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/wicuos rrjv tv 'AvTioxdq- irp&rov 6/j.e\iot 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\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 $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 Tioi. 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 ol Ten.fi.tiiJ.tvoi V/JLUV uerd rCiv irpoV 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 "Ee, 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' 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(cXijia, /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 6pa.vovs' 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)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.de6(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.a5e 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. 5v, a5t\(poi, tt> T 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 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 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/c6yj '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. ''EKelvr) |3e/3cua evxapiarla yyeiffdu 17 virb rbv tirlffKoirov o& avrbs firiTpty-Q ' Sirov &v a.vrj 6 twiaKOiros, ^m rt> Tr\ij6os ^crrw, & 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. Uyttaj ry eiriffKbiry Kal r

fj.a.aTOv vfj.uii> irpefffivTtpiov, rov Qtov aioi>, T<$ iiruTKbirif wj x3al 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 irpefffivrtpwv els rtiirov ffvvedpiov TWV &iroJ 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 a8eAoi>s Troi/a'Acos evepyeTeiv, eKKA7jdSia 7reju,7reiv, . . . Si' wv 7re)u,7reTC apxrjOev l^>oSiwv, Tra.rpOTra.pd8oTov WoJ v trtpuv &irop\r]9{i>Ta.s v' 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 TOI)J ticeiffe dvaicripisrTUV dde\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. $tpoi>rai dt Kal al TOVTUV u)i>a.i, ir\tjKTiKti)Tfpov Ka.6o.vrofj.ivuv rov Bkropos. (Euseb., v. 24.) Pope Nicholas I. (A.D. 858) does not hesi- tate to condemn Victor's action as follows: "Videamus Victorem papam . . . paene a totius Ecclesiae prsesulibus pertinaciae redargutum." (Coleti, ix. p. 1360.) THE PERIOD OF THE " ECCLESIA PRESSA " III troversy, as in absolute agreement with Pope Victor on the main question, but deprecating his attempt to excommunicate the adherents of Poly- crates and the Synod of Ephesus. He wrote to Victor bidding him " not to cut off whole Churches of God, which preserve the tradition of an ancient custom " (ft>? /my cnroKOTTTOt 6'Xa? eKK\rj(rla$ 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 Hr., 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$ 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 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 tirubt> tireiffav e%e\d 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\rii\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- \is diroiprjvavTWV, ical &troSoKifJ.a.ff? Ke/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 'Ai/ avOpwTrwv, Ka\ei 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 Xonrwv 'TiriffK6ir(i>v tirl T^I rov xtiporovovfjitrov Kea\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 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.aTaS 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 ^rjv 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 (. (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? vj TIVI TOiavry aqSla TOV eiria-KOTrov airoavv- aycayoi yeyevrivrai. Iva ovv TOVTO Trjv TrpeTrov7, /caXw? e^eiv eSofcev, OfOUTfOU eviavTOU icad' eKCLiTTqv CTrap^iav Sis TOV eroup crvvoSov? yiveV eTTHTKOTruov Sofy Tqv pov 1 KaOapov Trpoarfpe- prjTai TO) Oev (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.f(\ > ^ ' A ' ' *A/O' a ap^aia eurj Kpareirw TO. ev AIJVTTTW teat J\ipvt] KOI Ilej/raTToXet, wtrre TOV 'AXeai/<^oe/a9 7ri ev Ty 'Put/my eTnovcoTTft) TOVTO arvvqQes jU.r]$ TOV /UDJTpOTToXlTOV yevotTO tTT/cr/fOTro? TOV TOIOVTOV y fjieyaXrj , ev\Oy(i) OV(Tf} Kttl KUTO, KttVOVd TIKOV, Svo r] Tpeis Si oiKeiav (piXoveiKtav a KpaTeiTw t] TU>V TT\ei6ve<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/>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 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?? 7rpoTa 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>paiJ ayuTrp, TleTpov TOV cnroa'- ro'Xou Tyv fj-vrifJiriv Tf/x>/yei/ KOI ypaffivai Trapa TOV- T eVtovcoTrft) 'Pa>/AJ79, wcrre Sta TWV yeiTi>ia>vT^ 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(3eij nariv a\\ais tUKOifOfuaty eKK\t]criaV ioiK^ 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, wI> oiKeiwv (j)(avu>v eSiSa^av 01 v\a(3e(TTaToi avSpes ol rtjv Trpd "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 SiKafj.t)s, Sia TO (3a 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\avovTaToi 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 * 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. 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