X. (Cone. Chalced. Can. ix.) Canon xvii. of the
same Council directs that the ecclesiastical divisions shall follow the
civil ones, thus stereotyping the ancient and primitive organisation,
whereby the Roman Bishop's jurisdiction, as Patriarch over the Sub
urbicarian Churches, coincided with the civil jurisdiction of the
Prefect of Rome. (See Cave, Dissertation on Church Government,
chap. iii. par. 3.) The coincidence here noted is too remarkable to
be lightly dismissed, when we consider that the principle of Primacy
was rooted in the Apostolic age, and when we note that a writer so
free from ecclesiastical bias as Professor Ramsay traces so clearly the
correspondence between the organisation of the Church and of the
Empire in the earliest days.
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 73
later in Asia Minor." l The first hypothesis is
readily admissible. The absence of a bishop does
not make the Church of any particular country
Presbyterian or Congregational. 2 The Church in
America had to exist for over a hundred years
before the first American Bishop was consecrated,
and the Church in South Africa had to wait nearly
fifty years before Bishop Gray was consecrated.
But the clergy of the Church in America and
South Africa did not become Presbyterians because
they were deprived of Episcopal ministrations.
People argue about the Church of the first days
in a way that would provoke a smile if the argu-
ments were applied to times nearer to our own.
We note in this Epistle of St. Clement the first
distinctive mention of the layman as such. He
has his duties and privileges, and special sphere
1 Bishop Lightfoot, S. Clement, vol. i. p. 353. The independent
and autocephalous action at Corinth, which called for S. Clement's
Primatial rebuke in the name of the Roman Church, was most likely
to take place during a temporary vacancy of the See. The deposition
of the Presbyters must have been the conjoint work of certain other
Presbyters and laymen combined, whom S. Clement reminds of S.
Paul's former denunciation of Corinthian party spirit.
2 We may go even further than this, and state plainly that even if
the Apostles were not able to set in order all the Churches at once,
and if on this account Corinth had no bishop, or (as it seems) Philippi
when S. Polycarp wrote to the Philippians, it is no argument against the
universal order of the Threefold Ministry iure divino. S. Epiphanius
simply and naturally remarks that ou vdvra evObs r]Sw^8r)ffav ol 'A.ir6cr-
TO\OI Karaffrrjffai, and that for a while incompleteness of organisation
may have been tolerated, owing to stress of circumstances, until
ytyove. (Htzr. Ixxv. 5.)
74 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
in Church order, which he must not overpass.
He has no right to take part in deposing Pres-
byters, who have " blamelessly and holily offered
the oblations," l and we may reasonably infer that,
since such depositions must have been based upon
matters of doctrine and discipline, the layman has
no authority to deal with such matters. " Let
each in his own order make his Eucharist to God
in gravity, abiding in a good conscience, not trans-
gressing the appointed canon of his ministration." 5
Although these words apply primarily to the Eu-
charist as the central act of worship, and to the
layman's exercise of his priesthood therein, through
the divinely appointed Priesthood of the Apostolic
Ministry, their application naturally has a wider
scope. The " appointed canon " of the layman's
ministration is the germ of the Canon Law of Chris-
tendom, which regulates and defines the position of
the laity with regard to the Faith, Discipline, and
leal offi'ws irpoffeveyKdvTas TO. 5<pa TT}S
(Ad Cor. xliv.). S. Clement compares the Church's Eucharistic
"Liturgy" with the "Liturgy" of the Old Covenant. Even so un-
sacerdotal a writer as Harnack sees in this passage the Eucharist
set forth as the chief function of the Presbyter-Bishop. It is idle to
say that the earliest conception of the Christian Ministry was unsacer-
dotal. The sacerdotium is as plain here as it is in the Apostolic age.
" Beyond a doubt the irpo<r<ptpeiv 8wpa rif 9e<, in the sense of offering
sacrifices, appears as the most important function of the episcopus."
(Harnack, Texte u. Untersuck., p. 144, n. 73.)
2 "EKacrroj i)fJM>v, a5t\(poi, tt> T<j> iditp rdy/ian ei/xo-pi-ffTeiru rtf Qeip (f
dya&y ffweidrjirei virdpxdw, M'? 'fo.peK^a.lvuv rbv wpifffj-tvov TTJJ Xfirovpytas
O.VTOV Kavbva. (Ad Cor. xli.)
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 75
Worship of the Church, and is explained by " the lay-
man's ordinances," to which S. Clement previously
refers. To sum up the evidence of S. Clement's
Epistle upon the subject which we are consider-
ing, we may say that, first of all, it bears witness
to the principle of Primacy for which we have
been contending, which is none the less strong
because it is in the main 'incidental and indirect.
It exhibits Professor Ramsay's clear ideal of the
" Unified Church," which he aptly terms " the
combination of imperial centralisation and local
home rule, which is involved in the conception
of a self-governing unity." l Next we note the
principle of Apostolic succession, and the con-
tinuity of the Catholic Church with the Church
of the Old Covenant, as witnessed by the analogy
drawn by S. Clement between the Threefold Levi-
tical Hierarchy of High Priest, Priest, and Levite,
and the Threefold Apostolic Ministry of the Catholic
Church. 2 Then we have the parallel between the
Eparchs and subordinate officials of the Empire,
and the due subordination of the officials of the
1 Professor Ramsay, S. Paul the Traveller, p. 125. See also Note B.
2 Lipsius well says (in loc.): " Non negare possum V. T. hier-
archiam qure vocatur, hoc loco ad Christianorum societatem accom-
modari."
"The new law of the Church" Clement "most characteristically
connected with the two models of the political and military organisa-
tion of the Roman State, and the sacerdotal hierarchy of the Jewish
Theocracy." (Pfleiderer, Hibbert Lectures, p. 252.)
76 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Church, as a disciplined organisation of men under
authority, from Primate to Deacon. And lastly,
we have the beginnings of clear definition of the
layman's rights and privileges by the " canon "
of his ministration, and " the layman's ordinances "
by which he is bound.
When we turn from S. Clement, the Roman
Primate, to S. Ignatius, the Martyr of Antioch,
we find ourselves in a totally different atmosphere.
Bishop Lightfoot has vindicated the genuineness
and authenticity of the Seven Letters of S. Ignatius
of the Shorter Recension, as against the inter-
polations of a fourth-century writer in the Longer,
and as against the exclusive claim of the three
Curetonian letters in the Syriac. 1 We are not
concerned with the learned controversy that has
lasted since Voss Ussher and Bishop Pearson first
vindicated the exclusive claims of the Shorter
Recension. We accept as final the conclusions
of Bishop Lightfoot. The Seven Letters were
written under the strain and stress of approaching
martyrdom, by a man journeying to Rome under
sentence of death. They are filled with a glorious
spiritual enthusiasm, and we do not expect to find
in them any approach to S. Clement's lofty tone
of authority and calm appeals to the spirit of
1 The Curetonian letters are evidently extracts from a version of the
genuine Seven Epistles.
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 77
order and organisation. And yet these Epistles
have been a veritable battle - ground upon the
question of the threefold order of the Apostolic
Ministry. 1 The nomenclature of the Pastoral
Epistles and of S. Clement's Epistle is changed
in these writings of S. Ignatius. We hear no more
of the Presbyter-Bishops. The word " Bishop "
is reserved for the successors of the Apostles in
the highest order of the Threefold Ministry. In
subordination to them are the Presbyters and
Deacons. We are not to suppose that S. Ignatius
himself was the author of this changed nomen-
clature. He writes of the Ministry in its threefold
order as a permanent factor in the life of the
Church, and he assumes that the nomenclature used
by him is a matter of universal usage, so that he need
not explain or justify its use. To him the Bishop
is the centre of unity. But the Bishop is not an
irresponsible autocrat. His synod of priests forms
his standing council of advice. The strange view
1 When Calvin and others supplanted the Threefold Apostolic
Ministry by a new ecclesiastical polity devised by the wit of man, they
parted from the historical continuity of the Catholic Church, and
endeavoured to conceal their novelties by denying the witness of
history. Naturally the clear testimony of the Ignatian Epistles was
one of their first objective points of attack. They assumed that
Prelacy was a corruption of primitive order. Since the Ignatian
Epistles witnessed for Episcopacy, they had to be treated as Luther
treated the Epistle of S. James. Daille's attack on these Epistles was
the ablest. We are even grateful for its futile show of learning, because
itevoked Bishop Pearson's Vindicia Ignatiana.
78 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
of Dr. Hatch that two Bishops could co-exist in
one city without schism 1 is directly negatived by
S. Ignatius, and we find no trace in him of a con-
gregational autocephalous episcopate. 2 The Bishops
1 Dr. Hatch, in his Growth of Christian Institutions, maintained
the curious view that in the early centuries " a Bishop, Presbyters, and
Deacons existed for every Christian community" (Ch. Inst., p. 16).
"Every town, and sometimes every village had its Bishop" (Ibid., p.
18). "There is no trace of the dependence of any one community on
any other" (Bampton Lectures, p. 195). Cornelius and Novatian at
Rome, as rival Bishops, were merely carrying on the usual custom of
" free organisation," according to Dr. Hatch, and the transition to
Diocesan Episcopacy and the law of " one Bishop for one city " was
owing to S. Cyprian's influence (Bampton Lectures, p. 103). Even
Harnack declines to follow him here (Analecten zu Hatch, p. 252).
According to Dr. Hatch, the Bishops before S. Cyprian's day were
merely Congregationalist Ministers, absolutely autocephalous, knowing
nothing of the Imperial unity of the Church, and absolutely free from
the germs of any Primatial or Metropolitical system. His view is
prima facie unreasonable, and historically incorrect.
Such aberrations can only be explained by the unconscious ana-
chronism which pervaded the mind of Dr. Hatch. He was tinged very
palpably with the spirit of the Protestant Reformation, and he was
unconsciously trying to justify its results, in matters of Church organisa-
tion, by viewing the early Church from a standpoint inherently alien to
the IjGos of Historical Christianity.
2 S. Ignatius is warning the Philadelphians against division. "Oo-oi
yap 0eoO t Iff a> /coi 'Irjffov XpioToO, oCroi fj.eTa TOV tirifficoirov elaiv Ko.1 offoi
&v ueTavorjffatrfS ZKOuaiv tiri TT\V evoTifTo. TTJS eKK\t)ffias, iea.1 oBroi 0eoO
(ffovrai, iva &>aiv Kara 'lijffovv 'Kpiffrbv fwvres . . . ef TIS ffxt&VTi
a.Ko\ovOei, [3affi\elav QeoC ov K\rjpoi>o/jLfi. The privileges of the kingdom
of God depend upon its unity. If a man is in schism he cuts himself
off from his rights of inheritance within the kingdom. " Those who
are of God" abide in the unity of the Church, which is manifested by
each Bishop as a centre of unity for his Diocese, as representing a
united portion of a united whole. This being the plain meaning of S.
Ignatius, it follows that he enjoins one Eucharist, one Altar, and one
Bishop. ffirov8deTe otiv fu$ evxapurria x/>?5(r0at, fj.ia yap <rd/> TOV
Kvpiov i)fi.i*>i> 'Irjffov XpioroD, ical fv vor^piov e/s Zvucriv TOV atyuaroy
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 79
are linked together as units of a larger whole. The
Primatial letter of S. Clement to the Corinthians
is evidently alluded to, and S. Ignatius clearly
testifies to the Primacy of the Roman Church. 1
We have already touched upon the fact that the
language of S. Ignatius presupposes the general
nomenclature of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon,
as being usual in his day to express the Threefold
Apostolic Ministry. Writing in A.D. no, or there-
abouts, he speaks of "the Bishops established in
the farthest parts," 2 and his witness points to the
O.VTOV ' fr dvffiaffT-fipiov, wj eh eirlfficoiros, dpa. T<$ irpe<rf}vTfpt<{> KO.I
Sta/cdms. /c.r.X. (Ad Philadel., iii. and iv.)
S. Ignatius could have found no room for the theories of Dr. Hatch,
for they are of the essence of that very crx0>a against which he was
warning the Church.
1 S. Ignatius reminds the Romans of their exhortations and admoni-
tions e/s ras w 7r6Xets, although he does not use the phrase, and it is
improbable that he had seen the Pastor of Hermas. He says, dXXous
eSiSd^are (Ad Rom., iii.), "Ye have hitherto been the instructors of
others besides yourselves."
" In this case Ignatius would refer to the exhortations of the
Romans, whether by letter or by delegates to foreign Churches. More
especially we may suppose that he had in his mind the Epistle of
Clement." (Bishop Lightfoot, in loc.)
2 KO.I ol ^TriffKOiroi ol Kara ra w^para opiffdevres. (Ad Rphes,, iii.)
After recapitulating the evidence for the general establishment of
the Episcopate, Bishop Lightfoot says that "though there are grounds
for surmising that the Bishops of Rome were not at the time raised so
far above their presbyters as in the Churches of the East, yet it would
be an excess of scepticism, with the evidence before us, to question
the existence of the Episcopate as a distinct office from the presbyterate
in the Roman Church. With these facts before us, we shall cease to
regard the expression (Ephes., iii.) 'the Bishops established in the
farthest parts ' as a stumbling block." (Bishop Liglitfoot, S. Ignatius,
vol. i. p. 381.)
8o CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
universal establishment of the Apostolic Ministry
in its threefold order at the time of the death of
the Apostle S. John. The fact that S. Ignatius does
not address his Epistle to the Roman Church to
the Bishop personally is no evidence against the
facts we have stated.
Since our argument is not directed to prove the
plain facts of Apostolic Succession and Episcopacy
in general, we need not burden our pages with a
detailed examination of the abundant evidence upon
these points which is contained in the Ignatian
Epistles. We may, however, quote two typical
passages. " In like manner let all men respect the
Deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should re-
spect the Bishop as a type of the Father, and the
Presbyters as the council of God, and as the College
of the Apostles. Without these (i.e. the three orders)
no Church has a title to the name." l It is not
recognised as a part of the One Visible Society
which Christ founded, which is, as S. Ignatius calls
it, "the Catholic Church," the covenanted sphere
of the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ. Again
he says, " Do ye all follow your Bishop, as Jesus
Christ followed the Father, and the Presbytery as
the Apostles ; and to the Deacons pay respect, as
1 'Ofioiw TrdvTfs evrpeireffduffav rovs Sia/c6y<w u>j 'It]ffovv Xpiffrbv, ws
ical 7bv iiriffKoirov 6vra TVTTOV rov irarpfa, TOI>J 5 irpeo-pvrtpovs tis ffvvtSpiov
Qeov Kal [wj] ffvvSefffjiov diroffr6\ui> ' X W P' S TOVTUV eKKXycria. ov KO.\fiTai.
(Ad Troll, iii. I.)
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 8 1
to God's commandment. Let no man do aught of
things pertaining to the Church apart from the
Bishop. Let that be held a valid Eucharist which
is under the Bishop or one to whom he has com-
mitted it. Wheresoever the Bishop shall appear,
there let the people be ; even as wheresoever Christ
Jesus may be there is the Catholic Church." l We
have here the first use of the phrase " the Catholic
Church," to express the Imperial unity and order
of the " Ecclesia Dei " of the New Covenant. The
idea which underlies the phrase is coeval with the
Day of Pentecost, when the Church of the Old
Covenant was broadened into the Catholic Church,
of which our Lord Christ is the true and only Head.
The individual Bishop is the centre of unity for his
Diocese, as our Lord is the centre of unity for the
whole Church. The unity of action of the Bishops
finds its outward expression through their subordina-
tion to the collective Episcopate, which expresses its
rule of mutual interdependence through the priority
of order exercised by the Metropolitan, the Primate,
and the Patriarch. Although S. Ignatius does not
expressly mention this priority of order, we may
a,KO\ov6elre, us 'I-tjaous X/wros r< Ilarpt, ical
us TOIS airo<TT&\ois rovs 8 SittKhvovs tvrpeweaBe us OeoO
MrjSels x w pk hWK&TOB TI irpafffflru TUV avriKdvruv els T^V
eKK\T)<rlai>. ''EKelvr) |3e/3cua evxapiarla yyeiffdu 17 virb rbv tirlffKoirov o&<ra,
1) if &t> avrbs firiTpty-Q ' Sirov &v <j>a.vrj 6 twiaKOiros, ^m rt> Tr\ij6os ^crrw,
&<TTrfp owov Su> rj Xptcrrbs 'Irjcrovs, tifel i] KadoXud) tKK\r)ffia. (Ad
Srnyrn., viii.) See also Note B. upon the " Ecclesia Dei."
F
82 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
legitimately infer it from his reference to the
Primacy of the Roman Church, 1 and we must not
forget that the special circumstances of his letters
do not naturally lead him to touch upon it. He is
exhorting the laity to maintain Diocesan unity, and
he vehemently insists on the Threefold Ministry as
the guardian of this unity. He tells us that no
Eucharist is valid except the Bishop celebrate, or
license a priest to celebrate it for him. Here we
see that the Bishop has cure of souls and jurisdic-
tion in his Diocese. 2 His priests share his cure of
souls, and celebrate the sacraments by his formal
permission. We have in this passage also a defi-
nition of the position of the faithful laity. It is not
so clear as that of S. Clement, which was doubtless
before the mind of S. Ignatius as he wrote. But
the indication is plain enough. The TrXtjOo?, or
Plebs Christiana, holds fast to the Bishop as the
1 S. Ignatius addresses his letter to the Romans to the Church,
tfris Kal irpoKadrfrai ev rbiry 'x.wplov 'Pufialuv. This may be referred
to the potentior principalitas which S. Irenasus assigns to the Roman
Church (iii. 3, 2). The reason why the phrase "in the country of the
region of the Romans" is used, instead of saying simply "the Church
in Rome," may have applied to the special jurisdiction of the Roman
Church over the Sub-urbicarian Churches of the region directly con-
trolled by the Prsefectus Urbis. The passage may thus refer to the
general Primacy of Rome, as well as to the special jurisdiction over
the neighbouring region. The Sub-urbicarian jurisdiction, though not
named so early, may well have had its germ in the age of S. Ignatius.
But the Primacy which he acknowledges is the "Primacy of love"
(trpoKa.9ijfi.ivri rrjs dydirris). (S. Ign. , Ad Rom., i. )
2 O{>K 6v fffn x u pk TOV liriffKoirov oCrf ^airri^eiv ofir( dyiiirrjv iroieiy.
(S. Ign., Ad Smyrn., viii. Cf. Tert., De Baptismo, xvii. )
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 83
centre of unity, whether in worship, or in such
share in deliberative assemblies as the phrase " the
whole Church," in Acts xv., may fairly warrant.
But the elevation of all three orders of the Apostolic
Ministry above the layman by S. Ignatius is warrant
enough that he did not contemplate any positive
interference by the laity with matters of faith, doc-
trine, and discipline. The Bishop, according to
S. Ignatius, is no feudal overlord. His priests are
his official councillors, and not his vassals. 1 The
Synod of the Diocese thus never became an as-
sembly in which the Bishop is sole legislator and
judge. 2 He presided as representing the collective
responsibility of his own order. He could exercise
1 The great Gallican canonist and theologian Du Pin is very clear
on this point. He says : " Observandum est primis Ecclesise saeculis
Episcopum nihil gravioris momenti fecisse sine consilio Cleri sui,
ac maxime Presbyterorum. . . . Quippe apud antiques forum erat
Ecclesiasticum, in quo Episcopus et Presbyteri sedebant. Huius
Synedrii meminere ssepius antiqui. Ignat. Epist. ad Magnesios ait
Episcopum prsesidere loco Dei, et Presbyteros loco consesstis Aposto-
lorum, eosdem Presbyteros Epist. ad Philadelphenses Concilium
Episcopi vocat ; similiter Presbyteros Prasidentes appellat Tertullianus
in Apologetico, President, inquit, apud nos probati quippe seniorcs
hunc honorem non pretio sed testimonio adepti." (Du Pin, De Antiqua
EcclcsitE Disciplina, p. 250, ed. 1691.)
- Du Pin is equally emphatic on the rights of the priesthood " in
Synodis privatis" (z.<?. in Diocesan Synods). " Apud omnes erudites
constat Episcopum olim nihil quidquam magni momenti sine Presby-
terio egisse aut iudicasse, sicut nee Metropolitanum absque Synodo
Provincias. Quin etiam in Conciliis Provinciarum sedisse legimus
Presbyteros et cum Episcopis iudicasse, multo ergo magis in Synodis
privatis cum Episcopo sedebant et iudicabant." (De Ant. Eccl. Disc.,
p. 251.)
84 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
his authority as President, but he is responsible for
its exercise to his Metropolitan and his corn-pro-
vincial Bishops. The germ of all this constitutional
exercise of authority is to be found in S. Ignatius.
The more certain definition of its scope and limits
was gradually developed with the growth of the
Canon Law. It is worth while to give in detail
the passages in which S. Ignatius expresses the
constitutional relations between the Bishop and
the Priests of his Diocese. Writing to the Phila-
delphians, S. Ignatius, after having said in the pre-
vious chapter, "Do nothing without the Bishop,"
emphasises the constitutional position of the
Bishop by exhorting those who had taken part in
divisions to return "to the unity of God and to
the council of the Bishop." * The " council of the
Bishop" means the Bishop with his council of
Presbyters, as assessors with whom he is bound
to advise, as a constitutional ruler. Submission to
the Presbyters as well as to the Bishops is
enjoined, when S. Ignatius tells the Ephesians
"that being perfectly joined together in one sub-
mission, submitting yourselves to your Bishop
and Presbytery, ye may be sanctified in all
1 els evbrriTa Qeov Kal yvvtSpiov rov tiria ic6irov. (Ad Philadelp., viii.)
So also the Apostolic Constitutions, where the Presbyters are styled
fftififiovKoi TOV firiffKoirov Kal rrjs tKK\rj(rias ffrtyavos ' H<TTI yap ffvvtdpiov
Kal /3ouX?j T?)S tKK\i)ffias. (Ap. Const., ii. 28.) The Bishop's licence
to officiate is absolutely necessary for all ministrations in his Diocese,
as S. Ignatius plainly indicates.
WITNESS OF THE SUB-APOSTOLIC AGE 85
things." l In the same epistle he urges united wor-
ship, " to the end that ye may obey the Bishop and
the Presbytery without distraction of mind, breaking
one bread ; " 2 because in the mind of S. Ignatius
unity of worship and a valid Eucharist depend
upon the unity of the Catholic Church, which is
guaranteed by obedience to the Bishop and his
constitutional advisers. We have an exact defini-
tion of the meaning of this relation of the Bishop
to his Priests in the mind of S. Ignatius, where
he aptly compares it to the strings fitted to a
lyre. "Your honourable Presbytery," he tells the
Ephesians, "which is worthy of God, is attuned
to the Bishop, even as its strings to a lyre." 3
The instrument is useless without its strings, and
the strings must be fitted to the instrument, or
else they in their turn are useless. This simile
is the key to the whole position. The Bishop is
not an absolute monarch. He does not administer
discipline or give decisions without consulting his
priests. Apart from them he does not act in auto-
cratic isolation. The Priests, on the other hand,
cannot act apart from him, for by virtue of his
1 iva tv fjiia virorayy Ka.rriprLfffi.fvoi, viroraffff6fJ.fvoi rif eiriaKbirifS Kal
TW irpffffivrepitf) Kara irdvra ^re T)yia.fffj.tvoi. (Ad Eph., ii.)
2 et's rb viraKOvet.i> Uyttaj ry eiriffKbiry Kal r<p irpefffivrtpiy air
Siavoia ' %va aprov KAtDjrey. (Ad Eph., xx.)
3 rb yap aiovt>fj.a.aTOv vfj.uii> irpefffivTtpiov, rov Qtov aioi>,
T<$ iiruTKbirif wj x<ty>3al KiOapa. (Ad Eph., iv.)
86 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Apostolic succession, which he shares with the
universal Episcopate, he possesses iure divino the
potestas ordinis, and the rights of the constitutional
Ruler and Judge. The Priests can appeal to the
universal Episcopate and the Catholic Church, as
a whole, against any misuse of his powers by their
Bishop. The canonical methods of such an appeal,
in its graduated course from the Metropolitan and
his Synod as its first stage, to the Patriarch, and
ultimately to a General Council, will be hereafter
discussed. Again, we find S. Ignatius calling the
Presbytery " a worthy spiritual coronal " round the
Bishop, 1 and saying that if obedience is due "to
the Bishop, as to the grace of God," it is also due
to the Presbytery "as to the law of Jesus Christ." 2
If obedience is due to the Bishop as representing
our Lord, the Presbyters are as the Apostles, as the
Council of God. 3
The distinction between Bishop and Priest is
always most definite and clear, and so is the
Ignatian view of the Diaconate. The Deacon
i dio7r\6/cou irvev/j,ariKOv ffTe<pdvov. (Ad Magn., xiii.) Here we
have an evident allusion to the custom of the Bishop sitting in the
centre of his ffwtSpiov of priests.
'li]<rov Xpiffrov. (Ad Magn., iii.)
3 rwi> irpefffivrtpwv els rtiirov ffvvedpiov TWV &iro<rTo\wv. (Ad Magti.,
vi.) Cf. TOI>J 5 irpefffivrtpovs uis ffvv^Spiov Qeov, ical [ws]
&iroffTt>\uv. (Ad Trail., iii., and Ad Srnyrn., viii.)
PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE 87
belongs to the Apostolic Ministry in its threefold
order. He has no part in the oweiptov of the
Priests, but he is the layman's superior, and the
obedience enjoined to him in his ministrations 1
clearly marks off the Ignatian view of the lay-
man's position, which is virtually the same as
S. Clement's.
The Sub-Apostolic Age at its close thus manifests
the constitutional relations of the Church and her
Ministry, which were afterwards more definitely
developed.
NOTE A.
The Legitima e Primacy of the Roman See.
The Primacy of the Roman Church, and the consequent
Primacy of the Roman Patriarch, as the first in order and
influence of the five Patriarchs of the Church, is an estab-
lished fact of Church History. One of the most brilliant
opponents of the modern Papal claims writes as follows :
" After the destruction of Jerusalem, which during the first
forty years after Pentecost had been the natural metropolis
of Christendom, the Churches which had been constituted
in the great cities of the Empire took the lead in the order
of their civil precedence, with the Church of Rome
1 Cf, Ad Magn., vi. ; Ad Troll., iii.
88 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
necessarily in the first place. The See of Rome had also
the glory of having been founded by the two great Apostles
S. Peter and S. Paul, who were martyred outside the walls,
and whose bodies were reverently treasured, and had in
honour by the Roman Church. The Roman See was
therefore very eminently an Apostolic See, and it was the
only Apostolic See in the Western or Latin-speaking portion
of the Church. In the East Apostolic Sees in some sense
abounded. In the West there was but one, and that one
was the Primatial See of the whole Church. No wonder
that the Bishop of Rome was held in high honour, and was
the natural person to take the initiative in movements affect-
ing the whole body. But we must be careful not to
exaggerate in this matter. There was a marked Primacy
of honour and influence, but there was no Primacy of
Jurisdiction." (The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome,
by F. W. Puller, M.A., p. 22.)
By this last sentence we may infer that the author means
no Primacy of Jurisdiction, iure divtno, although the Pope,
as Patriarch of the West, exercised a certain appellate
jurisdiction in accordance with the Sardican Canons. But
it must be remembered that beyond all Patriarchal juris-
diction, both in the East and West, lay an appeal to the
collective Episcopate in General Council assembled. We
shall examine at a later stage of our inquiry the instances of
Papal jurisdiction which are commonly alleged as implying
jurisdiction over the whole Church iure divino. There are
certain collateral causes which have contributed to the
Primacy of the Roman Church.
(i.) The number of its clergy and people. During the
Decian persecution Pope Cornelius wrote to Fabius of
Antioch of the forty-six priests, seven deacons, seven sub-
deacons, forty-two acolytes, &c., of the Roman Church, Sta
PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE 89
r>)s TOV deov Trpovotas TrAovcrtos re KCU TrXrjdvwv a/
p.yi(rrov Kal dvapifyiTjTov Xaov. (Euseb. iv. 43.) And S.
Cyprian writes to Pope Cornelius : " Et quamquam sciam,
frater . . . florentissimo illic clero tecum prsesidente, et
sanctissimae atque amplissimse plebi legere te semper litteras
nostras," &c. (Ep. 55 ad Cornel.}
(ii.) Its wealth and charity. We find Dionysius writing
to Pope Soter about the middle of the second century of
the abundant charity and gifts of the Roman Church to
poorer Churches. He says : 'E apx^ s 7-p V/AWV e$os ecrri
TOUTO, Travras /xev a8eA</>oi>s Troi/a'Acos evepyeTeiv, eKKA7j<ricus re
TroAAais rats Kara Tracrav TroAtv </>dSia 7reju,7reiv, . . . Si' wv
7re)u,7reTC apxrjOev l^>oSiwv, Tra.rpOTra.pd8oTov Wo<s 'Pwjuatwv
'Pw/xatoi Sia^vAarrovres. K.r.A. (-^/. Euseb.^ iv. 23.)
(iii.) The purity of its faith. This was abundantly mani-
fest in the Arian controversy, and also in the controversy
between Pope Stephen and S. Cyprian on the rebaptism of
heretics. Notwithstanding errors of method on the part
of the Pope, the judgment of S. Cyprian and the African
Bishops was not accepted by the Catholic Church as a
whole, and the decision of Pope Stephen won its way
to general acceptance. The defections of Liberius and
Honorius are exceptions which prove the rule of Roman
orthodoxy, whilst they guard us by anticipation against
illegitimate claims of infallibility on behalf of the Chair of
S. Peter.
(iv. ) Its services to the whole Church as a centre of unity.
We have the well-known passage of S. Irenaeus, where he
says of the Roman Church : " To this Church, on account
of her superior pre-eminence, every Church must resort,"
&c. (S. Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer., iii. 3.) We admit with Fr.
Puller that propter potentiorem prindpalitatem does not
convey the idea of supremacy hire divino, but it is a
90 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
strained view of the passage to refer the prinripalitas solely
to the secular rank of the Imperial City. We prefer, with
Palmer, to refer principalitas to the pre-eminence of the
Church as a centre of unity where Christians from all parts
were constantly meeting, and thus were in a position to learn
from the Roman Church and from one another the true
balance of the Faith. S. Cyprian tells Pope Cornelius of
the schismatics of his diocese who " dare to set sail, and
carry letters to the Chair of Peter and to the principal
Church whence sacerdotal unity has taken its rise" (S.
Cyprian, Ep. 54).
We cannot well limit the meaning of unde unitas sacer-
dotalis exorta est to the probable fact that the Bishops of
North Africa and Italy traced their Apostolic succession to
the Roman See. It implies that the Church of Rome is a
centre of unity for the whole Church. But it is not defide
that separation from the communion of the See of Rome
involves separation from the communion and unity of the
Catholic Church. The loyalty of the eminent canonist Du
Pin to the See of Rome is beyond dispute. Yet he says
that S. Cyprian and Firmilian were not out of communion
with the Catholic Church, because they were excommuni-
cated by Pope Stephen. " Quis audeat dicere," says Du
Pin, " Athanasium et alios fuisse schismaticos, Arianos vero
in Ecclesia, eo quod Liberius hos ad communionem suam
admisisset, illos ab ea repulisset ? " (De Ant. Ecd. Disc.,
P- 257-)
(v.) The imperial greatness of Rome as the centre of
government. We have already shown how the organisation
of the Catholic Church was adapted to the organisation of
the Roman Empire. This is of itself reason enough for
the city of Rome to be the centre of Christendom. S.
Cyprian assigns precedence to Rome on account of its
PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE 91
greatness. " Quoniam pro magnitudine sua debet Cartha-
ginem Roma praecedere " (Ep. 49). Du Pin puts this very
clearly : " Porro si quaeras cur potissimum Romana Ecclesia
sit electa quae primatum obtineret, responded potest id
factum, quia Romana urbs erat prima, nee alia con
gruentior ratio videtur reddi posse " (De Antiq. Eccl, Disc.,
P- 335)-
(vi.) The position of Rome as the one Apostolic See of the
West. S. Irenaeus lays great stress upon the Apostolic
foundation of the See of Rome as a bulwark against
heresy. " Maxima et antiquissima et a duobus Apostolis
Petro et Paulo Romas fundata Ecclesia, earn quam habet
ab Apostolis fidem per successiones Episcoporum per-
venientem usque ad nos indicantes confundimus omnes
eos qui praeterquam quod oportet colligunt." (Adv. Har.,
iii. 5.)
The equality of S. Peter and S. Paul does not militate
against the Primacy of S. Peter. When S. Gregory says
that " Paul the Apostle is brother to S. Peter in the first
rank of the Apostles" (Dial., cap. ult), and when S. Am-
brose says that "S. Paul was not inferior to S. Peter,
although the latter was the foundation of the Church"
(De Spiritu Sancto, c. 1 2), Du Pin rightly observes :
" Petrum et Paulum in Apostolatu, in potestate, in auctori-
tate, aequales fuisse, in Primatu non item" (De Antiq.
Eccl. Disc., p. 320). He gives his reasons at length, and
the idea of the See of the Primate Apostle being finally
fixed at the capital of the Roman Empire combined with
the other causes we have alleged to fix the Primacy of
Christendom in the Roman See. The subsequent de-
velopments of the notion of a Supremacy iure divino, and
an Infallibility which is un-Catholic, must not blind us to
the plain fact of the legitimate Primacy of the Roman
92 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
See, and its witness to the principle of Primacy in general. 1
A moderate and learned Anglican writes as follows upon
the legitimate authority of the Roman See :
" Though it has been shown that the Bishop of Rome has
not by Divine or human right any proper jurisdiction over
the Universal Church, it would be equally unjust to that
See, to the Primitive Church, and to ourselves, to deny or
diminish the ancient legitimate privileges of the Chair of
S. Peter. While all Bishops are alike successors of the
Apostles, it cannot be denied that the Bishops of Metro-
politan and Patriarchal Sees have influence and authority
in the Church generally, in proportion to the dignity
of their Churches : and therefore the Bishop of the elder
Rome, being Bishop of the principal Church, and being
the first of the Patriarchs, could not fail to have more
authority amongst his colleagues, the Catholic Bishops,
than any other Prelate. The exalted station in which
the Providence of God had placed him, imposed on him
a special obligation of exhorting his brethren to the ob-
servance of the sacred Canons and of resisting the progress
of heresy by formal condemnations. These acts of the
Roman Bishop might extend to the whole Church. He
might transmit such decrees in faith and morals to all
Bishops for their approbation. Such decrees ought to
have been received with respect, though no Bishop was
bound to approve or act on them, unless they appeared
conformable to the doctrine of the Universal Church.
1 The late Professor Maurice, whose natural bias and temperament
would lead him in an opposite direction, yet goes so far as to say that
" the Bishop of Rome . . . had a special, most awful, most respon-
sible stewardship entrusted to him, in the discharge of which it is mere
arrogance, party spirit, and contempt of history to say he was not often,
in the main, faithful" (Preface to Lectures on the Epistle to the
Hebrews, p. xli.).
PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE 93
It was not unreasonable that the Roman Patriarch should
make regulations in discipline for particular Churches,
when consulted and requested to do so by those Churches :
he might even make such regulations unsolicited, pro-
vided it were understood that it was in the way of counsel
and admonition, not in that of precept or command.
The authority of the Roman See rendered it fitting that
in matters of controversy concerning the doctrine or unity
of the whole Church, the See of Peter should not be
neglected; but that its aid should be sought to re-
establish order and peace. In cases of extreme danger
or necessity all Catholic Bishops are authorised to dis-
pense even with the laws of (Ecumenical Synods. This
privilege therefore could not be refused to the Roman
Bishop ; and the authority of his See would even give his
dispensation greater weight than that of other Bishops.
Hence would follow the expediency of obtaining that dis-
pensation in some cases, where Bishops desired some
authority in addition to their own.
" Whenever the Bishop of Rome was actually in com-
munion with the Universal Church, he would naturally
be the centre of unity, because of his authority in the
Universal Church, which would lead Churches in every
part of the world to communicate with him on many
occasions; and thus Churches remote from each other
would be united by means of their intercourse with a
common centre. But, when the Universal Church is
divided, and a great part is not in communion with the
Roman See, it ceases to be the centre of unity.
" Such are the privileges naturally flowing from, or con-
nected with, the precedence of the Roman Patriarch in
the Universal Church ; privileges which were not merely
honorary, but which were calculated for the edification,
94 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
not the subjugation of the Church. In these privileges
there was nothing of jurisdiction or coercive power ; they
arose not from Divine institution, but were founded on
reason and on Christian charity. Happy it would have
been if this venerable and Apostolical See had not after-
wards transgressed its rightful authority, and assumed
powers which disturbed the unity and subverted the dis-
cipline of the Church." (The Church of Christ, by W.
Palmer, p. 535.)
Mr. Palmer's wise and cautious words exactly express
the true position of a Patriarchal See. Such a centre of
unity may be found for the Anglican Communion in the
See of Canterbury ; and the guarded action of the Lambeth
Council of 1897 in providing for "a Council of Advice"
to aid the Archbishop of Canterbury to give formal advice,
with the full force of moral authority, to any Church or
Province of the Anglican Communion that applies to him
for an opinion upon any disputed point of faith, discipline,
or doctrine, falls well within the limits which Mr. Palmer
has laid down in the passage quoted. The Anglican Com-
munion is in no danger of an undue development of the
Patriarchal influence of the See of Canterbury. The real
danger lies in the direction of the undue autonomy of
National and Provincial Churches.
NOTE B.
The Unified Church.
There is a strange contrast between Professor Ramsay's
idea of the Imperial unity of the Ecclesia and that of Pro-
fessor Hort. The Cambridge Professor's somewhat startling
THE UNIFIED CHURCH 95
language leads us away from the idea of the organic unity
of the Catholic Church, as a visible polity ; whilst the voice
from the chair of Aberdeen, speaking amidst surroundings
essentially hostile to Catholic theology, is the best answer
from an historical standpoint to the minimising speculations
of Dr. Hort.
Dr. Hort makes the following statement :
" Not a word in the Epistle (Ephesians) exhibits the One
Ecdesia as made up of many ecclesia. To each local eccle-
sia S. Paul has ascribed a corresponding unity of its own ;
each is a body of Christ, and a sanctuary of God, but there
is no grouping of them into partial wholes, or into one great
whole. The members which make up the One Ecdesia
are not communities, but individual men. ... It is true
that S. Paul anxiously promoted friendly intercourse and
sympathy between the scattered ecdesice, but the unity of
the universal Ecdesia, as he contemplated it, does not belong
to this region ; it is a truth of theology and religion, not a
fact of what we call ecclesiastical politics. To recognise
this is quite consistent with the fullest appreciation of
aspirations after an external ecclesiastical unity." (Hort,
The Christian Ecdesia, p. 168.)
In laying down the truth that the One Ecdesia is com-
posed of individual men, namely, of all those that have
passed through the entrance-gate of a valid Baptism, the
ianua sacramentorum, Dr. Hort does not make it plain
upon what conditions the other Sacraments are to be
obtained. His vagueness as to the relations of the scat-
tered ecdesia with the One Ecdesia leaves the door open to
the " freedom of organisation " theory which mars the work
of Dr. Hatch. The Anglican Professor's vagueness needs
clearing up by the plain historical statement of Professor
Ramsay.
96 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
" The term Ecclesia originally implied that the assembled
members constituted a self-governing body like a free Greek
city (770X15). Ancient religious societies were commonly
organised on the model of city organisation. The term was
adopted in the Septuagint, and came into ordinary use
among Grecian Jews. Gradually Paul's idea of ' the unified
Church' became definite; and with the true philosophic
instinct, he felt the need of a technical term to indicate the
idea. Ecclesia was the word that forced itself on him. But
in the new sense it demanded a new construction ; it was
no longer the ' Church of the Thessalonians,' but the Church
in Corinth, and it was necessarily singular, for there was
only one Church. The new usage grew naturally in the
mind of a statesman animated with the instinct of adminis-
tration, and gradually coming to realise the combination of
imperial centralisation and local home rule which is in-
volved in the conception of a self-governing unity, the
Universal Church, consisting of many parts, widely sepa-
rated in space. Each of these parts must govern itself
in its internal relations, because it is distant from other
parts, and yet each is merely a piece carved out of the
homogeneous whole, and each finds its justification and
perfect ideal in the whole." (Professor Ramsay, S. Paul
the Traveller, p. 125.)
This passage expresses very clearly the idea of the
Catholic Church as a world-wide visible polity. The only
criticism upon it that we would venture is that it is not
" Paul's idea " in the sense of its being the creation and
exclusive product of Pauline statesmanship. The "idea"
of the " Unified Church " existed in germ in the Old Testa-
ment, and reached its development at Pentecost. It is
God's way of bringing the nations to the foot of the Cross
of Christ, and binding them together in a visible polity,
THE UNIFIED CHURCH 97
and heavenly citizenship. It is the virtually unquestioned
and unchallenged ideal of the first fifteen centuries of
Church life and history. The Protestant Reformation,
in a great measure, shattered this ideal amongst the Teu-
tonic races, the majority of whom are practically in a
chronic state of religious revolt against the discipline,
organisation, and worship of the Catholic Church. The
minority who have clung faithfully to primitive ideals find
their truest representation in the Anglican Church. But
the influence of the majority has, from time to time, pressed
heavily upon individual Anglicans, and caused them un-
consciously to be biassed in favour of reading into the past
facts of Catholic Church organisation, untenable specula-
tions which are advanced in order to make room for the
untoward existing developments of the Teutonic ecclesias-
tical revolt.
Such writers as Dean Stanley and Dr. Hatch, although
unlike in dealing with matters of research, are still alike
in being forced into a position of anachronism by their
vain endeavours to justify the separatist and disintegrating
tendencies of the Reformation from the known facts of
early Church history. The very fact that Dr. Hatch him-
self warns us against this kind of anachronism makes his
own lapses in this direction the more conspicuous. His
theory of the origin of Episcopacy, and his view that
" freedom of organisation " is a tenable hypothesis, whereby
the polity of Geneva, or the Brownists, is set on an equal
level with the divinely ordered polity of the Catholic
Church, is more untenable on account of its anachronism
than for its manifest disregard of historic proportion. The
Presbyterian discipline of Geneva, in its complex order and
logical development (if its premises be once granted), is
as utterly alien from the tone and temper and discipline
G
98 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
of Apostolic days as is the Hildebrandine Papacy with its
modern Vatican superstructure. In fact, there is a better
historical case to be made out for Papal absolutism than
there is for Calvinistic democracy : both alike must shrink
from an appeal to Church history. But the Papacy is a
distortion of the Primatial principle, which is a part of
Church life and order, whereas the polity of Geneva, and
the sectarian growths of the Protestant Reformation, are
manifestly new departures. If the germs of the polity of
Geneva, or the Brownists, had been latent in the Acts
of the Apostles, is it possible that fifteen centuries of de-
velopment would have been necessary to bring them to
light? The thing is incredible. The true explanation
of the abnormal and un-Catholic developments of the
Teutonic ecclesiastical revolt is not far to seek. It was
a revolt from the unconstitutional absolutism of mediaeval
Church government, as well as a recoil from certain doc-
trinal corruptions and accretions. The true constitutional
position of the Episcopate was obscured in the Middle
Ages by the Papal despotism which was built up by
the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals. Thus the true ideal of
the constitutional rule of the Bishop in his Diocese, the
Metropolitan in his Province, and the Patriarch in his
Patriarchate, as responsible to the whole Church, in
General Council assembled, was supplanted by an ecclesi-
astical feudalism in Western Christendom. The mediaeval
Bishop in the West became a feudal absolute ruler in his
Diocese, subject only to his overlord the Pope, and to
the exemptions granted by him. The inherent constitu-
tional rights of the Priesthood and the Plebs Christiana
became dormant. 1 The revolt of Luther and Calvin swung
1 It is interesting to note that the Counter-Reformation which
accompanied and followed the Council of Trent advocated the presence
THE UNIFIED CHURCH 99
the pendulum so far back in the opposite direction as to
cause men to forsake Apostolic order and succession, and
to substitute a ministry of their own devising for the His-
toric Episcopate with its Divine sanction. The Anglican
Church was mercifully preserved from this error, but the
Bishops of the Church of England at the Reformation
retained the Apostolic succession without any immediate
recovery of their true constitutional position. They suc-
ceeded to the thrones and civil status of the feudal
Bishops, without acknowledging the central authority which
the feudal prelate admitted. The Anglican Prelacy of
the Elizabethan era was virtually autocephalous and un-
constitutional, despite the efforts of Parker and Grindal
to exercise a Primatial authority, which was unhappily
tainted with Erastianism. The Primacy of Canterbury
dwindled to a shadow, save for a brief revival under Laud,
which was, from the necessities of the times, unfortunately
mingled with an assertion of the Royal Supremacy, which
culminated in the judicial murder of the King and the
Archbishop by the fiercer spirits of the Puritan Revolution.
It is not too much to say that the outburst of that revolt
might have been mitigated, or avoided, if the Reformation
Bishops had become constitutional rulers of their Dioceses
in the Ignatian sense of the term.
The reaction of 1662 did not mend matters much.
of laymen in Synods. Pope Benedict XIV. (De Synodo Diocesiana,
iii. 9) alludes to the decision of the Congregatio interpret. Condi, of
April 22, 1598, to introduce well - instructed laymen into Provincial
Synods, and the Caremonialc Episcoporum refers to the seats that should
be allotted to them. In 1736 Simon Assemani, as Papal Legate, held
a Council of the Maronites who had accepted the Latin Obedience.
At this Council many laymen of distinction were present, who signed
its decrees. ( Vide n. 5 of the above citation from Pope Benedict, De
Synodo. )
IOO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Even so late as 1860 a thoughtful writer in the Christian
Remembrancer was constrained to state that " the Primacy
of Canterbury is almost, and that of York, entirely a
dead letter." If this statement appears too sweeping in
the light of present-day facts, it certainly shows that the
Bishops of the Church of England have yet much to
recover before they fulfil the ideal of the constitutional
position of a Bishop in the Primitive Church.
The Bishops of the Anglican Communion out of England
itself have, in a great measure, recovered this ideal, although
the rank and file of the clergy in England are too insular
in their sympathies to recognise the fact. We cannot
expect opponents to recognise it, although a writer in the
Contemporary Review for July 1897, who condemns the
Historic Episcopate root and branch, and apparently
identifies it with the development of Prelacy in England,
has yet a word of praise for the type of the Episcopate
developed in America and the Colonies, which he would
be graciously pleased to accept if it parted with its dis-
tinctive principles. The main difficulty in the way of an
English writer, attempting to take a dispassionate view of
the organisation of the early Church, is that he has either
been nurtured under the shadow of English Prelacy, or
is its hereditary opponent. The attack and defence are
alike tempted into anachronism. The defender ought
boldly to admit that the Episcopate in England must
alter its type and methods, whilst he strenuously main-
tains the historic succession, and Divine sanction, of the
Bishops in England, as Bishops of the Catholic Church.
Such an assailant as the aforesaid writer in the Contem-
porary Review should be reminded that the anachronism
of making S. Ignatius of Antioch a defender of modern
Congregationalism of the City Temple type is a trifle
THE UNIFIED CHURCH IOI
absurd. The appeal to history is just as treasonable
to this sort of Dissenting writer as it was to Cardinal
Manning. The germ of Church order is known by
its historical results and legitimate developments. We
find that the constitutional historic Episcopate of the
undivided Church is the sole legitimate development
of the Ministry in the Apostolic Age. The Patriarch,
Primate, and Metropolitan are the historic factors which
touch the exercise of a Bishop's responsibilities to his
Diocese from without. His responsibilities to his Diocese
from within are conditioned by his constitutional relations
with his priests and with the Plebs Christiana. All these
matters are clearly defined either by direct precept, or plain
inference, in the history of the Primitive Church. Outside
these limits history forsakes us, and we come into the
unhistoric region of new departures and unauthoritative
experiments. The Primitive Church knew nothing of
Vaticanism, Calvinism, or Congregationalism.
CHAPTER III
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS AS DEVE-
LOPED IN THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA "
BEFORE THE EDICT OF MILAN, AND THE EVIDENCE
FOR THE EXERCISE OF PATRIARCHAL AND METRO-
POLITICAL RIGHTS BY THE CHIEF SEES OF CHRISTEN-
DOM DURING THE SAME PERIOD
WE have now arrived at a most difficult stage in
our inquiry. The period of the " Ecclesia Pressa,"
and the subsequent bitter ecclesiastical conflicts
of the fourth century, which we shall deal with in
the next chapter, caused such confusion in Church
discipline and order, that the general principles
of constitutional government (which we have
already traced in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic
ages) became from time to time obscured and
overridden by imperious local necessities. Those
writers who deny the principle of Primacy, in
their fear of yielding to the Vatican ideal of Papal
supremacy, can find much evidence in the disor-
dered ecclesiastical procedure which so frequently
characterised this period of Church History, to
justify their views. On the one side we shall find
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 103
undue assertions of the legitimate Primacy of
Rome, whilst on the other we shall see individual
Bishops taking advantage of the pressure of the
times to assert their authority in unconstitutional
and unlawful methods. We shall also find that
the disintegration, caused by persecution and the
subsequent strife with heresy, was so great that
the Church had to be content with an imperfect
system of judicature and discipline until the advent
of more peaceful times. During the times of per-
secution no (Ecumenical Council was possible.
Local Councils and Synods, often hastily assembled
in fear of the civil power, had to take their place.
Discipline in like manner had to be locally ad-
ministered, and free communication between the
Primatial Sees and distant Provinces and Dioceses
was both dangerous and difficult when persecution
was active, and had to be managed without unduly
attracting public attention, during the periods of
respite. In this way the Metropolitan of the
Province, as the President of each local group of
Bishops and Dioceses, became, for the time being,
the concrete embodiment of Church discipline and
authority. As Metropolitan, he presided in his
Synod of corn-provincial Bishops and decided
cases which arose within his Province, and a
custom arose of letting matters rest without any
appeal from his decision. But the idea of the
104 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
absolute finality of the decisions of a Metropolitan
within his Province being part and parcel of the
law and order of the Catholic Church, is a figment
in the brain of those controversialists, Gallican
and Anglican, who have been driven into an
illogical view of the constitution of the Catholic
Church, as a whole, and the mutual interdepend-
ence of its various parts, by the exigencies of their
conflict with the usurped and uncanonical claims
of the Roman Patriarch to be the absolute despot
of Christendom. The legitimate claims of the
Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem are not to be ruthlessly brushed
aside because we resist the illegitimate claims of
the Patriarch of Rome.
We must therefore regard the evidence which
we may find in the third century for the finality
of judgments given by a Metropolitan in his Pro-
vincial Synod in the light of the facts and circum-
stances of the times. The Church was suffering
from abnormal pressure, and it is therefore reason-
able to regard the position and influence of the
Metropolitan at that time as unavoidably abnormal
also. We must not be tempted to forge argu-
ments against the Vatican Decrees by allowing
that either Bishops or Metropolitans are "auto-
cephalous " lords over God's heritage. We shall
find confirmation for this view in the fact that
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 105
the Patriarchal and Apostolic thrones of Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch exercised a remarkable
primacy of influence during the Ante-Nicene period.
One of the first acts of the Nicene Council was to
confirm and stereotype this influence by appealing
to its antiquity l as part and parcel of the fabric of
the Catholic Church.
With regard to the constitutional relation of
Bishops to the clergy and laity of their Dioceses,
we shall find this period of Church history a time
of partial confusion and obscurity. The Ignatian
position, whereby the Bishop acted with his Priests
as his councillors and assessors, was always the
true theory of ecclesiastical procedure. But in
practice there were many violations of this true
theory of constitutional order. S. Cyprian, as we
shall see presently, maintained the true constitu-
tional order. He acknowledged legitimate patri-
archal influence, whilst he resisted the undue
claims of the Roman Pontiff. Himself a Metro-
politan and Primate, he carefully guarded and
maintained canonical primatial jurisdiction. He
freely accorded to his clergy and laity their con-
stitutional position in the Synods of the Church.
With these prefatory words, we may proceed
to examine the historical evidence of the period
before us.
1 TO. apx^ia 6rj Kpareiru. (Cone. Nic., Can. 6.)
106 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
The case of the heretic Marcion has been
claimed as establishing the principle of an in-
herent jurisdiction of appeal, extending through-
out Christendom, as the legitimate prerogative of
the Roman See. 1 But even if we accept the
somewhat doubtful story of Epiphanius, which
is hard to reconcile with the statements of Ter-
tullian, 2 we cannot develop the Vatican doctrine
out of the story of Marcion.
Marcion, son of the Bishop of Sinope, is excom-
municated by his father, and goes to Rome, as
the political and ecclesiastical centre of the world,
to vindicate his position and to push forward the
heresy which he had framed by an exaggeration of
S. Paul's opposition to Judaism within the Church.
The name of S. Paul was linked with that of
S. Peter as co-founder of the Roman Church, and
Marcion, arriving soon after the death of Pope
Hyginus, A.D. 132, appealed to the Roman Pres-
byters, who were in charge, sede vacante, to restore
him to communion. This they declined to do,
since each Province of the Church is bound to
accept the judicial sentence of another Province,
or even Diocese, unless it is duly reversed by
1 Bellarmine, Lib. ii., De Romano Pontifice.
2 Tertullian (De Prase. Har. 30) gives a very different view of
Marcion from that of Epiphanius, although in c. 57 of the same
treatise, spurious additions are made to harmonise his story with that
of Epiphanius.
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 107
a legitimate course of appeal, such as is pro-
vided in the fifth Canon of Nicaea, 1 from the
Diocese to the Province. Marcion's case proves
only the preeminence of the Roman Church
as a religious centre in A.D. 132, and shows
that the Presbyters, sede vacante, would take no
action in restoring him to communion. Even
if Marcion had appealed to his Metropolitan and
Provincial Synod, and then gone beyond their
decision in an appeal to the Patriarch, it is evi-
dent (even if so formal a process had been at
that date practicable) that Sinope did not fall
within the scope of influence of the Roman
Patriarch.
We must now briefly touch on the Paschal
controversy. S. Polycarp assured Pope Anicetus
(A.D. 165) that the Bishops of the province of
Ephesus derived their custom of keeping Easter
on the day of the Paschal full moon from S. John
himself. The Western Church and the rest of
the East, except the aforesaid Asiatic Bishops,
kept Easter on the Sunday following the Pas-
1 This Nicene Canon refers to an older canon, which says TOI>J v<J>
trtpuv &irop\r]9{i>Ta.s v<f>' irtpwv /J.TJ irpoffieffOcu. The same enactment
is contained in the thirteenth of the Apostolic Canons, which Bishop
Hefele considers to be without doubt Ante-Nicene. The appeal pro-
vided in the Nicene Canon from the Bishop to the Metropolitan and
Provincial Synod of Bishops shows the constitutional character of the
Bishop's office as iudex ordinarius, and beyond this lay, even if not at
present defined, the appeal to the Patriarch and to an CEcumenical
Council.
108 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
chal full moon. Pope Soter appears to have re-
quired Asiatic Christians living at Rome to keep
Easter according to the general rule, and forego
their own local custom. This was reasonable
and right, and his successor Eleutherus adopted
the same policy. But when Pope Victor succeeded
him (A.D. 188), a stronger policy was adopted.
Victor rightly desired to secure a uniformity in
the observance of Easter Day, for which Christen-
dom ultimately had to wait until the final decision
of the Nicene Council in A.D. 325. As Primate
of Christendom, Victor was the proper person to
take the initiative. 1 He accordingly requested the
Metropolitans of the various Provinces to summon
their Provincial Synods to consider the matter. 2
In so doing he exercised his undoubted rights as
the First Patriarch of Christendom. But it is
idle to argue about the word used to describe
this request. The authority of the " Cathedra
Petri " was that of the constitutional Primate of
Christendom, and not that of an infallible despot.
1 " He was the first Bishop in the Church, and it was most fitting that
he should take the initiative." (Puller, Primitive Saints and See of
Rome, p. 25.)
2 Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, writing officially to Victor, says :
vir ^/*oO, Kail /xere/ro.Xecrct/uryj'. K.T.\. (Euseb.,
v. 24.) The word di6w is the equivalent to the Latin postulare. Its
force need not be minimised to make an unnecessary point against
modern Vaticanism.
THE PERIOD OV THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 109
The failure of any Metropolitan and Province to
comply with his request was not to be visited
with excommunication, but it would carry with
it its own punishment in the dangers incurred
by a wilful and autonomous isolation from the rest
of the Catholic Church. Victor's request was
obeyed throughout Christendom wherever Pro-
vincial Synods were practicable. 1 In Gaul at
this time S. Irenaeus of Lyons seems to have
been the sole Bishop, and therefore the Synod
held there was Diocesan rather than Provincial. 2
The Provincial Synod at Ephesus, under the Me-
tropolitan Polycrates, was the only Synod which
resisted the Catholic usage of keeping Easter on
a Sunday. Victor seems to have overstepped con-
stitutional limits in dealing with Polycrates.
In communicating to him the decision of the
Roman Synod, he appears to have threatened the
Asiatic Christians with excommunication in case
of non-compliance. Polycrates characteristically
replied, " I am not scared by those that terrify
us with threats, for they, who are greater than I,
have said we ought to obey God rather than
men." 3 Then Eusebius tells us that " Victor,
1 See Note A.
2 See the Abbe" Duchesne in the Transactions of the National Society
of Antiquaries of France, tome i. pp. 387-390.
3 Oi) wrvpo/jLai. eirl TOJJ KaTairXijffffOfJ^voit. 01 yap t/j.ov fjLftfa'fs
elpriKCLffi, ' ireiOapxetv Set Qeif /j.a\\ov T) Mp&Cca.' (Euseb., v. 24.)
110 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Bishop of the Church of the Romans, forthwith
attempts l to cut off the Churches of all Asia, to-
gether with the neighbouring Churches, as hetero-
dox, from the common unity ; and he proscribes
them by letters, and proclaims that all the brethren
there are utterly separated from communion. But
these measures did not please all the Bishops.
They exhort him, therefore, to pursue peace and
unity and love towards his neighbours. Their
written opinions, too, are extant, very severely
reproving Victor." 2
And then S. Irenaeus intervened in the con-
1 On the significance of Treiparai, the comment of a Roman Catholic
writer is significant. " Neque propterea secum pugnare credendus est
Eusebius, cum Victorem dicit conatum esse Asianos abscindere. Et
abscidit enim re vera Asianos, cum eos a communione sua removit : et
conatus est ab Ecclesia corpore segregare, cum cseteris Episcopis ad idem
praestandum et litteris et exemplo auctor fuit. At plerique eum potius
commonendum censuerunt, ut in proposito non permaneret." (Dom.
Constant., Romanorum Fontif. Ep. i. 100.) This view is utterly
irreconcilable with the modern theory of Vaticanism. For an infal-
lible Pope to be censured by other Bishops for his disciplinary action
is nowadays impossible. Note too, the distinction between "com-
munione sua," and " ab Ecclesiae corpore."
2 'Eiri TCI/rots 6 fiv TT;S 'Pufj-aiuv irpoeortta Bfcrwp d&p6us rrjs 'Acrlas
Trdaifs &fw. ratj 6fj.6pois eVKX^criais TOJ wapoiKlas dirorffjureiv, ujj cre/jo-
5ooi5<ras, rfjs Koivrjs evtixrews ireiparar KCLI oTTjXrret/ei -ye 5id ypa.fj.fj.dTuv,
dKoivwvr)Tovs Trdvras &pdi)t> TOI)J ticeiffe dvaicripisrTUV dde\<f>ofc. 'AXX' ov
iraffl ye rots tTTiffK&irois ravr' ripfffKero, ' ' A.vrnra.pa.KfKt'uovTa.i dijra aimjj
rh, TTjs flp^vrjs ical rrjs irpbs TOI)S ir\t]ffiov ev&ffe&s re /cai dydin)s (ppovflv.
$tpoi>rai dt Kal al TOVTUV <f>u)i>a.i, ir\tjKTiKti)Tfpov Ka.6o.vrofj.ivuv rov
Bkropos. (Euseb., v. 24.) Pope Nicholas I. (A.D. 858) does not hesi-
tate to condemn Victor's action as follows: "Videamus Victorem
papam . . . paene a totius Ecclesiae prsesulibus pertinaciae redargutum."
(Coleti, ix. p. 1360.)
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " III
troversy, as in absolute agreement with Pope
Victor on the main question, but deprecating his
attempt to excommunicate the adherents of Poly-
crates and the Synod of Ephesus. He wrote to
Victor bidding him " not to cut off whole Churches
of God, which preserve the tradition of an ancient
custom " (ft>? /my cnroKOTTTOt 6'Xa? eKK\rj(rla$ Qeov,
ap-^aiov e9ov$ TrapdSoviv eiriTrjpovaras). 1 S. Irenaeus
also wrote to many other rulers (ap-^ova-iv) of the
Church on this question, and preserved the peace
of the Church. The whole episode is most in-
structive, and teaches us what patriarchal rights
really were. As Primate of Christendom, it was
Victor's duty to take the matter up, and summon
the Provincial Synods to deal with it. It was also
his duty to carry out the decisions of the Pro-
vincial Synods of his own Patriarchate, and to
declare that none could be permitted to observe
the Quartodeciman practice within the limits of
his influence and jurisdiction. He could be the
mouthpiece of the various Provincial Synods of his
own Patriarchate in declaring that Quartodeci-
mans within its limits would be excommunicated.
But he had no authority to excommunicate the
Asiatic Quartodecimans. That ultimate authority
over the whole Church was never vested in the
1 Euseb., v. 24. Socrates says that S. Irenseus " stoutly opposed
KaTt8pa.fj.ev) Victor" in this matter. (Socr., H. E., v. 22, 16.)
112 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Roman See, but in a General Council of the
Catholic Church, in which the Primate of Christen-
dom would be the President, just as the Archbishop
of Canterbury is ex ojficio President of the Lambeth
Conference. The attempt of Victor to usurp the
functions of a General Council ended in failure.
He attempted to turn his Primacy, which no one
disputed, into a Supremacy, which neither S.
Irenaeus, who agreed with his view, nor Polycrates,
who differed from him, would for one moment
accept.
The Paschal controversy was ultimately settled
in a Catholic and orderly manner by the first
(Ecumenical Council of Nicsea. The Council,
as representing the whole Church, possessed an
authority which Victor did not possess, and the
Asiatic Christians obeyed its ruling. It is signifi-
cant that Victor's attempt to excommunicate the
Asiatics showed the limitations of his authority.
He could lay down the conditions of communion
so far as his Patriarchal authority extended, but
he could not make communion with the Roman
See a condition of Catholic communion. The
Asiatics, who rejected the decision of Victor and
of the majority, were not excommunicate, as
Catholics, because they were out of communion
with the Roman See.
It is interesting to note that S. Irenaeus, not-
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 113
withstanding his opposition to Pope Victor's
attempt to turn his Primacy into a Supremacy,
had at the same time a deep sense of the honour
due to the " Cathedra Petri " as the Primatial See
of Christendom. In his famous treatise Against
all Heresies, he appeals to the consensus of Catholic
tradition from the Apostles, through their suc-
cessors the Bishops of Christendom, against the
novelties of the heretics. He points to the
tradition of " that very great and very ancient
and universally known Church, which was founded
and established at Rome by the two most glorious
Apostles, Peter and Paul ; we point, I say, to the
tradition which this Church has from the Apostles,
and to her faith proclaimed to men, which comes
down to our time through the succession of her
bishops. . . . For to this Church, on account of its
superior preeminence, it is necessary that every Church
should resort that is to say, the faithful from all sides,
and in this Church the tradition from the Apostles has
been always preserved by men from all parts." ]
It is idle to argue overmuch upon the disputed
1 " Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem,
necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique
fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quse
est ab Apostolis traditio." (S. Iren., Contra Omnes H<zreses, iii. 3, i,
2. ) Although we have dealt with this passage in a previous note, its
importance is so great that we make no apology for recurring to it
with a view to its bearing on the action of S. Irenzeus towards Pope
Victor.
H
114 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
meaning of the latter portion of this passage. To
begin with, we are dealing with a Latin translation
of a lost Greek original, and we cannot dissect a
translation as if it was the actual language of the
writer. It would be hard to make S. Irenaeus
responsible for the Ultramontane or the Protestant
view of the Latin words which represent the Greek
original as it came from his pen. A simple and
common-sense view of the passage is that it bears
powerful witness to the Primacy of Rome, and
to the vast services of the " Cathedra Petri " as
the chief centre of Catholic unity.
But this strong testimony was written by a man
who did not believe that communion with the
Roman See was necessary to salvation, and who
also did not believe that the Roman Patriarch could
excommunicate the Asiatics who differed from him,
so as to exclude them from the communion of the
Catholic Church. We also trace in the language of
S. Irenaeus in this passage that the fact that Rome
was the Imperial capital, and centre of the world's
business, was a contributing cause to the ecclesi-
astical importance of the Roman See. It was the
meeting-place of Christians from all over the world,
and thus it was the natural ecclesiastical centre of
the Roman Empire, even after the seat of govern-
ment had been transferred to Constantinople.
And, even in the palmiest days of the power of
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 115
Constantinople, "Old Rome," as a centre, more
than held its own against the glories of "New
Rome."
We now turn from the Roman Patriarchate to
that of Alexandria, which for the next two centuries
stood next to it in point of influence. The ordi-
nation of the great scholar Origen by Alexander,
Bishop of Jerusalem, was without doubt irregular,
and, for private reasons, uncanonical. Demetrius
of Alexandria exercised Patriarchal authority over
the six civil provinces into which Egypt, Libya, and
Pentapolis were divided, which were also ecclesi-
astical provinces under their own Metropolitans.
We use the term "Patriarch" to express the position
of " a Primate of Metropolitans," which existed un-
doubtedly, as we have shown, from the earliest
times. We shall see that the actual word " Patriarch"
was not applied to the Primates of Rome, Alex-
andria, and Antioch till the fifth century. But it
is convenient to use the word " Patriarch " as a
pardonable anachronism, to express the position
of the Primates of the great Sees in Ante-Nicene
times a position which the Council of Nicaea
subsequently stamped with its oecumenical authority
as in accord with the ancient usage of the Catholic
Church.
With this explanatory digression, we will proceed
to examine the action of Demetrius of Alexandria
Il6 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
in the case of Origen. In A.D. 231 Demetrius
assembled a Synod of Bishops and priests at Alex-
andria, to deal with the case of Origen. The priests
of Alexandria had certain special prerogatives in
electing the successor of S. Mark, the discussion of
which forms no part of our present inquiry. 1 We
may note, however, that the summoning of priests
to this Synod points to the Ignatian ideal of the
rights of the priesthood. When Origen had been
condemned by this Synod, on account of his
opinions, as well as his ordination, Demetrius
summoned a second Synod of Bishops only, most
probably from a wider circle of his Primatial
jurisdiction. The condemnation pronounced by
the former Synod was ratified, and the further
step taken of deposing Origen from the priest-
hood. An encyclical letter from Demetrius made
these resolutions known to all the ecclesiastical
provinces which acknowledged Alexandria as their
primatial See. 2 We have here an important in-
stance of Patriarchal authority in Ante-Nicene
times. A later writer, in dealing with the Patriar-
chal position of Alexandria just before the Nicene
Council, assumes it as a well-established and time-
honoured custom for the Alexandrian " Pope "
1 Gore, Church and the Ministry, noteB., p. 357.
2 Hefele, Hist. Councils, vol. i. p. 88. Photii, Bibliothec., cod. 118.
3 S. Athanasius, in his Epistle concerning the Councils of Arimi-
nium and Seleucia (ii. 3) quotes the letter of the Arians " To our
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 117
to have Archbishops or Metropolitans under
him. 1
It is instructive to note, even in Ante-Nicene
times, how the Patriarchal Sees acted upon and
influenced each other. 2 Antioch, as the third See
in Christendom, had its special prestige as being
founded by S. Peter, and the lustre of its suc-
cession was maintained by the great name of
S. Ignatius, and subsequently by the theologian
S. Theophilus (A.D. 177) and the martyr S. Babylas
Blessed Pope and Bishop Alexander." In his retractation Ischyras
addresses S. Athanasius as "the Blessed Pope" (S. Ath., ApoL c.
Art., 63). S. Cyprian, as Archbishop of Carthage, is also addressed
as "Pope" (Ep. ap. Cypr., 31). It is a title reserved to the leading
Primates of Christendom, and was also used as a compliment to
eminent Bishops like S. Augustine of Hippo.
1 6 dpxf-eiriffKoiros MeX^Ttos, 6 /cord -rr\v Myvirrov, virb 5 X f ?P a
'AXefdvSpou . . . (Epiphan., Hcer. t 69, n. 3). Meletius, the author of
the schism, appears to have been the senior Metropolitan next to the
Patriarch. '0 MeX^rtoj rCiv Kara TTJV Afytnrrw irpo^KUv, Kal Sfwepetiuv
r$ Her/Xfj (the Patriarch) Kara ri)v dpxieiriffKOirrii'. K.r.X. (Epiphan.,
Ha>r., 68, n. I.)
2 The intercommunication of the Patriarchal Sees was the means of
maintaining Church unity. So Du Pin : " Caeterum quoniam fieri
non poterat, ut omnes orbis Ecclesise ad se invicem scriberent, et
sibi mutuo notse essent, ac proinde immediate communicarent, idcirco
magnse qusedam sedes eligebantur, per quas Ecclesise secum invicem
communicabant. Sic Ecclesiae Orientis censebantur communicare cum
Occidentalibus, quando communicabant Antiocheno Patriarchs qui
iunctus erat communione cum Romano, cui adhaerebant Occidentales.
Ita etiam ^gyptii per Alexandrinum cum Romano communicabant et
Occidentales omnes cum Orientalibus et CEgyptiis per Romanum."
(De Antiq. Eccl. Disc., p. 255.) The previous passage, which quotes
the thirty-second Apostolic Canon on " Letters Commendatory," as
part of the discipline of intercommunion, is very interesting and note-
worthy.
Il8 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
(A.D. 251). But although its influence was wide-
spread throughout the East, it lacked the cohesion
of Rome and Alexandria, and was subsequently
distracted by heresy and schism. When we exa-
mine the case of Novatian, the first Anti-Pope,
we shall see that Antioch, as well as the other
Primatial and Patriarchal Sees, took part in the
settlement of the controversy. Novatian's claim to
the Roman See was invalid, and he had carried
his original Stoicism into the Church with him in
adopting the severe line of refusing all recon-
ciliation to those who had lapsed under persecu-
tion. S. Cornelius, the lawful Pope, was, as we
shall subsequently see, supported by S. Dionysius
of Alexandria, and by S. Cyprian of Carthage.
He wrote four letters to Fabius of Antioch, as it
was necessary to vindicate his position to the
whole of Christendom, and Fabius had been in-
clined, possibly through ignorance of the facts,
to favour the cause of Novatian. 1 S. Dionysius of
Alexandria also wrote to the Patriarch of Antioch,
and Fabius convoked a Synod to deal with the
question. The letter of invitation to this Synod
which Dionysius received was signed by Helenus
of Tarsus, the chief Metropolitan of the Patriarchate
of Antioch, 2 and he notified to S. Cornelius that he
1 Qapitj) viroKa.Ta.K\ivopAvip irus r$ <rxlfffi.a.Ti. (Euseb., vi. 44.)
2 eavrbv irapa.KtK\rjff0ai, vir& re "E\tvov TOV iv Tapfftp Trjs KtXi/ctas
eiriffK6irov, Kai r(av \oiirCiv ruv ffvv avrtp (i.e., by the rest of the Metro-
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 119
had received this invitation, which also announced
the death of Fabius and the succession of Deme-
trian.
The Synod was duly held at Antioch in A.D. 252,*
and appears to have had great weight in settling the
controversy, although its acts have not come down
to us. But the fact of its being held, involving, as
it does, the further fact that an Eastern Synod
was summoned to discuss the difficulties and
troubles of the Patriarch of the West, shows con-
clusively that the Primate of Christendom was
not its monarch, but only first of the great Patri-
archs, whose mutual interdependence and inter-
communion was the means of cementing and
maintaining the unity of the Church. The case
of Paulus of Samosata, who became Patriarch of
Antioch in A.D. 260, furnishes us with a further
instance of the interdependent relations between
the Patriarchal Sees. To Antioch we trace the
true origin of Arianism, 2 and the way for one
heresy concerning our Lord's Person was paved
politans and Bishops of the Patriarchate, who were available).
&ip(j.i\iavov re TOV v KairiraSoKlq, xal TOV Kara Tla\aiffrlvr]v QeoKriffrov
(the Metropolitans of Cappadocia and Palestine), coj &v M TT]V awoSov
diravTriffoi rty (card 'AvTibxeiw- K.T.\. (Euseb., vi. 46.)
1 The idea was to make the Synod as representative as possible.
Helenus acted as senior Metropolitan, pending the succession of
Demetrian to Fabius.
2 Dr. Newman traces this very clearly. See Arians in the Fourth
Century, chap, i., sections I and 2, and also Appendix I., On the
Syrian School of Theology. The rhetorical and sophistical methods of
120 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
by another. Paulus denied the Trinity and the
Incarnation in terms of such a Humanitarianism
as the Semi-Arians of the next century felt bound
to condemn. 1 He had the powerful support of
Zenobia of Palmyra, and in the splendour of his
prelacy and the scandals of his life he anticipated
the worst type of mediaeval Prince-Bishop. But
Christendom could not tolerate a heretic upon its
third Apostolic Throne. S. Dionysius of Alexandria 2
was still living, and ruling the Patriarchate of the
" Evangelical Throne " of S. Mark.
Despite his age and infirmities, he stirred up
the Metropolitans and Bishops of the Patriarch-
ate of Antioch to convoke a solemn Council to
sit in judgment upon their erring Patriarch. He
was too infirm to attend the Council himself,
but he strenuously urged the assembled prelates
to do their duty, 3 and he also appealed to
Paulus, urging him to reconsider his errors. The
the School of Antioch, when applied to the interpretation of Scripture,
produced, firstly, Arianism, and then (through Theodore of Mopsuestia)
Nestorianism.
1 The Semi-Arian Synod of Sirinium, known as the Second Sirinian
Synod, condemned the heresy of Paulus in A.D. 357.
2 S. Dionysius is called by Eusebius 6 /Jityas ' A\ta.t>8pfav eirkr/coTroj
(H. E., vii. Praef.). S. Athanasius calls him T^S KaOdXiKrp 'E/c/cX^/os
SiSder/caXos (S. Ath., De Sent. Dion., 6).
3 See Theod., Har. Fab., ii. 8. Euseb., H. E., vii. 27. The letter
of S. Dionysius was addressed to the Church at Antioch, and was of a
formal character. It was not addressed to Paulus as Patriarch, rov
Tjy(fj.6va. TTJS TrXeiwjs ov8 irpoffp-fitreus diw<ras, oi)S irpbs Trpoffuirov ypdif/a
avr<$ dXXa rrj irapoudq. iraey. K.T.\ Euseb., H. E., vii. 30.
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 121
Council met at Antioch in A.D. 264, and S. Diony-
sius died in the following year, before the case
was finally settled. Firmilian of Caesarea, in Cap-
padocia, as senior Metropolitan, presided at the
Council, which was not confined in member-
ship to the Metropolitans and Bishops dependent
on Antioch. Their position was most difficult and
delicate, owing to the secular support accorded to
Paulus by Zenobia, and also to the fact that the
Christians were at any moment liable to persecu-
tion at the will of the Emperor. Quite apart from
his personal abilities, the prelates of Antioch felt
that the Cappadocian Primate would be a more
weighty president than Helenus of Tarsus, their
own senior Metropolitan, who might be accused
of prejudice against Paulus. Other eminent pre-
lates, who were outside the jurisdiction of Antioch,
were also invited to be present. S. Gregory Thau-
maturgus, Archbishop of Neocaesarea, and his
brother S. Athenodorus, Nicomas of Iconium,
Hymenaeus of Jerusalem, and Theotecnus of
Caesarea, the metropolis in those days of Jerusa-
lem itself, were present at the Council.
Eusebius gives countenance to the view that the
Council was meant to be of a quasi-cecumenical
character, 1 and that all the Bishops of Christendom,
so far as was practicable and possible, were invited
1 After stating that S. Dionysius gave his opinion in writing be-
cause he was too infirm to attend, Eusebius proceeds : 01 dt Xonrot T&V
122 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
to be present. In this case we have an early pre-
cedent for the constitutional usage of the Church,
whereby an offending Patriarch is subject to the
jurisdiction of an (Ecumenical Council. Eusebius
tells us of the vast number of priests and deacons
who were present at this Council. 1 The deacons
had not any right of voting, but they were at all
events present as spectators. The partisans of the
popular Paulus also attended and stood by their
accused Patriarch, whilst Firmilian's logic un-
masked his heresy. He took refuge in a simple
denial of the charges against him, and the Bishops,
overawed doubtless by the secular support which
Paulus received from Zenobia, professed themselves
satisfied.
Bishop Hefele holds that a second Council was
shortly afterwards held, with the same abortive
result. Others, with Dr. Neale, deny this, but the
matter does not touch our argument.
The final Council, which deposed and excom-
municated Paulus, was held in A.D. 269. Firmilian,
who had presided at the first Council, died at Tarsus
on his journey to this final Council. Helenus of
Tarsus presided in his place as Senior Metropolitan
iKK\i)ffiuH> Trot/i^ej, tfXXoj &\\o&fv, us iirl \v/j.ewi>a rrjs "Kpiffrov
Trol/ju>i}s ffvvUffav, ol irdvTfs eirl ryv 'Atni&x fiav ffveijSovrfs. (ff. .,
vii. 27.)
1 pvpiovs re &\\ovs OVK tiu> dtrop^aai TIS, &/j.a irpfff^vrepoi^ Kal 8ia.K6i>ois.
K.T.X.
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 123
of the Patriarchate. Malchion, an eminent priest, 1
who had been head of the sophists' Greek school at
Antioch, was fitly chosen as the prosecutor of Paulus,
whose tenets were enmeshed and confused with
dialectical subtleties and sophistries. The Council,
after deposing and excommunicating Paulus, elected
Domnus to fill the vacant throne of Antioch. The
clergy and laity of Antioch were not allowed to
take their usual part in this election for fear of the
partisans of Paulus and his secular influence. For
two years he remained in possession of his episcopal
residence, and when Zenobia had been conquered
by Aurelian, the Catholics appealed to Aurelian for
the possession of the Church property, which Paulus
declined to give up. 2
Aurelian, though a Pagan unversed in the merits
of the case, set an example to future ages of that
equity in matters of Church property which is all
that the Church ought to expect at the hands of
the Civil Power. He ordered the building to be
given up to those persons who were in com-
1 MdXtora 5' airr&v ev6uva.s tiru<pvirT6/j.evov $i-f)\ey!;e Ma\x^w. K.T.\.
(Euseb., vii. 29.) The part taken by Malchion as the prosecutor of
Paulus before the Synod, must not be referred solely to his skill in
dialectics. As a priest he had a constitutional right to accuse his
Patriarch before the Synod and act as assessor in his trial. When
Bishop Colenso was tried by the Metropolitan and Bishops of South
Africa, the Dean of Capetown, and Archdeacons Merriman and Badnall
were the prosecutors, and addressed the Court, as priests accusing the
Bishop of heresy, in accordance with this ancient precedent.
2 Euseb., H. ., vii. 30. cirfl dvr^reive icai rrjv TTJJ tV/cX?;<rias
Karetxfv ijyffj.ovtai', Atipr)\iai>bt> tireiffav e%e\d<r<u TTJJ tKK\ij<rtas. (Theo-
doret, Hceret. Fab., xi. 8.)
124 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
munion with the Italian Bishops and the Roman
Patriarch. Gibbon views his act as a piece of
centralising policy meant to enhance the dignity
of the Imperial city. 1 But it is safer to regard it
as an independent testimony to the commanding
position of the Roman See, and its value as a
centre of unity. We need not refer in detail to
the action of the Fathers at Antioch with regard
to the ofj-oova-iov. 2 There are some interesting
points, however, in the Encyclical Letter addressed
to the Catholic Church by this final Council in the
matter of Paulus. Its inscription is worth careful
comment. It recounts the heresy and evil life
of Paulus, and his excommunication. It further
states his deposition, and the appointment by the
Council of Domnus as his successor. It is ad-
dressed "To Dionysius (of Rome), Maximus (of
Alexandria), and to all our fellow ministers
throughout the world ; the Bishops, Priests, and
1 " He considered the Bishops of Italy as the most impartial and
respectable judges amongst the Christians, and as soon as he was
informed that they had unanimously approved the sentence of the
Council, he acquiesced in their opinion, and (A.D. 274) immediately gave
orders that Paul should be compelled to relinquish the temporal posses-
sions belonging to an office, of which, in the judgment of his brethren,
he had been regularly deprived. But while we applaud the justice,
we should not overlook the policy of Aurelian ; who was desirous
of restoring and cementing the dependence of the Provinces on the
Capital by every means which could bind the interests or prejudices
of any part of his subjects." (Gibbon, vol. i. p. 414.)
2 See Hefele on the Councils, vol. i. p. 123 ; also S. Ath., De Synodis,
c. 45. (Newman's Notes in Oxf. Transl.)
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 125
Deacons, and to the whole Catholic Church under
Heaven ; Helenus (of Tarsus), and Hymenasus
(of Jerusalem), and Theophilus (See unknown),
and Theotecnus (of Caesarea) ; Maximus (of Bostra),
Proculus (See unknown), Nicomas (of Iconium),
and GElianus ; Paul and Bolanus, and Protogenes,
and Hierax, and Eutychius, and Theodorus, and
Malchion, and Lucius (both Priests), and all the
rest who are Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, dwell-
ing with us in the neighbouring cities and nations,
together with the Churches of God, send greeting
to the beloved brethren in the Lord." *
We note that the Patriarch of Rome is addressed
first, and next the Patriarch of Alexandria. 2 The
l Mafyttf> ical rots Kara rr\v oiKOvn^vrjv waffi ffv\\eirovpyois
rjfjLuv firiffK6Trois Kal 7r/3e<7/3uT^pots Kal OLaxovois, Kai irdffrj rq vvi> rbv
ovpavbv Ka0o\iKr] lKK\ri<Tia, "EXevos Kal 'T/uefaioj Kal Qe6<f>i\os Kal Qe6-
TCKVOS Kal Mdt/tos, IIp6/cXos, Ni/ci/zas, Kal AfXiayis, /col IlaOXos Kal
BwXavos Kal npuroytvys Kal 'Ifya Kal Evrtix. 10 * Ka -l 0e65wpos, Kal MaX-
\i<j}v Kal AOVKIOS, Kal ol XonroJ irdvTes ol ffiiv rip.lv irapoiKouvres rds tyyfo
?r6Xeis Kal tdvy iiriaKOiroi Kal irpeafivrtpoi Kal didKovoi, Kal at CKK\r)<riai
rov Qeov, dyaTrrjrois dSeX^ots iv Kvpiy xaJLpei.v. (Euseb., H, ., vii. 30.)
Bossuet holds that, because the decree was addressed to the whole
Catholic Church and received by its Patriarchs and Bishops, this
Council of Antioch was of oecumenical authority. (Bossuet, Lettre xxii.,
cited by Trevern, Discussion Amicale, t. i. p. 223.)
2 It is interesting to note that the Roman Dionysius, who was a
skilled theologian, wrote to Dionysius of Alexandria, when the latter
was accused of Sabellianism, and the Alexandrian Patriarch replied
with a defence that satisfied his Roman brother Patriarch and name-
sake. Baronius sees in this incident the supremacy of the Roman
Patriarch. But the incident really does not touch the question.
It illustrates the interdependence and intercommunion of the great
Patriarchs, and not the supremacy of one over the others. This is plain
from the account of the matter given by S. Athanasius (Ep. De Senten.
126 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
first and second Thrones of Christendom are
addressed by the third Throne of Antioch, as
represented by its senior Metropolitan and the
Prelates gathered by his invitation to a Patriarchal
Council of a semi-oecumenical character. The
occupants of the first and second Thrones, who
were not at the Council, are addressed by name,
as the leaders of Christendom, but they alone do
not represent the Provinces and Dioceses who
were not represented at Antioch. The Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons of the Threefold Apostolic
Ministry throughout the world (who were unable
to take any part in the proceedings at Antioch),
are also addressed. And the salutation does not
end even with them. The whole Catholic Church,
which includes not only Clergy, but the " Plebs
Christiana," is addressed also. The Encyclical of
the Antiochene Fathers emanates not only from
Helenus, the senior Metropolitan, and his brother
Metropolitans and Prelates, but from Priests of
eminence, like Malchion, and from the Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons of the Patriarchate, and
neighbouring cities and people, and from the
Dionysii, Opp. i. 252). He says that the Roman Patriarch e
Aiovvalif ST/XUKTCU, which at first sight looks like an authoritative calling
to account, till we remember that ^irwrAXw in Euseb. vi. 46 is used of
the letters of the Alexandrian Dionysius, and simply means to send
a letter or message. The fragments of the reply of Dionysius of
Alexandria bear no traces of submission to the jurisdiction or supre-
macy of the Roman Patriarch.
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 127
Churches of God, which includes the laity. The
constitutional position of the Priesthood as coun-
cillors, and of the Deacons as office-bearers in the
Church, who might speak without voting in her
Synods, and lastly, of the " Plebs Christiana,"
whose general concurrence in the proceedings is
intimated, is very clearly indicated in the inscrip-
tion and address of this Antiochene Encyclical.
In conclusion, we may note that just as Antioch
dealt with the Roman trouble concerning Novatian
the Anti-Pope, so did Rome deal with the Antio-
chene trouble concerning Paulus. Probably Synods
were held at Rome in the matter of Paulus, both
under Dionysius and his successor Felix. 1 The
judgment of Aurelian in the case of Paulus must
surely have involved a meeting of the Bishops of
Italy with the Roman Patriarch in order to for-
mally endorse* the condemnation of Paulus, pro-
nounced by the Synod of Antioch.
This appears to have taken place under Felix,
as Dionysius died before the final condemnation
of Paulus by the Roman See and the Bishops
1 " In A.D. 264 the Alexandrian and Roman Dionysii acted together
with the Council of Antioch in condemning and degrading Paul of
Samosata." (Smith and Wace, Diet, of Christian Biography , vol. i.,
p. 852.) How they acted is not clear, for Baronius was misled by the
Latin translation of S. Ath., De Synod., 43, in positively attributing to
Dionysius of Rome the condemnation of Paulus in a Roman Synod.
Baronius (Ad. Ann., 265, n. 10) makes this statement, and is corrected
by Hefele (Hist, of Councils, vol. i. p. 122, n. ).
128 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
of Italy. As a Greek scholar and theologian,
Dipnysius was specially fitted to deal with the
sophistries of Paulus, and thus the way was pre-
pared for the final endorsement of the decree of
Antioch by Felix, the next Roman Patriarch.
The case of Paulus shows that Rome was primus
inter pares amongst the Patriarchal Sees, and that
its central position gave it a commanding Primatial
influence, even in the eyes of the Pagan Emperor
Aurelian. But it does not show that the legitimate
Primacy of Rome could be distorted into a Vatican
supremacy. 1
We now turn from Antioch to North Africa, the
true cradle of Latin Christianity, and to Carthage,
its Primatial See. We may remark in passing that
if the Roman Church had not been Greek-speaking
during the greater part of the Ante-Nicene period,
it would have been unfitted to become the practical
centre of Christian unity. Greek was the universal
language of business and commerce, whilst Latin
was the official language of the Empire. The
subtleties of theological definitions found more
1 A learned Roman Catholic theologian remarks of the case of
Paulus: " Porro nee Itali, nee Romanus Episcopus causam Pauli in
Oriente iudicatum retractare aggressi sunt ; sed iudicium Orientalium
sine ullo examine ratum habuerunt. Hsec autem in isto Pauli iudicio
observanda sunt ad propositum pertinentia. Primum ad Synodum
vocatur Paulus, non ad Romanum Pontificem. Secundo, a Synodo
sine Pontificis Romani consensu et participatione damnatur. Tertio,
ab ea damnatus, ad Romanum sedem non provocat." (Du Pin, De
Antiqua Ecclesiee Disci 'p Una, p. 157.)
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 129
accurate expression in Greek than in Latin, and
whilst the Roman Church was Greek speaking, it
was in touch with Eastern theology and modes
of expression in a manner that ceased when it
became more exclusively the centre of Latin Chris-
tianity. Although Carthage was not an Apostolic
See, or the seat of a Patriarchate, properly so called,
the Archbishop of Carthage wielded an influence
almost as powerful as that of the Roman Patriarch
throughout Latin Christendom. He was in com-
munication with Spain and Gaul, as well as in
constant touch with Rome and Italy. S. Cyprian
was the most famous of the Primates of Carthage.
To him it was given to consolidate the constitu-
tion and order of the Catholic Church with a bril-
liant insight and sagacity founded upon a true
loyalty to the Divine order of its being. S.
Cyprian has been described as an innovating
sacerdotalist, who invented the Catholic Church,
as we now see it. But he was conservative to
the backbone, and based his methods exclusively
upon first principles of the Gospel of Christ. It
is very important to examine the views of S.
Cyprian upon the special subject with which these
pages deal. We need no apology for alluding to
S. Cyprian's oft-quoted dictum upon the soli-
darity of the Episcopate. " Episcopatus unus est,
cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." (De
i
130 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Unit. Eccl., Benedictine ed., p. I95-) 1 We may
freely translate it as follows : " The Episcopate
is one ; it is a whole in which each enjoys full
possession." Archbishop Benson paraphrases it
as follows : " The Apostleship, continued for ever
in the Episcopate, is thus universal, yet one ; each
Bishop's authority perfect and independent, yet
not forming with the others a mere agglomerate,
but being a full tenure on a totality, like that of a
shareholder in a joint-stock property." 5 The illus-
tration of the shareholder is admirable. Individual
Bishops cannot act as autocephalic diocesan auto-
crats, any more than an individual shareholder in
a joint-stock property can exercise by himself the
joint authority belonging to all. Each individual
Bishop's authority to ordain, and confirm, and
judge as iudex ordinarius is perfect and indepen-
1 S. Cyprian expresses the same truth in his letter to Pope Stephen,
in which he states that a heretical Bishop's flock is the care of the
universal Episcopate, on the principle that, though the Pastors be
many, yet the flock that they feed is one. " Idcirco copiosum corpus
est sacerdotum, concordiae mutuae glutine atque unitatis vinculo copu-
latum, ut si quis ex collegio nostro hseresin facere, et gregem Christi
lacerare et vastare tentaverit, subveniant cseteri. . . . Nam etsi pas-
tores multi sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus, et oves universas,
quas Christus sanguine suo et passione quaesivit colligere et fovere de-
bemus." (S. Cypr., Ep. 68, ad Steph.} Again he writes, " Scire debes
episcopum in ecclesia esse, et ecclesiam in episcopo . . . ecclesia quae
catholica una est, scissa non (est) neque divisa. Sed (est) utique con-
nexa et cohaerentium sibi invicem sacerdotum glutine copulata." (S.
Cypr., Ep. 66, 8.)
2 S. Cyprian (Smith and Wace, i. p. 745).
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 131
dent, just as each shareholder's vote in controlling
a joint-stock property is perfect and independent.
Any individual action which a shareholder may
take with regard to property belonging in common
to the whole body, must be limited in its range by
the scope entrusted to the individual by the whole
body ; and further, it must be remembered that
the individual is responsible to the whole body
for his exercise of the trust committed to him. 1
Therefore the authority of the individual Bishop
is, in the first place, limited to his Diocese, which
is the sphere of action immediately assigned to
him by his Metropolitan and com -provincial
Bishops. The Metropolitan and Bishops of a
Province, in Provincial Synod assembled, have
authority to create new Dioceses, and to sub-
divide or alter the boundaries of old ones. 2 In
his Diocese the Bishop acts as a shareholder of
the common Apostleship, and is responsible for
his every action, primarily, to his immediate
brother-shareholders, the corn-provincial Bishops,
who, with the Metropolitan or Archbishop, as
primus inter pares, form the Provincial Synod.
1 Cardinal Bellarmine, whose ultra-Papal views are well known,
was yet constrained by his knowledge of facts to write as follows :
" Episcopi sunt ecclesiae representative ut nostri loquuntur, quilibet
enim Episcopus gerit personam suss ecclesise particularis, et proinde
omnes Episcopi gerunt personam totius Ecclesiae." (Bellarmine, De
Condi. Auctoritate, iii. 14,)
2 See Note B.
132 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
But the judgment of a Provincial Synod is not
absolutely final. Beyond it lies the appeal to the
Patriarch and his Synod, whilst above all lies the
appeal to the entire body of the Episcopate in
General Council assembled, which, to pursue
Archbishop Benson's figure, stands for the gene-
ral body of the shareholders. The Diocesan
Bishop possesses, however, liberty of individual
action within certain well-defined limits which
do not touch the common heritage of the faith
and discipline of the Church. The ius liturgicum
is an instance. A Bishop can order the de-
tails of worship in his Diocese in matters which
do not conflict with the common law of Chris-
tendom. At the risk of appearing to antici-
pate in the order of our authorities we may
venture to quote S. Augustine's counsel of
peaceful common sense in discussing a point of
this nature. One Casulanus applied to him with
regard to the practice of observing the Saturday
as a fast, which was practised in some Churches
and not in others. S. Augustine replied that it was
within the discretion of the Diocesan Bishop to do
as he thought fit in the matter, and that the Bishop's
ruling should be adhered to without further scruple. 1
1 " Mos eorum mihi sequendus videtur, quibus eorum populorum
congregatio regenda commissa est. Quapropter si consilio meo
acquiescis ; episcopo tuo in hac re noli resistere, et quod facit ipse, sine
ullo scrupulo vel disceptatione sectare. " (S. Aug. , Ep. 86, Ad Casulan.)
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 133
To return to S. Cyprian. There is one luminous
fact in his view of the Episcopate. The individual
Bishop is responsible to the whole Episcopate for
what he does, and yet, however that responsibility
finds expression, whether it be in his obligations to
his Metropolitan, or Patriarch, or to an (Ecumeni-
cal Council, he is not (to use a modern phrase) the
" Assistant Curate " of another Bishop, or Patriarch,
however eminent. No Bishop, not even the Primate
of Christendom, is " Episcopus Episcoporum" and
herein, by anticipation, he condemns the present
servile subjection of the Bishops of Latin Christen-
dom to the Roman See. The occasion which
caused S. Cyprian to use these words is well known.
His controversy with Pope Stephen on the question
of the Re-baptism of heretics is familiar ground to
every student of Church history. That S. Cyprian
was in the wrong as a theologian, and that Pope
Stephen was in the right in this controversy, does
not touch our present argument. In A.D. 256
S. Cyprian presided over a Council at Carthage,
at which seventy-two Bishops were present. The
Council endorsed his view, that heretical baptism
was invalid, even though the right form and matter
were used. S. Cyprian, using due respect to the
Primate of Christendom, formally communicated
to him the decision of this Council, which, however,
he did not consider necessarily exclusive of the
134 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
opposite view. He wished the matter left open to
the judgment of individual Bishops. 1 But Pope
Stephen, with a clearer statesmanship, saw that this
was impossible. He attempted the policy of Victor
in the Paschal controversy, and tried to close the
question by threatening to excommunicate the
African Bishops. S. Cyprian wrote to Pompeius
(Ep. Ixxiv.) in indignant terms upon "the harsh
obstinacy of our brother Stephen." He owned the
Primacy of Rome in the fullest possible way. 2 But
he knew nothing of the modern Vatican novelty,
that the Pope is "the supreme judge of the faithful,
and that the judgment of the Apostolic See cannot
be revised by any one, and that no one may pass
judgment upon its decisions." 3 S. Cyprian con-
voked another Council, at which eighty-five Bishops
were present (A.D. 256), and in his opening speech
he says : " It remains for each of us to deliver our
sentiments on this matter, judging no one, nor
1 Qua in re nee nos vim cuiquam facimus, aut legem damus, cum
habeat in ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium liberum
unusquisque praepositus, rationem actus sui Domino redditurus. (S.
Cyprian, Ep. ad Steph,, ed. Bened., p. 129.) This passage cannot be
divorced from its context, and is therefore limited in its application.
2 S. Augustine says that " without doubt holy Cyprian would have
yielded, if the truth of this question had been thoroughly sifted, and
declared, and established by a plenary council." (S. Aug., De Baft.,
ii. 4.) The Vatican claims were unknown alike to S. Cyprian and
S. Augustine. An Oecumenical Council was to their minds the final
deciding authority, and not the Roman Patriarch.
8 Vatican Decrees (Collect. Lacens., vii. 487) confirmed by Pius IX.,
July 18, 1870.
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 135
removing any one, if he be of a different opinion,
from the right of communion. For no one of us
sets himself up to be a Bishop of Bishops, or by
tyrannical terror compels his colleagues to the
necessity of obedience, since every Bishop, accord-
ing to the freedom of his liberty and power,
possesses the right of his own opinion, and can
no more be judged by another Bishop than he
himself can judge another Bishop." 1
It is interesting to note S. Cyprian's real meaning
in this passage. He is not defending the irrespon-
sible autonomy of any individual Bishop, but he is
asserting the principle that no single Bishop can
be judged by another single Bishop. 2 No single
Bishop is " Episcopus Episcoporum " in the sense
that he is the sole irresponsible judge of another
Bishop. S. Cyprian's words were directed against
the claims of Pope Stephen to excommunicate the
North African Bishops in a matter which might
well be left (in S. Cyprian's opinion) an open
question. But S. Cyprian's dictum with regard to
an "Episcopus Episcoporum" must be read in con-
1 " Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus, proferamus ;
neminem iudicantes, aut a iure communionis aliquem, si diversum sen-
serit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se Epis-
coporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem
collegas suos adigit ; quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia liber -
tatis et potestatis suse arbitrium proprium ; tanquam iudicari ab alio
non possit, quam nee ipse potest iudicare." (Cone. Carth. , ap. S. Cypr.,
ed. Bened., p. 330.)
- 'stz Jurisdiction, by J. W. Lee. Union Review for 1866, p. 363.
136 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
junction with his strong assertion of the Primacy
of the Roman See, and his firm adhesion to the
principle of Primacy generally.
The strong hand of the Primate of Carthage is
very manifest in the various Councils over which
he presided, and S. Cyprian never meant to advo-
cate either irresponsible episcopal autocracy, or to
minimise legitimate Primatial authority by his
action towards Pope Stephen. We have already 1
dealt with S. Cyprian's description of Rome as
" the principal Church whence sacerdotal unity has
taken its rise." There are other passages in which
S. Cyprian expresses the same view. As we have
already stated, the question at issue between Pope
Cornelius and Novatian was really a matter of
succession. S. Cyprian wrote to Cornelius after
the Council of Carthage (A.D. 251) had sent two
Bishops, Caldonius and Fortunatus, to Rome to
investigate the claims of Novatian, and stated in
his letter that he was satisfied that Cornelius was
the true Bishop of Rome, and that the party of
Novatian " had refused the bosom and embrace of
her who is their root and mother." 2 In a subse-
quent letter to Cornelius he says, " We who furnish
all who sail hence with instructions, lest they should
journey with any scandal, know that we have ex-
1 See Note A., Chapter II.
1 " Radicis et matris sinum atque complexum recusavit." (S. Cyp.,
Ep. ad Corn., xliii.)
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 137
horted them to hold and acknowledge the root
and stem of the Catholic Church." l It is obviously
impossible to suppose that S. Cyprian meant in
these two passages to state that the Roman Church
was "the root and stem" of the Catholic Church
in such a sense as to render communion with the
Roman See a necessary condition of Catholic
unity or orthodoxy. 2 His own dealings with Pope
Stephen render the modern ultramontane view of
his words quite inadmissible and impossible ; 3 but,
on the other hand, it is equally inadmissible to
minimise them in such a manner as to say that
they contain " no allusion to Rome's position as
the original spring of evangelisation in the West,
and as the ecclesiastical metropolis of Central and
Southern Italy." 4 S. Cyprian did not refuse to
recognise Rome as the capital of the world, and
it was equally far from his thoughts to minimise
the legitimate Primacy of the Roman See, however
strenuously he might resist the undue supremacy
claimed by Stephen. The safest view of these
passages of S. Cyprian is the moderate one which
1 Nos enim singiilis navigantibus, ne cum scandalo ullo navigarent,
rationem reddentes, scimus nos hortatos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholicse
radicem et matricem agnoscerent ac tenerent. (Ep. ad Corn., xlv.) Bos-
suet favours the rendering of " stem " for " matricem." (CEuvres, ed.
1816, 411-412.)
- See Note C.
3 See Note D.
4 Puller, Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, p. 341.
138 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
avoids either extreme. We may safely conclude
that S. Cyprian meant to allude to the unique
position of the Roman See, 1 and the lawful Primacy
of the Roman Patriarch.
S. Cyprian was too able an organiser not to
see the immense services Rome could render to
Christendom as a centre of unity. His words
express his ideal, and not the ideal of the Vatican
Council of 1870. S. Cyprian also carefully main-
tained the rights of the Priesthood and the Christian
Laity. We have already said that the Archbishop
of Carthage was a man of commanding influence.
The Bishops who owned his Primacy seem to have
endorsed his views almost absolutely in the great
Synods which he held ; but yet he was careful
to act constitutionally rather than autocratically.
He guarded, as carefully as S. Ignatius, the right
of the Priesthood to a consultative voice, and
he further maintained the right of the "Plebs
Christiana " to assent to what was done in Councils
and Synods. The constitutional position of a Bishop
involves the fullest admission of the rights of his
Priests 2 and of his faithful Laity, as well as the
1 Tertullian, whose influence S. Cyprian owns so definitely, recog-
nised the position of Rome as the one Apostolic See of the West :
" percurre ecclesias apostolicas ... si ... Italiae adiaces, habes
Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas praesto esL" (De Prascr. 36.)
2 S. Cyprian's action shows that the priests have a right to be con-
sulted, with reference to candidates for Ordination, as well as the
laity, whose canonical right to object is guarded by the "Si quis."
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 139
rights of his Metropolitan and com- provincial
Bishops, his Patriarch and Patriarchal Synod, and
the ultimate authority of the whole Episcopate in
(Ecumenical Council assembled.
As S. Cyprian was accustomed to call Tertullian
his " Master," Tertullian's views on the position of
the laity are worth quoting in this connection.
His views on the Priesthood of the Laity are well
known. 1 He also says with regard to Councils
held in the second century, that they represented
" the whole Christian name." 2 By this he evi-
" In ordinationibus clericis solemus vos ante consulate, et mores ac
merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare." (S. Cypr., Ep. 33,
ad Cler. ) In other matters concerning the government of the Church
they were consulted. " Ut ea quae circa ecclesise gubernaculum utilitas
communis exposcit, tractare simul, et plurimorum consilio examinata
limare possemus." (S. Cypr., Ep. 6, ad Cler.} Cornelius, as Roman
Patriarch, did likewise. " Omni actu ad me perlato, placuit contrahi
presbyterium ut formato consilio, quid circa personam eorum obser-
vari deberet, consensu omnium statueretur." (Cornel., Ep. 46, ad
Cypr.} He summoned a Diocesan Synod of his priests to consult in
the matter of restoring Maximus, and other confessors, who had at first
sided with Novatian.
1 " Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus ? Scriptum est, Regnum quoque
nos et sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit. " Again, in allusion to our
Lord's promise to be present where two or three are gathered together
in His name, even if the Threefold Ministry is unavoidably absent, he
says that the Church is still there. " Sed ubi tres, ecclesia est, licet
laici." (Tertullian, De Exhortat. Cast., vii.)
2 Certain early Councils, to which Eusebius alludes, were held
against Montanism about A.D. 150 (see Hefele, vol. i., p. 80). Apol-
linaris, Metropolitan of Hierapolis, and twenty-six Bishops held a Pro-
vincial Council at Hierapolis in Asia, and condemned Montanus and
Maximilla. This is the earliest Provincial Synod on record, and Euse-
bius (quoting a fragment) says: Tow yap Kara TTJI/ 'Afftav viffrdv 7roXX<f/cis
KO.I TToXXox?? TJJS 'AfTi'aj efe ToOro ffWfXObvrwv, Kal TOI/J irpoeQ&TOv; \6yovs
140 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
dently meant that the Laity expressed their con-
senting voice to the definitions made by the
Bishops, after consultation with the Priests. At
the outbreak of the Decian persecution in A.D. 250,
S. Cyprian retired from Carthage with the courage
of a noble prudence. He guided his Diocese
during his retirement by frequent letters. He
is asked a question involving discipline, and he
replies by declining to settle it on his own unaided
judgment. " I am unable to give my reply by
myself alone," he says, "since I have resolved
from the beginning of my episcopate to do
nothing of my own private opinion and your
counsel " (he was writing to his priests and
deacons) " and without the consent of the lay-
people." 1 The same view obtained at Rome.
The Roman Clergy wrote to S. Cyprian upon
the very important subject of the restoration of
the lapsed. " In so important a matter," they
3e/3i^Xoi>s diroiprjvavTWV, ical &troSoKifJ.a.ff<ivTuv TTJV aipeffiv,
oCrw 5^ TT)S re fKK\riffias t^eiharffriffav ical rrjs KOivuvlas ftpxOrjffa.v. (Ex
Anonym, ap. Euseb., v. 16.) We cannot assume that the iriffroi meant
Bishops and Clergy alone, to the exclusion of the Laity. In like
manner Tertullian, writing apparently of larger Councils, evidently
includes Bishops, Clergy, and Laity. " Aguntur prseterea per Grsecias
ilia certis in locis concilia ex universis ecclesiis, per quse et altiora
quaeque in commune tractantur, et ipsa reproesentatio totius nominis
Christiani magna veneratione celebratur." (Tert., De leiun. xiii.)
1 Solus rescribere nihil potui ; quando a primordio Episcopatus mei
statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro, et sine consensu plebis, mea
privatim sententia gerere. (S. Cypr., Ep. xiv.)
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 141
write, " the same thing approves itself to us which
you have already dealt with, namely, that the peace
of the Church must be deferred (i.e. the restoration
of the lapsed) ; and that then, a communication
of counsels having been made with the Bishops,
Priests, Deacons, Confessors, and Laymen in good
standing, the case of the lapsed be dealt with." 1
S. Cyprian, writing to Antonianus, quotes this
reply of the Roman Clergy, which lays an addi-
tional stress on the concord which existed between
Rome and Carthage upon the subject of the
" Plebs Christiana." " And this also I wrote very
fully to Rome, to the Clergy who were still acting
without a Bishop, and to the Confessors, Maximus
the Presbyter, and the rest who were then shut
up in prison, but are now in the Church, joined
to Cornelius. You may know that I wrote thus
from their reply. For in their letter they have
put the matter thus." : And then he quotes the
1 Quanquam nobis in tarn ingenti negotio placeat, quod et tu ipse
tractasti prius : Ecclesise pacem sustinendam, deinde, sic collatione
consiliorum cum Episcopis, Presbyteris, Diaconis, Confessoribus, pariter
ac stantibus laicis facta, lapsorum tractare rationem. (Ep. xxx.,
Cypriano Papa: Presbyteri et Diaconi Roma consistentes. ) The Roman
See was then vacant after the death of Pope Fabian.
2 " Quod etiam Romam ad Clerum tune adhuc sine Episcopo agentem.
et ad Confessores, Maximum presbyterum, et coeteros in custodia con-
stitutes, nunc in Ecclesia cum Cornelio iunctos, plenissime scripsi.
Quod me scripsisse de eorum rescriptis poteris noscere. Nam in
epistola sua ita posuerunt." Then follow the quoted words. (S.
Cypr., Ep. lv., ad Antonian.'] It is interesting to note that the senior
Clergy of a diocese have authority to administer its affairs sede vacante.
142 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
passage about referring the case of the lapsed
to the Clergy and laymen in good standing.
The right of the laity to assent in the election
of Bishops is plain and manifest. We shall deal
with this point subsequently. Although doubts
have been thrown on the right of laymen to
attend Synods, we must admit this much from the
evidence which has been adduced.
(i.) The assent of the whole body of the faithful
is necessary to the decisions in matters of Faith,
Doctrine, and Discipline, enacted by the Bishops
with the counsel of the Clergy.
(ii.) This assent must find expression in some
definite way. No better way can be suggested than
the presence of certain representative laity in Pro-
vincial and Diocesan Synods, who shall have an
assenting vote, which involves no right of initiative in
matters on which the Bishops have, iure divino, a
votum decisivum, after consulting with the Clergy. 1
The Roman Clergy acted thus in the case of Marcion, as well as in
their correspondence with S. Cyprian. This power afterwards was
concentrated in the hands of the Arch-priest or Dean, and the Cathedral
Chapter ; or in the Vicar-General and Chapter.
1 We may briefly sum up the various indications of this presence
of the laity in Synods. At the Council of Carthage on Baptism (A.D.
256), S. Cyprian presided over eighty-seven Bishops, very many Priests
and Deacons, and maxima pars plebis, (S. Cypr., Opp., ed. Balus,
p. 329.) In the Council of Elvira (A.D. 305) the Decrees were issued
by the Bishops alone, twenty-four Priests sat, as representing the con-
sultative voice, the Deacons and Laity who were present had to stand.
(Bruns., Biblioth. Eccl., vol. i. pt. ii. p. I.) In Spain the presence of
the laity was usual. The Council of Tarragona (A.D. 516) ordered the
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 143
We must now deal with S. Cyprian's view of
his own office as Primate. He referred back to
the Diocesan Bishop a case of discipline, which
primarily belonged to Diocesan authority, and
declined to deal with it in the first instance as
Primate. The complaint of Bishop Rogatianus
was laid before S. Cyprian and a Synod of Bishops.
S. Cyprian wrote in reply as follows : " I and my
colleagues who were present with me were deeply
and grievously distressed, dearest brother, on read-
ing your letter in which you complained of your
deacon, that forgetful of your sacerdotal rank, and
unmindful of his own office and ministry, he had
provoked you by his insults and injuries. And
you indeed have acted worthily, and with your
accustomed humility towards us, in rather com-
plaining of him to us ; although you have power,
according to the inherent right belonging to your
episcopate and the authority of your throne,
whereby you might at once obtain legal satis-
presence of the laity. (Hardouin, ii. 1053.) The fourth Council of
Toledo ordered that "After the entrance and seating of all the Bishops
those Presbyters are called quos causa probaverit introire. After these
enter such approved Deacons as the rule permits to be present. Deinde
ingrediantur et Laid, qui electione concilia inter e s se meruerunt" (Mansi.,
Cone, i. p. 10.) Elected laity thus had a distinct place in the Spanish
Councils. In the Council of Orange in A.D. 529, laymen signed the
decrees with the formula consentiens subscripsi. This is unusual. The
Bishops were accustomed to sign definiens subscripsi, and the Priests
Deacons, and laymen simply subscripsi (Hefele, vol. i. p. 25). (Cf.
Field on the Church, chap. xxix. p. 646.)
144 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
faction upon him ; being assured that all we your
colleagues would be well pleased with whatsoever
steps you might take with regard to your inso-
lent deacon, in accordance with your sacerdotal
power." l
In accordance with this clear definition of rights,
the Bishop, as iudex ordinarius in his Diocese, can-
not delegate his authority to his Metropolitan, or
Primate. He must, in the first instance, exercise
it himself as of inherent right. For the manner
of his exercising it he is responsible to the
Collective Episcopate, through his Metropolitan
and corn-provincial Bishops, in the first instance ;
through his Patriarch and Patriarchal Synod, in
the second instance ; and, finally, to an (Ecu-
menical Council. We do not, of course, claim
that this matured method of applying the authority
of the Collective Episcopate to the case of a single
Bishop was accurately defined in S. Cyprian's day, 2
1 Graviter et dolenter commoti sumus ego, et collegse mei, qui
pnesentes aderant, frater carissime, lectis litteris tuis, quibus de
diacono tuo conquestus es, quod immemor sacerdotalis loci tui, et
officii ac minister!! sui oblitus contumeliis et iniuriis suis te exacer-
baverit. Et tu quidem honorifice circa nos et pro solita tua humilitate
fecisti, ut malles de eo nobis conqueri, cum pro episcopatus vigore et
cathedrae auctoritate haberes potestatem, qua possis de illo statim
vindicari ; certus quod collegse tui omnes gratum haberemus, quod-
cunque circa diaconum tuum contumeliosum sacerdotali potestate
fecisses. (S. Cypr., Ep. Ixv.)
2 S. Cyprian, in the passage above quoted, makes it plain that,
whilst he and his colleagues had such confidence in Rogatianus that
they would be "well pleased" with his action against his offending
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 145
but it can be fairly deduced as the ideal of con-
stitutional Church authority in Ante-Nicene times.
We now touch upon the earliest Canon Law which
deals with the constitutional authority of Bishops.
The arguments as to the date and authority
of the Apostolic Canons are too complex and
lengthy for these pages. 1 We may safely con-
clude that some of them embody the precepts
and authority of the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic
age, whilst others are of later date. We have
already alluded to Bishop Beveridge's conclusion
that these Canons are Ante-Nicene. " Beveridge
considered this collection to be a repertory of
ancient Canons given by Synods in the second
and third centuries. In opposition . . . Daille
regarded it as the work of a forger who lived in
the fifth and sixth centuries, but Beveridge refuted
him so convincingly, that from that time his
opinion, with some few modifications, has been
that of all the learned." (Hefele, Councils, vol. i.
p. 452.) 2
deacon, the reverse was also possible. Rogatianus was responsible to
the Metropolitan and Bishops of his Province in the first instance, and
then to the Primatial Council of the Archbishop of Carthage.
1 The modern Roman view of these Canons is as follows : " Canones
illi non sunt opus genuinum apostolorum, nee ab omni naevo immunes ;
merito tamen reputantur insigne monumentum discipline Ecclesiae per
priora saecula." (Icard., Pralect. Itiris Can., 1862.)
3 Bunsen concludes that in these Canons " we find ourselves unmis-
takably in the midst of the life of the Church of the second and third
centuries." (Christianity and Mankind, vol. ii. p. 405.)
K
146 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Von Drey, on the other hand, while claiming
to refute the conclusions of Beveridge, is yet
obliged to admit that certain of the Apostolic
Canons are Ante-Nicene. The Canon concerning
Metropolitans and Primates is certainly Ante-
Nicene, for it reflects accurately the historic posi-
tion of Primates in the second and third centuries.
It is numbered 35 in the collection of Dionysius
Exiguus, who translated a collection of Canons
from Greek into Latin in about A.D. 500. He
prefaces his collection with fifty Canons, which in
his preface he calls " Canones qui dicuntur Aposto-
lorum." l In the Latin it runs as follows : " Epis-
copos gentium singularum scire convenit, quis inter
eos primus habeatur, quern velut caput existiment,
et nihil amplius praeter eius conscientiam gerant
quam ilia sola singuli, quae parochiae propriae et
villis, quae sub ea sunt, competunt. Sed nee ille
praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aliquid. Sic
1 Dionysius compiled a second collection, in which he omitted the
Apostolic Canons in deference to the decree of Pope Hormisdas, who
declared them apocryphal, about A.D. 514. A previous decree of
Gelasius, according to Gratian, had taken the same view, but Arch-
bishop Hincmar of Rheims expressly states that Gelasius was silent
on the subject of these Canons. The 46th Canon declared that all
baptism by heretics was invalid, and this in itself would militate against
their reception in Rome and the West. But notwithstanding this, they
were gradually received in the West, and partly incorporated by Gratian
in the Corpus Juris Canonici. Besides which, when Humbert, the
Legate of Pope Leo IX., condemned certain apocryphal writings in
1 054, he accepted the fifty Apostolic Canons.
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 147
etiam unanimitas erit, et glorificabitur Deus per
Christum in Spiritu Sancto."
About fifty years after Dionysius Exiguus,
Joannes Scholasticus, who was made Patriarch
of Constantinople in A.D. 565, published a Greek
Collection of Canons, in which the Apostolic
Canons were increased in number to 85. The
Greek text used by Dionysius differs in details,
and in the numbering of the Canons, from the
text used by Joannes Scholasticus ; but the 85
Canons of his edition were subsequently accepted
by the second Canon of the Synod in Trullo
(A.D. 792), which the Eastern Church accepts as
(Ecumenical. Thus, whilst we may reckon the
50 Canons accepted in the West as practically
Ante-Nicene, it is not safe so to reckon the
additional 35 Canons of the Eastern recension.
Bishop Beveridge holds that the Apostolic Canons
were expressly confirmed by Canon i. of the
Council of Chalcedon. 1 But Canon Bright is
doubtful, 2 and the text appears to refer expressly
to Canons enacted in known Synods. Bishop
Hefele, however, shows that the Council of
Chalcedon appealed to the authority of the 29th,
3ist, and 32nd of the Apostolical Canons. 3 Pro-
1 Toil's irapa rCiv ayluv Trar^puv xad fKaffryv ffvvoSov &XP 1 T0 " v ^
Kavbvas, Kpareiv e5iKai<jiiffa/j.fv. (Cone. Chal., i.)
2 Notes on the Canons of the First Four General Councils, p. 125.
3 Hefele, vol. ii. p. 68.
148 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
bably the Council of Chalcedon sanctioned such
of the Apostolical Canons as had been re-enacted
by subsequent Synods. This bears on Canon
xxxv. with which we are now dealing, as it was
re-enacted by the gib. Canon of the Synod of
Antioch in A.D. 341. The Greek of the 35th
Apostolical Canon is as follows : Tovs erncr/coVou?
eKacrrov eOvov? eiSevai %pr] TOV ev avrois Trparrov, KCU
r/yeia-Oai avTOV &>? Ke<paX)jv, KOI /JirjSev TI Trparreiv
irepiTTOV avev Trj? eiceivov yvu>/u.r]$ eiceiva Se /mova TTpaT-
TCIV eKacrrov, oara TH avTOV TrapoiKia 7ri(3aX\ei KOI
ra?? VTT avrqv -^u>pat^ aXXa /uqSe eiceivos avev Ttjs
TTOLVTOW yvu>/u.r]V Troie/rco TI ' ovrw yap ojnovoia co-rat
Kal So^aa-O^freTai 6 0eo? Sia Kvpiov ev 'A<y/co TIvevftaTi.
A careful comparison of the Latin and Greek text
will give us the following translation : " The
Bishops of every nation ought to know who is
the first amongst them, and to esteem him as
their Head, and not to do anything extraordi-
nary l without his judgment, but for every one to
manage only the affairs of his own Paroikia (i.e.
Diocese), and the places which are within its
jurisdiction. But let not him (i.e. the Primate)
do anything without the judgment of all, for it
is by acting thus that there will be unanimity,
and God will be glorified through our Lord in
the Holy Spirit." It would be difficult to suggest
1 i.e. " beyond their ordinary jurisdiction."
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 149
clearer words than those used in this Canon
to express the constitutional relation subsisting
between Diocesan Bishops and their Primates.
We use the word " Primate " advisedly, for the
leading principle of this Canon applies not only
to Metropolitans and the Bishops of their Pro-
vinces, but is capable of a wider and more ex-
tended application. The Bishops of the Church
of each nation, in which there may be several
Metropolitans and Ecclesiastical Provinces, are
to recognise the Primacy of the first in rank of
their Metropolitans. 1 The position of the Arch-
bishop of Carthage, as a Primate of Metropolitans,
and the principle of Primacy, as vested in the
great Patriarchal Sees, is distinctly recognised in
this Canon. The position 2 which has been attri-
1 Bishop Beveridge, writing on this Canon, takes the same view as
is expressed in the text. " Prsesertim cum is simpliciter Primus SUCE
gentis Episcopus hie dicatur, non Metropolita, non Archiepiscopus, non
Exarchus, non Patriarcha, quse nomina postmodum in usum ecclesias-
ticum recepta sunt, nonnulla quidem eorum Concilii Nicseni tempore,
vel paulo ante, alia vix ante quartam universalem Synodum a Chalce-
done celebratam. Verum de nominibus istis non opus est hie dispute-
mus, cum rem ipsam ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus obtinuisse pro
comperto certoque habeamus, ut unus scilicet in unaquaque gente Epis-
copus, et quidem is qui Metropoli eiusdem praeest, Primatum quendam
supra caeteros et prserogativum haberet." (Cod. Canon. Eccl. Prim.,
" 5, P- 73)-
2 The South African Church in 1876 took a step somewhat in
advance of the unwritten common consent of the Catholic Bishops
in communion with the See of Canterbury. The Provincial Synod of
that year expressed its desire (by a formal resolution) "that the
relation of His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury to the other
Bishops of the Anglican Communion be that of Primate among Arch-
150 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
buted by common consent to the Archbishop
of Canterbury by the Catholic Bishops in com-
munion with that great and venerable See, is
equally covered by this Canon, although the cen-
trifugal tendencies of Teutonic Christianity have
as yet hindered its Canonical delimitation. The
38th Apostolic Canon is also worth quoting, since
it applies the principles laid down in Canon xxxv.
to regular Synodical action. " Bis in anno epis-
coporum concilia celebrentur, ut inter se invicem
dogmata pietatis explorent, et emergentes eccle-
siasticas contentiones amoveant ; semel quidem
quarta septimana Pentecostes, secundo vero duo-
decimo die mensis Hyperberetaei (id est iuxta
Romanes quarto idus Octobris)." Aevrepov TOV
erou? crvvoo$ yive&Qia TQOV eTria-KOTrwv KOI avaKpiveTuxrav
aXXj/Xou? TO. Soy/AdTa TIJS eOcre/^e/a? icai ray e/u.7rnr-
Tovira? eKK\t]<Tiaa-TiKas ai/r/Xo'y/a? SiaXvcTaxrav dVa^
fjiev TII TerdpTt] efiSo/uidSi TJ?? Hei/Tf;/co<rrJ79, Seurepov
Se 'YTrepfieperaiov ScaSeKaTfl. " Let a Synod of
Bishops be held twice a year, and let them exa-
mine in counsel with one another the dogmatic
decrees of Religion (i.e. matters pertaining to faith,
discipline, and worship), and let them set at rest
bishops, Primates, Metropolitans and Bishops, under due Canonical
limitations, and that these Canonical limitations be defined ; and
further, that the Bishops of this Province be respectfully requested at
the next meeting of the Pan-Anglican Synod, to take such measures
as shall lead to the desired result." Time and patience will be needed
to ensure this result.
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 151
such ecclesiastical controversies as may arise
once (meeting) on the fourth week of Pentecost,
and for the second time on the twelfth day of
the month Hyperberetseus " (the last month of the
Kalendar according to the Macedonian year (Heb.
Tizri\ and in the Roman Kalendar the fourth day
before the Ides of October).
This Canon orders the regular convocation of
Provincial Synods of Bishops. The Bishops, as
is plain from the wording of this Canon, form the
complete Synod of the Province qua votum decisivum,
although the Canon must not be construed apart
from other enactments which provide for the votum
consultativum of the Priesthood and the assent of
the laity. The rule here made for holding Pro-
vincial Synods twice a year was repeated in the
5th Canon of Nicaea, and also in the 2oth Canon
of the Council of Antioch. The sole final respon-
sibility of decision rests with the Episcopate of the
Catholic Church, and such finality as appears to
be allowed (by the wording of certain Canons) to
the decrees of Provincial Synods is always con-
ditioned by this fact.
It will be convenient at this stage to quote the
74th Apostolic Canon, which deals with the trial
of Bishops. Parts of this Canon are certainly
ancient, 1 but in dealing with it here we are not
1 Hefele, vol. i. p. 487.
152 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
unmindful of the considerations we have pre-
viously alleged with regard to the 35 supplemen-
tary Greek Canons. " Episcopum ab hominibus
christianis et fide dignis de crimine accusatum in
ius vocent episcopi. Si vocationi paruerit, respon-
deritque, fueritque convictus, poena decernatur ; si
vero vocatus haud paruerit, missis ad eum duobus
episcopis iterum vocetur ; si ne sic quidem paruerit,
duo rursus ad eum missi tertio vocent episcopi.
Si hanc quoque missionem aspernatus non ven-
erit, pronunciet contra eum synodus quae vide-
buntur, ne ex iudicii detrectatione lucrum facere
videatur." 'ETTtWoTrov KaTyyopyOevra CTTI TIVI Trapa
ato7r/<7Tft>i/ avOpwTrwv, Ka\ei<r6ai avTOV avayicaiov
VTTO TUJV eTTKTKOTrcav Kuv juej> aTTavTijcrr] KOI o/ULoXoyjjcrt)
t] eXeyxJdelt], oplTeaQai TO eTriTi/uuov ei <5e KaXovjmevos
fj.t] VTTOKOvaroi, KaXeicrQu) Kal SevTepov, a-Troo-reXAo/xeVwj/
TT' avTOV Svo eTTicrKOTrcov ' eav Se KCU OVTCO /cara-
(ppovijiras /mrj airavTYivfl, / cruvoSos aTrofpaivecrOa) /car'
avTOV TO. SoKOvvTa, OTTO)? /u^ ^o?7 KepSalveiv (pvyo-
SiKiav. " If a Bishop be accused of any crime by
credible and faithful persons, it is necessary that
he be cited to appear by the Bishops (i.e. of his
Province) ; and if he appears and confesses his
error, and yet is condemned, let his punishment
be determined. But if when he is cited he does
not obey, let him be cited a second time by
two Bishops sent to him. But if even then he
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 153
despises them and will not come, let the Synod
pass what sentence they please against him, so
that he may not appear to gain advantage by
avoiding their judgment."
The trial of a Bishop by his corn-provincial
Bishops, under the presidency of the Metropo-
litan, was the universal rule in Ante-Nicene times.
It is obviously in accord with the solidarity of
the Episcopate as a whole, and it marks clearly
the constitutional responsibility of each Bishop.
The tendency of Church order was not to en-
courage appeals from the Provincial Synod, but
an appeal to the Patriarch and his Synod was
obviously a condition of justice, before appealing
to the collective Episcopate, as represented in an
(Ecumenical Council.
The Apostolic Constitutions, like the Apostolic
Canons, may be treated, on the whole, as belong-
ing to the Ante-Nicene period. We find there some
glimpses at Church life and order which bear upon
our subject. We need not enter into detail upon the
careful examination of the life and character of
persons about to be ordained to the office and
work of a Bishop, 1 or upon the directions given as
to his treatment of persons falsely accused, guilty,
or penitent. 2 As Ordinary, the Bishop sat as judge
in his Diocesan Court to hear ecclesiastical causes,
and also civil disputes between individual Chris-
1 Const. Apostol., Lib. ii., sees. I and 2. z Ibid., sec. 3.
154 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
tians, to avoid lawsuits before the ordinary civil
courts, 1 which were forbidden until the Empire
became Christian. 2 The Bishop had to sit as
judge on Mondays, so as to give time for cases
to be settled before the next Lord's Day. The
Priests and the Deacons were present when the
Bishop held his Court. 3 The Priests were his
Assessors and Councillors, both in Court and in
Synod, as the Senate and Council of the Diocese
TOV 'ETTtOVCOTTOi;, (TVVeSplOV KCli /3ov\t]
r/a?, Const. Apostol., ii. 28). The 4oth
Apostolic Canon keeps the Priests and Deacons
from usurping undue power, and specifies that
the cure of souls in the whole of his Diocese
belongs rightfully to the Bishop. " Presbyteri et
diaconi praeter episcopum nihil agere pertinent,
nam Domini populus ipsi commissus est, et pro
animabus eorum hie redditurus est rationem."
Oi Trpecr(3uTepoi KCLI ol Sidicovoi avev yvw/u-r]? TOV
1 Cotist, Apostol. , ii. 6 ; which takes the Pauline precept ( I Cor.
vi.) as binding upon Christians, and enjoins that disputes between
Christians must not come before heathen tribunals.
' Even then the Imperial laws permitted civil cases to be heard in
the Bishop's Courts, where both parties consented to abide by his
arbitration. " Si qui ex consensu apud sacrse legis Antistitem litigare
voluerint, non vetabuntur. Sed experientur illius in civili duntaxat
negotio, more arbitri sponte residentis indicium." (Cod. lustin., I.
iv. 7.) Bishops and Clergy were forbidden by subsequent Canon
Law to judge in criminal cases, where matters of life and death were
frequently involved in the issue. " Habeant licentiam iudicandi, ex-
ceptis criminalibus negotiis." (Concil. Tarracon., A.D. 516, Canon 4.)
* Const. Apostol., ii. 47.
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 155
lev eTTiTeXeiTdxrav CCUTO? y&p fo~Tiv o
TOV \aov TOV Kv^o/ou, KOI TOV v-Trep
avTwv \6yov cnraiTri6>i(TOfji.evo$. " Let not
the Priests and Deacons do anything without the
judgment of the Bishop, for it is he who is
entrusted with the people of the Lord, and will
be required to give an account of their souls."
This Canon clearly implies the Bishop's constitu-
tional power of veto upon a resolution arrived at
by his Diocesan Synod. He exercises this power
by virtue of his Episcopal Office, and he is re-
sponsible, first, to his Metropolitan, and com-
provincial Bishops, and then to the collective
Episcopate, for its due and lawful exercise.
The Apostolical Constitutions speak of the laity
as a "royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar
people," who nevertheless must reverence the
Bishops, as the Aaronic High Priests, the Priests,
as the Priests of the Old Covenant, and the
Deacons, as the Levites. The Bishop presides
over his Diocese " as one honoured with the
authority of God," which he has to exercise in
ruling his Clergy and Laity, who can "do nothing
without the Bishop." l The 8th Book gives par-
ticulars of the election and consecration of Bishops,
which appears to belong to the Post-Nicene age.
The Laity have their voice in the election, which is
1 Const. Apostol., ii. 25, 26, 27.
156 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
certainly a primitive right. "And silence being
made, let one of the principal Bishops, together
with two others, stand near the Altar, the rest of
the Bishops and Presbyters praying silently, and
the Deacons holding the Divine Gospels open upon
the head of him that is to be ordained, and say
unto God thus," &C. 1 The ist Apostolic Canon
is clear on the number of consecrators required.
" Episcopus a duobus aut tribus episcopis ordi-
netur." 'ETT/OVCOTTO? ^eipOTOvei(rO(D VTTO eTriGKOTrcov
Svo q rpiwv. "A Bishop must be consecrated by
two or three Bishops." The subsequent course
of Canon Law tended to increase the number of
consecrators required. It touches our subject
because the idea which underlay the requirement
for more Bishops than one, as consecrators, was
the solidarity of the Episcopate, as a whole, as
well as the precaution of maintaining the Apostolic
Succession by a threefold strand. 2 This is manifest
from the Apostolical Constitutions, which illustrate
1 Kai <rwiTT)S y(vo/j.vris, fit TUV vpuruv 'EiriffK&irwv fi/za Kal
ergots ir\r)ffiov rov Qv<ria.o"n)plov eorws, TUI> Xonrwv 'TiriffK6ir(i>v
tirl T^I rov xtiporovovfjitrov Ke<j>a\fp bveirTvyntva. Karfx&vTuv, Xryeru.
K.T.\. (Const. Apostol., viiL 4.)
2 The dispensations now given by the Popes to permit Bishops to
be consecrated by a single Bishop are contrary to ancient Canon Law.
This practice is a fresh instance of the theory of modern Rome on the
Episcopate. The Latin Episcopate has lost its solidarity, and each
Bishop is "curate" to the Pope, and is consecrated at his will; so
that the plurality of consecrators does not any longer imply the
consent of corn-provincial Bishops.
THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " 157
the meaning of the Canon, by prescribing that
"if any one be ordained by one Bishop, let him
be deprived, both himself and he who ordained
him. But if there be a necessity that he have only
one to ordain him, because more Bishops cannot
come together, as in time of persecution, or for
such like causes, let him bring' the suffrage of
permission from more Bishops." * This means
that if the Metropolitan and com - provincial
Bishops are hindered by persecution from being
personally present, they must send their assent
and permission for the consecration to take place,
as an urgent necessity. Their permission implies
their assent to the admission of the priest elected
into the Episcopate in its corporate capacity.
The following passage is also worth quoting,
as bearing upon the Bishop's office : " A Bishop
blesses but does not receive the Blessing. He
lays on hands, ordains, offers, receives the Blessing
from Bishops, but by no means from Priests. A
Bishop deprives any cleric who deserves depriva-
tion, excepting a Bishop ; for of himself he has
not the power to do that." ''
In closing this chapter, we may fairly claim
that the constitutional powers of the Episcopate
are clearly borne out by the evidence which has
been adduced.
1 Const. Apostol, viii. 27. 2 Ibid., 28.
158 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
NOTE A.
The Provincial Synods on the Paschal Question.
Bishop Beveridge says of these Synods, as touching the
principle of Primacy: "Primo itaque aliqualem nonnullorum
supra alios Episcoporum primatum videre licet e Synodis
illis, quae de Paschali festivitate secundo labente saeculo
celebratae sunt.
"Enimvero Synodo in Palestina de ista controversia
habitse praesidebant Theophilus Caesariensis, et Narcissus
Hierosolymitanus ; Romanae Victor Romanus ; x Ponticae
Palma Amastridis Episcopus, et Gallicanae Irenaeus Lug-
dunensis. . . . Nulla autem causa dici potest, cur mag-
narum harum urbium (i.e. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch)
et Metropoleon Episcopi, aliis praetermissis, tanta cum
laude toties commemorarentur. nisi quod illi primi erant,
in sua quisque ecclesia, Episcopi. . . . Hinc itaque constat,
quare Polycrates omnibus Asise Episcopis praeesset, nimirum
quoniam ille Metropoleos erat Episcopus, atque ideo totius
Provinciae Primas. . . . Quod igitur antiquo hoc Canone
(35th Apostolic Canon) definitum est, Episcopi Asiani
religiose admodum tune temporis observabant. Nam
Primum, sive Primatem suum agnoscebant, eumque ut
caput existimabant. Quod liquido demonstrat hunc
Canonem istis diebus, secundo labente saeculo, obtinuisse,
atque ideo horum supra alios Episcopos primatum non
novitium esse, sed longe ante ipsam Nicaenam Synodum
introductum, et ab ipsis Ecclesiae primordiis institutum."
(Cod. Can. Eccl. Prim., II. v.)
1 The Roman Patriarch Victor would preside over a Synod of his
sub-urbicarian Dioceses, which were under his immediate jurisdiction
as Metropolitan.
NOTE B.
On the Formation and Sub-Division of Dioceses.
Every Bishop had authority to sub-divide his own Diocese
with the consent of his Metropolitan and the Provincial
Synod. S. Augustine in this way sub-divided his Diocese
of Hippo by the erection of a new See at Fussala. " Quod
ab Hippone memoratum castellum millibus quadraginta
seiungitur, cum in eis regendis, et eorum reliquiis licet
exiguis colligendis me viderem latius quam oportebat
extendi, nee adhibendae sufficerem diligentise, quam cer-
tissima ratione adhiberi debere cernebam, episcopum ibi
ordinandum constituendumque curavi." (S. Aug., Ep. 261,
ad Ctzlestin.} But a Diocese could not be sub-divided
without the consent of its Bishop. 1 The 5th Canon of the
second Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) is explicit on this
point : " Si accidente tempore, crescente fide, Dei populus
multiplicatus desideravit proprium habere rectorem, eius
videlicet voluntate, in cuius potestate est dicecesis con-
stituta, habeat episcopum."
Ferrandus (A.D. 533) gives the process of sub-dividing a
1 The same reasoning applies to the sub-division of a cure of souls
within a Diocese. A Priest is instituted to a certain cure of souls,
defined by territorial limits, and now called a Parish. His Diocesan
Bishop gives him Mission by instituting him to this Parish, which
forms a part of the Bishop's own cure of souls, as a part of his Diocese.
But the Bishop cannot deprive him without just cause, or judicial
process, of his cure of souls. Therefore it follows that the Bishop
cannot deprive him of any portion of his cure of souls by forcibly sub-
dividing his Parish mero motu. It must be proved that a Priest is
committing a wilful obstruction in refusing his consent to a sub-
division of his Parish before it can be forcibly subdivided, and such
refusal must be dealt with by the Bishop as index ordinarius.
l6o CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Diocese at greater length. The consent of the Bishop was
necessary in the case of sub-dividing his Diocese, but the
further consent of a plenary Council and of the Primate was
also required. "Ut episcopus non ordinetur in dicecesi,
quae episcopum nunquam habuit, nisi cum voluntate epis-
copi ad quern ipsa dicecesis pertinet, ex concilio tamen
plenario, et'primatis auctoritate." (African Code, Canon 98 :
Ferrandus, Breviar. Canonum, c. 13.) This was the rule in
Latin Christendom till the time of Gregory V. (A.D. 996),
when the Papal consent was demanded as a right, which
had grown out of what may be termed "the missionary
jurisdiction " of the Pope in establishing the episcopate in
countries newly converted from heathenism. Primacy in
directing missions, such as S. Gregory the Great exercised
in sending S. Augustine to England in A.D. 597, and
founding the See of Canterbury, is a more accurate term
than " missionary jurisdiction," although this latter phrase
expresses pretty accurately the position which S. Boniface
ascribed to the Pope, as Patriarch of the West. In the
East the Emperors in this matter acted as " King-Priests,"
and sub-divided Dioceses, or created new ones, proprio
mofu, without the consent of the Bishop, the Metropolitan,
the Provincial Synod, or the Patriarch.
The same rules, and consents of Primate, Provincial
Synod, and Bishops concerned, applied in the case of the
union of two Sees, or the removal of the Bishop's See from
one city to another. The Council of Lugo (A.D. 569)
erected a new Metropolitan See at Lugo, with several
Suffragan Sees, on a complaint being made that the
Dioceses of Gallsecia (in Spain) were unwieldy, and that
the Bishops could not work them efficiently.
COMMUNION WITH ROME NOT ESSENTIAL l6l
NOTE C.
Communion with the Roman See not essential to
Catholic Communion.
If there is one fact in early Church history that stands
out with luminous clearness, side by side with the fact of
the Roman Primacy, it is that the Catholic Church never
held that communion with the Roman See was essential in
such a manner as to involve the modern Roman teaching
that communion with the Roman See is necessary to com-
munion with the Catholic Church, so that persons out of
communion with Rome are ipso facto out of communion with
the Catholic Church. It is as well to prove this point from
the words of an eminent Roman Catholic theologian, who
held the current theology of his communion on the subject
of the Roman Primacy.
" Sed ut ad propositum redeamus, cum Ecclesia Romana
propter primatum centrum sit unitatis, eiusque Antistes
cseterorum omnium caput constitutus sit, ut schismatis
tolleretur occasio, haud dubium quin magnum ac certis-
simum sit argumentum, eos esse de Ecclesia qui ipsi
tanquam capiti adhsereant, et cum eo communione iun-
gantur. E contra vero magnum esse schismatis praeiudicium,
si quis ab eius communione sit alienus. Quod tamen
intelligendum est de Pontifice legitime electo, et sedente in
Cathedra Petri, et clavibus sibi a Deo datis, ut par est,
utente. Nam si quis Ecclesiam Romanam invaderet, et
illegitime ordinaretur, non esset cum isto communio
habenda. Similiter si Pontifex in haeresim incideret, et a
Concilio deponeretur, iam non esset schismaticus is qui ab
eo discederet. Ac demum si Pontifices Romani sine causa
L
1 62 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
excommunicationem ferrent, totaque Ecclesia iudicaret
excommunicationem temere latam, tune ab ipsis excom-
municati pro schismaticis habendi non essent, modo
animum retinerent servandse cum Romano Pontifice
unitatis, et ad recuperandam eius communionem totis
viribus allaborarent. Sic nemo Asiaticos licet a Victore
excommunicates dixerit fuisse schismaticos, et ab Ecclesia
extorres. Nemo Cyprianum et Africanos Antistites, nee non
Firmilianum et Orientales, licet a communione Stephani
pulsos, ab Ecclesia alienos fuisse pronuntiabit : quin e
contra Augustinus saepe saepius probat Africanos dici non
potuisse schismaticos, et moderationem Cypriani nunquam
non commendat. Quis affirmaverit Meletium, Cyrillum et
alios Orientales ab ipso stantes schismaticos fuisse, quia
cum Ecclesia Romana non communicabant, aut quis e
contra non fateatur Paulinum et eius socios in periculum
schismatis venire, licet cum Ecclesia Romana commu-
nione iuncti fuerint? Quis audeat dicere Athanasium
et alios fuisse schismaticos, Arianos vero in Ecclesia eo
quod Liberius hos ad communionem suam admisisset,
illos ab ea repulisset? Nemo etiam Atticum Con-
stantinopolitanum, et omnes Orientis Patriarchas, pro
schismaticis et excommunicatis unquam habuit, licet a
communione Romanae Ecclesiae divisi aliquamdiu fuerint."
(Du Pin, De Antiq. Eccl. Disc., p. 257.)
Contrast the teaching of Du Pin with the following words
of Cardinal Wiseman : " According to the doctrine of the
ancient Fathers, it is easy at once to ascertain who are the
Church Catholic and who are in a state of schism, by
simply discovering who are in communion with the See of
Rome, and who are not" (Dublin Review, vol. vii. p. 163).
It is curious to note that both these theologians lived and
died in the Roman Communion, and the fact that their
S. CYPRIAN AND MODERN PAPAL THEORY 163
teaching is flatly contradictory is a significant comment
upon the unity of teaching which is supposed to mark the
superiority of the Post-Tri dentine Latin Obedience over
the rest of Catholic Christendom. It is not as if Du Pin
and Wiseman differed upon a minor detail. They differed
upon a point of paramount importance, in which Du Pin
represented the faith of Christian antiquity, and Wiseman
the modern fashion of doctrine current in the Rome of
to-day.
NOTE D.
S. Cyprian and the Modern Papal Theory.
There are three clear instances of S. Cyprian's action
which show that he knew nothing of the claims of the
Roman Patriarch to be the infallible autocrat of Chris-
tendom. In his 54th Epistle to Cornelius he warns the
Roman Church against receiving a schismatical Bishop
named Fortunatus, who had been consecrated as opposi-
tion Bishop of Carthage by Privatus, an excommunicated
heretical Bishop. Fortunatus was playing the same part
at Carthage as Novatian had played at Rome. S. Cyprian
writes to vindicate his position as lawful Primate of
Carthage, just as Cornelius had written against Novatian
to vindicate his own position as Patriarch of Rome. He
states that Fortunatus and his ally Felicissimus have been
judged and condemned in Africa, and that the sentence
against them has already been pronounced by himself and
his Synod of Bishops. S. Cyprian's position at Carthage
was quasi-patriarchal, and the offenders condemned by
him had no right to appeal against his sentence to the
judgment of another Patriarch; or, to use his words,
164 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
"count the authority of the African Bishops inferior"
(nisi si paucis desperatis et perditis minor videtur esse
auctoritas Episcoporum in Africa constitutorum, qui iam
de illis iudicaverunt, &c.).
In S. Cyprian's 6yth Epistle to Stephen of Rome, he
deals with the case of Marcianus, Bishop of Aries, who had
joined the Novatian schism. Faustinus, Bishop of Lyons,
and other Bishops of Gaul, had applied to Stephen of Rome
for aid in their difficulty. There was a twofold reason for
their application. Stephen was Primate of Christendom,
and, in addition to this fact, the schism of the Anti-pope
Novatian specially concerned the Roman See, as S. Cyprian
remarks in his letter to Stephen ("Verum servandus erat
honor antecessorum Lucii et Cornelii"). The Bishops of
Gaul had also written of their trouble to S. Cyprian, as the
second Primate of Latin Christendom, whose Primacy of
influence extended far beyond his immediate jurisdiction.
S. Gregory of Nyssa said that S. Cyprian "presided not
only over the Church of Carthage and over Africa . . .
but also over all the countries of the West, and over nearly
all the regions of the East and the South and the North." :
Making every allowance for S. Gregory's rhetoric, S. Cyp-
rian's position was such that it was natural for the Bishops
of Gaul to tell him of the action they had taken. It
appears that Marcianus had not been deposed by a Pro-
vincial Synod. Possibly there was no Metropolitan in
Gaul at the time, and for this reason the appeal was made
to Stephen to deal with the matter directly. S. Cyprian
wrote to Stephen urging him to prompt action, since there
was no doubt about the facts of the case, which were
patent from the admission of Marcianus himself. We note
here that, although this case is a remarkable instance of
1 S. Greg. Nyss., Oral. xxiv. 12.
S. CYPRIAN AND MODERN PAPAL THEORY 165
Ante-Nicene Patriarchal action, S. Cyprian does not urge
Stephen to act because he was the ecclesiastical autocrat
of Christendom, with plenary jurisdiction to try and depose
every Bishop. The language of S. Cyprian points in the
other direction. Stephen is urged to act on the principle,
" multi Pastores sumus, unum tamen gregem pascimus."
Novatianism was condemned by the whole Catholic
Church. Marcianus is not to be allowed to act in
opposition to the collective Episcopate, " quasi ipse iudica-
verit de Collegia Episcoporum^ quando sit ab universis
sacerdotibus iudicatus."
S. Cyprian's view seems to be that Stephen had to carry
out the decision of the " College of Bishops " against
the Novatians, and that this was his duty as Primate
of Christendom. Novatianism had been condemned at
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Carthage. A Bishop
who boasted that he was a Novatian must be deposed
by every Patriarch and Metropolitan as ipso facto in heresy
and schism.
In the case of Marcianus of Aries we see S. Cyprian
invoking the exercise of the legitimate Primacy of the
Roman See. But when we come to his letter (Ep. 57)
written in the name of his Primatial Council of African
Bishops, "ad clerum et plebes in Hispania consistentes"
concerning the case of Basilides and Martialis, we find
him boldly and clearly pointing out the error of the
Roman Patriarch in dealing with the matter. During the
Decian persecution, Basilides and Martialis, who were both
Spanish Bishops, had become libellatici. Basilides confessed
his lapse and resigned his See, and Martialis was deposed
and excommunicated by the Bishops of the Province.
Sabinus was duly elected and consecrated to succeed Basi-
lides, and Felix to succeed^ Martialis. Basilides went to
1 66 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Rome and got Stephen to admit him to communion and
furnish him with " Letters of Communion," armed with
which he returned to Spain and tried to procure restoration
to his See. Martialis adopted a similar course, although its
details are not equally clear. The position of the lawful
occupants of the Sees when the deposed Bishops re-
appeared on the scene was paralleled in our own days
by the position of Bishop Macrorie in Natal, when his
deposed and excommunicated predecessor, Dr. Colenso,
came back from England, armed with State authority, to
call himself Bishop of Natal. Of course the Spanish case
was really the worse, for no one in South Africa paid much
regard to Dr. Colenso's claims except a handful of Erastian
Protestants, and Basilides returned armed with " Letters
of Communion " from the Primate of Christendom. S.
Cyprian told the Spanish clergy and laity to hold their
ground against the consequences of Stephen's action.
Stephen had been deceived, said S. Cyprian, and his
deception of the Roman Patriarch only made the sins of
Basilides more flagrant. " Hoc eo pertinet, ut Basilidis
non tarn abolita sint quam cumulata delicta, ut ad superi-
ora eius peccata etiam fallacise et circumventionis crimen
accesserit." Some canonists have thought that S. Cyprian's
exhortation to the Spaniards to maintain the decision of
their Provincial Synod, and to disregard Stephen's rehabili-
tation of Basilides, is an argument in favour of the finality
of the decisions of Provincial Synods. But unfortunately
for this theory, S. Cyprian tells the Spaniards to stand
firm because of a decree of the collective Episcopate on
the subject of the lapsed, which was decreed by Stephen's
penultimate predecessor Cornelius, in agreement with the
African Bishops, " and with all the Bishops appointed
throughout the whole world."
S. CYPRIAN AND MODERN PAPAL THEORY 167
By this decree the lapsed were admitted to repentance,
but deposed from ecclesiastical office.
S. Cyprian does not hint that Stephen consciously or
wilfully departed from this ruling.
Basilides deceived him into believing that he had not
lapsed. S. Cyprian viewed the Roman Patriarch as he
would any other Patriarch. His errors of judgment were
not to be allowed to injure the Church, and were to be
corrected accordingly. 1
1 S. Augustine held the same view. The errors of the Roman
Patriarch, or any other Patriarch or Primate, could not commit the
whole Catholic Church. " Prorsus qualescunque fuerunt Marcellinus,
Marcellus, Silvester, Melchiades, Mensurius, Csecilianus, atque alii,
quibus obiiciunt pro sua dissensione quod volunt, nihil prseiudiciat
Ecclesise Catholicse toto terrarum orbe diffusse : nullo modo eorum
innocentia coronamur, nullo modo eorum iniquitate damnamur." (S.
Aug., De Unico Baptismo, cap. xvi.)
CHAPTER IV
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS AND THE
RIGHTS OF PATRIARCHS AND METROPOLITANS AS
FINALLY DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE EDICT OF MILAN
(A.D. 313) AND THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (A.D.
450-
WE have now arrived at the closing stage of our
inquiry. We have traced the constitutional autho-
rity of Bishops from the Apostolic age, through the
sub-Apostolic period, as manifested in the writings
of S. Clement of Rome and S. Ignatius of Antioch,
and through the developments of the second and
third centuries to the mighty change wrought by
the Edict of Milan, which resulted in the alliance
of the Church with the Empire, and the conse-
quent admission of the world within its borders.
We have already traced the fundamental idea of
the Episcopate as a great corporation in which
each Bishop is an individual shareholder. We
have seen how the powers of the individual
Bishop are conditioned on the one hand by the
principle of Primacy, whereby his veto upon the
acts of his Diocesan Synod, and his general ad-
ministration of his Diocese, is liable to review by
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 169
the Synod of his Metropolitan and corn-provincial
Bishops, and, on the other hand, by the consul-
tative voice of his Clergy and the assent of his
Laity. We have also traced, from the Primacy of
S. Peter onwards, the idea of the grouping of
Metropolitans and their Provinces into Patriarch-
ates, and the legitimate Primacy of the Roman
Patriarch which was due to the greatness of the
Imperial city, and the Apostolic foundation of the
"Cathedra Petri." We have observed also the
strict limitations of this Roman Primacy, as evi-
denced by the Paschal Controversy, and the
attitude of S. Cyprian to the Roman See, by which
it is evident that the Roman Patriarch 'was primus
inter pares, and that the great Patriarchates of
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were mutually in-
terdependent as centres of Catholic unity, so that
their intercommunion and fellowship was the
means of maintaining the visible intercommunion
and unity of the Catholic Church as a whole.
In the period of Church history which we are
now about to examine the undreamt of possibility
of a Christian Caesar was realised, and the whole
life of the Church was affected thereby in a manner
which would have seemed incredible to the great
men of the Ante-Nicene period. Constantine was
possessed by the old Imperial idea that impelled
the Flavian Emperors to persecute the Church.
170 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Unity of religion was to be the bond to cement
the Imperial unity. The unity of the Church had
stood face to face in battle array with the Imperial
unity for nearly three hundred years. The end
of the Diocletian persecution was ignominious
failure. The utmost efforts of the persecutors had
failed to uproot the ordered unity of the Church.
The Empire could but anticipate Julian's " Vicisti,
O Galilaee," and make the best terms for itself with
the conquering Church. The world-wide unity
of the Church was to be knit by Imperial state-
craft to the unity of the Empire, and Constantine
intended, with the aid of the Church, to carry out
the Flavian policy of a single State religion. The
official Paganism of the Flavian State religion was
wide enough to embrace various Provincial cults
in a Roman Pantheon. Here was the weakness
of its accommodating toleration. It looked like
strength to the eye of the Imperial statesman. But
it fell before the mighty and uncompromising unity
of the Catholic Church.
The problem before Constantine was a difficult
matter of statecraft. The unity of the Church,
which he sought to ally with the unity of the
Empire, was, to his eyes, an unaccommodating
and impossible ideal. But he did his best to deal
with it. The subsequent result of the alliance
between the Church and the Empire was the de-
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 171
struction of the visible and corporate unity of the
Church, and the ultimate fall of the Empire.
One of the first consequences of this alliance was
the enormous increase in the power of the Roman
Patriarch, which eventually caused the divisions of
Catholic Christendom. In saying this we do not
mean to undervalue the immense services rendered
to Christianity by the Papacy in the form it took
between the age of Gregory the Great and the age
of Hildebrand. The Papacy, during this period,
formed part of God's great scheme for governing
the world. But the fact remains that the Papal
monarchy divided Christendom, and the further
fact remains that the alliance between the Church
and the Empire virtually created the Papal mon-
archy.
"On the establishment of Christianity as the
religion, if not of the Empire, of the Emperor,
the Bishop of Rome rises at once to the rank of
a great accredited functionary. . . . The Bishop is
the first Christian in the first city of the world, and
that city is legally Christian. The Supreme Ponti-
ficate of heathenism might still linger from ancient
usage among the numerous titles of the Emperor ;
but so long as Constantine was in Rome, the
Bishop of Rome, the head of the Emperor's re-
ligion, became in public estimation the equal, in
authority and influence immeasurably the superior,
172 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
to all of sacerdotal rank. The schisms and factions
of Christianity now became affairs of state. As
long as Rome is the Imperial residence, an appeal
to the Emperor is an appeal to the Bishop of
Rome. The Bishop of Rome sits by the Imperial
authority at the head of a Synod of Italian prelates
to judge the disputes with the African Donatists." l
It is impossible to endorse the details of Dean
Milman's statement of the position. But it fur-
nishes a graphic illustration of the main facts of
the situation.
In tracing our historical inquiry upon the con-
stitutional authority of Bishops during what has
been termed " the Council Period " of Church
history, we must never forget the influence of
the Empire upon the Church. It enhanced the
greatness of the Roman Patriarch in the first
instance. The founding of the Christian Imperial
city of Constantinople not only gave to the Church
the Patriarchate of " New Rome," which gradually
dominated Eastern Christendom, but it further
enhanced the dignity of the Roman Patriarch by
leaving him in virtual possession of " Old Rome,"
by the withdrawal of the seat of Empire to
Constantinople. During this period of Church
1 Milman, Latin Christianity, vol. i. p. 71. It is true that Con-
stantine told the Donatists that they ought not to have appealed to
him in this matter, but to have submitted to the judgment of the
Church.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 173
history we shall see perpetually the untoward in-
fluence of the State upon the Church. It is not
too much to say that "the whole world" would
never have " groaned to find itself Arian," if it had
not been for what Dean Milman calls "the fierce
and busy heterodoxy of Constantius, when sole
Emperor."
If it had not been for State interference, Arius
would have been dealt with as readily by the
Church as his Antiochene forerunner, Paulus of
Samosata. The relations between Church and
State found their ideal in the action of the Pagan
Emperor Aurelian, who expelled Paulus from the
temporalities of his See (without concerning him-
self with the religious merits of the case), when he
had been satisfied by the Roman Patriarch and his
Synod that Paulus was not technically a Christian,
in such a sense that he had the right to use and
occupy property dedicated exclusively to Christian
uses. O si sic omnia ! has been the cry of all
thoughtful Christians, who have realised the evils
wrought to the Church by the action of the State
from the days of Constantine to the days of the
Tudors and Stuarts in England, where the words
of the great Charter, ut Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit,
have been emptied of all meaning by a succession
of Churchmen too submissive to assert the rights
of the Church, and statesmen who, in the fulness
174 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
of their knowledge or ignorance, deliberately sup-
pressed them. But to return to our immediate
subject. We have to remember that the Edict of
Milan alone made it possible for the Church to
assemble her universal Episcopate in an (Ecu-
menical Council. We have also to remember with
thankfulness that the Providence of God, and the
Covenanted Presence of our Lord, as King in His
Church, did not permit any undue interference
on the part of the State in the undisputed (Ecu-
menical Councils that defined the Catholic Faith
concerning the Incarnation and the Person of our
Lord. But these great Councils, and others of
almost equal importance, dealt with questions of
discipline and order quite as fully as they dealt
with doctrine.
We must investigate their Canons in the light of
what has already been established in the previous
chapters, and we shall find that the same principles
which governed the Church in Ante-Nicene times
continued to govern it after its alliance with the
State.
We must first deal with certain Councils held
at the beginning of the fourth century before the
Nicene Council. The Council of Elvira (A.D. 306)
laid down afresh an important principle of ecclesi-
astical order in its 53rd Canon. " Placuit cunctis
ut ab eo episcopo quis recipiat communionem a
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 175
quo abstentus in crimine aliquo quis fuerit, quod
si alius episcopus praesumpserit eum admittere, illo
adhuc minime faciente vel consentiente a quo
fuerit communione privatus, sciat se huiusmodi
causas inter fratres esse cum status sui periculo
praestaturum." " It is agreed by all that a person
must be restored to communion by that same
Bishop by whom he was deprived of it for the
commission of some crime ; but if another Bishop
shall have presumed to receive him, whilst the
Bishop by whom he was deprived of communion
has not as yet restored him, or consented to his
restoration, let him know that he must answer
judicially before his brethren for actions of this
kind, with the danger of being deprived of his
office."
We see in this Canon that, although all Bishops
share in the common Episcopate, the very equality
of their rights must prevent their subversion of each
other's discipline. An offence of this kind, com-
mitted by one Bishop against another, is so serious
that the offending Bishop is tried by his brethren,
with the penalty of deprivation as the sentence
fitting his offence if he is proved guilty. The prin-
ciple of the trial of a Bishop by his peers is first
carried out in his being summoned to answer for
his offence before the Synod of his Province, whilst,
as we shall see later on, an appeal from the Provincial
176 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Synod to higher authority was open to him. Canon
58 of Elvira is interesting on account of its refer-
ence to the position of Primates in Spain. " Placuit
ubique et maxime in eo loco, in quo prima cathedra
constituta est episcopatus, ut interrogentur hi qui
communicatorias litteras tradunt an omnia recte
habeant suo testimonio comprobata." " It is agreed
that everywhere, and especially in that place in
which the Primatial Chair of the Episcopate is
constituted, those who present letters of recom-
mendation should be asked whether they could on
their own testimony affirm that all things were in
sound order " (i.e. in the Dioceses which they came
from). The last clause of this Canon is somewhat
obscure. Hefele thinks that it refers to the duty
of the Primate to inquire of persons who brought
" letters of commendation " 1 to him concerning the
state of the Church in the Dioceses whence they
came. But on the whole, as the direction in the
title of the Canon is that these persons defide inter-
rogentur, it seems more likely that the inquiries of
the Primate would be directed to the circum-
stances of the persons themselves, and that the
Canon directs him to satisfy himself as to the regu-
larity of the documents they presented, and also
as to the faith and orthodoxy of the persons them-
1 These " Epistobe communicatoriae " were the religious passports of
the age. They were issued with the greatest care and formality. See
Diet. Christian Antiquities, vol. i. p. 408.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 177
selves. The principle of Primacy is clearly involved
in this Canon. It has been thought probable that
at this date the African rule of a movable Primacy
under the senior Bishop, irrespective of his See,
obtained also in Spain. This is the more probable
because the Bishop of Acci l presided at the Council
of Elvira, and his See never became a Metropolis.
He was Primate, as Senior Bishop. But when Con-
stantine the Great divided Spain into seven civil
Provinces, the Church formed the Provinces of Tar-
ragona, Carthagena (afterwards Toledo), Boetica,
Lusitania, and Gallecia (afterwards divided in the
Provinces of Braga and Lugo).
We have already mentioned the Donatist schism.
Such issues of it as touch the matters we are
specially investigating can be briefly noted here.
The Donatists, like the Novatians, professed that
their party alone constituted the whole Catholic
Church, and the occasion of their schism was a
question of discipline. They professed, like the
Novatians, to be stricter than the Church in dealing
with the lapsed, or with those who had made such
concessions to the persecutors during the Diocletian
persecution as the Traditores did. Mensurius, the
1 Acci was a Diocese afterwards included in the Province of Toledo.
The rule of a movable Primacy under the Bishop senior by Consecra-
tion subsists at this day in the Church of the United States of America.
A movable and elective Primacy obtains also in the Churches of
Scotland, Canada, and New Zealand. It has very great and practical
disadvantages.
M
178 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Primate of Carthage, was accused of being virtually
a Traditor, because he is said to have deceived the
persecutors by delivering up secular books instead
of the sacred ones. His real offence, however, was
his discouragement of fanatical martyrdom, in
which his Archdeacon, Caecilian, supported him.
After the death of Mensurius, Caecilian was elected
to the Primatial See, and consecrated by Felix of
Aptunga, one of the suffragans of Carthage. The
party afterwards known as Donatist, brought
Secundus, Primate of Numidia, to Carthage, where
he held a Synod of the Bishops of Numidia, and
after condemning Caecilian, as having been con-
secrated by a Traditor, 1 consecrated Majorinus as
Bishop in his place. The schism spread, and after
the death of Majorinus gained great strength under
Donatus the Great, who succeeded him as schis-
matical Primate of Carthage. The subsequent steps
taken by Constantine, and the Synods of Rome and
Aries, which resulted in disproving that Felix was
1 The accusation of Bishop Felix of Aptunga was conducted unfairly
by the Donatist party. They employed hired witnesses to prove their
accusation. When he was acquitted by the Council of Aries, it was
decreed by Canon 13 that paid witnesses should not be employed in
ecclesiastical trials of this nature. (Multi sunt qui contra ecclesiasticam
regulam pugnare videntur, et per testes redemptos putant se ad accusa-
tionem admitti debere ; hi omnino non admittantur. ) The same principle
applies to all disciplinary ecclesiastical trials, and Archbishop Benson
was mindful of it in his judgment in the case of the Bishop of Lincoln,
who was accused on the evidence of witnesses paid by the Church
Association. The Archbishop said, "// is not decent for religious
persons to hire witnesses to intrude on the worship of others for purposes
of espial."
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 179
a Traditor, and confirmed the position of Caecilian
as Primate, do not concern the course of this
inquiry. There is, however, one point that is
worthy of our notice. The Donatists complained
that the Primate of Numidia and his suffragans
had not been consulted with regard to the election
of Caecilian. But since the Primate of Carthage
was virtually the Patriarch of the whole Latin
Church of Africa, 1 the Primate of Numidia and his
suffragans had a consultative voice in his appoint-
ment, and there was some ground for the Donatist
view. 2 They further claimed that the Primate of
Numidia had the right to consecrate the Archbishop
of Carthage ; but here, as S. Augustine afterwards
pointed out, they were in the wrong.
Writing in the name of the whole African Epis-
copate, after a conference held at Carthage in A.D.
411, he reminds the Donatists that the Primate of
1 The first Canon of the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) says that all
Provinces of the African Church shall be guided by the Church of
Carthage as to the date for keeping Easter ; and by the fourth Canon
of the same Council the Primate of Carthage had the right of deci-
sion if disputes arose in the election of Primate for the other African
Provinces. The seventh Canon of the second Council of Carthage
(A.D. 397) confirms the Patriarchal privileges of the Primate of that
See with regard to the appointment and consecration of the African
Bishops. He also presided over the General African Synod, to which
the various Provincial Synods sent deputies.
2 The subsequent Council of Sardica must have enshrined an old
custom in its seventh Canon, where it is laid down that at the appoint-
ment of a Metropolitan the Bishops of the neighbouring Provinces are
summoned, xpr) 5 ical /jLeraKaXeicrdai Kal TOI)J airi> TTJS irXyffioxupov
tTTiffK6irovs irpbs TTJV Ka.Tdffra.crtv rov TT/J /u77T/>oir6Xews firi<TK6irov.
l8o CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Numidia had no inherent right to consecrate the
Archbishop of Carthage, because the Roman Patri-
arch was not consecrated by the Primate nearest
to him in rank, but by the Bishop of Ostia, who
was close at hand. 1 The Patriarchal position of the
Archbishop of Carthage is worthy of note as pre-
senting a close parallel to the true position of the
Archbishop of Canterbury. The Archbishop of
Carthage fulfilled the rights and duties of a Patriarch
over the homogeneous Provinces which formed
the widespread and vigorous Latin Church of
Africa, although he was not a Patriarch eo nomine.
The like duties and functions are gradually being
assigned to the Archbishop of Canterbury, although
not a Patriarch eo nomine, for we cannot lay too
much stress on the phrase alterius orbis Papa,
although it implies a living fact in the present day
far more than it did when it was first used of S.
Anselm at the Council of Bari (A.D. 1098). Neither
this courteous phrase, nor the subsequent prece-
dence accorded to Canterbury as the second See
of the Western Patriarchate, measures the true
greatness of the See of Canterbury in our own
times, when the English Primate, who in S. Anselm's
day was at most the Primate of the British Isles,
has now become the first Prelate of a world-wide
Anglo-Saxon Christendom. To-day the General
1 S. Aug., Breviculus collat. cum Donatistis., cap. 16, n. 29.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN l8l
Councils at Carthage, which represented the various
Provinces of the African Church, are paralleled by
the Lambeth Synods (or Conferences, if a dry legal
exactitude is to be observed), which carry an incal-
culable moral weight of authority throughout the
Churches and Provinces which own the Chair of
S. Augustine as their Primatial See.
We now turn for a brief space to the Synod of
Aries in A.D. 314, which was really a General Coun-
cil of the Western Patriarchate. The presence of
three British Bishops at its deliberations forms a
well-known historical landmark in British Chris-
tianity. But neither this fact, nor the effect of this
great Council upon the Donatist schism, directly
concerns us at present. The Roman Patriarch
Sylvester did not preside, nor did the two priests,
who were his Legates, preside in his stead. The
Bishop of the city where the Council was held,
Marinus of Aries, was President by direction of
the Emperor Constantine. 1 The decrees of the
Council were forwarded to Sylvester, whose pre-
decessor, Miltiades, had previously condemned
Donatism in a Synod held at Rome in A.D. 313 at
the Emperor's request.
The Roman Patriarch, who was Patriarch over
the greater Provinces (maiores diceceses)? is asked,
1 So the Ballerini admit virtually (cf. Ballerini, Obss. in dissert, v.
Quesnell., ii. 5. 4).
3 As holding a special Primacy in the West, and also as Patriarch of
1 82 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
as Primate of Christendom, to promulgate the de-
cisions concerning Donatism, and the disciplinary
Canons enacted at Aries under the formulary
" Placuit ergo, prcesente Spiritu Sancto et angelis eius."
But although the Council is Western alone, and
not (Ecumenical, it does not address Sylvester as
the autocratic ruler of Christendom, whose utter-
ances cannot be judged by a Council, and whose
authority is above the authority of a Council.
On the contrary, the Council of Aries informs
Sylvester of its Decrees without any idea that they
need his ratification or final approval. The word-
ing of the preamble of the document sent to Syl-
vester is plain enough. " Domino sanctissimo fratri
Silvestro Marinus, vel coetus Episcoporum, qui
adunati fuerunt in oppido Arelatensi. Quid de-
crevimus communi consilio caritati tuas signifi-
camus, ut omnes sciant quid in futurum obser-
vare debeant." "To our most holy Lord and
Brother Sylvester, Marinus, or rather the assembly
of Bishops, who were united together at Aries.
What we have decreed by taking counsel in
common we announce to your Grace, so that
all may know what they ought to observe in
future." The office of Sylvester is the traditional
function of the Primate of Christendom, from the
the sub-urbicarian Churches, the Roman Patriarch [is appealed to by
a Western Synod, in the character of their immediate ecclesiastical
superior. The word " dioecesis " is here used in an unusual meaning.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OV MILAN 183
days of S. Clement of Rome. His duty is to
promulgate the decrees ei$ ra? ea> Tro'Xet? (Her-
mas, Vis. ii. 4), and to make them known officially
throughout Christendom. The fact that Sylvester
had not been present personally at the Council
is alluded to with regret by the Fathers of Aries,
and had he been present personally he would
have presided, as Patriarch of the West. The first
Canon of Aries is addressed personally to the
Roman Patriarch, and requests him to send letters
to all the Churches to fix the time for observing
Easter after the Roman computation ("et iuxta
consuetudinem literas ad omnes tu dirigas "). The
i yth Canon forbids a Bishop to obstruct the work
of another Bishop, " Ut nullus Episcopus alium
episcopum inculcet ; " for to do so would be an
invasion of the common rights of the Episcopate
as a whole, because the mission of each Bishop
is primarily to his own Diocese. But though a
Bishop is thus forbidden to intrude in the Diocese
of another Bishop, due courtesy is to be shown
by the Diocesan Bishop to a Bishop visiting his
Diocese. The i9th Canon says, " De episcopis
peregrinis qui in urbem solent venire, placuit iis
locum dare ut offerant." Concerning Bishops from
other dioceses " who may have occasion to come
into a (cathedral) city, it is agreed that provision
should be made for them to offer the Holy Sacri-
184 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
fice." This sacred courtesy, as shown by one
Bishop to a visiting Bishop, was always regarded
as the bond of Catholic unity.
In the 2oth Canon we find the careful precau-
tions taken to secure the validity of Episcopal
Consecrations. " De his qui usurpant sibi quod
soli debeant episcopos ordinare, placuit ut nullus
hoc sibi praesumat nisi assumptis secum aliis
septem episcopis. Si tamen non potuerit septem,
infra tres non audeat ordinare." "Concerning
those who assert for themselves the right of conse-
crating Bishops by themselves alone, it is agreed
that no one should venture to take this upon him-
self unless with the aid of seven other Bishops.
If, however, he cannot procure seven, he must
not venture to consecrate with a less number than
three."
This Canon represents an advance upon the
number required by the Apostolic Constitutions,
because the altered circumstances of the Church,
after the Edict of Milan, made it possible to
command the presence of a greater number of
Bishops, since persecution had ceased. The idea
of requiring a larger number of co-consecrators
was to emphasise the inherent solidarity of the
Episcopate. 1
1 The Roman Church in modern times has been influenced by the
Scholastic theory of the Episcopate as being only a superior depart-
ment of the Priesthood, and exercising its functions as an inferior
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 185
The Council of Aries was a concilium plenarium
of the West, and when the death of Maximin in
A.D. 313 gave liberty to Eastern Christendom, a
General Council of the East was held at Ancyra,
shortly after Easter, A.D. 314, under the presidency
of Vitalis, Patriarch of Antioch, which was the
Primatial See of the East, previous to its displace-
ment by Constantinople.
The Primacy of Antioch in a purely Eastern
Council, which did not include the Patriarchate
of Alexandria, was as natural as the Primacy of
Rome in a General Council of the West, and
beyond this fact there is little that touches our
subject in the Canons of Ancyra, save the I3th
Canon, which has the first mention of Chorepiscopi,
or rural Suffragan Bishops, who were forbidden to
ordain without the permission of the Bishop of the
Diocese, and Canon i8th, which deals with the case
of Bishops elected, but subsequently not accepted
by the Diocese to which they had been appointed.
Ei' Tiye? eT/iT/coTrot KaratrraOevref /ecu JJLTJ ^e^OeVre?
VTTO r^9 TrapoiKia? e/cetV^?, e*Y f)v (*)VOfJi.a<T6r]crav, ere/oat?
/SovXoivTO irapoiKiais cTrievai KOI fiiaCefrQai TOV$
KCU o-racrei? Ktvetv /ear' avrwv, rourov?
' eav fievrot /BovXoivro et? TO
order of the ministry in subjection to the sole monarchy of the Pope.
Consequently little is made of Episcopal Consecrations, and we know
of modern instances of Consecrations performed by a single Bishop
in violation of ancient Canon Law.
1 86 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Teptov KaOe^ea-dai, evOa ycrav Trporepov Trpea-fivrepoi,
/mrj a7TO/3aAXecr0cu auroi)? Ttjs TI/JLW' eav
fy<Tl 7T|009 TOU? Ka0<TTU>TaS K
peicrOai CIVTOV? KOI Trjv Ti/u.t]v TOV Trpea-jSvTepiov KOI
yivea-Oai auroi)? eKKrjpvKTOvs. " If Bishops, when
elected, but not accepted by the Diocese for which
they are nominated, introduce themselves into
other Dioceses, and stir up strife against the
Bishops who are there instituted, they must be
excommunicated. But if they (who are elected
and not accepted) wish to live as Priests in those
places where they have hitherto served as Priests,
they need not lose that dignity. But if they shall
stir up discord against the Bishop of that place,
they shall be deprived of their Priesthood, and be
shut out of the Church."
Cases occasionally arose out of a disputed Epis-
copal election in which the rightful occupant of
a See was forced for the sake of the peace of the
Church to stand aside, and continue to serve as
a Priest, even though he had been consecrated to
the office of a Bishop. The Canon enjoins in such
a case the quiet acquiescence of the Bishop who
has been so injuriously treated, as the best solution
of the difficulty, and further demands his acquies-
cence, on the pain of ecclesiastical censure. The
exact circumstances contemplated by this Canon
arose in the Church of New Zealand when Bishop
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 187
Jenner was consecrated the first Bishop of Dunedin
in 1866. The then Primate of New Zealand had
taken all the regular steps to procure his consecra-
tion by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but sub-
sequently factious opposition to Bishop Jenner
developed in the Diocese of Dunedin, and it
became impossible for him to maintain his ground.
The General Synod of New Zealand in 1871 took
the unprecedented step of declining to recognise
Bishop Jenner's original appointment, and declared
that he had no status as first Bishop of Dunedin.
This action was taken in defiance of the judgment
of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who stated that
Bishop Jenner had " an equitable claim to be con-
sidered Bishop of Dunedin." The New Zealand
Primate and Bishops, not content with this asser-
tion of Provincial autonomy, proceeded to conse-
crate a Bishop . for the See of Dunedin. When
their proceedings were laid before the Archbishop
of Canterbury and the English Bishops they ac-
cepted the Bishop thus consecrated as " second
Bishop of Dunedin," Bishop Jenner having by
this time sent in his resignation to the Archbishop
of Canterbury. The New Zealand Primate and
Bishops then took further and most dangerous
autonomous action. The Primate wrote to the
whole Anglican Church stating that the Archbishop
of Canterbury and the English Bishops " had
1 88 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
exercised an authority over the New Zealand
Church, which was certainly not given them by
that Church, nor ever sanctioned by the Catholic
Church in her undivided state."
This uncanonical and erroneous position showed
that the Church of New Zealand had adopted views
of Provincial autonomy and the finality of Pro-
vincial action that were without due precedent.
Bishop Jenner laboured henceforward as a Priest
in England, and fulfilled loyally the conditions of
the Canon of Ancyra which we have quoted.
Our digression to a modern ecclesiastical dispute
is by no means foreign to the purpose of this
treatise. We do not write to elucidate antiquarian
points of Canon Law in the interest of students.
Our whole investigation is meant to show that
the principles of Church order and Canon Law,
which applied in the first centuries, are equally
applicable and necessary of application in the
present day. The condition of the Anglican Com-
munion as a whole imperatively demands the wise
centralisation of a living Primacy or Patriarchate
to prevent it from drifting asunder. The assertion
of undue Provincial autonomy on the part of the
Church of New Zealand is a valuable object-lesson
which tends to redeem these pages from the charge
that they are merely concerned with the past. The
principles of Primatial authority and the constitu-
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 189
tional position of the Episcopate need vindicating
just as much against the uncanonical and autono-
mous action of a Province as against the undue
autocracy of an individual Bishop. The practical
application of these root-principles is more clearly
discerned from one such modern instance as we
have quoted, than from many examples drawn from
primitive times. The ordinary reader imperceptibly
forgets that the Church and her laws in every age
are to us the Kingdom of our Living King, and the
rules whereby the organisation of that Kingdom
are shaped and guided. However strongly we may
hold this truth in theory, we are apt in practice to
forget to measure the Catholic Church in our own
times by primitive standards. We view the Primi-
tive Church through the vista of the intervening
centuries until it becomes unreal to us, and we
idealise it overmuch. The Church of our own
days is so close to us that we fail to discern the
bulwarks of our Zion, as we walk round about
her. We idealise so little that we are in danger of
failing to discern the true standards of Church
polity and order.
About the year A.D. 316, another Eastern Council
was held at Neocaesarea in Cappadocia, which was
also under the presidency of Vitalis, Patriarch of
Antioch. Its Decrees do not touch our subject
directly. Its i3th Canon debars country priests
190 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
from offering the Holy Sacrifice in the Cathedral,
when the Bishop and Cathedral Clergy are present.
They may only do so, on invitation, if the Bishop
and the Cathedral Clergy are absent. This rule
was found necessary for the sake of preserving the
special rights of the Bishop and his Chapter, and
to maintain the principle that each priest's right
of officiating was limited to his own cure of souls.
The i4th Canon, however, allowed this right to
the Chorepiscopi, 1 on account of their special
position.
We now come to the consideration of the First
General Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Our inquiry
does not touch upon the Arian controversy, which
was the immediate cause of its convocation. We
shall confine our attention to those points in which
its convocation and enactments elucidate the prin-
ciple of Primacy, and the constitutional authority
of Bishops. The first questions before us are the
authority by which it was convoked, and the presi-
dency under which it was held.
We have previously seen that the policy of
Constantine was the policy of the Flavian Emperors
in a Christian dress. The unity of the Empire
demanded unity in the religion of the Empire.
Constantine, by his subsequent conduct, showed
that he did not understand the vital nature of the
1 See Note A.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 191
issues raised by Arius at Alexandria. All he wanted
was religious peace and unity. He sent the vene-
rable Bishop Hosius of Cordova to Alexandria to
settle the matter, but his mission was futile. Hosius
was the Emperor's chief adviser in ecclesiastical
affairs, and he is credited with suggesting an (Ecu-
menical Council as the best method of re-establish-
ing the faith and peace of the Church. 1 Such
an assembly of Bishops would have been well-nigh
impossible without the consent and co-operation
of the Emperor. Travelling was costly and difficult,
and the Emperor not only placed the Government
public conveyances and transport animals at the
disposal of the Bishops, but he entertained them
during their stay at Nicaea as the guests of the
State. 2 The Emperor summoned the Council ex
sententia sacerdotum? as Rufinus observes, and whilst
Hosius and Eusebius would figure as the Emperor's
chief advisers, doubtless they consulted the leading
Patriarchs, and amongst them the aged Roman
Patriarch Sylvester. There is nothing to be gained
by strong assertions that the Roman Patriarch was
utterly ignored in the summoning of the Nicene
Council, and that his Legates had no place of
influence in that august assembly. The attempted
1 Sulpitius Severus says, " Nicaena synodus auctore illo (Hosio)
confecta habeatur." (ffist., ii. 55.)
2 Euseb., Vita. Const., iii. 6 and 9.
3 Ruf., i. I.
192 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
proof of negations of this kind is an indirect service
to modern Ultramontane theories. The defenders
of the Vatican Decrees can, with some show of
justice, assert that Anti-Papal controversialists of
this type are afraid to face the facts and proba-
bilities of early Church history, and the real truth
lies midway between the unbalanced statements of
Bellarmine and his modern successors, and the
equally unbalanced statements of certain Protestant
(and we may add Anglican) controversialists on the
other side. It is well known that (to use Bishop
Hefele's words) " the first eight (Ecumenical Synods
were convoked by the Emperors, all later ones by
the Popes." * Without admitting Bishop Hefele's
computation of the number of (Ecumenical Coun-
cils, we can yet admire the candour with which
he refutes the views which Bellarmine based upon
the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.
Bellarmine's contention that the summoning of
all (Ecumenical Councils was vested in the Pope 2
is as unconvincing as the bald assertion on the
other side, that the Pope had nothing whatever to
do with the summoning of the Nicene Council,
because there is no direct historical evidence that
he was consulted. 3 What we have already proved
with regard to the position of the Roman Patriarch
1 Hefele, Hist, of Councils, Introd. p. 8.
2 Bellarmine, Disputat., I. i. 12.
3 Puller, Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, p. 143.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 193
as Primate of Christendom, cannot be pushed aside
to suit controversialists who meet the false and
exaggerated claims of modern Vaticanism by argu-
ments which are touched with the spirit of exagge-
ration. Let us for a moment try to forget the
schism between East and West, the Hildebrandine
Papacy and its Vatican outcome, the Reformation
and its Babel of discordant religionisms. Let us,
by an effort of calmly balanced thought imagine a
Free (Ecumenical Council of a reunited Christen-
dom, with the great Patriarchates restored to their
purity of faith and power of influence.
Who would preside at such a Council ?
The Patriarch of New Rome would give the
answer of ancient precedent and tradition in the
name of the unchanging East. The Patriarch of
Old Rome, and none other, would have the tradi-
tional right to preside as Primus inter pares of the
Great Patriarchs of the Church. This being so,
let us return to the Nicene Council with an open
mind, and examine the historical probabilities of
its convocation and presidency. The second
(Ecumenical Council affords no illustrative argu-
ment, because it became oecumenical by its subse-
quent general reception throughout Christendom.
Although the Emperor Theodosius summoned the
Third General Council of Ephesus, we see from
the letter of Pope Celestine that he concurred with
N
194 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
the summoning of the Council, 1 and Pope Leo the
Great asked the Emperor Theodosius II. to con-
voke an (Ecumenical Council, which ultimately
resulted in the summoning of the Fourth (Ecu-
menical Council of Chalcedon. 2 It is, therefore,
historically probable that when Constantine " con-
sulted the Clergy" before summoning the Nicene
Council, he, or his advisers, consulted the Roman
Patriarch. The matter of Arius directly concerned
the Patriarch of Alexandria, and he must have been
consulted. The prominence of the Patriarch of
Antioch in the Council itself leads us to think that
he also was consulted, because men who think it
their due to be consulted, and are not, are apt to
keep in the background, like Achilles in his tent.
It is thus highly improbable, to say the least of it,
that the Patriarch of the Imperial city, which was
still the sole capital of the Empire, the first of
Primates, who was throned in cathedra Petri, should
be the only great Patriarch who was not consulted
with regard to the summoning of the Nicene
Council. The same line of argument applies to
the Presidency of the Council itself. We have
already seen that the Roman Patriarch would
1 Mansi, vol. iv. p. 1291.
2 It is true that Leo first asked for a Council at Rome, and that he
demurred to holding it at Chalcedon. Yet he wrote that it was held
" ex prsecepto Christianorum principum et ex consensu apostolicae
sedis." (S. Leo, Ep. 114.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 195
naturally preside at an (Ecumenical Council, by
virtue of his position as Primate of Christendom.
But in the exigencies of controversy with the
modern Roman claims, writers are found who
vehemently deny that Hosius, the President of the
Nicene Council, and the two Roman legates who
signed the decrees of the Council next in order to
him, represented in any way Sylvester's position as
President by virtue of his See. The position which
the Ultramontanes assert with regard to Hosius
may be legally untenable.
The evidence of the fifth-century writer Gelasius
may be weak, and his categorical assertion that
Hosius was the representative of Sylvester at the
Nicene Council may be incapable of satisfactory
historical proof; 1 but it is at all events within the
bounds of historic probability that Hosius, as a
Western Prelate, did represent the Roman Patriarch
as President of the Nicene Council. It is in con-
sonance with the principles of Primatial rank and
authority that he should have done so, even if the
actual facts of the case cannot be correctly ascer-
tained. And to admit that Hosius may have
presided, as the representative of the Primate of
Christendom, is no concession of any implied
superiority of the Pope to a General Council, or
to the un-Catholic modern claims of the Vatican
1 Gelasius, Volumtn Actorum Cone. Nic., ii. 5.
196 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Decrees. The admission that Hosius presided as
the representative of the Pope makes against the
claims of Vaticanism. For Hosius did not pose as
the delegate of an infallible Ruler of Christendom,
nor did he put forth any claims of the Roman See
to universal jurisdiction. The question of the exact
position of Hosius must perforce be left open. It
is not pleasant to think of a Spanish Bishop being
thrust by the sole authority of Constantine into a
position of superiority to the Patriarchs of Alex-
andria and Antioch, who were both present at the
first (Ecumenical Council.
The Patriarch of Alexandria was the virtual
prosecutor of Arius, so that he could not preside.
The theory that Eustathius of Antioch presided is
based upon the fact that one of his successors
in the Patriarchate spoke of him as "first of the
Nicene Fathers." 1 It is more in accordance with
the true spiritual independence of the Church to
hold that Hosius was not thrust into the Presidency
by the sic volo sic iubeo of Constantine, but that he
presided by virtue of some ecclesiastical commission
from the Primate-Patriarch of the Catholic Church.
But some minds are perverse enough to prefer the
idea of a President appointed by the Emperor to that
of a President appointed by ecclesiastical authority.
1 So also the Chronicle of Nicephorus ; vide Tillemont, Mhnoires,
vi. 272 b.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 197
The fact that Constantine appointed Marinus to
preside at Aries is minimised by the further facts
that the Council of Aries was not oecumenical, and
that its decisions were sent to the Roman Patriarch
for the purpose of official promulgation. We in-
cline to the view that Hosius, and the two Roman
priests Vitus and Vincentius, formed a sort of joint
delegation as representing the Roman Patriarch.
Eusebius speaks of the Presidents of the Council m
the plural number. 1 It is at least as likely that he
alluded to some such joint delegation as we have
suggested, as that he meant to imply that several
Presidents took turns in presiding over the Council.
And then we have to consider the order of the
signatures to the Nicene Decrees. In every copy
we find that Hosius signs first, and next to him the
two Roman priests. Then followed the signature
of the Patriarch of Alexandria, who ranked next to
the Roman Patriarch. Then followed the Metro-
politans and Bishops of his Patriarchate, and then
the other signatures grouped into Provinces, each
Bishop signing after his own Patriarch or Metro-
politan. We may, on the whole, safely conclude
that the convocation and presidency of the first
(Ecumenical Council bear, in their special circum-
stances, a distinct witness to the Primatial rights
1 After Constantine's opening discourse to the Council, " he made
way for the Presidents " (irapeSldov rbv \6yov rots TT}J ffvvbSov irpotSpois).
Euseb., Vita Const., I. 3. 13.
198 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
and precedence of the great Sees of Christendom. 1
All that is preserved to us of the proceedings of the
Nicene Council is the Creed, the twenty genuine
Canons, and the Synodal Decree. 2 The exhaustive
arguments of Bishop Hefele in proof of the twenty
Canons of the earliest Greek authorities, and also
of the ancient Latin collection (the Frisco), and
the subsequent one by Dionysius Exiguus, are
absolutely conclusive in demonstrating that they
are the only genuine ones. 3 The fourth Nicene
Canon deals definitely with the appointment of
Bishops, and the confirmation of Bishops-elect by
the Metropolitan and his corn-provincial Bishops.
'ETT/OVCOTTOI' irpoa~>jKei /maXttrTO, /u.ev VTTO Travrwv TUIV
ev Tfl eTrap-^ia Ka6i(TTa(r6ai' et e Sw^epes ely TO
TOIOVTO, rj Sia KaTeTreiyovarav avdyittjv y "*
ooov, e^oTraj/To? roef? CTTI TO avro (rvvayo/u.et>ovs
1 No special or formal ratification of the decrees of an Oecumenical
Council is required from any external authority, and certainly the
Roman Patriarch never had the power of ratifying the decrees of
Councils over which he did not preside in person. Bossuet says of
the Nicene decree against Arius : "Facto patrum decreto, adeo res
transacta putabatur, ut nulla mora interposita, nullo expectato Sedis
Apostolica spcciali decreto, omnes ubique terrarum Episcopi, Christiani
omnes, atque ipse Imperator, ipsi etiam Ariani, tanquam Divino
iudicio cederent." (Defensio, iii. 7. 7.) Bossuet is defending the
Gallican position that a General Council was of superior authority
to the Pope. The temporary submission of the Arians at Nicsea to
the Decree adds point to his argument that the Decree became
immediately effectual.
z The Synodal Decree is given in full by Socrates. (Ecd. Hist.,
i.9-)
3 History of Councils, vol. i. p. 356.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 199
^rj<pwv yevo/Jievwv KOI TWV cnrovToav KOI <TWTi0e[Ji.evu>v
Sia ypa/u-jmaTcw, Tore rrjv ^eiporoviav Troieta-Oai' TO
Se Kvpos TU)V yivOftifVv SiSoarOai KO.& eKacrrtjv e^rap-^av
TW fJ.t1TpOTTO\lTfl.
"The Bishop (elect of a diocese) must be appointed
by all the Bishops of the Province ; but if this be
impossible, either on account of pressing necessity
or on account of the length of journeying, three
of them at the least shall meet at the same place
and perform the consecration by imposition of
hands, with the permission of those absent signi-
fied in writing ; but the confirmation of what has
been done belongs to the Metropolitan in each
Province."
This Canon shows us, first of all, the Cyprianic
principle of the solidarity of the Episcopate, and
the interdependence of each Bishop of a Province
with the universal Episcopate, as shown primarily
by his relations with the Bishops of his own
Province, as common shareholders of joint privi-
leges and duties. Next it points out clearly the
principle of Primacy by its assertion of the wpos
of the Metropolitan. It will be noticed that this
Canon does not prescribe the method whereby a
Diocesan Bishop is elected. It deals with his
appointment and consecration subsequent to his
election. It describes the confirmation and con-
secration of a Bishop-elect. The process of election
200 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
was as follows. The KaTacrTacrt9 or appointment,
which included consecration, rested with the
Apostles and their successors. The initial steps
in the process of filling up the vacant See rested
with the Metropolitan, who had also the final power
of ratifying the proceedings (icvpos). The " choice "
or election (<rvvevSoKr]<ri$) rested with the Clergy.
The "testimony" to the character of the person
elected by the Clergy rested with the Laity
(naprvpiov). The Laity could not be expected to
pronounce on the orthodoxy or the ecclesiastical
fitness of the person elected. Their withholding
of their fj-aprupiov, which practically gave them a
veto on the election, could only be based on
grounds of conduct or past action on the part of
the person elected which would lead them to con-
sider him unfit to bear rule. We have already
seen that S. Peter to some extent anticipated the
after-usage of Metropolitans in dealing with a
vacant See in the steps that he took with regard to
the vacancy in the College of Apostles which was
filled by the election of S. Matthias. In the appoint-
ment of the seven Deacons in Acts vi. 2, 3, the
paprvpu was given by the Plebs Christiana, and
the KaTa<rra<ri<s was reserved to the Apostles. The
eXXoyz/zoi avSpe?, or men of Apostolic rank, in S.
Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians, appointed the
Presbyter-Bishops, with the consent of the whole
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 2OI
Church ((rvvevSoKrjcrdarris rrjs 'E/ocAjjo-ta? Tracri??). 1 S.
Cyprian is equally plain on this point. The appoint-
ment of Cornelius is in order because he was elected
by the Clergy, with the assent of the Laity, and with
the consent of the Bishops of the Province, which
made his appointment and consecration valid. 2
Eusebius tells us that when Fabian was elected to
the See of Rome in A.D. 236, the whole Laity
cried out that he was worthy to be Bishop. 3 To
anticipate the historical order of our testimony, we
may add that Nectarius was appointed Patriarch
of Constantinople in A.D. 381, Koivy ^<^)ft) TW
crwoSov, which was that Patriarchal Council of the
East which was afterwards acknowledged as the
second (Ecumenical Council. The Laity also had
their voice, and the appointment of S. Chrysostom in
1 S. Clem. Rom., Ad Cor., c. 44.
2 " Cornelius factus est episcopus de Dei et Christi Eius iudicio, de
clericorum pcene omnium testimonio, de plebis quae tune affuit suffragio
et de sacerdotum antiquorum et bonorum virorum collegio." (S. Cypr. ,
Ep. Iv.) Again he says: "Episcopo Cornelio in Catholica Ecclesia
de Dei iudicio de cleri et plebis suffragio ordinato." (76. Ep. Ixviii.)
In another place he explains the position of the laity to be "ut plebe
praesente vel detegantur malorum crimina vel bonorum merita praedi-
centur" (Ib. Ep. Ixvii.); so that his use of "suffragium" for the laity
means their /j.aprijpiov.
3
rovias IveKev rfjs TOV /nAXovros diaS^x f ff^ al rty firi<rKOirr)v fwl rijs
'EKK\r)<rlas ffvyKeKporr}/j.tvui>. (Euseb. vi. 29.) The Council of
Laodicea (A.D. 365) had to restrain tumultuous partisanship amongst
the laity in general, which provoked disorder, and their assent was
gradually restricted to representative men of eminence who could act
for the laity generally without tumult.
202 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
A.D. 397 was made ^^(pio-fJLaTi KOIVW 6/xou TTCLVTCOV
K\ripov re (py/mi KCU \aov, so that even in the appoint-
ment of a Patriarch the Clergy had a consultative
voice, and the Laity the right of assent. The well-
known dictum of Pope Celestine (A.D. 422) passed
into a recognised maxim of ecclesiastical law :
" Let no Bishop be given to those unwilling to
receive him. The consent and desire of the Clergy,
the People, and of the Episcopal Order is neces-
sary." ! Pope Leo the Great took the same line. 2
The /caracrracrt? included Confirmation and Con-
secration. Confirmation implied the consent of the
Co-episcopate, primarily expressed by the Bishops
of the Provinces and then ratified by the Metro-
politan and Patriarch. Confirmation conferred
jurisdiction upon the Bishop-elect, and Consecra-
tion conferred Order, whereby the person conse-
crated received the potestas ordinis, and the gift of
the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a Bishop
in the Church of God.
1 " Nullus invitis detur Episcopus. Cleri, plebis, et ordinis consen-
sus et desiderium requiratur." (S. Coelest., Ep. ii. 5.)
2 " Cum de summi sacerdotis electione tractabitur, ille omnibus prae-
ponatur, quern cleri plebisque consensus concorditer postularit ; ita ut
si in aliam forte personam partium se vota diviserint, metropolitani
iudicio is alteri prseferatur, qui maioribus et studiis iuvatur et meritis :
tantum ut nullus invitis et non petentibus ordinetur, ne plebs invita
Episcopum non aptatum aut contemnat aut oderit." (Ep. 84, ad
Anasfas., c. 15). S. Augustine takes the same line : " In ordinandis
sacerdotibus et clericis consensum maiorum Christianorum et consue-
tudinem Ecclesiae sequendum esse arbitrabatur." (Possid., Vita S. Aug.,
cap. 21.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 203
Objections could be heard at the Court of Con-
firmation, and a Bishop-elect could be rejected at
this stage. 1 We may anticipate once more with
regard to the means which had to be taken to
obviate tumultuous assemblages of the Laity at
Episcopal elections. The election in a popular
assemblage (0^X0*9) was forbidden by the I3th
Canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), but
this prohibition, as Van Espen 2 shows, does not
affect the right of the Laity to give their testimonium
and assent in an Episcopal election. Tumult was
avoided by a certain system of representation of
the popular testimonium by leading laymen. This
seems to be implied by S. Leo the Great's refer-
ence to the decision of men of honourable rank
in the election of a Bishop. 3 The fifth Nicene
Canon is one of the most important which bears
upon our present investigation. It sets forth at
once the solidarity of the Episcopate as a whole,
1 The Greek Pontificals speak of the Bishop to be consecrated as
UTTO^T^IOJ (elect) and eo-Te/aew^^os (confirmed).
The Court of Confirmation has become a lifeless form in the Estab-
lished Church of England. In the unestablished and free Churches of
the Anglican Communion it is a living reality. The Church of the
Province of South Africa approaches most closely to the primitive
model in the procedure it has adopted in Canon IV. for the Confirma-
tion of a Bishop-elect.
2 Van Espen, Commentarius in Canones, p. 161 seq.
3 "Vota civium, testimonia populorum, honoratorum arbitrium"
(which apparently voiced the testimony and wishes of the laity)
"electio clericorum." (S. Leo., Ep. Ixxxix.)
204 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
and the constitutional authority of the individual
Bishop. We must quote it in full :
Tlepl Ttav aKoiV(i)v>jT(ji)v yevo/mevtov, erre Ttav ev Tia
K\ijpu> ore ev Xa'iKia Ttfy/um, VTTO TU>V KU&' eKacmji'
eirapxlav eTTHTKOTrwv /fjoaremo r\ yv(a/j.ri Kara TOV Kavova
TOV SiayopevovTa, TOV? v<p' eTepwv cnro/3\r]6evTa,s v<p'
krepaov /u.t) Trpoo-iea-Oai. 'E^era^eo-0w Se, fty fj.iKpo^rv^ia
tj <pi\oveiKia >j TIVI TOiavry aqSla TOV eiria-KOTrov airoavv-
aycayoi yeyevrivrai. Iva ovv TOVTO Trjv TrpeTrov<rav
e^eTCHTiv Xa/Uj8ai/>7, /caXw? e^eiv eSofcev, OfOUTfOU eviavTOU
icad' eKCLiTTqv CTrap^iav Sis TOV eroup crvvoSov? yive<r6ai,
Iva KOivy TrdvTcov TUSV e-jno-KOTrcov T^? exa^o^/a? e-jrl TO
avTO (rvvayofjt.ev<av, TO. TOICLVTO. ^TT/yuara e^era^otiTO,
Kai OVTGO? Oi 6fJI.O\OyOV/Jl.V(i)S TTpOCTKeKpOVKOTeS TO) 67rt(T-
KOTTU) KCLTO. \6yOV aKOlVWVtJTOl TTttpOL TTatTlV etVO.1 So^OXTl,
/Ae^ot? av T(p KOIVOJ TU>V eTTHTKOTruov Sofy Tqv <pi\avOpw-
TTOTepav VTrep avruiv fKOevOai ^tjcbov at Se vvvoo'oi
, ftia /xei/ TT^OO T^5 Teo-crepaKOO-Trjs, "tva Traa-rjs
avaipovju.vt]$ TO 8a>pov 1 KaOapov Trpoarfpe-
prjTai TO) Oe<w, SevTepa Se Trepl TOV TOV /ueTOTrwpov
Katpov.
" Respecting those who, whether of the clergy or
in the laic rank, have been excommunicated by the
Bishops in every Province, let the sentence hold
good according to the rule which prescribes that
those who are excommunicated by some be not
1 The offering of the Gift means the offering of the Holy Eucharist
in its sacrificial aspect.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 205
received by others. But let it be inquired whether
their exclusion proceed from any petty jealousy
or party feeling, or any such frowardness in the
Bishop. Accordingly, that this may receive due
examination, it seems good that twice every year
Synods be held in each Province, that such ques-
tions may be examined before a public assembly
of all the Bishops of the Province ; and so they
who have confessedly offended the Bishop may be
reasonably held excommunicate in the sight of
all, until the Episcopal Body think fit to pronounce
a more indulgent sentence respecting them. Let
one of the Synods be held before Lent, that all petty
jealousy being got rid of, the Gift may be purely
offered to God, and the second about autumn."
The first clause in this Canon refers to the i2th
of the Apostolic Canons, which prohibited the re-
ception of persons excommunicated who present
themselves without Letters of Commendation. The
Canon runs as follows : Ei' TI$ K\t]piicos *] XaiVco?
a<p(api(Tju,evos, IJTOI afieKTOS, ctTreXO&v ev erepa TroXet
Se^Oy avev <ypaiJ.iJ.a.TU>v (TvcrraTiKUiv, cK^opi^ea-Oca KOI
6 Sej-d/mevos KCU 6 Se^Geis. " If any cleric or layman
who has been excommunicated, or who is under
suspension, departs to another city, and is received
without letters of commendation, both the re-
cipient and the person who receives him must
be excommunicated." The slight obscurity in the
206 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
wording of this Canon is explained by its latter
clause, which we have not quoted, which prescribes
a different penalty for the two classes of offenders,
the suspended and the excommunicate. The point
of the enactments is the same. The Episcopate
is one, and the sentence of one Bishop must be
received by the universal Episcopate, with one
important qualification, namely, the right of appeal
against the sentence of any individual Bishop. 1
This appeal is the great bulwark against all uncon-
stitutional exercise of Episcopal authority. The
wording of the Nicene Canon assumes the possi-
bility of Episcopal injustice or "unpleasantness"
(atjSla). For this reason the aggrieved cleric or
layman, who considered himself unjustly sentenced
by his Bishop, could appeal from his own Dio-
cesan to the Universal Episcopate, as represented
primarily by the Provincial Synod of his Province. 2
1 It may be asked, with reference to this Canon, how the case of a
Bishop should be dealt with who relaxes the discipline of his Diocese,
and refuses to excommunicate those who ought to be excommunicated.
The principle of the solidarity of the Episcopate governs the case.
The Bishop in question can be cited for trial before his Metropolitan
and corn-provincial Bishops for neglecting his duty as administrator
of the Divine Law and discipline of the Church. As Du Pin observes,
his Metropolitan or Patriarch cannot deal with the case directly, "nisi
forte gravis esset eius negligentia aut conniventia, tune etiam moneri
eum oportebat a Metropolitano, et si pertinaciter recusaret noxios
punire, turn illi turn Episcopus ipse deferendi erant ad Synodum Pro-
vincioe ibique iudicandi." (De Ant, Eccl. Disc., p. 251.)
2 The finality of the judgment of a Provincial Synod is often asserted.
Du Pin, in commenting upon this Canon, says : " Hoc in Canone iudi-
cium omne definitivum Episcopis Provinciae committitur sine ullo
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 207
The Metropolitan and his corn-provincial Bishops
form the Provincial Synod for all practical pur-
poses, for they alone have in it the votum decisivum. 1
Clergy and Laity could be present for purposes of
consultation and assent when the Provincial Synod
dealt with matters of discipline and doctrine ; but
there is no evidence that they were present when
the Provincial Synod sat as a Court of Appeal. It
is true that the Encyclical of the Council of Antioch,
recursu aut provocatione. " (De Ant. Eccl. Disc., p. 98.) If he means
by this that no appeal can lie which involves a re-examining of the
proven/a^/.r of a case, he is correct ; but if he means that the Bishops
of a single province have such final authority in matters of faith and
doctrine that their judgment is equivalent to that of the Universal
Episcopate, he is in error. The solidarity of the Episcopate can be
just as much jeopardised by the autonomous action of a single province
as it is by the autonomous action of a single Bishop. He says again :
" Firma autem manebat Synodi Provincise sententia nee poterat ab alio
rescindi, cum prasertim non agebatur de fide. Nam cum de ilia erat
quasstio quia res communis in periculum veniebat, cseterse Ecclesiae
poterant inquirere causam propter quam aliquis eiectus foret, et si
comperissent doctrinam orthodoxam a Synodo Provincise alicuius esse
proscriptam, et propterea tantum aliquem esse damnatum quod earn
doceret, tune poterant hominis istius aut potius eius doctrinse patro-
cinium suscipere, quse res saepe saepius magnas in Ecclesia turbas
excitavit, ob varias de dogmate aliquo Episcoporum et Ecclesiarum
opiniones. Cseterum isto in casu nullum aliud remedium praesentius
est inventum quam ut ex pluribus orbis partibus Episcopi in unum con-
venientes sententiam ferrent : quo sancto qui Synodi universalis et
liberse iudicio non obtemperabant, merito ab Ecclesiae communione
separati et schismatici habebantur." (Jb. p. 249.)
In this latter passage Du Pin concedes the whole point at issue.
But although an CEcumenical Council is the ultimate Court of Appeal,
we shall show that the Patriarch and his Council formed an intermediate
stage, as standing between an CEcumenical Council and the decision
of a Provincial Synod.
1 See the 38th Apostolic Canon in the previous chapter.
208 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
which condemned Paulus, is addressed to the whole
Church, and speaks in the name of the Clergy, as
well as the Laity, who assented to what was done,
but the trial of a Patriarch covered a wider area
than an ordinary Provincial Tribunal of Appeal,
whose decisions could be carried for review to a
Patriarchal or (Ecumenical Council.
This Canon has at its root that solidarity of the
Episcopate, whereof each Bishop is a shareholder.
No Bishop stands alone, or is exempt from the
jurisdiction of the Universal Episcopate, to which
he is responsible for all his actions. If the Roman
Patriarch, as Primate of Christendom, is ex officio
the President of the Universal Episcopate in (Ecu-
menical Council assembled, if it is his duty to
promulgate its decisions urbi et orbi, and to be its
spokesman and mouthpiece, he is none the less
responsible to it than any other Bishop. The
principle underlying this Canon is the true justi-
fication of the Council of Constance, 1 and of the
Gallican theologians who held that an (Ecumenical
Council could judge the Pope. 2 The Canon also
1 The decree of the Council of Constance (A.D.<l4i8) is as follows :
" Definivit Concilium generate universam reprsesentans Ecclesiam,
potestatem suam immediate habere a Christo cui quilibet cuiuscunque
status vel dignitatis, etiamsi Papalis existat, obedire tenetur in his quse
pertinent ad fidem et extirpationem schismatis et reformationem Ecclesise
generalem in capite et in membris." (Cone. Constant., Sess. 4 and 5.)
2 So Archbishop P. de Marca and Du Pin, who gives a long list
of Canonists and Theologians who upheld this view on p. 422 of his
treatise De Antique, Ecclesice Disciplina.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 209
applies to every exercise of coercive episcopal
authority, for the greater includes the less. The
sentence of excommunication is the heaviest penalty
that a Bishop can inflict, and if this is a matter of
appeal, such exercises of authority as the Episcopal
veto upon the act of a Diocesan Synod are likewise
liable to review. We may state broadly that in
every case where a Bishop acts as representing his
order his ruling is liable to an appeal. As Presi-
dent of his Synod he represents his order. If a
vote by orders is taken, he acts as the sole repre-
sentative of his order ; but he cannot, when acting
thus alone, commit the universal Episcopate, or
even its immediate representatives in his case (his
Primate and corn-provincial Bishops), to the en-
dorsement of his action as final, without their
assent and co-operation. It follows, therefore, that
a Bishop's veto upon any act of his Synod is sus-
pensory and not final, until it has been endorsed
by the Episcopate. For this cause an appeal to
the Primate and Bishops of the Province from a
Bishop's veto in Synod is just as lawful as an
appeal from any other exercise of his authority as
Diocesan and Ordinary.
The sixth Nicene Canon is of deep interest.
It refers to the three great Patriarchates of
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, and to the lesser
Primacies such as Carthage in the West, and
O
210 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Ephesus, Caesarea in Cappadocia, and Heraclea
in Thrace. It begins with an allusion to ancient
usage and custom, which is of itself evidence that
the Primacy of the great Sees was rooted in the
history of the Catholic Church from the Apostolic
age:
T* * - >f(\ > ^ ' A ' ' *A/O'
a ap^aia eurj Kpareirw TO. ev AIJVTTTW teat J\ipvt]
KOI Ilej/raTToXet, wtrre TOV 'AXeai/<^oe/a9 7ri<rKO7rov
TTGLVTCOV TOVTCDV c^iv Trjv eov(riav, 7reirj KOI TU> ev Ty
'Put/my eTnovcoTTft) TOVTO arvvqQes <TTIV o/xo/eo? ^e ical
Kara ^ Avrio^eiav KOI ev TOW? aXXaty eTrap^iai<s ra
Trpecrfieia vwCevQai TCUS e/c/cX^cr/at? Ka66\ov e Trpo-
<$t]\OV KIVO } OTl e'l Tl? )(a)p}$ yvU>jU.r]$ TOV /UDJTpOTToXlTOV
yevotTO tTT/cr/fOTro? TOV TOIOVTOV y fjieyaXrj <ruvoSo?
wpiare /JLTJ Setv elvat e7ri(TKOTrov edv /JLCVTOI Ty KOIVJJ
TTOLVTODV \^(p(f>, ev\Oy(i) OV(Tf} Kttl KUTO, KttVOVd
TIKOV, Svo r] Tpeis Si oiKeiav (piXoveiKtav a
KpaTeiTw t] TU>V TT\ei6v<iov ^/rj<po$.
" Let the ancient customs prevail which exist in
Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop
of Alexandria should have jurisdiction over all these
Provinces, since this is customary also for the
Bishop of Rome. In like manner also at Antioch,
and in the other Provinces, let the Primatial privi-
leges l of the Churches be preserved. This also is
clearly manifest, that if any one be made a Bishop
rights of the eldest ; cf. 7iy>e<7/3a \afteiv, to take the
rihts of the eldest son. (Demosthenes, 955, II.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 211
without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great
Synod ordains that such an one ought not to remain
Bishop. But if two or three, through their own
party feeling, contradict the common vote of all,
when it is reasonable and according to the eccle-
siastical Canon, let the vote of the majority pre-
vail."
The first point to note in this Canon is the
antiquity of the principle of Primacy. Its opening
sentence is in itself a strong argument in favour
of the principles advocated in these pages.
In the next place we have the witness of the
Nicene Council to the ancient privileges of the
three Patriarchal Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch. The authority of the Alexandrian " Pope,"
as we have already seen, was that of a Primate of
Metropolitans. Meletius of Lycopolis had caused
a schism against Alexander, the Patriarch of Alex-
andria, and the Council determined to reassert the
ancient prerogatives of his See. The Patriarch of
Alexandria not only consecrated the Metropolitans
of his subject Provinces, 1 but also their suffragans,
which was a privilege unknown elsewhere.
We have now to consider the bearing of this
1 Dioscorus of Alexandria was cited to appear at the Great Synod
of Ephesus (the Latrociniuni) in A.D. 449, and to bring with him ten
subordinate Metropolitans. " Imperator dirigens sacram Dioscoro in
Alexandriam prsecepit, ut cum decem Metropolitanis Episcopis, quos
voluisset, veniret Ephesum." (Liberat. Breviar.,c. 12.)
212 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Canon upon the privileges of the Roman See. 1
An ancient Latin version of this Canon began with
the words, " Quod Ecclesia Romana semper habuit
Primatum," which were quoted at Chalcedon by
the Roman Legate Paschasinus, and was confronted
immediately by the true Greek version. We need
not impute bad faith to Paschasinus, and the words
which state "that the Roman Church always had
the Primacy," were an irrelevant addition, as ex-
pressing a fact which no one had ever seriously
disputed. The position of the Roman Patriarch,
as holding " a Primacy of honour " over the whole
Catholic Church, is taken for granted in this Canon,
which solely concerns itself with Patriarchal and
Primatial jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of Alex-
andria is territorially defined, and this Patriarchal
jurisdiction is paralleled with the customary Patri-
archal jurisdiction of Rome. The Roman Patriarch
was (i.) Primate of Christendom with a Primacy
of honour, influence, and initiative, whose scope
we have already in some measure denned. But he
was also (ii.) a Patriarch with a denned jurisdiction,
1 Cardinal Bellarmine's interpretation of this Canon is a strange in-
stance of that perversion of history which is necessary in the interests
of Ultramontanism. The Roman Bishop was accustomed to allow the
Patriarch of Alexandria to govern in his name. " Quia Romanus
Episcopus ante omnem conciliorum definitionem consuerit permittere
Episcopo Alexandrine regimen yEgypti, Libyae et Pentapolis ; sive
consuerit per Alexandrinum Episcopum illas Provincias gubernare."
(De Rom. Pont., ii. 13.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 213
and with an undefined authority over the whole
West. He was also (iii.) Metropolitan of his Pro-
vince, and (iv.) Bishop of his Diocese.
The question of the exact Metropolitical and
Patriarchal jurisdiction of the Roman See has been
much disputed. 1 The most probable opinion is that
he was Metropolitan of the territory of the Pra-
fectus Urbis, which extended within one hundred
miles of Rome, and Patriarch of the ten Provinces
governed by the Vicarius Urbis, with jurisdiction
1 Benedict XIV., in commenting on the version given of this Canon
by Rufinus, Et ut apud Alexandriam et in urbe Roma vetusta con-
suetudo servetur, ut vel ille ALgypti vel hie suburbicarium ecclesiarum
sollicitudinem gerat (Hist. Eccl., i. 6), takes the view of Schelstrate,
that "the Sub-urbicarian Churches " meant the Provinces under the
Roman Pontiff qua Patriarch. He is naturally inclined to widen the
area of these Provinces to the whole West. (De Synod, Diceces., ii. 2.)
But Fleury (Hist. Eccl., liv. 41), and Thomassin ( Vat. et Nov. Eccl.
Disc., i. 8), and the Jesuit Sirmond (Censur. Coniectur., i. 4) hold that
the Patriarchal rights of Rome were confined to the ten Provinces
of Tuscia, Umbria, Valeria, Picenum, Latium, Samnium, Apulia,
Calabria, Lucania, Bruttium, with the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and
Corsica. These were the Provinces governed by the Vicarius Urbis,
and contained 240 Dioceses, of which no (in the territory of the
Prtffectus Urbis} owned the Roman Pontiff as their Metropolitan, and
the remainder were subject to him as Patriarch through their own
Metropolitans. (See Dr. Cave, Ancient Church Government, p, 256.)
The privilege of a Patriarch was to consecrate his Metropolitans.
The Archbishop of Carthage and the Spanish and Gallican Primates
were not consecrated by the Roman Patriarch. (De Marca, v. 4.)
Nor was the Archbishop of Milan, who was consecrated by the
Bishop of Aquileia. (lb., vi. 4.) There is no real ground for Schel-
strate's view that the maiores dioceses of the Council of Aries referred
to the whole of the West. The fact that the Roman Patriarch
afterwards became Patriarch of the whole West, by the aid of the
Civil Power (e.g., Gratian's decree), is nihil ad rent in interpreting this
Canon.
214 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
over their Metropolitans, and undefined Primatial
authority over the whole West as occupying its
sole Apostolic See. This Primatial authority in the
West was exercised with greater influence, because
of the close ties which bound the West to Rome as
its centre. The Primate of Christendom found that
his Primacy of influence grew more rapidly in the
West than in the East, especially in the latter days,
when the Patriarch of New Rome became a serious
rival. But notwithstanding the witness of this
Nicene Canon to the Roman Patriarchate, we
cannot help noting that it would have been very
differently worded if the Vatican claims had been
admitted by the Nicene Fathers. It is impossible
to reconcile the wording of this Canon with the
modern idea that the Pope is the divinely appointed
Ruler of the whole Catholic Church, the Infallible
Doctor of Christendom, and the source of all epis-
copal jurisdiction.
The Canon proceeds to secure the Patriarchal
rights of Antioch, which were at that time exer-
cised over the Metropolitans of Caesarea in Pales-
tine, and of Syria, Phoenicia, Arabia, Euphratensis,
Osrhoene, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, and Isauria, which
were all included in the great civil " Diocese " of
the Roman Empire which was called " Oriens." l
The third Throne in Christendom, which still was
1 Dr. Neale, Introd. Eastern Church , i. 125.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 215
honoured as the first Cathedra Petri, 1 had the same
privileges as the Patriarchal Sees of Rome and
Alexandria. The Patriarch of Antioch consecrated
the Metropolitans of his Patriarchate, and the
Metropolitans, with his permission, consecrated
their corn-provincial Bishops. The abnormal use
of Alexandria in this matter has already been
alluded to. It probably arose from the fact that
the " Pope " of Alexandria was originally Metro-
politan of the single Province, which afterwards
came to be subdivided into other Provinces with
their own Metropolitans. 2 In addition to the three
great Patriarchates, this Canon preserves the pre-
rogatives of the lesser Primacies already mentioned.
1 S. Jerome considers that the Patriarchal rights of Antioch were
established by the sixth Nicene Canon. " Ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur,
ut Palestine metropolis Caesarea sit, et totius Orientis Antiochia" (S.
Jerome, Ep. 61, ad Pammochum.) So also Innocent I. of Rome, writ-
ing to Alexander, Patriarch of Antioch (Ep. 18), says, "The Council of
Nicsea has not established the Church of Antioch over a Province, but
over a 'Dioecesis' (Patriarchate). As, then, in virtue of his exclusive
authority, the Bishop of Antioch ordains Metropolitans, it is not allowed
that other Bishops should hold ordinations without his knowledge and
consent" (non sine permissu conscientiaque tua sinas Epi scopes procreari).
The Festival of the " Cathedra Petri" at Antioch was celebrated in the
fourth century, if not earlier. It was adopted by S. Jerome in his
Martyrology, and used by S. Ambrose at Milan. The commemoration
of the " Cathedra Petri" at Rome was first inserted in the Breviary by
Paul IV. in 1557.
2 Synesius, the Metropolitan of Ptolemais, which was within the
Alexandrian Patriarchate, writes to his Patriarch Theophilus concern-
ing the election of a Bishop who had been confirmed by him as Metro-
politan, and duly elected. Consecration was now the one thing lacking,
ccds ?TI Set . . . TOV pfy TOI, TTJS Upas ffov x/><ta (Synes., Ep. 76, ad
Theopk.)
2l6 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Du Pin l and others think that special reference is
here made to the three Primatial Sees of Ephesus
for Proconsular Asia, Caesarea in Cappadocia for
Pontus, and Heraclea (afterwards Constantinople)
for Thrace. This view does not of course exclude
the application of the Canon to other Primatial
Sees in furtherance of a general principle. These
three principal Primacies differed from the Patri-
archal Sees in the matter of consecrating their
Metropolitans.
This right did not belong to them. 2 In the case
of Carthage the Archbishop confirmed the election
of his subordinate Metropolitans, who were ap-
pointed by seniority of consecration, and not by
virtue of their occupying a fixed Metropolitical See.
These movable African Primacies were obviously
inconvenient in some ways, and the Synod of Hippo
in A.D. 393 ordered that each episcopus prima sedis
1 Du Pin, De Antigua Ecdcsia Disciplina, p. 37, et seq.
2 One of the spurious Nicene Canons of the Arabic version (published
by Tunianus) refers to the conversion of Ethiopia and the rights of its
Primate or " Catholicus." S. Frumentius converted these Ethiopians
when S. Athanasius was Patriarch of Alexandria, and the supposition
of the Canon that a regularly organised Episcopate existed in Ethiopia
is an additional testimony to its post-Nicene date. Yet it is worth
quoting, because it gives evidence of the inherent difference between a
Patriarch and a Primate. The "Catholicus," ".non tamen ius habeat
constituendi archiepiscopos, ut habet Patriarcha." (Psezido- Nicene
Arabic Canon, 36.) The South African Church observes this principle
in Canon V., which directs that the Archbishop of Capetown and
Metropolitan of South Africa shall be consecrated by the Archbishop
of Canterbury as Primate of the Anglican Communion.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 2 17
should report from time to time to the Archbishop
of Carthage, and take instructions from him, be-
sides attending the annual General Council of the
African Church. 1
The last part of the sixth Nicene Canon appears
at first sight to be a mere repetition of the asser-
tion of the icvpos of the Metropolitan. But it is
not so. The Canon deals with the rights of
Patriarchs and Primates (Exarchs). We cannot,
with Valesius, accept the theory that this last clause
refers to Patriarchs, under the name of " Metro-
politan," and that it really means that they had the
right of confirming all Episcopal elections. It is
rather intended to preserve the rights of the Metro-
politan against the Patriarch, and to declare that
the Patriarch cannot consecrate a Bishop for
a Province without the consent of the Metro-
politan and a majority of the Bishops of that
Province. This assertion of metropolitical rights
is just and necessary, for the Metropolitan is
not the mere suffragan of the Patriarch, and the
1 See Marca (De Priniatibns, p. 10, seq. ) and Van Espen (Comm. in
Canon., p. 357). Hefele goes so far as to say that Carthage was "the
Patriarchal See of Africa" (vol. ii. p. 397, n.). With regard to the
Sees of Ephesus, Csesarea, and Heraclea we may describe their Primates
as superior Metropolitans who, although they had subordinate Metro-
politans, were not Patriarchs, but had the title of" Exarch," which may
be defined as describing "a lesser Patriarch." After Heraclea was
merged into Constantinople the Primates of Ephesus and Caesarea
signed at Chalcedon as " Exarchs."
2l8 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Patriarch cannot pass over and ignore his canonical
rights. 1
The seventh Nicene Canon need not detain us
long. It is concerned with the precedence of the
Bishop of ^Elia, the name of the new city built by
the Emperor Hadrian, early in the second century,
upon the devastated site of Jerusalem. The Mother
Diocese of Christendom lost its historical con-
tinuity and ecclesiastical precedence. The Bishop
of .^lia was a suffragan of the Metropolitan of
Caesarea. But the associations of the Holy City
were gradually revived. At the Provincial Synod
held on the Paschal Controversy, at the request
of Victor of Rome, Eusebius tells us that Theo-
philus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem were
presidents. 2 Hymenaeus of Jerusalem signed the
1 Once more we refer to a modern instance. We have borne our
witness in these pages to the necessity of a Canterbury Patriarchate as
a living centre for the Anglican Communion. But when the present
Archbishop of Sydney (Dr. Saumarez Smith) was consecrated as Primate
of Australia by the Archbishop of Canterbury the ordinary oath taken
by the Suffragan Bishops of the Province of Canterbury was adminis-
tered to him, notwithstanding the fact that the Colonial Clergy Act
of 1874 made provision for its omission. Colonial Archbishops and
Metropolitans might well take a Declaration of allegiance to the
Primatial See of the Anglican Communion, but to cause a Colonial
Primate to take a Suffragan's oath to Canterbury is a distinct infring-
ment of metropolitical rights. A worse encroachment took place in
1870, when Bishop Wilkinson was consecrated to Zululand, which is a
See within the Province of South Africa. Instead of taking his Suffra-
gan's oath to the South African Metropolitan, he was compelled to take
it to the Archbishop of York, who is himself subordinate to Canterbury.
a Qfyerai 5' eifftrt vvv r&v Kara HaXaiffTivijv njyi/cdSe ffvyKfKpOT-rjfj.^vu)'
ypa.<p-/), &v Trpoirr^TCLKTO 0e6^iXoj rrjs tv Kcucrapa'a irapoiKias
Kai Nd/wct<rffos TTJJ tv 'le/xxroXtf/xoij. (Euseb., ff. ,, v. 23.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 219
Synodal letter of the Council of Antioch in A.D.
269, before the Metropolitan of Caesarea. It is evi-
dent that a special precedence was assigned to the
Bishop of Jerusalem, which the Nicene Council
desired to confirm (TTJ /u.t]Tpoiro\ei crw^Oyuei/ou TOV
OIKCIOV aia>fjiaTos) without trenching upon the
metropolitical rights of one of its most distin-
guished members, Eusebius of Caesarea, the his-
torian and scholar. De Marca held the theory
that this Canon was intended to give the Bishop
of Jerusalem a precedency of honour (T^J/ cucoAou-
6iav rrJ9 TIMS) next to Antioch, without with-
drawing him from the jurisdiction of Caesarea.
But if this view cannot be literally established, we
find Maximus of Jerusalem convoking a Synod in
Palestine in favour of S. Athanasius, soon after the
Nicene Council, and thus practically acting in inde-
pendence of Caesarea. 1 The discovery of the Holy
Sepulchre and of the True Cross by the Empress
Helena naturally gave a great impulse to the
revival of the lost glories of the Mother See of
Christendom. At the Council of Ephesus (A.D.
431), Juvenal of Jerusalem took a prominent place,
and when he attempted to establish his superiority
to Caesarea by false documents (a strange anticipa-
tion of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals), S. Cyril
of Alexandria notified this fraud to Leo the Great,
1 Socr., ii. 24.
220 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
who denounced Juvenal's evil conduct in terms of
unmeasured censure. It is distinctly unfortunate
that none of his successors in the Roman See
found opportunity to denounce the equally " com-
mentitia scripta " of the Pseudo-Isidore. 1
But notwithstanding the evil conduct of Juvenal,
and its condemnation by Rome and Alexandria,
the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) raised Jeru-
salem to Patriarchal rank, with jurisdiction over
the three Provinces of Palestine a step which not
only took away the metropolitical rights of Caesarea,
but diminished the Patriarchate of Antioch by
subsidising its jurisdiction. We have anticipated
the course of events in dealing with the Patriarchate
of Jerusalem. But the whole story bears so directly
on our subject that it is best dealt with as a whole.
The See of ^Elia becomes the Patriarchate of Jeru-
salem after a long ecclesiastical strife. What is
the process ? The Roman Patriarch does not rule
the Catholic Church and issue a decree deciding
the question by his plenary authority. As first of
the great Patriarchs and Primate of Christendom
he condemns the conduct of Juvenal at the request
1 " Sicut etiam in Ephesina Synodo, quae impium Nestorium cum
dogmate suo perculit, luvenalis episcopus ad obtinendum Palestinae
Provincioe principatum credidit se posse sufficere, et insolentes ausus
per commentitia scripta firmare. Quod sanctse memories Cyrillus
Alexandrinus merito perhorrescens, scriptis suis mihi, quid praedicta
cupiditas ausa sit, indicavit et sollicita prece multum poposcit, ut nulla
illicitis conatibus prseberetur assensio. " (S. Leo, Ep. 62, ad Maximum. )
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 221
of S. Cyril of Alexandria. But the whole matter
belonged to a higher authority than that of the
Primate-Patriarch. The Patriarchs could, and did,
exchange views upon the matter, but it needed an
(Ecumenical Council to settle it. The seventh Canon
of Nicaea decided the claims of Jerusalem in a
certain way. The Roman Patriarch and the other
Patriarchs were bound to uphold this Canon,
pending the decision of a future Council. When
the Council of Chalcedon reversed theNicene decree,
their action was accepted without question. Before
passing on to consider the Canons of other Coun-
cils, there are several points in the Nicene Canons
which indirectly elucidate our subject. The I5th
Canon forbids the translation of Bishops, Priests,
and Deacons from one sphere to another. Ata
TOV TroXvv Tapa^ov KCLI ray (TTCuret? TO? yivo/u.evas
oj~e TravTOLTracri TrepiaipeOtjvat Tyv (rvvijOeiav, Ttjv irapa
TOV Kavova evpeOetarav ev TKTL /Jipe(riv, ware cnro
TToXeco? e*V TTO\IV firj /meTafiaiveiv fJ-ijTe eTr/ovcoTroi' /x>;re
7rpe<r/3vTepov /UL^TC SIOLKOVOV. et <$e TI$ /xera TOV T^9
KOI /UieydXrjs (rvvoSov opov TOIOVTW Tivi eiri-
rj eTTiSoit] eavTov TrpdyfJiaTi TOIOVTW,
e^aTrarro? TO KaTacrKeva(r/u.a, Kcti cnro-
KaTa<TTa6ri<TeTai Tfl KK\t]<Tia, f] 6 eTrtWoTro? t] 6
Trpe<T/3vTepos e-^eipoTovrjOtj. " By reason of the
frequent disturbance and factions which have
taken place, we ordain the total abrogation of
222 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
the usage which has been established in some
countries contrary to the Canon, so that no
Bishop, Priest, or Deacon should remove from
one city to another. But if any one should
venture, even after this ordinance of the Holy
and Great Synod, to act contrary to this present
rule, or should lend himself to such a thing, the
proceeding shall be absolutely annulled, and he
shall be restored to the Church to which he had
been ordained Bishop or Priest."
The Canon forbidding unauthorised Translations
which is here alluded to is the i4th Apostolic
Canon, which forbids personal and private action on
the part of the person translated, so as to exclude
self-seeking and ambition. No Translation is per-
mitted /my T*9 6^X0^09 atria # TOVTO (3ia^ofjt,evtj
CLVTOV Troieiv, w? TrXeov TI Kepo$ Svva/uevov O.VTOV
Toi$ eKeitre Xoyw evcre{3eia$ <TV/u.(3aX\e(r6ai KOI TOVTO
e OVK afi eai/rou, aXXa Kpitrei TroXXwy e-jria-KOTruiv KOI
7rapaK\t]a-ei pey'io-Ty " except there be some reason-
able cause which compels this step to be taken ;
such as the fact that some greater advantage to
the cause of religion amongst the people of the
other diocese would be the result. And even in
this case the Bishop himself must not decide the
matter, but the decision must come from many
Bishops as the result of a very strong demand for
the Translation."
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 223
Hefele reckons this Canon as Ante-Nicene, and
gives reasons for refuting the opposite hypothesis
of Drey. 1 It explains the Nicene Canon very
clearly, and shows what the Nicene Fathers really
meant to forbid. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,
in the threefold order of the Apostolic Ministry,
are the organs of the Body of Christ. For this
reason the personal element with regard to their
defined spheres of action must as far as possible
be eliminated. Their " mission " to exercise their
functions within certain defined territorial limits
is from above. It comes with the permission and
authority of the whole Body of Christ, as expressed
by the Universal Episcopate and its representatives.
The Diocesan Bishop commissions his Priests and
Deacons. He is himself commissioned and given
spiritual jurisdiction by his Metropolitan and com-
provincial Bishops, as representing the Universal
Episcopate. It is obvious that every condition of
Mission and Jurisdiction rests upon the principle
" permissu superiorum."
For a Bishop to send himself from one Diocese
to another, or for a Priest or Deacon to act, in his
1 Hefele, vol. i. p. 464. Beveridge also proves this I4th Apostolic
Canon to be Ante-Nicene. He quotes Eusebius (De Vita Const., iii.
61) as refusing Translation for himself, because he desired to abide by
rbv 'ATTooToAi/coi' xavova, as well as Kav6va TT}J &xXi7cr/as, by which he
alluded to the isth Nicene Canon, which Eusebius had helped to frame.
(Beveridge, Cod, Can., vol. i. pp. 70-71.)
224 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
lesser sphere, in a similar way, is a total subversion
of Catholic order. The ancient Canons forbidding
translations were intended to safeguard this true
principle of Catholic order and discipline. They
must be construed together as a whole. They are
as follows : Apostolic Canon (xiv.), Nicene (xv.),
Antioch (xxi.), Sardica (i.), Carthage III. (xxxvii.),
Carthage IV. (xxvii.).
The Nicene and Antiochene Canons, which
forbid Translations absolutely, must be construed
with the qualifications of the other Canons, which
explain the permissions given in exceptional cases.
The 27th Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage
(A.D. 398) follows the line of the i4th Apostolic
Canon in laying down that "if the good of the
Church demand it, the Translation of a Bishop
must take place at the Synod upon the written
request of Clergy and people. Other clerics only
need (for their removal) the permission of their
Bishops."
The stringent wording of the Nicene Canon
must be construed by its reference to the per-
mission granted by the i4th Apostolic Canon. It
is directed against ambitious Clergy who sought
Translation in a spirit absolutely contrary to the
permission of the Apostolic Canon. This is plain
from its opening allusion to the faction caused
by such conduct, and the best commentary upon
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 22$
this Nicene Canon is supplied by the fact that,
for good and sufficient reasons, the Nicene Council
translated Eustathius, Bishop of Bercea, to the
Patriarchal Throne of Antioch. 1 It is a pity that
an able historian of our own day should (after
stating that certain Canons were set aside "by
definite enactment or by tacit consent") dogma-
tically assert that "this was done, as we know, in
the case of the i5th Canon of the first Nicene
Council. ... It has practically been a dead letter
from the first, simply because it did not express
the mind of the Church." 2 If the writer in ques-
tion had examined the previous and subsequent
Canon Law upon the whole question of Transla-
tions, it is possible that he would not have jumped
to so hasty a conclusion in dealing with the i5th
Canon of Nicaea.
It remains but to touch incidentally upon the
idea of a mystical marriage between the Bishop
and his Diocese, and a Priest and his charge. Too
much has been made of this simile. 3 To compare
1 Socrates (I. 13), and Sozomen (I. 2), who says: "The Bishops
assembled at Nicsea were so sensible of the purity of the life and
doctrines of Eustathius, that they adjudged him worthy to fill the
Apostolic Throne. He was then Bishop of Beroea ; they therefore
translated him to Antioch."
2 Professor Collins, The Nature and Force of the Canon Law, p. 1 5.
3 S. Athanasius uses this simile, and quotes it as the obiter dictum
of an Egyptian Council (Apol. ii.), so also S. Jerome (Epist. ad Ocean.,
Ixxxiii.).
P
226 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
the relation of a Bishop to his See to the Sacra-
ment of Holy Marriage, as contracted between
two persons, proves too much ; because, for the
reasons we have already adduced, that relation
is not indissoluble. The simile could only be
applied in a limited way to persons seeking Trans-
lations for their own ends, and to please them-
selves ; since marriage is not a union dependent
upon the caprice or will of the contracting parties
when it has once taken place. The safest reasons
against Translation are those given by Pope Dam-
asus, who forbade it when done "per ambitionem"
and Pope Gelasius, who condemned it when done
"nullts existentibus causts." The i6th Nicene Canon
further illustrates this point in compelling clerics
to return to their Dioceses and charges, who have
sought Translation " with levity and without having
the fear of God before their eyes " (pi^soKivSvvw yu^re
TOV (f)6(3ov TOV 0eou TTjOo o<pdd\iu.(av e^oi/Te?). It also
condemns a kindred abuse. Sometimes a Bishop
ventured " to steal a cleric belonging to the Diocese
of another Bishop " (ixpapTrda-ai TOV TW erep<a ia(j)e-
povTa), and ordain him for his own Diocese. In
this case the ordination is absolutely invalid (a
1 At this date the subsequent distinction between sacramental and
canonical invalidity had not been accurately defined. To use a modern
instance, the ordinations of the Cumminsite sect in America are sacra-
mentally invalid, although Dr. Cummins was a lawful Bishop previous
to his deposition. The ordinations of Dr. Colenso, after his deposition,
were canonically invalid, and those ordained by him could be recon-
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 227
thus showing that the ministration of the Sacra-
ments is part of the corporate life and joint respon-
sibility of the Church, in such a way that the caprice
of an individual cannot use a sacramental rite as
a sort of mechanical formula to further his own
private ends. Validity depends not only upon the
intention of doing quod facit Ecclesia, but also, in
certain cases, of doing quod vult Ecclesia} It is
manifest that this Canon bears distinct witness to
the solidarity of the Episcopate and its constitu-
tional order. The relation of Bishops to their
Priests has already been made plain in these pages.
The i8th Nicene Canon deals with the question
of Deacons, who, at an early date, acquired great
power and influence in the Church. They were
permitted to assist in a very prominent way in
the celebration of the Divine Mysteries. 2 But the
ciled to the Church without reordination, as they were ordained
according to the English Ordinal, which was not the case with the
Cumminsites.
1 The maxim fieri qnod non debuit factum valet may be applied in
cases where the distinct will of the Church has not been manifested.
It is possible, however, to consider Aicvpos as meaning " invalid," in the
sense that no ministerial acts of a person so ordained would be valid,
so that the Sacrament of Order would be in suspense in such a case.
2 Deacons presented the offerings to the Bishop at the Altar, ot
oiaKovoi irpoffayfruffav T& Supa T(f> eirifficbirifi Trpds rb Ovaiaar-fipiov. ( Const.
Apost., viii. 12.) They read the Gospel. " Evangelium Christi quasi
diaconus lectitabas." (S. Jerome, Ep. ad Sabin.). In the West the
Deacon held the Chalice for the Priest at Mass, but jhe did not share
in its consecration, notwithstanding the reference of Pseudo-Ambrose :
" Consors diaconus erat consecrationis." (Bona, Rer. Lit., i. 25.)
He in like manner held the Paten for the Solemn Fraction. (Migne,
228 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Nicene rule forbade a very flagrant abuse on the
part of Deacons. In some places they admin-
istered the Holy Eucharist to Priests, 1 and ven-
tured to communicate before Bishops. The Nicene
Canon gave a very valid reason against this first
abuse : " Since neither the Canon nor custom
permit that those who have not the power to offer
can give the Body of Christ to those who have
the power to offer." oTrep ovre 6 KO.VUW oure rj
crvvqdeta TrapeowKe, TOf? e^ovcriav fir] e^ovTCts Trpocrd)-
peiv TO?? 7rpo<r(j)epov(ri SiSdvai TO arwfjia. TOV XpicrTOv*
The second abuse arose in the case of a Bishop
who was present without being himself the cele-
brant. In such a case the Bishop receives the Holy
Eucharist immediately after the celebrant. The
regulations of this Canon show the great care and
Patrol., 147.) But in times of persecution, in the absence of a Priest,
some Deacons ventured to consecrate (offerre). This abuse was
promptly checked by the Council of Aries. " De diaconibus quos cog-
novimus multis locis offerre, placuit minime fieri debere." (Canon xv.)
The Deacon administered the Chalice to the people. (Ap. Const., viii.
13.) But he did not administer in both kinds unless ordered to do so
by a Priest (Slat. Eccl. Antiq. (A.D. 505), Can. 38), and Canon xv. of
second Council of Aries (A.D. 443), which said that " if a Priest is pre-
sent, the Deacon must not administer the Body of Christ, under penalty
of deposition."
1 This abuse is not unknown in modern times. The writer once
saw at a Diocesan Synod a Deacon administer the Chalice to a great
number of Priests at a Celebration held in connection with the Synod.
The error made was subsequently pointed out, and steps were taken
to prevent its recurrence. The rule holds good whether a Priest is
present in choir or in the congregation, and it ought never to be
violated on any pretext.
8 See Note B.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 229
forethought with which the Primitive Church guarded
the due prerogatives of both Bishops and Priests.
After the Nicene Council, the main issues of the
Arian controversy centred round the person of
S. Athanasius, who was consecrated Patriarch of
Alexandria on June 8th, A.D. 328. We need not
here touch upon the details of the conflict, but we
may note, as bearing upon our subject, the rela-
tions of S. Athanasius with S. Julius of Rome. After
the second exile of S. Athanasius, he arrived at
Rome in A.D. 340. His opponents had previously
held a Synod at Antioch early in that year, and
after unlawfully deposing him, schismatically in-
truded the Arian Gregory into his See. This Synod
must be carefully distinguished from the Synod of
Antioch in Encceniis in A.D. 34I. 1
The enemies of S. Athanasius of the Eusebian
party had previously sent an embassy to Pope
Julius in A.D. 339 to ask him, as Roman Patriarch,
to signify his acknowledgment of Pistus, their
spurious Patriarch of Alexandria, by the usual
Epistolce communicatoria, whereby intercommunion
between Patriarchates and between other Sees was
formally maintained. S. Julius refused, and S.
Athanasius sent envoys to Rome to represent his
1 Socrates and Sozomen have both fallen into this confusion.
(Socrat. ii. 9, n, and Sozom. iii. 6.) Bishop Hefele points out their
error (vol. ii. p. 51), and so does Canon Bright. (Orations of S. Atk.
against the Arians, p. xl.)
230 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
case. Then came an Encyclical Letter from the
Patriarchal Synod of Alexandria in favour of
S. Athanasius addressed " to all Bishops, and to
Julius, Bishop of Rome." Pistus was afterwards
given up by the Eusebians, and, as we have already
seen, Gregory took his place as schismatic Patriarch
of Alexandria. The Eusebian Synod of Antioch
who appointed him wrote to S. Julius, when they
found that he did not favour their cause, and
immediately attacked his position as Primate of
Christendom. 1 They urged that the decision of
the Council of Tyre against S. Athanasius was
final. Their view was that the decision of a local
Council was not liable to review by the collective
Episcopate or by an (Ecumenical Council. They
1 The Eusebians, in dealing with S. Athanasius from Antioch, the
third See in Christendom, are subsequently reminded by Pope Julius
that the affairs of Alexandria, the second See in rank and precedency,
must first be referred to Rome as the Primatial See in Christendom,
in accordance with ecclesiastical custom, as a token of the inter-
dependence of the great Patriarchates on each other. This is shown
by the correspondence between Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius of
Alexandria when the latter was accused of Sabellianism. S. Julius
appears to go a little beyond this limit when he asks the Eusebians,
"Why nothing was said to us concerning the Church of the Alex-
andrians in particular ? Are you ignorant that the custom has been
for word to be written to us first, and then for a just sentence to pro-
ceed from this place?" (i.e. Rome). (S. Julius in S. Ath., Apol. c.
Arian., 35.) In later times S. Leo the Great rests the Primacy of
Rome over Alexandria on the relations of S. Mark to S. Peter, and
says, " The spirit of the Master and the disciple flowed from the same
source of grace, nor could he who was ordained hand anything else
than that which he received of his ordainer." (S. Leo, Ep. ix., ed.
Migne, liv.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 231
abused S. Cyprian's maxim concerning the inherent
equality of all Bishops, and said that the Roman
Patriarch could claim no special rights because of
the importance of the city over which he was
Bishop. They denied the Primacy of Rome, be-
cause S. Julius defended the cause of S. Athanasius.
In the autumn of A.D. 341 S. Julius held a Synod
at Rome, which defended S. Athanasius against the
false charges of his enemies, and in the name of
this Synod, S. Julius replied to the Eusebians at
Antioch. He stated that the Nicene Council had
agreed that the decisions of one Council could be
re-examined by another. He did not apparently
allude to any of the twenty genuine Canons, but to
some resolution which has not been preserved in
an authentic and genuine form. He cleverly dis-
poses of their plea for the equality of all Bishops,
by reminding them that if they were consistent in
their belief, they would not seek for translation to
more important Sees. The Eusebians complained
that the Pope alone wrote to them. S. Julius re-
plies, " Although I alone wrote, yet the sentiments
that I expressed were not those of myself alone,
but of all the Bishops throughout Italy and in
these parts." 1 S. Julius wrote as Patriarch of the
West, as well as Primate of Christendom, and he
1 Letter of Pope Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch. (Ap. S. Ath.,
Apol, t. Arian., 26.)
232 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
is careful to associate with himself the authority
of the Bishops of Italy and the West. " Word
should have been written to us all concerning the
matter " (i.e. the charges against S. Athanasius),
" so that a just sentence might proceed from all ; " 1
says S. Julius in the same Epistle. Here we see
that S. Julius considers that the universal Episco-
pate should try the case of a Patriarch. 2 There
is no assumption on his part that the Roman
Patriarch represented the universal Episcopate in
his own person. Even this letter, in which the per-
sonal pronoun is so freely used, emanates from his
Council as well as himself. 3 The relations of Pope
Julius to the Church generally with regard to the
Athanasian controversy may be accurately summed
up as expressing the legitimate Primacy of Rome.
The Council of Antioch in Encceniis in A.D. 341,
was held on the occasion of the Dedication of the
1 Ibid., c. 35.
2 In the preceding sentence of his letter, S. Julius had said that
accusations should be conducted "according to the Canon of the
Church." His meaning is plain. He alludes to the authority of the
universal Episcopate. Both Socrates and Sozomen have fallen into a
strange error in commenting upon these words of S. Julius. Socrates
says that S. Julius alluded to " the ecclesiastical canon commanding
that the Churches ought not to make canons beside the will of the
Bishop of Rome." (Hist., ii. 17.) Sozomen goes further when he
says that "it was a sacerdotal law to declare invalid whatever was
transacted beside the will of the Bishop of the Romans." (Hist.,
iii. 10.) The words of S. Julius cannot by any possibility be stretched
to fit the interpretation thus put upon them.
3 Its closing words are: "Thus wrote the Council of Rome by
Julius, Bishop of Rome." (S. Ath., Apol. c. Ar., 36.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 233
"Golden" Church at Antioch, and contains some
Canons that bear upon the principle of Primacy.
Although the Council was attended by the Euse-
bian party as well as the Catholics, the conclusions
at which it arrived, as expressed in its 25 Canons,
have always been regarded as orthodox, mainly
because its Canons, in most instances, were in ac-
cord with previous enactments, and thus became
incorporated into that general body of Canon Law,
whose authority was confirmed by the ist Canon
of the (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. 1 The
ist Canon of Antioch reiterates the Nicene decision
on the Paschal controversy, the 3rd is virtually a
reproduction of the i6th Nicene Canon against
irregular removals and Translations. The 4th Canon
is directed against contumacy. It enacts that if a
Bishop, Priest, or Deacon be deposed from office,
and persists in exercising his office in defiance of
the sentence passed upon him, he thereby cuts
himself off from all rights of appeal (nullo modo
liceat ei nee in alia Synodo restitutionis spem, aut
locum habere satisfactionis). This Canon was read
out, and quoted as authoritative at the Council of
Chalcedon, and is founded on the 2gth Apostolic
Canon. The 5th Canon provides that a Priest
who sets up an Altar and holds private assem-
1 "Huius (Concilii) Canones ... in Concilio Chalcedonensi, et
deinceps in ecclesia universa sunt in auctoritatem admissi." (Du Pin,
De Antiq, Eccl. Discip., p. 101.)
234 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
blies, "setting at nought his own Bishop," shall
be wholly deposed after he has had due warning.
The 6th Canon is virtually a repetition of the 5th
Nicene Canon. The gth Canon touches upon the
rights of Metropolitans, and is an expansion of
the 35th Apostolical Canon. It is as follows :
Tow? KaB' K(i<TTr]v eirapyicLv eTncncoTrovg eiSevai ^p^
TOV ev Tfl fJDiTpOTToXei 7rpoe<rTU>Ta e7r/cr/co7roi> KOI Ttjv
(frpovTiSa dvaSe-^ea-Oai Trdcrtjs Ttj? eirap^ia?, Sia TO ev
ffl MTpOTroXel Travra^oOev (rvvTpe^eiv irdvTO.^ TOV$
ra Trpdy/uLaTO. e^ovra^, oOev eoe KCU Ty Tipy irpo-
tiyelvQai avrov, /ntjSev re irpaTTeiv TrepiTTov TOI?
XotTTOup eTTitr/coTrouf avev avTov, Kara TOV apyaiOTepov
KpctTijcravTa e/c TWJ/ Trareotoi/ fjiJLWv Kavova rj raura
yuoVa ocra TQ CKOLO-TOV eirtfiaXXei TrapoiKia, KOI rat?
VTT avTtjv ^u>pai<i ' CKCUTTOV yap eTricncoTrov e^ovcrlav
f")(iv T^f eavTov TrapoiKias, SIOIKCIV re /caret Ttjv
e/caa-Tft) 7ri/3a\Xov(rav ev\d(3eiav, KOI irpovoiav
6ai Tracr^y TJ/? ytapas T^? VTTO Ttjv eavTov irdXiv,
KOI xetpOTOveiv Trpea-fivTepov? /cat SIOKOVOV?, KOI
e/cao-ra 8ta\aiu./3dveiv ' TrepatTepa) Se ju.r]8ev
eTTf^eipelv Sl-^a TOV Tfjs yUJ/T^O
KOTTOV, fjitjSe avTov avev T^? TUIV \onrtov
" It is necessary that the Bishops in each Eparchy
(Province) should know that the Bishop presid-
ing in the Metropolis has charge of the whole
Province, because all who have business come
together from all quarters to the Metropolis. For
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 235
this reason it is decided that he should also hold
the foremost rank, and that without him the other
Bishops (according to the ancient and recognised
Canon of our Fathers) should do nothing out of
the common, save such things alone as belong
to their respective Dioceses, and the districts be-
longing thereto. For every Bishop has authority
in his own Diocese, and must govern it according
to his own conscience, and take charge of the
whole region around his Episcopal city ; for in-
stance, the ordaining of Priests and Deacons, and
discharging all his duties with due judgment.
Further than this, he may not venture without
the Metropolitan, nor the latter without taking the
opinion of the other Bishops."
We notice, first of all, that this Canon clearly
lays down the principle of Primacy as the 35th
Apostolic Canon has done. It also upholds
Professor Ramsay's view, that the ecclesiastical
organisation followed the civil organisation of the
Empire, for the common-sense reason that the
civil Metropolis of the Province was the best place
for the residence of the Metropolitan, because it
was the centre of business for the whole Province.
Most writers on ecclesiastical antiquities take the
same view, as we have already seen, and notably
Beveridge and Bingham. 1 The right of the in-
1 See Note E., Chap, i., and Bingham, vol. i. p. 342.
236 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
dividual Bishop to rule his own Diocese is carefully
maintained, whilst at the same time he cannot take
action outside the ordinary routine without the
assent of his Metropolitan, nor can the Metropolitan
act as an arbitrary ruler without consulting the
Bishops of his Province. 1 Canon xiv. of Antioch
is very important. It assumes that an appeal from
the Synod of a Province to a higher Synod is a
recognised procedure of ecclesiastical law. It
forbids a Bishop, condemned by the Synod of
his Province, from appealing to the civil power
in the person of the Emperor, except by the per-
mission (accorded under Canon xi.) of the Metro-
politan or Bishops of the Province. He ought
rather to appeal to a greater Synod of Bishops (ad
mains Episcoporum Concilium}, who shall deal with
the matter. Du Pin's interpretation of this Canon
is coloured by his view that the sentence of a
Provincial Synod is final. 2 He tries to explain
away its force by saying that it means that the
1 A Metropolitan, or Archbishop, cannot inhibit a Bishop of his
Province absolutely without reference to the Synod of Bishops of his
Province. As a modern instance we may refer to Canon ii. of the
South African Church, which states that the inhibition of a Bishop by
the Metropolitan must be referred to the Synod of Bishops at its next
session, who shall decide whether his reasons for so doing were
sufficient.
2 Yet Du Pin is constrained to admit that controversies of faith
cannot be thus finally dealt with. " Observavimus controversias fidei
primum iudicatas ubi nascebantur ; quod si de isto iudicio Ecclesise secum
invicem dissentirent, ultimum ac supremum iudicium fuisse penes
Ecclesiam et Synodum Universalem." (De Antiq. Eccl. Disc., p. 241.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 237
Bishops of the Province who condemned their
corn-provincial Bishop shall go to a higher Synod
to get their condemnation confirmed. 1 But this is
special pleading. The I4th Canon rules that, if the
judgment of the Bishops of a Province in the trial
of a Bishop is not unanimous, the Metropolitan of
a neighbouring Province shall be called in to assist
the Bishops of the Province to rehear the case with
the assistance of his Bishops. (" Metropolitanus
Episcopus a vicina Provincia iudices alios convocet
. . . ut per eos, simul et per comprovinciales
Episcopos, quod iustum visum fuerit approbetur.")
No clearer testimony than this could be adduced in
favour of the Cyprianic maxim, " Episcopatus est
unus;" and no clearer proof could be adduced
against the theory that each Province is an auto-
cephalous unit, whose judgment is final. The only
instance of such finality is in a criminal case, where
(by Canon xv.) if a Bishop be found guilty of definite
moral offences, and is unanimously condemned by
all the Bishops of his Province, the matter is termi-
nated. ("Si quis Episcopus de certis criminibus
accusatus condemnetur ab omnibus Episcopis
eiusdem Provinciae," &c.) The reason of this is
plain. The facts of a crime are best dealt with by
those on the spot, who know the details and cir-
cumstances of the case. Therefore the Bishops of
1 Du Pin, De Antiq. Ecd. Disc., p. 103.
238 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
the Province, if unanimous, are trusted with the
plenary authority of the Universal Episcopate in
dealing with crime. Cases involving faith and
doctrine stand on a different basis. The Canons
of Antioch clearly set forth the universal law of the
Church, which rules that a Bishop cannot be tried
by his Metropolitan alone, but that he must be
tried by the Metropolitan and his corn-provincial
Bishops. These Canons formed a strong portion
of the arguments in favour of the Bishop of Lin-
coln's protest against his trial by the Archbishop
of Canterbury sitting as index solus.
We may admire the juridical and dialectical skill
of Archbishop Benson's judgment, in which he
decided that he could judge one of his corn-pro-
vincial Bishops as iudex solus. But his reasoning
and his conclusions do not commend themselves
as being in accordance with the Canon Law of
the undivided Church. It cannot be proved that
a Patriarch or Metropolitan ever sat as iudex solus
to hear appeals, and such powers as Archbishop
Benson claimed do not flow from the Patriarchal
or Metropolitical position of the Throne of Canter-
bury, but rather from the mediaeval prerogatives
which the Hildebrandine Papacy granted to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, as Legatus natus of the
Pope. The i6th Canon of Antioch determines that
1 The Guardian, May I5th, 1889.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 239
if a Bishop without a See is elected to a vacant
See even by the whole Diocese, he shall be de-
posed unless his appointment is confirmed by a
regular Synod, and a regular Synod is one over
which the Metropolitan presides. The i8th Canon
provides for the case of a Bishop who has been
consecrated for a Diocese which will not receive
him, in the same way as the i8th Canon of Ancyra.
The iQth Canon is practically a combination of the
4th and 6th Nicene Canons. The 22nd Canon for-
bids the intrusion of a Bishop into another Bishop's
Diocese, and the 23rd forbids a Bishop to appoint
his own successor.
The Council of Sardica was assembled in A.D. 344
at Sardica, the metropolis of Dacia, which was a part
of Illyricum Orientale, and, as such, reckoned to
be within the Roman Patriarchate. 1 It was assem-
bled by the two Emperors, at the desire of Pope
Julius, S. Athanasius, and Hosius of Cordova, to
finally settle the dissensions that had arisen out
of the Arian controversy.
It was intended to be an (Ecumenical Synod,
but it has never been accepted as such by the
whole Church. Its great importance, as regards
our present subject, lies in the fact that it de-
finitely gave an appellate jurisdiction to the Roman
Patriarch. The question to be determined is, first
1 Sardica still exists under the name of Traditza, and is about sixty
miles west of Constantinople.
240 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
of all, whether the Council of Sardica conferred
novel privileges on the Roman Patriarch or merely
formularised certain rights which were inherent in
his office. Then comes the further question as to
the exact nature of those privileges, and the manner
in which they differed, if they differed at all, from
the privileges accorded to other Patriarchs.
Before quoting the Canons of Sardica we must
bear in mind that the See of Rome was the great
supporter of S. Athanasius and the faith of Nicaea
during the whole of the Arian controversy. The
fall of Liberius was a personal lapse, which was
subsequently condoned when he repented. The
Roman Church was not turned from the path of
orthodoxy by the defection of her Patriarch. The
Roman Church did not consider the successor
of S. Peter an infallible guide, whose leading was
to be implicitly followed. The Imperial position
and leadership of the Roman Church was rather
accentuated than diminished by the removal of
the chief seat of civil government to Constanti-
nople. And so we find that Roman orthodoxy,
and the prestige of the " Cathedra Petri," coupled
with the fact of the dissensions at Alexandria and
Antioch, caused the Sardican Fathers to feel that
'n Rome they had a centre that could be trusted.
We must now quote the Sardican Canons dealing
with appeals to Rome.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 241
The third Canon of Sardica is divided into three
parts. The first part is a repetition of the i3th
Antiochene Canon, and says that a Bishop can
perform Episcopal functions in another Diocese
if called upon to do so by the Metropolitan and
Bishops of the Province. The second part is in
consonance with the fifth Nicene Canon in order-
ing causes to be settled in the Synod of each
Province without the intervention of the Bishops
of another Province. The third part deals with
the exception to this usual method of allowing
matters to be settled, if possible, by the Bishops
of the Province. The Eusebians had been insolent
to Pope Julius, and had in his person disparaged
the Roman Primacy. The Sardican Fathers de-
termined to redress the insult by mentioning Pope
Julius by name in the first of their enactments con-
cerning appeals to the Roman Patriarch. Hosius
presided at Sardica, and S. Julius was represented
by two legates. Every Canon proposed from the
chair by the President is announced by the formula
" Osius episcopus dixit," and confirmed by the re-
sponse " Synodus respondit : Placet." The Canons
appear in Greek and in Latin. We quote the Greek
and Latin of the third part of Canon iii.
Et Se apa Tt? eTTtoTcoVooi/ ev TIVL irpayimaTi So^jj
KttTaKpivea-Oai KOI viroXajUiflavei eavrov /u.t] <radpov
a\\a KaXov e'xetv TO TrpayfJia, tva KOI avOis rj Kpi(ris
Q
242 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
avavecoOfl' el SOKCI V/JLUJV T>J ayuTrp, TleTpov TOV cnroa'-
ro'Xou Tyv fj-vrifJiriv Tf/x>/<rft>yei/ KOI ypaffivai Trapa TOV-
T<av TWV KpivdvTuov 'louX/o) ru> eVtovcoTrft) 'Pa>/AJ79, wcrre
Sta TWV yeiTi>ia>vT<av Tg eirap-^ia eTrio-icoTrwv, el Scot,
TO SiKaa-T^piov KOI eiriyvtafjiovas auro?
el Se /u.rj crvcrT^vai SuvctTat TOIOVTOV avrov
iri ava\vecrOai, ra ^e OVTO. /3e(3aia
"Quod si aliquis episcoporum iudicatus fuerit in
aliqua causa, et putat se bonam causam habere, ut
iterum concilium renovetur ; si vobis placet, Sancti
Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus, ut scribatur
ab his, qui causam examinarunt, lulio Romano
Episcopo, et si iudicaverit renovandum esse iu-
dicium renovetur et det iudices ; si autem proba-
verit, talem causam esse, ut non refricentur ea, quae
acta sunt, quae decreverit confirmata erunt. Si hoc
omnibus placet 1 Synodus respondit : Placet." The
variations between the Greek and Latin versions
may be combined in the following rendering : " If
any of the Bishops shall have been condemned in
any matter, and considers that he has a good and
valid cause, so that his case should be reheard: if
it please you, let us honour the memory of S.
Peter the Apostle, and let the Bishops who have
judged the case write to Julius, the Roman Bishop,
and if he shall decide that the cause be reheard,
it shall be reheard, and he shall appoint judges
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 243
from the Bishops in the neighbourhood of the
Province ; but if he shall be unable to allow that
the cause is of such a nature as to demand a re-
hearing, the previous decision shall not be undone,
but shall remain as it has been originally decreed."
The fourth Canon of Sardica may be thus
rendered in harmony with the Greek and Latin
texts :
"Bishop Gaudentius said, If pleasing to you, it
shall be added to this judgment which you, Hosius,
have brought forward, and which is full of pure
love, that if a Bishop has been deposed by sentence
of those Bishops who are in the neighbourhood
(i.e. his corn-provincials), and he desires again to
defend himself, no other shall be appointed to his
See until the Bishop of Rome has taken cognisance
of the matter and decided thereon" (eat/ ^ 6 rrjs
P&ftaisov TTi<TKO7ro? eTriyvovs Trep\ TOVTOV opov e^eveyKy).
The fifth Canon decrees "that if a Bishop, who
has been accused, and condemned, and deposed by
his corn-provincial Bishops, has appealed to the
Bishop of the Roman Church (eiri rov naKapiwrarov
Trjs r Po)ju.ai(av KK\tj(rias eTr/ovcoTTOi/), and the said
Bishop considers that the matter shall be reheard :
he shall write to the Bishops living nearest to the
Province in question that they may thoroughly
investigate the matter, and give sentence according
to the truth. But if he who desires his cause to be
244 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
reheard can induce the Bishop of the Romans to
send from his side (a?ro rou iSiov TrXevpov) priests,
who shall judge with the Bishops, holding his
authority by whom they were sent forth (i.e. as
presiding at the second trial), it shall be in the
power of the aforesaid Bishop to do so (elvai ev r#
e^ova-ia avrov rov eTr/ovco-Trou). But should he think
the Bishops alone sufficient for the Court of Appeal,
he shall do what seems to him good."
These three Canons have caused a fierce contro-
versy between Ultramontane and Gallican Canonists.
To begin with we may state plainly that the per-
missive powers which the Sardican Fathers held to
reside in the Roman Patriarch cannot in any way
be fitted into the huge fabric of Papal domination
that was built upon the foundation of the Pseudo-
Isidorian Decretals, and reached its culmination in
the Vatican Decrees of 1870. Neither, on the other
hand, can we admit the absolute truth of the mini-
mising arguments of the Gallicans and some of
their Anglican followers. 1
These arguments fall into three main divisions.
(i.) That the Sardican Fathers created a new
right of appeal to Rome which never existed, even
in germ, before the passing of these Canons.
1 De Marca (De Concord., vii. 3) ; Richer (Hist. Cone. Gen., i. 3) ;
Du Pin (De Antiq. Ecd. Discp., pp. 109-114) ; Puller (Primitive Saints
and the See of Rome, p. 152); Robertson (Growth of Papal Power,
p. 68), and others.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 245
(ii.) That the right thus created was a temporary
privilege accorded to S. Julius of Rome, on account
of his firmness in the matter of S. Athanasius, and
was not intended to apply to his successors.
(iii.) That these Sardican Canons do not involve
a real appeal to the Roman Patriarch, but only the
right of ordering a revision of the first sentence
passed by a Provincial Synod.
An impartial examination of these Canons will
show that none of these three positions can be
maintained intact.
(i.) It is reasonable enough to maintain that the
Sardican Fathers gave formal shape to ideas which
had previously been undefined. It was impossible
to maintain in any way the finality of the decisions
of Provincial Synods. The Antiochene Canons
witness plainly enough to this fact, although they
were purely Eastern in their origin. They forbade
the too frequent appeals to the Emperor by Bishops
condemned by Provincial Synods. A remedy was
needed, and the idea of a "higher," or Patriarchal,
Synod was definitely set forth by the Council of
Antioch. The question before the Sardican Fathers
was this. Could all Patriarchal Synods be trusted ?
The influence of Alexandria and Antioch had been
weakened by dissensions and conflicts with heresy.
Rome alone had proved a centre of orthodoxy, and
the interdependence of the great Sees was somewhat
246 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
merged into the sole influence of Rome, by reason
of this fact. The initiative of the Roman Patriarch
in Christendom was an admitted fact, and the
Sardican Fathers deemed that they were " honour-
ing the memory of S. Peter " in a legitimate way by
providing that this Primatial initiative should take
form in certain cases as a right of intervention
to prevent injustice. To appeal to Caesar was to
appeal to Rome as the centre of civil justice, until
Caesar moved from Rome to Byzantium. The idea
of appealing to Rome as the ecclesiastical centre
of Catholic unity was fostered by the custom of
regarding Rome as the Imperial centre of justice.
S. Julius had practically shown that his See and
Church had become the centre of justice and equity
for a distracted Christendom by his support of
S. Athanasius and Marcellus, who had been unjustly
deposed. The Sardican Fathers desired to stereo-
type and perpetuate the good work he had accom-
plished. It has been argued that the formula of the
Canon, " if it please you," denotes a fresh departure
and the definition of a new right. This lays too
much stress upon the phrase, and it is impossible to
build a solid argument on so slender a foundation.
It is enough to conclude that the Sardican Fathers
considered that they were applying in a special way
for the benefit of the whole Church certain privi-
leges which in a lesser degree belonged to all
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 247
Patriarchs but pre-eminently to the Primate of
Christendom. S. Julius held that "all Bishops"
(i.e. the Universal Episcopate) were the ultimate
Court of Appeal, so that any action taken by any
Patriarch, however eminent, was not unreformable
or irreversible. The Patriarchs were, in a sense,
the trustees of the Universal Episcopate, and the
intermediaries of its inter-communion and inter-
communication when an (Ecumenical Council was
not in session. The Roman Patriarch was the chief
trustee, and the Sardican Fathers regulated the dis-
charge of one function of his office in a way which
they considered beneficial to the Church.
(ii.) The fact that the fourth and fifth Sardican
Canons mention " the Bishop of the Romans "
and not S. Julius by name is argument enough
against the idea of Richer (of the Sorbonne) that
these Canons were temporary provisions adpersonam,
and not ad rem. 1 The phrase, " the Bishop of the
Church of the Romans," reminds us of the earlier
style of the Roman Patriarchs, from S. Clement
downwards, when the authoritative emphasis is laid
on "the Church of the Romans," rather than the
personality of its Bishop.
(iii.) We cannot accept the view that these Canons
only contemplate a revision of the sentence by those
who had previously judged the matter, and not an
1 This view is stated also by Canon Robertson, vide supra.
248 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
actual appeal to Rome. It is true that the appeal
was to be heard on the spot, and that the hearing
of the cause was not to be carried to Rome itself ;
but the right of appointing fresh judges, if he saw
fit, was contemplated as forming part of the Pope's
duty in these Sardican Canons, and that right
involves a true appellate jurisdiction.
Having determined negatively the true scope of
these Canons, let us define their meaning as positive
enactments. We must construe the three Canons
together. They provide (i.) that when a Bishop
has been deposed by the Synod of his Province,
he may appeal to the Roman Patriarch, either
personally (Canon v.) or through the Bishops of
the Synod who have judged him as a Court of First
Instance (Canon iii.).
(ii.) The Roman Patriarch now decides whether
his appeal shall be allowed or not. If it is allowed
the Roman Patriarch appoints a Second Court to
rehear the case (Canon iii.). This Second Court
may be composed solely of Bishops from the
neighbourhood of the Province to which the ap-
pellant Bishop belongs, or, if he thinks fit, the
Roman Patriarch may send in addition legates of
his own, who shall preside in his name (Canons iii.
and v.).
(iii.) Until the decision of the Roman Patriarch
has been given, and the appeal disallowed, or duly
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 249
heard, the appellant Bishop's See shall not be filled
up (Canon iv.).
The Council of Sardica was meant to be (Ecu-
menical. But its decrees were never received in
the East, and consequently its (Ecumenical char-
acter was not established. The great majority of
its Bishops were Westerns, and the heretical Euse-
bian Bishops who seceded from its deliberations,
and held a conclave of their own in the neigh-
bouring town of Philippopolis, were very clever
in veiling their heresy by a published letter, in
which they complain that the Sardican Fathers
decreed that Eastern Bishops should be judged
by Westerns, 1 evidently referring to the Canons
we have been discussing. The African Church
also declined to accept the appellate jurisdiction
of the Roman Patriarch in the case of Apiarius, 2
1 Ut Orientales Episcopi ab Occidentalibus iudicarentur. (Hefele,
. p. 169.)
8 Apiarius was a priest who was deposed and excommunicated by
Urban, Bishop of Sicca, in A.D. 418. Apiarius appealed directly from
his Bishop to the Roman Patriarch Zosimus. The legates of Zosimus
appeared before the African Council, under Archbishop Aurelius of
Carthage, and based the appellate jurisdiction of Rome upon the
Canons of Sardica, which they thought were Nicene. The Africans
provisionally accepted their statement, but the matter came up again,
when Boniface succeeded Zosimus, in a General African Council, where
the claim of the Sardican Canons to be Nicene was investigated, and
the matter was again suspended, until the final letter of the African
Bishops to Pope Celestine in A.D. 424, when the genuine Canons of
Nicoea concerning appeals and trials of clergy were emphatically
alluded to, and the Sardican permission to the Pope to send legates
a latere to assist in trials in Africa was repudiated.
250 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
when the issues were complicated by a mistake
on the part of the Roman legates, who believed
the Sardican Canon to have been Nicene. The
way in which the Canons of different Councils
were mingled together in the then extant collec-
tions of Canon Law was sufficiently confusing to
account for the error, which the African Bishops
subsequently were able to point out. But the
Decrees of Sardica won their way in the West,
and their provisions were very wisely framed as
affording a true basis for the appellate jurisdiction
of a Patriarch. We shall see that similar rights
were accorded to the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Some such provision for appeals as the Fathers
of Sardica made in these Canons was necessary
for the just administration of ecclesiastical dis-
cipline. It is true that the whole Church never
accepted the appeal to Rome which the Sardican
Canons provide. But the whole Church accepted
the general principles laid down at Sardica, and
applied them to the Patriarchate, as an institution
which lay behind the authority of Provincial Synods,
and stood between them and the ultimate finality
of the decision of the Universal Episcopate, ex-
pressed in an (Ecumenical Council.
But the Roman Patriarch Damasus, in A.D. 378,
without doubt acquired legal rights, as Ecclesias-
tical Judge of Appeals, with coercive jurisdiction
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 251
throughout the whole Western Empire. He held
a Synod at Rome in that year, and, conjointly
with his Synod, requested the Emperor Gratian
to enforce, by the coercion of the civil power,
the Patriarchal jurisdiction of the Roman See.
Damasus did not venture to ask the Emperor of
the West to use his influence to compel the East
to accept the Canons of Sardica. This was out-
side the sphere of practical politics, and one great
secret of the commanding influence of the Roman
See has always been its practical sagacity in
statecraft.
Damasus and his Synod asked that the earlier
enactment of Gratian, which conferred coercive
jurisdiction on the See of Rome in the case of
contumacious Bishops within the civil jurisdiction
of the " Praefectus Praetorii " and the " Vicarius
Urbis," should be rigidly enforced. 1 This applied
to the Bishops of Italy and Illyricum. The Em-
peror Gratian, in his reply, gave Damasus more
than he had asked for. He added to the coercive
jurisdiction over Italy and Illyricum, which Damasus
claimed, a further grant of coercive jurisdiction
over Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Britain, and thus
established the Western Patriarchate by State
authority.
1 The Roman Synod says, " Idcirco statuti imperialis non novitatem
sed firmitudinem postulamus." (Coleti., ii. 1188.)
252 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
The effect of this action was an abnormal in-
crease in the Roman claims. In process of time
the jurisdiction thus granted by the civil power
in the West was claimed to exist iure divino over
the whole Catholic Church as the legitimate " Petri
privilegium." The case of Apiarius shows that the
African Church was not in all cases compelled by
the civil power to obey the Emperor Gratian's
decree, and in the iyth Canon of the African
General Council of A.D. 418, which appears as
Canon xxviii. of the " Codex Canonum Ecclesiae
Africanae," appeals to Rome were forbidden, and
ordered to be carried to the African General
Council, on account of the Patriarchal position of
the Archbishop of Carthage. " Non provocent ad
transmarina iudicia, sed ad Primates suarum Pro-
vinciarum, aut ad universale concilium, sicut et de
episcopis scepe constitutum est." The words in italics
did not appear in the original draft of the Canon
of A.D. 418, but were added subsequently, and
are explained by the seventh Canon of the Synod
of Hippo in A.D. 393, which applies the phrase
" Concilium universale " * to the African General
Council, which was held from time to time under
the Primate of Carthage. The African Church
upheld its own Patriarch and its own system of
1 "Si autem ad Concilium universale anniversarium occurrerit," &c.
(Cone. Hipp. Can., 7.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 253
Patriarchal appeals, notwithstanding its temporary
acceptance of the Sardican Canons as Nicene till
it had proved the contrary. During this period
of temporary acceptance, Anthony, Bishop of
Fussala, appealed to Rome against the decision
of the Primate and Synod of Numidia. S. Augus-
tine wrote to Pope Celestine to dissuade him from
restoring Anthony. Celestine inherited the case
from his predecessor Boniface, who had threatened
the people of Fussala with the secular power if
they did not obey the Roman decision. The point
of the case is that S. Augustine's letter has been
used by modern controversialists to prove that he
accepted the full Roman claims to jurisdiction.
The real fact was that he, as an African Bishop,
was loyally carrying out the compromise whereby
appeals to Rome were temporarily allowed. In
justice to Boniface, who threatened to use the
power given him by Gratian's rescript in this case,
it must be remembered that he loyally upheld the
authority of the Metropolitan of Narbonne in ac-
cordance with the Nicene Canons, and in so doing
he annulled a decree of his predecessor Zosimus
in favour of the See of Aries. 1
The desire of the Emperor Theodosius to banish
Arianism from the East caused him to assemble a
General Council of Eastern Christendom at Con-
1 Labbe (Cone., ii. p. 1585), and also Giesler (Eccl. Hist., i. par. 92).
254 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
stantinople in A.D. 381. S. Meletius of Antioch was
its first President, and no Roman legates were
present. It is evident that the Roman Patriarch
was not consulted, for S. Meletius was not in
communion with the Roman See, which acknow-
ledged Paulinus as the lawful Patriarch of Antioch.
S. Meletius was himself orthodox, but the Arian
party aided in his election, and so the small body
of Catholics, who declined to recognise him, set
up a rival orthodox Patriarch who was recognised
by Rome. This breach of communion was not
healed after the death of S. Meletius, which took
place during the session of the Council of Con-
stantinople, and during its continuance neither
the Westerns, who recognised Paulinus, nor the
Easterns, who recognised S. Meletius, 1 and after
him Flavian, were considered to be cut off from
the communion of the Catholic Church. Although
S. Meletius died out of communion with Rome, he
was afterwards honoured by the Roman Church as
a Saint.
We must now deal with those Canons of the
1 S. Basil the Great was very indignant when Pope Damasus
recognised Paulinus in A.D. 375, and spoke of his letters recognising
Paulinus as "defrauding of his due that most admirable Bishop of the
true Church of God, Meletius." napa\oyibfi.eva dt rbv davnoLffidn-arov
firlffKoirov TTJS d\ridu>^ rod Qfov lKK\rjfflas MeXMov. (S. Basil, Ep.
ad Ttrent.) This great Doctor of the Church pronounces very
definitely against the idea that communion with the Roman See was
necessary in order to be in communion with "the true Church of
God."
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 255
Council of Constantinople which bear upon our
special subject. Its Canons gradually won accept-
ance when the Council became (Ecumenical by
the general consent of Christendom. The second
Canon of Constantinople deals with the jurisdiction
of Patriarchs, and forbids the interference of one
Patriarch with the jurisdiction of another.
Toy? inrep SioiKrjcriv eTnovcoTroup TCLIS vwepopiois
eKK\t](riai$ fj.rj eirtevai, fAqSe arvy^eetv ra?
a\\a KOTO. TOVS icavovas TOV fJiev 'AXe^avSpeca? eT
KO7TOV TO. ev A.tyV7TT(t) /U.OVOV OlKOVO/U.eiV)
ava.TO\tj$ eTTUTKOTTOVS TfJV O.VaTO\VJV
(pv\aTTO/u.ev(av TWV ev TO?? /cavoVf TOI$ /caret
7rpecr(3ei<i)v ry ' Avrio^ewv eKK\t]aria, KOI TOU? T^? '
eTTKTKOTrovs TO. Kara TY\V 'Aorlav /JLOVOV
KOI TOU? TrJ9 TLovTtKtjs TO. T^9 IIo^T/:^y
IJLOVOV, KGU TOVS Tt]S QpaKt]S TO, T^9 QpCtKlKtj? JULOVOV
oiKOvo/meiv. 'A/cX^rou? ^e eTTUTKOTrovs virep oioiKt](nv ju.rj
e-TrijSatveiv eirl ^eipoToviai^ >j nariv a\\ais tUKOifOfuaty
eKK\t]cria<TTiKa.is. ^uXarTO/xeVoi; ^e TOV Trpoyeypaju.fj.evov
irepl TU>V ioiK^<rewv /cai/oVo?, eu^tjXov w? ra KCtO' eKaa-Trjv
v fj TW eTrap^ia? vvvoo'os Siowr/vei, Kara TO. ev
a)pi<Tju.eva. Ta9 $ ev TO?9 {3ap/3apiKois
TOV Qeov eKK\t]<ria$ oiKovojueia-Oai -^prj KO.TO. Trjv K
<ra<rav <rvvtj9eiav Trapa TWV TraTeptov, " The Bishops
of another ' Diocese ' (Patriarchate) shall not pass
over to Churches out of their denned limits and
introduce confusion amongst them, but, in accord-
256 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
ance with the Canons, the Bishop of Alexandria
shall govern the affairs of Egypt only, and the
Eastern Bishops (i.e. the Patriarchs of Constanti-
nople) shall have charge of the affairs of the East
only, whilst the rights of the Church of Antioch, as
declared in the sixth Canon of Nicaea, shall be pre-
served, and the Bishops of the l Diocese ' of Asia
shall only have jurisdiction over Asia, those of the
1 Diocese ' of Pontus over Pontus, and those of the
' Diocese ' of Thrace over Thrace. Unless sum-
moned, the Bishops shall not go beyond their own
' Dioceses ' for the purpose of ordination or any
other ecclesiastical function. While, however, the
existing Canon with regard to the ' Dioceses ' is
observed, it is clear that the Provincial Synod must
rule in each Province in accordance with the deci-
sions of Nicaea. But the Churches of God among
the barbarous nations shall be governed according to
the custom prevailing from the times of the Fathers."
The third Canon of Constantinople must be read
with the second Canon. It erects the See of
Constantinople into a Patriarchate with a " Primacy
of honour" next to Rome. Archbishop De Marca
thought that the Patriarchate was not constituted
until A.D. 451, by the 28th Canon of the Council
of Chalcedon. 1 But it is evident that Canon ii.
1 He says that the Primacy of honour alone was given by the Council
of Constantinople (honorem verum solum in Synodo Constantino-
politana). (De Marca, De Concord. Sac. et Imp., App. p. 155.)
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 257
means to imply that the " Diocese " of Thrace was
transferred to Constantinople, because its former
Primatial See, Heraclea (of which Constantinople
was formerly a subordinate See), is not mentioned.
Socrates dates the delimitation of the Patriarchates
and their rearrangement from the General Council
of Constantinople. 1 The Canon in question is as
follows : Tov IJLGVTOI Kcoi/crrai/Tti/ouTroXeco? ^TTI
e^etj/ TO, Trpear/Seia rfjs Tifj.rjs ^aera TOV
eirta-KOTTOV, Sia TO elval avTtjv veav 'IPcbfArjv. " The
Bishop of Constantinople shall hold the first rank
after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople
is New Rome."
This Canon naturally was not received in the
West, when the decisions of the Council of Con-
stantinople on the doctrinal question of the God-
head and Personality of the Holy Ghost were
universally accepted, and caused the Council itself
to rank as (Ecumenical. It was not accepted at
Rome until the Fourth Lateran Council, in A.D.
1215, allowed this second rank to the Latin Patri-
archate of Constantinople that had been founded
in 1204, after the Crusaders' conquest of that city.
The precedence thus accorded to Constantinople
was immediately accorded in the East after some pro-
test, although it needed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon
1 Socrates, v. 8. Bishop Hefele considers the witness of Socrates
in this passage an important confirmation of his view of the matter,
which is opposite to De Marca's opinion.
R
258 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
to set the Patriarchal position of Constantinople
upon a wider basis.
The second Canon of Constantinople sets the
territorial arrangements of the Patriarchates and
Primatial Sees upon a securer basis by an ex-
pansion of the Nicene Canons on the same sub-
ject. The word "Diocese" is paralleled in the
civil "Dioceses" of the Empire, whose organisa-
tion is adopted territorially by the Church. This,
as we have already seen, was the case from the
earliest days, when Church and Empire stood face
to face as bitter foes. By this Canon the Bishops
of each Patriarchate were ordered to keep to their
own borders. The Patriarch must not trespass, or
allow any of his Bishops to trespass, upon the juris-
diction of another Patriarch. This Canon applies
solely to the Eastern Church, using the term in its
widest sense. It allows of no appeal from one
Patriarchate to another, and by implication proves
that the Sardican Canons did not gain accept-
ance in the East. It guards the rights of Provin-
cial Synods, as secured by the Nicene Council,
although it does not assert their finality. The last
clause deals with Missionary Churches outside the
civil " Dioceses " of the Roman Empire, which
were to continue dependent upon the Patriarch
from whom they originally received the Episco-
pate, as the Abyssinian Church had been on
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 259
Alexandria, since S. Athanasius had consecrated
Frumentius as its first Bishop, and as certain
missionary dioceses in Africa and elsewhere hold
in the present day direct Mission from the See of
Canterbury.
The sixth Canon of Constantinople is thought by
some to belong to a subsequent Council, held at
Constantinople in the year A.D. 382. 1 It is chiefly
important as re-enacting with greater definiteness
the appeal to the Greater Synod of the Patriarchate,
which the Council of Antioch had already provided
in its I4th Canon. It also draws a clear dis-
tinction between criminal and civil offences com-
mitted by Bishops and offences ecclesiastical. In
the former case, any one, whoever he may be,
or whatever may be his religion (Optja-Kelav), can
be heard against a Bishop. In like manner the
Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) ruled that no one
whose personal conduct was culpable could accuse
a Bishop " nisi proprias causas, non tamen ecclesias-
ticas dicere voluerit." 2 But in ecclesiastical cases,
where no civil offence or personal wrong was
concerned, the accusers of a Bishop, and there-
fore a fortiori of a priest, must themselves be of
1 Canon Bright accepts it as genuine. (See Notes on Canons of
General Councils, p. ioo.) Bishop Beveridge takes the view that it
belongs properly to the Council of A.D. 382. (Pandect. Canon. II.
Ann., p. 98.)
5 Mansi, iii. p. 920.
260 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
good standing. Accusations could not be received
from heretics, persons formerly excommunicated,
persons excommunicated "by ourselves" (under
Canon i. of the Council of Constantinople, if we
accept this Canon vi. as genuine), persons pro-
fessing orthodoxy who have formed schismatic
congregations, persons excommunicated, or, finally,
persons under accusation. Persons who are not thus
disqualified could bring their accusations against
a Bishop before the Provincial Synod : ei Se o-wjujSo/i;
~ < / '?'/! *
aovvctTtja-ai TOV$ 7rapxi<aTa$ irpos oiopuaxriv rtav CTTI-
(f)epo/u.ev(i)v eyK\rnj.a.T(av TU> 7riorico7r(p' Tore avrous Trpocri-
evcu fjieifovi crvvoSy TU>V Trjs StoiKija-ecos ficeivtjs eTnovcoTrcov.
"But if it happens that the Bishops of the Province
are unable to set right the charges alleged against
the Bishop, then let them have recourse to the
Greater Synod of the Patriarchate to which they be-
long." Here is the appellate jurisdiction of Eastern
Christendom. The appeal lies from the Provincial
Synod, presided over by the Metropolitan, to the
Patriarchal Synod, presided over by the Patriarch ;
and the Canon closes by ordering this course to
be adopted, and forbidding an appeal from a Pro-
vincial Synod to the Emperor direct, or to a civil
Court, or even to an (Ecumenical Council, 1 since
1 The fact that an (Ecumenical Council was above all Patriarchs,
as the ultimate Court of final appeal for the whole of the Catholic
Church, was virtually admitted by one so tenacious of the claims of
his See as Leo the Great In his letter to Theodosius on the subject
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 261
the appellant, by passing over the Patriarchal
Synod, would bring it into contempt (Win-a? an-
yuacra? TOV$ Ttj$ ^tot/oytreco? eTnovcoTroup).
We are not to read into this Canon any idea
that it meant to imply that an (Ecumenical Council
(as representing the Universal Episcopate) was not
the final Court of Appeal. The plain meaning is
that the Appeal must proceed in regular stages,
and that it would be irregular to appeal direct
from a Provincial Synod to an (Ecumenical
Council, without the previous resort to the Synod
of the Patriarchate.
The African Code of Canons embodies a series
of Canons which were passed by various African
Councils at Hippo and at Carthage between the
years A.D. 393 and A.D. 418. They were collected
by Dionysius Exiguus in A.D. 419. Canons x. and
xi. provide that a priest can appeal from the sen-
tence of his Bishop to the Bishops of the Province
(apud vicinos episcopos conqueri). Canon xiii.
provides that no new Bishop can be appointed
of the Council of Ephesus, S. Leo states that the decisions of the
Council will suffice to remove the evils of the Church, though he
cannot himself be present. (S. Leo, Ep. 43.) After the Council of
Chalcedon, which accepted his Tome, he writes; "Gloriamini . . .
quod prius a prima omnium sede firmatum, totius Christiani orbis
recepisset." (S. Leo, Ep. ad Theod.) He thus, as Du Pin observes,
expresses his joy that his judgment had been confirmed by an
CEcumenical Synod, "et earn non posse ullatenus convelli aut
labefactari." (De Antiq. Eccl. Disc., p. 388.)
262 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
without the consent of the Primate. Canon xix.
provides for the trial of Bishops before the Metro-
politan and Bishops of the Province, with an
appeal to the General African Synod, which sat
yearly under the presidency of the Archbishop of
Carthage. Canon xxxiii. forbids Bishops to alienate
any Church property without the knowledge of their
Diocesan Synods. The Canons quoted as of the
fourth Council of Carthage are probably a collection
of various African enactments of early date. The
22nd of these Canons enacts that a Bishop shall not
ordain persons without the advice of his clergy, and
that he is bound also to seek for the " testimonium "
of the laity (civium conniventiam et testimonium
quaerere). The 23rd Canon orders a Bishop to
exercise his office as Judge with his clergy as
assessors, otherwise his sentence is invalid. This
Canon is a strong testimony against the theory of
Episcopal autocracy.
Into the complex and chequered history of the
(Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) it will
not be necessary for us to enter. We have
already touched upon the subject of its Presi-
dency, and there is one other point with which
it dealt that concerns our present inquiry. The
Bishops of Cyprus petitioned the Council to pre-
serve their independence against the claim of the
Patriarch of Antioch to include the Province of
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 263
Cyprus within his Patriarchate, by exercising the
Patriarchal right of consecrating their Archbishop.
The Council inquired whether this right belonged
to the Patriarch of Antioch before the passing of
the sixth Nicene Canon, which reserved the ancient
Patriarchal rights of Antioch. The Patriarch John
of Antioch was at this time in an attitude of hos-
tility to the Council of Ephesus, and so his side of
the case was not heard. The Cypriote Bishops
stated that from the Apostolic age no Bishop out-
side Cyprus had consecrated their Metropolitan.
The Council gave a judgment to which a saving
clause was annexed : KCU ndXia-ra el
ap^aiov 7rapr]KO\ovdr](Tv, w<ne
'Aimo^fc-coi' TToXew?, ray ev KvTrpw iroieia-Oai
KaOa <$ia TUW \i/3e\\<av KOI TU>I> oiKeiwv (j)(avu>v eSiSa^av
01 v\a(3e(TTaToi avSpes ol rtjv Trpd<roSov TJJ ayia
(TVv6S(a 7TOlri(rdjU.VOl, AC.T.X.
" If it has not been a continuous ancient custom
for the Bishop of Antioch to hold ordinations in
Cyprus, as is asserted by memorials and by word
of mouth by the religious men who have sought
access to the Holy Synod," then the Council pro-
ceeded to lay down that the independence of the
Province of Cyprus from the See of Antioch was
to be maintained ; and further, that the principle
was to be laid down that no Patriarch is to take
possession of any Province that has not from the
264 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
first been subject to his own See. Some time after
this decision was given, Alexander, Patriarch of
Antioch, wrote to Innocent of Rome, and main-
tained that the Cypriote Bishops had begun this
practice of consecrating their own Metropolitan
as a safeguard against Arianism, when the See of
Antioch was in Arian hands, and that the custom
remained when the excuse for it had passed away. 1
Balsamon the Canonist, himself a Patriarch of An-
tioch, admits the claim of the Bishops of Cyprus. 2
When Peter " the Father " revived the claim of
Antioch, the discovery of the body of S. Barnabas
the Apostle was opportunely alleged as a con-
clusive proof that the Church of Cyprus was
Apostolic, and could claim independence on that
account. The 39th Canon of the Council in Trullo
recognised the autocephalous position of the
Church of Cyprus. The real position of the matter
in dispute seems to be this. The Cypriotes claimed
that their Church was founded by the Apostle S.
Barnabas, and that on this account it was inde-
pendent of Antioch. But it was not independent
of the Universal Church, even if the " lus Cyprium "
was founded on right. No National Church or
Province could be autonomous in the sense that
it was not under the jurisdiction of an (Ecumenical
1 Innoc. (Ep. 18, 2).
2 Balsam, (in Cone, Constant., Can. 2).
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 265
Council. The Metropolitan of Cyprus claimed a
similar independence to that of the Archbishop of
Carthage, who was practically a Patriarch. The
" lus Cyprium " has been applied to the attitude of
the English Church towards the Roman See. It is
only partially true to compare the autocephalous
position claimed by the British Bishops in their
dispute with S. Augustine of Canterbury to the
rights claimed by the Church of Cyprus. The
British Bishops had suffered isolation from the
Christianity and civilisation of the West, owing to
the Saxon invasion and conquest. The Christianity
of the British was of the same type as that of Gaul
and the rest of the West when it was first planted
amongst the Romanised Celts of that part of the
island which was then included in the Roman
Empire. The local usages of Celtic Christianity
were mainly peculiarities caused by long isolation
from their Continental fellow-Christians. At the
Reformation the orderly abolition of the usurped
Papal jurisdiction was neither schismatic nor an
assertion of independence such as is involved in
the " lus Cyprium." The action of Convocation
and Parliament in abolishing Roman usurpations
was not intended to deprive the Roman Patriarch
of any lawful spiritual power. 1 " They did not
deny the precedence of the Bishop of Rome in the
1 Vide Archbishop Bramhall. ( Works, p. 340.)
266 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
Universal Church, nor his right (in conjunction
with Christian Princes) of summoning and presid-
ing in General Councils, nor his power of defining
questions of faith in conjunction with the Catholic
Church, nor his right to exhort all Bishops to
observe the Canons, nor his being the centre of
Catholic unity when he is in communion with all
the Catholic Church." * We now quit the subject
with the remark that the importance of the so-
called " lus Cyprium," regarded in its bearing upon
questions pending between Canterbury and Rome,
is much exaggerated.
We close our inquiry with the Council of Chal-
cedon in A.D. 451. This Council is the last of the
undisputed (Ecumenical Councils, and it closes an
epoch in the history and life of the Church which
marks the final settlement, not only of vital con-
troversies concerning the Faith, but of very many
points of procedure and constitutional law, which
have never since been seriously questioned or dis-
turbed. 2 There is a vast difference in the authority
of the Canon Law when we consider the date of its
several enactments. The authority of the Canon
Law of the undivided Church naturally is greater
than the authority of Western Canon Law that was
1 Palmer on the Church (vol. i. 433).
2 We have already noted the fact that the first Canon of Chalcedon
stamped with its oecumenical authority a body of existing Canon Law
which included the Antiochene Canons of A.D. 341.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 267
not current in the East, or Eastern Canon Law which
was not current in the West. And the Council of
Chalcedon, in its Qth and 28th Canons, sets forth
with clear precision the position of the great Patri-
archs and their jurisdiction. Its legislation forms
a fitting conclusion to our investigations into the
constitutional authority of the Bishops of the
Catholic Church.
Canon ix. forbids clergy to go to law in secular
courts, and provides a graduated system of appeals
to the Patriarch, or, in the case of the Eastern
Empire, to its senior Patriarch, who sat on the
throne of Constantinople. Se KOI K\rjpiKos irpayiJ.a
e'xoi TTjOO? TOI> "i^iov eTTia-KOTrov rj TT^oo? erepov, Trapa
Ty (ruvoda) T^? eTrapxlas iKa^e(rO(a ' ei Se irpo? TOV Ttjs
airrrjs eTrap-^ia^ /u.t)TpoTro\iTt]v eTnWoTro?, t] K\rjpiKO^,
aju.(J)i(r{3ijToit], /caraAa/i/SafeVto y TOV e^ap-^ov T^? Sioi-
/a/o-eoi)?, 1 rj TOV T^? fiaanXevova-w K.(avcrTavTivov7r6\(a^
Qpovov, KOI GIT avTui SiKa<re(r6oi). " But if a cleric
has any matter against his own Bishop, or against
another Bishop, let it be decided by the Synod of
the Province. But if any Bishop or cleric has a
controversy with the Metropolitan of his Province,
let him appeal to the Exarch 2 of his Diocese (/.*.
1 In commenting upon this Canon, the Greek Canonist Balsamon
says: "Atoi*c?j<Tij tany i) woXAds tirapxlas fyowra Iv eavry." "A
Diocese is that which contains many Provinces within itself."
2 The title " Exarch " was derived from the official nomenclature of
the officers of the Empire, such as "the Exarch of Ravenna," who
268 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
the Patriarch of his Patriarchate) or to the Throne
(Patriarchal) of the Imperial city of Constantinople,
and there let the cause be decided."
The alternative appeal which this Canon pro-
vides to the Patriarch of Constantinople for the
East, was of wider scope than the appeal to Rome
which was provided by the Canons of Sardica.
The Roman legates did not object to this gth
Canon, for they did not apparently believe that
the Primacy of Rome militated against Patriarchal
jurisdiction elsewhere. They did not venture to
apply the Sardican Canons to the whole Church in
this instance. But they objected to the 28th Canon
of Chalcedon, which amplified the Canon of Con-
stantinople by further defining the powers of the
Patriarch of New Rome. The wording of this Canon
is significant, and is given in the following extract :
KCU yap TO) Qpoixp T^y TrpevfivTepas 'Pa>fj.t)s, Sia TO
(3a<n\eveiv Ttjv TTO\IV eKeivrjv, oi iraTepes cJKOTVg
cnroSeSuHcaa-i TO. Trpea-fieia KOI TU> avrw OVCOTT&) Kivov/mevot
oi CKUTOV TrevTijKOvra 6eo(pi\<7TaTOi eTr/ovcoTrot ra
tira Trpecrfieia cnrevei/uLav TU> TT/P i/ea? ' Putfjuj? a
Qpovw, eOXoyco? KpivavTes TIJV )8acr/Xe/a KCU
TifJ.riQel(rav iro\iv, KOL TWV "(roov anro\avov<rav
governed the civil " Diocese " of Italy and represented the Imperial
power. The ecclesiastical use of the title seems to have involved a
certain inferiority to the title " Patriarch," which was reserved for the
greater Sees, although the jurisdiction of the Patriarch and the Exarch
was virtually the same.
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 269
Trpea-ftvTepa (3acri\iSi 'Pco/xj/, KOI ev rot? KK\tj<na(r-
? eKeivtjv /ULya\vv<rOai Trpay/ULCKTi SevTepav /U.CT
virdpxovcrav, K.T.\. " For the Fathers have
reasonably conceded its primatial rights to the
Throne of Old Rome, because it was the Im-
perial City ; and influenced by the same con-
sideration, the hundred and fifty most religious
Bishops have awarded the like privileges to the
most holy See of New Rome, judging, with good
reason, that the city which is honoured by the
Imperial Power and the Senate (as the capital), and
which enjoys the same privileges as the Elder Im-
perial Rome, should also in its ecclesiastical rela-
tions be exalted, and hold the second place after
that city," &c.
The Fathers of Chalcedon could not very well
expect S. Leo the Great to accept this Canon with-
out protest. Into the details of the controversy we
need not enter. The principle here laid down, that
the civil rank of the city should find its counterpart
in the ecclesiastical rank of its Bishop, was accepted
without question in the East, and, as we have already
seen, was a chief factor in the Roman Primacy in
the West. But it did not account for all the in-
fluence exercised by Rome as a centre. The fact
of the " Cathedra Petri," with its traditions of the
Primate Apostle, counted for a great deal in the
thoughts and imaginations of Christendom. Be-
270 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
sides which, New Rome could never be what Old
Rome was. The traditions of Imperial rule, law,
and order could not be divorced from the " Eternal
City," and the gradual decay of the Western Em-
pire transferred these traditions from the Roman
Emperor to the Roman Patriarch.
We may note here that the word Patriarch was
officially employed in the Acts of Chalcedon where
allusion was made to the "most holy Patriarchs"
of each Diocese (6cria>TaToi TlaTpidp^at SioiKija-ews
e/cao-TJ??). 1 S. Leo the Great is called "the Patri-
arch of Great Rome," and also, in Canon xxx. of
Chalcedon, the Tome of S. Leo is described as
"the Epistle of the most holy Archbishop Leo"
(rov oa-iwTCLTOv * Apyieiria-KOTrov Aeoi/ro?). The titles
of " Patriarch " and " Archbishop " did not long
remain thus interchangeable. The title of "Arch-
bishop " was reserved for the chief Metropolitans
as a title of honour, and in course of time it
was in certain cases used as a title of honour for
certain Bishops who were not actually Metropolitans
of Provinces. In the Anglican Communion the title
of Archbishop belongs exclusively to the Primatial
See of Canterbury, and to the principal Metro-
politans who own its Primacy. 2 The ecclesiastical
1 Cone. Chalced., Act 2, p. 338.
2 The Archbishops of the Anglican Communion are the Archbishop
of Canterbury, who is acknowledged by the South African Church as
DEVELOPMENT AFTER EDICT OF MILAN 271
laws concerning the Patriarchs and their powers
afterwards received civil authority in the East by
the Laws of Justinian, much in the same way as
the Edict of Gratian had given civil authority to
the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch. Justinian
enacted that a Patriarch should be consecrated by
the Bishops of his Patriarchal Synod. 1 He also
provided for the trial of a Metropolitan before his
Patriarch. 2
A modern instance of this procedure may be
found in the 2oth Canon of the Church of the
Province of South Africa, which commits the trial
of the Archbishop of Capetown, in a matter of
faith, doctrine, or discipline, to the Archbishop of
Canterbury and Bishops selected by him. This
is a direct recognition on the part of the South
African Church of the de facto Patriarchate of
Canterbury. A like recognition of a carefully
guarded and canonical Patriarchate of Canterbury
" Primate of Archbishops, Primates, and Metropolitans," and the
Archbishops of York, Armagh, Dublin, Rupertsland, Ontario, Sydney,
Capetown, and the West Indies.
1 "Ipsum vero (patriarcham) a proprio ordinari concilio." (Justin.
Novel. 131.)
2 "Quoties quidem sacerdotum accusabuntur, vel de fide, aut turpi
vita, aut ob aliquid aliud contra sacros canones admissum ; si quidem
episcopus est is qui accusatus est, eius Metropolitanus examinet ea quse
dicta sunt : si vero Metropolitanus sit, eius beatissimus Archiepiscopus
sub quo degit." (Ibid., 37, 5.) The Laws of Justinian on the subject
of ecclesiastical trials and appeals need not be considered as Erastian.
We may look upon them as intended to prevent direct appeals to the
Emperor and Secular Courts.
272 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
by the various Churches and Provinces who own
its Primacy is the sole solution whereby the unity
and solidarity of the Anglican Communion can be
maintained.
Our investigation closes at this point. We may
claim that it has been directed exclusively to the
authority of the undivided Church of Christ. To
that authority the Anglican Reformers made their
constant appeal. If some who profess an exag-
gerated regard for the opinions of the Anglican
Reformers as individuals would look beyond them
and behind them to that Primitive Church which
their mediaeval training hindered them from fol-
lowing as closely as they intended to do, it would
be of good omen for all Catholics in communion
with the See of Canterbury. An insular and dry
Anglicanism would be broadened to grasp the
needs of Anglo-Saxon Christianity as a whole, and
our Episcopate would gain in influence far more
than it would lose in the eyes of those who view
it as a mediaeval Prelacy, by frankly foregoing the
methods of autocracy, and of its own free will
adopting that position of constitutional authority
which is its legitimate inheritance from the Day
of Pentecost.
CHOREPISCOPI 273
NOTE A.
Chorepiscopi.
A controversy has arisen as to whether these "country
Bishops" who were assistants to the Diocesan Bishops
were in Episcopal orders or not. Van Espen, the great
Canonist, Bishop Beveridge, Hammond, Cave, and Bingham
maintain that they were really Bishops; against Morinus
and others, who hold them to have been merely Priests.
The learned Sorbonnist Witasse goes very fully into the
question, and agrees with the view that they were Bishops.
They set apart men for the minor orders of readers, exor-
cists, and sub-deacons, while the ordination of Deacons and
Priests was reserved, as a rule, to the Diocesan Bishop.
They were not coadjutor Bishops cum iure successionis, which
is contrary to primitive Canon law. They were " Assistant
Bishops" in the same sense as retired Colonial Bishops,
who have been commissioned by Bishops in England to
aid them in Diocesan work.
The appointment of a Coadjutor Bishop, cum iure succes-
sionis, by the Diocesan Bishop was forbidden by the 5th
Council of Paris (A.D. 577): "Nullus episcoporum se
vivente alium in loco suo eligat," with the apparent saving
clause " nisi certse conditiones extiterint ut ecclesiam suam
et clerum regere non possit" (Can. ii.). S. Gregory the
Great permits an infirm Bishop to have a coadjutor, but
without right of succession. (S. Greg., Ep. ix. 4.) The
Chorepiscopi of the early Church were meant to meet
such cases, as well as to assist Bishops whose Dioceses
were too large.
274 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
NOTE B.
The Authority of Law and Custom.
S. Athanasius writes of the authority of Canon Law as
follows :
Ou yap vvv Kavovcs /cat TVTTOI rats eKxATjcriats tSo&jcrav,
aAA" JK Tt3v Trare/awv rf^Siv /caAws KCU /3e/?cucos Trapf866r)(rav '
ov&e vvv rj TTICTTIS r/p^aro, dAA" IK TO{! Kvpiov Sta TWV jMa&jTwv
eis i?fias St,a(3f(3r)Kv. (S. Ath., Encyc. ad Epis., cap. i.)
" For the Canons and patterns were not now for the
first time given to the Churches, but were handed down
well and firmly from our fathers, nor did the Faith begin
nowadays, but it hath been handed down to us from the
Lord and His disciples." This comparison between the
Faith once delivered to the Saints, and then carefully
handed down as a sacred deposit by the Church, and the
similar authoritative tradition of the Laws and Usages of
the Church, is significant as coming from the pen of the
greatest theologian of his age.
The authority of custom, as well as of the written
Canons, which the i8th Nicene Canon alleges, may
perhaps be paralleled with the "patterns" or authorised
forms and usages which S. Athanasius couples with the
" Canons."
The Canon Law is best described as Jus Canonicum,
rather than Lex Canonica. lus is a general term which
includes both laws and customs of the Church. The
authority of custom is appealed to by S. Paul when
he says "we have no such custom, neither the Churches
of God "(i Cor. xi. 1 6).
There is an authority of custom which finds admission
AUTHORITY OF LAW AND CUSTOM 275
into our ordinary English jurisprudence which will serve
as a useful illustration of our meaning. The Statute Law
of England is supplemented by the Common Law, which
receives its authority from usage and universal reception.
(See Stephens' ed. of Blackstone, vol. i. p. 41.)
So in the Canon Law of the Church, ancient customs
(dpxaia tOrf) and long-established usage (mos) have a binding
obligation equally with the written Canons of the Church
(leges).
So great is the obligation of mos, that its contrary, namely,
Desuetude, can in certain cases be pleaded with sufficient
authority to abrogate even a lex scripta. (Devoti. Instit.,
i. 4.) It is needless to add that the greatest caution
is needed in applying this principle. It is difficult to
prove Desuetude, even in such cases as may occur when
a law has been for many years only partially observed.
The lus Canonicum thus includes leges, the written and
codified Laws of the Church, and maxims of Fathers,
which, like the decrees of Councils, acquire authority by
universal acceptance and customs. An instance of an
authoritative maxim is the saying of Pope Celestine,
"Nullus detur invitis." An instance of an authoritative
custom is the use of the Mixed Chalice, which we find cited
as the ordinary usage by Justin Martyr. (ApoL, i. 67.)
It is useful to note the distinction made by the Gallican
Canonists between lus Antiquum and lus Novum. (See
Schram., Instit. Juris Eccl, i. p. 4.)
The Ancient Canon Law is that which dates before the
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals ; the " new Canon Law " is the
mediaeval code which incorporated them into its authorita-
tive " Corpus luris," and which modified ancient laws and
customs to suit the changes necessitated by the develop-
ment of the Papal despotism.
276 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
In the foregoing pages our inquiry has shown that the
lus Antiquum is so full in its provisions, and so marvel-
lously adapted to after ages, that the novelties of the lus
Novum are superfluous excrescences upon the sacred juris-
prudence of the Catholic Church, which will one day be
abrogated either by direct enactment or Desuetude.
NOTE C.
S. Gregory the Great on the Interdependence of the
Chief Patriarchates.
Although the mediaeval period of Church History, which
may be said to begin with the Pontificate of Gregory the
Great, lies outside the scope of the present inquiry, it is
interesting to note that a strong Pope, such as Gregory the
Great undoubtedly was, held views with regard to the inter-
dependence of the chief Patriarchates which recall primi-
tive times, and which are quite irreconcilable with modern
Ultramontane claims. In A.D. 587, in a Synod held at
Constantinople against a certain Bishop Gregorius, the
Patriarch John the Faster adopted the title of "(Ecu-
menical Bishop " (oiKov/ievt/cbs CTTIO-KOTTOS), which had pre-
viously been allowed to John the Cappadocian in another
Synod held at Constantinople. (Condi. Const, sub Menna
et Anthimo, iv. 7 and novell. 16.) It was not intended
to apply to the whole world, but only to the region
which owned the Primacy of New Rome. In a Synod
at Constantinople held in A.D. 536 it is applied both to
the Patriarchs of Old and New Rome. (Mansi, vol. viii.
col. 895, 956.) But the Council of A.D. 587 is reckoned
by the Eastern Church as having conferred this title on the
Patriarch of Constantinople by a formal act, and Pelagius
S. GREGORY ON THE CHIEF PATRIARCHATES 277
of Rome refused on this account to recognise the Acts
of the Council. The Epistle of Pelagius which protested
against the assumption of this title is one of the Pseudo-
Isidorian forgeries. His genuine objection is preserved in
Pope Gregory's letter. (S. Greg., Epp. iv. No. 38.) Even
so convinced a Gallican as Du Pin seems to have been
unconsciously influenced by Pseudo-Isidore, when he says
that Pelagius "ob elationis huius vocabulum . . . huius
concilii acta dissolvit." (De Antiq, Eccl. Disc., p. 328.)
When S. Gregory succeeded Pelagius he wrote to the
Patriarch of Constantinople in A.D. 595, and also to the
Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, protesting against
this title of " Universal Bishop." Alexandria and Antioch
naturally were in sympathy with Rome in resisting the
encroachments of Constantinople. It was evident to S.
Gregory that, although the Patriarch of Constantinople did
not claim authority over other Patriarchs, he was yet claim-
ing precedence, because civilly Constantinople was before
Rome as the Imperial capital. It is very interesting to
note S. Gregory's line in objecting to this claim. " No one
of my predecessors," he says, " has ever consented to so
profane a title, since, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the
name is derogated in the case of the others." (Epp. v. 43.)
Eulogius of Alexandria replied that he would never again
use the title in addressing the Patriarch of Constantinople,
and he thought to please S. Gregory by applying it to him
instead. But S. Gregory emphatically repudiated it. He
was a strong Primate of Christendom, and claimed by virtue
of his Primacy to interpose when anything went wrong
in the East as well as in his own Western Patriarchate.
He replies, " I beg you will not speak of commanding,
since I know who I am and who you are. In dignity you
are my brothers, in character you are my fathers. I never
278 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
commanded, but only wished to indicate what was useful.
. . . You have thought fit to make use of the proud title,
calling me Universal Bishop. I beg your most sweet
Holiness to do so no more. ... I do not regard that
as an honour whereby I know that my brethren's honour
is taken away. For the honour of the Universal Church
is my honour, the stable welfare of my brethren is my
honour, I am truly honoured when the honour due to
each and all is not denied them. And when your Holi-
ness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are
yourself what you call me universally." (Epp. viii. 30.)
The Primate of Christendom declined to rob the " Pope "
of Alexandria of his due honour. We have already noted
S. Gregory's reason for the link between Rome and Alex-
andria. In a very remarkable passage he amplifies this
reason, and conjoins Antioch with Alexandria and Rome
in mutual interdependence as the threefold See of S. Peter.
The passage is so interesting that we quote the original.
" Itaque cum multi sint Apostoli, pro ipso tamen prin-
cipatu sola Apostolorum Principis sedes in auctoritate con-
valuit, quae in tribus locis unius est. Ipse enim sublimavit
sedem, in qua etiam quiescere et prsesentem vitam finire
dignatus est. Ipse decoravit sedem, in qua evangelistam
discipulum misit Ipse firmavit sedem, in qua septem
annis, quamvis decessurus, sedit. Cum ergo unius atque
una est sedes, cui ex auctoritate divina tres nunc epis-
copi president, quicquid ergo de vobis boni audio, hoc
mihi imputo." (Epp. vii. 40.) " Though there be many
Apostles, yet the See of the Prince of the Apostles
alone has become strong in its authority, as regards the
principality itself, since this See, although in three places,
is the See of one. For he himself (S. Peter) exalted the
See in which he both dwelt and abode to the end of
S. GREGORY ON THE CHIEF PATRIARCHATES 279
this present life (the See of Rome). He himself adorned
the See to which he sent his disciple the Evangelist (S.
Mark to Alexandria). He himself established the See in
which he, though he afterwards left it, sat for seven years
(the See of Antioch). Since therefore it is the See of
One, and One See, over which preside three Bishops by
Divine authority, whatever good I hear of you, I reckon
as belonging to me also."
This remarkable linking together of the three Chief
Patriarchates as joint inheritors of the succession of S.
Peter, was not merely a clever argument on S. Gregory's
part against Constantinople, which could claim no link
with S. Peter. It was a true assertion of the mutual inter-
dependence of the Chief Patriarchates upon the common
basis of Apostolic descent and Catholic communion, and
a true assertion of the legitimate Primacy of the Roman
Patriarch as " Primus inter pares."
CONCLUSION
A BRIEF summary of the results obtained by the
investigation undertaken in the foregoing pages,
may prove helpful in applying it to the circum-
stances of the Church in our own day. We are
not unmindful of the fact that the guidance of the
Holy Spirit is as much the heritage of the Church
of to-day, as it was in the first five centuries of her
life. Neither are we unmindful of the fact that
questions of procedure and ecclesiastical discipline
stand upon a different footing from doctrinal defini-
tions. We are bound by the definitions of the first
four (Ecumenical Councils in matters of Faith.
The Established Provinces of Canterbury and York
are bound to something more by the standard of
Heresy set up by i Eliz. i. 36, where the standards
for judging heresy are defined to be " the Canonical
Scriptures, the first four General Councils ... or
by any other General Council wherein the same
was declared Heresy by the express and plain words
of the said Canonical Scriptures." The first General
Council of the Anglican Communion, assembled
under the name of the Lambeth Conference in 1867,
280
CONCLUSION 281
adopted the standard of the Elizabethan Reforma-
tion as a body of Catholic Bishops acting in com-
plete independence of the State. The Archbishops
and Bishops sent forth the following clear state-
ment in the Introduction of their Resolutions :
"We, Bishops of Christ's Holy Catholic Church
... do here solemnly record our conviction that
unity will be most effectually promoted by main-
taining the Faith in its purity and integrity, as
taught in the Holy Scriptures, held by the Primitive
Church, summed up in the Creeds, and affirmed
by the undisputed General Councils." But though
questions of Canonical procedure and discipline do
not stand on the same level as doctrinal definitions,
we must remember that the Canon Law of the
undivided Church, as expressed in its (Ecumenical
Councils and " ancient customs," comes to us with
a preponderant weight of authority, as the expres-
sion of the regal power of Christ in His Church.
Some principles of procedure and discipline are
invariable, and come to us with plenary authority.
We do not ordain women to the Priesthood, nor
do we suffer Deacons to consecrate the Blessed
Sacrament of the Altar. There are again other
matters pertaining to discipline, where the living
voice of the Church from age to age frames the
details of her life and her procedure to fit the needs
and special circumstances of the people and times,
282 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
to whose varying necessities she must adapt her
methods. There is room for an ordered freedom
and elasticity. The true canonist is not narrowed
to precedents, which in their application might tend
to that " summum ius summa iniuria" which some-
times disfigures the administration of Statute Law.
But when we make the largest possible allowance
for the freedom of adaptation, it is manifest that
the root-principles of procedure and discipline are
to be sought in the Canon Law of the undivided
Church, and that it is our bounden duty to place
them second only to its doctrinal definitions in
the authority which we admit in them. One of
the most striking results of a careful study of
the Canon Law of the undivided Church, is that
it provides beforehand for almost every conceiv-
able case of procedure and discipline that can pos-
sibly arise in the Church of the present day. If
Hildebrand had grasped this fact, and had not
been misled by the huge superstructure of the
False Decretals, the Council of Trent would have
escaped assenting to some dubious definitions, and
the Vatican Council would never have robbed
Christendom of its ancient and historic centre of
unity, by erecting around the Eternal City a barrier,
made impassable by the thorns and briars of unlaw-
ful and un-Catholic terms of communion. The
ancient Churches of the East have maintained with
CONCLUSION 283
unwavering fidelity the procedure and discipline of
the Primitive Church, save in the few points where
an undue subservience to Byzantine Caesarism, and
its modern Russian counterpart, has deflected their
Church polity from the primitive standard.
The recovery of primitive procedure and dis-
cipline by Anglican Christendom is capable of
ready accomplishment, save in England itself.
The Anglo-Saxon mind is eminently practical, and
the practical wisdom of the primitive discipline
readily commends itself to Churchmen of the
United States and the British Colonies. On the
whole, the Free Churches of the Anglican Com-
munion have manifested a loyal adherence to
primitive principles of Church order. But much
remains to be done. We have to combine free-
dom with solidarity, unity with diversity, the for-
mation of a strong centre at Canterbury with the
ordered liberty of Provincial action. The chief
obstacle to the consolidation of the Anglican
Communion on lines of primitive and Catholic
order lies with the unconstitutional traditions of
mediaeval Prelacy, which hamper the English
Episcopate even more than its alliance with the
State. It is with a view to set forth a truer
and more primitive standard that the investiga-
tion contained in the foregoing pages has been
undertaken.
284 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
We have now reviewed the evidence which bears
upon the constitutional position of a Bishop in the
Catholic Church, from the Apostolic Age to the
Council of Chalcedon. We claim to have shown
conclusively that the modern idea of an English
Bishop as the autocratic Persona Ecclesice, who
can act independently of his Priests, without the
counsel of his Laity, is feudal and mediaeval rather
than primitive. We have shown that a Bishop
does not exercise his judicial functions without
some Priests, as assessors, to represent his Synod
of Priests. Nor does he rule his Diocese apart
from his Diocesan Synod, in which he sits as
President, as representing his order. The Diocese
is subordinate to the Province of which it is a
unit, so that the Synod of the Province can re-
examine and disallow any act of a Diocesan Synod
to which the Bishop has given his assent. A for-
tiori it can examine the reasons for his dissent
from the conclusions of his Diocesan Synod, since
the veto of the Bishop is suspensory, and not
absolute. This is plain when we consider the Cy-
prianic definition of the Episcopate, whereby each
individual Bishop is viewed as a joint shareholder
in the common trust which is vested in the united
Episcopate as a whole. Each Bishop is thus respon-
sible for all his actions, judicial and administrative,
to the Universal Episcopate of the Catholic Church.
CONCLUSION 285
This responsibility finds its due and orderly
development in the principle of Primacy in its
regular gradations. And this very principle of
Primacy does not involve, any more than Epis-
copacy itself, an irresponsible or autocratic indi-
vidualism. As the Diocesan Bishop rules, with
the counsel of his Priests and the assent of his
Laity, in his Diocesan Synod, so does the Metro-
politan rule his Province. In cases of appeal the
Bishops of the Province sit with the Metropolitan
as judges and not merely as assessors. If an appeal
should be made from the Metropolitan and his
corn-provincial Bishops to the Patriarch, the same
process is repeated. The chief Bishops of the
Patriarchate aid him in deciding the appeal.
Although the Roman Patriarchate ultimately de-
generated into an ecclesiastical despotism, the fre-
quent Roman Synods, which were held during the
period of Church history which we have been con-
sidering, show that, notwithstanding the Sardican
Canons, and the coercive jurisdiction conferred on
the Roman Patriarch by Imperial authority, it is
fair to consider these Synods as occupying to some
degree the position in the West which the regular
Patriarchal Synods occupied in the East. But be-
hind the Patriarch and his Synod lay an appeal to
the Universal Episcopate of the Church in (Ecu-
menical Council assembled. Notwithstanding the
286 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
vast claims of the Hildebrandine Papacy, which had
for so long dominated Western Christendom, we
find the Councils of Constance and Basle laying
down the doctrine that an (Ecumenical Council
was an authority superior to that of the Pope.
Thus we see that, however it was at times obscured
or overlaid, the true position of a Bishop is that of
a constitutional ruler, and the true theory of the
unity and solidarity of the Church is not involved in
the absolute monarchy of a single Patriarch, but in
an ordered system of reference to higher authority.
Whether matters concerned doctrine or discipline,
they were referred first to the constitutional tribunal
of the Bishop in his Diocese. Thence an appeal
lay to the Metropolitan and his Synod, with a fur-
ther appeal to the Patriarch and his Synod, and an
ultimate appeal could be lodged with an (Ecumeni-
cal Council. We do not allege that this graduated
system of appeals was ever practically adopted
throughout Christendom without let or hindrance.
The human element so interpenetrates the Divine
Order of the Catholic Church, that hindrances must
of necessity arise which mar the perfection of its
ideal law and order. The tares and wheat must
both grow together until the harvest. But this fact
need not cause us to lose sight of the Divine ideal,
or hinder us from attempting to fashion our Church
polity after the pattern of the Mount.
CONCLUSION 287
We Catholics in communion with the See of
Canterbury have a unique opportunity of fulfilling
primitive ideals. We are free from the doctrinal
fetters of the Vatican Council. We are also free
from the undue conservatism of Eastern Christen-
dom. We have begun to walk upon the ancient
paths of Church order and consolidation, and have
met with no lions in the way. Our history does
not stamp us as mere revolters from the unlawful
claims of modern Rome. Whatever may have been
the link between the Western Patriarch and the
Romano - Celtic Christianity of the early British
Church, it is evident that the title of " Basileus,"
used by the Anglo-Saxon Kings, and that indepen-
dence of the Holy Roman Empire, which was
always asserted as a right by their Norman and
Angevin successors, placed England outside the
European mediaeval system in which Pope and
Emperor claimed supreme rule in their respective
spheres. The claim of Henry VIII. in the famous
Statute of Appeals that the realm of England is an
Empire, is an undisputed historical fact. 1
And so the Church of England, though owing so
much to the mission of S. Augustine, and so little
1 "Where by dyvers sundrie olde autentike histories and cronicles
it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realme of Englond
is an Impire, and so hath been accepted in the worlde, governed by
one suprem bed and King having the dignitie and roiall estate of
the imperiall crowne of the same," &c. (Preamble of Act xxiv.
Henry VIII.)
288 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
to its Romano-Celtic predecessor, could logically
and historically claim for itself, despite occasional
lapses, a less subordinate position with regard to
the Roman Patriarchate than any of the Churches
of the Continent.
The complimentary phrase, " alterius orbis Papa,"
implies the exclusion of the realm of England
from the Holy Roman Empire, and also implies
an independence, more or less definite, for the
Archbishop of Canterbury, as " Pope of the other
worlds" which lay beyond those Imperial boun-
daries within which Imperial law enforced the sub-
mission of all Prelates to the Roman Patriarch.
It is instructive to compare Canterbury with
Carthage, as we have already done in the previous
chapter. The parallel is incomplete in one sense,
because North Africa was within the Roman
Empire. But the position of the Archbishop of
Carthage, as Primate of Metropolitans, was virtually
that of a Patriarch who showed to Rome a sturdy
forefront of independence, whilst acknowledging,
as S. Cyprian did, the legitimate rights of the
Patriarch of the West. There was courteous com-
munion between Carthage and Rome, without any
sense of undue subservience.
After three hundred years of a silence, which was
caused by the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth
by the Pope, courteous communications have passed
CONCLUSION 289
between Rome and Canterbury which have lost
none of their courtesy in the revelation of a mutual
" non possumus " with regard to terms of re-union.
We may carry the parallel even further. The
virtual Patriarchate of the Archbishop of Carthage,
although never acknowledged eo nomine by the
Church, finds its modern counterpart in the virtual
Patriarchate of Canterbury.
The procedure adopted by the Archbishop of
Carthage, as Primate of the North African Church,
has been already, in a measure, adopted by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, as Primate of the whole
Anglican Communion. The Primates of the North
African Provinces dealt with affairs in their Pro-
vincial Synods, and great questions which were
incapable of being decided by the Synod of a
single Province were brought before the General
Council of the African Churches in which the
Archbishop of Carthage presided, as Primate of
Primates. In like manner the General and Pro-
vincial Synods of the American and Colonial
Churches deal with questions under the leadership
of their own Archbishops, Primates, and Metro-
politans. But by common consent the greater
and more important questions are referred to that
General Council of the whole Anglican Communion
which assembles under the name and style of the
Lambeth Conference.
T
290 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
The Archbishop of Canterbury, as the President
and convener of this great Council, exercises his
office as a virtual Patriarch over a far wider
sphere than any Archbishop of Carthage ever did.
A truer parallel to his present position of influ-
ence might perhaps be sought in the great office
of the Patriarch of " New Rome " in its palmiest
days. It may be said that a good deal of what
has been done at present in the direction of con-
solidating the Anglican Communion is somewhat
shadowy and indefinite. But the Anglo-Saxon
mind is more tolerant of anomalies in detail, and
more given to regard the practical working-out of
matters, than to legislate with logical precision and
accuracy. The question of the canonical limits and
due scope of the Canterbury Patriarch will be ten-
tatively and practically worked out by experience.
Solvitur ambulando. And it must be admitted
that the question has moved forward since the
first Lambeth Council of 1867. The need of union
and of a strong centre is felt at the extremities
more than at the centre itself. English Churchmen
are so insular, and so much wrapped up in their
own burning questions, that they do not often
trouble to find out what American and Colonial
Churchmen are thinking on such a question as the
Canterbury Patriarchate and the true functions of
the Lambeth Councils.
CONCLUSION 291
We have, however, gained much. The General
and Provincial Synods of a portion of the Colonial
Church submitted the important question of the
adoption of the title of " Archbishop " by Colonial
Metropolitans to the Council holders at Lambeth
in 1897. That Council also took some definite steps
to shape itself, and made provision for its periodical
meeting upon the summons of the Primate of the
Anglican Communion. The establishment of a
Consultative Body, to be formed by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, for the purpose of aiding him to
give his decisions (under the name of "Advice")
upon questions submitted to him from any Church
or Province of the Anglican Communion, is a step
in accordance with primitive precedent. It is also
a step which will have far-reaching consequences
in the direction of unity when it has justified itself
by results. What has already been done to con-
solidate the Anglican Communion has been framed
on right lines, and in accordance with primitive
precedent. We have in outline our Canterbury
Patriarchate, our General Council of the Anglican
Communion, and our organisation of Churches and
Provinces under their own Metropolitans. That
outline will one day be filled in. It may be neces-
sary for the Established Provinces of Canterbury
and York to be severed from their State connec-
tion before the ideal conveyed by that outline
292 CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY OF BISHOPS
is fully realised. It may be that the Archbishops,
Primates, and Metropolitans of the Anglican Com-
munion will demand a consultative voice in the
appointment of their Primate and Patriarch. But
one conclusion alone can satisfy the aspirations of
those who desire to set forth peace and unity as
the ministers of strength and power. The model
of Primitive Church organisation and order must
be followed as far as human frailty doth permit.
If we take the Vincentian maxim, " Quod semper,
quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," as our watchword
in matters of faith and doctrine, we must adhere
none the less closely in matters of procedure and
discipline to the maxim of Nicaea, ra ap^aia eOrj
THE END
Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON <J>* Co.
Edinburgh r> London
August 1898. .
A Selection of Works
IN
THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE
PUBLISHED BY
MESSRS. LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.
London : 39 PATERNOSTER Row, E.G.
New York : 91 and 93 FIFTH AVENUE.
Bombay : 32 HORNBY ROAD.
Abbey and Overton. THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. By CHARLES J. ABBEY, M.A. , Rector
of Checkendon, Reading, and JOHN H. OVERTON, D.D., Canon of
Lincoln. Crown 8vo. -js. 6d.
Adams. SACRED ALLEGORIES. The Shadow of the Cross
The Distant Hills The Old Man's Home THe King's Messengers.
By the Rev. WILLIAM ADAMS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d.
The four Allegories may be had separately, with Illustrations.
i6mo. is. each.
Aids to the Inner Life.
Edited by the Venble. W. H. HUTCHINGS, M.A., Archdeacon of Cleve-
land, Canon of York, Rector of Kirby Misperton, and Rural Dean of
Malton. Five Vols. 321110, cloth limp, 6d. each; or cloth extra,
is. each.
OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. By THOMAS X KEMPIS.
THE CHRISTIAN YEAR
THE DEVOUT LIFE. By ST. FRANCIS DE SALES.
THE HIDDEN LIFE OF THE SOUL.
THE SPIRITUAL COMBAT. By LAURENCE ScUPOLl.
Barnett. THE SERVICE OF GOD : Sermons, Essays, and
Addresses. By SAMUEL A. BARNETT, Warden of Toynbee Hall,
Whitechapel ; Canon of Bristol Cathedral ; Select Preacher before
Oxford University. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Bathe. Works by the Rev. ANTHONY BATHE, M.A.
A LENT WITH JESUS. A Plain Guide for Churchmen. Containing
Readings for Lent and Easter Week, and on the Holy Eucharist.
yimo, is. ; or in paper cover, 6d.
AN ADVENT WITH JESUS, yzmo, is.; or in paper cover, 6d.
WHAT I SHOULD BELIEVE. A Simple Manual of Self. Instruction
for Church People. Small 8vo, limp, is. ; cloth gilt, zs.
A SELECTION OF WORKS
Bathe and Buckham. THE CHRISTIAN'S ROAD BOOK.
2 Parts. By the Rev. ANTHONY BATHE and Rev. F. H. BUCKHAM.
Part I. DEVOTIONS. Sewed, 6d. ; limp cloth, is. ; cloth extra, is. 6d.
Part II. READINGS. Sewed, is. ; limp cloth, as. ; cloth extra, y. ;
or complete in one volume, sewed, is. 6d. ; limp cloth, as. 6d. ; cloth
extra, y. 6d.
Benson. Works by the Rev. R. M. BENSON, M.A., Student of
Christ Church, Oxford.
THE FINAL PASSOVER : A Series of Meditations upon the Passion of
our Lord Jesus Christ. Small 8vo.
Vol. I. THE REJECTION, y.
Vol. II. THE UPPER CHAMBER.
Part I. y.
Part n. 5*.
Vol. III. THE DIVINE EXODUS.
Parts I. and n. y. each.
Vol. IV. THE LIFE BEYOND THE
GRAVE. 5*.
THE MAGNIFICAT; a Series of Meditations upon the Song of the
Blessed Virgin Mary. Small 8vo. as.
SPIRITUAL READINGS FOR EVERY DAY. 3 vols. Small 8vo.
y. 6d. each.
I. ADVENT. II. CHRISTMAS. III. EPIPHANY.
BENEDICTUS DOMINUS : A Course of Meditations for Every Day of
the Year. Vol. I. ADVENT TO TRINITY. Vol. II. TRINITY, SAINTS'
DAYS, etc. Small 8vo. y. 6d. each ; or in One Volume, 75.
BIBLE TEACHINGS : The Discourse at Capernaum. St. John vi. Small
8vo. y. 6d.
THE WISDOM OF THE SON OF DAVID : An Exposition of the First
Nine Chapters of the Book of Proverbs. Small 8vo, y. 6d,
THE MANUAL OF INTERCESSORY PRAYER. Royal yimo. ; cloth
boards, is. $d. ; cloth limp, gd.
THE EVANGELIST LIBRARY CATECHISM. Parti. Small 8vo. y.
PAROCHIAL MISSIONS. Small 8vo. as. 6d.
Bickersteth. YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, AND FOR EVER:
a Poem in Twelve Books. By EDWARD HENRY BICKERSTETH, D.D.,
Lord Bishop of Exeter. One Shilling Edition, i8mo. With red borders,
i6mo, as. 6d.
The Crown Svo Edition ($s.) may still be had.
Blunt. Works by the Rev. JOHN HENRY BLUNT, D.D.
THE ANNOTATED BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER: Being an
Historical, Ritual, and Theological Commentary on the Devotional
System of the Church of England. 4/0. ais.
THE COMPENDIOUS EDITION OF THE ANNOTATED BOOK
OF COMMON PRAYER : Forming a concise Commentary on the
Devotional System of the Church of England. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d.
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.
Blunt. Works by the Rev. JOHN HENRY BLUNT, D.D. contd.
DICTIONARY OF DOCTRINAL AND HISTORICAL THEOLOGY.
By various Writers. Imperial 8vo. zis.
DICTIONARY OF SECTS, HERESIES, ECCLESIASTICAL PAR-
TIES AND SCHOOLS OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT. By various
Writers. Imperial 8vo. zis.
THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND: its
History, Principles, and Results. 1574-1662. Two Vote. 8vo. 345.
THE BOOK OF CHURCH LAW. Being an Exposition of the Legal
Rights and Duties of the Parochial Clergy and the Laity of the Church
of England. Revised by Sir WALTER G. F. PHILLIMORE, Bart.,
D.C.L., and G. EDWARDES JONES, Barrister-at-Law. Crown 8vo.
7*. 6d.
A COMPANION TO THE BIBLE : Being a Plain Commentary on
Scripture History, to the end of the Apostolic Age. Two Vols. small
8vo. Sold separately.
THE OLD TESTAMENT, y. 6d. THE NEW TESTAMENT. 3.1. 6d.
HOUSEHOLD THEOLOGY : a Handbook of Religious Information
respecting the Holy Bible, the Prayer Book, the Church, etc., etc.
Paper cover, i6mo. is. Also the Larger Edition, y. 6d.
Body. Works by the Rev. GEORGE BODY, D.D., Canon of
Durham.
THE LIFE OF LOVE. A Course of Lent Lectures. i6mo. zs. 6d.
THE SCHOOL OF CALVARY ; or, Laws of Christian Life revealed
from the Cross. i6mo. zs. 6d.
THE LIFE OF JUSTIFICATION. i6mo. zs. 6d.
THE LIFE OF TEMPTATION. i6mo. zs. 6d.
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE FAITHFUL -DEPARTED. Small
8vo. sewed, 6d. ^zmo. cloth, is.
Boultbee. A COMMENTARY ON THE THIRTY-NINE
ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. By the Rev.
T. P. BOULTBEE, formerly Principal of the London College of Divinity,
St. John's Hall, Highbury. Crown 8vo. 6r.
Bright. Works by WILLIAM BRIGHT, D.D., Regius Professor
of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford,
and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
THE ROMAN SEE IN THE EARLY CHURCH : And other Studies
in Church History. Crown 8vo. js. 6d.
WAYMARKS IN CHURCH HISTORY. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
MORALITY IN DOCTRINE. Crown 8vo. 7 s. 6d.
LESSONS FROM THE LIVES OF THREE GREAT FATHERS.
St. Athanasius, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE INCARNATION AS A MOTIVE POWER. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Bright and Medd. LIBER PRECUM PUBLICARUM EC-
CLESLE ANGLICANS. A GULIELMO BRIGHT, S.T.P., et PETRO
GOLDSMITH MEUD, A. M., Latine redditus. Small 8vo. ?s. 6d,
A SELECTION OF WORKS
Browne. WEARIED WITH THE BURDEN : A Book of
Daily Readings for Lent. By ARTHUR HEBKR BROWNE, M.A.,
LL.D., Rector of St. John's, Newfoundland. Crown 8vo. qs. 6d.
Browne. AN EXPOSITION OF THE THIRTY-NINE
ARTICLES, Historical and Doctrinal. By E. H. BROWNE, D.D.,
sometime Bishop of Winchester. 8vo. i6s.
Campion and Beamont. THE PRAYER BOOK INTER-
LEAVED. With Historical Illustrations and Explanatory Notes
arranged parallel to the Text. By W. M. CAMPION, D.D., and W. J.
BEAMONT, M.A. Small 8vo. 75, 6d.
Carter. Works edited by the Rev. T. T. CARTER, M.A., Hon.
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
THE TREASURY OF DEVOTION : a Manual of Prayer for General
and Daily Use. Compiled by a Priest.
i8mo. zs. 6d. ; cloth limp, zs.
Bound with the Book of Common Prayer, $s. 6d.
Red-Line Edition. Cloth extra, gilt top. i8mo, 2S. 6d. net.
Large-Type Edition. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE WAY OF LIFE : A Book of Prayers and Instruction for the Young
at School, with a Preparation for Confirmation. Compiled by a Priest,
i8mo. is. 6d.
THE PATH OF HOLINESS : a First Book of Prayers, with the Service
of the Holy Communion, for the Young. Compiled by a Priest. With
Illustrations. 160*0. is. 6d. ; cloth limp, is.
THE GUIDE TO HEAVEN : a Book of Prayers for every Want. (For
the Working Classes.) Compiled by a Priest. i8mo. is. 6d. ; cloth
limp, is. Large- Type Edition. Crown 8vt>. is. 6d. ; cloth limp, is.
THE STAR OF CHILDHOOD : a First Book of Prayers and Instruc-
tion for Children. Compiled by a Priest. With Illustrations. i6mo.
2s. 6d.
SIMPLE LESSONS ; or, Words Easy to be Understood. A Manual of
Teaching, i. On the Creed, n. The Ten Commandments. HI. The
Sacrament. i8mo. 3*.
A BOOK OF PRIVATE PRAYER FOR MORNING, MID-DAY, AND
OTHER TIMES. i8mo. limp cloth, is. ; cloth, red edges, is. sd.
NICHOLAS FERRAR : his Household and his Friends. With Portrait
engraved after a Picture by CORNELIUS JANSSEN at Magdalene
College, Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JOHN KETTLEWELL. With Details
of the History of the Non-Jurors. With Portrait. Crown 8vo. 6s.
MANUAL OF DEVOTION FOR SISTERS OF MERCY. 8 parts in
2 vols. 32mo. ioj. Or separately, as follows : Part I. Prayers for
Daily Use, is. 6d. Part II. For Different Necessities, is. Part in. For
Forgiveness of Sins, is. Part iv. On the Holy Communion, zs. Part
V. Acts of Adoration, etc., is. Part vi. Prayers to our Lord Jesus
Christ, is. Part vn. Devotions on the Passion. Part vm. Devotions
for the Sick, is. 6d.
SHORT OFFICE OF THE HOLY GHOST. 321110. is.
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 5
Oonybeare and Howson. THE LIFE AND EPISTLES OF
ST. PAUL. By the Rev. W. J. CONYBEARE, M.A., and the Very
Rev. J. S. HOWSON, D.D. With numerous Maps and Illustrations.
LIBRARY EDITION. Two Vols. 8vo. 2is. STUDENTS' EDITION. One Vol.
Crown 8vo. 6s. POPULAR EDITION. One Vol. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
Creighton. A HISTORY OF THE PAPACY FROM THE
GREAT SCHISM TO THE SACK OF ROME (1378-1527). By
Right Hon. and Right Rev. MANDELL CREIGHTON, D. D., Lord Bishop
of London. Six volumes. Crown 8vo. 6s. each,
DAY-HOURS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, THE.
Newly Revised according to the Prayer Book and the Authorised
Translation of the Bible. Crown 8vo. sewed, 3*. ; cloth, y. 6d.
SUPPLEMENT TO THE DAY-HOURS OF THE CHURCH OF
ENGLAND, being the Service for certain Holy Days. Crown 8vo.
sewed, $s. ; cloth, y. 6d.
Devotional Series, 16mo, Red Borders. Each 2s. 6d.
BICKERSTETH'S YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, AND FOR EVER.
CHILCOT'S TREATISE ON EVIL THOUGHTS.
THE CHRISTIAN YEAR.
FRANCIS DE SALES' (ST.) THE DEVOUT LIFE.
HERBERT'S POEMS AND PROVERBS.
KEMPIS' (A) OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST.
WILSON'S THE LORD'S SUPPER. Large type.
*TAYLOR'S (JEREMY) HOLY LIVING.
* HOLY DYING.
* These two in one Volume. 55.
Devotional Series, 18mo, without Eed Borders. Each is.
BICKERSTETH'S YESTERDAY, TO-DAY, AND FOR EVER,
THE CHRISTIAN YEAR.
FRANCIS DE SALES' (ST.) THE DEVOUT LIFE.
HERBERT'S POEMS AND PROVERBS.
KEMPIS (X) OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST,
WILSON'S THE LORD'S SUPPER, Large type.
*TAYLOR'S (JEREMY) HOLY LIVING.
* HOLY DYING.
* These two in one Volume, zs. 6d.
Edersheim. Works by ALFRED EDERSHEIM, M.A., D.D., Ph.D.
THE LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH. Two Vols.
8vo. 24*.
JESUS THE MESSIAH : being an Abridged Edition of 'The Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah. ' Crown 8vo. js. 6d.
HISTORY OF THE JEWISH NATION AFTER THE DESTRUC-
TION OF JERUSALEM UNDER TITUS. 8vo. i8j.
6
A SELECTION OF WORKS
Ellicott. Works by C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester.
A CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL COMMENTARY ON ST.
PAUL'S EPISTLES. Greek Text, with a Critical and Grammatical
Commentary, and a Revised English Translation. 8vo.
GALATIANS. 8s. 6d. PHILIPPIANS, COLOSSIANS, AND
EPHESIANS. 8*. 6d. PHILEMON. los. >d,
THESSALONIANS. ?s. 6d.
PASTORAL EPISTLES. ios. 6d.
HISTORICAL LECTURES ON THE LIFE OF OUR LORD
JESUS CHRIST. 8vo. 12s.
ENGLISH (THE) CATHOLICS VADE MECUM : a Short
Manual of General Devotion. Compiled by a PRIEST, yimo. T.S.
Epochs of Churcli History. Edited by Right Hon. and Right
Rev. MANDELL CREIGHTON, D.D., Lord Bishop of
London. Small 8vo. is. 6d. each.
THE ENGLISH CHURCH IN
OTHER LANDS. By the Rev. H. W.
TUCKER, M.A.
THE HISTORY OF THE REFOR-
MATION IN ENGLAND. By the
Rev. GBD. G. PERRY, M.A.
THE CHURCH OF THE EARLY
FATHERS. By the Rev. ALFRED
PLUMMER, D.D.
THE EVANGELICAL REVIVAL IN
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
By the Rev. J. H. OVERTON, D.D.
THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.
By the Hon. G. C. BRODRICK, D.C.L.
THE UNIVERSITY OF CAM-
BRIDGE. By J. BASS MULLINGER,
M.A.
THE ENGLISH CHURCH Iff THE
MIDDLE AGES. By the Rev. W.
HUNT, M.A.
THE CHURCH AND THE
EASTERN EMPIRE. By the Rev.
H. F. TOZER, M.A.
THE CHURCH AND THE ROMAN
EMPIRE. By the Rev. A. CARR, M.A.
THE CHURCH AND THE PURI-
TANS, 1570-1660. By HENRY OFFLEY
WAKEMAN, M.A.
HILDEBRAND AND HIS TIMES.
By the Rev. W. R. W. STEPHENS, M.A.
THE POPES AND THE HOHEN-
STAUFEN. By UGO BALZANI.
THE COUNTER REFORMATION.
By ADOLPHUS WILLIAM WARD, Litt. D.
WYCLIFFE AND MOVEMENTS
FOR REFORM. By REGINALD L.
POOLE, M.A.
THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY. By
H. M. GWATKIN, M.A.
EUCHARISTIC MANUAL (THE). Consisting of Instructions
and Devotions for the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. From various
sources, yzmo. cloth gilt, red edges, is. Cheap Edition, limp cloth, qd.
Farrar. Works by FREDERICK W. FARRAR, D.D., Dean of
Canterbury.
THE BIBLE : Its Meaning and Supremacy. 8vo. 155.
ALLEGORIES.' With 25 Illustrations by AMELIA BAUERLE. Crown
8vo. 6s.
CONTENTS. The Life Story of Aner The Choice The Fortunes of a
Royal House The Basilisk and the Leopard.
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.
Fosbery. Works edited by the Rev. THOMAS VINCENT FOSBERY,
M. A., sometime Vicar of St. Giles's, Reading.
VOICES OF COMFORT. Cheap Edition. Small 8vo. y. 6d.
The Larger Edition (js. 6d.) may still be had.
HYMNS AND POEMS FOR THE SICK AND SUFFERING. In
connection with the Service for the Visitation of the Sick. Selected
from Various Authors. Small 8vo. y. 6d.
Geikie. Works by J. CUNNINGHAM GEIKIE, D.D., LL.D., late
Vicar of St. Martin-at-Palace, Norwich.
HOURS WITH THE BIBLE : the Scriptures in the Light of Modern
Discovery and Knowledge. New Edition, largely rewritten. Com-
plete in Twelve Volumes. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. each.
OLD TESTAMENT.
In Six Volumes. Sold separately. y. 6d. each.
CREATION TO THE PATRIARCHS.
With a Map and Illustrations.
MOSES TO JUDGES. With a Map
and Illustrations.
SAMSON TO SOLOMON. With a
Map and Illustrations.
REHOBOAM TO HEZEKIAH. With
Illustrations.
MANASSEH TO ZEDEKIAH. With
the Contemporary Prophets. With
a Map and Illustrations.
EXILE TO MALACHI. With the
Contemporary Prophets. With
Illustrations.
NEW TESTAMENT.
In Six Volumes. Sold separately, y. 6d. each.
THE GOSPELS. With a Map and
Illustrations.
LIFE AND WORDS OF CHRIST.
With Map. 2 vols.
LIFE AND EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL.
With Maps and Illustrations.
2 vols.
ST. PETER TO REVELATION. With
29 Illustrations.
LIFE AND WORDS OF CHRIST.
Cabinet Edition. With Map. 2 vols. Post 8vo. iaj.
Cheap Edition, without the Notes, i vol. 8vo. 55.
A SHORT LIFE OF CHRIST. With numerous Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d. ; gilt edges, 45. 6</.
OLD TESTAMENT CHARACTERS. With many Illustrations.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
LANDMARKS OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. Crown 8vo.
y.6d.
THE ENGLISH REFORMATION. Crown Bvo. y. 6<t.
\continued.
8 A SELECTION OF WORKS
Geikie. Works by J. CUNNINGHAM GEIKIE, D.D., LL.D., late
Vicar of St. Martin-at-Palace, Norwich continued.
ENTERING ON LIFE. A Book for Young Men. Crown 8vo. 21. 6d.
THE PRECIOUS PROMISES. Crown 8vo. zs.
GOLD DUST : a Collection of Golden Counsels for the Sancti-
fication of Daily Life. Translated and abridged from the French by
E.L.E.E. Edited by CHARLOTTE M. YONGE. Parts I. II. III.
Small Pocket Volumes. Cloth, gilt, each. is. Parts I. and II. in One
Volume, is. 6d. Parts I., II., and III. in One Volume. zs.
%* The two first parts in One Volume, large type, iStno. clot A, gilt. zs. 6d.
Parts I. II. and III. are also supplied, bound in white cloth, with red
edges, in box, price 35.
Gore. Works by the Rev. CHARLES GORE, M.A., D.D., Canon
of Westminster.
THE MINISTRY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 8vo. los. 6d.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
GREAT TRUTHS OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
Edited by the Rev. W. U. RICHARDS. Small 8vt>. zs.
Hall. Works by the Right Rev. A. C. A. HALL, D.D., Bishop
of Vermont.
THE VIRGIN MOTHER: Retreat Addresses on the Life of the
Blessed Virgin Mary as told in the Gospels. With an appended
Essay on the Virgin Birth of our Lord. Crown 8vo. 4*. 6d.
CHRIST'S TEMPTATION AND OURS. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
Harrison. Works by the Rev. ALEXANDER J. HARRISON, B.D.,
Lecturer of the Christian Evidence Society.
PROBLEMS OF CHRISTIANITY AND SCEPTICISM. CrownZvo.
7*. 6d.
THE CHURCH IN RELATION TO SCEPTICS : a Conversational
Guide to Evidential Work. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE REPOSE OF FAITH, IN VIEW OF PRESENT DAY DIFFI-
CULTIES. Crown 8vo. ^s. 6d.
Hatch. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE EARLY
CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. Being the Bampton Lectures for 1880.
By EDWIN HATCH, M.A., D.D., late Reader in Ecclesiastical History
in the University of Oxford. 8vo. y.
Heygate. THE MANUAL : a Book of Devotion. Adapted for
General Use. By the Rev. W. E. HEYGATE, M.A., Rector of Brigh-
stone. i8mo. cloth limp, is. ; boards, is. 3< Cheap Edition, 6d.
Small 8vo. Large Type, is. 6d.
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.
Holland. Works by the Rev. HENRY SCOTT HOLLAND, M.A.,
Canon and Precentor of St. Paul's.
GOD'S CITY AND THE COMING OF THE KINGDOM. Cr. 8vo.
35. 6d.
PLEAS AND CLAIMS FOR CHRIST. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
CREED AND CHARACTER : Sermons. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6d.
ON BEHALF OF BELIEF. Sermons. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
CHRIST OR ECCLESIASTES. Sermons. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d.
LOGIC AND LIFE, with other Sermons. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
Hollings. Works by the Rev. G. S. HOLLINGS, Mission Priest of
the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley, Oxford.
THE HEAVENLY STAIR ; or, A Ladder of the Love of God for Sinners.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
PORTA REGALIS ; or, Considerations on Prayer. Crown 8vo. limp cloth,
is. 6d. net ; cloth boards, zs. net.
MEDITATIONS ON THE DIVINE LIFE, THE BLESSED SACRA-
MENT, AND THE TRANSFIGURATION. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE SPIRITUAL LIFE. Suggested by
Passages in the Collects for the Sundays in Lent. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d.
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE WISDOM OF GOD. Crown 8vo. 4*.
PARADOXES OF THE LOVE OF GOD, especially as they are seen in
the way of the Evangelical Counsels. Crown 8vo. 45.
ONE BORN OF THE SPIRIT ; or, the Unification of our Life in God.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
Hutchings. Works by the Ven. W. H. HUTCHINGS, M.A. Arch-
deacon of Cleveland, Canon of York, Rector of Kirby
Misperton, and Rural Dean of Malton.
SERMON SKETCHES from some of the Sunday Lessons throughout
the Church's Year. Vols. 1 and II. Crown 8vo. 55. each.
THE LIFE OF PRAYER : a Course of Lectures delivered in All Saints'
Church, Margaret Street, during Lent. Crown 8vo. 4*. 6d.
THE PERSON AND WORK OF THE HOLY GHOST : a Doctrinal
and Devotional Treatise. Crown 8vo. 4*. 6d.
SOME ASPECTS OF THE CROSS. Crown 8vo. 4*. 6d.
THE MYSTERY OF THE TEMPTATION. Lent Lectures delivered at
St. Mary Magdalene, Paddington. Crown 8vo. 4*. 6d.
A2
io A SELECTION OF WORKS
Hutton. THE CHURCH OF THE SIXTH CENTURY.
Six Chapters in Ecclesiastical History. By WILLIAM HOLDEN
HUTTON, B.D., Birkbeck Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History, Trinity
College, Cambridge. With n Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 6s.
INHERITANCE OF THE SAINTS ; or, Thoughts on the
Communion of Saints and the Life of the World to come. Col-
lected chiefly from English Writers by L. P. With a Preface by the
Rev. HENRY SCOTT HOLLAND, M.A. Seventh Edition. Crown 8vo.
js. 6d.
Jameson. Works by Mrs. JAMESON.
SACRED AND LEGENDARY ART, containing Legends of the Angels
and Archangels, the Evangelists* the Apostles. With 19 Etchings and
187 Woodcuts. 2 voh. 8vo. zos. net.
LEGENDS OF THE MONASTIC ORDERS, as represented in the
Fine Arts. With n Etchings and 88 Woodcuts. 8vo. los. net.
LEGENDS OF THE MADONNA, OR BLESSED VIRGIN MARY.
With 27 Etchings and 165 Woodcuts. 8vo. los. net.
THE HISTORY OF OUR LORD, as exemplified in Works of Art.
Commenced by the late Mrs. JAMESON ; continued and completed by
LADY EASTLAKE. With 31 Etchings and 281 Woodcuts. 2 Vols.
8vo. 2os. net.
Jennings. ECCLES I A ANGLICAN A. A History of the
Church of Christ in England from the Earliest to the Present Times.
By the Rev. ARTHUR CHARLES JENNINGS, M.A. Crown 8vo. 71. 6d.
Jokes. Works by ANDREW JUKES.
THE NEW MAN AND THE ETERNAL LIFE. Notes on the
Reiterated Amens of the Son of God. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE NAMES OF GOD IN HOLY SCRIPTURE : a Revelation of
His Nature and Relationships. Crown 8vo. $s. 6d.
THE TYPES OF GENESIS. Crown 8vo. 7 s. 6d.
THE SECOND DEATH AND THE RESTITUTION OF ALL
THINGS. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE ORDER AND CONNEXION OF THE CHURCH'S TEACH-
ING, as set forth in the arrangement of the Epistles and Gospels
throughout the Year. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
THE CHRISTIAN HOME. Crown too. y. 6d.
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.
it
Knox Little. Works by W. J. KNOX LITTLE, M.A., Canon
Residentiary of Worcester, and Vicar of Hoar Cross.
THE HOPES AND, DECISIONS OF THE PASSION OF OUR
MOST HOLY REDEEMER. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d.
CHARACTERISTICS AND MOTIVES OF THE CHRISTIAN
LIFE. Ten Sermons preached in Manchester Cathedral, in Lent and
Advent. Crown 8vo. zs, 6d.
SERMONS PREACHED FOR THE MOST PART IN MANCHES-
TER. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE MYSTERY OF THE PASSION OF OUR MOST HOLY
REDEEMER. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d.
THE WITNESS OF THE PASSION OF OUR MOST HOLY
REDEEMER. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d.
THE LIGHT OF LIFE. Sermons preached on Various Occasions.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
SUNLIGHT AND SHADOW IN THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.
Sermons preached for the most part in America. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
Lear. Works by, and Edited by, H. L. SIDNEY LEAR.
FOR DAYS AND YEARS. A book containing a Text, Short Reading,
and Hymn for Every Day in the Church's Year. i6mo. zs. 6d. Also a
Cheap Edition, ^zmo. is. ; or cloth gilt, is. 6d. ; or with red borders, zs. 6d.
FIVE MINUTES. Daily Readings of Poetry. i6mo. y. 6d. Also a
Cheap Edition, yzmo. is.; or cloth gilt, is. 6d.
WEARINESS. A Book for the Languid and Lonely. Large Type.
Small 8vo. <$s.
JOY: A FRAGMENT. With a slight sketch of the Author's life. Small
8vo. zs. 6d.
CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHIES.
MADAME LOUISE DE FRANCE,
Daughter of Louis xv., known
also as the Mother Te"rese de
St. Augustin.
A DOMINICAN ARTIST : a Sketch of
the Life of the Rev. Pere Besson,
of the Order of St. Dominic.
HENRI PERREYVE. By PERE
GRATRY.
ST. FRANCIS DE SALES, Bishop and
Prince of Geneva.
Nine Voh. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. each.
THE REVIVAL OF PRIESTLY LIFE
IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
IN FRANCE.
A CHRISTIAN PAINTER OF THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY.
BOSSUET AND HIS CONTEMPORA-
RIES.
FENELON, ARCHBISHOP OF CAM-
BRAI.
HENRI DOMINIQUE LACORDAIRE.
{continued.
A SELECTION OF WORKS
Lear. Works by, and Edited by, H. L. SIDNEY LEAR
continued,
DEVOTIONAL WORKS. Edited by H. L. SIDNEY LEAR. New and
Uniform Editions. Nine Vols. i6mo. ss. 6d. each.
FENELON'S SPIRITUAL LETTERS TO
MEN.
FENELON'S SPIRITUAL LETTERS TO
WOMEN.
A SELECTION FROM THE SPIRITUAL
LETTERS OF ST. FRANCIS DE
SALES. Also Cheap Edition, yzmo,
6d. cloth limp ; is. cloth boards.
THE SPIRIT OF ST. FRANCIS DE
SALES.
THE HIDDEN LIFE OF THE SOUL.
THE LIGHT OF THE CONSCIENCE.
Also Cheap Edition, yzmo, 6d.
cloth limp ; and is. cloth boards.
SELF-RENUNCIATION. From the
French.
ST. FRANCIS DE SALES' OF THE
LOVE OF GOD.
SELECTIONS FROM PASCAL'S
' THOUGHTS.'
Liddon. Works by HENRY PARRY LIDDON, D.D., D.C.L.,LL.D.
LIFE OF EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, D.D. By HENRY PARRY
LIDDON, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D. Edited and prepared for publication
by the Rev. J. O. JOHNSTON, M.A., Principal of the Theological
College, and Vicar of Cuddesdon, Oxford; the Rev. R. J. WILSON,
D.D., late Warden of Keble College; and the Rev. W. C. E.
NEWBOLT, M. A., Canon and Chancellor of St. Paul's. With Portraits
and Illustrations. Four Vols. 8vo. Vols. I. and II., 36*. Vol. III.,
i8j. Vol. IV. 185.
SERMONS ON SOME WORDS OF ST. PAUL. Crown 8vo. ss.
SERMONS PREACHED ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS, 1860-1889.
Crown 8vo. s s -
EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS OF ST. PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE
TO TIMOTHY. 8vo. 75. 6d.
CLERICAL LIFE AND WORK : Sermons. Crown 8vo. $ s -
ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES : Lectures on Buddhism Lectures on the
Life of St. Paul Papers on Dante. Crown 8vo. $s.
EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS OF ST. PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE
TO TIMOTHY. 8vo. 7 s. 6d.
EXPLANATORY ANALYSIS OF PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS. 8w>. 14*.
SERMONS ON OLD TESTAMENT SUBJECTS. Crown 8vo. y.
SERMONS ON SOME WORDS OF CHRIST. Crown 8vo. ss.
THE DIVINITY OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST.
Being the Bampton Lectures for 1866. Crown 8vo. s 1 -
ADVENT IN ST. PAUL'S. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. each.
Cheap Edition in one Volume. Crown 8vo. 5*.
CHRISTMASTIDE IN ST. PAUL'S. Crown 8vo. y.
PASSIONTIDE SERMONS. Crown &vo. ss.
[continued.
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 13
Liddon. Works by HENRY PARRY LIDDON, D.D., D.C.L.,
LL. D. continued.
EASTER IN ST. PAUL'S. Sermons bearing chiefly on the Resurrec-
tion of our Lord. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. y. f>d. each. Cheap
Edition in one Volume. Crown 8vo. y.
SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF
OXFORD. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. y. 6d. each. Cheap Edition in
one Volume. Crown 8vo. 5*.
THE MAGNIFICAT. Sermons in St. Paul's. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d.
SOME ELEMENTS OF RELIGION. Lent Lectures. Small 8vo.
2s. 6d. \The Crown 8vo. Edition (5^.) may still be had.]
SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
MAXIMS AND GLEANINGS. Crown i6mo. is.
Luckock. Works by HERBERT MORTIMER LUCKOCK, D.D.
Dean of Lichfield.
THE HISTORY OF MARRIAGE, JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN, IN
RELATION TO DIVORCE AND CERTAIN FORBIDDEN
DEGREES. Crown 8vo. 6s.
AFTER DEATH. An Examination of the Testimony of Primitive
Times respecting the State of the Faithful Dead, and their Relationship
to the Living. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE INTERMEDIATE STATE BETWEEN DEATH AND
JUDGMENT. Being a Sequel to After Death. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
FOOTPRINTS OF THE SON OF MAN, as traced by St. Mark. Being
Eighty Portions for Private Study, Family Reading, and Instruction
in Church. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
FOOTPRINTS OF THE APOSTLES, as traced by St. Luke in the
Acts. Being Sixty Portions for Private Study, and Instruction in
Church. A Sequel to ' Footprints of the Son of Man, as traced by
St. Mark.' Two Vols. Crown 8vo. izr.
THE DIVINE LITURGY. Being the Order for Holy Communion,
Historically, Doctrinally, and Devotionally set forth, in Fifty Portions.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON
PRAYER. The Anglican Reform The Puritan Innovations The
Elizabethan Reaction The Caroline Settlement. With Appendices.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE BISHOPS IN THE TOWER. A Record of Stirring Events
affecting the Church and Nonconformists from the Restoration to the
Revolution. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
LYRA GERMAN ICA. Hymns translated from the German by
CATHERINE WINKWORTH. Small 8vo. .
14 A SELECTION OF WORKS
MacColL Works by the Rev. MALCOLM MACCOLL, M.A., Canon
Residentiary of Ripon.
CHRISTIANITY IN RELATION TO SCIENCE AND MORALS.
Crown Svo. 6s.
LIFE HERE AND HEREAFTER : Sermons. Crown Svo. 7 s. 6d.
Mason. Works by A. J. MASON, D.D., Lady Margaret Professor
of Divinity in the University of Cambridge and Canon of Canterbury.
THE CONDITIONS OF OUR LORD'S LIFE UPON EARTH.
Being the Bishop Paddock Lectures, 1896. To which is prefixed part
of a First Professorfal Lecture at Cambridge. Crown 8vo. 55.
THE PRINCIPLES OF ECCLESIASTICAL UNITY. Four Lectures
delivered in St. Asaph Cathedral. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL. A Manual of Christian Doctrine.
Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. Cheap Edition. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE RELATION OF CONFIRMATION TO BAPTISM. As taught
in Holy Scripture and the Fathers. Crown 8vo. js. 6d.
Maturin. Works by the Rev. B. W. MATURIN, sometime Mission
Priest of the Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley.
SOME PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES OF THE SPIRITUAL
LIFE. Crown 8vo. 4*. 6d.
PRACTICAL STUDIES ON THE PARABLES OF OUR LORD.
Crown Svo. 5*.
Medd. THE PRIEST TO THE ALTAR ; or, Aids to the
Devout Celebration of Holy Communion, chiefly after the Ancient
English Use of Sarum. By PETER GOLDSMITH MEDD, M.A., Canon
of St. Alban's. Fourth Edition, revised and enlarged. Royal 8vo,
*$*
Mortimer. Works by the Rev. A. G. MORTIMER, D.D., Rector
of St. Mark's, Philadelphia.
JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION :
Thirty Addresses for Good Friday and
Easter. Crown Svo. 5*.
CATHOLIC FAITH AND PRAC-
TICE: A Manual of Theological
Instruction for Confirmation and First
Communion. Crown Svo. js. 6d.
HELPS TO MEDITATION : Sketches
for Every Day in the Year.
Vol. i. ADVENT to TRINITY. Svo. ^s. 6d.
Vol. ii. TRINITY to ADVENT. Svo.js.6d.
STORIES FROM GENESIS : Sermons
for Children. Crown Svo. 4*.
THE LAWS OF HAPPINESS; or,
The Beatitudes as teaching our Duty
to God, Self, and our Neighbour.
iSmo. at.
THE LAWS OF PENITENCE: Ad-
dresses on the Words of our Lord from
the Cross. i6mo. is. 6d.
SERMONS IN MINIATURE FOR
EXTEMPORE PREACHERS :
Sketches for Every Sunday and Holy
Day of the Christian Year. Crown
Svo. 6s.
NOTES ON THE SEVEN PENI-
TENTIAL PSALMS, chiefly from
Patristic Sources. Fcp. Svo. js. 6d.
THE SEVEN LAST WORDS OF
OUR MOST HOLY REDEEMER:
with Meditations on some Scenes in
His Passion. Crown Svo. $s.
LEARN OF JESUS CHRIST TO
DIE : Addresses on the Words of our
Lord from the Cross, taken as Teach-
ing the way of Preparation for Death.
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.
Mozley. Works by J. B. MOZLEY, D.D., late Canon of Christ
Church, and Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford.
ESSAYS, HISTORICAL AND THEO-
LOGICAL. Two Volt. Bva. 24*.
EIGHT LECTURES ON MIRACLES.
Being the Bampton Lectures for 1865.
Crcnvn &vo. $s. 6d, *
RULING IDEAS IN EARLY AGES
AND THEIR RELATION TO
OLD TESTAMENT FAITH.
8vo. 6s.
SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE
THE UNIVERSITY OF OX-
FORD, and on Various Occasions.
Crown &vo. y. &
SERMONS, PAROCHIAL AND
OCCASIONAL. CrownSvo. 3*. 6<
A REVIEW OF THE BAPTISMAL
CONTROVERSY. Crown. Svo.
Newbolt Works by the Rev. W. C. E. NEWBOLT, M.A., Canon
and Chancellor of St. Paul's Cathedral.
PRIESTLY IDEALS ; being a Course of Practical Lectures delivered in
St Paul's Cathedral to ' Our Society ' and other Clergy, in Lent, 1898.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE GOSPEL OF EXPERIENCE ; or, the Witness of Human Life
to the truth of Revelation. Being the Boyle Lectures for 1895.
Crown 8vo. 55.
COUNSELS OF FAITH AND PRACTICE: being Sermons preached
on various occasions. New and Enlarged Edition. Crown 8vo. e,s.
SPECULUM SACERDOTUM ; or, the Divine Model of the Priestly
Life. Crown 8vo. js. 6d.
THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT. Being Ten Addresses bearing on
the Spiritual Life. Crown 8vo. zs. 6d.
THE MAN OF GOD. Small Zvo. is. 6d.
THE PRAYER BOOK : Its Voice and Teaching. Crown 8ve. as. 6<t.
Newman. Works by JOHN HENRY NEWMAN, B.D., sometime
Vicar of St. Mary's, Oxford.
LETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE OF JOHN HENRY NEW-
MAN DURING HIS LIFE IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH. With
a brief Autobiography. Edited, at Cardinal Newman's request, by
ANNE MOZLEY. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. js.
PAROCHIAL AND PLAIN SERMONS. Eight Vols. Cabinet Edition.
Crown 8vo. $s. each. Cheaper Edition, y. 6d. each.
SELECTION, ADAPTED TO THE SEASONS OF THE ECCLE-
SIASTICAL YEAR, from the ' Parochial and Plain Sermons,'
Cabinet Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. Cheaper Edition, y. 6d.
FIFTEEN SERMONS PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY
OF OXFORD Cabinet Edition. Crown 8vo. $s. Cheaper Edition,
y. 6d.
SERMONS BEARING UPON SUBJECTS OF THE DAY. Cabinet
Edition. Crown 8vo. 5*. Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
LECTURES ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION. Cabinet
Edition. Crown 8vo. 5.1. Cheaper Edition, y. 6d.
** A Complete List of Cardinal Newman's Works can be had on Application.
16 A SELECTION OF WORKS
Osborne. Works by EDWARD OSBORNE, Mission Priest of the
Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley, Oxford.
THE CHILDREN'S SAVIOUR. Instructions to Children on the Life
of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Illustrated. i6mo. zs. 6d.
THE SAVIOUR KING. Instructions to Children on Old Testament
Types and Illustrations of the Life of Christ. Illustrated. i6mo. zs. 6d.
THE CHILDREN'S FAITH. Instructions to Children on the Apostles'
Creed. Illustrated. i6mo. zs. 6d.
Ottley. ASPECTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: being the
Bampton Lectures for 1897. By ROBERT LAWRENCE OTTLEY, M.A.,
Vicar of Winterbourne Bassett, Wilts ; sometime Principal of the
Pusey House. 8vo. i6s.
OUTLINES OF CHURCH TEACHING : a Series of Instruc-
tions for the Sundays and chief Holy Days of the Christian Year. For
the Use of Teachers. By C. C. G. With Preface by the Very Rev.
FRANCIS PAGET, D.D., Dean of Christ Church, Oxford. Crown 8vo.
y. 6d.
Ozenden. Works by the Right Rev. ASHTON OXENDEN,
sometime Bishop of Montreal.
PLAIN SERMONS, to which is prefixed a Memorial Portrait. Crown
Svo. $s.
PEACE AND ITS HINDRANCES. Crown Svo. is. sewed ; zs. cloth.
THE PATHWAY OF SAFETY ; or, Counsel to the Awakened. Fcap.
Svo, large type. zs. 6d. Cheap Edition. Small type, limp, is.
THE EARNEST COMMUNICANT. New Red Rubric Edition.
%zmo, cloth, zs. Common Edition, yzmo. is.
OUR CHURCH AND HER SERVICES. Fcap. Svo. zs. 6d.
FAMILY PRAYERS FOR FOUR WEEKS. First Series. Fcap. Svo.
zs. 6d. Second Series. Fcap. Svo. zs. 6d.
LARGE TYPE EDITION. Two Series in one Volume, Crown Svo. 6s.
COTTAGE SERMONS ; or, Plain Words to the Poor. Fcap. Svo. zs. 6d.
THOUGHTS FOR HOLY WEEK. i6mo, cloth, is. 6d.
DECISION. iSmo. is. 6d.
THE HOME BEYOND ; or, A Happy Old Age. Fcap. Svo. is. 6d.
THE LABOURING MAN'S BOOK. iSmo, large type, cloth, is. 6d.
Oxenham. THE VALIDITY OF PAPAL CLAIMS : Lectures
delivered in Rome. By F. NUTCOMBE OXENHAM, D.D., English
Chaplain at Rome. With a Letter by His Grace the ARCHBISHOP OF
YORK. Crown Svo. zs. 6d.
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 17
Paget. Works by FRANCIS PAGET, D.D., Dean of Christ Church.
STUDIES IN THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER : Sermons. With an
Introductory Essay. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
THE SPIRIT OF DISCIPLINE : Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
FACULTIES AND DIFFICULTIES FOR BELIEF AND DIS-
BELIEF. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
THE HALLOWING OF WORK. Addresses given at Eton, January
16-18, 1888. Small 8vo. zs.
Percival. SOME HELPS FOR SCHOOL LIFE. Sermons
preached at Clifton College, 1862-1879. ByJ. PERCIVAL, D.D., LL.D.,
Lord Bishop of Hereford. New Edition, with New Preface. Crown
8vo. y- &d'
Percival. THE INVOCATION OF SAINTS. Treated Theo-
logically and Historically. By HENRY R. PERCIVAL, M.A., D.D.,
Author of 'A Digest of Theology,' 'The Doctrine of the Episcopal
Church,' etc. Crown 8vo. 5*.
POCKET MANUAL OF PRAYERS FOR THE HOURS,
ETC. With the Collects from the Prayer Book. Royal 32*80. is.
Powell. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE INCARNATION.
With especial Reference to the Relation between our Lord's Divine
Omniscience and His Human Consciousness. By the Rev. H. C.
POWELL, M.A. of Oriel College, Oxford ; Rector of Wylye and Pre-
bendary of Salisbury Cathedral. 8vo. i6s.
PRACTICAL REFLECTIONS. By a CLERGYMAN. With
Prefaces by H. P. LIDDON, D.D., D.C.L., and the LORD BISHOP OP
LINCOLN. Crown %vo.
THE BOOK OF GENESIS.
THE PSALMS. 55.
ISAIAH. 4*. 6d.
THE MINOR PROPHETS. 45. 6d.
THE HOLY GOSPELS. 4*. 6d.
ACTS TO REVELATIONS. 6s.
PRIEST'S (THE) PRAYER BOOK. Containing Private
Prayers and Intercessions ; Occasional, School, and Parochial Offices ;
Offices for the Visitation of the Sick, with Notes, Readings, Collects,
Hymns, Litanies, etc. With a brief Pontifical. By the late Rev. R. F.
LITTLEDALE, LL.D., D.C.L., and Rev. J. EDWARD VAux, M.A.,
F.S.A. New Edition, Revised, yoth Thousand. Post 8vo. 6s. 6d.
Pullan. LECTURES ON RELIGION. By the Rev. LEIGHTON
PULLAN, M.A., Fellow of St. John's College, Lecturer in Theology at
Oriel and Queen's Colleges, Oxford. Crown 8vo. 6s.
18 A SELECTION OF WORKS
Pusey. LIFE OF EDWARD BOUVERIE PUSEY, D.D.
By HENRY PARRY LIDDON, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D. Edited and pre-
pared for publication by the Rev. J. O. JOHNSTON, M.A., Principal
of the Theological College, and Vicar of Cuddesdon, Oxford ; the
Rev. R. J. WILSON, D.D., late Warden of Keble College; and
the Rev. W. C. E. NEWBOLT, M.A., Canon and Chancellor of St.
Paul's. With Portraits and Illustrations. Four Vols. 8vo. Vols, I.
and //..36s. Vol.III.,i8s. Vol. IV. i8s.
Randolph. Works by B. W. RANDOLPH, M.A., Principal of the
Theological College and Hon. Canon of Ely.
THE THRESHOLD OF THE SANCTUARY: being Short Chapters
on the Inner Preparation for the Priesthood. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE LAW OF SINAI : being Devotional Addresses on the Ten Com-
mandments delivered to Ordinands. Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
Rede. Works by WYLLYS REDE, D.D., Rector of the Church
of the Incarnation, and Canon of the Cathedral, Atalanta,
Georgia.
STRIVING FOR THE MASTERY: Daily Lessons for Lent. Cr. 8vo.
5*.
THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS : a Lost Link in the Chain of the
Church's Creed. With a Preface by LORD HALIFAX. Crown 8vo.
3*. 6d.
Reynolds. THE SUPERNATURAL IN NATURE: A Veri-
fication by Free Use of Science. By JOSEPH WILLIAM REYNOLDS,
M.A., Past President of Sion College, Prebendary of St. Paul's
Cathedral. New and Cheaper Edition, Revised. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6d.
Sanday. INSPIRATION : Eight Lectures on the Early His-
tory and Origin of the Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration. Being the
Bampton Lectures for 1893. By W. SANDAY, D.D., Margaret Pro-
fessor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. New and
Cheaper Edition, with New Preface. 8vo. 75. 6d.
Scudamore. STEPS TO THE ALTAR : a Manual of Devotion
for the Blessed Eucharist. By the Rev. W. E. SCUDAMORE, M.A.
Royal yzmo. is.
On toned paper, with red rubrics, zs: The same, with Collects, Epistles, and
Gospels, 2s. 6d ; Demy i8mo. cloth, is; Demy i8mo. cloth, large type, is. yl\
Imperial yzmo. limp cloth, 6d.
Simpson. THE CHURCH AND THE BIBLE. By the Rev.
W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, M.A., Vicar of St. Mark's, Regent's Park.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
IN THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. rg
Strong. CHRISTIAN ETHICS : being the Bampton Lectures
for 1895. By THOMAS B. STRONG, M.A., Student of Christ Church,
Oxford, and Examining Chaplain to the Lord Bishop of Durham.
New and Cheaper Edition. Svo. js. 6d.
Tee. THE SANCTUARY OF SUFFERING. By ELEANOR
TEE, Author of 'This Everyday Life,' etc. With a Preface by the
Rev. J. P. F. DAVIDSON, M.A., Vicar of St. Matthias', Earl's Court;
President of the ' Guild of All Souls.' Crown Svo. "js. 6d.
Williams. Works by the Rev. ISAAC WILLIAMS, B.D.
A DEVOTIONAL COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL NARRA-
TIVE. Eight Vols. Crown Svo. y. each.
THOUGHTS ON THE STUDY OF THE
HOLY GOSPELS.
A HARMONY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
OUR LORD'S NATIVITY.
OUR LORD'S MINISTRY (Second Year).
OUR LORD'S MINISTRY (Third Year).
THE HOLY WEEK.
OUR LORD'S PASSION.
OUR LORD'S RESURRECTION.
FEMALE CHARACTERS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. A Series of
Sermons. Crown Svo. y.
THE CHARACTERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Crown Svo. y.
THE APOCALYPSE. With Notes and Reflections. Crown Svo. y.
SERMONS ON THE EPISTLES AND GOSPELS FOR THE SUN-
DAYS AND HOLY DAYS. Two Voh. Crown Svo. $r. each.
PLAIN SERMONS ON CATECHISM. Two Vols. Cr. Svo. y. each.
Wilson. THOUGHTS ON CONFIRMATION. By Rev. R.
J. WILSON, D. D. , late Warden of Keble College. i6mo. is. 6d.
Wirgman. THE DOCTRINE OF CONFIRMATION CON-
SIDERED IN RELATION TO HOLY BAPTISM AS A SACRA-
MENTAL ORDINANCE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:
with a Preliminary Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Holy
Spirit. By A. THEODORE WIRGMAN, B.D., D.C.L., Vice-Provost of
St. Mary's Collegiate Church, Port Elizabeth, South Africa. Cr. Svo.
js. 6d.
Wordsworth. Works by CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D.,
sometime Bishop of Lincoln.
THE HOLY BIBLE (the Old Testament). With Notes, Introductions,
and Index. Imperial Svo.
Vol. I. THE PENTATEUCH. 25*. Vol. II. JOSHUA TO SAMUEL. 15*.
Vol. III. KINGS to ESTHER. 155. Vol. IV. JOB TO SONG OF
SOLOMON, zy. Vol. V. ISAIAH TO EZEKIEL. 255. Vol. VI.
DANIEL, MINOR PROPHETS, and Index. jy.
Also supplied in 12 Parts. Sold separately.
{continued*
20 A SELECTION OF THEOLOGICAL WORKS.
Wordsworth. Works by CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, D.D.,
sometime Bishop of Lincoln continued.
THE NEW TESTAMENT, in the Original Greek. With Notes, Intro-
ductions, and Indices. Imperial 8vo.
Vol. I. GOSPELS AND ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 23*. Vol. II.
EPISTLES, APOCALYPSE, and Indices. 37*.
Also supplied in 4 Parts. Sold separately.
LECTURES ON INSPIRATION OF THE BIBLE. Small 8vo.
is. 6d. cloth, is. sewed.
A CHURCH HISTORY TO A.D. 451. Four Vols. Crown 8vo.
Vol. I. To THE COUNCIL OF NIC^A, A.D. 325. 8.r. 6d. Vol. II.
FROM THE COUNCIL OF NIC^A TO THAT OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
6s. Vol. III. CONTINUATION. 6s. Vol. IV. CONCLUSION, To
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, A.D. 451. 6s.
THEOPHILUS ANGLICANUS: a Manual of Instruction on the
Church and the Anglican Branch of it. izmo. 2s. 6d.
ELEMENTS OF INSTRUCTION ON THE CHURCH. i6to.
is. cloth. 6d. sewed.
ON UNION WITH ROME. Small 8vo. is. 6d. Sewed, is.
THE HOLY YEAR : Original Hymns. i6mo. zs.6d.andis. Limp,6d.
,, With Music. Edited by W. H. MONK. Square 8vo. 45. 6d.
MISCELLANIES, Literary and Religious. Three Vols. 8vo. 365.
ON THE INTERMEDIATE STATE OF THE SOUL AFTER
DEATH. 2,zmo. is.
Wordsworth. Works by JOHN WORDSWORTH, D.D., Lord
Bishop of Salisbury.
THE HOLY COMMUNION: Four Visitation Addresses. 1891.
Crown 8vo. y. 6d.
THE ONE RELIGION : Truth, Holiness, and Peace desired by the
Nations, and revealed by Jesus Christ. Eight Lectures delivered before
the University of Oxford in 1881. Second Edition. Crown ^uo. ?s. 6d.
UNIVERSITY SERMONS ON GOSPEL SUBJECTS. Sm.8vo. zs.bd.
PRAYERS FOR USE IN COLLEGE. i6mo. is.
10,000/8/98.
Printed by T. and A. CONSTABLE, Printers to Her Majesty
at the Edinburgh University Press.
/rr
i
r*2