a BERKELEY'S LIBRARY UNiVF.FT CAUK A, mm 3 REASONS FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE AUTHORITY HOLY ROMAN SEE. ' GETHSEMANI ABBEY, GETHSEMANI, P.O. KY. BY HENRY MAJOR, Late a Clergyman of the Frotestant Episcopal Church. ~^ — i^~ The Root and Matrix of the Catholic Church.— St. Ctprian. Whoever is united with the See of Peter is mine.— St. Jehomk. m PHILADELPHIA: PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR 1846. m : # LOAN STACK Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by HENRY MAJOR, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. m £Xitout upon this point it is unneces- sary to dwell. The testimonies which we shall pre- sently adduce from the historical documents of anti- quity, will abundantly establish all that we have un- dertaken to prove. We will, however, cite upon this point the opinion of Bramhall, an archbishop of the Anglican Church : " That St. Peter," says he, "had a fixed chair at Antioch, and after that at Rome, is a truth which no man, who giveth any credit to the ancient Fathers and councils and historiographers of the church, can either deny or well doubt of? — (Apud Brit. Critic, No. 64, p. 353.) All that now re- mains is to show by historical proof that the succeed- ing" occupants of that chair or See inherited the pre- rogatives of St. Peter as primate and head of the uni- versal church. We premise, however, that it is only a summary of the evidence that we can find space for. But we are assured that it will be more than sufficient to satisfy the candid reader who will carefully con- sider it in its combined aspect — as such proof must always be considered in order to be duly appreciated. As most Anglican divines have allowed that St. Peter enjoyed a certain primacy, so likewise they have allowed, at least many of them, that that primacy has been inherited by his successors in the Roman See. Now although their testimony upon this point falls short of the reality, yet it is useful as corroborating the following facts : 1st, that Peter was Bishop of Rome ; 2d, that his primacy was not merely personal; 3d, that that primacy was transmitted to the future oc- cupants of his See, the bishops of Rome. We shall reserve this testimony, however, until we shall have exhibited our proof from ancient authorities. We shall begin with a writer who was cotemporary with the Apostles. St. Ignatius speaks of the Roman Church as the presiding church : " Which presides" says he, "in the Roman region, being worthy of God, most comely, deservedly blessed, most celebrated," 180 SUPREMACY OP THE &c. — (Epist. to Romans.) Now although this apos- tolical bishop and martyr addressed epistles to five other churches, each of which was an episcopal See, yet not one of them is called " the church which pre- sides." It is only to the Roman Church that he gives this significant title. We see no rational way of ac- counting for this but by the fact that the Roman See was the seat of general and supreme jurisdiction. There are two or three incidental proofs which, in the order of time, should be placed here. We do not, however, insist upon them. We would merely men- tion them as indications that the authority of the Bishops of Rome was regarded at that early period pretty much as it is now by Catholics. Thus St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, resorted to Anicetus, who then filled the Roman See, to consult him upon the question respecting the celebration of Easter. — (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. Lib. 3, c. 14.) And at an earlier period than this, when violent contentions broke out in the church at Corinth, by which it was threatened with schism, the Bishop of Rome, St. Clement, wrote them a long epistle, in which he rebuked them for their dissensions and opposition to their clergy, and admonished them to return to peace and concord. In short, it was just such an epistle as the Pope would now address to a distant church under his jurisdic- tion in similar circumstances. At the close of the letter, St. Clement urges them to send back to him, v with all speed," the messengers whom he had des- patched with it, that they might acquaint him with their restoration to harmony, and that he might " re- joice" in their " good order." The interference of St. Clement is the more remarkable, inasmuch as the Apostle St. John was still living, and residing at Ephe- sus, and consequently much nearer to Corinth. But the force of the fact is increased by the circumstance, that this letter was received and ever afterwards re- garded by the Church of Corinth with more than or- dinary respect and veneration. For Eusebius informs HOLY ROMAN SEE. 181 us that Dionisus, Bishop of Corinth, wrote to Soter, Bishop of Rome, some years alter, stating that this let- ter of St. Clement's was still read in their assemblies on the Lord's Day.— (Eccl. Hist. L. 3. c. 23.) And at the same time Dionisus made mention of another fact which serves to add strength to the argument. He also tells Soter that an epistle received from him (Soter) was likewise read by the church at Corinth on the Lord's Day.— (lb.) About this period, or a little later, another circum- stance occurred which is worthy of consideration. The churches of Asia had been accustomed to cele- brate Easter at the time of the Jewish Passover, but the churches of the west on the following Sunday. Although this was no serious difference in itself, as it did not affect any doctrinal point, yet inasmuch as it caused much confusion, efforts were made to bring about a general uniformity. But the Asiatic churches persisting in their old custom, Victor, Bishop of Rome, resolved to enforce uniformity by the exercise of his authority. Accordingly, he threatened to cut them off from the communion of the church. — (Euseb. Ec. Hist.) And whether he actually pronounced a sen- tence of excommunication, or merely threatened to do so, (about which there is some uncertainty,) he plainly- showed by this course that he claimed general autho- rity throughout the whole church. The author of " True Catholic no Romanist," states that " Irenaeus rebuked Victor with just as much freedom and sharp- ness," &c. — (p. 118.) But this is a very exaggerated statement, and wholly unwarranted by the facts of the case. Eusebius merely says that Irenaeus " be- comingly admonished Victor not to cut off whole churches of God."— (Eccl. Hist. L. 5. c. 24.) Irenaeus merely endeavored to persuade Victor to tolerate this difference ; and he urges as an argument the fact that the preceding bishops of Rome had tolerated it : " Neither at any time (says he) did they cut off any merely for the sake of form." — (lb.) There is not 182 SUPREMACY OF THE the least intimation from any quarter that Yictor did not legitimately possess the authority which he threat- ened to exercise; but, on the contrary, it is virtually acknowledged by Irenaeus, and all others engaged in the controversy. It is only against the expediency of its exercise in this particular case that they objected. Irenaeus did no more than any Catholic bishop of the present day would be allowed to do in similar circum- stances. It should be remembered that the Popes have always been accustomed to consult their brethren in all questions affecting the general welfare of the church, and to act with their concurrence. It was doubtless owing to their persuasions that the threatened excom- munication of Victor was not carried into effect. And it is worthy of remark, that the judgment of Victor upon this question was confirmed 150 years after by the Council of Nice. And henceforth those who per- sisted in the Eastern usage, were accounted heretics. We shall now adduce the testimony of St. Irenaeus, who, in his youth, was under St. Polycarp, the disci- ple of St. John. Arguing against the Gnostics, he appeals to the universal teaching of the church as handed down by the Apostles through their succes- sors in the various Sees. " But since," says he, " it would be very tedious to enumerate in this work the succession of all the churches, we confound all those who in any improper manner gather together either through self-complacency or vain glory, or through blindness and perverse disposition, by pointing to the tradition of the greatest and most authoritative* church known to all, founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, and to her faith announced to men, coming down to us by the succession of bishops. For with this church, on account of the more powerful principality, it is ne- cessary that every church, that is, the faithful, who *The original literally means "most ancient," but often bears the sense above given. The Roman Church was not as old as that of Antioch. HOLY ROMAN SKI.. 183 are in every direction, should (t^rce; in which the apostolic tradition has been always preserved by those who are in every direction." — (S. Iren. L. 3, c. 3.) Surely this father could not have asserted the superior and universal authority of the Roman Church in clearer and stronger language than this. We have another witness in Tertullian, of Carthage, who flour- ished in the latter part of the second century. This writer had the misfortune, in the latter part of his life, to fall into the errors of the Montanists, who maintained that the power of remitting sins had not been trans- mitted to the successors of the Apostles. The Bishop of Rome having issued a decree condemning that sect, and declaring that penitent sinners might be admitted to pardon, Tertullian wrote a book in opposition to it. And although opposing a decree of the Bishop of Rome, he bears strong testimony to the fact, that at that early period the Bishop of Rome claimed, and was allowed to be, the highest functionary of the church. li I hear," said he, " that an edict has been published, and indeed a peremptory one, namely : the bishop of bishops, which is equivalent to the Sove- reign Pontiff, proclaims — I pardon the sins of adul- tery and fornication to such as have performed pen- ance. This is read in the church, and is proclaimed in the church? 1 — (L.de Pudic.) This testimony is so decisive, that it extorted the following admission from one of the most unyielding opponents of the Catholic Church : ** In the time of Tertullian, whose life ex- tended into the third century,* a considerable advance had plainly been made by the See of Rome in the claim of the primacy. Tertullian calls the bishop of that church the Supreme Pontiff, and dignifies him with the authoritative appellation of the bishop of bishops."— (Faber's Dif. of Rom. p. 300.) But the * Tertullian died A. D. 216. The work referred to was probably written some twenty or thirty years before. Most of his life was, of course, passed in the second century y that is, in the very century in which the Apostle St. John died. 184 SUPREMACY OF THE candid and intelligent reader will be disposed, we think, to regard this claim, set up and allowed in the very next age after the Apostles, not as a usurpation, but as the inherited prerogatives of St. Peter. It is not for a moment to be supposed that such an " ad- vance" could have been made in so short a time, and that too a time during which the Roman Church was most cruelly oppressed and persecuted by the Pagan Emperors. Besides, judging of the obvious meaning of these titles, it was not a mere " advance, but a com- plete attainment — u Popery full grown:" for higher titles than these have never in any subsequent age been applied to the Popes ; — though it is proper to re- mark that the Popes themselves have always studious- ly avoided using any such titles. Our next witness shall be St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who flourished shortly after Tertullian. We have already cited several passages from this father, in which he asserts that the church was built upon Peter ; and accordingly we find him constantly designating the Roman See as the " place of Peter," and the " Chair (or See) of Peter."* Thus, in one of his epistles, speaking of the election of Cornelius to succeed Fabian as Bishop of Rome, he says, he " was chosen when the place of Fabian, that is, the place of Peter, was vacant." (Ep. 52 ad Anton.) And again. When certain priests of Carthage, who had separated from their bishop, sought to seduce the flock into their schism, Cyprian warned his people against them in the following language : " They now offer peace who themselves have not peace ; they promise ta bring back and recall to the church them that are fallen, who themselves have left the church. There is one God and one Christ, and one church and one chair, founded by the voice of the Lord upon Peter. That any other * This is admitted by Dr. Hopkins. " That the Church of Rome," says he, "was the seat of Peter, Cyprian doubtless believed; and therefore he attaches the same importance to it that he attaches to Peter in relation to the other Apostles" — (Ch. of Rome, p. 118.) HOLY ROMAN SEE. 185 altar should be erected, or a new priesthood estab- lished besides that one altar and one priesthood, is impossible. Whoever gathers elsewhere scatters." (Ep. 40 ad Pleb.) Thus St. Cyprian argues that these priests were guilty of schism, not because they had separated from their own proper bishop, but be- cause they had separated from that " one chair" of Peter — the Roman See. This he regarded as the source and centre of ecclesiastical unity, as he still more clearly affirms in another place. Speaking of certain schismatics, who had resorted to Rome to seek the sanction of the Pope, he says, "A false bishop having been ordained for them by heretics, they ven- ture to set sail, and carry letters from schismatical and profane men, to the chair of Peter, and to the prin- cipal church, whence sacerdotal unity has arisen." (Ep. 55 ad Cornel.) This passage is so conclusive, that it forced Dr. Hopkins to make the following ac- knowledgment : " Now here we have, certainly, a be- ginning of the doctrine of the Church of Rome, show- ing to us what we anticipated when examining the evidence of Irenaeus, namely, how early the bishops of Rome endeavored to secure dominion and supre- macy." (Brit. Ref. p. 127.) But Dr. H. seems to have forgotten that the passage to which he refers, was not the language of a bishop of Rome, but of St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in Africa — a most competent witness. Here is no " endeavor," on the part of the bishop of Rome, to " secure supremacy," but only the spontaneous testimony of a bishop of a distant See to the fact of that supremacy. Faber, we have seen, ac- knowledged that a " considerable advance had plainly been made," in the days of Tertullian, a half century- earlier. But whether the bishops of Rome, at this early period, were such men as would have usurped " dominion and supremacy," let an opponent of the Catholic Church decide. " In justice, nay, with gra- titude to God, let me here say, that none of the early churches bore more consistent witness to the truth as 9* 186 SUPREMACY OF THE it is in Jesus ; that none furnishes a more honorable array of wise and holy bishops, of true confessors, and of glorious martyrs, than the early Church of Rome." (Dr. Ogilby, " I^ec. on the Ch." p. 83.) But we have other equally strong passages in Cyp- rian. In another epistle we have evidence that the sway of the Bishop of Rome was so great as to excite the jealously of the heathen emperor. Speaking of Pope Cornelius, he exclaims, " How great his virtue in sustaining the office .... to have sat fearlessly at Rome in the priestly chair, at a time when a hostile tyrant threatened the priests of God with dire torments ; when he would hear with less pain of a rival prince rising up against him, than that a priest of God was established at Rome." (Ep. 52 ad Anton.) We have still more decisive proofs in the epistles in which he details many occurrences connected with the Novatian schism. A priest of this name made a schismatical attempt to occupy the See of Peter, at the time of the election of Pope Cornelius. Having ob- tained consecration in an unlawful way, he imme- diately sent messengers into various countries to an- nounce his pretended elevation ; and not only so, he also sought by his apostles to establish rival churches " throughout all the provinces." (Ep. 52 ad Anton.) By so doing, it is plain that Novatian considered that See as possessing universal jurisdiction, else why did he attempt to institute new churches in other diocesses ? The Bishops of Africa had despatched ambassadors to Rome to ascertain the facts of the case. But in the mean time they had been careful to cling to the Ro- man See itself, as Cyprian informs Pope Cornelius in the following language: "Giving an account to all who sailed we know that we exhorted them to ac- knowledge and hold fast the root and matrix of the Catholic church" (Ep. 45, ad Corn.) This passage is illustrated by another in his " Treatise on the Unity of the Church," written on account of this very HOLY ROMAN SEE. 187 Novatian schism. Affirming the impossibility of there being more than one church, he says, " Whatever has separated from the matrix cannot by itself live and breathe, it loses the essence of being." And again : Cyprian writes to Cornelius that all doubts as to the validity of his election being removed, it was resolved that ambassadors should be sent to him from all the bishops, assuring him that they adhered to him. His language is this: "That all our colleagues approved of you and firmly held fast to your communion, that is to the unity and charity of the Catholic church" (Ep. 45, ad Corn.) St. Cyprian having received a letter from one of these bishops informing him of his rejection of Novatian and adhesion to Cornelius, sends him a reply containing the following passage : "You also write that I should forward a copy of the same letter to Cornelius, our colleague, that he might lay aside all solicitude, knowing that you communicate with him, that is, with the Catholic church." (Ep. 52, ad Anton.) These passages conclusively prove that Cyprian regarded the Roman See as the centre of unity to which all Christians must adhere, and from which none could separate without severing themselves from the one church. He speaks of union with this See and union with the Catholic church as identical. And yet again : St. Cyprian speaks of those who re- fused the communion of Cornelius as rejecting "the bosom of the root and mother," and as having " set up a false and opposing head without the church, against the sacrament of divine arrangement and Ca- tholic unity." (Ep. 42, ad Corn.) And when some of the priests who had been seduced into this schism returned to their true mother, Pope Cornelius com- municated the intelligence to St. Cyprian, giving the very words which they employed in abjuring their error. " We know," said they, that " Cornelius was chosen by Almighty God, and Christ our Lord, bishop of the Catholic Church. We acknowledge our en ■$**■- ♦£ «*£ 188 SUPREMACY OP THE We have been deceived. We have been misled by a specious and treacherous device ; for although for a time we were seen to hold communion with a schis- matical and heretical man, yet our mind was always sincere in the church ; for neither are we ignorant that there is one God, and one Christ our Lord, whom we have confessed, one Holy Spirit ; and that there should be one bishop in the Catholic Church." (Ep. 46. Corn, ad Cyp.) Now it is evident that in the pas- sages marked in italics, the term bishop is used in its etymological sense, signifying "overseer," and as im- plying an universal jurisdiction over the whole church ; for this is the only sense in which it can be truly asserted that there "should be one bishop in the Ca- tholic Church." Had Cornelius been simply the head of a diocess, they would have said that they knew he had been chosen bishop of the diocess, or of the Roman city, and not bishop of the Catholic Church. And they would also have said, that they knew there should be but one bishop in a dio- cess or city, and not but " one bishop in the Catholic Church." This is confirmed by the circumstance that Novatian himself had claimed universal jurisdic- tion by endeavoring to institute branches in the various provinces. We have additional evidence in another epistle. Arguing against Novatian, he cites, as a proof of the unity of the church, these words of our Lord: "There shall be one fold and one shepherd," and then adds the following remarks, " If there be one fold, how can he be reckoned of the fold who is not in the number of the fold? Or how can he be the shepherd, who, while the true shepherd re- mains and presides in the church of God by a suc- cessive ordination, succeeding no one, and originating from himself, becomes a foreigner and profane, an enemy to the peace of the Lord, and to divine unity, not dwelling in the house of God, that is, in the church of God," &c. (Ep. 76 ad Magnum.) Here it is evi- HOLY ROMAN SEE. 189 dent that Cyprian regarded the bishop of Rome as the "one shepherd" over the "one fold of Christ." And again, in the same epistle, speaking of the Novalians, he says, "These, rending the church, and rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to set up a See for themselves, and to assume the primacy, and to claim the privilege of baptizing and offering." From all these passages it is evident that the Nova- tians, together with Cyprian and others engaged in the controversy, regarded the Roman See as having the primacy, and as possessing universal jurisdiction over the church. An objection has been raised on the ground that Cyprian resisted Stephen, in the controversy respect- ing the validity of baptism by heretics. But it is easy to show that it is without weight ; for, first, the same answer will apply here that was given with respect to St. Paul's withstanding St. Peter. A superior officer may be resisted within proper limits, and espe- cially in questions not of faith, and not fully decided ; which was the case in the dispute between Cyprian and Stephen. And, secondly, every one will allow that the sentiments of an individual respecting the station, or office, or character of another, are to be judged by what he has deliberately written and spoken with regard to it, and not by the hasty and excited language which he was led to utter when reproved by that individual. The most that can be inferred from this conduct of Cyprian is, that he did not regard the Pope as infal- lible in all things. He thought he was wrong in allowing the validity of baptism by heretics, though the subsequent judgment of the church has been in favor of Stephen. But surely he could have supposed that the Pope was capable of erring in a matter of this nature, and yet at the same time have allowed what he had previously asserted, that the Roman See was the " root and matrix," and " principal See" of the Catholic 190 SUPREMACY OF THE Church — the seat of unity and universal authority.* Suppose a clergyman of the Episcopal Church were to persist in rebaptizing converts from some other sect who had already been baptized with water in the name of the Holy Trinity, after his bishop had given his judgment against it, would any one be so silly as to infer that that clergyman did not acknowledge the jurisdiction of his bishop 1 Certainly not. How, then, can the conduct of Cyprian furnish an argument against the general jurisdiction of Stephen? That we have not misrepresented St. Cyprian, let us hear the testimony of one whose position strongly inclined him to form an opposite opinion, the Protes- tant Archbishop Bramhall. u My third assertion," says he, " is that some fathers and schoolmen, who were no sworn vassals to the Roman Bishop, do affirm that this primacy of order is affixed to the chair of St. Peter and his successors for ever." "And among the fathers I instance St. Cyprian, whose public op- position to Pope Stephen is well known, who seemeth not to dissent from it."t He then goes on to cite from St. Cyprian the passages which we have just quoted. We have another proof of the supreme and general jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in the days of Cyprian. Marcian, bishop of Aries, in Gaul, a See of more than ordinary dignity, having espoused the cause of Novatian, the bishop of Lyons and the other bishops of the province made application to Pope Stephen, for his removal ; and Cyprian also joined them in the application — another proof that he re- garded the Bishop of Rome as endowed with univer- sal authority. He urged him to issue at once letters of deposition against Marcian. " Let letters be directed * St. Jerome, speaking of St. Cyprian's course in this matter, says : " His effort proved vain ; and finally these very bishops, who with him had determined that heretics should be re-baptized, turn- ing back to the ancient custom, issued a new decree." — Dial. adv. Lucifer. t Apud British Critic, No. 64, p. 354. HOLY ROMAN SEE. 191 by you throughout the province, and to the people of Aries, by which Marcian being cut off, another may be substituted in his place, and the flock of Christ may be gathered together, which hitherto scattered and wounded by him is despised." (Cyp. Ep. 67 ad Steph.) Now why did not the bishops of the province remove this schismatic ? Why do they call upon the bishop of Rome to do it? It is plainly a decisive proof that it was the prerogative of the Bishop of Rome to exercise this discipline, not only in his own immediate diocess, but throughout the whole church. St. Cyp- rian does not even ask him to summon a council or court for the purpose, but by his own letters to pro- nounce the See vacant. But we shall presently men- tion still more striking instances of the exercise of this power of deposition by the Popes. We must not omit to exhibit here the testimony of a cotemporary and correspondent of St. Cyprian, Fir- milian, bishop of Caesarea. His testimony is the more valuable, because he was at the time arguing against the course which Stephen, Bishop of Rome, pursued with regard to baptism administered by heretics. In a long letter, which he addressed to St. Cyprian on this subject, he says, " And here in this matter I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so much boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succes- sion of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the church were laid, introduces many other rocks," &c. ''Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by suc- cession the See of Peter, is moved with no kind of zeal against heretics." (Inter. Ep. Cyp. Ep. 75.) Here Firmilian does not oppose these superior claims of St. Stephen, but accuses him of acting inconsist- ently therewith, by sanctioning heretical baptisms, and thereby, as he erroneously argued, introducing "many other rocks"— that is, building up heretical churches. In the year 314 a council was held at Aries, at- tended by bishops from Sicily, Campania, Apulia, 192 SUPREMACY OF THE Dalmatia, Italy, Gaul, Britain, Spain, Mauritania, Sardinia, Africa, and Numidia. At the close of their proceedings they drew up an address to the Pope, styling him "the most beloved, most glorious Pope Sylvester." Having expressed their regrets that he was not present to pass " a severer sentence" on the Donatists, they proceed, "But you could not leave these parts wherein the apostles sit, and their blood incessantly attests the divine glory." They made known to him the decrees which they had passed, that through him who had the great dioc esses under his charge, they might be made known to the whole church. (Ep. Syn. ad Sylvest.) There are recorded in the Church History of this period many similar acts on the part of councils and bishops of the principal sees recognizing the universal authority of the Pope ; but we have room only for a few of them. Many cases of appeals to the Pope, by bishops of the highest sees after that of Rome are related. Thus the celebrated Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria,* when condemned and persecuted by the Arians, appealed to Pope Julius, who convened a council of bishops, and gave him a trial. Socrates, one of the earliest church historians, thus mentions the appeal of other bishops also : "At the same time Paul, also the bishop of Con- stantinople, Asclepas, of Gaza, Marcellus, of Ancyra, a city in lesser Galatia, and Lucius, of Hadrianople, each accused of a different offence, and driven from their churches, reach the imperial city. When they had stated their case to Julius, bishop of the Roman city, he, according to the prerogative of the Roman church, sent them back into the east, bearing with them strong letters, and restored them to their sees, and severely rebuked those who had rashly deposed them" (Hist. Eccl. L. 2. c. xv.) Sozoman, another early church historian, speaking of these appeals, says, " The Roman bishop, having taken cognizance of * The See of Alexandria was next in point of dignity to that of Rome. HOLY ROMAN SEE. 193 the cases of each of them, and finding them all to har- monize in the Nicene faith, admitted them to his com- munion. And since on account of the dignity of his see, the care of all belonged to him-, he restored each one to his church" (Hist. Eccl. L. 3. c. vii.) Com- ment here is unnecessary. These are facts, and they speak for themselves. We will add a short sentence contained in the answer which Julius returned to the Arians, as recorded by Sozoman : " 7/ was a sacer- dotal law" said he, "to declare invalid whatever was transacted beside the will of the bishop of the Ro- mans." (Ecc. Hist. iii. 10.) We will also give a passage from Theodoret, an- other historian of this early age. " The Eusebians," says he, " wrote the calumnies they had forged against Athanasius to Julius, bishop of Rome. But he, ac- cording to the canons, both commanded the Euse- bians to come to Rome, and appointed Athanasius a day to have his cause tried." (Hist. Eccles. L. 2. c. 4.) Here we see that both Athanasius, the highest bishop after the bishop of Rome, and also his accusers, alike acknowledge the superior authority of the Pope. Now when we remember that these three historians, Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozoman, wrote about A. D. 340, and, moreover, that not one of them belonged to the western portion of the church, their testimony is most conclusive. We shall omit to mention the many passages in the letters and decrees of the early Popes, found not only in their own writings, but reported also by their co- temporaries, claiming these great prerogatives. As there are very few, if any, who will deny that they set up such a claim, and based it upon their succeed- ing in the See of Peter. The adversaries of the Pa- pacy have sometimes appealed to the 6th canon of Nice. The portion appealed to reads thus : " Let the ancient customs be maintained which are in Egypt and Libya, and Pentapolis, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all those 194 SUPREMACY OF THE places ; for this is also customary to the bishop of Rome. In like manner, in Antioch, and in the other provinces, the privileges are to be preserved to the churches." Now it is an admitted principle that a canon, or law, is best explained by the occasion which led to its enactment. Let us apply this principle here. What led to the adoption of this canon? It was not an act of usurpation on the part of the bishop of Rome ; it was certain difficulties in the church of Alexandria. " It appears to have been made," says Hammond, "with particular reference to the case of the church of Alexandria, which had been troubled by the irregular proceedings of Miletius, and to con- firm the ancient privileges of the bishops of that see, which he had invaded." (" Def. of Faith," p. 42.) We have already mentioned instances of the exercise of general authority in the church by the bishop of Rome, before the period of this council. And the reader has seen that both Faber and Hopkins allow that a " beginning," and a " considerable advance" had been made by the Popes long before this ; and although a canon is called into existence by the acts of Miletius, confined to a single patriarchate, yet neither this canon, nor any other canon passed by a general council, was ever passed in opposition to the universal authority claimed and exercised by the Popes. This fact is of itself a strong proof that that authority was recognized by the universal church. It is true this canon makes an allusion to the Bishop of Rome, but not so as to militate against his universal jurisdiction, but rather to confirm it. It de- clares that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have au- thority over certain countries in opposition to the usurpation of Miletius, assigning as the ground of the decision that it was "customary to the Bishop of Rome." This language is indeed very obscure. It may be and indeed has been variously interpreted. Protestant churchmen say it means that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have authority over certain specified HOLY ROMAN SEE. 195 countries, because the Bishop of Rome has authority over certain countries. But to this we object; first, because it does not say so — it does not mention any countries in connection with the Bishop of Rome. And secondly, because that would not be a reason at all. It seems more consistent to understand it as meaning that the Bishop of Alexandria should exer- cise authority over certain parts because allowed by the Bishop of Rome.* But even if the interpretation of Protestants were correct, the canon would not mili- tate against the primacy and universal authority of Uie Bishop of Rome. If it refers at all to the limits of his jurisdiction, it relates only to his patriarchal or me- tropolitan jurisdiction; for it is only of that kind of jurisdiction that it speaks. The Bishop of Rome had three kinds of jurisdiction. 1. A jurisdiction common to all bishops of the diocess of Rome. 2. A jurisdiction common to other patri- archs over his patriarchate. 3. A primacy of juris- diction among the patriarchs, inherited from St. Peter, by which he governed the whole church. This last kind of jurisdiction is not affected by the canon under consideration. For, first, no canon can affect a power derived from Jesus Christ. And, secondly, the canon, as understood by Protestants, does not even refer to it. It speaks only of metropolitan jurisdiction. If it be proved (as it is) from other sources that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy of universal jurisdiction, jure divino, no canon can touch it. How much less a canon which alludes only to his metropolitan juris- diction. Let us now hear the testimony of a council held at Sardica, a few years after that of Nice. This council framed a canon recognizing the right of bishops, when condemned in their own provinces, ; * A very ancient copy of this canon cited at the Council of Chal- cedon, A. D. 431, contains this passage : " It is of ancient custom that the Bishop of Rome should have the primacy." — Vide Percival on Roman Schism, and Hammond. 196 SUPREMACY OP THE to make appeals to the decision of the Bishop of Rome. It says if the Bishop of Rome "judge that a new trial be granted, let it be granted, and let him appoint judges. But if he judge that the cause is such that the proceedings should not be called in question, they shall be confirmed." (Sardic. Concil. Can. 4.) The fathers of this council sent their proceedings to the Bishop of Rome, with an epistle in which they beg him to .make its decrees known to the whole church, and in which they bear the following con- clusive testimony to his universal supremacy. " This seems excellent and most suitable that the priests of the Lord, from the respective provinces, should re- port to the head, that is to the See of the Apostle Peter" (Epist. Syn. Sardic. ad Jul.) This coun- cil was attended by nearly three hundred bishops. Among these bishops were some from Britain,* which by the way is another proof that the early British church recognized the headship of the Bishop of Rome. With regard to appeals an objection is urged on the ground that certain bishops of Africa in the fifth cen- tury manifested some opposition. But a careful exami- nation of all the facts of that controversy will show that these bishops did not deny the right of appealing to the Pope. They merely opposed what they considered its abuse in a particular instance. But had it been otherwise, their opposition would not be a valid argu- ment against a right which had been deliberately and canonically recognized or confirmed one hundred years before, by a council so numerously and gene- rally attended as that of Sardica. Our next witness shall be St. Basil, a metropolitan bishop of a prominent See in the East. Writing to St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, he says : " It has appeared to us advisable to send to the Bishop of * " There is reason to believe that British Bishops were present at this Council." — Perceval's " Roman Schism." — (Council of Sar- dica.) HOLY ROMAN SEE. 197 Rome that he may look to our affairs, and to suggest to him that if it be difficult to despatch some persons thence by a general and synodicai decree, he himself by his authority may act in the case, and choose persons able to bear the journey, and endowed with such meekness and firmness of character as would be likely to recall the perverse to correct sentiments." (Ep. 69.) He accordingly wrote to the Bishop of Rome, styling him " Most Honored Father," and begged him to exercise his authority in composing the dissensions prevailing among the churches of Asia Minor, as Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, had formerly done. " Our affairs," says he, " are at present in a more difficult and gloomy situation, and need greater care." And again : " Wherefore, unless you hasten to our relief, in a little while you will scarcely find to whom you may reach the hand, since all will be brought under the power of heresy." (Ep. 70.) St. Basil is a witness in another way. In a letter to the Western Bishops he relates a fact of the most decisive nature. He states that Eustathius, a bishop of Arminia, having been deposed by a synod, pro- ceeded to Rome and obtained from the Pope letters of restoration by which he was reinstated in his See. St. Basil giving an account of it to the Western Bishops says, " What things were proposed to him by the most blessed Liberius (the pope) and what he con- sented to we know not; but he brought back with him a letter reinstating him, which being presented to the Synod of Tyana, he was restored to his place." (Ep. 74.) Thus did an Eastern Synod recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome, to restore a de- posed Bishop of the East to his See. What could be more conclusive? Let us now hear the testimony of an African father, St. Optatus, Bishop of Mela, A. D. 370. In a work which he wrote against the Donatists, addressed to a bishop of that sect, he says, "You cannot deny that you know that the Episcopal See was first established 198 SUPREMACY OF THE for Peter in the city of Rome, in which Peter sat at the head of all the Apostles, whence also he was called Cephas ; in which one See unity might' be preserved by all : that the Apostles should not each defend be- fore you his own See, but that he should be at once a schismatic and a sinner who should erect any other against that one See. Therefore that one* See which is first in prerogatives, Peter filled first ; to whom suc- ceeded Linus ; to Linus, (fee. ... to Damasus, Siricius, who at this day is associated with us, to- gether with whom the whole world is in accordance with us in the one bond of communion, by the inter- course of letters of peace." (De Schismat. Donat. L. 2.) Surely it is impossible for testimony to be more decisive than this. Here is a bishop of Africa arguing against a numerous and powerful sect of that country. His object is to prove that his communion is the Ca- tholic church and not the communion of the Dona- tists. And what is the argument which he employs? He simply affirms as a well known fact that one See had been established at Rome, with which every one should preserve unity or else be considered a " schis- matic and sinner." With the bishop of that See he says that he in common with " the whole world is in one bond of communion." And since the Donatists were not in communion with that See, he argues that his communion and not that of the Donatists is the Catholic communion. Thus St. Optatus, of Africa, argued against Par- menian the Donatist bishop, precisely as a Catholic bishop of the present day argues against a Protestant Episcopal bishop, that is, that he, in common with Christians throughout the world, maintains unity with the Holy Roman See, while the Protestant Episcopal bishop does not. We shall now pass to the writings of another emi- nent father of the same period, St. Jerome, the most * The original word is " unica" — one only See— implying at once the idea of exclusiveness and universality. HOLY ROMAN SEE. 199 learned and accomplished scholar of that early age. In a letter written to the Pope from the deserts of Syria, seeking his counsel with reference to the dis- sensions then prevailing in the Eastern church, he says : " Let it not appear invidious — let the pomp of Roman majesty withdraw: I speak with the successor of the fisherman, and a disciple of the cross. I who follow no one first, except Christ, am united in com- munion with your blessedness, that is, with the See of Peter : on that rock I know that the church is built. Whoever eats the lamb out of this house is profane : if a man be not in the Ark of Noah, he shall perish when the flood comes in its power. But forasmuch as being retired into the desert of Syria, I cannot re- ceive the sacrament at your hands. I follow here your colleagues, the confessors of Egypt, and amidst the merchant vessels I lie hid in a little boat. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius ; I care not for Paulinus. Whoever does not gather with you scat- ters ; that is, whoever is not of Christ is of Anti- christ." — (Ep. xv. Damaso.) Can any one after read- ing this passage, doubt that this holy father regarded the Roman See as the centre of unity and authority in the Catholic Church ? He pronounces those who are separated from it " profane." He compares them to those who were out of the Ark when the flood came upon the earth ; and he even denounces them as leagued with Antichrist. Would a Catholic of the present day employ stronger language than this? Has even Bellarmine done so? In another epistle, St. Jerome furnishes testimony no less decisive. It is proper to observe by way of explanation, that at this time there were three claim- ants of the Patriarchal See of Antioch — Meletius, Vi- talis, and Paulinus, mentioned in the passage just cited. St. Jerome, being at a loss to decide with which he should hold communion, he addressed a second letter to Pope Damasus, in which he anxiously im- plored his direction in the matter : " The church 200 SUPREMACY OF THE here," says he, " being split into three parties, each hastens to draw me to itself. The venerable authori- ty of the monks who dwell around, assails me. hi the mean time I cry aloud : Whoever is united with the See of Peter is mine. Meletius, Vi- talis, and Paulinus, affirm that they adhere to you : if only one made the assertion, I could believe ; but in the present case, either two of them deceive me or all of them. Therefore I beseech you, blessed father, by the Cross of the Lord, by the necessary ornament of our faith, by the passion of Christ, as you succeed the Apostles in dignity, so may you rival them in merit ; so may you sit on the throne of judgment with the twelve ; so may another gird you like Peter in your old age ; so may you gain the franchise of the heavenly city with Paul — declare to me by your letter with whom I should hold communion in Syria. Do not disregard a soul for which Christ died." — (Ep. xvi. Damaso.) Here we see that each of these rival bishops based his claims upon his professed adherence to the Pope, and thereby shows that he regarded his sanc- tion and authority as necessary to give validity to the claim. St. Jerome evidently entertained the same view ; for he beseeches the Pope in the most earnest manner — yea, as if it were a matter of eternal salva- tion — to declare which of them he approved of. But in the midst of this perplexity and uncertainty, he is careful, he tells us, to cling to the centre of unity. He " cries aloud — whoever is, united with the See of Pe- ter is mine." As much as to say, " I know not which is the lawful claimant ; but the one that is indeed united to the Pope, him I acknowledge." Thus did this eminent Saint tenaciously cling to the Holy Ro- man See ; thus did he plainly assert the absolute ne- cessity of union with it, in order to Catholic commu- nion. Here, then, is a rule for the perplexed of our day. We cannot go astray if we follow the example of these lights of the ancient church. In most of our cities there are several persons claiming to be the law- HOLY ROMAN SEE. 201 fill bishop of the place. How shall we decide between these rival claimants ? How shall we determine the momentous question ? — to whose authority shall we submit? — whose communion shall we join ? Others may guide themselves by plausible but fallacious rules of modern invention ; but for our own part, we will follow the rules by which God's ancient saints were governed. We cry aloud with St. Jerome, " Who- ever is united with the See of Peter is mine." We have nothing to do but to inquire as did St. Jerome, which of these claimants has the sanction of the holy father — the occupant of the See of St. Peter. To him we submit. To his communion we transfer our ec- clesiastical allegiance — assured that it and it only can truly claim to be the " Catholic" communion. St. Ambrose having affirmed that the Novatians had not the " keys of the kingdom," he continues, which indeed is rightly acknowledged on their parts : "for they have not Peter* s inheritance who have not Pe- ter's chair" — (De. Posn. L. 1, c. vi.) The Nova- tians, let it be remembered, had valid orders." But this was not enough in the judgment of the fathers of that early period. They must have also, says Am- brose, "Peter's chair" — that is, the Roman See. Thus does he affirm with Optatus, Jerome, and others, the absolute necessity of union with that See, in order to possess Catholic rights and privileges. We have al- ready cited a passage from St. Cyprian, proving that communion with the Roman See was considered iden- tical with Catholic communion. We have the same sentiment re-echoed by St. Ambrose. Speaking of his brother, he mentions in his praise that having been shipwrecked, he was careful to inquire on reaching shore, whether the bishop of the place " agreed in faith with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Ro- man church." — (De Obitu Fratris.) Here again is the same rule for the perplexed of our day. Would they know whether the bishop of the place, or which bishop of the place is the Catholic bishop, they have only to 10 202 SUPREMACY OF THE ascertain whether he " agrees with the Roman church." How simple and easy this rule is ! And do we not re- quire a simple and easy rule? Certainly no other rule can suit the mass of mankind. Consequently it must be believed that the true rule is a simple and easy rule, since God designs that " all should come to the knowledge of the truth." Let us now pass to the testimony of the great St. Augustine, who perhaps is more generally known in our day than any other father. " For if the order of bishops," says he, " succeeding to each other is to be considered, how much more securely and really bene- ficially do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, bearing the figure of the whole church, the Lord said 'Upon this rock I will build,' &c. For to Peter suc- ceeded Linus," &c, (T. ii. Ep. 53 ad Gen.) In another place, he says, that one of the reasons that kept him in the Catholic Church was " the succession of fas- tors from, the very chair of Peter \ to whom the Lord committed the care of feeding his flock down to the present episcopate" (T. viii. Contra Ep. Fund.) And again. Alluding to the opposition of the Do- natists, he says that the bishop of Carthage "might disregard the combined multitude of his enemies, whilst he saw himself united by letters of commu- nion with the Roman Church, in which the sove- reignty of the Apostolic See always flourished, and with other countries, from which the gospel came to to Africa." (Ep. 43 ad Glorium et Eleusium.) In another place he says to the Donatists, " Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted on the vine. It is a cause of affliction to us to behold you lying cut off from it as you are. Count over the bishops from the very see of Peter, and see how one succeeded the other in that list of fathers. This is the rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail." (Ps. contra partem Donati.)* Elsewhere he says, " We * The reader will bear in mind that Augustine was bishop of Hippo in Africa. HOLY ROMAN SEE. 203 communicate with this church, that we may be made worthy to be united to the members of Christ." (Ep. 142, T. ii.) And in another place: "Shall we hesitate to take refuge in the bosom of that church which, from the Apostolic See, through the succession of bishops, even by the acknowledgment of mankind generally, has obtained supreme authority, heretics raging around in vain." (De Util. Cred. c. 7.) Many other passages might be adduced from this eminent father, but we have not room. These, however, are sufficient to satisfy a candid mind that he regarded the Roman See precisely as Catholics of the present day do. Let us now hear the testimony of the eloquent bishop of Constantinople, and cotemporary of Augus- tine, St. John Chrysostom. The reader will see that although a high dignitary of the eastern church, and bishop of the imperial city, he did not hesitate to ac- cord to the Bishop of Rome, superiority over all. Having asked why Christ shed his blood, he replies, " Certainly that he might purchase to himself the sheep, the care of which he entrusted to Peter, and to the successors of Peter" (L. ii. de Sacerd.) And when Chrysostom's rights were invaded by Theophilus, the patriarch of Alexandria, he sent an embassy to the Pope to implore redress at his hands. " Lest so great confusion," says he to the Pope, " should become general, I beseech you to write to the effect that these irregular proceedings, which were carried on in your absence, and from partial information, whilst we did not decline trial, are of no effect, as they are in fact null of themselves, and that the au- thors of these illegal measures shall be subjected to the penalty prescribed by the ecclesiastical laws. Grant us, likewise, who have not been convicted, re- proved, or denounced as guilty of crime, to enjoy your letters immediately, and your love and that of all others as hitherto." — (T. iii. Ep. i. ad Innoc.) The Patriarch of Alexandria (as previously stated) was the 204 SUPREMACY OF THE highest bishop in Christendom after the Bishop of Rome. And Chrysostom, as bishop of the imperial city, was but little inferior to the Patriarch of Alexan- dria ; and yet the authority of the Bishop of Rome is invoked to settle their differences. What could be a stronger proof of his universal jurisdiction? In the year 416, a numerous council of bishops was held at Carthage. At the close of their proceedings they drew up an address or synodal epistle to the Pope, in which they besought him to confirm their decrees by his authority. " Lord brother," said they, " we have thought it necessary to communicate this measure to your holiness, that the authority of the Apostolic See may be added to our humble decrees, in order to preserve many in the way of salvation, and lead back some from perverse error, &c. The error and impiety, which have many abettors every where dispersed, should be anathematized even by the au- thority of the Apostolic See. For let your holiness consider, and with pastoral tenderness compassionate us, otf«r read honor, and for promised read possessed. P. 181, for Dionisus read Dionysiiis. P. 184, for o/read 4y. P. 198, omit " a*" in the first line. P. 214, for Con. fiar^. 7 read Con. Hard. T. U. P. 240, for formerly read formally. 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. RENEWALS ONLY— TEL. NO. 642-3405 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. fiEC'D U M. '-■*& TO - lOAH AHC iNTERHBRARY LQAh AP R -Q 7 1993 J N IV.0F cw-nCR fe AU 6 6 l970ag-_ 23?(T8PM24 LD21A-60m-3 t '70 (N5382sl0)476-A-3i General Library University of California Berkeley y.. ^.BERKELEY LIBRARIES CDfc I 133773D